So I’m going to end there. You are entitled to your own opinion as anyone else, and I could care less about how articulate you are or think you are, but just because you say something does not mean you’re right, and just because you believe something does not make it true.

Whether or not you reply here, please keep that in mind.

Comparing to the way that Winona LaDuke speaks towards people, i thought Andrea was much more provocative. i could see Andrea is a very concerned person, yet i wonder how well she understands say, the history of popularized interests to allegedly “stop” violence, including sexual violence. Does she understand the politics of the labels that get put on those who are viewed to categorically being involved in violence against, for instance, children?

Does she understand that there is a nuance that has been actively suppressed, which certainly affects the reality of violence continuing to get worse? For example, while in Canada the age of consent is 14 (that is, that opinion leaders have allowed 14 year olds and up to *be able to* consent; that is possible in Canada); on the other hand, in the u.s.a. all persons under 18 *can never* consent, or so say the opinion leaders.

That means that 14 year olds who are allowed to consent in Canada, CAN NEVER consent in the u.s.a. and that when they engage in consensual sex with each other and those older than them, it is termed “rape”; so this is another way to inflate the statistics, and people don’t see this, and they’re not encouraged to think it through.

Nor do we hear that the 18 year old who had consensual relations with a 14 year old is forced to register as a sex offender *for the rest of their lives*, often meaning having their picture and home address paraded on the internet for any of the many hysterified vigilante-types to scapegoat.

And it is scapegoating, when consensual relations are concerned. It’s very interesting to know *when* millions of dollars were suddenly allocated to “stop abuse” and those who were initially gone after were very often those seeking to organize against hysteria! They dared expose the truth that grey areas exist and people concerned about truly solving problems ought to hear these other truths.

I wrote a manuscript about this and self-published it about a decade ago. Contact me if you’d like to read it. It goes through this history in some detail, though far from perfect.

So what concerns me as far as Andrea is concerned is just how courageous Andrea is going to be with her alleged “decolonizing” effort? How much will she dare to speak truths like these which have been actively suppressed for the last 30+ years? Does she understand that to speak such truth is actually impossible when trying to speak to “popularized society”?

It doesn’t seem to me like she is really being very courageous, except to speak up from her (and others’) *actually* abusive experiences. She sounds a lot like many of the authoritarian feminists (rather than the liberatory ones) that were allowed to be widely heard along with the “Politically Correct” (PC) movement which came along, surfing on enormous funding from u.s. and canadian governments, and which effectively played a major role in curtailing the 1960s/70s liberatory movements (including liberatory feminism). People like Catherine MacKinnon and Niki Craft whom didn’t seem to “get it”; in their hysteria they didn’t seem to get how their methods worked to block authentic solutions rather than allegedly evolve them.

I think this is what happens when victims get fooled by information, or when survivors don’t see how information is tainted with ideologies that ultimately work for the status quo, rather than allegedly against it!

Made sense here
The only thing that Andrea said that made a lot of sense to me was the way where some Native people were presented with other options than calling CPS and the police. That makes a lot of sense because when you call such formally-oriented groups like them, they deal with things in an ideological fashion. They cannot be human beings like you and me. They may as well be soldiers, so rigid their mandate is.

spiritual/cultural genocide
Another provacative topic which i think Andrea confronts without enough demystification, say, of the difference between official military methods and the inclinations of informal folks. Andrea’s articulation of this made me think of her as one of those PC “femi-nazis”; but i guess that’s one of the ways people think is a good way to gather attention these days…

i would join Andrea in “new ways of structuring our world…so that violence becomes unthinkable” and i would do it by opening up spaces where survivors and alleged perpetrators can have dialogue that is not hemmed in by the usual rigidities of ideology.

Of course, few would step up to the plate easily. The climate remains one oriented to hysteria. Because “sickos” are one of “the best” domestic scapegoats that the status quo has for keeping “the stupid masses” distracted and attacking themselves.

Want to dialogue more? I tend not to engage in dialogues around the sex abuse topic these days, but i’d share the article i wrote, for sure; the other topics, i’d *very much like to* get into. I.e.:

“That whole desire based on a logic of genocide” (referring to the inclinations, apparently, of informal folks who want to “play indian” –as though they are one and the same as the formals who directly represent status-quo interests). Or: “knowing, then can control them.” As though people seeking a way out of the mess they’re in, who naturally gravitate towards liberatory-seeming ways of power reconnecting, are somehow the same as state officials doing what they do!

If this lack of nuance approach is truly Andrea’s method, like so many PC femi-nazis from the 1980s, then i will be one who openly disrespects her, because some of us who are scapegoats of the scapegoats will not go silently.

Albeit, there certainly *are* crucial truths to be investigated in all of these provacative ideas. Sex itself is extremely separated from pre-colonized ways of being and seeing, in society, for example. While intimacy, and the very reason why intergenerational inclinations happen–to buttress the ancient intuitive desire to keep meaningful bonds between all generations and aide their meaning–have become more and more alienated from us “socially”.

To conclude, I understand that my speaking of truth here will not be understood very well; but I had to say something. Others can articulate these things better, but most of you have already been poisoned against them, categorically. Of course, you will categorically dismiss me as well (unless you want to risk being labeled a “witch” or “sicko-helper” yourself!), but for me this is more a spiritual speaking-up than to try to evolve mind-sets.

Further reading:
“Molested” published by Salon.com
My manuscript “The Spectacular Achievements of Media Control”