RSS
Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his Substack page, theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.
Despite the stubborn optimism and indeed naïveté of mainstream conservatives and their dogged fetishism for the Constitution not merely as a governing legal document but as a moral and normative authority, our system of government and indeed the Constitution itself are irredeemable. Such utter lack of fitness of purpose requires a truly revolutionary spirit, one that seeks to burn the Constitution, end democracy, and dismantle our current form of government through to its very foundation. Those who balk at such a radical proposition must at least concede that the judiciary branch of this government has wreaked absolute havoc and destruction for many decades, and that there is no apparent prospect of undoing the damage within the framework of the current system. Indeed, those committed to democratic norms, despite all the evidence to the contrary, should consider how the Constitution has been unable to stop a rogue judiciary from appointing itself as the final arbiter as to what is a compelling (or legitimate) state interest or not.
Introduction: Pornography, Obscenity, and Modern First Amendment Jurisprudence
One unfortunate characteristic typical of much of mainstream conservatism is a dogged appeal to the Constitution, not just as a legal authority, but as a moral or normative one. It is of course a fallacy to presuppose that, because something is or is interpreted to be mandated or proscribed by the Constitution, that such a legal mandate or proscription is therefore correct and infallible on that basis alone as a moral, normative, or even practical matter. The Constitution after all once explicitly recognized and endorsed the institution of slavery. It has similarly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to prohibit execution for child molestation and other heinous sexual offenses Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), as it has also been interpreted to require provision of education and other services to children of illegal immigrants (whether born in the states or not) (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 [1982]). The Supreme Court has also ruled that practically unlimited campaign contributions — in effect legalized bribery — is also subject to First Amendment protections.
Whereas most would argue that freedom of speech under the First Amendment—both as a proscription against government censorship and as an important societal norm and value—is infallible and utterly beyond reproach, this author is not convinced that freedom of speech should be quite so sacrosanct, particularly if a far-left movement could seize power and have the wherewithal to censor, oppress, and even eradicate speech they don’t like. But even conceding what is agreed to by a seemingly overwhelming consensus, namely that free speech under the First Amendment is one of the highest societal norms and values (as well as a proscription against government censorship), the Constitution and more particularly the First Amendment, as currently interpreted, understood,[1]One important matter related to the topic of this treatise but which cannot be explored in depth concerns original intent, that is what the framers intended by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It will only be stated in passing this author is highly skeptical that the framers ever envisioned let alone intended the First Amendment to protect hardcore pornography. It is of course important to note that only the printed word existed at that time, or indeed when John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty, from which the expression “marketplace of ideas originates.” “First Amendment Fetishism” by John Kang 2024 UKR 679 (2024) offers some analysis of the legal history the author uses to make this argument, but much of it seems tangential. A far more persuasive argument is that the framers failed to address things like obscenity and hardcore obscenity because such things were utterly unforeseeable and thus something they could not have fathomed. Given how obscene and even profane content was regularly censored before 1960 seems indicative of how questions of original intent ought to be answered with any intellectual honesty. and applied, currently permits one of the worst vices of the modern age: that vice is of course pornography. Much to the indictment of mainstream conservatism as well as mainstream public consensus at large, many, including many mainstream conservatives and libertarians, are free speech absolutists. Many are convinced that the First Amendment not only does protect pornography under the First Amendment, but that it ought to. Both propositions are dubious, no matter how strong the consensus urging the contrary may be.
In discussing and analyzing this both as a legal and as a normative matter, a brief synopsis of First Amendment jurisprudence as it relates to pornography and obscenity is in order. Contrary to popular misconception, obscenity, even today, is not protected under the First Amendment, at least not in a strictly legal, technical sense, even if particulars make censoring obscene material impossible in practical application. The seminal Supreme Court decision on this matter is Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). The Miller decision sets forth a three-prong test concerning obscenity and First Amendment protection:
a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
It is of particular note that the Miller opinion refused to adopt the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts 383 U.S. 413 (1966).
At initial glance, it would seem to be fairly straightforward to ban or otherwise censor or regulate pornography using this three-prong test. Hardcore pornography obviously “appeals to the prurient interest,” depicts explicit “sexual conduct,” just as such material “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” And yet even as obscenity technically remains outside the scope of First Amendment protection, as a practical matter it has become all but impossible for local, state or federal governments to exercise state power against this vice, due to machinations of prominent leaders in the legal profession as well as subversive elements in cultural, educational, and political centers of power that, for a variety of reasons, have waged a war to not just normalize pornography (among many other vices), but render it something wholly banal and commonplace.
How could this have come to pass? Readers are directed to two operative phrases in the Miller test, which have served as proverbial chinks in the armor in relation to any effort to use state power to ban, censor, or otherwise regulate pornography in any meaningful way. The first damning phrase is found in the first prong, applying “contemporary community standards.” (emphasis added). This phrase has in effect rendered the concept something utterly subjective, when obscenity is an objective matter. “Contemporary community standards” ebb and flow with the ever-changing vicissitudes of an increasingly decadent and indeed profligate society. By not upholding a firm, objective standard, this test facilitates and accelerates a key sociological concept known as defining deviancy down. Closely related to the Durkheim Constant, which stipulates that each and every society has a constant, fixed quotient of behavior it regards as deviant but nevertheless exists on the outlying fringes of conduct and behavior in that society, defining deviancy down explains how when a society tolerates deviant behavior, that society becomes acclimated to it and, unless society stigmatizes and sanctions such deviant behavior in a way that deters its proliferation, that behavior will eventually—or even quite quickly—become mainstream, and more deviant or even theretofore unthinkable behavior will then become the fringe, and the process continues for as long as society is unwilling or unable to sanction and deter deviant or undesirable behavior.[2]See generally the introduction to Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Defining deviancy down has been discussed at length by this author, most notably in “This Horrid Rainbow: Defining Deviancy Down and Away,” which explores how mainstream conservatism was unable to effectively combat the advent of so-called gay marriage in large part because mainstream conservatives either had no conception of this vital concept, or did not want to impart this important concept to the public. The concept is also discussed at some length in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern” and “The Psychic Toll: How Anti-Social Behaviors and Bizarre Manias Affect The Individual and Society in the Instant of the Moment.” To whatever extent that pornography or any other vice is tolerated or countenanced at all, society becomes acclimated to it, and very quickly this vice becomes incorporated into the “contemporary community standards” of this society as it fails to respond to this vice with urgency. This is of particular importance to unduly burdensome legal standards. Pornography went from something that was stigmatized even in the mid to late 90s to something that is utterly mainstream and even banal in less than a decade. A legal standard that imposes many years of burdensome litigation renders any state action too slow and cumbersome to accomplish anything. For by the time such matters make their way up the court system, society has already become acclimated to hardcore pornography, as that vice, pornography, becomes quickly subsumed in “contemporary community standards.” As Geoffrey Stone articulates in “Sex and the First Amendment: the Long Winding Road of Obscenity Law, “The social changes unleashed in the 1960s and 1970s, shifting cultural values, and the advent of new technologies—including VHS, DVD, cable television, and the Internet—simply overwhelmed the capacity of the law to constrain sexual expression.”
This very phenomenon was demonstrated in a failed effort to prosecute Larry W. Peterman in Utah some 25 years ago. In that case, local authorities charged a video store proprietor, Peterman, for disseminating hardcore pornography via sales and rental of physical media. Peterman was unfortunately acquitted. One of the considerations that doomed the prosecution was this “contemporary community standards” qualifier. Defendant’s attorneys submitted evidence concerning clients at hotels and the pay-per-view rental of pornographic films. This somehow convinced the jury that such materials were within “contemporary community standards,” even if most hotel guests come in from out of town and likely out of state. This extended excerpt from an article in The New York Times on this matter is noteworthy:
Why file criminal charges against a lone video retailer, Mr. Spencer argued, when some of the biggest corporations in America, including a hotel chain whose board of directors includes W. Mitt Romney, president of the Salt Lake City Olympics organizing committee, and a satellite broadcaster heavily backed by Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, were selling the same product?
”I despise this stuff — some of it is really raunchy,” said Mr. Spencer, a public defender who described himself as a devout Mormon. ”But the fact is that an awful lot of people here in Utah County are paying to look at porn. What that says to me is that we’re normal.”
This is no principle by which public policy, implemented through the exercise of state power, can hope to deal with this or any other vice. If lots of people partake in child pornography, violent or gore pornography, bestiality, should it therefore be outside the scope of state action because such unspeakably evil vices comport with “contemporary community standards?” Some readers may mistake this rhetorical question as to somehow suggest this author is unaware of New York v Ferber 458 U.S. 747 (1982), in which the Supreme Court deigned to grant that prevention of child pornography and the myriad harms it causes is a legitimate state interest; other damaging effects inflicted on society and the public welfare by hardcore pornography apparently are not. To the contrary, this rhetorical question exposes a certain cognitive schism, a moral and intellectual inconsistency where obscenity is subject to a subjective set of “contemporary community standards,” but the most pernicious evil of child pornography is still subject to an absolute, objective standard. That people are developing a taste for such things on a certain economy of scale implores a dire need for state intervention in all instances, from hardcore pornography to the sorts of even more pernicious, extreme content mentioned above.
More disconcerting still, language in the Supreme Court decision in Reno vs ACLU 521 U.S. 844 (1997) indicates the “contemporary community standards” component of the Miller test may forbid any national censorship or curtailment of internet pornography, as the opinion states that “the ‘community standards’ criterion as applied to the Internet means that any communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message.” Footnote 39 further admonishes that the “determinations of ‘what appeals to the ‘prurient interest’ or is ‘patently offensive’ … are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists.’” This supercharges a race to the bottom, to the most depraved and profligate community standards in the nation.[3]As to what that race to the bottom might ultimately arrive to, this author suggests perusing three photo essays featured on the zombietime.com website (found here, here, and here) concerning street fairs in San Francisco, in which all sorts of obscene conduct was taking place out in the open street, in broad daylight, including homosexual men engaging in oral sex, men impaling themselves anally with dildoes while masturbating, and other lewd sexual acts. These photo essays even depict a “piss pool,” an inflatable lawn pool for children, where a man with a shirt with “piss pig” written on it offers fellatio to untold numbers of men while others urinate on him. This sort of conduct apparently comports with the local “contemporary community standards” of San Francisco. Any anti-pornography laws less profligate than those standards (one struggles to find any standards at all) would, according to Reno, violate the Constitutional rights of people in San Francisco and elsewhere defined by such abject depravity.
Our legal system similarly has defeated attempts to ban, censor, or regulate pornography under other nebulous legal doctrines such as “vagueness” and “overbreadth,” which only serve to frustrate and obstruct the exercise of state power on matters that are a vital state interest, as was done in the aforementioned Reno decision. See e.g., the series of Supreme Court decisions regarding the doomed Child Online Protection Act (Copa) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), a deplorable Supreme Court decision which ruled that the government could not ban simulated child pornography,[4]In a strict sense this was due to vagueness and overbreadth, but the particular import of this decision was to prevent the United States federal and state governments from even attempting to promulgate revised statutory language that seeks to ban such material. and the 2002 and 2004 Supreme court decisions in Ashcroft vs ACLU 535 (U.S. 564 and 542 U.S. 656), which enjoined enforcement of the act, remanding it to the lower court, which ultimately led to the act never taking effect. The practical effect of these and other decisions is that under our current legal system and jurisprudence, it is inconceivable that any attempt to use state power to ban, censor, or regulate pornography will be successful in the foreseeable future. Gregory Stone, constitutional law expert and law professor at the University of Chicago has stated as much in this summary of the limited extent that state power can do anything about this menace:
First, there remains a strong presumption in favor of protecting unconsenting adults and children when they are out in public. Second, the government can constitutionally prohibit the sale or exhibition to children of material that is obscene for minors, but only if it can do so without significantly interfering with the rights of adults. Third, the government can constitutionally prohibit the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography (that is, sexual images and videos made with real children). Beyond that, though, there are effectively no limits on what consenting adults can see.
Stone further explicates how 20 years ago. during the first term of the Geroge W. Bush presidency, Attorney General Ashcroft promised to crack down on obscene materials, but it was already too late and there were less than ten prosecutions sought. Those prosecutions only “went after the most extreme fare, such as videos in which men urinate in a woman’s mouth, women have sex with horses, and women and men engage in violent sado-masochistic behavior.”
Conceptualizing Pornography Not as Speech, But as a Product and Service
Were it possible. this realization suggests that the Constitution and even this form of government ought to be jettisoned altogether. But since that is not likely to happen anytime soon, a close examination of what pornography is intrinsically is in order, as such an examination demonstrates that it should not be that difficult to devise a legal standard and framework within our Constitution and current system of government that could, theoretically at least, allow the government to ban, censor, or regulate such material.
Arguably the most renowned legal article published by legal scholars exploring the viability of banning pornography is Cass Sunstein’s “Pornography and the First Amendment,” originally published almost 40 years ago. That this was published so long ago and societal norms and mores have declined so precipitously is an irrefutable indictment by itself of the Constitution, our legal system, and this form of government. While the treatise does not advocate for the censorship of pornography per se, the author at least argues that the proposition of banning, censoring, or regulating pornography should at least be permissible as a legal matter when interpreting the First Amendment and its proscriptions against government censorship.
For the purposes of the analysis set forth in this essay, some additional primer on First Amendment jurisprudence is in order for those readers less familiar with such matters. The First Amendment is of course not absolute. Many often trot out the old chestnut that “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater,” but that was taken from a horrible Supreme Court decision Schenck vs United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) that allowed the United States to prosecute and convict American citizens for rightly denouncing the United States entry into World War I, a decision which was overturned in the seminal Brandenburg v Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) decision over 50 years later (better late than never, one supposes). There are nevertheless various types of speech that are not protected at all or receive little protection from the First Amendment. These typically include things like threats, bribes, as well as defamation. In addition to such forms of speech that are entitled to no First Amendment protection whatsoever, other types of speech receive lesser protection than others. First Amendment jurisprudence offers the highest order of protection for speech that concerns political, cultural, religious and other matters relating to society, morals, culture, the law, and so on, known as “high value speech” in legal parlance. Commercial speech is theoretically entitled to a lower level of protection, but unfortunately, as a practical matter, even commercial speech (e.g., advertising) is afforded what this author argues are unreasonably robust protections.
At the start of the treatise, Sunstein offers a clumsy definition of pornography that is bound up in feminist perceptions at the time concerning explicit or tacit violence against women as somehow intrinsic to pornography. While pornography is degrading to both men and women, most of it does not seem to touch upon this issue of violence against women at all, and in this way this preoccupation with violence against women, indeed defining pornography as necessarily having this feature seems counterproductive to formulating any legal or intellectual framework whereby state power under our current system and constitution (or any other system for that matter) would have free rein to ban, censor, or regulate such material. After fumbling with such a dubious definition, Sunstein redeems himself to some limited extent by stating the obvious distinction that any worthwhile legal system would easily recognize: pornography is, at its essence, a “sexual aid.”[5]As modern legal jurisprudence favors multi-prong tests or sets of criteria, a list of indicia that are the hallmark of pornography-as-a-sexual aid are set forth by this author as follows; this set of criteria is written ad hoc, on an off-the shelf basis. The particulars of such language could be refined and elaborated on by any legislature. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that it is abundantly clear how pornography, at its essence, is a sexual aid and that our legal system should not be spinning its wheels on such matters for half a century. Any visual, written, or audio medium that bears these attributes with the principal, essential, and intrinsic purpose of providing sexual stimulation and gratification for the purposes of masturbation, sexual congress, or orgasmic climax are a sexual aid and therefore not subject to First Amendment protection:
While describing pornography as a sexual aid, Sunstein does not go so far as to argue that pornography is not speech at all, but he ought to have. Sunstein later describes pornography as a type of speech or expressive activity that is not at all “cognitive” in nature, whereas the higher forms of speech that do receive the highest, absolute protections under the First Amendment are “cognitive” in nature. Forms of speech that are “cognitive” in nature include written books, essays and treatises, video essays on YouTube and other streaming sites, documentaries, as well as novels, short stories, cinema, and other works of fiction that tell a narrative and are characterized by things like plot, character development and the like. The distinction between cognitive expression and non-cognitive, emotive expressive activity was well enunciated in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire 15 U.S. 568 (1942), which had affirmed the “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protections, but has regrettably been narrowed significantly. The operative language in Chaplinsky juxtaposes whether expression (or expressive activity) involves the exposition of ideas, balanced against interests of the public welfare.[6]It is of note that Steven vs United States declares that free speech jurisprudence can no longer apply such a balancing test. Such marginal areas of expression are grandfathered in, it would seem. Chaplinksy denied First Amendment protection to “fighting words” when “such utterances are not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
Pornography typically—if not categorically—lacks any of these features, and when the status of First Amendment protection was not nearly so settled as it is today, pornographic films of the 70s and 80s typically consisted of the most rudimentary plot that was only there to provide plausible deniability on this issue. Any shoddy suggestion of plot was transparent in how pretextual it was. No one ever watched pornography for the plot, but watched it to get it off, either by masturbation or for sexual stimulation before engaging in sexual relations with another person or even more than one person. Any semblance of plot or other features that Sunstein, other legal scholars, and our legal jurisprudence regard as “cognitive” in nature are merely incidental; pornography in its essence is a sexual aid, in other words a product like an illicit drug, or in the instance of personalized cam shows and the like, a service and a product.[7]The Supreme Court and lower courts have of course struggled with any distinction between actual speech and the provision of goods or services that involve “expressive activity.” That topic is beyond the scope of this essay except in passing. It is of course true that the provision of some products and services have an expressive component to them. Consider for example the “bake the cake” cases in which LGBTQ have singled out political opponents with what ought to be considered vexatious litigation. “Pornography and Cognition: A Reply to Cass Sunstein” by Paul Chevigny is just one example of the viewpoint asserting that the sort of sexual activity at question here is expressive activity. Consider however that almost any action has an expressive component. Obliterating the distinction in this way should nullify any prostitution laws, on the idea that someone who exchanges sexual services for money is expressing a decadent or profligate worldview. To the extent pornographic material, or extremely graphic “erotic dancing” and the like can be limited to a finite number of variants of a few basic sex acts (masturbation, oral, anal, vaginal sex, lurid depiction of the genitals or anus), the idea that such things really have an expressive quality to them worthy of First Amendment protection is highly dubious. There is doubtless greater variation to products and services provided at a hair salon or barber shop, and yet the expressive activity involved there is not sufficient to overcome onerous civil rights laws that force proprietors to provide services to protected classes of people.
Conceptualizing pornography not as speech but as a sexual aid—a product or service acting as a sexual aid— is the key, defining distinction, and it ought to be the key factor that permits outright censorship and banning under the First Amendment, both as a legal proscription and as a greater societal value. Unfortunately, as obvious as this distinguishing factor is, it is one lost on prevailing jurisprudence and legal scholarship. Indeed, in Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, Justice Kenndy fretted how Romeo and Juliet and other great literary works concern teen sexuality and even child abuse. His opinion even makes direct allusions to the films Traffic and American Beauty, specifically how the daughter of the lawyer for the D.E.A. becomes addicted to drugs and trades sex for drugs with a Black drug dealer. He also expounds at great length how American Beauty depicts a sexual act between one of the teenage girls and her boyfriend, as well as how her blonde friend was ready to “yield herself” sexually to a middle age man, and even alludes to a teen boy performing fellatio, although that allusion or depiction rather is a mistaken perception with fatal results at the film’s climax. While arguably indecent (probably not, as there is no full frontal nudity or any depiction of genitals, graphic or otherwise) none of these examples are sexually explicit. And they certainly do not come close to obscenity or acting as a sexual aid (at least not for the vast majority of persons). That our legal system is incapable or unwilling to discern such basic distinctions is utterly and permanently discrediting.
One way to conceptualize this fundamental distinction is by analogizing hypothetical laws against prostitution with pornography—a matter Sunstein for some reason neglects to examine altogether. If laws prohibiting one person from paying another for sexual favors are permissible, why is it then somehow constitutionally or morally suspect to promulgate laws prohibiting a client from paying one or more parties to commit sex acts either with that client, or simply by himself (masturbation) or with other parties because those sexual acts are contracted for while being filmed? Most if not all anti-prostitution laws would prohibit a man from hiring two women to have lesbian sex for his gratification as a spectator or voyeur, or paying a woman to have sex with another man, or hiring a prostitute and a gigolo to achieve some exhibitionist thrill, provided he does not film such sexual encounters. How this analysis should somehow change under precisely the same scenario but in front of a camera seems incredibly dubious. Analogizing pornography to prostitution is so obvious it was covered in a Family Guy joke—and yet it remains nebulous and confounding to leading lawyers and legal scholars alike.
Conceptualizing pornography as a sexual aid and as something evaluated under objective rather than subjective standards under a slightly modified Miller test that deletes the “contemporary community standards” component and illustrates the commercial nature that very often but not quite always defines pornography at its essence. Of course there are some who might produce such material for free. Just as some might produce methamphetamine, marijuana plants, and other illicit drugs and distribute this product for free. Such gratis offerings are still in effect a sexual aid, and in this way closely analogous to illicit narcotics that one might, as an exception and outlier, produce and disseminate for no monetary gain because such persons are committed, for their own peculiar reasons, to recreational drug use as some sort of perverse crusade.[8]A great deal of First Amendment jurisprudence gets bogged down with blurred lines between commercial and non-commercial speech, insofar as writers of books, essays, screenplays and any number of forms of speech that fit comfortably under that “highest order” of speech that receives nigh absolute protection from the First Amendment. There is of course the cognitive distinction Sunstein and others make to distinguish higher forms of speech with things like pornography. There are only so many sexual acts that can be performed, and none of them express a cogent argument or idea the way an essay, novel, so and so forth do. A product or service offered gratis is still, at its fundamental core, a product or service.[9]An interesting distinction could be discerned as follows, resting on the existence of a long-term relationship or marriage. Lewd or even obscene videos or images in private correspondence between a husband and wife or even boyfriend and girlfriend do not implicate considerations involved with defining deviancy down and public morality, at least not as much, provided such materials are not disseminated to the public.
Other arguments include objections that people find all sorts of things sexually stimulating, even something a person could use to help “tend to one’s self.” This sort of objection is typified, for example, in distasteful, vulgar, and thoroughly stale jokes about masturbating to the women’s underwear and intimate wear sections in Sears catalogs and the like back in the day before the Internet and before pornography became so utterly ubiquitous. There is no doubt some have masturbated while looking at models in panties and a brassiere in otherwise benign offerings in advertising and the like. Perhaps the problem is the phrase “prurient interest,” rather than sexual aid, as one can watch Rachel Reynolds strut around in open-toed strappy heels and a low cut, tight-fitting dress with a prurient interest, or Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman, or Gillian Anderson as Agent Scully, Catherine Bach as Daisy Duke, the list goes on and on.[10]This author laments at how he is able to cite these and other exemplars of American Unkultur with such ease. As exemplified in “Enveloped by Kultur-Terror,” such an odious cultural milieu is something my generation was born into. Despite assertions to the contrary, we cannot just turn the television off. No one can. And anyone who asserts the contrary is challenged to find someone who does not know who the “Fonz” is. The same rationale applies to even more risqué fare, such as burlesque dancing and even, perhaps, nude images that could be categorized as erotica but not as obscene, hardcore pornography.[11]While there is arguably, some ambiguity concerning nude images, the proposed three-prong test set defined above should be clear enough. When such images are intrinsically a sex-aid, a sex act comparable to prostitution, such media crosses the threshold into obscenity. With arguably the last instanced excepted, such a “prurient interest” does not make these images pornographic, or a sexual aid by their intrinsic nature, for indeed such instances are neither obscene nor are most of these examples even indecent. But just as rudimentary plots to pornographic films of past eras were incidental and were not of the essence of what pornography is intrinsically, R-rated or other salacious or alluring images that may arouse such a prurient interest and a lewd thought—or several—and serve as a sexual aid in marginal instances—are incidental and not intrinsic to the essence of such things, i.e., what they are fundamentally and principally. To reiterate: the incidental manner in which such images arouse a “prurient” interest is demonstrated by the fact that they are not obscene, the hallmark of pornography as a sexual aid and ersatz for prostitution.
In addition to falsely conceptualizing pornography as speech, rather than as an ersatz sexual aid or a product or service that offers sexual excitement and titillation, our legal system has toiled and fretted unnecessarily with supposed evidentiary problems in determining or ascertaining how pornography is harmful and the precise nature of harm it causes both society and the individual. Such obfuscation and obstructionism are exhibited for examples in the series of Ashcroft decisions discussed earlier. Sunstein spins his wheels on this matter as well, although he does note that difficult evidentiary problems should not be used to paralyze state action for the public welfare and greater good. He specifically notes how very difficult it can be to prove carcinogens cause cancer according to higher standards of proof, such as clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt evidentiary standards, but it would be madness to suggest that the nebulous nature of such matters should prevent the government from taking such action.
The Harm Pornography Inflicts on Society and the Individual
Published in 1986, Sunstein’s treatise is nearing its fortieth anniversary. It is noteworthy that it was written as pornography was just beginning to become more ubiquitous through the advent of VCR technology, which allowed persons to rent or purchase pornographic video tapes and watch in the privacy of their own homes, rather than go to some seedy “adult” theater. To whatever extent VCR and other home movie technologies caused greater ubiquity of pornography without social stigma and other external factors that deterred its use and proliferation, that problem has exploded by many orders of magnitude with the rise of broadband internet and the failure to respond in any meaningful way to pornography on the internet. Almost half a century has gone by, and our legal system—”our democracy”—has utterly failed to respond to this problem in any meaningful way.
Streaming pornography on the internet is of course quite different than a VHS tape or DVD disc back in the day, for a variety of reasons, and has begotten a plethora of social problems that harm both society and the individual. Streaming pornography has a particularly pernicious effect on brain chemistry and structure, acting in a manner similar to how opium and other drugs overload our natural endorphin reward system in ways our brain chemistry and biology could never possibly handle or deal with. One result is increasing desensitization, propelling those who use pornography to seek out more and more extreme material. The result—for both men and women—is that often an actual, living person as a sex partner is not able to titillate or arouse in the way ever more extreme internet porn can and does. This destroys interpersonal relationships while also hampering new relationships from ever forming in the first place, and further exacerbates the demographic winter that is one of the existential threats facing European peoples. Evidence is piling up that internet pornography gives rise to erectile dysfunction, not just in middle age men but young males, even those 18 years of age or younger. Any man who experienced or is experiencing adolescence and young adulthood in health rather than such sickness will attest what a shocking proposition this notion is. Pornography is the irresistible force that can and does topple a seemingly unmovable object, namely the male libido in adolescence and youth. Or would it be the immovable object that stops an irresistible force dead in its tracks? Beyond that, the explosion of persons using pornography has been associated with autogynephilia. In other words, tolerating internet pornography the way this dystopic society has is an antecedent to the transgender menace. Finally, the ubiquity of pornography is such that large numbers of minors, including not just adolescents but prepubescent children, regularly consume it. The assurances provided in Reno vs ACLU and other opinions from the effectiveness of internet filtering software to the burden lying principally with parents have been utterly and completely discredited.
Anything that creates such terrible maladies are an enemy to public health, public welfare, and the greater good, and accordingly should be obliterated from society to the furthest extent possible; this means not just pornography, but the Constitution, our utterly worthless and dysfunctional legal system, and democracy[12]Invariably there will be some reader who happens upon this tract who is apt to utter the refrain that “Actually, this is not a democracy, but a republic.” The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary. of Historical Principles defines democracy as both direct and indirect democracy, as the definition reads in pertinent part: “Government by the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives. . ..” (Volume I, A-M page 629, Fourth Edition, 1993). A democratic republic is still a democracy as that term is properly understood and defined. itself insofar as such hallowed institutions have proven incapable of stopping the proliferation of these and other civilization-destroying vices. There can be no more legitimate use of state power than protecting the public health and the public welfare, the most important considerations that all too often pure, unbridled laissez-faire capitalism not only fail to protect but can actively work against. After all, in a pure capitalist system favored by misguided and deluded libertarians and many mainstream conservatives alike, little would sell quite as well as peddling cocaine or heroin—or sports gambling, pornography, prostitution. The list of destructive vices is seemingly endless.
Questioning Freedom of Speech and Democracy Itself
First Amendment jurisprudence has proven itself uniquely destructive and pernicious in other contexts as well. Note for example United States vs Stevens 559 U.S. 460 (2010), which held that the government could not impose criminal sanctions on the production and sale of videos featuring dog-fighting on the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines, even though engaging in the activity depicted in these vides violates laws in all 50 states as well as federal law. The federal statute in question, 18 U.S.C. § 48. was revised in a way to supposedly pass constitutional muster by deleting prohibitions of depictions of wounding and killing and focusing instead on cruelty and torture, as the revised statute merely prohibits so-called “animal crush sexual fetish videos” and states that such material must be obscene. Indeed, a special report by the New York State Animal Law Committee determined that “This [revised] statute limited its proscription to so-called crush videos, the fetish animal torture videos designed to appeal to prurient interest.” The revised statute was deemed constitutional in a Fifth Circuit appeals court decision Texas vs Richards No. 13-20265 (5th Cir. 2014), in which defendants were prosecuted and later convicted for producing and selling videos in which kittens, chickens, and other animals were tortured and killed in sexually orientated crush videos.
While that result is the necessary and correct one, the Stevens decision seems to allow the production, dissemination, and sale of dog-fighting videos and the like, even though the underlying actions depicted in such media are illegal in all 50 states. Aside from the ridiculous objections concerning vagueness set forth in the Stevens decision, it must be emphasized that a legal distinction permitting videos that expose and condemn such barbaric acts while prohibiting videos that offer such depictions for sick gratification would not pass constitutional muster as “content-based, viewpoint-based discrimination.” This only serves as a further indictment of the First Amendment. Videos and other materials depicting dog-fighting or people (usually of a certain racial background) who train pit bulls or other large dogs to attack and kill cats are not simply unpopular or repugnant; they invoke matters of principle on which there cannot and must not be any tolerance or compromise. Those who would produce, disseminate, or sell such materials for any purpose other than exposure and condemnation ought not be tolerated because they are morally repugnant and anathema to basic decency.
At the broadest, most abstract level, Supreme Court jurisprudence from the 1970s onward has eviscerated any societal constraints against profanity and disorder, ruling for example a person has a constitutional right to wear a jacket that reads “fuck the draft,” Cohen vs California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) not just in public but in court, even as courts to this day can (and do) expel persons for not being properly dressed. Those who regard the Constitution and our legal system with such undeserved deference should be made to consider how much more vulgar, profane, and coarse society has become since 1960. With deviancy defined ever further down, we now live in a pornographic and profligate society, and the response by luminaries in the legal profession and legal scholarship is, to quote Cohen vs California, “avert your eyes.”
But just as our legal system has crippled the government from doing anything about pornography or videos depicting animal cruelty and gratuitous killing of animals and other pernicious activity, a cursory glance at the body of laws and other instances of state action demonstrates this same legal system allows state power to censor or sanction all sorts of speech which does facilitate the “exposition of ideas” or is cognitive in nature. That consideration of course demonstrates what absurd folly it is to humor the idea that any government could ever pretend that it could ever categorically avoid censoring or having a “chilling effect” on speech or expressive activity it deems undesirable or harmful. Amanda Shanor argues that the determinative factor whether speech or expressive activity “falls within the First Amendment’s reach and what is excluded from it does not rest on the distinction between speech and conduct,” but rather on “social norms. . ..” Sunstein articulates how, in the context of employment settings, the federal government suppresses and sanctions a wide range of speech expressing opposition, hostility, or general aversion to organized labor unions. The degree to which organizing labor unions is harmful or beneficial to a society (or to an employer or employees) is at the very heart of “high value” “cognitive” speech that touches on matters of politics, religion, and other high-minded concerns regarding society and public policy. And yet both the government and luminaries in the legal profession have few qualms about state power curbing, chilling, or censoring that sort of speech.
In addition to viewpoint-based restrictions on matters of organized labor, the government imposes all sorts of sanctions on speech in employment and business settings in relation to the onerous civil rights regimes imposed by Title VII and other so-called civil rights laws that restrict or deter freedom of speech on a number of important issues related to sex, race, sexual orientation, and now possibly even the menace of transgenderism. Anyone who doubts this is challenged to discuss gay marriage or the question of women in combat or as on-the-beat law enforcement not even as an employee, but as a sole business owner. Or consider the result of a proprietor of an eating establishment, hotel, or other public accommodation who displays some sort of sign or manifesto denouncing miscegenation.
Since Sunstein’s treatise was written in 1986, American society has also seen the rise of so-called hate crime legislation, an onerous regime that punishes people for harboring views the state disfavors. While it is true hate crime legislation does not ban or censor disfavored types of speech per se, vastly disparate outcomes in remarkably similar fact patterns involving prosecution doubtlessly create a chilling effect.[13]The manner in which so-called hate crime laws punish persons for expressing viewpoints the current system disfavors or even reviles should be obvious, as evidenced by a hypothetical and a real-life example. As a hypothetical, consider two scenarios where a White man sits at a bar. Words are exchanged with a Black or other racial minority. The racial minority lunges or otherwise commits an assault battery in a manner that makes the man have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, entitling him to claim self-defense as a defense. The White man defends himself, resulting in either assault and battery or even homicide. In one instance, the White defendant has never indulged in so-called hate speech. Nor does he utter any forbidden words. In the other, he has read, or even simply has copies of books and materials on matters of race or the Jewish question (as does this author), or simply listens to Death in June (as does this author) or likes skinhead oi music, or even perhaps uttered a racial epithet while defending himself. It is totally foreseeable that whereas the first instance results in an acquittal or even not even having charges filed at all, the second instance could result not just in a conviction, but conviction with enhanced “hate crime charges.” The real-life example is the McMichaels-Ahmad Arbery matter, in which the Black went for the shot gun. Georgia citizen arrest statute has since been repealed, but it did seem the McMichaels had the authority to conduct a citizen’s arrest. The McMichaels were convicted, and later even convicted on federal hate crimes and civil rights charges, with the government scouring their smartphones and other devices for disapproved speech. The much greater motivation prosecutors have in charging those like the McMichaels or the second hypothetical ought to invoke constitutional claims under the equal protection clause for selective prosecution and other theories, but good luck with that. Many liberal cities make no effort at all to enforce laws against vandalism and graffiti, and yet if one were to carve or paint a swastika on a park bench or place a sticker featuring the confederate banner or a World War II Reichskriegsflagge on a park bench or some fixture in public transit, a special hate crimes task force would be assembled to find who did such a dastardly thing.
These and other considerations indicate that perhaps the aversion to the proposition of state censorship, embraced most especially by mainstream conservatives, could not be more misguided. As set forth in “American Degeneracy Laid Bare,” censorship works if done correctly. Many will clamor about the Streisand Effect, but that only applies to censorship done poorly, such as when the Sex Pistols or Frankie Goes to Hollywood were “censored”—of course were not censored, as the BBC practically advertised for these artists by announcing they will not air “God Save the Queen” or “Relax (Don’t DO it”). Compare and contrast with how the German government deals with materials it (wrongly) regards as “material harmful to minors,” namely music, writings or art that advocate for far-right ideas or historical interpretations sympathetic to the German cause in World War II. As explicated at length in “American Degeneracy Laid Bare”:
The German government does not put a label on compact discs, records, and the like brandishing a recording as neo-Nazi or far-right. They ban the sale of such materials outright, making it illegal to sell (but not possess) such media. Neither the German government nor state-owned media announce to millions that a particular disfavored artist, album, or song will not be played on the airwaves, thereby publicizing such materials to the public. They quietly prevent the broadcast, and disseminate lists of materials deemed to be “harmful to minors” to law enforcement and other agencies, as those agencies then use (or did use) those lists to audit what was sold in record stores back when those existed. As far as this author is aware, those lists are not available to the public.
Censorship efforts in Germany and elsewhere in Europe go well beyond such measures, a matter which has become newsworthy given grumblings about banning the Alternativ für Deutschland, EU bureaucrats fretting about Twitter during its Elon Musk era, and most particularly how Germany has cracked down on content on the internet that the bureaucrats and officials in the puppet state deem hate speech. The latter was of course featured in an infamous 60 Minutes segment on February 16, 2025, and has become quite a controversy particularly in the states.
Many Americans liken censorship to ineffectual, half-hearted measures, such as “Tipper Gore’s initiative to put explicit advisory labels on recordings” in the 90s. That of course was an absolute farce, as the “explicit materials label” did nothing to restrict access to minors to anyone, and essentially advertised that such recordings were edgy by using profanity that might upset or offend parents, teachers and elders. Whereas one could hardly think of a better advertisement to entice young people than a conspicuous black and white label that reads “parental advisory, explicit lyrics,” actual censorship efforts by entities like the American vassal-state, the Bundesrepublik, both restrict access to materials targeted by this body in an effective, concerted way, while also stigmatizing such materials in incredibly powerful ways given the context of modern German society, defined, in many ways, by a pernicious war-guilt complex. The modern German government and other similar entities in Europe are of course utterly wrong about what they censor, “but the tactics it uses have been remarkably effective in curbing and curtailing cultural trends it wrongly finds to be anathema.” While “the motivations of the Bundesrepublik. . . are repugnant,” efforts to censor far-right materials have been remarkably successful in stunting the growth of such movements. Censorship as a tactic or means to achieve greater ends is remarkably effective if implemented wisely with a “gloves off” approach, provided such efforts are supported by some segment of the population and fortified by a minimally competent propaganda campaign.[14]Some readers may dispute this assessment, citing the surging popularity of the AfD. Such objections overlook how parties and movements like the AfD would likely be far more popular than they are if these censorship policies had not been implemented. Far-right movements in Germany had started to flourish immediately after Reunification in 1990, but quickly petered out largely due to these measures. Beyond that, it is doubtful the AfD and other parties will ever have a mandate sufficient to govern. This of course remains to be determined, but even if the AfD or any other power does somehow come to power, the rise to such power will nonetheless have been greatly hampered by these efforts. As this author urges in “American Degeneracy Laid Bare,” “If the right ever achieves political and cultural power necessary to implement such measures, similar policies and more must absolutely be implemented to further our righteous ends.”
Grim Prospects of Turning the Tide: A Nigh Impossible Task Lies Ahead
While implementing no-nonsense censorship policies such as those in various European states is not realistic in America in the foreseeable future, conceptualizing pornography as both objectively obscene, rather than subjective “contemporary community standards” and as a sexual aid or a sort of ersatz prostitution should not be so terribly difficult for what are regarded as the finest minds in the legal profession to enunciate. After all, this obvious distinction was alluded to, at least to some limited extent, in the Family Guy joke linked above This of course strongly suggests that the matter is not so much that these leaders in the legal profession and legal scholarship are unable to enunciate why pornography should not and must not be entitled to legal protection. Rather, it is that they do not want to,[15]This salient passage by Stone professes the supposed positive “consequences” of how First Amemdment jurisprudence has led to a free-for all in which practically anything goes is particularly telling:
The greater availability of sexual expression, for example, enhances the ability of individuals to understand and to satisfy their own sexual needs and desires; gives them a much richer exposure to unconventional forms of artistic excellence; entertains, amuses, enlightens, and excites; and enables individuals to learn more about sex and its many varied possibilities. All of this, in varying degrees, captures at least some of the potential individual and social benefits of a much broader freedom of sexual expression.
His suggested remedy for how to contain or deal with pornography is not to ban it, but to educate people. Even after conceding that “in practical effect, though, it is difficult, if not impossible, to shield children in today’s world from exposure to sexually-explicit expression,” he claims that the proper response is parenting. He actually dares to suggest that “parents can create a reasonably safe environment for their children,” suggesting that the burden on parents to protect children and minors from an obscene, pornographic milieu is no different from the trust we place in parents more generally. “In everything from crossing streets to playing near the water to choosing friends to walking alone at night to eating right to smoking and drinking and drugs, we rely upon parents to protect their children from harm.” just as these same leaders have instigated all different sorts of civilizational ruin in various forms. That consideration further suggests the necessity of something far more drastic than conventional conservatism, but rather some expression of right-wing authoritarianism that at least envisions utterly purging these nefarious elements from our cultural and political institutions of power, including much of the legal profession as it currently exists and has existed for decades. A system of government and indeed a society at large that cannot protect its citizenry from a vice so destructive it renders otherwise healthy 17- and 18-year-old men impotent, a vice that destroys relationships and contributes to unsustainably low birth rates does not possess any fitness for any purpose for which the state or the social contract as envisioned by Enlightenment thinkers are created.
Those who are of a more optimistic outlook or are of a more mainstream persuasion concerning the Constitution and the First Amendment are apt to note that Supreme Court recently granted certiorari regarding challenges to a Texas state law requiring age verification to ensure users are of age, and heard the case, Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton, this past month (January 2025). Given the spotty history of Barrett and most particularly Roberts (who wrote the opinion in the deplorable Stevens decision), it is most unclear whether the Court will uphold even some of the very modest regulations and limitations mandated by the Texas state law and other state laws. It is utterly inconceivable that the Court will overturn past precedent in cases like Reno or the series of Ashcroft decisions, let alone reinvigorate the dead letter of Miller vs California.
Despite the stubborn optimism and indeed naïveté of mainstream conservatives and their dogged fetishism for the Constitution not merely as a governing legal document but as a moral and normative authority, our system of government and indeed the Constitution itself are irredeemable. Such utter lack of fitness of purpose requires a truly revolutionary spirit, one that seeks to burn the Constitution, end democracy, and dismantle our current form of government through to its very foundation. Those who balk at such a radical proposition must at least concede that the judiciary branch of this government has wreaked absolute havoc and destruction for many decades, and that there is no apparent prospect of undoing the damage within the framework of the current system. Indeed, those committed to democratic norms, despite all the evidence to the contrary, should consider how the Constitution has been unable to stop a rogue judiciary from appointing itself as the final arbiter as to what is a compelling (or legitimate) state interest or not.[16]Those familiar with Constitutional Law know the Supreme Court and our entire judiciary compelled by it have had the audacity, the impudence—die Frechheit—for many decades, to dictate to duly elected governmental bodies what is and what is not a compelling state interest or what is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest” according to rationally based standards of review regarding matters litigated under theories and doctrines of Constitutional law.
Alas, that sort of effective remedy to so many of our problems does not seem foreseeable in the near or distant future. The emotional appeal to the Constitution and the First Amendment in particular has been thoroughly engrained in the conscience of an overwhelming number of people. This is particularly true of conservatives and many opposed to the left. That tendency, whereby mainstream conservatives carry on about “constitutional principles,” “human rights,” etc. is particularly disadvantageous insofar as many elements on the left have been openly espousing censorship policies, from Tim Walz saying so-called “hate speech” and “disinformation” should not enjoy First Amendment protection to myriad other examples.[17]The amount of academic and other material beating the drum for so-called hate speech to be excluded as constitutionally protected speech is so vast as to dispense with any need for citation. As this author warns in “Good Intentions or the Maddest Folly?,” a Kamala Harris presidency would have been disastrous as the Supreme Court is just two justices away from “discovering,” by judicial fiat, a phantom exemption from First Amendment protection for so-called hate speech. Justices Thomas and Alito are 78 and 74, respectively. Law is downstream from culture. True to their form, conservatives will adhere to Queensbury rules to their graves, even as the other side fights no-holds barred.
In addition to the problem of dogged fetishism for the Constitution, other problems abound insofar as pornography has become so utterly mainstream, as many in society discuss it, their masturbatory habits, and other sexual proclivities as matters fit for polite society, in the public. Pornography is such a uniquely pernicious vice precisely because it strikes at the heart of the mammalian essence of human sexuality and, accordingly, is pleasurable and exciting. The visual sight of an attractive young or even middle-aged woman nude, performing certain sex acts is hard-wired into our very biology to be appealing, arousing, and sexually gratifying. But just because something is pleasurable, enjoyable in the short term does not mean it is not harmful in the short or long term. In many ways, pornography can be likened to the vice of alcoholism for native Americans, a vice which is uniquely pernicious to that group for reasons stemming in large part from racial differences and evolutionary biology. Such a vice that overwhelms our reward system calls into the question the very notion of freedom. Is it really freedom for an alcoholic to have 20 dollars in his pocket, affording him an opportunity to buy a bottle of whiskey[18]This particular example must not be construed to mean this author harbors puritanical views regarding alcohol. Drinking age laws in this country are absurd, as the age 21 restriction might as well attempt to legislate against the sky being blue or grey, insofar as college and high school kids will (and ought) to drink. Someone however who has succumbed to alcoholism is different. The key difference however is that alcohol has many positive attributes, and indeed is part of our greater Western culture as seen in various styles of cuisine, cultural festivals such Oktoberfest or Frühlingsfest and so on. Pornography, heroin and other vices have no such redeeming value. or vodka when such liberty simply feeds his vice? Or consider a heroin addict with similar money and opportunity to partake in his preferred poison. Is it really a personal freedom for him to he able to purchase a few hits of heroin when the interest of his own well-being and the greater good for those around him and society at large implores that he must not have such liberty?
It will be exceedingly difficult to muster any effective resistance to hardcore pornography—not just as it relates to turning the tide in decades of disastrous legal decisions, but reversing and upending the process whereby pornography has not only ceased to be stigmatized and shamed, but as something that has become commonplace and banal, and something for which much of society openly professes an affinity. Working within the parameters of our current legal system and form of government, the sort of legal and intellectual framework envisaged in this treatise needed to have been implemented decades ago, in the 70s or the 80s, possibly the 90s at the very latest. Putting the proverbial genie in the bottle will be extraordinarily difficult,, if not impossible. However difficult confronting this and other existential threats to European civilization and posterity may be, the fight, the revolution, starts with the articulation of those ideas that rebut and repudiate conventional, prevailing wisdom about civilizational ruin. In relation to the vice of pornography specifically, any Kulturkampf must begin with the ability to articulate why pornography is not speech, but rather a vice, an illicit product or service for more akin to prostitution and illicit drugs than free expression. This is particularly so given that freedom of speech is not just a governing legal proscription against government censorship in the United States, but something the vast majority regard as an important societal norm that would doubtlessly endure even if our current system could be jettisoned or overthrown. In addition, such an effort must articulate how pornography is a pernicious vice that harms both the individual and greater society alike. That basic intellectual framework is the nexus from which any effective resistance to this problem will necessarily emanate.
While it is doubtful this legal system and system of government will respond in a way that addresses these concerns, the propagation of ideas such as those espoused in this treatise will engender not just outrage at the continued tolerance of pornography. Insofar as this and other catastrophic failures impugn democratic and constitutional norms, the propagation of the ideas set forth in this treatise and similar works will, with good fortune, foster greater dissidence on a scale sufficient to make far more radical change possible, once a critical mass of people realize our current system is beyond salvage and utterly irredeemable.
Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his Substack page, theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.
Notes
[1] One important matter related to the topic of this treatise but which cannot be explored in depth concerns original intent, that is what the framers intended by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It will only be stated in passing this author is highly skeptical that the framers ever envisioned let alone intended the First Amendment to protect hardcore pornography. It is of course important to note that only the printed word existed at that time, or indeed when John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty, from which the expression “marketplace of ideas originates.” “First Amendment Fetishism” by John Kang 2024 UKR 679 (2024) offers some analysis of the legal history the author uses to make this argument, but much of it seems tangential. A far more persuasive argument is that the framers failed to address things like obscenity and hardcore obscenity because such things were utterly unforeseeable and thus something they could not have fathomed. Given how obscene and even profane content was regularly censored before 1960 seems indicative of how questions of original intent ought to be answered with any intellectual honesty.
[2] See generally the introduction to Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Defining deviancy down has been discussed at length by this author, most notably in “This Horrid Rainbow: Defining Deviancy Down and Away,” which explores how mainstream conservatism was unable to effectively combat the advent of so-called gay marriage in large part because mainstream conservatives either had no conception of this vital concept, or did not want to impart this important concept to the public. The concept is also discussed at some length in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern” and “The Psychic Toll: How Anti-Social Behaviors and Bizarre Manias Affect The Individual and Society in the Instant of the Moment.”
[3] As to what that race to the bottom might ultimately arrive to, this author suggests perusing three photo essays featured on the zombietime.com website (found here, here, and here) concerning street fairs in San Francisco, in which all sorts of obscene conduct was taking place out in the open street, in broad daylight, including homosexual men engaging in oral sex, men impaling themselves anally with dildoes while masturbating, and other lewd sexual acts. These photo essays even depict a “piss pool,” an inflatable lawn pool for children, where a man with a shirt with “piss pig” written on it offers fellatio to untold numbers of men while others urinate on him. This sort of conduct apparently comports with the local “contemporary community standards” of San Francisco. Any anti-pornography laws less profligate than those standards (one struggles to find any standards at all) would, according to Reno, violate the Constitutional rights of people in San Francisco and elsewhere defined by such abject depravity.
[4] In a strict sense this was due to vagueness and overbreadth, but the particular import of this decision was to prevent the United States federal and state governments from even attempting to promulgate revised statutory language that seeks to ban such material.
[5] As modern legal jurisprudence favors multi-prong tests or sets of criteria, a list of indicia that are the hallmark of pornography-as-a-sexual aid are set forth by this author as follows; this set of criteria is written ad hoc, on an off-the shelf basis. The particulars of such language could be refined and elaborated on by any legislature. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that it is abundantly clear how pornography, at its essence, is a sexual aid and that our legal system should not be spinning its wheels on such matters for half a century. Any visual, written, or audio medium that bears these attributes with the principal, essential, and intrinsic purpose of providing sexual stimulation and gratification for the purposes of masturbation, sexual congress, or orgasmic climax are a sexual aid and therefore not subject to First Amendment protection:
- Lurid, unobstructed videographic, photographic, or illustrative depictions or exposure of human genitalia or the anus;
- Depiction or simulation of sexual acts including but not limited to masturbation, vaginal, anal, or oral penetration or stimulation by a penis, vagina, sex toys, fingers, or other implements or body parts. Any act of vaginal, oral or anal sex, or masturbation, or other act tied to a sexual fetish;
- The commission of any sexual act or performance in exchange for monetary consideration is particularly indicative that the phenomenon in question is not speech but a sexual aid, a product designed to provide sexual stimulation and climax. Such an act or performance does not need to be done for monetary consideration in each and every instance. That is typically or commonly done in exchange for monetary consideration is indicative of its nature as a sexual aid and not expressive activity subject to First Amendment protection.
[6] It is of note that Steven vs United States declares that free speech jurisprudence can no longer apply such a balancing test. Such marginal areas of expression are grandfathered in, it would seem.
[7] The Supreme Court and lower courts have of course struggled with any distinction between actual speech and the provision of goods or services that involve “expressive activity.” That topic is beyond the scope of this essay except in passing. It is of course true that the provision of some products and services have an expressive component to them. Consider for example the “bake the cake” cases in which LGBTQ have singled out political opponents with what ought to be considered vexatious litigation. “Pornography and Cognition: A Reply to Cass Sunstein” by Paul Chevigny is just one example of the viewpoint asserting that the sort of sexual activity at question here is expressive activity. Consider however that almost any action has an expressive component. Obliterating the distinction in this way should nullify any prostitution laws, on the idea that someone who exchanges sexual services for money is expressing a decadent or profligate worldview. To the extent pornographic material, or extremely graphic “erotic dancing” and the like can be limited to a finite number of variants of a few basic sex acts (masturbation, oral, anal, vaginal sex, lurid depiction of the genitals or anus), the idea that such things really have an expressive quality to them worthy of First Amendment protection is highly dubious. There is doubtless greater variation to products and services provided at a hair salon or barber shop, and yet the expressive activity involved there is not sufficient to overcome onerous civil rights laws that force proprietors to provide services to protected classes of people.
[8] A great deal of First Amendment jurisprudence gets bogged down with blurred lines between commercial and non-commercial speech, insofar as writers of books, essays, screenplays and any number of forms of speech that fit comfortably under that “highest order” of speech that receives nigh absolute protection from the First Amendment. There is of course the cognitive distinction Sunstein and others make to distinguish higher forms of speech with things like pornography. There are only so many sexual acts that can be performed, and none of them express a cogent argument or idea the way an essay, novel, so and so forth do.
[9] An interesting distinction could be discerned as follows, resting on the existence of a long-term relationship or marriage. Lewd or even obscene videos or images in private correspondence between a husband and wife or even boyfriend and girlfriend do not implicate considerations involved with defining deviancy down and public morality, at least not as much, provided such materials are not disseminated to the public.
[10] This author laments at how he is able to cite these and other exemplars of American Unkultur with such ease. As exemplified in “Enveloped by Kultur-Terror,” such an odious cultural milieu is something my generation was born into. Despite assertions to the contrary, we cannot just turn the television off. No one can. And anyone who asserts the contrary is challenged to find someone who does not know who the “Fonz” is.
[11] While there is arguably, some ambiguity concerning nude images, the proposed three-prong test set defined above should be clear enough. When such images are intrinsically a sex-aid, a sex act comparable to prostitution, such media crosses the threshold into obscenity.
[12] Invariably there will be some reader who happens upon this tract who is apt to utter the refrain that “Actually, this is not a democracy, but a republic.” The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary. of Historical Principles defines democracy as both direct and indirect democracy, as the definition reads in pertinent part: “Government by the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives. . ..” (Volume I, A-M page 629, Fourth Edition, 1993). A democratic republic is still a democracy as that term is properly understood and defined.
[13] The manner in which so-called hate crime laws punish persons for expressing viewpoints the current system disfavors or even reviles should be obvious, as evidenced by a hypothetical and a real-life example. As a hypothetical, consider two scenarios where a White man sits at a bar. Words are exchanged with a Black or other racial minority. The racial minority lunges or otherwise commits an assault battery in a manner that makes the man have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, entitling him to claim self-defense as a defense. The White man defends himself, resulting in either assault and battery or even homicide. In one instance, the White defendant has never indulged in so-called hate speech. Nor does he utter any forbidden words. In the other, he has read, or even simply has copies of books and materials on matters of race or the Jewish question (as does this author), or simply listens to Death in June (as does this author) or likes skinhead oi music, or even perhaps uttered a racial epithet while defending himself. It is totally foreseeable that whereas the first instance results in an acquittal or even not even having charges filed at all, the second instance could result not just in a conviction, but conviction with enhanced “hate crime charges.” The real-life example is the McMichaels-Ahmad Arbery matter, in which the Black went for the shot gun. Georgia citizen arrest statute has since been repealed, but it did seem the McMichaels had the authority to conduct a citizen’s arrest. The McMichaels were convicted, and later even convicted on federal hate crimes and civil rights charges, with the government scouring their smartphones and other devices for disapproved speech. The much greater motivation prosecutors have in charging those like the McMichaels or the second hypothetical ought to invoke constitutional claims under the equal protection clause for selective prosecution and other theories, but good luck with that.
[14] Some readers may dispute this assessment, citing the surging popularity of the AfD. Such objections overlook how parties and movements like the AfD would likely be far more popular than they are if these censorship policies had not been implemented. Far-right movements in Germany had started to flourish immediately after Reunification in 1990, but quickly petered out largely due to these measures. Beyond that, it is doubtful the AfD and other parties will ever have a mandate sufficient to govern. This of course remains to be determined, but even if the AfD or any other power does somehow come to power, the rise to such power will nonetheless have been greatly hampered by these efforts.
[15] This salient passage by Stone professes the supposed positive “consequences” of how First Amemdment jurisprudence has led to a free-for all in which practically anything goes is particularly telling:
The greater availability of sexual expression, for example, enhances the ability of individuals to understand and to satisfy their own sexual needs and desires; gives them a much richer exposure to unconventional forms of artistic excellence; entertains, amuses, enlightens, and excites; and enables individuals to learn more about sex and its many varied possibilities. All of this, in varying degrees, captures at least some of the potential individual and social benefits of a much broader freedom of sexual expression.
His suggested remedy for how to contain or deal with pornography is not to ban it, but to educate people. Even after conceding that “in practical effect, though, it is difficult, if not impossible, to shield children in today’s world from exposure to sexually-explicit expression,” he claims that the proper response is parenting. He actually dares to suggest that “parents can create a reasonably safe environment for their children,” suggesting that the burden on parents to protect children and minors from an obscene, pornographic milieu is no different from the trust we place in parents more generally. “In everything from crossing streets to playing near the water to choosing friends to walking alone at night to eating right to smoking and drinking and drugs, we rely upon parents to protect their children from harm.”
[16] Those familiar with Constitutional Law know the Supreme Court and our entire judiciary compelled by it have had the audacity, the impudence—die Frechheit—for many decades, to dictate to duly elected governmental bodies what is and what is not a compelling state interest or what is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest” according to rationally based standards of review regarding matters litigated under theories and doctrines of Constitutional law.
[17] The amount of academic and other material beating the drum for so-called hate speech to be excluded as constitutionally protected speech is so vast as to dispense with any need for citation. As this author warns in “Good Intentions or the Maddest Folly?,” a Kamala Harris presidency would have been disastrous as the Supreme Court is just two justices away from “discovering,” by judicial fiat, a phantom exemption from First Amendment protection for so-called hate speech. Justices Thomas and Alito are 78 and 74, respectively. Law is downstream from culture.
[18] This particular example must not be construed to mean this author harbors puritanical views regarding alcohol. Drinking age laws in this country are absurd, as the age 21 restriction might as well attempt to legislate against the sky being blue or grey, insofar as college and high school kids will (and ought) to drink. Someone however who has succumbed to alcoholism is different. The key difference however is that alcohol has many positive attributes, and indeed is part of our greater Western culture as seen in various styles of cuisine, cultural festivals such Oktoberfest or Frühlingsfest and so on. Pornography, heroin and other vices have no such redeeming value.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Pornography and the extreme proliferation of it in our society has done massive damage to our culture and family structure. It has even affected our demographics. Once organized jewry removed Christianity from our culture starting with court rulings like Engel vs. Vitale and others, the next phrase was injecting the poison of pornography into the culture. Now with unlimited porn internet sites and a billion dollar industry, the most degenerate filth is available to anyone, anytime. This is exactly what Jews do to a country and yet they are the most protected and privileged class. Welfare, unrestricted sexual activity, pornography, feminism, abortion, etc. are all connected and all Jewish concoctions. Just as Christianity was the foundation of our civilization, Jew satanic activity is the foundation of our destruction.
I doubt Pornography is as bad as the religious and the traditionalists make it to be.
.
.
.
Anyway…
But, I agree: some porn, the most extreme versions,¹ should be censored.
Fortunately (!), there’s a way to do it:
Freedom of Speech, originally, meant “what’s said or written” – no video, paintings, drawings etc.
Likewise, no “symbolic speech”: whether it’s the Flipping the Bird gesture or (nude) dancing; Or, burning the Flag or pissing on the Bible.
Of course…
Just because something can be censored doesn’t mean it should. Or, that it will.²
Pretty much, the only changes I’d do, compared to the current 1st Amendment interpretations: would be on Pornography.
1. Orgies, Gang-Bang, piss- or faeces-related sex etc., etc., etc.
2. I think it was John Paul Stevens who said: “[T]he Constitution does not prohibit Congress from enacting stupid laws.”
Thos. Jefferson & Co. purposely enacted an overthrow of reason and morality, founding an Obscene Order and Culture of Death, whose degenerate end was prophesied two centuries ago by the great historian Thomas Carlyle (d. 1881). See his ‘History of the French Revolution,’ 1837.
In fact, corroborating evidences from equally great minds show that there are only 35 months left not only for America but the World. Here’s the story for those curious about the great Separation of Good and Evil that lies just ahead:
https://www.academia.edu/41144933/The_Last_Day
Note that to view the article, simply SCROLL DOWN; no sign-in is necessary. Thanks.
” The working-class man needs his bit of porn “.
Albert Steptoe
1972.
It’s literally not the fault of the Constitution that a single judge purposely misinterpreted what a jewish lawyer lied about when speaking to one woman. How could you say this?
What does this have to do with the Constitution? The Founding Fathers–all white men of the Christian tradition–NEVER EVEN REMOTELY IMAGINED THAT THE CONCEPT OF A NON-WHITE CITIZEN COULD EVER EXIST. Furthermore, they NEVER EVEN REMOTELY IMAGINED that the concept of a female voter could EVER exist. Or that FAGGOTS WOULD EVER BE NOT EXECUTED. Not “made legal,” not “ignored by law,” explicitly NOT EXECUTED. So no, they didn’t support porn. They didn’t need to spell it out because they were incapable of comprehending the idea of such a betrayal of everything for which they fought–not just in the war, but as a matter of human civilization itself.
When we rise up and cleanse America of all nonwhites (this includes jews, since they’re not), our new Constitution might have to say “Also there will be no female voters ever and no interest on loans ever and no nonwhite citizens ever and no pornography ever” simply because apparently everyone’s too fucking retarded to just understand these things now. But they were part of the original Constitution, no matter what.
PornHub is owned by a jewish “rabbi” and his “wife”.
Judge Robert H. Jackson:
Survival → Freedom → Truth
Without being there is no enjoying one’s Freedoms nor Truth-seeking. D’oh!
Prof Dr Michael Levin (“Why Race Matters” book) wrote, also, “In Defense of Torture”:
Maybe the Constitution indeed prohibits torture but, say, if the only way to stop bombs detonating in New York City, killing hundreds of thousands, is via the use of torture, THEN, that is greater than the Constitution.
(I’m paraphrasing Michael Levin, naturally.)
.
.
.
A counter-argument:
Interesting.
More research is needed, to ascertain that…
Jesus claims that ALL Jews are the children of Satan. It’s no wonder, then, that Jews own & operate the porn industry. (Jews never fail to carry out their father’s will.)
Men who watch gang bangs, violent, foot fetish, and “stuff that belongs in the bathroom” porn, should be surgically made into Ken dolls, if you know what I mean.
Yes indeed.
But 1972 is not now. Porn back then was on film or paper that cost money and risked at least some exposure. The biz changed.
A reasonable category-restriction code could be enacted now and we know it: Beastiality porn was legal in one European nation till fairly recently. They banned it when they realized it made them look bad.
lol should have known that there was going to be a pitiful insecure article on here bitching and whining about porn. It was only a matter of time. Trump wins, and all of a sudden every bitchy asshole who complained about how much the leftist were trying to censor everything, is showing just how hypocritical they really are. If you pricks had it your way you’d fucking outlaw everything you disagree with. Next there will be an article here bitching about why violent movies need to be outlawed and banned. One thing I can agree with the leftist on is that you fuckers are frauds. You want to control everything just as much as they were doing. The only difference is they wanted to outlaw anything that offended their feelings. But it’s still no different from what you pricks want to do.
A quick search reveals that there have been several articles critical of pornography on the site over the years, from long before Trump’s re-election, including:
https://www.unz.com/article/oppression-by-orgasm/
https://www.unz.com/ejones/pornography-and-political-control-the-hexenhammer-debate/
https://www.unz.com/article/on-jewish-vulgarity/
https://www.unz.com/article/the-plot-against-australia/
And porn needs to be banned, or at least severely corralled. It’s filthy, evil garbage, and contemporary technology such as high-speed internet and free, ad-supported websites render it too dangerous to human health to be disseminated freely.
Maybe if you cut down on your porn habit you could come up with more intelligent posts than this vulgar, spittle-flecked coomer-rage take.
Not all pornography is sex-centered. There is another kind – disgusting revenge porn, such as the movie ‘Inglorious Basterds’.
Yep, getting off on looking at tits will cause the ewes to be barren and the crops to fail, coz the angry invisible psychopath in the sky has such a fixation on what humans do with their private parts. Oh no, that’s right, it’s the 21st century now, so the objection is that being titillated is “psychologically harmful” and here are a hundred studies to prove it!
I’d like too see restrictions on porn and extreme violence in media. Too many movies these days have scenes of torture and gore. Whatever rationalizations free “speech” absolutists claim for such content, it can’t be good for society.
Well, look here.
Waving Confed flags while cheering for black athletes who hump white girls.
Whites are so deluded.
Prof. Revilo Oliver (1908-1994) wrote a short essay, “Why the Constitution Failed”, which was published by the now-defunct Liberty Bell magazine in 1987. It is worth the attention of any intelligent person.
He pondered what (if anything) could have saved the Constitution and by extension the American Republic. He believed that if only possessors of landed property had retained the right to vote, excluding those whose only property was money in the bank, the Republic might have existed for quite a long time, rather than being destroyed in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Obviously the discussion concerned the voting rights of citizens; neither savage Indians nor bestial slaves were citizens. As you alluded to, the notion of sub-Saharan Africans showing up to “vote” was, to the Founders, as absurd as lining up mules to cast ballots.
Pornography proponents always have the lamest, most simple-minded arguments. Porn is just “getting off on looking at tits.” No acknowledgment of the big money (and ethnic) interests involved in promulgating the stuff. No acknowledgment that modern high-tech internet porn is a fundamentally different experience, with a fundamentally different impact on the human brain, than just “looking at tits.” No acknowledgment that polls have indicated most of the no-fap/anti-porn crowd identify as non-religious, just soft-brained 2006-tier “the fools must believe in a sky-god, that’s why they don’t want to look at tits, dur-hey” stuff.
I honestly think Internet porn is an IQ test. If you can’t acknowledge that it’s problematic you are admitting that you’re an ignoramus and you should just have a dunce-cap placed on your head and be shamed and ridiculed out of public discourse forever, where you can’t poison the well with your piss-poor arguments rationalizing your swinishness, as should be done to this Observator clown with his derisive “they have studies” asininity.
Glorifying violence in a country that allows Negroes to run wild is why it isn’t safe to go into most cities now. They do not have the mental capacity or demeanor to see it as entertainment and instead try to live it out. Filling those sub-humans with violent hip hop music and movies is insane. This is just more of the problems created when we allowed Negroes into our society. They require strict supervision instead of encouragement to behave like animals.
Why are there so many degenerates in the “dissident right?”
John Derbyshire: married an Asian woman; thinks that 15-year-old girls are attractive
Kevin Alfred Strom: tried and convicted for possession of child pornography, a charge to which he pled guilty; lusted after and attempted to groom a ten-year-old girl
Anatoly Karlin: thinks that 14-year-olds are “hot”; advocates for the killing of white babies with disabilities; supports “white sharia” and the rape of white women; believes bestiality should be legalized; said that he identifies as “queer” in 2024
Jean Francois Gariepy: sex addict who attempted to impregnate a mentally retarded 19-year-old
Matt Forney: encourages sexual promiscuity among white men; supports sex tourism in the Phillipines
Andrew Anglin: consistently foul-mouthed and crass; supports replacing women with artificial wombs; created the infamous “white sharia” idea; engages in coitus with Filipina women
Jim Goad: similarly profane and vulgar; published the magazine “ANSWER ME!” that contained friendly interviews with pornographers like Al Goldstein; wrote for the pornographic magazine “Hustler”
Bronze Age Pervert: do I even need to explain?
Richard Hanania: thinks that consensual incestuous sex and bestiality are morally permissible and that Gaza needs to be annihilated; loves pornography
Emil Kirkegaard: thinks that child pornography and cocaine should be legal; wants to lower the age of consent to 13; believes incest should be destigmatized; calls for the extermination of Palestinians
Edward Dutton: promotes abortion; thinks pedophilia is normal; went to a university associated with Ludwig von Mises’s ideology
I don’t support “porn 24/7 anything goes” but how would it be regulated at this point?
Our doofus conservatives have allowed porn and extreme violence to creep into mainstream culture while bowing to liberal rules on discussing the taboo of race. So we have cultural censorship that they of course are not allowed to mention while porn addiction rates continue to increase.
It’s a worst of all worlds. Whites are subjected to crass media while being told they can’t discuss racial differences and must accept their place as the scapegoat for all racial problems.
We don’t have Christian conservatives that act as some type of ballast against Hollywood culture. We also don’t have secular conservatives that call out liberal lies on race and their false appeal to science.
It’s just all retarded.
The problem with censoring the internet is that liberals would absolutely jump on the opportunity to block “racial hatred” aka anything related to race that isn’t approved by them. What would our conservatives do? Not a damn thing. Half of them are Evangelicals that believe we came off a Hebrew cruise ship after the world was flooded. They in fact support suppressing the idea that race exists as a biological entity. They want Whites to believe that the world is young and that evolution is a creation of satan.
The United States has no PSYOPS DEFENSE. Anyone can come in, from anywhere, and say just about anything, making the US a sitting duck for all kinds of psychological warfare, operating under the guise of free speech/expression. If you do the research, you’ll see the same old pattern, by the same old people: Jews pushing the limits of degeneracy/violence/subversion, jewish controlled social sciences suppressing the study of psychological warfare, and jew lawyers protecting these acts of war. It’s a complete system.
If the minds of your people are allowed to flutter in the wind of individualism, then the collectivized jews will win.
Individualism is NOT FREEDOM. It’s a divide and conquer strategy.
Lets adopt a national socialist worldview, and begin cleaning this chaos up before we get erased…and blamed for it too.
If Charles Manson was justly charged and imprisoned on a life sentence, every pornographer, photographer, and participant are also guilty of felonies ranging from prostitution to child abuse and should be prosecuted.
Nut-case rapture freak who does not know what God said in the Holy Bible nor does he know history or why Revelation was revealed to John to publish to the early Christian Church. You doom and gloomers are an embarrassment to the Christian Church. Jesus is not going to return and waft you up into the air, free from your mortgage payment because you allow evil unrestricted evil, as in standing by and allowing the “tribulation.” The tribulation was 2,000 years ago, in A.D.70 when God destroyed Israel – the real one – Jerusalem, and the temple. That was about 37 years after the Jews forced the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ, very God and very man, the final straw as far as God was concerned. We are in the millennium now and God is working through the Christian Church to establish his Kingdom on earth, the only unfulfilled prophecy is the bodily return of Jesus to rule on earth.
The present so-called “Israel” which is a collection of demon-possessed terrorists and genocidal killers has no divine blessing, no claim to the land they have murdered and terrorized to seize, and no divine purpose whatever except as disciples of their father Satan to work his works of misery and death. Jews are the dirty laundry of the Christian Church which must someday be washed of their filth and brought to faith in Jesus the Redeemer of mankind. The Jews had no divine purpose since the advent of Jesus the Christ, very God and very man, the Redeemer God promised to Eve in the garden. The only good Jews are those who repent of their apostasy and are regenerate Christians. Only the Christian Church has a divine mandate to evangelize the world with the good news that Jesus has redeemed God’s elect from the eternal burning wrath of God the Father.
Jesus the Son is God the Father’s gift to his creature mankind. To summarize, all Jews, Muslims, Eastern Mystics, cults, et al., who renounce the divinity of Jesus i.e., are not grateful to Jesus for salvation, go to eternal burning hell.
It’s a lot worse than that. He had two children with a retarded woman who subsequently disappeared, and he’s suspected of her murder. They haven’t found the body, and the only evidence so far is Gariepy acting ridiculously guilty and telling absurd, obviously false stories about what happened to her on his livestreams, but the Canadian authorities are currently following him across the provinces as he tries to relocate with the kids and new girlfriend. You can read all about it in his kiwifarms thread:
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/jfg-jean-francois-gariepy-jfgariepyneuro-the-french-pervert-the-public-space.38787/page-263
Based upon your post, you lack the IQ to understand this article or the issue of pornography.
Neither is degenerate.
Asian women — at least, east Asian women — are generally equal or higher in IQ compared with whites and often have more traditional values.
You could fit all the hetero American men who have never looked at a 15-year-old girl and thought her attractive into a minor-league (pun intended) stadium. That obviously doesn’t imply predatory behavior.
It seems every time I find myself warming to Christianity I run across a piece of malevolent discharge like this and am tempted to back off.
Succinct.Thanks.😊
A reminder from the 1st. Amendment to the US Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…”(emphasis mine)
Therefore I say :
“We got to start us a new revolution,
Get back to the old constitution,
Got to stand up and fight for the whole Bill of Rights,
It’s time to start over again”:
From my song: “New Revolution”:
Video Link
Regards, onebornfree
Pornography is not “speech,” neither is libertarianism. Both are criminal acts by sick minds and should be banned.
Regards, one born for National Socialism.
Jim Goad: similarly profane and vulgar; published the magazine “ANSWER ME!” that contained friendly interviews with pornographers like Al Goldstein; wrote for the pornographic magazine “Hustler”
He has a mean streak a mile wide, too.
You are missing the point. Until the successful invasion of 1861-65 the Constitution of the United States controlled the actions of a voluntary Union of States. Unions were commonly understood then to be ‘associations’ e.g. voluntary enterprises. Even the European Union understood the plain meaning of ‘union’ when Brexit was determined to be legal. Heck, the first Union was voluntarily dissolved without anyone raising an objection on some imagined ground of inherent permanence. The first, and only, legal scholar contemporary to the constitution to opine on its nature and structure declared the Union to be voluntary.
To imagine the constitution to have been corrupted in recent decades is to miss the point. If you must rage against an evildoer rage at Lincoln and his ‘American System’ cronies.
“Yet for many, secession still appears alien—outside the boundaries of the U.S. political tradition. But this view springs from attending to only one part of our political tradition. From the formation of the United States, with the Articles of Confederation, on down to 1860, secession proved a policy option considered in every section of the federation by major political leaders. It was only after the so-called Civil War that Americans began to adopt the language of the French Revolution, language that absolutely prohibits secession. The French Republic was the first to declare itself a republic— one and indivisible—creating the paradigm of all modern states. But this language of indivisibility was entirely alien to the republican principles of the American Revolution under which the United States created a voluntary federation of states, not an aggregate of individuals ruled from the center. It was not until the 1920s (at the high noon of the Western obsession with centralization) that the U.S. Congress approved the Pledge of Allegiance, verbally transforming a federation of states into the French Revolutionary slogan: “one nation indivisible.” The result is that Americans have inherited a deeply fractured political tradition. On one side of the fracture is what we may call a Jeffersonian Americanism, beginning with the Declaration of Independence (a secession document) and running down to 1860. On the other side is a post-Lincolnian Americanism. The former is rooted in state sovereignty, favors small polities, and is open to secession. The latter is rooted in national sovereignty, views the individual states (like Vermont) mainly as administrative units of the center, and absolutely prohibits secession.”
https://vermontindependent.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Origins-of-the-New-England-Secession-Tradition-by-Donald-W.-Livingston.pdf
The historical Jesus himself would have renounced the divinity of Jesus.
Smut should be banned across the land.
What normal white man doesn’t fantasize about coitus with Asian women??
Porn is for people who don’t or won’t understand the purpose of human sexuality.
The fact that society is the way it is right now is due to this ignorance, along with greed.
It is outrageous. A 10,500-word article, and the word Jew is not mentioned once. Jews are the inventors and spreaders of the article. Pornography is a Jewish disease against humanity. A series of articles in Occidental Review by Jason Cannon (The Plot Against Australia, https://tinyurl.com/2vyt557j) is a must-read.
I wouldn’t be too certain of that.
It may seem like a slippery slope fallacy to some, but I wouldn’t put it past nefarious actors to convince the plebes that the problem isn’t so much the portrait on the canvas than it is the canvas itself.
However much it serves as a force for enduring societal welfare, religion demands discipline.
There’s the problem in a nutshell: lack of moral discipline, an invaluable asset whose only costs are willpower and effort.
Labor to resolve that issue and you won’t need a top-down mandate.
Albert Steptoe was the character played by Wilfred Brambell. That line was probably written by Ray Galton or Alan Simpson.
conservatives miss the days when you could knock up a 12-year-old but recoil at the horror of a girl in her 20s getting nasty on a webcam. maybe if you guys weren’t such puritan dumb fucks the birth rate (for the white babies you so badly crave) would be higher. you’ll force a girl to have a rape baby but shut down the onlyfans page of another girl who does something consensual you don’t approve of.
gossipy delusional faggots. and that’s not ad hominem; it’s fucking objective fact.
now if you’ll excuse me, i have several hours of japanese cosplay to “attend to”.
We should start by at least getting pornography behind a pay wall.
This is the simplest way to curtail youth viewing of it that has been shown to impact their brain and override their dopamine receptors.
The fact that our government has not even broached this simple solution does indeed show you how captured it is and how they do not care about us.
And who “should” be commissioned to do the sort of viva-section that you seem to find useful–and probably even exciting. Seems like you wish to preclude one type of activity that you claim to distain with an even more savage activity that really should repel most adult humans. Be honest, the great majority (especially amongst Christian clerics, and those faithful who attend “mega churches”) find “casual sex” innocuous and even pleasurable, not a deranged act of madness worthy of the most severe corporal punishment.
What fate do you recommend for the growing population of young men of high school and college age (when their endogenous levels of both piss and vinegar are at their life-time maximum and who sadly cannot afford to get married to facilitate a tiny bit of masturbation and quite possibly do not even have the finances to allow them to keep and support a real live breathing girlfriend under our present economy and its demands to maintain the extant fashion credibility required of a growing and maturing lad. Back in my day (I am now almost 80), the solution was to segregate all the girls from all the boys and to send each segregated cohort to a Catholic high school (and later, even to Catholic universities). God must have been very pleased with all the excess prayers coming his way rather than receiving too many moans of sexual pleasure. No doubt of it, those Jewish kids always seemed far more carnally satiated than the rest of us.
Directed to “Forgetmenot
All pornography (there’s a lot of it) is hosted on/streamed from privately owned, i.e. not controlled by the government, websites — as of this moment, I’m no longer allowed to comment on YouTube videos, because per the YouTube schoolmarms, too many of my past comments violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines™, which prohibit e.g. ‘harassment’ and ‘cyberbullying’ — if I try to comment, a popup reminds that I can’t, and says this is ‘to protect the community.’
So somehow I don’t think the Constitution is the root of the problem here.
I actually noticed that it is a surprisingly successful line of reasoning with normies to say something like ‘do you agree with western governments that is morally correct that we should be legally allowed to watch gang bangs and scat porn but not debate the technicalities of gas chamber operation?’ The recipient has to be at least normally functional and it has to be phrased like a sledgehammer to the skull.
While Sunstein’s “sexual aid” argument, bolstered with the “defining deviancy down” and/or “fighting words” arguments might eventually work to reduce pornography, why not simply use the “commercial speech” argument to regulate pornography down to near nothing? The Supreme Court already has firmly distinguished commercial speech as a regulatable category, so the legal infrastructure already exists and is not controversial.
AFAIK, most pornography is either directly transactional (e.g., OnlyFans) or sells advertising, so it clearly falls within the government’s remit to regulate. And governments obviously have no problem making regulations so burdensome that they effectively throttle industries. Why not let government unleash its worst vices on vice itself?
There are probably some pornographic web pages out there that neither charge nor sell advertising, but that is probably less than 1% of the problem, so 99% of the problem can be addressed with existing laws, existing court precedent, and existing jurisprudential theory, so there is no need for a national revolution, new SCOTUS victories, or a revision of law school curricula to reduce the problem by two or three orders of magnitude.
Plus women who watch females rocking double-enders, swallowing niggerword spooge, eating stool, fisting, and “raping young boys in schools” should have their nipples removed by visegrips, clits razored off, and anuses seared shut by soldering irons.
Mkay?
E-q-u-a-l-i-t-y !
1) Citizens United defined ‘money’ as ‘speech’, thus if Citizens United is not overturned the money available from porn will buy the politicians who will keep porn profitable and ubiquitous.
2) Defining porn as a public health crisis could keep the 1st amendment intact and powerful while leading to a reduction of porn. Thus, there could be fact based education campaigns about the way porn debilitates the health of the nation. Defining porn as ‘unhealthy’ would allow taxing the profits, just as we tax alcohol and tobacco and gambling.
3) Isn’t ‘non consensual porn’ already outlawed? Then surely it’s a question of targeting the producers and financiers, which would be politically popular also.
4) The author doesn’t really delve into the context of porn. Porn cannot be extricated from our monopoly capitalistic plutocratic materialistic consumerist economic system. The profits and investments come from plutocrats. Capitalism defines the legal system where supply and demand and the market regulate all relationships. The ‘material’ is human bodies engaged in copulation separated from any romantic or affection based or spiritual based relationship, like two depersonalized machines. Consumerist because porn is consumed exactly like people consume sugarfied soft drinks.
5) The author also does not ask the obvious question ‘how have other countries dealt with the issue of easily available porn? I don’t know, but it would seem to be germane to the discussion.
He is wrong to say what he said. God can save whomever he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses, according to his will. The Church teaches that we know only where salvation is (in Christ, in his church); we cannot say where salvation is not. In fact, it is heresy to say that God cannot save a Muslim, or a Jew — or anyone else, for that matter. But, that said, those that deny actively the divinity of Christ the way those groups do are playing with fire, to say the least, and the scriptures and the fathers are unequivocally clear that is something one ought not do, if one hopes to find salvation. Our friend is not wrong to pass along that warning, he is wrong to set himself up as judge, because it is Christ who determines the fate of all. Those outside the Church are not to be condemned by Christians; they are to be prayed for by us, as we pray for ourselves for God’s mercy.
To wit:
Federal Judicial Appointments of Black Women, by President:
Lyndon B. Johnson 1
Richard Nixon 0
Gerald Ford 0
Jimmy Carter 7
Ronald Reagan 1
George H.W. Bush 2
Bill Clinton 15
George W. Bush 8
Barack Obama 26
Donald Trump 2
Joe Biden 40
Source: Pew Research • Get the data • Created with Datawrapper
https://substack.com/home/post/p-158195944?source=queue
Well, we all know how the Feminists argue that pornography arouses in men the desire to rape women. By analogous logic and equal justice, one could also argue that Holocaust movies incite Americans to harm Germans, and those of supposed German ancestry. Should Holocaust movies and Holocaust Education too be banned? I personally think so!
This just goes to point up how right the Sufis are. I.e., “Mankind lives in a nightmare of unfulfillment,” torn between instinct and duty — which cannot be reconciled.
PS: Familiarity with the actual past renders its depiction here ludicrous.
If we are going to ban pornography, let us also ban fornication. The thing I find most offensive about porn is that it almost invariably involves fornication. i.e. Sex outside of a committed relationship. The idea that we would ban the depiction of fornication but permit the act itself is absurd. The act of fornication itself it far more destructive to society. If any porn is known to be between two legally married people, 90pc of it’s offensiveness would be gone.
The pernicious effects of pornography are multifaceted and yet seldom recognized. I know a man, now in his late 50s, who grew up as a latchkey kid. He raided his Dad’s porn magazine stash as soon as Mom and Dad left for work every morning. He told me he would masturbate every day before school, even before he went through puberty. He is movie-star good looking, could have had his pick of women. Yet he never married, never had children, and never had a serious long-term relationship with a woman, as he was never able to “perform” and “finish” with a woman. The only serious relationship he had was when he was 30 with an 18-year-old woman, who he would act as a “gentleman” with because she was a virgin, thus preventing exposing his sexual inability if he tried to have sexual relations with her.
Porn causes men to view women as something to be used and then put upon a shelf for later use. It hampers a man’s ability to have a romantic, intimate, long-term, bonded relationship with a woman. It is truly a civilization destroyer.
Constitution or whatever, sex is a powerful motivator. Men and women want to look at porn and like recreational drugs no amount of laws and anti-porn enforcement is going to make one bit of difference.
Long before the internet there were reel to reel blue movies circulating. Then came video players, discs and the internet. From time immemorial there were live shows and in the 80’s Times Square was a buffet of everything.
Besides, the game is run by a certain group and unless the Govt is prepared to confront them and send them to work camps its all a waste of time. Rudy G “cleaned up: NYC but this was facilitated by the fact that there was a transition going on anyway ie the transition to 24/7 internet.
That said, like the dope trade lots of people not directly involved are getting a cut of the Benjamins !
People want to suck, fuck and get high and the law and Constitution versus such powerful stimuli means shit !
Internet porn, porn chat rooms is for conformist people, isn’t it better to have real sex, than just internet virtual fake sex? I have never understood why many people enjoy internet porn, it is so boring and so fake
More than half a century ago, I had a college professor who asserted that informal social controls were more important than formal controls. In other words, mores are more important that statutes. I never forgot that concept.
When I was a young man in those days, pornography existed but it was under wraps — the proverbial brown paper wrapper. It was something to be ashamed of. It was something to hide if one had any. And it was difficult to come by. You wouldn’t leave it out on your coffee table. Call it sinful, call it shameful, call it a forbidden fruit, call it whatever you want, but it was definitely a negative. No constitution or statutes were needed to deem it so. No overpaid shysters were needed to argue the pros and cons of porn. Everyone “got it.” Which is why the constitution didn’t bother to deal with it.
Of course, much the same was true of deviant sexual behavior. Thanks to modern notions of tolerance, the terms “deviant” or “pervert” are no longer uttered, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Drag queen story hour for children would have been inconceivable in saner times. Men dressing up as women and competing against them in sports wouldn’t be a subject for legislation or executive orders because that phenomenon didn’t exist.
The problem is not that we lack laws against these things; the problem is that now have to ponder making laws against these things. Our mores have changed to the point that (1) we are forced to consider deviance, (2) to tolerate it, and (3) to mainstream it. And the more tolerant we are, the more we will have to tolerate. The culture of tolerance is our problem, not countless tomes of written laws. Intolerance is depicted as a negative, a facet of fascism, bigotry, Nazism or just plain authoritarianism.
So what to do? Make America Intolerant Again!
Would it not be interesting, if BOTH the Porn Industry AND Radical Feminism were two sides of the same dialectic? After all, Porn induces men to become the type of barbaric lechers that Radical Feminists stereotype men as being; the Radical Feminists, for their part, give free advertisement to the Porn Industry by speaking out against it. Most Goyim never even think of it like that.
Or, it could be that the Homosexuals do not want what they term the Breeders to breed. They could be behind efforts to get men and women to hate each other, preventing them from falling in love, having sex, and making babies. I really wonder! Heterosexual love, or at any rate Heterosexual sex, is slowly being criminalized, via salami laws. What do the rest of you think? I am really curious!
Feminism is not the answer! Feminism, indeed, might actually be part of the problem.
“One unfortunate characteristic typical of much of mainstream conservatism is a dogged appeal to the Constitution, not just as a legal authority, but as a moral or normative one. ”
And as it goes with all critics of The US Constitution, a practical alternative will certainly be presented by this genius of political science. I’ll be holding my breath.
“It is of course a fallacy to presuppose that, because something is or is interpreted to be mandated or proscribed by the Constitution, that such a legal mandate or proscription is therefore correct and infallible on that basis alone as a moral, normative, or even practical matter. ”
The real fallacy is this premise. The Constitution in its original form, to include the original Bill of Rights, is more than adequate as a basis to structure a government, for exclusively NW European descended people. It is absolutely inadequate as a baseline to govern low trust Asians, feral negroes and mestizos, and even Eastern European slavs in large numbers. And lets not forget the most insidious tribe of them all, for the only adequate government is the machine gun.
“The Constitution after all once explicitly recognized and endorsed the institution of slavery.”
And here, only a couple of paragraphs into his 10,000 word rant, the author cannot help but to resort to making false moral equivalences between groups of humans living centuries apart. Holding the past to modern standards of “morality” (current morality promoting enthusiastic support for homosexual buggery; perhaps we aren’t really in any position to pass judgement upon the past) is one of the most dishonest tactics that can be employed. The author also seems to believe that unleashing millions of unchained negroes upon the masses of first world whites is somehow an exercise in morality, as they burn, steal, rape, and murder anything and everything in their path.
The reality is that our entire way of life has been corrupted by the efforts of an outside force, and no written law, be it the Constitution or anything else, would have prevented it. The laws are only as good as the people abiding by them, and the people in real control of the US for the last 110 years are not fit nor worthy of the US Constitution.
As for pornography, of course it isn’t a 1A issue. All the 1A was ever meant to do was allow individuals and the press to speak out against the actions of their government without fear of retribution. It was never a green light for people to behave as complete degenerates in public, or for the media to produce boundless heaps of perverted dreck. But now the 1A does not protect the former as it was intended (see J6, etc etc) but instead protects trannies reading books about Satan’s penis to kindergartners.
(((They))) exploit our own sexual instincts, to use them against us. This, of course, is really very interesting. I wonder if you have ever heard about how the Israeli government flooded Palestinian homes with porn all those years ago? Indeed, most “Holocaust” Education and movies are basically pornography, and, students these days are force fed all of that.
It really is simple: virtue => harmony => ascent, vice => entropy => decay. Pornography is vice.
The problem is not the first amendment. The problem is the application the first amendment through the fourteenth amendment to the states. The founders did not intend the first amendment to apply to states. To the contrary, the founders expected that states would legislate morality. States would establish churches and ban false religion. The technology for modern pornogrpahy did not exist at the time of the founding–so we do not have the founders talking about the consumption of obscenity in ones own home.
One thing to keep in mind about the founders, our modern idea of privacy was unknown. Which is to say, the founders embraced a 4th Amendment to keep the government outside the four walls of a home. But inside a home the world was different than our modern. People, other than the richest of people, did not have private places to potty and clean up. Bathing was a public event–or at least it was not something done privately behind closed doors. When traveling, one shared beds with strangers at an Inn or boarding house. Thus nudity in the home was normal. Of course people wore lots of clothing because colonial American homes were not heated like our modern home. But fair to say in summer, people in doors wore not much clothing at all.
This also meant sex was very public. In the home, everyone knew when mom and dad were having sex. if friends were visiting they too might be having sex. If there was a single man seeking the comfort of a widow or prostittue, that too was very public. Even affairs were in many ways public.
In the South, on some plantations, it was understood that the men would just go and take what comfort they wanted from slave women. At Monticello, apologists like to pretend Jefferson did not move Sally Hemmings into a room near his own. Instead, the Jefferson apologists discuss the fact that Jefferson’s brother was known to spend his evenings in the slave quarters.
The lesson for modern conservatives is to recall this. We ask too much to have the Federal Government do tings. Perhaps return to the founder idea that the first amendment should not apply to states. But also recall, sex is a very natural thing not to be regulated by government at all.
At the time of the nation’s founding, we had well developed property laws that dealt with children and inhereticnee (and which largely prohibited divorce).
Funny thing about the 1st Amendment. That freedom is today defined and determined by whatever Jewish law decides. And so it is with porn and Playboy Magazine, Weinstein, Epstein, the Alexander’s, etc.
” And governments obviously have no problem making regulations so burdensome that they effectively throttle industries. Why not let government unleash its worst vices on vice itself? ”
I think because the main goal is the dismantling of a healthy society.
Also much of the product release on basic cable television, to include children’s channels, is pornographic (see Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider.) Even movies like Saving Private Ryan, with it’s agonizingly slow and brutal depictions of death, dismemberment and agony, can be defined as pornographic.
“I doubt Pornography is as bad as the religious and the traditionalists make it to be.”
Since access to the internet became widespread, young males have had access to sexual pornography on a scale never imagined previously. Whereas before young males learned how to have sex by basically just doing it, now they are watching porn in their early teens or sooner and developing a very perverted and unhealthy idea of what normal sex is and how to practice it. The result is horrifying, as they seem to believe that sodomy is totally normal, to include sex toys, bondage, and physical abuse.
Also, the viewing of porn has been found to be addictive and a contributor to ED in men.
Listen to Mr. live and let live here. Convention or conscience is what keeps Joe Shmo from raping his neighbor’s wife. American porn today has led to much of our sex, drug and other crimes. Without convention you have the jungle.
Those guys arent dr. Hanania wants whites replaced in the US. Nice try at flinging shit against a wall and hoping it sticks.
I used to visit some porn sites, but not anymore, because i don’t live inside the Matrix, and i just can’t conform to fake things, to virtual worlds, and i have considered cybersex, porn sex totally fake. I consider internet sex like a person who is very hungry, starving to death and instead of eating a real pizza to fulfill his hunger, he relies on a video of a pizza
I also have noticed that internet sex, is destroying the personal lives and future of many young girls and teens who i suspect are not studying in college, and live empty lives. I have noticed that lots of beautiful young girls from poor countries like Colombia and even many girls from European nations like Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Finland etc. rely on internet porn chat rooms like chaturbate.com in order to make some money. And i pitty them because I think that they should instead spend their energies studying in College for their future, or studying and reading revolutionary books to see a world change. Specially Colombia which still has lots of poverty and even it has a progressive government, it is not a radical transformation of the economic structures of that country. Colombia with Petro has a sort of capitalist system with a humane face (which is not really a deep solution to get the 90% of colombians who are poor out of poverty. And the same happens in all those european nations that are really full of poverty and not like Wikipedia claims that the european nations enjoy a super high living standard (coz wikipedia is full of lies)
I don’t visit and use internet porn sites for my own sexual pleasures anymore because like another person in the comments section said here, fulfilling the sexual basic biological needs with internet porn websites, actually kills the natural sexual drive, because when you spend hours in porn sites, self-masturbating you won’t have any sex energies and sex drive for real sex it fulfills and satisfies the sexual basic needs of people, then people won’t have the need, to rely on actual real humans to fulfill their sexual biological basic needs.
In other words porn sites kill the sexual drive of people for real sex. Since their sexual drive is satisfied and fulfilled with internet cyber sex, they won’t have any libido, sexual drive for real sex and real love. It might be a civilization destroyer, a depopulation tool, a family destroyer, a destroyer of self-esteem and the rise of porn sites might even lead to a world of single people without any motivation to get married and have a normal family
When Israel was still young, a hugely popular variety of porn featured sadistic Nazis and concentration camps.
Jews are heavily involved in pornography! I wonder why?
This is why it can be so frustrating reading all the UR commenters who hate Christianity. They attack the one institution that can refute jewish power. The jews know full well that Christianity has always been (and remains) their number one target, and these UR atheist/pagan types happily serve their jewish masters.
As a side note regarding vulgarity, young adults today would be amazed at how vulgarity in public discourse was not used 30 or more years ago. Its prevalence in movies, music, talk shows, etc. would not have been tolerated. I find it especially disgusting how freely women use words previously limited to sailors. What’s worse are videos on popular platforms documenting use of profanities by fathers and mothers in front of their toddlers. As a society and culture, we are steeped in the importance of cleaning up the environment but totally indifferent about the filth that enters our eyes and ears.
Oh really? (((They))) could actually have been projecting their very own sado-Sexual tendencies on the Nazis then!
They never envisioned those things – yet they should have. But they were liberals, and they believed in the sanctity and perfection of liberal political and social theory. That was their error. If you believe in the principles of equality, freedom of speech, blank slatism, etc. then your society will NOT be ruled by tradition or have any guardrails that will constrain the endless push towards greater and greater openness and acceptance. The only reason that America succeeded was because CHRISTIANITY provided that guardrail – yet our Founding Fathers never saw the need to formally declare our country as Christian, and as such it was inevitable that this too would be overturned in the face of the endless surge for ‘freedom’.
So… you don’t have any children, do you?
Indeed, but isn’t that why we should use a practical and effective defense?
Was Dan Schneider Nickelodeon’s TV Producer/Child Raper? I’ve never seen anything he produced, but I thought that the controversy wasn’t over the content of his shows but over his behavior with the child actors.
Christianity is all but abolished in America. They keep watering it down, into nothing.
On situating sexual impotence… here is the infamous essay “The Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party” that does so.
http://www.wlym.com/archive/campaigner/Campaigners1968-76/00TextFiles/SexImpotPSP00wfigs.pdf
which speaks to the mind and nature of mind and the development of the individual and its destruction by understanding what the impotent is missing relative to the real capacities of love or the other
Or rather where the higher self conscious develops the capacities for agapic love which situates the path of growth of the soul of the beloved and of the lover…
political impotence matches fantasy worlds which have not situated human development to a universal understanding of the good
I was curious – so I put 3 words into the search window at DaLimbraw Library – PORNOGRAPHY SYNAGOGUE SATAN – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Pornography+synagogue+Satan&updated-max=2022-06-18T11:41:00-07:00&max-results=20&by-date=false&m=1 – bingo!
You left out interracial porn especially those involving Black males and White females. We all know damn well that gets the greasy kike off just about more than any other type of porn. The porn of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s for the MOST part (there were exceptions for freaks) was pretty “normal” when compared to the sick kike shit put out later.
You could add Henry Makow. He’s a bit like Matt Forney. Makow even wrote a book about it.
Once someone invented the camera, people were going to start recording sexual acts. I am surprised more people aren’t doing it. Why should sex be off limits? The rest is just business.
The ED in men probably stems from poor health and possibly psychological issues. I went through a porn phase in my 30’s and whether I was Dancing With Myself, getting in touch with the unemployed or had a partner I never had a problem. Even at 60 plus I don’t even a problem. Admittedly I no longer am the 16 year old who achieves an erection in math class and fears the teacher will call me up to workout a problem on the chalkboard but it still works naturally.
Of course back in my 30’s, at least my early 30’s (1991-1995) one had to go to a video store, go back to the “adult section “ or a porn video store. The good ole days of pulling into a porn store, trying to act nonchalant and hoping like hell that no one sees you enter or leave. Look at the back of the box, get home and realize none of those scenes are on the box. Of course nowadays men have 24/7/365 and don’t even have to leave the house. Would say during my porn phase I probably watched porn maybe 8-10 hours a week, spent at least 1-2 nights in a strip joint blowing money. Probably pretty tame by today’s standards. My issue with porn is the sick shit out there and how it degrades the women.
Look at the average male of the 1980s and 1990s, especially younger males. Anyone under 40 or even 50 should not have a problem with ED. Obesity, diabetes, bad circulation, stress, drugs, alcohol, lack of cardiovascular exercise are the culprits.
Another word search – PORNOGRAPHY FREE SPEECH – from DLL:
E. Michael Jones – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Pornography+free+speech&updated-max=2019-10-02T20:32:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=false&m=1 – a plethora!
Porn is basically 2 things:
1) an addictive drug that can re-shape the brain and it’s responses in a highly negative ways
2) cuckoldry. a giant literal “fuck you” to the viewer that it entices him to sexualize his own defeat and and fuck you everything decent possible in society
“I’ve never seen anything he produced, but I thought that the controversy wasn’t over the content of his shows but over his behavior with the child actors. ”
This video has an annoying narrator, but start at the 12:30 mark to get some examples of the suggestive material that was inserted into these kids shows.:
Video Link
Started in the early 70’s and was as much a part of belittling and marginalizing the White male as the Jew concocted television commercials where black males, always portrayed as morally superior and intelligent, are the norm and White males are either nonexistent or portrayed as fools, idiots, and buffoons. The removal of the White male, the builder of Western civilization, from society was the stock in trade of organized jewry. The cleverness by those Satanic demons in how they went about what they did cannot be denied but their sheer evil should not surprise anyone. This is why their demonization of Hitler can never stop because if people start taking what he wrote about Jews seriously the game will end.
In the gospel of John, there are seven instances where Jesus makes a statement alluding to His own divinity. These are known as the seven “I AM” statements. When Moses asked God how He should be identified to Israel, God said “I AM WHO I AM…Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14). This phrase implies the simplest expression of God’s nature: He just is, He must be. When Jesus uses this phrasing, He is deliberately invoking that same essence. Earlier in this very debate, Jesus made the second of these statements, claiming “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12).
Now, Jesus is responding to disbelief from His critics. Jesus talked about knowing God, and His word choices, in the original Greek, implied a kind of knowledge which is inborn, innate, and natural (John 8:55). He indicated that Abraham looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and “rejoiced” to see Jesus’ day finally arrive (John 8:56). This led His critics to jeer: “you’re not even fifty, how can you have seen Abraham?” (John 8:57).
Jesus answers with what some refer to as the “hidden ‘I AM’” statement, since it’s not typically counted among the others. This is perhaps the most direct of all of Jesus’ uses of this phrase. The meaning is certainly not lost on His critics. When Jesus claims the title of “I AM,” everyone listening knows exactly what He means: that He is God (John 10:33). Those who suggest that Jesus never actually claimed to be God should consider the reaction of the religious leaders to His words, shown in the next verse. They are so enraged that they attempt to stone Jesus right then and there (John 8:59).
John 8:31–59 dovetails with John 2:13–22. There, Jesus drove corrupt businessmen from the temple. These Scriptures disprove any myths that Jesus was weak, timid, passive, or soft. In this exchange with the Pharisees, Jesus pulls no punches. Jerusalem’s religious leaders, and their followers, continue to resist Jesus’ preaching. They rely on arrogance and insults, to which Jesus responds with blunt, unfiltered condemnation. This culminates in Jesus making an overt statement of His own divinity, punctuating the debate by declaring ”before Abraham was, I am!”
This begins with the story of the adulterous woman, a well-known but controversial passage. Most scholars believe this story is authentic, but not originally found in this exact spot in Scripture. The rest of chapter 8 continues Jesus’ preaching during the Feast of Booths, where He once again comes into conflict with local religious leaders. Here, Christ will make His second ”I am” statement, using the analogy of light, which is a common theme in Hebrew theology. This conversation will become more and more heated. Jesus’ opponents become so enraged that they attempt to kill Him right then and there.
Jesus is attending the Feast of Booths in Jerusalem. There He once again conflicts with local religious authorities. Previously, Jesus referred to Himself as a source of living water (John 7:37–38). That built on the festival’s ritual pouring of water in the temple. In this chapter, Jesus will do something similar with the imagery of lights also related to festival traditions. This demonstrates Jesus’ willingness to be direct, even aggressive, with His critics. The next few chapters will complete Jesus’ public ministry, as He prepares for His impending death.
The disciple John wrote the gospel of John decades after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written. The author assumes that a reader is already familiar with the content of these other works. So, John presents a different perspective, with a greater emphasis on meaning. John uses seven miracles—which he calls “signs”— to prove that Jesus is, in fact, God incarnate. Some of the most well-known verses in the Bible are found here.
John 1:1 is the first verse in the Gospel of John, which is part of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The verse reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”.
The only force in recent history that credibly opposed Jewish power (i.e. the German “Nazi” party), was mostly opposed by churches inside and outside of Germany. I think that Christians like to punch down a lot (which is a feminine characteristic). They boast of how they beat up and murdered the pagans, but they didn’t dare raise their hands to Jews. Thomas Aquinas said that pagan heretics should be burned at the stake but Jews should be left alone. How do any of these observations square with your contention that Christianity is helpful in the cause of counter-Semitism? In reality, Christianity’s influence has been negative.
FWIW, the people denounced as Pagans were the conservatives of yore. Their religion was tied in with blood and soil and the Christians were cosmopolitan urbanites who regarded the pagans as ignorant primitives. Today’s woke crowd and the early Christians share certain similarities.
Maybe but that isn’t necessarily a description of the billion dollar Jew created and run porn industry that does much more than just show people having sex. What they do is extremely addictive and damaging to many people and has completely changed for the worse how people understand and deal with sex.
There is a reason why Israel started broadcasting pornography non-stop on Gaza television stations 25 years ago. It destroys cultures as they learned from how they did it to Americans.
If only fathers would genuinely love their daughters and mothers would genuinely love their sons things might be different. Love and affection builds healtier and better adjusted children who carry that into adulthood. But society’s powers and other factors have driven the divorce rate sky high. What are young people to do when their live’s have been starved to death of these 2 needs? The massive promotion of race mixing in our media isn’t by accident, it comes from those who are of the devil. And since it’s becoming more and more it can only be abhorrent to the Almighty. But what can somebody do ? When starving to death they will eat just about anything they can find. “Sex is evil and even self sex is evil” says many in our churches … at least Protestant churches. I’ve heard that from them. They probably also believe that love and affection is evil too !
; From your last sentence, Mike: “The viewing of porn (is) a contributor to ED in men.”
I’d add that so is circumcision, a demonic Jewish religious rite, which has been passed on to unsuspecting Christians, with the dubious claim that it has health benefits for the male child. Nothing could be further from the truth. Circumcision, aka genital mutilation, does indeed cause significant sexual harm for a variety of reasons, with ED common in circumcised men. This is manifested in the need for dangerous drugs such as Viagra, with a large percentage of its sales coming from the circumcised USA.
If you have the stomach to watch REAL child pornography, I dare you to watch a video of a baby boy being sexually violated (circumcised) by a sadistic so-called doctor, from beginning to end. If the child’s anguishing cries don’t turn your stomach, maybe induce vomiting, then I question your Humanity. Sadly, the writer of this long essay on the dangers of pornography failed to mention this obscenity, which has NO redeeming social value.
Yet, mostly due to Jewish power and control, any thoughts of making it illegal in the USA, either by an act Congress or in a court of law, have NO CHANCE of passing. Indeed, they are called Anti-Semitic by the usual suspects.
But the Christians claim to hate Hollywood and Porn? ROTFLMMFWAO. I have told so many of kike worshipping Christians about kikes pushing porn, pedophilia, homosexuality, trannies, leading the War on Christmas, on and on and on ,and have encountered mostly blank stares… For every convert, I say the ratio is maybe 5 out of a hundred Christians will dump the kikes.
Author says in footnotes that high school and college kids “should” drink alcohol. Well, I sure as Hell did, but would’ve been better off not drinking at all.
He should check out the recent studies showing that no level of alcohol consumption is healthy. See, e.g., https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45283401
Ask North Korea for help.
5ds
I saw a regular Italian movie, not porn, titled Without Pity about a Black soldier falling in love with an Italian woman. This crapola came out in 1948! The directors/producers all had Italian names but jew knows? 1948? Damn.
That is the intention. The real rulers (not the congressmen they pay) don’t want people who have interests other than sex, drugs and violence. Anyone who wants to live in a safe neighbourhood, striving for a traditional family with caring mothers, protective fathers and mentally healthy children, could become a threat to them.
From Martin Luther up through the first half of the 20th century I think the Christian sentiment towards Jews was negative. Obviously it wasn’t all like Luther’s views (On the Jews and Their Lies) but more than sufficient. Jews did not make their move on Christianity until after WWII when they changed the narrative after they came into America in large numbers and gradually expanded the Holocaust legend up into the 60’s. It is still their go to source of power. The UN creation of the Jewish state gave them another source of power. Of course, now they control every major institution and White Christians have been completely marginalized.
Organized jewry began to influence the Christian church and began feminizing it which then led to homosexuality in it. That was supplemented by expansion of the Scofield segments whereby Zionism became part of their worship. Then they employed the legal system and courts to remove Christianity from our culture. I don’t blame orthodox foundational Christian beliefs for how today’s Christians view Jews sympathetically and even positively. All that showed was the power of Satan through Jews and the weakness of humans. Jesus might have called the Jews Satan’s children but he also noted that many Christians would fall for false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Smoldering Irons, WTF
I agree. I said it’s a business, and like with every other business, Jews get into it and try to dominate it. Then they can even operate it at a loss if it serves some other purpose, as they do with other businesses.
“Classical liberalism” has absolutely fucking nothing to do with “modern liberalism.” You’re talking about libertines. The Founders were the opposite of libertines.
For whites, which is what the Founders said.
Not porn, which is what the Founders said.
The belief that any white person OF GOOD CHARACTER could become a US citizen.
The only reason that America succeeded was because CHRISTIANITY provided that guardrail
This is generally true.
They did, though. Only people “of good character” could become citizens, and only Christians could be of good character. They refused to pick a single denomination to be “official” (the sole point of “freedom of religion” in the 1st Amendment), and they did not allow animists, muslims, jews, shinto, zoroastrians, etc. to become citizens.
Why are you lying about things so easily disproven?
Pornography is a zionist jewish weapon against Christianity and is tearing apart our society and making trillions at the same time for the zionist jews who own and produce and control the porn industroy. Zionist jews control America and are driving it to hell.
Absolutely. Most of the performers are Jewish, too, and they behave disgustingly. With the women, you can tell the Jewish ones who have had or didn’t have nose jobs from their genital shapes.
I thought it was alright at times before working out what it was about. Long ago.
Now, absolutely stopped.
Follyofwar,
I used, briefly, to comment on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’. Many productive. Banned after making a light comment on MGM. I recommend that you do the same, start with a couple of things you may agree with, then state that in an article on FGM that you disagree with MGM.
Then again, they don’t talk about that any more now, do those dearies, suppose FGM is fine for the Grauniadistas of now, so beyond mention.
In any case, I recommend a brief experience with Grauniad’s ‘comment is free’, comments system. Likely behind a paywall now, so not worth the expense, but may still be free.
Why should we be born with something and our religion says it must be cut off ? Mine’s gone. I had no say in the matter. Thanks for the info !!
You’re most welcome. And I doubt if you’re a simple-minded person.
I agree with your comment but notice I said contributor. Of course there are a multitude of factors that contribute to ED, but porn has been shown to be one of them:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5039517/
Absolutely 100% agree. Circumcision is one of the most evil practices ever fostered on the West.
Video Link
“Whereas most would argue that freedom of speech under the First Amendment—both as a proscription against government censorship and as an important societal norm and value—is infallible and utterly beyond reproach, this author is not convinced that freedom of speech should be quite so sacrosanct, particularly if a far-left movement could seize power and have the wherewithal to censor, oppress, and even eradicate speech they don’t like. ”
WTF? “this author is not convinced that freedom of speech should be quite so sacrosanct, particularly if a far-left movement could seize power and have the wherewithal to censor, oppress, and even eradicate speech they don’t like.”
Huh? WTF? So freedom of speech shouldn’t be quote so sacrosanct, particularly if a far-left movement has the wherewithal to eradicate speech they don’t like?
Did the author of this article even read any of what they wrote? Did they understand what they wrote?
It’s been decades since I was a young guy, and therefore decades since I have seen any of this stuff, but I remember seeing a guy complain online that while the females in the xxx movies might be of any race or ethnicity, the men were always either white of black.
I think there is a simple market explanation for this. The predominant American market for this stuff is white and black men. Most of the men who are consuming this stuff have been part of an interracial social scene for at least part of their live. They’ve been on the team. In the military. Belonged to a fitness clubs. It’s just acceptable to them and convenient for the producers because they do not have to make separate films or produce separate cuts for the different market segments.
Men who want all-white, all-black, Asian or Latin American cast xxx movies can find them.
Sometimes it’s better to look for the freak-onomics explanation for things before you go off into the weeds of cultural deconstruction.
a huge part of the problem could be fixed simply. i’m in my 60s. the few times i went into a porn theatre or ‘book’ store, i was carded. there is no way that anyone should be able to access porn online without proof of ID. if someone had operated a porn store back in the day and were found to have allowed 12-years onto the premises, there would be hell to pay. now parents just accept that their kids can access gang bang and bestiality videos. fucking retards.
I both agree and disagree. Regarding censoring the internet, it was partially achieved in Biden’s first and only term. Whether you like Trump or not, we can thank our lucky stars that know-nothing, anchor baby Kamala was defeated. It sure was a close call for what’s left of the “Republic.” Free speech, with the exception of unconstitutional anti-Semitism laws, is beginning to flourish under President Trump and his unelected sidekick Elon Musk. The owner of X has restored many right-leaning accounts since he took charge.
If you think that there should be more censorship on the internet, I’d like to refer you to the recent segment on “60 Minutes” about Germany’s growing dystopia. Internet Police come knocking on your door at 6AM to ransack your home on a tip from a neighbor and then confiscate your phone and computer if they suspect you of violating their strict “hate speech” laws. You face a steep fine or a jail sentence and the electronics they stole will be destroyed.
Further, Germany’s liberal parties tried to outlaw the AfD and wanted to put its lesbian leader in prison. Though it came in second in their multi-party parliamentary system, they’ve been denied representation. Other Western Euro countries are just about as bad. Whatever one thinks of our flawed Constitution, at least it does contain a First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, and that ain’t bad.
The constitution says judges are not allowed to write laws. The very first words after the preamble are, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.”
But judges write laws all the time and call it a new “interpretation.”
Why should we be born with something and our religion says it must be cut off ?
************************************************
Good point. We need laws against haircuts.
I hardly think that the State regards itself as bound to the Constitution. Indeed neither the Executive nor the Legislative branches pay any attention to it, and the Courts are probably just as blind. It may surprize some to learn that the USC is primarily a set of things the State is forbidden to do. The State does these things anyway, it passes all sorts of prohibited “laws”, and when that’s inconvenient, it rules by decree. Whatever the virtues of pornography, the USC is not the problem. And I’m not sure that there is a problem with porn, it has always been part of the human world. Degustibus non est disputandum (“In matters of taste, there can be no disputes” (literally “about tastes, it is not to be disputed”). There was recently an interview I recommend watching on the USC “U.S. Representative Thomas Massie : Do We Still Have a Constitution? ” (Judging Freedom, Napolitano, You Tube) Until recent times the age of consent in some US States was 12, by the way. I do think that the electromagnetic spectrum is (or was) public property, according to the US Congress (see the history of the Federal Communication Commission) and therefor the spectrum must be used for the benefit of the people. Transmitting lurid and depraved images of perversion is obviously not a public benefit. Porno can constitutionally be removed from the spectrum. But a decadent and immoral State is not going to do that. Porno in film and in live theater, as it was when the FCC executed its duty, is where it belongs. Empires decline, and with that process so do morals…
I’m not going to read this amateurish article, but since the topic is rare on this site:
I have seen numerous people in failing relationships asking for advice or support. The cause? Porn addiction, erectile dysfunction, and kinks they saw when they were young. Think 10-13 years old. This is brain trauma, and that takes years to patch up — by not watching any more porn.
Porn is free population control, but it is not humane — it messes up children’s brains.
You can go to the museum and look at statues with tits. That’s long been the case. The online porn epidemic is something entirely different, that destroys nearly all the women who get roped in to it.
Great post!
TRUTH!
Thank you!
LOL
NO WAY!
That’s completely out of character for a Jew.
This article doesn’t even touch on:
The deception and coercion often used to get women to participate in porn.
The suicide and death by overdose that is the fate of many performers.
The fact that porn sites have hosted videos of women who have been abducted and raped, often underage.
The fact that until recently it was impossible for anybody to get a video of themselves removed from a porn site, even if the video involved rape.
All those who are protesting that this criticism is merely an attempt at censorship, need to face up to the fact that videos they like to watch may involve rape, abduction, or at least coercion. You may be watching a conception, the resulting pregnancy which will almost certainly be aborted.
True.
Say, do you realize Objectivism from Ayn Rand et al. and Libertarianism are both jew-sponsored, created / guided levers of subversion and destruction? Radical independence and atomization promoted from a tribe who uses INTENSE in-group preference and nepotism into the mainstream consciousness of the West.
Just another intentional angle of attack to weaken and parasitize yet another host society.
A good analysis here is Nature’s God by Matthew Stewart. The Founding Fathers were deists, if anything, and “deist” was largely understood as a variant of atheism. They were hardly orthodox Christians. Washington was buried under Masonic ritual. They strongly believed in Enlightenment and its atheistic tendencies. Listen, I love them as the Founding Fathers, but they were men, and like all men were flawed. Their adherence to “classical” liberalism is still an adherence to an irrationality that would ultimately culminate in today’s woke left. Voltaire and others from that generation were in some ways just as extreme as today’s trannies. I frankly don’t trust what they might regard as “good character”. Certainly if they wanted a white nationalist state they should have spelled it out better than they did. They left the door open for “liberty”, “freedom”, “equality”, and a host of other open-ended terms that would inevitably descend into libertine escapism.
Quit the larp, child.
But without dog-fucking, how will your average white woman find sexual climax? You’d cut them off from that? The level of misogyny here is sometimes frankly appalling.
Truly great post!
Thank you, Mike!
Vice laws don’t completely eradicate vice but proper enforcement does cut down on it and make it more manageable. We saw this in Portland, OR where drug possession was decriminalized a few years ago and drug use, crime and overdoses went through the roof, forcing the city to walk back the law. By your logic, we shouldn’t have laws against murder because there are always people who want to kill and the law doesn’t always prevent them.
There is a major difference between watching a porno at a theater/stag party, or renting one from a video store, and having 24/7 access to unlimited amounts of free, high-definition porn through your Internet connection. The contemporary porn problem is as much a technological issue as one of vice. I recommend Gary Wilson’s famous TED talk from several years ago as good starting place for understanding the crucial differences between Internet porn and earlier forms of pornography:
Video Link
The thought of you (the writer), or Christians, Muslims, librarians, teachers or even my wife or anybody else, telling me what I can do in my fantasies or with my penis scares the semen out of me. You all seem to know where the lines are between good and evil or right and wrong. That process of drawing lines works with crimes, although God knows we do not seem to be able to run a society in which people really understand when they are harming or hurting others. But there is much more lower hanging fruit than my wanking (or my occasional fuck) that you could be dealing with.
I think it may have something to do (at least in the US) Christian teachings. I have started a slow crawl back to Christian faith and cannot get past the apostle Paul’s rabid anti sex ideas and his controlling temperament. So I will make up my own version of the faith. Just like he did.
Every time I went in an adult porn video store in the 1990s all I saw MOSTLY were younger White males from about their late twenties to early forties, it was rare to see a woman but I have seen them, MOST were accompanied by a male friend, husband, etc. I remember one time seeing a woman by herself, probably in her mid thirties and reasonably attractive. Who knows? She might have been a “working girl.”
I knew a lady who was in the industry and she told me that MOST men couldn’t perform on cue especially with other people watching. When I used to watch porn you would notice a lot of the same male performers but lots of different female porn stars came and went. I guess now with drugs like Viagra it makes it easier on the male performers. Unlike a woman, a man can’t fake it.
According to jewi$h doctrine, rabbinical passages and practices, “3-years and a day” is “old enough”.
The jew$ own words:
Rabbi Shmuel said: And Abba (i.e., Rav, whose first name was Abba) concedes to me, with regard to a girl less than three years and one day old, since there is no (legal significance) to intercourse with her, there is no (legal significance) to entering the wedding canopy with her.
Rava said: We, too, learn: A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse; and if her yavam had intercourse with her, he has acquired her;
A timely and important topic, for sure, but buddy. Editing. What even is this? I mean, good work, but still.
Agreed! That was a great one-man performance. But it came with a cost for Eric Clopper (who like many circumcision opponents, happens to be Jewish). It got him fired from Harvard for Hate Speech.
Women, aside from the poor misguided few who make porn, are not part of the problem.
There have been studies on porn and 99.99 percent of it is bought or viewed by men. Very few women have any interest in it.
Discussing porn is far from misogynistic. Most women hate the stuff and men are aware of that. Porn is a guy thing and getting rid of it or pushing it out of view will save guys. It always comes down to that.
As a 7 year old, another kid the same age showed me a magazine hidden by his 10 year old brother in the alley. I became obsessed with porn from then until maybe 10 years ago. I’m 57 now . That kid was arrested in his late thirties for possession of child pornography and now lives as a homosexual. I have come to believe early childhood sexual experiences imprint upon young men.) I too was unable to perform with actual women but strangely the smell of musty newsprint ( like the hidden magazine under a rock 50 years ago) produced arousal. Though I’m married now and have healthy normal marital relations, I am without children. I blame Jews. They put that garbage in the stream of commerce with the express intent of ruining our society.
lol, the tribulation was two thousand years ago? Tell me David Parker you know anything about climate change being the work of God in relation to the pollution of sin? As for the rapture yes it is not going to save you from your mortgage payments lol. there will be no mortgages to speak of because if you read Book of Revelation which you apparently haven’t even begun to you would read that a global wide earthquake is going to reduce every city and town to rubble and that coincides with the return of Christ as well as the rapture. But the really important thing about the end times is those words about “Here is the mind that has wisdom,’ which occurs twice speaking about a coming king the antichrist and the last economic system where “no one will be able to buy or sell unless he had the mark in either his right hand or forehead.” You do know or realize don’t you that could very well be the QR Code? When i was in the hospital waiting for some blood work to be done the nurse shows up and does what first thing. She uses a code scanner to scan the QR Code on my wrist band and then proceeds to take my blood. I stare at the band around my wrist and look at two QR Codes and say to myself yikes will we be the generation to see them demand this be actually tattoed on either my head or hand for easier identification purposes but one in which your payment in the system will be your acknowledgement of a new type of Robinhood. The best example would be the WW2 ration system card. Please before you show up on a blog like this do your homework and ask God for wisdom.
How dare you attack white freedom and white creativity? I will defend my kids right to watch porn, my neighbor’s right to fuck my slut wife and Tyrone’s right to impregnate my daughter.
Only chinky ant wouldn’t understand this freedom!
Pornography is simply one more facet of a deadly social pathology that has been invented and propagated by the Jews; Jews who now control everything in the U.S. and Europe.
Other evils invented and imposed by the Jews:
Communism
Cultural Marxism
Anti-White animus
Negro Worship
Mexican Worship
Pervert Worship
Child Tranification and Mutilation
Turning Schools into Leftist Ideological Reeducation Camps
Predatory financial practices
Anti-Christianity
Anti-Civilization
The Invasion of Millions of Hostile Third-World Savages
Victim Culture
The Litigious Society
Endless Wars
All these things and other evil, mentally-ill agenda items have their origins with the Jews, and the Jews control the narrative and policy more than ever. They are the agents of Satan, and have deluded Gentiles into doing their will. The Jews are our most deadly enemies. And the Republican Party is not fighting back at all. The current Republican Party is only allowed to exist in order to keep gullible Whites involved in our evil government; a government that is systematically destroying the very White people that are the ONLY people still keeping this country (barely) functioning.
All Jews, Blacks, Mexicans and Asians must be deported from the US and Europe. That is the only hope for decent, civilized people to exist and prosper.
Where is this armed group of Rabbis that forces you to click on RedTube?
Hello?
Anybody?
Surveys conducted by the NoFap crowd indicate that the majority of participants are non-religious. Almost all the focus of their discourse is on the adverse physical and psychological health impacts of porn.
https://nofap.com/articles/nofap-is-not-religious/
“Anti-porn is due to religion” is a cope. A society has the right, in order to maintain its health and stability, to regulate vice, from stigmatizing and shaming indulgers all the way up to criminally penalizing it if need be. If that interferes with your personal masturbatory habits, so be it. I’m willing to make that sacrifice on your behalf, and will lose little sleep over it. (And if you can’t “fantasize” without porn then that’s a sign you have a problem).
If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. And if other people choose to watch it do not judge them or assume they are morally compromised.
The fact porn is freely available gives you the opportunity to strengthen your will through resistance. Resisting temptation is a path to growth. Not watching only because it is banned provides you no path to growth.
Exactly. Jew media doesn’t force you to watch and read them. Jew bankers don’t force you to do business with them. Jew academia doesn’t force you to go to school. Jew Hollywood doesn’t force you to watch their television and movies. Jew run cities don’t force you to go into them and have to deal with the Negro violence and dysfunction. Jew run government and military doesn’t force you to sign up and fight wars for Israel. What’s the problem?
So, some states now require your personal information including a pic to access a porno site on the net.
Porno on the net was not invented yesterday. So, why, now, all of a sudden, something previously a private thing between an adult and an internet site (peek-a-boo [Google]creeps doing their thing, as usual I presume) is blocked unless you cough up your personal info to – you don’t know who.
I’ll tell you why. Because children walk around loose with cell phones that have internet apps not only easily accessible, but will pop up whether you look for it or not. So why are children walking around UNCHAPERONED with these devices? 2 reasons: 1) negligent STUPID parents who should never EVER allow a kid internet access (phone or otherwise) unless right there, accompanied by a responsible adult and 2) cell phones without the internet/apps, etc – you know – just a phone, so the kid can connect with his responsible parent/guardian, which, btw, is why you give the kid a phone to begin with Oh, wait – such phones – no longer available.Heck, their kiddie friends can reset that fancy phone if they don’t know how – and they do. Schoolyards are made for that!
There are no longer telephone calls-only cell phones available. So whattya do? Skip giving the kid a phone? Or set them loose with a device that they can at anytime connect with porn, a pedo creep, anybody, replete with pics of their private parts. Think about it. It’s like setting a kid loose in Central Park.
So to prevent kiddies from getting sex ed out of the home (impossible today, really, even cable TV considered) some adult who at their leisure wanted to tune into Porn Hub now has to go through either revealing their identity (perhaps, the same Google and other lookie-loos, heck, who knows who, tuning in) or go through the “Express VPN or similar,” bowlshit, at their cost and toil?
Uh Uh. If I did not fertilize the egg that made that kid, and I am not their godfather, not their teacher…not their responsible adult, it is NOT my concern. And NOT my responsibility to protect them from worldly things that need wait until they are over 18. In the days of adult theaters, tittie bars, whorehouses, etc, there was somebody at the door who looked at you in person and if you looked too young you might need to flash your DL but you put it right back in your wallet. No potentially permanent record that any nosy creep can get their hands on – just like walking into a discotheque that serves alcohol.
It’s not the porn industry, or not the Jews that run it that’s the problem. It’s lazy stupid adults who think nothing of setting their kids loose with a device that can give them porn, give them vulgar language, or some creep exposing himself – just by touching the screen in the right place, deliberately of even accidently. Just dump that responsibility on childless me? And, so now that’s MY PROBLEM to deal with? Sorry bud, but I never knowingly fertilized an egg (and that’s a civil right if I decided not to) and I’m 75, not a teacher in a schoolroom, and do not run a daycare center in my home. So what does this bowlshit have to do with me? Tell ya what – if you can outlaw false eyelashes, I might let you get away with it. (I said “might”)
Maybe you should lay on the cell phone industry to go back to offering phone-call-only phones. Hmm – there’s a market.
Most internet porn users began when they were adolescents, when their brains were too undeveloped to understand the long-term effects they were subjecting themselves to and when, in fact, what they were doing was illegal but neglected by their society. It would be better if they didn’t have to go through this “path to growth” and wonderful “opportunity of strengthening will” in the first place. Moreover, you clearly don’t understand the neuroscience behind porn addiction. It is much more torturous than just “not watching it.”
This imbecilic non-judgmentalism is what got our culture into this ditch.
Pornification of society has certainly changed the nature of discourse.
The networks of political discussion on the internet often included porny stuff or tropes and terminology linked to porn. Starting with the millennials, porn-talk because just another cultural reference.
Indeed, the term ‘cuck’ used by our side came to prominence via porn.
Before facebook and other platforms decided to crack down on porn, it was common to see posts of porny stuff. I was kicked out of facebook in 2016(with Trump’s win), and I moved to MeWe, an alternative social network, but the place was filled with exhibitionist types who uploaded tons of porn.
I think twitter allowed porn until recently.
Telling how you only cite John, when the other three gospels make it clear that Jesus is a man. John fails the criteria of dissimilarity a multiple attestation.
True. It’s worth noting that it was the Nazis in Germany who burned the pornographic materials in a public display that has stirred outrage in the hearts of Jews ever since. It was not done under the auspices of Christianity, even if some of the participants were Christian.
What have Christians done that comes even close?
Never thought of that. Probably so. Some years ago, rented a room in a private home from a guy who once lived in Southern California, near where the studio where they made the porno flicks. Being a young guy at the time, he watched X-rated movies. He said that he used to see the porn actors and porn actresses at the gas station.
Back in the late 80s, I had a housemate who had lived in a hotel in New Orleans where John Holmes also lived when he was a young actor. Holmes had some real acting aspirations. Some of them do. This guys was pals with Holmes and he had seen him. It was just coming out the shower in his room or maybe changing clothes. It’s how you live when you’re staying in cheap hotels.
Many of the actors and actresses die young. Holmes dies of AIDS in 1988 at the age of 43. Others leave the business and have to hide their past. I’ve heard of women being afraid of being fired from their pink collar or administrative jobs if their porn actress pasts are exposed. Someone in the California legislature proposed making it illegal for someone to expose someone’s past participation in porn film production. I don’t think it passed.
As in all filmmaking, some things can be faked. It’s called movie magic for a reason. There is a lot of brutality in the industry also. Female performers are physically abused a great deal but male performers can be victimized also. All can and do suffer mental damage. The jaded audiences want to see more than just regular old getting it on and the producers have to satisfy the audience if they want to stay in business. Some of the performers, once they get in the business, start to see no way out and can be inveigled to do almost anything in return for their paycheck. They don’t get paid that either.
I wouldn’t say that all porn should be banned. Porn should be banned from the view of those who don’t like it and don’t call for it and they are a majority, for the same reason the rhythm and cries of gangsta rap should not be imposed to the ears of the greater number that hate it. I favour the return to the Hayes code for all productions presented to the majority of movie goers. Erotica should be presented in designated places. I am not for the censorship of woke : but it should be one genre among thousands, not an obligatory language.
We’re watching war and terror live on all channels these days. Has anyone got a problem with that? No articles on the impacts of that on people’s minds. Should we censor that, or could we even censor it? We’re watching people killing people all the time.
The Reno v ACLU case was in the context of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 — just a few years later in Grutter v Bollinger, the Supreme Court would rule that society had a ‘compelling interest’ in racial diversity, which justified consideration of race in admissions.
Why doesn’t society have a ‘compelling interest’ in banning pornography, which most people can see is harmful?
No, more specifically for the adult male AND their adult female partner(s).
People can claim all they want that circumcision isn’t done to help prevent infections and diseases in BOTH men and women but, they will continue to be wrong about that.
However, you cannot reason those who are strident in the extreme about that issue. They refuse, no matter the facts and realities put forth. Yet, as usual, the facts and realities remain. Smh…
The country already has obscenity laws on the books. They’re just not enforced. Most porn films would fail the “Miller Test” for what constitutes obscenity:
“(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
The act of paying people to have sex on camera is prostitution by any reasonable interpretation. The state of California attempted to argue just that in the 1987 People vs. Freeman case, part of the post-Traci Lords-scandal thrust to shut down the porn industry. Prior to that case, sex scenes in California were always shot in secret locations because what they were doing was blatantly illegal. The deep-pocketed pro-porn advocacy groups argued that paying people to have sex on camera effectively makes it a “spectator sport” rather than something done for sexual gratification (talk about pilpul!), the court bought the arguments or were bought themselves, and shooting porn was officially legal in California.
Still today, the pro-porn “free speech” advocacy organizations are extremely well-funded and aggressive. Many of the people involved in porn production are powerful and well-connected. For example, one of the most disreputable porn directors of all time worked under the name Khan Tusion, responsible for such delightful efforts as Meatholes and Pissmops. He was eventually forced into early retirement after too many of his female performers complained about his abusive treatment. He zealously guarded his identity during his working years, but it eventually came to light (and was confirmed by Luke Ford) that he was Mark Handel, a Jewish Los Angeles-based real estate developer with strong ties to local politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. His brother, Bill Handel, is an L.A. lawyer and host of a popular right-wing radio show. Mark is currently serving a multiyear sentence for tax fraud.
Of course there are White males who get off on the brutal treatment of females in these films but I am sure most of this crapola is purposely pushed by the kikes who run this seedy business. You have to wonder what kind of male is turned on by watching a woman have multiple men or gang bangs, or manhandled by a man or men. Even though White males are probably the biggest consumers of this kike freak show I would grant you groups like Pakis, Arabs or other primitive tribes go for this type of porn especially if the “actress”/victim is a White female. I can tell you that Hispanic males, particularly Mexicans watch porn like crazy and probably go for the rough and over the top filthy porn as well. The only threesome or gang bang I wanted to see was one male with multiple females. Lol.
Here is another one,
(Read what he openly says).
No. The woke crowd of late antiquity was rather among the gnostic sects (which could claim indifferently of Plato, of Christ or of some Jewish guru) that played a very important political and social (and very deleterious, as it condemned all attempts to bequeath a better or less barbaric world to the following generation as “demiurgic” and thus contrary to salvation of one’s soul : gnosticism asked extreme conservatism to be applied to the populace so as for it to cater without question for the needs of the enlightened who lived beyond good and evil and were to be imposed no moral or sexual constraint that might hamper their quest for light and occult power : they condemned reproductive sexuality and considered homosexuality between teen-ager and old sage as the highest form of love) role until the final crumbling of the Empire’s very material capacity to entertain such far-out philosophies. The Jewish Talmud and Kabbalah remained thereafter the only refuge for gnostic points of view and teachings and gnosticism could then make comebacks in the West only thanks to Judaic influence.
Christianity was most conservative like the Bible Belt can be or as also Radical Islam can be. The “pagans” as they were called were rather religions such as Episcopalians were you go for the mere gatherings and feasts without great concern for any moral, political or philosophical question. “Pagan” rather meant “suburban bourgeois” rather than peasant (peasants proper were called rustici or villani, not pagani), from pagus which meant a suburban town where the well-to-do lived not to have problems as long as money could be made by any means. Religion as they envisioned it was indistinguishable from finance and temples were kind of banks for deposits in nature. Julian the Apostate was mostly a representative of Jewish power allied with both traditional pagans and gnostics : his main endeavour was his tentative rebuilding of the Jewish temple of Jerusalem and calling back of the Jews to Holy Land. The failing of that tentative temple building marked his defeat as an emperor.
I got no fucking problems, man. Your response is ridiculous. And don’t claim that you are one of the 10% that don’t wank. Then you are lying.
It seems every time I repeat what God said, someone thinks God is “a malevolent discharge like this.” That’s the way it is as you will discover. God does not grade on the curve, God’s perfect justice does not allow sin to go unpunished, not yours either. The only question is did Jesus suffer for you? or not? He certainly did not for all those who refuse to accept that only Jesus could endure the infinite punishment they deserve.
I am LARPing as what, exactly?
my guess……either digging tunnels in Brooklyn for trafficing or sucking off infants bris somewhere
years ago, I would have offered up a large number of verses to show the trinitarians(pagan idolatry) the errors of their ways including Jesus saying “not my will be done but thine””why call ye me good only God is good””no one hath seen God at anytime” and so forth but they cling to their verses and nothing changes…. it’s ok ……as long as Christ is professed as Lord and folks believe that He was raised from the dead they make it to salvation and the new birth. “He who is not against us is with us” still it makes it very hard to convert a Muslim by offering a triune God and the Jews know he is not God but only believe he was a fraud while they await their satanic antiChrist mossaich.
Noah was NOT a “Hebrew” and Abram, later Abraham, from Er of Chaldea, was NOT a “Hebrew.”
Science is founded on causticity, the assumption that for every effect there is a cause. Science is the process of discovering the cause of an observed effect. Define what you mean by the word “evolution.” Explain the origin of (1) the universe and (2) life. Name one thing that “evolution,” by whatever is your definition, has contributed to science.
The physical universe itself is the evidence for sudden creation, just as God said in Genesis 1. Of course, you have to know how to examine the physical universe to know that and lazy people are not scientists, but the fact remains that the scientists who write for Creation.com, ICR.org, etc. support their conclusions with data that is scientific, i.e., documented experimental procedure, data open to examination, etc.
Not just “whites” but everyone should study microbiology and geology and physics enough to recognize evidence of creation when they see it right before their faces.
Great to know this POS died penniless. RIH Al. (((Stereotypical flesh peddler.)))
Richard Parker: “This author laments at how he is able to cite these and other exemplars of American Unkultur with such ease. As exemplified in “Enveloped by Kultur-Terror,” such an odious cultural milieu is something my generation was born into. Despite assertions to the contrary, we cannot just turn the television off. No one can. And anyone who asserts the contrary is challenged to find someone who does not know who the “Fonz” is.”
First, people still watch television?! LOL I haven’t watched or even owned a TV in more than 30 years. I thought only niggers watch TV anymore.
Second, I found someone who doesn’t know who the Fonz is. Me! I never saw a single episode.
Evidently Parker should have found better uses for his time than sitting in front of a TV. Maybe then he’d have been able to make a more coherent argument. And do it in much less than 10,000 words.
Richard Parker: “This phrase [contemporary community standards] has in effect rendered the concept something utterly subjective, when obscenity is an objective matter. ”
Gotta call bullshit on that claim too. What’s considered obscene and what’s not is entirely subjective, and I don’t see any way to make it otherwise. The mere fact that different communities may have different standards implies that arriving at an objective standard is impossible.
For example, is this video obscene?
Video Link
Or this one?
Video Link
Some might say either one or both are. I disagree. I say neither. But if you think otherwise, by all means give your reasons for saying they’re “objectively” obscene, if you have any.
I’m guessing that was due to a state law, which brings up a point: if a few states would require proof of maturity to access pornography, it would tend to make pornography purveyors require proof of age for the entire US, since they can’t be sure of signal routing paths and customers’ actual location, and there is already legal precedent to use incidental signal path for forum shopping.
And states more or less qualify by definition to apply “community standards” to regulating “obscenity”, which is already recognized by the Supreme Court as exempt from First Amendment protection, i.e., a state’s elected legislature passing an obscenity-control law is pretty much the definition of a “community” asserting its “standard”.
Agreed. Maybe there is an obscure legal reason for this, but to me it looks like the state legislator and prosecutors just don’t have the will.
This brings up the question of how pornographers fund themselves. Prior to the internet, consumers had to buy paper or video tape or whatever physical form the product was in. Though pornography was more scarce, it did create an actual revenue stream for pornographers, yet the revenue stream could only support a relatively small industry.
Today the product is practically ubiquitous, but also practically revenue-less: so much is available gratis that, except for certain niche (or illegal) products, it’s hard to see how anyone makes money on this. Even on sites that supposedly cater to a highly personalized experience, such as OnlyFans, most purveyors make very little: a few super accounts get the lion’s share of revenue, and some of these aren’t even strictly phonographic (e.g., celebrities selling private feet pics).
The cost of hosting internet video is not negligible. There’s a reason that most general interest internet sites outsource video hosting to one of the web’s video giants, such as YouTube, who have economies of scale and advertising agreements to make video hosting economical. But YouTube’s owner, Alphabet, notes in its 10-K that
Translated from corporate-speak, this means that YouTube is a low margin business even for Alphabet/Google. So if Alphabet/Google, with its enormous economies of scale, monopoly pricing power, and world-beating ad revenue has trouble making video profitable, how is it profitable for the much smaller pornography sites?
One theory is … it’s not, and that most pornography sites are profitable only as money laundering fronts: they pretend to sell a service that actually hardly anyone buys because it is already so widely available for free, but the business pretense is used to legitimize illegal revenue streams from elsewhere. This is plausible. It also means that most pornography purveyors could be prosecuted and shut down by RICO investigations for financial crimes … in theory.
In an unfortunate coincidence, though, the ownership of most of the sites that would qualify for this kind of prosecution trace back to Israel, which coincidentally has no extradition treaty with the United States or any other country. Given Israel’s dependence on US weapons, cash, and diplomatic cover, the US government could easily force Israel to give up a few pornographers to prosecution in return for continued national subsidy and protection, but of course, at the moment, one qualification to serve in US government is not to demand anything of Israel.
>Agreed.
They’re ‘not enforced’ due to a Supreme Court ruling that the so-called Miller Test cannot be applied to internet content — that was decided more than 20 years ago in Ashcroft v ACLU.
There is another online obscenity case currently pending case before the Supreme Court: Free Speech Coalition v Paxton.
Obviously, pornography isn’t ‘revenue-less’ — it’s a profitable business, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much of it — pornographers ‘fund themselves’ by selling their product, which is copyright protected — when pornography is ‘available gratis’, this often represents a violation of copyright, and websites offering such content will remove it if they receive a notice of copyright violation — also, the websites where porn is ‘available gratis’ are saturated with ads — there are now so many of these sites, that it appears copyright enforcement is a big challenge.
Are there porn sites, or for that matter, are there any sites that promote vice, like e.g. gambling, that aren’t owned by Jews?
Thanks. I’ll read it.
It isn’t so obvious to me. Saying it must be profitable otherwise it wouldn’t exist is simply a tautology, not actual evidence. I’ve never bought any pornography, nor do I know anyone who has. And I haven’t led a sheltered life. As stated, there is such a vast amount of pornography available at no cost that it would be slower and more difficult for someone who wants it to go through the trouble of buying it. A niche producer here or there might be profitable, but the big pornography companies aren’t niche producers; they run large server farms with enormous storage and bandwidth costs. Who sends them the revenue to cover those costs?
For comparison, prior to the internet, it was possible to find people who occasionally sent a check to pornography producer or distributor, because you had to to get the product. Yet by today’s standards, the ‘industry’ back then when they had identifiable revenue sources was a laughably shoestring affair. Now that no one needs to buy anything anymore, suddenly the pornography industry is much larger and glitzier. It doesn’t make sense. The situation reeks of inorganic cashflows, similar to all that transgender activism that turned out to be funded inorganically by federal money.
Right, copyright protection is usually reckoned to be essential to any publishing enterprise, but pornographic copyrights are practically worthless, yet pornographers keep turning out more content whose copyright they know they can’t defend. For comparison, the internet has also eroded copyright protection for the music industry, and as a result the profitability and productivity of that industry has declined. But the same cause has supposedly had the opposite effect on the porno industry. It doesn’t make sense.
Ads mostly for other pornography sites, who in turn need to raise revenue and so sell ads for other porn sites, who need to raise revenue from ads for other porn sites, etc. … It’s a big
circle jerkponzi scheme, not a real revenue model. Someone has to be injecting buckets of outside cash from somewhere to make that whole system work. The usual answer in such cases is money launderers.Bingo.
To this day I remember clearly a “60 Minutes” segment profiling a small, independent porn video operation. It featured a spunky older woman and her ambitious grandson, two Jews with dreams of making it big in the industry. That was 60 Minutes’ angle — a heartwarming story of likable, eager go-getters, a sort of odd couple who happened to be pornographers. But part way thru the glowing profile the camera shot moved down a hallway, peeking briefly into a room where the actual recording was done. Inside was a single white woman and three or four very large, muscular black men. They were evidently between takes; everyone was wearing a towel or undies, no nudity. Turns out the enterprising Jewish odd couple had chosen to specialize in black-on-white gang-bang porn, which they found was very popular with their customers. A real eye-opener.
One particularly well-known Jewish porn performer is Ron Jeremy (né Hyatt). “The Hedgehog” was a remarkably unattractive, pudgy little troll with a superhuman sexual appetite. But that was then. He’s been institutionalized for years now, suffering with what mental health experts called “severe dementia.” Turns out that his brain was slowly starving to death during all those years his blood flow was diverted to his over-active nether regions.
I’m sure the Jews who dominate 60 Minutes were especially excited about that aspect of the story.
Exactly. Jews, like the Chinese, are a merchant race. In their merchant dealings they are perfectly amoral. If customers were clamoring for hymnals and religious tracts, Jews would be right there to capitalize on the demand. But no, we clamor for porn. Similarly, there was a mini-scandal some years back when it was found that baby formula imported from China contained propylene glycol — anti-freeze. The Chinese producer explained that they were simply meeting their American customers’ preference for a sweeter-tasting product. Same with the Chinese dog kibble containing deadly melamine: it boosted the product’s protein content to meet USDA regulations.
I will put forward a different theory, that porn has become more extreme, degrading and violent in response to the proliferation of feminism and political correctness IRL. Men have been completely neutered and dominated by women to the extent that they will be condemned, censored, banned and fired for even looking at women (creepy) or commenting on their appearance or dress in a complimentary or critical manner (gross). Women are favoured over men by affirmative action and men are now bullied and bossed over by women to whom they can’t say anything in protest. So I suppose many males like to see women get their comeuppance in porn where they can be assaulted, abused and degraded in all sorts of manner and where non-PC language is the norm. I am not saying that most of these men would want to treat women in such a way if we lived in a normal society where there was a natural relationship between the sexes, but as things stand there must a lot of pent up anger at women in many males which is hidden below the surface and post-mdern porn presents an outlet for them to enjoy seeing women put in their place without taking it out on them IRL. I guess it’s a sad situation but it can probably be therapeutic to some men who are fed up with the relationship between the sexes as it is in the post-modern PC world. Obviously they have to shut up about it, yet porn is one of the few areas where things can be reversed to how it is IRL.
Most of these porn actresses are as entitled, nasty and arrogant IRL as are feminists and some of them go on university teaching circuits lecturing on women’s studies courses about how porn has empowered them and promoting feminism, gender studies and political correctness as well as writing on such topics in the media. I suppose it’s then even more enjoyable for some males to see them degraded, insulted and abused on film. One could ask why do these women subject themselves to what is contrary to their ideology and life view. Their response would probably be that it isn’t real, that it’s acting and just a job. Yet in legitimate Hollywood, the non-PC language and sexist anti-woman behaviour shown in porn would not be tolerated for a minute and would be roundly condemned.
It’s all kind of schizophrenic, both for the women acting in porn and for the male porn consumers, but then society is like that too – mentally unhealthy.
There is a telling behind the scenes shower clip of Sarah Vandella after an IR gangbang where she tells the cameraman that she has to use peroxide to wash away the filth of the dirty niggers, in precisely those words. The cameramen is aghast, as this is no longer acting but post scene and tries to protest, but she shuts him up by saying that she cannot be a racist because she is a Jew.
Maybe I am too old and maybe it is completely different IRL to what I presented above. Maybe they’re all shouting racist and sexist abuse at each other and having sex orgies at work and in colleges, and everyone just laughs about it. Some, a minority, probably are but I doubt it is widespread when even some male porn stars are now being arrested for abusive behaviour to female porn stars off camera.
Are you sure about that? There’s far more music now than ever. Talented people are putting out their music on the internet for free not expecting to earn any money other than what they could earn from you tube if they get enough views. There are far more concerts and festivals with far more bands. Maybe the music industry isn’t making as much money as it used to.
Same with porn. Many people from all over the world are putting out their own porn on the internet not expecting to earn much or anything from it. I don’t know what their motivation is but they’re doing it. Maybe just because they can. William Burroughs once predicted that one day couples would film their sex acts and exchange the cassettes with their neighbours. He hadn’t expected the internet where now couples put it out for the world to see.
From what I understood Jeremy was up to his ass in various instances of sexual abuse allegations, and the “deteriorating health” proclamation was a thinly veiled attempt to avoid prosecution and or imprisonment.
Whoa, I’m just dizzy at the thought of your question. What is ‘obscene’ and how to objectively define it? Well somebody seems to have managed to create the criteria for what constitutes an X-rated film. Not too difficult I imagine.
MOST of the White female performers make more or at least promised more money by performing with multiple partners, doing Blacks, anal sex, or other degrading acts. The kike really loves to degrade White females. I wouldn’t doubt that a lot of these girls are drugged, threatened, beaten, or even sex slaves “kept” as hostages, blackmailed, etc. IF I were king for the day I would have all these (((porn pimps))) engage in anal sex by well endowed Black guys that they love so much. I would pay them well of course. Okay let’s do that scene 🎬 again.
I’m in my 60s as well, but a woman. What I’ve noticed from the female side is women are mostly followers. Anytime women work in large groups or socialize in groups there is a hierarchy and competition (like men have, but with women it’s more vicious). I’ve never done well in those situations and am usually the female that is marginalized or sits on the periphery.
Because of their natural instinct to follow, women are now expected to compete with porn stars; this is why we see news anchors half dressed on fox, etc, while the men are professionally attired. Women all over media are competing and looking more and more deviant (imo). I’ve heard of many women complain about what is expected and many follow through, but divorce rates due to Porn is huge. I read somewhere (sorry don’t have that article and maybe it’s an exaggeration) that the #1 divorce issue is porn.
Men are being harmed, women are being harmed, and of course the children are being indoctrinated to believe it’s all normal.
I both agree and disagree. Regarding censoring the internet, it was partially achieved in Biden’s first and only term.
If you mean pressuring private websites to censor viewpoints then that is a form of censorship but not actually censorship of the internet. It’s nothing new and has been supported by both sides over different issues. Con Inc in fact has publicly called for suppressing what they call noxious views related to race aka anything that undermines the narrative. Con Inc and liberals privately agree that the public shouldn’t learn of certain racial realities.
But more importantly it is difficult to censor the internet due to how it is built.
Online sports gambling is a good example. It was accessible to Americans even when it was illegal. That is really why they legalized it. All the profits were going offshore and they couldn’t control it.
If you think that there should be more censorship on the internet
Do you even read my post? I said that I don’t support 24/7 porn access but a key problem with internet censorship is that liberals will jump on any chance to censor in relation to race. Conservatives would probably support censoring certain topics of evolution.
You can take the position that complete access to infinite porn is culturally harmful but that doesn’t mean you support censorship or some type of technical solution. There are third way possibilities like heavily taxing porn companies to support family media organizations.
But most importantly the conversation on cultural degradation needs to occur but our doofus conservatives have given into the libertarian “anything goes for business” attitude. They would balk at the idea of taxing internet porn. BUT BUT TAXES R BAD MMKAY? A bunch of Randian whores that would watch America burn while cult chanting about minimal government.
I didn’t watch my first porn film until I was 17 and it was “normal” sex, definitely not the sick shit you see now. I am sure the sick kikeshit has always been out there knowing who runs this seedy business but it certainly wasn’t readily available for underage kids to watch. I think I first started buying Penthouse or Playboy at 16, often I was successful but occasionally I would be carded. I remember a few years back they had a documentary exposing what a sick POS that Hugh Hefner was, I always suspected Hefner was a crypto kike, he certainly catered to kike actors and Black celebrities to abuse these girls. Don Cornelius, the nigra from Soul Train ALLEGEDLY abused some of the girls as well as Jim Brown ALLEGEDLY. Why would a White man pimp out young White girls ( this clown had daughters) to be abused and used up by any man let alone kikes and nigras.
I think someone watching “normal” porn, (if there is such a thing anymore) is harmless IF it doesn’t become an addiction. The porn of yesteryear is mostly gone, I stopped watching the shit altogether when I noticed how women were being degraded, and found out who ran this shit show and how sick these kikes really are, I guess they slowly amped up their hatred of women, particularly White women.
Oops, forgot to mention that greasy kike-like ( assuming he wasn’t lying about being a Gentile) had a good friend named Bill Cosby who visited the Playboy Mansion on the regular. I am sure Cosby was a complete gentleman, another name dropped in the documentary was (((Tony Curtis))) being a regular visitor. I am sure MOST celebritards visited, maybe Hefner was filming Ala Epstein.
RIH Hugh Hefner
> “But if you think otherwise, by all means give your reasons for saying they’re “objectively” obscene, if you have any.”
Normies have a weird relationship with pornography overall. I’m familiar with an argument that makes gay porn seem particularly potent or arousing – as the story goes, by consuming “normal” pornography, one will eventually get his senses dulled, and thus will be pushed to pursue more extreme content – which would include… gay BDSM? Of course, I never understood this as it never applied to me – no matter how many feet I have seen, I’m yet to “develop” the famed foot fetish, unfortunately. (Conversely, always daydreamed about BDSM, and without any of the sort consumed at all, well before Internet access.)
But this whole issue is raised precisely due to the questions posed by the technological civilisation, urban lifestyle, anarchic morality, individual atomisation. My personal view is that the ultimate truth lies in flexibility and resistance to systemic collapse – hence my informed view would be to perform an experiment, a Chinese invasion of the Japanese archipelago. If the JP manage to muster a masculine response with hundreds of thousands dead in a fake war show on the beaches, their demographics and no nuclear use policy accounted for, then that means porn has not damaged their bushido spirit irreparably.
Science lives and dies in experiment and observable reality. If none is available, it’s all conjecture and lofty imagination. You can buy plenty of pornography in the Empire of Japan, in fact, their online services are underdeveloped, so I’d vouch for such an experiment – and we already have great history of fake & gay wars anyway – see the Ukraine.
But coming back to your cute songs – yes, I would call them obscene. But then, I’m of the view that Chinese erotica and JP PoV eye contact videos are incomparably lewder than the burly Californian nigres with tanned bipoc AFAbs so popular amongst the Occidental masses. I thought fair skin to be objectively pretty, but then there comes the Amerimutt, challenging the preconceived notions…
MGB: “Whoa, I’m just dizzy at the thought of your question.”
When you are unaccustomed to thinking about anything, I suppose it might make you dizzy even to try.
MGB: “What is ‘obscene’ and how to objectively define it? Well somebody seems to have managed to create the criteria for what constitutes an X-rated film. Not too difficult I imagine.”
Yet it was too difficult for you to answer. Are either of the two videos in #165 “objectively” obscene or not? Standards change from place to place and time to time. They’re subjective. By contrast, two plus two objectively equals four anywhere and any time.
It’s worth noting that the part of the federal law that deals with obscenity never defines the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Act_of_1873#Definitions
Justice Potter Stewart famously said “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” It would be hard to imagine any formulation more subject to abuse than that one. What’s obscene to you might well be free expression to someone else. Making something that’s never defined illegal is a prescription for tyranny.
If you can’t be bothered to figure out a VPN (every other ad on the Internet is for a VPN!) how are parents supposed to be bothered to figure out how to find and install a custom OS that blocks degenerate garbage? This is exactly the same as saying, “You sent your kids to public school? It’s your fault they got hooked on drugs!”
When a society is set up to push something, a small minority is often able to resist it, but the majority is not. This doesn’t condemn the majority, it condemns those pushing it on society!
I read an interview of a ‘bunny’ a while back, and according to her there was a subset of ‘bunnies’ whose skill sets sounded as if they were exploited to hoover up intel. this would have been in the early days around the time the chicago mansion was in its prime. ‘bunnies’ with language skills, technical or other scientific backgrounds (believe it or don’t), etc. it may just have been molding some girls to cater to the more sophisticated crowd, but the impression i was left with is that these girls were strategically placed, and not for the primary purpose of pleasing the customer.
[All your totally off-topic comments are becoming a pattern of very bad behavior. Stop doing that or most of your other comments will get trashed and your commenting will be restricted. Perhaps you’d be happier moving to a different website.]
Great advice from the Angelic Doctor.
I propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting any and all forms of genital mutilation at any age. This would be a humane means of getting the Jews to self-deport, as well as a means of ending their “transgender” program.
Those videos are no more obscene than most popular music videos out there. Certainly many rap videos are more obscene.
Is the guitar player in the first video a tranny? Topless males appear in many music videos and nobody bats an eyelid, but when it comes to women then it’s obscene. Still that guitar player had the nipples covered. I’d say they’re just weirdos and the video has gothic vampiric elements; nothing more shocking than what you’d see in many vampire films.
I’d never heard of that Greek woman Kid Moxie. I suppose it’s not that bad as far as music goes these days. She’s apparently influenced by Depeche Mode and has recorded with them.
“De gustibus non est disputandem” is one of the most accepted falsehoods in our culture.
There most certainly can be reasonable disputes about taste. A perceptive critic may say, “This statue/painting/film/etc. is in bad taste” and demonstrate why that is so. People who are not able to grasp his argument will bring out “de gustibus non est disputandem” as a counter-“argument”.
Goethe said, “Classicism is health; Romanticism is disease.” He was right.
I love porn. Any regime that restricts it in any way should be nuked.
You’re focusing too much on the content of the material, rather than the way it’s consumed. The issue with the current porn plague is the ubiquity of pornographic material 0n the internet, endlessly novel, with much of it freely available and easily accessible by minors, and the way this material hijacks the brain’s dopamine system.
So, a single sexually explicit photograph, while it can be defined as obscene, is not the same level of threat as an entire ocean of internet porn content. With internet porn, Marshall McLuhan’s old adage can be usefully co-opted: The medium is the message.
For example, when porn was limited to adult theaters and book stores it was still filthy and obscene, but it was more handleable at a society-wide level.
The Comstock Law just deals with the post office. All states have obscenity laws on their books, with definitions. It’s actually pretty easily to define, generally some variant of “appeals solely to prurient interest with no redeeming social, artistic value, etc.” although many statutes go into more specific detail.
I don’t know how to measure how many people are strumming guitars any given week, but the major recording labels are all shadows of their former selves, if they exist at all. So in terms of revenue, yeah, they’re blown out.
Maybe, but they are not hosting it on their own servers or paying for their own broadcast bandwidth. The Big Porn (MindGeek/Aylo/Ethical Capital Partners [lol]/Whatever-they’re-calling-themselves-now) companies are doing that, but without any obvious revenue source.
Those companies are closely held, with complex foreign ownership structures, so it is not possible to know what their financials are, but we can make some educated guesses from looking at Netflix as a benchmark.
Both Netflix and MindGeek have about 9- or 10-figues of monthly viewers. Netflix viewers come with about $100 of annual subscription revenue each. MindGeek viewers are mostly freeloaders.
Netflix says its annual “cost of revenues” (probably mostly bandwidth) is about $70 per viewer, leaving Netflix with an annual operating profit of about $30 per viewer. MindGeek’s bandwidth costs are probably higher. (MindGeek property PornHub alone is one the world’s biggest bandwidth users.) So maybe they pay $100/user annually. On about zero revenue. Times a billion viewers.
There has to be a massive off-book revenue source.
Now we know why you’re the last white man.
The Chinese Taoist sages laid great stress upon the pursuit of longevity. The royal road to longevity is the conservation of “qing” (“male essence”). It is the source of both physical and mental vitality. To dissipate this golden elixir of life is foolish indeed!
Be like the Stoics: nothing truly worthwhile in life can be accomplished without stern self-discipline.
Commentator Mike: “Those videos are no more obscene than most popular music videos out there.”
True today. But that just goes to show that, contra the article, there are no objective standards for obscenity. Imagine the outraged public reaction if it had been played on television in the 1950s.
Commentator Mike: “Certainly many rap videos are more obscene.”
I try to avoid looking at niggers so I haven’t seen any rap videos. I doubt that they are as tastefully and artistically done as the two I presented above, but the lyrics would probably be considered obscene by most people. Like this one:
https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/3556714/The+2+Live+Crew/Face+Down+Ass+Up
Commentator Mike: “Is the guitar player in the first video a tranny?”
It can be hard to tell nowadays, but based on my extensive research (LOL), I’d say no. I think they’re all just lipstick lesbians.
Commentator Mike: “Topless males appear in many music videos and nobody bats an eyelid, but when it comes to women then it’s obscene.”
Again we see that it’s all relative and subjective. A paradox here is that in many US states, it’s perfectly legal for women to walk around in public while topless, though few of them do. Yet on Youtube videos showing nipples is still forbidden.
Pornography is essential like crime in societies run by parasites who take all the wealth and leave the rest struggling. The educated middle calls need keeping in line and the threat of crime makes them vote in democracies for people who pretend to care and keep them safe. So fear is a tool to control populations where they have choice of who to vote for – despite all parties follow the same policies, which is to keep things going as they are – the disparity of wealth distribution
Pornography is necessary to distract people, for some it provides a sort of stimulating comfort, a psychological blanket, and then even more important is the religious backlash against such things, so you have a section of society getting very heated about morals. This is essential in a culture run by freeloading parasites, as they have to divide to rule their populations as they have nothing to give as they are in the business of taking. Greed created difference and competition, and living from pay-check to pay-check makes people accept poverty as natural. So religion is used to encourage people to think life is making them pay for their sins to suffer and struggle, and pornography is of course temptation, where some get enjoyment through pretending pictures actually substitute for real affection. Pornography demonstrated a fractured culture, where love and affection need substituting thought pretend friendly people in pictures
So it’s a game of treating people like idiots, making them feel they have freedom like consuming pornography, being very naughty children looking at dirty pictures, far better than raping children or grown ups. When you live in a fabricated world where everyone is pissed of with everyone, and they hope for a better life, which never comes, so they seek religions instead. So suffering is essential in religious cultures, reinforced though crap wages, exploitation and of course never enough money for most people as wages are kept artificially low by loads of immigration where the workers live in rooms full of people, living in their hell trying to get by too.
So pornography, crime and religion are bedfellows in a parasitic culture where disparity is normalised, poverty is accepted, and the rubbish in the streets and everywhere just reinforces the idea of how the parasites running the show like it to be. People accept the crap, and why not shit on them more, less education standards, less heath-care, less infrastructure, less social and public services, less philanthropy all to be obtained in the next life maybe. So for the educated seeing the poor economically and poor educationally consuming pornography give the mites something to complain about, a way to clean up society which of course is sinking into the shitty mire anyway, but let pretend you can clean up society though pornography and suddenly the infrastructure, the health system, educational standards, public amenities thrive and public services like water, electric gas and whatever are not rationed due to poverty wages. So poverty is economic, social, emotional, environmental and lets all pretend cleaning up the world from pornography will change the disgusting world the parasites that pretend to run your nations have completely corrupted!!!
Enough with your yellow man/pasta monkey word salads. I want tits.
Punch Brother Punch: “The issue with the current porn plague is the ubiquity of pornographic material 0n the internet …”
Many people may claim not to like it, but they aren’t upset enough about it to abandon the technology. Their inaction can be ascribed either to inertia, or the realization that preserving freedom in a technological society has its costs.
Punch Brother Punch: “The Comstock Law just deals with the post office. ”
No. They’re still using it to prosecute certain forms of porn and information on contraception when distributed over the net. It’s proven very useful to all sorts of prudes and prigs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Act_of_1873#Contemporary_enforcement
https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/comstock-act-still-on-the-books-sept-24-1996/
Punch Brother Punch: “All states have obscenity laws on their books, with definitions. It’s actually pretty easily to define, generally some variant of “appeals solely to prurient interest with no redeeming social, artistic value, etc.” although many statutes go into more specific detail. ”
That’s the Miller test, and it doesn’t pretend to be objective. It’s got a lot of other problems too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test#Criticism
Well, if we’re talking about porn addicts, they literally can’t abandon it or they will plunge into a deep depression. For everyone else, yours is that cliched, goofy libertarian argument of “oh, if people don’t stop using a service that must mean they agree with everything it entails, or don’t care about aspects of it they find especially offensive.” Really stupid, especially if we’re talking about a service that has a multitude of important uses, and most people find essential in the modern world. This is like saying “you may be disgusted and insulted by all the prostitution on your route, but you obviously don’t care that much because you don’t abandon cars and roads.”
And why is jerking off to porn associated with “freedom” in your mind? What kind of freedom is that anyway?
The Miller test has been incorporated into the language of the statutes. Your problem is you’re looking for exactitude in the law. But good jurisprudence has long recognized that many legal issues are nuanced. Thus, the general principle is not “exactness” but “reasonableness.” When defining what qualifies as pornography, there is not an exact definition, but it comes down to “would a reasonable member of the community consider this pornographic?” To take a famous example, there is no reasonable person in any community who would consider a film like Debbie Does Dallas to be non-pornographic. If anyone attempted to argue that it had more going for it than prurient fixation on sex, or possessed artistic or cultural value, they would be laughed out of the room, because their position is unreasonable. Other examples might be more ambivalent. A novel such as Fanny Hill might meet one criterion for obscenity, appealing to prurience, but some might argue it is well-written and thus has artistic value.
It’s important to note that not everything sexual is in danger of being considered obscene. Nudity, such as that found in the music videos you shared, might be considered “indecent” but would fail to qualify as “obscene.” Indecency is a legal concept one-tier lower than obscenity.
Right — so porn is a business that’s so prevalent it accounts for a significant fraction of internet traffic, but no one’s making any money — it’s ‘revenue-less’, just ‘a big circle jerk ponzi scheme.’
A simple counterpoint: the success of OnlyFans — OnlyFans provides a platform for independent content creators — OnlyFans handles content administration, including hosting, as well as billing/payment — OnlyFans is successful because there are plenty of schmucks willing to pay for what the content creators produce and upload to OnlyFans.
Other producers of porn make money the same way.
Whether you or anyone you know has ever paid for pornography is irrelevant; obviously, there are many who do pay — and by the way, paying for porn is not something most people would share with others.
Also, companies placing ads on websites wouldn’t continue to do so unless the ads generated traffic that ultimately resulted in sufficient revenue — these people are rational actors.
You know, I’m no longer surprised, but still often amazed, at the utter bullshit that gets dumped into the comment threads here.
I mentioned OnlyFans a few comments ago to distinguish it from the “standard” pornography sites. Yes, OnlyFans does make some money (though most of their producers make very little), but they have a different business model from sites like PornHub, RedTube, YouPorn, et al. Rather than mass blasting a massive library to billions of nonpaying viewers, OnlyFans point-to-point connects producers to a much smaller list of paying subscribers. So, yes, it is a counterpoint: it is almost the opposite business model to the mass sites: high-revenue/low-cost vs. low-revenue/high cost, so it is unsurprising that it makes money.
Maybe there are other sites like OnlyFans that do, but the mass sites have the opposite business model, so no, they do not make money the same way.
Maybe, but somehow I—and probably everyone else—ends up knowing a lot of things that people wouldn’t normally share, yet whenever I see an account of someone who spends money on pornography, it is always on an OnlyFans-type of situation, not on mass sites.
This is another tautology in lieu of actual evidence.
Probably, which is why it is odd that they (the mass sites) have such an apparently irrational business model. Of course, if one adds a little extra proposition, such as money laundering, then suddenly the irrational appearance becomes rational again.
Indeed, except I’m not amazed or surprised.
Thank you for your frank information. The pernicious effects of pornography are seldom studied, so oftentimes all we have to gather is anecdotal evidence, which we should place in high regard absent scholarly information.
Very often the first sensual or sexual experiences a child has are formative to their future sexual mindset. This fact alone should be enough for mothers to care for their children for at least the first 5 years of life, rather than sending them to some paid caregiver for 40+ hours a week.
We have literally given up almost everything great about Western civilization — and it was almost all the insistence of women that set it in motion.
It is not necessarily “glorifying violence” that has caused the downfall. Rather, it is simply the negro presence and all that entails that has destroyed US cities. A large- or medium-sized city in the United States — and now much of Europe — cannot be found where the presence of POCs has not caused massive blight. Literally any city. And now, the small, rural towns are targeted for destruction by the importation of yet more POCs, as witnessed by the residents/victims of Springfield, Ohio, with their addition of 4,000 Haitian “refugees.”
The only “solution” the politicians offer is to send us further into debt by caring for these national treasures.
Did you ever hear or find that Charles Manson was a victim of our government’s MK Ultra program? I can’t find any definitive source, but a few people allegedly in the know have stated this. Also, another alleged victim of MK Ultra was Ted Kaczynski. An almost certainty of MK Ultra manipulation was the Reverend Jim Jones. This kind of info is tough to uncover, though.
You are thinking of two different types of porn sites: producers/content creators, and free sites.
Porn production companies put up their own websites, you have to pay to access the content — they clearly make money from these subscriptions — this is the same ‘business model’ as OnlyFans, there is no essential difference.
The free sites offer porn streaming at no cost — as I said, these sites are plastered with ads, including ads for porn production companies as well as live, online interaction, both of which you have to pay for — those who buy ads on free sites wouldn’t continue to do so if the ads didn’t result in traffic that generated revenue — also the porn production companies often have upload accounts on these free sites, which they use to show their short teaser videos — if you want to see the full videos, you have to visit their website and pay.
None of this is ‘revenue-less’ — it is not ‘a big circle jerk ponzi scheme.’
Part of the problem also seems to be your naivete in believing people don’t pay for porn.
Have seen still photos of him with clothes on, read his boasting of doing it for the tribe.
In Japan, porn is heavily censored by law. The only real rule, though, is not to show the external genital areas. Other rules exist, but they depend on point of sale.
Even the old wood-block prints, called shunga, are censored in any book. The works are often quite artistic. I found good collections several times, but the blue post-it style tape applied before making the prints ruined it.
I also think that the old-school rope-and-knots style suspension works from Japan have some artistic merit.
From the late ’90s, though, via the ‘net and gangsters, uncensored video, both from Japan and western countries, was widely available. Now, of course, anyone can view any of it on the many Jewish porn Web sites.
I have no interest in any of it now, though did for a short time.
Really, we should be more concerned about the general pornification in the media.
In English-language news, I read the Daily Fail and less news.com. Others, too, but to the point.
I see that many women at awards events are dressed as what would have been seen as soft-porn until quite recently, the pop stars wearing their underwear, and many actresses trying to outdo each other by how transparent their garb is.
Making such media outlets even worse is their constant promotion of particular ‘Onlyfans’ and ‘influencer’ stars. The ‘Onlyfans’ types work for themselves, but they also have teams, and ultimately, they work for the Jewish/Israeli man who runs ‘Onlyfans’ and his team.
I really wonder if kickbacks are involved, it seems very likely.
Man, you are so full of love for those God created, I don’t know how you find storage space for it in your heart.
Only a weak man that imagines Asian women will be more submissive.
Right — so porn is a business that’s so prevalent it accounts for a significant fraction of internet traffic, but no one’s making any money — it’s ‘revenue-less’, just ‘a big circle jerk ponzi scheme.’
Well he is simply wrong and that could have been verified with a simple 2 minute internet search.
How much money does pornhub make?
https://gbtimes.com/how-much-money-does-pornhub-make/
The porn sites don’t make as much as big tech companies but they are making millions.
Those websites will most likely get cheaper to operate which means higher margins.
It will be just like Google/Yahoo where people go to the same websites by default and don’t care enough to explore the competition.
You know, I’m no longer surprised, but still often amazed, at the utter bullshit that gets dumped into the comment threads here.
We have a lot of wishful thinkers that use alt-right to isolate from reality and they rely on their imagination as a key source. There was an influx of them with COVID. We got a bunch of anti-vaxxers that seem to think alt-right or uncensored internet should be the complete opposite of the MSM. Meaning no real discussion or debate, just mindlessly take the opposite view of the mainstream. MSM says that drinking gasoline is bad? Oh let’s guzzle it then and refer to any dissenters as indoctrinated. We even had posters calling for a new website due to Ron not agreeing with them……over a single subject.
Punch Brother Punch: “Well, if we’re talking about porn addicts, they literally can’t abandon it or they will plunge into a deep depression. ”
Yet plenty of people apparently manage to abandon it.
Punch Brother Punch: “This is like saying “you may be disgusted and insulted by all the prostitution on your route, but you obviously don’t care that much because you don’t abandon cars and roads.””
People could destroy the technological system, but they continue to accept it despite the misery it brings.
Punch Brother Punch: “Your problem is you’re looking for exactitude in the law.”
LOL Let’s get something straight. I’m not the one with the problem, as I don’t consider porn a problem. It’s your “problem”, not mine.
Also, I’m not the one who made the claim that an objective definition of obscenity is possible. That was Richard Parker, the author of the article, not me.
Punch Brother Punch: “When defining what qualifies as pornography, there is not an exact definition, but it comes down to “would a reasonable member of the community consider this pornographic?” ”
Okay, so evidently you now agree with me that there’s no objective definition. In fact, the “reasonable man” standard you’re appealing to is yet more proof of this. For who decides who’s a “reasonable man”? Who decides what’s “reasonable”? These are subjective opinions, changing from time to time, place to place. What was reasonable in the 1950s isn’t considered reasonable anymore. As for community standards, Parker’s article itself describes problems with them. What’s reasonable in Podunk, Iowa isn’t reasonable in New York City. What’s reasonable in a nunnery isn’t reasonable in a whorehouse. In fact, the entirety of his complaint seems to be that he rejects the Miller test, going on then to absurdly claim (n.b., without even attempting to prove) that an objective standard exists. According to him, the Miller test is “How Our Legal System Has Facilitated the Proliferation of Pornography in Society and Culture”, as he put it in the subhead. And look out! Since you are now arguing in favor of it, I guess that means you are facilitating this proliferation too! LOL Ironic, isn’t it?
Thanks. You have confirmed the validity of the saying. Moreover, you have avoided logical argument, merely making an allegation or assertion with no support. Best Wishes.
LOL, I remember you from an earlier thread. You’re one of those Kaczysnki/Ellul fantasists. Well, for those of us who live in the real world, I can assure you it’s not that simple.
Then you’re incapable of consideration.
No. The Miller Test is an objective legal definition, but there can be differences in subjective interpretations as to whether a specific cultural product meets Miller’s criteria for obscenity, just as there can differences of opinion as to whether a killing qualifies as a murder or not.
Your argument seems to be that because community mores and standards change gradually over time, or vary slightly from place to place, there can be no standards whatsoever. That’s pretty weak sauce.
Not only are they not submissive after marriage, the white husband will find out in short order that when you marry an Asian, you are marrying the whole family, and he can consider any kind of a normal life to be over. I have seen this and it is hard to watch.
Sometimes I wonder to what extent people read a text with sufficient care. Miller has what are intended to be objective criteria, but the “contemporary community standards” element renders it subjective, which is the entire problem. This is explained early on.
As to whether pornography and obscenity can be conceptualized objectively, I direct readers to re-read footnote five which sets forth a possible set of objective criteria by which pornography, seen not as exciting a prurient interest but properly conceptualized as a sexual aid, that is a product or even a product and a service.
Matters of morality have both an objecetive and subjective components. But this really should not matter. Some cultures emrbace things like human sacrifice, cannibalism, and so on.
Otherwise I appreciate your commentary and agree with most everything you have written. As to the person you are interacting with, the idiot thinks that “know[ing[ who the Fonz is” requires having watched the show or even watching the show. The videos he submitted demonstrates he either did not read this text or more likely does not understand it.
I grant that I’m not the most familiar person with pornography, but I’m just using plain old facts and logic:
• Manwin (predecessor to MindGeek) describes itself as “one of the top five bandwidth consumption companies in the world”:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/porn-company-manwin-latest-internet-giant-to-open-an-office-in-dublin-209052071-237592411.html
• Just one of Manwin/MindGeek’s many properties (PornHub) draws in about as many visitors as Netflix, so it stands to reason that MindGeek’s costs altogether are higher than Netflix’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites
• Netflix’s “cost of revenues” (probably mostly bandwidth) are ~$20 billion/year: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001065280/e8c46cf4-c7fe-44f8-95eb-65a4a2d7da0a.html
So is there any evidence that PornHub—or even all MindGeek’s properties together—are pulling in more than $20 billion per year in advertising?
At the time Manwin was sold in 2013, its revenues were merely $100m (i.e., $0.1 billion). Is it selling 20,000% more advertising now than then?
The biggest ad seller in the world, Google, says it makes ~$200 billion on advertising, but most of that is from GoogleSearch, so only about $60 billion is comparable to the ads that pornography sites sell. Is it plausible that one pornography vendor sells 1/3 as much as the biggest advertiser on earth?
Richard Parker: “Sometimes I wonder to what extent people read a text with sufficient care. ”
Had you not bloviated for 10,500 words, perhaps more people would have read it. As you observe, even your pal Punchy apparently didn’t read it, and he’s lamely trying to defend you!
Richard Parker: “As to the person you are interacting with, the idiot thinks that “know[ing[ who the Fonz is” requires having watched the show or even watching the show. ”
Let’s recall that you are the one who described himself as an ardent TV watcher. “Despite assertions to the contrary, we cannot just turn the television off. No one can.” How pathetic! And untrue. Try growing a spine.
Richard Parker: “The videos he submitted demonstrates he either did not read this text or more likely does not understand it. ”
I understand enough to know that you never offered any proof for your claim that “obscenity is an objective matter”. Indeed, you even contradict that here when you say that “Matters of morality have both an objecetive [sic] and subjective components. ” But I can see you are too in love with your own imagined brilliance to understand why that makes an objective definition impossible, so I won’t waste my time explaining it to you.
What the fuck — it’s like you don’t understand a single thing I write — what about paying customers and click thru ads that generate revenue do you not understand? — that’s pretty simple stuff.
OnlyFans owner paid £359m dividend as company’s revenues grow 20% in a year
Got that? — thru 30 Nov 2023, OF had 305m ‘fan accounts’, meaning paying customers (either recurring or PPV) — obviously, that’s a huge number — more recent data has OF ‘fan’ accounts at around 400m, which would be inline with their recent growth.
If the website of a well-known, established porn producer had only 0.5% that number of subscribers, that’s >150k people paying for porn from that producer — at a modest $20/month per customer, that’s $3m in monthly revenue from paying online customers alone.
I think it’s pretty clear there are enough customers willing to pay for porn.
I’m not that interested in the metrics or business of any particular website.
and the littie weiner dog goes yap, yap, yap. Didn’t even read after the first five words.
Well, I didn’t really want to get drawn in to a discussion on the precise definition of obscenity, but it happens on this website. My interest is primarily in the impact of porn, especially internet porn, on the brain, as discussed in the third section of this article.
I think you’re right that reconceptualizing porn as a sexual aid/service would be a useful way of dropping the freedom of speech baggage. It needs to be understood that people don’t consume porn in the same way as a mainstream cultural product such as a book, music or narrative film. They consume it as a dopamine over-stimulator. Unfortunately, this crucial distinction seems to be lost even on our intelligentsia. For example, the “sex-positive” libertarian evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller once compared porn movies to “male aspirational role-modelling such as in action films” on Twitter, as if the coomer sits passively and watches a porno, following the plot and characters, in the same way they do a Hollywood movie.
The most urgent issue should be dealing with unfettered access to hardcore pornographic material online. This should be addressed as a human health problem. You can then deal with the cultural rot of obscene or degenerate music/narrative films/books (and debate how to classify such) down the line.
I don’t know why you keep bringing up OnlyFans. It is not part of MindGeek and uses the opposite business model to the mass pornography sites owned by MindGeek.
Unlike OnlyFans, MindGeek’s site’s users mostly do not pay for anything, yet they do impose bandwidth costs on MindGeek. When your customers give you massive costs but minimal revenue, it is reasonable to ask how you stay in business.
At OnlyFans. Strangely, MindGeek doesn’t have these customers (revenue) even though it has far more traffic (cost).
Maybe that’s why you don’t follow the argument.
Oh man — unbelievable.
It isn’t an ‘opposite business model’, you stupid fuck — both OF and conventional or established porn producers use the same ‘business model’: paying customers — subscribers — as I already told you, there is no essential difference — you have to open an account and buy some kind of subscription (I think OF offers more PPV options, but don’t really know for sure or care) before you can access the content — as used by established porn production companies, this was obviously a successful ‘business model’, which is no doubt why OF adopted it.
The free sites rely on advertising — as long as click thru revenue generation is high enough, content producers will continue paying for ads.
I’m not interested in a particular website e.g. Pornhub because this side discussion was about the porn business generally: how it works/is economically viable, the difference between pay sites and free sites — nothing else — there may be some variation — that doesn’t affect the overall way the online porn business works — only an idiot would think it does.
Finally, porn as a business was not the topic here.
Actually, even the conventional/established porn companies such as Digital Playground, Brazzers, etc. (both owned by MindGeek/Aylo) make the majority of their profits from ads these days. They establish channels on PornTube sites such as PornHub & XVideos and share ten to fifteen minute free clips from their movies, taking a cut of the ad revenue. Only around 20% of the industry’s profits come from subscriptions these days, and much of that is likely to be absorbed by webcam sites like OnlyFans rather than the traditional production companies.
When the top advertisers on porn sites include giants like Google and Amazon, you don’t need to sell a lot of actual product.
https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/07/the-idol-is-another-khazarian-pornification-of-the-world
Ron Unz….”Pornography Is banned in Israel because it causes great harm to children”
Google and Amazon advertise on pornography sites?
Invective is a poor substitute for facts and logic. But if it’s all ya got…
As already described, there are two nearly opposite business models: OnlyFans et al. has lower traffic + all subscription revenue, while MindGeek et al. has high traffic + low subscription revenue.
It’s fairly obvious how the former model works: each subscription covers each subscriber’s bandwidth cost with enough left over for suppliers and profit.
It’s much less obvious how the latter model works: massive bandwidth costs, which the small subscription revenue can’t possibly cover, supposedly there’s some advertising revenue but it does not appear to be nearly enough. Yet this apparently nonviable model is a large presence in the pornography industry.
Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly affects how that segment works, and that segment is the largest part as measured by traffic. And traffic is the material dimension underpinning what Richard Parker is writing about.
What he means is that the filthy speech advocates of the 1960s have been succeeded by the speech codes of the Western world.
The filthy speech advocates who told us “you can’t control porn online” in the 90s are the same ones insisting on using automated censorship on all social media.
“free speech absolutists” will not stand up to the Left or the Jews in power.
They obey.
Anatoly Karlin: thinks that 14-year-olds are “hot”
When I was a teenager Jessica Alba starred in Flipper on TV. You think she wasn’t on there to be hot? Just to be a cute teen lead in a bikini? Like Sally Field in Gidget?
Libertarianism is the worst.
Indirectly: banner ads, Google AdSense, targeted advertising. It amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars being channeled into porn by these two behemoth companies.
What about the gummint?
The ‘industry’ has managed to come up with a consistent rating system for pornography. As for community standards, that is not an organically evolving template. In many cases, commercial interests shape the standard to their own benefit. In this case it has been a combination of legal trickery hand in glove with mass dissemination of the product, and increasingly extreme content, that groomed community standards. For example, there was no mass demand for ATM scenes (I doubt more than 1 in 1M people had even imagined such a thing) it was some degenerate who dreamt this stuff up and released it into society. Lastly, I’m no tort lawyer, but I believe that there is a concept of harm from an inherently defective product. I don’t think it would be hard to locate thousands of young men whose lives have been damaged by this stuff, particularly when the product is paired with current technology.
In the old days it used to be X, XX and XXX.
Double and triple anal would have been off the charts in those days.
(((They))) want us entertained.
MGB: “As for community standards, that is not an organically evolving template. … For example, there was no mass demand for ATM scenes (I doubt more than 1 in 1M people had even imagined such a thing) it was some degenerate who dreamt this stuff up and released it into society.”
On the contrary, decadence “evolves” naturally. Otherwise, how can we explain the notorious decadence of classical civilization? Deplore it all you like, but the fact is that people have a natural inclination to maximize their pleasure. Incorporating sexual techniques that give rise to more and more extreme stimulation of the nervous system is a way of doing that.
In America, under the legal codes of yore, anal sex was referred to as “the infamous crime against nature” and was strictly forbidden under penalty of law, even between husband and wife. Here we should recall Freud’s famous observation that there is no need to make a law against something that nobody wants to do. It was forbidden and placed under extreme felonious sanction precisely because it was understood by the prudish legislators, even if they only understood it subconsciously, that many would otherwise end up practicing it.
Coincidentally, the lyrics in the second video I posted in #165, above, give a poetic explanation of the process:
MGB: “… particularly when the product is paired with current technology. ”
At least 90% of what the author of the article is complaining about is due to the current technology of the internet. Abolish the internet, and the bulk of the problem goes away. But nobody wants to do that! That’s too extreme. It’s considered too much to sacrifice. People wrack their brains searching for another way — a technological solution to a problem wholly generated by technology. But alas! There is none, or at least, none with an acceptable cost.
I disagree that pornography does not encourage violence towards women. It absolutely does as most of it disrespects and degrades women and turns them into merely objects for male sexual gratification.
I have never understood why feminists have never focused more on this issue instead of more minor concerns like the pay gap and microagressions.
Many of the porn actresses who left this lifestyle claim they were severely abused and raped.
A few years back porn hub was sued for sex trafficking (possible minors) and forcing young women and girls to have sex on camera. Of course this story was later buried and the site continues their operations as usual.
JEW$ would LOVE censorship, if only to keep their holocaust™ grift alive.
JEW$ would like to make all deviation from the official holocaust™ fable banned under penalty of law.
Thankfully, that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution gets in the way…
I detect a certain amount of jealousy from White women here.
ANY man on earth who marries a woman marries in to her family as well.
There is much more to yellow fever than is presently being discussed.
Quite often, white women are their own worst enemy when they stop acting like women.
Their embrace of rabid feminism does absolutely nothing to make them attractive to White males, but quite the opposite.
They are man-hating harridans who expect White men to be wimps. What kind of virile White man wants to put up with THAT?
Most Asian women KNOW how to treat a man. They know when to be deferential and when to push to achieve their own interests.
Of course, there are those who want only one thing–the coveted green card establishing permanent residency in the good ol’ USA, but Asian women do have an advantage by not embracing rabid man-hating feminism.
White women would do well to step back and take a good look at themselves.
This whole women can do it all mantra is demonstrably false and should be abandoned. Look what transgenders are doing to women’s sports.
All one has to do is look at the evil of abortion. Murdering your own offspring for convenience is just downright evil.
Just maybe the biblical story in Genesis with the female temptress encouraging the male to partake of the forbidden fruit has merit.
Best regards,
“I have never understood why feminists have never focused more on this issue instead of more minor concerns like the pay gap and microagressions. ”
UH, I’m not sure you realize that feminists were some of the biggest proponents of pornography. Further, most things that feminists advocate for are actually bad for women.
Did not read all 10000 words
I just want to know why
Porn is free
But it costs money for me to look my high school girlfriends address?
Technology also creates hazardous industrial waste as a byproduct of useful activities. The response is neither to abandon industrial technology nor to just let the waste amass freely. The proper response is sensible regulations for the health and safety of the populace.
People aren’t going to give up modern telecommunications technology. You won’t either, despite your anti-tech pretensions, which is why you’re using this site. To just let porn run rampant on the Internet is to condemn entire generations of young people to a blighted and perverted sexual development, which is one of the worst things you can do to a human being. That is the real unacceptable cost.
Punch Brother Punch: “The proper response is sensible regulations for the health and safety of the populace. ”
Technophiles always imagine that any problems with a technology can be addressed with still more technology. Unfortunately, technological “solutions” also inevitably generate problems of their own, thus creating an endless cycle. Often the “solutions” turn out to be worse than the original problem.
Punch Brother Punch: “People aren’t going to give up modern telecommunications technology. You won’t either, despite your anti-tech pretensions, which is why you’re using this site. ”
I agree that the great mass of people won’t give it up voluntarily. In fact, if you re-read my remark, you’ll perhaps finally realize that that’s what I just said.
A single individual abandoning technology on a personal level will make no difference, of course. That’s obvious. Yet an unintended side effect of technological “progress” is to place the tools for potentially destroying the whole system into the hands of a few. I’ve outlined one possible way here:
https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/the-future-of-christianity/?showcomments#comment-6666429
All technology has unintended side effects, and because the most devastating of those side effects aren’t known in advance, it’s clear that eventually, as more and more powerful technologies lead to ever more powerful catastrophic side effects, the whole system will end by destroying itself. The only question is whether that will happen before or after the destruction of the white race — assuming you or other “white nationalists” actually care about that, which is doubtful. For all the crocodile tears you shed about the destruction it’s wrought on race and culture, it’s clear you love technology more than either of those things. You’ll use any excuse to prolong the life of the system for as long as you can.
Punch Brother Punch: “His brother, Bill Handel, is an L.A. lawyer and host of a popular right-wing radio show.”
Btw, I just noticed this other post of yours, #153. You’re quite wrong about this too. Handel is about as far left as you can get. Interesting about his brother though. I hadn’t heard about that. What a charming family of immigrants! LOL Or maybe I should call them a pair of unintended consequences; unforeseen side effects of the USA’s immigration policies.
Ha ha, no. I strive to lead a low-tech existence. I own a laptop and a cell phone but otherwise try to keep it 19th century. I prefer reading to television and I amuse myself with board and card games rather than the electronic kind. I have read Kaczynski and other tech-pessimists and I believe they make some good points. Modern technology has all sorts of pernicious effects on human psychology: on the attention span, for example. Yet I accept reality. Technology can be viewed as just another word for “tool,” and people are as unlikely to abandon a powerful tool such as the Internet as they are to abandon the hammer. Might as well deal with it and try to mitigate the harms rather than escaping into anarchist fantasies.
Well, I don’t live in Los Angeles so I’ve never listened to the guy’s show. I was just going by what I read of him in media, such as this L.A. Times profile:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-oct-21-et-handel21-story.html
“Handel calls himself a centrist, but his current events-heavy show generally leans to the right…Among other names, Handel has been called racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant, a fascist, a left-wing kook and despite, his Jewish heritage, an anti-Semite.”
This was written in 2006. Maybe his views have changed since then? As I indicated, his brother straddled both sides of the political fence in California politics, likely as a protective measure.
Some more:
Jew–lives in Canada–works as a Defense Lawyer and is also a Rabbi–how God works in mysterious ways !!!!
But cowards here on Unz think Chynese are the BIGGEST threat to Americans and their free-dumbs,
They would never EVER stand up to those rabbis who own pornhub and xvideos.
I’m counting the days,,,
Not really
This is from 2010, but is probably still fairly accurate vis-a-vis the myriad, convoluted ways money is made from online porn:
How the Internet Porn Business Works — Researchers set up adult Web sites to study how the industry makes its money and spreads malware
Click more for excerpts:
Apparently, spreading malware that can be used to create bot networks may also be part of it.
Allow me to make just that argument.
Imagine yourself strolling through the Delft Museum of Netherlandish Art with the Curator of the Hermitage as your aesthetic companion. Imagine viewing room after room of Vermeers and Rembrandts, exchanging learned dialogue. Imagine rounding a corner and entering the Moderne Kunst room. Imagine being confronted by a 10′ x 22′ painting on velvet by the avant-garde post-post modernist/deconstructivist/dadaist Walter van der Leyden, “Walter’s Traum”, that “Kunstwerk” depicting a naked Elvis Presley taking a dump on Anne Frank’s face, Anne being in blackface holding a banjo and a banana.
Imagine the Curator remarking, “This painting is not in very good taste.”
Imagine you not understanding him.
Here is the full study (PDF):
Is the Internet for Porn? An Insight Into the Online Adult Industry
The most urgent issue should be dealing with unfettered access to hardcore pornographic material online.
But how would this be done on a technical level?
As I pointed out before the government tried doing the same with gambling and they couldn’t touch offshore websites. Americans were betting on games and the money was going overseas. Controlling the credit card companies also doesn’t work in the age of bitcoin.
I don’t like how youth can get online and gain immediate access to insanely hardcore pornography and for free. No one seems to care about the corruption of youth and that includes our “family values” conservatives that bow to big tech and Wall St.
Urban libraries have been ruined by pornography and our conservatives aren’t doing a damn thing. You can’t take kids in them due to the risk of a homeless person looking at porn. It’s completely disgusting to walk in one and see some homeless drunk looking at orgy porn in front of families and seniors.
I honestly think the conservatives are just as much a problem as porn supporting liberals. Conservatives amount to false opposition. They’re not even having the conversation. Fox is currently using their influence to tell conservatives that everything is fine and to not worry about Trump starting 3 trade wars.
Ashley Madison, a web site for facilitating affairs was started by a Jewish couple in Canada
I’ve been on the internet probably since before you were in Jr High. I’ve never wanted or needed a VPN for any reason, and never even considered it, until now. Think about that. And, btw, most VPN’s don’t work on older versions of Windows – which, btw, are less subject to intrusion than the newer versions. Browsers are a good way to educate yourself about how that works. Try it some time.
The very first thing women decided upon being given the vote was they needed to be able to murder their children. Jews , like their father correctly identified women as the key to destroying mankind.
Another example with Englands Dave Coppin, hates foreigners but is married to a Philippine woman 🤔🤔🤔
The strange case of Coppin!
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2016/11/07/the-strange-case-of-coppin/
Slight quibble Paul wasn’t an apostle and he was only against sex with women.
Every state and territorial government in the USA has laws mandating school attendance from age 6 to 16 .Some states age 5 to 16. Some teachers unions and woke progressives lobby for compulsory pre school at age 4.
Home schoolers are forced to sign contracts swearing they will use the standard Jew commie anti White public school curriculum. Not necessarily the same books and lesson plans but basic adherence to the standard hate Whites love non Whites pro gay America is evil pro Muslim pro transgender whatever the current fad is. The parents skip that part of the curriculum.
Adherence to the latest anti White woke faggot progressive fads is why schools don’t use books much any more. It’s mostly handouts. Because by the time a new school book is written edited printed and distributed it’s woke progressive propaganda is out of date
One of the major reasons for hatred of Catholics in America is that they set up a nationwide easily accessible inexpensive alternative school system. Even in the 20th century Kentucky and Oregon passed laws forbidding Catholic schools.
The first public schools in America were set up in w 1620s by those lunatic wanna be Jew puritan sects. who hated Christianity so much they left England because Christmas Easter and other Christian holy days offended them. For centuries public school teachers were selected by Protestant pastors
Prehistoric cave men 40 thousand years ago left porn pictures carved in stone all over the world . Didn’t start with early modern Jews
There’s no escaping compulsory schooling in America.
Go pleasure yourself watching black on White gay porn. The only sex you’ve ever had in your life. Think you’re so cute with your user name.
Slight quibble there’s no pornography in Romeo and Juliet. They don’t have sex or even pre play no hint of sex in the play. Touch their hands at the early party at Juliet’s house.
They get married and spend that night in the same bed. As married couples do. Juliet is 13 but the age of consent was 12. There was a conversation by her mother that marriage at 13 was hard on the girls.
It would be nice if all these pontificating pundits yakking away so learnedly about Shakespeare’s plays actually read and remembered them. Read them online. Just skim for sex. Or whatever point the pundit wants to make.
Dump Microsoft products and use Linux. No antivirus software is needed. The operating system is free. Updates are free.
“slight quibble there’s no pornography in Romeo and Juliet. They don’t have sex or even pre play no hint of sex in the play. Touch their hands at the early party at Juliet’s house.”
If you read my treatise with any care whatsoever, you would discern that I was recounting absurd commentary by Justice Kennedy in one of the Ashcroft decisions. Salient quote:
in Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, Justice Kennedy fretted how Romeo and Juliet and other great literary works concern teen sexuality and even child abuse.
My essay excoriates the Court’s inability or refusal to discern how such expressions are obviously different than the three step to determine what is pornography, ie what is both obscene and a sexual aid in footnote five.