The Strawman of ‘Little Adults’

I swear I’ve heard or otherwise come across this strawman dozens upon dozens of times. ‘…but kids are not little adults!’

Nobody fucking said they were. Nobody.

As misleading as I realize many sex stereotypes to be, women are also not merely miniature men. In certain respects, women tend to be smaller and weaker than men, yet it does not follow that they merit patronizing ‘protection’ by Daddy State. Likewise, children tend to be in some senses smaller, weaker, and less experienced than adults, but in no way does that excuse protectionist policies with regard to kids. Indeed, it is these very policies that serve to keep kids as ignorant and dependent as possible. Don’t be fooled by the fact that ‘child advocates’ support these policies. Keep an eye on the actual results of a policy rather than the supposed raison d’être. ‘Child advocates’ who support a State ban on child labor actually show their contempt for the abilities of children. It’s much the way ‘feminists’ who support a State ban on pornography are in reality, as opposed to rhetoric, among the most fanatical foes of female empowerment.

Scratch ‘innocence’ and you what you will find is ignorance. Lift the veil of ‘purity’ or ‘dignity’ and you might just see a jagged black hole where a beautiful clitoris and labia once bloomed. When you come across the rhetoric of protection, read or listen between the lines and you’ll realize that it is a craven glorification of weakness. No, children and women are not merely adult men in miniature. Yet that is all the more reason they need the opportunity to show that they can stand on their own.

Protecting Kids From Abuse

It is often said that there is a compelling need to “protect” kids from “sexual abuse” through laws and other forms of intervention.

I can understand how this might sound good in theory but in practice the resulting expansion of police powers requires far greater power imbalances than exist in individual acts of rape or abuse (however defined). Even when the intentions are supposed to be good the “cure” tends to be far more destructive than the “disease.”

Which is really more likely to ensure a lifetime of trauma for a child: being forced to have sex a few times on one hand, or on other getting ripped away from home and shuffled to one lousy foster home after another, indoctrinated with bullshit “therapy,” compelled to testify against her own close family members, exploited by the sensationalist media to stir up pedohysteria, etc., etc.?

These laws and punishments are worse than useless except to busybody parasites who capitalize on paranoia, hysteria and misery. What is the ‘innocence’ of children if not more than anything else a fantastic projection by adults? The state of ‘innocence’ is more mythopoetic than real, but let us set that aside for now. Even if children were ‘innocent’ before being ‘molested’ none of these laws or punishments could possibly bring their innocence back. What good do they really do? There is no evidence that they deter rape or abuse, however defined, so much as push these further into the shadows. Gandhi had a point when he said, “An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind.” If we want to open our eyes rather than blind ourselves and each other, we need honest and open communication, not macho ‘law and order’ posturing. The ‘war on child abuse’ is a racket no less than the ‘war on terror’ or indeed any other war waged by the state.

I personally know children who demand sexual freedom, but I’ve never heard a child ask for a ‘war on child abuse’. This is a war waged by adults for adults. Among the elites it is driven principally by greed and above all the lust for power; among the hoi polloi it is fueled by hysteria and blind rage as they seek out monsters to destroy. Yet there will never be enough witches hounded or demons exorcised to satisfy the moralists’ sanctified sadism, because if children are cherubs, they are fallen angels like the rest of us, even though they retain the beauty of heaven.

The antis’ crusade is driven by love for their own myth of childhood, yet this ideation precariously masks an ugly devaluation and outright hatred of children as they actually are.

Drink to This!

The ultimate abolition of power monopolies must necessarily entail the elimination of all legal restrictions on alcohol and a relaxed, non-stigmatic attitude toward drinking, regardless of age. Would this likely lead to a society full of out-of-control drunks? Hardly! Alcoholism is least common in cultures wherein alcohol is least taboo – even to the point of kids being taught to drink from a young age.

“Italians, like Jews, are a group whose members tend to drink and to have low rates of alcohol problems. The attitudes and behaviors of Italians in the United States are a reflection of those in Italy, where children are introduced to alcohol as part of their regular family life and learn to drink moderate amounts while still young. In both countries, alcohol is commonly drunk with meals and is considered a natural and normal food. Most people agree that alcohol in moderation, for those who choose to drink, is necessary, and that abuse is unacceptable and results in immediate sanctions. People are not pressured to drink, and abstention does not offend others; drinking reflects sociability and social cohesion rather than a means to achieve them. Very few people drink for the physiological effect, and most people take alcohol for granted, with no mixed feelings or uncertainty about it.” Hanson, D.J., “The United States of America,” pp. 300-315 in Heath, D.B., ed., International Handbook on Alcohol and Culture, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1995, p. 309.

“In Italy, in contrast to America, drinking is institutionalized as part of family life and dietary and religious custom; alcohol (wine) is introduced early in life, within the context of the family, and as a traditional accompaniment to meals and a healthful way of enhancing the diet. Drinking is not, as it is in America, associated with transformation of status from adolescence to adulthood; alcohol use is not an illicit activity for Italian youth; and heavy, consistent use of alcohol in Italy does not carry with it the same `problem’ connotation that it does in America. Such an approach to the socialization of alcohol use should make it less likely in Italy than in America that drinking will be learned as a way of trying to solve personal problems or of coping with inadequacy and failure.” Jessor, R., et al., “Perceived Opportunity, Alienation, and Drinking Behavior Among Italian and American Youth,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, Vol. 15, 215-222 (quote pp. 215-216).

“Clearly, alcohol is not placed in a separate moral category in the Spanish cognitive map but rather constitutes one class of beverages among others, all of which are sold in the same establishment and generally have some degree of association with food consumption. Martinez and Martin (1987, p. 46) well summarize the integral position of alcohol in Spanish culture: `The consumption of alcohol is [as] integrated into common behaviors as sleeping and eating.’” Rooney, J.F., “Patterns of Alcohol Use in Spanish Society,” pp. 381-397 in Pittman, D.J., and White, H.R., eds., Society, Culture, and Drinking Patterns Reexamined, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, New Brunswick, NJ, 1991, pp. 382-383.

“[Chinese-Americans] drink and become intoxicated, yet for the most part drinking to intoxication is not habitual, dependence on alcohol is uncommon and alcoholism is a rarity…. The children drank, and they soon learned a set of attitudes that attended the practice. While drinking was socially sanctioned, becoming drunk was not. The individual who lost control of himself under the influence of liquor was ridiculed and, if he persisted in his defection, ostracized. His continued lack of moderation was regarded not only as a personal shortcoming, but as a deficiency of the family as a whole. Barnett, M.L., “Alcoholism in the Cantonese of New York City: An anthropological study,” pp. 179-227 in Diethelm, O., ed., Etiology of Chronic Alcoholism, Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1955.

“The protective social processes [that put the Jew in a special lifelong relationship with alcohol] are as follows: (1) association of alcohol abuse with non-Jews; (2) integration of moderate drinking norms, practices, and symbolism for oneself and significant others during childhood by means of religious and secular ritual; (3) continual reiteration of moderate drinking through restriction of most primary relationships to other moderate drinkers; and (4) a repertoire of techniques to avoid drinking more than one wants to drink amid social pressure.” Glassner, B., and Berg, B., “How Jews Avoid Alcohol Problems,” American Sociological Review, 1980, Vol. 45, 647-664 (quote p. 653).

“In the Jewish culture the wine is sacred and drinking is an act of communion. The act is repeated again and again and the attitudes toward drinking are all bound up with attitudes toward the sacred in the mind and emotions of the individual. In my opinion this is the central reason why drunkenness is regarded as so `indecent’–so unthinkable–for a Jew.” Bales, R.F., “Rates of Alcoholism: Cultural Differences,” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1946, Vol. 6, 480-499 (quote p. 493).

“Jewish alcohol socialization practices virtually duplicate the five conditions that are correlated cross-culturally with nonabusive drinking patterns and low rates of alcoholism.” Zinberg, N.E., “Alcohol Addiction: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition,” pp. 97-127 in Bean, M.H., and Zinberg, N.E., eds., Dynamic Approaches to the Understanding and Treatment of Alcoholism, Free Press, New York, 1981, p. 111.

“…drinking itself cannot cause the many problems associated with alcohol, since orthodox Jews clearly demonstrate that virtually every member of a group can be exposed to drinking alcoholic beverages without suffering from drinking pathologies. Drinking norms, along with socio-cultural ritualism, are instituted early for the orthodox Jew. Alcoholic consumption, while occurring frequently and regularly throughout the Jew’s lifetime, is closely related to social and religious ritual, which in turn provides the substance for his cultural lifestyle.” French, L., and Bertoluzzi, R., “The Drunken Indian Stereotypes and the Eastern Cherokees,” pp. 15-24 in Hornby, R., ed., Alcohol and Native Americans, Sinte Gleska University Press, Mission, SD, 1994, p. 17 (citing Snyder, C., Alcohol and the Jews, Free Press, Glencoe, IL, 1958).

“…The Protestant fundamentalist churches, which have no culturally defined role for alcohol, i.e., those which advocate abstinence, have the highest probability rate for drinking pathologies. Of these groups, the southern Baptists have the highest drinking pathology probability rate. The probable reason for this is that they isolate attitudes toward drinking from other inhibitory and controlling aspects of the personality…. [These conditions] necessitate that drinking be learned from dissident members of the group or members of other groups who may suggest and reinforce utilitarian drinking attitudes.” French and Bertoluzzi, “The Drunken Indian Stereotypes,” p. 17.

“With the Irish, the treatment is tried–and untrue. All his life the kid has been hearing of the evils of the drink, and how his loving mother suffered at the hands of his rotten father because of it. And, at the end of the threnody, `Ah, but it’s in the blood, I guess.’ [After the boy gets drunk] the wrath of God descends. The priest comes into the house. He makes it clear that what you have done is worse than the violation of a vestal virgin. The mother of the house sobs quietly. The old man, craven, orders another beer at the corner saloon…. If a system has been devised to produce a confirmed alcoholic to exceed this one in efficiency, I know it not.” McCabe, C., The Good Man’s Weakness, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1974, pp. 31-32.

“It is consistent with Irish culture to see the use of alcohol in terms of black or white, good or evil, drunkenness or complete abstinence.” Vaillant, G.E., The Natural History of Alcoholism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, p. 226.

“Clearly, it is within the cultural context that genetics and familial considerations of Indian alcoholism become meaningful. Not only was distilled alcohol unknown to this group prior to white contact, severe controls administered by the federal government through the General Indian Intercourse Act (1832-1953) denied American Indians the opportunity to establish acceptable drinking norms. Given this situation, subcultural, deviant drinking norms emerged to fill the therapeutic void alcohol seems to offer. And since a de facto policy of enforced abstinence still prevails in Indian/white interaction these deviant drinking patterns continue to the present.” French, L., “Substance Abuse Treatment Among American Indian Children,” pp. 237-245 in Hornby, R., ed., Alcohol and Native Americans, Sinte Gleska University Press, Mission, SD, 1994, p. 241.

“The major colonial powers exported to those areas of the globe that fell under their control not only models of drunken behavior but also a host of beliefs about the effects of alcohol on human beings. It may be that the widespread belief in alcohol as a disinhibitor is nothing but an ethnocentric European folk belief foisted on subject peoples around the world during the heyday of colonialism.” Marshall, M., “`Four Hundred Rabbits’: An Anthropological View of Ethanol as a Disinhibitor,” pp. 186-204 in Room R., and Collins, G., eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning of the Link (Research Monograph No. 12), U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, 1983, p. 198.

“…the Italian samples, as expected, had wine most frequently for their first drink, more than twice as often as the Boston sample.” Jessor, R., et al., “Perceived Opportunity, Alienation, and Drinking Behavior Among Italian and American Youth,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, Vol. 15, 215-222 (quote p. 217).

“Most of the sample first tasted wine, and nearly the entire sample report that most drinking in their parents’ homes involved wine….Our interviewees tend to drink only a glass or two of wine when they do drink, and they tend to view wine as quite apart from intoxicating alcohol, indeed as almost nonalcoholic.” Glassner, B., and Berg, B., “How Jews Avoid Alcohol Problems,” American Sociological Review, 1980, Vol. 45, 647-664 (quote p. 657).

AoC & CP laws *are* child abuse if anything is

Consent is remarkably difficult to define, well, definitively, let alone prove, disprove, or effectively enforce. It is absurd to leave such a complex endeavor to busybodies and bureaucrats of the State, who routinely mangle even the simplest of tasks.

That said, the rationale for age of consent, child pornography, and child prostitution laws stems from a literally sex-negative premise: each child must have the “right” to say no to sex, but not the freedom to say yes.

If forcing a child to have sex is abuse, why is forcing a child not to have sex any less abusive?

For that matter, if forcing a child to have sex is abuse, why not forcing a child to ride in an automobile, which is usually far more dangerous than almost any sexual activity? How about forcing a child to eat foods replete with sugars and complex carbohydrates, arguably raising numerous health risks by a large margin? How about forcing a child to attend public school where he or she will be forced to pledge allegiance to the State and will be indoctrinated in “patriotic” pro-government, nationalistic, and militaristic ideology? What might constitute abuse depends on one’s perspective. Yet when it comes to sexuality and especially the sexuality of young people, one sex-negative moralist perspective is violently imposed upon everyone.

Why should we trust the State to protect children? The most powerful State in the world somehow cannot afford to install seat belts on school buses, yet manages to budget billions upon billions to maim and kill children across the globe. It is not plausible that those who rape children’s sexual freedom are motivated largely by a genuine desire to protect children. Rather, such “protection” is functionally a protection racket and serves as a cover for ulterior motives such as power and profit.

Against Moralism

People who state that a particular sexual behavior is morally wrong are stating a belief. Why should I or anyone else with at least a shred of skepticism take them at their word?

I could just as easily say that because of “overpopulation,” everyone should stop procreating. (This is just for the sake of argument; I don’t really believe that!) Or I could say that everyone should stop procreating, because some children are bound to be “molested,” and in order to avoid this risk it is better that children never be born. (Or that either.) In either case why should anyone take me at my word? Sure, you can simply take a belief on faith if you’re not a very skeptical person. But if you’re going to believe that child prostitution is wrong “because it is wrong” then why not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or competent politicians if it feels “right?”

There is a glaring lack of evidence for objective moral right and wrong. Sure, it is possible there is some objective moral code floating ’round somewhere in the ether, but people can’t agree on what that might be. Some people feel sex outside marriage is wrong. Some feel the same about eating meat. Does that mean we should sit back and let them force their beliefs on everyone else through State power?

We let people under a certain age ride in automobiles (usually far more dangerous than sex); we let people under a certain age receive risky vaccinations and surgeries; we let people under a certain age be indoctrinated in the name of education, yet involvement in a sexual relationship is suddenly beyond the pale? The fact that large numbers of people believe just that hardly makes it true. If you’re an atheist, should you believe in God just because the majority of people do? To be blunt, let’s not let the moralists out there set the rules. The problem isn’t sex, even when it involves people of the “wrong” ages. The problem is certain bigotries and prejudices being forced onto everyone by the monopoly power of the State.

Sovereignist Flags & Symbols

center

Sovereignist Flag

Display these colors to show your support for Sovereignism!

Sovereignists support maximum freedom for our minds, bodies, and not least of all our sexualities, through the ultimate abolition of the power-monopoly that is the State. This is to be accomplished via practical yet revolutionary means, i.e., the development of market alternatives to better provide every product or service now offered by the State, as well as superior outlets for instinctual needs that the state-corporate complex is unable or unwilling to honestly address.

Sovereignists take notice of the role of sexual repression in perpetuating the System. Sovereignism is a sex-positive movement. The shade of pink used in our flag is Pussy Pink – literally! This particular pink is taken from the photographed vagina of a stunningly sexy young starlet using the ‘eyedropper’ tool of a graphics program. No choice of color could be more sex-positive than that!

In this thread, feel free to post feedback for this flag design as well as your ideas for more additional flag designs and other symbols to display in support of Sovereignism.

A bit down the road we will begin manufacturing physical flags for people for purchase and display to show solidarity with the Sovereignist cause.

Saying No to the Cult of Consent

The matter of consent is nowhere near as black-and-white as do-gooder busybodies make it out to be.

For example: One day she says yes to sex; the next she feels guilty, retroactively changes her mind, and subsequently files sexual assault charges. In the ensuing environment of hysteria, her ‘rapist’ is convicted and sentenced to years in prison. It can happen!

Sexuality is not politically correct. Contrary to the victim-feminist party line, females do often say no when they mean yes. If treated like fragile pieces of china, they’re more likely to get bored silly than anything else. “Consent” is cut-and-dry only to people knee-deep in what Robert Anton Wilson called Ideal Platonic Horseshit. In the real world, no pain, no gain will often apply in practically every worthwhile endeavor one can name; there’s no reason sexual activities would be exceptional in this regard. Many, perhaps most, of the most fulfilling and pleasurable activities require at least an initial push, and often discomfort.

The State has no business telling us when, where, or how to have sex. Centrally planned moralities are just as prone to failure as centrally planned economies! Even if busybodies were largely altruistic true believers, they’d always fuck up, because real, living, breathing human beings are never so simple and straightforward as their hyper-autistic* social engineering formulas would indicate.

*May as well use one of the therapeutic state’s invented disorders against it.

Should all porn be legalized? No!

Got your attention, didn’t it?

But it’s not just for shock value.

All porn should be decriminalized, not legalized!

Rather than get ‘permission’ from Big Brother – opening the door to further red tape, licensing, cartelization, regulation and taxation of sexual expression – Big Brother can get the fuck out of our business. The glorified protection racket known as the State never had any right to tell us what we can and can’t produce, distribute, or consume to begin with.

We don’t beg tapeworms for permission to enjoy sovereignty over our bodies; we flush them out. Likewise, rather than beg suit-and-tie parasites for permission to enjoy sovereignty over our bodies, we need to endeavor to free ourselves from their control.

On Authentic Authority and Diversity

Two of the values Sovereignists hold most dear are authentic authority and authentic diversity.

What we call authentic authority (or honest authority) is authority without pretensions. For example, a mother doesn’t need to invoke God, natural rights, or other faith-based excuses in order to exercise authority over her child, whether in or out of her womb. Her authority is a practical matter. “My child” is simply honest – this is a development of her body, a fruit of her womb. Honest authority doesn’t need to be propped up by appeals to theology or philosophical castles in the air.

Authentic diversity isn’t the so-called “diversity” enforced by the State through political correctness, sensitivity training, hate speech codes or hate crimes legislation. It’s not being made to order from a prepared menu of sanitized Establishment-approved “orientations” or “lifestyles.” It’s not a false “tolerance” enforced by agents of the State. It’s the real appreciation of diversity with substance to the point of opposing any attempts by the State to stifle it. That means, for example, a mother being free to raise her daughter in the tradition of the church, mosque, synagogue, watchtower or padoga, or equally in the tradition of the brothel, sex club, or home porn studio. Much as “freedom of speech” rings rather hollow when it includes only speech censors agree with, “diversity” rings hollow when coerced to conform to the social engineering schemes of do-gooder bureaucrats, be they on the “left” or the “right” (labels which conveniently represent another example of hollow “diversity”).

Your thoughts are most welcome.

Let’s weave it all together!

We call it Sovereignism.

We are sovereigns who seek to progressively expand our practical sovereignty: our de facto freedom to rule ourselves and our possessions.

We are deluded neither by rhetoric of “natural rights” nor promises of “legal rights.” God — the ultimate absentee landlord! — evidently gives rights to no man, woman, fish nor fowl. Likewise, any “right” the State promises the State can just as easily take away. Right must be won and kept through struggle. Honest struggle, in turn, also provides a shield against decadence, the softness of character that would permit tyranny over one’s person. Among comrades in struggle, a code of honor naturally arises. For Sovereignists, this is the only morality that sovereign people need to function best. And so there is truth to the saying that might makes right, yet it is just as true that right makes might.

We like to get right to the root of every dilemma. When people talk of rights, the underlying question is one of power. Who will have power and over whom? Much as Oswald Spengler described socialism, Sovereignism means power, power and more power. At the heart of Sovereignism is affection for honest, rather than dishonest, authority. Sovereignists advocate power for people who honestly desire it.

Although some might call this credo “macho,” Sovereignists do not equate authentic femininity with weakness. To the contrary, Sovereignist women seek the ultimate in empowerment. This includes full reproductive sovereignty, each sovereign woman’s freedom to make her own choices and rule her own body, including the fruits of her womb. Unfortunately many so-called feminists have adopted the State their new Daddy (Patriarch) which is just as submissive as meekly obeying a father or husband at home. Likewise, it is the opposite of empowering to stereotype females as the kinder, gentler sex; as inevitably passive victims. Well behaved women rarely make history, to paraphrase Laurel Ulrich.

The modern liberal is not too rarely a declared atheist, yet all too often will continue to embrace a belief in human equality and inalienable rights, e.g., to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Sovereignist’s mind is not muddled by such hypocrisy. If God is dead, then God-created equality and rights die with him. “All men are created equal…with certain unalienable Rights,” far from self-evident truth, is evidently utter superstition. At the very least, these beliefs require just as large a leap of faith as God-belief itself. Taking such a leap makes no more sense than a belief that Christmas gifts come from Santa Claus.

Neither the will to live nor the will to live free bear the stamp of any God. They are the will of individual people. Not all people want to live at all, and Sovereignists see no reason to force free people to stay alive against their will. Likewise, not all people want to live their lives in liberty — which necessarily comes with responsibility. Sovereignists reject the liberal crusader’s faith-based belief that “freedom” should be forced onto everyone.

So how do we bring our vision to fruition? Rather than wasting our time arguing or serving heaping helpings heavy with theory but light with action, we build. Rather than just hoping and dreaming about what we might be able to do far off in the future, we build now. Kevin Carson, a mutualist, quotes Paul Goodman to the effect that “[a] free society cannot be the substitution of a ‘new order’ for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life.” That really does hit the nail on the head. How does a similar strategy apply to Sovereignism? What are some of its manifestations?

We develop our own businesses, cooperatives, enterprises, and other initiatives (obviously none of these are mutually exclusive). The more financial independence we have the less dependent we will be on outside financiers who might attach strings. We further grow and hone our consciousness as a group, always looking out for each other, nurturing our code of honor, growing every incentive and eliminating every disincentive for loyalty to our own. Simply put, we grow ever more conscious of our thing, and our sense of being in it together.

We apply toolsets such as encryption technologies to help expand our personal sovereignty and secure our alternative living spaces and underground networks. We endeavor to maximize independence from intervention by dishonest authorities.

We develop sophisticated means such as large dating sites to aid Sovereignists in meeting likeminded people, forming friendships, engagements and marriages with a strong emphasis on long-term compatibility. We strongly emphasize women, especially demographic sets with inherent advantages.

We provide financial, educational, and moral support to Sovereignists through extensive networks. We encourage large families for those who want them. We support homeschooling and other alternative schooling. We promote our values and further our goals through music, poetry, performance art and other forms of art. We develop alternative media of all useful kinds, taking full advantage of modern technologies.

These are a few examples out of many underway. We Sovereignists don’t just talk or think; we do, and we do it not just separately but together.

Ultimately the State of old is to be rendered a hollowed out shell, toothless to enforce its laws and regulations. Every worthwhile service historically used to justify State domination will be better provided on the market, especially in the darker sectors, as well as gift economies and through barter. Importantly, Sovereignists advocate the full development of innovative outlets to address human instincts more effectively and efficiently than state-corporate offerings.