The Truth about the Paedophile Information Exchange
"In 1974, a group of sociopaths decided to change the world." - Heather Marsh, The Other Battle For The Internet.
What is PIE?
The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was a highly manipulative child rape lobby. From the early 1970s onward, their tentacles and influence reached prominent individuals throughout the UK, to the point that they received UK government funding and endorsement. Part of PIE's strategy involved affiliating with legitimate rights organisations as a cover. They piggybacked on protests against the UK's unequal age of consent for homosexuals to pursue a campaign for NO age of consent (legalized rape of babies). Their infiltration tactics caused decades of stigma to attach to homosexuals and made the fight for acceptance of gay marriage and adoption much harder than it would otherwise have been. PIE's main objective was to legalize child rape and declare it a sexual orientation and a protected status.
PIE's pro-child rape campaign included a systematic and sustained effort to normalize the idea that children are able to consent to sexual activity and interactions. They depicted child rapists as paedophiles (child lovers) and child rape as "child sex ."This style of coercive propaganda was propagated in media and other venues of public communications. By controlling the narrative, PIE was able to depict a crime as a sexual orientation and criminals as a marginalized group.
PIE and the UK establishment
PIE was set up as a special interest group within the Scottish Minorities Group but later relocated to London in 1975. By 1978 PIE and the Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL) became affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) group, which later became the campaign group Liberty. PIE eventually absorbed the Paedophile Action for Liberation, itself a breakaway from the Gay Liberation Front. Its members attended meetings and presented strategies to normalize and enable child rape.
Former members of the NCCL and advocates argue that the affiliation with PIE was minimal and not looked at favorably. However, prominent PIE chair Tom O'Carroll sat on the NCCL's sub-committee for gay rights. While affiliated with NCCL, PIE openly campaigned to reduce or remove the age of consent, a proposal endorsed by the NCCL's executive committee. PIE openly opposed the proposed banning of child rape media. The NCCL argued in 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, that "childhood sexual experiences, willingly conducted with an adult, result in no identifiable damage" and that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to "damaging and absurd prosecutions." While affiliated with PIE, the NCCL also argued to decriminalize incest. NCCL did not cut ties with PIE until 1983, just before it disbanded in 1984.
PIE produced regular publications Childhood Rights, Understanding Paedophilia, and Magpie, which contained propaganda and networking advertisements. The Albany Trust, funded by the UK government, commissioned PIE to produce a booklet on child rape.
Before and since their involvement with PIE, the NCCL's founders and members founded or infiltrated many more rights organizations, particularly those involving LGBTQ or anti-censorship issues. Active members included Sir Peter Hayman, MI6 operative and UK High Commissioner to Canada. Multiple high-level politicians in the UK have been implicated in PIE-affiliated child rape and trafficking rings in the past years.
PIE's existence coincided with widespread child rape occurring in institutions across the UK entrusted with children's care. Police operations, several institutional and independent investigations, and a national inquiry have looked into child rapists who had access to children in institutions that were supposed to protect them and the government officials who covered it.
In 1977 and 1980, PIE was granted at least £70,000 in funding from the UK Home Office. The budget was signed off by Clifford Hindley, who told a whistleblower that objected to financing PIE that it was under orders of the Special Branch. During his chairmanship of PIE, Steven Adrian Smith worked as a contract electrician in the Home Office, which oversees the UK's police and intelligence agencies. His security clearance was annually renewed. Smith kept PIE's files in a locked cabinet in his office. PIE Secretary Barry Cutler also worked in the Home Office, but when his ties to the group were publicly exposed in 1983, he was fired.
Other members had prominent jobs in government, like PIE founder Peter Righton, a social worker, child protection expert, and consultant to the National Children's Bureau. Liberal MP and child rapist Cyril Smith was a close friend of Righton, who wrote openly in defense of child rape while working in child care homes in the 1970s. Righton was investigated for participating in an organized crime network of child rapists, including high-profile UK establishment figures. In May 2014, a victim came forward, reporting that Righton and others repeatedly raped and molested him while he was being cared for by a foster parent. He also reported witnessing this happening to other boys and that Righton sadistically assaulted and murdered one boy while living in Suffolk. Police investigated the reports in Suffolk in 2015, but no charges could be brought against the perpetrators, as they were by then dead. The accuser says that Righton not only repeatedly raped him but also made him and another boy dig six holes in the size and shape of graves. The Metropolitan police investigation into their network was called Operation Fairbank. Former detective constable Terry Shutt was involved in a 1992 arrest of Righton on child rape media-related charges. Shutt reported that the boxes of papers seized from Righton's home contained evidence showing "a definite link to establishment figures, including senior members of the clergy." The leads he passed to Scotland Yard were shelved away from public view, and Righton was let off with only a small fine.
Why is PIE dangerous?
PIE and its offshoots have friends in very high places. In addition to the money and power that brings them, they have the expertise to manipulate public discourse in any way they choose through collaboration with academia and media. Blackmail of the world's most powerful has heavily focused on child rape rings for decades. Spy agencies often run these rings and defend them against all opposition, and they also contribute to cover-ups and propaganda.
Is PIE disbanded?
In 1984 PIE announced it had disbanded. It is simply decentralized. Similar organizations sprung up immediately, first in the Netherlands and the US and now worldwide. An online explosion in the child rape industry, fueled by bulletin boards and then the internet, made old-fashioned publications such as those produced by PIE redundant. Today, PIE exists throughout institutions that control language, education, policing, government, etc. Academics centered in child rape industry strongholds like Harvard and Oxford are still churning out authoritative child rape apologia. This apologia has provided both media and justice systems with the tools to dismiss horrific crimes as 'sexual orientation.' The funding these lobby groups have access to allows them to produce a steady churn of shifting terminologies that propel the narrative continually towards the objectification of children as sexual objects.
'Chronophilia' is one example of such academic apologia. Chronophilia breaks child rape enthusiasm down into minute age categories, starting with infants, with the apparent double intent of preventing the use of the word pedophile in all but a few cases and destigmatizing one category at a time. In addition to infantophilia, nepiophilia, pedophilia, hebephilia, pedohebephilia, and ephebophilia, this propaganda tactic throws in the strategy to conflate child rape with adult sexuality by adding teleiophilia (attraction to adults), mesophilia (attraction to middle-aged adults), and gerontophilia (attraction to elders). All of this is intended to convince the public that people have sexual orientations that attract them to age groups instead of other people and that for a middle-aged man to be sexually attracted to an infant is no different than him being attracted to another adult.
MAP (minor attracted person) and NOMAP (non-offending minor-attracted person) are two relatively new terms for child rapists and child rape enthusiasts, adding to the shifting of narratives.
All of the above babble is intended to divert discussion from child rape as a crime to child rape as a sexual orientation, thus removing the sympathetic focus from the victim to the predator. People who rape women are not divided into subcategories that are attracted to short women, blonde women, etc. It is simply recognized that the rape of women is a crime. This is what all of the PIE propaganda attempts to remove from focus. The goal is to erase and dehumanize the victims and ensure that the feelings of the predator are always paramount. Those feelings are reframed as 'attraction' instead of violence.
In this goal, propagandists are assisted ably by media, justice systems, academia, and resources such as Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, the lobby ensures that every mention of predators is sanitized or deleted, victims and investigators are slandered and deleted, and predators are eulogized. In addition, the pro-child rape academic bubble receives excellent amplification.
What happened when PIE disbanded?
The investigations into child rape rings, starting in many countries in the 1980s, were shut down. Victims and investigators were silenced and often imprisoned or killed. The investigations and the victims were discredited as part of a 'moral panic' or as 'insane' or 'drug addicts.'
The crimes of abduction, child rape, torture, murder, extortion, and enslavement were reduced in traditional media, and sometimes law, to the umbrella term 'child abuse.' 'Child abuse' was then expanded in the 1990s to include almost any action, statement, or attitude of a parent towards a child. 'Experts' then produced statistics claiming that most cases of 'child abuse' took place in the home. After conflating a mother reprimanding a child with organized crime abducting, raping, and murdering children, institutional authority diverted focus from crime investigations to demonizing mothers and snatching children to place them in 'child protection.' In many cases, this was a straight path to the arms of the child predator industry.
At the same time, sex work was presented as the same as any other work, and children performing sex work was presented as a 'lifestyle choice' which prevented parents from interfering.
Motherhood (not fatherhood) was, and is, presented by the lobby as a 'social construct.' The argument is that women do not have an inherent right to look after the babies and children they birth and that the children can just as easily be passed to anyone. This is not a new propaganda point, and it crops up regularly in news articles. Such as this 2014 article in The Week which claimed "the paedophile plays the role of being a "special mother" to a child who is then made to feel specially loved. In offering this "special" relationship, he can be better than an ordinary mother."
Such articles place the adult and child on an equal footing, like in a statement on The Week: "the special erotic bond becomes a heady mixture that cuts across the difference between generations and makes both partners feel omnipotent." Or, as in a 2013 article in The Guardian, which quotes PIE founder Tom O'Carroll claiming that "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm". Both media and judges frequently claim "Children often behave seductively towards adults," placing any blame on children as young as babies.
What is the current PIE narrative?
The O'Carroll quote above ties into a current narrative that attempts to deflect the focus on child predators by pathologizing relationships between consenting adults if they occur across age or power differences. This narrative means to dilute and divert attention onto consensual adult relationships and conflate adult relationships with adult and child relationships. The intent is to erase any special status for childhood and deny the need for any special protections for children.
The Week and many other mainstream sources present the predator as the inevitable victim of abuse by - you guessed it - his mother. When supplemented by frequent propaganda that depicts mothers as overprotective and jealous of their children for being more sexually desirable than them, this strategy aims to present child rapists as better suited to raise children than their mothers.
Finally, opposition to child rape has been presented in academia as a feminist attack on normative manhood. Or as it is even more bluntly claimed in media, "We are all susceptible to feeling sexual attraction towards children."
The PIE narrative tells of bitter and jealous mothers who attack normal men because they want to deny their children the opportunity to have a better mother. It presents rapists as the victims of their mothers who left them wanting love, toddlers who seduce them, and society that condemns them. It also portrays rapists as a marginalized community oppressed by accusations, thus flipping the blame onto their victims. It presents children as mentally fully developed adults, able to consent to sex or participation in the child rape industry, be emancipated from their parents from birth, and act as equal or even dominant partners in adult relationships.
How can we spot PIE?
The objective of PIE is to eliminate the special status granted to childhood as a stage of growth that is legally and socially protected from sexualization by adults. The following are all part of attempts to achieve that goal:
An obsession with children and their' rights' to make choices that risk their safety and separate and alienate them from their families—undermining family relationships.
Normalizing the sexualization of children and exposing children to sex and sexual imagery. Encouraging children to 'explore their sexuality' with provocative presentation and activity. Facilitating discussions of sexuality between children and adults, otherwise known as grooming.
Virulent hatred of women and attempts to silence and marginalize women and scapegoat them for all child abuse. (The many women who support child rapists are not immune to this behaviour.)
Infiltration of institutions set up to protect children, including police, hospitals, child protection services, schools, and all forms of children's entertainment
The use of symbols of childhood such as references to Alice in Wonderland or the use of nursery colours, the use of imagery, costumes, and clownish antics that may appeal to children or allow them to get close to children (seen in people like children's entertainers Jimmy Saville and Burl Ives).
Depiction of child rapists and their criminal choices as inherent traits that make them (not their victims) a "marginalized community" and portrayal of rape accusations as "oppression."
There is a complete lack of empathy or regard for anyone except the rapist and a position by society. No other perspectives are considered.
Have PIE achieved its goals?
Goal #1: Normalize the sexualization of children
PIE disbanded in 1984. In 1989, Stonewall UK was formed to lobby against section 28, a UK law against the "promotion of homosexuality," particularly in schools. While this was a reasonable law to oppose, the lobby groups established have now normalized school curriculums that require kindergarten students to state their "sexual orientation" and strongly encourage them to have one or label themselves as having one. In other words, schools are teaching children that they must have a sex drive when they are barely out of diapers and years away from puberty. Further, schools teach that children must discuss their supposed sexual desires with adults.
Online forums have long since eliminated any possibility of a child not encountering predators. Teen shows, like those on the CW or streaming services, are hyper-sexualized, often to the point of being devoid of any plot. Teens who push back against grooming or sexualization by adults are called "puriteens" or "sex-negative teenagers" by adults and media, the child equivalent of the 'frigid' insults used to shame women who rejected sexual advances in decades past.
Goal #2: Remove the special protection of children
Until recently, all child protection authorities accepted that it was inappropriate for strange adults to have conversations about sexuality with children or encourage them to keep such discussions secret from parents and other trusted adults. Now such talks are not only normalized and encouraged, or required. Schools and rights groups are also increasingly alienating children from anyone who does not want them sexualized and encouraging them to cut ties and keep secrets from anyone who tries to protect them. Something that has been recognized consistently as a classic grooming technique that sets children up to be exploited by adults. Everything that was very recently considered grooming is being institutionalized. In addition, parents are threatened with losing their children if they resist authorities.
Implemented because of political partnerships with lobby groups like Stonewall, the ARC Foundation, GLSEN, and many others, these changes are not due to the wishes or needs of educators, parents, or children. The reasonably open goal is to challenge "Western discourses of childhood ... constructing youth as innocent, vulnerable, asexual, unknowing, in need of protection from moral turpitude, and in binary opposition to adults." [Ferfolja et al. (2007)] by advocates who "argue that this notion of "innocence" was developed as a way of maintaining power of authority over and ignorance of sexual behavior and identity." [Epstein et al. (2002)] This complete disregard of years of evidence of the damage that early sexualization has on children and their ability to develop autonomy makes it evident that this is a political, not fact-based, position.
Goal #3: Portray child rapists and all rapists as a marginalized community.
By affiliating rapists with marginalized groups, lobbyists have normalized the demonization of victims who come forward. Rape accusations are now very often depicted as attacks against marginalized groups. Predators who are already called the softened term 'sex offender' (sex is not an offense; the term ought to be predator or rapist) are currently succeeding with further softening reference to themselves. Most importantly, they are increasingly given the power to choose how they want to be referred to, including by their victims. The preditor is past the control of the narrative.
This narrative co-occurs with ever-increasing propaganda to depict child rape as "a disorder, not a crime" and a "typo" in the DSM-5, gratifying a significant goal of the child rape lobby by referring to 'pedophilia' as 'a sexual orientation.' Sexual orientation is, of course, a protected status against discrimination.
The Paedophile Information Exchange did not disband. It metastasized into every aspect of society. Where it was once a hidden criminal underground, it is now openly powerful.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Angelides, S. (2005). The Emergence of the Paedophile in the Late Twentieth Century. The emergence of the paedophile in the late Twentieth Century. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/angelides_text.htm
Boyd, C. B. S. P. S. S. (2021, November 19). Colorado State Board Drops 'sex offender' term calling it a negative label. CBS Denver. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/11/19/sex-offender-negative-label/
Brauser, D. (2018, July 20). DSM-5 typo: Pedophilia described as 'sexual orientation'. Medscape. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/813669#:~:text=%22Sexual%20orientation%20is%20not%20a,and%20not%20a%20sexual%20orientation.
Covington, C. (2014, November 24). Why would there be so many paedophiles in Westminster? The Week UK. Retrieved January 2, 2022, from https://www.theweek.co.uk/society/61473/why-would-there-be-so-many-paedophiles-in-westminster
Epstein, D., O'Flynn, S., and Telford, D. (2002). "Innocence and experience: paradoxes in sexuality and education," in Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies, eds D. Richardson and S. Seidman (London: Sage), 271–290. DOI: 10.4135/9781848608269.n17
Ferfolja, T. (2007). Schooling cultures: institutionalizing heteronormativity and heterosexism. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 11, 147–162. DOI: 10.1080/13603110500296596
Shrier, A. (2021, November 18). How activist teachers recruit kids. The Truth Fairy. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids
Vicars M and Van Toledo S (2021) Walking the Talk: LGBTQ Allies in Australian Secondary Schools. Front. Social. 6:611001. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.611001