Regime-banned books are in school libraries and on indigo bookshelves at eye level for children.
REAL banned books are often decades out of print, going for hundreds of dollars used on eBay, they've been disappeared by publishers and distributors in spite of interest and demand. Others have authors who've died or been imprisoned for their ideas, yet more have been removed from city or university-wide library systems so that their "Misinformation" and "Lies" do not poison impressionable scholars.
Yet more are suppressed algorithmically, not appearing on the author's wikipedia page and not appearing in Google search if you type the author and "book" or "memoirs"... but only appearing when you already know the full title of the work (try this yourself: Type in "Pinochet Memoirs", and then type in "Pinochet: A journey through a life")
Yet others are explicitly banned, some to the point where a mere PDF on your hard drive can result in a decade-long sentence... IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, NEW ZEALAND, and AUSTRIA.
This has been a massive project. over 200 titles on the full list and 10,000 words in my "Cursory" survey.
Let me take you on a journey into the heart of the forbidden
UPDATE: Also Checkout My Addendum to The Real Banned Book list on Holocaust Revisionist Liturature
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, unfortunately you're not likely to get many people going "as a gay paedophile, here's my essential reading list." Maybe @komm-nach-unteralterbach could help if he's still around?
One of the only ones I'm really aware of is the novel Josephine Mutzenbacher, by the same guy who wrote Bambi of all things. It spent a lot of time on various censorship lists and was the center of decades of court battles over the German index of harmful media. It's now unbanned and celebrated by "gender and sex researchers," indicating some changing attitudes.
But there's a host of other stuff out there you hear whispers of, published by the UK Paedophile Information Exchange, the german Krumme13, and apparently every French philosophy department ever.
I don't really post here much (or even browse, so I guess it's a fortunate coincidence that I happened to click this particular thread and scroll down today as I wasn't even logged in to see any notifications), but since you've shown me the respect of specifically invoking me as someone of interest on this subject, I will respond as best I can.
To be clear, I am by no means an expert in 60s/70s experimentation in "free love" pedophilia, though I am certainly aware that it existed and was reasonably prominent at times in Germany in particular I believe (as though I don't recall the source, I do remember reading about various "free love"-inspired orphanages and nurseries there in which children were encouraged to engage in sexual conduct both with each other and present adults). This is because any sort of "free love" leftism is of course wholly opposed to my genuine ideology which is the full and absolute restoration of masculine dominion over the feminine, and therefore I do vehemently disagree with any variety of left-wing egalitarianism even if it should have a pedophilic bent. Sex of a pedophilic nature is permissible (according to my worldview of course) because of and in circumstances of masculine domination over feminine persons, not because of any hippy dippy free use reduction of sex to mere casual child's play.
But if you want to talk about modern authors being put under pressure, consider the case of Bruce Rind, who, for writing "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" (known most commonly as "Rind et al.") (linked from the official site of Ipce, which describes itself as "a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.", and thus likely has much other information you are seeking), which simply collated evidence from other studies that significantly contradicts the "lifelong trauma" myth, had his article condemned in a concurrent resolution by the Congress of the United States itself (in a 355-0-13-66 (yea/nay/present/no vote) vote in the House (which is a somewhat rare occasion in a house of Congress I imagine, to have zero nay votes against something more substantive than naming a Post Office) and unanimous consent (which means that nobody asked to take a tally of votes for or against, presumably because the measure was considered so unfit to contest, not the same as an explicit unanimous vote) in the Senate). As suppressed as HBD often is, I don't think a single HBD advocate can claim that distinction. (Though Congress's resolution in particular doesn't attempt to allege any actual methodological flaws in the meta-analysis itself, one of the funniest criticisms of it that's been thrown around is that Rind was deceptively trying to bias the results away from finding harm and towards positive life outcomes by basing his analysis on... as the title mentions, College Samples.)
In any case, I will update this post in a bit with some sources that were sent to me by another individual at some point.
Edit: Okay, here they are. The following is a collection of mostly PDFs (along with some EPUBs and other random file formats) sent to me in the past by a self-identified gay pedophile communist. I cannot attest to the intellectual value of them as I haven't actually looked through all of them and felt some of the ones I did look at seemed a bit frivolous given how they don't reflect any perspective I personally subscribe to at all (being left-wing as they are), but as far being uncommon information goes they may certainly fit the bill.
https://a.cockfile.com/QNvaER.7z
https://web.archive.org/web/20240109085205/https://a.cockfile.com/QNvaER.7z
PW: motte
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link