SL -- cultism exposed!!

[Bea Arthur]

I wanted to take the time to express my condolences to everybody affected by this weekend's tragedy. Also I thought it would be an opportune time to ask a question related to the LGBTQIAA2S community who were the primary targets of this crime against humanity.

Before I do so, I thought it would be appropriate to remind everybody that the same people who were behind this tragedy were defended by a cabal of sexist cultists who were recently eliminated from the forum. Their banning represented an unprecedented positive development for the revolutionary movement on the world wide web. I express my solidarity with the admins who were horrified by the pro-Islamist reactionary cultist sentiments expressed by these right-wing posters, and voice my extreme horror that a number of people in this "anti-sexist" community expressed their reservations about the removal of these cancerous human beings.

However, some important questions remain. The primary question to be posed is whether the remaining sympathizers of that cabal should be banned for supporting ISIS, or whether they should be banned for defending the victims on the basis of supporting nambla? If the former, I would have to leave the forum in protest of the continued fascist apologism that I cannot abide in my capacity as a feminist. If the latter, I will have to protest in my capacity as a staunch defend of the chastity of young people everywhere.

I think the victims should be defended through the support of our brave young women in uniform who are serving abroad in the name of our egalitarian mission of defeating patriarchal heteronormative values that have wrapped their insidious tentacles around significant portions of the globe. Only through the continued vigilance of freedom-loving, anti-state, anti-sexist, anti-nambla advocates throughout the world can we finally achieve the society that all our young women and their female children deserve, free from namba-supporting pro-islamist reactionaries.

In this classic Hegelian contradiction between male sexual libertines and Islamic reactionaries, progressive peoples of the world have only one position to take: the third camp -- neither Islamabad nor nambla! Feminisits of the world unite!!! You have nothing to lose but your chains...of matrimony!!

[Konikow]

This is why Archie Bunker is the best poster on this forum.

[Heretek]

I wanted to take the time to express my condolences to everybody affected by this weekend's tragedy. Also I thought it would be an opportune time to ask a question related to the LGBTQIAA2S community who were the primary targets of this crime against humanity.

Before I do so, I thought it would be appropriate to remind everybody that the same people who were behind this tragedy were defended by a cabal of sexist cultists who were recently eliminated from the forum. Their banning represented an unprecedented positive development for the revolutionary movement on the world wide web. I express my solidarity with the admins who were horrified by the pro-Islamist reactionary cultist sentiments expressed by these right-wing posters, and voice my extreme horror that a number of people in this "anti-sexist" community expressed their reservations about the removal of these cancerous human beings.

However, some important questions remain. The primary question to be posed is whether the remaining sympathizers of that cabal should be banned for supporting ISIS, or whether they should be banned for defending the victims on the basis of supporting nambla? If the former, I would have to leave the forum in protest of the continued fascist apologism that I cannot abide in my capacity as a feminist. If the latter, I will have to protest in my capacity as a staunch defend of the chastity of young people everywhere.

I think the victims should be defended through the support of our brave young women in uniform who are serving abroad in the name of our egalitarian mission of defeating patriarchal heteronormative values that have wrapped their insidious tentacles around significant portions of the globe. Only through the continued vigilance of freedom-loving, anti-state, anti-sexist, anti-nambla advocates throughout the world can we finally achieve the society that all our young women and their female children deserve, free from namba-supporting pro-islamist reactionaries.

In this classic Hegelian contradiction between male sexual libertines and Islamic reactionaries, progressive peoples of the world have only one position to take: the third camp -- neither Islamabad nor nambla! Feminisits of the world unite!!! You have nothing to lose but your chains...of matrimony!!

Perhaps I'm a little lost, which tragedy are we talking about? If I recall, there was something like three over the weekend, and the news outlets around me focused on the Orlando nightclub shooting. I also heard something about a bomb in Shanghai (or Singapore?), and then something about another mass shooting. Or are we talking about all of those?

And which members were these, or at least where were their posts? I don't recall seeing anything to that effect, but then again I've been ignoring here lately.

[Rafiq]

Everyone, note the same transgressive posturing, in the expression of a deep seated and bitter misogyny, that is shared also with the various self-ironic mockeries of 'SJW's' common throughout social-media by any fascist from 4chan.

It is revealing of what we already all know: The Sparts, and those who share their sentiments, are petite-bourgeois in the deeply reactionary sense. What here, does the feminist represent? The feminist represents a present orientation of culture in the 'modern world' which unlike all other orientations is not reactionary, is still to whatever limited extent an extension of what remains of our 'democratic' culture which is in retreat owing to the same sentiments displayed here. Here the instance of the feminist in their mind, the growth of its phraseology, etc., is a continual reminder for the Sparts of the continual failure for their spontaneous revolution and socialism to have yet come true.

One should also pay particular attention to an attempt to paint an acceptance of sexual permissiveness, or let's call it, 'sex positivity' as utterly contradicting claims by feminists that predatory groups like NAMBLA are deeply sexist and reactionary.

You see in the mind of the Sparts, we live in the pre counter-culture era wherein any expression against the 'puritanical' sexual conservatism remains somehow radical. And yet this kind of transgression is immanent to ruling ideology and the ruling order already, and not only is there nothing revolutionary about 'sex positivity', this is a living breathing example of why the same bourgeois-liberal pseudo-hedonism is deeply reactionary. Sexual permissiveness in this instance, as the unrestricted and unbrindled unleashing of the desire of the male subject. It is not a coincidence that the constituents of the growing neo-Fascism, the 'alt-right', are also notorious for their pedophilic tendencies and sexually degenerate (in the real sense of the word) orientations: They are not a reaction against the couinter-culture but a final conclusion within the context of the ruling order.

It is also not surprising that one should recognize: Online forums, which exist for the advocation of the rights of pedophiles, ARE DEEPLY AND OUTWARDLY ANTI-FEMINIST, orient themselves as 'red pillers' and as far as the spectrum of political identification goes, is toward the "MRA's" and so on. And this is not for any spontaneous or mysterious reason: It is because pedophilia is just another medium for unbrindled male desire, and the point of feminism today in the mind of these reactionaries is that feminism today is an obstruction to male desire not only in the sense of impeding its realization but also in the sense of forcing them to ethically question and be responsible for those desires before universal reason.

To add, the pop-fascist Milo Yiannopolous said once in an interview: Second wave feminism, the 'sexual liberation' feminism is all well and good, but it's the third, more complicated, less sexually permissive and more 'feminazi' feminism which is the problem. Ladies and gentlemen, as Communists, we must fully embrace this 'feminazi' trend of holding the individual responsible for their desires at the political level, for this is the best of feminism today.

Reactionaries today are not sexual puritans, reactionaries today are precisely revolting against the too sexually restrictive 'political correctness' as embodied by the archetypal young feminist who the OP attempts to mock. The reactionaries, and fascists, stand for the unleashed, unquestioned predatory male desires which really stand for the reproduction of the existing order, while we, the Communists, stand for ruining those desires by forcing a political, ideological dimension upon them. In an ironic twist, the demons of hypersexuality are not on the Left but are the fascists. Our enemy is sexual obsession becasue it is sexuality as religion, as ethical life which is untouched and unquestioned theoretically, which righteously reproduces the symbolic order at the level of the individual. Hypersexuality is the last chian which binds women to sexual slavery, hypersexuality is the last instance of the degradation, humiliation, enslavement, continual oppression of the other half of the proletariat, it is the last instance of the silencing, de-humanization of women.

For those who accuse us of sexaul puritanism and conservatism, as they might have accused Lenin, we respond that we are far worse than that. We are far worse than sexual permissiveness in the eyes of the conservative. We are for the full politicization and subduction by the conscious access to universal reason, sexuality itself and in the future (through our own self-mastery and self-manipulation technologically) for the eventual abolition of sexual reproduction all together and with it sexuality as well, a project, mind you, that was a popular idea among Communists in the Soviet Union during the 1920's. We are far more horrifying for the chaste, priest, because we take the project of the counterculture to its final conclusion by overcoming sexuality itself. We carry on the legacy of the leather-claden bolsheviks as the totalitarians who spare nothing, not even sexuality, as sacred. All aspects of human life in the service of the realization of the new order and all aspects of human life in the new order toward the full extension of the productive capacities of men and women in the continual conquest of all natural processes as its own ends.

To make sexuality some sacred space of desire, you stand in the way between the revolutionary proletariat and the class enemy.

[Rafiq]

There is no better expression of predatory male desire, than pedophilia, which in pathological terms is the same as sexual attractiveness toward a literal object. The object of the pedophile's desire, the child, there is nothing reciprocal in the meaningful sense about this relationship - it is no wonder Freud identified pedophilia with sexual attraction toward objects. More disgustingly, unlike a relationship between two fully constituted subjects, love is impossible between an adult and a child, for the first condition of love is precisely what is absent in this relationship: And that is its active reciprocation, or at least its recognized possibility (It is the possibility that the other may also love me back that I can continue to love them).

And it is no coincidence that one popular medium of sexual degeneracy and pedophilia are pornographic cartoons ('anime'), which again the neo-Fascists are notorious for enjoying. What all share in common is unbridled male desire, without reciprocation by an active subject, which cannot hold them responsible for their desires.

Let us clarify: A woman can only enter the psychic economy of man insofar as she is an object of fantasy. It is the reciprocation, the various inabilities and shortcomings of woman to conform to this object of fantasy, which is the 'sexual relationship'. The significance of pedophilia, or for that matter cartoon sexuality (both the same specimen), is the congruence of continual attempts to realize this fantasy despite shortcomings, and a virtual actuality of its realization. Woman can pose a threat to the symbolic order, as an actual subject, and not the object of male fantasy, precisely because of the tension between the two and the ability to traverse it. But the symbolic order can be retained, without any hope whatsoever for subverting it, in the case of pedophilia or pornographic cartoons which externalize male desire while at the same time reproducing women's sexual slavery within this order.

It is no wonder that pedastry is common in the most violently misogynistic societies in premodern times. Pedophilia is not only abusive towards children, as it pertains to the ruling order and the symbolic order, it is emphatically reactionary and even fascistic.

[Konikow]

Father Raffi needs a cold shower.

[wehbolno]

This is fascinating Rafiq. But is this unbridled male desire (towards object, towards itself) present in homosexuality as well? I think Zizek mentions somewhere how the sexual relationship (impossible though it is) and love is being replaced today by masturbation and to some extent even homosexuality.Is this part of how our new sexually permissive fascism has achieved a kind of unity with the existing order? and against PC (as the 'last ditch attempt' of the Left to formalise politeness in a world without a serious Left in which anti-sexism etc. is taken as a given). I hope I am being clear here and also not coming off as some gay-basher, I am merely asking hysterical questions.

[Rafiq]

This is fascinating Rafiq. But is this unbridled male desire (towards object, towards itself) present in homosexuality as well?

It is not, for the obvious reason that with homosexuality love - actual love, in the Lacanian sense, is possible. Not only is it possible, it could be argued that in homosexuality, love in its most pure form is present insofar as its complete irreducibility to 'natural' sexual relations as present in animals is expressed. That is to say, a case can be made that homosexuality is more spiritually pure in the sense that it is not distorted by any 'organic' grounding between the opposing sexes for reproduction, or other worldly reasons. Homosexual love is in a sense more pure because it stands for the complete irreducibility of human subjectivity to 'natural' processes.

We can go as far as to say that in a post-capitalist society, it is bisexuality which will reign, and after which the eradication of first gender and then sexuality all together, beginning with artificial means of reproduction and then more complete transformations of human physiology in accords with higher prerogatives.


Is this part of how our new sexually permissive fascism has achieved a kind of unity with the existing order?

It is not part of this, rather, the new sexually permissive Fascism exists in relation to it. But 'it', that is, the achievements of homosexuals are like all things deeply ambiguous. On one hand, what individuals like Milo Yiannopolous represent is indeed a new kind of sexually permissive fascism that is 'inclusive' towards homosexuality. This kind of homosexuality, what it represents, is indeed deeply reactionary. It is a part of the 'Beverly hills homosexuality' (a term I made up) which represents the revoking of homosexuality of its subversive dimension. It is not just Milo but more generally Silicon Valley's attempt to revoke homosexualtiy of its subversive, POLITICALLY partisan dimension. And it is not a conspiracy.

Peter Thiel explicitly states:

"Gay marriage can’t be a partisan issue because as long as there are partisan issues or cultural issues in this country, you’ll have trench warfare like on the western front in World War I. You’ll have lots of carnage and no progress"

The true danger is the de-politicization of cultural issues.

[Konikow]

the 'Beverly hills homosexuality' (a term I made up) which represents the revoking of homosexuality of its subversive dimension.

Thank God for Father Raffi! How but with his enlightened guidance would we be able to discern the relative progressiveness or reactionariness of sexual practices? But it is all so confusing still.

If Father Raffi would be so kind, I think it would clarify things if participants here could post specific sexual practices, acts or positions, so that Father Raffi could then rule for us on whether said practices are progressive or reactionary, and whether they would exist in Father Raffi's enlightened socialist future.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What the fuck is this daft shit

[Heretek]

What the fuck is this daft shit

You'll have to specify. The forum, the posters, the thread, etc? Personally I think the forum lobotomized itself a while ago and has just been lurching around since

[Rafiq]

Okay, Konikow, you want to go here? I will gladly drag you through this. No, you're not going to get away with your snide comments. I am going to hold you directly responsible for them, and I am going to hold you directly responsible for exactly ALL of their implications. We are going to take your position on the matter to its fullest and highest conclusion. We are not going to have any running away here, no "LUL RAFIQ IT WAS JUST A JOKE Y YOU TAKE DA SEX SO SERIOUSLY LOL BRO ITS JUST SEX LOL ITS NATURAL". I am here, fully here. Like what, you fucking idiot, do you somehow think you are shaming me? As if, somehow, I am shocked, embarrassed by matters of sexuality? Yes, we get it. Sexuality involves 'no no parts' and it involves the mutual stimulation of the genitals, among other things etc. - we are all well aware of how that works, the various physical means by which attempts are made to gratify sexual desire. Yet Father Rafiq is not here to repress thoughts about that. What father rafiq is doing, is far more horrifying, 'totalitarian' and frankly scary. Father Rafiq, gasp, is telling us that the sexual desires in the first place are not a given, are not 'natural', and that the individual alone is accountable for them, in the intricacies of their own consciousness/subconsciousness, and furthermore its wider relation to the social order.

Let's not stop with sexualtiy, let's go everywhere, religion, ones artistic preferences, nothing is immune to criticism for the Marxist. None of these are sacred domains. And yet freedom begins not only when a 'master' is no longer externally forcing you to do something, but also where you no longer need a master to relate your actions to, where you truly are fully accountable and responsible for your duty, for your desires (which are almost one and the same, see Lacan on Marquis de Sade as Kant, or Kant is Sade) and where you only have yourself in relation to your own duty that you freely have chosen to answer to. That is what is truly scary about 'Father Rafiq'. If it was within Father Rafiq's capacity to force others, out of obligation to Father Rafiq alone, to do anything, that is quite an easy excuse for others to avoid confrontation with their own selves, by externalizing their actions upon some intruding master.

Sorry, but you're fantasies of re-enacting a long dead epoch, i.e. of the 'sexual rebel' against the embarrassed sexual conservative isn't going to play out here. No one is blushing! So let it out, let all the dick jokes, etc. out. Let it all out, because you're not embarrassing anyone. Like are you a fucking child? "Huh, someone who is attempting to be serious - actually is talking about sex, which is totally not serious, while still trying to retain the appearance of seriousness". Let me explain to you something you fucking idiot, few aspects of life are more serious than matters of sexuality. You disgusting motherfucker. Sexuality IS serious, it's serious for the abused children when they grow older, it's serious for the women who cannot escape the trauma of rape, and it is serious for those innumerable woman who are forced to sell their bodies, either directly forced or those who cannot otherwise make a living for themselves. There is no dimension of life with more rules, more religious-like ordanaince guised as spontaneous action, utmost devotion and dedication than sexuality. Hypersexuality is religious in the true sense. Those who are sexually obsessed - there is an excess far beyond sexual gratification which characterizes their obsession. Sexual obsession is a mode of ethical activity that relates itself to wider human practice in general and the intricacies of relations which characterize it.

So let's ask: If sexuality is 'just about having a good time', why is rape so traumatic for women? Is it because of our 'puritanical' and 'sexually prudent' (they actually think this) society, where woman are ashamed of having sex? Rapists had the sexual desire to rape. In your mind, there is no dimension of sexual desire which is of direct social or political significance. So what position are we in, to patohlogize or speak critically about the pathological dimension of rape? BE CONSISTENT you FUCKING rodent: Why isn't rape just an 'innocent' and unquestionable sexual desire? Perhaps in a more 'sexually free' society in your mind, without those 'Father rafiq's', without those 'feminazis', victims of rape would not be traumatized because they would be able to enjoy being raped? In fact this is what your FUCKING kin, what the neo-Fascists, actually sometimes say: That the only reason rape is so traumatic for woman, rape, an otherwise 'natural' phenomena, is because of the 'feminists'. The 'feminists', the 'totalitarians' ruin desire and fun for everyone. The 'feminists' are 'killjoys'. What is different about the Spart's position than this objective pathology which characterizes the sentiments of the 'alt-right'? The petite-bourgeois filth, the Sparts, are part of the exact same reactionary momentum.

You will admit what your position is on the matter: That there is no pathological dimension behind rape, the only 'problem' of rape is not the intricacies of power, the means of reinforcing woman's sexual slavery, the means of tearing away their voice, and how this exact means of their humiliation, degradation, is regularly reinforced by a hypersexual society which has no regard for their accumulated and speechless pain. No, in your mind, the only significance of rape is a sexually positive one: That the victim of rape did not in turn sexually desire the rapist. It begins and ends there: That the victim of rape wasn't 'also able to get some' (i.e. fulfill their positive sexual desires) and that is the significance of rape. In your mind, sexual desire as such, is simply 'natural'. The reality of course, for Marxists, for materialists, is that sexuality is a means by which the symbolic order, which reproduces human practical activity, is reproduced at the level of the individual. In other words, sexuality guises a deeper and irreducible symbolic order which structures sexuality.

Before we begin, I would like to point out to everyone that before I even get to exploring the details of the subject, this fucking idiot fails to first and foremost respect that in the context of my post the significance of the 'Beverly hills homosexuality' actually has little to do with sexual desire as such (which I did not touch upon or explore) but its direct political dimension, that is to say, the political significance of 'gayness' as it concerns primarily rich gay men, how 'gayness', previously something undoubtedly and unarguably subversive, is through them revoked of its subversive dimension by its de-politicization. The political significance of gayness is not a fucking question, it cannot be denied - it is ABJECTLY politically significant, with regard to our social order, and I claim that 'beverly hills homosexuality' is directly an expression of the revoking of homosexuality its politically partisan dimension. I did not even go in to fucking detail about the intrciacies of sexual desire here and its social dimension, but now that you mention it, i gladly will. Only the guilty blush.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Of course, even at the level of pseudo-Marxists, these abject reactionaries and philistines make it clear their sharp abandonment of the most elementary Marxism. In their mind, the controversies of sexuality are as follows: People who just 'wanna have a good time, bro' and those prohibitive, 'puritanical' forces who so clownishly seek to repress the embarrassing, 'dirty' sexuality at their own peril. In the process of the sexual conservative attempting to repress the 'shocking' dimension of sexuality by attempting to 'tightly regulate it' so that its 'shocking' edge is intricately repressed, they appear clownish because they fail at doing so: The 'shameful' aspect of sexuality remains, and remains evermore strongly precisely because of how 'shocking' and dangerous it is to the sexual conservative.

And yet, the expression of this phenomena today, is ancient, vestigial and no longer essentially constitutive of sexual relations. The true prohibitive and 'puritanical' forces of sexuality today are not sexual conservatives and religious conservatives, but their opposite: So-called 'feminazis'. It is the Left, it is the 'feminazis' which are the true prohibitive, strict, etc. ones and today it is the right-wingers who are truly permissive, willing to look a 'blind eye' as it concerns sexual desire. This is even true for those 'paleo's' who are against gay marriage and openly against homosexuality in general: If one pays close attention to their opposition to homosexuality, what bothers them about it IS NOT that the homosexuals are too sexually free or permissive in and of itself, but that the weight of homosexuality forces them to be overly critical and in over-proximity with their own desires. This is what bothers the conservative about homosexuality - the dimension of its temptation, not the fact that the homosexuals 'don't care and are doing what they want', it is not this freedom which bothers them, it is precisely the fact that this freedom imposes upon them too many restrictions (It otherwise forces them to question their own sexuality). That is why explicit Fascists are fine with homosexuals like Milo Yiannpolous, who exists for the sole purpose of polarizing the youth between those 'sexually free' and 'laid back' individuals (i.e. the champion of Frat houses, where the sons of the bloodsuckers predate upon woman in the exact name of 'just having some fun), and those 'fun-ruining', strict, puritanical feminists who attempt to bring sexual desire to the light of day, who refuse to take it as a given, who openly speak of the how male sexual desires are directly related to some of many of their own experiences of having been raped and abused, and so on. The communists are either with these individuals (even if we are critical of certain particularities of their positions), with this momentum, or we are not Communists at all.

What these disgusting reactionaries fail to understand is that an assertion of an uncritically held sexual desire, as a means of shocking the enemy, is the precise and exact tactic of the neo-Fascism today. Uncritically held sexual desire is nothing more than the sexuality which reproduces the existing order of things in its entirety, and the existing order of things does not just encompass economic relations but all other relations, sexual, 'cultural', even religious, etc. There is no 'father priests' today. There are 'cultural engineers', feminists, 'feminazis' with all of their prohibitions and restrictions, their 'trigger warnings', their protests at excessive hypersexualization in media (I.e. Pay attention to the backlash against Anita Sarkeesian - what exactly was she doing, and so on?) and so on. The neo-Fascists are the true hedonistic-permissive forces today, because the epoch of sexual restriction as such is dead. Hypersexuality, its mediation through images, threats of rape, unbrindled assertions of male sexual desire, this is what the neo-Fascists of today are culturally prone to as as means of 'subverting' the 'politically correct' and 'totalitarian' 'cathedral'.

The epoch of the sexual puritan is dead. Sexual transgressions are business as usual and the order of the day. The antagonism which remains is not between sexual puritans and the sexually free, but between those who assert their unbrindled male sexual desires uncritically and those who seek to make them accountable for them, to hold them to criticism, in whichever forms and so on. So let's just get that part out of the way: You can call me 'father Rafiq' all you want, but first and foremost you have to contextually recognize that the criticism of sexuality (criticism in the sense of subjecting to questioning) is not an expression of any kind of religious conservatism but is placed in the context of 21st century feminism. And Rafiq shamelessly and unapolegatically identifies and accepts being placed in this momentum, the momentum of those who seek to hold male sexual desire accountable, at a political and social level. Father rafiq more than happily accepts this, but insfoar as he is 'father rafiq', let's just be clear about where our allegiances lie:

Konikow, you and your rodent sparts, all of you motherfuckers, do not speak as socialists, do not speak as the 'sexual free', but the context of your positions are acutely neo-Fascist, the same kind of positions held by individuals like Milo Yiannopolous, and so on. That is where you stand and that is where you are in this battle: Between the 'feminists' and the 'vulgar, hedonistic' right, you take the side of the latter. Of course cosmetically speaking you can decorate your objective social position with all the identifications with socialism you like, but as it concerns your objectieve social position on the matter, you are squarely, pathologically speaking, on the side of the reactionaries in the controversies of today here.

The first step is dethroning religious restrictions upon sexuality, destroying the basis of the old, 'traditional', sexuality, This task is complete. The controversy of today has nothing to do with that. The new task is not this, the new task is subjecting our own freely exercised, freely derived, sexual desires to our own criticism in the sense of truly and deeply understanding them in relation to the reproduction of sexual relations as they exist. Sexual relations as they reproduce the existing order persist, persist deeply. If they did not, the existing order could not be reproduced. That's why feminism is so dangerous today: The gains of woman, i.e. as it concerns sexuality, have been reversed as the gains of the exercising of unbrindled male desire. The most profound anti-feminists, those who oppose and hold in most contempt woman's sexual freedom today, are not puritanical conservatives but people from websites like 'Return of Kings' who while at the same time being avowedly anti-feminist, are also engaged as 'pick-up artists' and committed to a deeply hedonistic ethical activity. The sparts, the pedophile-apologists, are a part of the exact same momentum.



If Father Raffi would be so kind, I think it would clarify things if participants here could post specific sexual practices, acts or positions, so that Father Raffi could then rule for us on whether said practices are progressive or reactionary, and whether they would exist in Father Raffi's enlightened socialist future.

Just to fucking prove how full of shit you are, as if you confront Rafiq with an embarrassing question, just to fucking horrify you, Father Rafiq', because he is a Marxist, his verdict is eventually there will be no sexual practices, acts or positions at all, that a society whose sole basis is the unbridled expansion of productive forces, of the incessant conquest of nature and the infinite overcoming of all natural antagonisms, eventually the last antagonism will be between our logos, our subjectivity, and our actual physical, natural bodies. Your respond to this thinking of course that the only way this can occur is if Rafiq or those like him force it upon others. Yet what rafiq asserts is far more profound: The only way a socialist society will exist in the first place is if its constituents as a whole are committed to this task. Because you are not a socialist, it is unfathomable that you can imagine a collective pursuit of this. That is because, long after the proletarian dictatorship, individuals like you, the sparts, will have been lined up against a wall. All who remain to constitute the new socialist society after a proletarian dictatorship, are those who are committed to the new order. If they are not, by their own devices, then socialism cannot in the first place exist.

Our Promethean shame is that we are born rather than manufactured. Eventually we will no longer have to be ashamed: Eventually we truly can be come manufactured, and sexuality as such would become a pointless waste of time, to the incessant conquest of nature which is the sole rationality of the new socially self-conscious order. Of course insofar as men and women have genitals, and have the capacity therefore to sexually gratify themselves, sexual practices and the criticism of which will become social and subject to social scrutiny. This does not refer to external pressures which 'force' the individual to act in certain ways, but no longer is a culture of uncritically accepting sexual desires in place: The individual by their own devices will have no other option than to question their own sexuality because the basis of not having to question them, is revoked: The various social mechanisms which the individual falls back upon to justify their lack of not only sexual but social self-consciousness are no longer in place.

Subjecting sexuality to social scrutiny is not a matter of repressing it but understanding humanity as a whole at a certain sexual pace. No longer is there a 'non-sexual' subject: Our desires, in common, are understood as existing socially, and until we can artificially replace our bodies, all of us collectively are stuck with sexuality and sexual practices. What this also means is that no longer is there a culture of 'shaming' as such: No one individual is 'above it all', we are all stuck with our sexual desires, but by no means do they exist in a vacuum, i.e. independently from everything else. All we can do is mutually discuss and question those practices, why we have them, etc. Every actual Lacanian understands that sexual activity cannot be 'controlled' externally, and sexual desire cannot be eradicated merely by means of telling one to cease their desires. Rather the intricacies of sexual desire must be dealt with at the level of the pace of the individual themselves.

Early forms of this were already present during the cultural revolution, and by 'early', I mean very immature forms. Lawful restrictions of sexual behavior between consenting adults, will be completely abolished, however that does not mean at a social, cultural level, society-wide discussions, discourses on the questioning of sexuality itself, sexual desire, and so on, will not occur. That does not mean sexual obsession will not be discouraged as a distraction and hindrance to higher prerogatives. Here the position of Marxists should be the same as Lenin's: Sexuality cannot and should not become an unhealthy expenditure of energy and time among the youths, etc. There is no way to 'force' this, it is simply a matter of allowing for there to be a sense of direction, belonging, goal, for the individual, which eradicates the basis of sexual obsession and hyper-sexuality in the first place, which is only a means for the individual to cope with their deep sense of alienation. The spiritual nature of sexuality must be openly brought into the light of day, no longer reducible to ones 'biological' processes but reflecting something far deeper.

There will be many 'father Rafiqs', however interestingly enough already almost every single 'Father Rafiq' is a woman today, and a feminist. Social self-consciousness also means sexual self-consciousness, inevitably. That is not a matter of lawful restrictions, it is a matter of the responsibility of that society's constituents themselves. There will be no laws forcing individuals to be socially self-conscious, to be Communists, and there will be no laws forcing them to abandon hypersexuality. But these are inevitable consequences of the revolution in question in the first place, and if it so impotent that it cannot encompass every single sphere of life, there will be no revolution in the first place.

In the mind of the philistines, sexuality is reducible to 'practices, acts and positions', which are with regard only to enjoyment. But the entire point is not restricting this enjoyment, the point is subjecting it to critical assessment, understanding why one has it, and its deeper social meaning. There is no difference between this, for the philistines, and restricting it, because both fundamentally would lead to the eradication of their various pathological sexual desires like pedophilia. For them, sexual desire in general is natural - and is a given, to revoke it of its naturalness in their own mind is to destroy the desire itself. Of course, is it so surprising that child abusers and their apologists are horrified at the thought of being accountable for their sexual desires, i.e. at least critically reflecting upon them, understanding their relation to the social order, etc.? This is what this fucking idiot fails to understand: Father Rafiq isn't commanding anyone to do anything, in other words, you do not have father rafiq and his divine ordinance to answer for. The only person who is accountable for their sexual desires, the only person you have to answer for, is yourself. Our only task is keeping you the fuck away from minors. That's what you are truly afraid of - it is simply easy to externalize your own responsibility upon a master, and proclaim your freedom from this master. However all this 'master' is saying is that you are responsible for your sexual desires in general - YOU are, not anyone else. In other words, they are not a given, they are not 'natural', nothing outside of you compels you. This is especially true for 'normal' heterosexuality.

We know the positions of the Sparts, becuase 870 made it clear that he thinks a Communist society will be constituted by arbitrary decisions. In the mind of this hysteric, because society is now free, unrestricted by external forces or coercion, the decisions of its constituents are arbitrary. Such a fucking idiot that he didn't think it through: Freedom is the opposite of arbitrariness, because to be free from the control of another, of something external, means an even greater degree of SELF control. If nothing external from you is controlling or coercion you, the entirety of your volition and activity YOU ALONE are now fully responsible for. To take this to its highest conclusion, the socialist society will be the most uniform society, the most determinant, because freedom is the opposite of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness is only sustained by the wiggle room allotted by having a master, or external pressures herding you in this or that direction. Any Marxist should understand this: to be free from external coercion means an even greater degree of control to rationality. And rationality, as we marxists understand, is social. Therefore the more free the individaul is, the more controlled they are by the use of universal reason. The more responsible and accountable they are by it. Socialism is where each individual constituent fully embodies the universality of the society they constitute. There therefore cannot be any arbitrariness, if each individual is fully accountable to the rationality of the whole society, if each individual EQUALLY and freely is able to embody the highest capacities of human ability and human practice. Arbitrariness is an illusion - all it is, is a pretense to ones own ethical activity, decisions, actions, as somehow owing to something outside of their own conscious use of reason.

[Rafiq]

And unless you are going to give us a full, substantive response, save your fucking breath child, because we know, all of us, what you are going to say. You are going to make more 'Father raffi' jokes, you are going to encircle around the same FUCKING idea which has already been addressed, that Rafiq emulates a priest who by divine ordainance commands the faithful with rules, or you are going to hone in and isolate a peculiar phrase, sentance, and respond to it.

You fucking act like it's all a joke, like you don't take it seriously, becuase you aren't actually invested or committed to your positions. YOU DO NOT FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM and this is why you are able to present yourself as self-ironic. Like I know EXACTLY what you're going to try and fucking say, you fucking rodent, you're going to keep this appearance of being self-ironic up, say, "But Oh, father Rafiq" and whatever. You're going to go on with attempting to portray Rafiq's position as so SELF EVIDENTLY ridiculous that your caricaturized mockery of my positions is enough to show that. I'm so sick of motherfuckers acting like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amBByw1k6qo). I'm so sick of them running away from the responsibility of defending their actual positions. I'm so fucking sick of this dance, of this self-ironic means of evading hard questions.

Rather than take responsibility for your pretense to asserting my positions are ridiculuos, you think that self-ironic mockery does the talking for you. Keep laughing, rodent, you shit-talking FUCK. I am holding you directly responsible. Keep fucking laughing, funny man. What position are you in to laugh? What position are you in to mock others? What island of seriousness allows you to SUSTAIN this behavior? Please, enlighten us, dear funny man. What's next, you going to post some 'memes'? Fucking worthless shit-talker, you haven't yet realized that the only means by which you keep up this self-ironic behavior, the mockery of others, is by abdicating direct and full responsibility for your own serious positions. You do not take responsibility or identify with YOUR OWN postilion, your own partisan positions, and assume something external from you sustains your allegiance to them which is beyond your own control, i.e. at the expense of your own conscious use of reason.

And YOU DO have serious fucking positions, if you did not, you could not sustain your 'easy-going' SHIT TALKING. The continaul sustanence of your life is a serious manner. You have to at some level, evne if subconsciously, seriously articulate your own life in order to keep living. To not be serious at all, means that at some level you assume someone, some master, is being serious for you. So let's hear them, let's take responsibility for them like a big boy.

[Konikow]

the unbridled expansion


big boy.

Hubba hubba.

[Rafiq]

Case in point (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amBByw1k6qo). Ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of substance we allegedly lost with the recent 'purging'. Behold.

For those who need clarifying, it appears that Konikow isolates the three words which are together, 'the unbrindled expansion', in conjunction with two other words, 'big boy', as a means of conveying the sexual innuendo which I must confess I am confused. Is 'expansion' here taken to refer to an erection, or perhaps the expanding of one, or all of the orifices in ones body, etc.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Oh, I'm sorry. If you didn't get the great joke, it's that matters of sexuality are in and of themselves funny. Funny in the sense of funny for frat boys who don't have to pay attention to its serious side.

Just imagine the look on Rafiq's face, he must be so embarrassed to have been confronted with this sex-joke, amidst his otherwise 'serious' post! Sexuality, the last domain of "Bro, it's sex, bro, it's just havin' a good time, bro, don't do that". For the philistines, sexuality is like farting at the dinner table. It is supposed to embaress us and it is completely spared from any serious, critical discourse. They run away from serious discourse by retreating to poop jokes. Alas, the counter-culture finds its latest champion! Look at Rafiq, like an embarrassed old man. He can hark on all he wants about that 'blah blah blah' boring stuff. Poop jokes get their last laugh!

Konikow, let me ask. Oh, am I curious. I want to know - when you were typing that, did you crack a smile at all? Were you... Laughing? Please, let's have this discussion. When you were typing that, did you think it was going to provoke laughter? I am so curious about how you imagine and think of yourself, here specifically. In your mind, do you actually think you succeed in getting a last laugh? In reducing all serious matters to some untouchable domain of laughter?

God, so funny. Konikow, you should consider making 'memes' and you should consider a career in comedy. I have a joke, I'll share it with you, and I don't mind if you credit yourself in the future when you tell others, oh boy if you thought your joke was funny, just see how this will get em' laughin'!: Poo poo pee pee ca ca shit butt. HA! Get it?

[Konikow]

fucking ... fucking ... fucking ... motherfucker ... ordanaince [?] ... FUCKING rodent ... FUCKING ... fucking ... fucking ... it cannot be denied ... fucking ... hold male sexual desire ... motherfuckers... unbrindled male desire ... fucking ... shit ... fucking ... up against a wall... sexual obsession ... child abusers and their apologists ... fucking ... the fuck ... hysteric ... fucking ... the socialist society will be the most uniform society ...

Father Raffi, you need an editor. Or maybe use bolder fonts and more colors will help you get your message across?

[Aurorus Ruber]

Our Promethean shame is that we are born rather than manufactured. Eventually we will no longer have to be ashamed: Eventually we truly can be come manufactured, and sexuality as such would become a pointless waste of time, to the incessant conquest of nature which is the sole rationality of the new socially self-conscious order.

I apologize for interrupting this discussion, but what do you mean by being manufactured rather than born? Do you mean that metaphorically or are you suggesting that we will one day be manufactured by technological means rather than born through biological processes?

[Rafiq]

Father Raffi, you need an editor. Or maybe use bolder fonts and more colors will help you get your message across?

In the mind of this 12 year old each word is but a bridge to a no-no word. Nothing matters in between the no-no words. Everything revolves around them, apparently. He actually tries and expects us to buy that the entirety of the content can be ignored because of these no-no words. Each word... Is but the prelude, in Konikow's mind, to the elicitation of shock that comes from seeing the no-no words.

He does all of this to avoid actually confronting the substantive points at hand and uses them to allow himself to abdicate responsibility from it.

- - - Updated - - -


I apologize for interrupting this discussion, but what do you mean by being manufactured rather than born? Do you mean that metaphorically or are you suggesting that we will one day be manufactured by technological means rather than born through biological processes?

I do not mean it metaphorically. The prospect of artificial birth, while far off, is not as far off as some would think.

[Konikow]

the substantive points at hand

Grandiose pseudophilosophical thumbsucking in support of obsessive moral panic triggered by slander is neither substantive nor a "point," Father Raffi.

[Alet]

It is a part of the 'Beverly hills homosexuality' (a term I made up) which represents the revoking of homosexuality of its subversive dimension. It is not just Milo but more generally Silicon Valley's attempt to revoke homosexualtiy of its subversive, POLITICALLY partisan dimension.


The epoch of the sexual puritan is dead. Sexual transgressions are business as usual and the order of the day.

What confuses me then is this article by Milo (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/14/im-sooo-bored-of-being-gay/). What exactly do you mean by "dead" here? If hypersexuality is sustained by the transgression of conservative rules, aren't the puritans the necessary counterpart? Milo explicitly states that: "All the best sex – in fact, all the best things in life – are transgressive and naughty. But there’s a problem when forbidden fruits go mainstream.", and that he "want[s] to feel oppressed again" etc. How can sexual transgressions ever become business as usual while at the same time entail the perspective of the marginalized, oppressed, and so on? Or is it simply that rightists in general are hypocritical regarding sex and sexual morality?

[Rafiq]

Grandiose pseudophilosophical thumbsucking in support of obsessive moral panic triggered by slander is neither substantive nor a "point," Father Raffi.

In other words, Konikow is admits he refuses to, like a pathetic creature clinging and tugging his master's cloak, engage in the conscious use of reason, because he allows something else, or someone else, to think for him. That force, that external source of authority which guarantees him knowledge of the alleged 'true essence' of Rafiq's arguments, the 'true essence' which is supposedly the least common denominator to all the "MEANINGLESS" 'blah blah blah'.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, this is how philistines think. They are incapable fo the actual, critical use of thought, in the meaningful sense: They possess a finite and limited notion of the multiplicity of possible essences, and meanings. They think - or are - like cynics. The cynic, for example, assumes definitely that there exists a finite number of true essences behind any and all human meaning that ultimately break down to money, power, sex, or whatever you want. This shit-talking little fuck (Another no-no word, dear child) is comfortable knowing that because of his innate idealism and assertion of a constrains, limited multiplicity of human activity, is therefore like the Spart cult allowed to sustain his finite, static universe as recourse against the real world. Everything and all things ultimately are essentially constituted by those limited kinds of intentions, meanings, etc. which characterize the world of the philistine.

Only a philistine can speak of "grandiose pseudophilosophical thumbsucking" instead of a head-on detailed confrontation with the actual words and assemblage of words in question in relation to their purported meaning. In order to get that what I say is meaningless, this first has to be proven and demonstrated by merit of carefully and in a thorough manner subjecting the use of words and their organization to the necessary scrutiny that can lead us to the conclusion that what I say in fact revolves around a far more simpler, 'cynical' point of 'obsessive moral panic'. Here's the truth, you're a worthless shit-talker who can't put their money where their mouth is. I insult you, and I attack you, but I back that up. You don't - you simply assume it is self-evident that the very basis that you mock your opponent, is a self-evident given. This is why you're simply a fucking idiot: You simply think the presuppositions, including talk of 'obsessive moral panic', you don't have to be responsible for and are sustained by god himself.


What confuses me then is this article by Milo (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/14/im-sooo-bored-of-being-gay/). What exactly do you mean by "dead" here? If hypersexuality is sustained by the transgression of conservative rules, aren't the puritans the necessary counterpart? Milo explicitly states that: "All the best sex – in fact, all the best things in life – are transgressive and naughty. But there’s a problem when forbidden fruits go mainstream.", and that he "want[s] to feel oppressed again" etc. How can sexual transgressions ever become business as usual while at the same time entail the perspective of the marginalized, oppressed, and so on? Or is it simply that rightists in general are hypocritical regarding sex and sexual morality?

It is not the puritans who are the necessary counterpart, only their purported existence. In other words, what sustains the transgression of conservative rules does not have to be that anyone is the direct mouthpiece or authority of these rules, but that the formal rules are still, formally, in place as acknowledged by the transgressors. But it is the purported existence and respect for these rules which sustains the transgression. My claim is that many Leftists still assume that these rules exist, and the true way to overcome hypersexuality is to recognize that they don't, that in ones transgression, one is in fact transgressing nothing, one is in fact defying no rules. This is why conservatives find not hypersexuality but a culture of 'liberal political correctness' so frightening, which legitimizes previously transgressive sexual acts as normal, fine, so long as they abide by certain rules, and so on. By legitimizing sex, sex becomes accountable. But the previous filth, transgressions of the filthy bourgeois morality, came with rape, abuse, an attitude of 'may as well' and so on. I should clarify: It is not that we ought to oppose sexual freedoms, a culture which disencourages 'slut-shaming' and so on, we should simply recognize that hypersexuality and sexual obsession (which is never simply the actual acts of sex themselves) is not only a religious-like distraction, it is to its core reactionary.

Of course, we know the truth, those sexual degenerates, i.e. cartoon-fetishists and pedophiles (both of the same pathology), are usually the same ones who more or less are for the greater restricting of woman's sexual freedom and often times they are even in favor of a return to 'traditional gender roles'. But one must understand the subtleties of what this means: It does not mean a return to sexual conservatism as before per se, it is hand in hand with the same male sexual pathology whose aim is the enslavement of woman.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I do not mean it metaphorically. The prospect of artificial birth, while far off, is not as far off as some would think.

So you're talking about something in the vein of transhumanism?

[Rafiq]

So you're talking about something in the vein of transhumanism?

Perhaps it would be better to specify as 'democratic transhumanism', however what is called trans-humanism is ambiguous. Iti s ambiguous in the sense of in what sense would the manipulation of our physiology occur and for what purpose. It is here that there would be vast differences between the self-conquest of man's own physicality as an extension of social self-consciousness and ideas of 'transhumanism' as they are popularly held.