[michael3]

This flood of pornography does terrify me, for two interconnected reasons. First, the objectification of human beings in the most personal and intimate of acts with one another. Second, the commodification of yet one more aspect of life by Capitalism, which further alienates both people as a society from each other, and the individual person from themselves. This is the most destructive and animalistic commodity fetishism possible, and the most degrading on a spiritual level.

That being said, photographic, pictorial, sculptural or video nudity of the kind that celebrates the beauty of the human form is a good thing, as long as it isn't purient and designed to magnify lust rather than celebrate artistic humanism.

[Far-Right Sage]

I'm not quite sure that it's a thoroughly serious issue. Consider the source as well as the content. Pornography as an object of terror? Far more pressing concerns in a society on a downward spiral than sexual material over the medium of a computer being observed in a private bedroom.

That said, Michael, your perspective on the issues seems to be an interesting one, given your comments here and on the discussion of religion and theology, in addition to your professed ideological stance. Hopefully you will stick around to share such perspectives.

Edit: Having read over your comment again, I now tend to agree. Although it is still not high up there on my list of concerns, the inherent baseness of capitalism has indeed brought a certain touch of cheapness and ugliness to sexuality and sexual exploration, as it has to all other aspects of previously healthy and functioning societies.

[michael3]

I'm not quite sure that it's a thoroughly serious issue. Consider the source as well as the content. Pornography as an object of terror? Far more pressing concerns in a society on a downward spiral than sexual material over the medium of a computer being observed in a private bedroom.

That said, Michael, your perspective on the issues seems to be an interesting one, given your comments here and on the discussion of religion and theology, in addition to your professed ideological stance. Hopefully you will stick around to share such perspectives.

Edit: Having read over your comment again, I now tend to agree. Although it is still not high up there on my list of concerns, the inherent baseness of capitalism has indeed brought a certain touch of cheapness and ugliness to sexuality and sexual exploration, as it has to all other aspects of previously healthy and functioning societies.

Thank you sir, and yes, i'll be happy to share my perspectives on, basically, how I square what would be to other Anarchists a violation of my professed 'Christian Anarchism'. But unlike many other Christian Anarchists, I am no pacifist follower of Tolstoy. There would still need to be room for Joseph de Maistre's 'Executioner' for example, but he would be more diffused if you will among the community-we would all bear that burden, pretty much. Once I saw the State as the bulwark of Faith and Civilization, as did de Maistre and Juan Donoso y Cortes, like them being quite Augustinian in my theology. But further contemplation made me realize that my Augustinianism rendered the State just as vile as humanity, if not more so, and my reading of the philosophies of power, Gentile, Neitzsche, Sorel, etc...and of history itself showed the application of the closest ideologies to my own then to be quite disappointing.

My Anarchism is nationalist and muscularly non-pacifistic and christian, an only seemingly paradoxical non-heirarchical 'fascism' without the State. It is also Communistic. The closest real-life approximation and inspiration would be the political period of the 'Judges' in ancient Israel of the Bible, before the Kings....Pornography would not survive because the purveyors of filth would be removed at their local community level.

[Potemkin]

My Anarchism is nationalist and muscularly non-pacifistic and christian, an only seemingly paradoxical non-heirarchical 'fascism' without the State. It is also Communistic. The closest real-life approximation and inspiration would be the political period of the 'Judges' in ancient Israel of the Bible, before the Kings....Pornography would not survive because the purveyors of filth would be removed at their local community level.

So, an Islamic theocracy with Shariah law, then?

[Rei Murasame]

The fact that [sex] is becoming an increasingly public matter, and a matter we all shrug our shoulders at, is just a sign of the increasing anomie that the society as a whole feels towards it.

You can't just throw that word around like that, I think. Wouldn't the 'anomie' actually be the fact that sex was taboo and private, and not that it was publicly spoken of?

Anomie basically refers to the phenomenon of becoming a bubble-person, where, to quote the late Jonathan Bowden, "people walk around in little bubbles, you're alright, I'm alright, I don't want to know". So I think you are misusing that word, there.

Besides, you are a social conservative, and don't you social conservatives actually want sex to be at least semi-public anyway, so that you can inveigh against any sex acts that you consider to be unacceptable? I find it odd that you'd want to make sex a private taboo, but at the same time you'd also like to morally police it. So it seems that the public-private dichotomy is not really what we're talking about here, we're actually talking about something else, just you haven't told us what's really behind it.

[michael3]

"So, an Islamic theocracy with Shariah law, then? "

In a word, no.

I find it hard to discover how it would appear that life in a christian, nationalist, and anarchistic society would appear like the legalistic tyranny of Islam, save in it's original egalitarian aspects which are not unique to early Islam. Nor did the period of the Judges resemble an Islamic state either. Only a superficial reading of religious societies would suggest such a notion.

[Potemkin]

In a word, no.

I find it hard to discover how it would appear that life in a christian, nationalist, and anarchistic society would appear like the legalistic tyranny of Islam, save in it's original egalitarian aspects which are not unique to early Islam. Nor did the period of the Judges resemble an Islamic state either. Only a superficial reading of religious societies would suggest such a notion.

A decentralised, egalitarian and intolerant theocracy with local religious Judges rigorously applying an ancient religious law code handed down from God? Sounds like Shariah to me.

[michael3]

Decentralized-yes

Egalitarian-yes

'Intolerant'? No, if you didn't like it, form another society somewhere else.

'Theocracy'- apparently the distinction between a society taking orders from Priests and a society informed by it's religious/spiritual values is lost on you, correct?

The real point being, that many social evils like pornography would disappear with the disappearence of heirarchical political and economic structures, and the medium known as Money.

'Pornography' is a recent construct, and without Capitalism would not survive as such.

[Potemkin]

'Intolerant'? No, if you didn't like it, form another society somewhere else.

Where?

'Theocracy'- apparently the distinction between a society taking orders from Priests and a society informed by it's religious/spiritual values is lost on you, correct?

Who would interpret those religious/spiritual values? Who would appoint these 'Judges'? Would citizens with other religious/spiritual values, or even atheists, be permitted to opt out of the system? Any system explicitly founded on a certain set of religious beliefs must inevitably have a cohort of Priests to interpret and enforce those values. Why else do you think the Founding Fathers explicitly prohibited the existence of an established religion?

[michael3]

"Where? "

Like any other Society in history; wherever it and it's attendant values and mores take root.


"Who would interpret those religious/spiritual values? Who would appoint these 'Judges'? Would citizens with other religious/spiritual values, or even atheists, be permitted to opt out of the system? Any system explicitly founded on a certain set of religious beliefs must inevitably have a cohort of Priests to interpret and enforce those values. Why else do you think the Founding Fathers explicitly prohibited the existence of an established religion?"

I'm telling you what I favor as an Anarchist, what I think would work best and reflects my own personal take on things. What would survive out of attempts to create an Anarchist society may not even work best in all areas nor with the human material provided. Once the main impediments to human progress and development are removed; Money, the State, and Capitalism, the other things will fall into place with the resultant spiritual evolution of Mankind. This includes the problem of Pornography and much else besides, and note that my Anarchism is one fully aware of the limitations of human nature....Religion/spirituality will likewise evolve, and become the framework of a new and higher order of existence, instead of a prop and a crutch for the exploiters of humanity.

There will in the interim be many 'Anarchisms', as Man is in his better nature an Anarchist at heart, and there is plenty of room on this planet to work things out. Societies based on the basic principles of Anarchism will ultimately embrace Religion,while providing those who disagree with the ability to opt out and work their own ways in life, without coercion. Do not think that my belief in the close approximation of my ideal society to the 'Judges' Old Testement period is the same as Identity-it's communistic and non-monetary aspects will make such a society a great deal more advanced.

[Potemkin]

Do not think that my belief in the close approximation of my ideal society to the 'Judges' Old Testement period is the same as Identity-it's communistic and non-monetary aspects will make such a society a great deal more advanced.

The closest approximation in our modern world to the Judges' Old Testament period is Islamic Shariah law; in fact, it's almost a perfect match. And it too is communistic and non-monetary in nature - lending money at interest is forbidden, for example. I fail to see how you have sufficiently distinguished your own vision of the ideal society from the vision of the ideal society proposed by Islamic fundamentalists such as the Salafists, for example.

[michael3]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day as the saying goes, and as writers like Hillaire Belloc have noted before, it is precisely those elements that you have mentioned; egalitarianism, communism, non-monetary nature, etc...That rendered Islam a success, much as Early Christianity, for much the same reasons.

These ideals are universal, and resonate in the hearts of all men of good will.

[Rei Murasame]

These ideals are universal, and resonate in the hearts of all men of good will.

That's news to me. Has anyone really ever tried to abolish money for reasons that could be described as 'good will'?

[Potemkin]

I think he means anti-usury rather than anti-money, Rei. Of course early Islam had money, they just forbad the lending of said money for interest. Every developed society since the time of the ancient Lydians has had a medium of exchange.

[Decky]

Has anyone really ever tried to abolish money for reasons that could be described as 'good will'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... mine-fears

You forgot about the time that the Dear Leader (in his infinite wisdom) abolished money for the good of all his children.

North Korea today is in the throes of what can only be described as a great leap backwards, plunged into misery by the missteps of its 68-year-old leader, Kim Jong-il. A currency revaluation late last year, designed to restore the integrity of the socialist system, wiped out the savings of anybody with more than $30 to their name

Bourgeois scum! $30? How did the traitors amass such riches while hiding them from their fellows?

[Rei Murasame]

I think he means anti-usury rather than anti-money, Rei. Of course early Islam had money, they just forbad the lending of said money for interest. Every developed society since the time of the ancient Lydians has had a medium of exchange.

Oh, I see. But they are defining all interest as 'usury'? How would they be able to use things like derivatives (which are actually very old instruments which recently gained spotlight for scrutiny), or bonds, if they can't set an interest rate?

I could be wrong, but I'd have thought that it'd be impossible to run an economy without this stuff.

You forgot about the time that the Dear Leader (in his infinite wisdom) abolished money for the good of all his children.

Kim Jong-Il doesn't count, he's crazy.

[michael3]

I think he means anti-usury rather than anti-money, Rei. Of course early Islam had money, they just forbad the lending of said money for interest. Every developed society since the time of the ancient Lydians has had a medium of exchange.

Well, yes, I am anti-usury, but by 'money' i'm not so much talking about a medium of exchange for goods and services, as much as it's present neo-liberal capitalist incarnation-money magically appearing from nowhere, backed by nothing....But real goods and services tending to flow back to the producers of said 'money' and their cronies. It's a scam, pure and simple.

However, at some point I think the human race will have to evolve past the concept of money, period.