“That’s Emperor Chucklenuts To You, Fat Head!!!”

Oh, but you will not believe this…but if this article represents the overwhelming sentiment of the 24% of the population who still manages beyond a glimmer of working brain cells to support Dubya’s war games, then we are so totally screwed over….and not in the good way, either.

An outfit called Family Security Matters, which claims to be a right-wing thinktank which boasts the likes of Frank Gaffney, Monica Crowley, Laura Ingraham, and James Woolsey on its Board of Directors, originally published this magnificent tome to the outstanding leadership qualities of our President-Select and the inadequacies of our present system of democracy to match his greatness.  Unfortunately, the original site decided that it was a bit too magnificent and pulled it from the site…but not before some of the liberal blogosphere cached it for posterity. Digby from Hullabaloo was one of them; she even felt so moved that she reprinted the whole entire article at her site; from whence I will borrow to post for your entertainment. As always, I’ll add my commentary and annotations within brackets where feasible.

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

[Let’s just say that Dubya’s not too well liked by the majority, shall we?? For some, that might be a natural outcome of his policies..but Mr. Atkinson has a slightly different perspective…]

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

[Ohhhhhhh-kay…..so when this president was near 60-70% popularity right after September 11, 2001, that would indicate just as much the fickleness of the public…right, Mr. Atkinson??? Or does popular opinion and “democracy” only work well when your side controls all of the seats of power, as it was before November of last year??  (And considering the Dimocrats’ record of caving in to all of Dubya’s demands so far, even that minor glitch of losing the Congress doesn’t seem to matter much anyway.)]

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

[Oh, yeah….those weapons of mass destuction that we know Saddam had that he was going to unleash on us any time back then…..if only we could have found them.  And this notion of “the threat returning if the Army “merely returns to its home”….which threat would that be, Mr. Atkinson?? al-Queda (who hated Saddam with a passion and called him an “infidel” and a Communist)??  The Iranians?? bin Laden (whom apparantly wasn’t enough of a threat in Afghanistan when your favorite government was supporting and financing him and his band of “freedom fighters” against the Soviets)??? Or was it really the real threat of Saddam cutting off the US from Iraqi oil and trading in euros instead of petrodollars?? Oh, but wait…I’m getting ahead of myself; onward ho….]

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

[Not to mention that the nuclear fallout would make it a bit messy to clean up and dig up all that oil….and there is that slight possibility of China and Russia aiming their nukes at us in response…but why let facts get in the way of a wonderful empire??]

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

[Somebody probably needs to remind Mr. Atkinson that Israel has all the nukes in the region, while Iran has…..none. And, regardless of Iran’s boasting, they probably won’t be able to even get enough nuclear power for a power plant, if past reaction from Israel means anything.]

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

[Oh, but ye of little faith, Mr. Atkinson…..surely, you saw the President’s stirring speech in front of the VFW, where he remains quite the optimist about absolute and total victory in Iraq; regardless of the public’s disapproval.]

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

[Of course, this ignores the fact that the Roman Empire ultimately collasped from exactly the “peace and prosperity” that Caeser provided and extended to his successors…or the fact that Caesar ended up assassinated.]

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

[Oh, yeah….Iraq, the Fifty-First State of the Union!!! And where would all those new Americans come from, incidentially???  Those “illegal aliens” that you wish to throw out of the mainland???  The detainees out of Guamtamano Bay and Abu Ghraib?? The entire Black population of the US???]

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

[Yeah, right….a military coup that would suspend the Congress and the SCOTUS.  What kind of crack is this guy smoking??? He does know that most of the military would more than likely revolt the other way if such a “coup” would happen, right??  And he does know about this thing called “Federalism” which devolves political power to the States…and a certain constitutional amendment which limits Presidential terms to two consecutive four-year terms, right??? Boy, some folk do dream mighty dreams..mighty stupid dreams!!!]

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

 Hold up…I thought that conservatives were supposed to be strict construtionists who opposed such concentration of power in one person, right???

If this was written by some tin-foil hat wingnut from Christian Identity or the MiNUTeKKKlan, it could be dismissable as certified crank lube….but this is coming from a serious neo-CON organization (although, they were pretty quick to clip Atkinson’s wings and repudiate in public his flights of fancy. And it does give great pause to what it says for some of the others in power who may share his myopia that going “Papa Doc for Life” might just be the ticket for avoiding the inevitable political ass kicking that the Repubs and ultra-cons are scheduled to recieve in November of next year.

Perhaps that may be Unkla Karl’s last parting gift to his President and his country.  Let’s hope not.

A Clarification on Ginmar’s Myopia and My “Threat”

For those of you who may have missed the rumble over at Feministe, or those who have been there and are wondering just what the fuck Ginmar is talking about when she accuses moi of “threatening” her and other radicalfeminists on behalf of Ren, Trinity, and the rest of the “sex pox”…well, here’s the offending post that I sent her that got her all a flutter:

Sorry to disappoint you and your allies, Ginmar, but I don’t believe in wagging fingers: I just call BS like I see it.

And neither I nor IACB need to rescue the “sex pox” damsels in distress, since they do a pretty damn good job of defending themselves all their own. We speak for ourselves, and no one else.

And it’s so nice to hear you and your groupies reduce real human beings and real women (including a self-described feminist) to the level of horses merely because they don’t drink your brand of Kool-Aid. At least you are as consistent as you were with your “gender trumps race” smack earlier.

Here’s the deal, ladies: if you want to have a genuine discussion on the issues Ren raised at Feministe, then I will be respectful. If you want to continue playing your hit-and-run games and continue to smear and distort men and women who have done no harm….then we can go there, too.

Just be careful of what you wish for, ladies, it may come back to bite ‘ya…..hard. Some of us believe in fighting back.

Oh…and as for “who the fuck” I am: ask Bitch|Lab or see this link:

https://anthonyk.wordpress.com/2006/04/2 9/why-nubian-kicks-serious-ass-and-ginmar-can-just-kiss-mine-2/

Anthony

Nothing in my post about physically threatening her, see??  Not quite like Stormcloud’s threat to oust Ren, or Witchy-Woo’s open taunting of Ren for getting fired from her work at the crisis shelter, isn’t it??

Of course, Ginmar goes and bans me from her LJ so that I can’t even respond to her accusations; then goes all over the Feministe thread waving her supposedly bloody shirt saying how I’m in cahoots with the “yay pornies” threatening her and the other brave and courageous radfems.

And to top it all off, she has the unmitigated brass to accuse Lauren and Jill of deliberately censoring her (and by extension, other “womyn warriors” because they don’t immediately approve her posts with lightening speed and don’t allow her to “name names” and spread her lying, smearing rumors??  

Please.  Just….please. Enough, already. 

 [I have an entry at my Live Journal page with all of the details.]

OMF’nG….Heart(less) Sweeps The Lunacy Sweepstakes…Again

Just when you think that she couldn’t find new depths of lunacy in her crusade to defend “radical feminism” from the scurge of erection-wielding men, transfolk and sexbot women, Heart(less) digs deep into her yoni (or would that be the other end??) and breaks out this nice little rant at her place against the latest in “radfem slogging” (to steal Stormy’s apt phrase) and trashing of her “critique” of transfolk who pollute her sacred womynspace.

Interpretation and added emphasis by me is included just for entertainment purposes only.

A Few Words About the Latest Round of Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda

A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda:

Radical feminists are no more “transphobes” than we are “manhaters.”  To allege that we are is to indulge in sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist propaganda.   The herstoric position of radical feminism is that those who are born male into this world enjoy male privilege, for all of the years they live as males and as men.  It is never “_phobic” for an oppressed people group — which females certainly are – to castigate its oppressors, even in harsh and mean-spirited terms, with name-calling, swearing, and hyperbole.  It might be mean-spirited, we might be generalizing, we might be stereotyping, we might — and likely are — angry, but we aren’t “manhaters” because we denounce what men do or because we denounce male privilege, which again, all who are born male into the world have or have had.    Male to female transsexuals/transgendered persons have enjoyed male privilege, for all of the time that they have moved and lived in the world as males or continue to.  To call them out for their sexism whenever we see it, find it, hear of it, know of it, are targeted by it,  are impacted and affected by it  is not “transphobic.”  It is feminism.

Ahhhh…eeeeee-yah. Of course, when “radical feminist” women trash transsexuals as simply rapists and “chicks with dicks” trying to get into real womyn’s panties, it surely isn’t bigotry or hatred or even “transphobia”…it’s just decent classic feminist critique of “male privilege”. Now, the fact that most transsexuals don’t have the choice to lop off their dicks and become real womyn (not that even that would suffice in the deranged den of cobwebs that consists of Heart(less)’s brain, since only “biowomen” can be truly oppressed as women by the patriarchy), or that such “privilege” that they are alleged to retain usually comes at the steep risk of getting beaten down by other men of “privilege”, doesn’t seem to register at all with her radfem manifesto.  And besides…some of those evil transfolk happen to be born with vaginas, too; but never mind that….just having a dick makes you powerful enough. So why am I not a freakin’ millionaire, Heart, just by osmosis??

 Female-to-male transsexuals/transgendered persons are situated much differently than male-to-female transsexuals/transgendered persons.  Transmen have not enjoyed male  privilege for any of the years they lived as females and as women, and they never enjoy male privilege as men do.   When radical feminists call out transpersons, we are calling them out on their sexism.  This means that most of the time, we are calling out transwomen or trans-identified men, not transmen

Ahhh…hold up a sec……so, FTM “transmen” (I assume that Patrick (nee Pat) Califia would be an exception, because he’s against everything Heart(less) stands for), who now live as men, are exempt from being part of the evol patriarchy because they lived as women prior to their surgery and their change in sexual orientation?? But by that logic, shouldn’t they be the ultimate sellouts to womynhood for abandoning their natural “sex” and taking on that penis??? Why should they get a free ride??  Oh, and if male power is so overwhelming, then shouldn’t MTF “transwomen” actually get some credit for rejecting and repudiating such “male privilege”??  Oh, but nooooooooosiree…..it’s all about their schlongs attempting to distort and destroy the purity of natural womynspace.  Oh, and the fact that they might attempt to seduce real biowomyn in bathrooms out of the sisterhood doesn’t help their cause, either.

Were that the worst of Heart’s rant, I could barely let it slide…..but then she attempts to seperate herself and her transhating minnions from the Religious Right….and only ends up making things that much worse.

To compare radical feminists to the Religious Right is propaganda, it is a smear campaign, it is disingenuous, and it is transparently and hatefully misogynist.   Shame on “progressives” who can’t find more positive ways to articulate their perspectives than to engage in down and dirty cheap shots of this nature.

Oh, but she must be right…..I mean, giving the nod and wink to the likes of Luckynkl and MarySunshine and delphyne comparing transsexual women to evil gay men cruising public restrooms is certainly much different than the lunacies of NARTH or the ex-gays.  Really, it is. And woe to such “progressives” who simply attack the fundamentalists who rip on the perversity of “the gay/tranny lifestyle” without understanding the subtle nuance of radfem theory which is at least more “positive” in its willingness to suck up to….errrrrrr, criticize traditional conservatives for their beliefs against sexual dissidents.

I was personally put out of business by the Religious Right.  I sued eight fundamentalist organizations including several fundamentalist churches in federal court in 1997 and I won by a unanimous jury verdict.   It’s silly to attempt to lump me in with the Religious Right.   Having said that, I would much rather deal with the open and unapologetic misogyny of the Religious Right than with the veiled and unapologetic misogyny of white leftist liberal men.  At least with the Religious Right, all the cards are on the table, and I do not have to, for example, deal with someone who is calling himself a “feminist” who prostitutes women, makes, uses, or benefits from the making of pornography, and engages in other acts of male oppression and privilege while pretending to be my ally .

Translation: “No, I’m not a fundamentalist antisex hatemonger, but when fundies happen to share my fear and loathing of evil ‘white leftist liberal men’ (hey, Heart, I’m not a liberal or White; so am I exempted from your wrath??) who defend porn, prostitiution, and other evil “male oppressive” sex acts, I can work with them anytime.”

There are plenty of transgender/transsexual people who are religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right does not take any unified  or unitary position as to transgender/transsexuality.  To suggest that it does is to participate in, and be guilty of, the willful ignorance around issues of religious fundamentalism and religion in general of which far too many liberals, self-identified feminists, and “progressives” so-called are guilty, which ruins whatever shreds of credibility remain so far as the Left goes and clouds the credibility of progressive movements in general.  

Ahhhhh….I get it now; Heart’s brand of antipornradicalfeminism is really a page from her conception of the “Religious Left”; a nice means of retaining political credibility while appealing to social conservatives. But I guess that “credibility” amongst the Left can only be found by parroting the Right on social policy and making sexually Puritanical women the new vangard of the progressive movement.  Didn’t the Democratic Leadership Council already try that tact for the last 20 years, and fall flat on its face??

People need to do their homework about the Religious Right if there is to be any productive confrontation or challenge to fundamentalisms (as opposed to tickle-for-a-nickle demonizing and scapegoating).  There are female persons, girls and women, being horrifically oppressed by fundamentalist men.  They deserve and need our educated and intelligent SUPPORTWomen and girls in fundamentalist religion are not similarly situated with men in fundamentalist religion and should not be lumped in with men in fundamentalist religion.  Women in fundamentalist religion are an oppressed people group .

Yeah….Phyllis Schafly and Kathleen Parker and Mona Charen really are radicalfeminists, however they may deny it. They just don’t know it yet…because they are soooo oppressed.

Mary Daly did not “compare transsexuals with Frankenstein.”  This is a lie.

Well, we’ll just let Daly’s own words be the judge of that. From a comment (which was altered by Heart for “snarkiness”) by nexyjo, quoting directly from GYN/Ecology (pp. 70 – 71):

“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophillic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.” 

[Emphasis added by me.]

Remember, this is the same Mary Daly who proposed “Misterectomy” as a cure for all of womyn’s ills.

Going back to Heart(less), who’s never, never out of control (often):

Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights.  It has nothing to do with feminism.  As such, as feminists,  just as we oppose men’s rights, in general,  we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.

Because, of course, in a perfect womynhood, men would have no rights that womyn would be bound to respect…in fact, men would probably be reduced in population for the survival of the human race and the good of society in Heart’s grand vision of “progressive radicalfeminist” society. And, of course, transsexualism would not even exist, since technology and womyn’s wisdom will be able to nip any such deviancy in the bud through “natural selection”…or merely trashing “male nanates”.

And finally, Heart concludes with the grand finish:

One more.  Critiques of transgender/transsexuality are no more meant as attacks on individual transgender/transsexual persons than critiques of prostituting women are meant as attacks on prostitutes or critiques of pornography are meant as attacks on women in pornography or critiques of motherhood are meant as attacks on mothers or critiques of marriage as an institution are meant as critiques of married women or critiques of high heels are meant as critiques of those who wear them or critiques of lipstick are critiques of those who wear it or critiques of shaving are critiques of those who shave or critiques of boob jobs are critiques of those who have them, and on and on and on, infinity.   Some ought to get over themselves and learn the difference between critiques, analysis, opinions, politics and them.  I can critique the hell out of your politics and your theories and ideas and go to the mat for you,  love the hell out of you, and be willing to lay down my life for you.   This is what any mother knows.  This is what any lover knows.   If you want to know how to critique and analyze the hell out of something without making it personal, try unconditionally fucking loving somebody, would you?  Then you’ll understand.  Maybe unconditional love is just so goddamn rare right now, nobody knows what it is any more.  And if people don’t learn, then there will not be any revolution, not any time soon.

So, now, all you funk-filled bratwurst lovers, you lipstick faux-lesbians, you stripper prostitute sexbots, you patriarchy/mixed gender fuckers…listen up; Mama Heart has only your best interests at heart (sorry for the pun) when she tells you that you are betraying the sisterhood by getting those implants or dabbing on lip gloss or shaving your legs or putting on those stilettos for your oppressors. How can she show such unconditional love for you if you don’t reciprocate by adopting her ideas to the hilt?? If you’d just stop taking yourself so seriously and just give in to her and her whacked-out beliefs, then she and her Womyn Nation will love you forever and ever….and all will be right with the world. After all, it’s only analysis and science, it’s not personal.

Sure, Heart.  Nothing personal about The Bell Curve or Birth of a Nation, either.

Ann and Nancy Wilson (of the 80’s rock group Heart) oughta sue this woman for libelling their good name. Most decent progressive people should do the same out of general moral principle.

Aborigine Troubles Down Under?? Just Ban The Porn And Booze!! (Or..Newt Gingrich Goes To Austrailia)

I didn’t know to ask whether Newt Gingrich must have moved to Austrailia, because only that can explain this kind of racist Puritan colonial nonsense (from the Guardian; h/t to Susie Bright):

Aborigines face ban on alcohol and porn

James Sturcke and agencies
Thursday June 21, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
 

Pornography and alcohol will be banned for Aborigines in Australia’s Northern Territory, the country’s prime minister, John Howard, announced today, after a report found that “rivers of grog” were leading to rampant child abuse.

“This is a national emergency,” Mr Howard told parliament. “We’re dealing with a group of young Australians for whom the concept of childhood innocence has never been present.” The sale, possession and transportation of alcohol would be banned for six months on Aboriginal-owned land in the Northern Territory, Mr Howard said, and sales would be reviewed after that.

Some Aboriginal leaders immediately attacked the plan as “disgusting and paternalistic”, saying they were not consulted and that they objected to restrictions on how indigenous people spend their welfare benefits.

The child abuse report, Little Children Are Sacred, released last week, found drinking was a key contributor to the collapse of Aboriginal culture and neglect of children, and created opportunities for paedophiles.

The report said hardcore pornography was rife in Aboriginal communities and available to children, who had become desensitised to sex with adults. The sale and possession of pornography is also to be banned.

“A river of grog [alcohol] is killing people and destroying our communities,” Pat Anderson, who co-chaired the inquiry, told reporters last week. “There is a strong association between alcohol abuse, violence and sexual abuse of children.”

About 60,000 of Australia’s roughly 400,000 Aborigines live in the Northern Territory. They are consistently the nation’s most disadvantaged group, with far higher rates of unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, and domestic violence. Their life expectancy is 17 years shorter than that of other Australians.

Alcohol kills an Aborigine every 38 hours and accounts for a quarter of deaths in the Northern Territory.

Under Mr Howard’s plan, new restrictions would be placed on welfare payments for Aborigines, forcing parents to spend at least half of the money on essential items such as food – a measure meant to prevent wasting money on alcohol and gambling. Family welfare payments would also be linked to children’s school attendance.

Aboriginal leaders said it was the kind of government behaviour that disenfranchised their people and created the problems in the first place.

“I’m absolutely disgusted by this patronising government control,” said Mitch, who uses one name and is a member of a government board helping Aborigines who were taken from their parents under past assimilation laws. “And tying drinking with welfare payments is just disgusting.

“If they’re going to do that, they’re going to have to do that with every single person in Australia, not just black people.”

The report said banning alcohol sales in some Aboriginal communities had dramatically reduced sexual abuse and violence: “Alcohol is being used as a bartering tool to gain sex from children, either by offering it to the children themselves or in some cases to adult members of their family.”

One Aboriginal woman from the Yolngu tribe said “white man’s water is a curse” and called for alcohol outlets to be closed.

“Eradicate this curse that is killing us physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually,” she wrote in a letter published in the report.

The report said: “Many of the Aboriginal people spoken to by the inquiry were not aware of legal issues such as age of consent.” 

Oh, so let me get this straight…

First, “we” (by “we” I refer to universal White privileged people) steal their land from under them by means of force, rape, and any other means;

Then, “we” use their men for slaves and women for sperm deposits, not caring about their free will;

Then, “we” abandon them after using them to fetter for themselves, and throw alcohol and Bibles and meaningless trinkets of cash at them as cures for “their” apparant lack of morality;

And then, “we” issue reports decrying how immoral they have become and the results of “their” immorality, and thusly, in a fit of care, pass even more repressive and reactionary laws to control their lives that much more…all because “we” care sooooo deeply.

And yes, we absolutely must take away the porn and teh alcohol from the nigg…errrrrr…the Aboriginies, since unlike “us”, they have been proven unable to handle the stuff for themselves.

On second thoughts, maybe Newtie isn’t the role model that Aussie premier John Howard (who also happens to be the chief booster for Dubya’s war games, too) is trying to copy.  Perhaps David Duke would be more appropos here.

Now, the idea that perhaps the continuation of White racism and gross neglect of the Aboriginies might have a bit more to do with their lack of well being than the demon water and porn could have crossed the mind of those who created this report….but naaaaaah, that would be too liberal and would scare off the liquor companies.  So much easier to blame the victims and create more repression.

I kinda like Susie’s suggestion:

I’d like to see the Prime Minister ban drinking in his neighborhood for six fucking minutes.

Nice try, Susie, but that law probably wouldn’t last three minutes.

The Death Penalty For Porn Producers:The Final Frontier For Radfems??

OK….I know that it’s been a while, so I have some catching up to do…..I’ll just do as Blackamazon does so well and kinda wing it in a “whatever breezes through my mind at the moment” way.

I’ve been wanting to post on this story, because there are so many angles, both on the political and sexual fronts, that can be raised here.

Iran Approves Death Penalty for Pornogaphers
By: David Sullivan
*
TEHRAN –
Iran’s parliament has approved a bill that would sentence persons convicted of producing pornography to death.Lawmakers voted 148-5 with four abstentions that “producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world.”

The “main elements in…production”*referenced in the bill include producers, directors, cameramen and actors. According to CNN, the term “corruptors of the world”*is derived from the Quran and carries a death penalty under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.

Distributors and adult website operators could also face imprisonment and death. The bill encompasses all forms of sexually explicit media, including videos, DVDs and CDs. Pornographic books and magazines are already banned in Iran.

In order to become law, the bill must now be approved by Iran’s Guardian Council.

The bill follows in the wake of a scandal involving a pornographic video of Iranian actress Zahra Amir Ebrahimi that began circulating on the country’s black market last year. While Ebrahami has denied that she is the woman depicted in the video, she faces “fines, whip lashing or worse” for violating Iran’s morality laws. Ebrahimi’s male partner in the sex tape fled to Armenia but was later brought back to Iran, where he currently remains in jail.

The Associated Press notes that “porn material is easily accessible through foreign satellite television channels in Iran. Bootleg video tapes and CDs are also available on the black market on many street corners.”

[H/t to Ernest Greene at Nina Hartley’s forum for posting that excerpt.]

This pisses me off for several reasons, and not just the obvious ones.

First off…there is the citing of the Quran’s statement of “corruptors of the world” in supporting the death penalty, which would apply not only to producers, but also distributors, website operators, and even the  actual performers. I mean, it’s known knowledge that Islamic societies are far more conservative and restictive when it comes to sexuality….but to go as far as to seek the freakin’ DEATH PENALTY for acts of private consensual sex??? I would think that that would run the risk of playing into the very scapegoat of “Islamofascism” that those who seek to topple that government would use to justify their actions.

And what would that say for those on the opposite side of the political equation: those on the political Left who have basically laid themselves down in defense of the ruling Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against those who favor toppling his rule?? I especially point to some American leftist women like Yoshie Furuhashi, who has been the most consistent defender of Ahmadinejad as an anti-interventionist and a revolutionary populist…..on occasion conviently glossing over the more reactionary social policies and gross anti-feminism that underlies his fundamentalism. She may be an extreme example of the boosting of fundamentalist Islam as populism and a acceptable alternative to “liberal interventionism”, but she is hardly alone.

Now, I happen to be a staunch anti-interventionist, and I will no more support invading Iran merely because the ruling government happens to be run by a bunch of misogynist thugs using religion to support their power trips, than I would have supported invading Iraq merely because Saddam was a butcher with a secret porn fetish. But….it does bother me more than a bit that so many Leftists are so willing to sacrifice even their own principles to defend “the enemies of our enemies”.

This isn’t to say that the fawning of “Cruise Missile Leftists” who exploit such issues as this to push for mass invasions are any better or worthy of my support, either; it’s just that perhaps we might be willing to acknowledge that merely opposing something without understanding clearly who we are standing with and standing for does make for some dangerous alliances that could easily wreck even the most careful  organized progressive movement.

The other angle in this that gets to me is something pointed out by Ernest Greene in his post at Nina’s forum; it is a standard theme of his regarding the unholy alliance between fundamentalists and radicalfeminists on the subjects of porn and sexuality:

Now while I’m sure they’d deny it loudly, anti-porn feminists undoubtedly take some glee in the notion of pornographers being executed. Anyone who has spent much time at The Den of the Biting Beaver or read Andrea Dworkin’s “novel” Mercy, which extolls the virtues of murdering male derelicts as a form of protest against the patriarchy has some idea of the depth of homicidal loathing these fanatics feel toward pornographers.However, in their delight at the prospect of smut-peddler’s heads being lopped off, they might have overlooked a significant detail from the story above, which is that the first target of the Iranian death-for-porn law just happens to be a woman.

Societies that suppress pornography most brutally are the very societies that suppress the rights of women most brutally as well. This is a lesson that any American feminist traveling in the Third World is all too likely to learn first hand. But then, since most of them prefer the comforts of Wheelock College, with its $36K per year tuition and, its tenured professorships for porn-bashing paranoids and its cozy conferences dedicated to denouncing the evils of sexual liberalism at which no opposing voices are allowed a hearing, they needn’t have their sleep troubled by such contradictions.

That last sentence is directed towards Dr. Gail Dines, one of the main antipornradicalfeminist activist voices.

Again, I recognize that not even all APRF’s will go as far as to support something as extreme as the death penalty for (male) porn producers or consumers; but it does seem for some of the more strident activists (*cough* SamHeart(less)GayleStormCloudBitingBeaverWitchyWoo*cough*) that if they are serious enough about their advocacy that porn consumption amounts to nothing less than the total abuse of women and the gateway to rape and rapicity, then why wouldn’t they carry their arguments to the logical conclusion?? Of course, they would have to sustain some deniability to seperate themselves from the Religious Right…but I wouldn’t think that that wouldn’t stop them from at least looking the other way at such a solution.

All this is a segue into the rumble currently going on at Feministe, where Roy originally posted how news of the Iranian proposed death penalty law (and an associated post by Trinity at The Strangest Alchemy) gave him a totally new perspective on things:

 I sat there at my desk, talking about sex workers and sex work and porn like they were abstractions… but they’re not, and mythago rightly called me on my shit. It took me a while to realize that, but it was a totally fair criticism. My sitting there saying that stats show this and stats show that and look how many sex workers were this or that… none of that helps them now, and talk like that does make me more likely to find myself allied with religious conservatives who have a “moral interest” in condemning sex work… and sex workers. And that’s the thing that mythago knew when posting that “Mackinnon and Dworkin made the silly assumption that their anti-feminist allies on the right would see their point of view, and apply protectionist ideas in a way that would help women instead of as a way to control women” and that trinityva was getting at when posting “often even “enlightened” people here who object to porn for the “right” reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of “religious morality”.”And when I allow myself to ally with questionable or even flat-out bad groups, I have to accept that the damage they do in the name of our cause is damage that I’m contributing to. I can’t wash my hands of the harm that my allies do if they’re doing the damage in the name of our mutual cause. If I’m rallying behind the cry of “PORN HARMS ALL WOMEN!” and I allow myself to get backing from a group that’s adding “BECAUSE DIRTY SLUTS ABUSE SEX!” then aren’t I at least somewhat culpable? Because, ultimately, don’t my actions help further that cause, as well? And doesn’t that mean that the damage they’re doing is to some extent, on my hands?

Because those people have made it absolutely clear that they don’t care about the women involved. They’re not working to help end the abuse of sex workers. They’re not condemning poor working conditions. They’re not working to help sex worker’s rights. They’re not even remotely interested in making sure that their voices get heard. They’re interested in keeping the whores out of their neighborhoods.

For the record, here’s what Trin posted:

Now this is Iran and not here. But I do want to post it, as I do think that it’s important to remember that in many parts of the world, including here, a lot of the objection to pornography IS a deep-seated fear of corruption or contamination. And a goodly bit of the opposition is religious. As a few kerfuffles I’ve posted about here have cast into relief, often even “enlightened” people here who object to porn for the “right” reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of “religious morality”.While this does have limited relevance to the US or even the UK, I think it helps to notice the strain of thinking that does look at porn this way. (It’s also worrisome to write this off, IMO, because we run the risk of doing that typical White US-ian “oh, we’re so much more EVOLVED than THOSE (brown) people!”)

We often like very much to hide behind veneers of theory. And to many of us: why shouldn’t we? We live in a wealthy country. Many of us are white, middle class, highly educated, comfortable. It’s very easy for us to think that we can dismantle an industry through “radical” means, at which point anyone formerly “enslaved by” it has a better life, presto change-o.

Too often our “radical” dreams can’t be achieved without nasty alliances. And too often we think of our “radical”ness and our “revolutionariness” and ignore what we deem collateral damage.

It didn’t work in the Iraq War. Why should it work in the Vice War either?

The subsequent thread went haywire when the usual suspects (read, Sam and gayle) decided to intervene with a defense of the “Swedish model” of controlling prostitiution, among other distractions…but that is a different story for another time.

But, it does go to show that in our efforts to dive in head first into any given controversy, we sometimes forget to understand exactly who we are diving with. The enemy of your enemy today could well turn out to become your enemy tomorrow…which is why it’s best to stick to principles as much as humanly possible.

As for me, I see no conflicts whatsoever between not supporting the ruling government of Iraq and simultaneously opposing a military invasion of that country by others.  In the end, the same rule of self-determination that defends individual sexual autonomy (whether it be for LGBT’s, feminists, or porn) applies just as much for whole countries resisting war and imperialism.  Ultimately, Iranians must decide what government they want, not the US….and certainly not by bombing them into submission. If you are that opposed to their sexual fascism as I am, then the better solution is to offer those women and men facing such repression a place of sanctuary until the laws are changed to reflect some decency and common sense.

As the old saying goes: An eye for an eye ultimately ends up blinding everyone.

Wingnuttery Plus Manifest Destiny = Whiskey? Tonto? Foxtrot???

The following is a classic result of what happens when you consume a little too much of the right-wing Kool-Aid.

The New York Sun, who obviously must see the New York Post as a bastion of evil liberalism in comparison, decided to bring forth an editorial on the “sellout” of Dimocrats in Iraq. (For them, though, the sellout is not in backing Dubya’s war, but in having the gall to criticize Dubya’s noble mission in the first place.)

And to that end, they envoke the earlier period of “Manifest Destiny”; the acquisition (or, as real honest historians would call it, the outright theft) of half of Mexico to justify the present campaign.

Nezua does such a good job of dissecting this pile of horse dung over at his place..but this deserves a special can of SmackDog Whupass(TM) on its own.  So, if you will pardon my indulgence, on with the fisking.

Iraq and Mexico

New York Sun Editorial
May 29, 2007

News that Senators Clinton and Obama, acting on the eve of Memorial Day weekend, cast their votes against funding our GIs in Iraq put us in a mind to read about Abraham Lincoln and the Mexican War. This had been suggested by Governor Cuomo, in his spirited letter to the editor in response to our editorial about how President Lincoln turned away the editor of Chicago Tribune, Joseph Medill, and a delegation that had gone to see him, late in the Civil War, in hopes of getting him to back off a draft call from Cook County.

Of course, we all know the reality of that vote (and how Hilary and Barack really maneuvered themselves to act like they were in opposition…but why let facts get in the way of a good McCarthyite smear??

Lincoln had listened to the Illinois pleaders in the cavern of maps that was the office of his war secretary, Edwin Stanton. As Stanton recited the sanguinary statistics that illuminated the need for yet more men for the battle, Lincoln bowed his head. Then he turned on Medill, long a supporter, reminded him of how the Tribune had supported the war and called for Emancipation and told him to go back to Chicago and get the men. Medill retreated, saying that it was the first time he’d ever been whipped and that he didn’t have an answer.

The better analogy, Mr. Cuomo argued in his letter to the Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/54464) , is the war that President Polk started with Mexico. “As a Congressman in the late 1840s,” Mr. Cuomo wrote, Lincoln, “objected passionately to America‘s war with Mexico.” The former governor quotes the man who would become the 16th president as warning, on the floor of the House on January 12, 1848, of the “exceeding brightness of military glory that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy.”

The more we read about Lincoln and the Mexican War, however, the less it strikes us as offering a historical harbor for Democrats seeking to legitimize their appeasement line in Iraq. It is certainly true that Lincoln objected to the war, demanding that Polk show him the spot where the first firefight took place, Lincoln believing that it was not in America at all but in Mexican territory. Then a Whig congressman, Lincoln reckoned that the war would lead to an expansion of slave territories. Much of his term in the House was consumed to his opposition to the war.

OK…so tell me how giving the President a virtual blank check with timetables that he can basically ignore like so much chaffe in the wind amounts to legitimizing “appeasment”??  I guess that according to the Sun editorialist, only outright boosting for the war and unswerving allegiance to the President will count as anything other than “surrender”.

But what does this illuminate that could possibly help the Democrats in their current predicament? In contrast to Lincoln, Mrs. Clinton did not object to our entry into either the global war on terror or the battle of Iraq. On the contrary, she voted for it. Mr. Obama, who was not yet in the Senate, opposed Iraq expedition. In any event, there is another difference; once our military was engaged in battle in Mexico, Lincoln always voted to supply our soldiers, a point underlined for us by one of the city’s notable Lincoln scholars, Harold Holzer, co-author of part of Mr. Cuomo’s ” Why Lincoln Matters, Now More Than Ever.”

Lincoln’s support for our soldiers in the Mexican war is something that the Illinoisan boasted about in his debates with Judge Douglas. After all, his opposition to the war with Mexico, however high-minded, was costing him votes. This was particularly true because, even if Polk’s motives were ignoble and the fight seemed unjust at the beginning, the Mexican war had a favorable outcome for America. The Mexican Cession, made under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war on February 2, 1848, established our border at the Rio Grande, ended any dispute over Texas, and gained us not only California, Nevada, and Utah but also parts of Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.

Translation: Hey, who cares about moral considerations….WE WON!! And who cares about principles if it costs us votes??

But here’s where the cesspool really meets the Cat 3 hurricane (and this is exactly the money paragraph that Nez grabs):

Can it be that Mr. Cuomo and his fellow Democrats want to go into the 2008 election questioning the bona fides of the states of Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico? That’s a lot of electoral votes. The fact is the fate of those states illustrates one of the great truths about America — that those who either threw in with us or were won by us prospered and lived more freely than any of them would have under the ancien regimes. This is something that has been learned by other peoples, in Europe and in Asia, even into the late 20th century.

Oh, yeah….like the brown folk down there really do appreciate everything that the gringos have done to “liberate” them..just as the Iraqis really do, despite popular protests to the contrary, appreciate all the freedom that “we” have brought to them through the democratic means of torture chambers, carpet bombs, and pilfering their assests. Why, there really are flowers underneath those suicide bombs.

I wonder what these asshats would say about Black folks benefitting from slavery and Jim Crow. Or…maybe I shouldn’t.

 

***

As for Lincoln, his comprehension of the responsibilities of leadership changed radically when he acceded as president. He prosecuted the Civil War relentlessly, and his generals knew who was in command or suffered the consequences. Lincoln’s officers arrested the most troublesome of the Copperhead Democrats. In the case of Clement Vallandigham, who was discouraging enlistees in Ohio, Lincoln himself sent that particular Copperhead down through Confederate lines and into exile. Lincoln tested the Constitution as it had never been tested before. He fought his war to win.

 

Now…not that I as a Black man don’t appreciate the fact that the North won the Civil War and slavery was vanquished…but what the hell does that have to do with Iraq??  That because Honest Abe was the Commander-In-Chief who did manage to run the war and outgun his critics, that justifies his running roughshod over the Constitution??  And how does that justifies Dubya’s war games during a war in which 3/4ths of Americans do not support, that the supposed “benefactors” of such war (read, the citizens of Iraq) do not support, and was justified on base lies about Saddam’s invisible WMD and ties to al Queda and September 11th???

Oh, but I didn’t know…to the editorialists of the NY Sun, Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden making nukes with Iran’s mullahs with the full connivance of those “cut-n-run” Democrat appeasers….which more than justifies making Dubya our supreme Emperor and protector against Islamofascists, illegal aliens, and evil socialists/liberals/radical feminists/whatever the particular right-wing panic button is.

It’s hard to imagine what Lincoln would have made of Mrs. Clinton, who started out in Illinois, when she claims to “fully support our troops” but votes against funding for the war in which they are risking everything. Or what he would have made of another Illinoisan, Mr. Obama, when he declares, as he did last week, that “enough is enough” and that the president should not get a “blank check,” or even, at least on these terms, any check. The more one reads about it, the more one gets the sense that Lincoln might have wondered why Mr. Bush has been so punctilious about the legal niceties. It’s hard to imagine Lincoln would not have understood Mr. Bush on the larger issues, particuarly his understanding of, and his willingness to shoulder, the responsibilities of the president in a time of war.

 

 

How nice that these editorialists have such wonderous powers of mindreading, that they can extrapolate the motives of a President who passed from this earthly coil nearly 150 years ago, and read him exactly to fit the mindset of our current occupant of the White House…and be so perfect to say that Lincoln would be smiling at Bush today, cheering him on to do more shredding of the “goddam piece of paper” that the former took to heart to defend the unity of the nation against the Confederates.

Ahhh…the mind of a right-wing wingnut….so simple in its complexity, so brutal in its subtlety….and so genocidal and arrogant in its equnamity.

 

 

On APRF “Terrorism”, Bullying and Projection: My Final Memo to StormCloud

OK, Stormcloud….you have finally spoken.

You say that you are fully justified in your campaign against Renegade Evolution and others who allegedly want to bash and trash "radical feminists", and that you still hold personal information against Ren (revealed by others, of course) that would damage her "among her peers" that you reserve the right to reveal if she (and her "YAYporn posse")doesn’t immediately cease and desist their "attacks".

You write this long and windy comment about the evil threat of bullying….as if you were the victim of such rather than the main perpetrator. But….you reserve to yourself and your allies the exclusive right of responding affirmatively to such attacks; and you reserve to yourself the same right to declare the "blogwarz" to be over.

But let’s review the facts here, Stormy:

1) Last time I checked, it wasn’t Bitch|Lab or Belledame or Amber Rhea or even Ren who dropped the "bees" and "wasps" and "honeybees" analogy in condemning the vile threat that folks like "Belledodo", "Ambutt", and "PorniePrincess" are to the pristine wholesome beauty of antipornradicalfeminist theory and practice.

2) It wasn’t Bitch|Lab who openly threatened to "out" Ann Bartow for hiding behiind a pseudonym while attacking the good name of Catherine MacKinnon.

3) It wasn’t Andrea or Antiprincess who loudly opposed applauded and cheered on [thanks, Belle!!] the consistent inclusion in Heart’s blog of some of the most vile anti-transsexual rhetoric this side of Janice Raymond, not to mention the incisive wisdom of Luckynkl on the evil threat of trannies using women’s restrooms as rape rooms.

4) It wasn’t Ren or any other "YAYporn activist" who decided to post pictures conflating a consensual BDSM scene with real, actual torture (Kink.com = Abu Ghraib), then exploiting such an extreme analogy for political and personal gain.

5) It wasn’t Ren who, when faced with a factual critique of APRF fallacies about porn from someone who has been in the industry and built her career to improve it from a sex-positive feminist standpoint, unleashed a fuselage of invective about such an activist being a "tool" for the industry, if not an active participant in rape and murder herself. (Remember the Stan Goff posts, Sam??  I certainly do.)

6) It wasn’t Ren or Belledame who made their living sending hate emails to various female sex bloggers castigating them on how their personal sex lives enable men to rape and abuse women. (Sam, meet Rachel Kramer Bussel.)

7) It certainly wasn’t Ren or Robin Few who defended and applauded the Canadian Supreme Court decision to allow a feminist rape crisis center to deny services to a rape victim…merely because she happens to be trannsexual.

7) And…I’m damn sure that it wasn’t Ren who decided to express their heroic and consistent opposition to the evil images of porn and its effects on women and children…through marketing their slideshow into a CD and making a profit off it…thus doing the same identical thing that they accuse their opponents of doing.

Oh…but in the otherworld that counts for APRF cultthink, only Stormy is the real victim here…not the women she has slandered, distorted, and shamed into silence.

Why else would Witchy-Woo allow Stormy to close debate in "the thread" with such a zinger of a comment [excerpt follows]:

OBJECT LESSON

The moral to this story is that eventually targets get fed up, and will fight back. This is not an even blogwar, as the proof can be easily found in the respective blogs – when radfems quote other bloggers it is usually in praise and to build upon the work – when YAYporn quote (radfem) bloggers, it is to discredit, humiliate, and (personally) attack. There have only been a few posts criticising the behaviour of the nonradfems, two of those I wrote, but also deleted.

There is a huge difference between a critique of radical feminism, and constant attacks on the feminists themselves. Worlds apart.

Radfems are actually a moral and tolerant bunch, and therefore make easy targets for bullying. Yes, I wanted to scare the bejeezes out of RE and the posse, however the attack planned would have been to discredit her with information (by her own blogging) among her peers. This is the most damaging type of ‘outing’, for to ‘out’ her personal stuff would just enable her to whine on and on about being a victim. The threats, were off the mark of what I was planning, but I also needed to show that I had actually done a bit of investigation (which I have). The information that I have shown can be found by anybody who wants to waste a few hours of their life, with the aid of a few glasses of sanity-preserving red wine. Note that I did not reveal the link to the photos, nor reveal my methods in discovering them. I revealed that I have seen them, which I have.

Yes, bullying tactics by me were used, but mere ‘talking it out’ would not end this campaign against radfem bloggers. I had had enough, and I also used misleading strategy to get it. I am also experienced in dealing with sociopaths, and to bring about their downfall by their own weaknesses of narcissism, boasting, lying, and of course, arrogance. Yes, I played dirty, but what did I have to lose? I had already been discredited and ridiculed by a campaign that lasted nearly two months. So the object lessons for bullies is perhaps, know what your targets are capable of when they have been pushed to the limits, for eventually, most will fight back.

Trust me RE, you do not want to reneg on your promise, because discrediting you among your peers will hit you the hardest, that is still on the table. The radfems already know you are a bullshitter. Don’t think you can just go after ’some’ select targets either, because quite a number of people have ‘taken interest’ in studying you, and the most damning bits were not found by me.

My message to the radfems is that you do need to let the past injuries go, mainly because you will never get a sincere apology out of this lot, nor will they cease voluntarily to stop what they are doing unless cornered. Pony has been the most hurt by the leaks, and I wish to apologise that I have not shown her the depth of my support. I realise that my ‘let it go’ sentiments will wound you the most Pony, I am sorry. No apology from them will ever be sincere, all I can do is help find the culprits and expose them if need be. Ending this war is the only way to stop this happening again, but I cannot undo what others have done to you, any of you.

To the posse, including “Deep Feminist”, you may wish to take away the object lessons (after all DF, I actually have not exposed what I know, nor is it a betrayal of a private space, or betrayal of someone I have pretended to be allies with). If the current posse continue to harass and stalk, yes you lot were the original stalkers, then perhaps ‘another stormy’ will arise from the ashes and go after you. So stop your bullying behaviour now. Don’t even try to justify it with “…but they started it”, that shit comes from two year olds. This entire ‘war’ ends here and now. I fucking mean it.

Again the spirit of the agreement: not to bitch about other bloggers. It goes further than that, not to talk about ‘the others’ and to just ignore them. There are plenty of ‘feminists’ in the world, and these two camps just do not mix, and will NEVER get along. Anybody who thinks they are ‘helping’ by straddling the divide, is only maintaining hostilities and connection between the two groups.

Postscript

Ultimatum n
1. A final statement of terms made by one party to another.
2. A statement, especially in diplomatic negotiations, that expresses or implies the threat of serious penalties if the terms are not accepted.

Blackmail n
1a. Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
1b. Something of value extorted in this manner.
2. Tribute formerly paid to freebooters along the Scottish border for protection from pillage.

I fail to see the financial (or strictly personal) gain in what I have done (in fact, I stood to lose from this) – which more accurately fits the definition of ultimatum rather than blackmail. The other thing is, blackmail is NEVER done out in the open, but always private dealings. So for the idiots who bandied around the word blackmail, just more proof that you will take any opportunity to discredit radfems.

And if attacking half a dozen to a dozen radfem bloggers by a group backed up by the entire pornified world isn’t bullying – I don’t know what is.

Yes, indeed…"a group backed by the entire pornified world".

Which happens to include three distinctly ANTI-porn activists, one Latina who happens to be not too cool with porn herself, and two women whose views are more antipatetic than pro-anything. But that doesn’t matter to Stormy; all the better to smear them all as handmaidens of the Patriarchy and justify her "truth" campaign as self-defense.

George Orwell or Karl Rove or Jim Jones couldn’t have built a better example of Newsspeak than this.

—————————————————————

If my reaction through all this seems like I’m more than a bit obsessed with this group, well, it’s because I’ve seen throughout the years how their tactics and groupthink and cult mentality has damaged and destroyed countless innocent women and active feminists whose only crime was to object in part or in full to their lunacy. My first impression of how low these people would go to attack their critics came with the assault on feminst women through the Banard College Feminist IX Conference (from which Carol Vance’s original anthology Pleasure and Danger: Exploriing Female Sexuality was created). The smearing of some of the conference participants as advocates of "deviant sex" and "patriarchial power sex" (read, BDSM), and the handmaidens of male rapists made an indelible impression on me about how deeply fascistic this movement was then..and how they twisted the legacy of "radical feminism" to sell their poison of shame, hatred, and loathing.

From then, I’ve managed to witness the direct complicity of so many of their leaders with the Christian Right (with all the diversions and disclaimers about being bashed as "prudes" and "puritans") on actively targeting consensual sexual behavior that harms no one but offends their principles.  From the complicit alliances with the Meese Commision, to Catherine MacKinnon’s open support for Clarence Thomas (until Anita Hill’s story of sexual harrassment made it a bit less tenable for her), to today’s open support for the Bush Administration’santi-prostitution "loyalty oaths"; the consistent alliance between the antipornfeminist "left" and the openly fascist Right has been quite obvious..regardless of how much activists like Nikki Craft or Bob Jensen would want to cover it with a "leftist" gloss.

But mostly, my impressions of these people have been influenced by actually listening to and befriending real people who actually work in the dreaded industry whom the APRFs readily bait and bemoan.  None of these people are perfect by any means; they have their own histories and their own personal stories about their lives.  But what strikes me about them most is their utter humanity, their compassion, their willingness to actually break through boundaries and challenge their prejudices and beliefs and open their minds to new ideas…..something that is most alien to cultthink and groupthink.  These people fight the battle on the ground every day with their lives, their sweat, their blood, and their orgasms; they know more than any radfem on the outside looking in what their experiences are. Yet, because their lives don’t fit into the master script of the Radfem Borg collective, they are simply dismissed and disrespected and denied even the most basic decency of respect….or worse, they are demonized for the alleged sin of being "tools" of The Evil Male Dick.

Most likely, though, the real issue is that the women and men who are the main targets of people like Stormcloud, Heart, Witchy-Woo, and Sam (and let’s not forget Jensen, Der Gregor, Stoltenberg, Goff and the Male APRF posse, too) are targeted so loudly for abuse and elimination simply because their existence on this planet as independent sexual beings with minds and thoughts of their own is such a cosmic threat to the unisexual "Gender-Borg" collective that would assimilate them for their own good….even if they don’t need it.

——————————————————————————————–

Finally…I will make no apologies for being who I am and for whom I defend; all I will do is to take full and exclusive ownership for everything I do and write, both here and elsewhere. If I really did have anything to hide, then I would not post my real name (and for those of you with asperations of apeing Stormcloud and attempting to reveal any "smoking guns" about moi, the Google is wide open), or even be as upfront about my views on porn or sex or politics.  If I decide to defend Renegade Evolution from all the slanderous abuse she has taken, it is NOT because I am a man with a penis who simply wants to fuck her, or because I am her secret "pimp" or "john"  (trust me on this one, I don’t make enough money in my day job to even meet her personally….and besides, I don’t believe in breaking up good relationships, and she already has a fiancee which does the job quite adequately).  It is because i openly admire this woman’s willingness to be upfront and honest with herself, her profession, and her personal life as a sex worker, a sexual entertainer, and a feminist. (And hell fucking yes, Stormy, in spite of all that has happened, I still consider her to be  a feminist in good standing…in fact, way more of a feminist in the best sense of the term and philosophy than you or your allies would ever think of being.) I may only know her from her posts to her blogs, but I know enough about her to deeply respect her as a woman, a human being, and a sexual being.

So…just go ahead and continue with your campaign against Ren and other such "YAYporners"; and by all means, put out all the manifestos and threats and blackmails you wish from your friends and allies.  All that will do is prove beyond doubt who the real bullies are….and it definitely isn’t Ren or Antiprincess or any other "pro-pornstitute" woman….or man.

Oh….and one last thing, Stormcloud, before I finally close this:  I really, really, really do invite you to please, please, oh for Goddess’s sake, do please bring whatever dirt or shit you want to throw on me to this domain. Because if you push me really, really hard enough, lady, I can hit back with equal fury.  I have as little respect for you and your posse as you do for me; and I am not afraid to lay it on the line and speak freely. 

I will just simply quote one of my all time favorite human sex goddesses/full-time badass women — retired Penthouse Pet/softcore erotica actress Shauna O’Brien — on her (and my) philosophy on countering haters and ignorant people who trash you for no reason:

"When someone annoys me, I annoy them back."

If you want a respectful debate, I’ll be here.  If you want to go nuclear…well, I’ll still be here…and I fight to the finish. If you want to continue to bash and trash innocent people who did you no harm, I will continue to reserve my right to expose and criticize you and call your bullshit out.  That’s not a threat or a promise, lady….that’s called freedom of speech….and justice.

You’ve said your piece, Stormcloud…and now I’ve said mine.  Let our paths not cross again.

 

FauxNewsChannel Whacks The Oxy(contin) Addict On Serial Killers Being Liberals

Thanks to ‘Bina Becker for granting me permission to post this video.

Sooooo…Rushbo says that the Va Tech shooter was a liberal trained by liberals to hate the rich, right????

Really??

Does he know about the history of serial killers??

Does he really want to go there??

Thankfully for us, FauxNewsChannel.com (a spoof of the original FOXNews site) has the facts…as stated in this YouTube video.  Take that along with your bootleg Viagra on your next sex trip to the Bahamas, Fat-Ass:

 

 And let’s not forget about Eric Rudolph, Andrea Yates, Ted Bundy, Susan Smith, and on, and on, etc., etc., ….

 

The APRF Cult Strikes Again: Drive-Bys @ Ren & A Whackjob Named Der Gregor

It has been quite amusing watching the antipornradicafeminist beehive lately in its attempts to wipe out their critics.

It wasn’t enough for them to go straight to the "wasp" vs. "honeybee" card and demonize the evil threats from outside the hive (including such traitors like Laura and Andrea, not to mention the likes of "Ambutt", "Belledodo", "PorniePrincess" and "Retrograde Evolution" for having the gall to face the world without the approval of the APRF hive mentality.  But when former radfems who actually start using their brain cells and their eyes and ears to actually see the world from a view other than the Gospels of MacKinnon, Dworkin, and Raymond and actually begin to question their former beliefs…well, let’s just say that things can get ugly.

The latest case in point was mentioned in the last post here: Heart(less)’s base smackdown of Ren for her reaction of anger to Antiprincess pulling her blog due to the insane harrassment by the usual suspects, not to mention the abuse that Jill Brenneman, Andrea (at The Silver Oak Leaf) and a few other women have been getting).  OK, so Ren did get pretty pissed enough to go to the "Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood" card…but then again, Ren usually gets that way when something or someone really yanks her chain.  How that outburst translates to "silencing" of antipornradfem voices, however, is a mystery that only Heart and her allies could let us in on. (Especially when Heart refuses to even allow the accused to defend themselves of those charges.)  In the same breath that she dropped that charge at Ren, she closed down comments at her blog. But, since she’s a regular at the Genderberg forum, I’m sure that she will have a grand old time further bashing and trashing Ren as a slut/whore/cock-sucking sexbot handmaiden slave to all rapist men.

But even Heart looks practically statesman compared to another particular antipornradfem activist who has been more than a bit active lately. Just go over to Jill Brenneman’s blog and scroll to the comments section of some of her latest entries…and witness the deep thought of a certain male radfem troll named Der Gregor, who has decided that he and he alone will be the representative of APRF thought.

Here are but a few highlights of Gregor’s mindset, some of which in response to Jill, and some in response to other commentators’ attempts to counter his pseudo-theology:

"I don’t need studies and statistics to tell me that there is a relationship between pornography and real violence against women. My body remembers." — Woman’s testimony, 1983.*

[…]

Pornography’s influence is not limited to where it is presented. Those who use it are changed by it. It becomes acceptable in their minds for them to treat all women in the way they see the women in the pornography. It becomes "okay" for them to view women as sexual objects. When men treat women as sexual objects, they do not relate to them on a human to human level. They begin to think it is all right for them to say things to them they would never say to a fellow human being. The respect, the camaraderie is lost.

It is not "okay" for men to view women as sexual objects. Pornography is not "okay". It has begun to proliferate our media, our magazines, our internet, our television. What abour our children? They are seeing this too. Do we really want our children growing up in a world like this? How do you think the children would feel to know how men are viewing their mothers? Their teachers? Their friends? Is this really how we want our world, folks?

— Response to Jill’s essay "Difference between sex work and trafficking"; where Gregor mimes APRF crackpot Diana Russell

Jill, feminism is a political movement. Not a special interest group. Feminism is here as a direct result of a worldwide oppression of Women by men. Feminism is here to become the first life affirming and woman -centered political philosophy that has ever been presented to human society, and it would have been there as a movement mush earlier it’s advent only blocked because of men’s monstrous oppression of women, children and anybody else who was weaker and could be consumed in patriarchy’s jaws.

Your movement not a political movement, exept for the fact that it is doing men’s work. As a feminist, i do not blame you personaly because as you know, this is a worlwide disease that causes not only harm to women but also causes the abused to identify with the abuser.

[…]

hat happens in the mind : words from another feminist=

Another reason it’s hard is because there’s a tremendous psychological identification with the oppressor. There’s an absolutely brilliant book called Loving To Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives by Dee Graham. She’s come up with the concept of Societal Stockholm Syndrome. Her basic thesis is that just as captives bond to their captors in hostage situations, women–and any group that’s oppressed–will bond to men or the group that has social power. Everybody should read this book. It’s incredibly important.

Note the thinly veiled implication that Jill, by opposing Gregor’s positions, is "bond[ing] to men or the group that has social power.  In short, even though Jill has said not a word about porn and focused her efforts solely on getting sex workers some floor level of self-protection, her refusal to simply ape the APRF position of "prostituted women" as innate victims of male lust brands her, in Gregor’s eyes, as a tool of men. (All this, BTW, by a man who claims to be an adherent of feminism, no less.)

Again, there you people go with the upside down reality….

most people spend at least some of their time, doing healthier things that obsessing about the evils of radical feminism and extolling the virtues of porn and prostitution.

This is your job it seems, and a full time job. porn in the morning porn in the afternoon, porn in the evening. I think people notice this. either A)= you are being paid to do this Jill, or B)=this topic is something that ossupies your mind 24/7.

— Response to Jill’s essay "Genderberg Blog Topic: Jill Brenneman"

Of course, he’s the one who’s posting constant drive-by smacks there…so who’s really the obsessed one here??

Because prostitution isn’t work, it is sexual slavery and violently enforced physical and psychological submission for almost all of the 40 million prostituted women and girls in the world. Prostituted men, women and Chidren around the world overwhelmingly do not want prostitution legalized and most call it what they have to do to survive but don’t elevate or dignify their bodily violations in prostitution as work.

[…]

You are nothing but an endless parade of lies and smarm . No matter how many times you try to re-package your very sleazy position, it is clear that you are here for, exploitation.Every time I interact with a pro porn male I feel like I have to take a shower .Can *you* address the point that today, from  Copenhagen a place where protitution is legal I recieved a letter from a woman informing me that two  14 year olds were found tricking in the "legal’ red light district? We are talking about young girls , our sisters you pervert, but you don’t care about that, of course not.

— responding in Jill’s essay "Responding to Janice Raymond’s Ten Reasons Not To Legalize Prostitution" (Note: the last quote was directed at me, not Jill.)

And he has an interesting way to deal with men who don’t march in perfect goose step, too…witness this response to Iamcuriousblue in another thread:

The point is that *you* are a  MALE prostitutor  >porn pusher< and  that  you, who are infesting Women’s lives Women’s bodies and Women’s conciousness with your dehumanizing  *garbage* are in no position to tell anyone where to participate in the feminist movement.

Funny..I thought that I was the "porn pusher". But I guess that any male who gets an erection at the sight of an naked or scantily clad female who willingly invites them to share in her lust and pleasure must be inevitably a degrading and dehumanizing "porn pusher", ehhh, Gregor???

This asshat makes Sam look practically moderate in her zealotry, no??

The APRF Cult Strikes Again: Drive-Bys @ Ren & A Whackjob Named Der Gregor

It has been quite amusing watching the antipornradicafeminist beehive lately in its attempts to wipe out their critics.

It wasn’t enough for them to go straight to the "wasp" vs. "honeybee" card and demonize the evil threats from outside the hive (including such traitors like Laura and Andrea, not to mention the likes of "Ambutt", "Belledodo", "PorniePrincess" and "Retrograde Evolution" for having the gall to face the world without the approval of the APRF hive mentality.  But when former radfems who actually start using their brain cells and their eyes and ears to actually see the world from a view other than the Gospels of MacKinnon, Dworkin, and Raymond and actually begin to question their former beliefs…well, let’s just say that things can get ugly.

The latest case in point was mentioned in the last post here: Heart(less)’s base smackdown of Ren for her reaction of anger to Antiprincess pulling her blog due to the insane harrassment by the usual suspects, not to mention the abuse that Jill Brenneman, Andrea (at The Silver Oak Leaf) and a few other women have been getting).  OK, so Ren did get pretty pissed enough to go to the "Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood" card…but then again, Ren usually gets that way when something or someone really yanks her chain.  How that outburst translates to "silencing" of antipornradfem voices, however, is a mystery that only Heart and her allies could let us in on. (Especially when Heart refuses to even allow the accused to defend themselves of those charges.)  In the same breath that she dropped that charge at Ren, she closed down comments at her blog. But, since she’s a regular at the Genderberg forum, I’m sure that she will have a grand old time further bashing and trashing Ren as a slut/whore/cock-sucking sexbot handmaiden slave to all rapist men.

But even Heart looks practically statesman compared to another particular antipornradfem activist who has been more than a bit active lately. Just go over to Jill Brenneman’s blog and scroll to the comments section of some of her latest entries…and witness the deep thought of a certain male radfem troll named Der Gregor, who has decided that he and he alone will be the representative of APRF thought.

Here are but a few highlights of Gregor’s mindset, some of which in response to Jill, and some in response to other commentators’ attempts to counter his pseudo-theology:

"I don’t need studies and statistics to tell me that there is a relationship between pornography and real violence against women. My body remembers." — Woman’s testimony, 1983.*

[…]

Pornography’s influence is not limited to where it is presented. Those who use it are changed by it. It becomes acceptable in their minds for them to treat all women in the way they see the women in the pornography. It becomes "okay" for them to view women as sexual objects. When men treat women as sexual objects, they do not relate to them on a human to human level. They begin to think it is all right for them to say things to them they would never say to a fellow human being. The respect, the camaraderie is lost.

It is not "okay" for men to view women as sexual objects. Pornography is not "okay". It has begun to proliferate our media, our magazines, our internet, our television. What abour our children? They are seeing this too. Do we really want our children growing up in a world like this? How do you think the children would feel to know how men are viewing their mothers? Their teachers? Their friends? Is this really how we want our world, folks?

— Response to Jill’s essay "Difference between sex work and trafficking"; where Gregor mimes APRF crackpot Diana Russell

Jill, feminism is a political movement. Not a special interest group. Feminism is here as a direct result of a worldwide oppression of Women by men. Feminism is here to become the first life affirming and woman -centered political philosophy that has ever been presented to human society, and it would have been there as a movement mush earlier it’s advent only blocked because of men’s monstrous oppression of women, children and anybody else who was weaker and could be consumed in patriarchy’s jaws.

Your movement not a political movement, exept for the fact that it is doing men’s work. As a feminist, i do not blame you personaly because as you know, this is a worlwide disease that causes not only harm to women but also causes the abused to identify with the abuser.

[…]

hat happens in the mind : words from another feminist=

Another reason it’s hard is because there’s a tremendous psychological identification with the oppressor. There’s an absolutely brilliant book called Loving To Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives by Dee Graham. She’s come up with the concept of Societal Stockholm Syndrome. Her basic thesis is that just as captives bond to their captors in hostage situations, women–and any group that’s oppressed–will bond to men or the group that has social power. Everybody should read this book. It’s incredibly important.

Note the thinly veiled implication that Jill, by opposing Gregor’s positions, is "bond[ing] to men or the group that has social power.  In short, even though Jill has said not a word about porn and focused her efforts solely on getting sex workers some floor level of self-protection, her refusal to simply ape the APRF position of "prostituted women" as innate victims of male lust brands her, in Gregor’s eyes, as a tool of men. (All this, BTW, by a man who claims to be an adherent of feminism, no less.)

Again, there you people go with the upside down reality….

most people spend at least some of their time, doing healthier things that obsessing about the evils of radical feminism and extolling the virtues of porn and prostitution.

This is your job it seems, and a full time job. porn in the morning porn in the afternoon, porn in the evening. I think people notice this. either A)= you are being paid to do this Jill, or B)=this topic is something that ossupies your mind 24/7.

— Response to Jill’s essay "Genderberg Blog Topic: Jill Brenneman"

Of course, he’s the one who’s posting constant drive-by smacks there…so who’s really the obsessed one here??

Because prostitution isn’t work, it is sexual slavery and violently enforced physical and psychological submission for almost all of the 40 million prostituted women and girls in the world. Prostituted men, women and Chidren around the world overwhelmingly do not want prostitution legalized and most call it what they have to do to survive but don’t elevate or dignify their bodily violations in prostitution as work.

[…]

You are nothing but an endless parade of lies and smarm . No matter how many times you try to re-package your very sleazy position, it is clear that you are here for, exploitation.Every time I interact with a pro porn male I feel like I have to take a shower .Can *you* address the point that today, from  Copenhagen a place where protitution is legal I recieved a letter from a woman informing me that two  14 year olds were found tricking in the "legal’ red light district? We are talking about young girls , our sisters you pervert, but you don’t care about that, of course not.

— responding in Jill’s essay "Responding to Janice Raymond’s Ten Reasons Not To Legalize Prostitution" (Note: the last quote was directed at me, not Jill.)

And he has an interesting way to deal with men who don’t march in perfect goose step, too…witness this response to Iamcuriousblue in another thread:

The point is that *you* are a  MALE prostitutor  >porn pusher< and  that  you, who are infesting Women’s lives Women’s bodies and Women’s conciousness with your dehumanizing  *garbage* are in no position to tell anyone where to participate in the feminist movement.

Funny..I thought that I was the "porn pusher". But I guess that any male who gets an erection at the sight of an naked or scantily clad female who willingly invites them to share in her lust and pleasure must be inevitably a degrading and dehumanizing "porn pusher", ehhh, Gregor???

This asshat makes Sam look practically moderate in her zealotry, no??