Hakim Bey, world-reknown author and political organizer of pedophiles. - got dirt?
Jan 14 2007 01:11
Although I dislike and don't respect po-mo,
po-mo sunk to a new-lo with Bey. A propogandist for, advocate of and undoubtedly partaker of pedophelia,
Bey is living evidence of the profound lack of a real left pole in North America. That such a guy has been doing
this for so long, 25 years at least, and has not come up against much opposition to his campain to pin pedophile rights on the tail of the gay rights movement really blows my mind.
Bey's long-standing work to fuse anarchism with pedophelia, instead of just being a sex tourist to the 3rd world, or creepy neighbor likle his pedophile peers is uncommon behavior.
Generally, such social pariahs hide themselves to avoid retribution by the families of victims.
Jan 14 2007 03:53
#2
i'm guessing you havent been here for too long, jonny, but, i assure you, with an attitude like what you've displayed in this post, you'll be likely to make MANY friends here. 
Bey is a cock.
Jan 14 2007 04:36
#3
My prof assigned us TAZ as req reading in a Social Control class at UVIC. I've given him printouts of the dirt and we'll see what he does. And what I do.
Jan 14 2007 12:19
#4
Feighnt wrote:
i'm guessing you havent been here for too long, jonny, but, i assure you, with an attitude like what you've displayed in this post, you'll be likely to make MANY friends here. :)
Not when he supports Chavez and the FARC he won't, and claims other anarchist groups are funded by the US government. johnny on the CRA thread you still have yet to either provide evidence for or retract that accusation.
Jan 14 2007 23:50
#5
hrm, well, didnt see that 
Jan 15 2007 01:28
#6
Hmm... I'm not going defend Bey - I don't know much of anything about his sexual politics or practices - but I am going to take you up on your unqualified use of the term pedophile.
What is pedophilia and what is wrong with it? It's defined as the love of children, but who exactly is a child is never defined. Is this pre-pubescent children? Those who are going through puberty? Those who are below legal age limits? Those who have no sexual interest? It's pretty vague. Most often 'kiddy fiddling' is depicted as abuse of really young children, below 5, but those who defend it, like NAMBLA, usually talk about those from the ages of 10 or so on up.
And what is wrong with it? Putting aside dominant discourses of morality, it seems the main problem raised is one of power, and I agree. But this is also a problem with, for example, heterosexual relations or interracial relations. This doesn't mean these relations are deemed in and of themselves unethical, but that they present special problems with regards to power and consent. In heterosexual relations, for example, patriarchal society means guys must be especially careful to ensure sexual relations are mutual, that active consent has been sought, that no coercion - social or physical - is involved.
So why should pedophillic relations be any different? The supposed sexual disinterest of children is well known bollocks, and many kids will engage in forms of sexual activity with each other at young ages. And some young kids will desire to engage in sexual activity with older kids or adults. There are all sorts of issues about consent and power but, just as with heterosexual relations, this does not make pedophillic relations in themselves bad, but rather it is the instances of rape and abuse themselves that are bad.
The issue, then, is the rape and abuse of children using both the physical and social power that older people have, not pedophillic relations in themselves. Many cultures engage in what we would deem pedophillic relations in an unproblematic way - some certainly involve instances of rape and abuse, others are genuinely mutual and sought by both.
Also, just to make one thing clear: the rape and abuse of children by adults is, by a huge margin, carried out by heterosexual men.
Jan 15 2007 01:30
#7
oh i can smell a ban paedo nonce apologist.
I don't see what your point about rape and abuse of children by adults being mostly carried out by heterosexual men is?
I;ve a better figure for you, all rape and abuse of children is done by paedos.
Jan 15 2007 02:06
#8
nah, i don't think so: a lot of child abuse seems to be done out of malicious opportunism by family members or scumbags in similar power positions. In fact i get the impression thats the vast majority. Not people with a long term attraction to kids. The same goes for rape; the majority is carried out by scum close to their victim on supposedly safe fround - not the archetypal street prowler.
If discursive is going to have any point at all, they should first watch out for their terminology.
Quote:
but who exactly is a child is never defined. Is this pre-pubescent children?
YES.
Paedophile means sexual attraction CHILDREN, pre-sexual human beings, pre-pubescents. Thats it, that is the meaning of the word, end of. Pre-pubescent kids might be curious, have sexual feelings but there is now fucking way they can have sexual relations really of any kind. To be (look away now) brutally frank, if a kid can't get a proper stiffy or orgasm how can you justify suggesting some kind of mutual pleasure? You cannot consent to something you can't do. A quadraplegic cannot 'consent' to a game of football, no matter how gently you kick it at them.
stuff like this is pretty bad too:
Quote:
Most often 'kiddy fiddling' is depicted as abuse of really young children, below 5
1) no its not. Paedophilia in the media is (wrongly) depicted as attraction to people all the way up to 15. The guy who killed the those 2 little girls was rightly called a paedophile, they were 10 and 11 (i think, i didn't follow it in the press - it seemed hysterical and voyeuristic).
Quote:
but those who defend it, like NAMBLA, usually talk about those from the ages of 10 or so on up.
2) 10 years old is still a child! 
Christ.
Of course power is the problem, but the power gap between a 6 to 10 year old and a 25 yr old is eternal, its not a construct of capitalism.
And Hakim Bey is a Paedophile in the proper sense of the word, he fancies kids.
I'm afraid you cannot attempt to muddy the water here, and doing so has pretty much fucked up any chance of receiving anything but abuse.
Jan 15 2007 16:06
#9
Discursive, you are either a nonce or a moron. I hope for everyone's sake it is the latter.
Paedophilia refers specifically to adult attraction to people who have not reached sexual maturity. Attraction towards those who have reached physical maturity but are not considered emotionally/mentally mature enough for sexual relationships is known as ephebophilia, tho the two are often put together.
While these things are culture-specific (ie those cultures with a younger "age of majority" tend to have a correspondingly lower age at which sexuality is recognised), pretty much universal is the principle that pre-pubescent sexual activity is wrong.
Trying to hypothesise it all away as social relations and power is fucking disgraceful. Many people's lives have been destroyed by child abuse. Get a clue.
Jan 15 2007 17:20
#10
Feight, don't let John rebuke you for stepping out of line.
John, give me a specific criticism of either or both of the Bolivarian peoples movements on either side of the Ven-Col border and let me make my case for all to see.
Discursive, your "The supposed sexual disinterest of children is well known bollocks, and many kids will engage in forms of sexual activity with each other at young ages. And some young kids will desire to engage in sexual activity with older kids or adults." line sounds like azn argument for letting naive kids do what they want like, oh, play on a highway or bask in the inordinate attention a pedophile like Bey might offer them. Look at the undeniable correllation between homelesness, addiction and sexual abuse. The NAMBLA line you are angling at; that children have a "right" to have sex with grown men, will earn you righteous beatings in any public forum save the NAMBLA bulletin.
Jan 16 2007 04:19
#11
well, I guess that's over then. Figured I could draw out at least one. mehehe.
My prof is stalling, says he hasnt had time to read the dirt(thanks John), its been 4 days. Time for an escalation on my part. An email outlining my position and goals. Anyone have any opinions on the pros/cons of getting the book taken out of the course, a road I am pondering? Advice, anyone?
Jan 16 2007 05:45
#12
"Discursive," what name do you usually post under?
Jan 16 2007 07:17
#13
Discursive wrote:
Hmm... I'm not going defend Bey - I don't know much of anything about his sexual politics or practices - but I am going to take you up on your unqualified use of the term pedophile.What is pedophilia and what is wrong with it? It's defined as the love of children, but who exactly is a child is never defined. Is this pre-pubescent children? Those who are going through puberty? Those who are below legal age limits? Those who have no sexual interest? It's pretty vague. Most often 'kiddy fiddling' is depicted as abuse of really young children, below 5, but those who defend it, like NAMBLA, usually talk about those from the ages of 10 or so on up.
And what is wrong with it? Putting aside dominant discourses of morality, it seems the main problem raised is one of power, and I agree. But this is also a problem with, for example, heterosexual relations or interracial relations. This doesn't mean these relations are deemed in and of themselves unethical, but that they present special problems with regards to power and consent. In heterosexual relations, for example, patriarchal society means guys must be especially careful to ensure sexual relations are mutual, that active consent has been sought, that no coercion - social or physical - is involved.
So why should pedophillic relations be any different? The supposed sexual disinterest of children is well known bollocks, and many kids will engage in forms of sexual activity with each other at young ages. And some young kids will desire to engage in sexual activity with older kids or adults. There are all sorts of issues about consent and power but, just as with heterosexual relations, this does not make pedophillic relations in themselves bad, but rather it is the instances of rape and abuse themselves that are bad.
The issue, then, is the rape and abuse of children using both the physical and social power that older people have, not pedophillic relations in themselves. Many cultures engage in what we would deem pedophillic relations in an unproblematic way - some certainly involve instances of rape and abuse, others are genuinely mutual and sought by both.
Also, just to make one thing clear: the rape and abuse of children by adults is, by a huge margin, carried out by heterosexual men.
Fucking hell.
Jan 16 2007 07:58
#14
thugarchist wrote:
Fucking hell.
you're surprised there's pedo-supporters on this forum? Bey is an idol of the "post-left"... this post was practically in anticipation of a couple coming out of the woodwork.
Jan 16 2007 08:59
#15
There's a bey book with a quote from london freedom on the back saying "amazing" or similar, is this an actual quote?
Jan 16 2007 09:04
#16
It might have been cut short from the original "amazingly looney shite".
Jan 16 2007 09:14
#17
when was the book published? Didnt freedom have a wierd period in th 70-90's?
Jan 16 2007 09:15
#18
rise wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Fucking hell.you're surprised there's pedo-supporters on this forum? Bey is an idol of the "post-left"... this post was practically in anticipation of a couple coming out of the woodwork.
excuse my anarcho-paranoia, but if this is aimed at me you've completely misunderstood what i mean when i reject 'leftism' (in the states this might be more associated with bob black, no?). i have absolutely no time at all for Bey and his ilk's declasse, mystical irrationalist individualist psuedo-'anarchist' bollocks. and that's before i get onto TAZ being an elaborate attempt to theorise a space for noncing. In fact Bey is a running joke on these boards, and you obviously haven't been here long if you find pro-nonces unsurprising on account of attacks on leftism ...
fyi, i use 'leftism' as shorthand for 'the left wing of capital' - unions, trot parties and the like. so my attack on leftism is from a communist, working class perspective (call it ultra-leftism if you like, though i prefer aufheben's opposition of leftism to communism). so attacking leftism has nothing to do with Bob Black or Blair's third way, and everything to do with communism.
Discursive - 
Jan 16 2007 09:20
#19
Joseph K. wrote:
excuse my anarcho-paranoia, but if this is aimed at me you've completely misunderstood what i mean when i reject 'leftism' (in the states this might be more associated with bob black, no?).
You are correct.
Joseph K. wrote:
I have absolutely no time at all for Bey and his ilk's declasse, mystical irrationalist individualist psuedo-'anarchist' bollocks. and that's before i get onto TAZ being an elaborate attempt to theorise a space for noncing. In fact Bey is a running joke on these boards, and you obviously haven't been here long if you find pro-nonces unsurprising on account of attacks on leftism ...i use 'leftism' as shorthand for 'the left wing of capital' - unions, trot parties and the like. so my attack on leftism is from a communist, working class perspective (call it ultra-leftism if you like, though i prefer aufheben's opposition of leftism to communism).
Discursive -
Aufheben is generaly associated with post-leftism in the states(the not as bad part of post-left). Atleast I do and the people I surround myself with.
Jan 16 2007 09:22
#20
really?
Aufheben are communists who have no time for bob black and the like. i mean there is a superficial similarity of anti-leftism, but the terms have completely different meanings, class struggle being central to aufheben's stuff and absent from black's.
(edit: just saw the edited 'not as the bad part', so this seems semantic, though i still see no meaningful common ground between black and aufheben)
Jan 16 2007 09:50
#21
I doubt Aufheben would be too pleased to be known as Post Leftist, I'd imagine they'd pin their colours to a kind of anarcho, autononmist, councilist historical lineage.
Jan 16 2007 09:55
#22
though one critical of anarchos, autonomists and councillists 
but yeah they're the influences afaik
Jan 16 2007 10:30
#23
Joseph K. wrote:
excuse my anarcho-paranoia, but if this is aimed at me you've completely misunderstood what i mean when i reject 'leftism'
This is not aimed at you, and I don't think you're a pedo apologist.
To be clear, Bey is a huge name in the "post-left" crowd, and in the use of the terminology "leftist" in North America, as it is used, but not everyone who uses the terminology in North America, let alone abroad, are associated with or even aware of Bey's political philosophy.
My disagreement with the term "leftist" as it is used, is that it is often done to imply that anarchism is not part of the communist tradition - and in this sense It is an attempt by some to separate the communist tradition from the label "anarchism", so as to paint anarchism as a sort of radical individualism, instead of what it really has been all along - a class struggle communist movement employing a particular method of dialectics, one that is oppositional to that of marxism.
Jan 16 2007 10:45
#24
north america is just another planet language-wise. stupid atlantic. like 'libertarian' means right-wing randist capitalist, i mean fuck off, no it doesn't
i don't think i see anarchism as opposed to marxism, partly because i don't think there is a singular 'marxism' to oppose. i mean obviously it's opposed to leninism and all that jazz, but there are obvious resonances with autonomism, councillism, some ultra-left stuff ... but i digress: Hakim Bey is a piece of shit who's whole 'theoretical' output seems designed to impress impressionable kids (and reclaim the streets ) with big words and out of context references to chaos theory etc. funny that. fucking nonce 
Jan 16 2007 10:48
#25
the bes thing is some of the Luther Blisset folsk in Italy made up a parody of his shite, sent it out to various niave fucks and got rave reviews.
Jan 16 2007 15:03
#26
rise wrote:
My disagreement with the term "leftist" as it is used, is that it is often done to imply that anarchism is not part of the communist tradition - and in this sense It is an attempt by some to separate the communist tradition from the label "anarchism", so as to paint anarchism as a sort of radical individualism, instead of what it really has been all along - a class struggle communist movement
Spot on imho.
Jan 16 2007 15:05
#27
Yes - i think we're getting to the skinny which is that Bey is just shit anyway, whether he's got his fingers in the choir or not.
Jan 16 2007 15:22
#28
I think this Hakim Bey character should be tortured to death and i think it should be done by anarchists.It would not suprise me either if the guy was a primo.
Jan 16 2007 15:32
#29
Tim wrote:
I think this Hakim Bey character should be tortured to death and i think it should be done by anarchists.It would not suprise me either if the guy was a primo.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
Jan 16 2007 17:43
#30
rise wrote:
- a class struggle communist movement employing a particular method of dialectics, one that is oppositional to that of marxism.
And what particular method of dialectics would that be?
Tim wrote:
It would not suprise me either if the guy was a primo.
He is.
Here's the dirt on him:
Leaving out the ugly part - Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson