Rebel Mouse

History of Europe is full of colonialism, from which benefits had first riches and politicians and ordinary people had indirect benefits because colonialism financed eaters of budget (military, bureaucracy, etc). European attacked West Africa because there is a lot of diamonds, gold and energy resources (oil). They also exploited humans and they sold Africans to USA as slaves. But even this was not enough for them, they also forced/imposed their way of thinking, their culture in occupied regions. It is hegemony of capitalism, of people who rule in capitalism. They did it always with words: we go there to bring them culture. But the fact is that they brought there death and slavery. Even today European countries are present in Africa with military and many corporations continue to exploit Africans and their resources. Therefore they have interest to develop local conflicts in order to justify their military presence. Shortly said, in the past European rulers had direct interest from exploitation, today many countries became more or less independent and exploitation is today more in hands of corporations. It means that profit goes in hands or riches and only some money through taxations finish in budget of West Europe. Therefore in last 20 years European economy is worst than before 40 years. Ordinary people can feel it. Beside it, more and more European riches transfer their factories in Asia so more and more Europeans stay without jobs (that situation develop economic racism). It means that Europe logically renew their politics of attacking of countries with resources.

Before several years, USA started to attack Arab countries. Reason is clear to anyone who understand little politics: energy resources. They try to justify such imperialism with nice words "imposing of democracy", "fight for global security", etc. But the fact is that they started to produce insecurity with attacking of oil countries. Muslims make reaction on American action. Muslim protect themselves from aggressors. Unfortunately, Europe want to participate with USA in taking of energy cake and therefore Europe stand together with USA in their imperialism. Therefore it is hard to get real information from war, the both sides, USA and Europe report what is their interest. Medias are in hands of government or in hands of riches, repressive forces also do everything to suppress those who are not under control. There are many examples of unbelievable judgment against Muslims but I will always remember when I read that Muslim girl is judged 6 months of prison in Britain just because she wrote song. Other are judged also just because of visiting of some internet forum, etc, without any proof that they did or planned anything against the law. Servants (judges, cops, etc) punish people even just for reading of information from "other side". The fact is that Muslims make big resistance and therefore rulers make big propaganda against them. Politicians, Medias, etc, spread fear and hate against Muslims. Therefore racism is so strong in Europe, and among other foreigners who are not welcomed, Muslims are the most targeted. Therefore any discrimination of Muslims and their religion, in the time of war, is part of war and of imperialist propaganda against them. After creating of such propaganda, repressive forces can arrest any Muslim, with charge for planning of murder BUT without any proof. Majority of society don't see anything bad about it, they don't react. Of course such arresting is followed by reports in Medias, what make again fake fear and bigger hate = racism. The same like in Africa, stealing of oil is not enough, USA and Europe want to occupy oil countries without to see resistance, they want to change way of thinking of attacked people, to change their culture and religion... I hope they will never succeed in all of it.

There are individuals who run to publish something against Muslims and their religion, so called "public racists": Tøger Seidenfaden (chef redactor of newspaper "Politiken"), Kurt Vestergaard (one of 12 racist artists, servants of imperialists), etc.... In Sweden also: artist Lars Vilks and Ulf Johansson editor of newspaper "Nerikes Allehanda".

Now wider sense of problem with caricatures is much clearer, problem with racism, etc. I mentioned here discrimination because of resistance to aggressors, so it is propaganda connected with war. There is also racism in Europe which is based on economic reasons, beside this "imperialist racism". European economic racism hit all poor foreigners.

Where are ordinary Europeans in all of it?
Many but MANY of them are learned from childhood to be strong nationalists and patriots so they will support their government about anything. They participate in justifying of racism, of war, of anything what their authorities do. Many of them discriminate Muslims and foreigners in daily life and many of them are ready to cooperate with authorities in realizing of repression.
There are also many people who are not under control of authorities and they are fighting against war, against racism, etc. Some of them do it passive, periodically, some of them are active often (active are mostly leftists, human right activists and anarchists). In any case, they are not enough strong to stop government. But it is without question moral obligation of human Europeans to stand up against war, against arrests, against racism, against repression.
In which way people will stand up against it, it is their choice. People are different, some of them will demonstrate, some of them will make personal attack, some of them will burn public institutions...

My opinion is that in deep history existed polygamy in group life of human beings. During the time, with creating of leaders, religious ones also, individuals who are leaders started to control morality of other people even they started to propagate monogamy for others but not for themselves. I remember that at faculty of law I learnt that priests and fathers kept right for themselves to have sex first (marriage night) with bride, before groom do it. So, with arising of religious and other kind of leaders, those leaders started to prefer themselves and to create privileges for themselves, not only economic privileges than sexual ones also. I suppose in that way virginity at women started to be appreciated in communities, privileged people wanted for themselves untouched girl. In religious rituals was visible again importance of virginity, when they gave/sacrificed for the god virgin girls. Religioun and its rules existed much before the state existed, so first religion started with controlling of morality of people in some community and society. Later the state also regulated even private life of people. It means that old canon/codification regulated how many times per day mother should give milk to the child, women could charge men for refusing to make sex inside of marriage, etc. Sparta was exception, woman could ask husband to have sex with bigger man in order to make bigger child. It was so because children were taken from parents and led to military boarding school, whole life was subordinated to military state. Bigger child means bigger soldier. In one part of history of Roman Empire was prestige among senators: who will have younger and more beautiful lover. I want to say with this that in different history periods existed different communities with different written and unwritten rules.

Present society, state and religious system, system of values also, are based on Roman law, so present society is just little changed Roman Empire. In that Empire, family was like small state, father had unlimited authority over other members of house (family members plus slaves). Today father is still the main in house, he decide everything, especially in poor regions of Europe. Therefore family is still important for ruling class, and surely for religion which has such teaching. It means that people see monogamy as normal thing from childhood, that's what people learn and what they see around them during whole life. Children already see that father give orders, that women-children are learnt that men should protect them instead to learn that they should protect themselves alone (the same as men), etc…

First shaking of such system of values happened with arising of anarchists in the middle of 19 centuries and second time with arising of hippies at 70's. There were not so many anarchists and except propagating of freedom in relations of men and women it is question how much they had chance to practice it. There are not so many writings about private life of anarchists and rarely about love-side of their life. They were pioneers surrounded with strictly patriarchal society. Hippies, after destroying of demonstration 1968, adapted themselves before or later in cliche of present system and some of them kept their communes on the marge of society in which they continued to practice their ideas about ecology and free love. In any case, they didn't succeed to have influence on bigger part of society and new generations are again at the beginning i.e. at the level before hippies. It is always problem at any social fight for changing, system is continuing while fight of rebels is stopped after system succeeded to brake rebellion and then new generations start everything from beginning. Therefore people again run for career and even if there is exchanging of partners it is just result of subordinating to the career: there is no time, instant life, sex for one night and back to the job to produce capital for riches. So, high educated women who today exchange partners, they do it as a result of running for career but not as a result of fight for their freedom. Of course, high educated are not majority than minority of society; lower educated women are still reproducing function which state and church want: making of family and automatically making of hierarchy inside of it and making of such system of values which is interest of leaders and authorities. So children still accept hierarchy from childhood, first inside of family, later in school, military and then they come to the work-place totally domestic (obedient). Social accepted freedom to exchange partners obviously exist only for managers. Managers can't live in one city than they are mobile in serving to the capital. Of course, they are in their cycle of people (other managers and chefs) so it is logically that they will enjoy in sex with them, not with poor. It means that realizing of morality exist again only for wider mass of people (poor) while individuals, who have higher positions in social hierarchy, can realize unmorality i.e. to live like they want.

Important is to mention that monogamy is public situation at wider mass of people (nation). Secret reality is: polygamy.

My standpoint is that people are naturally polygamists because we are social beings and it is the fact that we like more persons and not only one. Limitation to be with one person is result of created understandings/standpoints after growing up in monogamy society. Of course, need of people that monogamist society think good about them lead people to the double life: publicly they are with one person and they hide themselves when they are with one more person. People show themselves like that they live in harmony with rules from their community but in reality it is not so. Therefore really big majority of people have double life and they hide themselves when they realize their needs. Of course, there are always those who are not desirable so they adapted themselves in monogamy but if person is desirable and if person can have more partners, surely before or later that person will use chance to have more partners and not only one. With consciousness or without it, people find themselves in situation to have one more person with whom they can enjoy psychical and physical. Impression on other people in society and blabla of men who like to speak to everyone that he had sex with some woman, bring women to self-limitation. My experience is: when I speak with girl who says that her boyfriend must wait her (for sex) 5 months, she change herself very fast and after 2-3 days she accept to have sex with me. Talking is simply, I explain her that I have "free way of thinking" about enjoying, and mostly of them change themselves very fast. It happened to me even one time when I hitchhiked but I didn't expect so fast changing (she started to make fun with me in vulgar way) so I didn't use that chance to enjoy with very beautiful girl (in patriarchal country it is rarely that woman take man on the highway). In any case I want to say that girls (young ones, older than 45 are mostly the same as men) massively represent themselves in harmony with way of thinking of their society, in order to make good impression at people, but when man explain that he is different than society around us, woman change herself very fast. For me it is the best proof how much society limit people i.e. how much people limit themselves alone in order to get good impression in society about them. It is valid usually for women because men in present society have freedom to live like they want, nobody will say anything bad about man, but it is not so for women. Therefore many women lead double life, one public and one secret, while men don't hide themselves.

Beside it, I mention this example because I think that women should make pressure on society that society accept them and their needs but not that they adapt themselves in society and to adapt their needs in accordance with understandings of society. For me it would be horrible that I adapt my needs in the way of thinking of society. Such things should stay autonomy of individuals inside of some community and only me and some person beside me, we can decide if something connect us, in which way we will come to the enjoying and what kind of relationship we will have. I mentioned this example also because it proofs the best that monogamy is not natural i.e. it proofs the fact that we can like or love more than one person (especially in big societies). For me is already and liking enough to get wish to enjoy with that person. For me, love come later, after enjoying, not before it. Many girls who adapt themselves in patriarchy force standpoint that sex must be result of love but I know that at me there is no chance to get bigger feelings for woman if I just spoke with her (enjoyed verbally). Talking make sympathy but not stronger feelings and love. Although girls will never recognize it, it is the fact that virgin-girls never felt in love, they liked some boy but it was without stronger feelings and that's so because they didn't have sex with that boy. Sex make stronger feelings between two persons, they become more pulse, more connected, they get bigger tolerance each for other when someone make mistake, etc. It means that contrary to patriarchal culture, not only psychical enjoying than corporal ones also bring people to developing of feelings; although it brings not to the same expectations from connecting. In order to avoid different expectations (crying also) it is desirable that people speak in the meantime about all of it (in many parts of the world men even shot women if she enjoy with other, so different expectations can be dangerous).

I mentioned all of this because many feminist opinions spread morality about sex i.e. they propagate that sex must have bigger meaning than corporal enjoying. My standpoint is that sometimes it is just corporal enjoying, sometimes something more than it, but it depends from situation and it should not be rule that it must be like this or like that. Sometimes I get big wish beside some girl who looks very good even I don't like her way of thinking about many things in life, simply after 20 minutes of speaking I notice that I am wet (so it is happening without my control and I must be honest to myself and say: I react, part of me, my body, on her beauty). Of course, it is not so with every girl, but this example is the fact that people can enjoy on the basis of corporal attractiveness without to give to it some bigger meaning. At that point, feminists with their moral standpoint about sex are the same as religion. They continue system of values of religion about sex, although they are allergic on religion (obviously because of subordinating of women in bible but not because of sex standpoint of bible). It shouldn't be forgotten importance of virginity which religions propagate. Religion "glorify" sensible parts of body and they hide such parts of body at Adam and Eva. Feminists do the same with their standpoints about body and sex. People continue with religious system of values about sex when they give moral lessons to daughters (sons are free to do what they want in patriarchy): you should not give yourself to the boy; women kick someone who touch their ass but they don't do it if someone touch their hand (it means that honor is in pussy instead to be in head, and it is again glorifying of sensible parts of body), people speak that prostitution is degraded, immoral job, etc. So parents and people generally spread religious morality. It means, there is whole network of moral rules in society which are continuation of church and state system of values. Therefore I like much more people with free way of thinking, about body and enjoying because with free way people destroy present system of values. Important is mind/moral/private/personal freedom and not only economic freedom. Many anarcho-feminist come from mainstream feminist movement so they don't change mentioned moral standpoints. Of course, there are differences between mainstream and anarcho-feminists. First ones don't criticize the sense of capitalism which bring women to prostitution than they speak how prostitution is degraded job, what comes again from moral standpoint about body and sex. In that way they are together with those people who judge and degrade women just because they sell themselves in brothel instead to do it in factory. Selling of mind or of body/muscle in the form of wage-slavery (hire work) is prostitution and it is not important is it done in brothel or in factory. It means that all manual workers and scientists are prostitutes, not only persons in brothels. Prostitution will be abolished when exploitation (hire work) is abolished.

In order to make possibility for developing of sexual freedom and in order to destroy family and its hierarchy, it should be accepted from wider mass of people that polygamy is natural thing. But first thing in order to make such possibilities, it is to stop with morality about sex. Such morality bring to:

-dishonor of some people who decided with free will to make money for living with selling of sex

-restraint of needs of people and leading of doubled life

-killing because of jealousy or because of disappointment when one partner get info about double life of other partner

-continuation of patriarchy

-putting of sex to the most important thing in relations between people at wider mass of people (sex jokes are popular in patriarchal societies (even when people work in fields they make such jokes each with other) because people don't have so much sex like they would like to have)

-brag about sex (when someone do it and then everybody knows)

-such situation that sex became main aim instead to be tool/meant for better meeting/recognition of each other, for better mutual enjoying in life

I want to say that morality about sex reproduce always again and again patriarchal relations in which people have double life and in which people take a risk to loose impression of society about them, to loose their life, etc. Benefits from present monogamist system have state and church and those who like to dominate in public and private life. I believe that developing of sexual freedom would bring much better situation in private and public life. One example: In polygamist society people would watch their bodies and their enjoying in harmony with polygamy and it would solve many present problems: jealousy and attacking because of present "ownership behavior" about partner; Second example: the state would not take care about children without parents than any member of community where is that child (someone who is familiarized/narrow to the child). It means it would disappear the sense of family, of hierarchy, child could have thousands mommies and daddies... Simply, unthinkable possibilities, which are necessary for realizing of anarchist society. Abolishing of the state and of economic exploitation is just preparing of "field" for realizing of anarchist society, people should start to practice what they spoke always: abolishing of any form of hierarchy, inside of any kind of relationship between two or more persons. So I don't think that after revolution everything is finished: it would be just beginning of developing of anarchism, in public and in private life of people.

I would like to mention and hierarchy based on generation (age) which people should abolish with treating of younger and older in equal way; hierarchy at choosing of partner: some persons need that partner is someone in order to enjoy with that person (even anarchist girls watch status of boy in their community so she will choose boy who is more important in community than others (I must say that I never saw in my life that man choose girl on the basis of her status in society while girls always watch status of man), for me it is clear making of hierarchy and (bad) need that partner is important face in order to be happy in enjoying. Such hierarchy about choosing of partner can even bring people to jealousy and even killing and interest of any community is to turn down possibilities for conflicts. With abolishing of such hierarchy, we could turn down possibility for conflicts between people. Today such hierarchy even bring women against each other: who will succeed to catch important boy... In anarchist communities exist people who are more active than others and other can see them as leaders, it means that they are more important than others and therefore I would like that such hidden leaders work on it to abolish such hierarchy. They could refuse their privileged status and speak with people about it: that all members of community are equally important, that partner don't need to be someone in order that someone become happy with that person, etc. In that way people could create better society, in that way people could fight against hierarchy at all fronts.

Although anarchist are now at level of fight against the state and economic exploitation, in our human relations we can work to abolish hierarchy already now.

Well, I have to comment this standpoint of AFUF, because it is public call, even in the name of all radical women.
I just wrote before 3 weeks text at my site (still it is not translated in English) "monogamy versus polygamy" and my standpoint is totally different than this one of AFUF. Even I mentioned there that feminist make morality about sex the same as people from the church (as religion). Even everyone know that feminist are allergic on religion, but at this point they are the same.
But let's concretely criticize what you/AFUF wrote in your text...
1) first, title is totally bad: "sleeping with enemy". If you see someone, men or women, as enemy, of course you should not enjoy with that person, or with that social group. I am heterosexual and I don't see women as my enemy even if they have different sexual needs than me. In any case, human relations are not "black and white", when people have feelings each for other of course they are ready to make compromise and to do something what partner want. So boys do for women what they like and women do for us what we like, it is bad to favourise only need of one partner. Plus here you favourise your need and you want to reflect it on everybody. At that point you remember me on primitivists who imagined that all people should have the same needs as they have so they like to abolish diversity and they think that all people should think the same as they think. You abolish diversity and dynamic in intime/poulse part of life: sex. That's what religion always tried to do: to mix themselves in every part of life of human beings and to decide in our name what we should like in sex and what not. Just to remember you: you didn't express only your opinion in your text/article, you called all women to be the same like you, to have the same need like you, to refuse boys...etc.
2)I am agreed with you that men, women also, can be changed and that violence against men or women is not natural.
3)You wrote that you write this to other straight women. Does it means that men can't answer on your opinion? If you want that men change you must speak with them, not only with women. Of course you must be ready to change yourself also, but in order to do it, you must discover from where come such your way of thinking and how much you are independent of your belonging to some group? Many people, not only women, support their community without objection, many just repeat what they group propagate. Therefore persons who just adapt themselves in some group, never make self-questioning, they never put in question beliefs of their group. Even many feminist will not discuss, they will rather push people to accept their way of thinking without objection. But I am not surprised, as I said many don't have arguments, they just represent standpoint of their group. It is not characteristic only at members of feminist movement, many people are like it.
4)My opinion is that big majority of boys watch porno, not only youngs than even old people who are many years in marriage, although very rarely men will say that they watch porno. You said in text that young boys watch porn because you wanted to show it as bad influence on young people but it is not so. Even before existing of TV, men had big imagination about sex and the way how to enjoy in it. Many thousand years ago people tried many different pose in sex, so it is not result of porno that boys have big imagination about ... how to call it... dynamic sex or simply trying of new things/ways in life, about sex also. So men treat women in bed in harmony with his natural imagination, not in harmony with porno. Porno is created by men and it is in harmony with men's imaginations, although you try to represent it contra. As I said, "dynamic sex" existed much more before people created TV and porno.
I must mention that inside of patriarchy boys are totally free to live like they want and nobody make moral repression on us as people do it about women. Women is not free to do what she wants in patriarchal society and result is "static sex", she is afraid that she will be "whore" if she do more than "missionary/classic pose". So, women way of thinking is result of auto-censorship while boys had freedom and our way of thinking is in harmony with freedom. It means that women should become equal with us, not only in washing of dishes and salaries than about sex also. Instead that boys become like women, what you suggest here, I would say rather that women should become like boys. Why? As I said, boys grow up with freedom inside of patriarchy and women grow up with repression, boys should not become auto-censors than women should stop with auto-censorship. Women should push society to accept that they have right to enjoy the same like boys. Unfortunately, women don't fight against society than they rather adapt themselves, in order that society think good about them. Well, people can think what they want, I will live like I need. I will never subordinate myself to the society like women do it. That's the way that women become free: don't think on impression of society about you, just live like you want and push other to accept you as you are. It is your right to enjoy and to exchange boys, nobody has right to limit your sexual freedom.
So, as you see, I think contra than you: boys should not become auto-censors like women, than women should become free like boys are free in present society.
5) I think that I commented already about porn. so I am totally disagreed about your standpoint about porn. Of course women should speak with men about all that things and not just to fill out wishes of partner. But women should also think from where she has such way of thinking. Don't forget that religion mixed themselves in private life of people during thousand years. I am sure that any priest would be totally agreed with your text (sorry, but it is really so).
And I must mention that porn is industry, so you can watch their bodies as objects, but the sense of porn industry is to make money, not to make objects from people. For me is enough that porn become without commercial sense and then it has nothing with capitalist industry. Some people don't have problem that other see them during they enjoy in sex. At the beach in Copenhagen I saw this sommer woman when she make felacio to the man even they were not alone at the beach. Simply, they don't care if someone see them and that's so. People are different, I like to be "hidden" when I enjoy with girl, but some other people don't care. We must accept that people are different.
So, people have their fantasies, that's good, not bad, and such fantasies existed much more before any TV and any porn. Without fantasies/imaginations, life would become twilight zone (static).
6)I am agreed with you that boys have control today in bed and everywhere, but it is mistake of women that they are feeling bad if partner is not satisfied. Even many women in patriarchal society expect boys with experience, so they also expect from boy to make her happy. Patriarchal women are passive and boys must do everything, from coming to her in order to meet her till sex. I would like to see that women activate themselves. But they don't want to do it, they like that men take risk to be refused when he comes.
7)"Men have the power to purchase other women's bodies if they don't like what they are getting at home."
-well, first, "at home" means that you speak about nuclear family and "purchase" is using of prostitution. I am against monogamy and against nuclear family, so women who enjoys with me can freely enjoy with other boys. Monogamy produce "ownership" about partner and that's already capitalism in private life. Monogamy is also product of religion and their trying to control morality of people. And really if you don't have feelings for your partner and he can't realize his needs with you, I am not surprised that he will try to find other woman or he will go to a prostitute. If I see what you wrote I must say that you will have to find boy who will give up from his happiness in order that you become happy. Is it so hard for you to make compromise? Is it not egoism when you want to push boys to change themselves (through refusing of sex with someone whom you like)? And I know many patriarchal boys who are totally satisfied if woman is moral and she don't want anything other than missionary pose. Patriarchal men use such women for marriage and creating of children, and for enjoying they use immoral/unmoral girls. So, all moral girls take care about child while husband go in the city and run for other girls. Therefore morality bring people to the double life, instead to be open, honest to the partner and to speak about polygamy as about natural thing. Don't tell me that you really like only one boy in so big city (for example, New York), or you limit yourself and then you have only one boy? I am sure there are many boys who are enough good for you, but you will limit yourself and you will realize monogamy because you grow up in such society (you didn't have 1000 mothers and fathers than one). So, human beings are born with clear brain and whole our way of thinking is result of present society in which exist many different communities and theories in which we adapt us more or less (untill we find something what we like).
8)as I said, pornography or porn films are product of capitalist industry. If you abolish commercial sense of porn, than you have porn which is not connected with capitalist industry. There is even radical collective who make porn without money as their fight against empire: http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=07/06/16/1953225&mode=nested&tid=18
9)"But if he is using porn, he is not supporting us or our fight. He is financially supporting the industry we fight against, the industry that helps to keep women oppressed."
-Yes, about this point I must agreed with you, because you mentioned here porn as industry, creating of money. Although I am disagreed that women is oppressed only inside of porn. Prostitution is any wage-slavery: working in factory, for example. Any selling of body or brain is prostitution. Some people sell themselves on the film, some in factory, some in scientist institutions, etc. Beside it, man is actor in porn, so I must ask you why you mention only woman? Are men and women oppressed in porn or only women? If you don't treat women and men equally, even when you speak about oppression, it is something what you should change at you.
So, I think that sex-workers are in the same position as factory workers. When someone speaks bad only about sex-selling, that person make women to feel bad when they sell themselves in some film instead to sell them in factory. So, it is participation in degradation of sex-workers, in judgment of society toward them. They are "immoral/unmoral" and those who go in factory are moral? I don't like such way of thinking because it can make people to feel refused from society just because they don't go in factory. One more time I must say: Sexual morality is product of the state and of the church.
10) For the end, I can say that I like more radical queer that radical feminist. Radical feminist participated before in mainstream feminist movement so they transfer their beliefs in anarchist movement. Radical queer make re-questioning, radical feminist just take from this system what they see as good for women and they are fighting only against things from this system which they see as bad for women. Therefore they reproduce religious morality even they are allergic on religion. They are right hand of their enemies even they don't recognize it. But again: many people just adapt themselves in their community without re-questioning of standpoints of that community, so what to expect from such people? I hope you will always set questions even if you belong to some group. Without it, it is not possible to develop groups and movement.
-As I see I will have to translate in English my opinion "polygamy vs monogamy". Then I will publish it here.
-Yeah, I read in my language text at queerbeograd which speaks about work in sex industry. There is conflict inside of movement: Andrea Dvorkin was feminist-activist who was very loud against prostitution but new activists (radical lesbian historian Joan Nestle and sexologists Susie Bright and Annie Sprinkle - all 3 you can find with google) fought for new feminist perspective about work in sex industry... Concretely persons and names are even not so much important, important is that inside of movement exist people with different needs and they represent different standpoints about sex, sex-work, morality, etc. It is not possible to make everyone to think in the same way, so I don't call everyone to be the same as I am. Boys, sleep with girls whom you like, speak openly with girls and re-question the both of your standpoints about monogamy, polygamy, sex-poses, religion, morality, etc. People who are actors of enjoying must decide how they will enjoy and what they will change when they do it, one behavior at all people is not possible. Of course, speak and about jelousy and "property" behavior about partner, about taking care about children as nuclear family or in some community where child will have many parents... Possibilities are big as universum, but we are limited with society which surround us... and AFUF, don't be insulted if I used some hard words. My character is similar like at nihilists: I treat women and men in the same way, without privileges for anybody, and I speak openly with partner from beginning so partner can know what to expect from me (what kind of relationship).

This date is sign of remembering on Nazis crimes during Second World War. But rarely someone speak about modern fascism. This type of fascism is visible as individual, group and institutional. First two are mentioning everywhere, as a sign of fight against Nazi skinheads and other right wing extremists. But this institutional fascism is mentioning only from anarchists and anti-authoritarian leftists. Important is that they don't mention it one time per year than they are fighting constantly against it. In Serbia, extremely nationalism is officially supported during separation of Yugoslavia because politicians and militarists needed fresh meat for their war games. Such nationalism is not dead, it exists still in whole ex-Yugoslavia. Serbian patriots, as many others, don't recognize themselves as fascists although they are. Difference between them and Nazi skinheads is only that skins show openly their ideology. Although among skins there are many hooligans who are without any idea but they follow some individuals who are leaders with theoretical knowledge. So I can say that main topics in Serbia are privatization, patriarchy and fascism. Europe has rarely some process of privatization, patriarchy is more or less strong (it depends in which parts of Europe), but for whole Europe is characteristic that fascism and racism are at high level. So, Europe is first of all institutionally totally racist and fascist and result of it is that nationalists and patriotists blindly follow such ruling tendencies. Of course, there are people who are not nationalists but majority of them are. Minority is constantly fighting against it and they are under repression of departments which are under control of ruling class.
In Italy, anarchists are not fighting only with words than they attack fascist institutions (deportation prisons, for example) in order to liberate victims, while in the rest of Europe the fight stay mostly at level of solidarity, of verbal support for victims. Of course, any support is better than nothing but the best is combination of solidarity and concretely help. Deportation prisons are not the only form of fascism in Europe, such prisons are just result of fascist politics. Immigration politics is racist and consequence is racist repression in which are included state departments and ordinary people. First borderer realize fascist politics, after it police and courts, at the end prisons, security companies and airplane companies which cooperate about deportations. In order to justify such politics in eyes of population, Medias make strong propaganda against foreigners, Medias play their role in spreading and justifying of racist politics. Right wing extremist groups and politicians shouldn't be forgotten because they also realize propaganda against foreigners. Therefore it is visible that it is whole machinery which started from political elites and it is realized (practically and theoretically) from their apparatus. That's what all public factors in modern society hide and it is pharisaic that against fascism from before 50 years speak those people who realize modern fascism. Of course, one of condition for Serbia to come to fascist white Shengen list (abolishing of visa) is to start to discriminate people on the basis of nationality i.e. to make visa system for all those people who need it in order to come in EU, to make the same asylum politics like EU, etc. It means that present fight of anarchists in EU against immigration politics is the same thing what anarchists in Serbia will have to do in the future. Anarchists in Serbia will do the same things what today do anarchists in EU: attack immigration politics and I hope they will be in situation to destroy deportation prisons. Beside it, we should not forget that national state exist about 4 centuries, from bourgeois revolutions and uniting of feudal lands in the state, but people exist much longer. It means that it is stupid to fall in these tendencies which are in interest of political elites and we should see things in wider context: people had different communities through history and human beings exist much longer than national state. Therefore people should not discriminate anybody. It is important to mention that even existing of the state and of borders creates fascism because domestic slaves, villains or call them workers have bigger rights than foreign ones. Therefore abolishing of fascism is not possible without abolishing of the state. For the end, I would like to mention some forms of fascism, not only institutional one than private ones also. Fascism is when someone is discriminated on the basis of nationality and such discrimination can be done from institutions or private persons. It is wider area, so fascism is for example:
-when someone needs a visa in order to travel somewhere and when person finish in prison just because of documents
-when foreigner are not equal with domestic people at getting of job or education, it means when job agency or university create rules which discriminate people, which make inequality
-when domestic culture and religion is inflicted/forced to someone (usually through imperialist wars which are in the same time hegemony)
-when private person or group of people force someone to have exactly some kind of behavior, it means abolishing of someone's autonomy (hegemony don't come only from the state than from people also, for example when social persons force unsocial one to be the same like they are and in the end they can make some kind of repression or when domestic community bring decision about foreigner without to ask him anything)
-when individual or group attack someone just because of other nationality or religious beliefs (attack because of ethnic, gender or sexual belonging is racism. EU creates super-EU-nation when they created equality among European but they created inequality for people from third world countries. For example, African has no right to work or study in Copenhagen but man from Berlin has such right)
-when political, military and business elites create wars and spread hate among ordinary people against other side. Usually it is connected for exactly ethnical group or nation because people are today connected on the basis of language and state (what again come from nationalism which is producing last several centuries during trying of elites to unite regions in order to create state. In that way their authority is spreading in bigger region and they have more people for economic exploitation).

Written by http://www.queerbeograd.org - ‘Good evening and welcome to this evenings programme, Tonight comrades we will be introducing the topic of sexual revolution. First of all I want you to clear you minds of any unclean or improper thoughts. Voyeurism will not be tolerated, as we all know a revolution is for active participants… We will have no innocent bystanders here.’
‘The revolution begins at home in our hearts, and our bedrooms, so let us demonstrate to you the politically correct sexual positions for the revolution. Myself comrade Sasa and comrade Maja will guide you to towards the purest expression of true political vigour.’
‘So comrade maja..what is the first political position we will demonstrate?’
This lines opened the 4th QueerBeograd festival “The sexual revolution”, which took place 5th to 7th of October 2007 in Magacin ( a recently opened artists/activist space).
3 days of Performances, concerts, discussions, exhibitions (Lamda Kragujevac, Transfabulous London), movies (DIY, supported by entzaubert Berlin) and direct actions reclaimed a safe queer space in Belgrade, Serbia. Participants from all over the region (Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Slovenia..) and other parts of the world came together, to connect, exchange, enjoy and celebrate.
Focusing on the topics of “trans issues” and “sex work” the festival opened a space to establish visibility and to share experiences. Experiences of being Trans in the Balkan, and experiences of working in /around the sex industry. The discussion on “trans issue” was organized in cooperation with the first trans-group, which was founded in Belgrade earlier this year.

The evening before around 150 people attended the opening of the festival, and enjoyed regional /international performances (with jet moon, jason elvis barker, milan djuric...viva la diva, boban stojanovic, maja savic, sasa pokrajac) , and concerts (Linsdey Cockwell - http://www.myspace.com/lyndseycockwell, Zluradi Paradi - http://www.zluradi-paradi.anarhija.org, Martin Laura Feer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWOOxNK7xU, VJ Oskur - http://www.myspace.com/oskur, DJane Ana).

On Sunday the 7th a bus full of queers left for Novi Sad to join the antifaschist march against the neonazi-groups “Nacionalni Stroj” and “Obraz”. ( http://www.afans.org/ ), while the rest of the crew organized a public queer picknick in Belgrade.

The festival was closed by screening “Venuz Boys” in Illegalni Bioskop (illegal cinema) and a presentation by Jet Moon ( http://www.myspace.com/flyingfukk ) about her activist/artist work.

We promise to upload photos soon!
http://www.myspace.com/queerbeograd