Sean Morrow, “Senior Producer nowthisnews” according to his twitter account (1) produces anti-white propaganda in which he claims to be white: yet on his twitter confesses to be a Jew (2). The propagandic video has been archived on BitChute (3) to prevent it from being taken down from YouTube by “nowthisnews”. Thus preventing them from being able to memory hole the evidence of their having engaged in blatant propaganda.
Folks, the reason the following meme exists isn’t because of “muh antisemitism”, it’s because of Jewish propagandists like the above, who pretend to be white: for the express purpose of publishing anti-white propaganda. That is why this meme exists. If that were not an identifiable phenomena: this meme would never have been created. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to someone to create this meme, if not for examples like the above.
Question: “Why would I not want to be in a situation where there are no witnesses and is no evidence to my innocence yet an accusation, which is absent of evidence of my guilt, could end my entire career, have my friends and family targeted for hatred, abuse, protests or even violence?”
I think the answer – is found within the question…. This one isn’t all that hard to figure out….
Also, Mr Pool, this isn’t a recent phenomena of #MeToo as much as leftists and particularly feminists like to claim.
Here’s an article from Jezebel, for example which was published in 2015, long before the “Pence Rule” became a known thing. However, it was in observation of the exact same phenomena, men refusing to be around women in any situation which did not have witnesses who could attest to the fact that they did nothing wrong. Well before the MeToo movement cropped up on anyone’s radar.
Yet here’s another article I remember seeing, also published in 2015 from the Telegraph. Examining the release of a book ( Sex and the Office: Women, Men, and the Sex Partition That’s Dividing the Workplace ) which details the strict H.R. department guidelines which consider things as inconsequential as smiling at a woman, or opening the door for her to be possible grounds for sexual harassment complaints. Thus, causing men to shy away from being alone with women, talking to women without witnesses near by and refusing to mentor younger colleagues in any environs which didn’t provide adequate protection against allegations.
The phenomena, Mr Pool, is not new and not the result of hashtag MeToo. It’s not simply or only a backlash against MeToo or in the wake of MeToo: as leftists and feminists would claim. The Phenomena you’re witnessing was commonplace enough that an entire book on the topic, “Sex and the Office: Women, Men, and the Sex Partition That’s Dividing the Workplace“, was published in 2015. Two years before the kick off of the hashtag MeToo movement, which entered the collective consciousness in 2017.
I give you credit, Mr Pool, for mentioning that Feminists will stick up for women who are accused and found to be guilty of sexual harassment by stipulating an obscure case where there was no criminal investigation, only the title IX investigation. However, I’ll do you one better. After a tape of Donald Trump joking with other men about if you’re famous enough you can walk up and grab a woman by the vagina: he was all but burned in effigy and sent woman parading through the streets with ridiculous vagina costumes. Vagina dentata parade floats and battle slogans like “this vagina grabs back” or “small hands can’t touch my vagina”.
Meanwhile: a feminist once gave a speech, at a female empowerment symposium, where she, in her own words, testified that she was in fact a rapist. Only to be greeted by cheers and applause by the feminists in attendance. Think I’m making that up? Think that’s hyperbole? Oh well, allow me to introduce you to Amy Schumer. In 2014 Amy Shumer gave a speech for the “Ms. Foundation for Women’s Gloria Awards and Gala” about Confidence.
Where in she describes an encounter she had where she was propositioned by a guy she thought was attractive and later that day phoned him up. According to own account, she could in fact determine from the phone call itself that he was extremely intoxicated. Again, according to her account, she decided to go to his place anyway and upon arriving saw that he was so intoxicated that he was slurring his words heavily, smelled of booze and couldn’t walk straight for even a short distance. Unperturbed by this, she, who was completely sober and cognizant of the fact that the man in question was intoxicated to the point of incapacitation, attempted to engage in sex with him. Also according to her own speech, he actually did pass out during the attempt at copulation, which didn’t stop her from waking him back up and attempting again.
So here we have a Feminist, at a Feminist event, telling her story about how she, who was sober, made the premeditated decision to engage in sexual relations with a man who she knew was intoxicated, which feminists claim is rape. Going to his place and witnessing that he was intoxicated to the point of passing out: nonetheless attempted to engage in sexual relations with him, which feminists claim is rape. Then after he literally, non-figuratively, passes out she wakes him up in order to try again, which feminists claim is rape. What do we see as the result of this self confessed rapist guilty of multiple acts of sexual assault for which a man would be boo’d off stage, protested and burned in effigy in the streets? Cheers and roaring applause from the feminist audience in attendance.
What’s worse than a feminist being cheered for her story about committing multiple rapes? That very same feminist later telling a story about date rape where she was drunk enough to pass out and woke up with someone sexually assaulting her: but complaining about it, as she did on Oprah earlier this year (2018). When she’s the rapist giving a speech about her committing multiple acts of sexual assault and rape the result is roaring applause from feminists attending a feminist event: when she’s the one who’s subject to the exact same behavior she confessed to committing – that’s a tragedy for which all men should be shamed and denigrated as potential rapists.
There’s what feminists say and then there’s what feminists do: feminists do not support equality, actions speak louder than words.
You need another example? Say no more! I gotcha covered. As reported in my article on HBB “Rape Culture“:
We have Mary P. Koss—you know, from the fake “1 in 4” statistic, same woman—to thank for having “made to penetrate” be added to the roster of classifications in the above CDC report. She lobbied the CDC to exclude male victims of female predators as being classified as “rape.” Now, if you ask the common person: if you are made to have sex with someone by being physically forced, or forced at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats of violence, you are unconscious, roofied, comatose, or any other form of incapacitation whereby you are incapable of providing consent or the sexual activity is committed directly against your will, is that rape? The vast majority of people would say yes, that is rape. Anytime someone conducts sex with you either against your consent or while you are incapable of providing consent, it is rape.
But not according to the CDC. Due to the actions taken by Koss, “made to penetrate” was created so that male victims of female predators could be discluded, by definition, from being “raped.” Therefore she could tout feminist statistics on female rape victims while completely excluding figures of males having been raped by women.
According to the CDC, a man cannot be raped by a woman even if he is physically forced, forced at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats, comatose, intoxicated, passed out, roofied, or otherwise incapacitated by any other means. By legal definition, he cannot be raped by a woman—no matter what. It’s instead referred to as “made to penetrate” and is therefore constituted as a form of sexual assault but not rape.
Let’s use a recent example, Ciera Ross. Ross, 25, stopped and asked a 33-year-old man if he wanted a ride. The man took the offer, but Ross’s true intentions became evident when she pulled a gun on the man. She forced the man to go to the backseat and told him to have sex with her friend. The man pleaded for the women to stop after they made him fondle the woman’s breasts and butt.
Ross then ordered the man to take his clothes off, and her friend began to assault him sexually. The women also took $200 and credit cards from the man. When he spotted a taxi, he ran from the car naked and jumped in the taxi, and the taxi driver allowed him to use his cellphone to capture the plate number of Ross’s vehicle and alert the police.
According to the FBI, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together, this is rape. This is clearly and undeniably, unabashedly RAPE. You threaten someone at gunpoint and force them to perform sex. That is rape by any reasonable, rational, logical definition of the term, that is RAPE. According to the CDC, that is not rape—that is “made to penetrate,” a LESSER sexual assault than rape.
“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”
Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?
Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR. I’ll say it again: If there is a rape culture, feminists are creating it.
This was done strictly so that Koss could publish intentionally tampered with and gender-biased research data on the rate at which female victims are raped. You see, having a number of males victimized equal to that of women doesn’t look good when you’re trying to talk about “patriarchy” and the inherent “rape culture” found in it, which has a narrative that all men are potential rapists and all women are potential victims.
As is so often the case, Mr Pool, I find your incessant need to honor leftist talking points insufferable and your ability to research topics profoundly lacking. You’re a leftists who doesn’t like what your own side of politics is doing and so you handle topics with kit gloves and no depth of inquiry, choosing instead to parrot leftist talking points while applying only the mildest of criticisms. This is why I’m not subscribed to you, your video cropped up in my suggested list and I decided I’d check in to see how you’re doing. I got my answer: you’re doing what you always do – shilling for the left by soft-balling.
Also, don’t think I missed that bit (12:51) “I don’t know if Jordan Peterson is right to question whether or not men and women can work together because I believe”. See, you give away the game too easily here, Pool. Your beliefs mean absolutely nothing to me. I care about factual information, which need be tested and verified to be true through questioning and analysis. What you have just proposed is that your belief – may not be questioned. Do you know what we call beliefs which may not be questioned? Religion, Pool, we call beliefs which may not be questioned: religion. Would you like to see the difference between an Empiricist and a Fundamentalist? Peterson questions [Topic R] because the results have been disastrous, your response was “I don’t know if it’s right to question [Topic R] because I believe-“. That’s the difference, Pool. The Empiricist is interested in verifiable information and the Fundamentalist is interested in ensuring their beliefs are not questioned, the dogma must be unquestionable and others are wrong to question those beliefs.
You consider yourself an investigative journalist … Pool…. Your function, as a career choice, is to question things: people, concepts, assertions, claims, stories, etc. etc. Questioning, Pool, is your job. Is it right to question whether or not the Earth is flat? Is it right to question whether or not the Earth is round? Is it right to question whether or not the Sun revolves around the Earth? Is it right to question whether or not the Earth revolves around the Sun? Of course it’s right to question things, Pool, questions are how we obtain answers, which lead to more questions, which exponentially through iteration allow for the gathering of information which can be tested and verified in order to add to the accumulated knowledge of humanity. Questions are a good thing, Pool, of course it’s right to question.
An investigative journalist uttering the phrase “I don’t know if it’s right to question [Topic R]” is an utter and absolute disgrace.
Let’s have ourselves a little chat about Masters and Slaves hm? I was inspired to write when I came across this article from CBS San Francisco detailing a woman who victimized several men. The scam was simple, she’d phone in a false accusation of domestic abuse, then when police arrested the man accused – she took advantage of him being out of the house and robbed him blind. This little scam highlights one thing very clearly gentlemen. Remember and do not ever forget: you are second class citizens who can be arrested without a warrant or any evidence of criminal wrong doing, based solely on a woman pointing her finger.
That is not a hyperbolic statement.
The fact that this woman was not, absolutely, demonstrably, irrefutably NOT a victim of domestic violence, but rather was running a scam by making false accusations.
-These men who were arrested, were detained by police with no warrant.
-These men who were arrested, were detained by police no evidence of criminal acts.
These men who were arrested, were detained by police on nothing but a woman’s say so.
Patriarchy – gee – what’s that? As I see it, the reason these men were arrested without a warrant and without any evidence of criminal actions whatsoever is a direct result of The Violence Against Women Act. Which was written, advocated for, lobbied for and voted on by Feminists, Feminist politicians and male politicians who didn’t want to be accused of sexism or misogyny because they’d much prefer to remain in public office.
When feminists have the ability to push through laws which provide legal protections for women which men do not have access to, a violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution –
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
When women are able to have men arrested and detained with no need for either a warrant or absolutely any evidence of a criminal act aside from her word: using the state as a personal enforcer –
Patriarchy? I gotta tell ya, I’m not seeing it.
The Violence Against Women Act was created to deal with domestic violence against women…. in spite of the fact that men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. More over, under VAWA many states have put into place Mandatory Arrest Laws – which lead to an increase of female arrests. Feminists didn’t like that: so the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence was created. This “model” ignores all evidence of reality collected by the CDC, FBI, IPV surveys, etc. etc: Which all state unequivocally that women abuse men more often than men abuse women. Ignores all of that and proclaims domestic violence is a man beating a defenseless woman.
Now you may want to question me about that: however – lets get the answer directly from the horses mouth. The Duluth Model – Frequently Asked Questions. Scroll down to the second from the bottom “Is the Duluth Model evidence-based?”. Their answer….
“The Duluth Model approach for intervening with men who batter is the most widely-used approach in the world. It has influenced and shaped much of national and state-level policy around batterer intervention and domestic violence work. The effect of intervening with complex social problems is very difficult to evaluate. Click here to read some of the research supporting the Duluth Model.”
It is not evidence based: the research they present doesn’t even go into one critical study on gender of offenders. Their list of research articles doesn’t have a single example to show which suggests men commit domestic violence more often than women: yet the entire duluth model does absolutely nothing but pitch men as being abusers and women as being victims. It’s a piece of propaganda devoid of reality, and feminists used it to lobby for “Predominant Aggressor” policy. By using “Predominate Aggressor” policy, law enforcement could neglect to arrest women in dual arrests even if they were in fact the offender. If both parties are being violent, even if the woman is the abuser and the man the victim – Predominate Aggressor policy says (according to the Duluth model) that men are abusers and therefore the man should be the one who is arrested.
“In some cases, dual arrests may be the result of legislation, department policies, or both failing to require officers to identify the primary aggressor.In addition, when such provisions are present, police may lack the training or information needed to identify the primary aggressor when responding to a domestic violence assault. This situation may be compounded by batterers who have become increasingly adept at manipulating the criminal justice system, and may make efforts to “pre-empt” victims from notifying police in order to further control or retaliate against them.23
Current political and organizational pressure may discourage officers from arresting women as aggressors, and, unsure what to do, the officers may arrest both parties. This observation is supported by some of the existing research. A 1999 study conducted in Boulder found that male victims were three times more likely than female victims to be arrested along with the offender.24 Similarly, a study of three Massachusetts towns revealed that male victims were five times more likely than female victims to be the subjects of a dual arrest.”
VAWA in conjunction with the Duluth model are tools being used to put political pressure on police departments to arrest men for domestic violence: even when they’re the victims.
What I am seeing is that a first class of citizen is able to have a second class of citizen arrested and detained by the state, at will, based on nothing but assertion absent of evidence or other legal procedure of any kind.
That’s what I’m seeing. More to the point, the laws enabling this two tiered system of justice were written, advocated for and lobbied for by representatives of that first class of citizen. As if that weren’t bad enough, the very set of legislatures which established this two tiered system of justice are clearly and irrefutably illegal according to the highest law of the land, the Constitution.
Now if you thought that was the end of it, thinking to yourself “nothing could be a more damning indictment than this”: oh no it gets worse.
The very amendment to the constitution which this set of feminist legislation directly violates (the 14th): was originally written to protect freed slaves from anti black laws written by racist whites. The infamous Jim Crow laws. The exact amendment to the constitution which was expressly written to protect former slaves from being oppressed by those with power and authority, is the exact same amendment to the constitution which feminist laws violate.
Oh please tell me again about Patriarchy?
Should any feminists happen to stumble across this particular article and want to complain “but but but that’s the patriarchy’s doing” – alright. Fine then.
You want to claim to me that the Violence Against Women Act, which
1, Donates hundreds of millions of dollars to women’s shelters and women’s programs and feminist lobbies every year,
2, Was written by, advocated for by, lobbied for by and continues to be supported by feminist.
3, Establishes a two two tiered system of justice in which women are promoted to being first class citizens while men are demoted to being second class citizens,
4, Enables a woman to have a man arrested and detained by the state on her behalf with no warrant, not indictment by a grand jury and absolutely no evidence of any criminal actions,
Well now, that seems like a rather blatant evasion of reality, but let’s consider it shall we?
You want to prove “Not All feminists Are Like That”, okey dokey, fine. You start a petition, under your real name, demanding that the Violence Against Women Act be redacted on the basis that it violates the 14th amendment to the constitution. You promote your petition under your real name. You travel to the headquarters of the national organization of women where you protest with a sign which denounces the violence against women act. You see how many feminists agree with you, sign your petition and join your protest.
You will then see exactly how many feminists “are not like that.”
I’m sorry my dear feminist, you’ve been lied to. The violence against women act was mainly voted for by male politicians. That’s a demonstrable fact just by looking at who was in political office at the time to vote on that legislation. They voted in favor of this legislation for two reasons.
1, they didn’t want to be accused of being sexist or misogynist, because few politicians manage to survive a concerted onslaught of such accusations being leveled at them by feminist lobbies.
2, men will vote in favor of laws which are portrayed or propagandized as being for the protection of women. Even if those laws do create a two tiered system of justice which disadvantages men. Or even if the laws disenfranchise and demote men to being second class citizens, because men care about women’s well being.
The reverse – does not – occur.
Neither feminists, nor most women, would willfully advocate or lobby for the removal of laws which benefit them. The majority of men will vote for laws in women’s favor, at the expense of men. The majority of women will not vote for laws in men’s favor, at the expense of women. More over, the majority of women will not vote in favor of redacting laws which advantage women, regardless of whether it can be incontestably proven that said law is unconstitutional and creates a two tiered system of justice.
This is not to say that all women or even all feminists are inherently avaricious fiends: but I am telling you the undeniable truth when I say that most are. You cannot claim otherwise when I can demonstrate that most women and nearly all feminists support women having legal superiority as first class citizens.
You feminists can propagandize your “equality” shtick all you want: the factual reality is that you don’t support legal equality.
The dictionary definition of feminism may be all about equality, the talky talk pretend time and propaganda of feminism. However, when it comes to what feminists do in real life, constantly attempting to not just maintain legal superiority as first class citizens, but to expand the gap. Unceasingly attempting to create more and more legal protections and legal rights for women which are denied to men.
The dictionary definition of “an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex” is a “supremacist.” If you’re advocating for or lobbying for superior rights to be given to a group or groups OVER THAT of another group or groups: you are categorically, unabashedly and undeniably, by definition, a supremacist.
Came across this heaping pile of pig excrement while on minds. Of course I say it’s pig excrement because as we all know: Pigs are more equal. That’s a joke for the Orwell fans, if you don’t get it – google it, you’ll figure it out.
“Amongst other questions they were asked how they would act in a situation where they could have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will “if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences”.
They describe the question, but don’t actually provide you the question, then provide you the stipulation of the question in quotes. This is done so that they can dissemble what the question actually was in order to present you with a narrative.
Now examine again:
“31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation” – which is rape.”
Yet 2 sentences later the article states:
“When explicitly asked whether they would rape a woman if there were no consequences, only 13.6% of participants said they would do so, a marked fall on those who had described that they would commit rape.”
So again – they’re not providing you with the actual questions used in the study: because they specifically do not want you to know what was asked. If you knew what was actually asked, you’d suddenly be aware that this statistic on who would and who would not commit rape: was manufactured by means of defining things, very loosely and very broadly, as being rape.
A key clue is the statement between those last two.
“Worryingly, most men who indicated that they would commit rape did not even recognise their actions as such.”
By the way, that typo is not mine, it’s copied and pasted. Here however you see the crux of the issue and why they will talk about the questions used in the “study” but not quote the questions. This is also why the selection of males who took the study said they would not commit rape: but why the study’s architect claims so many would commit rape. By intentionally wording questions in a very broadly interpretative way: then defining what quantifies as “rape” in an extremely broad way.
Here in the article just a bit lower, is proof of my claims.
“The authors of the study said the findings of a gap between the proportion of men who would endorse the use of coercion but reject the ‘rape’ label for their actions could have implications for sexual and consent education programmes.”
As you see here, the creators of the study are not defining rape as “She says no, he keeps going.” They’re defining any conceivably “coercive” actions as automatically equating to rape. Not violations of someone’s will – not doing something against someone’s wishes: anything which can be defined, as loosely or broadly as possible, as being “coercive.” Which again: is why the write up of the study, absolutely at no point actually quotes ANY question which was used in the “study.”
This is an example of manufactured statistics, where by the “study” is manipulated and engineered in order to generate exactly the results the study’s creators want to obtain. This is all very common from Feminist “studies”: it’s a smoke and mirrors sham.
You want to know how broadly this can be defined? I’ll give you an example.
BF to GF: “Oh come on, it’s my birthday, can’t we at least fool around a little?”
This would be defined as manipulative, which equates to coercive and thereby makes it “rape” under the California “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” standards. It does not matter the man did not force the woman to have sex, it does not matter he did not hold her down and have sex with her against her will. It does not matter that the decision to have sex is still entirely up to the woman.
Being that he manipulated her in some way, or acted in some way which can be define as manipulative, this is considered coercion and defined as being rape. The fact that the woman in question still retained 100% of the authority and decision making power to decide yes or no in accordance with her own will: does – not – matter. This interaction, under the California “Yes means yes” / “Affirmative Consent” standards is still defined as being rape.
California “Yes means yes” / “Affirmative Consent” standards as to what quantifies as an constitutes rape are so broad in scope and scale, by the way, that even the co-authors of the legislature doesn’t know what sexual encounter doesn’t qualify as being rape. Think I’m making that up?
“how an innocent person could prove consent under such a standard, her reply was, “Your guess is as good as mine.”
If the co-author of the legislature legitimately doesn’t know how a person accused under it’s guidelines and standards could prove they were innocent of the charge: that means she also doesn’t legitimately know what sexual encounter could possibly NOT be classified as being “rape”, under the bill’s standards.
More over, let’s suppose you out smart the the co-author of the California “Yes Means Yes” bill who hasn’t got a guess to give as to how one could prove one’s self innocent. Let’s, for the sake of argument, consider that you, somehow, managed to think of a way to prove you were innocent. What if the college arbitrarily decides that a woman can in fact simply withdrawal consent, ex post facto? Meaning, redact consent, after the fact?
The College Fix reports on the training course required of AU student Sydney Jacobs to take, who claims to have been threatened with academic probation if she didn’t complete the training a year ago.
“Ultimately my problem with the whole thing is it’s creating a culture on campus that it’s okay to re-write history and rescind your consent when you’re not happy with the outcome. People are scared to hook up without facing repercussions that aren’t warranted.”
When feminists have been able to change the legal definition of rape to such an extent that no sexual encounter, of any kind, under any circumstances, cannot be claimed to be rape – after the fact – every man becomes a potential victim of extortion to a woman’s malice or greed and her willingness to lie.
Consider the point for a moment.
If a speed limit sign says that the speed limit is 40 miles per hour,
And you are going 40 miles per hour: you are not speeding.
You are legally driving within the given limit to your speed.
As the speed limit is clearly visible – it is well defined how fast you can travel on that road. You are complying with clearly defined rules and your activity is not illegal. If you are driving bellow the speed limit: you are not speeding.
With “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” – there are no sexual encounters, of any kind, under any circumstances, which cannot: retroactively, be claimed as being rape – and the male be punished for said action.
If there is no sexual encounter that cannot be claimed to be rape: then sexual encounters in and of themselves: are not legal. At least – not legal IF you happen to be a man.
Given that the “Yes Means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” laws were written BY elected officials who happen to have training in the study of law and happen to be feminists. I don’t think “Yes means Yes” creates a double standard like that: by accident. That is a stretch I am not capable of making, that bridges logic into the realm of suspension of disbelief.
“Yes means Yes” which began in California and has since spread to nearly every college in the country allows a woman the ability to get a man kicked out of school for rape – even if he has never SEEN her in person.
“A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.”
The claim itself is taken as being true: and burden of proof is then placed on -you- the defendant, to prove the claim is false.
Every college campus which has a “Yes means Yes” policy, or Affirmative consent” -always- has in it’s structure a preponderance of evidence built in. Meaning if you’re accused of rape or sexual violence or sexual assault: you are guilty until proven innocent. You may not directly confront your accuser. You have no right to legal council.
Meaning, if you so much as make a girl angry – and she gets a friend to lie for her: you could be accused of being at a party you didn’t attend, someone else saw you there, she can claim you raped her – despite never having touched her – and unless you can literally PROVE you were somewhere else doing something else – you’re still guilty: because you were assumed to be guilty. That’s preponderance of evidence: your guilt is assumed.
It’s the exact opposite of the legal system which respects civil liberties: the legal system functions off of “Presumption of Innocence”, meaning innocent until proven guilty. Preponderance of evidence: assumes guilt until proven innocent.
“I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.”
She describes how her son was denied every possible civil liberty that is supposed to be guaranteed to him by law, and that had she – an attorney – not been his mother: he would have been cast out of school in spite of what a flagrant abuse of institutional power the event was.
“That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.”
She ends her article with the following:
“I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.”
Should you be holding out one last gasp hope that this is simply constrained to the once hallowed halls of Academia, but not the world at large: I remind you that if you give victim-hood peddling preachers of ideological dogma so much as a grain of sand on which to proselytize: they’re conquer an entire breach head. Let us now look to that feminist mothership of “gender equality”, Sweden. Quoting now from The Sentinel:
Earlier today, as part of their continued effort to create the ultimate progressive “utopia” the Swedish parliament passed a controversial new rape law. A law that in no unclear terms now declares all sex to be rape by default. What this means in a practical sense is that any time sexual activity is now initiated in Sweden, both parties must formally consent or risk being charged with rape under the revised Swedish legal code.
There you have it. Now, do you still think I was being hyperbolic when I said earlier:
“When feminists have been able to change the legal definition of rape to such an extent that no sexual encounter, of any kind, under any circumstances, cannot be claimed to be rape – after the fact – every man becomes a potential victim of extortion to a woman’s malice or greed and her willingness to lie.”
Or perhaps you assumed I was exaggerating when I said:
If there is no sexual encounter that cannot be claimed to be rape: then sexual encounters in and of themselves: are not legal. At least – not legal IF you happen to be a man.
Things look just a bit different now though, don’t they?
However, back to the original article to which what you are currently reading is a response.
At the veerrrrry very very bottom…..
“The study was conducted by academics at the University of North Dakota and the North Dakota State University. Its sample size was 86 people.”
Yeah – because 86 people is a big sample size to represent a large population…. Yet another commonality with typical feminist studies. Small sample size.
Another thing you can often expect from feminist studies”. No control group.
They’re not interested in having a control group. They don’t want a control group.
It was conducted at a college, they could easily have drummed up 86 bisexual and or lesbian women: and had them take the exact same questionnaire which the men took.
They didn’t. Didn’t want to.
Why, you may ask?
You see – if you get nearly identical, or possibly even worse, results from the control group: you prove the existence of universality. Which means you can no longer use the “study” as propaganda to dehumanize men. That is not in the interest of the people who created the “study”, that does not serve their purpose: that is in fact counter productive to their purpose.
-Intentionally engineered question designed to gather desired results.
-Broadly interpreted and loosely defined quantifiers to classify answers as desired results.
-Small sample size.
-No control group.
Quoting my previous statement:
“This is an example of manufactured statistics, where by the “study” is manipulated and engineered in order to generate exactly the results the study’s creators want to obtain. This is all very common from Feminist “studies”: it’s a smoke and mirrors sham.”
I’m going to set some things straight here. Little too much propaganda regarding those dastardly, evil “straight, hetero-normative, cis-gendered, white men” and a little too much propaganda claiming the black man “dindunuffin”. So let’s investigate in detail here. A thorough examination cutting through the propaganda, shall we? Leave your ideology at the door, temporarily suspend your feelz then prepare your rational mind to examine evidence and take an unflinching look at reality. You will find, moving forward, no false equivocations, no dissembling and no political bent.
Quoting from the Lore of Preservation:
“Never permit to yourself the offense of acting with a slothful mind, always take care to examine information under the lens of a philosophers skepticism, let these be your golden rules: An assertion absent of evidence is a baseless claim. Evidence incapable of withstanding the exacting measures of truth is testimony against it’s creator, supporter, reporter and crier. Truth is that which can be verified and proven to be true, absent of and independent of bias or ideology: all else is opinion, speculation or intentional manipulation.”
Here you will not find Black Lives Matter propaganda, you will find no national socialist rants. On my posts you will find nothing but logic, reason and the evidence which support the same. If you are incapable of examining factual reality “absent of and independent of bias or ideology” – leave the article now. This is no place for you. If you are, however, capable of examining reality without feelz, agenda, bias or preconceived notions getting in the way: I welcome you. Proceed at your leisure and take care to double check my citations, I take no offense in your doing so and in fact I encourage you to do just that.
Now, I’m not going to just link one of those randoms memes with no citations or provide you with end result statistics. What I’m going to do is provide you with exact citations and walk you through the hard numbers, even show you the math, close up.
No trickery, no slight of hand, not vague nonsense, no dissembled arguments, no false claims. No statistical chicanery of any kind. Sourced, cited, examined and calculated right before your very eyes.
Race of Offender Unknown: 5,574
White Offenders: 5,004
Black Offenders: 6,095
So we take the total number of murders minus those where the race of the offender is unknown, so that neither group is being blamed for something indeterminably.
16,964 – Race N/A 5,574 = 11,390
Then we take the number of murders where the race of the offender is known and we use that to divide against the number of white offenders and black offenders to determine the percentile of murders known to have been committed by that group.
White Offenders = 43.9%
Black Offenders = 53.5%
Now we take the total number of murders minus those where the sex of the offender is unknown, so that neither group is being blamed for something indeterminably.
Sex of Offender Unknown: 5,359
Male Offenders: 10,310
Female Offenders: 1,295
16,964 – Sex N/A 5,359 = 11,605
Then we take the number of murders where the sex of the offender is known and we use that to divide against the number of male offenders and female offenders to determine the percentile of murders known to have been committed by that group.
Male Offenders = 88.8%
Female Offenders = 11.1%
We know how many murders are committed by blacks, by whites, by men and by women: so our next step is to look up the US CENSUS in order to look at population. This will be important in a moment.
None of that is a typo by the way… They refer to population categories as “topics” and they actually named it “QuickFacts”, no space. Look Dude… I’m a Libertarian… It’s the federal government… they do all kinds of things I can find no rational reason for, don’t even ask me what’s up with any of that nonsense.
I don’t know and I wouldn’t care to guess. Seriously… the FBI at FBI.gov actually has a “Fun & Games” section, okay? Yeah, because that’s just what the Federal Bureau of Investigation needs, a fun ampersand games section…. oh yeah…. that’s my tax dollars well spent. Again, it’s the federal government, don’t ask me, leave me out of it. Moving on before I have a stress induced aneurysm…
Whites are 61.3% of the population.
Black are 13.3% of the population
Men are roughly 49% of the population (rounded down from 49.2)
Side note, did you know that? In spite of how often women are referred to as a minority, women are in fact the majority and men are a minority. Most people don’t know that. With as much as leftists talk about misogyny and every other oppression and blame Hillary’s loss on men: the fact of the matter is – if every women in every city, in every county, in every district, in every state voted Hillary – she would have won by default even if every single man in the country voted against her.
Same thing goes for abortion rights and every other feminist issue by the way. If women universally voted for whoever supported feminism the most and men universally voted against: all levels of government would be nothing but feminist shills who vote how feminists want on every issue. Has that ever occurred to you? Something to keep in mind when you hear feminists talking about how oppressed women are by this or that political policy or legislature. If women universally voted for feminist agendas and men universally vote against: every feminist demand would be met without exception.
Stow that nugget of information away for later use. You never know when that might come in handy. For now however, let’s divvy up the number of black murder offenders to examine just black men.
Black Offenders = 53.5% x 88.8% = (53.5 x .888) 47.5%
Black Men are Responsible for 47.5% of all Murders in which the race of the offender is known.
Blacks are 13.3% of the population, men are 49% of the black population. (13.3 x .49 = 6.5%)
Black Men are 6.5% of the entire US population and are responsible for 47.5% of all Murders in which the race of the offender is known.
Let’s contrast that with White Men, shall we? So again, let’s divvy up the number of white murder offenders to examine just white men.
White Offenders = 43.9% x 88.8% = ( 43.9 x .888) 38.9%
White Men are Responsible for 38.9% of all Murders in which the race of the offender is known.
Whites are 61.3% of the population, men are 49% of the white population. (61.3 x .49 = 30%)
White Men are 30% of the entire US population and are responsible for 38.9% of all Murders in which the race of the offender is known.
Now when white men are 30% of the population and responsible for 38.9% of the murder, yet black men are 6.5% of the population and are responsible for 47.5% of the murder – tell me again how evil white men are?
Does that need to be clearer for you?
White Men are 30% of the population and commit 38.9% of murders
Black Men are 6.5% of the population and commit 47.5% of murders
Tell me again how evil white men are?
Also, kids, don’t forget who the FBI records and counts as being “White” in the United States… It’s not just what the average person would consider to be white. Meaning someone of European decent, oh no no no. The number of crimes attributed to “whites” is being inflated by the inclusion of: North Africans (Immigrant, naturalized and born citizens), Middle easterners (Immigrant, naturalized and born citizens) and an unknown number of Latinos due to the ethnic reporting methods employed in the FBI Uniform Crime Report.
You can read all about that in my article “White Crime”…but Who’s “White” ?‘ Where I provide a step by step tutorial walk through of the FBI’s official documents available on the FBI’s own website, FBI.gov. So while the US CENSUS population numbers for whites, and the basis for my calculation of the population of white men may be accurate: the crimes in the FBI’s uniform crime report which are attributed to whites are inflated by including people of Non-European decent as being white.
So in reality: the number of crimes being committed by men of European decent, you know: actual white men, are irrefutably fewer in number than what is being displayed in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. As a short recap from ‘“White Crime”…but Who’s “White” ?‘ I provided an example using the FBI’s most wanted list.
Want more proof? Back to the FBI we go. To the top 10 most wanted list, Robin.
Now, this is the current top 10 most wanted list, 10-10-2017, I archived it because I have no idea how often the FBI updates this. . We have 3 men of Europeans descent, meaning: whites. Jason, William and Robert. We have 5 Latinos, 2 of whom are confirmed in custody. Santiago, Eduardo, Alexis, Luis and Walter. There are 2 fellows on here who are of middle eastern descent.
The FBI records all 9/10 of these as being “white”…. Still doubt me, after that the virtual tour I took you on?
So on the current FBI’s top ten most wanted list: there’s 3 actual white people, 1 Egyptian, 5 Latinos and 1 Indian who is recorded without a race. Indians are apparently raceless. The FBI can’t decide if these should be counted as white people for being middle Easterners or Asian.
Regardless, the FBIs top ten list, currently has 9/10 people listed as white.
None-the-less, I’ll work with the numbers provided by the FBI, regardless of how inflated they are by the inclusion of Non-whites as being white.
[Liberal Screeching] Privilege! White males plead down from murder! [Liberal Screeching]
Ok… homicide then. All murders are homicides, not all homicides are tried as murder, that’s true. So now…. we’ll move onto homicide which includes lesser charges such as manslaughter.
Blacks in America kill more people than Whites, North Africans (Immigrant, naturalized and born citizens), Middle easterners (Immigrant, naturalized and born citizens), Asians (Immigrant, naturalized and born citizens), Native Americans, Alaskan Natives (Eskimos), Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders (within US territories) *COMBINED*.
This number also includes an unknown number of Latinos due to the ethnic reporting methods employed in the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Blacks, who are just 13.3% of the American population kill more people on American soil than over 80% of the US population manage to score when combined into a single total.
That’s not “per-capita” meaning per 100,000 people: that’s volume, absolute numbers of people killed, tally, the total sum.
Now for those who haven’t seen my video “To the Alt-Right: The Road to Sovereignty”, it’s 12 minutes 23 seconds long I’ll provide it for you here.
The reason I brought up this video is that I made the following proposals to the Alt-Right in that video.
1, prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, all criminal violations and mass deport all non-citizen violators of the law.
2, close your borders and restrict the number of legal immigrants to no more than 1% of the population proper. With a priority list which includes factors like education level, conversational level fluency in the Native language, skilled trades, etc.
3, Restrict the Welfare State to citizens and restrict it’s benefits the way unemployment is restricted by measured increment of tax revenues put into the system in the way your unemployment is measured by the volume of money put into that.
-No welfare benefits for illegals.
-No welfare benefits for migrants who are not citizens.
-No multi-generational parasitism of welfare benefits.
Stipulating that if these changes were put into place within the legislature, the left would devolved, en mass, into legitimate civil war. The way I proposed to the Alt-Right that the right in general conduct itself during such a civil war, is as follows.
Then once you’ve instituted these changes: the undesirable people, both white leftists and non whites, will devolve into open warfare. Right now they mount riots, protests, they assault people, they burn buildings and harass people and most grievous they gang beat poor defenseless trash cans.
If, however, you institute the above policies: they’ll turn from violent rioters into an armed militant force engaged in open warfare. THEN, since you acted within the confines of the law, and they acted outside the law and began this civil war: you can exterminate them. Leaving only the non-violent, productive non-whites, since they didn’t participate in the attempted coup/civil war (they’re a minute minority).
Also, since you didn’t harm the non-violent non-whites who didn’t participate in the civil war enacted by leftists and non-whites – you have wonderful optics of the event. Endless anecdotes and examples and video footage of whites saving non-whites who wanted freedom, wanted rights, wanted to become part of the culture and wanted to be productive citizens: from the violent extremists who surrounded them. The entire debacle can be proven, with irrefutable evidence to the fact, that the right acted in a justified and righteous manner.
I do not have a problem with productive, non-violent, non-whites who want to enjoy their freedoms and earn their own way. No problem with them what-so-ever. The unfortunate fact of the matter is, however, they’re an obscene minority compared to:
-Those who want an endless supply of “gibs” to live off of others as parasites.
-Or reparations because muh slavery.
-Or the violent offenders.
I will look on and judge Blacks the same way I do Jews, as I explained in my video “Curious Coincidences”. It’s 13 minutes 4 seconds long I’ll provide it for you here.
The reason I brought up this video is that I made the following stipulations with regards to Jews in that video.
In the same way it is unjust that all whites should be blamed for slavery, or the way all Germans are blamed for the Jewish holocaust. Simply put: it is unjust to blame those who are innocent of a crime, for the crimes committed by others. I do not violate my own principals simply because of emotionalism.
Going on to say later in the video.
Do not expect me to pretend I do not see what is in front of my eyes, 2 and 2 make 4.
Do not mistake my love of justice, I am not a leftist, I do not temper justice with mercy. I will not extend any undue courtesy. I will not excuse actions or attempt to skew opinions in someone favor when they have done wrong. I will provide no shelter for those who wish to hide from their own actions. I will not provide cover for misdeeds. I do not support, uncritically. I have no love for juden, hebrews, semites or Jews.
I simply refuse to deride, shame or denounce ALL of you, for the misdeeds of some or even of most. This is not a courtesy, this not a show of respect, or affection. I simply place value on justice, and refuse to hold persons accountable for the actions of others.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The only thing you can expect from me, is a fair hearing.
As such, in the same way I look on and treat Jews, so too do I look on and treat Blacks. As individuals. I will not blame any of your, for the crimes committed by others, because that would be unjust. It’s as simple as that. You are responsible only for your own actions and I will judge you according to your actions as an individual.
That being said, don’t expect me not to tell the truth with regards to the factual reality about black crime or how many whites are murdered by blacks. Do not expect me to pretend I do not see what is in front of my eyes, 2 and 2 make 4.
Do not mistake my love of justice, I am not a leftist, I do not temper justice with mercy. I will not extend any undue courtesy. I will not excuse actions or attempt to skew opinions in someone favor when they have done wrong. I will provide no shelter for those who wish to hide from their own actions. I will not provide cover for misdeeds. I do not support, uncritically. I have no love for blacks.
I simply refuse to deride, shame or denounce ALL of you, for the misdeeds of some or even of most. This is not a courtesy, this not a show of respect, or affection. I simply place value on justice, and refuse to hold persons accountable for the actions of others.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The only thing you can expect from me, is a fair hearing.
[liberal screeching] But but but! Lynchings! [liberal screeching]
Ok, here’s the common meme, or one of them which gets spread around. I don’t know how accurate this is, or where this information comes from – there’s no citation provided. However, let’s use this meme for comparison.
4,733 deaths since 1882, so that’s 136 years?
Tragic, simply tragic.
From 2004 to 2014, just 10 years: blacks killed 5,316 whites.
(Notation: following meme used US CENSUS data available 2015; The population of “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” was 61.6% US CENSUS data used above is most recent available on 5/12/2018 Current data states “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” is 61.3% Current data “Black or African American alone” remains 13.3%)
Regardless of the fact that blacks are just over 13.3% of the population and whites are over 61.6% of the population, meaning whites out number blacks 4.63 to 1: blacks kill whites over 2.28 times more often than whites kill blacks, in spite of what BLM likes to proclaim.
I personally conducted a 10 year study of the FBI Uniform Crime Report and compared that 10 year period side by side with the casualty volume of US Military deaths during the second war in Iraq. Blacks in America kill more Whites than US Soldiers of any race are killed by legitimate enemy combatants and IEDs in the war in Iraq, and that 10 year period included the heaviest years of fighting.
Now if blacks are agitated, offended, horrified or outraged that 4,733 blacks were lynched in 136 years by whites, and I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be: how agitated, offended, horrified or outraged should whites be that blacks murdered 5,316 whites in just 10 years?
[liberal screeching] But but but! 4,733 Lynchings + 2,330 blacks killed by whites between 2004-2014 is 7,063 compared to the 5,316 whites killed by blacks! [liberal screeching]
Okay, fine, let’s do this then. The FBI has had a Uniform Crime Report since the late 20’s and early 30s. On their website however, they only publish the information from 1995 till 2016. As of now, (5/12/2018) the 2017 report is only a preliminary. That is 22 years of Uniform Crime Reports available to the public. Now I could load this down with links, number sets and a screen cap of all 22, but because that’s farcical I’m going to make available a document containing the links and the exact locations of the information.
I’ll provide a synopsis here however. From 1995 to 1998 the FBI published the UCR online as a PDF. From years 1999 to the year 2004 the FBI published the UCR as a series of excel spread sheets. Beginning in 2005 and continuing to this day the FBI has published the UCR as simply one form or other of html format rather than downloadable contents. Why the various changes in it’s publishing methodology I can would guess was due to upgrades of technology, internet speeds, bandwidth demands, etc.
1995 – blacks killed by whites: 281 – whites killed by blacks: 699
1996 – blacks killed by whites: 247 – whites killed by blacks: 558
1997 – blacks killed by whites: 209 – whites killed by blacks: 520
1998 – blacks killed by whites: 205 – whites killed by blacks: 449
1999 – blacks killed by whites: 154 – whites killed by blacks: 452
2000 – blacks killed by whites: 178 – whites killed by blacks: 417
2001 – blacks killed by whites: 180 – whites killed by blacks: 475
2002 – blacks killed by whites: 227 – whites killed by blacks: 483
2003 – blacks killed by whites: 226 – whites killed by blacks: 501
2004 – blacks killed by whites: 228 – whites killed by blacks: 522
2005 – blacks killed by whites: 230 – whites killed by blacks: 516
2006 – blacks killed by whites: 208 – whites killed by blacks: 573
2007 – blacks killed by whites: 245 – whites killed by blacks: 566
2008 – blacks killed by whites: 230 – whites killed by blacks: 504
2009 – blacks killed by whites: 209 – whites killed by blacks: 454
2010 – blacks killed by whites: 218 – whites killed by blacks: 447
2011 – blacks killed by whites: 193 – whites killed by blacks: 448
2012 – blacks killed by whites: 193 – whites killed by blacks: 431
2013 – blacks killed by whites: 189 – whites killed by blacks: 409
2014 – blacks killed by whites: 187 – whites killed by blacks: 446
2015 – blacks killed by whites: 229 – whites killed by blacks: 500
2016 – blacks killed by whites: 243 – whites killed by blacks: 533
Blacks killed by Whites: 4,709 – Whites killed by Blacks: 10,903
So let’s take that 4,733 deaths, in 136 years of lynchings then add the 4,709 murders of blacks by whites, in the 22 years of Uniform Crime Reports. That comes to 9,442 black deaths by white hands. Compared to the 10,903 white deaths by black hands in just 22 years.
Rounded to the nearest whole number, whites kill an average of 214 blacks per year. While blacks kill an average of 496 whites per year. Blacks, who are just 13.3% of the population, kill over twice as many whites per year as the reverse, in spite of the fact that whites outnumber blacks over 4.6 to 1. Blacks kill more whites in America than the second war in Iraq killed US military forces of any race. So people talk about an “upcoming” race war: surprise – it’s already here. Most people simply don’t know it.
Now, before we continue, I want to discuss something particular. I value the concept of justice. I think it is unjust to hold someone accountable for any action which is not their own. On one of my previous articles a very pleasant Sub Saharan African woman commenting the following, viewable at this location.
Reading your blog is therapeutic, thought provoking and intelligent.
I am constantly called a ,”Black Nazi” when I try to bring up these points. I will share your blog for people to read. (If you don’t mind.)
I think it’s very important that we all educate ourselves on the truth regardless of how painful.
When I see black Muslims I am filled with the deepest shame that in this technological age, where in the West information is free. They have refused to use common sense and logic to follow a sexist, racist backwards religion. Which encourages slavery, lack of expression and thought anti-homosexual behaviour. Also many of us whose ancestors are slaves . We were sold by black Muslims for not being Muslim.
Even White Muslim converts like “The White Widow” Take the view that all Muslims are superior. Almost as soon as they become Muslims? Why hasn’t anyone examined why Angola banned Islam, as they felt it was not suitable in their Western culture?
Anywho I’m ranting now.
Thank you for your work and take care.
To which I responded:
“When I see black Muslims I am filled with the deepest shame”
I would never want that for you – and urge you to reconsider that emotional response in favor of thinking positively about yourself. I do not judge others based on actions which are not their own and I would strong suggest you not either. You are responsible for no actions other than your own. Just because group X has a tendency towards Q does not mean that individual P of group X necessarily adheres to that tendency and is guilty of Q.
I never want you to feel shame for the conduct of others, so much the opposite in fact: I want for you to feel pride that you conduct yourself in a civilized and rational manner. Please take this message to heart, you do not deserve to be looked down upon by anyone based on actions which are not your own: that includes being looked down upon by yourself. You’re a human being, what you do matters and you are not to be blamed for the actions of others: but only upon how you live your life.
“To thine own self be true.”
All of that being said… I sincerely hope, that as many blacks manage to flee the liberal plantation as possible and understand that freedom, individual responsibility and self reliance are nourishment to their hearts and minds while the grievance politics of unjust collective persecution and envy of the left are poisonous.
I say this because if more white people do in fact come to realize the reality of the situation instead of remaining under the delusional spell that everything is fine. There’s going to be a lot of violence and a lot of whites who’ve been victimized, or seen their family members raped, assaulted or murdered by blacks, probably aren’t going to be very scrutinous about who they target.
If the left continues this march of advocating for anti-white racial biased laws and constant unending racial antagonism towards whites when it is in fact whites who are slaughtered every year, in America, in greater numbers than wars on foreign soil…
The resulting armed conflict is going to make the last civil war look like a bar brawl.
Some things floating around that have been bugging me terribly.
Benito Mussolini was exiled from Italy for a period of time due to his activities as a Radical Marxist. He was also a routine contributor to the leftist publication “Avante”, which remains in existence as a socialist/leftist newspaper to this day. In his book “My Rise and Fall“, also published under the title “My Autobiography” Mussolini himself said that he considered Fascism to be “the ultimate form of socialism.”
Also of note…. Corporatism was defined in detail in that same book “My Rise and Fall“, written by the radical marxist… Benito Mussolini. So be certain to remember that when some leftist or other tries to exclaim that fascism and corporatism are right wing and capitalist. Corporatism and Fascism boys, girls, attack helicopters and those who sexually identify as mayonnaise: is a socialist government and economic model written by a radical marxist who was exiled from his home country for his leftist activism.
More over, Fascism in and of itself by the way – is currently being contested as having been highly influenced, if not written by, a Jewish Woman. With the recent release of Margherita Sarfatti’s memoirs, in which she claims to not only be Mussolini’s Lover but also the lion’s share of responsibility for the ideological principles of Mussolini’s Fascist doctrines. Whether this is true or not has yet to be confirmed and I doubt it ever will be, I am simply providing the information to you.
Now given the political landscape in which so very many things are claimed to be the fault of the jews, claims of antismitism are rife anytime anything can be linked to having been the doing of a jew. Therefore the above link to the information I provided on the topic was from the Israeli News Service Haaretz. This way me, myself and I cannot be accused of publishing antisemitic materials or making claims based purely out of antisemitism.
Next topic of discourse: the left’s favorite boogieman…. nazis….
Nazism and Nazi are abbreviations of “Nationalsozialismus”, which translates to “National Socialism”. the full name of the “Nazi” party was the “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, which translates to the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.
Here’s a thought – let’s read materials from a Fascist ideologue (Mussolini), a Nazi Ideologue (Hitler) and a Right Wing Ideologue just for the sake of doing a cross comparison, hm? Let’s see if they appear similar, shall we?
First up – we have neato Benito with some fashionably fab Fash coming to you all the way from the roaring twenties. Take it away Beni-boy.
“That document has been welcomed by all the classes of Italy. The labor magistracy represents, in its consecration to duty, something worthy of a strong state, in contrast to the cloudy aspirations in the misty realms of high-sounding Liberalism, Democracy and communistic fantasy. The framing and realization were the tasks of Fascism. Old men of the socialist and syndicalist poses and postures were amazed and perplexed at the daring new reform. Another legend fell: Fascism was not the protector of any one class, but a supreme regulator of the relations between all citizens of a state. The Labor Charter found interpreters and attracted the attention of the studious in every part of the world. It became a formidable pillar of the new constitution of the Fascist State.
As a logical consequence of the Charter of Labor and of all the social legislation and of the magistracy of labor, came the necessity of instituting the Corporations. In this institution are concentrated all the branches of national production. Work in all its complex manifestations and in all its breadth, whether of manual or of intellectual nature, requires equally protection and nourishment. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill.”
Benito Mussolini – “My Autobiography”. Published 1928
Not bad Musso the man lini, but get ready the head nazi. Hold onto your seats kids and get triggerkins out of the room because it’s time the mustachioed daddio on enough meth to stave off even the great depression: here’s Adolf singing you one of his classic goose stepping hits.
“There are two extreme poles which are characteristic of this mental lack:
(1) The opinion that the law as such is its own justification and hence cannot be made the subject of any critical analysis as to its utility, either in regard to its general principles or its relation to particular problems. According to this notion, the law would remain even though the world should disappear.
(2) The opinion that it is the main function of law to protect and safeguard the life and property of the individual.
Between these two extreme poles the idea of defending the larger interests of the community was introduced very timidly and under the cloak of an appeal to reasons of state.
In contradistinction to all this, the National Socialist Revolution has laid down a definite and unambiguous principle on which the whole system of legislation, jurisprudence and administration of justice must be founded.
It is the task of justice to collaborate in supporting and protecting the people as a whole against those individuals who, because they lack a social conscience, try to shirk the obligations to which all the members of the community are subject, or directly act against the interests of the community itself.
In the new German legal system which will be in force from now onwards the nation is placed above persons and property.”
Adolf Hitler – Speech before the Reichstag. January 30, 1937
Thanks for that Adolf, love those Hugo Boss uniforms. That’s not all folks, moving a head a few decades we’ve got the queen of anti-communism, our very own Lady of the Market. The only name more hated by lefties than John Birch, it’s Ayn Rand.
“The moral code which is implicit in capitalism had never been formulated explicitly. The basic premise of that code is that man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others, that man must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself, and that men must deal with one another as traders, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. This, in essence, is the moral premise on which the United States of America was based: the principle of man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness.
This is what the philosophers and the intellectuals of the nineteenth century did not and could not choose to identify, so long as they remained committed to the mystics’ morality of altruism. If the good, the virtuous, the morally ideal is suffering and self-sacrifice—then, by that standard, capitalism had to be damned as evil. Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell men to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned. In all human relationships—private or public, spiritual or material, social or political or economic or moral—capitalism requires that men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle of justice.”
Ayn Rand – lecture at the Ford Hall Forum. March 26, 1961.
Do either of the first two seem anything similar to right wing ideologue?
Or, rather, do the first two seem utterly antithetical to last one?
If you said the later of those two options, you’d be correct.
The idea that fascism and Nazism are/were “far right” or “right wing” ideologies comes to us from the Communist Bolshevik Revolutionary Leon Trotsky, in several papers he published which were eventually collected into a single book “Fascism: What it is and how to Fight It“. Calling these two ideologies “right wing” or “far right” ideologies, was nothing but a propagandic slander used to demonize those two movements.
Here’s where the hilarity ensues. Leon Trotsky was the hand picked successor to become leader of the Bolshevik party, by no less than Vladimir Lenin himself. In spite of that, he was pushed out of the Communist party, then forcefully exiled from the Soviet union by his political rival, Joseph Stalin. This is the funny part: the way Stalin managed to muscle Trotsky out was by claiming that he (Trotsky) was a fascist Right Winger.
So you see – Communism has been employing “right wing”, “extreme right wing”, “Fascist”, “Nazi” as a slur / slander / insult / dehumanization from it’s very earliest beginnings.
Why most people know none of this information, in spite of it being not only readily but easily available: one can only wonder if this was “by accident or design” ?
Now, the left v right paradigm today is only important in so much as the fact that Leftists still use the same slander with which Stalin pushed out Trotsky. You see, given that the demonstrably fallacious myth that fascism and nazism are right wing ideologies: leftists continue to slander anyone on the right as being nazis and or fascists. Including people like me, for whom fascism and nazism, which both adhere to socialist economic models, are to my far left.
This is, however, why you see the left employ that same slander tactic and use it as a truncheon with which to defame people like Stefan Molyneux or Styxhexanhammer or Mike Cernovich, etc. etc. In example, the attacks by Right Wing watch against non-leftist YouTubers as being fascists, nazis, nazi enablers and right wing extremists.
I do not care about the left v right paradigm as it exists today, what I care about is the fact that leftists so often attempt to use the perceived horrors, atrocities or evils (be they real or not) of leftist dictators to shame people who are right wing.
Endlessly demanding that the right wing take collective responsibility for the actions of left wing parties, groups and individuals.
This, I do not care for and I will have none of it.
KKK? Left Wing.
Southern Lynchings? Left Wing.
Jim Crow Laws? Left Wing.
Fascists? Left Wing.
Nazis? Left Wing.
The left doesn’t want to take any responsibility for it’s own actions so it attempts to disown those groups and parties and then pretend it was all the evil boogie man: the right wing. I will have none of it.
Now, if you want to talk about some Right Wing dictatorial action… Pinochet. That’s one of ours, I will not pretend otherwise. The Pinochet regime was a true right wing military dictatorship. At least it was before holding a democratic vote in which the people of Chile stated they’d prefer democracy, at which point the regime voluntarily forfeited power.
Just a tad bit different from your typical left wing dictatorship. I mean, it’s almost the same, right? That’s simply a menial difference at best. Almost completely inconsequential really. It’s an utterly irrelevant source of differentiation between the two. I mean they’re almost identical aren’t they?
I have no bones about Pinochet being a right wing dictator, nor will I attempt to assign responsibility of the Pinochet dictatorship to leftists. That’s one of ours, that’s our guy, that’s an era of events spawned by a right wing individual. It was kind of a response to Salvador Allende’s Marxist policies utterly destroying Chile’s economy and infrastructure in only three years, but let’s not get bogged down in the details of controversy – let us focus on the big picture.
The Pinochet regime was a right wing pro-capitalist, free market, military dictatorship.
Simple as that, I will not exclaim that which it was, to be that which it was not. I tell no untruths, I provide and share information as it is available to me and as I am able to obtain. I make no false equivocations. The difference between Pinochet and the majority of right wingers: is that he was a right wing authoritarian. Pinochet is an example of what can transpire when an authoritarian regime seizes power, which is never an ideal situation, even if we are talking about the right wing.
Given Pinochet’s penchant for removing Communists, full disclosure, I rather like him.
So If the left is going to “bash the fash”,
and they’re going to define anyone not leftist as being “fascist”:
as their justification for initiating the use of force and violence,
Then I’m going to begin tying Commie-Knots.
Those who violate the non-aggression principle: shall be responded to in kind.
You see… That’s something the left doesn’t conceptually understand about the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. The NAP bars the initiatory use of force or violence. However, the NAP permits the retaliatory use of force and violence: in response to force having been initiated. The NAP is not a form of pacifism.
An important distinction to note, under the current left / right paradigm is how the geopolitical landscape sits today. As it is, today, National Socialists, Fascists and the Alt-Right for example are actually right wing. Currently, not classically. I’ve had to explain this phenomena before, if you’re unfamiliar with the details I’ll provide them to you here.
I take a spekr test: I’m almost as far right and south as it is possible to be.
So you see, in spite of being a dyed in the wool classical liberal, a constitutionalist and thereby quantitatively a centrist by definition and nature of the fact that I’m a constitutionalist: I plot on the political landscape as far right wing libertarian. How far right wing? Just look at that spekr result: which is mirrored by a host of other similar tests I’ve taken by the way.
That above image was screen capped from a political test I took some 10 years ago or so. I can tell you my political views haven’t changed. In anything: having expanded my library of western philosophers has only further convinced me that the premises upon which I was operating were correct if previously less refined. I have never considered myself left, on the left or a leftist. If the Constitution is held as the center (as it should be), then I’ve always considered myself to be a centrist. yet in the 10 year gap between those two political tests: I think my position relative to the rest of the political landscape has only gone further right.
Here’s the thing…
It’s not that I am moving to the right: it’s that the political landscape under me is moving continually left.
The political landscape has moved under my feet and there’s many many people who always considered themselves to be left leaning yet find themselves agreeing with conservatives in this day and age. Arguing against censorship, against authoritarian rule, against double standard laws. They often remark about how they feel abandoned by the left and begin describing themselves as “classical liberals.” Which, by the way, is exactly how that term came about.
People who didn’t follow suit with the “new left” and the “progressives” on their march ever onward left towards totalitarianism. People like me who adhere to classical liberal principles and philosophical ideas and find that they cannot agree with the left’s constant attempts at enacting illiberal or anti-liberal laws.
There’s a growing sentiment that conservatism is now the new punk because defending personal freedoms has become the counter culture against the double standard laws being proposed and supported by the identity grievance politics of the new left.
If the left doesn’t like the fact that the evil boogie-men, which they invoke to fear monger, are actually their fellow left wingers: allow me to inform you – reality doesn’t care about your feelings.
If your ideology is in conflict with reality: it is not reality which is wrong.
Ok kids, so I was doing what I often do: nothing. While doing nothing I was surfing on minds.om and came across this little gem.
Oh, really now? Mmmkay, how about a timeline using current events, hm?
Nicolás Maduro has ruled Venezuela by decree since 19 November 2013.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is a leftist progressive organization which champions Democracy as the ideal, rather than, Representational Constitutional Republics as the ideal.
Original – Archived
“Venezuela Leads Region in Poverty Reduction in 2012, ECLAC Says”
Published: 06 December 2013
“Poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean is now easing at a slower pace, the UN’s regional economic body said on Thursday, calling on governments to make policy changes that encourage growth while reducing the huge gap between the rich and poor.
UN economists based in Santiago said about 164 million people, or 28 percent of the region’s population, are still considered poor. That is nearly unchanged from last year. Out of those, 68 million of them are in extreme poverty.”
I sincerely doubt absolutely anyone, even their own contributors, would with a straight face, attempt to make the claim that The Guardian *ins’t* a left wing publication.
Original – Archived
“In Venezuela 82% of people live in poverty – where are our friends now?”
Published: Wed 5 Apr 2017
“So back to “democracy”, then? Not really. That same Saturday, the National Guard tried to arrest an opposition legislator who they said no longer had parliamentary immunity. On Sunday, the head of an opposition party was arrested for “high treason”. And, on Monday, opposition legislators were assaulted by government supporters while police stood by.
Article stipulates further down.
But what about the dozens of politicians and journalists – including the leader of the opposition – who until very recently lauded the “achievements” of Hugo Chávez and have now gone quiet? They always seemed to suggest that they had the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people at heart. Now that 82% of households live in poverty, they don’t seem interested at all in what’s happening in Venezuela. It is a shame, because their voices could really come in handy as the world calls on Maduro to restore democracy and respect human rights.”
Welp, that was some socialism…. so let’s examine capitalism….
20 + 26 + 15 + 14 + 7.7 + 10 + 14.4 + 20 + 8.3 + 7.9 / 10 = 14.33 avg poverty for the top 10 countries with the freest economics.
Now for the least economically free. For the sake of comparable data I am excluding the poverty numbers from any nation which had an incomplete data sample, so the countries which have any “Not Available” fields in the measure of economic freedom are excluded.
For the sake of fairness towards the socialists and commies: I am voluntarily excluding North Korea. Although data is available for all of it’s economic factors, I think it’s too extremist a model to be included in an examination of socialist/communist/left economic policies in general. Although I did examine the poverty in the top 10 most economically free, it would be within my purview to examine poverty within the least economically free countries as well, I am doing my opposition a favor by not including North Korea. I will, of my own accord, treat North Korea as an outlier.
Moving on from least economically free after North Korea.
I cannot find reliable data differentiating the poverty in the “Republic of Congo” from the “Democratic Republic of Congo”, so I am skipping the “Democratic Republic of Congo” as 10th place and going to Timor-Leste as the 10th place. This benefits my opposition as Timor-Leste has greater economic freedoms than the “Democratic Republic of Congo”.
26 + 82 + 96 + 62 + 60 + 51.4 + 55 + 63.9 + 32 + 41.8 / 10 = 57.01 avg poverty for the bottom 10 countries with the most restricted economics.
Top 10 most Capitalist Nations, average poverty rate: 14.33%
Bottom 10 least Capitalist Nations, average poverty rate: 57.01%
Also, don’t forget: I voluntarily excluded North Korea, in spite of having access to a full data set from the country. I also excluded the “Democratic Republic of Congo” in order to ensure I did not involve data from the “Republic of Congo”. Given that the “Republic of Congo” had a poverty rate of 63.9% and Timor-Leste has a poverty rate of 41.8%, had I included isolated data for the “Democratic Republic of Congo” it would likely have been very similar to the 63.9% poverty rate found in the “Republic of Congo”. Which would also have pushed the “Bottom 10 least Capitalist Nations, average poverty rate” even higher.
I started the article by using only left wing sources for the timeline on Venezuela, and since that point I have gone out of my way to be fair to my opposition.
The reality is: the freer the nation, the more prosperous that nation has the potential to be.