Monday, November 3, 2014

Reason Magazine Defends Child Pornography

John Grisham's defense of child porn addicts triggered a well deserved scandal that should have been provoked by his execrable books. Grisham's comments are even worse than they seem at a glance since arguing that child porn is harmless is a defense of child porn. Grisham has more sympathy for his pedophile friend and only fiegned compassion of child victims that wouldn't even fool someone dumb enough to enjoy his books. Grisham condemned by all sane people but found defenders among extremists, the Koch funded Reason magazine published a defense of the pedophile sympathizing hack.

Reason writer Liz Brown begins  with a summary of Grisham's career and the scandal over his comments. She complains that a critic of Grisham "makes it a matter of who the "real victims" are, painting herself as the champion of sexually-exploited children and Grisham as singing sympathy for child abusers." She insists that "Grisham said nothing of the sort" in actuality he argued that viewing child pornography doesn't cause harm, an obvious defense of child pornography.

Brown continues by asking " it possible to advocate—as Grisham does—for rolling back mandatory minimums for both aging white dudes who look at teen porn and black teens who get caught with pot?" Its possible but insanely immoral; pot should be legal because smoking it doesn't harm while viewing child porn is one of the worst crimes possible against children. Anyone who support more lenient sentences for viewing child porn Elizabeth Brown - oh wait Elizabeth Noland Brown - supports pedophilia. Lessening sentences for viewing child porn would inflame production; a crime hindered by consequences for viewing child pornography. Liz acknowledges that Grisham "apologized for his comments" but she thinks "his original sentiments shouldn't require an apology" meaning that she agrees with a defense of child porn and believes its harmless.

Brown objects to the notion that "if you engage in pedophilia on the internet, you are a real pedophile" and argues that there's no way to engage in pedophilia because its a mental disorder; a very weak argument. Clearly Grisham's critic meant that if you look at a child pornography you are a pedophile and sexual predator. Any sane person would agree with that, Brown's attempt to weasel out of that with technicalities doesn't look good.

Liz believes that " that viewing child porn online is" not necessarily wrong. She mocks the concept of survivors of child porn "knowing that "images of you, of underage, naked you, are circulating the internet as you try to go about your life and there is nothing you can do." People who look at these images are contributing to the victim's pain, she admonishes." Anyone who denies (as Brown does) that child porn causes harm is defending child porn and dismissing the pain of child victims of rape.

Brown questions the idea that "the solution possibly to get tougher on people who had no contact with these children and nothing to do with producing these images? In what way does that make anyone safer?" Credible deterrents for viewing child pornography deters production of child pornography; a lack of credible deterrents means a broader market for child pornography and thus more production. She insists that the "solution to all of our social ills can't simply be to keep casting wider and deeper prison nets" to believe that people guilty of crimes against deserve prison is not the same as belief that prison is the solution to problems.

She spends a few paragraphs whining about alleged differences fo images of sixteen year olds and six year olds. All entirely irrelevant since Grisham's chum was arrested for images that included pictures of children under 12; Brown thinks someone like that shouldn't be in prison. Besides an image of a sixteen year old child porn victim is still likely an image of rape taken against a victim's will; which should be punishable by prison.

Brown rambles apocalyptically about the "carceral left" or "illiberal left." Her evidence? A bunch of whining about affirmative consent laws on campus,  much like the fashion police campus consent laws cannot be used to send anyone to prison. The entire concept of a "carceral left" lacks evidence entirely.

She bemoans " things like due process" yet her article does not cite a single example of an actual violation of due process, so that must be dismissed due to lack of evidence. Brown rails against "America's monstrous prison industrial complex" which doesn't exist at all. At "peak use" of "prison labor" in  "2002, fewer than 5,000 inmates were employed by private firms, amounting to one-quarter of one per cent of the carceral population." The reality is that prisons cost the economy money and are only profitable for companies who sell things prisoners need to prisons.

Brown describes the non-existent 'carceral left' as " making things worse for the very groups of people progressives claim to to be helping (in addition to, you know, everyone). As Freddie de Boer wrote recently, the burden of increased state power "will inevitably fall on the poor and the black, because that is who the white police state prosecutes with greater zeal than any other."  There is no evidence whatsoever that laws against people guilty of crimes against children produces racial disparity and she fails to cite any only an attempt at prophecy from an article that has nothing with child pornography. She endorses de Boer's description of the US as a 'prison state' a term refering to  dictatorships with a entire populations treated like prisoners; the PRC for example. To describe a democratic republic as a prison state for having prisons is maniacally imbecilic as watching a Mayberry rerun and concluding that the deputies prove the US is a 'police state.'

Liz doesn't understand how liberals can see the "drug war" as "intolerant, corrupt, and overreaching" and believe the justice system can be "totally capable of handling other issues fairly."
Is it really so hard to grasp the difference between victimless like drug use and crimes that cause harm like child pornography? People who contribute to harming children like child porn users belong in prison people guilty of nothing but ingesting substances do not belong in prison. To conflate the two is to argue that child porn users do not belong in prison; direct support for child pornography and people who view it.

Brown hasn't proven anything but support for child porn addicts and the child porn industry. She deliberately tried to downplay the harm caused by child pornography and expressed opposition to any legal consequences for taking pleasure from the pain of child rape victims. Reason magazine has published content little different in essence from NAMBLA newsletters. Progressivism is being menaced by an anti-carceral left; people who made the leap from supporting prison reform and opposing prison for non-violent drug users to opposing incarcerating people who belong in prison; under that line of thought the early release of the Steubenville rapist was gloriously progressive.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

The Intercept Shills for a Taliban Thug

First Look media purports to be an titan of "original, independent journalism" when its really just a new tree house for Greenwald, Scahill and others in their little club. An article by Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain in defense of Moazzam Begg a pro-taliban hate monger suggests Pierre Omidyare's honeycomb hideout for the professionally enraged is off to a bad start. Almost any outlet proclaiming to be 'alternative media' will inevitably become a forum for fringe lunacy; that is what happens when defying the status quo is more important than reporting facts. To be fair first look could be worse at least there isn't an action news intro of Greenwald, Scahill and Hussain (yet).

Greenwald's idea of good journalism is a poisonous influence on the intercept; he approaches journalism as a lawyer; in other words to win an argument not report the facts. On twitter Greenwald defended Begg by linking to 'islam21c' a hate site which features praise for neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon and lauds people who committed genocide against Bangladeshis. Hussain is anti-Semite whose idea of good Jews are Neturei Karta who believe that Jews brought the Shoah upon themselves and recently ralled in support of the Jobbik neo-nazis. Hussain's idea of a good American is white supremacist Ron Paul, Murtaza denied Paul's racism and generally endorsed him. The intercept poses as progressive yet it defends a taliban thug with men like a Jew hater who supports a White supremacist.

The article on Begg resembles a defense attorney's statement more than journalism; the effort to prettify Begg is so delusionally contrary to reality and basic honesty that it could qualify as magical realism. Greenwald and Hussain described Begg as a wrongfully imprisoned victim who later became a 'human rights activist.' Moazzam has boasted about traveling to Afghanistan out of sympathy for the taliban and his support for them has grown; hence his call for the taliban to storm gitmo. They argue that Begg suffered torture, when he only claims to have been tortured; claims that lack evidence entirely. The article mentions Begg's writings, in his book he admitted to training at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan run by Jamaat - e - Islam, which was involved in genocide against Bangladesh. After that he journeyed to other conflict zones and confessed to his meeting with "members of a European al Qaeda cell in 2000." Moazzam's pet cause has been campaigning for the release of Shaker Aamer wikileaks revealed that Begg outed Aamer as an al-qaeda recruiter.

The reader is treated to the pornogaphic spectacle of describing cageprisoners as an incomparably noble human rights organization on the basis of no evidence other than cage prisoners' site which blames 911 on Jews. By that standard of evidence NAMBLA is a premier human rights organization, parapsychologists have proven that ESP exists etc. Cage prisoners exists to serve imprisoned members of the taliban and al-qaeda; the group's prisoners of conscience is one long list of terrorists like Sajid Badat, Abu Qatada. age prisoners' most prominent clients included Mahmoud Abu Rideh an Al-Qaeda killed in Afghan and Abu Qatada who attempted to incite murder of Jewish children. To paint cage prisoners as a human rights organization is an as obscene as describing Gudrun Burwitz's Silent Support outfit as a civil liberties organization and elderly care center.

Evidence for claims made by Greenwald and Hussain is either distorted or nonexistent not unlike proof for a focus on the family broadcast concerning human origins. Begg's claims of harassment by the UK state lack evidence entirely but are presented as fact in an entire paragraph. Moazzam's defenses about his Syria travels are conflated with truth; perish the thought that a man who visited multiple terror training camps would visit one in the Levant! The claim of MI5 involvement in his trip are trumpeted without proof; an allegation that should be received with skepticism since MI6 not MI5 would handle a matter overseas.

After treating the word of someone who sees nobility in taliban slavers as fact the authors try to prove hypocrisy by complaining "charging someone with "terrorism" offenses for allegedly helping rebels which the U.S. government itself is aiding and for whom intervention was advocated by the U.S. president." Rebels have not received any lethal aid from the US which was quick to black list Islamist groups in Syria as terrorists; so charges of hypocrisy fall flat. To conflate the entire Syrian opposition with hardline Islamists who target Syrians for torture and terrorist attacks is a classic pro-Assad apologist trope. Glenn believes that mass murder of Syrian Muslims can be dismissed by pointing to Al-Qaeda yet condemns US actions that actually target AQ as evil.

Syria does prove Greenwald's hypocrisy; he has been keen to justify any Islamist terrorist attack against the west and presents himself as a champion of Muslims. When the Oslo attacks were believed to have been Al-Qaeda's work Greenwald justified slaughter by writing that Norwegians "prompted" the attacks and brought it upon on themselves. By contrast Greenwald sees the death of a single man as uniquely tragic and unjustifiable; that man was Anwar Alwaki a possible successor for Bin Laden. Yet he remains silent about a dictatorship trying to kill as many Sunnis as possible; he refused to condemn Assad and endorsed apologia for the regime. The appeal of Muslims and any real or imagined Islamic extremism to Greenwald depends entirely on violence directed against the US and its allies.

The intercept goes beyond innocent until proven guilty; they believe that the UK government is guilty of conspiring against Begg until proven innocent. Without any proof the arrest is presented has vast state plot to sabotage Begg's 'activism' which has gone on for years. Either the people MI5-MI6-reptilian plot to destroy a taliban supporter's fraudulent preening 'activism' are lazy or Begg's supporters are desperately clutching at straws. After defining persecution complex fantasies as truth the article moved on to alleging that the arrest of a man for criminal activity is a blow against dissent, hysteria without evidence only the word of Nawaz Hanif; a cageprisoners supporter. Hanif argued that the entire thing was orchestrated to suppress a report; a nonsensical concept since cage prisoners' ability to release reports is unimpaired.

Next the reader is treating to frothing hysteria about governments plots to "to stifle political activism among those criticizing civil rights abuses as well as foreign military expansionism." As evidence they cite people like Tarek Mahenna who was convicted on terrorist conspiracy charges involving al-qaeda. The next 'victim' is Emerson Winfield Begolly who plead guilty to soliciting terror attacks against Jewish children and assaulting FBI agents. Readers are expected to seriously believe that heinous criminals were guilty only of "highly public expressions of dissent" which is a blatant lie; criminals acts do not become noble dissent when they are motivated by clero-fascism. The dishonesty suggests sympathy for their views there is no other reason to pretend that joining al-qaeda and trying to arrange daycare bombings online is free speech and an alternative to a drum circle.

The trend of conflating crime with free speech continues by citing imprisoning for sending money to Hamas as "dissent" and Hamas is described as "Palestinians deemed terrorists by the U.S. Government." To argue that Hamas are not terrorists and that people should be free to fund them proves sympathy for Hamas; especially since Greenwald condemned Peter King for similar support for the IRA. The fact that crimes are illegal is expected to accepted for the article's hyperbolic outburst that "aggressive political dissent among Muslims will not be tolerated and can easily be criminalized as "terrorism."" In other words "we're not free to join Al-Qaeda, solicit murder, assault FBI agents or fund anti-Semitic death squads, tyranny!"

Apparently "whatever animosity he (Begg) has felt has not been towards America but to the government which abused him." Begg's support for the taliban and al-qaeda is a matter of public record, he runs an organization that exists to serve al-qaeda and the taliban and celebrates American deaths in hurricanes and condemns American Muslims for foiling terrorism. Begg's website includes images of the president being lynched: the intercept has hailed a group with content identical to KKK sites as a human rights organization! Greenwald and Hussain have micturated down their readers' backs and told them its raining.

Even if it was true, what of it? To argue that Begg's lie of having no enmity towards Americans somehow legitimizes him treats the Afghan victims of the taliban as if they don't exist. The argument creates a hierarchy of life in which victims of taliban slavery and genocide (violence that Begg is complicit in) simply don't exist. That hierarchy is why First Look can pretend a pro-taliban attention hound is a victim for circumstances created by his choices while ignoring those who suffered solely because of choices made by men like Begg. That hierarchy is not limited to Greenwald and Hussain; its central to opposition to the Afghan war thats why GIs relieving themselves on dead bodies will be condemned but massacres committed by the taliban will be ignored by 'anti-war' activists.

Supposedly "government suppression of activists" and "dissent" is "expanding", their evidence? Victims of this the arrest of three people who conspired to attack politicians with molotov cocktails. They cite the detention Greenwald's own partner; a self serving contrivance since the UK rejected their legal action against the detention. Its also irrelevant since Miranda is not a UK citizen. Greenwald and Murtaza praise Begg and insisting that his arrest is "almost certain to further stifle political activism within the Muslim community and more broadly as well" yet their own article shows that isn't the case by displaying the shrill pro-Begg campaign.

Hyperbole is followed by dishonesty that the west uses " tactics are commonly condemned when implemented by authoritarian governments such as China, Egypt and Russia." If that was true the entire First Look staff would have been in prison a long time ago for criticizing Obama. Their nonsense also equates Begg to dissident in dictatorships, an insult to democrats in regimes since Begg is only comparable to torturers and thugs employed by China, Egypt and Russia. The man's entire identity revolves around his support for taliban slavers and mass murderers. An article filled with lies on behalf of a terrorist support network is not journalism it is mealy mouthed extremist propaganda produced by and for people who want to believe it. It proves little but sympathy for men like Begg who find utopia by turning entire countries into graveyards.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Counterpunch Defends Neo-Nazism

Counterpunch serves as a wax museum that displays 20th century totalitarianisms and the type of people attracted to it. For no entry fee at all an individual can recoil at a neo-nazi's praise for Pol Pot and denial of the Cambodian genocide. Tourists can also take in exhibits like Allison Weir's belief that the blood libel is historic fact to defend her claims of a non-existent Israeli organ smuggling ring. So many examples of human depravity and imbecility frozen in time to observe like any good freak show or horror museum.

The lunatic fringe are pathetically predictable; few people capable of creative thought join the far-left or far-right. Such ideologies attract mentally stunted people who seek meaning and find it in rejection of reason and morality. Any prominent action against logic and elementary ethics will inevitably receive vocal support from assorted degenerate ideological circles like counterpunch. Defenses of depravity are motivated by more than sympathy for savagery; exteremists are aware that they are a minority up against reality thus their clannish tendency to defend each other with ferocity rivaling outlaw motorcyle gangs. The average far-left or far-right ideologue will dismiss mass murder as a trivial issue that can be exonerated by pointing to something else but react with righteous fury against what he or she sees as a real inexcusable evil; a friend being criticized.

Hack comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala became the subject of controversy for inventing a covert third reich salute. Dieudonne's track record includes wishing that concentration camp gas chambers were still in operation and mocking the Holocaust with Robert Faurisson while wearing an SS officer's uniform. All of which makes Dianna Johnstone an ideal candidate to defend him. Johnstone's subcultural fame rests on her praise for Serbian fascism which includes denial of war rape. Her fame grew from a ridiculous campaign claiming that a rejection from a publisher violated her freedom of speech, it would be no exaggeration to say that she is the duck dynasty of the far-left.

Johnstone opened by denying the obvious about the quenelle and ridiculing the idea that a man who expressed desire for the Holocaust to be currently ongoing could be a nazi. She insisted that the gesture is simply an anti-establishment action that only means "F— the system." Except that Dieudonne defines the 'establishment' as a Jewish conspiracy to control France; by his own words it is an anti-Semitic symbol. (The notion of revolting against imaginary Jewish rules was central in NSDAP ideology.) Her denial prove nothing apart from her own racism she can be easily proven false by photos of people performing Dieudonne's gesture at Auschwitz. She concluded her denial by arguing that Jewish organization are part of the "system"; she defended an obvious anti-Semite by resorting to anti-Semitic Jewish control tropes.

Johnstone engaged in partial Holocaust denial of the Petain regime's role in the Shoah. She argued that French Jews "actually largely escaped the deportation during German occupation that expelled Jewish immigrants to concentration camps." Which is a boldfaced lie; the Petain regime actively sent native or immigrant Jews to their deaths without any pressure from the third reich. Johnstone only proved her anti-Semitism and nostalgia for French fascism.

Dianna described the Holocaust as a "state religion" calling the Shoah a religion is a classic neo-nazi trope, further affirming her Judenhaus. She bemoaned the "Gayssot Law" which "bans any questioning of the history of the Shoah, an altogether unprecedented interference with freedom of speech." There is a legitimate freedom of speech case to be made against laws criminalizing Shoah denial which is exploited by the far-right. Dianna has a long record of apologetics for dictatorships which crushed free speech; clearly her opposition to laws against Holocaust denial is rooted in sympathy for neo-nazism not free speech purism.

She whined that "France is the rare country where the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement against Israeli settlement practices can also be attacked as “incitement to racial hatred."" Vive le France! Thats one thing they got right! Johnstone attempted to legitimize anti-Semitism by arguing that " it is not hard for French people of Arab or African background to feel that the “communitarianism” that really has clout is the Jewish community." An example of the apologist tactic of painting Jew hatred as a legit expression of frustration against imagined Jewish prosperity or power.

After citing Norman Finkelstein who compared Hezbollah to anti-nazi resistance fighters she set the stage for further apologetics for Jew hatred. According to DJ the memory of the Holocaust has created a culture of self hating guilt which summarizes as "do you feel French?  Or German? You should feel guilty about it – because of Auschwitz." Utter nonsense: patriotic displays in Germany and France are common, its hard to avoid the impression that she conflated German and French fascism with German and French national identities.

Johnstone detailed how "Dieudonn√© transformed an old semi-racist “tropical” song, Chaud Cacao, into Shoah Ananas" which mocks and celebrats the Holocaust and "taken up en masse by Dieudonn√© fans." After having provided evidence that shreds her define of Dieudone she provided another example of her Jew hatred: she believes "that they are not making fun of the real Shoah, but rather of the constant reminders of events that are supposed to make them feel guilty, insignificant and powerless." Johnstone has only proved that she supports mocking and celebrating the Holocaust.

She concluded her wretched exercise in depravity with further justification for anti-Semitism by ranting that: "France has adopted laws to “punish anti-Semitism”.  The result is the opposite.  Such measures simply tend to confirm the old notion that “the Jews run the country” and contribute to growing anti-Semitism.  When French youth see a Franco-Israeli attempt to outlaw a simple gesture, when the Jewish community moves to ban their favorite humorist, anti-Semitism can only grow even more rapidly." Johnstone follows an anti-Semitic tradition by blaming Jew hatred on everyone but anti-Semites themselves and arguing that Jews bring anti-Semitism upon themselves. The true cause is human irrationality, bestial hatred and its proponents like Johnstone.