Paul's Passing Thoughts

Notice: this is an informal post commenting on the book’s research; documentation and citations will be in the book.  

In my research for the upcoming book, something perplexed me. This is certain: the Fandom began as a counterculture sex cult; that’s what it is predicated on, and that’s the core ideology. Another thing is certain: the ideology it began with drives its behavior presently.

By “counterculture,” I mean the rejection of all cultural norms regarding sex. That necessarily includes pedophilia and just about everything else unimageable. The Fandom began with room parties at Sci-Fi conventions that were sexually oriented, and graduated to conventions that were clearly sexually oriented. In a video walkthrough of the second conference, virtually every cartoonist present was displaying cartoon porn. Another video walkthrough of an early conference featured the table display of a popular Fandom fanzine called, “Furversion,” a play on the word, “perversion.” In the zine, readers were referred to as “furverts,” a play on the word, “pervert.”  The art theme in all issues of Furversion were sexual in nature.  At one of the initial conference panel discussions, Fandom authors discussed the following openly: the Fandom is a bridge between sexual wokeness and culture. The focus of my book follows: this puts children in the crossfire.

So, knowing all of this, my research led to some confusion. That is, the cozy relationship between the Fandom hierarchy and world renowned Japanese cartoonists. Mark Merlino, the father of the Fandom, is directly responsible for the integration of Japanese magna, or Anime, into “anthropomorphic” Fandom art. In the early days of the Fandom, Merlino aggressively sought to make the Japanese artists participants in the Fandom and did so successfully. This surprised me greatly, because at least so far, the Japanese artists look to be on the up and up. This is strange bedfellow indeed. These guys actually did appearances at the conferences and as far as I know, still do.

After several hours of research, I am less confused about this relationship. Though the idea needs some more digging, the Japanese artists may have wanted access, or a conduit to have their works published in America due to publishing laws here versus Japan. But far less doubtful is the idea that Merlino was interested in Anime for the same purpose that Anime is controversial in Japan. In Japan, child porn was recently outlawed in 2014, and cartoon child porn is a gray area because of Anime. The Anime genre projects innocence and cuteness, which is a Japanese cultural obsession. Anime art presents characters that project an uncertain age that is going to be determined by individual perception. That’s key. Any given Anime character can be perceived as being anywhere between 12 and 25 years old. In addition, single Anime characters can project multiple genders and is a perfect genre for projecting counterculture sexual ideas.

Consequently, Anime child porn is huge in Japan, and the art depicts everything under the sexual sun including rape and other abuses.  After all, the reasoning goes, it’s fantasy and not real children. Let’s pause here. I know, I know, I know. Let me say it one more time; I know, Anime is enjoyed for completely innocent purposes. Hopefully, you get it; this post isn’t condemning Anime, it’s connecting the dots regarding the use of Anime by the Fandom. If you don’t get that, and you comment on this post, your comment will be moderated and NOT posted. Please, don’t be silly.

In addition, and documented by Japanese authorities, Anime child porn being deemed legal at the front door, is then used to groom children for sexual abuse at the back door. Children are shown the publications of children with adults in sexual situations; so, it must be ok and normal, right? Art, especially cartoon art, is the ultimate child grooming tool for anything from sex to ideology.  Animation is a gateway into a child’s psyche.

Here is where we get into something else that was initially a little confusing about the Fandom. While claiming to be a “hobby,” it also claims to be a “subculture” that promotes “anthropomorphic art.” I initially wrote this accepted contradiction off as run-of-the-mill low information Americanism. I have another theory based on research.

In America, under Federal law, people have been put in prison for the possession of Anime child porn. Some of those convictions were appealed leading to changes in the law. What are those changes? Possession of cartoon porn is now downgraded to being  prosecuted under obscenity laws and not child exploitation laws. Furthermore, and this is the crux, one is only guilty of possessing cartoon child porn if “the content has NO political or scientific purpose/value.“

Now exit your thoughts to several videos of Furry panel discussions I have watched. There is a continuing emphasis on the Fandom saving the world from draconian sexual laws…through…Fandom “anthropomorphic art,” and…anthropomorphism is a…”science.”

Bingo.

So, am I suggesting that the Fandom is using Anime and anthropomorphism for an end-around-play for child porn laws? Absolutely. Am I also suggesting that it is being used by the Fandom to groom children for elicit acts? Absolutely. Does this mean everyone in the Fandom is using it for that? NO.

As explained in the book, all movements will have those along for the ride who don’t understand the dynamics of countercultures, subcultures, sects, and cults, and how core ideology drives any given movement. Yes, some involved in the Fandom, perhaps many, are hobby enthusiasts and unwitting participants. That is a common dynamic of all movements whether religious, political, or anti-humanity.

With that said, the core ideology of the Fandom is absolutely irrefutable because of the behavior it exhibited in the beginning. Sex of the counterculture variety was clearly the theme. Plus, promoters of the conferences said so; that might be a clue. And as will be documented in the later chapters of the book, in our day, the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.

paul

Many thanks to Furry Fandom sources contributing data/information for the book. This post is an important link for you—you may contribute additional information anonymously by commenting below. No comment will be posted and only seen by TANC members working on the book, and you do not have to post your email address. For those who want to refer to their former contributions, your identity will be confirmed by your prior contributions. I am particularly interested in previously shared information that I no longer have access to.

Thanks,

Paul Dohse

Many are still scratching their heads because of my focus concerning the Furry Fandom, and that includes myself during the beginning of the research. But, research on the Furry Fandom has led me to a greater understanding of countercultures.

Countercultures are groups that reject cultural norms, but in many cases, this is the symptom of a greater problem: who is responsible for the cultural norms? Answer: people. Rejecting cultural norms is merely the result of having a problem with humanity itself. Philosophy is a focus of TANC Ministries, and this is a very philosophical subject.

So far, the book is leaning heavily towards identifying the Fandom as an anti-human counterculture, and many of my findings can be applied to philosophy across the board, or spectrum.

If you want to reject humanity and the norms it creates, would there be any better way than becoming an animal? Though becoming an animal, is, of course, impossible, the community norms of animals can be adopted as a lifestyle and a  means of rejecting humanity. These same elements can define many other anti-human ideologies.

Interestingly, and much touted in the Fandom, is the promotion of nonsensical gibberish. As an adolescent, I loved listening to 60s rock music, but could not stand to listen to musicians like the Beatles and the Monkeys talk. The conversations were always overly animated and nothing but annoying silliness. I believe this was a 60’s counterculture calling card that rejected human logic. Rejecting human seriousness and the “mundanes” (an idiom for humans) was a theme of the 60s counterculture promoted in comix magazines that were widely popular during that time.

I have heard many comments about the Super Bowl commercials this year and how they made no logical sense for humor value or anything else. I watched them, and took note of the fast paced animation and steroidal silliness. In other words, some sort of sound logic is no longer selling a product, but what someone remembers as a visual subjective experience and its attack on the senses.

There are a lot of dots to connect, but I believe anti-humanity ideologies need a lot more focus and study.

paul

We have been hit with a lot of news lately about tragedy visiting the rich and famous. Some are rich and famous for un-profound reasons while others enjoy riches and fame because of their profound impact on society and history.

In both cases, all of those involved speak of their endeavor to be right with God. Indeed, no matter what you have obtained in life, death levels the playing field, completely, and questions what the future holds. Everyone knows God holds the keys to life after death. The Bible states that God has implanted that truth in every individual and a denial of such is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.”

When you have it all, or the more you have, death has more to take away. Success only amplifies the eternity question. Some of the famous who have everything except a get-out-of-death–free card share their plan for meeting God, while others keep it private.

Evangelicals and church folk in general will be concerned with the doctrinal aspects of one’s plan for dealing with the death issue.  Church orthodoxy loves its pithy truisms like, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” while being directly responsible for creating insurmountable barriers to finding the truth about salvation. All churches are the same; they would all love to have a monopoly on their version of the gospel and the power it would give them. There is no power like having power over someone’s eternal destiny.

Jesus acknowledged religion’s efforts in hiding the truth about salvation for its own gain. Church is particularly guilty of that. In response, He promised that those who seek will find. Curiously, this points to an individual seeking. Jesus wasn’t in the least bit impracticable; so, why wouldn’t He cut to the chase and tell seekers to find a local Baptist church? Especially since Baptists believe that John the baptist was the first Baptist pastor. I’m not kidding. How stupid is that? Even as a former rabid Baptist pastor, I laughed out loud when I heard it in a sermon. With that said, though I was doing a lot of LOL before LOL was cool, an honest seeking can be taking place in any given church or no church at all.

Motives do matter; for example, the thief on the cross wasn’t theologically savvy in the least and didn’t quote any Rabbis. By no means am I endorsing soteriological ignorance, but I do think we should consider the verse that states, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

I believe good doctrine enables people to find salvation easier, and leads to a more abundant entrance into God’s kingdom not infected with doubt. Nevertheless, God is  attentive to those fighting to overcome the obstacles of institutional religion.

But, when one is at death’s door, little is more important than the quality of the entrance.

paul