The InfoWars Transition To Alt-Right

Richard Spencer says in the Radix podcast Fellow Travelers: “It was entertainment… Interpretation of pop culture. But you take it with a big shaker of salt. I would never imagine that InfoWar would be pro-police and non-conspiratorial and more about demographics.”

Paul Kersey: “There’s a strange nexus — Drudge, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit (gay). [Ann Coulter]. It’s cool to watch all these people make transitions [to the Alt Right]. Even Free Republic is getting cool.”

Richard: “We are the end station. We are the final result. You never meet someone who used to be Alt-Right but now I’m a liberal or a libertarian or a Marco Rubio supporter. Everyone is an ex-libertarian, ex-conservative, ex-leftist. Alt-Right is the end station. You may not go all the way, but that is the direction you are heading in. I’ve always known this and this knowledge kept me going when we were not being denounced by presidential candidates and talked about on Fox News. We were in the wilderness for a long time but we always knew we dealt in the real dope.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The InfoWars Transition To Alt-Right

Is Sex Through Deception Rape?

BBC:

New evidence has emerged in the widely-reported case of Sabbar Kashur, an Israeli Arab who was found guilty of rape by deception after having sex with an Israeli Jewish woman.
Back in July, it was reported that the two met in a Jerusalem street in 2008, had consensual sex within 10 minutes of meeting each other.
Two weeks later the young woman discovered that he was an Arab, not a Jew, and went to the police.
After his verdict was announced in July, Kashur protested his innocence in an interview to the BBC: “The whole case focussed on the fact that I am an Arab. It was real racism. The court insisted that I presented myself as a Jew and not as an Arab which is not true.”
The conviction of Sabbar Kashur generated a heated debate around the world about racism, sexual mores and justice in the Jewish state.
It was also reported at the time that Kashur was charged with rape and indecent assault, and the conviction of rape by deception was a result of a plea bargain.
Troubled past
New details in the case emerged when the woman’s testimony, which had been kept secret, was declassified last week.
It shows an emotionally disturbed woman who had been sexually abused by her father from the age of six, forced into prostitution, and lived in a women’s shelter at the time of the encounter with Kashur.
During her initial testimony, she repeatedly broke down in court as she accused Kashur of rape.

She was adamant she did not want sex at the time of the encounter, but was looking for a lasting relationship.
Asked why she went into an office block with a strange man, she said: “You have to understand where I came from. I used to live in the streets. I needed someone to place my trust in. I felt I was safe with him.”
Following the encounter with Kashur, the victim – identified only as B in the testimony – says she was taken away in an ambulance half naked and bleeding.
However, Lital Grossman – an Israeli journalist who has had access to B’s full testimony – said she got very confused and upset at this point.
What is clear from the court record is that the woman was inspected by doctors, who found bruises on her body.
Photograpic evidence of the abuse was presented in court, but prosecutors feared the woman would not be able to give a coherent testimony, given her emotional state.
B had lodged 14 complaints of rape and sexual violence in the past. Most of those resulted in convictions, but in at least one case, she was found an unreliable witness because of her confused state of mind.
So when the defence attorney proposed to cross-examine her on every one of those 14 cases, the prosecution feared she may be too traumatised and undermine her evidence.
Plea bargain
Thus, a plea bargain was struck whereby Kashur was accused of rape by deception for presenting himself as a Jewish bachelor available for a romantic relationship, whereas in fact he was a Muslim and a married father of two.

Comments:

* I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

* Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.

* Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn’t have done it if she’d known the man wasn’t Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.

Posted in Israel, Rape | Comments Off on Is Sex Through Deception Rape?

Can A Jew Marry A Non-Jew In Israel?

Comments:

* I was at my Jewish grandfather’s house tonight for “shabbat”. My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother’s t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. ‘How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!’, he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people ‘genocided’ Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. “Did you know that black people couldn’t marry white people 40 years ago!”, she said. I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.

* There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing – it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that “People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel.” But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

Even Benjamin Netanyahu’s son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Can A Jew Marry A Non-Jew In Israel?

Who Rules Whom?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* “Who? Whom?” is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
It’s better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. “Cui bono” is related, but not the same — it refers to the “follow the money” idea that some action has a hidden motive. “But will it hurt the Jews?” is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally, not just to one group.

* Who, whom?:

“…a Bolshevist principle or slogan which was formulated by Lenin in 1921…
2nd All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments…

…”The whole question is — who will overtake whom?”

…Trotsky used the shortened “who whom” formulation in his 1925 article, “Towards Capitalism or Towards Socialism?”…

…invoked by Joseph Stalin in 1929… gave the formula its “aura of hard-line coercion”…

“The fact is, we live according to Lenin’s formula: Kto-Kovo?: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat? “.

…Stalin used kto-kogo to justify a policy of mass coercion against peasant kulaks to implant collective farms long before industry reached a high level.”

Who wins, who dies?

Who gets to do what, to whom?

Who’s the horse, who’s the rider?

* It’s not an entry-level catchphrase. You have to know it to know it, if you know what I mean. But once you do know it writing it out longhand as “Who rules whom” or “who shall rule whom” is tedious. People like less obvious catchphrases, by the way. It makes them feel like insiders for knowing them.

I don’t have a better phrase, but “whose side are you on” works okay. Maybe we could just flash gang signs at each other.

* I am sure that Lenin intended it in a very broad sense.

Who gains from whom?

Who defeats whom?

Who did what to whom?

Who chooses to be with, support, favour or join whom?

* I think that ‘Who? Whom?’ is a great formulation.

Nothing could be more concise.

Subject form, object form.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Who Rules Whom?

The Concept Of Hate Speech

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* “Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It’s normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

* We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.

* * To me, hate speech = astrology.

Whenever I see it used in a sentence I disregard the opinion of the writer because I don’t believe it’s real. At least not in a country with a First Amendment.

It bothers me, though, that we let believers in “hate speech” frame these debates in terms of it. There has to be a way to reframe this.

And I’m saying this as an Italian-American who grew up being called “Wop” and “Dago.” Did I like to hear that? No, I didn’t. But I also don’t believe in outlawing it.

There are a lot of others things I find personally offensive and/or despise that I don’t think should be outlawed. That’s what makes a free society. The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of “hate speech” because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society…which is much worse than annoying words.

* * “We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’.”

No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.

* * So now Marshall is calling for reading into the thoughts of people in order to find motives for possible thought crimes that they may not even be consciously aware of committing. Actual words spoken are no longer enough to try and convict a person for thought crimes, motives must be read into what a person thinks and/or is about to say and obviously people such as Marshall are needed to help correctly interpret whether or not such things are in fact hate speech.

* What issue do leftists like marshall NOT use victim families to promote their lies? It certainly isn’t gun control, where emotional appeals using families of victims are literally their entire argument. Marshall has done this very thing on the issue of guns, among many others. He just hates having these tactics used against his cultural marxist side, and is not used to being put on the defensive. His specific use of “hate speech” is because he wants america to join europe in banning political speech he does not like – he is tired of having kids on the internet destroying his hysterical ranting and raving.

* The war on “hate speech” has two purposes. First and most importantly, it’s an effort to criminalize political thought one dislikes. If you can label your opponent’s speech as “hate” then you needn’t debate him on the facts and logical merits of the issue. Secondly, it keeps a large segment of the population perpetually in a childish tantrum state. Generally those whose brains have fully developed are unconcerned about “bad words” (see the late George Carlin’s many rants on this subject) and instead focus on bad behaviors. By labeling most of western civilization’s core tenets as “hate,” the leftists may excuse and justify the rampant race-based criminal violence of their African clients. Most leftists couldn’t care less about your choice of words except in how they might be used as a weapon against you and/or serve as justification for when their African clients gang rape then set fire to your 93 year old grandmother (“she said the word ‘boy’ in their presence”).

* There are Norwegian women who remember walking home alone through Oslo at 3:00 AM in perfect safety. Now? No way. But since this change cannot be quantified by Enlightened Social Scientists, it does not exist.

When I was a child, we only locked the doors to our house when we left town on vacation once a year. Decades later, as a resident of the Bronx, discussing [multiple] door locks and security systems was common party talk. How do you put a price on these massive social costs?

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on The Concept Of Hate Speech