THE MAP MOVEMENT IS OUT OF TIME

[Anonymous_Lover]

I'll put my two cents in.

I don't like to use terms such as liberals or conservatives, left or right. I don't see our situation as a political situation, it's a distraction, a red herring, it removes our focus on real issues and divides the community. Left and right, neither is openly pro-map. No party is, no political group is, our situation isn't going to be improved by either side. I hate terms like woke or liberals, they're lazy terms invented to antagonize people while solving nothing.

To the original point, I'm not as fatalistic but I do like the points raised because they are important.

I don't think we're out of time because there is no time limit. Change can take a year, 10 years a hundred years.

1. Is this the start of WW3 and a new world order? I doubt it. Maybe it is, or maybe it's a TV celebrity and influencer given his dream platform making the most of it for fame and attention. Presidents, prime ministers, dictators, monarchs come and go, societies and their people last a lot longer. Since leaving social media 9 months ago and adopting a policy of avoiding the usual news stories, instead focusing on family and friends and local news, I've found that my life is much more balanced and I'm no longer suckered into believing all the garbage online. Trump is an old man who loves attention, the Middle East has conflict and I've never known a time when there was conflict to one degree or another, the markets are down then back up, shipping lanes are closed yet again, politicians are slinging mud at each other still. I would advise to not get swept along by all the news stories and political fighting since only around 5% of it is true, the rest is to trigger people which it's good at.

2. Our situation can change quickly or slowly. The current hysteria about maps doesn't have to endure. We've been a convenient soft target for a long time but with change in the world, new targets can spring up quickly, new groups spring up, new arguments, new politics. We have presidents and prince's being targeted in the media and we have normal non-maps being branded maps for the most random of reasons. Take a photo of your kid in a school play or film them in public and someone is out to brand you a pedophile.

3. But I do agree that we're not really that methodical in our approach. If we want to bring about change we have to be honest with ourselves about why efforts have failed in the past and really push forward either with many small unrelated initiatives or an organised joined up initiative.

Is adopting the LGBTQ+ model the right approach? I don't know. There is an assumption that because this set of strategies worked for them, then the same strategies would work for us. That is a leap that might be wrong. They may work, or maybe we should be taking an entirely different approach.

We need to stay calm and focused and be strategic, the worse thing we can do it panic or lose hope or be defeatist or turn to a blame game. If you're right that the world is about to change dramatically then that could be a good thing, it could be the catalyst that makes a real difference in our favour. But I don't think we can rely on that, we need to really rationalise our way through this which I'll write about separately.

Point one is a a kind of copium. Honestly, the people who talk about le doomscrolling being bad and unplugging are people who can't find solutions so they go into a kind of escapism. If anything people aren't doomscrolling enough. This is a dramatically different type of conflict, Iran isn't going to make peace because it knows the US and Israel are just biding their time to rearm again. The present leader had multiple members of his family including his father, wife, and a child killed, so you can imagine he's not in a hurry. Iran's conventional weaponry (drones, hypersonic missiles) and men under arms is far beyond what the West can counter. Western Anti-air is being depleted and can't be replaced at scale. They have cities underground and production tailored for war, they've been preparing for this war for nearly 50 years. They have 90 million people and a million men under arms, last i heard they were planning to call up 20 million men. Iran is basically a sky-fortress with mountains ringing and running through it on all sides. They need very little to close the strait its just 20 miles across, you can honestly do it with just mines. But since Trump hit Iran's biggest natural gas field they've been targeting gulf state oil infrastructure, and if that goes far enough then it doesn't matter if the strait is open at all near term. They coordinated the biggest oil reserve release in history between 38 countries with 400 million barrels and the price of oil is still climbing because the level of oil output being lost is worse than the output that was lost in the 70s at its worst point.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), in an assessment published on Friday, compared such an operation to the Gallipoli campaign of 1915—the catastrophic Allied attempt to force open the Dardanelles by landing British, French, Australian and colonial troops on Ottoman soil. At Gallipoli, the navy could not clear the strait, and the army was sent to do what the navy could not. The result was eight months of slaughter, a quarter of a million casualties on both sides, and a complete Allied withdrawal with nothing achieved but mass death. The defenders, fighting on their own ground, proved impossible to dislodge.

The institute’s assessment of an equivalent operation at Hormuz is devastating. It would be “Gallipoli times ten, with the difference that the Iranians could always pull back to interior lines of defence.” The Iranian coastline commanding the strait stretches more than 150 kilometers—three times the length of the Gallipoli peninsula—backed by mountains that offer defensive positions in depth. “There is no defensible line that US forces could ever secure,” the ASPI wrote.

If you know anything about WWI, Gallipoli was the greatest military failure in British history and it was so bad Winston Churchill had a hard time having much of a career in politics for decades after because he was its planner. Even just taking the Iranian coastline will be a massive problem but at the same time the strait is so important they almost have to invade. The only other alternative would be to use nukes to try to scare the Iranians into surrendering, which probably won't work and won't be as effective as they think -- not to mention the blowback of such an action globally.

Anyways, I agree that the best course of action is to stay calm and think clearly but its something we should start on and people generally only begin to start on things like this when the danger is made clear.

[Anonymous_Lover]

@Anonymous_Lover

The 90s and 2000s had just as much pedo hatred. The only difference was society was much more isolated and not communicating on social media. Once humans started mass communicating on social media they all discussed their shared common hatred of pedos allowing hate to spread and go viral with social medias amplification. We failed to enter the LGBT movement once again for refusing to acknowledge parental instincts to protect children are the real barrier standing in our way. LGBT didn't have that problem of triggering parental instincts. We do. One thing I'll add is that before 9/11 humans were more lax and possibly more sexually libertine due to society not feeling threatened. 9/11 only made society more tense and things much worse. The higher qualify of life the more sexually libertine humans become

Also I see you using terms like proletariat and bourgeoisie. So Obviously you are not even trying to hide your Marxist roots. Look dude, I am no fan of the very rich 1% or Elon Musk but I am politely fed up with how Marxist think. They divide the world into two categories and view it as an epic battle between side 1 and side 2. Then make further subcategories about how intersecting classes interact like the petite bourgeoisie, the family unit, the poorer proletariat and the above average proletariat. Which inspired the class analysis of Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, and Feminist theory. I'm not saying that it is wrong to do a class analysis and show skepticism of the rich but I am very skeptical of the claim that anti pedophilia is due to the "western patriarchical society" I argue it ties directly into animal protection instincts and the same neurocircuits wild animals use to defend their young being repurposed to attack us.


So here's the points I'm making other then my trademark talk about evolutionary psychology

1) Society was more isolated before social media, its possible if social media was around in the 70s then anti pedo hysteria would have existed then
2) Your use of Marxist terms like proliteriat and bourgeoisie draw skepticism in me
3) I tend to agree if we had started in 2000 with very good strategies we would have been more liberated now

>There isn't going to be a comfy Euro welfare state in the future, as overrated as that is, there isn't even going to be democracy, there's going to be fascism and police-state/military rule enforced at gunpoint with the pretense of wartime and emergency powers.

Regarding this part I think fascism has its roots in evolutionary behavior of alpha males seeking power and control, as well as of course parental instincts to protect children. Look into Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory on the topic of Sanctity vs Degradation, Loyalty vs Betrayal, and Authority vs Subversion and how it relates to authoritarian Governments, and as for me personally I am skeptical of both welfare states and authoritarian right wing states.

>The average liberal is now on the same level as a Qtard from 2017

I am a liberal by your definition (free markets, limited government, individual rights) I believe in those things. But I spend an enormous amount of time making fun of qanon. You can find all my post of tying qanon to evolutionary child protection instincts, and post of me mocking dumb normies for saying Epstein eats kids. I am an outspoken critique of qanon hysteria and I will throw anyone under the bus dumb enough to believe in qanon even if they share my beliefs in liberal (libertarian) values.


The real problem with western liberalism is that it hasn't matured and religion and primitive emotions like disgust are holding it back. Western Liberalism does have the potential to liberate child lovers.

Regarding this part I think fascism has its roots in evolutionary behavior of alpha males seeking power and control, as well as of course parental instincts to protect children. Look into Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory on the topic of Sanctity vs Degradation, Loyalty vs Betrayal, and Authority vs Subversion and how it relates to authoritarian Governments, and as for me personally I am skeptical of both welfare states and authoritarian right wing states.

I mean the fact that fascism didn't always exist but was something that Mussolini invented in 1919 suggests its not something eternal but historical. I don't understand the impulse to reach for the evolutionary explanation when the historical record is ample. Don't you think the fact that Italian and German societies, and especially their economies, were collapsing in the post-war period had something to do with it? The fact that World War I happened at all is in itself a pretty damning failure/condemnation of 19th century liberalism.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to do a class analysis and show skepticism of the rich but I am very skeptical of the claim that anti pedophilia is due to the "western patriarchical society"

where did i actually argue it is the result of Western patriarchal society? Though I do think pedos should be cautious about falling into tradcon coping, it seems your actual analysis of fascism (which you tie to the pedophilia issue) is far more of analysis of patriarchy then anything I wrote in this thread. "Alpha males seeking power and control" that sounds a lot like patriarchy theory! Even tying it to the child protection issue that's like what Marxist sexologist Wilhelm Reich wrote in the 1930s about childhood sexual repression and the family structure centered around the authoritarian father serving as the soil that Nazism sprouted from. And Reich was a "pedo protector" to us the verbiage people use now.

I am a liberal by your definition (free markets, limited government, individual rights) I believe in those things. But I spend an enormous amount of time making fun of qanon. You can find all my post of tying qanon to evolutionary child protection instincts, and post of me mocking dumb normies for saying Epstein eats kids. I am an outspoken critique of qanon hysteria and I will throw anyone under the bus dumb enough to believe in qanon even if they share my beliefs in liberal (libertarian) values.

Libertarianism isn't classical liberalism but a project created by reactionary Austrian economists who were malding because their racist empire fell apart and the workers were rising up. It wears 18th and 19th century liberalism as a skin suit and deprives it of all its progressive content. The idea that a landlord "earns" his income would've been ludicrous to Adam Smith which is why liberal economists like John Stuart Mill and his son called for all land to be state owned and for that to replace taxes (a similar line of thinking as Henry George, though perhaps with less flair and less systematically argued for). The Proudhonian in this thread actually gets this in a way where he deviates is in thinking that in the economic realm that Proudhon and Bakunin were somehow original rather than merely interpreting in a radical way the anti-rentier project of classical political economy which criticized feudalism and sought to diminish the importance of feudal rent-extraction, which later became extended to rent-extraction in general. This only touches distribution within a market system or the sections of the economy that still operate under pre-market social logic (like feudalism or slavery). This is why Marx actually opposed welfare states because he was the first to say that productive industrial capital itself was exploitative and to explain why in a clear way. Inequality for Marx arises out of the relationships of production and how the production process is organized. The welfare state started in Britain around the same time as capitalism around 400 years ago. It will probably last as long as it lasts but the manner in which it exists will definitely end with capitalism. It really is an insult to Smith or the 18th/19th century liberal revolutionaries to be associated with modern libertarianism.

The real problem with western liberalism is that it hasn't matured and religion and primitive emotions like disgust are holding it back. Western Liberalism does have the potential to liberate child lovers.

Its been like 300 years since secular liberalism got started around the time of the 1688 Revolution in Britain. I don't know how much more time you think it needs or how you think its going to mature. You do realize that, to the extent this subject has been topical, liberalism has been marginalizing and oppressing pedophiles/MAPs continually right? Don't you think that might have something to do with the liberal contract theory i pointed to being applied to sex, a phenomenon which is always deeply social and can rarely be distilled into a legalistic contract. The liberals have actually gotten more sexphobic even when it comes to sex betwen since the 2010s rather than less and the liberal establishment is low key reflecting that more and more.

[Learning to undeny]

That's why I'm saying there does need to be a strategy. We can take advantage of the situation but only if we know what to do, the good thing would be less focus of the security apparatus on us (in theory) and anti normies distracted by other things. I wouldn't say that even good strategy alone is enough to help us win bc 1. we're poorly organized with not enough numbers or resources atm

I think this is something we all agree on: we would like to increase our numbers. So, according to you, is this an achievable goal? And how? I cannot think of anything more important for a future MAP movement than building strong communities with enough people heavily involved. Honestly, I think this should take priority even over long-term strategy, given that no prediction is 100% accurate and strategies would arise naturally once each community is built.

2. You wouldn't expect a thriving a LGBT or leftist protest movement to exist in Nazi Germany for obvious reasons. Even our ability to subtlely resist or create a thriving underground amid the chaos might be radically circumscribed. As I'm fond of saying we didn't have to lose as badly as we did in the 80s-90s even if we were being set up to lose by the climate and politics of the time. We might not have achieved victory but by weathering the storm we could have laid the groundwork for it. I still believe in victory. The best way to win when the moment presents itself is to not lose badly when the wind is blowing against you. I think we can probably still win if we're serious but we must have preparations made so that we can at least preserve our strength and gradually advance in the hard times even if that's not possible where we're going.

When gays showed up physically to protest the classification of homosexuality by the APA it was a kind of war. Notice, that by doing that, they were attacking people responsible for criminalizing/institutionalizing them rather than bigotry in general. Antis have names, addresses, organizations, organizing venues. We don't simply need to convince people to become enlightened, that will happen as we reduce the power of our enemies, however, it is done.

But, as for the war, I don't advocate for any cause as a MAP except for things that will help MAPs. By withholding their support for this war and refusing to serve in it (remember 10-20% of the male population are MAPs, maybe 5% of females too depending on the study) we can improve our position. We've been ruthlessly criminalized and stigmatized by this society, so our response to this society in its hour of need should be to tell it to go to hell. When it is in crisis the way it is now, that's when we have leverage.

I like your comments with regards to strategy, of combating anti-MAPs rather than "educating" the public, as well as your words of caution that even subtle methods may face restrictions if we are heading towards an authoritarian age. However I don't see how you would make MAPs refuse to serve in the war? I guess that's just a tactic, but I don't see how that would happen.

Some people like Porcelain Lark think that saving Western society is more important than the MAP movement. So how will we meet the moment when that is the position of some so-called leaders within the movement? Lark's own opinions as an individual are irrelevant if the MAP movement chooses to meet the moment. I don't think we should be neutral here as a movement, Iran still has child marriage, and so does Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever certain reactionaries of muslim background may think about us, I don't say that Islam our enemy.

I feel there was no need for you to mention Lark once again, and honestly I don't see how supporting a particular religion fits with your materialist analysis. (Of course, there are good reasons to support Iran right now others than it being a theocracy, although in my opinion child marriage is not one of them.)

[Scorchingwilde]

I'd agree that it's very important that American MAPs don't throw themselves into this war against Iran - a not insignificant number of US soldiers fighting against Vietnam's liberation were semi-suicidal closeted trans women desperate for normative social validation (according to some surveys and anecdotes from them following the military ban last decade), and MAPs in the current state of the world have high suicidal ideation. Also, with the MAP population being far larger than that of the trans and genderqueer population, there's an opportunity to leverage our power against the state by collectively refusing to go to war for this imperialist power, not unlike the African American resistance to the Vietnam war.

[Anonymous_Lover]

That's why I'm saying there does need to be a strategy. We can take advantage of the situation but only if we know what to do, the good thing would be less focus of the security apparatus on us (in theory) and anti normies distracted by other things. I wouldn't say that even good strategy alone is enough to help us win bc 1. we're poorly organized with not enough numbers or resources atm

I think this is something we all agree on: we would like to increase our numbers. So, according to you, is this an achievable goal? And how? I cannot think of anything more important for a future MAP movement than building strong communities with enough people heavily involved. Honestly, I think this should take priority even over long-term strategy, given that no prediction is 100% accurate and strategies would arise naturally once each community is built.

Its achievable, though the question is: 1. for whom? 2. to do what? I'm not exactly impressed with the median (and especially lower third) of user that exists either here or on pedi. A bunch of imbeciles in a space accomplishes little. What's more important than numbers is quality of personnel and what's arguably even more essential than simply filtering for better people is how we develop and challenge the people we do have. I'm not a moralist, but a sense of at least ethics and trust between MAPs, this can be as simple as a code of conduct. On pedi a lot of people were anti/neutral c but were doing horrible things like doxxing each other constantly, it definitely strained solidarity, even though its claimed by many adherents to anti-C that its the more ethical position, the kind of spaces they created, influenced heavily by tumblr and queer twitter culture, led to results that contradicted that. More then ethics, i would say a MAP organization/space needs principles. So this is where I would disagree with you somewhat, community is important than strategy but everyone assumes its as simple as saying "we want x." We need our own critical theory, our own ideology, to create counter-narratives, not just refute them, and, from there and whatever principles we design from said theory, we can game out the strategy end. I've said it over and over again, MAPs have no critical theory uniquely our own, we're taking bits of critical theory from other disciplines such as queer theory or feminism. This is to be expected to some degree, nothing arises from nothing. From there its easier to game out the strategy. I've been working on a book on MAP theory that is still being written to this end and I have other more pressing matters and writing projects to do. This isn't "pure theory crafting" but comes from my experience as a front-line activist and is drawn from the lessons, positive and negative, and culture of the MAP organization I lead in (PCMA) and the MAP scenes I've been part of. So, yes, its abstract and "theoretical" (people often use this as a pejorative) in a sense, but it also arises from practical experience and MAP community needs. For MAPs to know where to go they need to have some idea of what type of world they'd like to see. To some extent, this arises not merely from our desires but from a clear understanding that answers 1. who are MAPs? 2. how do MAPs critique society? 3. what type of world would MAPs want to see?

On the last point, I do see people who have an overly idealistic and frame of mind talking about the need to talk more about the world they'd like to see. The problem (beyond a lack of unified agreement on what that looks like) is that's not the world we live in, we can't get to the world we want to live in by merely talking about the world we'd like to live in and disregarding the world that exists. So we struggle to understand the world and then we move to change that world. In my view, we can only do that through an organization around revolutionary principles, if our "ideal" vision of a MAP-friendly society were to exist it would mean a revolutionary reconstitution of the structure and ideology of society as it actually exists. Therefore, it cannot be done with reform, as a comrade of mine has said, loving a child is so far beyond peoples experience and exists in such a frame of moral horror that you might as well become a revolutionary -- its well outside that "overton window" for lack of a better term. But isn't even abolishing age of consent (and I do think that should be our main goal) a reform of a sort? This question was sorted by Luxembourg's argument vs Bernstein in her book Reform or Revolution. Reform is part of the struggle for revolution but its often granted by the establishment to prevent revolution and while a revolutionary movement should desire reforms where possible, not only should that not be the end-all-be-all but by doing that your relinquishing a position of strength for a weaker position. So, you are less likely get reform anyways...

However I don't see how you would make MAPs refuse to serve in the war? I guess that's just a tactic, but I don't see how that would happen.

Strictly speaking, I can't make a large demographic of people do anything as an individual. But, there are plans in motion to put out a statement regarding the war within my organization. I would hope other organizations and high profile individuals will sign on and endorse the statement. If we want to encourage non-participation then I would think we start by building as much consensus as possible within the orgs we have power to do so and spread word of our position through sympathetic communities. I have it on good authority that PCMA's statement on Palestine has been printed out and distributed at real life protests, both physically and through web links shared physically.

I'd agree that it's very important that American MAPs don't throw themselves into this war against Iran - a not insignificant number of US soldiers fighting against Vietnam's liberation were semi-suicidal closeted trans women desperate for normative social validation (according to some surveys and anecdotes from them following the military ban last decade), and MAPs in the current state of the world have high suicidal ideation. Also, with the MAP population being far larger than that of the trans and genderqueer population, there's an opportunity to leverage our power against the state by collectively refusing to go to war for this imperialist power, not unlike the African American resistance to the Vietnam war.

Scorchingwilde and other comments seem to be an indication that there's a desire for this stance within the community. I would push this line even if there wasn't, unless my own community overruled me, but I think the response to the thread says a lot. Scorchingwilde's comments appears accurate to, plenty of evidence that trans people are more likely to be in the military going back a long ways, even to the 1980s. Also, I'm in constant arguments with people over my stance that I think the MAP community should build its own power and institutions rather than trying to tail social movements happening elsewhere that are largely led by antis. If people are so desperate for allies then a correct stance on the war will help build that bridge (though it wont guarantee it) and draw allies in. It also hurts an establishment that hates us. Also, recently the congress auto-registered all draft age males into the military they are talking about a draft now. They don't have the manpower to take Iran or even open the strait of Hormuz without a draft, and its unlikely a genuine peace deal will be struck, in spite of the Trump admins rhetoric the war is escalating and Iranian leadership don't want peace bc they know it will just be a reloading phase for a new US-Israeli attack. So I think a draft is inevitable though certainly they'll probably try to enlist as many volunteers as they can before that, since this is the most unpopular war starting out in US history, military recruitment has been low for a while, and only 7% of the pop support boots on the ground, they'll go for the draft much sooner then people think imo. In response to US-Israeli assassinations, the IRGC has decentralized their command structure, so its unclear if the Iranian military will agree even if Trump can work out a deal with the president and the supreme leader. The Iranian public has shown up in huge demonstrations demanding war with America. This is not an easy wine bottle to recork now that its been uncorked.

I feel there was no need for you to mention Lark once again, and honestly I don't see how supporting a particular religion fits with your materialist analysis. (Of course, there are good reasons to support Iran right now others than it being a theocracy, although in my opinion child marriage is not one of them.)

I'm not a vagueposter. And one of the reasons why is if I make a statement people crawl out of the woodwork to know who I'm referring to or why I think what I think, so I like to have clear views on what I think. Within my own organization, Lightning, while he was a member refused to sign on to the Palestine statement, despite unanimous agreement from the rest of the mods and us patiently explaining why we thought what we thought there. He defended this by saying he had no skill or ability in being able to determine whether the Palestine statement was accurate but gave no rebuttal or argument in defense of neutrality. If i had to guess, its because he was a middle class coward who was afraid to sign onto a statement against Israel which is a high-status coded belief among the European bourgeoisie.

I had sent a draft statement to Newgon Strategist arguing MAPs should refuse to participate in World War 3, probably sometime in 2023, in light of the Russia-Ukraine war. Strat showed no interest, and while I know politics isn't his thing, liberating MAPs is 1. fundamentally a political project 2. there's nothing for MAPs to really gain by going to kill other MAPs (or even children) in foreign countries plus it means serving an establishment that hates us. I think everyone can see how the whole "everyone do your part" thing turned out in practice during Covid. Whatever anyone thinks of that (not trying to resucitate a dead debate) I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that many MAPs made sacrifices during that period for a society that fundamentally hates them and a state that criminalizes them.

Not every space functions like PCMA, we've always permitted pretty ruthless criticism but I would hope in spite of past differences, whatever is left of leadership in the community will be willing to come together on this. My door is open, it honestly always has been in spite of grumbling about my percieved personality flaws or that I'm supposedly hard to work with.

If I don't frankly and publicly state what factors might lead to such an effort being scuttled, I think that makes it even less likely to happen. And that is because many projects/efforts in the MAP community are quietly scuttled without leadership being fully honest when it comes to why they were. We can't come together on pretty basic political points yet there are leaders who get invited to work on projects such as Lecter and Katie Cruz under the guise of "unity" who've shown themselves to be quite untrustworthy in the past. And I don't know at what point we decide a person is completely untrustworthy vs. whether they can come around/be rehabilitated. Worth noting that not everyone has to agree on everything all the time, some people will work better on their own or in different organizations, but it is important that the community find political/ideological points of agreement and unite on them when and where they can. A stance against the Iran war does not require that someone abandon or adopt feminist theory, for instance, to give an example of a trend in the community that can be controversial.

But, if we can't come together on something like this, I wouldn't expect us to ever come together on much -- at least not until diversity is replaced by say a single large MAP organization that sets the tone for everyone else.

People all the time are whining about the fact that MAP organizations are "talking shops" but part of the reason things don't leave that stage is because of trends like this. Even when leadership or communal assent does not maintain that members of the community that have unpopular positions have to leave orgs/spaces, a lot of times people threaten to or do and people want to smooth that over. Understandably on some level given our small numbers. When it causes dissent within leadership itself its often nixed quietly.

So, lets not have illusions on this, I could give other examples but if I don't point to reasons why leadership across the movement might not come together to meet the moment then I am doing a disservice. I hope that enough has changed that we can go forward as a community on this but I am not expecting it.

And, regarding Iran, they do permit marriage at 13, and the only countries that have brought down the age of consent in the 21st century are Islamic. Piss and moan about Islam and religion all you want but I don't see Islam as our enemy.

When I raise the issue that we should critique liberalism, I get a lot of comments that are basically emotional. Very few are typically well-reasoned and even when that is the case, you have to explain why liberal countries have been getting worse and worse for MAPs. In many cases, even worse than so-called "authoritarian" alternatives from the right or the left but especially in comparison to Islamic states.

I don't promote Islam, as you noted I am a materialist and tend to engage in materialist critique, but why is so much effort going into courting liberals when Islam has done much more than liberalism has for us in the 21st century?

[bignavigator]

While Islam treats hetero-MAPs well, I still don't want a Jihad to win in the entire world, as every non-Muslim (be it a MAP or not) would be put to choose between:

1. Converting to Islam and joining the Ummah
2. Submitting to Muslims and paying a jizya monthly
3. Getting your head off

As a Slavic Native Believer (Rodnover), none of these options satisfy me in the end. Still Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq are based for actually improving MAP rights (even if it's just for heterosexuals by their laws).

[Learning to undeny]

What's more important than numbers is quality of personnel and what's arguably even more essential than simply filtering for better people is how we develop and challenge the people we do have. I'm not a moralist, but a sense of at least ethics and trust between MAPs, this can be as simple as a code of conduct. On pedi a lot of people were anti/neutral c but were doing horrible things like doxxing each other constantly, it definitely strained solidarity, even though its claimed by many adherents to anti-C that its the more ethical position, the kind of spaces they created, influenced heavily by tumblr and queer twitter culture, led to results that contradicted that. More then ethics, i would say a MAP organization/space needs principles.

A code of conduct like that sounds good for a future MAP organization. Current ones do not have the 'doxxing' problem as far as I'm aware.

I've been working on a book on MAP theory that is still being written to this end and I have other more pressing matters and writing projects to do. This isn't "pure theory crafting" but comes from my experience as a front-line activist and is drawn from the lessons, positive and negative, and culture of the MAP organization I lead in (PCMA) and the MAP scenes I've been part of. So, yes, its abstract and "theoretical" (people often use this as a pejorative) in a sense, but it also arises from practical experience and MAP community needs. For MAPs to know where to go they need to have some idea of what type of world they'd like to see. To some extent, this arises not merely from our desires but from a clear understanding that answers 1. who are MAPs? 2. how do MAPs critique society? 3. what type of world would MAPs want to see?

Great, I'd like to read the book once it's finished (I don't want to pressure you).

Scorchingwilde and other comments seem to be an indication that there's a desire for this stance within the community. I would push this line even if there wasn't, unless my own community overruled me, but I think the response to the thread says a lot. Scorchingwilde's comments appears accurate to, plenty of evidence that trans people are more likely to be in the military going back a long ways, even to the 1980s. Also, I'm in constant arguments with people over my stance that I think the MAP community should build its own power and institutions rather than trying to tail social movements happening elsewhere that are largely led by antis. If people are so desperate for allies then a correct stance on the war will help build that bridge (though it wont guarantee it) and draw allies in.


[...]

Worth noting that not everyone has to agree on everything all the time, some people will work better on their own or in different organizations, but it is important that the community find political/ideological points of agreement and unite on them when and where they can. A stance against the Iran war does not require that someone abandon or adopt feminist theory, for instance, to give an example of a trend in the community that can be controversial.

In fact, it might do good to start an organization "MAPs against fascism / MAPs for peace" or something like that, which focuses on political issues from the point of view of MAPs. The visibility it would give (although you might not care about that) is that MAPs care about other issues than adult-minor sex contact and have their own insights as a minority that no one listens to. It would also make allies among other minorities that MAPs can sympathize with, such as immigrants (which in Europe includes a lot of Muslim people). MAPs and immigrants both face being criminalized merely for existing, and I hope that would place MAPs in solidarity with immigrants, and conversely. I doubt existing orgs like this one are going to shift focus to issues like the war, although I wouldn't oppose it.

(I don't have an opinion on the twitter/tumblr thing as I didn't witness it, but from everything I've heard it appears to have hurt the community for one reason or another.)

Edit: I agree it's good to speak clearly the problems you have with other people instead of resorting to passive-aggression.

[zarkle]

@Anonymous_Lover

The 90s and 2000s had just as much pedo hatred. The only difference was society was much more isolated and not communicating on social media. Once humans started mass communicating on social media they all discussed their shared common hatred of pedos allowing hate to spread and go viral with social medias amplification. We failed to enter the LGBT movement once again for refusing to acknowledge parental instincts to protect children are the real barrier standing in our way. LGBT didn't have that problem of triggering parental instincts. We do. One thing I'll add is that before 9/11 humans were more lax and possibly more sexually libertine due to society not feeling threatened. 9/11 only made society more tense and things much worse. The higher qualify of life the more sexually libertine humans become

Also I see you using terms like proletariat and bourgeoisie. So Obviously you are not even trying to hide your Marxist roots. Look dude, I am no fan of the very rich 1% or Elon Musk but I am politely fed up with how Marxist think. They divide the world into two categories and view it as an epic battle between side 1 and side 2. Then make further subcategories about how intersecting classes interact like the petite bourgeoisie, the family unit, the poorer proletariat and the above average proletariat. Which inspired the class analysis of Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, and Feminist theory. I'm not saying that it is wrong to do a class analysis and show skepticism of the rich but I am very skeptical of the claim that anti pedophilia is due to the "western patriarchical society" I argue it ties directly into animal protection instincts and the same neurocircuits wild animals use to defend their young being repurposed to attack us.


So here's the points I'm making other then my trademark talk about evolutionary psychology

1) Society was more isolated before social media, its possible if social media was around in the 70s then anti pedo hysteria would have existed then
2) Your use of Marxist terms like proliteriat and bourgeoisie draw skepticism in me
3) I tend to agree if we had started in 2000 with very good strategies we would have been more liberated now

>There isn't going to be a comfy Euro welfare state in the future, as overrated as that is, there isn't even going to be democracy, there's going to be fascism and police-state/military rule enforced at gunpoint with the pretense of wartime and emergency powers.

Regarding this part I think fascism has its roots in evolutionary behavior of alpha males seeking power and control, as well as of course parental instincts to protect children. Look into Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory on the topic of Sanctity vs Degradation, Loyalty vs Betrayal, and Authority vs Subversion and how it relates to authoritarian Governments, and as for me personally I am skeptical of both welfare states and authoritarian right wing states.

>The average liberal is now on the same level as a Qtard from 2017

I am a liberal by your definition (free markets, limited government, individual rights) I believe in those things. But I spend an enormous amount of time making fun of qanon. You can find all my post of tying qanon to evolutionary child protection instincts, and post of me mocking dumb normies for saying Epstein eats kids. I am an outspoken critique of qanon hysteria and I will throw anyone under the bus dumb enough to believe in qanon even if they share my beliefs in liberal (libertarian) values.


The real problem with western liberalism is that it hasn't matured and religion and primitive emotions like disgust are holding it back. Western Liberalism does have the potential to liberate child lovers.

Regarding this part I think fascism has its roots in evolutionary behavior of alpha males seeking power and control, as well as of course parental instincts to protect children. Look into Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory on the topic of Sanctity vs Degradation, Loyalty vs Betrayal, and Authority vs Subversion and how it relates to authoritarian Governments, and as for me personally I am skeptical of both welfare states and authoritarian right wing states.

I mean the fact that fascism didn't always exist but was something that Mussolini invented in 1919 suggests its not something eternal but historical. I don't understand the impulse to reach for the evolutionary explanation when the historical record is ample. Don't you think the fact that Italian and German societies, and especially their economies, were collapsing in the post-war period had something to do with it? The fact that World War I happened at all is in itself a pretty damning failure/condemnation of 19th century liberalism.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to do a class analysis and show skepticism of the rich but I am very skeptical of the claim that anti pedophilia is due to the "western patriarchical society"

where did i actually argue it is the result of Western patriarchal society? Though I do think pedos should be cautious about falling into tradcon coping, it seems your actual analysis of fascism (which you tie to the pedophilia issue) is far more of analysis of patriarchy then anything I wrote in this thread. "Alpha males seeking power and control" that sounds a lot like patriarchy theory! Even tying it to the child protection issue that's like what Marxist sexologist Wilhelm Reich wrote in the 1930s about childhood sexual repression and the family structure centered around the authoritarian father serving as the soil that Nazism sprouted from. And Reich was a "pedo protector" to us the verbiage people use now.

I am a liberal by your definition (free markets, limited government, individual rights) I believe in those things. But I spend an enormous amount of time making fun of qanon. You can find all my post of tying qanon to evolutionary child protection instincts, and post of me mocking dumb normies for saying Epstein eats kids. I am an outspoken critique of qanon hysteria and I will throw anyone under the bus dumb enough to believe in qanon even if they share my beliefs in liberal (libertarian) values.

Libertarianism isn't classical liberalism but a project created by reactionary Austrian economists who were malding because their racist empire fell apart and the workers were rising up. It wears 18th and 19th century liberalism as a skin suit and deprives it of all its progressive content. The idea that a landlord "earns" his income would've been ludicrous to Adam Smith which is why liberal economists like John Stuart Mill and his son called for all land to be state owned and for that to replace taxes (a similar line of thinking as Henry George, though perhaps with less flair and less systematically argued for). The Proudhonian in this thread actually gets this in a way where he deviates is in thinking that in the economic realm that Proudhon and Bakunin were somehow original rather than merely interpreting in a radical way the anti-rentier project of classical political economy which criticized feudalism and sought to diminish the importance of feudal rent-extraction, which later became extended to rent-extraction in general. This only touches distribution within a market system or the sections of the economy that still operate under pre-market social logic (like feudalism or slavery). This is why Marx actually opposed welfare states because he was the first to say that productive industrial capital itself was exploitative and to explain why in a clear way. Inequality for Marx arises out of the relationships of production and how the production process is organized. The welfare state started in Britain around the same time as capitalism around 400 years ago. It will probably last as long as it lasts but the manner in which it exists will definitely end with capitalism. It really is an insult to Smith or the 18th/19th century liberal revolutionaries to be associated with modern libertarianism.

The real problem with western liberalism is that it hasn't matured and religion and primitive emotions like disgust are holding it back. Western Liberalism does have the potential to liberate child lovers.

Its been like 300 years since secular liberalism got started around the time of the 1688 Revolution in Britain. I don't know how much more time you think it needs or how you think its going to mature. You do realize that, to the extent this subject has been topical, liberalism has been marginalizing and oppressing pedophiles/MAPs continually right? Don't you think that might have something to do with the liberal contract theory i pointed to being applied to sex, a phenomenon which is always deeply social and can rarely be distilled into a legalistic contract. The liberals have actually gotten more sexphobic even when it comes to sex betwen since the 2010s rather than less and the liberal establishment is low key reflecting that more and more.

I meant to say fascism has its evolutionary roots in a strong man charismatic leader that works on the principle of loyalty in Haidt's moral foundations. Humans are biologically hardwired to be loyal to a powerful tribe leader. That's the core of fascism. I implied fascism taps into ancient neuro-circuitry in our brains that encourages us to be loyal to a alpha male tribe leader.

As I discussed previously. Hitler was an extreme us vs them thinker who depicted Jews as a cosmic evil and Aryan's as all wholesome good. Showing clear evolutionary psychological basis that can be explained with Sapolsky's model. With Musolini its not as clear as he was far more nuanced but still meet the definition of a charismatic leader that people showed loyalty too. I admit I can't explain Musolini's behavior in evo psychological terms as well as Hitlers. So I partially concede

As for Mises. I agree with them on the subjective theory of value but strongly disagree with them on landlords, patents and absentee land titles. So you can understand my nuance. You are right about landlords being unthinkable to early classical liberals who showed skepticism of them. 19th century classical liberals would conflict with Rand, Mises and Rothbard here. Before the cold war liberalism had nuanced thinkers like HL Mencken that were skeptical of both capitalism and socialism showing evolution of thought that died due to the cold war's black and white binary. The cold war is what turned a nuanced ideology into an extreme black and white of capitalism vs communism. Also one thing I'll add is that precursors to Mises did exist in the classical liberal tradition like Auberon Herbert.


Also regarding Marx I was replying to Rakuraku not you but let me be clear.

The reason I am hostile to Marx is because I view us vs them thinking as worthless and I oppose a strong centralized state representing anyone and seizing anything That is an extremely dangerous idea as Proudhon and Bakunin knew.

My question is Why is Marx always viewed as a symbol of a alternative free world. Why Marx? Why Communism? I want to to build a better world too out of the shell of the old, but I don't think Marx's ideas do that. Didn't the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao, and others prove liberalism works better then communism? Even if liberalism is deeply flawed it works unlike Marx's ideas.

So now its time to admit my true biases. I am not actually a liberal. I am basically part liberal and part mutualist and part egoist and part pragmatic evo psychology bro, and I am deeply attracted to 3-6 year old girls. I don't really fit labels neatly. I just know at least some of my intellectual DNA is rooted in classical liberalism and American Mutualism.

I can understand taking Proudhon serious. I can understand taking Kropotkin serious. I can understand taking Lysander Spooner serious, because they (all though very different) actually have interesting ideas and frameworks to engage with that do not call for authoritarian restructuring of society. The only gripe is Proudhon's extreme bigotry and antisemitism discovered in his private writings, other then that he seemed to be incredibly nuanced and pragmatic view about anarchism with mutual banks, property rights that work for the people and not land lords and focusing on whatever works without dogma and rejection of religion.

Lysander Spooner took classical liberal ideas and used them in unthinkably radical ways during his time such as abolition of slavery. Taking classical liberal ideas to their outright logical conclusion, such as me saying possession of child porn is a valid form of property rights even if the state doesn't recognize it yet. He was just as radical back in the 1850s when he used property rights self ownership rights arguments against slavery. The only stupid idea he had is being pro patent.

And with Kropotkin its interesting how he looks into the evolutionary psychology of cooperation, and how he cites animals cooperating over competing leads to better results. I like how he uses naturalistic justifications for his ideas even though I don't fully agree with his anarcho communist gift economy. I still understand the importance of mutual aid because of him. I have logical skepticism of his gift economy but as long as its voluntary I tolerate his followers.

Spooner, Proudhon, and Kropotkin and others bring useful stuff to the table. All Marx brings is a silly story about oppressed vs oppressors and violent revolution and it leads to about 66-70 million deaths excluding tsar, nazis and naturalistic famines. So maybe we can learn from history to entirely reject Marx and take other radicals serious. That's all I'm saying. I do not view Marxism as a revolutionary ideology I view it as a dangerous idea pretending to build a better world. Though I agree with Marx religion is the opioid of the masses, that is one of the few things he says that holds under stress testing. We should be able to agree that Proudhon, Spooner and Kropotkin all show a radically different vision of reality with a "build a better world vibe" but unlike Marxism it is VOLUNTARY and doesn't require forcefully restructuring society. So let's give it a shot.


Lastly, Science, Reason and reductionism from the enlightenment clearly work and liberalism is known to reason its way out of its own bullshit
when I read science papers about disgust pathways in the brain handling both rotten food, moral violations, and sexual rejection, and then studies about how disgusting smells make people hold stronger anti lgbt attitudes I realize Disgust Theory is being validated by reason and empiricism. Unlike Focault's wishy washy talk about cultural power structures and language. Maybe there is a place for that but someone has to tie in predator prey dynamics in the natural world into why pedos are so deeply hated.

So I made 3 arguments back against you

1 ) nazism shows extremely strong evidence of being tied to us vs them thinking and known evolutionary psychological biases. and fascism shows at least some evidence on tribal loyalty though its not as clear cut as nazism. So I had to partially concede on over reach, even though the charismatic leader part of musolini appeals to evolved psychology.
2) classical liberalism became black and white during the cold war, before that it was nuanced with figures like HL Mencken that opposed capitalism and state socialism.
3) I am very skeptical of Marx and don't view him as a symbol of a better world. I cited Proudhon, Spooner and Kropotkin as alternative historical inspirations. My actual way of thinking of the world is a hybrid between classical liberalism, mutualism and egoism and a bias for evolutionary psychology where naturalistic explanations are seeked out.