Taboos around oral sex exist across primitive cultures and there are obvious health and social reasons why. We’re able to mitigate or delay many of the downside risk factors with technology but that doesn't mean they no longer exist.
One of the biggest issues I have with conservatism is how it has defined the poor with laziness and wealth with self made. This is a lie. People who work 2-3 jobs are certainly not lazy, and financial success has more to do with circumstances and access. We uphold the very wealthy as pinnacles if society, when so often they are addicted to wealth in many unhealthy and damaging ways for themselves and everyone else. Also, conservatives value extreme individualism, fighting against what makes us human, our need to belong - socialism in a word. Gabor Mate nailed it in his book The Myth of Normal, when he says our society pits our need to belong against our need for authenticity. We need both belonging and individuality. Humans are better when we can be responsible and in need of support.
Men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide, because of the shame wrapped around being vulnerable. In my view, conservatives hold up patriarchy as the best form of society, when in fact it has deeply failed our humanity because it is propped up on myths about what it means to be human, upholding one half and eliminating the other. It creates and recycles trauma. I am not saying that some of the values are wrong. Being accountable and self- responsible are important, but it doesn’t work if you pretend that everyone is always capable of that at all times and that circumstances and access to resources, luck, don’t play a huge role in success, as much as hard work and sound decision making.
The word “lazy” is itself lazy, because it masks over all the trauma that leads to a lack of motivation. It shows no curiosity, only judgment. Furthermore, now, as we see, wealth and power are wielded by men who are truly incredibly insecure and in need of constant praise for their “hard work.”
Yes. There were many. Personally I think patriarchy does great harm to men. I work with the formerly incarcerated and see the impact of the emotional stunting of needing to be “a man.” Society demands that boys cut off their tender emotions starting around 3-7 years. “Toughing up” boys is trauma. Healing becomes nearly impossible, because any “feminine” traits threaten the hierarchy and can lead to the loss of privileges of being male, belonging is threatened. Yesterday I was having a conversation with a man who clearly has a lot of trauma and is carrying around a lot of grief and pain, which is preventing him form making progress in his attempts to find work. I suggested therapy. He said I am a man, I am not supposed to need help. 😢
Modern paganism, also known as contemporary paganism[1] and neopaganism,[2] spans a range of new religious movements variously influenced by the beliefs of pre-modern peoples across Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. Despite some common similarities, contemporary pagan movements are diverse, sharing no single set of beliefs, practices, or religious texts.[3] Scholars of religion may study the phenomenon as a movement divided into different religions, while others study neopaganism as a decentralized religion with an array of denominations.
I guess if I wasn't an atheist I'd consider some shade of paganism.
Patriarchy corrupted sex, on purpose, making control easier.
Imagine a world where sex isn’t sin. Just a natural part if the joy of living. Bonobos do it. No reason we can’t, except for the power hungry addicts trying to control everyone
Mentioning patriarchy you have set me off. I just remembered reading that ancient Welsh society was matriarchic. As a Welshman myself: perhaps there's an article in it....
Curious that Malaysia punishes the recipient of oral sex. In classical Greece and Rome it was the opposite, with high status males only supposed to be in the dominant position, and with the greatest scorn reserved for high status males who willingly allowed themselves to be penetrated.
I don't know what's happening here and how, but views are simply flying like never before. I thought this was just a filler item while I got the Gaza material together (which is coming across well, by the way) but it has suddenly doubled overnight to 1,369.
«I guess it’s an oxymoron but: thank God for atheism.»
I have written in another comment that I think that you regard sex as “a private matter subject to "freedom of contract"” and you seem to me to be arguing as many “Liberals/Libertarian” do. So you should thank "Ayn Rand" for objectivism instead :-).
My argument to help you understand why there are people who want to “interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together” whether the “what” is not sexual or sexual instead have a different view that many interactions between two people are not private transactions in unregulated markets but have side effects and potentially huge ones on others; even from a secular point of view, not just from a "I am my brother's keeper" religious point of view where tolerating someone else's sin is a sin itself.
Also I have now got the impression that you assume that sex and reproduction are somewhat or unrelated matters and *both* are purely private matters as every person is an island.
But there have been many serious arguments that both sex and reproduction have consequences on other people and they are not merely "freedom of contract" transactions between parties in unregulated markets.
Then you approach the "oral sex" (or even "solitary masturbation" or "suicide") topic having already assumed as a postulate that "society" and "institutions" are redundant and there should be just a collection of independent "freedom of contract" transactions between parties in unregulated markets then I am not surprised that you “cannot understand the thinking of people who find it necessary to interfere” with the "freedom of contract" postulate.
I want to add an off topic note here because if I put it where it belongs, on a past post about the Philippines, nobody will see it.
I have mentioned before how the Philippines is a corrupt, failed state. There are elections here this morning. One of my staff just mentioned in passing (like it’s something quite normal - well it is here) that she had received 2,000 pesos from two candidates and another had received 3,000. That’s 36 and 54 dollars. Consider that multiplied up for the electorate. Where do they get the money? From bribes accumulated since they were last elected. What a country.
This is, on both counts - oral sex and the plight of Gaza - another example of your efforts to expand the boundaries of what people are "allowed" to think about, to believe.
Sexual mores - and many other aspects of cultural dictates about what one is allowed to be and do in "polite society" are spun out of whole cloth, by people whose motivations, knowledge and general competency to make such judgements is very questionable.
Consider all the modifications to "polite company conduct" that have happened here in the U.S. over the past century:
a. Black people are now regarded as "real people" that have earned and deserve to be treated with the respect and dignity that white people occasionally exhibit toward one another
b. Women are legitimate, full-status members of society. They've escaped the confines of the household and child-bearing and subservience to men (mostly, and if indeed they prefer to; they do have a choice now)
c. We aren't nearly as compelled to stay within the religious and cultural bounds set by our ancestors and family. We often leave our families to venture to different parts of the country, and seek out, and embrace, and find a home in a culture different from our upbringing.
These are fairly momentous social changes; they've all have major impacts on what we are as a people, and the full effects - good and not so good - will be felt for a few more generations.
We used to be prevented from doing these things, and now we're not. We evolved, in spite of immense repression. We did it anyway.
And on to Gaza.
The cultural psychosis of Zionism is now clear for all to see; it's been veiled and hidden before, but the murder - the slow asphyxiation of the Palestinians, and now the quickening slaughter by starvation - is clear everywhere except those few places where Zionists and the fellow-traveling opportunists can control the information flow.
Here in the U.S., a bill was recently introduced that criminalized the criticism of Zionism, with heavy livelihood-ending penalties. This is how far the desperation to control information flow has proceeded, and again, it puts the cultural psychosis of many Jews and nearly all Zionists of all stripes on clear display.
Interestingly ... a) the bill was actually introduced, which is both shocking and horrifying, and b) the bill was promptly withdrawn, because even in the Zionist-controlled charade that we call our Congress - even there, with every conceivable coercive tool at their disposal, the Congress knew it was a bridge too far, and that the very act of introducing the bill and voting on it would serve to break loose the few remaining bulwarks that impede the incipient fit of revulsion toward Zionism and the Jews that fund and perpetuate it.
It's probably too late to prevent that tide of revulsion from breaking loose; the bill was an act of desperation, and it's well-known across the country to be desperation. As the consequences of our country's naivety in the face of a long, well-orchestrated and highly predatory corruption of the body politic becomes better-known - and it's becoming better-known rapidly - the other story - not just the exhaustion of the U.S. empire, but also the end of mind-control by the globalist-Zionists is now in sight. The two are linked; the philosophy of the predator is strong in both camps, and that's what binds them together.
Keep up the good works, Walt. While some won't initially see the connection between sexual mores and the genocidal predation of the Zionists. There's a link, and here it is:
Other people control your mind; they do it by controlling what you talk about, by criminalizing those of your actions that operate against their interests.
And "these people" ... just happen to have one form or another of cultural psychosis. It's _why_ they're in power, and it's _why_ they do the perfectly awful things they do. They're psychologically sick.
Free yourself from the clutches of these horrible, twisted people: authorize your own volition - the power to pick out what you think is right, what is best, and act upon it.
Thanks Tom, good to hear from you again and I agree all down the line. I hadn’t actually seen the connection between the two apparently unconnected items but now I do. It was intended to be a humorous piece but of course the underlying message is sinister, that people in control tell other people how to be behave, the orders are often plainly ludicrous and laughing at them is one way to expose them as such. So really it is an intensely serious piece asking people to truly examine what they are told to do and think. And respond accordingly. I have lost a few followers with it, probably Catholics, well win some, lose some. Anyway, as you point out, the truth is breaking out and the enemy can’t stop it now.
I have great hopes for the next one, Diana is pushing for more videos of the situation. And the second tranche of money has got through, but I don’t know how much there is to spend it on there. When is the world going to react? There was an interesting piece on RT yesterday saying that Trump has turned against Netanyahoo, what do you think? Is it blocked with you?
Walt- yes, I did see this rumor that Trump might recognize a Palestinian state. I interpret this as another Trump bombast-hit, intended to budge the ice-bound sled of well-entrenched positions into motion. It's that first bit of motion that's the hardest.
I expect that Trump will face a firestorm of opposition just for letting the rumor exist ... but the fact that the rumor's "out there" ... if it stays out there a few days, that's another major dent in the Zionist's hold on the U.S. polity's imagination ... the Overton Window moves a little.
I note also that there's some coverage in NY Times re: "Netanyahu isn't our ally" coming from none other than Thomas Friedman, who did more to cover for Israel than anyone I can think of in public life.
What you're seeing now is some major repositioning and blame-shifting to get out of the way of, to blunt, to diffuse, and to prevent the rapidly-moving realization that we're (the U.S.) in the clutches of some real monsters.
That raises the question of whether or not the oligarchs and immensely well-off families of the U.S. that aren't Zionists, that aren't Jewish ... have they finally realized just how costly this is, how long it's going to take to get the U.S. on solid economic, cultural and world-level political footing?
I don't believe that President Trump actually has the nerve or the power to truly take on the Zionists by himself, but I do believe he's aware of the costs, and he is regularly testing the boundaries of control (what's allowed to be talked about).
We'll see. He can't get too far ahead of his "base" - the conservatives, the red-state economically-depressed people, who are quite often religious fundamentalists, and constitute the non-Jewish major supporters of Israel.
But that "base" is indeed in-motion. They're cranky, they vote, and they talk to each other a lot. They're not isolated. And they're not nearly so likely to use the Main Stream Media to get their world-view as they once (very recently) were, and by golly, the MSM is losing control pretty rapidly.
And just as rapidly is the Alt Media stepping in. I'll take this moment to again thank you for being such a good alt-media, Walt. It's time well-invested.
"the second tranche of money has got through, but I don’t know how much there is to spend it on there. When is the world going to react?"
As your Palestinian correspondent/recipient noted, just the fact that you acted, that you cared, you noticed ... was almost as good as the food and clothing you provided. The food for the soul matters!
I'll find a way to make a contribution as well.
Lastly ... the "world will react" as and when the courageous few react. Starts small, grows big.
That's why it's been so important for the Monsters to appear to be invincible, to use the Disproportionate Murder method to quell the uprising. They know they're vulnerable.
Yes, that’s right. But I am hopeful because the change in attitude has to start in the USA. The UK and EU have suddenly found in other matters that the ground is shifting under their feet and they are having to adjust, and if the US attitude changes with this, the other sheep will follow as night follows day.
What you say about MSM is interesting too. I was looking yesterday at a draft I wrote months ago and lost interest in, for the record it was about Welsh independence, and I was quoting figures showing the collapse of newspaper circulation in the UK 2000 to 2020, I can’t post it here, I will email it to you. The Philippines is similar, I was checking on whether to bother with them, it works out that the self-important “Paper of Record” is bought by one person in a thousand. You might be interested to check out circulation trends in the US. So it’s Alt that’s the way. For me it’s Substack and MoA, also Unz has reproduced a few things, Living in China went up there and got over 600 comments. Some of my Substacks are into the thousands of views, and Auschwitz is the grand-daddy now with 12,489, almost zero against the argument. If I put a Substack link up on MoA nobody comments but the viewing figures will jump a few hundred. It’s the silent majority out there building in strength.
«I cannot understand the thinking of people who find it necessary to interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together»
That is astoundingly simplistic to me as this point has been debated for thousand of years by philosophers, theologians, legislators and the arguments for and against are also very strong.
In my opinions the questions on which the issue rests are two:
#1 Is there a deity to whom that activity is an offense against their will and punishes communities that allow such sins to happen (basically is permitting sin a sin itself)?
#2 Is every person an island? Is every person just an agent in unregulated markets so that they have absolute "freedom of contract"?
Even in a secular culture point #2 is quite important, better illustrated by switching from oral sex to suicide: in many secular cultures it is a crime to attempt suicide, as suicide is not regarded as a private matter subject to "freedom of contract". Some ancient person wrote and Liberals/Libertarians ("I am not my brother's keeper") would strongly disagree:
“No man is an island, / Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent, / A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, / Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own / Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me, / For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know / For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.”
«in private.»
If it comes to court it is no longer private. Also for example pr0n products might be considered legal for sale to the public under some conditions unless they include some specific illegal acts, and then the question is which acts are to be considered illegal.
Thanks for your comment, all I can say to your opening statement is that it is is quite plain to me, perhaps because my view on your point one is what is laid out clearly in the article. You didn’t answer that one yourself, what’s your take?
And as for your second point, I’d say that suicide is a entirely a personal decision too. But these are both matters of opinion.
«my view on your point one is what is laid out clearly in the article.»
I think there is a misunderstanding here from either of us: you document that some deists consider some sexual acts a sin, but you started by saying that “cannot understand the thinking [...] to interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together” and that to me is quite different from "cannot understand the thinking [to regard as a sin] what two sane adults consentingly do together”.
My understanding of your article is that you understand very well that some people regards some sexual acts as sins but you cannot understand why they want “to interfere” with what they view as someone else's sins.
My answer to that is that those people think that "permitting sin a sin itself" and nothing more (the topic being “The criminality” rather than the sinfulness of oral sex).
To add to my point that there are strong arguments on both sides consider this:
«prohibits sex between men, solitary masturbation (!), oral or anal intercourse. On the other hand, it does not prohibit sex between women»
That was the standard position in "The West" until recently (also theologically: solitary masturbation is a sin for christians and is called "self-abuse" [the actual meaning is "self-misuse"]). I think that there are two main points there that overlap:
* All those restrictions are about denying sperm to women while female homosexuality does not do that. Sexual morality (and much else) is always defined by older women and older women have a strong inherent interest in having many grandchildren, especially from attractive men who can give them attractive sons and many women really get disappointed when attractive men are attracted to each other.
* In older times *fertility* was difficult to achieve yet desperately desirted: a village depended totally on the fertility of its environment and of its women (given very high pregnancy mortality and infant mortality rates). Anything that might reduce that fertility might eventually cause the extinction of the village. So the tendency has been that villages that continued to exist were those that focused on heterosexual reproduction, and those that got extinct those that did not.
I think, simply put, that people who think "permitting sin a sin itself" should simply mind their own business and get on with their own lives. Wonderfully illustrated by Somerset Maugham in his famous short story "Rain".
> I cannot understand the thinking of people who find it necessary to interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together in private.
So the trick is to consider them insane, and then you can interfere to your heart’s content.
Taboos around oral sex exist across primitive cultures and there are obvious health and social reasons why. We’re able to mitigate or delay many of the downside risk factors with technology but that doesn't mean they no longer exist.
I noticed you didn’t bring in pagans. Why not? They are not atheist nor are they sexually repressed.
One of the biggest issues I have with conservatism is how it has defined the poor with laziness and wealth with self made. This is a lie. People who work 2-3 jobs are certainly not lazy, and financial success has more to do with circumstances and access. We uphold the very wealthy as pinnacles if society, when so often they are addicted to wealth in many unhealthy and damaging ways for themselves and everyone else. Also, conservatives value extreme individualism, fighting against what makes us human, our need to belong - socialism in a word. Gabor Mate nailed it in his book The Myth of Normal, when he says our society pits our need to belong against our need for authenticity. We need both belonging and individuality. Humans are better when we can be responsible and in need of support.
Men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide, because of the shame wrapped around being vulnerable. In my view, conservatives hold up patriarchy as the best form of society, when in fact it has deeply failed our humanity because it is propped up on myths about what it means to be human, upholding one half and eliminating the other. It creates and recycles trauma. I am not saying that some of the values are wrong. Being accountable and self- responsible are important, but it doesn’t work if you pretend that everyone is always capable of that at all times and that circumstances and access to resources, luck, don’t play a huge role in success, as much as hard work and sound decision making.
The word “lazy” is itself lazy, because it masks over all the trauma that leads to a lack of motivation. It shows no curiosity, only judgment. Furthermore, now, as we see, wealth and power are wielded by men who are truly incredibly insecure and in need of constant praise for their “hard work.”
Ok, enough rambling. Thanks for engaging!
Yes. There were many. Personally I think patriarchy does great harm to men. I work with the formerly incarcerated and see the impact of the emotional stunting of needing to be “a man.” Society demands that boys cut off their tender emotions starting around 3-7 years. “Toughing up” boys is trauma. Healing becomes nearly impossible, because any “feminine” traits threaten the hierarchy and can lead to the loss of privileges of being male, belonging is threatened. Yesterday I was having a conversation with a man who clearly has a lot of trauma and is carrying around a lot of grief and pain, which is preventing him form making progress in his attempts to find work. I suggested therapy. He said I am a man, I am not supposed to need help. 😢
I have to agree.
I can’t believe the response this piece has received. Over 3,000 views now.
Ron Unz of Unz Review has agreed to put it up on Sunday.
But look out for my Gaza article Sunday. Thanks for your feedback!
True. Criticism accepted. The problem is that there is no central authority, but a wide range of views so It's difficult to give a simple analysis.
There is a long discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism
Modern paganism, also known as contemporary paganism[1] and neopaganism,[2] spans a range of new religious movements variously influenced by the beliefs of pre-modern peoples across Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. Despite some common similarities, contemporary pagan movements are diverse, sharing no single set of beliefs, practices, or religious texts.[3] Scholars of religion may study the phenomenon as a movement divided into different religions, while others study neopaganism as a decentralized religion with an array of denominations.
I guess if I wasn't an atheist I'd consider some shade of paganism.
Yea, Animism too.
Patriarchy corrupted sex, on purpose, making control easier.
Imagine a world where sex isn’t sin. Just a natural part if the joy of living. Bonobos do it. No reason we can’t, except for the power hungry addicts trying to control everyone
Mentioning patriarchy you have set me off. I just remembered reading that ancient Welsh society was matriarchic. As a Welshman myself: perhaps there's an article in it....
Curious that Malaysia punishes the recipient of oral sex. In classical Greece and Rome it was the opposite, with high status males only supposed to be in the dominant position, and with the greatest scorn reserved for high status males who willingly allowed themselves to be penetrated.
I don't know what's happening here and how, but views are simply flying like never before. I thought this was just a filler item while I got the Gaza material together (which is coming across well, by the way) but it has suddenly doubled overnight to 1,369.
«I guess it’s an oxymoron but: thank God for atheism.»
I have written in another comment that I think that you regard sex as “a private matter subject to "freedom of contract"” and you seem to me to be arguing as many “Liberals/Libertarian” do. So you should thank "Ayn Rand" for objectivism instead :-).
My argument to help you understand why there are people who want to “interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together” whether the “what” is not sexual or sexual instead have a different view that many interactions between two people are not private transactions in unregulated markets but have side effects and potentially huge ones on others; even from a secular point of view, not just from a "I am my brother's keeper" religious point of view where tolerating someone else's sin is a sin itself.
Also I have now got the impression that you assume that sex and reproduction are somewhat or unrelated matters and *both* are purely private matters as every person is an island.
But there have been many serious arguments that both sex and reproduction have consequences on other people and they are not merely "freedom of contract" transactions between parties in unregulated markets.
Then you approach the "oral sex" (or even "solitary masturbation" or "suicide") topic having already assumed as a postulate that "society" and "institutions" are redundant and there should be just a collection of independent "freedom of contract" transactions between parties in unregulated markets then I am not surprised that you “cannot understand the thinking of people who find it necessary to interfere” with the "freedom of contract" postulate.
I want to add an off topic note here because if I put it where it belongs, on a past post about the Philippines, nobody will see it.
I have mentioned before how the Philippines is a corrupt, failed state. There are elections here this morning. One of my staff just mentioned in passing (like it’s something quite normal - well it is here) that she had received 2,000 pesos from two candidates and another had received 3,000. That’s 36 and 54 dollars. Consider that multiplied up for the electorate. Where do they get the money? From bribes accumulated since they were last elected. What a country.
{...thank God for atheism...} 👍👍👍 🔥🔥🔥 !!!
🍉🍉🍉 !!!
Walt:
This is, on both counts - oral sex and the plight of Gaza - another example of your efforts to expand the boundaries of what people are "allowed" to think about, to believe.
Sexual mores - and many other aspects of cultural dictates about what one is allowed to be and do in "polite society" are spun out of whole cloth, by people whose motivations, knowledge and general competency to make such judgements is very questionable.
Consider all the modifications to "polite company conduct" that have happened here in the U.S. over the past century:
a. Black people are now regarded as "real people" that have earned and deserve to be treated with the respect and dignity that white people occasionally exhibit toward one another
b. Women are legitimate, full-status members of society. They've escaped the confines of the household and child-bearing and subservience to men (mostly, and if indeed they prefer to; they do have a choice now)
c. We aren't nearly as compelled to stay within the religious and cultural bounds set by our ancestors and family. We often leave our families to venture to different parts of the country, and seek out, and embrace, and find a home in a culture different from our upbringing.
These are fairly momentous social changes; they've all have major impacts on what we are as a people, and the full effects - good and not so good - will be felt for a few more generations.
We used to be prevented from doing these things, and now we're not. We evolved, in spite of immense repression. We did it anyway.
And on to Gaza.
The cultural psychosis of Zionism is now clear for all to see; it's been veiled and hidden before, but the murder - the slow asphyxiation of the Palestinians, and now the quickening slaughter by starvation - is clear everywhere except those few places where Zionists and the fellow-traveling opportunists can control the information flow.
Here in the U.S., a bill was recently introduced that criminalized the criticism of Zionism, with heavy livelihood-ending penalties. This is how far the desperation to control information flow has proceeded, and again, it puts the cultural psychosis of many Jews and nearly all Zionists of all stripes on clear display.
Interestingly ... a) the bill was actually introduced, which is both shocking and horrifying, and b) the bill was promptly withdrawn, because even in the Zionist-controlled charade that we call our Congress - even there, with every conceivable coercive tool at their disposal, the Congress knew it was a bridge too far, and that the very act of introducing the bill and voting on it would serve to break loose the few remaining bulwarks that impede the incipient fit of revulsion toward Zionism and the Jews that fund and perpetuate it.
It's probably too late to prevent that tide of revulsion from breaking loose; the bill was an act of desperation, and it's well-known across the country to be desperation. As the consequences of our country's naivety in the face of a long, well-orchestrated and highly predatory corruption of the body politic becomes better-known - and it's becoming better-known rapidly - the other story - not just the exhaustion of the U.S. empire, but also the end of mind-control by the globalist-Zionists is now in sight. The two are linked; the philosophy of the predator is strong in both camps, and that's what binds them together.
Keep up the good works, Walt. While some won't initially see the connection between sexual mores and the genocidal predation of the Zionists. There's a link, and here it is:
Other people control your mind; they do it by controlling what you talk about, by criminalizing those of your actions that operate against their interests.
And "these people" ... just happen to have one form or another of cultural psychosis. It's _why_ they're in power, and it's _why_ they do the perfectly awful things they do. They're psychologically sick.
Free yourself from the clutches of these horrible, twisted people: authorize your own volition - the power to pick out what you think is right, what is best, and act upon it.
Thanks Tom, good to hear from you again and I agree all down the line. I hadn’t actually seen the connection between the two apparently unconnected items but now I do. It was intended to be a humorous piece but of course the underlying message is sinister, that people in control tell other people how to be behave, the orders are often plainly ludicrous and laughing at them is one way to expose them as such. So really it is an intensely serious piece asking people to truly examine what they are told to do and think. And respond accordingly. I have lost a few followers with it, probably Catholics, well win some, lose some. Anyway, as you point out, the truth is breaking out and the enemy can’t stop it now.
I have great hopes for the next one, Diana is pushing for more videos of the situation. And the second tranche of money has got through, but I don’t know how much there is to spend it on there. When is the world going to react? There was an interesting piece on RT yesterday saying that Trump has turned against Netanyahoo, what do you think? Is it blocked with you?
https://www.rt.com/news/617368-trump-could-recognize-palestine/
Walt- yes, I did see this rumor that Trump might recognize a Palestinian state. I interpret this as another Trump bombast-hit, intended to budge the ice-bound sled of well-entrenched positions into motion. It's that first bit of motion that's the hardest.
I expect that Trump will face a firestorm of opposition just for letting the rumor exist ... but the fact that the rumor's "out there" ... if it stays out there a few days, that's another major dent in the Zionist's hold on the U.S. polity's imagination ... the Overton Window moves a little.
I note also that there's some coverage in NY Times re: "Netanyahu isn't our ally" coming from none other than Thomas Friedman, who did more to cover for Israel than anyone I can think of in public life.
What you're seeing now is some major repositioning and blame-shifting to get out of the way of, to blunt, to diffuse, and to prevent the rapidly-moving realization that we're (the U.S.) in the clutches of some real monsters.
That raises the question of whether or not the oligarchs and immensely well-off families of the U.S. that aren't Zionists, that aren't Jewish ... have they finally realized just how costly this is, how long it's going to take to get the U.S. on solid economic, cultural and world-level political footing?
I don't believe that President Trump actually has the nerve or the power to truly take on the Zionists by himself, but I do believe he's aware of the costs, and he is regularly testing the boundaries of control (what's allowed to be talked about).
We'll see. He can't get too far ahead of his "base" - the conservatives, the red-state economically-depressed people, who are quite often religious fundamentalists, and constitute the non-Jewish major supporters of Israel.
But that "base" is indeed in-motion. They're cranky, they vote, and they talk to each other a lot. They're not isolated. And they're not nearly so likely to use the Main Stream Media to get their world-view as they once (very recently) were, and by golly, the MSM is losing control pretty rapidly.
And just as rapidly is the Alt Media stepping in. I'll take this moment to again thank you for being such a good alt-media, Walt. It's time well-invested.
Walt - one more thing:
"the second tranche of money has got through, but I don’t know how much there is to spend it on there. When is the world going to react?"
As your Palestinian correspondent/recipient noted, just the fact that you acted, that you cared, you noticed ... was almost as good as the food and clothing you provided. The food for the soul matters!
I'll find a way to make a contribution as well.
Lastly ... the "world will react" as and when the courageous few react. Starts small, grows big.
That's why it's been so important for the Monsters to appear to be invincible, to use the Disproportionate Murder method to quell the uprising. They know they're vulnerable.
Yes, that’s right. But I am hopeful because the change in attitude has to start in the USA. The UK and EU have suddenly found in other matters that the ground is shifting under their feet and they are having to adjust, and if the US attitude changes with this, the other sheep will follow as night follows day.
What you say about MSM is interesting too. I was looking yesterday at a draft I wrote months ago and lost interest in, for the record it was about Welsh independence, and I was quoting figures showing the collapse of newspaper circulation in the UK 2000 to 2020, I can’t post it here, I will email it to you. The Philippines is similar, I was checking on whether to bother with them, it works out that the self-important “Paper of Record” is bought by one person in a thousand. You might be interested to check out circulation trends in the US. So it’s Alt that’s the way. For me it’s Substack and MoA, also Unz has reproduced a few things, Living in China went up there and got over 600 comments. Some of my Substacks are into the thousands of views, and Auschwitz is the grand-daddy now with 12,489, almost zero against the argument. If I put a Substack link up on MoA nobody comments but the viewing figures will jump a few hundred. It’s the silent majority out there building in strength.
«I cannot understand the thinking of people who find it necessary to interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together»
That is astoundingly simplistic to me as this point has been debated for thousand of years by philosophers, theologians, legislators and the arguments for and against are also very strong.
In my opinions the questions on which the issue rests are two:
#1 Is there a deity to whom that activity is an offense against their will and punishes communities that allow such sins to happen (basically is permitting sin a sin itself)?
#2 Is every person an island? Is every person just an agent in unregulated markets so that they have absolute "freedom of contract"?
Even in a secular culture point #2 is quite important, better illustrated by switching from oral sex to suicide: in many secular cultures it is a crime to attempt suicide, as suicide is not regarded as a private matter subject to "freedom of contract". Some ancient person wrote and Liberals/Libertarians ("I am not my brother's keeper") would strongly disagree:
“No man is an island, / Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent, / A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, / Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own / Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me, / For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know / For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.”
«in private.»
If it comes to court it is no longer private. Also for example pr0n products might be considered legal for sale to the public under some conditions unless they include some specific illegal acts, and then the question is which acts are to be considered illegal.
Thanks for your comment, all I can say to your opening statement is that it is is quite plain to me, perhaps because my view on your point one is what is laid out clearly in the article. You didn’t answer that one yourself, what’s your take?
And as for your second point, I’d say that suicide is a entirely a personal decision too. But these are both matters of opinion.
«my view on your point one is what is laid out clearly in the article.»
I think there is a misunderstanding here from either of us: you document that some deists consider some sexual acts a sin, but you started by saying that “cannot understand the thinking [...] to interfere in what two sane adults consentingly do together” and that to me is quite different from "cannot understand the thinking [to regard as a sin] what two sane adults consentingly do together”.
My understanding of your article is that you understand very well that some people regards some sexual acts as sins but you cannot understand why they want “to interfere” with what they view as someone else's sins.
My answer to that is that those people think that "permitting sin a sin itself" and nothing more (the topic being “The criminality” rather than the sinfulness of oral sex).
To add to my point that there are strong arguments on both sides consider this:
«prohibits sex between men, solitary masturbation (!), oral or anal intercourse. On the other hand, it does not prohibit sex between women»
That was the standard position in "The West" until recently (also theologically: solitary masturbation is a sin for christians and is called "self-abuse" [the actual meaning is "self-misuse"]). I think that there are two main points there that overlap:
* All those restrictions are about denying sperm to women while female homosexuality does not do that. Sexual morality (and much else) is always defined by older women and older women have a strong inherent interest in having many grandchildren, especially from attractive men who can give them attractive sons and many women really get disappointed when attractive men are attracted to each other.
* In older times *fertility* was difficult to achieve yet desperately desirted: a village depended totally on the fertility of its environment and of its women (given very high pregnancy mortality and infant mortality rates). Anything that might reduce that fertility might eventually cause the extinction of the village. So the tendency has been that villages that continued to exist were those that focused on heterosexual reproduction, and those that got extinct those that did not.
I think, simply put, that people who think "permitting sin a sin itself" should simply mind their own business and get on with their own lives. Wonderfully illustrated by Somerset Maugham in his famous short story "Rain".