Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

Combating so-called "Third-Wave" Feminism and the pantomime of Slutwalk et al

The brilliant Gail Dines writes:
"I have been reading some of the media comments about the new UK measures to limit children's access to porn and struck by how neo-liberalism is the new normal. I said this last year in my talk below on how neo-liberalism has taken over feminism, but it has taken over just about everywhere. Speaks to the power of hegemony!"

Portsmouth Remembers...

I took these photographs showing the projection onto Portsmouth Guildhall by ETC UK Ltd.
 
The projections were part of the Portsmouth Remembers memorial concert in July 2005 to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. 
 
 
 

Exeter Exeposé Sucks...

Exeter Exeposé
Issue 606

Sex-on-the-Exe: are blowjobs really that hard to swallow?

By "Anonymous"

I responded to this piece some time ago but the editors chose to censor the opinions of any critics to their very own self-styled, narcissistic little Carrie Bradshaw columnist. So here is my response in full...

Whilst an interesting piece I couldn't help but note the glaring contradiction contained within the "Anonymous" article on 'blowjobs'. Overlooking the fact that a self-confessed "ardent feminist" chose to disregard International Women's Day, preferring to use the week in which it fell to instead promote the somewhat dubious and puerile 'Steak & Blowjob Day', I have to take the article to task. 

The author proudly declares, from behind the curtain of anonymity, her love of blowjobs, her sexually submissive nature and her desire to be dominated by men, before proceeding to immediately back-peddle, stating the act of giving head is actually far from being submissive but rather is 'empowering'.

Whilst of course it is true the art of fellatio per se is not a submissive act, for example when performed as part of the ubiquitous '69', or if you have your man blindfolded and chained to the bed, the author does not refer to such encounters, so it is baffling why she seeks to cloak her sexuality with a perhaps well-meaning but somewhat half-hearted justification. Although not necessarily debasing, a blowjob is, outside of a loving and stable relationship, generally a submissive act of phallocentric oral worship of the dominant and masculine, the above examples aside. Indeed the more extreme and denigrating forms of blowjob such as the opprobrious 'bumkin' (if you have to ask I doubt this unique kink is for you, although Urban Dictionary does provide a satisfactory if perfunctory explanation) are nothing more then debasing. Whilst a submissive may find a servile and degrading position on their knees in a toilet cubicle an aphrodisiac, and perhaps even liberating, in could never be described as 'empowering'

However, I think the salient point to be picked from this article is the reported reaction of her fellow "feminists" to her open admission surrounding her sexual proclivities. The objective of feminism has surely been primarily the fight for equality in all areas of society, including sexuality. A woman can be whatever she wishes; an Amazonian warrior, a prim school ma'am or a sensual submissive. Feminism should be liberating a woman in the bedroom, not monitoring or judging her.

Whilst the article clearly had it's tongue firmly in cheek (pun intended) I can't help feel it was a missed opportunity by the author to celebrate her individual sexuality, rejecting any shame and embarrassment others seek to project and embracing the incredible, multi-facet intricacies of human nature that are still, to this day, are so readily oppressed by society. Falling into the time worn trap of trying to justify who she is by assuring us that isn't who she is, combined with her desire for anonymity makes me wonder if it really is 80 years since Anaïs Nin first put her work, and name, above the parapet of societal understanding of human sexuality.

The wise and erudite Susan Sontag once cautioned:

"Fear of sexuality is the new, disease-sponsored register of the universe of fear in which everyone now lives."

Billy Bragg; the Great British Con

Whilst I am no fan of Facebook's ever-changing mood, to misquote an angsty, young Paul Weller, I was pleasantly surprised by their recent promotion of it's erstwhile popular 'Notes' feature; in the past it had acted as a useful cross between a mini-blog and a personal notebook, but fell out of favour with the social network's head office apparatchiks. However, with the latest overhaul of Facebook profiles it has apparently fallen back into favour; like an Old Bolshevik returned from the Siberian mines to be awarded a Stakhanovite medal for labour valor.

On Monday of this week this change drew my attention to one particular note; an Open Letter to Billy Bragg, that I had penned way back in May 2010. I was pleased to note not only what a considered and well-thought out piece it was, even if I do say so myself, but how well it held up after two years and that it was perhaps even more politically relevant now than it was then. 

The following day I was somewhat bemused to clock a Tweet from Radio 6's Radcliffe & Maconie announcing that the one-and-the-same Billy Bragg would be joining them in the studio that day after his appearance on ITV's Loose Women. This tickled me, especially so soon after reading my previous misif to Comrade Billy, so I fired of an abrupt Tweet mocking Bragg's appearance on such a dire and moribund daytime TV show. I was somewhat surprised to get a quick reply from Bragg:

Now, whilst Billy is correct to assert his appearance on this televisual equivalent of the Daily Mail was little indication or anything more than a rather embarrassing need for self-promotion to the audience of a turgid, reactionary production, viewed in relation to previous utterances from Barking's answer to Voltaire [sic], it does not paint a too positive picture.

So I think it is fair to republish a timely reminder of who Billy Bragg was, and what he has become...

Friday 14 May 2010 AT 16:53 GMT

AN OPEN LETTER TO BILLY BRAGG

Dear Billy,

You ask why I accuse you of being a sell-out. I thought it would be perhaps beneficially to write an open reply so the points of debate, and my disappointment with you, are in the public realm.

Firstly, may I say how much I admired you as a teenager growing up in a small, reactionary town on the South Coast in the 1980's. Whilst Thatcher was battering the working class at every turn you held out a ray of hope for an alternative, introducing countless young working class people to politics (as well as unrequited love!).

You proudly held the torch for the English folk tradition, the expression of agrarian and working class dissent and struggle, and exposed people to a history they may not have discovered, with songs like your passionate rendition of Leon Rosselson's World Turned Upside Down about the 17th Century Diggers/True Levellers [see footnote].

How slightly surreal to find a facile, teenage programme like Top of the Pops featururing your performance of Between The Wars, a song in that English folk tradition, and singing of the experience and hopes of miners, dockers and railway men. Perhaps it is time for a gentle reminder of the lyrics to that very song:

Cover of the Socialist Anthem penned by Bragg

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man


Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage.

It was perhaps with a sense of shock and disbelief to then watch you on BBC1s Week In Politics openly and publicly not just accepting but actually supporting a Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition government, which intends to do exactly that; deny a man a living wage. The vicious cuts in wages, welfare and front-line services and VAT tax rises, aimed to hit the poor hardest, that spearheads the public agenda of this new "coalition" regime is no secret. Cameron and Clegg are quite shameless about it, as, it would appear are you.

Whilst you continue to endorse the red herring, cooked-up by Nick Clegg and his second-eleven of Toryism, and served by the petty bourgeois journalists at The Guardian, the journo's themselves are desperately trying to backtrack. Like you they backed Nick Clegg, confident that “the liberal moment has come” and that its readers would loyally follow its advice.

But it hasn’t. And they didn’t. Like your former fans, Guardian readers did what they usually do: they ignored The Guardian's bleatings and voted Labour. Because, although comment is free, facts are sacred, and one of the facts to emerge from the last week of the election was that Nick Clegg was no defender of social justice or champion of the working class.

Billy Bragg enjoys a cup of tea with the Labour leader who failed to lead Labour and betrayed the Miners

But how could someone who prides themselves on both their social conscience and depth of historical knowledge have managed to not only get it so spectacularly wrong, but also continue unperturbed down the road of the now discredited "progressive" Lib Dems? Although perhaps we should not be that surprised when we recall your infamous jolly, sipping cups of tea and chortling at Neil Kinnock's jokes shortly after he betrayed the miners, the vanguard of the organised workers in their battle against Thatcher in 1984-85, allowing her free reign to dispose of workers rights and destroy working class communities nationwide.

The Liberal Democrats presented themselves as something “new”, “clean” and "progressive", but at the first whiff of power jumped both feet first into bed with the party of privilige, wealth and bigotry. We no longer need to take a closer look to reveal a very old party, the Whigs, that has always carried out the policies dictated by the capitalist class of Britain, because it is spalshed all over the front pages of the press!!!

Republican Billy Bragg "excited" about meeting and performing for the Monarch

The Liberal Democrats have always been a party of the rich. They still are. They claim to be new and different from the two main parties. In fact they have done centuries of abject service in Parliament for the rich. Now they still stand ready at the disposal of the ruling class, like the Tories, to load the burden of the crisis on to the shoulders of the working class.

The Lib Dems went into this general election campaign calling itself "new" and "modern" and "progressive" without any shadow or irony despite it's entire Front Bench team consisting of white, middle class men. Considering Shirley Williams is an elder stateswoman of UK politics why wasn't she sat on their front bench?! So the "progressive" Lib Dems did not have ONE single woman or ethnic minority on their front bench!!! The new ConDem cabinet contains only four women, none of whome are Lib Dems, and just one solitary member of an ethnic minority who isn't even elected but a Tory peer!

But should we really be surprised that the party of "proportional representation" has magnifiently failed to be representative of modern Britain? Clegg himself admitted last autumn that his party is "woefully unrepresentative of modern Britain". At a time when both Labour and the Conservatives increased the number of female candidates they are fielding, the Lib Dems are the only party to field fewer women this time round – 22% of their candidates, compared with 23% in 2005. They haven't acknowledged this huge democratic deficit – their radicalism doesn't extend to challenging the status quo.

Let's look at the Lib Dems actual voting record over the last Parliament - virtually consistent in their support for the Tories, lookie here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/20/general-election-2010-liberal-democrats

And the fresh-faces "modern" and "progressive" Nick Clegg has openly admitted his admiration for Maggie Thatcher and her economic policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7415708/Nick-Clegg-how-Margaret-Thatcher-inspires-me.html

Far from challenging the old establishment elitism, Nick Clegg is personally from a privileged background. He went to one of the most expensive and elite public schools in the country, Westminster. British papers have published pictures of the family chateau in south-west France. Early in his political career he was taken under the wing of Tory grandees like Lord Carrington and Leon Brittan. Only the lurch of the Conservative Party into euroscepticism deflected him from following the natural course of his career into the Tory party. For him, as for the ruling class, the Lib Dems were the next best thing.

Clegg denounces trade union backing and financial support for Labour. What is his alternative? His party, like the Tories, is financed by big business backers. Some of these, like some Tory supporters, are ‘non-doms’. That means that they are not recorded as living here (because they are dodging UK taxes), yet they presume to buy political influence with their tax-free cash. Does that sound ‘fresh’ and ‘clean’?

Clegg and his Party offer no alternative to the orthodoxy of austerity pushed by the Tories. Nick Clegg promised, at his Party Conference last year, bold and even "savage" cuts in government spending that he claimed would be necessary to bring the public deficit down after the next election. Clegg set out plans including a long-term freeze in the public sector pay bill, scaling back future public sector pensions, and withdrawing tax credits from the middle class. He is even prepared to examine means-testing universal child benefits.

In many solidly working class areas the Tories are so widely hated that they never had a realistic prospect of getting more than a handful of seats on the council. So the opposition to Labour has been taken over by the Liberal Democrats, who are really Tories in yellow rosettes. As an opportunist capitalist party, they take on whatever colouring is convenient to win support and office. For instance leaflets from the Lib Dems in Holborn and St Pancras cry, “Stop Arming Israel Now”. Holborn has a large Muslim population. Nearby in Kilburn and Hampstead the local party boasts that Clegg attended an event sponsored by Jewish News. This, of course, is intended to go down well with the local Jewish population.

Famously the Liberals who ruled Tower Hamlets in the 1970s flirted with racism and the far right National Front. In Southwark and Bermondsey they ran a vicious homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell. The irony was only recently revealed when the Lib Dem victor, Simon Hughes, had his secret gay past revealed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article720273.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Billy Bragg working for the right-wing establishment broadsheet, The Daily Telegraph

Far from being a fresh face in politics, the Liberal Democrats are Tories in all but name. Whilst you dream up new sound-bites for your media appearances fom you costal mansion in Dorset working class people are about to suffer at the hands of your new darlings of government. Sorry, Bill, but you cannot speak for the working class like some leader or spokesman when not only have you shown yourself to be hoodwinked by blatantly opportunist carreerist politicians but are also attemtping to serve them up to that very elite class as victims to the slaughter.

The Liberal Democrats progressive mask has slipped, revealing the old discredited face of Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics that the workers turned their backs on when they took the historic decision to set-up a Labour Party to represent their own class interests. Class is the defining feature of British politics. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats are prepared to make cuts because that is what the bankers and landowners needs. The solution is for workers to reclaim Labour as a working class party with a socialist programme.

I urge you to reconsider this foolhardy flirtation with a party of wealth and privilge and return to your roots. You will be welcomed with open arms. Infact, just to be cheeky, I end with your own words...

In conclusion, bear in memory, keep this password in your mind
Worker's strength cannot be broken when unions be combined
Stand up tall and stand together, victory for you prevail
Oh keep your hands upon your wages and your eye upon the scale

fraternally,

Paul Nelson

Bragg in his former Red Wedge incarnation with Ken Livingstone, Kinnock and Paul Weller

Police being used as political tool by Thatcher at Orgreave during Miners Strike, an echo of the Diggers struggle

The political and social upheaval that resulted from the English Civil War in the seventeenth century [effectively two conflicts between 1642 -1646 and 1647/48] led to the development of a set of radical ideas centred around movements known as ‘Diggers’ and ‘Levellers’

The Diggers [or ‘True Levellers’] were led by William Everard who had served in the New Model Army. As the name implies, the diggers aimed to use the earth to reclaim the freedom that they felt had been lost partly through the Norman Conquest; by seizing the land and owning it ‘in common’ they would challenge what they considered to be the slavery of property. They were opposed to the use of force and believed that they could create a classless society simply through seizing land and holding it in the ‘common good’.

To this end, a small group [initially 12, though rising to 50] settled on common land first at St George’s Hill and later in Cobham, Surrey and grew corn and other crops. This small group defied the landlords, the Army and the law for over a year. In addition to this, groups travelled through England attempting to rally supporters. In this they had some successes in Kent and Northamptonshire. Their main propagandist was Gerard Winstanley who produced the clearest statement of Digger ideas in ‘The Law of Freedom in a Platform’ published in 1652. This was a defence and exposition of the notion of a classless society based in secularism and radical democracy

World Turned Upside Down (Diggers)
(Leon Rosselson)
Recorded by both Dick Gaughan and Billy Bragg

In 1649
To St George's Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Came to show the people' s will
They defied the landlords
They defied the laws
They were the dispossessed
Reclaiming what was theirs
We come in peace, they said
To dig and sow
We come to work the land in common
And to make the waste land grow
This earth divided
We will make whole
So it can be
A common treasury for all.
The sin of property
We do disdain
No one has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Rise up at their command.
They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feeds the rich
While poor men starve
We work, we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now
From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers' claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed -
Only the vision lingers on
You poor take courage
You rich take care
The earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
All people one
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down

Home page located at: http://www.diggers.org

New Poem

I Wanted To Write You

I wanted to write you a poem

   that young lovers a century from now

      will chant in a hushed mantra to their love.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that described the sparkle in your seaside eyes

      so perfectly people would understand.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that monks and angels would recite aloud

      to feel closer to their gods.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that compared your smile to

      the warmth of the rising sun.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that would be uncovered in a dusty vault

      and make people gasp and blush.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that could describe your beauty

      more perfectly than any portrait ever could.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that would make even woodland creatures

      pause in silent respect and awe.

I wanted to write you a poem

   full of all these things

      but all I could find were these words.

February 2013

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange

Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers

A supporter of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty

Seumas Milne

Tuesday 21 August 2012 21.30 BST

Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.

This is a man, after all, who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. But as far as the bulk of the press is concerned, Assange is nothing but a "monstrous narcissist", a bail-jumping "sex pest" and an exhibitionist maniac. After Ecuador granted him political asylum and Assange delivered a "tirade" from its London embassy's balcony, fire was turned on the country's progressive president, Rafael Correa, ludicrously branded a corrupt "dictator" with an "iron grip" on a benighted land.

The ostensible reason for this venom is of course Assange's attempt to resist extradition to Sweden (and onward extradition to the US) over sexual assault allegations – including from newspapers whose record on covering rape and violence against women is shaky, to put it politely. But as the row over his embassy refuge has escalated into a major diplomatic stand-off, with the whole of South America piling in behind Ecuador, such posturing looks increasingly specious.

Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?

To get a grip on what is actually going on, rewind to WikiLeaks' explosive release of secret US military reports and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables two years ago. They disgorged devastating evidence of US war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq on an industrial scale, the machinations and lies of America's wars and allies, its illegal US spying on UN officials – as well as a compendium of official corruption and deceit across the world.

WikiLeaks provided fuel for the Arab uprisings. It didn't just deliver information for citizens to hold governments everywhere to account, but crucially opened up the exercise of US global power to democratic scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the US government made clear it regarded WikiLeaks as a serious threat to its interests from the start, denouncing the release of confidential US cables as a "criminal act".

Vice-president Joe Biden has compared Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist". Shock jocks and neocons have called for him to be hunted down and killed. Bradley Manning, the 24-year-old soldier accused of passing the largest trove of US documents to WikiLeaks, who has been held in conditions described as "cruel and inhuman" by the UN special rapporteur on torture, faces up to 52 years in prison.

The US administration yesterday claimed the WikiLeaks founder was trying to deflect attention from his Swedish case by making "wild allegations" about US intentions. But the idea that the threat of US extradition is some paranoid WikiLeaks fantasy is absurd.

A grand jury in Virginia has been preparing a case against Assange and WikiLeaks for espionage, a leak earlier this year suggested that the US government has already issued a secret sealed indictment against Assange, while Australian diplomats have reported that the WikiLeaks founder is the target of an investigation that is "unprecedented both in its scale and its nature".

The US interest in deterring others from following the WikiLeaks path is obvious. And it would be bizarre to expect a state which over the past decade has kidnapped, tortured and illegally incarcerated its enemies, real or imagined, on a global scale – and continues to do so under President Barack Obama – to walk away from what Hillary Clinton described as an "attack on the international community". In the meantime, the US authorities are presumably banking on seeing Assange further discredited in Sweden.
None of that should detract from the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial. The question is how to achieve justice for the women involved while protecting Assange (and other whistleblowers) from punitive extradition to a legal system that could potentially land him in a US prison cell for decades.

The politicisation of the Swedish case was clear from the initial leak of the allegations to the prosecutor's decision to seek Assange's extradition for questioning – described by a former Stockholm prosecutor as "unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate" – when the authorities have been happy to interview suspects abroad in more serious cases.

And given the context, it's also hardly surprising that sceptics have raised the links with US-funded anti-Cuban opposition groups of one of those making the accusations – or that campaigners such as the London-based Women Against Rape have expressed scepticism at the "unusual zeal" with which rape allegations were pursued against Assange in a country where rape convictions have fallen. The danger, of course, is that the murk around this case plays into a misogynist culture in which rape victims aren't believed.

But why, Assange's critics charge, would he be more likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden than from Britain, Washington's patsy, notorious for its one-sided extradition arrangements. There are specific risks in Sweden – for example, its fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement it has with the US. But the real point is that Assange is in danger of extradition in both countries – which is why Ecuador was right to offer him protection.
The solution is obvious. It's the one that Ecuador is proposing – and that London and Stockholm are resisting. If the Swedish government pledged to block the extradition of Assange to the US for any WikiLeaks-related offence (which it has the power to do) – and Britain agreed not to sanction extradition to a third country once Swedish proceedings are over – then justice could be served. But with loyalty to the US on the line, Assange shouldn't expect to leave the embassy any time soon.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

Julian Assange speaks from Ecuador's London Embassy Balcony

Former UK Ambassador Backs Assange!

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray

Craig Murray, 53, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, speaking on BBC Newsnight yesterday, said: "I think incidents which are dubious themselves as to what has happened, and Julian Assange has denied the accusations against him, are being seized on as a political agenda.

"It's well worth people going online to discover what they can about the allegations, about how they were made, who made them, what the people who made them did afterwards, and look at what happened.

"Let us look at the conduct of these women. I'm going to say some things I know to be true."
Murray was sacked by the Foreign Office in 2004 after lowing the whistle on state-sponsored brutality in Uzbekistan and has since become a human rights campaigner.

It is thought his comments, including the name of "Woman A" in the Assange case, relate to more more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant [Woman B], Sofia Wilén, had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case. Further, the women speak of getting “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press.

The Swedish Prosecutors have repeatedly refused to give Assange's defence team a copy of these texts and tweets!!!

Interestingly, the person who invited Assange to Sweden is infact one and the same [Woman A] Anna Ardin, who is now accusing Assange of assault. She is a minor right-wing Christian Democrat politician and a close friend, colleague and political ally of the current prosecutor in the case, and has written anti-Palestinian Zionist articles for a publisher funded by the CIA. She also penned a seven-point article on how to seek revenge on ex-boyfriends...seven months before she met Assange!

7 Steps to Legal Revenge by Anna Ardin

19 January, 2010

I’ve been thinking about some revenge over the last few days and came across a very good side who inspired me to this seven-point revenge instruction in Swedish.

Steg 1 / Step 1

Tänk igenom väldigt noga om du verkligen ska hämnas.

Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge.

Det är nästan alltid bättre att förlåta än att hämnas

It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge

Steg 2 / Step 2

Tänk igenom varför du ska hämnas.

Think about why you want revenge.

Du behöver alltså inte bara vara på det klara med vem du ska hämnas på utan också varför. Hämnd ska aldrig riktas mot bara en person, utan även möta en viss handling.

You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.

Steg 3 / Step 3

Proportionalitetsprincipen.

The principle of proportionality.

Kom ihåg att hämnden inte bara ska matcha dådet i storlek utan även i art.

Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.

En bra hämnd är kopplad till det som gjorts mot dig.

A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.

Om du till exempel vill hämnas på någon som varit otrogen eller som dumpat dig, så bör straffet ha något med dejting/sex/trohet att göra.

For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

Steg 4 / Step 4

Gör en brainstorm kring lämpliga åtgärder för kategorin av hämnd du är ute efter. För att fortsätta exemplet ovan så kan du paja ditt offers nuvarande relation, fixa så att dennes nye partner är otrogen eller se till att han får en galning efter sig.

Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.

Använd din fantasi!

Use your imagination!

Steg 5 / Step 5

Tänk ut hur du kan hämnas systematiskt.

Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.

Kanske kan en serie brev och foton som får den nya att tro att ni ännu ses bättre än bara en stor lögn vid ett enstaka tillfälle?

Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion

Steg 6 / Step 6

Ranka dina systematiska hämndscheman från låg till hög i termer av troligt lyckat genomförande, krävd insats från dig samt grad av tillfredsställelse om du lyckas.

Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed.

Den ideala hämnden ligger givetvis så högt som möjligt i dessa staplar, men ofta kan en ökad insats av arbete och kapital ge säkrare output för de andra två, egentligen viktigare parametrarna.

The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.

Step 7 / Step 7

Skrid till verket. Get to work. Och kom ihåg vilket ditt mål är medan du opererar, se till att ditt offer får lida på samma sätt som han fick dig att lida.

And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.

Entry Filed under: politik .

Entry Filed under: politics .

Taggar: hämnd , revenge , laglig hämnd , hämnas , återgälda , straffa .

Tags: revenge , revenge , revenge lawful , avenge , reciprocate , punish.

 

Faux-feminist Anna Ardin

Anna Ardin, known in Sweden for her misandry and faux-feminist views on how men achieve social dominance through sex, has been known to be bent on revenge. It is also noted that this is not the first time Ardin has accused someone for molestation of a sexual nature in Sweden.

Ardin has spent some time in several South American countries as well as an intern at the Swedish Embassy in Buenos Aires [pages 3 through 5 here] and in Cuba where she was working with anti-Castro groups linked with the CIA and funded by the US (Carlos Alberto Montaner – a former CIA agent convicted in the mass murder of seventy three Cubans on an airliner he was involved in blowing up) until this “leftist” Anna Ardin was kicked out of the country.

In Cuba she apparently interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las Damas de Blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Hebe de Bonafini, President of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo remarked that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”
Anna Ardin's cousin, who she remains close to after growing-up together, is Lieutenant Colonel Mattias Ardin, Deputy Head of Operations, Swedish Joint Forces Land Component Command, who works with NATO Operations in Afghanistan.