Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: April 2016

How vegans really talk about “non-vegans”, ie. 98% of the general public who are omnis,  on the social media website Tumblr: “give them an ultimatum”… remember that other vegan on WordPress who was advocating in favour of mass murdering omnis? But but but, they love cuddly animals, they wouldn’t hurt a human being now would they? –>

Imagine a journalist in the Netherlands openly stating in an article that they think “all lawyers are a little sociopathic”… fortunately this article is written by an American feminist in America where they have real freedom of speech to freely express their views on lawyers, so unlike us censored feminists here in Europe these American feminists get to call a cat a cat and dog a dog:

My bias: I tend to assume all lawyers in positions similar to Henein’s are also a little sociopathic, driven by money and power, rather than empathy. Lawyers who are privileged enough make choices about who they defend, but choose clients based on how much they will be paid (or based on how high profile the case is), rather than based on whether their client is a woman-beater, are not people I view as particularly ethical people.

Rising to power in a male-dominated field and succeeding at treating young women in the exact same way many of one’s male colleagues would does not, alas, make one a feminist. Neither does being a “strong woman” (whatever that means). Despite mass confusion, being a feminist does not mean being more “like men.” This conveys a deep misunderstanding of what feminism is all about. Within this framework, any woman who supports war or is a proud and successful capitalist is necessarily a feminist. In fact, feminism is not about shifting around various hierarchies in order to allow women to participate in the oppression of other women. If this were the case, a female brothel owner or trafficker who did a very good job of profiting from the exploitation of marginalized women and girls would be a feminist success story. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher, who royally screwed over the poor and working class during her reign, could be considered peak feminism.

That ain’t it. Feminism is not about the ability for a few individual women to access wealth and power, at the expense of more marginalized women (or at the expense of women, as a whole).

In a Law Society of Upper Canada video from 1998, Henein explains that, in order to get a sexual assault complainant’s sexual history to be introduced at trial, one might resort simply to bringing the application, “especially in front of a judge-alone trial, to introduce all this otherwise inadmissible evidence and if it’s excluded, well, oh, well, the judge has heard it.” She then jokes, “No, no, I’m absolutely confident that the judge will be able to disabuse his or her mind of the fact that she has a very extensive and lewd prior sexual history.” In other words, Henein is advocating that lawyers play into already existing misogynist ideas about how a woman’s perceived “sluttishness” effectively renders her unrapeable or, at very least, not a credible witness. She very much wants judges in sexual assault trials to dismiss women’s accusations for incredibly sexist reasons.

Henein not only makes very considered choices to defend and protect men who hurt or exploit women and girls when she could most certainly choose not to, but, in doing so, she employs the very same techniques that misogynist men do in order to discredit victims. She relies on sexist stereotypes that say women who accuse men of assault are bitter, manipulative, liars and makes good use of the victim-blaming mentality Henein trusts the men in her field already hold. She knows how to make patriarchal institutions work in her and her clients’ favour. She fights in favour of the status quo, not against it.

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/04/04/marie-henein-not-a-feminist-not-a-surprise/

Moral of the story: there is no such thing as a “feminist lawyer” like MRAs like to claim. Catharine McKinnon isn’t a “feminist lawyer”, she is a lawyer who happens to be a feminist and as such is merely the extremely rare exception to the rule which is female lawyers serving male clients at the expense of women opponents. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of women going into law don’t become lawyers to pursue justice. Women become lawyers for the exact same reason that men become lawyers: to make $400 an hour like an escort. Women lawyers for the sake of their male clients will gladly hurt and humiliate women in the androcentric legal system which already discriminates against women. So, repeat after me again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “FEMINIST LAWYER”.

Πραγματικά, η δημοσιογράφος του Θέμα Δανάη Δασοπούλου ούτε καν υποψιάστηκε πως απλώς μιλάει σε ένα άτομο που το μόνο πράγμα που δεν έχει κοινό με τον Άδωνι Γεωργιάδη είναι το μουνί –>

http://www.protothema.gr/world/article/573793/ollandi-dimosiografos-/

Εάν η υποκρισία ήταν έγκλημα, αυτή η κυρία θα ήταν ισοβίτης. Στην χώρα της μπορεί να μην την ξέρουν, εμείς όμως  που έχουμε μεγαλώσει στην Ολλανδία δυστυχώς έχουμε την ατυχια να γνωρίζουμε εδώ και δεκάδες χρόνια το μισάνθρωπο και ξενοφοβικό έργο αυτής της νεοφιλελεύθερης δεξιάς Ολλανδοτουρκαλας που μόνο ύβρις πουλάει και το μόνο που θέλει είναι να αποδείξει στους υπόλοιπους Ολλανδότούρκους πως είναι ποιο Ολλανδέζα κι από τους ίδιους τους Ολλανδούς. Το παρακάτω απόσπασμα της κωμικής σειράς Goodness Gracious Me ολοκληρωτικά απεικονίζει αυτά τα είδους ατομάκια που καταντάνε σχεδόν υστερικα στο να θέλουν να αποδείξουν πόσο μα πόσο ποιο Ολλανδότεροι Ολλανδοποημένοι είναι από τους υπόλοιπους ξένους που μένουν σε δυτική χώρα.

Πράγματι, θα ενδιαφερόταν τόσο πολυ για αυτήν ο Ολλανδός πρέσβης στην Τουρκία εάν δεν ήταν γνωστή στην Ολλανδική κυβέρνηση σαν ένα πιστό κυβερνητικό παπαγαλάκι με σταθερή δεξιά κατεύθυνση; Οι Ολλανδοί πρεσβευτές μόνο για τα δημοσιογραφικά παπαγαλακια νιάζονται, ποτέ για τους απλούς πολίτες. Δεύτερον, κάντε επιτέλους μια έρευνα της προκοπής αντί να επαναλαμβάνετε ο’τι μπούρδες σας ταΐζει. Η συγκεκριμένη κυρία σας είπε μπούρδες πως δεν γράφει για διεθνής θέματα και ότι τάχα μόνο ασχολείται με την Ολλανδική πολιτική. Για απόδειξη του ότι αυτή η κυρία έχει γράψει για διεθνής θέματα και επίσης για την Τουρκία σας παρουσιάζω το παρακάτω κείμενο της, που δημοσίευσε στις δύο Σεπτεμβρίου του 2015, οπου αναφερει μάλιστα και την χωρα μας.

EBRU UMAR – Het verdronken Syrische jongetje…

Ελπίζω να έχετε τουλάχιστον έναν μεταφραστή της προκόπης να σας το μεταφράσει από τα Ολλανδικά. Το κείμενο αυτό αφορά το πνιγμένο παιδάκι που έγινε σύμβολο της προσφυγικής κρίσης. Σε αυτό το αηδιαστικό κείμενο, η μισάνθρωπική και καχύποπτη αυτή κυρία αμφισβητεί πως το παιδί ήταν από την Συρία (το οποίο στοιχείο έχει διασταυρωθεί και αληθεύει), δηλαδή αμφισβητεί πως το βρέφος ήταν νόμιμος πρόσφυγας. Μέσα στο μίσος και την καχύποπτία της είναι ακόμα ικανή να αμφισβητεί την ταυτότητα ενός πνιγμένου μωρού. Επόμενα ισχυρίζεται πως δεν γινεται πολεμος στην Τουρκια ενώ όλα αποδεικνύουν πως οι Daesh έχουν περάσει τα σύνορα της Τουρκίας για τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις εντός Τουρκίας. Επίσης έχει το θράσος να χαρακτηρίζει ως “εγκληματίες” (“misdadigers”) τους δικηγορους που βοηθούν τους πρόσφυγες, υποστηρίζοντας πως οι δικηγόροι “καταφέρνουν να μπορεί να μεινει μια προσφυγική οικογενια στην Ολλανδία μέχρι και δεκαπέντε χρόνια” (“asieladvocaten zijn een aparte klasse misdadigers, lui die het voor elkaar krijgen het verblijf van een gezin tot 15 jaar te rekken”), το οποίο δικαίωμα προφανώς υποστηρίζει πως συνδέεται με το “έγκλημα” του να φεύγει κάποιος από εμπόλεμη ζώνη. Τέλος, πραγματικά το πιο κουφό απόσπασμα αυτού του άρθρου είναι προς το τέλος όπου ισχυρίζει πως οι πρόσφυγες  θα φτάσουν πνιγμένοι με τα φουσκωτά τους και μαζί με τα νεκρά παιδιά τους μέχρι και της ακτές της Ολλανδίας “στο Scheveningen, και ο Θεός βοηθός.”. Δανάη Δασοπούλου, άν είχατε κάνει μια ουσιαστική έρευνα στο Θέμα θα γνωρίζατε το πραγματικό βιογραφικό αυτής της κυρίας και το μήλο της Εριδος που έχει πετάξει οχι μονο στα μέσα της Ολλανδικής κοινωνίας αλλα σε οποιαδήποτε χώρα έχει στοχεύσει με τα ξενοφοβικα φαρμακευμένα κειμενα της. Είναι άλλο ένα αλαζονικό κακομαθημένο σαρανταεξάχρονο ανώριμο γυναικοκοριτσο του μπαμπά που νομίζει πως όλα είναι απλώς ένα αστείο. Δείξτε μου σας παρακαλώ σοβαρή Ελληνίδα δημοσιογράφος που να έχει γράψει δημοσιογραφικό κείμενο με τίτλο: “Γειά σου μουσουλμάνα, φοράς τον φερετζε σου γιατί είσαι μια ηλίθια βλαμενη” (“Hi hoofddoekmeisje, je draagt die hoofddoek omdat je een dom wicht bent”), για να ξέρουμε τι εννοούμε όταν μιλάμε για το δήθεν “δυναμικό” δημοσιογραφικό έργο αυτής της κυρίας –> http://politiek.tpo.nl/column/hi-hoofddoekmeisjes/

I’ve been asked, “What was it like to create and perform music with Prince?”. My rebuttal was usually a tongue in cheek, “Ask him what it was like to create and perform with me.”
– Drummer Sheila E. following Prince’s death.

I am sick and tired of the post-mortem myth making as to the role of women and especially the role of female musicians in Prince’s career. The following article from Jezebel.com is bathing in denial and revisionism:

Prince Spent His Life Elevating and Mentoring Women
http://themuse.jezebel.com/prince-spent-his-life-elevating-and-mentoring-women-1772479454

Prince Spent His Life Elevating and Mentoring Women“? Oh really? Tell that to Prince’s powerful soul singer Rosie Gaines, whom he failed to give co-writing credit and even failed to pay her for her contributions. Tell that to Sandra St. Victor. Madonna said it best in Rolling Stone: Prince had a harem of disposable women with whom he made records and whom he discarded as soon as he was done with them. This statement by Madonna is corroborated by the interviews that attorney Alex Hahn took of former Prince colleagues for his book Possessed; The Rise and Fall of Prince. Quoting from the book:

p. 178: “Gaines sent much of her weekly wage (about $ 2,200) home and had only $800 to her name when the tour ended. Just the same, she put her belongings in a truck and drove from Minneapolis to her home in Pittsburg, California, quitting the band for good. Although he would later work with Prince in the studio on several occasions, she would long harbour resentment about what she considers an absense of complete credit for her songwriting contributions on Diamonds and Pearls. ‘A lot of those were ideas the band came up with’, Gaines asserted. ‘He told us before doing [Diamonds and Pearls] that we were going to be like a family, we’re all going to do it together, and we’re going to share in it together, and we all trusted him. That’s our fault for not getting it on paper.’.
When Gaines approached Prince about songwriting credit, he made it clear that he considered Diamonds and Pearls his work, and he disagreed hat she deserved more money.”

 

p. 179: “Life on the road was also sometimes hard for young Mayte Garcia. Although Prince continued to treat her as a girlfriend-in-waiting, he took no steps to insulate Mayte from the rambunctious, male-dominated atmosphere that surrounded the tour. Gaines recalls on several occasions seeing Mayte in tears on the bus and in dressing rooms, apparently overwhelmed by feelings of homesickness. When Mayte was summoned to the inner sanctum and felt the glow of Prince’s attention, it felt magical. But at other times, left to her own devices, she was simply a confused teenager with no one to talk to.
As Rosie Gaines watched the Prince-Mayte courtship unfold, she marveled at how much this young woman resembled his previous girlfriends, both in looks and temperament. She was another young woman who could not have been easier to manipulate. This would likely be another relationship was would persist only until Mayte – like Kim Upsher, Susan Moonsie, Susannah Melvoin, and Anna Garcia before her – grew up enough to object. “She was too young to have her own thoughts yet, and Prince liked that,” Gaines remembered. “But I knew that would change.”.”

 

p. 181: “Alan Leeds, who in 1989 surrendered his post as Prince’s tour manager, to become president of Paisley Park Records, “He never displayed the ability to park his own agenda. When he produced PattiLaBelle, it sounded like a Prince record. It became his vision, not the artist’s.”

 

p. 184: “There remained few if any strong female confidants in his life (a role that Rosie Gaines briefly fulfilled), as young companions like Anna Garcia, Mayte Garcia, and Carmen Electra were discouraged from offering their opinions and served primarily as pretty muses.”

 

p. 205-206: “St Victor had assumed that she and Prince would work together face-to-face in the studio, where an artistic dialogue could take place. (…)  St Victor came to see that he had no intention of treating her as an equal partner, but simply wanted to make use of whatever interesting ideas she might have to offer. She realized that her frustration was probably quite similar to that experienced by other independent-minded female artists, such as Rosie Gaines, who had worked with Prince. While the notion of collaborating with him had at first seemed like the opportunity of a lifetime, it had, for the moment at least, ended disappointingly.
“When Prince shines that light on you, that energy, that respect, that admiration, it’s easy to want to put your life in his hands,” St. Victor reflected. “It’s a very bright warm, God-like light. But when he shuts it off, you’ve never known cold like that.”

p. 229: “Old friend Rosie Gaines participated [on the 1999 remaster], but says she again was not paid.”

Prince was really into Jedi mindtricks. Here is how Alex Hahn describes Prince’s tendency to mess with people’s heads, especially when it came to his younger proteges:

p. 149: “[Anna] Garcia [= Prince’s then 17 year old future girlfriend], while not on the payroll, was another one of Prince’s minions. He placed a premium on docility and preferred to have her just listen to him create music or brainstorm plans for the future; her opinions were not welcome. But whatever her doubts about this arrangement, Garcia remained very much smitten by Prince and was hopeful that she would, with her eighteenth birthday approaching, emerge as his primary romantic interest. He remained enchanted with her as well, largely because she remained something of a blank template on which to sketch his fantasies. He particularly delighted in playing mind games with Garcia where he would describe a hypothetical situation and ask how she would handle it. When she responded in a way that he perceived as “wrong”, he assumed a disapproving air; when he liked the answer, he was encouraging and affectionate. Garcia resented the manipulations and felt as if Prince were trying to turn her into a different person.”

Not only did Prince replace Vanity with a lookalike in Apollonia just before he began filming Purple Rain, he did it in such a way so that Vanity would see Apollonia, realize how alike she and the new woman were and thus understand that to Prince either one of them was just a replaceable cog in the music making machine that was Paisley Park at the time. Here is how Alex Hahn describes it in his book:

p. 63: “Shortly after recruiting Apollonia, he took her to a Los Angeles club where he had heard that Vanity would be partying. Vanity, who had not yet learned anything about her replacement, was shocked to see a woman dancing nearby who looked like a mirror image of herself. The message was clear: In Prince’s world, anyone was replaceable.”

And last but not least, lesbophobe sexist Prince had demanded that his former colleagues Wendy and Lisa hold a press conference to “apologize” to the public for being lesbians as a condition for reuniting with them:

p. 241: “Ex-Revolution drummer Bobby Z. Rivkin, who visited Paisly in 2000, was forced to listen to Prince and Larry Graham engage in a homophobic rant, according to another former band member whom Rivkin told about the meeting. Prince explained to Rivkin that prior to any reunion of the Revolution (and idea discussed several times over the years), Wendy and Lisa would be required to publicly renounce their homosexuality. As Rivkin listened incredulously, Prince said he would insist that the women hold a press conference and “apologize” for their lifestyle.”

Nothing more amusing than to have to watch lesbians of all people defending Prince on my timeline, when Prince was a documented lesbophobe. The public record plainly shows that Prince did not treat his female musicians fairly, that he basically exploited his female musicians to showcase only his personal artistic vision, not theirs, and that he considered these women replaceable cogs in his music making machine. Can we stop all this post-mortem myth making and look at the facts please?

BTW, you know who else likes Prince? This one does, having recorded THE WORST COVER EVER of Prince’s song for Sinéad O’Connor, “Nothing Compares 2 U”. He abbreviated the song title at the time to prevent Prince from having it removed from Youtube, like Prince did with many other online covers of his songs during his lifetime, a trick which apparently worked to preserve the song. Oh well, let’s take solace in the thought that Prince died having never heard this abomination:

 

Here is how O’Connor originally had described her encounter with Prince:

“I did meet him a couple of times. We didn’t get on at all. In fact we had a punch-up.” She continued: “He summoned me to his house after ‘Nothing Compares 2U’. I made it without him. I’d never met him. He summoned me to his house – and it’s foolish to do this to an Irish woman – he said he didn’t like me saying bad words in interviews. So I told him to fuck off.” She said “He got quite violent. I had to escape out of his house at 5 in the morning. He packed a bigger punch than mine.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O’Connor#Remarks_about_Prince

And here is The Boy with his friend Felizol ruining Prince’s “Kiss” beyond all recognition at a live show. And notice here again how The Boy tried to prevent a Youtube takedown from Prince by spelling the title of the song backwards, as “Ssik”, to prevent it from being discovered:

France adopts art protection law
– why you will never see this in the Netherlands
by drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou
(c) 2016 all rights reserved

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this blog article is not intended as legal advice. If you need a lawyer, please stop reading this blog right now.

Why would a country like France adopt a law specifically protecting art? Not just because of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. First, because there are people like this in the world who physically want to vandalize works of art as a proxy for the artist themselves.  Then there are people who attack artists themselves. As in the case of the Pim Fortuyn assassination, these people are often animal rights zealots. The controversial Belgian body-artist Jeroen Farbe was beaten up in a park by seven animal rights kooks dressed up as furry animals with baseball bats for using live cats at one of his performances. In a move typical of the animal rights movement, false rumours were spread within Belgium and beyond suggesting the artist was hanging live cats from meat-hooks at his show, when nothing of the sort ever happened, and all cats were perfectly alive after the performance. The Dutch artist Katinka Simonse was threatened by the animal rights contingent for creating an artwork for which she euthanized and taxidermied her sick cat, turning it into a bag modelled after a brand of plush toys popular in the 1980s, the Popples. There has to be a law specifically protecting art because the animal rights movement wants to censor art involving animals by any means, including outright violence and physical assaults against artists as in the case of Fabre. But more often, the book-burners and censors of the 21st century come dressed in a lawyer’s gown. I openly venture the opinion that the iconoclasm committed against works of art by lawyers, judges and public prosecutors in the West is far greater and more severe than the one by Islamic State tearing down museum pieces, ruins and ancient sites. You can destroy a piece of art with the hammer of ISIL, or with the hammer of a Western judge who assumes himself an enlightened person in favour of free speech.

As the song says:

The Netherlands could have adopted a special law protecting artistic freedom of speech after the Pim Fortuyn assassination, they didn’t…
The Netherlands could have protected artistic freedom of speech after the Theo van Gogh assassination, who after all was an artist who was targeted for his art, they didn’t…

This new French law intentionally protecting art is literally unthinkable and unimaginable in the fascist censorship and libel-tourism police-state that is the Netherlands, where book after book was banned in civil court last year, an activist was arrested for saying “Fuck the king, fuck the queen, fuck racism” at a protest, and some silly cartoonish white rapper was arrested at a show for asking his audience to shout “raise the middle finger to the police” as is customary at rap shows. Earlier in the year the same rapper was beaten up in Amsterdam after insulting a young girl.  Tellingly, the story about the rapper getting his ass whooped in Amsterdam was broken by a Dutch blog that was also once targeted by the same legal firm that went on to target yours truly. It’s really funny how things go around in circles in a little piece of shit country like The Netherlands where everyone seemingly bumps into eachother after a while for having the same lawyers involved with the same cases. I don’t know why this firm went from SLAPPing free speech and trying to jail people over speech issues to defending a rapper’s speech… maybe these lawyers just happen to enjoy rap music such as this? I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, assume they saw the light and switched sides. I suspect that for such legal firms that specialize in SLAPP-suits the occasional defending of speech is merely a dress-rehearsal or RPG exercize so they can better censor little people like me, people with no resources to defend themselves against these powerful legal firms. The existence of such legal firms targeting artists with no resources to fight a SLAPP-suit or to defend themselves against a wrongful conviction is another reason for having a law intentionally protecting art like France now does.

Quoting from ArtForum in an article about this new French law that is beyond Dutch comprehension, we learn:

The new law states that “artistic creation is free” and that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the freedom of artistic expression and dissemination. Summing up the potentially prickly legal language, Minister of Culture and Communication Fleur Pellerin said, “We must must ensure that art can continue to disturb.”

http://artforum.com/newsletter/link.php?M=949551&N=628&L=4739&F=H

What can I say, I’m glad a bunch of French law-makers were willing to articulate the bleeding fucking obvious to their lawyers, prosecutors and judges :\ Dutch lawmakers don’t give a rat’s ass about freedom of speech and are perfectly happy to sit back and let speech-hostile judges issue one censorship-friendly verdict after another in various SLAPP-suits. Why? Because Holland is competing with the UK as to which of the two countries will have the most fascist, censorious and speech-hostile laws and jurisprudence and hence the most accomodating libel-tourism regime. I am glad France with their new art law basically went ahead and said the proverbial “fuck you” to both The Netherlands and the UK, “fuck you two and your silly libel tourism pissing match, unlike you two we in France are not going to throw our artists under the bus so that lawyers can make money from SLAPP-suits censoring artists, instead we will change our law to protect them.”.

Sources used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Pim_Fortuyn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20121101_00355199

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/20/online-anonymity-death-threats

http://www.24oranges.nl/2015/04/16/rabobank-kills-book-containing-accusations-of-art-theft/

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/10/rechter-boek-over-rabobank-moet-vernietigd-worden/

Activist prosecuted over “fuck the king” statements

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/07/dutch-activist-faces-jail-for-royal-insult-under-19th-century-law

http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2055042-lil-kleine-opgepakt-in-hilversum.html

Girls storm police station after rapper Lil’Kleine’s arrest

This isn’t the first time Lil Kleine asked is audience to perform what we shall now call the middle-finger salute. This salute had become a recurring onstage gesture preceding the song “Liegen Voor De Rechter” (“Lying before the Judge”, possibly another song the lawyers representing this rapper enjoyed at the office?). During the Lowlands Festival the rapper had asked his audience to do exactly the same thing – but no arrest followed that gig.

http://www.dafne.com/news/lil-kleine-arrested/

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/06/video_rapper_lil_kleine_krijgt.html

One of the many pink unicorns of the Filmmakers in the Fog protest movement was the creation of a National Greek Filmschool. As the documentaries below explain Greece already has several private filmschools as well as an academic film department, so there really is no need for yet another educational institution. The first documentary listed below shows that the amount of Greek films being released per year exploded due to the widespread use of digital means of filmmaking. Nothing indicates that the creation of a national filmschool would do anything to channel this explosion in digital filmmaking. The demand for the creation of such a school was rather a veiled attempt from the Athenian filmmakers to move filmstudents away from the city of Thessaloniki (where the state-run academic film department is located) to Athens, as well as to artificially create government-funded employment for FOG filmmakers to ensure a steady source of income for them through teaching when they are not making films. Rather than admit this, the demand for a National Film School remains to this day. The fact is that what filmmakers really need to survive financially is more commercial screening opportunities. Not more schools functioning as useless degree-factories. In a country where every household budget is in decline and the spending power of the individual consumer in search of divertisement has all but disappeared, it is unlikely that existing filmmakers will ever see the prudency of their films gaining more access to theatres rather than their unemployed asses gaining more access to government-funded school institutions at the expense of yet another generation of students deceitfully promised film careers but in the end left unemployed themselves with a worthless filmmaking degree.
A 2004 documentary about the state of Greek filmmaking, specifically of the Greek short film, four years before the crsis and five years before Filmmakers in the Fog (Greek, no subs). Note the demands for the creation a national Greek filmschool:

A 2013 documentary about the state of Greek filmmaking after Filmmakers in the Fog had pretty much collapsed as a movement (Greek, English subs). Note here the admission that nothing was done to create a national Greek filmschool despite the intent to do so:

And if you think this misery is exclusive to Greece, tune in later this year for the premiere of the following British documentary:

Why am I listing a documentary about British cinema in an article about the sorry state of Greek film and the misdirected demands for a new filmschool? Because everything that is detailed in this British documentary about the decline of the British film industry is twice the case in Greece. There was a British national cinema #FAIL before there was a Greek national cinema #FAIL and many Greek filmmakers are unaware of this fact. At least the British have the decency to admit that 1) they put the wrong people in the wrong positions (those appointed themselves openly admit as much) and 2) the destruction of the British film industry was the result of deliberate politics. Therefore, this British documentary while seemingly remote and irrelevant, must be seen back to back with the previous two Greek documentaries.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This article is dedicated to the Ancient Greek legend of Aspasia as a warning about sex robots, in hope that her words can be highlighted and recognized, in accordance with the suffering she endured as a courtesan, a prostitute to wealthy men in Ancient Greece. Aspasia was denied a voice. For too long history books […]

via Engineering Fear & Violence: Sex Robots as the Prostituted, by Eleanor Hancock — Campaign Against Sex Robots

This accidental Vimeo find (English subs, 15 min) is an example of how the Dutch imagined the internet and the networked society of the future back in 1988, before the widespread use of the internet in The Netherlands. It is a pseudomentary about wired life in the Netherlands of 2025, literally wired because apparently no one foresaw wireless in 1988. As the saying goes, “almost everything in history is ironic with the benefit of hindsight”. Watching this video is basically a game of “spot how much they got right/wrong”. They correctly foresaw the fact that PirateWhatever was going to become a nerdy lifestyle. They did not foresee Larry Lessig’s free culture ideology still driving the most successful business ventures on the internet. Reading this text message in blue ASCII in a CLI – apparently no one save for Blade Runner foresaw the widespread implementation of GUI back in 1980s – is just pure unintentional comedy goldmine: “We charge you ECU 258,00 an hour online.”! 😀

The Dutch legal culture of pedophila apologetics in the 1980s – lawyer Maarten Salden on Foucault et al. in the legal journal “Recht & Kritiek” in 1984

De Nederlandse juridische cultuur van pedofilieapologie – mr. Maarten Salden over Foucault et al. in juristenblad Recht en Kritiek 10, 1984

This article concerns an article I read in a Dutch left-wing legal studies journal from 1984 titled “Recht en Kritiek” (“Law and Criticism”). A pedophilia-apologist by the name of Maarten Salden (who according to Google is still a practicing lawyer in Amsterdam to this day)  had an article on page 105 of Recht & Kritiek issue 1, edition 10 regarding a discussion between French pedophilia-apologists Foucault, Hocquenghem and Danet. Of these three pedophilia-apologists,  Foucault was the only one who correctly predicted that society will never accept pedophilia and will continue to prosecute pedophiles. These three men were fully aware of how socially unacceptable and reprehensible their views were, yet all three still advocated the lifting of the age of consent. We can only hope that mr. Maarten Salden has changed his own reprehensible views on pedophilia since 1984. In his 1984 article, which expresses an almost zealous distrust of the psychological profession, Maarten Salden regals the reader with the usual pedophilia apologetics:

“Bovendien is het volgens hem [Danet] in Frankrijk heel moeilijk advokaten te vinden die pedofielen willen verdedigen. Net als bij de terroristen-processen zijn de verdedigers bang beschuldigd te woden van sympathie met hun clienten. Iemand die eigenhandig tien oude vrouwtjes vermoordde vindt makkelijker een pleitbezorger dan degene die even teder het geslachtsdeel van een kind streelde.” (p. 106)

Translation: “According to [Danet] it’s extremely difficult to find attorneys willing to represent pedophiles. Similarly to the trials of terrorists, are legal defenders worried of being accused of sympathizing with their clients. Someone who has murdered 10 old ladies with his bare hands will have an easier time finding a defender than someone who tenderly stroked the genitals of a child.”

This claim about poor child rapists who can’t find a lawyer is utterly absurd in the light of what actually happened during the trial of serial child rapist Robert M. in the Netherlands, who had not just one but FOUR CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYERS at his disposal! The fact is that Dutch legal defense lawyer will rush in to defend a pedophile because they have been groomed for years by the likes of mr. Maarten Salden and the “Recht & Kritiek” publication to think of pedophilia as something innocuous. You can watch Robert M.’s expert team of lawyers preparing his defense in the following documentary about the trial (English subs):


Reading mr. Maarten Salden’s article in Recht & Kritiek while watching the above documentary, one will notice that Robert M.’s attorneys were almost literally pulling a page out of Maarten Salden’s pedophilia apologetics. At one point towards the end of the document, one of Robert M’s attorneys becomes exgasperated and opines that the children raped by Robert M. “look happy” and “are smiling” during depositions. The lawyer ridiculously deducts from this that the children aren’t really suffering and weren’t really harmed by Robert M. This “real victims don’t smile” bullshit is classic rape apologetics.

One must keep in mind that Maarten Salden’s views were considered mainstream and de rigeur both amongst Dutch left-wing lawyers in the 1980s and the society at large. One could argue that it was because of these pedophilia-apologetic lawyers that the Netherlands eventually became such a pedophile haven. Maarten Salden praises the Dutch media in the 1980s for taking what he terms a “nuanced” approach to their reporting on pedophilia:

“Er is in Nederland vergeleken met twintig jaar geleden zeker sprake van een liberalisering die echt niet alleen illusie is. Op het terrein van de gezondheidszorg en het maatschappelijk werk pleit een groot aantal deskundigen en organisaties voor het laten vervallen van de leeftijdsgrenzen in de zedelijkheidswetgeving. De berichtgeving in de media is veel genuanceerder dan in de tijd toen Willem Duys uitriep dat hij de dader door zou slaan, wanneer het om zijn dochter ging. Ook het optreden van politie en justitie is soepeler geworden, wat moge blijken uit het toegenomen aantal seponeringen en uit de herhaalde beweringen dat politieambtenaren zich nu meer openstellen voor de opvattingen van de betrokken jongeren en dat zij alleen in ernstige gevallen ingrijpen.” (p. 108)

Translation: “Compared to 20 years ago there is certainly a liberalization of sexual mores in the Netherlands that isn’t merely an illusion. In the field of health care and social work many expects and organizations are arguing for the lifting of the age of consent in sexual offender laws. Messages in the media are more nuanced compare to the old days when Willem Duys [the late Dutch TV and radio presenter] cried that he would beat the perpetrator to death, if it were about his own daughter. Police and the judiciary have also become more flexible, which becomes apparent from the increased amount of dismissals and the repeated claims that police officers are now more open to the views of the youngsters involved, and the fact that they will only intervene in extreme cases.”

This passage from the article plainly shows that there was a legal, judicial and carceral culture of pedophilia apologetics in the Netherlands in the 1980s, a laissez-faire approach to sexual child abuse that was perpetrated by the Dutch mainstream media, an attitude that affected both the police force and the Dutch public prosecution service, who according to this excerpt were routinely dismissing sexual child abuse cases in favour of what the author terms a more “flexible” approach. This “flexibility” obviously became a vicious circle overtime: the more  child rape cases were dismissed, the less rape victims and their custodians saw the point of contacting the police to report a case of sexual child abuse.

If a lawyer said it was OK to sexually abuse children, insisting that no harm was done and that all the psychologists (who unlike the lawyer actually had to treat the raped and abused children) were in the wrong about pedophilia inherently traumatizing children, well, who was to argue with a lawyer in a society that blindly worships lawyers and the law like the Netherlands? If a lawyer said it was OK, it had to be OK. It wasn’t until this century that judges began listening to the Dutch public instead of lawyers, and adjusted their verdicts accordingly, having now borrowed the American legal concept of “community standards”. When the highest Dutch civil court banned pedophilia advocacy in 2014, the judges specifically referred to community standards as a reason to do so. This invocation of “community standards” of course was a legal cop-out, so that the Dutch judges wouldn’t have to acknowledge the body of scientific literature showing pedophilia and child pornography to be inherently damaging and traumatizing to children. Why were the Dutch judges truying to bypass scientific evidence in favour of “community standards”. Because this literature already existed in the 1980s, as Maarten Salden himself admits in his article when he obligingly paraphrases Dutch child psychologist dr. W. Wolters claiming that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that children enjoy having sex with adults.

The mere fact that mr. Maarten Salden was allowed to publish his pedophilia apologetics in a respected left-wing legal journal like “Recht & Kritiek”, this indicates that the supposed upholders of law and order in the Netherlands themselves made sure that serial child rapists like Robert “Monster of Riga” M. were eventually welcome and sheltered in the Netherlands. Let’s recall here that the only reason the Dutch public prosecution service began investigating Robert M. is because the United States requested that they do so after they discovered he was live-streaming his child rapes to pedophiles in the United States. If it weren’t for this American intervention, Robert M. would have continued raping children in the Netherlands and using Tor to stream his rapes over the internet to fellow pedophiles all over the world.

It wasn’t until 2014 that the Dutch courts put an end to this culture of pedophilia apologetics, now that they could no longer ignore how this supposedly Dutch permissiveness had endangered and victimized massive amounts of children. But did Maarten Salden change his mind? Did Maarten Salden feel a bit responsible when Robert M. was caught raping 64 children? Does Maarten Salden concede that he contributed to a culture of pedophilia apologetics that allowed the likes of Robert M. to vester under the surface of vapid Dutch sexual liberalism?