Feminism’s Lie: Denying Reality About Sexual Power And Rape

It’s a shame that nobody was around to teach Danielle Berrin these facts of life.

Camille Paglia wrote in 1991:

RAPE is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.

In dramatizing the pervasiveness of rape, feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract’s. In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been the victims of rape. On elite campuses in the Northeast and on the West Coast, they have held consciousness-raising sessions, petitioned administrations, demanded inquests. At Brown University, outraged, panicky “victims” have scrawled the names of alleged attackers on the walls of women’s rest rooms. What marital rape was to the ’70s, “date rape” is to the ’90s.

The incidence and seriousness of rape do not require this kind of exaggeration. Real acquaintance rape is nothing new. It has been a horrible problem for women for all of recorded history. Once, fathers and brothers protected women from rape. Once, the penalty for rape was death. I come from a fierce Italian tradition where, not so long ago in the motherland, a rapist would end up knifed, castrated and hung out to dry.

But the old clans and small rural communities have broken down. In our cities, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism has not prepared them for this. Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can’t. Women will always be in sexual danger.

One of my male students recently slept overnight with a friend in a passageway of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. He described the moon and sand, the ancient silence and eerie echoes.

I am a woman. I will never experience that. I am not stupid enough to believe I could ever be safe there. There is a world of solitary adventure I will never have. Women have always known these somber truths. But feminism, with its pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the perfect world, keeps young women from seeing life as it is.

WE must remedy social injustice whenever we can. But there are some things we cannot change. There are sexual differences that are based in biology. Academic feminism is lost in a fog of social constructionism. It believes we are totally the product of our environment. This idea was invented by Rousseau. He was wrong.

Emboldened by dumb French language theory, academic feminists repeat the same hollow slogans over and over to each other. Their view of sex is naive and prudish. Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist’s.

The sexes are at war. Men must struggle for identity against the overwhelming power of their mothers. Women have menstruation to tell them they are women. Men must do or risk something to be men. Men become masculine only when other men say they are. Having sex with a woman is one way a boy becomes a man.

College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walking into Testosterone Flats, full of prickly cacti and blazing guns. If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them. A girl who lets herself get dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool. A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot. Feminists call this “blaming the victim.” I call it common sense.

FOR a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not of sex.” This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class.

Aggression and eroticism, in fact, are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pursuit and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality. Every generation, men must be educated, refined and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness.

Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman’s protection against rape. Feminism, with its solemn Carrie Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it.

The date-rape controversy shows feminism hitting the wall of its own broken promises. The women of my ’60s generation were the first respectable girls in history to swear like sailors, get drunk, stay out all night – in short, to act like men. We sought total sexual freedom and equality. But as time passed, reality dawned. The old double standard protected women. When anything goes, it’s women who lose.

Today’s young women don’t know what they want. They see feminism has not brought sexual happiness. The theatrics of public rage over date rape are their way of restoring the old sexual rules that were shattered by my generation.

Yet nothing about the sexes has really changed. The comic film “Where The Boys Are” (1960), the ultimate expression of ’50s man-chasing, still speaks directly to our time. It shows smart, lively women skillfully anticipating and fending off the dozens of strategies with which men try to get them into bed.

The agonizing subplot and climax are brilliantly done. The victim, Yvette Mimieux, makes mistake after mistake, obvious to the other girls. She allows herself to be lured away from her girlfriends and into isolation with boys whose character and intentions she misreads. “Where the Boys Are” tells the truth. It shows courtship as a dangerous game in which the signals are not verbal but subliminal.

Neither militant feminism, which is obsessed with politically correct language, nor academic feminism, which believes that knowledge and experience are “constituted by” language, can understand preverbal or non-verbal communication. Feminism, focusing on sexual politics, cannot see that sex exists in and through the body. Sexual desire and arousal cannot be fully translated into verbal terms. This is why men and women misunderstand each other.

Trying to remake the future, feminism cut itself off from sexual history. It discarded and suppressed the sexual myths of literature, art and religion. Those myths show us the turbulence, mysteries and passions of sex. In mythology we see men’s sexual anxiety, their fear of woman’s dominance. Much sexual violence is rooted in men’s sense of psychological weakness toward women.

It takes many men to deal with one woman. Woman’s voracity is a persistent motif. Clara Bow, it was rumored, took on the USC football team on weekends. Marilyn Monroe, singing “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend,” rules a conga line of men in tuxes. Half-clad Cher, in the video for “If I Could Turn Back Time,” deranges a battleship of sailors and straddles a pink-lit cannon. Feminism, coveting social power, is blind to woman’s cosmic sexual power.

To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony. Every woman must be prudent and cautious about where she goes and with whom. When she makes a mistake, she must accept the consequences and, through self-criticism, resolve never to make that mistake again.

Running to mommy and daddy or the campus grievance committee is unworthy of strong women. Posting lists of guilty men in the toilet is cowardly, infantile stuff.

THE Italian philosophy of life espouses high-energy confrontation. A male student makes a vulgar remark about your breasts? Don’t slink off to whimper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, “Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!” In general, women who project this take-charge attitude toward life get harassed less often.

I see too many dopey, immature, self-pitying women walking around like melting sticks of butter. It’s the Yvette Mimieux syndrome: Make me happy. And listen to me weep when I’m not.

The date-rape debate is already smothered in propaganda churned out by the expensive Northeastern colleges and universities, with their overconcentration of boring, uptight academic feminists and spoiled, affluent students. Beware of the deep manipulativeness of rich students who were neglected by their parents. They love to turn the campus into hysterical psychodramas of sexual transgression, followed by assertions of parental authority and concern. And don’t look for sexual enlightenment from academe, which spews out mountains of books but never looks at life directly.

As a fan of football and rock music, I see in the swaggering masculinity of the jock and in the noisy posturing of the heavy-metal guitarist certain fundamental, unchanging truths about sex. Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy.

The only solution to date rape is female self-awareness and self-control. A woman’s No. 1 line of defense against rape is herself. When a real rape occurs, she should report it to the police. Complaining to college committees because the courts “take too long” is ridiculous.

College administrations are not a branch of the judiciary. They are not equipped or trained for legal inquiry. Colleges must alert incoming students to the problems and dangers of adulthood. Then colleges must stand back and get out of the sex game.

Posted in Rape | Comments Off on Feminism’s Lie: Denying Reality About Sexual Power And Rape

Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Malice in Blunderland

Steve Sailer writes:

Although merely a modest staffer, Eramo has a difficult legal hurdle to overcome in winning justice from Rolling Stone because the judge declared her to be a “limited purpose public figure.”

(Bizarrely, the judge also ruled that hoax artist Jackie Coakley is only to be identified by her first name, and he merely required her to give a deposition on tape—on which she repeatedly claimed memory loss due to post-traumatic stress disorder.)

…The bigger picture is that we live in a culture where a liberal Jewish feminist journalist like Erdely is paid well to vilify as haters those she hates, and is seldom asked to recognize that she’s projecting her own racist animus upon the victims of her bigotry such as Eramo and Phi Kappa Psi.

Because of how much insight it offers into Hillary Clinton’s America, here’s the key thing to remember about the Haven Monahan hoax: Virtually every single professional journalist in the country believed (or at least submitted to) the Erdely-Coakley bad craziness. The New York Times, for instance, treated it as gospel….

The larger question of why the mainstream media were so credulous about this palpable fraud has, of course, been of negligible interest to the mainstream media.

Why did they acquiesce to such conspiracy-theory insanity?

First, Erdely’s article was part of the well-organized push by the Obama Administration over the purported “rape culture on campus” crisis.

Posted in Feminism, Journalism | Comments Off on Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Malice in Blunderland

Steve Sailer: President of South Korea Is a Puppet of Her Rasputin-like Shaman Fortuneteller

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I was talking to a Korean girl recently about the politics of the country, with a special interest on race and multicultural stuff.

She told me that Park is part of the conservative party, but is demanding halal food in universities, which apparently has caused controversy. Also, the first non-ethnic Korean to be in the parliament was part of the same party.

It looks like their “conservatives” are basically what the Republican elite was 15 years ago: hawkish, awful on the national question, and pro-immigration and multiculturalism.

* How do you say “cuck” in korean? kuck-san park?

* So basically no matter how powerful the woman is, we see a pattern of a stronger reliance by them on fortune-tellers and other occult hucksters than powerful men do. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth or Catherine the Great had personal occultist fortune-tellers to help them through things.

Elizabeth, in particular, seems to have been a prime mark for a charlatan: with her extreme unpopularity (history has whitewashed it as her being a super-hero British ruler, but in reality she was very much disliked by her subjects), the many assassination plots (due to her unpopularity both within in her kingdom, as well as from power-hungry rivals, Catholics, Irish/Scottish/Welsh haters, and foreign nations), her religious ambiguity, the open invasion threats from Spain and France, her lack of marriage and issue, and her paranoid mindset (Walshingham’s spies)—-well, let’s just say that lady would have been very open to a “psychic” easing her mind by telling her everything would be alright so long as he was allowed to tell her which dress to wear, which place not to visit on the full moon, which lady in waiting was of the wrong star sign to trust, etc.

That also leads to another question—does Hillary have a personal medium? What about Angela Merkel?

* Queen Elizabeth had John Dee as her astrologer and advisor.

* I know a rich Jewish family in California who have their own holy men on retainer.

This family is the most rotten in the community. Truly terrible people.

When it comes to their magical holy man everybody knows that he is their puppet, not the other way around.

* Female rulers are a sign that the mandate of heaven has been lost and doom shall surely soon befall you. This is as the Marxist would say a historical inevitability. Any people who suffers to be ruled by a woman will be cursed. Doubly so those who actively CHOOSE to be ruled by one.

* New York Times in 1996: Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Seances” were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi.

* Women have extremely fickle friendships compared to men; one woman described it to me in this way: “Women don’t have friends; they just have enemies they want to keep close for a little while.” Men tend to stay in contact with old buddies and will go out golfing with the same guy they played video games/baseball with when they were kids. Females, in contrast, compete with other women through social manipulation, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings and broken friendships (or, alternatively, the easy disregard of a friendship when the friends no longer run in the same circles).

But women tend to feel guilty and needy about not having a “deep” female confidante. So hustling female confidantes play on that and offer them a “deep” relationship to bilk them/control them. Or the confidantes are manipulative lesbians biding their time to hope/trick the powerful woman into a relationship.

Incidentally, this is why women tend to be the majority of authors/readers of “slash fiction.” Slash fiction is a genre of internet fan stories about famous pop culture male friends (e.g. Spock and Kirk, Holmes and Watson, Picard and Data, Pitt and Clooney’s characters from Ocean’s 11) that end up being homosexual love stories (I know, eww).

Women write and devour slash fiction tales, but they make no sense to men (and, again, the eww factor). It’s because women don’t “get” long-lasting male friendships, and so think it “must” be sexual, because that’s the only way they could ever stay so close to someone.

Posted in Korea | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: President of South Korea Is a Puppet of Her Rasputin-like Shaman Fortuneteller

Hillary, Huma & Weiner

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Weiner and Abedin are the new Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Ali Riza.

* I heard from a wise friend that Huma and Antony are still married only to prevent testimony on one another.

* To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes.

* Whereas to any normal person Weiner comes across as repellent both in looks and behavior.

* Do we Americans need to be exposed to this carnival freak show, this Confederacy of Dunces?

We do not.

It is well past time to elect leaders who will put Americans first. It is time to turn our backs on the cesspools that our ancestors climbed out of to come here — or the ones our ancestors, and we, never had anything to do with!

It is time for US to vote.

* If you watch the Weiner documentary, you definitely get the sense that they’re not married-married, and (surprising for me because I want to hate her) Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure. She’s stuck with this narcissistic deviated prevert and really seems to make the best of it with a stiff upper lip and all that. In private she seems positively girly in a charming way, which I did not expect given her close association with uber-shrike HRC. You really do come away feeling that she’s a human being and he’s, well, the other thing. So, part of me hopes that she’s not the lone sacrificial goat who takes the hit for a vast criminal organization.

* Service to the Muslim Brotherhood means that a woman may have to do many distasteful things for the sake of Allah.

* I never thought the pairing was odd at all. Hillary needed for Huma to have a beard to dispel stories about her and Huma having a lesbian affair and Huma being a kept woman.

Enter the patsy, one Mr. Weiner, a ambitious, stupid and relatively clueless man desperate to climb the political ladder. Then installed in a lifeless and probably sexless marriage – everything goes well until he cracks.

Oh I doubt she could do any better in terms of a fake mate for a multitude of reasons. Most men simply have more self-respect than that, and simply sell out the old fashioned way to some monied interest so he gets the bucks and bimbos.

In religious terms, her fanatical family allowed it for one reason – it gave the KSA/MB direct intel as to what is happening in one of the most powerful families in D.C. For all intents she’s a Mata Hari. Otherwise she’d be found strangled to death in her parents home like so many other Muslima who stray.

* Apropos of Comey’s decision to go public with the reopening of the case against Hillary, and, apparently, against standard protocol and the urging of Loretta Lynch, I think the interpretation that makes most sense by far is the obvious one: the FBI has found something very significant in those emails, and he couldn’t justify doing anything else.

In the end, Comey has got to be concerned fundamentally with his own reputation. Suppose he believed that, in fact, in the end, these emails might well turn out to be nothing of consequence. Yet he has now violated the standard protocols and the DOJ admonishments, and has turned the election against Hillary at a critical juncture. Under those circumstances, when the day would arrive that the concern with the emails was dismissed, he would never be able to recover his reputation–he would become a legendary object of scorn. I just don’t see how a man in Comey’s position would ever take those steps.

People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move, even though he knows that the emails are likely not significant. But the one thing that he won’t be able to do in either of those scenarios is save his own reputation — he will be demonized forever over any such clear chicanery. Nothing could make this worthwhile for a man in his position.

I infer from all this that Comey must believe that there are smoking guns in this batch of emails, and that the case for illegality is very strong. That is his only way out of this mess with his reputation intact.

* That’s why isolationism is a natural turn of events for the USA. Most people are tired of the M.E., and Europe has to solve its own squabbles. I mean, Old Ironsides was a great vessel to destroy the Barbary Coast nasties, but, heck, we have nukes, and, we don’t need Europe or the M.E. Everyone wants our soldiers out of the M.E. for good – the national debt is too high – “the rent is too damn high.” U.S. needs to rebuild the economy of the Rust-Belt and Plains States. The infrastructure must be rebuilt.

* The leading story on Google News right now is one from the Washington Post headlined “Trump’s bizarre claim that the Clinton email controversy is bigger than Watergate.”

A story that should utterly destroy Clinton’s chances at winning is somehow spun into a story against Trump. Only in today’s MSM.

* I’ve visited the Temple Mount twice, as is my right under the “status quo”. Before going up you get searched twice, once for weapons and once for prayer articles – they open your wallet to check you haven’t got a copy of grace after meals. Then you go up surrounded by a group of Israeli police armed with submachine guns pointed inwards at you whilst leering Arabs hurl abuse. The second time I was arrested for … kissing a rock with my hands and bowing slightly as I left. I’ve now signed a solemn statement promising never to act in such a disgraceful manner again. The UN resolution describes this as “far right extremists” “storming” the temple mount. So, yes, Italy can go F themselves.

* Part of the problem is that Abedin is romantically linked to Hillary. The inclination is to not fire your spouse, even if they are a screw-up, and this complicates efficient policy and administration and tangles lines of authority.

* It’s been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a “war for Israel” and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria’s religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet’s nest.

I actually partly agree with the Jew-phobes that the US often is too deferential to Israel and to (perceived) Jewish interests. It is ironic, therefore, that when the the US–well, Obama and Hillary, who aren’t really American, but you know what I mean–finally does act against Israeli interest, it does so in a way that is against US interest as well. In fact, that is the only unifying thread I have ever found in all of Obama’s and Hillary’s actions: they always do whatever they think will most harm America.

* Both women needed a beard and also felt they should have a child. Finding a man willing to marry them under such an unconventional circumstance entailed making compromises in the type of man available. Both ended up with sex-addict men with the understanding they could go their own way as long as they fulfilled the beard, career and child part of the bargain. However, both these men have turned out to be huge public embarrassments and real liabilities.
I understand that at the time of the creation of Israel the Saudi monarch was not particularly opposed to it. They’ve had to pay lip service towards Arab solidarity over the years just for political reasons but no official Saudi soldier has been killed fighting Israel in the years since. The Saudis do not trust the other Arabs who may want to see them toppled so for Israel to keep them all in disarray works in their favor. Of course Huma lets her family members know what’s going on and they in turn pass it on. The connection is worth it’s weight in gold so they’re delighted that their daughter made the supreme sacrifice with her body to help them in this way.

* It should be noted that in the first open mommy v. daddy election that the ‘take downs’ resemble something out of the family courts. The orchestrated release of the Access Hollywood tapes and then the “11 women to come forward” smells of high conflict divorce proceeding replete with Gloria Allred appearing publicly with the broken housewife (albeit it one who was a washed up porn star). There is zero chance that there could be a legal action with any of these women; their only purpose is to gain leverage, but rather than custody or alimony the prize is thwarting the Donald’s Presidential bid. Even the pukey Alicia Machado- Miss Piggy – eating machine crisis of a month ago (which has disappeared) came across like a jilted past lover with an ax to grind.

The funny thing is that this could come down to Anthony Wiener playing the one last card in his hand. No doubt, Huma is drilling him for custody, visitation, alimony, and the family assets. Based on what he has been accused of, his chances in court are slim and his future looks like a metaphoric cremation followed by a secret burial with no headstone. Huma’s future is to live out her life with her true love and all the cash and prizes, just like many divorces. In most divorces this would be where the husband outs the wife’s drug use or promiscuous lifestyle but in Huma’s case it is protecting her employer’s / mentors criminal enterprise. Usually, it is the man’s job that ace’s him out. In this case it is her’s.

For multiple reasons, this was the absolute best time for Huma to dump Weiner. They have only been married 6 years so there is no long term marriage (assuming NY is like California). Her income stood to leap up due to her central position in the pay to play insider deals while his looked like they were heading South for good. This means there would be no possibility of alimony for Huma or a settlement that would have gotten her free of alimony. Using the leverage of the underage texting, that pretty much killed Weiner’s ability to get anything more than supervised visits thereby killing child support. This was THE opportunity to dump him, only she had some skeletons in the closet too. The couple deserved each other.

* Hillary shares the establishment view of Israel as an obsolete ethnostate, which fortunately has the West Bank Arabs to prevent it lasting very long as a Jewish entity. Pleasure-seeking US Jews are going along with US foreign policy through incomprehension of its objectives. Ehud Barak knew better, and that is why he offered more that anyone before or since in return for finally settling the status of Arabs in the West Bank.

* Perhaps, but by the time of the documentary, it’s several years since they wed and their child is a toddler. Their body language certainly doesn’t convey that these are two people who are lovers – she’s often in a closed posture (arms crossed across her body defensively, leaning away from him) and I don’t think you ever really see any physical affection. You get the sense that he’d be all over her (or anyone else the least bit willing) but she doesn’t remotely reciprocate. Part of it seems to be that Weiner doesn’t possess the ability to interpret other people’s emotions, facial expressions, and body language – there’s one part where he’s re-watching his disastrous performance being interviewed on MSNBC by Lawrence O’Donnell and laughing at his obstinance while Huma is obviously crestfallen and embarrassed for him he just can’t seem to understand it. (This is, of course, at a time when one would think he’d be especially sensitive to his wife’s emotional state because he had just been caught for the second time).

Now, it is possible that this is because she’s been attending to her mistress in and around DC and he’s been left to his own devices in NYC for a while and they never had an extended period of being stuck together and living a married life.

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin | Comments Off on Hillary, Huma & Weiner

FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin

Paul Sperry published this two days before the FBI announcement about re-opening its Hillary Clinton email investigation. So far, it is the best article I have read on this story.

REPORT:

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.

The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”

While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was [email protected], was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.

Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her Yahoo.com account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin | Comments Off on FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin

Why Does Danielle Berrin Keep Writing Jewish Journal Cover Stories About Getting Groped By Famous Men?

I asked some attractive women for their analysis and they said in essence: She tries so hard to be smart but she’s not. That she wrote this article (and how she wrote it) confirms how dumb she is. Given her looks, if she had any talent, she would have moved on by now.

Danielle Berrin writes today:

Yesterday, Ari Shavit offered an apology — to no one in particular — for “misconstruing the interaction between us,” which he says he understood as “flirtation.”
His claim is absurd. The only thing I wanted from Ari Shavit was an interview about his book. No person of sound judgment would have interpreted his advances on me as anything other than unwanted, aggressive sexual contact.
As recounted in my article, he engaged in physically aggressive behavior — grabbing the back of my head, lurching at me for a kiss, pulling and pawing at me, and pressuring me to enter his hotel room — “We don’t have to have sex,” he told me. “I just want to give you a hug.” Except, he also implied he wanted to impregnate me and suggested I become his mistress. Throughout our interaction, he touched me in ways I did not want to be touched and he caused me to fear for my safety.
None of this was flirtation; this was an assault on my dignity and professionalism that frightened and disturbed me. According to the United States Department of Justice, the definition of sexual assault is “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” That Shavit would claim it was “flirtation” is not only misguided, it suggests I was participating in his scheme when, indeed, I was the victim; I was afraid he’d further assault me if I did not escape.
Many aspects of that night remain clear in my mind — the discomfort I felt, the sense of violation, the feeling of being trapped. But also, I remember how excited I was to interview the author of “My Promised Land,” a book of astonishing insight and self-reflection. It is mystifying to me how someone so deeply attuned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be so obtuse when it comes to human relationships.
I am glad Ari Shavit has at least acknowledged an encounter took place. As a committed Jew, I am always open to the possibility of forgiveness and redemption.
But Ari Shavit has yet to apologize for what he actually did; he did not apologize for committing sexual assault.

Posted in Danielle Berrin | Comments Off on Why Does Danielle Berrin Keep Writing Jewish Journal Cover Stories About Getting Groped By Famous Men?

Jewish Americans don’t vote with Israel in mind, they vote as liberals

Professor Jonathan Bronitsky writes:

The political behavior of the preponderance of Jewish Americans is in no way substantively different than that of secular liberals of any other religious background. Reform Judaism has been called “the Democratic party platform with holidays thrown in,” and the services in a Reform temple have been described as “the Democratic Party at prayer.”

Nor is the association between Jews and the Democratic Party a new phenomenon. Since exit polling began in 1972, Democratic presidential candidates have received on average 70% of the Jewish vote. In fact, according to several scholars, the 1920 presidential election was the last contest for the White House in which the Republican candidate bested the Democratic candidate among Jewish voters. And that was because the Socialist candidate, Eugene V. Debs, siphoned support from the Democratic candidate, Ohio Gov. James M. Cox, capturing 38% of the Jewish electorate.

Personally, I’ve grown accustomed to Reform and even Conservative rabbis using — and arguably exploiting — the pulpit, especially during the High Holidays, to advocate for public policies virtually unilaterally endorsed by the Democratic Party (e.g., universal healthcare and gun control). Still, I was taken aback this year when a rabbi in my hometown used her sermon to preach the benefits and necessity of electing America’s first female president. I’m no constitutional scholar, but that action would seem to be a violation of her institution’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit status.

The “Jewish vote” matters, but most Jewish Americans don’t vote as Jews; they vote as liberals.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Americans don’t vote with Israel in mind, they vote as liberals

The State Of Exception

In Judaism, life is almost always the highest value, just as self-preservation is usually the highest value of any nation state.

No legal system, no constitution, is able to maintain itself in all contingencies. Sometimes a nation to survive must ignore its own laws and turn over authority to a sovereign (the one who decides the state of exception to the law). The United States aka Weimerica seems headed in this direction.

According to the Wikipedia entry on Carl Schmitt:

On Dictatorship was followed by another essay in 1922, titled “Politische Theologie” (political theology); in it, Schmitt, who at the time was working as a professor at the University of Bonn, gave further substance to his authoritarian theories, analysing the concept of “free will” influenced by Christian-Catholic thinkers. The book begins with Schmitt’s famous, or notorious, definition: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” By “exception,” Schmitt means the appropriate moment for stepping outside the rule of law in the public interest. (See discussion of On Dictatorship above.) Schmitt proposes this definition to those offered by contemporary theorists of sovereignty, particularly Hans Kelsen, whose work is criticized at several points in the essay.

The book’s title derives from Schmitt’s assertion (in chapter 3) that “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts” —in other words, that political theory addresses the state (and sovereignty) in much the same manner as theology does God.

A year later, Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper “Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus” (roughly: “The Intellectual-Historical Situation of Today’s Parliamentarianism”, translated as The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy by Ellen Kennedy). Schmitt criticized the institutional practices of liberal politics, arguing that they are justified by a faith in rational discussion and openness that is at odds with actual parliamentary party politics, in which outcomes are hammered out in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders. Schmitt also posits an essential division between the liberal doctrine of separation of powers and what he holds to be the nature of democracy itself, the identity of the rulers and the ruled. Although many critics of Schmitt today, such as Stephen Holmes in his The Anatomy of Anti-Liberalism, take exception to his fundamentally authoritarian outlook, the idea of incompatibility between liberalism and democracy is one reason for the continued interest in his political philosophy.[23]

The Concept of the Political[edit]
Schmitt changed universities in 1926, when he became professor of law at the Handelshochschule in Berlin, and again in 1932, when he accepted a position in Cologne. It was from lectures at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik in Berlin that he wrote his most famous paper, “Der Begriff des Politischen” (“The Concept of the Political”), in which he developed his theory of “the political”.[24] Distinct from party politics, “the political” is the essence of politics. While churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceases to be merely theological when it makes a clear distinction between the “friend” and the “enemy”). The political is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the most essential to identity.

Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty and autonomy upon the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is to be determined “existentially,” which is to say that the enemy is whoever is “in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.” (Schmitt, 1996, p. 27) Such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything.

Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning this work, there is broad agreement that “The Concept of the Political” is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining the content of politics as opposition to the “other” (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one’s own interests.) Additionally, the prominence of the state stands as a neutral force dominating potentially fractious civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to affect politics, lest civil war result.

What is the Jewish answer to this statement: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

Sometimes rabbis are called upon to make emergency decrees to preserve the community by uprooting traditional Torah practices.

According to Wikipedia:

Classical Jewish law granted rabbinic sages wide legislative powers. There are two powerful legal tools within the halakhic system:

Gezeirah: “preventative legislation” of the classical rabbis, intended to prevent violations of the commandments
Takkanah: “positive legislation”, practices instituted by the rabbis not based (directly) on the commandments as such, e.g. rabbinical mitzvot.
However, the general term takkanah is used to refer to either gezeirot or takkanot.

Takkanot, in general, do not affect or restrict observance of Torah mitzvot. However, the Talmud states that in exceptional cases, the Jewish sages had the authority make a gezeirah even if it would “uproot a matter from the Torah”. In Talmudic and classical halakhic literature, this authority refers to the authority to prohibit some things that would otherwise be biblically sanctioned (shev v’al ta’aseh). Rabbis may rule that a Torah mitzvah should not be performed, e.g. blowing the shofar on Shabbat, or blessing the lulav and etrog on Shabbat. These gezeirot are executed out of fear that some might otherwise carry the mentioned items between home and the synagogue, thus inadvertently violating a Sabbath melakha, a greater sin than neglecting the banned mitzvah.

Another rare and limited form of takkanah involved overriding Torah prohibitions. In some cases, the sages allowed the temporary violation a prohibition in order to maintain the Jewish system as a whole. This was part of the basis for Esther’s relationship with Ahasuerus. (Sanhedrin)

Another way that Judaism deals with the state of exception is by the doctrine of Pikuach Nefesh: “In Judaism, Pikuach Nefesh (Hebrew: פיקוח נפש) describes the principle in Jewish law that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious consideration. When the life of a specific person is in danger, almost any mitzvah lo ta’aseh (command to not do an action) of the Torah becomes inapplicable.”

Posted in Carl Schmitt, Judaism | Comments Off on The State Of Exception

Ari Shavit Apologizes to American Journalist: I Didn’t Think I Committed Sexual Harassment

From Haaretz:

Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit issued a statement of apology on Thursday after a U.S. journalist accused him of sexually assaulting her during an interview.
“More than two and a half years ago, in February 2014, I met with Danielle Berrin in Los Angeles for a conversation. Today, I sadly understand that I misconstrued the interaction between us during that meeting,” Shavit said in a statement.
In an article last week in The Jewish Journal, entitled “My sexual assault, and yours: Every woman’s story,” Jewish-American journalist Danielle Berrin accused a prominent Israeli writer of sexually harassing and assaulting her as she tried to interview him in the recent past at an American hotel lobby.
In his statement, Shavit said that “prior to reading Berrin’s article, I thought that we had had a friendly conversation that included some flirtation.
“I did not for a moment think it involved any sexual harassment. But what I saw as flirtation, Berrin saw as inappropriate, even harassing behavior on my part.”
“As a person who deeply respects every woman and every human being, and as a person who abhors any form of sexual harassment, I apologize from the bottom of my heart for this misunderstanding. I did not mean to say anything unwelcome to Berrin, and I certainly never meant to cause her distress or hurt her feelings,” Shavit said.
In her article, Berrin wrote: “I’d agreed to meet him, an accomplished journalist from Israel, at his hotel around 10 P.M. He was in the United States only for 48 hours, and told me he was completely booked during the daytime. I believed him.”
She accused the journalist of trying to force a kiss and how she rejected his suggestions that they go up to his hotel room. Berrin described how the journalist asked her personal questions including whether the man he saw her with at an event was her boyfriend.
“But after I answered one of his questions in a way that moved him, he lurched at me like a barnyard animal, grabbing the back of my head, pulling me toward him. I turned my face to the left and bowed my head to avoid his mouth.”

TIMES OF ISRAEL:

Hillel International said late Thursday that it was suspending the upcoming campus tour of prominent Israeli journalist Ari Shavit amid accusations of sexual assault by an American-Jewish reporter.

Shavit, a prominent Haaretz columnist and author of the best-selling “My Promised Land,” confirmed the speculations Thursday with a statement carried by the newspaper, in which he apologized for the encounter and said he had “completely misinterpreted the interaction” with Berrin and “didn’t intend to do anything that was unacceptable” to her.

Hours later, Hillel announced that “in keeping with our strong position against sexual assault, Hillel International has suspended Ari Shavit’s campus tour,” adding that it was “not aware of any allegation of sexual assault made against Mr. Shavit during his Hillel visits.”

“Hillel International will be making staff available for any student or Hillel professional interested in discussing these issues privately,” the organization said in a statement.

Posted in Ari Shavit, Danielle Berrin | Comments Off on Ari Shavit Apologizes to American Journalist: I Didn’t Think I Committed Sexual Harassment

Rabbi charged with sex abuse to get 1 year of counseling, no prison

Jewish Journal: Rabbi Sholom D. Levitansky has agreed to one year of counseling and residential treatment at Beit T’Shuvah, an addiction treatment center near Culver City, after pleading no contest to two counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object of a minor.

lev-photo_539_332_c1

At the Oct. 27 hearing at the Airport Courthouse on La Cienega Boulevard, his lawyer, Vicki Podberesky, told Judge Yvette Verastegui he had checked into Beit T’Shuvah the day before.
Levitansky won’t be officially sentenced until he completes the treatment program. Once he’s sentenced a year from now, he won’t face jail time but will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, according to Los Angeles County District Attorney spokesperson Ricardo Santiago.
Each count of sexual penetration with a foreign object carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison, but Levitansky will serve his time at Beit T’Shuva instead of a prison sentence.
Levitansky was arrested in the fall of 2015 on felony charges relating to the sexual abuse of two teenage female victims, between 1998 and 2002. Back then, Levitansky was in his mid-20s and working at the Living Torah Center, a Chabad center in Santa Monica, where he met his alleged victims.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Levitansky with five counts of oral copulation with a minor, five counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object of a minor and one count of a lewd act upon a child. Originally, he pled not guilty to all 11 charges, but entered his two no contest pleas Sept. 26.
Sima Yarmush, one of the victims who has since publicly told the story of her abuse, indicated to the Journal on Oct. 27 that she was pleased with the outcome.
“I feel that I have done everything that I can do to seek justice,” she said.
Yarmush was 14 when she alleges the abuse began, and said it went on for more than two years.

Speaking with the Journal, she said she was the only victim who was willing to go through the court process, which likely resulted in a lighter sentence for Levitansky.
“It was literally me versus him,” she said. “There was zero, zero community support, aside from JCW [Jewish Community Watch] holding my hand and, of course, my family,” she said.
JCW is a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting Jewish victims of child sex abuse. In February 2015, more than half a year before his arrest, JCW posted a photo of Levitansky’s face on its online “Wall of Shame,” which lists accused sex abusers in the Jewish community.
Beyond JCW, Yarmush says she received help and support from her parents but few others. Years after the abuse took place, when she spoke about it with her parents, who ran the Chabad center, they immediately removed Levitansky from his post. But when her case was brought before a group of prominent Los Angeles rabbis for remediation, they ignored her, she said.
Levitansky arrived at court Oct. 27 flanked by a group of bearded men and a woman wearing a wig and holding a prayer book. Approached outside the courtroom, he declined through his lawyer to speak with the Journal.
He is scheduled to be back in court on Dec. 6 for a status review.

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on Rabbi charged with sex abuse to get 1 year of counseling, no prison