I think the answer is that the child in this first case was an adult when she reported what happened to her. I am pretty sure Debbie Fox follows the law.
Vicki Polin emails her list: Instead she suggested the child go to a special beit din (Jewish religious court).
Here’s another case Debbie didn’t report.
* Sheryl Sandberg is single. Perhaps I’ll lean in.
* We saw that our own attempts to scheme and manipulate did not work. We admitted that we were powerless. We were ready to ask for help.
* Jew Ed Miliband, perhaps the next Prime Minister of Great Britain, stepped over his own brother. I guess it worked for Jacob and Joseph and David etc. Baruch HaShem, he will make the UK a friendlier place for Africans and muslims.
* In a rush, I dropped a can of orange soda the other day and it sprayed all over my room, making an enormous mess. I feel like it was a metaphor for my sins. I’ve yet to clean up every drop. The stains just keep spreading and turning up in unexpected places, like Ebola. I wish I could afford a Mexican.
I resent cleaning my room. I should be concentrating upon my study of Torah.
* I immersed myself in a friend’s Artscroll Gemara this morning. A Jew from birth asked me if I understood anything I was ostensibly studying. “Here and there,” I said. “I’m mainly looking for the racist bits.”
At least I’m no longer just looking for the sex.
Baby steps.
Recovery means progress, not perfection.
* A friend says: “BY THE WAY, I’m sure you’ve noticed, you vampire, that I’m talking to you white-to-white here, with surplus trust between the lines… but now I’m aware that you’ll eventually use my trust for your own gain! But, because it’s a biological inclination, there’s nothing I can do about it! Unless of course your biology trumps your conversion and deep down you’re a truster too. Exciting!”
* “All men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Americans.” (Harvard’s Oscar Handlin in Commentary, 1954) What about Israel? Are all men equally capable of being Israelis?
* 19th Century Reform leader David Einhorn opposed allowing gentiles to convert to Judaism because it would threaten the “racial purity” of Judaism.
* A friend says: “My dad always described the Seventh-Day Adventism of his youth “a cult.” He retreated into Methodism. He always talks about getting his circumcision at age 9 with some shady Adventist doctor who held him down and used only a topical numbing agent or something… guess he fought them off and ran for it and for a couple weeks had a dangling half-taken foreskin.”
In diverse societies, you are more likely to have to watch your back and therefore going out and about is more fraught with peril and offers fewer chances for real connection. See Genetic Similarity Theory. We all feel more comfortable, on average, with people who are genetically more similar to us.
Washington Post: “People decide to not do things all the time just because they’re alone,” said Rebecca Ratner, a professor of marketing at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, who has spent almost half a decade studying why people are so reluctant to have fun on their own and how it may lead to, well, less fun overall. “But the thing is, they would probably be happier going out and doing something.”
Ratner has a new study titled ‘Inhibited from Bowling Alone,’ a nod to Robert Putnam’s book about Americans’ waning participation in group activities, that’s set to publish in the Journal of Consumer Research in August. In it, she and co-writer Rebecca Hamilton, a professor marketing at the McDonough School of Business, describe their findings: that people consistently underestimate how much they will enjoy seeing a show, going to a museum, visiting a theater, or eating at a restaurant alone. That miscalculation, she argues, is only becoming more problematic, because people are working more, marrying later, and, ultimately, finding themselves with smaller chunks of free time.
If one lichen triumphs over another, so what?
There was a lichen holocaust at this pond near me. Never again!
* Some people fear talking to me in case I write about them one day.
Lily: “I once had a dream where Luke has files on his computer on all of us. One day the files rose up, rioted and broke his computer. (I fell asleep watching coverage of the Baltimore riots.) Luke was the white oppressor. But then, I woke up.”
* I’m so emotionally needy, so hungry for affection and attention, I fear this yearning will suck dry and destroy everything I touch.
* If I had been able to form stable bonds in my youth, I probably would have stayed in that community.
* The first time I watched Chariots of Fire (in the theater in 1982), all of my fellow Christians said it was amazing but I was 16 and wanted to watch raunchier movies such as Spring Break and so I thought Chariots was just ehh, more of the same Christian crap (though I fell in love with the soundtrack at my friend’s home at Pacific Union College). Now every time I see this film (three times in all), it moves me more.
* Every group has a victimology. It must be an essential human need. I don’t think it is possible for any group to not have a victim mentality at its core.
* It seems like every husband I know has a tale of woe about how his wife has wasted his money. A buddy tells me: “I suppose I should be grateful that the trip was mentioned to me at all before it was booked!”
Steve Sailer writes: Germans are good at technology, so they should drop everything to find a technological fix for keeping old Nazis alive so we will never live in an age without trials of Nazis. Find some 86-year-olds who were 16 in 1945 and resolve to keep at least one alive by all means necessary until he can be put on trial in 2050 at age 121.
Or, Germany should launch a Manhattan Project to download elderly Nazi brains to computers so the world will never run out of Nazis to prosecute.
Or clone old Nazis. Wasn’t there a movie about that?
Or keep one Nazi brain alive in a jar.
COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:
* The recent and current trials of very old men who were very young guards and clerks during the war are the work of zealots in the German legal system. These defendants are being convicted for merely working in the concentration camps, not for committing any actual, particular crimes.
Also, some people still make their livings by maintaining and providing all the documents of Nazi atrocities. These people have to justify their organizations’ budgets to the German tax-payers.
We see this same zealotry in the USA too. OSI deported John Demjanjuk to Germany to stand trial and be convicted at one of those kangaroo-court trials. OSI still is trying to prosecute deport extremely old men, more than 90 years old. Politicians now are trying to terminate those old men’s Social Security benefits. There is no evidence that any of those old men hurt any particular inmates in those camps.
———
I do think that Demjanjuk served in a concentration camp and lied about it when he immigrated to the USA. He was guilty of fraudulent immigration and therefore basically was deported from the USA legally and correctly.
———
At one point in the OSI’s prosecution of John Demjanjuk, he was deported to Israel to stand trial on charges of mass murder. Supposedly, Denjanjuk really had been a notorious Ukrainian guard called “Ivan the Terrible”, who had chased Jews into the Treblinka gas chambers and then dropped the poison into the rooms. The OSI assembled all the evidence and sent it to Israel along with Demjanuk.
An Israeli lawyer named Yoram Sheftel was assigned to defend Demjanjuk, and so Sheftel immediately became the most hated person in all Israel. In an amazing turn of events, however, Sheftel defended Demjanjuk and won a complete acquittal. The trial lasted from November 1986 to April 1988 and ended with a conviction and death sentence for Demjanjuk.
Sheftel appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court, which in February 1998 overturned the conviction completely. The acquittal was not based on any legal loopholes. Rather Sheftel convinced the Supreme Court — and also practically the entire public — that Demjanjuk should be acquitted on the facts. The evidence proved actually that Demjanjuk was not the so-called Ivan the Terrible and had never even stepped foot inside of the Treblinka camp.
Sheftel later wrote a book about the trial, titled The Demjanjuk Affair: The Rise and Fall of a Show-Trial, published in 1994. It is a terrific book, especially for people who like to read stories about gritty lawyers who defend “obviously guilty” defendants and thus expose social injustice. It’s like a John Grisham novel, but it’s a true story, stranger than fiction.
* Hitler will be always the enemy because him and NS Germany came the closest to defeat the NWO.
* Christianity is about beliefs (and given the grace/works brouhaha, the extent to which beliefs without corresponding actions are worth anything). In the case of Judaism, not so much.
If that’s a double standard, then it is one that both religions seem to have accepted quite apart from any blame game about Komissars or kapos.
In Catholicism, for example, one is called on to recite a creed (over which wars were fought and global schisms arose) and to repeat it every single week, because it’s that important. With other religions, the notion of what one believes doesn’t enter into the equation in the same way. As long as someone recites the Shahada a single time, and upholds the 5 pillars of Islam, he is considered a better Muslim (according to many, if not most scholars) than someone who believes that all of that is true but fails to go through the motions. You can call that a double standard, but it just demonstrates that you’re the one with an axe to grind.
Moreover, it’s one thing to claim “Catholic points” for, say, the many comedians who are ex-Catholics, given that Catholicism and humor are hardly in opposition. Trying to blame or partly-blame Catholicism for, say, wiping out a third of European Jewry at a time when so many Catholics fought and died in opposition to those responsible for that, is quite another.
* Most Nazis despised Christianity. That is hardly a “myth”. Hitler’s dislike of the Catholic Church is well documented. As a young Habsburg subject growing up in Austria, like many pan-German nationalists, Hitler saw the Catholic church as a foreign entity that catered to Slavic minorities and undermined the “natural” destiny of Germans to rule. Most 19th century and early 20th century German nationalists tended to favor Lutheranism as being a more truly German church. However, Hitler himself doesn’t seem to have ever been particularly sympathetic to Lutheranism, which tended to be socially too liberal. Hitler was certainly no atheist, he believed apparently in some sort of divine Providence, but he was not a believing Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. Other Nazis were all over the map. A few were devout Christians, some were atheists, many, like Hitler, believed in a vague divine power of some sort, but not in Jesus, some of the more enthusiastic Nazis tried to restore pre-Christian German pagan beliefs, although Hitler himself thought neo-pagans were clowns. (For a German nationalist, Hitler himself seemed very uninterested in ancient Germanic culture. Nazi symbolism was mostly based on Roman or even Hindu (like the Swastika), not proto Germanic.) What liberals like to ignore is that Nazism was not very “conservative”, in many ways it was a philosophy that was supposed to propel a backwards agrarian society, as Hitler saw it, ahead of the more advanced Anglo Saxon societies. In that sense Hitler was a lot like Stalin or Mao.
* The arch-architect of Nazi ideology Alfred Rosenberg vehemently rejected traditional Christianity:
“Rosenberg argued for a new “religion of the blood”, based on the supposed innate promptings of the Nordic soul to defend its noble character against racial and cultural degeneration. He believed that this had been embodied in early Indo-European religions…He rejected Christianity for its universality, for its doctrine of original sin (at least for Germans whom he declared on one occasion were born noble), and for its teachings on the immortality of the soul.[26] Indeed, absorbing Christianity enfeebled a people.[27] Publicly, Rosenberg affected to deplore Christianity’s degeneration owing to Jewish influence.[28] Following Chamberlain’s ideas, he condemned what he called “negative Christianity” (the orthodox beliefs of Protestant and Catholic churches), arguing instead for a so-called “positive” Christianity[29][30]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
As the NSDAP became popular, they realized they couldn’t win the broader German electorate while being explicitly anti-Christian:
“Positive Christianity (German: Positives Christentum) was a movement within Nazi Germany which blended ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity. Hitler included use of the term in Article 24[1] of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating “the Party represents the standpoint of Positive Christianity”. Non-denominational, the term could be variously interpreted, but allayed fears among Germany’s Christian majority as to the expressed hostility towards the established churches of large sections of the Nazi movement.[2] In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained “Positive Christianity” as not “dependent upon the Apostle’s Creed”, nor in “faith in Christ as the son of God”, upon which Christianity relied…
Positive Christianity differed from orthodox Christianity in that Positive Christianity:
Rejected the Jewish-written parts of the Bible (including the entire Old Testament)
Claimed “Aryanhood” and non-Jewishness for Christ
Promoted the political objective of national unity, to overcome confessional differences, to eliminate Catholicism, and to unite Protestantism into a single unitary Positive Christian church[10]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
“During the war Alfred Rosenberg formulated a thirty-point program for the National Reich Church, which included:
The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.
The National Church will clear away from its altars all Crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.
On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf and to the left of the altar a sword.[38]
Finally, Obama’s absurd anger over Netanyahu’s comment about the worrying “drove” of Arab-Israelis who went to the polls speaks to all Americans about the depth of incompetence, naiveté, and ignorance that resides in and fairly oozes from Obama and his team of advisers. Does Obama really think that the Israelis believe that their Arab citizens are their equals and that Israelis will someday be ready to be governed by a Muslim majority? Does Obama not recognize that, of all of Israel’s problems, demography — the rapid growth of the country’s Arabs population — is one of the most lethal? Does Obama believe that there is even the most remote chance that two peoples who have been murdering each other for nearly seventy years are simply going to forgive and forget and agree to live amiably together simply because he and fatuous “International Community” believe they should? Can Obama, his party, and the Republicans possibly believe that the two-state solution remains plausible even as it lies dead, mutilated, and rotting in the full glare of the public spotlight? Can Obama conceivably believe that the walking-dead peace process is just between Israelis and Palestinians, rather than between Israel and the entire Islamist movement that his arrogant and amateurish interventionism has motivated and nurtured?
The answer to each of these questions is a resounding yes, and that affirmative goes far to explain the U.S.-produced or -assisted disasters not only in Israel and Palestine, but also in Iran, Ukraine, and Egypt. Obama’s inability to understand the diversity of the world’s peoples, cultures, and faiths; his ignorance of the eternally unchanging nature of human nature; his hatred for all religions that are not what he believes they should be; and his refusal to recognize that hatred and revenge are as much valid and timeless human characteristics as love and forgiveness, and that none of the four can be banned or mandated by a governmental diktat or international agreement, are hardly the traits that make a competent national or international leader. They are, however, the traits of a wholly unqualified national leader who, with arrogance and always simmering hatred for those he believes cross him, may well bumble his nation and perhaps the world into a great war.
LINK: Topics include:
If Luke Were Born An Orthodox Jew, How Would I Feel About This Luke Ford Bloke?
If Luke Were A Gentile White Nationalist, How Would He Feel About Jews?
If Luke were a Muslim, how would he feel about Jews?
If Luke Were A Black Gentile, How Would He Feel About Jews?
What Would Luke Possibly Talk About With A Hot 19yo?
Where Have All The Good Men Gone?
Liam Hoare writes: “One mustn’t exaggerate the problem; British society is largely free of the anti-Semitic virus. But the way the right wing in particular talks about Ed Miliband does come back to an old British malady: our problem with otherness. We have a problem with living next door to immigrants, or sitting on a train and hearing people speak a language other than English. We have a problem with foreign nationals who receive treatment for free from the National Health Service. And, we have a problem with the idea of a prime minister who doesn’t know how to eat his bacon sandwiches.”
By contrast, Jews love strangers in their midst.
Katie Hopkins writes for The Sun newspaper of London:
No, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad.
I still don’t care.
Because in the next minute you’ll show me pictures of aggressive young men at Calais, spreading like norovirus on a cruise ship.
Watching them try to clamber on to British lorries and steal their way into the UK, do I feel pity? Only for the British drivers, who get hit with a fine every time one of this plague of feral humans ends up in their truck.
Understand this, these two populations are the same. The migrants harassing Brit truckers at the port are the same as the vagrants making the perilous trip across the Med.
And there is no stopping them. 170,000 came last year.
During a recent operation by the Italian coastguard to rescue migrants off the coast of Libya, the people traffickers threatened crew with Kalashnikovs to get their vessel back.
Clearly, boats are in short supply. And that is a good thing. No boats, no migrants.
There is a simple solution to this. It’s time for the Italians to stop singing opera, drinking espresso and looking chic in chuffing everything.
It’s time to get Australian.
Australians are like British people but with balls of steel, can-do brains, tiny hearts and whacking great gunships.
Their approach to migrant boats is the sort of approach we need in the Med.
They threaten them with violence until they bugger off, throwing cans of Castlemaine in an Aussie version of sharia stoning.
And their approach is working. Migrant boats have halved in number since Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott got tough.
We don’t need another rescue project. The now defunct £7million-a-month Mare Nostrum — Italy’s navy search and rescue operation — was paid for (in part) by British taxpayers.
And we don’t need a campaign from Save the Children to encourage more migrants to take the journey.
What we need are gunships sending these boats back to their own country.
You want to make a better life for yourself? Then you had better get creative in Northern Africa.
Britain is not El Dorado. We are not Elysium. Some of our towns are festering sores, plagued by swarms of migrants and asylum seekers, shelling out benefits like Monopoly money.
Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a bit ‘Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984′, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors.
Once gunships have driven them back to their shores, boats need to be confiscated and burned on a huge bonfire.
Drilling a few holes in the bottom of anything suspiciously resembling a boat would be a good idea, too, just for belt and braces.
Unless we take the emotion out of this and start connecting the migrants in the Med with the Africans clinging to trucks in Calais, we cannot deliver an appropriate response.
If you think rescue boats are a good idea, you may as well set up a Libya to Italy P&O ferry service and send your taxes to Africa by direct debit for good measure.
Or if you think like me, then it’s time to get Australian. Bring on the gunships, force migrants back to their shores and burn the boats.
As it turns out, I do care. I care passionately about British truckers and taxpayers in the UK.
David Irving could only afford to represent himself as he went up against Deborah Lipstadt’s generously funded legal team.
Wikipedia: “Lipstadt hired the British solicitor Anthony Julius to present her case, while Penguin Books hired Kevin Bays and Mark Bateman, libel specialist from media firm Davenport Lyons. They briefed the libel barrister Richard Rampton QC and Penguin also briefed junior barrister Heather Rogers. The defendants (with Penguin’s insurers paying the fee) also retained Professor Richard J. Evans, historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, as an expert witness. Also working as expert witnesses were the American Holocaust historian Christopher Browning, the German historian Peter Longerich and the Dutch architectural expert Robert Jan van Pelt. The latter wrote a report attesting to the fact that the death camps were designed, built and used for the purpose of mass murder, while Browning testified for the reality of the Holocaust.”
Tabletmag.com: In 1996, British Holocaust revisionist David Irving sued Deborah E. Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth & Memory, for libel. The book, published in 1993, depicts “those who insist that the death of six million Jews in Nazi concentration camps is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by a powerful Zionist conspiracy.” Among “the province of pseudohistorians,” wrote Lipstadt, was David Irving.
The case closed in 2000, and six years later, Lipstadt published History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, which depicts her legal battle with Irving. (Lipstadt wrote The Eichmann Trial for Nextbook Press, part of its Jewish Encounter Series).
Yesterday it was announced that Lipstadt’s book had been adapted by British playwright David Hare, who won an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Hours.
Hilary Swank, who won the Oscar for Best Actress for her role as a bad-ass boxer in Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby (2004), will play Lipstadt. Tom Wilkinson, who played crime lord Carmine Falcone in Batman Begins, will play a barrister.
The role of David Irving is yet to be cast.
