Posts Tagged ‘warporn’

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Catharine MacKinnon

Today I declare the Save the Vagina's Before it's Too Late initiative in honor of Catharine MacKinnon, feminist legal scholar, and author of the Vagina Monolith's, and the Soccermom Diatribes. Now make sure you get home before midnight, Cindy!

Let’s get the the dull, academically fraudulent, sex negative, sexist stuff from two notoriously angry, manipulative, controlling women, out of the way right from the start.

But first! A public service message: Do you sit awake nights, worrying about hungry, sick, starving vaginas all over the world?  You CAN make a difference in the life and health of vaginas.  SAVE A VAGINA TODAY!  by donating to women’s cervical cancer research.

Now back to the porn wars: Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon got an anti-pornography statute passed  that is still lurking on the books in the City of Minneapolis:

Pornography and Civil Rights
A NEW DAY FOR WOMEN’S EQUALITY by ANDREA DWORKIN and CATHARINE A. MacKINNON
Copyright © 1988 by Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin
“Pornography is central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women. . . .”  Their completely new legal approach–in which pornography is defined as sex discrimination and therefore a violation of civil rights–would allow anyone injured by pornography to fight back by filing a civil lawsuit against pornographers.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Wheeew, smells like a cat box up there–reeks like the turds of  little captive animals that claw furniture and ask you for food all day long, and then snuggle all night. MeeeEEEow till I get what I want, claw furniture if I don’t….

So dualistic–so negative–so typically feminist, but indeed, undeniably, pornography IS differential in the treatment of the subjects involved. Civil rights? Meh.

I better go to the dictionary on that one. Not Civil rights, silly–we know how hard feminists work against those!

But Pornography–wha tis it? The free download of the Sage Dictionary , a dictionary for linguists, gives me a common working definition of pornography: Creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

Pornography depicting coitus, cunnilingus, felatio, sodomy, BDSM, and the many other etcetera’s of sexual action is everywhere you look–three mouse clicks or less  from every man, woman and child in the ‘civilized’ world of cyberspace.

 [warning: you are three clicks away from free, virus- free, relatively harmless adult sexual material here ]

That may or may not be a bad thing, but the dialogue about porn is important, and definitely headed in the wrong direction–because it is actually a dialogue about speech. You can decide for yourself. I will wait as you peruse the hundreds of various links–after all, their actually is something for every-BODY.

Straight, LGBT, TS, hard and softcore bodies everywhere you look–we are all different.

But the more important dialogue about pornography has yet to take place, and that dialogue has its roots in the same definition of pornography that is in common use, a dialogue that is the most important dialogue of our next decade; one that hasn’t taken place yet because it has been constrained, AND restrained.

War pornography. War pornography is how we bully young males into submission, and objectify them, via images of men as tools, objects, and perpetrators of violence. Good men, bad men: soft-core, and hard-core males. Either way, men are more disposable than used condoms, and always presented in dualistic terms.

It begins with shame. Male shame. Shaming males into submission.

Pornography, by the definition, involves ‘creative activity’; that portion of the definition is not really in dispute by anyone. Porn is a created product, and is often quite creative as well. The big bone of contention seems to be the next part “other than to stimulate sexual desire.”

What does THAT mean? We are all different–stimulation begins in the brain.

But I have a bone to pick with such a vapid generalization [Sage… dictionary, definition 1, not 2, because definition 2 at least uses the words ‘flavor’, and ‘tang’ to describe ‘vapid’? The use of the letter V anywhere can arouse me, by design of the current feminist propaganda [V-day and the Vagina Monologues are sooo in your face every year, whether I want it or not].

But ‘flavorful tang???’  I am blowing my top…Even the propagandists missed that shameful naughtiness in the word ‘vapid,’ while they were hyper-focused on ‘vaginas’ [ Sage, vagina: definition 2 a moist canal in female mammals]. Western propagandists make their money from pandering to vaginas.

Flavorful tang…I am going full bore boner!  My penis is suddenly a weapon of thought! An underwear-agent in a propaganda war!! Tang, is like ‘poontang’; and then,  by a stretch, the coochie is tangy??  I am dick-dog rape crazy, according to the feminist literature.  I gotta run out, and rape all of the holes in Coochie right now! Holes, plural, IN coochie?

 Poontang and coochie  are words that likely have Chinese or Korean origins, as their form mirrors Korean and Vietnamese language structures. But the popularity and use of these words directly mirrors American imperialism in Asia. Cu Chi, a city in Viet Nam, is most likely where we get the word coochie. Ouch–look out for the booby traps, and holes full of bamboo spikes…but I digress.

No wonder all the boys, and radical feminists, are lost on Asian porn..

I apparently can’t help myself, according to the rhetoric of the current crop of feminist propagandists. I am a natural born rapist. Engendered male, porn is only one of ‘my tools’  for oppressing ‘all’ women, and especially gender feminist, lesbian academics–both male and female– who feed off of them. These people actually, physically,  wage war on me with the rhetoric of ‘men and porn’, by making me a sexual suspect in their rhetoric, and then, an actual suspect under the law.

Then, they invest in Hillary Clinton’s war chest, so she can save America from the Libyans. Either way, it wasn’t, and it won’t be anytime soon, me raping women overseas, for male or female warlords, or anywhere else to feed American women’s children with a soldiers pay.

But full-bore boner-words, phrases, ideas, and pictures that make me horny–even if no one is around!? I might make my own money off of that–and I will fight to be able to use words, images, pictures and text to understand my world.

Me–all by myself, drowning in the Onanist impulses of symbols and language, I can conjur fantasies of sex–without those ‘real’ women like Kate and Dre!  I really don’t need pictures–they are just nice accessories to remind me exactly why I prefer my own company over the company of weirdo’s who want to interpret what I feel for me, and extrapolate what it ‘could’ mean–or try to  tell me what ‘my’ mind is thinking, before they sweep out their own heads.

Nurse Ratched: Aren’t you ashamed?
Billy: No, I’m not.
[Applause from friends]
Nurse Ratched: You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this.
Billy: Um, um, well, y-y-y-you d-d-d-don’t have to t-t-t-tell her, Miss Ratched.
Nurse Ratched: I don’t have to tell her? Your mother and I are old friends. You know that.
Billy: P-p-p-please d-d-don’t tell my m-m-m-mother.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/quotes

Shame on me. More shame on me….guilt, guilt, guilded male–and then more shame on me. They did all the thinking for me, and porn is killing, and oppressing everybody, most of all, women, children,  and vaginas. Shit–what do I do now to assauge my guilt?? Do I combat the capitalists who drop depleted uranium on children? Do I just vote for Hillary in the next election, because Dick Cheney supports her?

No! I should run out and save a vagina today! Blame it on da pornz! War is all about oppressin’ da wiminz.

Dear Woman: Here’s some free or low cost sperm–hell, you can have my nuts–but please raise a cop or a soldier who will protect the vaginas, and your vagina! Here’s a pedestal–keep your vagina up there! I will even cross the street if it helps you to trust me again, and makes you feel less scared of my weiner!

There’s some stainkin’ thankin’…

Think for yourself, and everything turns out o.k. I promise; but let them inside your sexuality? Let them define you? They will wage war.  You become the deviant in their construct–because you let them inside!

And they will tell you more about themselves in one sentence about their own construct of a purely hypothetical construction of ‘you’ than you could ever learn about them by torturing them to death in a snuff porn film. Just don’t tell them that even idiots know the CIA is the only American talent agency that actually makes snuff porn.[Nick Berg: poor dead guy; and here, too.]

What is striking in every way is how narrowly focused the gatekeepers of knowlege are in attempting to limit my full-bore brain-boner: academics, militarists, feminists,  and anti-feminists have been  limiting the discussion to thoughts about ‘womens bodies’ for centuries, instead of the vagizillions of other forms of pornography that don’t seem to ruffle their feathers.

My first full-bore boy-boner was the dictionary.

We should regulate the sale of dictionaries to children–because if even words can make us horny, what is next?  ‘It’s for the children‘, they always say–then they shut them up early, and keep the kids illiterate.  Besides, they rage, one of them damned Webster’s dictionary people supported the Fugitive Slave Act a hundred and fifty years ago!(1)

What next?? The children?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, in the feminist paradigms, language is the true oppressor. It’s high time to outlaw dictionaries. And apparently, boners kill women and children, and are big enough to intrude on civil rights.Never mind the inherent contradiction when they tell you men have tiny dicks…

How easy it is  to obliterate, or ‘snuff’  from the definition of pornography the portion of the definition that talks about “creative,” and focus instead on “stimulation of sexual desire,” and in so doing, to create the appearance that everything, and every image with a woman is potentially pornographic, and thus, every image without a woman is somehow NOT pornographic, or that images that lack women are nearly snuff porn.

So what ARE those type of images, devoid of patriarchy? Oh, yeah–empty headed Fabio…or Pat Califia’s dick…

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men.

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men..

Just try to imagine, an image without women. Next thing you know, imagination is imagery, according to them, time to clean your mind of it’s filth–your mind, I remind you, not their projections.

These folks are counter-productive in the least, snuffing themselves out like that. Counter-productively snuffing me, too, with their preemptive, eternal rhetoric of objectification.

It leaves  the nasal impression–the stench– that images of men ‘with’ women have a lurking and deviant sexual intent; images of women with women is ‘slavery’ performed before patriarchy–despite kyriarchal advancement; images of BDSM,or leather boys and girls  in Hitler gear, schtupping each other; ‘ one  is re-enacting ones own subjugation,’  but mostly, the actual stench is the carcases of dead heterosexual men, and ‘othered’ men and women not worthy of eroticism, mere bodies, filthy, and pornographic in or of ourselves, tossed into a dumpster, or a heap of fire in yet another war zone that was created to feed hungry western capitalists, both male and female.

Men have been denied the truly erotic–they tell us that images of women and ‘others’ are objectifying and pornographic, and images of men are not. You don’t have to be gay to figure out that cuntnundrum*

But simple analysis of any and all images tell’s us with certainty–that you must ask yourself, or ask the image,  not those who tell you that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, and poke holes in you for impact. Images provoke thought, and thought can produce desire. Words do that too–ALL WORDS. Humans have evolved to communicate with each other.

Hence, communication in any form is the essence of the erotic; the seeds of desire, regardless of the method of transmittal.

But what IS that desire?  Is it exclusively physical and sexual, a thought that leads only to action related to that thought, as they try to force us to believe? Each and every word, image or filmic representation spoken or shared one person to another is a symbol, a communication of some form of desire, a piece of the bigger desire. Yet a desire to talk about the meaning of words does not equate with any action other than to talk to someone about desire, or it’s opposite.

Add images and films? They are just word enhancers.

And words that we say only to ourselves about actions, or non-actions are certainly meaningful as well; if not the singular most important thing, they are the second. Our inter-persona, intra-psychic communication doesn’t necessarily equate with a desire for actual ‘sex,’ at all, any more than a desire for ‘communication’ of our ideas, some of which are about sex, but some of which are about other things too.

Does looking at the expensive dress in the window equate with buying the dress? Sure–for the rich, the hedonistic, the bored, the selfish, or the foolish. Those who are bought, buy as well. But what if you can’t be bought?

So, if anything IS or can be pornographic, it isn’t the ‘creative’ portion of the definition. We are all producers of creative impulses, and many enjoy the intellectual processes caused by viewing  porn . But definitions of porn are in fact the relational, superimposed and interpretatational, relative, objectification of intentions  by others with whom we interact, and communication which takes place, or could take place from those objectifiers have the explicit intention of preemptively circumventing your personal interpretation of your own intentions.

It is not a concrete, monolithic absolute that porn hurts viewers at all, or even most actors involved.

Porn is fantasy communication, like thoughts one could have for a conversation with Gandhi, Dworkin, or Freud. Porn creates a psychic space that is an intellectually, or emotionally safe distance from which to have a fantasy dialogue with others–and with yourself. THAT is where you stand the largest chance to begin fulfilling the ‘desire’ that images can create–in defining for yourself what you are perceiving, and then communicating that desire–in words to others, if it all works out.

And viewing idealized body images increases personal satisfaction for some people.It’s no stretch to imagine similar things about naked bodies and sex.

Adding the gross misrepresentations and anecdotes of abuses that have taken place in some forms of sex pornography is akin to adding hot-pepper to your morning oatmeal, and telling you that’s what oatmeal is.

Viewing images of dogs can invoke feelings of affection, security, comfort, and a thus, a whole host of other feelings potentially related to sexual expression that could take place in a home  (and which I suspect can also stir up the oxytocin releasing, orgasm producing mechanism in the brain). Emotions are, at their base in the lymbic system,  related to those that produce sexual feelings; images of families, or images of children ( see dogs and families), are no stretch if one wished to conflate images and political agendas.

If we accept the paradigm that viewing pornography does NOT equate with having actual sex any more or less than images of dogs equate with family, home or security, we cannot say that images and video’s of nude people are pornographic any more than the word ‘vapid,’ snapshots of Fido, or militaristic  propaganda pictures of flags waving.

Those who are in porn enter the psychic space by our own consent–whether they are ‘victims’ or not is a separate issue entirely.

Yet if we accept the feminist and militarist, and by rote and association, the judicial definitions of pornography as a tool facilitating ‘rape, power, or sexual violence, that enslaves, or steals from women and children’ ( a common pro-war feminist trope*),  we must also then say also that sexualy stimulating pornography for them are the body counts in the news, the stories of conquest of ‘othered’ men, images of ‘othered’ men cleaning up dead male bodies,  images of men at Abu Ghraib, or images of dead babies who have been exposed to uranium, because these images stir up feelings of ‘power,’  whose only relation is to ‘desire’.

Patriarchy and modern feminism are inseparable mates in the creation of pornography.

Images of power relationships cause arousal, according to the definition, and MacKinnon- Dworkin, and all other sex negative feminists. So, the  images of disemboweled, oppressed, enslaved, or dead men, women and babies, whether written or photographed or filmed, are not merely ‘vacant’ images [vacant, ala Sage: definition 1 , cancel officially; definition 2 ‘leave behind, empty], but also images that cause dialogue;  leads to creative impulses, and hence, as per the puppy= security paradigm, can cause female arousal which can be termed sexual.

The debate has been constrained thusly: it is most always limited to discussing women’s bodies, women’s sexuality or women’s perspectives about sex; it is always spoken from one monolithic feminist to another; and it has in recent years engaged the gay community, and sex positive feminists in other dialogues about other forms and perceptions of sexual stimulation through pornography; it has informed the discussion that there are many perspectives of what is sexually stimulating.

But it is the actual communication that has provably opened the doors to sexual liberation–talking to each other makes us horny.

Yet the dialogue has never sufficiently addressed every day images of men that on the surface are not  prima facie sexually stimulating; by THEIR definition.  Yet images of men, dogs, and families have the wider effect of being ultimately, sexual in their evocation of sexual possibility, sexual power, and their portrayal of the myth of home and family, where masculinity and femininity in union, and in dialogue, ‘create’.

These types of images cause dialogue–and  oxytocin levels to rise in the brain.

The soldier in uniform; the basket ball player in sweats; the  cop beating a peace protester or a mentally ill man to death is especially dear and stimulating to militarists and “radical” feminists who openly call for the exertion of power to cause male death; and images of  men conquering men certainly causes some pornographic dialog window to pop-up for these ‘domestic’ types.

And words which women use to describe men, writing what they have written about men– entire women’s studies departments at any major university that discuss, or employ images of men;  any ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ blog which employs competitive themes,  and any discussion where power is present, is a hotbed of pornographic representations of masculinity. The spaces wherein definitions of pornography or men are debated, are urgent, hormonally charged, verbose environments full of pornographic illustrations–and thus, are also pornographic by definition.

Which is why I am NOT a feminist–nor an anti-feminist, or a militarist: because according to the truth of MacKinnon and Dworkin, “exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women, “ is what porn is.

That might be true indeed, if I were a woman.  Differentially only means different. And if I could choose, and not let them continue to choose for me, or pursue me against my will? I choose NOT to have my body photographed at Abu Ghraib; photographed while being water-boarded,  have a mugshot taken, or be photographed dead.

Differential? Of course, by definition, nude representations can be sexist–differential only means different. That certain forms of pornography consume the dialectic? Preferential in the dialogue? Definitely. Men are over-represented in most imaginings of male–represented in a pornographic manner–dead, and truly voiceless–we expect that of men.

We expect that by their definition of men, and patriarchy, without ever discussing women who are pro-war in the dialectic and in their votes, whether feminist or not is subsidiary to the fact that they conceive men for war.

But I might add, theirs is a literally vapid, vacant definition, too, because male voices are missing in that discussion–prohibited from openly declaring any ideas thatrelate to themselves as exploited persons; voices missing even in their own bodies, which are conceived as war objects, while female voices, their panderers,  and their patrons just bitch about camera angles and perspectives.

It leaves ME feeling used, and counting days till I pass on into the next life–if there is one.And there isn’t.

[ cue the oompa-doom-papa porn music]

Given the choice, I would give those murderous fuckers–those voyeuristic, predatory  bitches and bastards–all the boner shots they want of me reading my dictionary–into eternity, if photos, and pornographic representations in words can live that long.

And get ready–where are those sun-glasses? But here’s the cum-shot: You can all go fuck yourselves for awhile (but in a sex positive way, of course), until you figure out if you are able to know what porn even is: as the Felix Frankfurter once said in  Butler v. State of Michigan about obscenity, and which applies to current feminist ideation in this area”you burn down the house to roast the pig.”

Or the sows who capitalize on your ignorance–your silence– in this dialogue.That perverse, feminist, domestic-war-mongering has been conflated for decades with naked, living people and pornography, and today seeks ownership of the industry–not moral high ground, but pure profit potential.

And limiting the definition of pornographic representation to women’s bodies? Now that’s obscene, even by the early definitions of pornography.

But you aren’t. I am not.

War is.

Yet no one really see’s it, ever, much less ‘get’s that’, because of all that pussy in your face. And now, I am not talking about the raging Coochie, or the Poon Tang,  either. I am talking about you. Walking talking porn of one sex or another, even if you never lifted the cover of Playboy magazine–a magazine that CIA feminist, and publisher Gloria Steinem is attempting to own and control right now.

Now go cast some stupid vote for Them or theM, a vote that kills, maims, or chemically alters the DNA of some actual babies, and  ‘othered’ men– their fathers no matter which side you are on.

But stop worrying about internet porn. It will outlive you. Your son, if you have one,  may not.

*trope: language used in a figurative or non literal sense. In this case, a myth of culture that is espoused by militarists, feminists, and so forth, which is encouraged and enhanced by the presumption that only women and children comprise a ‘literal’ family, sans males or fathers.

*cuntnundrum: the illogical logic that is employed in feminist rhetoric. Like Christian rhetoric that says “first their was G-d,then everything eklse, so, everything =G-d,”  radical feminists posit “patriarchy, thus it’s all mens’ faults.’

1) Peoples History of the United States, Zinn, Howard. pg.177 (1995 edition, chap 9, ‘Without Submission’ )

Happy 9-11 everybody, especially all of the little Eichmann’s! Keep your eyes open for fascists. See one yet? Take a look in the mirror–otherwise get off your ass, and take action against the invasion of America by ‘Americans’…

U.S. Northern command stationed in the United States expands beyond Northcom?

“Are YOU gonna git out of the cawr?”

The duhfenders of liburty in small town USA, perteckin’ ya from terruriss’s. “we just do what we’re told.”

Mayors across America are declaring “state of emergency” imposing curfews, and martial law.

“No gatherings of three or more people without a permit.”

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/03/whoa_things_are.php

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/mayor-claims-arizona-town-declared-martial-law/

http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/top_stories/135816/schenectady-mayor-considers-options–martial-law-over-police-woes/

http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/103443-chester-pa-declares-martial-law.html

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/924073/396/Minneapolis-curfew-extended-to-10-am

Saddam shortly after capture by American force...

Saddam speaks from his grave " they came to cover up the CIA paper trail. Control the body, control the narrative. But some bodies--bodies of damning evidence of US war crimes--must be disposed of quickly..."

UPDATE: The United Nations and Libyan Rebels summarily executed Muammar Gaddafi October 20th, 2011, after he was in their custody. He was the longest serving U.S. and Europeasn “partner-dictator” in history, ruling Libya and it’s oil fields for 42 years. END.

Discovered Files Show U.S., Britain Had Extensive Ties with Gaddafi Regime on Rendition, Torture.

Human Rights Watch has uncovered hundreds of letters in the Libyan foreign ministry proving the Gaddafi government directly aided the extraordinary rendition program carried out by the CIA and the MI6 in Britain after the 9/11 attacks. The documents expose how the CIA rendered suspects to Libyan authorities knowing they would be tortured.” More here…

Dictator good if dictator help CIA torture ‘bad men’. Dictator bad if dictator threatens to tell. Good men torture, bad men tell. Got it.I am a feminist now–I understand the pardaigms of power over the human body.

So naturally, we bomb his country, and cover-up all evidence of United States war crimes that were perpetrated there, and talk about how evil patriarchy did it all. Have you noticed how every dictator that collaborates with the CIA  and America’s dirty war crimes, ends up dead after we invade his country?Control the body, control the narrative.

To the victors go the hidden war crimes.

Men might just need some cultural, or erotic capital to combat being turned into the war pornography that the powerful jerk off to, and swap over the Langley servers.  But one thing for sure: war kills mangles and tortures male bodies.

Gnu-feminism 101: Down with Patriarchy! Up with CIA exploitation of the third world! [following Gloria Steinem and Henry Kissingers model of feminism]

Or, like this ass fungus internet troll Raging Bee says about American foreign policy of installing and assassinating dictators “It’s way more complex.”

Yeah–torture, and violations of International treaties, and international law are complex and exceptional when YOU, or your country do it, but a simple matter of rendering “justice” when the other guys do it.

That is so reminiscent of Saddam being hanged–so Hitler hunkered in a bunker…killed himself? Um, right. I get it now. Collaborators must be shot…!

And I am no longer buying in to the paradigm of this mis-use of state power.

No, Hitler’s not dead : he is alive and well in America–I hear he became a DNA sample and donated himself  to the CIA; or he’s been cloned as Dick Cheney’s stoney heart…or is he actually Henry Kissinger...or Hillary Clinton?!

War crimes trials? That’s for the little guys who mess with the big diamond brokers to deal with, not U.S.

And Holocausts? Who cares about those, as long as they happen to othered people, a few thousand here, a few hundred thousand there?

Those tricky murderous spooks always keep us guessing! But one thing is certain: United States Foreign policy has taken on a distinct flavor of illegal and unconscionable covert activity that destroys evidence of war crimes, and is against the law.

And that hurts every body.

[Christopher Hitchens‘ trial of Henry Kissinger here.]

On Sept. 1, 1939, World War II began as Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

What social climate made that possible? Fear, certainly had something to do with it, like the kind of fear that American women suffer from–rapeflation*.

Much of feminism is so conflated with fascism today, that often they cannot see themselves in that mirror. But Naomi Wolf gets a glimpse every now and again.

Below she discusses one of her experiences with a Holocaust survivor who remembers what things were like in Germany as the Nazi’s took power–and how eerily similar it is to America, 2011.

So why is it that on some blogs, especially blogs that claim to be feminist– can’t make the same connection between right wing policies of repression, and left wing actuation of that opression? Oh, that’s right–the brownshirts never recognize their blackshirt collaborations or excesses until it is too late.

All those little Eichmanns…

Also on this day in history, in 1972, American Ieland’s Bobby Fischer won the international chess crown in Reykjavik (RAY’-kyuh-vik), Iceland, as Boris Spassky of the Soviet Union resigned before the resumption of game 21.

Fischer, himself a Jew– was accused by right wing Zionists and fascist Jews of being an anti-semite famously pre-saged the hypocritical dilemma’s of the fascists and feminists in America, for which he was banished, hated, and maligned.

Bobby Fischer at the age of 17 playing world c...

Bobby Fischer: self-loathing Jew or reluctant, incidental prophet?

Bobby Fischer : “The United States is an illegitimate country, just like Israel. It has no right to exist. That country belongs to the Red man, the American Indian… It’s actually a shame to be a so-called American, because everybody living there is a usurper, an invader taking part in this crime, which is to rob the land, rob the country and kill all the American Indians.”

* rapeflation is a propaganda technique; the tendency of feminists and social agencies to inflate statistical evidence, and conflate sexual choice with sexual abuse, in favor of gaining funding, and sway public opinion to their initiatives.

Did you ever have a secret you couldn’t tell anyone? Men and boys often do, and it is imperative that we learn to listen, rather than chiding, or mocking them, or making light of problems that men and boys face.

12 year old boy faces prison–and it’s all his fault. He should man up or somethin… [Especially watch the womans comment at the end of the video, about how he should rot or get raped in prison]

I probably ask some of the same questions—and come up with the same answers as you do when it comes to trying to understand why a young boy would take a shotgun, and blow a person’s head off. But for some, the  likely the answer is because “that’s just what boys do,” or some derivative of ‘ boys and violence.”

And I am not a psychiatrist; I don’t know for certain why he did what he did, but I do know a bit about being a boy, and how that can hurt in weird ways. Especially when they tell you that girls don’t do bad things.

This idea is perpetuated by academics who believe that boys are harmful to society. However, actual scientists believe that there is massive gender bias against  boys in mental health diagnoses.

Boys are four times less likely to be diagnosed with autism, and autism might even be a factor in whether or not boys become murderers.

Boys also suffer from the under diagnoses of ADHD, and a host of other mental health issues.

Homicide is an extreme example of course, but an example of ‘male ascribed behavior’ that is perpetuated through gender stereotypes and under diagnoses like the above links. In fact, most violence is described as male behavior, part of a cycle of socially ascribed male status, until a boy “becomes a man” and achieves the status of violentoffender.

Most societies still encourage violence in males, despite the primitive nature of such a sexist belief system. Even the San people, who call themselves the  !Kung- who are reportedly one of the most gentle groups of people around the world,  believe that a boy is not a man until he kills.

Violence is socially constructed, and engendered  as male in discussions of domestic violence, and in the enumeration of the symptoms of mental disorders as well–which could be viewed as a form of violence directed at men, and in the least is sexist. Ascribing violence to males perpetuates violence, and is an inaccurate and misleading characterization, because women’s violence accounts for at least half of all domestic violence, and also takes many different forms, especially when they are drinking, and sometimes takes the extreme forms that this boy exhibits as well.

And some of those forms are well hidden in the family structure, and under discussed in mainstream dialogues. Even as I wrote this, a woman said to me (and I hear this quite a bit) “but you don’t know if the woman hurt him; how do you know the father didn’t do something to him?”

There is little doubt the father ‘did something’ but also he likely didn’t do enough, or could have. And the thing the father shouldn’t have done is to bring a strange woman with two strange kids into the center of a young boys life without some professional dialogue, or a counselor to oversee the transition.

But the dialogue with western women never progresses that far.The ‘it’s mens fault’  speaker is set to high volume, playing that old record every time you bring it up.

I have learned that this primary western female responsibility-negation response is to be expected when discussing causation of violence. Most if not all women reflexively deflect issues of violence onto men, and ascribe the results to male initiation—no matter how gross and evil acts of women’s violence are, or what different forms women’s violence takes. I have even come to the conclusion that this behavior—deflecting issues of violence onto men—is in fact a form of female violence.

But violence is every bodies problem. For an example: the bear comes to the mouth of the cave!! Do the man and woman each stand up and fight the bear? Do the children who have legs stand up and fight the bear?? Of course they do, if nuclear family has any meaning at all. It takes more than one woman kicking a man’s ass out of the comfort of the bearskin rugs to kick the ass of the next bear.

Anywhere except in America, the nuclear weapons capital of the world, land of the replaceable Uber-man, the ever fertile cannon fodder producing woman, and initiator of more than five current wars! And except for domestic violence issues and rape, violence is apparently wholesome, and socially acceptable.

Never mind statistics that prove that women’s sexual violence against boys leads to aberrant male behaviors—like rape and domestic violence.

From The Invisible Boy Report: Re-imagining the Victimization of Male Children and Teens

Statistics from The Invisible Boy Report, Health Canada

So I have learned the importance of ignoring this type of diffusion by women, because it only and forever leads to blaming boys for how they were raised, rather than examining women’s direct and indirect violence against boys which makes them “men” who fight bears all alone.

Anyone looking in on such a story, without proper social context, would conclude one of two things: the boy was angry and controlling, or the boy was homicidal—perhaps a sociopath. Maybe both, and maybe neither. Nobody can disagree on those two things, based on what we know about violence, except perhaps psychologists, and well- funded, well organized (invested) , biased social observers who define certain behaviors as “male behaviors” and certain other behaviors as ‘female behaviors.’

It isthis gendered schema which is the root of the problem of domestic violence, and those who parade such ideas don’t just define, or perpetuate the behaviors: they create them.

But I will suggest the bizarre, and the extreme: maybe the boy was neither angry, nor homicidal. Because boys respond to threats and challenges differently than women do because they are enculturated to do so. And boys who respond to challenges with extreme violence often are over-reacting to remembered violence that they have experienced. Fight or flight responses gone mad, escalated to a point where there is no turning back.

Maybe the boy was being preemptive in protecting ‘his home.’

Boys re-experience past violence when they are challenged or threatened. The sensitivity that is cultivated in girls is discouraged in boys. So instead of resorting to tears, and tantrums, or being encouraged to discuss his feelings, or even incorporated into a body politic that ascribes them validation through ‘victim status,’ boys can become isolated to the point of making irrational statements of protectiveness, or independence.

O.K., GAME TIME!

Let’s play a game—whether you want to or not, but if you’ve read this far–you will play. I will give you an example, you will follow it: rock, paper, and scissors. You will pick one of the three.

You picked one of the three, right? Even if you didn’t want to, or you chose not to play along, there was one of them in your head—I would bet it was rock. But playing, or not playing–either one is normal behavior.

But I know you picked one of the three even if you didn’t admit it. I told you to pick one of the three. You had to pick one of the three, and whether you wanted to or not, you did. Didn’t you?

DIDN”T YOU?

I personally would have picked option two—I wouldn’t have played the game, because I didn’t like the language that was used to get me to play. It sounds authoritarian, manipulative, and un-inclusive of my feelings.

And I cannot imagine what a boy might be feeling or thinking as he blasts someone in the back of the head with a shotgun, but I suspect he was remembering, feeling, or re-experiencing similar word games, and scars they had left on him, and possibly other more physical memories–after all, hitting boys is still common in American households.

But this kid is the kid who doesn’t understand normal, and his choice was “shotgun.” Shotgun wins every time over people who play games with your sense of safety (your rock), and your sense of expressing fairness ( paper), or your ability to separate the two (scissors). When grown-ups fail you on all three levels, there can be extreme consequences.

You might have missed this ground shattering piece of journalism about the widespread rape of men in the Congo while you were occupied with immature and divisive conversations about young white women on elevators, the death of third wave, man-beating feminist Amy Winehouse, or the Obama shuffle to the right in matters of both domestic policy, dropping the ball on both the budget, and the treatment of “terrorists”.

But remember how hard last wave feminists were wishing, hoping, and praying that men get raped?

They got their wish.

But men get raped all the time, and nobody gives a shit—except the men who are literally bleeding out of their asses. And when men get raped, it often spells doom for relationships, support networks, and medical help; much less faith in women as allies.

The rape of men

Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims. In this harrowing report, Will Storr travels to Uganda to meet traumatised survivors, and reveals how male rape is endemic in many of the world’s conflicts

male-rape-victim-uganda

“The organisations working on sexual violence don’t talk about it:” Chris Dolan, director of the Refugee Law Project. Photograph: Will Storr for the Observer
TESTIMONY OF MALE VICTIM OF CONGO RAPE: “Today, despite his hospital treatment, Jean Paul still bleeds when he walks. Like many victims, the wounds are such that he’s supposed to restrict his diet to soft foods such as bananas, which are expensive, and Jean Paul can only afford maize and millet.”

Statistics on the rape of men are almost non-existent in the feminized, westernized world, and even rarer in war torn regions, despite the available resources, and agencies that could help combat rape.
The Refugee Law Project, based out of Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda is one of the startlingly few agencies that have ever compiled statistics on the subject, despite the billions of dollars spent on that exact topic here in America, every year.

RLP’s gender officer Salome Atim reports that, in addition to the world wide denial of the existence of men who are rape victims—along with a host of other violence directed at them, and the incredible lengths to which western feminists have gone to suppress the data-wives who discover their husbands have been raped most often leave them.

“They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’ There’s one family I have been working closely with in which the husband has been raped twice. When his wife discovered this, she went home, packed her belongings, picked up their child and left. Of course that brought down this man’s heart.”
One need look no further than to Americas academic culture, science, and scientists, to note the incredibly disturbing trend in America, and the west in general to minimize or deny the pain that men endure in regards to rape is a social construct with damning effects.

The Guardian—the same paper that had the courage to publish Wikileaks documents, points out that “It’s not just in East Africa that these stories remain unheard. One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple, of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study Male Rape and Human Rights notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of wartime or political aggression in countries such as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.”

Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre [sic] reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped.”
As well, many if not all reports of rape-culture formation directed at males has been left out of the literature as pertains to American social policy, as in the case of the CIA’s projects MKULTRA and MKMONARCH.[…]

These numbers are not at all unusual, nor is evidence that men are rape victims in any way an unknown phenomenon, as Jewish and Christian culture has long been known for sexually mutilating men in war and in times of peace[biblical quote about foreskins]; but what is remarkable is how hard and how desperately American women’s groups, feminists, and liberals in general ( the same people who brought us the rape culture analysis) have worked hard to minimize this fact, and keep it out of the literature.

And unlike women who survive rape, male survivors are secondarily and summarily punished in myriad ways.

The Guardian reports that “In Uganda, survivors are at risk of arrest by police, as they are likely to assume that they’re gay – a crime in this country and in 38 of the 53 African nations. They will probably be ostracized [sic] by friends, rejected by family and turned away by the UN and the myriad international NGOs that are equipped, trained and ready to help women. They are wounded, isolated and in danger.”

Making matters worse, documentary evidence of the rape of men is always overlooked, and underfunded, “although a rare 2010 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that 22% of men and 30% of women in Eastern Congo reported conflict-related sexual violence.”

Whereas second wave feminists lauded and oddly, laughed at and approved of women cutting off men’s penises[..], and adulated the original Vagina Monologues rape of a 13 year old girl by a woman, they ensured that the rape of men would continue as a social policy, and even today, work against the safety of women, and the men who know them.

Stemple says that “International human rights law leaves out men in nearly all instruments designed to address sexual violence,” she continues. “The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 treats wartime sexual violence as something that only impacts on women and girls… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced $44m to implement this resolution. Because of its entirely exclusive focus on female victims, it seems unlikely that any of these new funds will reach the thousands of men and boys who suffer from this kind of abuse. Ignoring male rape not only neglects men, it also harms women by reinforcing a viewpoint that equates ‘female’ with ‘victim’, thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered.”

Based on Stemple’s data, the preponderance of women invested in rape prevention and social reform, one could even posit that the rape of men is a deliberate social policy in all structures of power, because whether that power is female, or male, it leads to rape.

Other indicators, like the perpetuation of the American prison system and its enormous growth have been piggy-backed onto the political success of women’s groups in generating funding for public fear campaigns that are in essence, a marriage between the police and women’s groups, like the Take Back the Night campaign, or the current round of inflated statistics on sexual exploitation .

American prisons are rape factories, by design, and either women’s groups in America have worked hard to ensure that they stay that way, women have chosen to be part of a campaign of violence against men that is so insidious it demands the suspension of belief in women’s movements.

Ironically, George W. Bush, a white male and a conservative Republican who upheld the rapes of men at Abu Ghraib—as did many Democrats–has been the only world leader to ever publicly go on record and denounce prison rape.

What?? The evul turrorist’s are employing the same techniques that Americans have historically used to propagandize children, the even more evul cartoon??

Sounds all to familiar. Here is a Disney cartoon about Americas war machine.
OOoops. I meant to say Nazi Germanies war machine, which, like America, sought to attach itself to children’s minds, a sort of mental molestation.

In war porn, and violence provoking rhetoric, the evil “other” needs to be controlled, marginalized, and dehumanized. Here in America it is second nature to not question the propaganda that is aimed at children ( and adults via Family Guy, etc.), and Americans are known to not think it through when it comes to the affect that is created in their conscious minds by propaganda.

Cartoons begin the ‘un-thinking’  process which leads to war being accepted as normal; us versus them.

Hopefully Al Qaida will create a cartoon about the effects of depleted uranium on children–but I doubt it, because the minute I hear about new media in under-developed countries, or old media being applied to new audiences, I smell a rat–or a Mouse.

BOOBIES ALERT! BOOBIES ARE NOT SAFE IN THE AMERICAN WORK ENVIRONMENT!

My god is this woman cute. Or is this a woman-girl?? I CAN’T TELL, AND I DON’T CARE.  SHE IS TAKING A PICTURE OF HERSELF, which is alright with me.

Woman, or girl? Who cares: she snapped this picture herself. Keep your filthy warporn hands off of her.

Did the photographer get a consent form? Is she a child pornographer—taking pictures of herself?

Sure, her boobies are womanly boobiez, but that face!! It’s a baby face!! Is it a woman or is it a girl?? Am I feeling guilt and shame!?!

I don’t know myself…let me ask an American feminist, or a junk science dealer like the Womens Funding Network, because they are tools of the warporn industry who mix truth with lies, and always minimize the death, rape, violence and death directed at men, while trying to gain a foothold into other women’s lives.

Their sole purpose is to distract us from actual rapes that America commits during war, against men, women and children because they are the women in bed with warporn.

America  is using rape and rape anxiety as a tool of oppression  in the middle east today–raping little boys and men, even though they officially deny it.

The real trick to working with the US military, contract mercenaries like Blackwater/Xe, and the CIA, while using rape-based social engineering  is to not get caught.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY: keep the people at home in the US distracted and fighting amongst themselves with disinformation and inflated statistics about the definition of rape, pornography, and child pornography by putting on a heroes face “fighting against exploitation,” while using tax dollars, and military propagandists to insert official falsehoods into Wikipedia that minimize the initial onslaught of rape and the ongoing rape of Japanese women.

The military is in bed with American feminists, and has even co-opted legitimate outrage by using disinformation and topical redirection of the very brutal nature of US rape during occupation.

Here is a military-front group posing as a concerned, information clearinghouse for information about  “US Military Violence Against Women.”

Go see for yourself. It is like a nasty spider of distraction away from the systemic structural violence inherent in US occupation, and definite deterrent away from real change. And keep in mind that any man who might have anything to say is, well, um, dead, or under threat of further US military violence.

Below is a great quote and a link to a site they seem to be co-opting in the discussion, and a thread of thought that seems suppressed in their collusion with right wing feminist perspectives of social control, rather than eradication of rape or oppression.

Okinawa is a place where the armed forces have
learnt how to kill and hurt people in close proximity
to the local population for more than 60 years.
This situation breeds a structural violence, rather
than one that can be understood simply in terms of
the crimes of individual soldiers.

———————————————

Soooo…if Isaw the girl in the picture on the internet…er…womans picture…er this picture on Craigslist, I would call the cops to help save her from exploitation!  Then, only cops could exploit her–or some soldier on a military base in Okinawa, where all Japanese women are seen as whores, and know their place.

Or the Womens Funding Network, who surely has a place to put her in. They love to play with thins…like statistics.

And besides, just looking at pictures of women on craigslist can tell you that they are toooo young for sexual consent! This one looks so young…but who can tell with azians? Their so tiny, right?

I don’t know, but my actual biological impulse is to sniffle at her lips, kiss her ears, and nuzzle her a little bit on them cheeks!!…and then run out and find some guy to beat up cuz HE took her picture, an proteckt her!

Some ixploitatitive bastard actually KNOWS her( eeew I am jellous), and ixploited her…made her show her boobies to the world!! Gerrrrghgh. Men…

Or…was it a guy? How do I know it wasn’t some bookish, bespectacled little dyke who studies Japanese, and has a penchant for kogirls?? I don’t know, do I—the internet is a minefield of maybes; one never knows if one is being propagandized, showered with porn-love, or set up in some American FBI www.honey-pot.pornography.setup.

Oh, who cares—America kicked Japans ass a long time ago—it was all their fault, whatever went on there ( don’t even talk to me about how desperate the western powers were to get at Japan’s goodies, and “open her up“)–so whatever we do with their women is our business.

I am just glad that the Voice of America broadcasts [link] were able to help enable this girl to lift off her shirt, and show me her fabulous baby-faced-rack. Yummmmmi. Gooooooshy…..delicious, right??

And Fuck You Tokyo Rose—you were a feminist long before American women woke up and peeled their liberated moms face out of their diapers!

But now, to the victors….

NO!! Wrong! Q! She is a sex slave!! She is being exploited!!! Stop pornography NOW!!. Pernography herts womyn an girrrrrlz!!

On the other hand…ahem….I see why we went to war against Japan…..this doe-eyed kitty is the spoils of war, 60 years later….now if my big-mouthed lesbian ass can only capitalize on IT, and punish them exploiterz for tempting me with that adorable rack!! Gud thing we didn’t dump depleted uranium on her tits…and besides, we had no choice on dropping nukes on Japs—they asked for it!!

Now i’m gonna call the FBI an report some guy for exploitation, because I don’t want bad things happening to kids and womyn cuz of wut some bad man did.