(from Why Men Are Such Boys® by Wolfgang Nebmaier © 2014)
Some may accuse me of being assailable here and of presenting unscientific considerations. But how scientific can an investigation of this subject be? Be it the desire to sell seven to nine digits worth of pharmaceuticals or the notion that monkeys can read stockbrokers’ thoughts, are not all studies based in an intention or assumption that originates in someone’s mind? The objective pursued in the considerations presented here is to take the subject of pornography out of the realm of emotional and cultural distortion. In an area where the subject is made up of something non-existent or ‘virtual’ combined with projections and a huge amount of suppressed and confused psychological underpinnings, how can a ‘placebo’ be introduced to the observation? Pornography is the placebo!
The subject is alienation. The encounter with the real person is replaced with the placebo, the thing that looks like but isn‘t. The real experience is then attached to that placebo at an age when the psyche is extremely malleable and generally while fantasizing or masturbating, that is, in a situation which, once started, is largely beyond the control of the critical mind.
The physiological ‘juices’ of sexual arousal and the dark tunnel of guilt and furtiveness conspire to create a pressured environment. Rarely does a pubescent male not fear discovery, no matter how much or how little in terms of ‘blindness’ propaganda he was inoculated with. Rarely will he pleasure himself at leisure, and without concern for covering his tracks after ‘it’ happens. All this makes it unlikely that such a young male will reflect on the facts of his situation and moderate his experience and its imprint. Will he be able to acknowledge that he is looking at the picture of a strange woman, a woman he does not know and who does not know him, a woman he did not ask and a woman who did not give him permission to rub his penis against or into any part of herself? Some will certainly argue that the female in the picture (or video) implicitly provided that consent by posing for them, but that reasoning is utterly beside the point. What matters is not the legalese between the producer/publisher and the woman but the imprint the experience will leave with the young male human: I can satisfy my sexual urges on the body of a woman without really interacting with the person. This is what we call objectification: The woman becomes a get-off-on thing.
If woman and the body and touch and sensuality, let alone pleasure, were not demonized and devalued in the dominant religions or ‘moral’ tenets, woman, her body and her beauty could be subject of admiration or reverence without the male disposition factor. Sexual pleasure itself could be freed from the mandatory use of another – or fantasy thereof. What woman does not recall being reminded of her role as accommodator even – or especially – at a young age when a boy she was “going out with”, after a while of petting and kissing, made her responsible for his aching testicles? Parents or elders or friends rarely impart the skills to a boy how to avoid or deal with the so-called “blueballs”. The result is more pressure on a woman to not “let him suffer”, making her responsible for his lack of skills about his own body. On a societal level, there is no innocent version of purposing a woman or anyone.
My mother in-law used to recount a story about a young man she was going out with, and who, some crisp fall day, implored her if he could not put his hands inside her blouse “because my hands are so cold”. Upon which she replied, “Well, why don’t you buy yourself a pair of mittens?” and walked off.
Here, there may also exist a distinct gender difference: Do masturbating women fantasize on sex with a male to the extent that males imagine either a specific woman or its generically perfected fantasy version? Do women attach their sensations and feelings to a made-up person or mainly focus on the pleasure as such? Do boys/men attach feelings of conquest to the experience of masturbating, a successful conquest without the risk of rejection or failure? And does that distort their expectation of reality or render them unable to sexually relate to a real woman?
This is not about judging masturbation or sexually arousing images. It is about investigating the process by which the real experiences between women and men may be undermined or become entirely supplanted through the readily available flood of virtual (mostly) women who won’t and can’t resist. The abstraction is taken to extremes when men cannot physically relate to a woman unless they are fucking a cartoon.
An additional blind spot is the extent to which the rape factor has entered the picture. There is no denying that a cartoon or photograph projected upon will not say “No!” unless it is drawn or staged that way and has a speech bubble to express it. The fantasy object is always willing and always available. This is also where the convenient equalizing of masturbation between men and women ends. Sure, there may be the occasional woman who finds it arousing to fantasize about controlling or dominating a man, but the bulk of that ‘scene’ is based in men’s fantasies.
(Tellingly, in the real world of sexual services, it is mostly well-off and powerful men who will gravitate to the services of a dominatrix. The reason is simple. The more money and power a man has, the more he becomes aware on some level, mostly unconsciously, that he is chasing the impossible dream of making his existential fears go away, and most of all that of being unable to really control a woman. When he exercises his financial and/or social power to make a woman act out on him that loss of control – which he never had – he kills two birds with a single stone. He can, for once, let go of his board room façade of control. And he can, in the back of his mind, maintain the notion that he isn’t really really not in control because it is his money that pays for the experience.)
When a young male, whose emotional framework is woven largely from virtual encounters on chats or games, sets out to construct his relationship to women, he finds himself without tools, without emotional skills to deal with the needs of a real person and the way that affects boundaries, mutual or otherwise. Knowing the extent to which virtual encounters can become real in people’s psyche , the situation of interacting with a tangible, feeling, flesh-and-blood person may be a real shock. As a sort of diversion from their inability to relate person-to-person, such early relationships may shift into the environment of xboxes or nontendos or soft drugs or other placebos such as pseudo-political activism. But the underlying lack of relationship skills remains.
Are Men by Nature Rapists?
Does the availability of unopposed sex fantasies by way of images and videos merely represent the opportunity that is making men show their true nature? This assumption is wrong for a number of reasons.
First, we should not mistake average for normal, let alone natural. No matter what percentage of male humans perceive penetration as the standard manner of sexual activity, such statistics say nothing about how natural that manner of sexual activity is. If all trees were cut, for example, bonsai might be considered average or standard or normal, but not natural. Similarly, bonsai souls and bonsai relationships will never be natural.
Some might argue that procreation as such requires them to be rapists since they have to penetrate into the woman to do so. This is fiction as well.
Secondly, the choice of language is biased. To choose the term penetrate colors procreation into an act of force and violation. While this may serve as a convenient blanket excuse it is factually in error. The act of depositing sperm in a woman’s vagina is a giving action by the male. It generally requires the penis to enter the woman but that does not automatically imply an act of force. It is also not a matter of interpretation but a biological reality, that the sperm does not penetrate the egg, rather the cap of the follicle containing the egg opens up by way of cyclically produced proteolytic enzymes and then the egg opens to encompass the sperm. Furthermore, the sperm does not make the choice, but the egg chooses which sperm it will take in. Feminists therefore have physiologically sound reason to contrast the penetration language of violence with the term encompassment.
The third falsehood is generated by way of omission. To describe procreation as a unilateral act of “penetrat[ing] into the woman” absolutely relegates the woman into something of an object, acted upon by the man without any participation, let alone decision authority on her part. In this way, the description implicitly considers it plausible for the act to happen against the woman’s will.
Without the context of how the language and the factual omissions come about it may be disorienting to pull the rug of the habitual language and perceptions out from under the tacitly approved understanding of sex. (Even if, on the surface, these considerations appear to be applicable to heterosexual sexual activity only, the misperceptions deeply affect both, gay and lesbian couples as well.) The source of these objectifying concepts and the associated language cannot lie anywhere but in the desire (or need) to support the illusion of procreative control. If the womb person, a.k.a. woman, were acknowledged for her dominant role in procreation, the male would find himself back at square one in his quest for . . . not feeling inferior. And this brings us back again to the larger themes of patriarchal myths.


Stupidity More Dangerous Than Malice

The following is a ‘stub’ as they may call it, a beginning draft of a larger essay about trying to understand why we scrape our heads bloody trying to make sense to people who refuse to let anything en ter their brain but the confirmation of their self-righteous prejudices.

We live in a society where facts and truth and law and the sense of a shared human dignity are under attack. We also live in a media dominated world where paradoxically very little communication takes place. People who disagree use “social” media not as a means to try to understand differing views and opinions but to double and triple down on whatever their take on a subject is. As a result, differences become increasingly pronounced and turbocharged with emotions of frustration and even hate. What’s missing is even the faintest recognition that we’re part of the same human family ultimately sharing a common fate.
This is a lifethreatening disease which can respond to ‘therapy’ only if we understand the ‘pathogen’. In this context, it is a kind of stupidity, not a lack of intellectual ability but . . . don’t take ny word; let me pass the word to a man of utmost ethics, a literal martyr to incorruptible morals , Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German priest who was imprisoned and eventually hung a few days before the end of WWII by the Nazis for speaking out against them with the added authority of a priest. He calls his essay, written in prison “Von der Dummheit” or “About Stupidity” (Translation edited by Wolfgang Nebmaier)

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of goodness than malice or evil. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Also, evil always carries within it the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a trace of unease. Against stupidity, however, we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force can accomplish anything here. Reasoning falls on deaf ears; and facts that contradict a person’s prejudice are simply disqualified. In such moments such a stupid person even acts critical; and when facts turn out irrefutable they are simply pushed aside as inconsequential exceptions. In all this, the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and even becomes dangerous by indulging in a self-righteous irritability and going on the attack. This is why greater caution is called for in dealing with stupid people than with malicious ones. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for that is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to find out how to prevail against stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is clear, it is essentially not an intellectual deficiency but a human one. There are people of remarkably agile intellect, yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. In other words, we discover that stupidity is not a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We also find that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability.
So it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, we see that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.
The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of a power rising, humans are robbed of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that stupid people are often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that they are by far not independent. In conversation with them, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of them. They are is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in their very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

big time abuse of small town power

The following is an email I wrote to the self-titled leadership  team of ‘Rogue Indivisible’, the Grants Pass iteration of the nation-wide Indivisible movement. Ever since its inception, Vajra Ma and I had been part of the R.I. facebook page and generously contributed our thoughts, memes, questions and encouragements. At times, this also included questions about inactivities or about a given stance or lack thereof. Remember, this is small town, and some people don’t like it.

What ensued must have been months – actually a whole year  – of evidence collecting on the part of some people who didn’t like my non-lockstepping. Finally,  the following post was too much for their small-town sense of power. It was the following image and the text below:

We Need Inspiration
Great to see about 250 (some say 300) people show up yesterday morning, [that was the June 30 March for family reunification] especially considering the late notice and competing events. However . . .

There were 900 for the 2nd Women’s March. What happened?

Are we fatigued? Are we deflated? Is the apparently unceasing and unstoppable flood of lies and cruelties, blatant corruption and clinical insanity wearing down your hopes that anything even could change things to the better? “Done enough.” “Gotta get back to my life!”

We need inspiration. We need a vision. We need a face. We need a voice.
No anonymous “team” or faceless “admin” can provide that.
We need inspiration. We need a face. We need a voice. We need a vision.

After all, sooner or later it may well be “Get back to What?”

Many of us may still live in the illusion that the system has checks and balances, that the pendulum will eventually swing back to where we need it.
Others trust that it is exclusively about ditching Walden – from the high road – and that everything else will then take care of itself.
Many also consider (Rogue) Indivisible something of a subset of or feeder organization into the Democratic Party, which has proven itself something of a write-off in Josephine County, hasn’t it?

What was that? “Gotta get back to my life!”
As long as you have it. Right. Eventually – sooner than you think – you may find yourself asking the lunatic for permission. And then too many people will follow orders. And then it’s too late.

We need inspiration. We need a vision. We need a face. We need a voice. We live in extraordinary times which call for extraordinary people. With guts, with vision, a face, and a voice. Who don’t wait for the next person to go for it but do it without a bureaucracy, without a PAC, without the paralyzing risklessness inherent in an “organization” and its “teams”, admins and eventually hierarchies.

While marching 4-5 times a year may be nice, it’s not democracy but marching 4-5 times a year. Even donating a few bucks to this cause or that is nice. Nice. Nice. Tyrants like people playing nice because they don’t. And that’s how they prevail. Believe me, you don’t want to find out if I’m exaggerating. Remember, that’s what my grandfather said: “They won’t do t h a t !” He died in a concentration camp.

Soon thereafter, I was barred from the Rogue Indivisible (note the irony!) fb page, and once Vajra Ma asked what happened, she was barred as well.

The email used to notify us of that went as follows (emphases mine):

Vajra and Wolfgang,

I am writing to inform you that members of Rogue Indivisible Steering Committee have met and discussed the recent conflicts on FB, and have asked me to communicate the following:

We have reviewed a number of posts and messages sent by Vajra and Wolfgang Nebmaier and have found the policies below have not been followed (on more than one occasion), warranting removal from the Facebook Group.

Any posts that disparage Rogue Indivisible as a group, actively work to divide members or go against the goal of electing progressive candidates will be deleted and the member may be subject to removal from the group.”
Complaints or comments about Rogue Indivisible policies should be sent via Private Message to FB Admins, or the Rogue Indivisible Steering Committee:

The FB group is in place to share and discuss news and information relevant to its members. These aforementioned posts do nothing to inform others, nor do the promote the goals of Rogue Indivisible.

Continual posting of questions and commentary regarding the methodology and actions of Rogue Indivisible and taking the question regarding the removal of Wolfgang publicly to the group, (along with tagging other uninvolved members), rather than contacting Admin/Steering Committee directly, has created unnecessary discourse within the group.

The FB group is in place to share and discuss news and information relevant to its members. These aforementioned posts do nothing to inform others, nor do they promote the goals of Rogue Indivisible.

While we appreciate all that you have done in the past, the Steering Committee feels that it is in the best interest of the Rogue Indivisible Facebook Group to remove you both.

This difficult decision will not be revisited. [Achtung!]  In light of the accusations made via messenger, I am requesting that you not contact me in the future.

Michele Kyle
Member, Rogue Indivisible Steering Committe

Finally, here is the email I sent today to the purported Rogue indivisible leadership. There are exceptions among them and I know who they are, but I did not want them to be abused as a “good cop”. Here goes:

Dear “Team”,

when R.I. started out, an invitation was extended to join and work with various work groups. I signed up for “corruption”.

I suggested several subjects, such as the correlation of local corruption with national and global corruption – except for the dollar amounts. It was “taken under advisement”, and now it has become clear why.

(Before I proceed, I would like to ensure that it is clear that I don’t mean to imply that the following applies to everyone on the team, but I’m given no means to differentiate. And the exceptions know who they are.)

The abuse of power endemic of most organizations along with the lack of transparency and the non-accountability facilitated by an ever festering royal “we” is the only plausible reason for such a disinclination to contemplate sweeping in front of our own front door. I have no “authority”, to request a disclosure of the plethora of the leadership’s conflict of interest woven through local politics, so-called progressive as much as so-called conservative. There also is no avenue for the “unauthorized” to critique the leadership except to the leadership itself, behind closed doors, so to speak.. And if I had such an “authority” and were to point out all the meal tickets and “I scratch your back when you scratch mine” associations, nobody, not a single fffing soul would care, let alone do something about it. After all, “loyalty” is the word. At least that’s what they say – all the way to D.C..

Perhaps the worst abuse of power is the ruthless disregard of other people’s humanity. I can hear “team” members disqualify my language (“ruthless”) and myself, wholesale, along with it based on the assumption that it’s always ‘the other guys’ who are doing bad stuff.” Or, even more slick, “aren’t we the social justice, human rights, progressives?” and express self-righteous indignation at having their halo questioned. As if “indivisible” meant compliant with what we dictate. And for heaven’s sake do not
“create unnecessary discourse within the group”!

What I would like to know is the difference between control and control, between censorship and censorship, between hiding and hiding, between corporate arrogance and corporate arrogance, between cowardice and cowardice, and so on. If someone is an educated, thinking, engaged, feeling, creative, eloquent person who has contributed his mind and heart to an organization and come to experience a kind of relationship with the people associated with that organization, if that person is, without any stated reason, cut off from most of the people associated with that organization, that amounts to an autocratically administered expulsion and censorship. They used to cut out people’s tongues in the days before the same thing could be accomplished in a more sterile, dissociated way using a few key strokes.

To make things even worse, the people perpetrating the abuse of power have an almost unquestioned pool of support with all those committed to get rid of Walden. We are a captive audience, and the Democratic Party and R.I. are the only game in town. You flat-out own that cause and there is little or no critical expression or the threat thereof permitted. You totally count on that monopoly, and you use it to pursue control. That is plain and simple hypocrisy. Liberal control. Progressive censorship and secrecy.

I am aware that you, the “team”, exercise control over the organization and that my “disgruntlement” will not likely affect you. But you can silence me only within the realm of your varied and interwoven power spheres. And you can – and probably will – whine about people’s democratic illiteracy while you squash diversity as soon as it is not your diversity. You are no better than the people your finger points at.

So far so bad. And now to the epitome of what’s wrong with humanity. For reference see the Kyle letter above.

“inform you that members of Rogue Indivisible Steering Committee . . ”
Who were these members? Was there a quorum? Are there meeting minutes? Based on what valid board decision are these members in charge of the FB Group? Based on what valid board decision was the split between Group and Page enacted? Why was the email not sent from a Rogueindivisible mail account but from an anonymous

Moving right along:
When were the cited “policies below” stated? To my understanding, they were posted some time in February of 2018. My “brick” cartoon was posted December 10, 2017. One of the most basic rules of law is that no one can be judged and convicted ex post factum. How dare anyone claim social justice and act against one of the most basic tenets of justice?

You may also notice that another piece of “evidence” is dated exactly ONE YEAR AGO ! Thou shalt not question authority? I’m struggling to maintain a polite language. Obviously some people have been building a case against me. I think I would like to meet the accusers face-=to-face who would have me burnt at the stake.

Granted, there is no excuse for Vajra Ma ” taking the question regarding the removal of Wolfgang publicly to the group, ” OMG. There’s no hope now for saving Vajra Ma from the stake. After all, she “has created unnecessary discourse within the group”.

Next, if suggestions about how to improve a shared endeavor (R.I.) must be kept under control of an anonymous “team” . . . wow, I don’t even know how to politely refrain from NS comparisons. And how is such an authoritarian, non-transparent rule to be seen as anything but divisive.

In general, for all those who did not receive a copy of either the original or the somehow fixed version of the Kyle email to Vajra Ma (only sent to Vajra Ma while apparently considering me an amorphous attachment), I am enclosing it below. Notably, the alleged “original” version of the email never reached us, but came to Vajra Ma as a “forward”.

All in all, I cannot but assume duplicitous motivation behind that attack, especially since less than nine weeks earlier – at an Indivisible “get out the vote” event – Ms. Kyle spent considerable time complaining to Vajra Ma about how she was mistreated by the board of the Barnstormers Theatre. The “brick” post was months earlier and obviously did not keep her from “fraternizing with the enemy”. Then what happened? Even my call for vision cannot have represented such a disruption to warrant exclusion by some divisive power mongers under the guise of ‘policy”.

The whole affair stinks.

What do I want? I want for some people who hold power in Rogue Indivisible to stand up and show the courage to walk their talk. Address the feigned reasoning put forward by the people who took over the facebook group and made it a closed group and now disqualify Vajra Ma for asking publicly if admins are removing members. Address the “behind closed door” m.o. which is considered an indicator of corruption when other people are doing it (Josephine County Commissioners, for example) and now, when it comes to someone’s little FB fiefdom, it is suddenly sacrosanct. Why no claim “for the good of the nation”? No autocratic ruler has ever not referred to the “good of the nation”.

So, that’s what I want: To welcome those who dare to be different and buck the small-town party-line dictate.

I’ve spent enough time on this.

Wolfgang Nebmaier

“The Healing of Melanija Knavs [formerly Trump]” available to the Public Domain!

The Healing-1.JPG

Free PDF download H E R E.:

This 2017 play by Wolfgang Nebmaier may be performed in staged or readers’ theatre versions for free under the following conditions:

  • Please notify us of your intentions and procure written permission from us.
  • Do not change anything.
  • For readers’ theatre, please request the special reading version.
  • If you wish to videotape performances or create a screenplay from the play, please request written permission and get approval of the screen adaptation. The ‘no changes’ condition goes for screen adaptations as well.

As in all human things, open communication is the best path to a fruitful cooperation.


I warned Eric Schneiderman

I warned Eric Schneiderman a year and ten days before the story of his abuses broke. Below is the text of the first email of April 29, 2017 and the follow-up email to his staff – sent in August, followed by two screen shots documenting the original emails.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: 100 days of fighting President Trump’s radical agenda
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:28:54 -0700
From: Wolfgang Nebmaier <>

Dear Eric,

you are a very gifted male human, with charm and a degree of Tony Blair appeal. But when I first looked at your picture (worth a 1000 word, you know) I thought t myself “check out his women.” And – voila – my concerns are that you may be too much a middle aged male success person not to be in danger of having your fear of really powerful women get the better of you.

This may be the most important piece of advise your are receiving at this point and, because it is free and because who the fuck am I anyway, you may tend to ignore it.

So, if you, Eric Schneiderman are reading this, please print it out twice, put one copy into your desk drawer and the other copy into your bathroom a home.
If this email is read by one of your underlings, please Mr. or Ms. Underling, have the guts to show this to your boss. You can always blame me.
Having said all the above, please keep in mind that I am very much on your side. Why else would I try to keep you from falling flat on your face instead of being able to serve the people of this country?

Respectfully and sincerely,

Wolfgang Nebmaier

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: too cocksure of himself
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:18:24 -0700

I tried to contact the AG before and wanted to convey a caution. The man
is very good looking, intelligent, ambitious, successful … and all that.
But he is also a 62 year old male, and perhaps he is primarily a 62 year
old male. Remember Eliot Spitzer?
Whether or not the Spitzer affaire was a sting, it couldn’t happen to me
because I amnot ambitious, I don’t trust success. I cringe when people
quote me . . . bla bla bla

My main thing here is that I actually like Mr. Schneiderman and I would
like him not to go down the same pike as so many ambitious men before him.
OK, he already divorced Cunningham. It’s always tough if successful men
are associated with more powerful women. You know what I mean.

What the hell. You, the person reading this will probably know if the
ASG has the courage and insight to take what I’m saying for what it’s

If you have what it takes to tell him, good for you.

Thank you

Wolfgang Nebmaier

On 4/29/2017 8:20 AM, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman wrote:
> AG banner_NEW
> Friend,
> Today, as President Trump marks his 100th day in office, I want to update you on what my office has been doing to defend New Yorkers, our environment, our economy, and our constitutional rights.
> As New York’s chief law enforcement officer, I am your lawyer. It’s my job to ensure that everyone plays by the same set of rules, no matter how rich or powerful. It’s also my job to stand up for the rule of law when the federal government takes steps that are illegal, unconstitutional, and antithetical to our fundamental values as Americans. The Trump administration has been keeping us busy.




An Excerpt from #METOO: Complicity by Many Means: The Abuse System Builders

At the Occasion of James Levine’s Final Firing from the Metropolitan Opera, an Excerpt:

Complicity by Many Means

The way in which entertainment “properties” were dropped by the surrounding industry like hot potatoes for being potential revenue risk, an industry, for which these “properties” had previously been major cash cows, forces the issue of complicity . Take the example of James Levine, decades-long music director of the New York Metropolitan Opera. How scores of artists, management and staff surrounding him over the roughly four decades made six and seven di git profit on his long coat tails because they kept silent about what they knew or didn’t even ask? By retiring the maestro and hiring a carefully chosen law firm they will try to make sure that their own reputation and attainments might be spared. But they show little interest in addressing the human consequences of lives impaired by abuse, careers marred by the trauma of being sub-jected to a status quo of subjugation as prerequisite of success.
The character latitude given profitable geniuses like Woody Allen translates into unmitigated complicity. Where are the voices calling for the silent profiteers to be held accountable at the tune of the millions they “earned” through their silence?
Notwithstanding all the above, there is a growing sense that the perpetrators should not be treated like non-humans by a mob men-tality. To throw away people, whose creative contributions have given an immeasurable number of people immeasurable consolation or even a sense of home, is clearly also an act of commodification.

The Abusers and the Abuse System Builders

Obviously, an abuser is an abuser. He abuses his entitlement as well as whatever power he may have over the victim; or he may at attempt to. Since, legally, the difference between a bank robbery and a bank robbery committed at a time when the safes were empty are prosecuted under the same section of the penal code, rape should be treated as rape whether or not there was penetration. But that may be a rather huge “fine point”. More importantly, a perpetrator perpetrates. An accomplice, as stated before, can play many different roles. Here, we’ll focus on the role of system builder, the role of building walls behind which the abuse can occur with relative “safety”. These walls can be built from “I told him to stop doing that” , which is as much as “don’t let anyone catch you!” and similar measures for the protection of the system. They lead the victims to come to conclusions such as “I just assumed this was the way things worked and that I’d have to accept it. ” “One step further into active systemic complicity and oppression are forced arbitra-tion and, if that fails, private or publicly funded hush money funds. They materially constitute an active role in obstructing jus-tice, hiding evidence, just the next step of coercion: First coerce into sex, then coerce to shut up. And seal the crime with a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or “gag”.
These non-rapists are the people building and fortifying the Abuse System. They are as criminal as the abuser/rapist, but con-tinue to thrive in the shadow’s “safe zone” created by kicking out high visibility abusers.
To go yet another step further, there is a prestigious entity in the United States where interns must consent to restrictions on their civil rights. They cannot turn directly to law enforcement when they have been subject to sexual abuse but must submit to internal cult-like rules of reporting. The same entity has hush money avail-able to silence a woman if she has provided a credible claim of abuse or misconduct. This entity not only keeps building the Abuse System; it is legislating the laws of the country: Congress.
Remember Humanizing on page 25 and Necessary Generalization on page 26? The point here is that if one were to remove the labels from the above prestigious entity and merely describe the actions of crimes committed and people assigned to positions of power to hide and/or prevent the prosecution of these crimes, the association of the average person would likely be E.G.Robinson, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney in the movies and Al Capone in reality. And the legal term that would come to mind is “organized crime”. This refers to large scale criminals which seek to – and often succeed – in gaining control of the law enforcement authority that could investi-gate and prosecute them. This is how the system works and this is why corruption and sexual abuse or any abuse of power must be seen, understood and ended by society before the tip of the iceberg, sexual abuse, can be ended. But at least one can hope that, once the tip is discovered, no one can any longer deny the existence of the iceberg. This should prepare us for the magnitude of the backlash.

#METOO Subsumed and Perverted by the “Devil”

The higher the economic stakes or investments of image, power and prestige, the more the rules of exploitation apply. These are the same rules that are all to often cited under the guise of freedom. The same rules that turn people and their work into properties or “re-sources” to serve the benefit of the managers and stockholders of the corporations that own them. This is not tendentious leftist-speak but legally mandated reality. (The priority of stockholders’ interest is mandated by law).
Many corporate #METOO reactions in themselves may be abuses of power. The swift firings leveled against those who sud-denly got plunged from revered cash cow to shunned image risk are prime examples of hypocrisy. And the people and institutions who have long profited from the ones they are now throwing to the dogs for abusing others are hypocrites. “See, we are throwing this person out. WE had nothing to do with it. Our hands are clean. We are un-tainted.” While in fact their hands clutching the profits are stained with the very abuse from which they now try to distance themselves.

A Police State in the Making – Again

Due Process – Only for Rapists?

On Facebook, anyone, anonymously, can accuse you of wrongdoing, of not being who you are, and you are assumed guilty until you have proven your innocence, for example, your identity to the satisfaction of an unknown judge and according to unenforceable rules. They are unenforceable because it is a one-way street. Facebook makes the rules and you, by being on fb, implicitly agree to them. But realistically, who has ever read some, let alone the entirety of the laws of facebook-land before entering it? Maybe twenty people on the entire globe. This is corporate rule.

A little while back or actually none, as we are learning, Russian or Chinese hacking into whatever databases they please and pretending to be whoever they want in order to make others believe or disbelieve something, such hacking has become standard procedure. Who would still want to believe that any world-wide platform is safe from hacking?

I have been acquainted with and at times intimately involved in the IT business to know that it is, like any human endeavor, subject to the consequences of human qualities or the lack thereof. During my career in the IT world, I was given, again and again, software to test that was “100% bug free”, and you can figure oout the rest. I edited thousands of pages of documentation that had essential information “lost in translation” from the developers’ minds to the page. I worked for a cyber security and encryption company whose top engineer promptly erased the wrong hard drive on my machine because he didn’t even know that “drive1” is not the first hard drive but the second one (the first one being drive0). To make a long story short, the cyber security hasn’t been born yet that couldn’t be hacked, albeit with a little more effort than before. So, and now you tell me that Facebook and its data are safe?

Who has not been asked :”for the safety of your account” to fork over phone numbers or any other data? Who has not been told that their older version of a program was “vulnerable” (such as a browser) only to upgrade and then be inundated with streaming ads? After all, marketing is where the real money is. In other words, whoever wishes to believe that the corporations who spend zillions for development of a program really really are so much into charity that they give it away without a benefit down the pike is more than willfully naïve.

This directly leads to the next question: “Safe for whom?” Remember – no, you probably won’t remember –Munich 1972. What happened afterwards was the early stage of re-normalization of a police state. We got used (again) to seeing police presence in many places, seeing tanks guarding access to airports. All for our safety.

Remember 11/11/2001, when the world was in shock, me included?. More likely than 1972. And what followed was more of the same: Normalization of police and security intrusion into our lives “for our safety”. We got used to having out luggage opened, our nail files and shaving lotion or nail polish confiscated, (anyone know how deadly a bic pen can be?) and our bodies patted down. In severe cases, rectum or vagina were checked for contraband. Like going to prison.

While vaginas are not likely inspected on the internet, significant “safety” intrusions are tolerated by a gullible population when it comes to their computers, their software, and all other sorts of “smart” companions. People by the billions are consuming “security” and “smartness” for the price of their privacy and ultimately human dignity. The diabolic trick is to take the soul for the imagined boon of individual connectedness. But with the illusion of each “friend” or “like”, not only does the actual alienation (=distance from reality) increase, but the addiction to the illusion deepens.

How much of today’s life doesn’t work along the lines of data? How many people’s lives are not strapped to the illusions? Who still lives in tangible reality? No wonder, the United States are governed in an ongoing reality TV show, directed by ???.

A glance to the real world, take highways and freeways for example, will show you how little it takes to physically block or restrict road traffic. The same, obviously, is true for the “data highway” that most of all travel on constantly. With every ounce of soul that is becoming outer-defined by the media and illusion business, the real life threatening vulnerability increases. Sorry to have taken you along to a little double entendre here. The “real life threatening vulnerability” can be both, a life threatening vulnerability that is real and a vulnerability that is threatening real life. Sometimes happens. This only shows how much is at stake when we ask people to become aware of their prison walls.

I am not negative, in fact, I believe that if people are willing to become aware, we have a chance at human survival. Human, not corporate, not cyber.