minthulf

fuuuck love how colt is pushing our protagonist. can't wait to see how this continues.

Dominant roughass Colt makes me twitch with lust

Quote

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Article 7:  For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population (NB it does not require war or conflict)... d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law...

Forcibly preventing refugees from reaching the northern border would fall onto that.
Like central american countries could probably charge our past couple presidents to be in breach of the treaty (but won't bc the USA is supporting us in these violations of human rights)

Mexico, unlike the USA, is a signatory to the Rome Statue since 2005 and thus Mexican citizens may be prosecuted within the ICC.

1 hour ago, AlwaysOpen said:

...So why not call the President of Mexico, and let him know his country allowing all these people to pass thru their borders and head to the US border is causing the US problems and expenses. And starting in 1 week, for every person detained  at the US border with them trying to cross, the US funds to Mexico will be slashed by $5,000 , $20,000 if they are Mexican citizens. And send the same message out to each of the countries where we provide financial grants and support, with a similar penalty of say $20,000 a head for their citizens stopped, and any that transited their country will cost them as well.  If the leaders want to keep their lavish  lifestyles,courtesy of the US loans and grants,  it will be important to them to stem the flow. Make them put the coyotes out of business. Make them interdict  and turn the lines of people around and sent back to their country...

Ooof. So, Mexican here.
Well for one, Mexico's southern border is very difficult to secure geographically and politically. Also you have quite the inadequate understanding of how the USA-Mexico relationship functions; from the consequences of following american policy wrt drugs, migrants, etc... to the ways money and goods flow between the two countries.

I will simply say: The thing you're suggesting, that's a crime against humanity; and mexico is in fact a signatory to those laws.

12 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I don’t understand why we are referring to these people as immigrants. They did not go through an immigration process.

6 hours ago, BlackDude said:

... simply called out the fallacy and deliberate  dishonesty  of comparing those at the border to legal immigrants...

So why the word "immigrant"

Because that is what they are, they are going to (migrating) into (im) the point of reference (the USA)

You show an implicit understanding of this by using the adjective "legal", differentiating on ways migration can be framed.
 

Now, regarding legality; well firstly and obviously Legal is not synonymous with Correct, or Just, or Moral. Legality is an empirical fact, morality is more metaphysical (though most people care more for the latter than for the former, as we tend to understand that laws, even moreso than history, are written by -and for- the powerful)

That said, many of these migrants are in fact lawfully seeking entry into the USA by right of refuge; they are refugees from countries that the USA has played a significant role in destabilizing. The resistance to admitting them (and even outright turning away) by the governments of the usa is an illegal act (though no power exists that can compel the governments to follow their own laws). One can tell that they prefer entering lawfully because they are making something of a spectacle of the crossing; those seeking entry through illegal means tend to be quiet about it; these are people demanding justice and asylum.

8 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I did not immigrate here. There was no United States when my people came.  You cannot immigrate to a country before it is established... Are the Arabs in Egypt immigrants because they weren’t the original inhabitants? Are the Afro Latinos who don’t have Native American Roots immigrants?  
 

 

Further "immigration process" is a hazy term. I mean in one way migration is in itself the process; the moving is the process. One emigrates from a country and simmultaneously immigrates into another.

Now if one is talking about legal processes...

well for one, on what legal basis is the USA constituted; its independence from the United Kingdom was not attained through legal means; it was retroactively granted legality as a result of violence; but as Civil Wars the world throughout show, this legality does not exist a priori. Similarly the original settlement of the territory by Europeans was not lawful by the laws of the people living in the territory itself, and oftentimes nor by the laws of the settlers themselves (cf the many treaties the USA broke during its expansions). The state itself is thus illegal, its laws backed only by the power of the state to do violence.

so, taking a strictly legalistic perspective might not be the most honest way to go about things; especially if many of these people are seeking to go through the process legally but are being kept from it by the government,

As to Arabic presence in Egypt; Afro-Americans; and immigrating into a country before establishment;

Yes you are right, folk cannot immigrate into a state before the state exists; country is a bit more ambiguous because country tends to refer to the intersection of territory (which exists before the establishment of the state) and state (the social structure brought into being for the administration of the land and people).  Keeping this distinction between land and state is important and why you aren't calling citizens "natives" though it  (and relatives terms such as autochthon) is the technical antonym for "immigrant"; you call them citizens, because you understand there is a difference between those that got here and forced other people out, and the people that were forced oute... which is a form of immigration though does feel severe enough that we tend not to talk about it as merely immigration but rather:

Colonization.

Honestly talking of european presence in this continent in terms of "immigration" tends to minimize the brutality of the process.

which kinda touches on the whataboutism that is Arabs in Egypt, yeah there was a colonization process, though the process also involved a lot of standard migration, and overal is spread out over enough time and changes of state that... well its not honestly a very productive talk to have wrt the situation in the USA-Mexico Border

as to immigration of Africans into the continent; yeah we tend not to call kidnapping or the coerced movement of people "immigration"; it technically is but we tend to refer to it as "trafficking" or "kidnapping" and typically seek to redress the harm caused. But in this case "migrant" is not incorrent, though "coloniser" would be (incorrect that is).

TLDR: we are not a law forum, heck a lot of us are scofflaws, the conversation is more about hypotheticals and ideals rather than actionable policy.

Also the state is a fiction, hierarchies of power ought be abolished, landback, etc...

On 12/30/2022 at 2:04 PM, hntnhole said:

So we're hearing all kinds of issues relevant to the plight of the new immigrants on the Mexican/Texan border.  I seem to be hearing some complaining about the "cost" of all the immigrants to US taxpayers, blah blah blah, and I have a potential solution.

As I try to do when considering issues of import, I ask myself "if X is true, then why is it true?"  

Without going into the weeds too deeply, there are repressive governments, there are education problems, and there is virtually one religious institution, which has been the case since Spain took the Southern Continent by force several hundred years ago.  Whilst the R.C. Church is well known to reject birth control as against "God's Will", I had assumed this was the case since the Middle Ages, when the Papal Armies needed cannon-fodder for the advancement of R.C. temporal power in Europe.  

But no.  That is not the case.  Since the advent of the R.C. Church (emphasis on Roman), that institution has not taken a firm stance on the issue of abortion or "birth control" until the previous century.  That peculiar event happened less than a century ago - at the hands of Pius XI in 1930*.  Thus, the anti-birth control strictures are less than 100 years old, taken barely an eyeblink ago in Church history.  

So, I think we can legitimately invoice the Vatican - loaded with untold treasures accumulated over the millennia through wars, bloodshed, conquest, all the usual filth - for compensation and support of the unfortunates from the South who were mind-fucked into believing that they simply must bring to term any potential life, every time they fucked.  It's the institution that forced this inhumanity upon these human brothers and sisters, sucked what few coins they could spare out of their pockets, taught them that the fires of hell awaited them if they didn't pony up, the whole Power Trip.  We can legitimately claim wealth and property belonging to the RCC in the US, build residential developments, commercial developments, commodious living/working spaces for these new Americans, and invoice the Roman Catholic Church for all of it.  And we can simply take these thousands and thousands of properties, just as our Caucasian forebears took this continent from the Indigenous.  

I believe that the only group of people that can legitimately comment on accepting/declining/welcoming new arrivals to the shores of this nation are the Indigenous People who lived on the North American Continent for millennia before we Pale Ones invaded, killed them off via genocide, and stole the Continent from them.  To be fair, the new arrivals are far closer in lineage to the indigenous Americans than anyone else is, and the guys are a helluva lot sexier.  

Fortunately, no one anointed me King, right ???🥰

*this was the predecessor of Pious 12, the infamous "Nazi" pope

regarding the question in the title: who pays for them... well they do; the labor they do produces A LOT of value for the USA. Like at the most basic level they act as the backbone for the agricultural business in the usa, without them the crops rot and food becomes scarce.

But in truth they generate vast ammounts of wealth beyond just that; thing is the wealth ends up in private hands, those of the big farm owners and big agrobusiness, and thus is untaxed and out of circulation, confined to interest generating vaults.

as to blaming the vatican, that misses the mark.

1. Firstly, the Roman Catholicism in the USA and in Latin America are fundamentally different beings. like the conceptualization you present is one that's very... well protestant. Like, for example, Biblical Literalism is unheard of in Lat Am (outside of protestant enclaves) and Tradcaths are not a thing (despite the more interwoven role that catholicism plays in the societies of the continent)
2. Secondly: Religion exerts soft power, it does not compel thoughts nor are the people of the global south some easily misled fools, blindly following the words of priests. (which is not to say that the church has not been used politically, to affect public sentiment, but then the institution is more of an instrument than a player) This ignores the divergence of goals and motives within orders of the church; Liberation Theology was (and is) a pretty big thing in Latin America; and it being denounced by Rome has more to do with which Great Power controlled the Vatican in the aftermath of WW2. (also painting it like its some issue wrt excessive latin american fecundity is verging on some weird eugenics shit that... just no)
3. The RC church was not the primary engine or benefactor of Colonization of the americas, it was a tool FOR colonization, but blaming the RC is like blaming the gavel for the sentencing, not the judge. The benefits from colonialism went to the Spanish crown and the HRE, and later to the various other Great Powers that sought to administrate and control the region.
4.  Which brings us to the Monroe Doctrine and what the primary source of instability and violence in Latin America over the past 100+ years.
   It's been the USA. It has continuously helped overthrow democratically elected governments, provided monetary and material support to counterrevolutionaries, crime syndicates, fascist terrorist groups, and isurrectionists in order to preserve its business's interests in the region (cf Dole), or combat the spread of "communism" (cf Chile), or as a part of its war on drugs (which is ironic as all hell because many of the cartels are the direct result of USA intervention, cf the Iran-Contra affair; also the link between the Zetas and the School of the Americas). And on top of that the gun policies of the USA ensure a steady flow southwards of arms.

Blaming the religious institution is nonsensical. Instead one ought turn to either the State that benefits from the crises in Latin America. There are Countries who benefit from having an underclass they can underpay for physical labor, there are Countries whose mining companies are able to move into Lat Am and compell usurous contracts as a result of the relative poverty of the region. There are Countries who field private "security" contractors to the aformentioned companies, benefiting from guvernamental impotence in order to privatize violence. And Countries whose banks demand Austerity from nations that need public spending.

Who pays for the migrants, they do; their home countries do. They pay in the work they do, they pay in the wealth extracted from their homes, and the safety stolen from them. And the USA (or rather the economic and political upper crust of the USA) are the ones who recieve those payments.

As to why Americans won't take those jobs... well for one, they do; prisioners are still American (and also there are a lot of desperate ppl that end up taking those jobs). But the reason the average american wont is because the job is physically devastating and almost entirely unregulated or even flagrantly violating to their legal rights (which is to say, the farmowners can't treat citizens in the way they treat migrant labor, citizens can fight back)

Last thing i bought was hmm i guess depends on deffinition of "toy" here

its either a ball stretcher, a fuck machine, or the tattoo markers

i'm @serpeniebla over there

On 4/9/2022 at 6:39 PM, baldwin said:

ARE YOU A FAGGOT?

• Do you get hard when Men order you to strip?

• While you know you should hate being called a faggot, does it actually turn you on?

• Are you most at ease when Men give you orders?

• When a Man spits on your face, deep down, does it somehow feel right?

• When you jack off, do you imagine being dominated and degraded by Men?

• Do you like being fucked with other Men watching?

• Have you ever fantasized about being taken to a gay club, completely stripped and led around on a collar and leash?

• Have you ever let a Man piss down your throat?

• Has a Man ever ordered you to jack off in front of a group of fully clothed Men?

If you answered YES to any of these questions, then you are a FAGGOT.

Embrace your true self. 

Strip. Kneel. Beg. Obey.

Heck yeah. Buncha other things too but absolutelty that one in particular.

Yes, I don't see why i ought and it does turn me on, it depends on the order and on the man, nah, sometimes, sometimes, yes, yes, no

Faggot (fag feels a bit casual), Slave, Hole, Whore are probably the ones i find most arousing. Cumdump is close too

On 10/17/2022 at 4:57 PM, expdbijock35 said:

Love recording zoom rooms with small group of verbal pigs so we can get piggy and show off

fuck yeah that's hot

Thank you!

or allow comments to a gallery? or what is done is done?

On 4/1/2021 at 2:35 PM, RawSex28 said:

Every now and then I like to whore out someone who is willing to completely give up their body to me. You'll spend a weekend being whored out in a city hotel and bathhouse taking loads from any and everyone with no say. You are only there to be useful and used by the guys who want to use your body how they want to use it. You'll take a lot of loads, but if some guy wants you to fuck them you better get hard and give them your load, etc. I've had pure bottoms top for the first time this way and it's always an incredible experience when one pushes past their limits. By the end of the weekend you get on the plane or train leaking cum and go back home.  

Prefer younger twinks but would consider anyone. Message me if you're interested or know someone who is.

fuck this sounds fantastic. terrifying but fulfilling

On 10/21/2021 at 8:26 PM, Mulehole said:

Anyone else get off on being used as a cumdump, taken to a party bound and hooded, made to take any and all loads then being beaten, degraded and raped for being a whore?

Yes. Fuck yes. Though I feel the beating and degradation and rape can happen AT the event by the men making use of one. Getting berrated for doing what i was ordered/made/expected to to is a way to knock me right out of sub space. C'mon doms, praise your cumdumps for being sluts, encourage them further and further down that path.

absofuckinglutely

he's grown, you're grown. sure it has a whiff of "is this forbidden" which makes it more interesting; but it clearly is. Do it

Taking loads in darkrooms is every bottom's duty.

I love those spaces. The heat, the lust, the hands grabbing and feeling... I gotta get myself to one

On 4/18/2022 at 6:04 AM, Horus73 said:

I love to smoke when balls deep breeding, Ashing on the faggots back. 

This is extraordinarily hot, the feel of the embers and hot cum... ooof

ooof love this new chapter 

Oooh this starting off promising 

actually now I'm wondering. where is Colt's dad? who introduced Colt to the porn guys? I think if I reread the whole thing q.1 might be answered. but otherwise the man seems very not there for his son to be regularly shooting pornos. 

I wonder if the senator is gonna end up as a cock addicted drugged up whore. 

would be hot to see his son work out some of his frustration at his dad on his dad. 

I feel these boys need a master and mentor to take care of them, guide them further down the wrong path. a daddy they can work to please.
 

someone who can take them around when they graduate
 

for some reason I suspect these boys ain't going to college at least not right away. 

This story was GREAT! Pity it ended so long ago

caged here and straining so hard. 

crooked cops turn me the fuuuuuuuuck on