Tag Archives: jeffrey epstein

LEWIS CARROLL – PREDATOR : PART ONE

LEWIS CARROLL WAS A PAEDOPHILE

A lot has been said and written about Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), the author of Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass.  One thing no one seems able to agree on is whether he was the shy, beloved author of children’s books or a predator, preying on children and hiding in plain sight.  After going through the evidence, there’s no doubt in my mind that he was the latter.  Here was a man who managed to fool everyone about who he was, managed to molest children while posing as a serious don and clergyman, and went on to confess his misdeeds in coded language in his famous book.  I have read a lot about how the Victorian age was different from our own, and how he should not be judged by today’s standards, but all that is nonsense, much like the nonsense he wrote.  Predators existed even in Victorian times, and just like today, they blended into society so convincingly that they could commit their crimes unnoticed for years.  That’s what Lewis Carroll did. 

Let’s look at the evidence.

1. He liked children – but not little boys

The first and most obvious clue about his true nature is the fact that he supposedly loved children, except boys.  This outrageous idea should make it obvious to everyone that his love for children was not genuine.  If he found children innocent and adorable, then logically, he should have loved all children, not just little girls.  The fact that he tirelessly looked for little girls everywhere he went, and lured them with games and puzzles – much like predators today lure children with sweets and ice-cream – tells us that he was not an innocent lover of children but a shameless predator.  Not only did he love little girls, but he also photographed them nude.  Why would anyone think of this as innocent?  The defence usually given about this behaviour is that it was common in Victorian times to photograph children in the nude, and in fact, other photographers like Julia Margaret Cameron did the same.  I’m quite sure that Julia Margaret Cameron did not walk around with little gifts to lure children to be photographed.  This is the behaviour of a predator.  Even in Victorian times, Carroll’s obsession with photographing young girls was problematic, which led to his abandoning photography in 1880.

2. Rift with the Liddell family

When Alice was 11 years old in 1863, a rift occurred between Lewis Carroll and the Liddell family.  Lewis Carroll was briefly suspended from Oxford before returning a short while later.  While his relationship with the parents was restored later, it was never the same, and he was never allowed near the children again.  We do not know exactly what happened to cause the rift, because the diary pages during this period (June 27–29, 1863) were cut out.  Many theories have been put forward about what could have happened, but the one clear thing is that his relationship with the Liddell family changed after that.  The parents maintained their relationship with Carroll to save face, but they must have discovered something serious enough to cause them to ban him from seeing the children.  A relative of Dodgson later inserted a note indicating that the missing diary pages were about a rumour regarding Dodgson’s possible interest in either the governess or Lorina.  To me, this doesn’t explain why Dodgson was suspended and why he was never allowed to see the children again.  The logical conclusion is that he was found out and banished, and the incident was kept quiet to protect the reputations of the girls and of the University.

3. Missing diaries

Dodgson’s diaries between April 1858 and May 1862 went missing sometime after his death.  The family claimed that the diaries were lost during a move, but this is not a convincing explanation.  Why this specific period? What were they trying to hide?  The period corresponds to when Alice was 6 to 10 years old.  What did Dodgson confess to that was so egregious that his family chose to destroy the evidence rather than allow it to fall into the wrong hands?  It must have been serious enough for such a drastic action to be taken, given how famous Dodgson was.  Logically, the family would have wanted to keep his diaries for future reference, maybe for biographies or just a record of his life.  Why did the family remain mum over the years, refusing to give interviews?  What was the sin that Dodgson continually referred to in his diaries when he said he was a ‘vile and worthless man’?  Is it possible he was referring to the fact that he was a paedophile?

4. Isa Bowman

Isa Bowman was one of Dodgson’s ‘child friends’ (aka victims).  In 1899, after his death, she wrote a short memoir about him.  In it, she gives an incident in which Dodgson “kissed her passionately” when she was about 10 or 11 years old.  If we are to assume that this is how he treated his child friends, then it’s clear that his relationships were anything but platonic.  He used to holiday with Isa in Eastbourne, and she “was always at Oxford”, where she would visit him and stay outside Oxford, then spend her days with him.  Clearly, he had unrestricted access to her, which meant that he could do whatever he wanted.  It’s not clear why this damning evidence has always been ignored.  Instead, a fiction was created in which they met for the first time on 27 September 1887 when Isa was 13 years old, which directly contradicts what she says in her memoir.  It appears that there are people out there who are so determined to protect Carroll’s image that they are ready to dismiss a clear indictment by one of his child friends.  They then went on to say that none of his child friends had ever said anything negative about him, but the one person who did was immediately dismissed. Also, why would anyone want to confess to being molested by Carroll, given how society, even today, always protects the perpetrators, especially if they are powerful?  Why would anyone want to risk damaging their reputation?

5. Full frontal nude photograph of Lorina Liddell

A few years ago, a BBC documentary claimed that a full-frontal nude image of Lorina Liddell had been unearthed, attributed to Lewis Carroll.  The photograph was found in a museum in France.  The BBC went to great pains to verify that the photograph was of Lorina Liddell, and they concluded that it was indeed her.  The photograph was the right age and used the same technique that Lewis Carroll used in his photography.  The documentary was viciously attacked by defenders of Lewis Carroll, and the BBC was forced to stop airing it any further.  But the damage was already done, for those who cared to listen.  The photograph could only have been taken by Dodgson, which should be obvious to anyone who is not biased.  This tells us that his interest in children was not innocent.

6. Confession in Alice in Wonderland

There has always been some controversy about Alice in Wonderland, leading to the book being banned in certain parts of the world.  Apparently, the book is not as innocent as it appears, and in fact is not a children’s book at all.  Consider this passage.

“Suddenly she came upon a little three-legged table, all made of solid glass; there was nothing on it except a tiny golden key, and Alice’s first thought was that it might belong to one of the doors of the hall; but, alas! either the locks were too large, or the key was too small, but at any rate, it would not open any of them. However, on the second time round, she came upon a low curtain she had not noticed before, and behind it was a little door about fifteen inches high: she tried the little golden key in the lock, and to her great delight it fitted!

Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage, not much larger than a rat-hole: she knelt down and looked along the passage into the loveliest garden you ever saw. How she longed to get out of that dark hall, and wander about among those beds of bright flowers and those cool fountains, but she could not even get her head through the doorway; “and even if my head would go through,” thought poor Alice, “it would be of very little use without my shoulders.”

Do you see it?  A curtain with a little door behind it.  A small passage not much larger than a rat-hole.  The loveliest garden you ever saw.  Alice (Lewis Carroll) expressing frustration at not being able to fit through the door.  If this isn’t a coded description of a paedophile’s frustration at not being able to access a young girl’s private parts, I don’t know what is. And please remember, in the book, after much effort Alice (Lewis Carroll) is eventually able to enter through the door. What does that tell you? And this isn’t the only sexual innuendo in the book.  The book is so full of sexual innuendo that it was banned in the US in the1900s. 

7. Alice in Wonderland is popular with paedophiles

Society may have refused to acknowledge what Alice in Wonderland was really about, but paedophiles certainly didn’t.  They knew full well what the book was talking about, which is why Wonderland Club, an international online network of paedophiles involved in the production, distribution, and live-streaming of child sexual abuse material, existed between 1995 and 1998.  The club, named after Alice in Wonderland, facilitated the trafficking of children through the creation and exchange of over 750,000 images and 1,800 videos of abuse.  On 2 September 1998, 104 suspects were arrested worldwide.  The case prompted significant legal reforms in the UK, including the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which increased maximum penalties for child sexual offences to 10 years (which, in my opinion, is still too lenient.  It should be life in prison surely, for such crimes.)

Conclusion

We live in a world where predators are protected while victims are punished.  Just look at the Jeffrey Epstein saga.  After the release of millions of files, with multiple mentions of perpetrators, no one has been arrested.  Despite direct witness testimony of criminal activity, including abuse of minors, nothing has happened.  The perpetrators continue to walk free, while the victims are re-victimised and endangered through the release of their unredacted information.  That is the world we live in.  It should therefore not surprise anyone that Lewis Carroll has been vigorously defended, and his open paedophilia denied.  We live in a world where people like Jimmy Savile can operate openly, without consequences.  Lewis Carroll was a predator, and the world protects his reputation because that’s what it does.  In his hubris, Lewis Carroll went ahead and told us what he was doing in Alice in Wonderland, almost as if he was telling us to ‘Catch me if you can.’

(Part two of the series to follow)

The Ghost of Jeffrey Epstein

The whole Jeffrey Epstein saga reveals why it’s so hard for the world to eliminate sexual abuse.  Let’s consider the facts.  There are around 1000+ women who have complained about being abused by Jeffrey Epstein through his vast sex trafficking network.  Even though investigations have taken place for years and continue to take place, the only person to ever be convicted is a lone woman.  Let that sink in.  One woman, Ghislaine Maxwell, has paid the price for the abuses of thousands of men.  It’s almost as if the world has never moved on from the witch-hunting days.  We are still hunting witches and burning them at the stake.  In the case of Jeffrey Epstein, a woman was burned at the stake for the crimes of men, and the world wants us to move on and accept that this is justice.  There is a complete refusal to release the names of people implicated in these abuses.  Their privacy must be protected.  The most high-profile person to be exposed, Prince Andrew, was never arrested or prosecuted.  Epstein himself committed suicide before he could be tried for his crimes, thereby escaping accountability.  Therefore, in this vast network of sex trafficking and abuse, only one woman has been held accountable for her crimes.  One. Woman.  All the men, many of them powerful, who did the actual abusing, have not been held accountable up to today.  At every level of accountability, they are protected.  The media does not reveal their identity.  The police do not arrest them.  The justice system does not try them and convict them.  They still retain powerful positions in society.  There is zero accountability.

What is the real problem here?  Does society believe that it is okay for a woman to be sexually abused?  Do we see sexual abuse as a problem, or are we comfortable living in a world where sexual abuse is common?  Is sexual abuse just an unfortunate incident that is best forgotten?  Are we okay with the suffering of women?  It’s very telling that the only person to be punished in relation to Jeffrey Epstein was a woman.  Does it mean that women have a higher threshold of pain?  Do women even feel pain?  They seem to go through childbirth easily enough, whereas we all know that if it were men who had to give birth, we would have perished as a species.  So, it must mean that women don’t mind pain.  It must mean that women’s pain is not serious.  We all know that there are people out there who believe that black people don’t feel pain.  I guess the same goes for women.  They don’t feel pain.  That’s why we have 1000+ victims and not one man convicted.  I guess men wouldn’t survive in prison.  Men should not be expected to pay for their crimes.  They are too fragile, and also, they are just boys being boys.  Who would want to punish boys for being boys?  Especially white boys?  Their reputations!  Their careers!  Their prospects!  Their future! Their families!  Their children!  Quelle horreur, to subject a man to such pain.

Why does society have no problem sending one woman to prison for 20 years for the abuse of thousands of women, and not a single man?  Are powerful people too big to convict? Will society fall apart if powerful people start paying for their crimes?  I tend to think society will become better if we started exposing these powerful people and forcing them to pay for their crimes.  They should be locked away and the keys thrown away.  After all, the most powerful people commit the worst crimes.  Crimes that affect entire populations.  Crimes that impoverish entire populations.  Crimes that kill entire populations.  Crimes that cause entire populations to live without basic needs.  And these are the people we choose to protect?

We need to have a reckoning.  The kind of reckoning that is taking place in France, a country steeped in rape culture.  We need to have a Gisèle Pelicot-style reckoning, where tens, hundreds, thousands of men are held accountable for their crimes against women.  Men should be held accountable (arrested, tried, imprisoned – just in case it’s not clear what I mean by ‘held accountable’) for raping women in colleges, in slums, in homes, in the workplace.  For raping children.  For incest.  For sexual harassment.  For domestic violence.  Instead, we have a culture of protecting the perpetrators and punishing the victims or those who try to protect the victims.  Only a small minority of cases reported to the police are taken seriously.  Jeffrey Epstein abused girls for years, and even though they kept reporting to the police, nothing was done for years.  Only a small number of cases make it to trial, and only a small number of those are convicted.  At every turn, there is a concerted effort to protect the perpetrator, to excuse his actions, to minimise them, to hide them.  Victims are revictimized by a system that is optimised for allowing the perpetrator to get away with his crimes.  Victims are shamed, as if it were somehow their fault.  What we have done is we have allowed society to be shaped by the worst among us, rather than the best.  The standards of how we live and what we accept are set by the worst people.  We must change this.  We must let the most gentle among us, the most loving, the most tender, the kindest among us, set the standard for how we should live as human beings on this planet.