Occupy Fights Patriarchy, Defends Child Molestation
Once again, Zombie reports from Occupy’s moral wasteland. This time, the object of the protestors’ umbrage was a conference on how to combat child sex trafficking:
If there’s one issue that unites Americans of all political stripes, it’s the sexual enslavement of children. Whatever our opinions on other issues, we all agree that sex trafficking and the prostituting of children is an outrage and a tragedy. Thus, conference attendees included liberal, moderate and conservative politicians; progressive non-profit organisations; law enforcement groups; religious leaders; and (according to the conference website) “social services, medical providers, mental health, education, probation, and community-based organisations.” In short: Everybody. Everybody, that is, except Occupy Wall Street, who somehow found a way to oppose the abolition of child sexual slavery.
This being Occupy, their thinking on this issue is knotty, dogmatic and a little confused:
Sex work, like all forms of work, can only exist within a society based on hierarchical economic systems like capitalism, which are protected by the police and patronising reformist organisations that keep exploited people from revolting. The pigs are the enemies of sex workers, and of all workers.
In the last nine years, the FBI – sorry, “the pigs” – have rescued over 2,100 children from coerced prostitution. But apparently we are all being “subjugated by the continued existence of capital.” And so, for the sake of the glorious revolution, no-one should object to the sexual molestation of thirteen-year-old girls. Or something.
As Zombie notes,
The protesters’ main banner said “Fucking to survive is life under capitalism.” This sums up the nearly incomprehensible cognitive dissonance at the core of the Occupy Oakland Patriarchy philosophy. They manage to hold two mutually exclusive thoughts simultaneously: 1. We are sex workers and proud of it, and there is nothing wrong with prostitution, so stop oppressing us with your prudish laws; And, 2. The only reason we are compelled to have this degrading and unpleasant profession is that capitalism forces people to exchange labour for money – only a total anti-capitalist revolution can put an end to prostitution.
The Occupiers attempted to stop the conference topple the capitalist patriarchy with air-horns and the obligatory “bum rush” – i.e., scuffles and vandalism. Nothing in particular was achieved, of course, but the Occupiers seemed happy with their efforts. It was, they say, “one hell of a performance.” Their own post-protest report, which is truly a thing to behold, includes such gems as this:
We set out with the intentions of shutting the fucker down and started the event with the distribution of some dope literature, some inflammatory speeches, the harassment of mainstream media and of course the all-out taunting of the police. It got taken a step further when the crowd attempted to enter the lobby of the Marriott Convention Centre. This all resulted in a rumble with the pigs, the vandalised facade of the convention centre entrance with eggs and paint, and a march to and from Oscar Grant Plaza. We would say that this was a nice way to spend an afternoon and, for a brief moment, fulfilled our goal of shutting the fucker down.
Yes, “dope literature” and “a rumble with the pigs.” Now get with the hipster’s moral vanguard, you patriarchal squares.
So is Occupy now an offshoot of NAMBLA?
“We set out with the intentions of shutting the fucker down and started the event with the distribution of some dope literature, some inflammatory speeches, the harassment of mainstream media…”
From such an auspicious beginning, it’s hard to see how it could all dissolve into chaos, confusion and recrimination, isn’t it?
In the last nine years, the FBI – sorry, “the pigs” – have rescued over 2,100 children from coerced prostitution. But apparently we are all being “subjugated by the continued existence of capital.” And so, for the sake of the glorious revolution, no-one should object to the sexual molestation of thirteen-year-old girls. Or something.
Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and Laurie Penny were unavailable for comment.
But they can’t be wrong. They are the 99%…
Somehow “Forward with Pederasty!” is not a campaign slogan that is going to win a lot of friends.
Not that thuggist Occupy wants friends anymore than brownshirts did.
I’m still trying to get to grips with this nugget:
“Sex work, like all forms of work, can only exist within a society based on hierarchical economic systems like capitalism.”
The Occupiers’ Marxoid fantasy world will then, presumably, be entirely free of work, chores and drudgery. In their non-exploitative, non-hierarchical utopia, nothing tiresome or unflattering will need doing and so no-one will need to do it. No-one will be “exploited” by the task of earning a living and magic chocolate popcorn will fall from the sky.
Straight into their mouths, obviously.
I can’t wait for this summer’s political conventions. Soros and his media toadies cooked up this whole Occupy “movement” and now they’re going to get a repeat of Chicago 1968. Which, as those ignorant idiots apparently fail to recall, gave Nixon a landslide.
Does anyone think that the antics of the Occupyers will gain Obama a single vote? We all know how moderate voters love to join with violent fanatics.
Trimegistus,
“We all know how moderate voters love to join with violent fanatics.”
It reminds me of another Occupy guru, the comical academic David Graeber, whose areas of scholarly expertise include “anthropology and anarchism” and “magic as a tool of politics,” and who lists “smashing capitalism” among his long-term goals. Mr Graeber seems to believe that voters will be thrilled by the “anti-capitalist struggle… destabilising the country” and “a vision of revolution inspired by anarchism.” As Mr Graeber spends much of his time surrounded by impressionable teenagers and other leftwing fantasists, this may explain his disinterest in – and disregard for – the actual electorate.
Wasn’t “the world is watching” an occubot slogan?
Hmm. How’s that one working out?
Mags,
“Hmm. How’s that one working out?”
Quite. Like so much else, I don’t think they’d thought it through. Possibly because they’re so busy building “communities of solidarity” and “networks of revenge.”
I wish to know more about this magic chocolate popcorn.
“…and, for a brief moment, fulfilled our goal of shutting the fucker down.”
No, they didn’t. What a crock. They never even managed to get into to the lobby. The participants in the conference were probably barely aware of Occupodpeople’s presence.
More of the magical thinking we’ve come to expect from these over-indulged adolescents.
When the Occupy movement was primarily about the excesses of Wall Street, many moderates and even conservatives had to admit there was some justification in the complaints. But OWS seems to be drifting leftwards, losing the support of anyone with two neurons to rub together.
What have these people actually done for the benefit of society? Have they built a bridge? Fed the hungry? Developed a new medicine? Flipped hamburgers? Have they done anything except attempt to live off of the labours of others?
The extreme left isn’t about building a better society, but about tearing down the existing one. That’s why their tactics are often based on obstruction and destruction. Can any intelligent person believe that the far left is about peace, justice, and prosperity when their actions and rhetoric are filled with violence and hate?
“Have they built a bridge?”
No, but they did try to blow one up
“Fed the hungry?”
Again, no, but they have ruined a research farm at Berkeley U
“Developed a new medicine?”
And once again, not as such. But they have spread outbreaks of ringworm, bodylice, TB and similar Dickensian diseases not commonly seen this side of 1920.
Bart:
Well that leaves hamburger flipping, a respectable if under-appreciated endeavour. I only prey they washed their hands first.
“…and magic chocolate popcorn will fall from the sky.”
Now why does that sentiment ring a bell?
Ah, yes, now I recall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoC83orA4ys
God, it takes careful instruction to be so totally incapable of rational thought, so unable to engage in introspection or self-analysis.
‘Childlike’ is a word that leaps to mind.
“This all resulted in a rumble with the pigs, the vandalised facade of the convention centre entrance with eggs and paint, and a march to and from Oscar Grant Plaza. We would say that this was a nice way to spend an afternoon and, for a brief moment, fulfilled our goal of shutting the fucker down.”
Yeah, I forgot to add that I hope someday to see their goddamned heads caved in with hickory.
What’s with the British/Canadian spelling, e.g., vandalised, centre? Adbusters types writing the report?
Adbusters types writing the report?
…or, perhaps, the merely literate?
😉
Cheers,
Dean
rjm319,
The spelling used in quotes tends to get Anglicised. Keeping two different spellings (English and Heathen) looks untidy.
“Have they built a bridge?”
No, but they did try to blow one up
“Fed the hungry?”
Again, no, but they have ruined a research farm at Berkeley U
“Developed a new medicine?”
And once again, not as such. But they have spread outbreaks of ringworm, bodylice, TB and similar Dickensian diseases not commonly seen this side of 1920.
LOL
Seriously though, what do these morons hope to achieve?
Adam,
“Seriously though, what do these morons hope to achieve?”
I don’t think you’ll get far in understanding the Occupiers and their motives if you assume they’re being remotely honest. We’re down to the hardcore dregs and their assorted psychodramas. But it may help if you approach Occupy as a colossal exercise in bad faith.
In many cases, these are people who claim to conceive freedom as the abolition of money, free trade and private property, which are the practical basis of actual freedom from the overbearing collective, i.e., people like themselves. In fact, they seem to conceive freedom as unfettered access to someone else’s earnings and other people’s stuff. (See, for example, this grinning opportunist.) But stating such motives honestly wouldn’t flatter them. And for many, perhaps most, that’s what matters.
Look at their chosen tactics. Obstruction, vandalism, mob intimidation: “This is what democracy looks like.” Screwing with other people who are just going about their business – exerting power over them – is, for many, a major thrill. Though again, they don’t like to be confronted with their own vindictive urges. And don’t forget the words of Adbusters editor and Occupy founder Kalle Lasn. Asked to summarise the ethos of his ‘protest’ movement, Lasn offered this: “It’s about antagonising people and slapping them around a little bit and waking them up to reality.” Yes, they’re slapping us around for our own good. Because they care so very, very much.
They actually say, “pigs”?
How cool is that, Daddy-O? They’ll be jiving and smoking reefer next.
Why doesn’t someons find the study that was done showing how large the problem was in the Soviet Union. If I remember correctly it was pretty bad.
Mark,
Didn’t you know that the Soviet Union wasn’t Communist? It was something entirely different invented by the Soviet Communist Party which had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘real’ communism and drew no inspiration at all from Marx. The same goes for China. And North Korea. And Cuba. And the GLC.
Always nice to have a clearly defined goal…
“We set out with the intentions of shutting the fucker down”
Personally, I was tickled by the fact that the “Bay of Rage anti-capitalist clearinghouse” website is a .com. Shurley shome mishtake?
Oh Geez. A guy just came by canvassing for the Democratic Party – nice kid; local college student; armed with a set of pathetically self-serving talking points shot through with brazen, unsubstantiated statements of summary fact and moral authority. Par for the course, in terms of political canvassing.
I let him run on for a while, which let him cover a lot of territory because he was speaking too fast. (Canvassers, slow down!! People tune you out at once if you immediately hose them down with verbiage!).
One of his refrains was about resisting the “extreme” Tea Party people who are “right wing extremist” with an “extreme agenda”.
I smiled inside, thinking of OWS.
Btw, I don’t know if anybody pointed it out above, but at least 10+ years ago in the U.S. “dope” was a slang term for something that was strong, good, wise, truly expressed etc. Could be it was used in that sense; I expect it was because when the OWS people aren’t fifty years stale, they are at least ten years stale.
“Could be it was used in that sense; I expect it was because when the OWS people aren’t fifty years stale, they are at least ten years stale.”
Well, when you’re striving for a bold, new, brave revolutionary future of unfettered freedom and profound solidarity based on the repeatedly failed ideas (which have created tyrannical oppression and mass murder across half the globe at one point or another) of a wealthy middle-aged 19th century deadbeat, then, yes, ideas that are ten-to-fifty years past their prime likely do seem very… progressive.
Every generation loves to think that they invented oral sex, and, it would also seem, that tyranny in their hands will be the benevolent one that the world so desperately needs.
T.K. Tortch, they probably meant “dope” in the sense of an intoxicating substance–you know, Children’s Strength Rohypnol.
The cognitive dissonance in these people’s heads must sound like an air raid siren. You can’t square this circle. Of course, it’s futile to assume that any of them argued themselves from first principles into a position where they are ‘against exploitation’ but pro-child prostitution. It’s not bad faith, but absence of any faith beyond narcissistic rage.
Stuck-Record,
‘They actually say, “pigs”? How cool is that, Daddy-O? They’ll be jiving and smoking reefer next.’
Funnily enough, in Flashman And The Redskins, set in 1849, George MacDonald Fraser has his hero say:
‘The old faggot as good as promised that if I didn’t take her, she’d whistle up the pigs.’
His footnote to this is:
‘Pigs, ie, police. An interesting example of how slang and cant repeat themselves across the centuries. The term is commonly thought of as a product of the 1960-70s, chiefly among protest groups; in fact it was current even before Flashman’s time, but seems to have vanished from the vulgar vocabulary for over a hundred years.’
I’m not about to defend those Occupy nutters, but I can see why consenting adult prostitutes would have issues with law enforcement and certain anti-trafficking NGOs. Even with the conference focusing on child sexual exploitation, the policies they’re discussing do affect adults too.
For example, look at the FBI led campaign you’ve linked to. Rescuing 2100 exploited kids is a great thing (it’d be even better if fewer ended up back on the streets afterwards), but the vast majority of the prostitutes caught up in those raids were adults.
The press release for ‘Innocence Lost’ Sting II seems to be the only one where there’s a full breakdown of the arrests. During that national operation 49 children were rescued (the youngest just 13 years old), and 73 pimps were caught, but they also arrested 518 adult prostitutes. 17 year old prostitutes are victims to be saved, but as soon as they turn 18 they’re criminals to be prosecuted with the pimps and traffickers.
Thinking that situation’s a bit messed up, and that law enforcement should help children and sex slaves while leaving consenting adults alone, doesn’t mean that someone thinks child sex abuse is A-OK.
Look closer at some of those NGOs and you’ll find Marxist/feminist dogma that’s about on a par with Occupy’s drivel. For example, the idea that women brought up in our ‘evil capitalist patriarchy’ are so brainwashed and damaged that they’re suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Even if the prostitutes are adults who insist they’ve made a choice, some of those NGOs still consider them enslaved, suffering from false consciousness, and in need of rescue whether they like it or not.
Occupy lunacy aside, I think there’s some valid criticism of law enforcement practices and the policies of many anti-trafficking NGOs, especially from a libertarian perspective.
Kendall,
“Occupy lunacy aside, I think there’s some valid criticism of law enforcement practices and the policies of many anti-trafficking NGOs, especially from a libertarian perspective.”
I’m sure there is. But we’re not seeing any of it from Oakland Occupy Patriarchy. Unless, that is, the way to improve the situation is to forcibly “shut down” and “fuck up” attempts to discuss it while building “networks of revenge” and waiting for an anti-capitalist “revolt” by “anarchists… who hate work,” after which “hierarchical economic systems” will supposedly be swept away, along with coerced prostitution and chores of any kind.
[ Added: ]
The Occupiers’ own website claims, bizarrely, that prostitution, including child sex trafficking, exists only within, and because of, “the horrors of capitalism.” They claim that those who intervene in, or disapprove of, child sex trafficking – chiefly “the pigs” and “reformist organisations” – also defend capitalism and “keep exploited people from revolting.” Apparently this unspecified defence of capitalism makes them evil regardless of the particulars in any given intervention – “the pigs are the enemy,” “there are no good cops,” etc. Holding a conference about child sex trafficking is, they say, “an invitation to war” – a war against “those subjugated by the continued existence of capital.” (Or, as they put in elsewhere, people who “hate work.”) We’re also encouraged to believe that prostitution (including presumably child prostitution) is both hip and heroic – “we are great performers,” “divas,” “bitches will fuck you up” – and, simultaneously, a vice caused by capitalism.
The whole thing reads like the random outpourings of a mind come undone.
waiting for an anti-capitalist “revolt” by “anarchists… who hate work,”
Heh! They call themselves ‘anarchists’ because they don’t want to earn a living (meaning someone else should do it for them). I’m amazed they admit it.
But wait a minute. If they’re so lazy who’s going to overthrow capitalism? It sounds too much like hard work.
rjmadden,
“I’m amazed they admit it.”
Yes, it’s one of the few honest statements on their website. And yes, when anti-capitalists say they hate the idea of earning a living, what they generally mean is that some other sucker should do it for them and then hand over their earnings indefinitely and without complaint. Because, being anti-capitalists, they’re radical and fabulous, and therefore entitled. It’s strange how readily these people depict an existential problem – the need to sustain oneself – as if it were only an artefact of capitalism and market economies. As if doing away with these things would – by some miraculous and unexplained means – leave everyone gorged, warm and happy.
“But wait a minute. If they’re so lazy who’s going to overthrow capitalism?”
Why, it’s almost as if they hadn’t quite thought it through.
Sound points all, David. But I’d just like to go further and point out that:
“…prostitution, including child sex trafficking, exists only within, and because of, “the horrors of capitalism.”‘
http://babalublog.com/?s=tourism&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
“They claim that those who intervene in, or disapprove of, child sex trafficking – chiefly “the pigs” and “reformist organisations” – also defend capitalism and “keep exploited people from revolting.”‘
http://babalublog.com/?s=gulag&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
…are so goddamn ridiculous on their face.
Regarding the first statement, I specifically recall one post on Babalu commenting on a leftist editorial/opinion piece which sneered at the “intransigent” Cuban exiles for seeking to block tourism to Cuba in one breath, and in the next bragged about how he (the leftist) would soon be on the beaches “partying”, shall we say, with some of those lovely mulatto Cuban girls whom the Castro regime has reduced to considering “state-sponsored prostitute” as one of the better ways of avoiding utter poverty.
All it ever seems to really come down to is the golden rule of the narcissist:
One law for me, and another for thee!
OT David, but dear Laurie’s at it again:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/blogs/steerpike/2012/june/pennys-nonviolent-clash-with-starkey
Dr Cromarty,
Heh. My inbox has been heaving with links to Laurie’s latest meltdown. For those with a taste for slapstick, the longer video can be found here. As the video pretty much speaks for itself, I’m not sure what to add. Though I suppose it’s worth noting that our self-styled ‘riot girl’ and would-be revolutionary – the one who delights in Occupy’s mob intimidation and, as she puts it, “upsetting the police” – now claims to be “shaken” by the “violence” of an elderly historian waving a finger in her face.
I think the highlight is when a flustered and indignant Laurie says that she “really doesn’t appreciate being stood onstage to be personally attacked.” This is said, apparently in all seriousness, just seconds after she’d called Starkey a racist – twice – and, based on nothing, insinuated tax misdemeanours on his part. And when the audience points out that she was the one who’d started the personal comments, her voice gets even squeakier and more indignant: “Excuse me! I haven’t finished! There’s a violence inherent…”
Let’s hope Laurie never develops self-awareness. She brings so much laughter to our lives.
our self-styled ‘riot girl’ and would-be revolutionary… now claims to be “shaken” by the “violence” of an elderly historian waving a finger in her face.
Laurie Penny’s logic:
Rioting and smashing windows is cool.
Shouting people down is cool.
Intimidating people physically is cool.
Laurie being scolded in public is so unfair.
Rafi,
“Laurie being scolded in public is so unfair.”
I see you’ve got the hang of it.
When it comes to fashionable ideological ticks, Laurie bought the whole store. Evidently, this bestows a number of advantages. For instance, it would seem that she is always entitled to sympathy and feelings of being wronged (and ‘being wronged’ includes being disagreed with, refuted or mocked, all of which constitute “hatred” and “being attacked”). However, Laurie is never responsible for her own statements and behaviour; nor is she ever responsible for how others respond to that behaviour, even when she makes claims that are ridiculous and/or dishonest. And of course she’s always entitled to moral indignation, even on subjects she knows next to nothing about.
That sounds exactly like how you’d expect a toddler to react.
Ac1,
“That sounds exactly like how you’d expect a toddler to react.”
The entire #Occupy movement in a nutshell.
No, they didn’t. What a crock. They never even managed to get into to the lobby.
This is a great indicator of a certain type of person. No matter what happens they will declare victory and yet despite their unbroken string of victories they will always wail about being the victimized underdog. Co-incidentally, they seem to significantly overlap with those who assert that some bad thing exists solely because of capitalism.
That sounds exactly like how you’d expect a toddler to react.
“I want to say that there’s a violence… inherent in this, this… in this sandbox.” – another Pennyism that can, with slight modification, be used in practically any situation.
(btw, jabbing a finger in someone’s face like that is extraordinarily rude.)