#moonbat

Left-wing nutjobs

Johan Nygren #moonbat #quack medium.com

Allen Frances confessed how there is no definition of a mental disorder, and how it’s bullshit, but that’s not entirely true. There is a definition?—?that mental illness is a position in a pecking order. And pecking orders are not bullshit, but are hard-wired into the social organisation of all mammals.
Our brains make extrapolation about its social status based on feedback from the group, and expands our shrinks the self through adjusting serotonin levels. Esteem. This self-mirroring behavior facilitates the spread of memes within cultures, and makes it possible to spread information fast.
The guise of psychological authority is just a way to gain an advantage in the competition for authority. It’s a strategy to remain at the top of the hierarchy, to secure one’s position in the pecking order, while making sure those at the bottom continue to take all the punches. It’s politics. It’s cheating.
Diagnoses are the contemporary equivalent of racial biology. It’s used to legitimize ideas that would otherwise have been contested, provides the authority necessary for statism to emerge, and has no real science or empirical evidence to back it up.
100 years ago, hysteria was used to legitimize enslavement of females. 50 years ago, homosexuality was pathologized to ostrasize and dis-empower gays. 20 years ago, ADHD and bipolarity and schizophrenia and autism was used to legitimize wage slavery or the enslavement of children into a coercive education system. These superstitions are merely a strategy to legitimize coercion and to gain an advantage in the competition for power. And, 100 years ago, people accepted hysteria as a story. 50 years ago, people accepted the story that homosexuality was a mental illness. 20 years ago, people accepted the story that their children suffered from ADHD or autism, or that their friends were schizophrenic and lived in an alternate reality. And so on.
These diagnoses are not science, they are local tradition, a form of superstition and a pre-requisite for statism. Without them there could be no statism?—?the pecking order would collapse?—?which is why we need to stand up for the fact that they are myths.

National Union Of Students #moonbat pinknews.co.uk

The National Union of Students’ LGBT Campaign has passed a motion calling for the abolition of representatives for gay men – because they “don’t face oppression” in the LGBT community.

The NUS LGBT+ Campaign discussed the issue at its annual conference, which took place in Sheffield this week.

At the event, delegates passed a motion that blames “cis gay men” for “misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia”. It says: “Misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia are often present in LGBT+ societies. This is unfortunately more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis gay men.”

The motion continues to call on LGBT societies at universities – many of whom have dedicated reps for lesbians, trans people, bi people and gay men – to abolish the role for gay men.

It continues: “The reps system exists to ensure that societies committees can always have a reserved place for groups which disproportionately face oppression within the LGBT+ community. “Gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBT+ community and do not need a reserved place on society committees.”

It goes on to “encourage LGBT+ Societies that have a gay men’s rep to drop the position”.

The motion was passed – despite other resolutions at the same conference highlighting that men who have sex with men are disproportionately at risk of HIV, and disproportionately at risk of violence.

Mark Carey, M Jackson, Alessandro Antonello & Jaclyn Rushing #moonbat phg.sagepub.com

Feminist glaciology asks how knowledge related to glaciers is produced, circulated, and gains credibility and authority across time and space. It simultaneously brings to the forefront glacier knowledge that has been marginalized or deemed “outside” of traditional glaciology. It asks how glaciers came to be meaningful and significant (through what ontological and epistemological process), as well as trying to destabilize underlying assumptions about ice and environment through the dismantling of a host of boundaries and binaries. The feminist lens is crucial given the historical marginalization of women, the importance of gender in glacier related knowledges, and the ways in which systems of colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy co-constituted gendered science. Additionally, the feminist perspective seeks to uncover and embrace marginalized knowledges and alternative narratives, which are increasingly needed for effective global environmental change research, including glaciology (Castree et al., 2014; Hulme, 2011). A combination of feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology provide the intellectual foundation for feminist glaciology.

Most existing glaciological research — and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change — stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses. These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology (Phillips and Phillips, 2010; Domosh, 1991; Rose, 1993). Harding (2009) explains that the absence of women in science critically shapes “the selection of scientific problems, hypotheses to be tested, what constituted relevant data to be collected, how it was collected and interpreted, the dissemination and consequences of the results of research, and who was credited with the scientific and technological work” (Harding, 2009: 408). Scientific studies themselves can also be gendered, especially when credibility is attributed to research produced through typically masculinist activities or manly characteristics, such as heroism, risk, conquests, strength, self sufficiency, and exploration (Terrall, 1998). The tendency to exclude women and emphasize masculinity thus has far-reaching effects on science and knowledge, including glaciology and glacier related knowledges.

Feminist glaciology is rooted in, and combines, both feminist science studies and postcolonial science studies to meaningfully shift present-day glacier and ice sciences. While feminist science studies focuses explicitly on gender and the place (or absence) of women in science, it can neglect specific analyses of the social relations of colonialism and imperialism, emphasizing instead Western women without sustained attention to indigenous, non-Western, and local knowledge systems that are the centerpiece of postcolonial science studies (Harding, Carey et al. Phillips and Phillips, 2010; Schnabel, 2014). The postcolonial perspective is crucial for understanding glaciological knowledges because the science of glaciology has historically participated in the imperialist, colonial, and capitalist projects associated with polar exploration, mountain colonization, resource extraction, and Cold War and other geopolitical endeavors.

More recently, glaciology has also been central to earth systems science that often relies on remote sensing from satellite imagery to suggest broader claims of objectivity but is actually akin to the “god trick of seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway, 1988: 581; also see Shapin, 1998). Questions about epistemology in climate science, ice coring, and glaciology are only beginning to be asked, especially focusing on Cold War polar glaciology (Martin-Nielsen, 2012, 2013; Elzinga, 2009; Korsmo, 2010; Naylor et al., 2008; Turchetti et al., 2008; Macdougall, 2004; Finnegan, 2004; Heymann et al., 2010; Bowen, 2005; Hulme, 2010). Of these studies probing the discipline of glaciology, only a tiny subset analyze gender (exceptions include Bloom, 1993; Bloom et al., 2008; Hulbe et al., 2010; Hevly, 1996) or approach human glacier interactions from the perspective of feminist postcolonial science studies or feminist political ecology (exceptions include Williams and Golovnev, 2015; Cruikshank, 2005). Fewer still recognize indigenous knowledges, local perspectives, or alternative narratives of glaciers, even though large populations of non-Western and indigenous peoples inhabit mountain and cold regions near glaciers and possess important knowledge about cryoscapes (Carey et al., 2015; Nu¨sser and Baghel, 2014; Drew, 2012).

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).

An additional theoretical foundation for feminist glaciology is feminist political ecology, which has generally emphasized unequal vulnerability and disproportionate global change impacts, but which also contributes significant research on knowledge production, ontologies, and epistemologies. With hundreds of millions of people utilizing glaciers for everything from drinking water and hydroelectricity to recreation and spiritual sites, the disproportionate vulnerabilities and disparate adaptive capacities in these societies are critical to acknowledge.

Feminist political ecology addresses how inequality and unequal power relations — mediated and co constituted through gender dynamics — have silenced the knowledge of people “most affected and marginalized by neoliberal, colonial, and patriarchal systems” (Hanson and Buechler, 2015: 6).

Crucially for feminist glaciology, feminist political ecology argues for the integration of alternative ways of knowing, beyond diverse women’s knowledges to include — more broadly — the unsettling of Eurocentric knowledges, the questioning of dominant assumptions, and the diversification of modes and methods of knowledge production through the incorporation of everyday lived experiences, storytelling, narrative, and visual methods (Harris, 2015). This inclusion of alternative knowledges and narratives alongside analysis of colonialism and inequality, such as race relations (Mollett and Faria, 2013), fits squarely into more recent feminist political ecologies that increasingly go “beyond gender”. This means that the research builds on “a history of boundary-breaking ideas [that] makes possible the present-day spaces where feminist geographers explore power, justice, and knowledge production, ideas that encompass but also surpass a focus on gender” (Coddington, 2015: 215).

Feminist glaciology raises critical conceptual, analytical, and epistemological questions that are largely absent in the 21st-century love affair with glaciers and ice. The framework offered here strives to open discussions, to introduce avenues of investigation, and to suggest ways forward not only for scientific enquiry that includes the environmental humanities and social sciences, but also for public perceptions of glaciers. Examples within this review and synthesis article are primarily meant to expose the value and various dimensions of the feminist glaciology framework; they are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather starting points to indicate lines of future investigation into this major gap in glacier studies and its related contribution to global environmental change research and both human and physical geography.

HaifischGeweint #moonbat freethoughtblogs.com

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime — a 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess— why— because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.


Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

Anonymous #moonbat nintendonut1.tumblr.com

i dont want to come off rude or anything but you should probably stop speaking spanish unless youre of hispanic heritage otherwise its cultural appropriation, and i dont think youre of hispanic heritage because you look white from any of the pictures youve posted to please stop speaking/learning spanish thank you vuv

Jason Unruhe #moonbat maoistrebelnews.com

An uncomfortable truth that must be acknowledged, Trotskyists have more influence in the first world than Maoists do. If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll see that Troskyists are a growing influence in the U.S., while the Maoists are declining. We must see past the vitriol, and our feelings towards the reactionary Trotskyism to see the truth.

Where are the Maoists in the Untied States? Immediately we think Bob Avakian’s RCP, or even the Kasama project. Of these two groups, the RCP is still alive, however reactionary. Outside of these two groups we have collage activist circles trying to pass themselves off as legitimate revolutionary movements. The New Communist Party (a.k.a. the New York Maoists) has proclaimed itself to be “the leaders of the Maoist rebellion of New York.” The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada literally claims to be doing People’s War. Both of these statements are utter nonsense, there is no war going on, there is no rebellion or armed struggle taking place. At best each is a few handfuls of people. They’re both collage activist groups composed of mostly upper-middle class twenty-somethings, whom one would be surprised if they even owned a gun.

Now, contrast this with the strength and popularity of Trotskyist groups. The ISO (International Socialist Organization) is a primary example. They’re a very large political group that stretches across many countries. They can even be found in places like Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Take a look at all the noise being made around Kshama Sawant in Seattle. A minor position in a city council is significant when compared to the influence and power Maoists have in the U.S. Socialists all across the first world are enamoured with her victory and it has garnered her Trotskyist group (Socialist Alternative) a lot of support. Her actions have also driven a lot of people towards Bernie Sanders (even though he’s not a Trotskyist). They have legitimate union connections all across the country, while the Maoists have none. This disparity in influence and power is plain to see, if people but only look. Are these Trotskyists revolutionary groups? No, they call for social democratic reforms.

Does that mean Trotskyism is correct and Maoism is wrong? Absolutely not. Trotskyism is a terrible reactionary, racist ideology, and social imperialist on a theoretical level. All I am pointing out here are their levels of popularity. Trotskyism clearly does wield much more influence in the real world. It does this over Marxist-Leninists as well. This is by no mean a failing exclusive to Maoism. What is important here is to acknowledge the reality of the situation. One group merely pretends to be revolutionary and have no support, while the other is openly reformist and enjoys large support.

Why is this happening? Essentially, this is a symptom of First Worldism. As there is no significant presence of a proletariat in the first world, people tend towards reform not revolution. The revolutionary potential is not there. Almost all activist groups openly reject the idea of revolution, while the Maoists promote revolution over reform. It should come as no surprise that Trotskyists have more support.

First Worldism is a reactionary tendency, it must be rejected.

Ivan Nikitchuk and Nikolai Arefyev #homophobia #moonbat news.yahoo.com

Moscow (AFP) - Two senior Russian Communist MPs on Friday presented a draft bill calling for people who come out as gay to serve up to 15 days behind bars.

Ivan Nikitchuk and Nikolai Arefyev are proposing a fine of up to 5,000 rubles ($80) for people who publicly say they are gay.

Those who come out in educational institutions or government offices should serve up to 15 days in police cells, they say.

Homophobia is still widespread in Russia, with 37 percent telling the Levada independent polling agency in May that homosexuality is an illness, and 18 percent saying it should be punished by law.

The MPs told the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia they came up with the measure because a hugely controversial ban on "gay propaganda" to minors signed into law by President Vladimir Putin in 2013 was not proving effective.

But the proposal appeared extreme even for Russia and was not expected to get passed by parliament.

Even Saint Petersburg lawmaker Vitaly Milonov, who is among the strongest backers of the existing gay propaganda law, questioned the need for new measures.

"We can't sentence people to 15 days just for admitting (their sexual orientation)," Milonov told AFP.

"Of course if it's propaganda, that's a different matter."

The Communist lawmakers said they plan to submit the bill to parliament later Friday.

Nikitchuk, the 71-year-old deputy head of the parliament's natural resources committee, said the bill would only apply to gay men.

"We think women are more reasonable people and more able to manage their emotions," Nikitchuk told the Russkaya Sluzhba Novostei radio station.

"So far, we're not touching women."

"Lesbians, the threat has lifted, you can reveal yourselves," opposition politician Alexei Navalny joked on Twitter.

The proposed legislation prompted criticism both from supporters and opponents of gay rights.

"Chewing over this topic of homosexuality is a breach of ethical norms. I'm sure the draft won't get through parliament," pro-Kremlin United Russia party senator Alexei Alexandrov told RIA Novosti.

"Those interested in this topic are going too far. I would advise them -- both homosexuals and homophobes -- to leave it in peace."

In the USSR "this topic was closed, it was not discussed" by Communists, he added.

Writing on the website Gay.ru, one commentator, Yana, said: "They just keep tightening the screws ... Soon we'll all be obliged to form traditional families and procreate.

"Those who refuse will be sent to fell timber," she added, referring to prison camps.

Under the Soviet Union, homosexuality was a criminal offence punishable by prison.

Proletarian #moonbat cpgb-ml.org

Much to the dismay and humiliation of the ruling classes of Britain and the US, Robert Mugabe was inaugurated for a sixth term as President of Zimbabwe on 29 June, winning the runoff election in a landslide victory after his opponent, the IMF-favoured Morgan Tsvangirai, saw the writing on the wall and pulled out of the contest.

We congratulate Comrade Mugabe, Zanu-PF and the people of Zimbabwe on their hard-won victory in the face of what Abayomi Azikiwe quite rightly referred to as “a well-orchestrated destabilisation campaign” composed of “economic sanctions as well as an intense international media blitz which seeks to create public opinion against [Zanu]”. (Pan-African News Wire, 3 July 2008)

Media lies

Duping the masses is, of course, an essential component of the ruling class’s programme to maintain its power at home and to pursue its vile neo-colonial agenda abroad.

Public relations experts and government spin doctors – modern-day Goebbels figures that they are – have paved the way for every war in recent memory, with their finely-tuned emotional rhetoric, phoney evidence and far-reaching media.

Remember Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction? Slobodan Milosevic and his supposed ethnic cleansing of Kosovan Albanians? Older readers might remember the putative ‘terrorist threat’ posed by the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, or the ‘Soviet-Cuban militarisation’ of Grenada.

Time and time again, the imperialist press has been able to build a climate of fear and hatred that has served to pacify a working class that might otherwise have found common cause with the superexploited masses of the third world.

[...]

Strategy behind the slander

The intensification of the anti-Zanu smear campaign is a major component of the British and US strategy to oust the anti-imperialist, pan-Africanist Zanu-PF government and replace it with an administration more amenable to market liberalisation, privatisation, cash crop production and the return of the land to white commercial farmers.

The purpose of this imperialist campaign is not lost on its intended victims. President Mugabe, addressing more than 15,000 people at a pre-election rally in the Gaza Stadium, Chipinge, said: “Britain and her allies are telling a lot of lies about Zimbabwe, saying a lot of people are dying. These are all lies because they want to build a situation to justify their intervention in Zimbabwe.”

Now that the election is over and has ended with defeat for the forces of imperialism, Britain and the US have started mobilising in a big way for military intervention. This is dressed up in the most innocuous terms of course – an international ‘peacekeeping’ force to ensure ‘democracy’ – but what Britain and the US plan is nonetheless a military intervention.

There are plenty of examples of UN-led ‘peacekeeping’ forces that have done the dirty work of imperialism: Korea, Congo, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, to name but a few.

thresholder #moonbat #sexist dailykos.com

Why would a woman say STFU?

For a simple reason. The one we men have to imagine because we've never experienced it.

BECAUSE THEIR VOICES HAVE BEEN SILENCED AND PATRONIZED AND TRIVIALIZED AND SUPERSEDED FOR CENTURIES!

Men have no more idea what it feels like to be silenced than white people know what Jim Crow felt like.

And in THIS PARTICULAR CASE ...

Men have nothing legitimate to say. Women suffer in the millions from male sexual aggression and from being silenced about it afterwards.

And men, even apparently the "well meaning" progressives here, refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their suffering.

As a man, I feel deeply, deeply ashamed of what "we" do to satisfy our aggression urges.

Now, the specific question of this original diary was whether this is good tactics.

Well, what does history tell us? How many examples are there of oppressed people being delivered thru patient, silent acceptance until their oppressors decided to alleviate their suffering? Can you name one?

Protest is about raising your voice in holy, righteous anger. That's what this whole damn web site is about. No one is going to take suffering seriously until sufferers raise their voices and refuse to be silenced. If you don't get that basic dynamic, better step away from political activism.

Eclipso #moonbat theguardian.com

[Comment on article describing daily life in North Korea]

To be honest ... apart from the food shortages, I'm not sure how it's any worse than life in the UK. Where are the slums and the ghettos? Judging by those photos, I'd guess that working class people in the UK have it worse. At least the North Koreans have solidarity and they all feel part of society. Over here, some people are just left to fend for themselves. They're sufficiently embittered by being spat on and treated like dirt that they take out their anger on even their own families. And that leads the one the highest rates of family breakdown in the whole world. Most people would rather have friends, family and community than a few fancy gadgets which probably take the richness out of life anyway.

Mfon Amun Ptah #homophobia #transphobia #moonbat mfonptah.tumblr.com

THEIR IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF SEXUAL PERVERSION AMONG INDIGENOUS AFRICANS PRIOR TO COLONIZATION AND CONTACT WITH FOREIGN PEOPLES.
There is no archeological evidence of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
There is no anthropological evidence of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
There is no literary evidence of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
There is no oral tradition of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY OF THESE THINGS AMONG INDIGENOUS AFRICANS PRIOR TO COLONIZATION AND CONTACT WITH FOREIGN PEOPLES!! ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF!!
Anyone who says that there is without showing it, is either a naive tool or is BLATANTLY part of the Agenda to promote sexual perversion among African People and Destroy the African family.

Bea #moonbat vegansoapbox.com

I believe eating animals should be done behind closed doors. You don’t see murder or pedophilia or rape openly condoned in the streets, after all — do you?

For people to continue this shameful and disgusting act it would require that they get their animal parts and pieces wrapped in brown “butcher” paper, acquired from some hidden, underground (illegal) source of course. There would be no billboards or commercials suggesting such a “private” act as flesh eating. No bbq events dedicated to the ritual of consuming burned legs, thighs & breasts, no golden arches, no neon lit steakhouses, no singing “hotdogs” or “case ready” meats.

Marino Quispe-Cond #racist #moonbat #homophobia answers.yahoo.com

Would you care if a Mexican family moved in next door?

----

Of course they care. Whites hate Blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, etc. Some pretend they don't, but they do. They hate us all, and they hate when they see us around.

As if we gave a crap.

The good news is that whites can't reproduce. Most are either gay or into children, so they cannot have their own kids. That means there are fewer and fewer of them every passing generation.

Good riddance.

Dr Mark Rose #moonbat #sexist #quack abc.net.au

Here's a differnt kind of fundy. Aboriginal fundies do exist.
Background: A book was recently published which includes didgeridoo lessons for girls.


"We know very clearly that there is a range of consequences for females touching a didgeridoo, it's men's business, and in the girls book, instructions on how to use it, for us it is an extreme cultural indiscretion."

Dr Rose says the consequences for a girl touching a didgeridoo can be quite extreme.

"It would vary in the places where it is, infertility would be the start of it ranging to other consequences," he said.

Next page