Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Amber

Ok well here is more theories from Amber about feminists propaganda about rape.

I read the following letter to the editor and something struck me while reading it.  Here is the first paragraph.

"An individual is raped. Psychologically and emotionally damaged, one turns to counselors, friends and teachers for help. Instead of love and support, one is confronted with a series of questions: What were you wearing? Were you walking alone? Had you been drinking? Why didn't you fight back? Didn't you say no? Are you sure you're not just saying you were raped? We are sick and tired of people constantly blaming the victim. People do not realize that saying things like "What were they doing there so late?" is a form of victim blaming."

Now I've never been raped.  But I am trying right now to put myself in the position as if I were.  Sure I think that it would be a fundamentally horrible experience.  Other than the obvious worry about having unprotected sex with a strange, sick man, I think the next most ugly thing to deal with was knowing something so personal was taken from you.  I would imagine it's much like the feeling a woman may have after she "hooked up" with a guy without any kind of intimate connection.  That feeling, to be sure, sucks.  

However I believe it is something that I could pick up and move on over.  Perhaps a mild depression would set in for a while.  Maybe I would gain weight - to thwart male attention.  But I don't think it would be such a thing where if anyone asked me "what were you wearing" would be the most god awful, emotionally damaging question to ask me.  I would just answer them.  I was wearing a blue cotton shirt with capris and sandals ... or whatever I was wearing.

And in fact I do things that aren't very cautious a lot of times.  I go running (when it is warm and not icy) outside at night time.  I go at night because I don't like people to see me and also it is cool out.  I know this is risky.  If I were raped one night while out, I would have to concede that as I went into the situation, I knew the risks [Knew the risks but still decided the benefits outweighed the costs].  I don't believe in a Utopian world where crime will never exist.  [However, although running outside may be unwise, it is not a crime.  Any guy who thought he could have me wi/o my consent while I was out at night should still be hanged and hanged high.]

Anyway, the reason why they need us to not "blame the victim" is because being a rape victim is a *power source* to them.  It needs to be such that any time any woman any where had some shady sex with a guy, she can gain that coveted victim status.  And they want her to have complete impunity.  So you can't ask her any questions at all over it.  

I mean, on campus, rape victims are treated as saints - allowed to do whatever they want.  They can scream, cuss, shout down, call names, etc. ... and we aren't allowed to call them on their corrupt behavior.  That's what they do.  They take some saintly like person that you aren't allowed to criticize otherwise you will be seen as "insensitive", and have them go spread their propaganda.  

I mean, I just can't even imagine doing this.  If I were raped, it would be personal, upsetting, and something I strived to put in the past, move on, and get over.  I wouldn't start screaming at people that I was raped and they had to listen to me and every nasty thing I that was hemorrhaging out of my mouth.  

"During a rape, victims are in danger. Therefore, they might not struggle or fight back because they want to protect their life."

This has to be the most Orwellian two sentences in the world.

I mean, do these sentences not say it all?  If a girl genuinely did not want to be raped, she'd fight it tooth and nail.  For them to even be of the belief that a girl will just fall limp and not fight as a means to "protect herself" ... is ludicrous!  It's very revealing.  The fact is - they want to be raped.  They like it.  Not because they like sex or have rape fantasies.  It lets them enter the sisterhood of victim feminism.

I'm trying to think of some clever one liners to say to feminists to hit the nail on the head when they start spreading their propaganda.  Things to let them know I'm on to them, and will just cause their head to spin.

"Feminists need rape."

"Feminists like when women are raped."

"High incidents of rape affirms feminism's twisted theories."

"99% of supposed rape victims on campuses are lying."
Main / IM convs. about Iran
Dec 02, 2003, 09:43 PM
This is an interesting conversation.  It starts off with him telling me Israel is a terrorist state then telling me anyone who is stupid should be stoned to death.  Anyway, I need this conversation for later use anyway so may as well post it here.

[email protected]: So. What do you think about Iraq?

Rebam98: I favored taking Saddam out

[email protected]: To dinner?

Rebam98: cute

[email protected]: He was an Objectivist, I think.
[email protected]: Very big on substantial sculpture.
[email protected]: I honestly believe he is also an atheist.
[email protected]: I don't think he's really a Muslim.
[email protected]: Why did you want to take him out?

Rebam98: well I think that it destablized that area

[email protected]: Yes. That area is very unstable.

Rebam98: and many other terrorist sponsoring government know their reign is coming to an end over it

[email protected]: Like Israel?

Rebam98: no like Iran's government

[email protected]: Yeah, but they only sponsor Hizbullah. And they're not really a terrorist organization.
[email protected]: I sure wouldn't mind if all of their governments came to an end.

Rebam98: Iran's government poses the biggest threat to the United States and the Iranian people show the biggest possiblity for setting up a secular democracy

[email protected]: I couldn't support any of them.

Rebam98: it's where we should look next, and we should focus on empowering the people of Iran themselves to rise up against their government
Rebam98: really
Rebam98: all they need
Rebam98: is moral support
Rebam98: someone to say "just do it"
Rebam98: most of their population is under 30

[email protected]: Just like that?

Rebam98: and they lack leadership

[email protected]: Couldn't that have happened in Iraq?
[email protected]: "Just do it"?

Rebam98: the soldiers that work for the iranian government would easily turn against the government and work for the people if the people would just prove to them that they will support them fully
Rebam98: no not in iraq

[email protected]: What about Syria?

Rebam98: the iraqis have been largely fed anti american propaganda and are not as secular and freedom minded as the iranians

[email protected]: They should be our allies.
[email protected]: That's weird... because Iraq was a secular state, and Iran a fundamentalist Islamist one.

Rebam98: the Iranian government is forcing its religion on the people
Rebam98: the iranian people had their own religion

[email protected]: I wish we could force atheism on them.

Rebam98: centuries ago
Rebam98: zoastrism (sp?)
Rebam98: it's been a century long fight between the iranians and their government

[email protected]: But they all converted to Islam.

Rebam98: no not all, definintely not all
Rebam98: it's like this

[email protected]: I don't think you understand Iran's history.

Rebam98: from the day they are born, iranians are fed mulsim anti american propaganda
Rebam98: the majority of them are peasants and fall to it
Rebam98: but there is a rich tradition among the more educated
Rebam98: who understand iran's history

[email protected]: OK, but Iran has been an Islamic country since the seventh century.

Rebam98: they hate islam

[email protected]: That's history.

Rebam98: doesn't matter
Rebam98: listen to what I am telling you

[email protected]: What are you telling me?

Rebam98: among the people of iran ... among the more sophisticated ... they are a very enlightened group
Rebam98: I've talked to several of them
Rebam98: I've talked to several iranians around the world and one who lives in tehran - on the phone

[email protected]: That's curious. You met some Zoroastrians?

Rebam98: you don't have to do much research to find out that the iranians hate their islamic based government
Rebam98: no they are not zorastrians
Rebam98: most of them are atheists
Rebam98: and they read the likes of thomas paine

[email protected]: Well, probably not most of them.

Rebam98: I did a lot of work on shirin ebadi
Rebam98: most of them are peasants
Rebam98: who don't know any better

[email protected]: They're the atheists?

Rebam98: other than what the ayatollah government has forced unto them since they were tykes
Rebam98: I have a friend in tehran
Rebam98: who has written articles for national review online and other publications
Rebam98: he found me because of my work on shirin ebadi and iran

[email protected]: We'd all be atheists if there weren't religious fanatics brainwashing people from birth.

Rebam98: I talked to him on the phone a couple times and on  yahoo and voice chat many times
Rebam98: the first time we talked on the phone,
Rebam98: I said to him, as an offhand comment,

[email protected]: National Review?

Rebam98: "I hope and pray that iran will be free someday and I can safely visit you"
Rebam98: he said to me
Rebam98: "don't pray"
Rebam98: "praying got us into this mess"
Rebam98: "praying gets us nowhere"

[email protected]: Nice.

Rebam98: he does not believe in god
Rebam98: and neither do most enlightened iranians

[email protected]: I totally agree with that.

Rebam98: I am telling you
Rebam98: this is a group of enlightened people who could set up a very prosperous nation if the islamic thugs were driven out

[email protected]: Praying doesn't get anyone anywhere.
[email protected]: I think their nation is pretty prosperous for some people.

Rebam98: the problem with the iranians
Rebam98: is they are so young
Rebam98: as I've seen written many places
Rebam98: they are waiting for a messiah
Rebam98: to come in and save them
Rebam98: they must realize no one can save them

[email protected]: Right. Sixty percent of them are under thirty.

Rebam98: they need to pick up their swords and swing them

[email protected]: They're young.

Rebam98: they need some push to get them to revolutionize their government

[email protected]: I think they have Kalashnikovs.

Rebam98: although they do not like the term 'revolution'
Rebam98: revolution to them means blood shed

[email protected]: Swords won't get them very far.

Rebam98: it was a figure of speech

[email protected]: Oh. Okay.

Rebam98: the US can and should provide them with military equipment
Rebam98: not only can they use the iranian people for intelligence
Rebam98: they don't have to use us military force to do it

[email protected]: That's what I call "moral" support.

Rebam98: and these people can nation build their own nation afterwards
Rebam98: unforunately though
Rebam98: shirin ebadi was recently given the nobel peace prize

[email protected]: Why is that unfortunate?

Rebam98: and she is going around telling people to work with this ayatollah government
Rebam98: and telling them that islam and human rights are compatible
Rebam98: a revolution will not happen under these circumstances

[email protected]: She wants people to work with Khatami, not Khameini.

Rebam98: the iranian people deserve better than a milder version of the current ayatollah government
Rebam98: khatami is another reformist
Rebam98: who promised reform and delivered nothing

[email protected]: Well, it is their tradition.

Rebam98: the iranian people hate khatami
Rebam98: I would be shocked to learn that ebadi said for the iranians to work with khatami
Rebam98: for she knows better than to affiliate herself with him

[email protected]: Sorry, I missed part of that.

Rebam98: as her popularity would drop in a heartbeat

[email protected]: So, what part of the government does she want people to work with?

Rebam98: well
Rebam98: personally I think she is just a stooge for the ayatollah government
Rebam98: as I believe khatami was
Rebam98: to pacify the people
Rebam98: give them hope so they don't start "picking up their swords"

[email protected]: Maybe. And to warm up to the West.

Rebam98: I mean
Rebam98: it was socialist europe who gave her the prize
Rebam98: they are the same people who gave jimmy carter the nobel prize last year

[email protected]: Finally.

Rebam98: they clearly use the prize as a political agenda

[email protected]: That guy works so hard.

Rebam98: the head of the committee specifically said the award was given to slap gw bush for starting war in iraq

[email protected]: So why does anyone give the Nobel prize any credibility?

Rebam98: for some reason, most people do
Rebam98: the same prize was given to yasser araft
Rebam98: arafat

[email protected]: Maybe because the guy who started it invented dynamite.
[email protected]: And Yitzakh Rabin.
[email protected]: Jointly.

Rebam98: I wish they would have given it to someone who understands better the secular psyche of iranians
Rebam98: and
Rebam98: would identify herself as an iranian woman instead of a muslim woman

[email protected]: Well, they're not mutually exclusive terms.

Rebam98: I know but
Rebam98: when she refered to herself
Rebam98: she said mulsim woman
Rebam98: she should have said iranian woman
Rebam98: there is strong nationalistic pride among the iranians

[email protected]: So, that's what she wants to be.
[email protected]: Muslim.

Rebam98: even if they are muslim they still consider themselves iranian first
Rebam98: you don't understand

[email protected]: Why don't I understand?

Rebam98: the battle in iran,
Rebam98: is mostly the iranian people versus the muslim government
Rebam98: if she favored the iranian people
Rebam98: she would have said she was iranian
Rebam98: it greatly upset iranians that she did not say iranian
Rebam98: it puts serious question regarding whose side she is on

[email protected]: It would have upset Muslims if she said Iranian.

Rebam98: and that side is the side of the muslim government
Rebam98: check out iranian websites
Rebam98: and see their reaction to her calling herself a muslim woman
Rebam98: liek I said
Rebam98: even if an iranian is mulsim

[email protected]: Well, any sites you can read in English are obviously going to carry a huge bias.

Rebam98: they still consider themselves an iranian first
Rebam98: if you say so

[email protected]: We can't really say that all Iranians think alike. You said yourself that there's a battle.

Rebam98: it's very obvious that there is strong natinoalistic pride among iranians
Rebam98: they have been oppressed as iranians

[email protected]: By the Shah?

[email protected]: Or the Ayatollahs?
[email protected]: Or both?

Rebam98: I was referring to the ayatollahs

[email protected]: Do you know if the people you're talking to are Shahists?

Rebam98: I don't know

[email protected]: You should ask them what they think about the Shah. Because if they hate the Ayatollahs and they hate the Shah, then they are probably socialists.

Rebam98: no they are not socialists
Rebam98: there is a workercommunist party of iran that is communist and also hates the ayatollahs
Rebam98: but
Rebam98: in fact
Rebam98: I have an email list
Rebam98: called "for a secular iran"
Rebam98: that I started
Rebam98: and welcomed all the iranians who responded positively to my articles on iran
Rebam98: and

[email protected]: Excellent. I hate religions.

Rebam98: one of the debates they had
Rebam98: was whether or not they should ally themselves with communists in the fight
Rebam98: as they hated communism
Rebam98: and I was told most iranians do
Rebam98: like I said

Rebam98: they read the likes of thomas paine

Rebam98: i.e. classic liberal american thinkers

[email protected]: I think they need a Fascist party.

Rebam98: they are very much a people of enlightenment

Rebam98: and like all period of enlightenment, it is only a few people at the top who are really enlightened

[email protected]: I think we need one here. We miss you, Ezra Pound.
Rebam98: but they change the whole culture

[email protected]: Just like the futurist Fascists.

[email protected]: I'm not being sarcastic, by the way.

Rebam98: I don't know why you brought up a fascist party

[email protected]: Well, democracy is useless. And it is more engaging to let people know that they're being ruled than to let them amuse themselves with false representative democracies.

Rebam98: regardless a democracy would better than a theocracy which is in the business of stoning their women to death and executing political prisoners for reading dissenting newspapers

[email protected]: Well, that's probably how people should be treated when they do stupid things.

Rebam98: I see why you support fascism
I got 2 new books from the library so I can polish up my Modesty piece.  Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit and The Secret Lives of Girls:  What good girls really do - sex play, aggression, and their guilt by Sharon Lamb.  I already read the first one but wanted it to draw from.  The second one reads not only "feminist" but "desire to sexualize girls at a young age" all over it.  I wanted to compare and contrast.  

Here is the first paragraph of the introduction of the latter book.

"As Sarah, naked and vulnerable, struggles to free herself from the imaginary bonds that tie her hands to the bed frame, Lisa bends down over Sarah's naked body and slowly but gently places a kiss on the top of her bare vagina.  Because they hear footsteps in the hall, this electrifying act signals the end of the game, and both girls, seven years old, hasten to get their clothes back on before Lisa's mother knocks on the closed and locked door of her bedroom.  They are now satisfied and silly but still hopeful that tomorrow or the next day they will find another time to reenact this powerful game as well as switch roles.  Next time Sarah will be the man, Lisa the woman."

:shock:  :shock:  :roll:

From what I can tell, the entire point of the book is "children have sexual feelings anyway so we shouldn't deny them."  Pretty much serves as an excuse to sexualize girls as young as 7.  

So how about - females on this board?  Did your "sex games" include kissing other little girls' vaginas?  Is this just ... a normal thing?


When I was about 5 a neighbor boy asked me to show me mine if he showed me his.  He showed me his and then I ran away too embarrased to take my pants down, lol.

Why do they start books off like this?  It is to shock us with a radical extreme right from the beginning so everything else they say looks halfway normal?  I think it is.  As soon as you are thrown off guard, and your perception of what is normal and what is not is thrown off, it is easy to pour propaganda.
I heard once that some colleges have more women's studies classes than economics classes.  Anyway, shouldn't they teach the (below) stuff in college?  Especially at yale?

> >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:30:03, xxx wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that money has no inherent value. What makes you think gold has
> > any
> > > inherent value? Beyond it's use-value I mean.
> > > Also, couldn't you get inflation on the gold standard if people discovered
> > > new rich veins of gold, driving the value of gold way down? I don't see
> > how
> > > the gold standard protects you from that.
> > >
> > > Just curious.

> At 07:00 PM 12/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >Did you read my piece called "Why Gold"?  If not, please check it out before I
> >answer this.  Thanks,
> >
> >Amber
> >

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:06:00, xxx wrote:

> I did.
> To quote:
> Gold fits all those criteria. Unlike cigarettes, it is durable and won't
> decay in a limited time period. Unlike mere paper money, it has inherent
> value. Unlike rubies, it can be divided up into coins. Because of this, we
> use gold.
> You state that gold has inherent value, but I don't see how you know that?

Well I should restate that it has objective value.

Gold has value because it has value to other people.  If you were with nothing at all, you could bargain someone else to give you some bread for gold.  Someone somewhere wants it.  Even if this particular person does not want it, first of all ... you may find someone else who does or what will mostly likely happen is that person may not want it but that person knows they can use the gold to bargains someone else.  They gave you bread for gold.  Now they are going to go use gold to buy shoes.  They would prefer to have gold instead of bread to trade as bread will go bad within X amount of time.

Paper on the other hand doesn't.  It has little to no value.  Certainly an ounce of paper doesn't have the bargaining value that an ounce of gold has.  If you had nothing at all, and tried to convince your neighbor to give you bread with paper, he'd just laugh at you.

Hope this answers,

Dec 01, 2003, 11:29 PM
A very insightful article

Nothing to Lose But Their Chains
Spectator - By Michael Ledeen
Nov 20, 2003

Our most potent weapon in the war against terrorism is democracy:
people everywhere want to be free

The most controversial part of George W. Bush's vision of the war
against terrorism is his insistence that this is a war against
tyranny, and that we will not be able to win the war until we have
helped democratic revolutions succeed in the key countries, those
that provide the terrorists with much of their vital wherewithal.
It's controversial for varying reasons, depending on the critic. Some
say that countries are marginal in the terror universe; it's
transnational organisations like al-Qa'eda which we must defeat.
Others are upset because they think the President is declaring war on
any country, anywhere, that helps the terrorists, and they ask where
the money and the troops will come from. Still others are critical of
Bush's belief that the Middle East can be successfully democratised
at all, and wish that the United States would either give up this
crazy dream, or get serious about building an empire and find proper
viceroys, etc.

A bit over a year ago I published a book that argued precisely this
thesis (The War Against the Terror Masters), and my main complaint
about the coalition's performance thus far is that we have been too
cautious, too slow, and, above all, that we have failed to support
the democratic opposition forces which threaten the countries that
sponsor terror and are primarily responsible for the terror war we
now face in Iraq (and which I predicted many months before the
liberation of Iraq).

Our enemies in Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh are all tyrants, which is
their common denominator. Note that our enemies are not, as is
commonly presumed, jihadists, since the Baathist regime in Syria,
like its late brother in Iraq, came to power as a secular Arab
socialist regime, not as a step along the road to a fundamentalist
caliphate. This is not a clash of civilisations; it's an old-
fashioned war of freedom against tyranny. The President is entirely
right on this point.

Our failures to date are primarily the result of bad intelligence and
insufficient attention to the peoples of the region (which go hand in
hand, you'll notice). If we had supported the Iraqi democratic
opposition (as was required by American law, and for which
considerable sums were appropriated but never disbursed, because the
state department didn't think it was a good idea), we would be in a
better position to find out what is really going on inside the
country, instead of having one general tell us that we're mostly
under attack from foreigners, and another general say no, it's mostly
enraged Saddam followers.

The CIA and the state department have seemingly spent more energy on
defeating the Iraqi National Congress -- the umbrella opposition
organisation led by Ahmad Chalabi -- than on overthrowing Saddam and
working with the opposition to plan for the postwar period. Iran has
created at least a dozen radio and television stations to spread its
poison throughout Iraq, while the United States only recently got its
first national radio station on the air. If we were serious about
enlisting the people, we'd have been prepared to talk to them from
the outset. So when you think about the Dubya Doctrine of spreading
democratic revolution, remember that he's got the bureaucracy working
against him.

It was a mistake to think about Iraq as a thing in itself, as if we
could detach it from the regional context and `solve' it alone.
During the 14 or 15 months from Afghanistan to Iraq, the terror
masters made a war plan that called for replicating the successes of
Lebanon in the Eighties: kidnapping, assassination, suicide bombs and
terrorist attacks -- mostly from Hezbollah -- eventually drove out both
American and French armed forces. They made no secret of their
intentions -- Iranian and Syrian leaders openly announced them, but
the war planners apparently either ignored them or laughed it off.

Iran has always been the most powerful and the most lethal of the
terror masters (Hezbollah is an Iranian creation, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Islamic Republic), but it also holds another record
of sorts: it is the first example of a totally failed Shiite Islamist
state. The crazed leaders of the Islamic Republic have wrecked and
ransacked the country for their own personal profit, oppressed,
enslaved, murdered and tortured the Iranian people, and supported the
killers of thousands of innocent people all over the world. The
Iranian people hate this regime. They have expressed their hatred in
every imaginable way, from mass demonstrations to amazingly candid
replies to pollsters, to sending heartbreaking faxes and emails to
people in the West who seem to understand their plight and share
their dreams of freedom.

If the mullahs were brought down, they would certainly be replaced by
a democratic government that separated mosque and state and gave the
Iranian people a major voice in the country's policies. There are
very few knowledgeable people who doubt this, and this has been a
major theme of the Dubya Doctrine all along. But to our shame the
words have not been accompanied by action, either in Washington or
London or any other Western capital, even though all are agreed that
Iran is the leading terror master, that many of our troubles in Iraq
are the result of Iranian actions or the actions of Iranian proxies,
and that the Iranian people are ready to take to the streets against
the mullahcracy in the same way the Serbs organised to bring down

Iran is ready for democratic revolution, and it is the key to the
terror network. Ergo we should be supporting democratic revolution in
Iran, and we should get on with it quickly before they show us that
they have finally built an atomic bomb. It is hard to argue that Iran
is somehow incapable of democracy, or that the mullahcracy should be
tolerated any longer, let alone supported. Yet European and
UN `diplomatic missions' regularly show up in Tehran, occasionally
mutter a few critical remarks about human rights violations or
suspicious uranium samples, and then go away. I think we would do a
lot better to recite the known facts about Iran every day, and give
the Iranian people the support they deserve: round-the-clock
broadcasting to encourage them to be brave, money to support
potential strikes in the country's crucial oil and gas and textile
industries, communications toys like satellite phones so that they
can communicate with one another when the regime shuts down the
cells, as was done last summer on the eve of an announced national
strike. Instead, we have remained aloof and even made highly
misleading remarks (take the deputy secretary of state Richard
Armitage, who proclaimed Iran `a democracy'; and the secretary of
state Colin Powell, who, on the verge of the planned uprising last
summer, said the United States really didn't want to get involved in
the Iranians' `family squabble'.) Many Iranians felt betrayed, since
they had earlier heard the President's numerous statements about the
need to spread freedom in their region.

My guess is that if we show we are serious about supporting the
democratic opposition in Iran, the mullahcracy will fall and the
contagion will reach all areas of the Middle East. Indeed, some of
that has happened already; for example, we have recently seen the
first pro-democracy demonstrations in the history of Saudi Arabia.
And it cannot be an accident that those demonstrations came shortly
after the liberation of Iraq, and the Arabs saw more than 200 Iraqi
newspapers spring up, along with countless magazines, new courses at
the universities and other signs of intellectual creativity that
hadn't been seen for generations.

I do not believe that Arab or Muslim DNA is mysteriously lacking a
democracy chromosome or a freedom gene. I don't think that democratic
revolution is all that difficult, or that it requires some key
sociological component such as a middle class or a historical event
such as a Reformation or an industrial revolution (Athenian democracy
had none of the above). I believe that the advantages of a free
society are pretty clear to almost the entire population of the
planet, that most people would choose to be free if they were free to
choose, and that, thereafter, some would do well and others not, just
as in the past. There is no lack of evidence for this, in the Middle
East or elsewhere.

For many years the same sorts of objection to the feasibility of
democracy in the Middle East were raised against democracy in South
America. The Latinos, it was said, just weren't cut out for it; they
liked caudillos too much. And yet during the eight years of Ronald
Reagan's presidency democratic revolution swept the entire region.
There were only two elected governments in South America at the
beginning, and only two unelected ones in the whole region when he
handed the keys to the White House to Bush the Elder.

I think we are on the verge of the same kind of revolutionary
transformation in the Middle East today. The real question is not
whether it can be done, but whether we have the will to do it. We
haven't been very good in Afghanistan, where American negotiators
unaccountably agreed to the creation of an `Islamic Republic' when we
should have vetoed the very idea. We haven't been nearly as active as
we should have been in embracing the Iraqis, who have proved many of
the pessimists totally wrong: there hasn't been a religious or ethnic
civil war, the Iraqi Shiites have not been manipulated by the
Iranians, and there are plenty of talented and educated Iraqis who,
given the chance, could do a thoroughly presentable job of managing
their country. We're getting better, but the people of the region are
running ahead of us whenever they can. There was a brief `Prague
Spring' in Damascus after the death of the old tyrant, but it was
crushed soon after. I don't think it will be that difficult to find
suitably democratic forces in Syria in the future, especially if we
deal effectively with Iran.

The main thing is to see the situation plainly: we are at war with a
group of tyrants who sponsor a network of terrorists. Our most potent
weapon against them is their own people, who hate them and wish to be
free. We don't need to invade Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia, but we
certainly need to support the calls for freedom coming from within
those tyrannical countries.

And that's the Dubya Doctrine.
Main / Noble Aspirations
Dec 01, 2003, 04:32 PM
NRO printed his article about Shirin Ebadi today.  :D

December 01, 2003, 9:10 a.m.
Noble Aspirations
We Iranians seek fundamental change.

By Koorosh Afshar

TEHRAN, IRAN -- Most Westerners know very little, if anything, about the true psyche of the Iranian masses. Allow me to enlighten: For centuries, it has been dominated by fruitless anticipation and superstition. The people of my nation have been told to await a messiah who will finally deliver them; they faithfully cling to the idea that one great leader will relieve their suffering. Twenty-five years ago, the enemies of my nation took advantage of this embarrassing fantasy, setting the stage for the Islamic revolution. Since then, Iran has languished for more than two decades, and was doomed to fall for another mendacious and sinister mullah, Khatami, six years ago.

As time passed, the Iranian citizenry realized that this mullah, like the others, was nothing more than a mediocre Islamist politician, and certainly not the long-awaited messiah.

In fact, our national messiah never came. He never will.

But at least we've wizened up. Instead of superstition, the majority of the new generation of Iranians diligently embraces the concept of self-determination.

It was, then, good news for us when one of our compatriots (a woman, no less), Shirin Ebadi, won the Nobel peace prize earlier this year. We sincerely hope that this will help secularize our thinking and bring about meaningful change. It will have to: There is no other path for the future of our nation. So long as the militant Islamists are in power, talk of reform is futile.

The first and foremost task for a person like Ebadi is to help represent the Iranian nationalist mindset and identity to the world. The mullahs, however, are not making her job any easier: They criticize on religious grounds, condemning Ebadi's unorthodox views. But in her capacity as an Iranian ambassador to the world, her religion (whether compatible or at odds with the mullahs') is quite irrelevant. Religion is merely a private matter, and it must not and will not have any place in the future political system of Iran.

This is essential. Historians know full well that whenever a state is controlled by particular religious institution, human-rights violations follow in short order. There can be no talk of individualism while, at the same time, the state imposes on everyone a specific spiritual ideology. The inevitable result of such a system is strict categorization: Citizens are branded either as insiders or outsiders, believers or infidels. Those peers of mine who poured into the streets of Tehran, left with nothing but clenched fists and slogans, had completely given up on "reforming" this flawed system. They do not aspire to bring about a milder version of the current regime, and neither do I: We seek more fundamental change.

Now Mrs. Ebadi is at a very critical juncture. She can, with her wise secular words, shatter the suffocating bonds of theocracy, and represent to the world the desires of the Iranian nation. As she faces obstacles in doing so, she should be bolstered by the fact that nothing is nobler than the just, secular aspirations of my nation -- or the act of supporting them. She should remember the words of Thomas Paine: "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity."

As we pursue reform, accomplishing religious freedom would be nice. But our priority should be casting aside old superstitions, and replacing them with a much more powerful, fundamental faith: the religion of freedom.

-- Koorosh Afshar is a pseudonym for a student in Tehran. His name has been changed for his protection. He has previously written for NRO here and here.
Main / W - O - W
Dec 01, 2003, 08:22 AM
A former CIA agent just emaild me to congratulate me on my work at on Iran/terrorism.  He said my work was "very insightful."  :D :D  I'm buzzing.  


Hi Amber:
I recently came across your article, (deleted) ....  Very insightful. You're certainly focused on the central issues regarding terrorists and terror states and that is not only to annihilate the individuals responsible for terror but also to make the decision to pander to or support terrorists by governments a swift, devastating and painful miscalculation. I assure you that the events of the very recent weeks are encouraging to me as I see things that most others do not. We are clearly winning and winning big. Do not be distracted by the tangents of war. Our recent massive raids are successful only because we are developing reliable intel (HuMint) which did not exist in Iraq prior to our invasion. President Bush is a man of incredible moral character and vision and without his determination, leadership and understanding of the Art of War, the US and the West would suffer greatly. I served under 6 US presidents and have never been so encouraged as I am now by the respect the President has for our military, our CIA and intelligence community and of course, for our country.  Director Tenet inherited an anorexic intelligence agency and in only 2 short years he has transformed it into a proud and efficient staple of freedom. There are many who would love to dwell on the CIA sins of the past. Let's hope we learned and have moved on. We have no choice, for without the invaluable intel gathered by the CIA and sacrifices made by the men and women of the agency, the US and the West are dead.  
Main / Some women see safety in numbers
Dec 01, 2003, 04:08 AM

Some women see safety in numbers

By Colleen Freyvogel  
Collegian Staff Writer
Some female students are more prone to walking in a group at night after this semester's large number of sexual assaults, but many female students still walk alone.

"Nobody walks alone anymore," said Ronisha Hester (sophomore-communication sciences and disorders) as she and her female friends walked together on campus. "The only problem is, if girls start walking in groups, then rapists might start attacking in groups."

Hester's friend Diana Hines (freshman-kinesiology) said the attacks haven't stopped her from feeling secure on campus because she is from Washington, D.C.

"Lately people have been talking about girls being attacked because of what they are wearing, and that is part of it but it is also partly
their fault," Hines said. "They're walking by themselves, knowing they can be raped or assaulted."

Although JoVonne Walker (sophomore-computer engineering) now walks in a group after sunset, she said she always carries pepper spray on her key chain.

Some female students said they have not modified their usual routines.

"I feel as safe as I ever have and I haven't changed anything," said Christine Yeager (senior-finance). "It's probably the mentality that it won't happen to me, so I don't really think about it."

Yeager said that most places are fairly well lit on campus, and she usually doesn't go into unlit areas when she is walking alone.

Bethany Ling (junior-division of undergraduate studies) agreed.

"I am pretty comfortable on campus, I just try to avoid poorly lit areas," Ling said. "I don't usually walk very long without running into groups of people."

Most students said that more lighting is needed on campus, as well as police officers to make others feel more secure.

Heather Varano (sophomore-art) said that campus doesn't feel as safe to her as it did prior to this semester but she still walks on campus at night sometimes.

"I wait for the bus more now at night, or I will talk on my cell phone if I have to walk somewhere," Varano said. "I definitely don't think girls feel safe anymore, so that is why they aren't walking alone on campus as much."
Main / I'm planning something evil
Dec 01, 2003, 03:29 AM
... and the bastards at national review online are going to be really really sorry they silenced an Iranian for political reasons. :2up:

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  :twisted:  :evillaugh:  

:D  :mrgreen:  :yes:

Actually, it's not evil at all - which is why it is evil.
Main / Misandrist buttons
Nov 30, 2003, 05:56 PM
I don't know why I'm posting these other than to shed light.

All courtesy of Nikki Craft at

 <--- This one really irritates me

<--- Just in case you can't see it, "What I'm saying is that everyone of us has the responsibility to be the womean that Marc Lepine wanted to murder.--Andrea Dworkin"

<---"Whatever Intercourse is, it is not freedom; and if it cannot exist without objectification, it will never be.--Andrea Dworkin"

And the only that explains all of this ...

Ah, before I write this, let me say I may be apt to use vulgar/obsense language.  It's intent is to get my point across.

One thing feminists love to propagandize is that rape is about control not sex.  In other words, that a man rapes a woman not for the orgasmic pleasure of it, but because he has a fundamental desire to control and hurt that woman (some feminists will go so far as to say men do it because they are jealous of women or some other nonsense).

I've yet to see what research they did to prove this.  Most people believe it's true - because their teacher told them it's true - whose teacher told them it's true - whose step sister who is a raging feminist told them it's true - and on and on.

Here is my theory on 1)  Why they spread this lie and 2)  Why it remains popular.  The latter explains the former.

First of all, I think it has psychological appeal to women.  Here is the reason.

Most if not all women need sex to be about something more than just sex (when done right, it is).  I'm not here to debate that though.  I'm just making note of the fact that women want sex to be about more than just a dick in a vagina.

This applies to all sex.  So when it comes to rape - if a woman is raped, and the sole reason she gets raped is for nothing but a man who wants to stick his penis in her vagina - any vagina, it wouldn't have mattered to him - not only is this woman being raped, she is being reduced to the level of nothingness, worse than a prostitute, nothing but a warm cunt for him.

But if he is raping her because he wants to "control" her - an element of that "more" comes in.  There is something distinct to *her* that he wants.  

Now here is why feminists keep this lie alive.

First of all, their lie has massive popular appeal not because of fact but because of the psychological appeal the lie has to women.

But the reason they have a vested interest in keeping this lie popular is this lie makes rape seem *less evil*.

Let me put it this way:  if a woman knows she is being raped for nothing other than she is a pussy for a man to stick his dick in, she'll run like hell from it.  She will be damn sure to never be raped (do whatever she can to stop it), and she also will not glorify it AT ALL after the fact.  It will leave a feeling of pure and utter disgust in the pit of her stomach.

Ah, but if it's about "control" it's a whole other ball game.  All of a sudden it's a matter of .... "Women are so great, that men have this uncontrollable urge to control us..."  ... she becomes a victim because of her virtues, in a sick twisted way.

Feminists do this to take the sting out of rape, and in fact, glorify it.  

If there is one thing about femininsts:  they do NOT want to end rape.  If you ever watch a feminist, when studies find there is MORE rape in society, they actually get HAPPY.  

So in fact this lie about rape being about control, it, in a way, not only does not make women run like hell from the thought of being raped, it actually makes them want to be raped.  Rape becomes a massive power source this way.  A rape victim can get up on her soapbox and never actually feel humiliated about the whole incident but rather will feel completely empowered.  

It's all a part of setting up a rape culture.
The Men's Movement: Legitimate Grievances or Whiners with a Gender Grudge?

This topic was debated on the Glenn Sacks show.  It is up on right now if you want to listen to it.
Main / Michael Jackson
Nov 29, 2003, 03:40 AM
You know, I was thinking.  It is highly likely that Michael Jackson was sexually violated as a young child.  Little adorable lead singer of a band .... a pedophile's dream.  Just like Jon Benet Ramsy.  Little cute kid in the public's eye.  

Ah, i believe there is usually a cycle of abuse.  Victims of pedophilia become pedophiles themselves.
Main / Amazing insight from MS
Nov 29, 2003, 02:56 AM
From the suckiness of sexuality in patriarchy thread:

"In porn women are viewed primarily as a tool/object to get men OFF! "


You know, evil #1 according to feminists everywhere is a woman who is in anyway sexually alluring.  I mean ... thousands of girls could be totally uneducated and they just wouldn't care.  Thousands of women could be being raped under Saddam's regime, and they just don't care.  JUST DON'T LET THAT WOMAN STAND IN PUBLIC IN A BIKINI!!!!
This shows just how out of teach these freaks are with real women.  They've tried these kinds of gender integrating things before, and the women themselves don't like them.  I think UOC has an IWF at it.  

My comment in bold.  :D

U. of C. activists want bathrooms without gender

November 26, 2003

BY LUCIO GUERRERO Staff Reporter Advertisement

Transgender, gay and feminist groups at the University of Chicago are asking officials to consider creating more gender-neutral bathrooms, saying some people aren't comfortable selecting a gender-specific facility. [Pfft!  Let's ruin thing for everyone because some transgendered freak can't decide if he wants the boy or girl's room.]

"Persons who are not easily legible as male or female often experience various forms of intimidation in these places. If a woman in a women's-only restroom is assumed to be a man, there may be real threats to her comfort and even safety," [oh, so women are violent now?] warns the Coalition for a Queer Safe Campus, a student group comprised of various organizations supporting equality on campus. "Students have faced gay-baiting comments in our university's sex-segregated bathrooms."

The issue is especially of concern to transgenders who attend the university. The coalition said they know of students who don't use the bathrooms at school to avoid any controversy. [They'll block off streets, take over buildings, but they can't use the bathroom?  Pfft!!!]

Members of the Feminist Majority, Queers & Associates and the Center for Gender Studies held a panel at the university last week to discuss the issue. Moon Duchin, a graduate student at U. of C. and an adviser to the Queer Safe Campus bathroom initiative, said there is a misperception on campus from some students about the gender-neutral bathrooms.

She said after the panel convened and word spread about the topic, some students posted negative comments on Web sites about the movement. [Kind of like this one.]

"This is a hot-button issue with some people who think that we are trying to do away with conventional bathrooms," Duchin said. "But that's not the case. We are trying to create more choices for people."  [Choices!  More choices!!  There's that word again!!  That's what we need!  Choices!]

In the short term, the group wants to change existing bathrooms on one floor of the Joseph Regenstein Library and one floor of Cobb Hall, a popular student hangout. In the future, the group would like the university to consider gender-neutral bathrooms to be included in the plans for new buildings.

"Access to public, single-occupancy bathrooms would be ideal for undercutting this source of intimidation, but converting existing multi-stall bathrooms to gender neutrality is an excellent, and easy, intermediate step," the group writes on its Web site.

University officials said they are willing to look at the buildings to see if more bathrooms can be added.

"They have done a great job of raising community awareness of the issue," said Bill Michel, associate dean of the college. [Oh my god!!  Oh how I hate university admin!!!  Please take a note of this person's position in the university] "We are in the process of evaluating these two buildings to see if would be possible to create more bathrooms."

Michel said the university already has nine gender-neutral bathrooms but none in the two most popular buildings.

But it is more than just a gay and transgender issue, for some feminists the issue of gender specific bathrooms has been a problem for years.

"Some feminists might say that any sex segregation is problematic," [Ya, like heterosexual women choosing men and not exploring bisexuality, lesbianism, or only going solo] said Mary Anne Case, a professor of law at the University of Chicago who has studied the early roots of feminism and the inequality in sex segregated bathrooms.

Case said that along with creating more bathroom space for women -- a typical problem in public facilities -- the gender-neutral bathroom would also give men and women less reasons to separate in social functions. [This is blatantly false.  The fact is, the more you keep men and women sepaparated, the closer you will bring them.  An effective method to keep men and women away from each other romantically is to make them live together or piss together - this is a known fact.]

I thought this stupid shit died off in the late 90s.  I was wrong.
The following response I got to my femininity-masculinity article is awesome.  :D  My basic argument in the article is that the metaphysical design of men and women give rise to masculinity and femininity respectively.  Below, he argues that the metaphysical design of any person determines if they will be masculine or feminine.  Broad shouldered people will behave masculine.  Long legged, wider hipped people will be feminine.  The one thing i would add is:  he is describing the male versus the female body.  I think the person who posted this would argue that it doesn't matter if a person is a male or female - so as long as they fit X bodily mold, they will be masculine or feminine.  But in fact men are metaphysically designed to have large shoulders and women to have wide hips.

think we are a composite of both. I think women are the dominant sex but I think men are sexually dominant. I read a book called The Satanic Witch (by Anton LaVey) and he actually shows you how you can understand a persons amount of feminity and masculinity by literally looking at their body shape.Their are 4 basic shapes. Broad shoulders with long torso and short legs(wedge shaped) is the shape of a masculine man or woman. They are always the leaders, always on stage and dont like to compete.China from wrestling fits this catigory. All WWF type wrestlers are in this catogory and that is why they are wrestlers because it is fake and they dont actually lose. The second type is the narrow stick build who doesn't ever gain weight. They are a composite of dominant and passive personality. They are the least social and always social critics. The stereotype hippy. Gilligan. They are thinkers, not doers. The third type is the feminine type. Long legs and short torso. If they gain weight it is always in their bottom. They are passive and usualy carry things out. They get along with most other types and dont mind competitions because their egos are the least threatened. The fourth type is the social type who has most trouble keeping off the weight. They are the Rosans and Ricki Lakes.They are the Oprahs and Notoriouse B.I.G.s. These are simply the basic types of people. Now here is the interesting thing that LaVey pointed out. Opposites attract. The first (masculine) type of person will always end up with their opposite feminine counterpart as a sex partner or wife. The antisocial skinny guy will always wind up with the cute chubby social girl who loves to talk on the phone. Friendships work the same way. If two people dont get along or if a couple has relationship problems,chances are they are to close to the same type.

I think that even if you are dominant or passive by nature that your most powerful as an individual if you stick to your gender. I think a woman is most powerfulll femine if she utilizes all the things that make her DIFFERENT from a man.
Women who do this (Marilyn Monroe is a prime example) are always the most successful in what they do because men are voyeurs and place most emphasis on what they see. They will be putty in this type of womans hands.
(sorry I didn't put this in paragraph form)"
Main / The bash Andrea Dworkin thread
Nov 27, 2003, 10:23 PM
I want to fit into the piece I have going about lesbianism an argument regarding how feminists take everything a heterosexual woman enjoys about sex and trains her not to lust those kinds of things but fear it.  So I went to the best source for insight into those who demonize heterosexual sex:  Andrea Dworkin.

I'm in a seriously tough position.  Mostly it has to do with the fact that I find her work to be so incredibly detached from reality (read:  laughable) that I just can't bring myself to quote it or even critique it.

I figure if I immerse myself in it a little bit that might help.  I also really need to get a vision going in my head of what a good heterosexual romp is like (a really good one), to compare and contrast.  Ah, I'm not sure if anyone here can help with that.  :D

So this is the bash Andrea Dworkin thread.  I hope we bash her enough that she actually hears about it and starts posting.  (Hahaha!)

Here is the first quote from her in her book Letters from a Warzone.  

"There is one message basic to all kinds of pornography from the sludge that we see all around us, to the artsy-farsy pornography that the intellectuals call erotica, to the under-the-counter kiddie porn, to the slick, glossy men's "entertainment" magazines.  The one message that is carried in all pornography all the time is this:  she wants it; she wants to be beaten; she wants to be forced; she wants to be raped; she wants to be brutalized; she wants to be hurt."

This is Dworkin talking at a Tack Back the Night rally in 1979.  Did you know this shit has been going on for over 20 years?

First she describes about how the night is a dangerous place to be, then she says,

"Their victims recoil, resists sex, resist death, until, overcome by the thrill of it all, they spread their legs and bare their necks and fall in love.  Once the victim has fully submitted, the night holds no more terror, because the victim is dead.  She is very lovely, very feminine and very dead.  This is the essence of so-called romance, which is rape embellished with meaningful looks."

There is a very re-occuring theme in Dworkin's work that having sex for a woman leads to death.  Also, notice her sneak attack in there:  she believes romance itself is "rape embellished with meaningful looks."

"Night is the time of romance.  Men, like their adored vampries, go a-courting.  Men, like vampries, hunt.  Night licenses so-called romance and romance boils down to rape:  forced entry into the domicile which is sometimes the home, always the body and what some call the soul.  The female is olitary and/or sleeping.  The male drinks from her until he is sated or until she is dead.  The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill."

Dworkin describes how for 3 years she did nothing but study pornography.  She doesn't make the divide between hard core nasty pornography and regular pornography (she doesn't even make the divide between a husband-wife relationship and a rapist-victim relationship), she just calls it 'pornography,' but she was studying hardcore violent pornography.

"The photographs I had to study changed my whole relationship to the physical world in which I live.  For me, a telephone became a dildo, the telephone wire an instrument of bondage; a hair dryer became a dildo - those hair dryers euphemistically named "pistols"; scissors were no longer associated with cutting paper but were poised at the vagina's opening.  I saw so many photographs of common household objects being used as sexual weapons against women that I despaired of ever returning to my once simple ideas of fuction."

Twisted view of reality much?  It's everywhere!  It's out to get you!!  That telephone cord is just an instrument to hang you with!  See, this is what feminists have to do to keep themselves angry as hell.

Most of her writings are her bitching about how no one would publish her.  Here she complains,

"I was not supposed to say, for example, 'Women are raped.'  I was supposed to say, 'Green-eyed women with one leg longer than the other, hair between the teth, French poodles, and a taste for sauteed vegetables are raped occasionally on Fridays by persons.'"

Well duhhh, what those editors were trying to tell you that "Women are raped," is an inaccurate, blanket statement.  Some women are raped by some men.  

Anyway, here are some interesting things about Dworkin

*She used to be a prostitute in her young life
*She has appeal among many gay men
*Everyone knows she is large and ugly now (likely she did this to her body on purpose)
*I saw her on TV once and she seemed to be very willowy and weak - actually had a feminine voice, squeaky, totally non-confident
*She describes in the beginning of this book how she used to be an editor's assistant and that she was incompetent at it.

Regarding her appeal among gay men:  I find it utterly bizarre.  She has a article dedicated to Tennesse Williams in here after died.  Williams was a homosexual playwright.  In a lot of his plays, he portrays heterosexual sex as violent, and women always as being violated by it.

Here is her picture now.  I wish I could see a picture from when she was younger.  

Anyway, have at it.
Main / How much weight did you gain?
Nov 27, 2003, 08:14 PM
Want to hear a funny story?

I was having dinner with my family.  We were talking about something, but for some reason my mom decided to tell a story about when I was shopping for glasses.  I told my mother when I bought them that they looked "exotic."  So, my mother was relaying the story tonight, and blurted out that I said my glasses looked, "erotic."

PFFFT!!!!  Thank god it was just my grandmother and aunts around.