"You spent over a decade whoring yourself out all over the internet, you have no one to blame but yourself. Take some responsibility for your actions, this perpetual victim act is pathetic."
This woman’s target audience for her pornography was teenaged boys. They’re always the target market. I’m tired of pretending they’re not. These people are sexual predators and they got away clean with media and academia applauding in their wake.
The right HAS to be anti-pornography, or no one will be.
The left, of course are all in, including the feminists. Incredible.
I want accountability from the people who raped our culture and got away with the biggest child sexual abuse scandal in human history: the mass hijacking of our kids’ development by ruthless internet pornographers.
These people should be in prison, not given feature articles in The New Statesman and The New York Times.
These porn scumbags got away with murder, because the academia and media (the left) minimized, rationalized and outright lied about what they were really doing: targeting teenaged boys at an age where they couldn’t look away and couldn’t consent. Polluting their language, their minds and their spirits.
It enrages me that these same sophists who excused the pornographers for decades now, have the nerve to presume to lecture boys about misogyny.
First, we let pornographers mind-rape them. Next we gaslit the boys into telling them a) they were to blame, and besides, b) there’s nothing even wrong with that. Nothing to see here folks, just a generation of incredibly deranged men destroying society, because we let these people abuse them on a daily basis, and then gaslit the boys into oblivion.
An entire generation of boys grew up sexually abused.
An entire generation of girls did too. Just in different ways. When those groomed and abused boys got girlfriends, they pushed them to imitate porn. Hence, the abuse continues.
The "Experts" didn't want moral judgement entering into the porn debate. It might force them to curb their own habits. We should have been teaching boys 15 years ago in health class, that porn makes you worse at actually having sex. It would have been effective , I bet.
It seems obvious to me that most boys are exposed to pornography because they're seeking it out because of natural curiosity, not because they're being targeted by porn marketers. (How would that even work, anyway? It's not as if porn is advertised on Nickelodeon or in Walmart.)
Arguably, this is still society's fault in some way. Perhaps boys wouldn't be so eager to look up images of nude women if nudity wasn't taboo, and perhaps teenagers wouldn't resort to porn if they had a reasonable expectation of marrying at age 20 instead of age 30. (In the U.S., men's median age of first marriage is 31.)
Regardless, my point is that I don't consider pornographers guilty of targeting minors, even thought they're guilty of lots of other things, and even though minors' exposure to porn is problematic.
Teen boys are the target market of internet pornographers. They are the most profitable most desired consumer. As with tobacco. That’s how those businesses make the most money.
Oh, come on. You're just restating your point while ignoring my points. How can pornographers target minors, and how do you account for anecdotal cases of boys seeking out porn, or at least nudity, of their own accord? I know that *I* did.
Of Course boys seek out Pornhub the way they used to seek out nude images. And look at the language they’re net with. The impressions. Teen has orgasm till she shakes. Shit like that all over the homepage.
Your red herrings are so tiresome.
You’re just refusing to acknowledge that this is a mass phenomenon. They’re weaponizing curiosity and puberty against the boys. These people are ruthless.
They know who their target market is. Are you saying 12 year old or 14 year old boys can consent to the effect of internet porn on their development? Of course they cannot.
> You’re just refusing to acknowledge that this is a mass phenomenon.
If "this" refers to boys' exposure to pornography, then I acknowledge it's a mass phenomenon, but I've never suggested otherwise.
> Are you saying 12 year old or 14 year old boys can consent to the effect of internet porn on their development?
No, and I was pretty clear about that. I said that minors' exposure to porn is problematic, and that it might be society's (i.e. not minors') fault.
> Of Course boys seek out Pornhub the way they used to seek out nude images.
That's not what I was saying, and I think it's subtly wrong. Boys type "naked women" into Google because they're curious about the body parts that women keep covered. Or, they type "sex" into Google because they want to know what that mysterious word means and why people say it in a hushed tone.
Porn sites are highly relevant to both of these searches, so they naturally fill the top search results. Then, boys clicks on one of the first few results, because that's what everyone does. Boom! They've watched porn.
No step of this process requires any intent by pornographers to attract minors, nor does it require minors to "seek out Pornhub".
> Teen has orgasm till she shakes.
This isn't evidence of pornographers targeting minors. Porn that depicts teenagers is just as popular among adult viewers.
So, once again: how do pornographers target minors, and what's your evidence for it?
You annoying ass logic Bri’s want some academic consensus that “proves” the obvious. Internet porn makers want teen boy customers. It’s the time demographic. Only a dishonest propagandist would deny it.
Rape and murder are violence, not apt metaphors for your Puritan bogeymen. The idea that consumption or production of porn has a left wing bias will be a shock to the millions on the right who also like visual depictions of sex and who’s kinks don’t fit into a left / right paradigm. No mention of left wing scolds. You should meet some more people.
Rufo saga really is illuminating. On some level I understand taking a pro-Israel stance because it opens doors and allows Rufo to leverage resources he couldn't otherwise. But damn, the cost for his reputation is huge. Truly making a deal with the devil.
All these right wing organizations are like this. I was passed up recently for some work because I "punch rightward too much" as if that wasn't how the Democrats sabotaged themselves by stifling all criticism. I've been given personal introductions to a few Think Tank guys and approached it very humbly seeking career advice and they wouldn't even give me that. I can DM a random person on LinkedIn at almost any company in the world, and they'll hop on a 15minute call if they have the time. Hell, [redacted] wouldn't even get me on board even though I know some people who work there and they pay their journalists with fucking google adsense revenue, ergo they pay peanuts while they feast on all the donor money. If you are going to pay people well below market rate for writing at least let some newcomers get bylines. These people are their own worst enemies. Dysfunctional boy's club of incompetents who don't want competent people around to inadvertently expose their grift.
Rufo and Lindsay collaborate frequently, share the same network of donors and thinktanks, and they also periodically have spats where they call each other names and then make up
The chart you were talking about was made by Milo Yiannopoulos, Kaiser I think is just a guy he works with:
We at the JOHN COFFEE HAYS CLUB certainly hope we will be listed in that same august company as The American Conservative, CHRONICLES magazine, and The John Birch Society. This will inspire us to work harder!!!
Too much! Mr. Brunet, you need to think like a movie film editor. The editor has three times as much footage as needed, so he cuts ruthlessly. Have an online appendix for your scraps, for people wanting to write their own articles.
I read this entire piece (unable to look away from a car crash). And the end I am left feeling that nothing here is about finding truth or better policy. Certainly nothing in this piece, but also very little in the work done by Rufo. Everything is about the politics of alliances, loyalty, gatekeeping and guilt by association.
That is not true for everyone mentioned. For example, the gratuitously insulted Jessica Reidl has been a top notch budget analyst for decades.
I know the political aspects are necessary. They are how you form and keep together coalitions that are needed to accomplish many things. Truth, insight and argument don't do that by themselves (sometimes not at all). And “politics is not about policy.”
But boy, how this piece brings home how tawdry the politics can be on both sides and how glad I am that I have the privilege of staying far away from all that.
Realistically and reasonably people do repent past behavior and choices. In this sense, it's good overall, for the person and society. That being said, in these cases, after repenting, perhaps a role in the spotlight or as a talking head, perhaps it's not the best choice and says more about arrogance and vanity than bona fide beliefs.
The whole American right on right criticisms to ostracize and cancel members who do not support Israel reveals itself for what it is.
This woman’s target audience for her pornography was teenaged boys. They’re always the target market. I’m tired of pretending they’re not. These people are sexual predators and they got away clean with media and academia applauding in their wake.
The right HAS to be anti-pornography, or no one will be.
The left, of course are all in, including the feminists. Incredible.
I want accountability from the people who raped our culture and got away with the biggest child sexual abuse scandal in human history: the mass hijacking of our kids’ development by ruthless internet pornographers.
These people should be in prison, not given feature articles in The New Statesman and The New York Times.
These porn scumbags got away with murder, because the academia and media (the left) minimized, rationalized and outright lied about what they were really doing: targeting teenaged boys at an age where they couldn’t look away and couldn’t consent. Polluting their language, their minds and their spirits.
It enrages me that these same sophists who excused the pornographers for decades now, have the nerve to presume to lecture boys about misogyny.
First, we let pornographers mind-rape them. Next we gaslit the boys into telling them a) they were to blame, and besides, b) there’s nothing even wrong with that. Nothing to see here folks, just a generation of incredibly deranged men destroying society, because we let these people abuse them on a daily basis, and then gaslit the boys into oblivion.
Agreed, porn is predatory on teenage boys. Boys have been groomed and sexually abused by the porn industry.
On a massive scale. And then the boys were gaslit by “ the experts “ that the boys themselves were victimizing the pornographers.
An entire generation of boys grew up sexually abused.
An entire generation of girls did too. Just in different ways. When those groomed and abused boys got girlfriends, they pushed them to imitate porn. Hence, the abuse continues.
The "Experts" didn't want moral judgement entering into the porn debate. It might force them to curb their own habits. We should have been teaching boys 15 years ago in health class, that porn makes you worse at actually having sex. It would have been effective , I bet.
Ya. Modern sex ed is a cult. Their go-to line is “porn is just entertainment”.
But it’s healthy in moderation. 🤮
These people belong in jail.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/dont-panic-about-pornography/489881/
It seems obvious to me that most boys are exposed to pornography because they're seeking it out because of natural curiosity, not because they're being targeted by porn marketers. (How would that even work, anyway? It's not as if porn is advertised on Nickelodeon or in Walmart.)
Arguably, this is still society's fault in some way. Perhaps boys wouldn't be so eager to look up images of nude women if nudity wasn't taboo, and perhaps teenagers wouldn't resort to porn if they had a reasonable expectation of marrying at age 20 instead of age 30. (In the U.S., men's median age of first marriage is 31.)
Regardless, my point is that I don't consider pornographers guilty of targeting minors, even thought they're guilty of lots of other things, and even though minors' exposure to porn is problematic.
Teen boys are the target market of internet pornographers. They are the most profitable most desired consumer. As with tobacco. That’s how those businesses make the most money.
Have a great day.
Oh, come on. You're just restating your point while ignoring my points. How can pornographers target minors, and how do you account for anecdotal cases of boys seeking out porn, or at least nudity, of their own accord? I know that *I* did.
Of Course boys seek out Pornhub the way they used to seek out nude images. And look at the language they’re net with. The impressions. Teen has orgasm till she shakes. Shit like that all over the homepage.
Your red herrings are so tiresome.
You’re just refusing to acknowledge that this is a mass phenomenon. They’re weaponizing curiosity and puberty against the boys. These people are ruthless.
They know who their target market is. Are you saying 12 year old or 14 year old boys can consent to the effect of internet porn on their development? Of course they cannot.
> You’re just refusing to acknowledge that this is a mass phenomenon.
If "this" refers to boys' exposure to pornography, then I acknowledge it's a mass phenomenon, but I've never suggested otherwise.
> Are you saying 12 year old or 14 year old boys can consent to the effect of internet porn on their development?
No, and I was pretty clear about that. I said that minors' exposure to porn is problematic, and that it might be society's (i.e. not minors') fault.
> Of Course boys seek out Pornhub the way they used to seek out nude images.
That's not what I was saying, and I think it's subtly wrong. Boys type "naked women" into Google because they're curious about the body parts that women keep covered. Or, they type "sex" into Google because they want to know what that mysterious word means and why people say it in a hushed tone.
Porn sites are highly relevant to both of these searches, so they naturally fill the top search results. Then, boys clicks on one of the first few results, because that's what everyone does. Boom! They've watched porn.
No step of this process requires any intent by pornographers to attract minors, nor does it require minors to "seek out Pornhub".
> Teen has orgasm till she shakes.
This isn't evidence of pornographers targeting minors. Porn that depicts teenagers is just as popular among adult viewers.
So, once again: how do pornographers target minors, and what's your evidence for it?
“Naturally, they’ll be the top search results”. You’ve got a strange idea of what’s natural.
You annoying ass logic Bri’s want some academic consensus that “proves” the obvious. Internet porn makers want teen boy customers. It’s the time demographic. Only a dishonest propagandist would deny it.
The last example was of the sexually demeaning rage bait porno companies gleefully put on their homepages to corrupt society. I’m done with you.
They target teen boys. You know it. That’s who’s most interested in the product.
“How can pornographers target minors”
It’s called advertisement.
You might want to research what that is it plays a huge role in modern societies.
I repeat:
>How would that even work, anyway? It's not as if porn is advertised on Nickelodeon or in Walmart.
Yes I will also repeat myself despite your inability to comprehend what’s being said.
Porn is most commonly advertised online through a web browser, on web pages.
You clearly have no idea how online advertising works. I’ll just be polite and leave it at that.
Rape and murder are violence, not apt metaphors for your Puritan bogeymen. The idea that consumption or production of porn has a left wing bias will be a shock to the millions on the right who also like visual depictions of sex and who’s kinks don’t fit into a left / right paradigm. No mention of left wing scolds. You should meet some more people.
Amazing research
I am told the "Cum Stained Casting Couch" saga really went downhill after the fifth installation.
It returned to form in the fourteenth because they hired new writers.
good lord the screens just never end
Hilarious. Good job.
Rufo saga really is illuminating. On some level I understand taking a pro-Israel stance because it opens doors and allows Rufo to leverage resources he couldn't otherwise. But damn, the cost for his reputation is huge. Truly making a deal with the devil.
Crazy people are considered disposable, and mere cannon fodder for those that work to divide and conquer.
This is very well researched. I was completely prepared to dismiss your claims but you provide substantial and thorough evidence.
Congratulations you’ve earned a new subscriber.
All these right wing organizations are like this. I was passed up recently for some work because I "punch rightward too much" as if that wasn't how the Democrats sabotaged themselves by stifling all criticism. I've been given personal introductions to a few Think Tank guys and approached it very humbly seeking career advice and they wouldn't even give me that. I can DM a random person on LinkedIn at almost any company in the world, and they'll hop on a 15minute call if they have the time. Hell, [redacted] wouldn't even get me on board even though I know some people who work there and they pay their journalists with fucking google adsense revenue, ergo they pay peanuts while they feast on all the donor money. If you are going to pay people well below market rate for writing at least let some newcomers get bylines. These people are their own worst enemies. Dysfunctional boy's club of incompetents who don't want competent people around to inadvertently expose their grift.
I'm confused but trying to keep up with this cast of characters out of a Russian novel.
Chris Brunet said toward the end of today's article...
'As part of this “Woke Right” psychological operation, Suzy met with Chris Rufo and James Lindsay to coordinate messaging:'
But Christopher Rufo's name is listed on the photo of the chart called Every Conservative James Lindsay Called "Woke" under Mainstream MAGA people.
Who made that chart? Who is Kaiser von Loengramm?
If Rufo and Lindsay are coordinating messaging, why does the chart say Lindsay is calling Rufo "woke?"
Rufo and Lindsay collaborate frequently, share the same network of donors and thinktanks, and they also periodically have spats where they call each other names and then make up
The chart you were talking about was made by Milo Yiannopoulos, Kaiser I think is just a guy he works with:
https://x.com/Nero/status/1962673136761217423
Thanks.
We at the JOHN COFFEE HAYS CLUB certainly hope we will be listed in that same august company as The American Conservative, CHRONICLES magazine, and The John Birch Society. This will inspire us to work harder!!!
(3) Being pro-Israel is fine. I am myself. I probably am more pro-Israel than people being pro-Israel for money.
Not the point, but impressive that the AI system managed to face match Buttons even after the nose job.
Jewish influence needs to be purged from the West.
No more hiding organized crime under the yamulke.
Too much! Mr. Brunet, you need to think like a movie film editor. The editor has three times as much footage as needed, so he cuts ruthlessly. Have an online appendix for your scraps, for people wanting to write their own articles.
I appreciate this warning. It feels like 2/3 of what I come across on Substack is rambling, unedited first draft. I'll skip this one.
America isn’t a serious country anymore. This is the state of conservative activism lmao what a joke
I read this entire piece (unable to look away from a car crash). And the end I am left feeling that nothing here is about finding truth or better policy. Certainly nothing in this piece, but also very little in the work done by Rufo. Everything is about the politics of alliances, loyalty, gatekeeping and guilt by association.
That is not true for everyone mentioned. For example, the gratuitously insulted Jessica Reidl has been a top notch budget analyst for decades.
I know the political aspects are necessary. They are how you form and keep together coalitions that are needed to accomplish many things. Truth, insight and argument don't do that by themselves (sometimes not at all). And “politics is not about policy.”
But boy, how this piece brings home how tawdry the politics can be on both sides and how glad I am that I have the privilege of staying far away from all that.
Hilarious.
Realistically and reasonably people do repent past behavior and choices. In this sense, it's good overall, for the person and society. That being said, in these cases, after repenting, perhaps a role in the spotlight or as a talking head, perhaps it's not the best choice and says more about arrogance and vanity than bona fide beliefs.
The whole American right on right criticisms to ostracize and cancel members who do not support Israel reveals itself for what it is.