Alpha Game: The chance of finding yourself divorced after five years is presently 560 percent greater if you marry a woman with 10+ partners than if you marry a virgin. Of course, there are one-quarter as many virgins marrying as there were in the 1970s, so it is a considerably more difficult challenge to find one.
The interesting thing about this study is the way that it shows how the second-greatest risk is marrying a woman with only 2 partners; the researcher’s theory is that this might be the result of over-emphasized comparisons; the woman has just enough experience to realize that there is something else out there, but not enough to realize that most of it isn’t an improvement.
In any event, it is important to recognize that despite one might assume, a woman’s premarital sexual experience is actually more of a risk factor with regards to divorce than it was in previous decades.
Posted inDivorce|Comments Off on Woman’s Number Of Sex Partners Best Predictor Of Divorce
By OSAGIE K. OBASOGIE JUNE 7, 2016: “The 40th anniversary of Washington v. Davis should serve as a reflective moment for the court to rethink its commitment to racial equality and its approach to equal protection.”
* I read Obasogie’s op-ed in the Times opinion page and, predictably, he makes the typical innumerate-liberal’s math errors. He takes a simple percentage e.g. number of black convicts (who had murdered whites) executed in Georgia versus number of black convicts who had murdered blacks, and, finding a disparity, cries “FOUL!”.
By his reasoning though, it could be just as cogently argued that more blacks who had murdered blacks should be executed to even things up a bit. But for some reason, he doesn’t draw that conclusion.
Further, I doubt if he bothered to check whether the study had given any weight to whether those executed at higher rates had committed other felonies. At any rate, he makes no mention of holding other variables constant.
* Osagie Obasobie? Ima go out on a limb here and suggest that he probably doesn’t have deep ancestral roots in the US. What is an immigrant doing lecturing us about race?
* Of course, Obama and Holder ordering a federal investigation of the Ferguson police department because a black guy who attacked a cop and reached for said cop’s gun got shot by the cop isn’t at all racial in tenor.
I think Trump’s popularity is partly explained by White people getting fed up at the constant fabrications, exaggerations, distortions and just plain lies about the supposed constant and terrifying spectre of White racism.
The more the NYT and the rest of the MSM keeps singing the tune of the Noble Minority valiantly defending their dignity against the perfidy of White Bigotry, the stronger the reaction to it will be. Trump may not necessarily win the election, but he has ignited a movement that will be a force to be reckoned with over the next few years.
* My favorite is all the neocons/liberal interventionists complaining about how Trump will start un-necessary wars…
* Those of us half a century old or more have witnessed drastic changes in the US and the Western World, and not for the better. The misguided effort toward “progress” and a global community has made us less free, poorer, and without real countries. It has brought us down to the lowest common denominator; it had to, because we were so far ahead of the rest of this globe we have been forced to join.
Steve’s NTY example here illustrates the split mind we are supposed to have now. Read Orwell’s 1984 if you haven’t; learn about doublethink.
* “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” – Justice Sonia Sotomayor
* Whether or not we can win this argument in the court of public opinion should be a critical litmus test for whether or not Trump can win the election. If anyone can win this argument, it’s Trump.
As most everyone posting here knows, Curiel is a perfect example of a minority whose allegiance is not to Americans or to the Constitution, but rather to Hispanic people in general and to Mexican nationalism in particular. Lets see if Trump can win this argument right in front of the American people – it would be a huge victory for the American cause. And it would be a very good indicator that Trump will indeed pull this off. Lets see.
* Sometimes the cognitive whiplash of Affirmative Action is just hard to take.
We are pressed, and pressed again, to look past the usual qualifications of merit and hire or admit an Affirmative Action candidate, and to embrace the idea that this person will provide a “distinctive point of view” peculiar to their background. But then, after this person is hired or admitted, we are called out as racists if we reflect on any way in which this person might not be as objective or meritorious because of the very way this person was selected, and its justifications. Suddenly, now that they have the position, they are one and all every bit as dispassionate and capable as anyone selected purely for their merit and temperament, and it’s racist to suggest otherwise. We are simply not allowed to recall or bring up exactly what had gone on in placing them in their position.
* I predict within the next year you’re going to have a major political figure/pundit get on a major news show/channel and call out blacks for their high crime rates and that the police profiling of them is their own dang fault and that blaming whitey is a ruse. He/she might also call out Obama for starting the Zimmerman lynching, the Ferguson riots, and the Baltimore riots.
And this figure will do this several times without apology and be big news, and be denounced by all the usual suspects, and yet develop a following. And I don’t think it will be Donald Trump.
The Overton Window is shifting. Black bad behavior and black crime statistics are shining through on the internet, and the anti-pc forces are gathering steam. And whites are getting fed up with being told they have to lose every argument and be degraded at every turn—or else they are “racist.”
* We already had a political figure who did just that and his name was Rudy Giuliani. As a New Yorker I can assure you that Rudy unapologetically stated everything you just did on many occasions and never back tracked or apologized in any way. He did it for his entire career as Mayor and was loved by the white ethnic working classes and reviled by the black community and their enablers in media and academia.
Trump knows Rudy personally and learned well the lesson that telling harsh truths can lead to great political success.
* If Trump doesn’t win, we’re finished as a country. Hillary and the Left will see to it.
You better take a good look around you. Race replacement has been accelerated, Silicon Valley giants Facebook, Google and others have already declared war against Americans and Europeans by censoring their online comments and even reporting them to the authorities in Europe. The same will happen here if Hillary wins. Gun confiscation is a given once Hillary wins.
The Left and the Globalist men-children of Silicon Valley have already equated Trump and his followers with being Nazis. You don’t do this unless you’re planning on doing something bad to them. Think about this. Nazis are the only people that it’s seen okay to do violence against.
Remember violence and intimidation are part and parcel of Socialism/Leftism and for that matter any authoritarian movement. Look at Argentina, Venezuela. In Europe, England, Sweden and Germany have a host of laws that can land you in a world of hurt if you just say the wrong thing.
This is right out of the Soviet Union and it doesn’t even get a mention anymore.
The point in this is that hammer is going to drop on us whether we like it or not if Trump loses and they will make sure his movement dies.
* Let’s be honest, Trump University was really questionable. Instead of talking about the embarrassing specifics of the operation, we’re talking about the judge’s ethnic background. Another brilliant move by The Donald.
The only way Donald Trump can win is by being Donald Trump. So far, so good. He’ll also need to pick a VP candidate that the establishment hates even more than him.
* For people in cheap seats, “la Raza” means “the Race.”
Sooo, blacks can see the KKK under every bed and the NYT has nothing to say, but if a cracker says a Judge with ties to la Raza might have a beef with him, the they go ape. No racism at the NYT, nossir.
Ryan is just calling himself out as a coward who lets racism go without comment. Because the left does the same thing to whites all day long (and our whole society, to boot), and Ryan never says a thing. He’s a racist who buys into the left’s schtick; non-whites and leftists can accuse whites all day long of being racist, with no consequences regardless of the merit of the charge, but whites are forbidden from accusing non-whites of racism, regardless of the merit of the charge.
Total cuckservative, meekly accepts the left’s self-serving narrative.
Why didn’t he just go Democrat? Oh, wait, I know: because the left already controls the Democrat party, so now they want the GOP, too.
Posted inBlacks|Comments Off on NYT: The Supreme Court Is Afraid of Racial Justice
When Belsky and his colleagues looked at the genetic profiles of the New Zealanders, they found that those with higher polygenic scores not only had a greater education, but went on to achieve more in other ways. By the age of 38, they had more prestigious occupations, higher incomes, more assets and were better at managing their finances. The individuals’ polygenic scores could predict success even when the team accounted for their level of education.
The relationship held regardless of whether the person had come from a rich or poor family, too – those with a higher polygenic score were more likely to achieve upward social mobility, and do better than their parents. “You wouldn’t have predicted social mobility based on genetics,” says Robert Plomin at King’s College London. “I think it’s a heartening sign.”
Belsky’s team also found that successful people with higher polygenic scores were more likeable and friendly, both as children and adults. “It’s a ‘nice guys finish first’ story that I didn’t expect to find,” says Belsky. But the polygenic scores had no link to life satisfaction or health.
Posted inGenetics, IQ|Comments Off on Genes Account For Success, Though Not Happiness
* If immigration truly is your go-to issue, then Trump obviously should be your choice in November. No one, repeat NO ONE except Trump brought up the issue last summer. Cruz certainly wouldn’t have if Trump wasn’t in the race.
Cruz has had nearly six yrs to make immigration his signature issue, talk about building a wall on the TX border, etc. and he has not done so. Which demonstrates how little he truly cares about the issue until Trump came along and made it his own.
No candidate in either party would’ve been devoting much attention at all to the issue at large until Trump made it his own. So if that’s your main issue you can thank Donald Trump for raising it in the primaries since no other candidate did to the extent that he did.
Also, Senator Jeff Sessions, US’s immigration patriot has endorsed Trump. That should tell you something. He’s worked closely with Cruz and other Senators on the issue. He knows which ones are fakes and which ones are genuine on the issue. Yet when push came to shove, he endorsed Trump and not Cruz. Very very telling.
* Trump just gave an amazing speech in which he emphasized an America First policy on trade, immigration, and foreign policy. He spoke of protecting American workers from immigration. I was very impressed.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on If Immigration Is Your Issue
Steve Sailer writes: Harris has been in the news since 1994 when she was the very special 29-year-old guest at the 60th birthday party of master politician Willie Brown, the longtime speaker of the state assembly, who, by the way, has been married since 1958. The ethically challenged Brown found lucrative state sinecures to appoint his mistress to.
When Californians voted for term limits in large part to get rid of Willie, he slid over to being mayor of San Francisco. Despite since being term-limited out of the mayor’s office, Brown, now 82, still pretty much runs San Francisco through his handpicked mayor Ed Lee. Evidently, term limits lead to amateur office holders, who give local deep state rascals like Brown even more power.
Brown is a political genius of sorts, but not the kind that states normally want to flaunt in Washington. Willie was always a down-home taste, fine for the gamey realities of San Francisco but not really for sharing with national company. (Granted, Brown was never as crazy crooked as some more recent San Francisco elected officials, such as Ed Jew, who tried to shake down the owners of a rival tapioca shop, and Leland Yee, the state senator and gun-control advocate who was recently jailed for gunrunning shoulder-launched missiles with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a.k.a. MILF.)
The Democrat Brown was famous for being able to stay speaker by finding Republicans here and there to vote for him. Not surprisingly, his former concubine has followed a 1990s path of running for prosecutor jobs to set herself up for higher office.
* Who is Kamala Harris? An attractive Mixed Race woman. I know she married a White guy.
If they had kids together, they would be passable as White.
After all Susan Rice has kids who can pass for White and Susan is darker than Kamala.
* The Harris example shows that there is a destabilizing asymmetry in the media universe. Female behavior is scrutinized significantly differently than male behavior. How much of that noticing and critique of males is due to the top dog getting hounded by all those oppressed individuals and classes? The corollary to that is that men deserve the hounding as one price for all that privilege.
Alternatively, how little of the female behavior is held up to objective review? Something like a Kamala Harris greasy pole dance might seem somewhat benign in the Clintonian scheme of things. As more women accede to higher positions, how will they fend off or rationalize away criticisms about some of the shadier methods used in that ascent?
* Aside from her looks and racial and academic credentials, and partisan considerations aside, is Kamala Harris any good?
How does she rate for sheer professional competence, leadership smarts and political chops? Does anyone in California know?
Do you have any strong impression, Steve?
These days it’s hard to find that kind of information about anyone running for office…the signal to noise ratio in the media is infinitesimal now.
* There’s so many ‘firsts’ (and ‘seconds’ too) in one person you can’t count them all.
1. First black senator from California
2. First female Asian-American senator
3. Second black female senator
4. First woman attorney general of California
5. First black attorney general of California
6. First asian attorney general of California
* Politics are about what you would expect from a diversity hire, 100% liberal.
Kamala Harris
…
Harris has been a vocal proponent for gun control her entire career. While serving as District Attorney in Alameda County Harris recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own firearms.[68] Harris also supported San Francisco’s proposition H, which would have prohibited most firearms within city limits.
…
Harris is opposed to the death penalty but has said that she would review each case individually.
…
Harris created a special Hate Crimes Unit as San Francisco District Attorney. She focused on hate crimes against LGBT children and teens in schools.
…
Harris supports same-sex marriage in California and opposed both Proposition 22 and Proposition 8.
…
Harris has been vocal in the immigration debate, supporting San Francisco’s immigration policy of not inquiring about immigration status in the process of a criminal investigation.
…
In interviews with Matt Lauer on The Today Show and local KGO-TV, Harris argued for treating “habitual and chronic truancy” among children in elementary school as a crime committed by the parents of truant children.
* I noticed that, too, about Kamala Harris and Willie Brown, and thought I was misreading it. I hesitated to comment because I’m not in California. But–good Lord!–if a Kamala Harris clone were to run for major public office in Ohio, how would anyone not think she’d bootstrapped her political career by sleeping up.
Posted inBlacks, California|Comments Off on Who Is Kamala Harris?
Although Geoffrey Cocks explored the theme of Holocaust running through the entire oeuvre of Kubrick in The Wolf at the Door (2004), and devoted a section to Eyes Wide Shut, he only touched upon the theme of Jewish identity, rather than examine it specifically.[1] This article explores Kubrick’s swansong in order to discover what it can reveal about Jewish identity in late 20th century America.
Stanley Kubrick was born in New York in 1928, the descendant of Jewish Austro-Hungarian grandparents. After a successful career as a photographer in his youth, he turned to film directing in the 1950s, the work of Jewish-German director Max Ophuls being one of his primary influences. After a distasteful experience shooting Spartacus (1960) with actor and producer Kirk Douglas, he turned his back on Hollywood and fled to England, where he lived for the rest of his life. Still funded by Hollywood studios, he continued to work in the United Kingdom, transforming locations in London into settings for vast ancient deserts and outer space (2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968), Vietnam (Full Metal Jacket, 1987), and finally, in what was to be his last film, New York City, completed only four days before his death (Eyes Wide Shut).
Eyes Wide Shut is based on the novella Traumnovelle (1926) by Jewish-Austrian writer Arthur Schnitzler. The plot follows Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) as he seeks sexual gratification in New York as a response to his wife’s (Alice Harford, played by Nicole Kidman) fantasies of infidelity. The adventure takes him to an encounter with the daughter of a patient who admits her love for him, friendly prostitutes, a meeting with an old medical school friend, a heavily fortified costume shop featuring sex with an underage girl, and a masked orgy with quasi-religious themes that lead to threats against him and his family. However, at no point in the journey does he ever manage to consummate sex with anyone other than his wife. And there are no overt references to him, or any other character, being Jewish.
This does not hamper any investigation into Jewish identity, however. Just because characters are not highlighted as Jewish in a narrative, it does not mean they cannot be perceived as such, as there is also no reason to believe that characters must automatically be considered gentiles unless otherwise stated. However there is a particular argument for reading characters as Jewish in the work of Stanley Kubrick. Most of Kubrick’s films were adaptations of novels, and he deliberately expunged almost all overt references to Jewry in the transition from page to screen, even if Jewish aspects were major themes of the books. Jon Stratton argues in Coming Out Jewish: Constructing Ambivalent Identities that many texts offer ‘an ambivalence of representation’ to readers, so that our reading of Bill in Eyes Wide Shut, just like many other films that do not overtly mention the word ‘Jew’ gives us ‘the possibility of reading him as a Jew – looks, behaviour, name – but no certainty’ (2000: 5).
Traumnovelle is a classic example of Kubrick’s Jew-editing, as the novel, by a Jewish writer, clearly states that some of its characters are Jewish. But the omission of references to Jewish character backgrounds does not mean they are gentiles, and so readers of the novella watching the film adaptation would have no reason to assume that the characters are not Jewish. It is likely that Kubrick preferred not to overtly state that his characters were Jewish for financial reasons, perhaps believing that the word ‘Jewish’ would dissuaded gentiles from seeing his movies.
According to Ruth D. Johnston, citing the work of Jon Stratton in her article ‘Joke-Work’ (2006), post-World War II Jews in America were assimilated ‘on two levels – both ideologically and culturally. In other words, they were accepted not only as American (i.e., subscribing to the Enlightenment ideology of liberalism, individualism, and freedom) but also as White (i.e., embracing Anglo-American culture)’. By the 1970s and 1980s, however, she explains that ‘desire for assimilation waned’ and that modern American Jews found themselves ‘in a peculiar post-assimilationist situation’ that no longer subscribed to the key values of Anglo-America, and were left unsure of how to produce and present difference…
Bill’s profession of doctor suggests he is of this later Eastern European Diaspora, as these Jews ‘became professionals rather than business people’, with careers such as ‘physicians, attorneys, academicians, scientists, and engineers’ that allowed them financial security, but as a result were ‘less philanthropic (and often less wealthy) than the successful self-employed’, which further indicates Ziegler’s position as the descendent of nineteenth century immigrants, and highlights a Jewish immigrant class divide between the two men (Whitfield 1996: 185). The acceptance of a wage has therefore brought benefits of financial security, allowing a middle-class status to this later generation who took to higher education, but it has also limited them from entering the realms of elitist power by curtailing their philanthropic ventures.
NEW YORK POST: “THE late Stanley Kubrick once remarked that ‘Hitler was right about almost everything,” and insisted that any trace of Jewishness be expunged from the ‘Eyes Wide Shut” script that author Frederic Raphael was writing for him.”
Posted inHollywood, Jews|Comments Off on Exploring Jewish Identity in Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut
Michael van der Galien writes in 2009: Most regular readers of Poligazette will know by now that I’m a Muslim, specially drawn to Sufi Islam (which doesn’t make me very popular among fundamentalists, to put it mildly). Fortunately, any time I’ve mentioned this fact on this site, I’ve received (virtually) no negative feedback. Most consider this a private matter, and therefore of little or no concern politically. As I found out last week, however, not everybody necessarily agrees.
Professor Hans Jansen and I were contributors to a new Dutch blog called Dagelijkse Standaard. He was the resident Arabic, Middle East and Islam specialist, I the American politics expert. I focused, and continue to focus, mainly on America (with the odd excursion into Turkish politics, another field of interest of mine). During one of my conversations with Jansen – I helped him publish his posts, insert links, etc. I even phoned him a couple of times to help him out with technical problems – I mentioned the fact that I am a Muslim. He responded by insulting me (he wondered, among other things how an intelligent young man like myself could “join the side that wants to destroy the West” – a pretty blatant example of prejudice, nay discrimination). As I understand it, he then emailed the owner of the site Joshua Livestro that he had to think about whether or not it was possible for him to continue defending freedom of speech on one website with a Muslim, seemingly no matter how liberal that Muslim may be.
Regular readers will probably strike this as rather odd. After all, I defend freedom in all its forms constantly and my focus is on politics, not on theological issues. In the end, after having communicated with Livestro a couple of times, Jansen said he would indeed stop writing for Dagelijkse Standaard altogether. Jansen himself says the reason for his sudden resignation was nor is my personal faith, but Livestro’s attitude towards Jansen after the first received the latter’s “have to think about” e-mail.
Whatever the case, Jansen is quite a well known character in The Netherlands. He’s an emeritus professor who advises Geert Wilders and other politicians on Islamic affairs and who is a regular guest commentator on TV on all issues related to Islam. This makes it virtually inevitable that his departure will receive some (perhaps but hopefully not a lot of) media attention here in Holland. What will be, will be. I just want to make it absolutely clear to any visitors from The Netherlands who were drawn to this site as a result of this affair that this blog nor my public appearances are about my personal faith. I’m a secularist. I look at politics from a secular, more politically conservative perspective. This post will therefore be my first and only public comment on the subject. I am an expert on American politics, not a theologian. Nor am I a spokesman for this group or another. No, I don’t understand the problem one could possibly have a problem with me being a liberal, anti-fundamentalist, open-minded Muslim who actively defends Western values like freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and equality of men and women, either. Perhaps it has something to do with the view expressed by people like Wilders that Islam is “a fascist ideology”: it’s only a small step from this to “all Muslims are fascists,” as a commenter at DS proves in reaction to Livestro’s announcement of Jansen’s departure. (For American readers, the reader writes: “A logical decision. If you use words to fight against national-socialism you don’t join forces with a national-socialist either. Someone can then claim that this national-socialist is “a good person” and doesn’t accept the most radical aspects of national-socialism, but such a defense isn’t exactly convincing.”) It’s disheartening to read, but I don’t feel the need to respond to such comments.
This is all I have to say about this subject. From now on, I want the focus again to be on (American) politics. I don’t find it – Islam, me being Muslim and / or the exact reason for Jansen’s resignation – a particularly interesting debate. This is purely a ‘yes I know this happened’ post and nothing more.
Now we’ve got that out of the way, lets talk politics again as we’re used to do.
Michael van der Galiën is a 23-year-old American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, and correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media. In a post entitled “Islamic Law and Violence,” he commented over a week ago on a response written by a student at Brown, Jebediah Koogler, to my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there. Since van der Galiën articulates so many common responses to and common misunderstandings of the work I am doing, I thought it might be useful to respond.
Jeb Koogler explains the obvious: Islamic law isn’t static. It changes over time. I also get a bit tired of people who say that the Koran preaches much more violence than the Bible and Torah do. I’ve read the Koran and I disagree; it doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah.
I discuss this very common argument at length in my book Religion of Peace?; suffice it to say here that van der Galiën’s statement, that the Qur’an doesn’t teach violence any more than the “Bible or Torah” is flatly false. For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.
The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers — see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.
Of course, van der Galiën would respond that such passages have not been understood as such by all Muslims throughout history, and that is no doubt true. We’ll discuss that in more detail in a moment. But it is not the point here, for when he says that the Qur’an “doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah,” he is not talking about interpretative traditions, but the content of the text.
In fact, I’d say, the only way for people to defend terrorism or violence by the Koran is by quoting passages in it completely out of context and to ignore the spirit of the Koran, which is peaceful.
Unfortunately for van der Galiën, there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that would agree with his assessment here, for all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.
Posted inConversion, Islam|Comments Off on A Conservative Converts To Sufi Islam
From PJ Media: These commenters all share some specific views — views that are diametrically opposed to traditional conservatism. Firs, they look at people as part of “a tribe,” a word they actually use rather frequently. There is the “white tribe,” the “black tribe,” and the “Hispanic tribe.” They identify with the former: the “white tribe.” This makes them collectivists.
Secondly, they all seem to believe that there is a grand conspiracy aimed at destroying the “white race.” Neo-Nazis have used the phrase “white genocide” for decades, but until recently, normal conservatives didn’t want to have anything to do with it. Clearly, the alt-right has embraced the concept.
Third, the alt-right believes that American culture is related to “whiteness.” To them, American culture is white culture. This means that the struggle to “preserve” American culture is actually a struggle to preserve the “white race.” It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this not only leads them to oppose immigration (of non-whites), but mixed marriages as well. After all, mixed marriages result in non-white (or half-white) children. If they don’t, they’re contradicting their own philosophy.
Finally, while the alt-right may call themselves “conservatives,” what they wish to “conserve” aren’t the principles that made America great such as unalienable rights for all people, but “white culture” and therefore the “white race.” This is a racial battle to them, just like it is in the eyes of Black Lives Matter, only the skin color they pretend to “defend” is different.
And that’s precisely why it’s so important for real conservatives to vocally oppose them and their agenda. These people have nothing to do with conservatism. More precisely, they represent the complete opposite: conservatism is focused on individuals; they are focused on groups or, as they call them, tribes. They’re collectivists, and racist collectivists at that.
Decades ago, the conservative movement purged itself of the John Birch Society. It’s up to modern conservatives and libertarians to get rid of the alt-right.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on The Mask Comes Off: The Alt-Right Is Racist to Its Core
Take a look at Brock Turner’s happy, privileged face. This is what campus predators look like, America.
Bring it on — the brilliant smile of a Stanford swimmer with Olympic dreams, the happy privileged face of a white college kid named Brock Turner. Another picture of him smiling, please.
Because this is what a campus sexual predator looks like. And that’s the truth too many people refuse to acknowledge. It’s the most difficult part of the campus rape culture destroying the lives of so many young women: acknowledging whom their rapists are.
Turner, 20, was convicted of sexually attacking an unconscious woman behind a dumpster at Stanford University after a fraternity party. It was a violent, brutal attack, and he was caught by two passersby, who tackled him when he tried to run away.
The rape charges were dropped because it was Turner’s fingers, along with dirt and pine needles, that went inside his victim, not his sexual organ. Was that calculated on his part? Was he trying to avoid leaving his DNA in her body?
The jury convicted Turner of sexual assault, which doesn’t sound quite as horrible as rape.
* The swimmer was a bad guy, the Dad is inexplicable, and the sentence too light. (Although difficult to find exact comparison given that there is only claim of digit rape).
But that is not the problem being discussed. At issue is the attempt to generalize the “face of campus rape” based on this one case that is clearly an outlier. He is the only example she cites, as the other cases do not involve conduct at a college campus or students (that I can see).
Thus, while we can admit the severity of this particular case, we should not allow her to get away with this false generalization.
* God help me but, not meaning any disrespect, I read as much of her diatribe as I could, scanned most of it and so help me God it looks as though she was so drunk she pretty much was complicit in what happened. Did anyone read the whole thing? Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m serious. I don’t condone rape. But she seemed to have gone along with most or all of what happened. I just couldn’t get through the whole long, self-absorbed blabber.
* I’m not offended. I really don’t know what happened, but it’s a given that the woman in question was so drunk she has no memory of going to the party with her sister or anything that happened after that until she woke up in the hospital. (She was about 4 years older than the guy.)
There’s no question that some kind of sexual assault took place inasmuch as she blacked out, lost consciousness, and with a BAC three times the limit for intoxication was clearly in no position to give consent. However, in fact, no one claims PIV; it is claimed that he touched her down there and was dry humping her. Outside of that, I don’t know what to say, except that, clearly, if someone drinks that much they bear some responsibility for their actions.
As for her statement, I thought it was incredibly self-indulgent. I expect she will go public in short order to draw even more attention to herself, and her literary skills.
* …the happy privileged face of a white man named Bill Clinton. Another picture of him smiling, please. Because this is what a presidential sexual predator looks like. And that’s the truth too many people refuse to acknowledge.
* They should have run Petula’s photo along with that of the rapist:
I’m not sure that Petula really needs to be worried about being raped.
To me, the circumstances of the “rape” are not all that clear cut – two very drunk college students left a party together. The female has no memory of consenting or not consenting to sex. Apparently he didn’t get very far – his conviction was for fingering her, and “intent” to commit rape. It sounds like if anyone was having fun, it was her, at least up until the point where they were interrupted. She was supposedly unconscious but presumably walked to the area where the “assault” occurred. If two very drunk people fumble around in the dark, who raped whom? It’s my understanding that a lot of college women get drunk specifically in order to lower their sexual inhibitions although they often misjudge and end up black out drunk or unconscious (or sometimes even dead).
Other than the fact that this fellow has Haven Monahan good looks, the circumstances don’t make him the Great White Defendant, at least not to me. If she was a stranger walking down the street and Turner jumped out and dragged her into the bushes (the way actual black/Hispanic rapists often do), THEN he would be the Great White Defendant, but this case was far from that.
* You know how it’s always the most repulsive specimens can’t stop talking about how all men want to rape them?
It’s called bragging.
* I tried to explain to a friend tonight that people bring their preconceptions to these internet stories and they are often false, but the preconception determines their first (and sometimes final) tack on the subject.
I explained that when Harambe the gorilla was shot apparently most people assumed the kid was white, which is why there are youtube videos of black talk DJ’s excoriating the mother and the zoo for killing the gorilla. Also SJW types, and also me. But, when it turned out that the kid was black, all of a sudden the gorilla was “just an animal” and also that “it could have happened to anyone.” (Except for me, I still am unhappy with the the shooting and the mother.)
In this case, people see (a) white kid, (b) sexual assault (which automatically becomes “rape”), and (c) assumes penetration. So everyone assumes that this was an imagined entitled white kid Haven Monahaning some freshman who only wanted directions to the library.
In fact, there is no evidence of penetration, which is why the rape charges were dropped, both of them were drunk, the woman exceedingly so, there is no clear evidence when or for how long she lost consciousness, she claims no memory of the campus party until the following morning when she sobered up in the hospital, but nevertheless wrote a 12,000 word victim impact statement about how her life had been ruined, and even how her attacker’s life was ruined, culminating in a quite inappropriate comparison of herself and the perp with the Twin Towers on 9/11. (Color me suspicious about her memory loss; I know people who have drunk to blackout status, they don’t forget an entire evening.)
On the other hand, the young man insists that they met at the party, where the 23 y.o. plaintiff attended with her “baby sister” and who danced, flirted, made out and engaged in other consensual behavior with him, before leaving with him and falling down behind the dumpster where they engaged in further sexual behavior.
I will be quite honest and say I don’t know what actually happened, I know the young guy tried to run when two Swedes came by on their bicycles at 1 AM. But OTOH there clearly was a sexual assault because her level of intoxication (at least 3x BAC) would have made it impossible for her to consent. Therefore I have no problem with the final resolution in this case.
But the problem is that most people freaking out about this case simply assume that it was penetrative rape in the usual way; they simply don’t know the facts, and they make up their minds on the initial idea, and try as you might they will not budge; counter-intuitively indeed many of the people condemning him now want him to go to prison so he can be raped there; which of course is quite bizarre but there’s a heart of darkness in a lot of SJW types.
* I (almost) can’t believe this is the Washington Post and not The Huffington Post.
This woman is disturbed; a real nutcase hater of white men. Period.
I’m also suspicious of anyone who claims to have “totally lost their memory” while drinking. If you just pass out drunk, you still remember things up to the point that you fall asleep/unconscious. There is no way that someone would have absolutely no recollection of the HOURS spent at a party before they passed out.
I think many “blackouts” are probably psychological. It’s telling that some people claim to regularly black out while other people can get drunk to the point of minor alcohol poisoning and still remember everything.
* Part of the issue here is that liberal journalists project their experiences to the rest of the country. Liberal journalists are generally SWPL types who either don’t go to colleges with strong athletic programs and lots of black athletes, or don’t travel in the same social circles as black students. If they are friends with blacks or associate with them, they’re generally nerdy or SWPL type blacks, not ordinary blacks or black athletes. They generally don’t hang out with black athletes or go to the same parties. So when they say that “this is what campus predators look like”, part of what they mean is that they generally aren’t in a position to be affected by black predators on campus, who commit most of the rapes overall, because they generally avoid blacks in the first place.
* The gist of that article is that Brock Turner deserved hatred because he has blond hair and blue eyes – I can’t see any other reason for all that bile and hostility.
Pure racial hatred in other words.
The white race – the Judas race.
* The victims letter makes it sound like the violations she suffered were mainly in the hospital, her vagina being photographed and poked for hours by nurses gathering evidence before letting her shower. If no one told her she had been raped, she might not have had to suffer.
* They know exactly what they’re doing.
They lie to maintain the anti-white narrative.
It’s not just this – the pattern repeats over and over – the filthy media lie to maintain their anti-white narrative and they’ve been doing it for 50+ years.
* He was a freshman. My guess is that they were really drunk. Started grinding on the dance floor anonymously. Started making out. Went somewhere private (he’s a freshman so he doesn’t have a room at the frat house). This was probably all with very little to zero talking.
If I were trying to argue on his defense, I would make a big deal about this next point. He fingers her. Is this something a rapist does to an unconscious girl? I’m guessing she was givong some kind of indication that he took for her enjoying it.
At some point she probably passed out or was at least very close to it. Then the swedes arrive and he runs away. He clearly feels as though he has been caught, so there is an indication of a guilty drunken mind.
im not sure this kid is a predator. Drunken hookup culture is just going to lead to things like this. Perhaps if it was made clear that normal women don’t want to get drunk and have one night stands rather than it being a common sitcom plot. Perhaps men should be encouraged to be chivalrous or of the reputation for being a cad was actually considered a bad thing. What if, gasp, we returned to an era of chaperoned interactions between teenage single mean and women. This disgusting situation is pretty close to what passes for courtship among college kids. Feminism ia part of the cause and is the only socially acceptable “solution” to this.
* Here’s an angle which is worth consideration: Was Turner juicing? To be on the swim team at Stanford is quite an achievement. Also, the attack he engaged in is out of character for the kind of students they have at Stanford. Last, the police report, which seems pretty believable, says that Turner still had an erection after he’d been chased, tackled, and held down by some other students.
Like Ahab’s search for the Great White Whale, liberals’ search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley’s and Al Sharpton’s then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn’t matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men’s treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.
To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under “Victims and Offenders” download the pdf file for 2005.)
In Table 42, entitled “Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,” we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.
The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:
In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false:
Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, noted, “There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen…. It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”
No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her. There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the gnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty.
Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, “a white woman was raped by black man.” Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women’s apartments on Manhattan’s Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media’s reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist.
Posted inRape|Comments Off on WP: Why the Stanford attacker’s smiling photo is far more telling than any mugshot