Radicalism and assimilation - the gay movement and NAMBLA

[PorcelainLark]

I think the internet has a conservative effect, which means it's much harder to be "radical" compared to the past. Imagine that homosexuality today in the West was still a crime. No communities or neighborhoods could form, no activism could be organized without intense scrutiny from every side of the internet. A similar thing happened with video sharing and remix culture: in the early days of the internet and before it, there was very little that corporations could do to stop people from violating copyright.
We are between a rock and a hard place: the more anarchic populists tend to support hate and vigilantism against MAPs, while the establishment has little interest in improving our conditions.

I think there needs to be shift in the moral weight we give to MAP related criminality before this could change. Drugs are treated it as a serious crime, even though a lot of the public and educated people don't give much moral weight to drug use. This has the effect of people being more receptive of ideas concerning ending the war on drugs.

[Jim Burton]

We are speaking from a position of privilege, namely hindsight of NAMBLA's strategic failure and the toolkit given to us by preventionists and NOMAPs (plus hindsight of their strategic limitations).

Most likely, NAMBLA's failure was not rhetorical, or had nothing to do with losing an argument, but had to do with a lack of relevancy and assent from the media/elite/lawmaker class. They were of no use to anybody else at the time, and became an unwanted distraction.

[Pharmakon]

NAMBLA's successes, its failures, and the strategies it pursued need to be understood in the context of the activism of the 1970s and the broad social reaction against that activism that took hold in the decades that followed. All of this can be most simply termed the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. From the end of WWII until about 1980, prosperity in the US and Europe permitted concessions to the demands of working people and oppressed groups. The French phrase "Les Trente Glorieuses" is often invoked to characterize this roughly 30-year period.

A good analysis of the transition from this era to the one we remain mired in today is Michael Hardt's The Subversive Seventies. Hardt (who avoids focusing on Reagan-Thatcher and electoral politics, in part because he sees this as a global phenomenon) develops the concept of the "end of mediation" to illustrate how the gains of the postwar decades were rolled back or redirected into avenues that did not threaten ruling elites.

NAMBLA was one of many groups that at the end of the 1970s sought to sustain the subversive momentum that had seemed for about three decades to herald real change. The marginalization of NAMBLA was in many ways a fate suffered by nearly all these groups. NAMBLA's agenda was perhaps more subversive than that of most such groups, but feminist and Black activism also moved from demanding deep social change to accepting "representation" in the form of language policing and membership in the lower echelons of ruling institutions. The most telling sign of this transition was the decline in membership and political influence of labor unions. Instead of trying to buy off the working class, increasingly mobile capital abruptly changed strategies and simply moved production to postcolonial nations where labor was more easily exploitable.

Today, MAPs would probably be happy with the end of registries and almost any small level of public acceptance that age gap sex can sometimes be a valid choice for both partners. In 1979, sex offender registries were still rare and the panics about age gap sex that made "stranger danger" a weapon against us had yet to occur. NAMBLA could not foresee the strength and depth of the erotophobic reaction ahead. If it had voiced more moderate demands, these would not have resonated with boylovers as the positions it actually adopted did, and the group would have been less effective at the thing it did best, organizing our community. And moderate demands would have done nothing to stave off the broad retrenchment that has characterized the last four decades.

[TMKnight]

As I mentioned in other posts. We lack a public speaker. Someone willing to risk (it all) to share the truth about MAPS, Pedophiles or whatever you are embarrassing. Rather you believe in acting out on those feelings/desires or not.

Any group that is trying to make meaningful changes starts with having a well-financed organization. That one or more of its members has enough financial resources to weather the backless that he/she (hopefully a small group of them) would receive.

As a group we need to condemn certain actions that are often attributed to people like us like human trafficking, or if any of the conspiracy theories about adrenochrome is true, and once we establish a property etymology consensual and non-consensual. Condemn any act that does not fall within consent.

The failure of these groups and any future one is not taking risks, coming out publically, and working together. With most of us already disinfracished, and the level of barbarism towards us is unreal. We need to curve this, and hold ground.

In another thread, I ask the question How many of you? (https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=435) and the purpose of this. Is to see how many of you are willing to risk (...hopefully not it all) to bring more light to the public.

I am going to start another threat soon. I want to understand all MAPs position on something relating to the LGB......and so on letters. Where do most of us stand. We will see I guess.

[Harlan]

We lack a public speaker. Someone willing to risk (it all) to share the truth about MAPS, Pedophiles or whatever you are embarrassing. Rather you believe in acting out on those feelings/desires or not.

One speaker will look like a lonely freak among a large mass of haters. We need many speakers, content makers, bloggers, artists, composers, poets. All of them can use virtual avatars and remain anonymous. The community should not look like a puddle, it should become a sea. We will no longer be considered a bunch of monsters when there are many voices.

[Harlan]

This is true, but we also need secure and reliable hosting. Otherwise one sneeze and all of those blogs and websites get taken down.

There is hope for the transition of online platforms to WEB 3.0 technologies. For example, there is a platform like

Odysee: is an American decentralized video hosting platform built on blockchain technology. It positions itself as an alternative to mainstream services like YouTube with a focus on free speech and decentralization.

They claim that it does not remove controversial content, but only hides it from search and it remains available via the link. What do you think about this?

[TMKnight]

One speaker will look like a lonely freak among a large mass of haters. We need many speakers, content makers, bloggers, artists, composers, poets. All of them can use virtual avatars and remain anonymous. The community should not look like a puddle, it should become a sea. We will no longer be considered a bunch of monsters when there are many voices.

Absolutely correct, and I agree. The idea is to get a few celebrities or other VIPs who are (arguably) a MAPs to come forward. Use their influence and say something positive about MAPs and how people should treat them better (hopefully in a better way that I wrote). Coupled with more scholars coming forward.

Even if we had a public speaker, we don't even have a podium. We are systematically ignored and silenced. Even if I'm happy to field media interviews, who is willing to interview me?

As soon as I can get my business off the ground about six months to a years after starting that. I want to put together a team of sympathetic people, fellow MAPS, and other groups to try and bring the public to a better understanding. In some cases force the hand with challenges to current statues. But that will have to be done gently.

Hopefully soon, need to meet a rich SOB. haha

[Harlan]

...They also failed, for the most part, to attract boys to their cause. While an occasional voice seconds NAMBLA's outrage over age-of-consent laws , the question is clear: Just where is the army of boys backing NAMBLA and fighting for the rights of teens to have sex with whomever they wish? The short answer is that there is no army...

Likewise, one can ask the question: Why was there no army of black slaves fighting against slavery and for the rights of blacks?

Even after white men accepted the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, it took many decades for blacks to start fight for their rights. And even the Declaration of human rights did not stop either racism or homophobia

“...I have been trying to convince the NAMBLA people for years that they should argue for an age of 14 or 15, something that people could see as a little more reasonable,” says William A. Percy, a professor of history at UMass/Boston and the author of Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. “But they're a small group of inbred and fanatical ideologues. They only talk to each other. They won't listen to ideas of compromise.”...

AoC 12 as a compromise and accepting of youths sexuality and expanded autonomy as first step.

[anarchist of love]

NAMBLA's successes, its failures, and the strategies it pursued need to be understood in the context of the activism of the 1970s and the broad social reaction against that activism that took hold in the decades that followed. All of this can be most simply termed the Reagan-Thatcher revolution.

A good analysis of the transition from this era to the one we remain mired in today is Michael Hardt's The Subversive Seventies. Hardt (who avoids focusing on Reagan-Thatcher and electoral politics, in part because he sees this as a global phenomenon) develops the concept of the "end of mediation" to illustrate how the gains of the postwar decades were rolled back or redirected into avenues that did not threaten ruling elites.

Looks like something I should study...for the global side of things. Myself, I have long promoted Chomsky's "Media Control" speech as being especially illuminating, as he demystifies elite alienated belief systems and ideology, though focused on the US. He discusses it as 'roll-back' as well, and brings attention to Big Business groups like the Trilateral Commission for suddenly bringing Big Funding to empower interests not viewed as being much of a threat (i.e. funding what were called the "radical" feminists and their reactionary hatefulness towards "all" men).

As for NAMBLA, my experience with the leadership was that of an uncritical patriarchal form, owing to how most of them were really just a bunch of middle-manager types, not known for much critical awareness on topics beyond the liberal/conservative pseudo dichotomy. Subversive? Hah! They worked overtime to suppress subversive elements, in my limited experience (albeit after they had already been sent reeling from f.b.i. raids and media hysteria promotion).

I think NAMBLA was seen as patriarchal by the Left and its many intuitive-oriented women, as well. Just in the "norms" they went with (i.e. making sure to wear ties and present themselves in ways that the intelligentsia could identify with; inspired by writers such as Charlotte Ryan's suggestions (and her book "Prime Time Activism") for dealing with Big Media. But very very naive! (or very very elite?) Not having any serious-seeming understanding of the truth that the intelligentsia (at least in the elite realm) VERY WELL already knew what they were doing by enforcing the scapegoating of yet another unprepared group (in the context of the continuing "Parade of Enemies" as Chomsky would say) so that they could have Their Way (while strategically betraying a relatively weak group!).

The old liberal idea of "Speaking Truth to Power" naivete comes to mind. "Useful" in some ways, but for whom?? Such things escaped the leadership entirely! But, of course, they found themselves "between a rock and a hard place", and naturally went with how they had been so-called "educated" (since when does "higher" education give meaningful keys to tear itself down??).

NAMBLA was only subversive in the most superficial of ways, in my view. Again, a limited experience with them, tho I continued working with some of them for many years on another project and relationship. But these leaders certainly fit snugly in the stereotype of the patriarchy!! And all of their media and organization very much reflects this! (And a big reason why I initially left!)

Look, you folks wanted a deep analysis, so i'm giving you what i recall.

NAMBLA was one of many groups that at the end of the 1970s sought to sustain the subversive momentum that had seemed for about three decades to herald real change. The marginalization of NAMBLA was in many ways a fate suffered by nearly all these groups.

All of whom were organized and controlled by patriarchally-challenged "well educated" elites! (Except for the Indianner Kommune which was MUCH more actually subversive!)

NAMBLA's agenda was perhaps more subversive than that of most such groups,

Okay, I suppose if you count their many public marches! But even then, the leadership exerted a lot of pressure to conform to their chosen passive tact (something they would not open-endedly discuss with the membership!). For instance, i recall clearly wondering why "we" didn't try to really challenge the masses we passed during our marches, THE ONE TIME we could reach the without secretive editing (i.e. on TV talk shows) and other hostile mediation!! Instead we were to keep silent. But we in the membership KNEW we were taking our lives into our own hands, and thus NEEDED to at LEAST TRY to speak our angry minds!!

One tact, for sure; but benefiting whom?

I suppose many were already "burned out" by that time? Already numbed to what was happening? Already overwhelmed? And yet, they all continued to stress this passive approach; so middle class or even upper class of them! Not trusting or even comprehending proletarian anger at being LIED ABOUT!

Their whole format, right down to the way they designed the Bulletin fit that pacifist construct to a "T". And when still-idealistic upstarts like me showed up, the leadership thought nothing of engaging in character assassination-type bullshit! Paternalistic, sure. And very disrespectful, even if merely a reflection of the cynicism they faced.

They simply could not comprehend, i think, the anger of the VICTIMS of the patriarchy, and thus the masses judged them to be no different from the Epsteins of today! --These INTERNALIZED VALUES that are likely STILL not adequately interrogated in our movements --is what blocked their chance to REACH SOMEBODY more meaningfully, and STOP THE BUILDING MOMENTUM! But of course, their elite educations (in the leadership) DID identify with the patriarchy, and thought such an approach WOULD "work". And certainly "lacked the Nerve" to even explore hotheaded responses, or even creative ones!

Like the idea i had that we should rent (or borrow) a bunch of horses and join the marches that way, dressed as the heroes we grew up with and looked up to as kids, all while articulating such!! Imagine THAT sort of demonstration of heart-strength!! It would have COMPLETELY CHANGED THE VIBE!

(NOTE: i was no mere critic; i actually began experimenting with and finding profound openings for CONFRONATION in ways that proletarians IDENTIFY WITH! Along the lines of the "mass jiujitsu" that Saul Alinsky discusses in his book RULES FOR RADICALS

But their analysis was too superficial, like I said before. They didn't seem to see what was coming as far as the intelligentsia goose-stepping on Command (from the elites in "power"). They went thru THE MOTIONS of engaging with the Left (whom were still quite strong in the late 70s) but their hearts were not in it and THAT'S WHY i think people generally remained very very skeptical.

I'm figuring that the way they (and the Dutch groups i explored) thought was akin to world Indigenous groups: Not understanding the Big Picture of neocolonial imperatives, and certainly not calling such out! Just naively Trusting in their "Good Educations"! Well, is it not so???

Now, i DO look forward to being challenged on all of this by those of you whom spent more time around them. Me, i'm STILL "hot under the collar" just remembering that time!

The membership, during the conferences, was different, but they too largely represented the "normal" dumbed-down and deeply-challenged citizenry (so long removed from imaginations beyond the "normative" ideological corrals!). And sure, they passed SOME semi-subversive points in group elections, but like i said, it looked nice in form but in deeper CONTENT i can certainly see why they were dealt with skeptically!

I even had to wonder, later, if they were actually controlled by some kind of c.i.a.-type person, with access to cash or whatever, due to how rife their patriarchal bent was!! i have no proof, but knowing what i know now, i certainly have to wonder!

Bottom line, my idea/ideal of intergenerational solidarity was not theirs! Tho i may be missing some deeper stuff, sure! And i MAY have some unexamined prejudices that could use thoughtful challenge!!

but feminist and Black activism also moved from demanding deep social change to accepting "representation" in the form of language policing and membership in the lower echelons of ruling institutions.

Yes, this was/is, according to my institutional analysis, due to how the Trilateralists, et al, funded the reactionaries, simply because they knew that so-called "radical" femi-fascists would not be nearly as threatening to their designs as, say, the liberation feminists!! Do you understand why?

The most telling sign of this transition was the decline in membership and political influence of labor unions. Instead of trying to buy off the working class, increasingly mobile capital abruptly changed strategies and simply moved production to postcolonial nations where labor was more easily exploitable.

Well, i disagree that this was the "most telling sign". I'd say it's more like Chomsky's institutional analysis brings out: That the mass of angry anti-war sentiments was brought back to Heel, and much of what once was a plethora of many groups (including kids) feeling finally free to participate meaningfully in what they had been Told was their democracy, was Brought Back to their "proper" place of subordination to The Hallowed 'Oligarchy of Experts' (in turn brandishing their leash-ties to whom-ever would give them the chance to "Just Do Their Jobs" or allow them to keep their privileges!).

In 1979, sex offender registries were still rare and the panics about age gap sex that made "stranger danger" a weapon against us had yet to occur.

Hmm....panics were being fomented already, after all, what did NAMBLA come out of? The Boston-Boise affairs. Are you all aware of much of that? And no, i think these "panics" (which were managed by obedient middle-managers at all levels of Society) started up in big ways as soon as groups like the Trilateralists WANTED them to start. And i think it's closer to 1973, while NAMBLA darling, David Thorstad (now deceased), thought 1975 was the pivotal moment when roll-back truly began.

NAMBLA could not foresee the strength and depth of the erotophobic reaction ahead. If it had voiced more moderate demands, these would not have resonated with boylovers as the positions it actually adopted did, and the group would have been less effective at the thing it did best, organizing our community. And moderate demands would have done nothing to stave off the broad retrenchment that has characterized the last four decades.

I think they COULD have forseen this, had they not actively suppressed all of the truly subversive voices amongst them!! But i suspect many of them were still stuck in the arrogance of their privilege! And how about what history could teach??

i do recall seeking to warn the Dutch activists of Bob Moore's insightful history of the German Jews in WW2. His book, Victims and Survivors quite well demonstrated how easily the "well educated" German Jew intelligentsia were out-manuvered and duped by the Nazis (including into policing their own, at the police's bidding, only to then be Betrayed, JUST LIKE the Dutch MAP activist leadership, except, at least they weren't outright murdered!)

(On the Dutch foolishness, I clearly recall a Dutch vanguard type threatening my attempts at "radical" discussion with the words that they were actively involved in dialogue with the Dutch police, and that they had no place for the likes of me! And then there was the GL activist lawyer, Lawrence S. --editor of "Uncommon Desires"-- who tried to also warn them --in his book aimed at the Dutch parliament, something like "Regarding Dutch Law 240b")

Bottom line, thusly, the rabble (a.k.a. "unwashed masses") DID have very good reason to be VERY skeptical towards ALL of these groups. But of course, the way that all of these so-called "well educated" persons were socialized Set Them Up for this state of affairs!!

[anarchist of love]

One more point, then i'm taking a "breather"!

the more anarchic populists tend to support hate and vigilantism against MAPs, while the establishment has little interest in improving our conditions.

I may be wrong about this, but i suspect that the biggest reason that the anarchic types got to be soooo duped into the hysteria had more to do with NAMBLA et al's interests to identify with the Status Quo in everything except boylove (and a very conforming, not so liberating vision at that!). And suppress all differences, like i said before!

A few projects tried to reach them, but their resources were sourly lacking, don't you agree? I'm thinking of the AJODA anarchists, especially, whom had a long-running letters debate section that came out of a few editions of the magazine covering the topic.

Had they been able to use NAMBLA as more of an "umbrella" situation like this forum purports to be, i suspect that they may've been much more able to reach a broader mass. Especially IF all those who dissented didn't merely veritably get sent packing due to the intensity of the patriarchal/paternalistic vanguard! (I.e. I sure would have liked to have had hotheads like myself referred to me so that i could AT LEAST share info that they may well have been inspired by! But, alas, they were invaribly silenced and most moved on to other pursuits!! A very "FISHY" pattern, to say the least!!

(Reminding me of the classist-seeming aggression by the Educated GL against the artsy GL in that old classic movie "Lolita"...)