By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
“Sex Trafficking of Americans: The Girls Next Door.”
“Sex-trafficking sweep nets arrests near Phoenix truck stops.”
“Man becomes 1st jailed under new human trafficking law.”
Conduct a Google news search for the word trafficking in 2015 and you’ll find pages of stories about the commercial sex trade, in which hundreds of thousands of U.S. women and children are supposedly trapped by coercion or force.
Ostensibly formed as a global peacekeeping organisation in the wake of World War II, the United Nations, or U.N., has, over time, made it clear that the peace it means to impose on the world resembles the pax Romana (or pax Islama), mandated and managed by way of a top-down global hegemon.
For all the criticisms levelled at desert pirates Daesh, their M.O. seems to resemble the U.N.’s in several key ways, with its fatwa-friendliness, universalist aspredations*, and a heralded, hypocritical hard-on for pious prohibition and penile predation. If one didn’t know any better, it’d be easy to suspect the Muslim Männerbund of taking more than a few notes.
By Kitty Stryker
While the plight of the survivors of trafficking are brought up in modern discourse around whether or not sex work should be legal or good for women, little actual space is given for survivors to come forward and share their stories.
Mercedes is a survivor of trafficking who approached us to present her experiences of being a survivor of trafficking so that she and other survivors can be heard in a debate that so often pointedly excludes them.
How did you end up in the sex industry?
More than you might wanna inhale!
How to deal with the sexual assaults in Cologne and Hamburg by Musa Okwonga
Why We Can’t Stay Silent on Germany’s Mass Sex Assaults by Maajid Nawaz
The solution to Germany’s migrant problem is simple. But not easy. by Janet Bloomfield a.k.a JudgyBitch
We need to talk about Cologne by Greek Forum of Refugees (et al)
The false dilemma of the rapacious Muslim narrative by Hannah Wallen
Cologne and the ‘sexism of the other’: Why tougher migration policies won’t solve sexual abuse by Anne Jenichen
A reply to Anne Jenichen on the link between immigration and sexual violence by Daniel Falkiner
Is Europe Choosing to Self-Destruct? by Judith Bergman
After Cologne, Feminism is Dead by Phillip Mark McGough
Europa: When Feminism is Silent by NM Phoenix
Lie Back and Think of Brussels by Ann Sterzinger and Jamie Mason
International Business Times: Cologne sex attacks: Syrian refugees take to streets to condemn mass assaults by migrants on New Year’s Eve
Is present-day Paris more puritanical than it was under the Nazis?
I’d love to simply dwell on the jaunty visual attractiveness—not to mention the entertainment and historical value—of author Mel Gordon’s recent coffee table book from Feral House press, Horizontal Collaboration: The Erotic World of Paris 1920-1946. It’s by turns a joyful and critical account of the legal sex industry in Paris before, during, and after the two world wars.
I’d also prefer to avoid painting myself into a corner as “That one lady who spends weeks at a time wondering aloud about what the French are going to do with all their enthused new Muslims.”
But as the EU brass continue prying national borders open to everyone who can fit on a boat, it’s almost impossible to read an account of Paris, sex, and the Nazi occupation without one’s mind wandering to Paris, sex, and the new theocrappation.
…Although the extent of said theocrappation depends on how you interpret some viscerally shocking poll data. For instance: does 3 percent of a sample of the French population responding “very favorably” to ISIS while 13 percent respond “rather favorably” add up to 15 percent of the electorate backing ISIS? You parse the adverbs.
But in any case, as my dear departed friend Lisa Falour used to say: Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke. (An influx of radical Muslims is comedy gold, in fact; just as France was running out of humorless Catholics, here comes the new boss…)
I am, however, aware that reductio ad Hitlerum is a running gag with all the kids these days; therefore, I shall drive straight on to reductio praeter Hitlerum.
Because if the research in this book is anything like accurate—and Feral House’s longtime reputation might imply that it is—it sounds like the Nazis were more tolerant of, if not titillated by, Parisian sexual culture than our new friends the jihadis.
Then again, the Nazis were also more fun, sexually speaking, than the native French feminists in all apparent likelihood, so there’s that to chew on as well… Not to mention the fact that the Nazi stormtroopers supposedly acted less rapey in gay Paree than the heroic American GIs who came to chase them away.
A discussion with Ian Mayes, Nexus X Humectress, and Keith Preston about how social justice activism has led anarchist movements astray and lots of other stuff.
- Intentional communities
- Beyond Social Justice: how historical opposition to valid injustices has now evolved into something absurd.
- How totalitarian humanism’s focus on privilege and microaggressions forestalls social revolution.
- Is feminism necessary in the West?
- Radical gender equality.
- How the men’s rights movement fits the dictionary definition of feminism.
- MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way, the new subculture of anti-marriage relationship nihilists.
- No “hope” for revolution.
- “Anarchist” as an identity.
This sounds like an excellent project.
By Alex Halberstadt
New York Times
everal years ago, David Withers, a zoologist with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, was digging for crayfish in some creek beds on the edge of DeKalb County, in an area that can plausibly be described as nowhere at all, when he spotted an unmarked road. He had never noticed it and decided to see where it led; after a short drive, he found himself amid a strange encampment. Withers stepped out of his truck and looked around. Cheerful, rickety houses sprouted from the ground like unclassified fungi, or something dreamed up by Lewis Carroll, but what appealed to him most was the barn; on the side, in large yellow letters, someone had written ‘‘Welcome Home.’’ Withers walked up to a shack that appeared to be inhabited and — overtaken by curiosity — he knocked. The woman who came out looked surprised. She told him that he was on a commune for gay, lesbian and transgender people and suggested politely that he leave.
If during the course of some Twilight Zone moment I had found myself on the Supreme Court this past term here’s how I would have approached the gay marriage issue before the Court:
First, the objections to gay marriage.
1. Gay marriage is against religious teachings. Perhaps, but in a society whose core political charter guarantees free exercise of religion, this is an irrelevant argument.
2. Gay marriage goes against tradition. Perhaps, but then so does marriage based on companionate monogamy. Historically, most marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom, and polygamy was also widely practiced, at least among wealthy males. Additionally, an appeal to tradition alone often produces embarrassing results. Case in point: “Tradition” was one of the arguments used by slavery apologists in past times.
3. Gay marriage is unnatural. Perhaps, but the same was said at one time about interracial marriage, which was illegal in parts of the United States until 1967. It is doubtful that many Americans really want to go down that road.
4. A same-sex coupling does not produce children. No, it doesn’t. But then neither does a marriage between two sixty-five year old heterosexual partners. Besides, it’s not like the creation and raising of children is the only or even the primary function of marriage in our own culture. People get married for all kinds of reasons: romance, companionship, sex, money, social status, to defy their parents, immigration status, insurance benefits, and many other things.
Ideally, marital relations would not be a matter that involves the state. Instead, different religious and cultural communities would have their own standards concerning what constitutes a legitimate marriage, and the purely economic aspects of marriage would be no different that an ordinary business contract.
However, the fact remains that we do have state-sanctioned marriage, and this status conveys on marital partners a variety of legal benefits. Among these are inheritance rights, property ownership rights, survivor benefits in the event of the death of spouse, critical decision making prerogatives when a spouse is incapacitated, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, the exemption of marital partners from testifying against one another in court, and a number of other things.
The views Dr. Gabb expresses in this piece are essentially the same as my own. I could have written this piece, almost word for word.-KP
By Dr. Sean Gabb
On the 6th June 2015, the organisers of the Gay Pride March in London announced that they had rejected an application from the UK Independence Party to take part. They had given in to a petition which called UKIP “inherently homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic.”
Before making my statement on this ban, I will say the following:
1. I am not, nor ever have been a member of UKIP, and I voted Conservative in last month’s general election.
2. I started denouncing the laws against all-male sex in the 1970s – that is, before many of our leading “gay rights” activists had started filling their nappies. Some of these denunciations were in writing, and enough of them survive and can be found on my website to show that I am telling the truth. I will add that saying what I said as a schoolboy and as a young man could get more than funny looks. It never did in my case, but there was always a risk, and I took that risk.
One nation, indivisible? Hardly.
This is the best article I’ve seen to date on the gay wedding cakes vs Christian bakeries brouhaha.
After hearing from dozens of traditionalist Christians and as many gays and lesbians about recent clashes, I can report that many members of both groups feel under siege—and many don’t really get why members of the other group feel besieged, too.
If you’re a religious believer surrounded by coreligionists and exposed to their Facebook feeds, your notion of America’s cultural landscape is shaped by stories of traditionalists being denounced as bigots, compared to segregationists, and having their ability to provide for their families threatened for publicly opposing gay marriage.
Apparently, it will be if Chris Hedges has his way. It’s interesting how hysteria over sex trafficking is slowly replacing the war on drugs as the dominant form of moral panic, and substantial sectors of liberalism and the Left are completely complicit or even leading the charge. Look for this issue to become a major crack in the PC coalition at some point in the future.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia—Prostitution is the quintessential expression of global capitalism. Our corporate masters are pimps. We are all being debased and degraded, rendered impoverished and powerless, to service the cruel and lascivious demands of the corporate elite. And when they tire of us, or when we are no longer of use, we are discarded as human refuse. If we accept prostitution as legal, as Germany has done, as permissible in a civil society, we will take one more collective step toward the global plantation being built by the powerful. The fight against prostitution is the fight against a dehumanizing neoliberalism that begins, but will not end, with the subjugation of impoverished girls and women.
Poverty is not an aphrodisiac. Those who sell their bodies for sex do so out of desperation. They often end up physically injured, with a variety of diseases and medical conditions, and suffering from severe emotional trauma. The left is made morally bankrupt by its failure to grasp that legal prostitution is another face of neoliberalism. Selling your body for sex is not a choice. It is not about freedom. It is an act of economic slavery.
Please introduce yourself and describe your organization, Stomp Out Child Abuse(SOCA).
I’m Dennis, co-founder of S.O.C.A. (Stomp Out Child Abuse). We are a direct action organization whose purpose is to raise awareness against child abuse & molestation.
How did the organization get started? Who are the founders, and when did this project begin?
We started in September of 2014 out of the need to bring a loud voice for children. It seems like abuse and molestation are society’s dirty little secret that no one really wants to talk about or address. Me & Kel, the 2 founders of this group, decided that it was time for a serious change…not only from society but from the failure to prosecute to the light sentencing / protective custody / early release of these offenders. More…
A week before the attack on Charlie Hebdo, France’s leading gay magazine, Têtu, announced the winner of its annual beauty contest. His name was Matthieu Chartraire, and he was 22, doe-eyed and six-packed, with perfectly groomed hair, stubble and eyebrows. A pin-up in every way — until he started talking.
To the anger of many of the magazine’s readers, the Adonis of 2015 turns out to be an outspoken supporter of the Front National.
Neoliberalism and totalitarian humanism converge.
“Feminism: Originally a necessary and progressive movement. Today it’s a crowd of attention-starved, hysterical totalitarians masking themselves as progressives, and whose continued screaming existence shows that the movement has destroyed itself with its success.
Multiculturalism: All dandy, as long as it is not a smokescreen for the right’s industrial magnates importing cheap labor, and the left’s power brokers importing voting-cattle.
Gay rights: Whatever that is. Gays have, or should have, the same rights as any other human in a somewhat enlightened society.
Atheism: Far preferable to dressed-up theocrazy, especially (but not limited to) since the rise of theocratic tendencies tends to drag down scientific and technological advances with it.
Summary of the activist central bank policies since 2008 in the US: These have remarkably enriched the top1%, while keeping the US warfare state afloat.”
-Peter Bjorn Hansen
The religious right and the PC left united against sex worker rights.
Read this classic lecture from 2000 by Professor Van Creveld, and then read my “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire” from 2003. Van Creveld’s lecture describes the emerging world order, and my essay outlines a new paradigm for the “worldwide Grey Tribe” as it might be called.
This is an excerpt from the keynote lecture given at the Mises Institute conference on the themes in Professor van Creveld’s talk.
The background of the state as we know it today is formed by civil war, although at that time, of course, it was not yet called civil. The endless wars between the various principalities, some of them Christian and others Moslem, that took place in the Iberian Peninsula during the fifteenth century; the English Wars of the Roses; the French guerres de religion; and the Thirty Years War which devastated much of Germany and Central Europe–all these resulted in so much death and destruction that, to end them, people were even prepared to have their appetites controlled. As figures such as Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes argued, the only way to bring about peace and quiet was absolute government invested in a single person. And peace and quiet, more than anything else, was what people wanted and what history seemed to demand.
The money quote comes at the end of this article. This is also my prediction:
“In the next 30 or 40 years I have left to live, I expect to see liberal forms of religion die out, and conservative forms become more conservative — this, while the great mass of the American people drift steadily into secularism. Pope Benedict XVI predicted this for Europe, and I think we are only a generation behind our Old World forefathers. What’s going to be interesting is to see in what ways that intensifying conservatism among religious believers expresses itself. I think we may all be in for some surprises”
The American Conservative
Ross Douthat has a thought-provoking reflection on the future of religion, both globally and in America. He says that it’s dangerous to assume that the future will look like the present, only moreso. Which Catholics in 1940 would have foreseen something as epochal as the Second Vatican Council, coming just 20 years later? Who could have anticipated that China is on track to having the largest Christian population in the world, and that Africa would be sending missionaries to the West? But here we are. Douthat calls attention to Will Saletan’s Slate piece saying that the Mormon Church has a clear theological method to change doctrine, has done so (on polygamy and other issues), and will do it on homosexuality eventually. Saletan points out that the Mormons have a history of changing doctrine to make it easier for them to get along in American society.
I posted these thoughts in the comments thread in response the recent article, “The True Global Minority,” by Bay Area Guy from Alternative Right, and follow up comments by “Dota.” I’m reposting this as a main blog entry because I think it summarizes the current “state of the Union” pretty well.
“I have discussed this issue with Bay Area Guy at length. Basically, most countries have moderate nationalists and fascist hawks. But Liberals in the western sense of the word simply do not exist outside the west. Even India, the world’s largest democracy, has 2 main parties: The secular Nationalist Congress and the Hindu fascist BJP. There are no liberals. Cultural Marxism represents a mental illness which causes a society to disintegrate from within.”
Well, the U.S. certainly has a hyper hawkish party in the form of the Republicans. They certainly don’t qualify as fascists in the classical sense. But they’re arguably as hawkish as any conventional right-wing militarist regime would be.
And the Democrats are just traditional Rockefeller Republicans under another name, so that would make them “moderate nationalists” with regards to foreign policy.
The present day United States is not a “liberal” state in the sense of being something that would meet with the approval of the ACLU and the Society of Friends. It’s a very militarist regime that retains a larger military budget than the next 25 nations combined, and reserves for itself the right to attack any another nation at any time and for any reason. It also maintains the world’s largest prison population, and its police forces conduct tens of thousands of paramilitary raids on private citizens over dubious matters on an annual basis.
The U.S. barely qualifies as a democratic regime at all, as this latest study from Princeton shows: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
Of course, I agree with you on the question of “cultural Marxism” which is a Western oddity that you wouldn’t find hardly anywhere outside the West. We know well what the Japanese think of immigration, or what the Muslims think of feminism, or what the Chinese think about race, or what the central Africans think of gay rights, or what the Russians think of Pussy Riot.
But I also think the “totalitarian humanism” that I am always criticizing is really more of a kind of secular theocracy than anything else, as I said in my recent talk to the H.L. Mencken Club. The idea that progressives are amoral do-your-own-thing libertine individualists is ridiculous. The central thrust of the Left-progressive outlook is a state-centric authoritarian moralism and it always has been.
Alcohol prohibition in its day had as much support from progressive do-gooders as it did from religious conservatives. While presidents like Nixon and Reagan might have spearheaded the War on Drugs, liberal Democratic politicians have been just as complicit as Republicans in the drug war.
During the 1970s, 80s, and 90s you had conservative religious do-gooders crusading against drugs, alcohol, smoking, pornography, prostitution, gambling, media personalities they found morally offensive, alleged satanic rock music, etc.
In 2014 we have left-liberal-progressive do-gooders engaging in similar crusades. They relentlessly attack public figures they find morally offensive (e.g. Phil Robertson, Alec Baldwin and more recently Joe Rogan). They crusade against smoking on therapeutic statist rather than moralistic religious grounds, and they’ve added food policing to the mix as well. Then there’s the feminists’ crusade against pornography and prostitution which is every bit a virulent as that of the religious right. The left’s more recent attacks on “payday loans” are comparable to the standard religious conservative attacks on gambling. Video games have earned the ire of the “progressives” in the same matter as “satanic rock” a few decades ago or comic books in the 1950s. Then there’s the left’s obsessive language policing which is on the level of 1940s schoolmarms admonishing the kiddies not to say bad words. Plenty of progressives have persistently called for tighter regulation of alcohol. The most generous thing that could be said about the Left’s record of offering opposition to the war on drugs is that it’s spotty at best.
The Left even has its own version of pro-life in the form of animal rights and environmental hysteria. The Left has its own version of blasphemy laws in the form of “hate speech” (although fortunately the First Amendment has thus far prevented this from being imported in the U.S.) Not to mention the persistent progressive campaign against guns. Also, contrary to the progressive’s image as sexual libertines, we see plenty of progressives fueling the latest round of “sexual abuse” hysteria involving relationships between 17 year old students and their 20-something teachers.
The Left even manages to be moralistic about its decadence. For instance, “pride marches” are not regarded merely as a celebration of hedonism but as a profound moral statement. The transgendered and BDSM crowds are following a similar trajectory.
The progressive “social agenda” could basically be described as “theocracy without a god” although there are plenty of religious progressives and plenty of social or religious conservative allies who are in on all this as well.
What was once forbidden is now mandatory. What was once mandatory is now forbidden.
The New Yorker
Tim Cook introduces the new Apple products during a special event in Cupertino, California, on September 9, 2014. Tim Cook introduces the new Apple products during a special event in Cupertino, California, on September 9, 2014. Credit Photograph by Xinhua News Agency via Redux
On Thursday morning, the head of one of the world’s most admired companies, Tim Cook, of Apple, announced that he is gay. Although not entirely a surprise, Cook had guarded his privacy. As he put it in a piece for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now,” adding pointedly and poignantly, “So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.” Cook instantly became the most prominent openly gay C.E.O. in history.
Cook’s announcement is one of many signs that gay rights is no longer an automatic wedge issue in American culture and politics. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to review appellate court rulings that overturned gay-marriage bans, a move that brought marriage equality to more than a dozen new states. More…
We live in a world full of prejudices and inequality, where racist and sexist parties like Britain First can exist and where people will back these parties. In a world that has these many different types of prejudices, we call the people opposed to them ‘Egalitarians’ or ‘Feminists’ or ‘Humanitarians’, but do they actually fight for true equality?
While misogyny is an unbelievably huge problem, I would argue that misandry is a really big problem too, and one that is not recognised by many people. I was discussing this with a male feminist the other day and he stated “The only people who have a problem with misandry are either those who have experienced it, or those who don’t know it isn’t a problem.” Now, I don’t know about you, but I felt greatly offended by this statement. He first stated that some people are affected by this problem, only to then disregard it completely. I find his reasoning tantamount to claiming that Ebola isn’t a problem as it affects fewer people than cancer. This is a ludicrous statement, but this is just one person’s (foolish) opinion.