Oleg Volk's gun propaganda, and discussion thereof

[friendly_iconoclast]

Much discussion here:

http://sociologicalimages.blogspot.com/2008/01/guns-dont-kill-people-gays-feminists.html

Sociological Images is an interesting site

[virginia mountainman]

1. OUTSTANDING!! Thanks for the Link...nt

[Malidictus Maximus]

2. Damn!

I loved the "Bash This" poster.

[iverglas]

3. as I recall

Mr. Volk was once a member of DU, and is no longer. I believe this puts discussion of him beyond the pale of the hereabouts.

If you're talking to him, though, do ask him why I no longer have access to his most luscious images, which I was more than happy to publicize for him in places like this. The ones with the pliers gripping women's nipples, and like that. I always wondered why the subjects of those images didn't whip out their trusty sidearm and shoot Mr. Volk in the head, myself ...

But hey, always nice to see the applause for some more pig-ignorant exploitation of women as objects in the service of somebody's pig-ignorant cause.

Volk is a right-wing piece of shit and references to him, other than as a right-wing piece of shit, do not belong at this website. Whether people who use multiple exclamation marks to express their appreciation of him do, well, not for me to say.

[bossy22]

4. wow

"Volk is a right-wing piece of shit and references to him, other than as a right-wing piece of shit, do not belong at this website"

If you don't think my way you do not deserve to think......

wow a very liberal value you hold here Ms. Iverglas
hey, in my opinion i don't totally agree with his use of female images but other people are allowed to agree with them. Your comments reminded me of that whole Michael Savage incident over the summer (knee jerk liberalism)

[iverglas]

5. nice try

wow a very liberal value you hold here Ms. Iverglas

(a) The "value" has nothing to do with me. Discussion of extinct disruptors is not encouraged by the management of this website.

(b) I don't actually know what "liberal value" you might be referring to, but I wouldn't be surprised to know that I don't hold it, be it liberal or "liberal". I'm not a liberal. Don't you people ever learn?


hey, in my opinion i don't totally agree with his use of female images but other people are allowed to agree with them.

Bully for them. Anybody wants to agree with Oleg Volk about anything at all is entirely free to do so. That has precisely nothing to do with the appropriateness of doing so at a liberal / progressive / d/Democratic website provided by an operator in the private sector for the purposes determined by that operator.

Oleg Volk is a right-wing piece of shit. His exploitation of women, for various purposes, is simply a reflection of his right-wing shittiness.

[iverglas]

6. fyi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=192042

[iverglas]

7. and btw

I see no reason for thinking that this post is anything other than the astroturf effort undertaken by the online "gun rights" community to take over discussion at that site:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-love-my-people.html

The original post is dated January 6, 2008, so it took a while for our grassroots to find it, but just damn!

I complained awhile ago about some of our more vocal elements sometimes being a detriment to our cause, but the comments to this post are outstanding, even given the inevitable minor errors. The entire tone is calm, logical, factual, and fierce.

Everybody who commented? Take a bow. You deserve it.

Everybody who linked? You are the difference between Joyce-funded astroturf, and the grassroots from the divots our opponents keep picking out of their teeth.

Ah, irony.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. I was discussing his propaganda and the response on SI

not Volk himself. The mention of violent images of women, and of his tombstoning here of course put him in a new light for me. Examination of his background is just as
appropriate for him as anyone else.

If you have the dirt on Volk, so to speak, you should get it posted on the other fora where he is discussed (not the images themselves, of course).

That said, Sociological Images is still a fascinating site.

[iverglas]

9. it is a very interesting site

It's quite unfortunate that it's been polluted by the "gun rights" thugs.

[Jack_DeLeon]

30. guess you dont like the female form?

or freedom for consenting adults to photograph it in the manner that they agree to?

"I always wondered why the subjects of those images didn't whip out their trusty sidearm and shoot Mr. Volk in the head, myself"

Because they choose to allow themselves to be photographed in that manner, or do you think it would be better if they wore burqas instead?

[enfield collector]

32. once the 2nd amendment is gone, the 1st will be easier to

destroy as well.

[iverglas]

35. guess you can't read?

Or just prefer to state conclusions from what you read that no rational, honest person could possibly reach?

[enfield collector]

58. I read just fine, tell you what why don't you do some research

on 20th century genocides and see what preceded all of them. heres a hint, you're a big proponent of the pre-cursor.

[iverglas]

59. does "attention span of a gnat" resonate at all?

Or are you just trying to make yourself look like someone who can't hold a thought for two seconds?

I wouldn't be suggesting that I'm a proponent of hate speech, if I were you.

I mean, hate speech was indeed the common precursor of all modern genocides, and I'm not thinking it's quite ... wise ... for you to assert that I'm a proponent of it.

Or maybe you were referring to rain. I'm quite sure that rain precursed all modern genocides. Also barking dogs. And somebody eating dinner. I guess I'm a proponent of many precursors of modern genocides in fact. You, I'll bet you just hold rain and dinner and dogs in total contempt.

Given the contempt in which you obviously hold the concept of civil discourse, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[enfield collector]

62. actually it was gun control that was the pre-cursor. it's very difficult

to wipe out large section of a population who are armed so the first thing totalitarian regimes do is disarm the people they want to kill.

[enfield collector]

31. so he's a right wing piece of shit who believes in empowering

women and minorities to stand up and defend themselves. Contrast this with the opinion that they should offer no resistance to their would be attacker and call the police.

[iverglas]

36. ya think?

so he's a right wing piece of shit who believes in empowering women and minorities to stand up and defend themselves.

Believe that, if you like. Say it even if you don't believe it, if you like.

Me, I'm neither stupid enough to believe that nor dishonest enough to say things I don't believe.


Contrast this with the opinion that they should offer no resistance to their would be attacker and call the police.

How about if I contrast it with a pink polka dot elephant instead? That okay with you? Contrasting nonsense with other nonsense, either way.

[DavidMS]

45. He is a libertarian

Which makes him (particularly as demonstrated by the recent and rather spectacular deflation of the Wall Street Securitised Mortgage Bubble) a little bit of a fool. Freeman is out (thankfully) and Keynes is in.

I do take issue with his misuse of history. From what I read on the rise of fascism, it mostly had allot to do with poor and divided leadership on the socialist left in Germany. The Trotskites blame Stalin (predictably). You can read it here: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=2&ar=7
Think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn't a strong leftist working class identified party.

The reality is that it was game over when Hitler consolidated power and the best thing to do was get out. I would prefer that Oleg would at least discuss it properly and in the context of the historical era and make mention of the revolution of 1918, the near revolution of 1924 and that the Nazis were loosing their popular appeal in 1933 but made a deal with the royalists to get into power.

My grandfather left Hamburg in 1929 (IIRC) for New York and his brother went back to Switzerland not because of the Nazis but because they were convinced the communists were going to take over.

For the rest of his posters they are good propaganda, although he fails to adequately discuss intimate partner/acquaintance rape (as others have spoken of here). He could do a very good poster of a restraining order with a handgun on top... It would be much more defensible. Nor does he recognize just how dangerous doing away with governmental monopoly of (offensive) force is. It would be like living in Somalia.

I recognize that different people are at different levels of risk for crime and violence. I would put myself in the statistically low risk category. That does not mean that everyone is in the low risk category. There are many people who would benefit from Licensed Concealed Cary. A shot/maimed/dead criminal is not an ideal outcome for a violent crime, its a much better outcome than injury or worse to his/her intended victim.

Just ask yourself exactly how would Moveon footnote a poster and would they view it as defensible?

[RSstoppingby]

46. BS

Care to back up that garbage attempt to slander Mr. Volk? If you can provide any evidence of that bunch of shit then I will take back what I said, until then try not to be so ignorant. He isn't exploiting women, he is supporting their right to defend themselves, a right which you seem to be against. Since you obviously don't approve of self-defence, how do you suggest women protect themselves from rapists or for that matter, anyone protect them selves from any form of life threating violence?

[jody]

10. There you go again, riled up the gun-grabbers who will insist victims submit to violent criminals

who were raised in environments that forced them to pursue a career in crime rather than work for a living like their victims.

[Wickerman]

11. Mr. Volk is fair game here at DU

He is now a public figure, not a member. I find his images provocative, bordering on exploitive. I won't say much about his postings here but he was a member for several months. He isn't any more. Draw your own conclusions. He had a chance, despite his early misogynistic "art." Several images were posted before his arrival, but they were of the "newer," more "mainstream" vein.

One of the images that I thought summed up his work is here. Disclaimer: This was created prior to the '06 elections and fwiw, Hillary was not a part of the discussion back in the day. No Hillary bashing or endorsing implied.

[iverglas]

12. indeed

But Volk isn't the target of the astroturf effort -- the website where his images are posted for discussion are. The owners of the website are amused, by the way, at Volk's efforts to persuade the world that guns are what protected / protects / will protect victims of hate-motivated violence against anything. Historically ludicrous, as any intelligent person knows and any honest person acknowledges.

Of course, the responses here don't suggest that anyone finds Mr. Volk or his dishonest representation of history (any aspect thereof, including the one you cite) ludicrous at all.

[bossy22]

13. point

"The owners of the website are amused, by the way, at Volk's efforts to persuade the world that guns are what protected / protects / will protect victims of hate-motivated violence against anything. Historically ludicrous, as any intelligent person knows and any honest person acknowledges."

though in its most absolute (volk's pictures) you are right- the underlying messege that a gun is useful for self-protection is not so far fetched- though his ways of portraying it are overly dramatic and are potentially historically inaccurate.

some of his other messages though i disagree with (im one of those gun owners who doesnt totally buy the "defense against Tyranny arguement"- since i don't believe it will ever get close to that point- change comes at the ballot box)

[chunkstyle5]

14. Volk

Actually, Volk is a very good fellow, in person.

From your Sociological Images site:

"Oleg's images are disturbing because they graphically disprove the fallacy of the "peace and love" view of life so many people hold. John Lennon said, "All you need is love." David Chapman proved him wrong. Oleg Volk makes that plain in images even the most committed pacifist can comprehend."

True, dat.

[iverglas]

16. also from the site

"The Holocaust ones are particularly offensive."

True, dat.

And dat was written by an actual long-time DU member.

And dat isn't even based on the construction of one of the straw adversaries the "gun rights" crowd so loves to hate. John Lennon said blah blah. Who gives a toss? Nobody seems to have mentioned John Lennon, or professed to be a committed pacifist. And what "even a committed pacifist" might "comprehend" (are committed pacifists generally rather thick? or very easily led by the nose? I can't quite tell which is intended) is of no greater relevance.

[chunkstyle5]

49. I'm not so sure as you about dat.

"The Holocaust ones are particularly offensive."

Oleg himself would have much greater authority than I to speak on the offensive character of anything regarding the Holocaust.

He is, after all, an Eastern European Jew, and his family lost many members in it, and mine did not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. But guns *have* protected victims of hate-motivated violence...

...despite your assertion. Or do the estimable Robert F. Williams and the Deacons For
Defense and Justice not exist for you?

We must take our history as it is, and not make humans into plaster saints or penny-dreadful villains.

We do not reject Planned Parenthood and freely available contraception because
Margaret Sanger was a racist and promoted eugenics.

We do not reject the good that Ted Kennedy has done because he was a functioning alcoholic with a habit of exploiting women (Thankfully, he has cleaned up his act)

[iverglas]

38. what we don't generally do

is repeat vile lies about people not around to defend themselves.

We do not reject Planned Parenthood and freely available contraception because Margaret Sanger was a racist and promoted eugenics.

Damned good thing "we" don't, since SHE was no such thing and did no such thing.

Do you people get ALL your crap from right-wing websites? Does it not even occur to you to check whether the filth you read in those places might be lies before you repeat it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. It appears you have an El Mozote problem

in that, like the Reagan Administration, you deny or simply refuse to acknowledge
history you deem inconvenient. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mozote_massacre

To wit, from #12 above:

...Volk's efforts to persuade the world that guns are what protected / protects / will protect victims of hate-motivated violence against anything. Historically ludicrous, as any intelligent person knows and any honest person acknowledges.

Not only have you not addressed Robert F. Williams and The Deacons For Defense and
Justice, the Battle of Hayes Pond seems to have eluded you. For those unfamiliar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond

Final Score: Lumbee Native American Tribe 1, Ku Klux Klan 0. The account in
Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power by Timothy
B. Tyson is actually pretty funny (well, not if you are a Klansman)

Let's go on, shall we? From #38 above:

We do not reject Planned Parenthood and freely available contraception because Margaret Sanger was a racist and promoted eugenics.

Damned good thing "we" don't, since SHE was no such thing and did no such thing.

Do you people get ALL your crap from right-wing websites? Does it not even occur to you to check whether the filth you read in those places might be lies before you repeat it?"

Actually, I got my "crap", as you call it, from Sanger's own words, via Wikipedia and Project Gutenberg. Now, if they have gotten the quotes from her
writings wrong, please do correct me.

First up:

Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", Birth Control Review,
October 1921

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without"

And onward we go:


The Pivot of Civilization New York (Brentano's, 1922) via Project Gutenberg

Chapter IV The Fertility of The Feeble Minded

"...But modern society, which has respected the personal liberty of the
individual only in regard to the unrestricted and irresponsible bringing
into the world of filth and poverty an overcrowding procession of
infants foredoomed to death or hereditable disease, is now confronted
with the problem of protecting itself and its future generations
against the inevitable consequences of this long-practised policy of
LAISSER-FAIRE.

The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced
immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary
type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the
reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile
children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The
male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one
or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem.
Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential
source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of
immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely
prohibited to the feeble-minded."


Chapter V: The Cruelty of Charity

"...Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that
it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism.
It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its
very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves
the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the
symptom of a malignant social disease.

Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to
diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils
that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest
sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating
constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and
dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the "failure" of
philanthropy, but rather at its success..."

So much for the World Health Organization, the Quakers, and universal health care.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

52. and so much for the US Supreme Court

Why ... it couldn't be ... that lion among jurists, Oliver Wendell Holmes himself, could it???

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html

"Salpingectomy" = tubal ligation

Oh, and so much for US state legislatures, too ...

Buck v. Bell (No. 292)
143 Va. 310, affirmed.

HOLMES, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

274 U.S. 200
Buck v. Bell
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
No. 292 Argued: April 22, 1927 --- Decided: May 2, 1927

Mr. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County by which the defendant in error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her sterile. 143 Va. 310. The case comes here upon the contention that the statute authorizing the judgment is void under the Fourteenth Amendment as denying to the plaintiff in error due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.

Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, &c.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who, if now discharged, would become a menace, but, if incapable of procreating, might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society, and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, &c. The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.

The superintendent first presents a petition to the special board of directors of his hospital or colony, stating the facts and the grounds for his opinion, verified by affidavit. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing in the institution is to be served upon the inmate, and also upon his guardian, and if there is no guardian, the superintendent is to apply to the Circuit Court of the County to appoint one. If the inmate is a minor, notice also is to be given to his parents, if any, with a copy of the petition. The board is to see to it that the inmate may attend the hearings if desired by him or his guardian. The evidence is all to be reduced to writing, and, after the board has made its order for or against the operation, the superintendent, or the inmate, or his guardian, may appeal to the Circuit Court of the County. The Circuit Court may consider the record of the board and the evidence before it and such other admissible evidence as may be offered, and may affirm, revise, or reverse the order of the board and enter such order as it deems just. Finally any party may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which, if it grants the appeal, is to hear the case upon the record of the trial in the Circuit Court, and may enter such order as it thinks the Circuit Court should have entered. There can be no doubt that, so far as procedure is concerned, the rights of the patient are most carefully considered, and, as every step in this case was taken in scrupulous compliance with the statute and after months of observation, there is no doubt that, in that respect, the plaintiff in error has had due process of law.

The attack is not upon the procedure, but upon the substantive law. It seems to be contended that in no circumstances could such an order be justified. It certainly is contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited, and that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization, and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and, if they exist, they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course, so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER dissents.

The only people in the US who seem to have actually sterilized anyone against his/her will would be people acting under orders from governments, with the approval of courts. None of which included Margaret Sanger.

Or maybe you missed where she said that "eugenics" (which simply did not, at the time, mean what you are pretending it meant) had to be a matter of INDIVIDUAL CHOICE?

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment.

The "race" she is talking about is the HUMAN RACE, for the love of fuck.

Martin Luther King Jr. was awarded Planned Parenthood's Sanger prize, which was accepted on his behalf by Coretta Scott King. You smarter than them? I didn't think so.

Yeesh, next you'll be quoting that very odd thing called "Margaret Sanger, Father of the modern birth control movement" or however that goes, by that nun with the very odd name.


How clever of you to have omitted things that Margaret Sanger said at actually relevant times, like:

When Nazi Germany adopted the principles of eugenics to create a Germanic "master race," Sanger did not publicly denounce the racist and anti-Semitic program of the Nazis. However, in a letter she wrote:

"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.."

I do just love it when the colours fly.

A woman, a feminist, a radical socialist ... whose views from more than 80 years ago in no way represent her thoughts in times closer to ours when she, like everyone else in the world, had the benefit of the science we happen to have grown up with ... reviled by all and sundry in the Guns forum of DU.

Quelle surprise.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Franklin D.Roosevelt and Earl Warren sent Americans to concentration camps

We don't reject the decisions of the Warren Court or the New Deal.

I don't reject Planned Parenthood because of Margaret Sanger's promotion of eugenics
and classism (which included racism as a subset). I remind you Gunther Grass, Francois
Mitterand, Kurt Waldheim, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Chevalier and Marija Gimbutas snowed a lot of people for a long time concerning their friendliness with the Nazis.

Must I repeat?

Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", Birth Control Review,
October 1921

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without"

She "did no such thing"? And how would you know what my definition of eugenics might
be?

You also blithely write:"...Volk's efforts to persuade the world that guns are what protected / protects / will protect victims of hate-motivated violence against anything. Historically ludicrous, as any intelligent person knows and any honest person acknowledges."

while never acknowledging such as Robert F. Williams, The Deacons for Defense, and the
Battle of Hayes Pond, much less the armed response of white proletarians at Matewan. Or the multiracial battles in Harlan County, Kentucky (early 70's) and at Athens, Tennesee (1940's).

Some of Oleg Volk's art may be skeevy. Some of it may offend (I haven't seen his S&M
stuff).

But if you are gonna reject Volk's message beacuse of his other art, you need to put
a *lot* of other people's work in the same dustbin.

[iverglas]

54. Sorry, you can't surprise me

Not you, and not anyone here, has been able to surprise me with misrepresentations of reality for a very long time.

- You are pretending that "eugenics" as it was understood in the early 20th century, and as Sanger used the word, has something to do with "eugenics" as practised by Nazis and your own governments.

- You are pretending that "racial" as the expression was used by Sanger had something to do with some race or races other than the human race.

- You are pretending that isolated incidents in which weapons were used for the collective defence of oppressed groups have something to do with the "gun rights" movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the U.S.

- You are pretending that I believe that Oleg Volk's "message" is a lie on his part and the part of everyone who claims to believe / agree with it is because of his exploitation of women.

Enjoy your game.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. A little less hagiography and a little more history is needed

You are pretending that "eugenics" as it was understood in the early 20th century, and as Sanger used the word, has something to do with "eugenics" as practised by Nazis and your own governments

Lothrop Stoddard, who published the charming The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy in 1920, was named to the board of directors of the
American Birth Control League by Sanger in 1921. And that didn't have something
to do with the later practice of eugenics?

You are pretending that isolated incidents in which weapons were used for the collective defence of oppressed groups have something to do with the "gun rights" movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the U.S.

Collective defense using individually owned and carried weapons by civilians,
without government imprimatur. Organized amongst themselves, and they carried their
various rifles, pistols, and shotguns home again, to do with as they would, without so much as a by-your-leave to any government authority.

In other words, my kind of Americans.

Hey, *you* brought up Volk's S&M imagery. OK, Volk has feet of clay. What bearing does that have on his political imagery? I gave examples of bad things done by
people who did other things that are good,
and your response is "It isn't like that!"

[iverglas]

56. what exactly the fuck is your point?

Margaret Sanger lived for 50 years after 1921. In 1921, whatever ideas she had about hereditary disease and the like were virtually UNIVERSAL, not unique to her. If you want to criticize Margaret Sanger, find something relevant to base it on.

Oleg Volk's piggery is happening now. Shall we wait for 50 years to see whether he becomes a decent human being before he dies? Why? His piggery is virtually universally recognized for what it is NOW ... even by the many who pretend otherwise.


Hey, *you* brought up Volk's S&M imagery. OK, Volk has feet of clay. What bearing does that have on his political imagery?

No, YOU called what he does "S&M imagery". I call it objectification and exploitation of women.

I didn't claim it had any bearing on his "political imagery". I claim that it is just more evidence of his complete disregard for women and complete willingness to exploit women for any purpose that he might consider to be in his own interests. His tatty tits&ass porn being one piece of evidence, and his tatty gun porn being another.


I gave examples of bad things done by people who did other things that are good,

No, you gave misrepresentations of things done by a woman at a time when the world was very different from the one you live in, which in no way represent her life's work, and pretended that this is somehow similar to crap like Volk produces. Margaret Sanger devoted her life -- at great personal cost, I'm sure you don't know -- to empowering women. Volk devotes a fair bit of his life to exploiting and debasing women. Sometimes an analogy is just an apple and an orange.

Quite apart from the fact that you'd be needing to produce something good done by Volk ...


What IS your explanation for the Kings' approval of Margaret Sanger??

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Peoples' lives come in parts, and a Manichean view of them is near useless

Margaret Sanger did far more good than bad, and society
is better off for her having been here.

That said, your efforts to make her a secular saint is
ahistorical. She may have privately condemned the Nazi
(and the medical professions') euthanasia and forced sterilizations,
but she never condemned them publicly.

Maybe she felt that airing her disapproval would harm Planned Parenthood,
or that a public split would cause a reappraisal of her views.

In any case, she kept silent. Like I pointed out, a *lot* of people either
elided or flat out lied about their relationships with the Third Reich.

It must be said in her favor that she didn't support them, either.
(I'm looking at you, Prescott Bush, Charles Lindbergh, and Leni
Riefenstahl.)

I think the Kings realized that more children = worse poverty for poor
African-Americans, and that Sanger had modified her views by the
Fifties and Sixties.

Oleg Volk may very be a sexist, misogynist pig. I still applaud
his attempt to have various oppressed groups realize that the
very real personal and political power inherent in private gun
ownership is as suitable for them as anyone else

[iverglas]

61. you disgust me

Flat out.

Like I pointed out, a *lot* of people either elided or flat out lied about their relationships with the Third Reich.

And now, for the assembled audience of three, explain what this has to do with Margaret Sanger.

What exactly was Margaret Sanger's "relationship with the Third Reich"?

I think the Kings realized that more children = worse poverty for poor African-Americans, and that Sanger had modified her views by the Fifties and Sixties.

What exactly are these views that Margaret Sanger had "modified" that presumably would have offended the Kings?

What King himself actually said was:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. ... Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.

Why don't you try spitting the mealies out of your mouth and saying something straight for once?


I still applaud his attempt to have various oppressed groups realize that the very real personal and political power inherent in private gun ownership is as suitable for them as anyone else

And I applaud the loopty-loops being done by the flying pigs outside my window.


Does it not ever bother you that you march in perfect lockstep with the vilest elements of society? Or have you just ceased to notice?

The Nazis burned Sanger's books.

[iverglas]

57. now educate your own self

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
with my emphases

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.<1> Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust.

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,<2> drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.<3><4> G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.<5> Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

... Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. Much debate has taken place in the past, as it does today--as to what exactly counts as eugenics.<6> Some types of eugenics deal only with perceived beneficial and/or detrimental genetic traits. These are sometimes called “pseudo-eugenics’ by proponents of strict eugenics.

The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies influential during the early twentieth century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, preemptive abortions and designer babies have been (sometimes controversially) referred to as eugenic.

... Some who disagree with the idea of eugenics in general contend that eugenics legislation still had benefits. Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood of America) found it a useful tool to urge the legalization of contraception. In its time eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the death camps of World War II, the idea that eugenics could lead to genocide was not taken seriously.

If you and your spouse seek genetic counselling because of a known hereditary condition in your family/ies, you will apparently be guilty of eugenics. To about the same extent that Margaret Sanger was.

[aikoaiko]

15. As a pro-rkba Democrat, I find most of Volk's images provocative in a good way, some wierd and a few

...disagreeable.

I'm stunned that any DU member would denigrate images of alternative sexuality, but I suppose some people have hang ups. There are many people (democrats and otherwise) who relish the S&M scene and Volk's images depict don't depict nonconsensual sex acts.

[iverglas]

17. awwww

I'm deeply sorry that you're stunned that I FIND IMAGES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN offensive.

Not.

I'm highly amused that anyone would both (a) defend both Volk's exploitation of women's experience in the service of his nasty agenda and (b) defend Volk's exploitation of women's bodies in the service of men's sexual objectification of women, though.

Yes, the sexual assault that lurks around every corner for all us little weak women just has nothing to do with the objectification of women in images such as Volk's. Nope, nothing at all. Trust Oleg. He knows. He wuvs us girls and only wants what's best for us. If only we'd shut the fuck up and listen to what he tells us. Oleg knows best. We're morons. So why anybody would want us toting guns around, I dunno ...

[aikoaiko]

18. If you don't like the S&M scene -- thats your puritanical hangup

Its not violence when its consensual. Some men AND women enjoy consensual S&M.

You sure do read a lot into his images that isn't there, Iverglas. Perhaps, you doth protest too much.

[iverglas]

20. I tells ya what

Maybe you can direct me to a photo by Oleg showing some male genitalia (no need for a face or limbs or anything, we're not actually talking about a person here) being gently squeezed by a pair of pliers.

S&M my ass. Objectification of women, up his ass.

It just ain't that hard to read the message in a photograph of a naked female torso (no need for a face or limbs or anything -- remember, we're not actually talking about a person here) in the company of all the other similar photos by Mr. Volk that we plebs are no longer allowed access to. (Why IS that? Surely he's as proud of them as he is of any of his other masterpieces.)

Remember, that was just a wee example. There wasn't actually anything S&M-ish about all the other photos of naked female torsos and genitalia, often decorated with firearms as they were.

Just plain old piggery.



typo fixed

[Irreverend IX]

28. Not a fan of Robert Mapplethorpe, I take it.

Oleg Volk probably isn't interested in taking sexualized photos of men, just as Robert wasn't interested in taking sexualized photos of women. Do you think Mapplethorpe denied the personhood of his subjects? Many of his pictures display only his subjects' genitals, sometimes in battered and bloody condition.

Some of the anti-porn "feminists" I've run across have pretty thin veneers. The slightest scratch is all it takes to reveal the fundy Puritan inside. It's simply inconceivable that a woman could enjoy feeling those little metal teeth sink into her flesh. They're being deceived, they're being coerced, they're being emotionally damaged, and we have to put a stop to it. It's for their own good, after all. That's the same rationale that gets girls' clitorises chopped off in Northern Africa, a tradition which women play a much larger role in enforcing than men.

[iverglas]

37. keep going

I wouldn't want to stem the outpouring. Best it should see the light of day.

Ah, free speech. It's what lets people show themselves for what they are.

[Irreverend IX]

48. What more do you want?

I guess it's an interesting way of admitting you don't have an argument.

[aikoaiko]

33. There is no requirement to be gender neutral with one's sexuality and sexual art.

Be honest, whether he took pictures of men in similar poses probably would even matter to you. I can just see your response if I did offer such an image -- you would claim he showed violence toward both men and woman and would be doubly bad to you.

My main point is this -- you tried to smear someone's pro-rkba speech based on his sexualized images (I would call them S&M lite). Of the images I saw, there was never any indication of unwanted sexual violence. Such things were only in your imagination. You should use that imagination for good -- not evil Iverglas.

[iverglas]

39. "Be honest"?

Me? Be honest? Obviously I'm incapable, or at least not in the habit -- or you would have no reason to issue instructions like that to me.


My main point is this -- you tried to smear someone's pro-rkba speech based on his sexualized images

So you are left pointless. I did no such thing, and if you don't know that, I can hardly see why I'd waste my time explaining it to you, because obviously you'd never understand.

If you do know it and make the false statement anyway, it would be just as much of a waste of time to point out the obvious to you.

How the hell does one smear someone's speech?

I call Oleg Volk a vile right-wing piece of shit. And that ain't no smear; that's a badge I'm sure he wears very proudly, given the public display he makes of his vile right-wing shittery.

[aikoaiko]

44. As if you don't understand what you did.....

right.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

21. sometimes saying what you mean and meaning what you say

well, might get something else wiped.

If you actually want to call me a Nazi, you should stand up tall and proud and do it, doncha think?

I mean, I called Volk a right-wing piece of shit. See how easy it is?

Maybe you think that asserting that I have a swastika on my front door isn't calling me a Nazi. We shall see.

[bossy22]

22. why would i call you a nazi

you have given no indication that you sympathize with their beliefs

to say it straight- no i am not saying you are a nazi

nor am i saying you have a swastika on your front door

maybe it could be a metaphor for something....hmmmm...

[bossy22]

23. infact

i believe i critiqued your general behavior that you indicated on this board into one line

btw i want to add that i was not insulting you- nor is my comment to insult you- many people believe the way you do- i believe opposite- and i just made my feelings known

also to clarify- the "your" i used in my comment was not directed to you specifically- but a general person

[iverglas]

24. okey dokey

It's all completely unintelligible, so I won't waste another moment on it.

[bossy22]

25. you only say that

because you don't understand it...and you wouldn't easily understand it because thats not your nature- it seems you like confrontations

[Tejas]

26. Good point

A lot of mockery lately, methinks Heller vs DC will bring a lot more of it out as the decision of the SCOTUS nears.

[iverglas]

40. maketh my head hurt

I have no clue what Heller v. DC might have to do with anything here, or what this predicted effect of it might be.

Perhaps someone thinks I might be surprised to learn that a bunch of political appointees on a foreign court who make any right-wing politician I'm personally familiar with look like Karl Marx have decided to strike down legislation enacted to protect the public by restricting the exercise of some minor right or freedom that only the far right wing thinks, in its own interest, should not be so restricted.

Wait for the yawns, folks. Mockery would be too easy.



typo fixed

[bossy22]

41. with a little twist

"Perhaps someone thinks I might be surprised to learn that a bunch of political appointees on a foreign court who make any right-wing politician I'm personally familiar with look like Karl Marx have decided to strike down legislation enacted to protect the public by restricting the exercise of some minor right or freedom that only the far right wing thinks, in its own interest, should not be so restricted."

this statement can be changed to make it support such things as the patriot act. Remember- that was also enacted a "public safety" regulation

You are also forgetting that it sounded like some of the liberal wing of the court seemed to indicate that a handgun ban may go too far.

[iverglas]

42. such a very tiny twist

with a little twist
this statement can be changed to make it support such things as the patriot act.

Indeed! All you have to do is pretend that a whole entire portion of the statement wasn't there:

restricting the exercise of some minor right or freedom that only the far right wing thinks, in its own interest, should not be so restricted

You can call it "a little twist", if you like. I'm seeing twisted, for sure.


You are also forgetting that it sounded like some of the liberal wing of the court seemed to indicate that a handgun ban may go too far.

Perhaps you think that what "liberals" think matters to me.




html fixed

[bossy22]

43. oppinions

restricting the exercise of some minor right or freedom that only the far right wing thinks, in its own interest, should not be so restricted

I don't feel its a minor right/freedom

if anything is a minor right its abortion rights/freedoms

[Tejas]

27. #1) It's art

#2) If confused, angered, saddened etc ad nauseum by said art, refer to #1

;)

[Wild Colonial Boy]

34. His work is always provacative and "in your face"

It also busts a lot of stereotypes. I know a couple of people have been asked to take it down from their desk areas because it was too "provocative" in the eyes of their managers.

I too am a fan of the Pink Pistols.

[Tejas]

47. Agreed, some are just plain corny thoguh.

I'd be surprised if some would even hit their intended target, mush less have any impact. Not calling those lame, just not very interesting or thought-provoking.