OnlyFans and such are different from prostitution in that clients don’t pay for an actual sex act. They don’t pay to use another person’s body.
Instead, they pay to masturbate. This is an activity that is readily available to anybody for free. But OnlyFans consumers don’t seem to realize that. They have brought monetary exchange into a bodily function that fully belongs to them.
They aren’t paying to use somebody else’s body.
They pay to use their own.
Men who use OnlyFans are not paying just to see pictures of naked women (which are indeed easy to find for free.) They are paying for the illusion of an emotional connection to the women on there. Higher tiers of interaction mean more personalized contact with the woman. Special pictures she took just for you, constant messaging, etc. High earning, busy OnlyFans creators will generally outsource this part of the business to someone else, so men are paying to message random people pretending to be the woman. Very sad.
Nobody is claiming they are bright or introspective.
LikeLike
The New Balance of Power
PVV’s leader, Geert Wilders, has called for a ‘Nexit,’ but this position does not currently reflect the broader majority sentiment within Dutch society. However, other far-right leaders across Europe have congratulated Geert Wilders on his victory, emphasizing their shared anti-EU sentiments.
The Dutch political landscape has buzzed like a beehive with discussions about Nexit. After all, Brexit set a precedent, and now everyone’s eyeing the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, the far-right leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), has been waving the Nexit banner. The Netherlands thrives on trade. Rotterdam—their colossal port—anchors their economy. A Nexit compares to the risks of unplugging the espresso machine at a busy café—it’d hurt. Unlike the UK, the Dutch love the euro. But the Dutch absolutely want less of the Brussels bureaucracy and allot fewer red tape tangles. Even the pro-European crowd agrees: EU reform way overdue.
The coronavirus pandemic and EU’s vaccination strategy has aroused a strong minority opposition lead by Geert Wilders PVV Party for Nexit. Some individuals and Opposition groups condemn the long-term effects and societal impacts of the Covid-19 mass vaccinations! Nexit opposes the box thinking of EU bureaucracies like those of the World Health Organization (WHO) bureaucrats, who lavish praise and awe for the Covid-19 mass injections of the EU populace.
Nexit taps into a broader sentiment of frustration with perceived bureaucratic overreach, both within the EU and organizations like the WHO. Geert Wilders and his supporters argue that the EU’s centralized socialist decision-making stifles national sovereignty and imposes unnecessary bureaucratic regulations. This perspective resonates with those who feel that the EU’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including its vaccination strategy, a Corporate monopoly-greed-betrayal of the European peoples!
The pogroms of the early 20th century were part of a larger pattern of antisemitism in Europe, which the Amsterdam pogrom and Kristallnacht directly remembers! Understanding this context helps illuminate the long-standing vulnerabilities of Jewish communities and the historical roots of conflicts involving Israel and its anti-semitic racist enemies. The rise of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah often includes deeply antisemitic rhetoric. All Arab Israeli wars starting with the ’48 Independence War fought over the racist Nazi like Arab absolute rejection of Jews equal rights to self-determination in the Middle East. Their ideologies viewed as a continuation of historical antisemitic attitudes, which can lead to violence against Jewish communities globally.
The conflicts involving Hamas and Hezbollah, also rooted in territorial, political, and religious disputes in the Middle East. But Arab racism which categorically rejects Jewish self determination, this defines the Arab Israeli wars fought in the 20th and 21st Centuries. The historical context of antisemitism, including events like the recent Amsterdam pogrom, reflect old long standing motivations and narratives used by Nazi-like racists. The actions and ideologies of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah can significantly impact Jewish communities worldwide, influencing perceptions and experiences of Jewish safety and belonging.
Consider the connection between PM of Israel wanting to break of diplomatic relations with the UN, using UNRWA and UNIFIL as justification; coupled with the UN distortion of Israeli condemnations which perverts Chapter VI suggestions unto Chapter VII ultimatums like as found in the last UNGA condemnation of Israel, serves as the foundation of Israel’s desire to break off all diplomatic relations with the UN-nations in particular due to Israel’s rejection of the Wilson/FDR\Truman notions of a World Government by which nation states conduct international diplomacy.
PVV’s leader, Geert Wilders strongly favors and supports Nexit! Could a secret alliance between Israel and the Netherlands use the Amsterdam pogrom and the corruption of UNRWA and UNIFIL on Oct 7th, for the Netherlands to leave the EU and Israel leave the UN?
Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), advocates for the Netherlands to exit the EU. His stance is largely driven by concerns over national sovereignty and immigration policy. If Wilders were to gain significant political power, a shift towards a more Israel-friendly foreign policy could coincide with his Nexit agenda, potentially framing it as a way to assert Dutch sovereignty against perceived international biases.
A hypothetical alliance between Israel and the Netherlands could focus on mutual interests, including security and economic cooperation, especially if both nations feel marginalized by the EU and UN. Both countries could leverage historical narratives, including the recent Amsterdam pogrom, to rally domestic support for their respective political agendas, framing their actions as protecting national interests and historical legacies.
Breaking ties with international organizations carries significant risks & repercussions for both Israel and the Netherlands, affecting trade, diplomacy, and security arrangements. Combine this with the possibility of Trump deciding to “bring the boys home” from Europe; the US leaving NATO in exchange for Russia to leave the Ukraine including Crimea. Furthermore, in light of the rise of the BRICS currency competition against the dominance of the international dollar. Trump potentially negating the Wilson establishment of the Federal Reserve and returning America to the pre-1913 gold standard commodity based currency. Thus the alignment of a US/Israel\Netherlands economic alliance replaces the 20th Century NATO/Allied alliance.
The Dutch and the British have a strong history of competition and wars. In the 17th Century, the Dutch, with their innovative joint-stock companies and merchant fleets, sailed to distant shores. They founded colonies in North America, India, and Indonesia. Their ships—those sleek fluyts—dominated the seas. The British and Dutch fought four wars; in the the Second Anglo-Dutch War in June 1667, the Dutch pulled off a daring raid on the English fleet in its home port—the Medway, a river in South East England. This humiliation of the British. One of the worst defeats in the Royal Navy’s history, and one of the worst suffered by the British military.- a never forgotten Dutch victory.
If Trump advocates in negotiations with Putin, for a withdrawal of US troops from Europe, it could signal a major pivot away from traditional US commitments, including the WWI/WWII\NATO Allied alliance. This move might frame the a way to refocus & prioritize upon domestic issues and reduce military expenditures abroad. The idea of the US leaving NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine, including Crimea, suggests a willingness to reshape the security landscape in Europe. This could lead to a re-evaluation of military alliances and security commitments. Both the US, Israel, & the Netherlands share concerns about Iran, regional instability, and terrorism, which could serve as a foundation for a more formalized alliance.
The rise of BRICS as a counter to the US dollar could significantly alter global economic dynamics. If countries within BRICS establish a competitive currency system, it could challenge the dollar’s dominance and influence in international trade. With Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal from the Nixon era’s petro-dollar monopoly and joining BRICS, the US dollar as the world currency directly threatened and challenged.
The petrodollar system, established in the early 1970s, tied the US dollar to oil sales, requiring countries to use dollars for oil transactions. This arrangement bolstered the dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency. As one of the largest oil producers, Saudi Arabia’s decision to move away from the petrodollar could undermine the dollar’s dominance. Especially if the rest of OPEC followed the Saudi leadership.
By joining BRICS, Saudi Arabia aligns itself with a coalition of emerging economies seeking to challenge Western economic hegemony. This move could facilitate trade in alternative currencies, reducing reliance on the dollar. Saudi Arabia’s membership could enhance BRICS’ credibility and economic weight, potentially leading to a more coordinated effort to create a new currency system that competes with the dollar.
A significant shift away from the dollar in global oil markets could threaten its status as the world’s primary reserve currency. This would have profound impact upon the US economy, including potential inflation and increased borrowing costs. A diminished role for the dollar could lead to a rebalancing of global power dynamics, allowing countries within BRICS to exert more influence on international affairs. The US may need to re-evaluate its foreign policy and economic strategies in response to these shifts. This could include the prioritization of the US/Israel\Netherlands alliance. Both the US and Israel both reject the model of fiat currencies which currently domination world money markets!
Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal from the petrodollar system and its alignment with BRICS represent a significant challenge to the US dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency. This shift could have wide-ranging implications for global trade, economic stability, and international relations. The evolving dynamics compel\require strategic adaptations from the US and its Primary allies Israel and the Netherlands to navigate this changing landscape.
A stronger US-Israel alliance could emerge as the US scales back its commitments to NATO. This partnership might focus on shared interests in security, counterterrorism, and geopolitical stability in the Middle East. Proposals to return unto a gold standard mark a radical departure from modern monetary policy. This shift could appeal to some constituencies seeking stability and predictability in economic values but would face significant challenges in implementation. Any dramatic changes in foreign policy, especially regarding NATO and economic systems, would likely face substantial domestic and international opposition. The interplay of these factors—US foreign policy shifts, the potential realignment of alliances, economic competition from BRICS, and radical changes to the monetary system—could reshape the geopolitical landscape in profound ways.
Wilders’ advocacy for a Nexit reflects a broader wave of populism and nationalism in Europe. His focus on national sovereignty resonates with constituents frustrated by EU bureaucracy and immigration policies. The Netherlands has a strong trade-oriented economy, particularly through Rotterdam’s port. Exiting the EU could jeopardize trade agreements and economic stability, drawing parallels to the challenges faced by the UK post-Brexit.
President Trump seeks to restore States rights to bureaucratically regulate all trade and commerce within the States as defined by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution as the basis for dismantling the corrupt Federal post Civil War bureaucracies in Washington. This “tune” enjoyed by the musical ears of both Netanyahu and Wilders’ detestation of a huge Big Brother bureaucratic socialist domination of governance. President Trump has indeed emphasized states’ rights and deregulation as key components of his policy agenda, since the Supreme Court reversed Roe vs. Wade. His approach aligns with Netanyahu and Wilders; both men harshly critical of what they perceive as overreach by corrupt bureaucratic monstrosities.
This perspective resonates with those who advocate for more localized governance and less centralized control. The common thread among these leaders, their push for greater national sovereignty and a reduction in the influence of supranational organizations and bureaucracies, like the UN. This stance particularly evident in Wilders opposition to the EU’s centralized decision-making and regulatory frameworks.
During his tenure as Finance Minister under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu likewise implemented significant economic reforms aimed at reducing the power of state bureaucratic monopolies and promoting free-market principles. His policies included privatizing state-owned companies, cutting taxes, and reducing government spending. President Trump’s Make America Great defined by sharing an identical nation strategic interest. These measures part of all three leaders broader strategy to modernize the economy and encourage private sector growth in America, the Netherlands, and Israel.
LikeLike
what you wrote reminds me that I haven’t heard much about the UK’s economy post-Brexit in a long time. Often when we don’t hear anything it means the dreaded foreseen thing failed to come to pass. But I may have just not been on the proper channels to hear it. So is the UK economy destroyed? Is it thriving?
and whichever is true – how does this interconnect with native sentiment towards unassimilating immigrant populations?
COVID-19 hit hard, wiping out five years of growth in little more than a year. While there are no tariffs on trade in goods between the EU and the UK (subject to certain conditions), other barriers to trade have increased.
Afascinating trading rivalry unfolding between London and Amsterdam, reminiscent of historical battles—but this time, it’s waged in the realm of stocks and bonds rather than cannons and cutlasses.
After Brexit, the financial landscape shifted dramatically. As the United Kingdom bid adieu to the European Union, some of its financial activities—like trading euro-denominated shares and bonds—were barred from the City of London. Instead, they found a new home in the picturesque canals of Amsterdam. Amsterdam, with its storied history as the birthplace of the world’s first “modern” stock exchange in the 17th century, has once again stolen the limelight. It’s like the old trading spirit of Rembrandt and tulips has awakened anew!
Amsterdam’s emergence as Europe’s top trading hub is no small feat. The operational headquarters of Euronext—the stock exchange that oversees several European markets—now resides in the Dutch capital. And that’s where the action is. In recent months, Amsterdam has been flexing its financial muscles, trading €10.7 billion of shares in March alone, just edging out London’s €10.6 billion.
The return of Swiss share trading to London—made possible by the UK’s departure from the EU—has narrowed the gap. London’s financiers are rallying, determined not to let Amsterdam run away with the prize.
In June 2023, the Biden White House unveiled the “Atlantic Declaration,” a framework for a 21st-century U.S.-UK economic partnership. A high-stakes game of Monopoly, where Park Place and Mayfair team up to build hotels on Boardwalk. This suggests that the Biden Administration feared President Trump might steer America away from Churchill’s “special relationship” with London.
November 2023, Geert Wilders, the charismatic leader of the right-wing populist Party for Freedom, scored a landslide victory in the Dutch elections, and he favors Nexit!
LikeLike
Faith: Justice Justice Pursue.
The Peace Process. Why does Israel absolutely reject all international attempts to mediate the Arab-Israeli wars?
France’s emphasis on multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East seen as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty and right to self-determination. This French imperialism with its political rhetoric baggage, labeled as ‘multilateral diplomacy’, dilutes the specific needs and rights of Israel, particularly regarding its self-determination.
This political jargon rhetoric – utterly treif. For example: [[[France’s broader strategy in the Middle East emphasizes multilateral diplomacy]]] Arab States absolutely reject Jewish self determination in the Middle East. France’s “multilateral diplomacy” marketing propaganda favors the rejection of Jews equal rights to self-determination. How? Israel requires direct face to face negotiations. Arab states racist Nazism therefore favors “multilateral diplomacy” because this degrades Israel into the status of a UN protectorate mandate territory.
Discussions about multilateral diplomacy often overlook how the involvement of international bureaucratic organizations and external powers like France can undermine Israel’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination through alien/foreign red-tape bureaucratic regulations.
When France emphasizes multilateral diplomacy, Israel interprets such marketing tactics as siding with Arab states that reject Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the region. This approach seen as an attempt to delegitimize Israel’s sovereignty by involving external powers, such as the United Nations or the European Union, in ways that infringe upon Israel’s ability to negotiate directly with its Arab neighbors.
The Arab states, including nations like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, have long rejected the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East, with many maintaining historical and territorial claims over areas that now comprise Israel. These states have used international platforms, including the UN, to push for resolutions that isolate Israel, deny its legitimacy, or call for a “two-state solution” that would see Israel’s borders fundamentally altered in ways that many Israelis believe undermine their security and territorial integrity.
In contrast, Israel has consistently argued that it must engage in direct face-to-face negotiations with its Arab neighbors to ensure that any peace deal respects its security needs and the integrity of its borders. Israel sees the imposition of external bureaucratic pressure, through multilateral diplomacy or UN resolutions, as undermining its right to negotiate terms of peace on its own terms, without being coerced into concessions that would leave it vulnerable to Auschwitz borders.
This broad Jewish distrust\tension reflects a fundamental clash between Israel’s desire for direct, bilateral negotiations and the international community’s, its skewed traditions & antisemitic history, patronizing pretensive role wherein it attempts to mediate or impose solutions seen as skewed in favor of Arab states that refuse to recognize Israel’s legitimacy. This antisemitic dynamic turns multilateral diplomacy into a tool for delegitimizing Israel, instead of fostering genuine peace. It serves as a key tool that places Israel in a defensive position, forced to contend with political pressures that diminish its ability to act in its own national interest.
Ultimately, these tensions, part of a larger struggle for Israel’s recognition and its place in the Middle East, where the international bureaucrats attempt to apply ‘multilateral diplomacy’ in an attempt to erase Israel’s status as an independent and sovereign nation. To reduce Israel’s role in the region to that of a mandate territory, under the supervision of international bodies rather than as an equal member of the global community.
The Zionist movement, which advocated for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was founded by Theodor Herzl, consequent to the Dreyfus Affair and Russian pogroms. Widespread antisemitism and persecution of Jewish communities in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries served as a major catalyst for the Zionist movement. The First Zionist Congress, held in 1897 in Basel Switzerland, where Herzl and other prominent figures in the Zionist movement discussed and debated their divergent visions for the establishment of a Jewish state – such as political vs. cultural Zionism.
The Balfour Declaration, a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, expressed British support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This political Zionist breakthrough, the first recognition by a major international power of Jewish national aspirations, had a profound impact on international diplomacy, contributed to the end of Ottoman rule in the region, and shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by laying the groundwork for competing national claims to the League of Nations awarded Palestine mandate.
The League of Nations granted Britain this mandate, to administer Palestine in consequence to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The mandate included a solid commitment to implement the Balfour Declaration and facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement of divided Ottoman Greater Syria. This awarded mandate, with its pre-conditions, led to nearly 30 years of British control over the region, ending in 1948. A direct consequence to the British 1939 White Paper whereby London betrayed the Jewish people and made open alliance with Hitlers’ Shoah genocide. Both Churchill & FDR made the conscious decision that Allied bombers not destroy the rail lines that transported Jews to the death camps. Stalin ordered the Red Army to halt in sight of Warsaw to permit the SS to obliterate the Jewish revolt.
The Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, played a significant role in the defense of Jewish communities during the corrupt British Mandate. Initially formed to protect Jewish communities from local Arab attacks, the Haganah later evolved into one of the main military organizations in the Jewish community in the lead-up to the expulsion of the British Nazi alliance and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The Irgun blew up the King David Hotel which served as the Central British Headquarters in Jerusalem.
The 1929 Hebron massacre exploded. This violent trauma in the city of Hebron, caused by British policy, which promoted a divide and rule strife between Arabs and Jews. Arab residents attacked that Jewish community, resulting in the deaths of approximately 67 Hebron Jews, including women and children, and injuries to many others.
The 1930s Arab revolt followed. A period of intense Arab resistance and rebellion against British colonial rule and Jewish immigration to Mandate Palestine. That revolt occurred from 1936 to 1939; triggered by several factors, including Arab frustrations over land dispossession, Jewish immigration, and economic disparities.
The Six-Day War, June 5 to June 10, 1967; a brief but intense conflict in the Middle East. Primarily pitted Israel and a coalition of Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. It resulted in an overwhelming victory for Israel, & the capture of large swathes of territory from the surrounding Arab states; creating an important defensive buffer for Israel, and the reunification of Jerusalem. Which came under Jewish sovereignty for the first time in nearly 2,000 years.
Multinational intervention, specifically the British/French UNSCR 242 first introduced the idea of “occupied territories” together with a Chapter VI “suggestion” of “land for peace”. Never did that UN intervention address the key primary cause of the War: the Nazi Arab racism which rejects the Israeli right to self determination in the Middle East. The UNSC never has demanded from Arab countries that they recognize the equal rights of Jews living in the Middle East to self determination. The skewed biased multinational UN Resolution only places demands upon Israel, as if Israel rather than Jordan invaded. As if Israel rather than Jordan, Syria, and Egypt captured rather than lost territory consequent to Nassers’ military adventurism.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War, another significant multi-national intervention. This Arab surprise attack, by Egypt and Syria on Israel, strove to restore the balance of power in the Middle East to Arab domination which these states justified as Arab pride. The conflict led to superpower involvement, the U.S., no longer tied down in the Vietnam imperialism. Both the US and Russia demanded a ceasefire. Despite Israel having cut off and besieged the Egyptian 3rd Army and Suez City, coming within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of Cairo.; IDF advances on the Golan front, within a few dozen kilometers (about 20 miles) of the Syrian capital! Russian and US intervention stopped the Israeli capture of Damascus which would have radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East at the expense of both USSR and US strategic interests. Israeli pilots shot down Russian pilots over the Sinai. The war’s long-term impact on regional security – President Sadat decided to accept the Israeli invitation and start direct face to face negotiations, which Israel demands for any Arab/Israeli peace.
The 2009-2010 settlement freeze represented a significant multi-national diplomatic effort by Obama, this US imperialism later culminated in the multi-national condemnation of Israel, infamously known as UNSCR 2334.
Multilateral diplomacy as promoted by foreign powers like France – virtually always perceived by Israel as undermining and threatening its sovereignty. This foreign imperialism attempts to position Israel within the framework of some hostile international consensus, which seeks to impose Chapter VII conditions and resolutions—like the rhetoric jargon gas which the United Nations continuously farts.
Multinational demands for peace negotiations armed with “multilateral” oversight. France and UNSC great powers push for a form of control or constraint on Israel’s self-determination. Israel categorically rejects this foreign imperialism as strongly as Arab Nazi racism rejects Israel’s right to self-determination in the Middle East. No UNSCR has ever recognized Israel as an independent country within the Middle East. Israel unequivocally demands the conduct of Peace negotiations through direct, bilateral negotiations with its neighboring states, free from external Big Brother foreign bureaucratic regulations.
UNSC bureaucratic resolutions—always demand that Israel surrender territorial concessions; yet never equally demand reciprocal recognition from Arab states concerning Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. This multinationalism framework as a rule positions Israel defensively within international relations, where Israeli actions, condemned by a standard that does not apply equally to other nations involved in any other conflict.
Multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East, particularly as practiced by Western European states like France & Russia supports Arab state positions which attempt to diminish Israel’s unique security and sovereignty fundamental requirements. This deeply contentious multinationalism issue reflects a broader, complex legacy of international involvement in Israel’s path to securing and maintaining its status as a sovereign nation.
In essence, the argument claims that multilateral diplomacy, in this specific context, simply anything other than neutral. Not a tool for conflict resolution but rather a mechanism used to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy. This position paper, the strength of its argument lies in its historical depth and consistent narrative.
LikeLike
“OF is paying someone else so you can masturbate.”
Also true for sex toys, old fashioned phone sex lines, strip clubs.
What’s the female equivalent of “OF is contact-free covid-safe budget GFE?”
LikeLike
Do they really masturbate in strip clubs? I’ve never been, obvs, but eww.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment