🌙

the “sex positivity” and “sexual liberation” and “sexual freedom” ideology has always championed unrestricted sexual access to and rape of women and children. it has always maintained a strong pro-rape current, a movement that reduces women to public property, a view that venerates male orgasms over female personhood, and a celebration of sexual violence against women and children. it is an attack on feminists who have agitated for any kind of sexual ethics that sought to limit male sexual entitlement, from age of consent laws, to marital rape laws, and so on.

industrial patriarchy had to adapt to women attaining the legal, social, and political ability to deny men sexual access to them, and “sexual liberation” is that patriarchal adaptation—the abuse, violence, and degradation of women is fine if the women themselves desire it and we are discouraged from interrogating this desire and who benefits from it.

we must not think of sexual liberation or “sex positivity” as an enemy to patriarchal religion—they are simply rivals. the sexual liberationist truly hates the so-called “puritan” not for any genuine moral reason, but because the “puritan” has the potential to say no to men. nevermind the fact that the puritan movement was not anti-sex and the sex positive advocates are misusing the term. the term’s utility to the sex positive movement is that it can be used as a slur to demean women who want a type of sexual ethics that disentangles violence from sex. the patriarchal theologist hates the fact that women can say no to men. they both see women’s boundaries as a threat. they see a sexual ethics that opposes violence against women as a threat. the dressing may be different, but the skeleton is the same. they are two opposing male supremacist ideologies vying for dominance. feminists reject both.

wilhelm reich, the godfather of this ideology, experimented on and sexually abused children, pat califia supported incest, child sexual abuse, and sexually abused a woman, gayle rubin extensively supported child sexual abuse and child pornography, the latter two were responsible for the spread of BDSM and its foundational links to queer theory, sadism was named after marquis de sade, a notorious rapist who tortured his victims. i could go on forever lol. these are some of the main architects of sexual liberation. look into any of these thinkers or most male psychologists who sought to naturalize women’s sexual subordination and you will uncover biological determinism—specifically related to the notions that “sex is a need,” that men’s sexual entitlements are natural, and women’s sexual inferiority and their desire to be dominated is natural. the notion that consent means a sex act cannot be critiqued, that consent purifies a sex act, no matter how violent, lies at the foundation of a patriarchal sex culture.

this critique isn’t limited to any one sex act, either. the social context that drives and encourages women to engage in anal, blowjobs, and choking is certainly not neutral under this rotten culture and should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. but you’ll find that feminists eviscerated the “normal” heterosexual act of intercourse (PIV) and how women are treated in it with much harsher terms than any other sex act lol. don’t allow the pro-rape advocates to call you a “puritan” because you’ve taken exception to the most normative sex act. the feminist critique takes everything to task, especially intercourse.

a lot of women and girls are taking their blinders off but are not reading the extensive feminist literature on this subject. dworkin’s “intercourse” is a good starting point for a feminist critique, but you’ll also have to read stuff that will piss you off and disgust you, like some of the thinkers i listed above lol. it’s a horrible stain on human history in my humble opinion. we can only achieve a truly ethical sex culture when this tumor of an ideology is excised, in conjunction with its main political rival, patriarchal religion.

idk how formatting works on this site any more lol under the read more i have citations for my polemic if you wanna look!

During the Vietnam War, heroin was so readily available in Indochina that a New York Times report claimed that between 10 and 15 per cent of lower-ranking enlisted men were addicted, with some units reporting dependency rates above 50 per cent. Many soldiers brought their heroin habit back home. The US government refused to acknowledge the connection with the opium trade in the Golden Triangle and blamed the epidemic in the US on Turkish poppy fields. A drug epidemic expedited by war gave the Nixon administration a useful alibi for its War on Drugs in Latin America, and for the creation of a vast prison infrastructure in the US. In a 1994 interview with the writer Dan Baum, Nixon’s aide John Ehrlichman explained that

the Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the anti-war left and black people ... We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalising both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

The War on Drugs intensified under Reagan. In 1984 the New York Times reported on the formation of JSOC and mentioned that the Pentagon had ‘under the terms of a secret 1983 memo’ pledged ‘logistical support and manpower’ to the CIA in its operations to support the Nicaraguan Contras and (supposedly) fight drug lords in Latin America. The report added that the Pentagon had been ‘less co-operative’ with congressional oversight committees than the CIA.

After the congressional ban that year on public funding for the Contras, Reagan’s national security staff decided to replace the cash by selling second-hand arms (some of them Israeli, in a process overseen by Shimon Peres) to Iran and by earning drug money from the US market. The scandal began to unravel in 1986, after Sandinista troops in the Nicaraguan jungle shot down a twin-engine plane operated by Southern Air Transport – a company that had until 1973 been secretly owned by the CIA – and captured the pilot. Only years later did investigative reports by Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury reveal the part the drug trade played in the funding of the Contras. Webb’s reports were strenuously denied by the CIA and derided by the mainstream press. He died in an apparent suicide in 2004 after his career collapsed, a few years before his reporting was vindicated by the release of archival national security material.

[...]

What unfurls is an astonishing narrative about the wages of the US’s covert wars abroad in the last quarter-century. Leshikar and Lavigne are not the only special forces operators whose stories of drug use and narcotic-related deaths are told. There are decapitated soldiers, victims murdered in murky circumstances, bodies set on fire and drug networks involving sex workers, tavern owners and corrupt cops. In June 2005, George Bush gave a speech to special forces at Fort Bragg amid an escalation of bloodshed in Iraq. In it he claimed that the US was in Iraq to stop the war coming to the US. What Harp documents is the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ended up there.

[...]

Harp interviewed special operators, their families and friends, drug dealers and drug clients; he reviewed reams of court cases and other official documents. He looks back at the war in Afghanistan and the stubborn upsurge in the opium trade after the fall of the Taliban, some of it inadvertently facilitated by the US. In 2007, the US Army Corps of Engineers built a bridge over a gorge between the Kunduz province and Tajikistan. The bridge – a standard dual-use infrastructure – stimulated the economies of both countries by providing an international outlet for Afghan heroin. Kunduz city was home to one of the main Delta Force base camps, and ‘a choke point controlling access to the alpine supply route’. ‘No wonder’, Harp writes, it ‘was the site of such fierce fighting’. The drugs didn’t stay in Central Asia, of course, just as heroin didn’t stay in Laos during the Indochinese wars. And just as the US blamed the Nixon-era epidemic of heroin on Turkish poppies, Mexico became the scapegoat for the opioid outbreak during the Bush and Obama years.

On 26 November 2025, Rahman Lakanwal, an Afghan refugee, drove from the northwestern corner of Washington State to Washington DC and shot two national guard soldiers, killing one. It was soon revealed that he had been a member of a Zero Unit – these were paramilitary units (Zero-One for Kabul, Zero-Three in Kandahar and so on) whose members were recruited by the CIA and trained by special operators. Lakanwal had joined the unit in 2013 at the age of sixteen 0r seventeen, had been assigned to Firebase Gecko (a JSOC and CIA base) and extracted from Afghanistan after the Taliban regained power in 2021. Towards the end of his book, Harp writes about a shadowy figure called Shahab al-Muhajir, who had ‘worked security for Rashid Dostum, JSOC’s favourite drug lord’, and was employed by Amrullah Saleh, who as the ‘CIA’s right-hand man in Afghanistan’ had been responsible for the Zero Units. Al-Muhajir, however, appears in the story not as a Zero Unit operative, but as the leader of the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), which was responsible for a suicide bombing at Kabul airport during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The crepuscular world of covert operations frustrates any effort to distinguish CIA operatives from uniformed military, drug lords from drug police, clients from enemies, and Zero Units from ISIS.

In January, Delta Force, the special operators who feature centrally as conduits of drugs from Afghanistan to the US, abducted Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela to be tried in the US. Commenting on the operation on social media, Harp noted: ‘Delta Force is based at Fort Bragg. The other main unit involved, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, is based at Fort Campbell’ – the other base where soldiers are more likely to die of an overdose than the average American.