Cyber-libertarians for Child Pornography

In a discussion between co-idealogues Jacob Applebaum also known as "ioerror" asked if people are "horrified by how the US treats people like me?"  Which probably prompted a world's smallest violin concert since Applebaum asks for sympathy for imagined persecution while calling for legalization of child pornography. It also means that child pornography is sanctioned by those behind Tor. Jacob is not alone, Falkvinge's call for child pornography legalization received a warm welcome in hacktivist and cyberlibertarian circles.

Certain cyber-libertarians argue that child pornography laws could and/or are being used by copyright nasties to make it easier to control file sharing. Which is an immoral argument as it places one's ability to download dvd rips above victims of child pornography. Falkvinge's only evidence is an anecdote of a Danish anti-piracy person expressing hope that child pornography filters could be used to suppress file sharing. The comment was made years ago and our ability to download gossip girl remains unaffected so arguing that images of child rape must be legal to own lest the all mighty copyright lobby gets its way are false.

Similarly they argue that child pornography is used to justify surveillance and control of the internet, a strawman central to arguments against child pornography filtering.  Terrorism not child pornography, is the leading justification for internet surveillance.  People argue against child pornography by claiming its not a solution to CP but no one ever said it was the goal is to remove as much as possible. Filtering images of child rape helps internet freedoms by damaging arguments for a general filter.

Eric Raymond is a celebrity in hacker subculure who argued that "child porn must be de-criminalized - otherwise, the censorship that child porn laws legitimize will have worse effects than the porn." Laws against child pornography are not censorship to describe it as such is proof of only dishonesty. Raymond's process of "de-criminalizing child porn" includes legalizing sexual violation of minors.

After their daughter Rehtaeh's suicide the Parsons family called for harsher laws against child porn and stalking which Hacktivist guru Nadim Kobeissi described as "internet freedoms" which in his view should not be limited without a hint of empathy for the family, only scorn. Kobeissi's website "is being used by pedophiles to spread child pornography on the internet. Nadim Kobeissi knows about this, but is deliberately turning a blind eye." In other tweets he expressed opposition to efforts against child pornography viewing them only as attempts to impose 'censorship.'

Richard Stallman is another giant in hacker subculture; the "father and current maintainer of the One True Emacs."  On his blog Stallman revealed he wants "an end to the censorship of "child pornography"..." (Note the quotes around the words child pornography.) Tarek Shalaby is a blogger activist who rose to fame during the Egyptian revolution, he also supports child pornography possession. Shalaby doesn't "think they should censor anything, not even child porn. It's a principle."

Gary Lord, a former member of the neo-nazi allied Wikileaks party, tweeted his endorsement for legalization of child pornography. Lord also defended Holocaust denier Israel Shamir and claimed to have found "no evidence of anti-Semitism" in his writings. Maarten den Braber is "Digital Health Strategist | Speaker | Co-founder Quantified Self Europe and QS Amsterdam" who hailed a pro-child porn article as a "must read."  Kenneth Christensen an editor at a Norwegian outlet 'itbransjen' who concurred with Falkvinge that being unable to legally own images of six year olds being raped violates free speech.

The support for child pornography possession  is not limited to individuals since groups and outlets also joined in. The official twitter feed of  y combinator (a hacker forum) tweeted in praise of making child rape images legal . 'Hacker news' (not to be confused with chewing magazine) made no secret of their support for making an evil activity legal. The techy site 'cafyn' expressed belief that "mere possession of child pornography should not be made illegal." The fringe hate site 'before its news' endorsed the article describing Falkvinge as "spot on." A putrid anarchist site called "attack the system" lauded the article and had a very chummy exchange with Falkvinge in the comment section.

Michael Masnick argued that "these attempts to link filtering to child porn doesn't help stop the problem of child porn. In fact, it makes it worse." Masnick and others quoted a German group MOGIS an organization that only represents its members not the overwhelmingly number of survivors  worldwide who have not called for people to be able to legally enjoy their suffering. No evidence is provided for the outlandish fantasy that "it makes it worse" (therefore the claim must be dismissed) since child pornography legalize would cause the trade to explode without risk of incarceration for consuming the material.

Masnick expressed more anger towards Filtering and laws against child pornography than images displaying rapes of minors. He insisted that  "the way to deal with it (child porn) isn't through censorship and filters" his use of the word 'censorship' is support for possession of child pornography; it bestows legitimacy on child pornography.  Masnick described filtering child pornography as "censorship" meaning he believes that child porn possession and even trafficking should be legal. If someone calls for something to no longer be 'censored' that person believes it should be a legal activity.

He argued that the way is to "go after those responsible" which is already being done; critics complain that the FBI focuses too much on child pornographers. He tried to dress up his views as sympathy for victims by insisting that 'censorship'  "just drives them further underground." 'They' already are as underground (partly thanks to services like Tor) as they can go. Fear of arrest is more than enough to drive 'them' underground and child pornographer secrecy does not prevent authorities from making spectacular busts of child pornography rings.  Mike's entire article proves nothing other than his support for child pornography possession.

The views detailed in this article can only be partly attributed to individual depravity. Support for child pornography is a natural result of an ideology that places all state authority in the category of evil; if the state can do no right then laws against child porn have no legitimacy. Cyber-libertarians see authoritarian plots behind any tepid legal action, under that train wreck of thought anti-CP laws can only be a step toward Oceania. The best way to test an ideology is to examine how its order would protect innocents and the vulnerable; few ideologies pass that test.

A Response to Attacks on Alan Johnson

Anything with moral authority with be mercilessly exploited by extremists and sanctimonious ideologues, an inevitability personified by the decision to let Tariq Ramadan give the London Orwell address. Extremists  appropriate moral authority and bestow themselves with imagined moral authority. If you want an example  look no further than shrill attacks on Alan Johnson for criticizing charlatan Tariq Ramadan by the blogs loonwatch and Bob Pitt's Islamophobia watch. Both blogs are outlets for people who are legends in their own minds and see themselves as warring against evil.

Pitt's loathsome blog has been established as a hate site, the Leicester Secular Society corrected identified it as "homophobic and anti-Semitic." Pitt has become notorious for praising for Hitler fan Yusuf Qaradawi (yet Billy Bob falsely accused others of being pro-nazi). Rational wiki described it as hate site that "just badmouthing anybody who criticises any aspect of the Islamic world" and documented how Pitt defended the illegalization of homosexuality. Muslims are hurt not helped by a man who defines bigotry against them as opposition to Islamic extremism as we can see from Pitt's insipid attack on Iranian democrats (a category including Shia clerics) as "Islamophobes."

There is much to critcize about loonwatch, it would require an entire article so I will focus on depravity that is only relevant to the topic. Loonwatch has condemned people as bigots for cross-posting and citing extremists which is more than enough to condemn them as bigots for cross-posting Pitt. They have cross-posted and praised taliban loving 911 twoofer Eric Margolis as a "favorite writer" and neo-Nazi 911 twoofer Franklin Lamb. They adore  and routinely cross-post Richard Silverstein who justified cold blooded murders of two Jews. Other people cross-posted and cited on loonwatch include Khomeinist Nima Shirazi who has ties to neo-nazis of veterans today and Allison Weir who believes the blood libel is historic fact.

Pitt and Loonwatch do not bother to engage with Johnson's arguments instead they libel him which only confirms Johnson's article, if he was so wrong and immoral they wouldn't have any need for ad hominem. A loonwatch blogger opens by placing Johnson into the category of  “liberals who have lost touch with what the ideas they positively stand for." It seems that the loon believes that a man like Pitt who defended criminalization of homosexuality as a true blue liberal, it must have taken restraint to avoid MLK comparisons. The loon dismisses the article as "slanders" which is projection since Pitt's rant is almost entirely slander and if that was true then Pitt and loonwatch would be able to respond to Johnson like adults instead of slinging insults.

Pitt opened by conflating criticism of Ramadan with hatred of Islam which shows extremists use false accusations of bigotry to serve any convenience. Bob believes that a less than worshipful opinion of Ramadan confirms that "Islamophobia has descended into complete dementia." Obviously thats a baseless claim that only merits dismissal as self evidently facile as alleging that criticizing Pat Robertson proves rampant anti-Christian hated. Loonwatch and Pitt defend obvious racism as legitimate discourse while casting criticism of Ramadan as bigotry against Muslims!

Pitt is a supporter of Jamaat-e-Islami and called for readers to "defend Jamaat-e-Islami against secularism" Jamaat-e-Islami has "pogroms against non-Muslims, ‘tribals’, and secularists." JEI took active part in the 1971 genocide which makes Bob a supporter of ethnic cleansing and loonwatch thinks he's a true liberal for that. Even the guardian condemned Bob Pitt for defending female genital mutilation by arguing "that Type IIa FGM is merely an "anatomical equivalent" to male circumcision." False equivalence to defend or dismiss FGM is misogynist trope bordering on cliche and to trivialize the horrors of FGM with language like 'merely' is proves stunning depravity and utter lack of empathy. Pitt has produced a multitude of articles defending Tablighi Jamaat; an ultra-conservative hate group and attacked an Imam as 'Islamophobic' for criticizing the group.

Loonwatch attempted to legitimize Al-Quds day (a spectacle of hezbollah flags and straight salutes) as "controversial" protests against "Zionism and the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel."  Loonwatch endorsed Seumas Milne's defense of the racist hate group Hizb ut-Tahrir based on the group's 'non-violence' that would also legitimize peaceful groups like EDL which LW campaigns against. Israel Shahak is a notorious Anti-Semite (praised by David Duke) who has blamed the Holocaust on Jews, praised pogroms and defended nazi law. Loonwatch though described him as "Israeli professor and human rights activist" defended him as a legit critic of Israel being tarred with false charges of anti-Semitism after citing him as a source repeatedly. The obvious hypocrisy of a site that dismissing criticism against an obvious anti-Semite combined with the blogger's infantile self pity only makes their baseless libel against Alan Johnson more unintentionally comical.

Its almost as hilarious as how Pitt moves on to describe Johnson as a man who "waved goodbye to rational thought" yes lets all take lessons on rational thought from a Stalinist defending a stoning apologist. Next Bob discussed Johnson's views on Israel as if they're a sordid secret from there Pitt makes the leap that Johnson criticized Ramadan ("poured out hatred") out of anger due to Tariq's pro-Palestinians views. Thats not an arguments, thats a claim that can only be validated with telepathy and since that doesn't exist Pitt's accusation must be dismissed. Johnson didn't mention Israel in his article he laid out his reasons in clearer language than Pitt or loonwatch such as Tariq's stoning apologia. Which explains why they avoided responding to his arguments, dealing with Ramadan's darker views would be far more trickier than lies and insults.

The New Statesman's JFK Conspiracy Theories

Once a leading UK paper the New Statesman has become an outlet for fatuous identity politics and toxic extremism. If you visit the site you will have to suffer material like Laurie Penny blasting football as misogynistic; I thought she would love watching balls being kicked in. The paper published an issue with the Star of David on a Union Jack captioned "a kosher conspiracy" the editor issued a non-apology but defended the issue's anti-Semitic content. They routinely publish extremists like Stalinist Richard Seymour or Hezbollah fan John Pilger who praised the Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon as his idea of a good Jew in one of his New Statesman article.

The statesman published "Edward Snowden saw things he thought we, as Americans, should know. He valued the truth and thought you could handle it, says Alec Baldwin."  First Brand, then Baldwin at this rate Nicky Minaj will be guest editing next week. Celebrity status does not make someone's opinions invalid but Baldwin is a hysterical wreck whose views include praise for IRA terrorists and vicious homophobia.

Baldwin's opening paragraphing accused Obama of " attempts to silence, even hunt down, the press." Its a wild claim without evidence easily debunked by pointing to how journalists who broke the NSA stories are alive, well and free at home and abroad. Baldwin whines about what his fellow baby boomers experienced which seems like kids stuff compared to previous generation who endured the apocalyptic world wars and the great depression. Baldwin's generation enjoyed unprecedented prosperity while creating obstacles for coming generations.

Alec painted a sorry picture of "rampant obesity running throughout the country, gun laws that border on madness." Alec avoided mention of decline of obesity and violent crimes, in fact violent crime is rising in Europe along with support for neo-fascism. He expressed belief that "the Vietnam war and the assassination of President Kennedy" have "kept us in a type of karmic stall and prevented the US from growing into what it might have been."  Beliefs can be a nice thing but they have no place in non-fiction which depends on evidence and facts not "karmic stalls" whatever the dickens those are. After mourning Kennedy without mention that he got the US into Vietnam Baldwin went full retard. Alec's beliefs include the claim that "we still don’t know who killed" JFK.

He described the reality of the JFK assassination as one of the "the greatest lies any society has ever been asked to swallow in the name of moving forward in order to heal itself." He continued to reveal his nature as a deluded conspiracist: "no sane person believes Kennedy was killed by one bitter ex-marine. To be an American today is to accept this awful truth and to live your life with unresolved doubts about your country as a result." Context matters, the bulk of JFK conspiracy theories have been entirely debunked and the idea that a vast conspiracy in the FBI, Mafia, CIA - all prone to leaks.

                                                 Baldwin's Magic Mullet

According to Baldwin "Kennedy died because a hell-bent confluence of anti-Castro, pro-interventionist Vietnam war architects." I disagree with him about much but we have one thing in common we're both fans of American Tabloid, I just understand the distinction between fact and fiction; the same cannot be said about Alec. He insisted that "anyone with eyes can see that Kennedy was shot from the front" a statement made years after digital tech confirmed that Oswald acted alone.  Baldwin claimed that there is a fifty year history of "destroyed or altered records and vital evidence" the utter lack of evidence condemns his words as fantasy.

He continued to explain that his JFK trooferism is a motive for his support for Snowden, which doesn't put Snowden fans in a very credible light. Similarly Icke fan Alice Walker expressed her allegiance to Snowden, her praise was endorsed by Glenn Greenwald without mention of her anti-Semitism. Like a LARPer Baldwins wraps up his article by posturing against imaginary evil: "in honour of the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, I stand for truth." Even open sewers like Al-Jazeera usually attach a pathetic, unconvincing  disclaimer at the end of insane articles unlike the New Statesman's staff who probably seem to think that JFK was  a documentary.

Tor, Its Advocates and Child Pornography

Hacktivism has grown from an outlet for outraged millennials to a political force due to Assange, Snowden and others. While the subculture enjoys support from diverse ideologues hacktivism is distinctly libertarian and even anarchist, hence the coinage cyberlibertarianism. Similar to laissez fair cultists hacktivists believe an inherent goodness only one that is possessed by the internet and its innovators instead of the free market.
Apart from imagined goodness hacktivism fosters a strong persecution complex, people are expected to believe that rape charges against Julian Assange are a plot to render him to gitmo. Handmaidens to hacktivism like Peter Ludlow expect his readers to accept his fatuous fantasy that Aaron Swartz helped save us all from an Orwellian state by cowardly throwing himself a necktie party.

The aforementioned attributes contribute to a void of self-honesty and inability to take criticism that combined with a hatred of all government authority explains rage directed at federal actions against TOR. That marks a low point in the hacktivist subculture since the crackdown was directed chiefly against child pornography, yet its presented with as a blow to privacy, freedom and so on with barely any mention of child pornography.

Extremists usually ignore whatever human rights violations stand in the way of their causes, thats why the internet is polluted with people arguing that NATO is the chief cause of Afghan civilian death with a straight face. TOR fans who remained silent about the service hosting child pornography either ignored child pornography or downplayed it, the guardian mentioned it once. Richi Jennings produced a shrieking article insisting that "TOR attacked by NSA/FBI: Feds curb freedom over child porn." There's nothing new about the FBI methods employed, they do not have greater power so its false to claim that they have somehow "curbed freedom." In fact the FBI is experiencing an all time record weakness.

Other TOR fans ignore child pornography entirely, Erika Murphy squealed like a stuck piglet about how  TOR "stands tall against NSA." Murphy views hosting and protecting child pornography is a fair price to pay for inconveniencing the NSA. It would be more honest if she had written "please die child porn victims you're in the way of cybertopian pet issues." The article describes how TOR is supposedly unaffected, so what are they whining about?

Child pornography is not an accident of TOR, if we accept the project's hype it stands to reason that they could impose some measures against child pornography. According to Joshua Froust some 'cypherpunks' "were protecting child pornographers on TOR: they think viewing the sexual exploitation of children is an inherent right, even if it infringes on the rights of those children." Another journalist described how TOR anonymity "empowers the consumers of this content such that they are shockingly open about their activities: Tor-protected chat rooms have names like PedoBoard and Lolita Network, and database sites voluntarily flag themselves with warnings of “pedo content” or “loli porn.” When reporters refer to child porn rings that operate online, they are speaking about these places."

Jacob Applebaum is the face and leader of TOR which makes it hard for TOR fans since Jacob supports child pornography and believes that child pornography should be legal. On twitter Applebaum endorsed pro-child pornography spew written by Rick Falkvinge which features standards tropes of the pedophile movement that have become cliches. The article could pass as a NAMBLA newsletter: fear mongering about free speech and talk of sultry barely legals who should be free to sexually experiment etc. the whole thing was masterfully refuted here. Rick's article featured pathetic arguments with little merit, but Jacob believed them because he liked it.

Jacob described it as the "article that I will cite from now on" and that he has "argued these points many times and I have literally had people spit in my face for saying it. So kudos for writing it up." Which reveals his narcissism, he believes his hurt feelings caused by reactions to his support for child pornography matter unlike the voices of victims.

According to Applebaum the "key problem is the rape of children - censorship and surveillance rarely, if ever, stop that problem. At great societal cost." There is no solution to the rape of children, no way to stop it forever. Jacob's proposal would only increase rapes of children by legally sanctioning ownership of child pornography which would blossom. His argument about surveillance is comically false: surveillance methods are the leading cause of ending child porn rings anyone vaguely familiar with such investigations knows that. What censorship? The only conclusion is that Jacob sees laws against child porn as censorship.

In the comments of Rick's article Jacob agrees with him and parrots Falkvinge's strawman article of equating child pornography to videos of murders which is nonsense. Rapes committed by child pornographers are done so for the expressed purposes of viewing; there is not a single example of murder being committed to do record and profit from that recording. They deliberately ignore why child porn is illegal while a murder victim is in no way violated by a recording of his or her death the rape of chilren is magnified tens times over by having it recorded. The victim will spend his or her entire life haunted by the fact that pieces of their souls are traded by strangers violating them repeatedly. Applebaum and others ranting about the TOR crackdown fear monger about 'privacy' yet they do not extend that right to victims of child pornography who are raped again and again by having images and recordings of their suffering enjoyed by deviants.

 Recordings and images of child rape are produced for people who want to possess such material obviously without the risk of incarceration the market would explode. Jacob and Rick have vocally argued in favor of child pornography growth, only a complete simpleton would fail to realize what would happen if they were to get their way. What would happen if the law enforcement methods opposed by Jacob and Rick came to an end? It would allow people who produce child rape material to easily evade the authorities; tacit support for people who produce child rape images.

Applebaum has been described as "cyberspace's most dangerous man" or an "activist." He is none of those things. Jacob Applebaum is a facilitator of child pornography, an online pimp who runs a criminal enterprise posing as a privacy tool. Yet Tor defenders fail to acknowledge that child pornography openly exists on the service founded by a man and that its believes that child rape image possession should be legal thus making children's bodies into commodities; a sort of cyber slavery.

Since people in democratic nations enjoy privacy rights there is no reason other than paranoia or illegal activity to use Tor especially since the service is supposedly excruciatingly slow. There are countless privacy tools to relieve fears of people who check under the bed for NSA ninjas come to spy on their cat memes; so we do not face a choice of Tor or the highway. If we entertain hyperbole about Snowden's revelations affirming that we live in a closing society (which is as ridiculous as proclaiming that this little fella proves that we live in middle earth) then that means that critics have a duty to work for change through the democratic system not hang on crime drenched darknet boards.

Tor defenders argue that the serviced is used by dissidents in oppressive dictatorships echoing similar narratives like cyberutopian delusions that facebook toppled Mubarak. Even if we accept such claims as fact the FBI and NSA have not prevented people in other countries from using the service. There is little evidence to suggest that TOR is used by dissidents in Iran or PRC or similar despotisms and its easy for those regimes to shut off access to Tor. The service's development director Karen Reilly dismissed such arguments by openly admitting that "we are not a democracy promotion tool."

Hactivisim is a toxic ideology as it has no place for protection of the  innocent. Their concept of freedom is the right to impose one's will on the vulnerable, that is the mindset behind the abominably ludicrous idea that anti-child porn laws are censorship. Cyberlibertarianism has become seen as alternative to the status quo, any viewpoint with a predatory distortion of liberty and a lack of protection for children's rights is illegitimate and will only lead to ruin and stagnation. The internet has given voice to many evils but the idea of "privacy for me but not child pornography victims teeheehee" is particularly monstrous.

The Cyberpunk Shutdown

The government shutdown is the latest revelation of the GOP's anti-democratic juvenile mindset, the equivalent of a child throwing chess pieces at the wall after losing. They've also sabotaged their own party since tea party support is tanking fast this stunt will only cost them further support. The republican idea of patriotism involves internationally humiliating the USA with an action that could financially cripple America and her allies to stop people from getting better health care.

Anne Applebaum wrote that "from my perch overseas, I’ve also been watching the run-up to the government shutdown in Washington. At times, I have tried to explain it to bemused foreigners. Many of them think, mistakenly, that Americans are having an argument about the budget or the deficit. I have to put them straight: This is an attempt by one part of the U.S. political system to use the budgetary process to stop the implementation of a single law, the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). If my interlocutors come from democratic countries, they then look puzzled."

Despite the republican hatred for science cyberpunk societies envisioned by Gibson and others resemble GOPia. Cyberpunk societies feature deep class divisions and lack empathy or welfare with governments that are oligarchic at best. Weapons are bountiful and easy to acquire producing mass violence while womens' bodies are commercialized and controlled.

The shutdown resembles Snowcrash the most. In Snowcrash people use virtual reality goggles to access online worlds, Stephenson has compared his metaverse to MMOs. During the shutdown VORPx was revealed which makes over 90 games compatible with the oculus rift, including world of warcraft; the metaverse is now real!

In Snowcrash the federal government has shut down as well - permanently - ceding authority to burbs and enclaves. One character explains that "in D.C., all the museums and the monuments have been concessioned out and turned into a tourist park that now generates about 10 percent of the Government's revenue."  An extreme laissez faire economics is the norm during an encounter with thugs one character "counts two more revolvers and a pump shotgun. Any more of these guys and they'll be able to form a government." So wait out the shutdown with your mirror shades, '80s electronic music and people who think all drugs are temporarily legal for entertainment.

Simon Jenkins Insults Kenya Mall Attack Victims

The internet can amplify anguish over an atrocity, media of the past would only show tasteful mourning and tribute. Now countless viewpoints have voices thanks to the internet and immediately after an atrocity people are exposed to conspiracy theories, justifications or general imbecility. Depending on the atrocity we will either inevitably encounter conspiracy theories that it was all staged so as to take away gun stockpiles of mentally stunted far-rightists (the real victim doncha know). If an atrocity is carried out by Islamists some will present it as justifiable blowback for such mortal sins as fighting the taliban or  people will respond by writing material that reaches a subatomic level of stupidity. Simon Jenkins' article on the attack falls belongs to the third category.

Jenkins is curious to know why "terrorists commit outrages like that in a Nairobi shopping mall." Jihadis have been making their motives known for years but Jenkins believes that "the answer is the west always over-reacts to big, sensational gestures of extreme violence. Had the Somalian al-Shabaab sect merely shot up a street in Mogadishu, would Cameron have rushed to Cobra? As it is, Cameron has helped send them to the top of the terrorist charts." Simon apparently believes that Cameron not al-Shabaab is at fault for condemning the massacre!

Simon says that "there is nothing anyone can do to prevent suicide bombers hitting civilian populations" which would news to the Quetta Hazaras who prevented a suicide bombing. It would also produce fits of laughter among intelligence agencies who have penetrated terrorist organizations and prevented atrocities. He believes that it could "be sensible to discourage like-minded crowds from gathering in one place, be they co-religionists or party faithful or merely the wealthy." Simon further shames himself by placing pressure on groups targeted by terrorism; its little different from saying that rape cannot be stopped so really we should just keep our females at home. By that reasoning does that Jenkins blame the victims for being there in the first place?

It seems that "the modern urban obsession with celebrity buildings and high-profile events offers too many publicity-rich targets" said Jedediah to Ezekiel after hitching up the buggy. Jenkins argues that "defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them." There is almost between that reasoning and arguing that Synagogues shouldn't be built to prevent them from being bombed. If Israel had done the same to Palestinians or if Europeans had killed the same number of Kenyans does anyone think that the guardian would respond the same? By trying to blame anyone but the actual killers Simon justifies and defends the terrorists.

Simon continues with a self evidently false comment "there is no defence against the terror weapons of guns and grenades. Nor in any society, free or repressive, is there defence against fanaticism unto death in pursuit of a cause, however madcap and hopeless." He doesn't offer any evidence at all, I'm far from a Hitchens fan but he was fully correct when he said "that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

He contradicts by arguing that "the best defence is a sense of proportion" after saying there is no defense! Simon ends by justifying Islamist "by deploying violence against a succession of Muslim states, the world's leading powers have made their business its business and invited retaliation" which is unsupported by the record of jihadi attacks, I'm curious who invited GIA terrorism in Algeria. The blowback routine is the guardian defacto response to jihadi attacks in this case even in regards to an attack on a civilian target with no connection to western foreign policy. Its easy to detect that guardian extremists aren't really trying these days; they have scripts and dogma where there was once critical thought and conscience or at least the possibility of those traits.

John Pilger's Continuing Mania

I have several pyramids for sale to anyone who believes that its a coincidence that the guardian chose the week that makes anniversary of 911 to publish an article libeling the USA as "humanity's most dangerous enemy." Much like claims of ESP the quote is evidence free claim produced for those who want to believe it. The quote is self evidently false to anyone with a basic education who lives in this world of expanding PRC and DPRK slave systems just as anyone vaguely aware of gravity can dismiss allegations of telekinesis. Like a teenager attempting to bend spoons with his mind, Pilger is a captive of delusion of the belief that he's waging an epic struggle when he's actually only shaming himself.

Pilger opens by promoting Hiroshima victimhood, there's nothing with questioning the ethics of allied tactics but it must be done in context of Axis atrocity. To rip Dresden or Hiroshima out of context for moralizing guilt trips makes the Axis powers into victims, the chief goal of neo-fascist revisionism. Out of all the civilian casualties in the second world war the Axis powers received the lowest, 12 percent, out of that Japan received the lowest. By Pilger's reasoning if Japan was a victim then so was the third reich as far more civilians in Germany than in Nipon.

The article comes off as an unintentional caricature of cliches spouted by the pro-Assad 'antiwar' movement with comparisons of Syria to Iraq. Silly man, doesn't he know its just like the red river war? Just look at the parallels! Don't deny them!

Apparently "John Kerry's farce and Barack Obama's pirouettes are temporary" a preposterous charge  as anyone vaguely with his MENA policy knows no one wants to stay out than Barry Obama. It turns out my ESP allegory was accurate since Pilger predicts that "Russia's peace deal over chemical weapons will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy." Yes he believes that Putin in a peacemaker and Obama is an evil militarist! Peace in this context means Syrians fully under the thumb of Baathist rule.

According to Pilger Obama is allied with "Al-Qaeda" in Syria, it doesn't matter that Al-Qaeda linked jihadis are now executing rebels backed by Obama. It doesn't matter that if it is a "myth" that the Syrian opposition are Al-Qaeda Assad apologists, far-rightists and others will continue to howl that any Syrian who doesn't believe that there is no God but Bashar is Al-Qaeda. The myth justifies Baathist violence, dehumanizes its victims and as an argument becomes a polemical blunt object.

Pilger has put on many breathtaking performances in the theater of absurdity but his sudden outrage about Syrian Islamists is a new masterpiece since he has a long record of justifying Islamist atrocities. He has voiced support for 911 conspiracism, described Hezbollah as "humanity as its noblest" and praised the Taliban in an article promoting the Afghan pipeline conspiracy theory.

He describes the Egyptian military junta as Obama's allies, Sisi has refused every request made by the president who backed Morsi to his end. Pilger believes that Obama "intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran" John's source for his claim is the conspiracist hate site 'exclusive reports' typical articles include "Ancient Roots of Bilderberg Reveal Prusso-Teutonic Agenda for World Domination."Though its not surprising that he uses sources that share his level of credibility.

Pilger alleges that a shadowy conspiracy (just be honest and say Jews John you know you want to) is "suppressing the truth" and that "whether...Bashar al-Assad or the "rebels" used gas in the suburbs of Damascus." John minimizes the Baathist atrocity as much as possible and hinting that he believes a conspiracy was behind it his source promotes 'false flag' conspiracy theories about it. Pilger's support is a matter of public record since he previously denied that Baathists committed the Houla massacre claiming that the slaughter was committed by "'rebels' backed by Obama and Cameron."

Predictably John moves on to whataboutery arguing "the US, not Syria, that is the world's most prolific user of" chemical weapons. He cites use of defoliants, depleted uranium and white phosphrous, DU and WP are not banned by any treaty and are legal to use in war under international law. According to "Historical Dictionary of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare" defoliants "fall outside the coverage afforded by the chemical weapons convention." Even if Pilger was correct it would have no ethical relevance, to argue that the actions of one state absolves another is illogical apologia which further condemns him as a supporter of Bashar al-Assad. The very same reasoning would absolve the USA of any real or imagined wrongdoing: any Pilger critique of old glory can be made moot by his own tactics if they are accepted.

John believes that opposition to the Syrian regime proves people are "brainwashed" this from the man who thinks that sites promoting talking of ancient Teuton plots of world domination are news! The "brainwash" non-argument places him firmly in the conspiracist camp who defend their claims by proclaiming themselves to possess absolute truth and intellectual superiority. Pilger's source for his example of projection is anti-Semite and 911 truther Richard Falk, maybe those 'secret' imbeciles are on to something abut something about like attracting like.

Pilger proclaims that a "a military coup has taken place in Washington" because Barry "accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor." The naked absurdity aside its a claim that disproves itself since Pilger thinks a lack of change proves that a huge change like a coup has taken place. Though it does remind me of some damn good fiction.

John goes full tea bagger by writing that "the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state" he might owe Dinesh D'Souza royalties since he just reiterated the plot of '2016 Obama's America.' Its another self evidently false claim, anti-Obama protesters freely call for Obama's murder, try to foment revolution and other acts that would receive in some of the most liberal countries. In real police states people are tortured and murdered for the most restrained protests which is what happens in Pilger's beloved Baathist Syria.

As his article which seems to be a transcript of primal scream therapy sessions ends John makes a hideously exploitive claim "more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year 6,500 veterans took their own lives." If the US of A is the most evil state ever (like if  no heart from the care bears was a country) why care about their soldiers? In actuality "nearly 85 percent of military members who took their lives had no direct combat history, meaning they may have been deployed but not seen action."

He cites a history "historian Norman Pollack" who calls this "liberal fascism."" Pollack published a few books decades ago, the 'liberal fascism' hyperbole is from a counterpunch article, an outlet that publishes neo-nazis and articles alleging that the blood libel is historical fact. Pollack predictably compares Obama to Hitler thus completing the arch between the far-left and Glenn Beck.

Norman's condemnation of Obama for "militarisation" and "assassination" makes little sense as thats nothing compared to FDR's carpet bombing of entire cities. Pilger seems to think that Barry is just like you know who because of drones, a method of war legal under international law which only forbids intentionally targeting civilians .  by that reasoning was any allied leader not comparable to mister Schicklgruber?

He libels Obama as the "the first black leader of the land of slavery" which reveals his racism as John loves to weaponize slavery to attack Barrack having previously called him an "uncle Tom." Its not merely racist its also imbecilic since Obama has no ties to southern antebellum on his Kenyan side. He quotes "judges at Nuremberg" who declared that "individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity." That probably means that Pilger has spent the week ripping off mattress tags and loitering convinced that he was brining Obama's nazi-zionist-prusso-teutonic cabal to its knees.

Extremism comparable to fascism will almost inevitably be found in the decayed minds of those who make hyperbolic third reich and/or fascist comparisons. Just as Pollack writes for an outlet with content that mirrors Der Sturmer, Pilger defends a stated modeled on European fascism with advice from Alois Brunner. John Pilger praises terrorist organizations like Hezbollah who have sworn to exterminate Jews and his idea of a good Jew is neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon. I'm sure Pilger would compare himself to Mandela or Gandhi depending on his mood and vague knowledge of who those people were but Mel Gibson is the most accurate comparison.

The Washington Post Publishes Rape Apologia

Susan Brownmiller called Ayn Rand a "traitor to her sex" for romanticizing rape in her novels. Brownmiller's words accurately describe Betsy Karasik who believes that "sex between (underage) students and teachers should not be a crime." Karasik is "troubled" not because a rapist received only 30 days for raping a girl who later killed herself but because she doesn't "believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape."  She is under the delusion "that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized."

She thinks "that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual, should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation." At most she wants people who rape children to undergo "rehabilitation" as Andrew Vachss explained "rhabilitation is a joke. I've spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism—an endangerment of our species."

Betsy Boop believes that people "responds to these situations" with "hysteria" she is more disturbed about the response to rape than rape itself.  She believes that 'hysteria' "does less to protect children than to assuage society’s need to feel that we are protecting them." Karasik does not provide any evidence to support her argument and her only alternative is to punish sexual predators as less as possible.

She sinks even lower by regurgitating the myth of the teenage temptress: "I’ve been a 14-year-old girl, and so have all of my female friends. When it comes to having sex on the brain, teenage boys got nothin’ on us." Anecdotes are not evidence, Betsy tries to make it all about her which strongly suggests narcissism and a severe lack of empathy.  Her non-argument also gives the impression that the rape victim was a lusty PYT who actually wanted it since Karasik tries to argue that the victim's suicide was unconnected to her rape.

Karasik "knew students who had sexual relations with teachers. To the best of my knowledge, these situations were all consensual in every honest meaning of the word." If Betsy were something other than a deluded self centered twit she would realize that her personal experiences have no relevance to a tragic injustice and suicide. Similarly if she possessed any empathy she would realize how abhorrent it is to argue that teachers preying on students is a-okay because she says without any evidence. She further insults the victim and tries to argue that her suicide had nothing to do with her rape by spewing "some feelings probably got bruised, no one I knew was horribly damaged and certainly no one died." Betsy elevates her own fanciful opinions over the voices of rape victims she really puts the sick in Karasick.

Betsy continues on whether her narcissitic travels through memory lane by whining about how she was "was fired from a waitressing job in Boston in 1979, during my first year of law school, after I refused to sit in the manager’s lap like the other girls. I would have much rather seen that sleazebag dragged through the legal system than certain teachers I considered friends despite their sexual relations with students that today would land them in jail." Karasik feels the urge to make it all about her by casting a rape and suicide as trivial and trying to make herself the real victim. There's something especially childishly narcissistic about how she wants the legal system to operate in harmony with own personal warped opinions Betsy is a queen of harts without a wonderland.

Apparently "there is a vast and extremely nuanced continuum of sexual interactions involving teachers and students, ranging from flirtation to mutual lust to harassment to predatory behavior." According to Bets we shouldn't 'paint' " all of these behaviors with the same brush sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth." Karasik again does not provide any evidence for her argument which makes it invalid. Is she suggesting that the case was simply a matter of "hypocrisy and distortion?" If so that makes her a rape apologists bordering on rape denier.

According to Betsy "pretending that this kind of thing won’t happen if we simply punish it severely enough is delusional" laws exist to remedy injustice no one believes that laws will prevent crime from ever happening. I thought at least a third grade comprehension of civics was required to write for the washington post. She endorses Louis CK's joke that pedophiles wouldn't kill their victims if they weren't punished so badly, the closes she ever comes to offering evidence.

She asks "if religious leaders and heads of state can’t keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard?" The fool conflates sex between adults and rapes of children! The comparison further approaches rape denialism.

Karasik thinks that a "more realistic approach would be to treat violations in a way that removes and rehabilitates the offender without traumatizing the victim."  How wouldn't punishing rape slighlty not traumatize the victim? Betsy is really narcissitic to think that she knows what is right for rape victims! If rape was punished leniently it would sky rocket, all of a sudden every loser could live out his fantasies and know that he only has to fear a rehab day spa if he's caught. Karasik's 'solution' would to make a paradise for rapists and a hell for their victims where their rapist's feelings are valued more than their own.

Betsy warns that "he issue of underage sex, and certainly of sex between students and teachers, may be one in which the law of unintended consequences is causing so much damage that society needs to reassess." Another fancifully deluded claim without evidence. Underage 'sex' (rape) between children and teachers has been illegal for centuries, what harm has it inflicted? The Washington Post should apologize for publishing by a depraved narcissistic dullard that insults the suffering of rape victims while calling to create a Gorean utopia for rapists that would leave victims all but defenseless.

Anti-Semitism in the Daily Banter

The daily banter is an relatively decent publication. Cesca has produced enjoyable criticism of Greenwald's fraudulent reporting then again that only requires fundamental critical thinking skills. Though it falls to prey to popular leftist fallacies, for example they recently published an article arguing that the coalition lost the Iraq war which only could have happened if the Baathists expelled the invasion or the insurgents overthrew the new Iraqi state and then expelled the coalition.

They published nakedly anti-Semitic  articles on circumcision written by some troll with the handle EA Blair. This particular Orwell wannabe is a new atheist in the mold of Christopher Hitchens; a legend in his own stunted mind convinced of imaginary superiority. The new atheists have a serious anti-Semitism problem; Hitchens spent years support Palestinian militancy, cited and defended anti-Semites ranging from Israel Shahak to Shoah deniers. Sam Harris believes that Jews brought their persecution upon themselves, including the Holocaust.

Of course like most things male circumcision can be constructively criticized without lapsing into bigotry but EA focuses on Judaism. The vast majority of circumcisions have no connection to Judaism there's no reason, save for Judenhaus, to focus on Judaism at all. EA luridly provides an image of Judaism as a violent, backwards faith its as if an officer in the Okhrana became a Hitchens fanboy.

The first article equates male circumcision to FGM multiple times. There is no equivalence between the two, EA is repeating a popular misogynist fallacy. FGM has no medical benefits, prevents urination and makes intercourse an agony unlike male circumcision which could only be comparable to FGM if the head of the member was lopped off.

The second article is explicitly anti-Semitic it features an image from a Seth MacFarlane cartoon where Tarantino circumcizes a Jewish baby with blood flying through the room. Daily banter uses images of blood and gore to defame Judaism, a supposedly progressive outlet continues the blood libel. (Its also a reason to despise MacFarlane but those are never in short supply.)

The article is titled "a retort to a misguided reader." A retort is a quick reply, not an entire article which is too long to be a retort. EA clearly hungers for everyone to share his misguided delusion that he's intelligent, if he wants to convince any of that he should learn definitions of words.

EA described Judaism as "bronze age bullshit" therefore outing himself as an anti-Semite. The far-left defend their racism as "criticism of Islam" he presents his bigotry as a critique of circumcision. This is a clown who thinks he's enlightened for defaming a faith that was nearly eradicated.

The rest of the article is a response to Jewish critic, he whined that the critics used a "tactic of your ilk, to decry a critic as a bigot and call for them to be driven into the desert like they did to scapegoats in Leviticus 16:8." Your ilk? Thats basically 'you people' written by some guy who probably refers to himself in third person. The use of biblical imagery in a response to a Jewish critic is aggressively anti-Semitic like his insistence that if "there’s an anti-Semite on this email chain, I can’t see how it is me."

EA resorted to a strawman when he claimed that his opponent thinks that "faith concepts in themselves deserve protection from criticism, lest its feelings are hurt." Lest? Really? Its easy to imagine EA giggling about how sophisticated he thinks that will make him look. He continued with "no concept, no theory, no opinion and no belief is ring-fenced off from criticism." His critic did not argue that circumcision is above criticism rather that his criticism had obviously entered into anti-Semitism, in fact Judaism is unique in its encouragement of critical thought.

He proved that his extraordinarly patient oppponent was correct when he wrote  "at least not outside of the deserts of the Middle East." He thinks that Judaism is backwards desert faith and he's not alone that has been the view of countless anti-Semites. Its also hard not to detect the implication that his critic should got back to the desert.

EA continued to provide an example of generic imbecility with: "let me entertain for a moment, and against my better judgment, your facile accusation of homophobia." Doesn't that sound like a middle schooler trying to mimic a Bond villain? He thinks that "“homo” is defined as "(ie male to male)" anyone with a sixth grade education knows that 'homo' means 'same.'

The little troll disgraced himself further by claiming that his critic had tried to "silence" him for "daring to" criticism Judaism another legend in his own mind where an email is call to persecution. He caricatured Jews as overly sensitive but exhibited that trait. He describes Jews as "those who follow the Bronze Age teachings of the Big Book of Jewish Fairytales" there's no need to criticize the obvious about a statement so vile and anti-Semitic: it speaks for itself.

Daily banter bloggers enjoy policing other outlets but publish a sickening racist article. Will they apply the standards they judge others by to themselves? Or will they hypocritically continue to host an article advancing one of the most evil prejudices in the history of our entire species?

The Washington Post Publishes Muslim Brotherhood Propaganda

The international reaction to Egypt mirrors the irrationality of the crisis; westerners are actually taking sides in a squabble overseas. Various commentators have cast objectivity to the wind to produce pornographic propaganda painting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood - a parent of al-Qaeda - as a victim. While others churn out disinformation about a valorous army fighting evils salafis to safeguard a revolution as if shooting protesters becomes legitimate with enough popular support. The Washington Post has published a depraved article that falls into the first category.

The article opens with a sentence describing MB members as "activists" who were "branded as terrorists." From the very start the article bestows legitimacy on the middle east's version of the black dragon society; 'activist' is one of the most innocent words available. The authors Sly & Sheridan use the word 'branded' to give the impression that an organization with a long history of terrorist attacks is an innocent party slapped with the t-word for propaganda purposes. They argue that "1000 Morsi" fans were killed, if thats true why did Al-Jazeera have to lie?

According to the article unnamed 'analysts' think that the MB could reject its "decades-long commitment to nonviolence" a delusionally false claim. The article was published as "unprecedented" MB attacks on Christians are intensifying to levels just short of the Hamidian massacres. Morsi himself had appointed a member of a terrorist group that massacred tourists in Luxor as governor of Luxor. To describe a group carrying out persecution so horrific that Christians canceled for the first time in over a century is depraved propaganda in service to clero-fascism.

Sly & Sheridan would probably try to argue that such actions were carried out by rogue bad apples maybe even trying to blame the army for stirring things up. The Muslim Brotherhood leadership issued a statement declaring that: "the Pope of the Church sends a memo to the current commission to cancel the articles of Sharia. After all this people ask why they burn the churches. And for the Church to declare war against Islam and Muslims is the worst offense. For every action there is a reaction." Islamists are using justifications favored by their western apologists. I cannot detect any difference between that quote and the typical article using the 'blowback' concept.

They to supply a facsimile of evidence for their claim that the men who paraded nuns around like trophies of war are peaceful by quoting an MB official named Khaled Hanafi! Anyone who attempts to prove that a violent theocratic cult are peaceful by quoting a member of that cult is only fit for a career in janitorial labor not journalism. Its hideous that they ignore the voices of victims to fawn over MB thugs.

Sly & Sheridan describe Mohammed Badie as a "spiritual leader" who in actuality in advocate of violent jihad against the Jewish people. Badie's wikipedia page details how he "demanded that the Arab world reject negotiations with Israel in favor of "holy Jihad," saying that "the Zionists only understand force."" The Washington Post's understanding of 'peaceful' is at odds with basic sentient thought, exactly like the Muslim brotherhood.

After citing Ikhwanists they provide a history of the Muslim Brotherhood as heroic dissidents and victims who 'endured' "arrests, torture and imprisonment." The problem is that S&S have made Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood member Ayman al-Zawahiri into a martyr. A number of other AQ members who participated in the brotherhood's 'clashes' "with Egypt’s authoritarian governments."

The article only cites people who are sympathetic to the MB like "Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a political analyst who belongs to a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family." The lack of sources critical of the organization confirms that Sly & Sheridan are biased in favor of the MB.

According to Ibrahim MB is at risk of losing "a great part of its members to violent movements" if the brotherhood were a genuinely peaceful group its members would not jump at the chance to join violent. Sly & Sheridan's own source can be used against their cravenly wretched article.

Bob from brockley explained the "only right line now is neither SCAF nor MB Egyptian working class as independent third camp." An obvious ethical position that needs to be explained since a leading newspaper has published fiction in praise of salafi filth. The Post should remove Sly & Sheridan's article if they want to atone for how they have betrayed journalism and basic ethics by publishing lies about a fascist organization.

Don't Boycott the Sochi Olympics

The goal of a Sochi boycott has become a liberal cause celebre.  According to the Independent people "concerned about gay rights at the Sochi Winter Olympics" should "get boycotting." While 'boycottsochi.eu' explains that they "cannot stand by silently while people are being killed there, freedom and human rights are being broken and cold war times are coming back smoothly and imperceptibly."

 The olympics have never had any moral authority.  The games are a politicized spectacle that have been hosted by various dictatorships for decades. Former olympic host the PRC has probably killed more people than Russia's entire population. Avery Brundage served as IOC president for years all while maintaining ties to a variety of dictatorships. IOC has continually refused to hold any integral memorial for Munich massacre victims.

Olympic boycotts do not have a record of inflicting other than annoyance. Carter's olympics boycott only caused the USSR to giggle, barring South Africa from the 1964 olympics had no impact on aparthied. Saying no to Sochi is pointless feel goodery like Kony 2012, the most dangerous activism is that which requires little efort and only produces the illusion of progress. The idea could only wind up causing more pain since it threatens the dreams of athletes.

Pro-LGBT people should be thrilled about the Sochi games if they really want Putin hurt beyond his nightmares about invading half Chechen half Ukrainian village people. Even state media is reporting that Russia is set to become "the next Greece." The olympics have devastated the economies of every host country costing billions in return for nothing. The 2014 games will raze Russia's economy almost beyond comprehension because they are going "to be the most expensive ever, at an eye-popping $51 billion."

Sochi is in a conflict zone, the equivalent would be holding the summer olympics in Somalia. Russia  might not have enough snow and Sochi could be too warm for winter sports, the cost and possible humiliation will damage Putin more than any boycott ever could. Who would want to boycott such unintentional entertainment? For once I might have to watch the olympics.

European posting on Russian gay laws is hypocrisy since many European countries are happy to sell Putin's weapons and buy his oil. Russia depends on "inflated high oil prices and the possession of vast energy reserves." If Europe really wants to help sexual minorities under the bear's paw they should boycott Russian oil. Putin's economy is already miserable and threatened by the American energy boom and after a 50+ billion dollar olympics an oil boycott stands a chance of success.

Socialist Unity's Hideous Homophobia

Extremist ideologues usually react with intense aversion to LGBT rights. 'Anti-imperialism' is a distinctly hteronormative world view as unnuanced as it is depraved, gay rights can only exist in the open societies that extremists loathe yet live in. They react to talk of gay rights with venom as if they are trying to mimic the violence to which their beloved dictatorships treat sexual minorities. They abandon arguments in favor of shouting invented thought terminating cliches like 'pinkwashing' or even more hilariously 'homoimperialism."

John Wight's attack on Stephen Fry for criticizing Putin is an example of that vile tradition.  According to Wight Russian gay laws are nothing more than "making it illegal to provide information on homosexuality to under-18 years." Which is false as we can see from arrests of foreign homosexual tourists, police collusion in neo-nazi homophobic attacks and other well documented cases. Even critics fail to grasp the horrors of Putin's new laws which exist to exert control over the bodies of adult citizens. Wight downplays Russian institutional homophobia making himself an apologist for Putin.

John thinks that Fry's criticism makes him guilty "hypocrisy" whch is idiotic as the article opened with praise for how Fry criticized Britain over its foreign policy and gay rights. Wight is under the impression that Stephen's comparison "contemporary Russia to Nazi Germany" over the law is "ludicrous." He thinks that "only serves to trivialise fascism and the huge suffering endured by the Russian and Soviet people in the Second World War."

I doubt that socialist unity has never published any hyperbolic nazi comparisons. Fry didn't say that Russia and the third reich are the same he compared how both states have resorted to scape goats. If Stephen's comparison trivialized fascism and WWII deaths then the Russian state is guilty of that on a massive scale as WWII hyperbole is a common in Russian discourse. Neo-nazism is a growing ideology in the Russian federation, they have become significant political force.

John sees fascists under the bed yet seems to think that an authoritarian anti-secular state like the Russian federation is not fascist. He  supports states like Baathist Syria, a classically fascist state that employed Alois Brunner to help them replicate fascism. Wight downplays Putin's homophobia while viciously attacking one of Putin's critics which makes it clear that he fully supports Russia's crackdown on gay teens who want to hold hands in public. The article has no condemnation of Putin's policies, none whatsoever.

Apparently "there are still cultural issues with regard to prejudice against gays in the country, the idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Russian government over the issue is the product of arrogance." Wight confirmed by his status an apologist and supporter of Russian anti-gay measures by arguing that British activists cannot criticize Russia because he says so. He doesn't other any evidence or arguments in support of his quip which boils down to "shut it you f*ggots." The act of a straight man telling LGBT activists to be silent is abominably pompous homophobia much like a man telling women to be silent about FGM which socialist unity defended with similar arguments.

Next John tries to prove his charge of his hypocrisy by asking "where was the call from Stephen Fry for the 2012 London Summer Olympics to be moved in protest at Britain’s participation in illegal wars responsible for so much chaos and carnage in the Middle East, for example?" He only proved his own hypocrisy since he does not call for the Sochi olympics to be boycotted over Russia's ongoing war in the Caucasus. He mentions torture in the second sentence but he omits that Russian have engaged in torture with the state's blessing. Its even more hypocritical since John supports the Syrian dictatorship which makes him a supporter of a war of chaos, carnage and torture. Besides even he mentioned how Fry criticized British foreign policy in the middle east so no he is not a hypocrite unlike Wight.

Next its back to cultural relativism:  "societies remain uncomfortable with homosexuality" that does not in anyway absolve the Russian state. If Britain were to pass similar laws against Muslims or some other worthy minority would John blog about how many countries remain uncomfortable with Muslims? The hypocrisy proves Wight's deep homophobia, sexual minorities are worth less than garbage to him.

Wight tried to save face by writing "there is of course nothing wrong with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice" but only further proves his opposition to gay rights. He expressed support for "freedom to choose any lifestyle a person so wishes" but not for LGBT equality. Like gay cure counselors he sees homosexuals as people who have chosen a 'lifestyle' not as people whose lives and loves are equal to hterosexuals.

Wight justified Kremlin persecution of sexual minorities by arguing that "social attitudes are inevitably buttressed and influenced by cultural traditions." He railed against 'western-centrism' but argued that "Russia’s new law against providing information on homosexuality to minors, while regressive, has to be seen in this context" thus he elevates his own opinion which is mired in bigotry over the voices of Russian gay activists, now thats western-centric!

John writes for a blog which praises peoples like (cli)Che Guevara who had Cuban homosexuals arrested and thrown into concentration camps. He praises Stalin who sent homosexuals to gulags  and seems to think that he can tell them what to do. He also engages in apologia for  the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which gave the third reich a free hand to begin the Shoah.

The article ends with a reminder that "Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and any attempt to conflate him with the fascist dictator responsible for the Holocaust is not just wrong it’s offensive." Fry did not equate the two he compared scapegoating by both states. Perhaps tomorrow he can publish an article that libels George Takei and praises Nasrallah.  Far-left thought is obsolete and has nothing to offer but hate and only attracts people  under the delusion that their darker impulses become noble with the right slogans.

The Guardian Publishes a 911 Troofer

I always run the guardian through pornalize whenever I visit, its the only way to make the content decent. The embassy closures set off a wave of conspiracy theories. If the state had simply raised the terror level, skepticism would be understandable but they have closed over thirty embassies, no state would go to such trouble to win extra approval rating points. I'm sure the guardian's writers would love to imagine that Obama sits around all day throwing darts at their photos but the reality is that the president would not go to such measures just to spite them.

The guardian published an article by one Lance deHaven-Smith the advancing narcissistic fantasy that the president acted solely to spite the guardian. Smith is a Florida 911 conspiracist who said that 911 "was an inside job to advance a war agenda" he thinks that "the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition." The jokes write themselves: Florida man pretending to be patriotic lies about the deaths of nearly 3,000 fellow citizens to promote pathetic career.

Smith also promotes conspiracy theories about JFK and pearl harbor.. He wrote that FDR "maneuvered Japan to attack U.S. forces in the Pacific, and knew when and where Japan was going to strike but intentionally failed to warn U.S. military commanders at Pearl Harbor." Such claims are not only false, they're central in  revisionist attempts to paint the axis powers in a favorable light. Remember when academia had some standards? I do not.

The article does have any evidence at all it boils to Lance arguing that his claim about the embassy closures are correct because the Ameican government has lied in the past. According to Smith the closures are perfect timing because of "opposition to the NSA." Its hard to see anyway that the alert could justify domestic metadata collection, since the intelligence was obtained from purely foreign SIGINT.

According to Smith the "recent travel alert and mission closures warrant suspicion because of the US government's history of using terror alerts to manipulate public opinion." Fumbling for evidence Lance cites how "Bush's popularity spiked upward whenever the terrorist threat level was raised from yellow to orange." He doesn't cite a single example remotely comparable to the closures which as far as I know is an unprecedented action. Real or imagined Bush manipulation of terror alerts do not prove that embassy closures are ploys to raise Obama's popularity, Smith has only proved that he has no grasp of elementary logic.

Lance continues by whining that "these speculations as "conspiracy theories". In the United States, this retort is sufficient to silence stories in the mainstream media unless the accusations are supported by smoking-gun evidence of elite political intrigue." Smith is very hostile to the standard that fantastic claims without evidence must be dismissed. Lance wants things to be fair and that requires suspending evidence based reasoning which is the only way how someone could take his article seriously.

According to Lance "there are examples could be cited" and none of them would prove conspiracy theories about the terror alert and embassy closures. He thinks that "dismissing doubts about possible intrigue on the grounds that they are "conspiracy theories" stymies debate when it is most needed" that which is presented without evidence like Smith's article must be dismissed. Theories without supporting facts and evidence only degrades debate and provides a forum to charlatans like Lance. The guardian continues to publish material in support of depravity and imbecility whether brazen support for dictators or obvious kooks.

The Guardian Publishes Pro-Mugabe Propaganda

The guardian has published material in support of FGM, the Sudanese regime and at least three pro-DRPK articles. Earlier Jonathan Steele wrote an exceptionally moronic article attacking critics of Zimbabwe for "Mugabephobia." Now they have published another pro-Mugabe article, in the general part of the guardian not comment is free. The author is Roy Agyemang "the director/producer of award-winning documentary Mugabe: Villain or Hero." Its easy to imagine a guardian editor thrilled to find such a source that will certainly be objective but then sad because Hugo Chavez hasn't visited him in the form of a bird...yet.

The headline is laughable: "why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe." Roy pretends that the elections are something other than a rigged farce. Under Mugabe Zimbabwe has become the third most poorest country in the Africa, worse than Malawi or Togo, the country has a lower Human Development Index than Sudan, Yemen or Haiti.

Roy argues that the democratic world cannot "comprehend" Mugabe's "character" apparently we're all just jealous. Bobby "is more than just a politician, he leads a cause, or as his militant supporters would say, he has become the cause itself...A few days ago he told his supporters political independence was inadequate if it did not yield economic freedom." The guardian endorses the ravings of Mugabe and his thugs over the testimony of is victims. Roy admits that "it is fashionable to charge Mugabe with destroying Zimbabwe in its prime, little regard is given to the fact that the average African country has been granted nominal political independence amid economic subservience." Under Mugabe poverty increased and talk of independence is code for oppression by native dictators instead of White rulers.

Agyemang fantasizes that Bobby's "brand of post-colonial politics is steeped in the economic self-empowerment of the Zimbabweans." Roy's argument is marrow chillingly false, far from "independence" and "economic self-empowerment" Mugabe has brought slavery to Zimbabwe. The country's diamond industry depends on adult and child slave labor. The Guardian praises a man who has turned a country into "a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and sexual exploitation." According to human rights groups "slavery has been 'legalised'" under Mugabe which has to lead to at least 10,000 deaths, an obvious undercount.

 Roy and other warped characters justify Mugabe's tyranny with talk of 'colonialism' 'imperialism' and so on.  As a state grows more oppressive in the present its defenders will talk more and more about crimes in the past.  African dictators have either replicated conditions of colonial regimes or exceeded empires in cruelty. Mugabe's forced labor mirrors slavery in the French Congo, no one ever experienced horrors comparable to Bobby's regime in British Nigeria or French Tunisia.

Apologists for African dictators use arguments that echo colonial ideology. Like advocates for colonialism Roy depicts Zimbabweans as innocent beings without agency in need a strong guiding hand. Cultural relativist argument amount to the concept that non-westerners do not have the same human rights as westerners, which is nearly identical to the anti-universalism that justified colonial atrocities.

Roy mocks descriptions of Mugabe as "a terrorist, a Marxist ideologue, now a bloodthirsty tyrant" as "stereotypes" and "lore." Next he rambles about Bobby's "seven earned degrees spanning disciplines" he stops just short of staying that Mugabe is a master of art, literation and racquetball.  The guardian would prefer for everyone to think that Mugabe is an erudite while ignoring the genocide that he carried with the help of North Korea.

The word Gukurahundi is a word that means "the early rain which washes away the chaff before the spring rains" and came to describe Mugabe's war of extermination against the Ndebele people. The DPRK trained Fifth Brigade committed "torture, rape and the purging of whole villages. Casualties were estimated in the hundreds of thousands..." Mugabe's victims, like all people, had educational aspirations, I wonder what they would have achieved if they had been allowed to live free lives.

Agyemang glosses over "the consequences (of land reform) have been there for all to see: an economic meltdown; a descent from breadbasket to a basket case; a rollback in civil liberties. The list of charges against him is endless." He complains of "sanctions which the western world had unleashed on Zimbabwe, ostensibly for imperiling human rights, many say as punishment for taking back the land, were biting his people as never before." The tactic of blaming conditions in a dictatorship on sanctions is widespread and false, Roy ignores Mugabe's use of slavery but condemns tepid western responses as pure evil.

 There are no shades of gray when it comes to people like Mugabe you are either with the victimizer or the victims and Agyemang makes it obvious where he stands. He explains why he made "the film Mugabe: Villain or Hero?, where I spent three years in Zimbabwe gaining rare access to the Zimbabwean leader." Roy cannot even acknowledge slavery or extermination campaigns but by gawd he can plug his camcorder project. He deserves credit for not begging for kickstarter dollars; depravity does have its limits.

Ageymang has the self parodying gall to whine that Morgan Tsvangirai was a "flawed candidate" after lauding a man guilty of mass murder and slavery. Roy ends by arguing that Zimbabwean youth "are finding favour with Mugabe's fiery rhetoric, already founded in the land reform programme whose benefits are beginning to show." He does not provide evidence for either claim meaning that the quote should be dismissed.

Post-colonial extremism reminds me of Axis Japanese ideology. Both hold that the west is evil and responsible for all ills while the non-west is a victim that cannot do any wrong. Both define liberation as oppression and enslavement of the native by someone who shares his skin pigment. The extremism of the 60s and 70s have produced nothing but misery which does not stop sheltered enfeebled manchildren trying to keep fantasies of native utopias and masturbatory militarist 'resistance' alive.

Sympathy for the Theocrat

 The Pope's visit to Brazil has enjoyed worshipful media coverage. He has been lauded for 'attacking' "inequality on visit to Brazilian slum" and 'calling' "for social change." Even supposedly progressive papers like the guardian wrote that "Pope Francis' social reform message is exactly what Brazil needs to hear."

Newspapers ignore what the Pope actually represents. Inquisitors operated in Brazil from the early modern period until 1834. At least forty thousand Jews were persecuted, people were still burned alive in the  nineteenth century. The pope's silence speaks loudly about his character, a man of conscience would take the chance to apologize for crimes in Brazil.

For Frank to talk about equality is staggering hypocrisy since he believes god chose him to rule over millions in a ceremonial feudal system. How interesting that holy systems are no different from man-made forms of government, what a coinky dink. Frank's little vacay is going to cost Brazil at least 40 million dollars at a time of financial crisis therefore creating additional poverty. The trip is an attempt to halt secularism, far from a simple tour to greet the faithful.

Frank's stunts receive more attention than the fact that his condom policy contributes directly to AIDS deaths. Papal homophobia could severely impact life for sexual minorities in Brazil who face attempts to make 'gay cures' legal and endemic homophobic violence. The Pope was hailed for saying "who am I" to judge on homosexuals. Time magazine said gays "have most to gain from" Frank's latest comments. Time magazine reduced homosexuals to objects of pity who need  theocrats to state that sexual minorities are kinda sorta human.

The Pope was quoted out of context he actually said "when I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized." Frank's comment are nothing progressive; its the same 'love the sinner hate the sin' routine which inevitably leads to anti-LGBT hatred. Frank's opinion is worse; he promotes the fantasy of a gay conspiracy or "lobby" influenced by anti-Semitism. Francis hails from a country where nearly 90% hate Jews.

Frank's opinions sharply contradict coverage lauding him as a less conservative reformer. He stated that "on the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed." Female clerics exist in many Christian denominations which means that the Vatican's policy is based in misogyny not theology (though the line between the two is usually thin). If the Papal office can come up with something as ridiculous as reduced time purgatory for twitter followers there is no obstacle to female priests save misogyny.

No one should be shocked that Frank is illiberal, once the Vatican is no longer an obstacle to condoms for AIDS the Church will be as irrelevant as scientology. Though it is shocking that people bought into hype and acted as if Jon Stewart became Pope. Unctuous media coverage is the real sin; the relics of the past must be scrutinized, to praise them betrays modern values.

The Cult of Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas is worm food and finally making a contribution (as fertilizer) though her infamous words live on. Recall how she said that "congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.""

Thomas is reviled by decent opinion but she gained a following whose delusions were matched only their fanaticism for Thomas. Anti-Israel bigots insist that "critics of Israel" are 'tarred' or 'smeared' as anti-Semites which amounts to arguing that critics of Israel can never be anti-Semitic. There are few genuine examples of legitimate criticism of Israel being tarred as Jew hated. Desperate regurgitation of the Livingstone formulation is usually a confirmation of anti-Semitism.

She has been hailed as a "pioneer" so much that her hagiography has become its own tall tale.  Apologists for Helen Thomas the stank engine argue that her career renders any criticism of her moot; by that reasoning Thomas Lindbergh is absolved by his impressive aviation career. Others defend her by drawing attention to her criticism of the American government by that reasoning any neo-ratzi would be exonerated since they all loath old glory. Such defenses betray a leftist bias that has caused 'anti-imperialists' to ally with any vile vermin vociferating about the USA and Israel.

The mythologization of Thomas as a heroic trailblazing Joan of Arc burned by false accusations of anti-Semitism reflects extremist hubris. Acolytes of dead fringe causes see themselves as heroes fighting for utopia with every lie drenched article. Hero worship is central in extremism: an ideology is defined by its icons take them away and the followers have nothing. Extremist are deeply narcissistic thus if they view themselves as heroes above criticism the same holds true for people they admire. Helen Thomas veneration is more than a spectacle in honor of a twisted anti-Semite; it is an insight into the extremist mentality.

The hall of shameful tweets:

The Politics Behind Russian Anti-Gay Laws

The democratic world has been stunned at how Putin has all but outlawed homosexuality while Russian intelligence agencies are going back to typewriters: Putin has brought Terry Gilliam's Brazil to life. Very dieselpunk, no? Kremlin apologists are in an uncomfortable position that would make a contortionist wince in sympathy. Many people have voiced obvious ethical objections to Putin's demonstration of what talk of "protecting children" leads to. Few have paid attention to the politics behind Russia's latest slide into backwardness.

 It strengthens Putin's Christian persona and the power of the Orthodoxy, which always been a state tool, in Russian society. The president seems to crave the prestige and power of the USSR while having a system that draws on Tsarism. As Jason Matthews wrote in Red Sparrow, modern Russia "is insecure, wants to be respected, to be feared like the old Soviet Union. They need recognition, and they hate their second-tier status in the superpower stakes. That's why Putin's putting together USSR 2.0, and no one is going to stand in his way.....the second Cold War is all about the resurgent Russian Empire..."

Russian society in any incarnation has usually required a scapegoat. If you're Stalin or the Tsar you cannot run one of the worst states in human history without something to misdirect popular anger away from you. Putin's popularity is decreasing and the economy is so awful that even state media has reported that the RF is set to become the "next Greece." Putin's bond villain stunts (like the world) are not enough he needs a scapegoat.

 Normally that role has fallen to Jews, since few if any remain in Russia that is no longer an option. Anti-Semitism has influenced other Russian bigotries;  the justification that homosexuals are monsters who prey on children resembles the blood libel. Russian lawmaker  Vitaly Milonov said critics of anti-gay laws are "members of the gay lobby" the most fabulous international conspiracy!

Anti-Chechen racism is powerful in most political camps which is deeply influenced by pan-Slavic nationalism, recall Nalavy's call of "Russia for Russians." Its also useless to Putin since it threatens his interests in the Caucasus, anti-Chechen nationalists want completely out of the region hence calls to "stop feeding the Caucasus" which would be disastrous for Putin.

Ethnic nationalism in general is also off limits. He fears stoking separatism and conflict since the two Chechen wars ravaged Russia which is why he promotes phoney prattle about "civic patriotism."  He prefers to promote Eurasianism since it has a place for non-Russians and anti-Western chauvinism; an ideal balance for him. The fact that it helps with foreign policy in central Asia certainly doesn't sting.

Therefore homosexuals are an ideal scapegoat. There is no chance that homophobia can inflame conflict, destabilize the Caucasus or harm his interests. Anti-LGBT prejudice is widespread and festering in Russia, exacerbating and rousing hysteria distracts public opinion away from Putin's regime; there is no downside in it for Putin. Bayard Rustin nailed it when he wrote that "the barometer for judging the character of people in regard to human rights is now those who consider themselves Gay, homosexual, Lesbian."