Islam is the new Red Threat

So, years from now when we Americans as a nation finally gain perspective on this time in history, what will be the term invented that will be analogous to "McCarthyism"? "Ashcroftism"? I doubt it, 'cuz it doesn't sound good and Ashcroft isn't charismatic enough to have a paranoid pillaging of civil liberties named after him.

That's why they had to call it the Patriot Act.

Islam is not the end of that list. Hedonism or anything that smacks of a materialist philosophy is also on that list.Witness the new war on porn Ashcroft and Bush are engaging in. Hell at the the UN Bush suddenly put sex tourism on the same plate as his war on terror.Of course the worst of these pagans are the pedophiles, or anyone that voices the reality that children have a sexuality. Run for your life, or run them out of town if you can!What hasn't changed is the same scare tactic throughout history. Somebody, think of the children! They, and their "purity" are the excuse given for every witchhunt down through time. In fact every freaking law passed these days has some kid's name attached to it, so if you vote against it its like you are against the kid.Oh yeah, I forgot a name. How about "childrenism", or just plain "onceagainweforgotthelessonofhistoryism".------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-08-2003]

quote:

---

Of course the worst of these pagans are the pedophiles, or anyone that voices the reality that children have a sexuality. Run for your life, or run them out of town if you can!

---

Um... to clear up a potentially confusing matter... are you advocating pedophilia, or suggesting that the government should not arrest pedophiles?

What war on porn? I haven't heard anything about this. Can you point me to something specific? I can take it from there.

Ugh... well this about proves my point. Suddenly I have to explain my stance on pedophiles, because I said they are being used like the next Red Menace.I will not not open up this can of worms here, because it would throw this thread completely off track. If you are really interested in my answering such questions you can open up a new thread of worms somewhere else.My point here was that the government should NOT be using the FEAR OF PEDOPHILES or the SEXUALITY OF CHILDREN to instill paranoia in its citizens, and get them to give up essential rights to privacy and communication.------------------
holmes

Oh I could have given you lots of links about 5 months ago. I was researching it for a potential documentary. Then I upgraded my computer (twice) and never did keep the links. I'll dig around on the net though.One thing you can look for is a PBS documentary released hmmmm, I think about 6 months after 9-11.Here's the deal. Bush and Ashcroft were setting up to conduct a war on porn. His political powerbase were evangelicals and one of his promises to them was to reclassify porn as a crime and go after them.Pre 9-11 you may remember Bush lacing his speeches with this: "Some people say if it feels good, do it" as if that was something bad. He was preparing people for the announcement which was supposed to be on 9-16 (or very close to that). 9-11 is the only thing which stopped the war on porn from beginning on that date, and if you look at some criticisms of law enforcement procedures pre 9-11, it was that Ashcroft had switched the focus of law assets from terrorism to porn and sex crimes.In fact, Ashcroft had recently met with JUST religious groups in a conference on what to do about pornography. He promised them once again, that he was going to reverse the Reno era where porn was allowed to flourish.Post 9-11, and revelations about his misappropriation of resources put the war on a backburner. However, he did continue to focus on child porn, to try and set some precedents he could use later against adult porn.Me and my girlfriend's lawyer (every once in a while it seems I have to explain she's a porn star) attended a federal law enforcement conference on pornography. Several regulations (which I will not go into here) actually put porn actors and actresses' lives at risk. When asked about this the FBI agents in the division which handles porn laughed and said "who gives a shit about them?"Yeah, the new friendlier FBI.I had kind of given up on my porn doc because it had been quiet so long that I figured the war wouldn't re-emerge again until I left this country.Then I found out they had restarted it secretly some time last March. This was in an article in the Tribune. Maybe it can be searched online?They had already launched an earlier strike on mainstream porn by arresting Seymour Butts, but this was fizzling due to 9-11 related events. On reopening the war they went after several smaller, but still name porn businesses. They are mainly concentrating on the fringes of content and working inward.Interestingly enough the article was not about how the government was curtailing our rights, but rather that this reopened war was not good enough for the religious right.In the article the head of porn prosecutions (for some reason I am blanking on his name but its like Oosterbahn) tried to calm their fears, saying that the attorney general's office would be going after some really large names as well, while working inward. And they wouldn't stick to hardcore porn either (another fear of the religious groups).Despite an actual decrease in sex crime statistics the religious right claims Reno and Clinton's refusal to prosecute mainstream porn has resulted in its unchecked flourishing and the visible decline of our society.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-08-2003]

quote:

---

My point here was that the government should NOT be using the FEAR OF PEDOPHILES or the SEXUALITY OF CHILDREN to instill paranoia in its citizens, and get them to give up essential rights to privacy and communication.

---

Okay. But that wasn't clear. And I thought there was sufficient room for confusion that it was worth clearing up.I honestly don't feel strongly enough to open up a "Does Holmes Like Pedophiles?" thread. But I thought it was a good idea to head anyone off in advance who was going to come along and make the thread about pedophilia by attacking a handful of vaguely worded sentences.

Here's a recent article recapping pretty much everything I just said above.http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/porno030828.html------------------
holmes

Thanks for the heads up. Pornography has a direct impact on my income right now.

The root of the problem is not being addressed by policy makers. The model of Islam is not typical in the actual fact of the reality. Muslims by and large are pretty average,they work, come home and do things that most Americans do. There is even a feminist movement within Islamic countries and it's pretty interesting that feminist Muslims are not about to give up their religion, they very much wish to work within it.Check the link for a different view of Islam:Page not found - ------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

Is that because of how much you are selling, or how much you are buying?Either way, perhaps I can recommend some excellent porn products from my gf?Seriously though, AVN magazine (and I think online too) keeps track of what is happening as a result of Ashcroft's war on porn. One HUGE effect is that it is pushing producers to move into mainstream content. That is content is getting more softcore and not examining fetish interests.Even our lawyer is asking clients to stay out of anything beyond simple T&A or vanilla sex scenarios. Apparently cum itself is an objectionable entity, and any girl that enjoys it too much (or is shown to like it too much) is deemed more obscene. Thus bukakke videos that involve no physical contact between any of the performers is considered worse than that which shows sex. I guess they view it like guys peeing on a girl.Go prudes!Here are some more names for the hysteria of this era:"protectionism""valueism""intolerance"------------------
holmes

Zhimbo, Buzzsawism?

quote:

---

Either way, perhaps I can recommend some excellent porn products from my gf?

---

zephyr911@hotmail.com

quote:

---

Even our lawyer is asking clients to stay out of anything beyond simple T&A or vanilla sex scenarios. Apparently cum itself is an objectionable entity, and any girl that enjoys it too much (or is shown to like it too much) is deemed more obscene. Thus bukakke videos that involve no physical contact between any of the performers is considered worse than that which shows sex. I guess they view it like guys peeing on a girl.

---

Unbelievable. Hi-ho, hi-ho, back to the legislation of morality we go..

quote:

---

Go prudes!

​

Here are some more names for the hysteria of this era:

​

"protectionism"

​

"valueism"

​

"intolerance"

---

(secret) jealousy?(Ashcroft: "If I can't convince my wife to do it, i'll be damned if some degenerate losers are gonna have the right to pay for video of other consenting adults doing it")

I suppose calling the war on porn "Bushism" would be quite apt.PE