I describe the stated motivations and propaganda of the Allied Powers to neither condemn them, nor praise them here, only so that we might gleam insight about a war that is increasingly distant from living memory (it has been very near to 80 years since the end of WWII at this point) but which continues to be the bed rock of the world order.
The UN declaration of human rights (and other similar bills) passed in 1948 would have a radical effect on the social strucutures of the world if they were actually seriously followed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... nd_content
What it represented at the time was an attempt to make the new deal global, the content of it and other similar liberal internationalist bills/new national constitutions (such as those of India and Japan) largely reflect this trend. FDR was extremely conscious of and concerned with the historical import of the new world war that America had entered, much like his mentor and political idol Woodrow Wilson had been about the first world war. To this end only weeks after entering the second world war he proposed The Four Freedoms:
1.Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
These positions were moderate in comparison with the Soviet alternative of a global revolutions to create communist states/societies across the world, they emphasized what the state/society may not do to the individual and the realm of permitted activities for the individual far more than they did to establish what the individual is owed or what a society should do for the individual. But already points 3 and 4 represented a change in terms of how liberal civilization might interpret its own laws and doctrines and how they might order their societies in contrast to post-revolutionary mid to late 19th century liberalism.
How did the Soviet Union fit into this? Among conservatives and moderate liberals in the interwar periods the Soviet Union was seen as a tyranny that forced its population to subservience and poverty under communist rule. However, there was a gradual change in perception during the 1930s as the Soviet Union began to gain ground economically precisely as the West stagnated/declined into the Great Depression. It had taken time to change the impression of those within mainstream Western politics from seeing the Soviets as anything more a band of thieves to "a harsh flawed place with some upsides but hardly utopia." Almost over night WWII propaganda on the Western allied side described the Soviets as a brotherly peoples who were full members of the exclusive "democracies" club. Stalin's USSR was shown to be similar to Roosevelt's New Deal America in films like Mission To Moscow in a way that it hasn't been portrayed in mainstream film (let alone Wartime propaganda films commissioned by the US Gov) before or sense. The aforementioned film even features a defense of Soviet policy during "the Great Terror" and argues that the official Soviet position concerning The Moscow Trials in which there was held to be a pro-Axis conspiracy headed by Trotsky and other traitors in the Soviet government/society is affirmed as true with the prosecution of said alleged criminals being valid.
Whether the wartime liberals truly believed this, as the American ambassador to the USSR/trials attendant Joseph Davies really did (he wrote the book the film was based) is irrelevant. The Soviet Union was to be a full partner in constructing the new "free" world that was to emerge from the war to crush the fascist Axis powers. One sees clear manifestation of this at least initial intention in the presence of the USSR as the fifth power on the security council and one of the "four superpowers" (the other being the crisis-ridden and weak Republic of China).
The full story of how the USSR went from wartime close ally to feared Cold War adversary is perhaps best to someone like Oliver Stone. But for a time the US, as the center of global liberalism, entertained the idea that even communist Russia might be a full ally and economic partner in the world to come. Such optimistic hopes fell apart almost as quickly as they seemed to arise but every now and then you could see echoes of American-Soviet wartime alliance even during the Cold War as the world bifurcated between the American and Soviet superpowers.
The Soviets were not given as large a seat of at the table as they wished but even they would have one. Then came the decolonization of Africa and Asia in the 1950s-60s introducing hundreds of new countries to the world stage. Franz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth too would be allowed a seat at the table with one glaring exception...
And then there were the various "civil rights" causes of the period from Black and Chicano activism to gay and feminist activism, the cause might have fallen short in terms of what their most radical adherents dreamed but they got a seat at the table. Looking back on the outcome of WWII, we should ask "who didn't get a seat at the table?" To some extent, everyone did. It was the logic of liberalism to grant new freedoms where advantageous and to make concessions to unruly demographics and activists even when it wasn't. When the alternative was to hand the Soviets/communists a free propaganda victory or risk civil unrest and even sustained violent insurgency/revolution then even previously unthinkable concessions/"normalizations" could be entertained. Perhaps, it may have turned out that the revolutionary activists from any number of unruly groups that popped up in the 60s and 70s would be right. Perhaps the system would ultimately hit a deadlock when no further reform would be possible, forcing the now-liberal establishment to choose fascism to defend itself. Perhaps all the reformist left, conservative, and liberal/moderate wings of these new movements would be proven fools, they themselves would have to choose between submission to the neo-fascist boot or revolution of some type. One can imagine things turning out that way, especially as Cold War tensions ratcheted up in the 80s, economic concessions to the Western working class began to be revoked, and the Western world prepared for war... then the USSR collapsed. Had it not, perhaps those radicals would have been right (and who is to say they won't be)?
Yet, there are two groups who have been firmly prevented from sitting at the table of global liberalism regardless of internal political turmoil at the state level, regardless of elections, regardless of what insurgent rebels in the third world managed or failed to seize.
Those are Pedophiles and Palestinians
Regardless of what is negotiated the Palestinians must continue to lose land continually, regardless of what they and the rest of the world think, they must not be allowed to have a state. The slow motion ethnic cleansing had to continue into...well... its no longer an ethnic cleansing but a full-fledged Nazi-style exterminatory genocide, no?
Every crime from exterminatory genocide, to civil rights suppression, to occupation, to aggressive wars of conquests etc. that the West laid down against the Nazis have been made manifest with America and the broader West's support.
Outside the USSR, there were few rebellious nationalities and minority groups that the USSR did not champion as long as it occurred on the Western side of the Berlin wall. But, in 1948, the USSR did consent to the creation of the State of Israel and Zionist gangs were armed with weapons from the Eastern bloc. This support was short-lived and out of character for a government founded by the Bolshevik movement that opposed Zionism. The reasons for this support have been given as thus: by consenting to the creation of Israel Stalin was hoping that American Jewish elites might use their influence to avoid a near-term WW3 which he believed the USSR was still too weak to win, the Soviets wished to undermine Britain in the middle east and had been persuaded by Zionist leaders who lied in privately claiming that Israel would be a socialist state in the region aligned with the USSR to even the more nebulous claim that Stalin was not in power in the late 40s and that a "revisionist" group had risen to power while Stalin was still party secretary which favored the action leaving him powerless but to go along. When the balance of forces tipped in favor of Stalin they were able to take action against Zionism, which they did in the early 50s.
Certainly, the USSR did more for the Palestinians after the Naqba then they did for us. We can see this in the way that they began arming and training Palestinian groups and Arab nations threatened by Israel. Certainly the stakes of the outcome in the Levant was higher for them then say the creation of sex offender registry or the age of consent policy of American states were. Wikipedia asserts that one of PIE's founding members was a Soviet agent, so its quite possible that they did help us even if is a lower priority. Since the USSR had basically no aoc beyond puberty and it frequently wasn't really enforced in the case of man-girl love we can say it was better to be a pedophile in the East then the West. The blanket ban on pornography (which east german authorities in particular disregarded in the case of amateur porn) was ultimately protective once pornography was legalized. Perhaps bc of its unique GL pedophile culture Russia is one of the few countries in the world where posessing child erotica is not in itself a crime.
Like Palestine, Russia has been supportive of girl love pedophilia...if a lot less loudly then its stance on Palestine. There's obviously no analogue to the Six Day War, when Israel ended its offensive bc it was dangerously close to turning into a hot war with the USSR that Israel could not hope to win. Though obviously it would be nice if the Soviets had threatened to launch an offensive against California or Florida to liberate oppressed MAPs
it does, for now, lack unique saliance as a geopolitical issue. That could change given how the West has done everything in its power to weaponize feminism and LGBT on the global stage against their opponents and states they view as third world vassals. Could the MAP movement be used in a similar fashion, as a tit for tat, against the West by rival powers such as Russia, China, Iran or possibly India? In the past, I had theorized that it could be possible that Western intelligence agencies and NGOs might seek to use us against the third world/rival powers in the same way they have been using feminism and LGBT. I have little hope of this manifesting given that it requires the West being able to overcome what I call "The Two Great Exceptions." The use of police and rw violence against peaceful student protestors, including the third most powerful man in the government, Mike Johnson coming to Columbia to yell at anti-genocide protestors disabuses me of that. I think the West's reaction to the homegrown pro-Palestine movement shows that the elites are done with reform and may turn to fascism. I'm personally indifferent to the question of whether Trump will be a fascist bc MAPs already live under fascism -- a point I intend to write about later. Either way there's no getting around that Western elites will stand firm in defense of the great exception -- that Israel might be allowed to do whatever it wants to Palestinians and others with impunity.
MAPs and Palestinians represent two subjects that the Western establishment either cannot or will not appease. The last time either group appeared close to achieving de jure acceptance and rapid progress in terms of their plight was the 1970s. Much like the rise of the evangelical sexually-puritan Moral Majority and the Reagan Revolution, it was the rise of Menichem Begin's far-right government in 1977 that marked the end of any serious prospect of peace. Unbeknownst to most people, succeeding American-Israeli negotations have mostly involved Israel gaslighting their Palestinian counterparts and delivering nothing. The whole scene is intended to legitimize offensive operations by Israel, so they can say "we tried peace" which has led to the sardonic moniker of Israeli "peace offensives" to describe such shell games. Unlike even the United States, the electoral right wing gained power in Israel in 1977 and never lost power. I might add that much like how Reagan's government was marked by anti-Soviet agitation and brinksmanship in the realm of foreign policy, Begin also gave the order that Israel target its allegedly non-existent nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. Is there some sort of link here between Russia and our present state? The comparatively tolerant 60s and 70s were also marked by détente or efforts at détente between the USSR and the West. We have seen an escalation at both social stigma level and at the state level of anti-MAP persecution since Hillary kicked off Russia bashing in earnest with Russiagate which may have prompted the Trump government to issue their own psyop in the form of Qanon which was intended to keep disillusioned older voters from losing faith in him.
The timing of the demonization of MAPs and Palestinians is also suspect. Rachel Cleves mentioned the late interwar and the 1940s as a turning point in terms of how the West handled adult-minor sex and how they mentally responded to it (e.g. with horror). This is why the subject of her book Norman Douglas had to flee multiple European countries due to his persistent consensual sexual dalliances with minors in the interwar period to avoid prosecution but in the late 19th and early 20th century it had largely simply been a scandal similar in nature, perhaps, to the reaction that a woman cheating on her husband might have provoked.
It has been argued that the sexual revolution began not in the 1960s but in the 1940s when American attitudes towards sex began to shift and people became more permissive through practices like heterosexual swinging (often occurred at mil bases) and greater frequency in short-term "hook-ups" among heterosexuals. Certainly, the seeds were planted at an earlier time, Kinsey was a celebrity sexology in the bad ole 1950s not the 60s. It was easy to see how the rationalistic and scientific perspective of Kinsey (who himself studied pedophiles from a neutral non-judgemental perspective) lead to the legalization of pedophilia, Reich and his followers, in addition to the more "radical" Freudians, who favored sexual liberation over managing the neurosis allegedly caused by sexual repression per Freud's theory, might lead to greater acceptance of pedophilia. In spite of the escalating repression that Cleves identified we might have surmised that it would be reversed. And if not, it was easy to see how even if actual children remained off limits that there might be a sexual liberation for teens then younger then the age of consent. The Science said that sex was safe, natural, and even necessary? And who are you to question The Science?
Similarly, we can imagine that any number of conflagrations and uprisings since its foundation might have led to Israel's fall or to a genuine peace deal with a two state solution and new rights/tolerance for Palestinians within Israel. Decolonization swept the entire world in the 1950s/60s but Israel seemed impervious to its effect, much in the same way the sexual revolution swept the West but the status of MAPs remained (mostly) inert. Outside a few short-lived victories such as the elective aoc reform in the Netherlands and the relative toleration of cp during the initial phase of porn legalization, pedophiles remained locked tightly outside the boundaries of the permissible, a state maintained taboo with the active complicity of both sides of the political aisle and the media.
Much like the Palestinians, the division for some time was not really left vs. right. The pro-Israel Left had cache globally until the 1970s when Arabs began organizing and pushing back within Third World coalitions. Golda Meir went on a tour of Africa and managed to convince the newly independent heads of state that Israel's existence itself was decolonization. Does it not remind us somewhat of the anti-MAP gays and queers who argued that the exclusion of MAPs was sex positive because it would remove the traumas from sexual abuse that keep people from enjoying or indulging in sex to the best of their ability? You should let your son watch hardcore pornography and let your teen daughter have casual sex at a young age... as long as they don't do those things with their uncle!
The world should be decolonized... except for Israel!
French Algeria contained one million European settlers (1/10th the population) and was legally considered part of France itself. By the early 1960s not only had it become independent under native Algerian rule but the settlers had either fled or been expelled in the whirlwind of colonial war and inter-settler civil war. French Algeria ceased to exist. Italian Libya with its settlers also ceased to exist. So did Angola, the Katanga region of the DRC, Rhodesia, and Mozambique, all boasting impressive numbers of European settlers who considered it home at one time or another. Yet, while it was fine to be against these states in the Western media there remained an obvious exception... Israel. People got fired and drummed out of public life for that and still do.
Apartheid lasted until 1994. While all of the Western world was complicit to some degree in its economic or diplomatic/political persistence, all of the Western world laid sanctions and restrictions on South Africa with the aim of ending apartheid. Since 1994 Israeli apartheid has only strengthened. In 1994 MAPs were formally expelled from the global LGBT movement, our participation had always been...a nuisance to some. Much like many Jewish 2nd wave feminists were uncomfortable with the Black Panther Party's militant anti-Zionism, to which they replied "oh no, that's okay, you work on your oppression and I'll work on mine" when the topic of Israel was broached. In many respects, the desire of Jewish feminists to distance themselves from anti-Zionist stance of many groups and figures within the black community while still playing a part within the Civil Rights/"anti-racist" coalition helped drive the move towards intersectionalism as an organizing strategy.
I'm sure one could cry about double standards until the cows come home. But the curious persistence of the Pedophile-Palestinian Great Exception should give us pause.
Perhaps we were always marked for genocide, much like the Palestinians. It should give us pause what it meant that we've been considered mentally ill since...what the beginning of psychiatry and we were consciously excluded from the Americans with Disabilities Act passed under Johnson. What does it mean that we are stigmatized as "mentally ill" "perverse" and yet legal police terror extends all the way to the therapist's office in the form of mandatory reporting. Neither medicaid nor insurance really pays for such "therapy" as far as I'm aware and few people specialize in it despite it being known that the proportion of pedos among the population is massive. Whether such a thing is desirable is debatable but it seems to show that when they said we were ill the point was never to help us but to dehumanize us and destroy us.
TL;DR There are a surprising number of coincidences between our plight and the Palestinians. For whatever reason our causes are the TWO GREAT EXCEPTIONS within Western liberal establishments to which no quarter can be given. I think we should think about that and whether there is any overlap from of our causes and what can be learned