Problem Reaction Solution

“The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived then they are consciously & intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easily prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Whatever you do, until you get rid of parasites and recover your structures— now is probably not the best time to let your governments offer you solutions to anything, especially obscenity; perpetrators as they may be.

It is also perhaps not the best time to dissolve governments. Infiltrated by scum as they may be, our government at least have the obligation to pose as if they are there to facilitate the common good, and they are the people handling the bureaucratic end of our deliverance into food, water and electricity. For now. There are at least some seats available at the boardroom for civilians who are incredibly industrious and well bred. Members of parliament are made available and allocated to listen to your concerns about how things are running. We have a symbolic vote. Such is the democratic process. Conversely, The Money Elite, from within mega corporations; are ideologically obliged to show no empathy at all to anyone (outside shareholders)—and most certainly take that liberty.

Sadly, over the many years, our parliamentary structures have become entirely archaic and useless old game-boards, locked as they are, in an intrepid game between massive corporations and the civic majority. However, they are the last structure standing between us—the civic majority, and the money elite. Those pesky governments can sometimes get in the way, infiltrated as they are by honourable individuals who labour relentlessly to uphold and protect the common good. Assassination is such a bother, in any of its nefarious forms.

Hence, even with our government’s limited success in protecting us from debt exploitation/success in throwing us to it, the ruling class would absolutely love it if we “smashed the State” (as apposed to holding it accountable) removing one more major barrier to their total rule. In fact, gutting our governments and dismantling their power is exactly what curious folk like the International Monetary Fund have been ‘encouraging’ the world towards for decades. If you would like to know more about this sort of encouragement, read up on Poverty ‘Reduction’ Schemes. Check out those ‘austerity measures’. Seems like everywhere the IMF goes, domestic economies crumble as an elite minority gains power. Civilians labour exponentially longer hours for less and less, as off shore tax havens continue to bulge. The self appointed, unelected IMF have teamed up with the World Bank and various money pals to govern the business of reducing poverty. Is it a ruse, or an outstanding display of ineptitude?

* * *

Coincidentally, in light of recent public disclosures; it’s evident we have a global spy system and militarized police force working in cahoots. What does it say about the intentions of these dubious institutions if slavery has been allowed to flourish under their patrol? If there are a million sex slaves in dungeons right now, surely our spies know a little about that, and the police military has the power to do something about it.

Who then, and what, are these institutions working for?

Who are they working against? A first guess is easily surmised by observing who is under surveillance, and which direction the gas grenades are launched. Looks like the people may have finally found themselves a common enemy.

The battle is in our minds.

* * *

CHEESEBURGERS AND SADISM

Solutionists with various agendas will try to convince you that they’ve got sex trafficking all figured out, some say we need to ban porn, some say we need to say we need to ban all sex work, we can expect that lot to team up. These responses would be somewhat analogous to banning all restaurants and media regarding restaurants, as a community response to the perceived health risks and abuses inherent to fast food consumption and landscape domination. By perceiving all food ads as immoral, all restaurants as equally repugnant, all workers as victims— all restaurants can be swept into the same unsavoury bracket, prohibited and pushed underground where they remain open for business…

Restaurant workers in previously friendly, mutually supportive, community businesses, find that they are stigmatised by the public at equally uncompassionate rates to the more unfortunate people up the road slaving away at maccas. With all the bad press about selling food, suddenly it seems more embarrassing than ever to work in a restaurant, shameful even. More and more restaurant workers find themselves the targets for work place abuse and street harassment. Stabbing someone’s mum on her way home from work may be hard, but a stereotype is an easier target. Restaurant workers learn to watch their back. People are buying more whoppers than ever. How could any one think of banning the burger at this point? Don’t you know that they hurt so good?

Reactionaries to solutionists won’t stand for being told what to do, and are shouting from the trees tops that you can take a man’s freedom but you’ll never take away his fast food, gobbling it down faster than ever. Afraid of loosing their fast feed tube after having forgotten how to cook for themselves, or never having learned in the first place; a reactive spirit of fast food patriotism is rife in the machinations. Even if it’s unhealthy, fast food is all some guys have got. A man’s gotta eat. Censors and prohibitionists both agree that men need to get down from their trees, and should start thinking about how the pornographic ads for Whopper combo deals makes teenage girls feel really bad, therefore, all ads are bad, especially the weird ones.

In all of the hullabaloo, not enough people are being heard when they ask if there is perhaps the slightest chance… teenage girls wouldn’t be feeling so sore about the restaurant ads if their avatars weren’t always having burgers violently shoved down their throats, legs akimbo to form golden arches, while everyone else is busy dousing ‘perfect’ models in white sauce and calling them mean names. What if the free and cheap options for kids who want to view ads were not so often promoting fast food and faster porn, cheeseburgers and sadism? Would girls feel differently about the ads? What if media put much more of it’s energy into promoting wonderfully diverse approaches to creative cooking and showed unrefined women and indeed all types of raw people devouring—not acting, but actually revelling in their deliciously nutritious, genuinely happy meals? Would we feel differently about the influence of advertising on children?

Should we militantly censor film in an attempt to stamp out bad behaviours, or spend the greater part of our limited energies learning about what sort of films might be most beneficial for humans to make—subsidizing healthy options? Should we prohibit the sale of food because too many businesses are serving up a monoculture of junk and exploiting workers—or could we rather focus on what makes a business safe and happy for staff and patrons—supporting ethical practices? Is there a less polarized and reactionary middle ground and what in flaming fuck does it look like?

* * *

WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Actually some institutions are thinking of the children and those precious pixies present a potently persuasive playing card in a perplexing procession towards what many people are calling totalitarianism. If Child Porn is one of the fastest growing industries online, or if it can at least be misrepresented as such, we have a whole range of solutions available to concerned citizens looking upwards for answers.

Cue online censorship. The theory is that “what we can’t see can’t hurt us’ (but for all we know, the people saying that may have already been taken out by snipers). The claim is that none of us need check in with, or even develop our own moral compass because nowadays we have computer programs to do that for us. With the ability to compute so many pixels at once, certain algorithms are able to tell us at a glance what is deemed good for us, removing the hazard of any other content before we see it, lest we are compromised by unauthorised exposure to the big bad world. Apparently if we go along with all this; the big bad world will finally start going away.

According to censorship enthusiasts; nobody need decide for themselves if the people in a film are happy, consenting and free, because frankly that’s not on the list of priorities. We don’t need to go through the tumultuous and ever straining mental journey of understanding for ourselves that female ejaculation is ‘abhorrent’ when we can save all that energy and let something else decide that for us.

Censorship has it’s opponents, which is what makes swiftly implementing it so instrumental because their presence in public discourse can also be made to disappear. Many people are rightfully concerned that (problems within) the porn industry may be used as an excuse to gradually introduce Chinese levels of information censorship—they will not unravel this dilemma nor defend liberty by clutching to the false claim that there are no problems within the sex entertainment industry. It’s up to us if we want to look.

* * *

It is creepy to think that after coming so far from a puritanical past, we are inventing ways for computers to tell us exactly what constitutes morality. A program may be able to identify bondage tape, but is it able to tell whether or not the bound is a genuinely enthusiastic masochist with the free agency to call a safe word? An algorithm may be able to tell that a vulva is neatly shaven as proscribed, it may be able to identify a morally ‘acceptable’ boy on girl scene, but is it able to tell that nobody asked permission to put it in her bum? Can it tell where she came from? How she is feeling?

Only we can tell that. And we can tell easily, by engaging our empathy and extending it to all living beings, including porn actors and actresses. By looking at the damn thing and letting our honest guts tell us whether or not the people in a film, or behind the scenes are safe. Within our very own skulls we each possess a most powerful processing system. Arbitrary props need not muddy our judgement.

Sure, technologically it may be an easy next step to protect our tender eyes from bearing witness to debauchery and the damned, but is it moral? If someone is in a spot of trouble, should we pretend that person doesn’t exist? May we use our own biochemical information processing systems to decide that for ourselves.

* * *

Note to Unscrupulous Wankers

The unchecked persecution of women through the documentation of organised sexual abuse — the mass distribution of cruel footage into ordinary households has consequences, especially when we fail to acknowledge that a crime has even been committed.

Most men will cum across the truth once in a while.

Would you give up crack porn to protect free speech?

A) In an instant;

B) Only if I thought there was a connection;

C) No, porn is way too important. No deal.

So we are supposed to shut down the free flow of information across the Internet because of child porn and terrorists (and pirates). Still, if anyone goes out independently and does something to halt the industry of child porn, such as with explosives or a sharpened butter knife—they will end up dead or in a prison. On the way to prison they will be charged with terrorism if they identify as a freedom fighter. The prison may be a secret. The message is clear: Child porn shall be handled by the system and the system is handling it very nicely, thank you very much.

Child porn is allegedly one of the fastest growing industries online. To combat this we are told that we need a lock down on the net. We could ask instead what is causing this apparent surge in child porn production, beside the obvious fact it’s never been technologically easier to produce. We have a battalion of experts clambering to share their concerns with us. Neurologists, psychologists, psycho-killers, detectives and junkies—everyone’s got something to say about it, and interestingly enough, they’re all saying the same thing.

People are saying that the hyper-consumption of porn, being the hyper-stimulus it is, registers in our addiction centres. Just like any addiction, hardcore addicts tend to crave their substance more, harder, faster, nastier, in order to get the same effect.

Eleven to eighteen year olds make up one of the biggest contingents of Internet porn users. When kids start watching porn at age eleven, chances are they don’t understand the first thing about the brain mechanics behind addiction, nor have knowledge of any relevant family history and subsequent reasons for caution. If some kids are more prone to addiction than others, they should have no reason to suspect that they are stepping into a potential trap when they go snooping for sex online. If others are not prone to addiction, they should have no reason to ever suspect the vortex exists at all.

Some potential (sex) addicts standing on the mouth of the vortex have a little more luck than others, depending on circumstances and attitudes. Some may take an inspired glance before scampering off together with a novel set of games to play, discovering wild new ways of authenticating consent and getting off. Others may not feel so included, and may be left to fester all by themselves in the dark, where the dim glow of a lonely spiral beckons passageway.

They say it starts with one thing and it leads to the next. Pretty soon your average Joe who started watching barely legal can be onto the teen abuse stuff, then the kiddy stuff, and then the dogs fucking kids stuff, because it never stops really, not until your dead. That’s addiction.

Yeah, addicts be makin’ pimps a lot of money. More money than just drugs and guns. And guns and drugs be makin’ a lotta money—world’s sure better than it ever was, this is the “apex of civilisation” baby. Not like in those bad old days when people where chattel and children had no rights and people were being killed everywhere and kept in dungeons and concentration camps all over the place. No. Not like that at all. Not even when it shows up on Google maps. Not even when it’s all of Africa. Not even when we wear the spoils. Not even when you’re watching it and masturbating to it. Not happening. Don’t mention ze war.

So some experts are saying that the unscrupulous consumption of porn, of whatever sadistic shit you can think of to do to a woman, is just not enough for some hardcore addicts. Allegedly that’s when they move onto child porn. And researchers reckon these people weren’t even peadophiles to begin with—they are being conditioned that way. Eventually it’s not enough to watch it on film and off they go and fuck a child. Film it, share, and the cycle is complete. Sadism lays eggs, to paraphrase the experts. But what would they know? The jury’s out for a fap.

Plenty of people will refuse to think about it. Why? Simply because it’s easier not to think. If they thought about it then they might have to do something, and doing something could get them killed, or at least force them to find another way to masturbate. Easier not to. Isn’t that a good enough answer? Well it’s certainly a good enough answer for cowards and unscrupulous wankers.

Crack porn enthusiasts; What if, hypothetically, you came to an epiphany that both commercial genres of (mainstream) sexual sadism against women and children stem from the same basic business models, the same narrative of abuse of power, and appeal to the same chemical impulses? Would you stop wanking to unhappy depravity if it turned out real people were being hurt? Would you quit your sadistic consumption of women for the sake of children, if you thought there was a connection to the demand for child porn? Would you do whatever it takes to shut off demand? Would you even entertain the idea?

Would you show restraint? Culpability? Heroism?

We would not want to compromise the pimps right to free speech, heaven forbid. Alas, now that the world is rife with sellable child-fucking we are being told to surrender our Internet freedom. Who amongst us are examining all alternative avenues to an Internet lock-down—in a bid to protect Internet freedom, or to at least expose those who would take it away as unimaginative flunkies?

Who is taking care of the problem of child porn through their own research and community initiatives; and who is leaving it to ‘the-powers-that-be’ to come up with solutions?

While there are scientifically minded people theorizing a concrescence between the proliferation of sexual abuse in the adult hardcore porn industry, addiction, and the rise in demand for child porngraphy—”I don’t think so” quite often encapsulates the whole case for the defence. Highly developed thought processes going on there. Many people will do what it takes to shut up their detractors so they can get back to business as usual, even if business as usual for one person happens to be a naked march to a gas chamber for another.

I don’t expect anyone to acknowledge they are a dupe; nobody wants to be an oxymoron. Crack porn lovers: Ok, so you “don’t think” about it, and it’s a ‘free world’, so you don’t have to, right? Just don’t go whinging to the Internet when the same old motley crew push for yet another draconian solution to problems you might have helped them create. Maybe, maybe you’re not such an innocent bystander.

You’ve been warned.