‘Woke’ Hypocrisy concerning Porn

by Serban V.C. Enache

This NBC article from last year talks about data collected from a popular pornography website, in which over 1/3 of the views for gay male videos come from women. The “sexuality researcher” [whatever that means] Lucy Neville surveyed more than 500 women over five years for a book she wrote. Many of the women with whom she spoke said “a lot of the problem they have with heterosexual porn is that they focus on the female body,” not paying enough attention to the male physique. According to her survey 55 percent of the women said they had imagined themselves as men while engaging in gay male pornography. The women surveyed also expressed a “strong desire to consume porn that is ethical in some way,” and they found some heterosexual porn “exploitative.”

But here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. The article insists that women find a lot of straight porn dehumanizing and exploitative to women and that they feel the women in these pictures aren’t enjoying themselves. But the same concern is not extended to the performers in gay male scenes; some of whom don’t even consider themselves gay – it’s just another avenue for them to make money. One respondent from the survey said that even in aggressive gay male scenes “it looks like the pleasure they’re both getting is very, very different than straight aggressive porn.” Utter rubbish.

Neville was curious to know whether gay men would be concerned or offended about women’s fetishization of gay male sex. But after interviewing more than 200 gay men, she reported that most saw no problem. I can’t help but point out that, were the genders reversed, they’d be labeled as sexists and part of the exploitative patriarchy.

The NBC article ends on a hallucinating note, citing a woman surveyed by Neville who claims that “If it’s helping people explore romance and sexuality – and possibly breaking down over-representation of heterosexuality in the media – then it’s probably a good thing.” This statement is complete bs.

First of all, heterosexuality is not “over-represented.” The vast majority of humans on this globe are heterosexual. To claim it’s over-represented, as if it’s an artificial phenomenon or a conspiracy, is like visiting Japan and complaining that mongoloids are over-represented compared to caucazoids; or complaining that insects are over-represented relative to mammals. Second of all, how exactly is pornography conducive to encouraging romance? I’d argue it has the opposite effect. You can’t claim heterosexual porn dehumanizes women, but say nothing, or make the opposite claim about gay male pornography. You either measure with the same yardstick, or you’re just a hypocrite engaging in sophistry, pursuing an ideological agenda: social engineering to collapse any semblance of normality – treating heterosexuality like a disease or a conspiracy.

France & Germany, Shameless

by Serban V.C. Enache

“The haggling around rescues in the Mediterranean has to be ended.” German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas.

“We cannot continue to do nothing as thousands of men, women and children who’ve left behind everything fall into the hands of human traffickers. We cannot simply abandon them to face either shelling in Libya or drowning in the Mediterranean.” French President, Emmanuel Macron.

The West toppled Gaddafi, favoring Islamist factions to take over, and since Gaddafi’s death on November 2011, the slave trade was resurrected, the country was was carved up in numerous fiefdoms and engulfed in a civil war between the Tripoli faction and that of General Haftar. Currently, foreign powers are selling weapons and ammunition to both sides, in the attempt to hedge their bets. Whichever faction wins, the war profiteers win with them.

Other countries like Italy, who had no stake in the conflict, and even argued against regime change in Libya, are now expected to accommodate refugees and migrants, in effect, subsidizing the business of human traffickers, while some NGOs have started playing the role of intermediaries. But it’s a matter of compassion, they say, of human rights. Indeed. So why are you dumping the problem on a third party? How would you like it if a stranger came at your house with a trailer of human beings from abroad, making it your responsibility to offer them shelter, food, water, basic amenities, hire translators to communicate with them, check them for diseases etc? Then, of course, the delivery men or women take off into the spotlight, obtaining praise, and returning to their comfy houses or apartments, where nobody disturbs them.

Where does humanitarianism stop and human trafficking being? But most importantly, when will the hypocrisy end? Giving people asylum is one thing; but expecting the host countries to give them citizenship and integrate them [which is a lot harder compared to simply giving them ID cards] is another thing entirely! The rational process would be temporary asylum, conflict in source country ends, then they’re repatriated, where they’ll contribute to rebuilding their homelands.

Even the Dalai Lama supports this basic, reasonable plan of action. But the liberal elites in the West do no agree. Think just for a second the level of moral degeneracy we’re living in. The authors of a country’s destruction and dismemberment are lecturing third parties about what it means to be kind and have mercy; this pathetic appeal to humanitarianism, which exists in name and name only! It’s the same in the US. The bleeding heart liberals arguing for unlimited immigration and no borders, while their favorite political party, the Democratic Party, is waging covert and overt economic and military operations against these states from which the migrants and refugees stem. The conservatives only distinguish themselves from the liberals, in that they want secured borders and regulated immigration, but their favorite political party, the Republican Party, is busy perpetrating the same crimes abroad, adding to the numbers of refugees and migrants.

Sarkozy’s France, perchance the most rabidly determined to get Gaddafi out of power, shoulders the moral responsibility first. And now French and German political elites are lecturing other heads of state about what’s just and humane. Ditto for Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela. Salvini told them to come to Rome if they want to discuss the matter. But will they? I don’t think so. The EU establishment proved time and time again it won’t concede an inch to dissenting factions or dissenting member states, no matter how valid the argument is. We often hear about “our European” way of life, “European culture,” the Western civilization… and we hear this narrative from the center and the far right. Well, I don’t resonate with your brand of “Europeanism.” It’s been the violent chessboard of some of the mightiest empires in history and of some of the longest and bloodiest wars to boot – the spring of two world wars… I am not in favor of federalism [albeit I used to be], not with these elites in charge. I am not in favor of this neoliberal Tower of Babel suppressing the nations of this place and those nations outside Europe. I don’t favor this Satanic construct, built on falsehood, usury, rent-seeking, and war profits. To hell with it! May it collapse and join the broken graves of past, brutish empires. I want a Europe, indeed a world, of sovereign states: the Westphalian Sisterhood of Nations.

Articles I & II of the Peace of Westphalia:

“[…] And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other… A faithful neighborhood should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.”

“On both sides, all should be forever forgotten and forgiven. What has from the beginning of the unrest, no matter how or where, from one side or the other, happened in terms of hostility, so that neither because of that, nor because of any other reason or pretext, should commit, or allow to happen, any hostility, unfriendliness, difficulty, or obstacle in respect to persons, the status, goods, or security himself, or through others, secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, under the pretense of the authority of the law, or by the way of violence within the Kingdom, or anywhere outside of it, and any earlier contradictory treaties should not stand against this. Instead, all and every, from here as well as from there, both before as well as during the war, committed insults, violent acts, hostilities, damages, and costs, without regard of the person or the issue, should be completely put aside, so that everything, whatever the one could demand from the other under his name, will be forgotten in eternity.”

BBC interviews Iran’s Javad Zarif

HARDtalk’s Zeinab Badawi was in New York for a rare interview with Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who was attending high level talks at the UN. Though it’s called HARDtalk, it should be called soft, because when Zarif calls out Western bs, the interviewer quickly deflects by changing the subject and is utterly uninterested in the plight of the Iranian people under US sanctions. Kudos to Zarif for giving his precious time to talk to such a lowly institution as the BBC whose so-called journalist, so thin that she looks like a zombie, is only capable of regurgitating Government talking points.

Contemporary Liberalism is Mental

by Serban V.C. Enache

Years ago, whenever I saw a comment saying “liberalism is a mental illness,” I would shake my head, bewildered on what such a statement means. But after hearing more and more liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that some sort of synaptic misfire happens in the brains of these people. I saw a recent material on RT live, sadly, I couldn’t find a link to the particular piece, on gender-neutral uniforms being adopted in some schools in the UK. One of the two guests interviewed on RT, Linda Bellos Obe, confessed to being a lesbian, a feminist, and a grandmother [nothing wrong with these things], said she is in favor of school uniforms [again, nothing wrong with that] and that she supports the ban on skirts in schools – all skirts, not just miniskirts, ALL skirts. Then she stated that girls [in schools] object to boys “fetishizing” them. Come again? And this person is a “equality law specialist.” That’s absolutely frightening… She makes the case for [gender-neutral] school uniforms that children and people in general like to be part of a club; and that the uniform signifies membership to that club. That’s just an argument for mass-conformity, something that the ‘cultural left’ fought against decades ago; but it seems that fight wasn’t about liberalization, or the goal was changed / mutated in the meantime. Hence the label “regressive progressive.”

To quote George Carlin, I wouldn’t want to be part of any group in which you either have to wear a hat, or you can’t wear a hat. In school, I experienced both systems: uniforms in primary school and just a dress code in high school [no obscene or vulgar outfits or offensive messages on outfits]. Obviously, the latter system gives the student a lot more leeway and I prefer it. The liberal feminists of today seem bent on shackling women to their political agenda and political organizations, instead of persuading them via a set of moral principles. The former path takes little brain power expenditures and brings in cash, the latter path requires actual work put into debates – and if we’ve learned anything during the last ten years or so, liberals don’t want debate, because such a forum “allows racist and sexist viewpoints to be heard.” That’s the exact same logic religious fundamentalists would invoke, such a forum “allows heretical and blasphemous viewpoints to be heard.” It’s the same logic the Establishment uses to prevent alternative / reformist POVs to spread among people.

I fully agree with the other person who was interviewed, Chris McGovern from CRE. I believe his position was completely sensible and in the interest of both straight and non-straight students. Whether the school in question has a uniform policy in place or not, girls should be able to wear pants if they want to; girls should be able to wear skirts if they want to. Ditto for boys [ever heard of kilts?]. But Linda Bellos Obe, the so-called “equality law specialist,” labeled dissent on this issue among the left as unwelcome infighting. In other words, we mustn’t work out contradictions, because that diminishes the tribal strength. Promoting ‘gender neutrality’ by opposing the manifestation and expression of the feminine is unjust as it is absurd, and it is unworthy of a so-called free and tolerant society.

Now, to the issue at hand. If the parents are down with gender-neutral uniforms, that’s fine. But don’t tout this particular norm as a great leap in human progress, because, if anything, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a policy that limits free expression.

The communist countries of the 20th century and of the 21st century didn’t ban skirts for girls! Not even the Bolsheviks could come up with such a ridiculous thing as to ban skirts, with the possible exception of China under Mao Zedong. But hey, now we know from whence the contemporary liberal-feminist doctrines stem. The communist regime in Afghanistan [prior to the US-backed Talibans collapsing it] allowed women to wear skirts, including miniskirts! If a liberal feminist from the 21st century would have warned an Afghan woman from the ’80s that a skirt makes men “fetishize” her, she would have said you’re crazy, get out of my way, I need to go to work. Here are some pictures. School girls in the [former] Soviet Union. School girls in Cuba. School girls in North Korea. School girls in Venezuela. Women in the [former] Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Today’s liberal ideology, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is on some issues more oppressive than Bolshevism. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC interview with Noam Chomsky from 1977, in which he accurately explains contemporary liberalism. I don’t know if Chomsky still feels the same today; regardless, his assessment from ’77 was spot on.

The False Anti-Militarist Propaganda

by Serban V.C. Enache

The liberal media has bashed Trump’s desire to have tanks and airplanes show up on the 4th of July to celebrate Independence Day. They labeled it as an example of “militarism,” a way of “politicizing” the event, and compared his desire to that of a dictator. Unsurprisingly, liberal Americans seem to live in a bubble. A great many countries on the globe, be they democratic, less democratic, or totalitarian, show off some of their military units during their respective national day celebrations – this includes armed soldiers, cavalry, tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, ballistic missiles, airplanes, and the like.

Before linking videos in support of this fact, we must stress the staunch hypocrisy of the liberal media and of the Democratic Party. One of the most progressive presidents in terms of economic policy, Harry Truman [a democrat], levied permanent conscription. After WW2, the US took over from where the British Empire left off. The US operates almost 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world. It provides military assistance to most of the world’s dictatorships. During the election campaign, before Trump got into office, the mainstream [liberal] media was deploring Trump’s isolationism [America First policy], fearing Trump would close down military bases and get US soldiers out of foreign conflicts and territories. The liberal media, who is de facto advocating for unlimited immigration and no borders, during Obama’s two terms was praising the President for his administration’s record number of deportations [of illegals]. The same liberal media which produces crocodile tears for the fate of refugees and economic migrants quickly dries up those tears when it comes to foreign policy – when it comes to countries who won’t dance to Washington’s tune. To hell with them. Bomb them. Levy sanctions. Starve them out. They’re no different to their neoconservative counter-parts in the establishment. Under Obama’s presidency, the number of drone strikes increased eightfold compared to the Bush Jr epoch. Seven countries were bombed by the US under Obama’s watch, some of them were dismembered and condemned to ruin and chaos: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. We factor in economic warfare [trade sanctions], the giving of intelligence, funds, and arms – either directly or via proxy to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Daesh. And since people are unhappy with the health situation under Trump, let’s not forget that health care premiums under Obama’s turn also rose.

And if we contrast all the war crimes, all the corruption, all the theft, all the injustice perpetrated by US administrations since WW2 up to the present, including Donald Trump’s administration – we see a clear pattern of militarism, hypocrisy, consistent war profiteering, violence, and death. “Fascism” didn’t start with Trump or the GOP. It didn’t stop with Obama or the Democrats. US financial and military hegemony is BIPARTISAN. It always was. Always will be. Liberals, kindly spare us of your hypocrisy, of your false humanitarianism. The World doesn’t believe it.

Now, then, let’s see some of the other countries who display military units during their national day celebrations: Mexico, South Africa, Romania, China, Iran, France, Russia, South Korea, Japan, North Korea, Italy, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, Austria, Vietnam, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, Poland, Greece, and many, many other countries.