Reaching out to users of the website Kiwi Farms several months ago opened a fascinating dialogue in which I was able to garner some insight into how some of the worst imaginable people cope with the reality of who they are. I have been provided with the opportunity to engage in conversations and interviews which have equipped me to write this article.
In this article I will be taking a look at the ways in which someone who has just enjoyed watching an animal being tortured to death can continue to look in the mirror and not be broken by guilty or shame. Given an extensive support network an pre-prepared talking points, zoosadists never really engage too directly with what they are doing and instead prefer to think in mental gymnastics and approach their activity in euphemisms.
I will be exploring the many elaborate ways in which primate zoosadists distance themselves from any sense of wrongdoing or perversion. Less why they do what they do, but how they justify it to themselves. After so much time spent in what they refer to as ‘the community’, recognizing the talking points and which category they fall into becomes second nature. Time not dedicated to infighting or fantasizing about animal torture is usually spent ‘self soothing’. Self soothing refers to the performance of mental gymnastics and sharing in certain narratives which ease any sense of wrongdoing or moral responsibility.
To celebrate over 2,000 New Way Twitter community members, we’re releasing this magazine for free. Thank you so much for all of the support!
Support Aryan businesses by downloading Arditi Issue No. II: “Be what you are”. Featuring 7 new articles and 5 illustrations, this magazine is packed with the blood, sweat, and tears of our Aryan brothers and sisters. If you would like to download a digital copy which includes over 60 pages of content, click the link down below.
This story began for me on Telegram, seeing the efforts of posters in the Kiwi Farms Million Pity thread inspired me to reach out to them several months ago. Rather than an individual investigative effort, we have seen collaboration from several different corners, some entirely anonymous and working behind the scenes. One prominent Kiwi Farms user described the Million Pity Kiwi Farms thread as a lightning rod of sorts, absorbing the attention of zoosadists, whilst work to compromise them continues entirely beyond their notice.
I am assured by the fact what is currently public is only the tip of the iceberg, the zoosadists themselves have some sense of being infiltrated, they have not, however, considered the extent or severity of this infiltration. The input and support I received towards this project was in part from a handful of posters in the Million Pity thread, and then inadvertently from the zoosadists themselves. They are vocal and unafraid to make themselves known in many cases, which has ensured me an abundance of source material to work with, and many opportunities to gain insight into how someone who enjoys watching the rape, mutilation and brutal torture of animals can continue to look in the mirror and function as an ordinary person.
I consider there to be four major pillars of self soothing, and they are as follows;
- Condemn the condemner.
- Denial of victimhood.
- Two wrongs make a right.
- The free pass fallacy.
Self soothing refers to the process of a zoosadists absolving themselves of guilt and managing any shame they may experience due to having consumed zoosadism content. It suggests at least some degree of awareness of their wrongdoing, as they feel compelled to find ways to justify their behaviour. However outlandish these justifications it may be.
I will take a look at how each of these talking points function and how they are utilized by zoosadists. It is important to note none of these talking points are intended to justify the creation and consumption of animal torture porn. They serve to assure the zoosadist that they have nothing to worry about, and what they’re doing isn’t all that weird or wrong. Self soothing is not about justifying zoosadism, it’s about making the zoosadist feel better about what they do.
Condemn the Condemner
This is probably the foremost, leading and most widely employed primate zoosadist talking point. It can be subject to variation, ranging from clumsy insults to seething diatribes levelled against anyone who doesn’t like the idea of raping and torturing animals for entertainment.
Condemn the condemner may look something like; “Only a stupid, fat old woman would care that we’re blowtorching this cats face off. We are certainly not the ones with a problem.”
However when they’re feeling a little more sophisticated they’ll go in the direction we see in the screenshot above, in which our condemnation of their watching animals being tortured is responded to with condemnation that we don’t care enough about children. It’s a clumsy distraction strategy that they utilize with great frequency. To date, not a single prosecuted zoosadist has accused a judge, or the police arresting them of not caring enough about children. It’s a talking point that makes no sense, but it makes them feel better in the moment.
It, like all zoosadist talking points, is intended to move focus away from their zoosadism and towards something they feel more comfortable engaging with. Whether this thing is real or imagined is entirely beside the point. The purpose isn’t to convince anyone that torturing animals is morally acceptable, but to distract from what they do altogether. In this case the aim is to share in the idea “No matter how bad we are, the people who don’t like us are terrible people because, well, child abusers exist.”
Condemn the condemner becomes more sophisticated when the zoosadist decides to pursue the idea their most ardent critics are themselves zoosadists. Whatever efforts are implemented against zoosadists, however successful they may be, will be frequently met with the idea “they enjoy collecting videos and secretly watch them for their own pleasure.”
This is intended to be a double pronged attack, in which the zoosadist moves focus from whatever they’re doing, whilst attempting to reframe the motives of those investigating them. Again, it is not a justification for zoosadism, and it is an exercise in fantasy and imagination. But again, it does make the zoosadist feel better about themselves, which is the primary reason why they do it.
Having become acclimatized to the worst imaginable depravities, and in many cases having been around to experience escalation, the zoosadist tends to lose touch with how abhorrent what they do is. They know, but they quickly learn to talk in euphemisms and focus on anything other than their paraphilia. Condemn the condemner assures the primate zoosadist that the rest of the world is the problem. No need to give any serious thought as to why you enjoyed watching an infant macaque being bound to a cage and castrated. Talking points like condemn the condemner are part of an almost constant battle to self assure and keep the world outside at bay.
I cannot reiterate enough, talking points are never an effort to justify zoosadism, but to shift focus away from zoosadism.
In the case of Yasser’s tantrum, he might like watching baby monkeys dressed as toddlers being raped and strangled. But have you ever considered the fact that you don’t care about human trafficking? Yasser would prefer to talk about that instead. If you respond, and argue that you absolutely do not support human trafficking, he’s won a small victory in changing the subject entirely and putting someone else in a defensive position.
The zoosadist, if targeted for exposure, will frequently argue that the real sadists and monsters are the people who worked to drag them into daylight. Because zoosadists only derive pleasure from the suffering of animals, whereas the evil NGO’s and investigators who put a face to their words are striving to harm people. Zoosadists are humans, so technically, our deriving satisfaction from their being bought to justice makes us the real sadists.
Merely upsetting a zoosadist is a greater crime in the mind of a zoosadist than torturing an animal.
Zoosadists do not consider themselves to be deserving of consequences. They are unspeakably cruel narcissists. They not only feel themselves to be above deserving consequence, their conceit leads them to all manner of stupidity and excess as the prospect of arrest simply does not appear to apply to them.
Surrounded by a support network that acts to constantly assure them and blame everyone else, they become convinced they’re engaged in a trifling, minor and misunderstood deviation from the norm. Rather than absolutely heinous, warped depravity. They view themselves as harmless eccentrics with an unusual interest. They know to keep it under wraps to some extent, but they’re not seriously in touch with what they do. They don’t really engage with why they enjoy watching animals being tortured, nor would they use a term like ‘animal torture’ to describe the torture of animals. They speak euphemistically to maintain a comfortable distance from the reality of what they do. Any energy that could be spent on self reflection is dedicated to condemning anyone who may have undermined them or done any work to expose them.
The Kiwi Farms situation is where it gets a little more complicated. Zoosadists have been long the target of investigation by independent users of The Kiwi Farms. Phillip, above, has learned he can tap into the industrial media complex and Wikipedia to level wild accusations against the people who use that site who have exposed numerous zoosadists. They are expert at cherry picking, and choose not to engage with the fact so many of the claims made against the forum have been debunked, along with popular Youtuber SomeOrdinaryGamers citing the primate zoosadism thread as an example of why the site should stay online, to 1.5 million people no less;
I am not interested in the politics of Drop Kiwi Farms or all that knowledgeable about that subject. Neither is Phillip, who was just selected as an example of how zoosadist talking points function. However, the take away from the above 90 minute video is that he may be ever so slightly off the mark and trying to make himself feel better rather than communicate a meaningful point. Not a single person in the comments below, out of all the millions of viewers said, ‘Hey Mutahar, maybe go easier on those monkey torture perverts, they’re the real victims in this situation.’
We are seeing here how the talking point works. Rather than discussing why Phillip derives pleasure from animal abuse, the conversation is forced in another direction, which is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. In this case Drop Kiwi Farms. An entire article could be dedicated to why Phillip, who claims to be a middle aged homosexual man, derives pleasure from what he describes as the ‘discipline’ of baby monkeys. And if he were to read that article, he’d respond by saying Kiwi Farms is problematic, avoid the primary subject entirely.
Condemn the condemner reinforces a sense of blame being everywhere else, but certainly not with the person who derives pleasure from animal abuse. They will find every fault imaginable in the wider world, with no interest in challenging their own faults, until they get caught at least, and then begin to plead for psychotherapy and open up about just how troubled they are. Holly Legresley was recently described as rocking back and forth, crying, during her sentencing. This is a person far removed from the the obnoxious, loud mouthed, remorseless pervert who had so much to say about a certain Youtuber who has done tremendous work to undermine primate zoosadists.
Interrupting the zoosadists coping mechanisms, allowing light to spill in and reminding them of how the world perceives them, is a cause of endless frustration to the zoosadist. The shock of exposure and unwanted attention triggers condemn the condemner as an almost knee jerk response. Whether the attention is from an independent, lone Internet investigator or an international NGO. Scorn, condemnation and occasionally threats will spill forth.
It’s about making the subject you, rather than them.
It is you who are the problem, because the time you spend criticizing us for paying for animals to be abused could be spent tackling child abuse, which makes you a child abuser. It is you who are the real monster, because humans are being trafficked and that’s what you should be looking at. Never mind that we have laws and systems in place to challenge these crimes, whilst zoosadism remains overwhelmingly misunderstood and overlooked. Never mind that you likely are opposed to child abuse and human trafficking and have said nothing to suggest otherwise. By calling you a child abuser, we’re no longer talking about me being a zoosadist. And that’s the point.
That particular example of condemn the condemner, in which the zoosadist calls someone like me the real monster, for writing an article like this, fascinates me endlessly. We see the zoosadist go from an evil, sadistic mastermind navigating the fringes of human morality, raping and torturing animals and existing beyond the socially accepted perimeters of good and evil…to being an enfeebled victim of cyber bullying.
They follow scripts, employing gibberish to make themselves feel better, because they know they can’t realistically explain away their video collection and involvement in animal torture porn. They want to talk about anything but that. They can’t explain their behaviour in any way that makes it seem less abhorrently shameful, so they’ll change the tone of the conversation entirely and call you names instead. It puts the critic on the defensive, and leaves them responding to bizarre accusations rather than pressing the zoosadist on how strange and depraved their paraphilia is.
When you recognize these talking points, you can see the zoosadist is doing something rather than saying something. They are self soothing, they are putting up barriers which separate their paraphilia from the wider world and public scrutiny.
Say that their interest in seeing infant macaques, dressed as human children, being brutally tortured is reminiscent of sadistic pedophilia and they will attack you rather than provide any compelling case for why we shouldn’t be alarmed by their interests. The quicker they regain control over the conversation, the better, in their mind.
Before continuing, I’d like to talk to any zoosadists reading this. Before you condemn me, which you will, you should know this;
I am being extremely kind and generous when I talk about resolving this issue. Specifically the production and distribution of animal abuse content. My talk of accountability and proportionate responses is nothing like what the average person would say they’d like to see befall a zoosadist. You can test it out yourself, describe the crimes of Nicholas Dryden or Adam Britton to a work colleague and I imagine lengths of rope and woodchippers will feature in the response.
Perhaps in a future article I will elaborate on why I do not talk like this. Simply put, I deal with you people so frequently and extensively that it does not generally pay to get emotional. You don’t hate me because of what I say about you, you hate me because I offer up the things you say and do to the world. I do not need to make any comment or elaborate on any of your bizarre fantasies, you would still hate me because I represent a loss of control for you. You don’t hate me because I am a monster who doesn’t care about child abuse, you hate me because you are fragile, thin skinned and understand the things you have done are indefensible and were never intended for public scrutiny.
Zoosadists know how reviled they are. Condemn the condemner allows them to keep this simple truth at bay and trick their minds into making someone else their primary focus, rather than themselves. This self soothing strategy works temporarily and when the opportunity arises to implement its a default coping strategy.
Denial of Victimhood
More complex than condemn the condemner, denial of victimhood is both a self soothing strategy and a form of fantasy for the zoosadist. Denial of victimhood looks something like;
“These little rats overrun towns and ruin lives, they snatch kittens off the street and spread disease. How stupid must you be to defend them.”
It is entirely implausible that a middle aged woman, with decades of prescription opiate addiction and a history of being monitored by child protected services, woke up one morning and decided she was moved to anger by something happening in rural Indonesia. The Meth Mom is a phenomena that is entirely unique to primate zoosadism, and not something I want to get sidetracked by here, but I’d like to illustrate the absurdity of denial of victimhood.
It’s intended to suggest there is a just cause behind what they do. In this case, raping an infant macaque with a toothbrush. That there can be no reasonable criticism of primate zoosadists because the animal is deserving of what is happening. There can be no victim when the abuse target is so unspeakably terrible.
In the primate zoosadists fantasies, the infant macaque is sometimes a ruinous pest that destroys crops and spreads life threatening diseases. In other fantasies, the monkey is a sort of analogue for an unruly child, terms like ‘brat’ and ‘discipline’ are used. Either way, the talking point is intended to build up an elaborate fantasy in which the animal is a deserving recipient of abuse and torture.
As a way of participating in the rape and torture of animals over the Internet, zoosadists take part in these bizarre fantasy sharing sessions. They pour energy into detailing the inherent worthlessness and wickedness of a baby monkey. They’ve cultivated a sort of fantastical alternate reality in which some animal the other side of the world just isn’t pulling its weight, and therefore needs to be put into a diaper and raped and killed.
The absurdity of denial of victimhood lies in what these people seem to expect of a four week old mammal. Of course, they know it’s just an animal, but it looks uncannily human (something they claim motivates them, the uncanny valley) so seeing it getting tortured excites them. Denial of victimhood allows them to feel better about themselves whilst creating masturbatory narratives in which a wild animal that has been plucked out of its environment is an unruly child that needs ‘discipline’.
I wasn’t joking when I said one of their fantasies was infant macaques snatching puppies and kittens off the streets. When it comes to seeing the animal being tortured, they’re able to embellish that scene with cartoonish details that make it seem both a just course of action, and more titillating for being a response to monkey on puppy crime.
There is no such thing as monkey hate. Not one of these people woke up one day and decided they don’t like an animal, let alone one as specific as an infant macaque. The pleasure and excitement they derive from watching this particular animal is off the scale. They name them, they pay to have them dressed like toddlers, they recognize them by face. They pay for humans to be closer to them, they obsessively watch people who own them. The excitement they derive from watching the abuse, sexual mutilation and torture of these animals is not rooted in hatred. It’s a source of stimulation to them.
An overt disdain for infant macaques could be resolved by simply not watching them. They compulsively seek out content related to this animal, initially content enough to watch them in the wild, they then wanted Indonesians to begin becoming directly involved with them. Stacey Storey was the first to establish sodomy as a normal, standard aspect of so called ‘monkey hate’.
I believe that the whole concept of ‘monkey hate’ is a misinterpretation of denial of victimhood. When a primate zoosadist claims to hate monkeys, they give reasons as to why they hate monkeys. And these reasons are invariably absurd or fantastical, and don’t stand up to any appeal to reason. They project imagined qualities onto the animal, and claim that these imagined, fantasy scenarios inspire their hatred.
Denial of victimhood might look something like;
“Even the Mothers hate these little rats. It wants to be constantly breastfed, look at it throwing tantrums when it can’t get milk.”
Breastfeeding and weaning are a source of all consuming obsession to many primate zoosadists. They drool over footage of normal interactions between these animals in the wild and project qualities onto them, describing any expression of distress by the infant as a ‘tantrum’.
Imagine sinking so much time into watching an animal feeding that you cultivate a strange obsession around it, that you’ve developed a strange, emotional attachment to that footage.
For context, I had to look for these quotes as examples of the primate zoosadists bizarre fascination with breastfeeding. It took all of fifteen seconds. These weirdos are all over the ‘community’. This behaviour and this particular fantasy is extremely prominent and not the domain of outliers. It is in no way an anomaly. Breastfeeding and milk as a theme is an absolutely central feature of so called ‘monkey hate’. It is popular with both male and female primate zoosadists. It is worth noting that this behaviour, whilst apparent on Telegram, is far more frequently seen on YouTube. Simply put, Telegram has a greater focus on torture and rape, whilst content on YouTube is more suggestive and requires the viewers to fantasies and roleplay in the comments section. That being said, groups can be found on Telegram called ‘milk bar’ as a nod to this particular fantasy.
It ties into denial of victimhood as it allows the primate zoosadist to create elaborate fantasy scenarios in which they’re watching something demanding, petulant and unreasonable screaming for attention and throwing tantrums. They pursue these videos, actively seeking them out. VO’s will occasionally illicit this behaviour, perhaps by placing the animal into an unfamiliar environment or abusing it off camera, before capturing the response for weird perverts like Kathleen Evans above. Weaning footage allows the primate zoosadist to indulge their tantrum fantasies whilst building up the animal as being something deserving of abuse.
They can then progress to abuse content, reasoning it to themselves and one another in an echo chamber that affirms them every step of the way.
I do not believe anyone goes from zero to seeking out videos of baby monkeys breastfeeding and becoming emotionally attached to those videos. We can only speculate what motivates this behaviour, but the women who engage in it are overwhelmingly Mothers. Women, who have had access to children, projecting the qualities of human children onto infant macaques, whilst openly indulging torture fantasies, should be a cause for concern. It is not normal behaviour, even by criminal standards. It is not even enough to call it perversion, which may imply some deviation from the norm that doesn’t really effect anyone else. Sadistic perversion is not a common phenomena, being able to see what it looks like unchecked and unregulated has been horrifying and fascinating experience.
I have previously complained that zoosadism is woefully overlooked as a subject by criminal psychologists and people who are otherwise experts in sadistic paraphilia. Should the world catch up and begin to pay attention to what now amounts to an epidemic, it would not be enough to say they enjoy watching animals being tortured. Denial of victimhood is an essential aspect of the process in many cases. It is meant to embellish the abuse with context, making it more exciting, whilst assuring the viewer that the abuse is deserved, meaning there is no victim and therefore no wrongdoing on the part of the zoosadist.
They know that they’re watching a wild animal being abused. They choose to turn that scenario into a brat being disciplined for throwing a tantrum, they derive more pleasure from that. Bonus points if they’re in tight diapers.
Two Wrongs Make a Right and Free Pass Fallacy
The last two talking points are often bundled together and will be addressed according to this. The most recent instance of the free pass fallacy being employed was during the sentencing of Holly Legresley and Adriana Orme. Online, they were vocal. They had a lot to say about being who don’t like videos of monetized animal abuse. They took a great deal of pride in their baby shaking, monkey strangling fantasies. However, in court we only saw one zoosadist talking point produced by Orme. Neither woman condemned the judge or engaged in tirades about what ungrateful, greedy little shits baby monkeys are. Orme did attempt the free pass fallacy though.
I was not present for the sentencing of Orme and Legresley, if I was, I’d like to have had the opportunity to point out that caring for a rescue dog does not make encouraging animal abuse over the Internet acceptable. The UK court seems to have missed this, and was open to entertaining the idea that providing someone is a sufficiently nice person, maybe, just maybe, we should tolerate them paying for animals to be raped and tortured over the Internet.
That is the free pass fallacy. It describes when zoosadists praise themselves, they talk about how great their children are doing at school, what prominent roles they play in their community. They talk about how contrary to what those evil, wicked Karen’s say, they wouldn’t so much as raise a hand to their pet dog. So who has any right to judge them for enjoying videos of live animals being cut to pieces.
They celebrate themselves and share with other community members what compassionate and wonderful people they are. They have their preference animal, infant macaques. Although they occasionally expand to apes, capuchins and spider monkeys. Beyond that, they put on performative and hysterical shows of outrage if anyone suggests they have an interest in, say, a dog being abused. Most people don’t have to repeatedly reassure others that they don’t abuse their pet cat, primate zoosadists do this to assure themselves and others that they are good people. So maybe they should be allowed to enjoy watching a baby monkey being raped.
The primate zoosadist will talk about what wonderful people they are, and then perform their final talking point, two wrongs make a right. Rather than saying we are bad people for not caring enough about child abuse, which would be condemn the condemner, two wrongs make a right frames the existence of child abuse as justifying zoosadism. For as long as children are being abused, no time should be dedicated to challenging animal abuse. In the zoosadists mind, they have assured themselves that because a worse crime exists than their own, their own activities are now permissible.
You heard it from Linda Damn first, hairdressers get a free pass to engage in the sexual mutilation and torture of animals. They’ve provided a valuable community service, so who are we to judge them for what they do over the Internet. The wider context of this statement suggests we are unfair in our judgement of primate zoosadists, and that they are not all mouth breathing morons. They’d be compelled to admit a number of them indeed are.
I am of the belief that smart, decent, productive people among them have less of an excuse to engage in zoosadism activity. The Mother who brags about how she’s going to watch her child’s musical performance at school will frame that thing as something that justifies her belonging to a community of pedophiles and animal torture perverts. She will assure herself to the others that she is a normal, decent person, because her son or daughter has such good grades. And no amount of videos of animals being raped and dismembered will change that. She has a free pass, afforded by the fact she prepares her child lunch every day for school and volunteers as a dog shelter.
I am of the belief that her responsibilities and being a Mother should be of such importance to her that she won’t put it all on the line for videos of baby monkeys dressed as toddlers being raped. Sadly, the zoosadism community on Telegram have approached it from a different angle, and they take the things they stand to lose and use them to justify their continued zoosadism activity.
The smart, decent and sane people. The ones who are not hillbilly morons. Without realizing it, they are backing themselves into a corner further down the line. If they do find themselves in court, they’ll need to backtrack on this line and begin reframing themselves as troubled, mentally ill, depressed, dysfunctional drug addicts who accidentally went down a rabbithole. When it comes to being held accountable, the zoosadist defaults to framing themselves as the beleaguered victim of things beyond their control.
The smart ones who know right from wrong, who have children and moral responsibilities, contrary to what they have told themselves have less of an excuse to engage in this sadistic and perverse behaviour. Whilst it is never justified, when a zoosadist openly declares that they have full cognitive functionality and a moral compass, we are being told they they know full well what they are doing is wrong and yet they will persist in doing it.
Whilst I do not take any moral outrage expressed by zoosadists seriously (it is always performative), I will take the above comment at face value and pretend like he really does dislike puppy torture. Perhaps puppy zoosadists feel the same way about him, and they’re coming for the monkey zoosadists. I take this subject seriously, but I’m not going to make any effort to downplay when things become absurd. And this is one of those times. A grown adult went on the Internet to talk about wanting to punch new born baby monkeys, and for some reason felt the need to balance it out with a reference to not liking people who punch puppies…because come on, too far.
The existence of dog and cat zoosadists, and child abuse, does not make primate zoosadism permissible. No matter these people have convinced themselves. That all these things overlap, that they all employ the same talking points and coping strategies is undeniable. They are all as bad as each other. It all comes down to one thing, perverts who lust over the abuse of a power dynamic finding ways to exercise their desires and fantasies. Primate zoosadism has afforded a means for some of the most cruel, deranged and perverse imaginable minds to play out their fantasies without any upper limit. Rapidly becoming an epidemic that should have astonished law enforcement and criminal psychologists, we still find zoosadism being an extremely fringe subject. Primate zoosadism even more so. Animal abuse is reported without detail or context when prosecutions do take place, such information is deemed to unsettling for the general public.
Yet when it comes to sentencing, examples are still not being made, and zoosadists are encouraged rather than deterred. They are encouraged by social media platforms that monetize and protect zoosadist content. They are encouraged by DDoS mitigation services that protect zoophile and zoosadist websites. They are encouraged by slow to act and incompetent law enforcement agencies that allow zoosadists to turn the court room into a theatre, crying their way to a reduced sentence. They are encouraged by what a struggle it is to find media outlets that are willing to take on a story without any political angle, who won’t be scared off by the grotesque nature of the subject matter. They do not see their activity being investigated by Netflix, they cannot envision a crackdown that will impact on them.
I do not believe this will always be the case. I am of the belief many zoosadists will regret being so public about their activities and animal abuse fantasies. Their talking points will count for nothing when they do find themselves being held to account.
Don’t miss out on your chance to join Arditi’s Telegram Channel!
