Posts Tagged ‘rape’

Pervnado Is The End Of A Sexual Visigoth Holiday

Monday, December 4th, 2017

So why has “Pervnado” struck now? Andrea Peyser and Christine Emba both opine in the New York Post.

It seems odd that the New York Post has a monopoly on this story. NBC isn’t exactly excited to run exclusives on who has gotten bagged. CBS hasn’t covered itself with glory on this one either. Politicians such as Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, as well aspiring Senator Roy Moore, have all been accused of varying degrees of perverted and degrading sexual behavior. Even a perspective college football coach, Greg Schiano, can’t escape the destructive power of “Pervnado”. Again, why now?

The New York Post has run out two competing female perspectives on the story. Both ladies make some points, but I don’t feel think they’ve dug into this deeply enough. Peyser believes the #MeToo Movement has lost the willingness and ability to discern the difference between stupid, puerile mistakes and malicious male perversion. She posits this theory below.

My fear is that the pendulum will swing so wildly out of control, the fight against genuine sexually based offenses will be delegitimized as much ado about nothing. It makes me wince that comic Louis C.K., who admitted pleasuring himself in front of grossed-out females, is mentioned in the same breath as nonagenarian ex-President George H.W. Bush, accused of grabbing women’s backsides and telling a dirty joke. Wheelchair-bound at age 93 “his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” said his spokesman, Jim McGrath. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.’’ He apologized.

Christine Emba, I think gets closer to truth than Mrs. Peyser. She tells us part of the problem is that people are no longer sure what is and is not harassment. That’s what happens when you try to split hair follicles over whether it is rape or, you know, rape-rape. Mrs Emba offers her perspective on it below.

This #MeToo paranoia isn’t all baseless. While some worries should rate only an eye roll, others highlight the precariously gray continuum from annoyance to harassment to assault. But it’s also true that these questions hold something in common. They gesture toward America’s prevailing and problematic sexual ethic — one that is in no small part responsible for getting us into this sexual misconduct mess in the first place. At the bottom of all this confusion sits a fundamental misframing: There’s some baseline amount of sex that we should be getting or at least should be allowed to pursue. Following from that is the assumption that the ability to pursue and satisfy our sexual desires — whether by hitting on that co-worker even if we’re at a professional lunch, or by pursuing a sexual encounter even when reciprocity is unclear — is paramount. At best, our sexual freedom should be circumscribed only by the boundary of consent. Any other obstacle is not to be borne.

When I attempt what I admit is biologically impossible, and try to see how the average human female would look at this, I can see why Christine Emba and any other reasonable woman would be both frightened and pissed off at me if I walked around town thinking I was entitled to “git me some” just for showing up with a functional penis. She, and most women that I’ve ever associated with or dated, place a certain value on their wombs and the privacy of their bodies that pretty much precludes every Tom, Rick or Harry from getting their quota of “notches,” much like Rolls-Royce and Ferrari do not make low-cost economy cars. This disconnect between what men feel is their due and what basic level of respect and dignity that women feel they deserve is a biological and sociological problem every human society has to figure out and solve. But again, even the true and accurate points these two women made have been both true and accurate since Sumerian hunter-gatherers pitched their tents and started alluvial farms along the Tigris-Euphrates Fertile Crescent. Why now, ma’am?

Squaring what I’ll call The Emba Circle has been accomplished different ways under different cultural or religious social hegemonies. It always involves a bunch of frustrated guys with achy blue balls or Rosy Palm Disease. It usually also involves a crowd of offended women who feel their dignity is affronted and their perspective is not valued in some sort of constraining courtship process. Compromises are like that. Nobody gets all the things they desire. Santa doesn’t exist and most of the poor kids aren’t getting a pony for Christmas. Except now, our society has rebelled against the unpleasant externalities of squaring The Emba Circle. We had The Sexual Revolution and deliberately threw our particular solution, however flawed it may have been, into the dumpster.

Having essentially chosen the Hugh Hefner ethos over an old, boring set of written and unwritten rules for determining who gets sexual access to whom, we now have the type of problems Andrea Peyser decribed in her piece about “Pervnado.” People aren’t very sure they even know what harassment is versus someone just having a predilection to be a socially awkward jerk or a bore. Let’s call it The Peyser Uncertainty Theory. The old rules have been destroyed and nirvana did not set in. What’s worse is that a lot of butt hurt people have no clue how to properly seek redress or even whether they really should. You don’t get due process when their isn’t a replicable, accepted and well-understood process anymore. When in doubt, you channel George Patton and attack. When enough people have had enough and attack simultaneously you get “Pervnado” and it feels like society has struck a really bad resonance frequency that may well cause a bridge or two to collapse.

So I think I’ve established what happened, and have offered a plausible theory as to why. But I haven’t yet put a bow-tie on an answer for the question why now? I can get close, but not completely close the sale. There just seemed to be a lot more cultural capital and more of everything. Now that stuff, whatever it may be, is running out.

Grievances hurt more when the cold wind blows and you feel a wee bit threadbare. When people don’t feel they are receiving justice, nothing seems like an accident and anyone you can get your hands on just flat-out has it coming to them. And that is just what will keep on happening until a new set of rules and ethics gets defined. The beatings will continue until a new law is conceived. Pervnado is the reaction against sexual anarchy and will rage on until order is restored.

Molestation Wave Sweeps American Media

Saturday, November 11th, 2017

The news this last week can be summarized as follows: everyone was raped, sexually assaulted, molested or at least approached with an indecent offer, and that is how you become important in mass media these days.

A parade of victimhood popped up on our screens. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, and dozens of others were swept up in accusations about how they committed acts of indecency — which is difficult in a thoroughly indecent society — against the vulnerable and innocent.

Somewhere it was forgotten that accusations should be proven, and accusations which smolder for years are likely not true, as well as the fact that Hollywood, the news media, and entertainment have always been ruled by the quid pro quo of the casting couch. I make your career, and well, you do me a favor, if you catch my meaning…

Middle America rightfully thinks this stuff is creepy. Then again, middle America slept through it happening for the last century, so who really cares what they think?

The bigger story is that we have let cretins rule us through the power of media, academia and government. Cretins, especially sociopaths, instinctively both lie and restyle their parasitism as opportunity and moral good that you can participate in. The middle classes, basically sheep for the slaughter of mercantile corporations repackaging junk as lifestyle enhances, stumbled forward in a zombie gait and voted, bought and trended whatever the shopkeepers were offering.

If we look deeply into this abyss, we will see that the actual story is that molestation is business as usual in Hollywood and related spheres, giving legitimacy to PizzaGate and other conspiratorial suspicions that in fact our new elites are a group of crazed sexual predators, which seems to be the case if we believe the accounts of “normalcy” in the media dens:

But in the new biography Sticky Fingers: The Life and Times of Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone Magazine, author Joe Hagan writes that he “was known for his jovial sexual harassment.” The magazine’s staff “was not immune from Wenner’s own adventuring.”

He fancied himself as a sort of polymorphous-perverse William Randolph Hearst,” said Glenn O’Brien, who joined Rolling Stone in 1973 and quit after what he said were Wenner’s unwanted advances. “He told me he had slept with everyone who had worked for him.”

In another passage Hagan writes:

He didn’t discriminate between men and women; he liked them both. “He was hitting on every girl and every guy,” said Lynn Hirschberg. “He once grabbed me around the hips and said, ‘Ten more pounds and you’ll be perfect.’ This was in front of everybody at a meeting and I wanted to die. It was like this schoolboy crap.

…In 2014, an article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia provoked a widespread controversy when it turned out the accuser’s account was false and the magazine had done little to try to verify it. Wenner sold 49% of the magazine in 2016. Then he sold off Men’s Journal, and later, Us Weekly, to American Media. Two months ago, Wenner put the remaining 51% of the magazine that made him famous up for sale.

The 1960s had us rejoicing in the idea that we were replacing that old, stodgy, calcified, strident, and fascist WASP order with something new and enlightened.

It turns out that, as usual, “new” is a scam, and time-proven means you avoid elevating molestation experts to positions of power all around you. The Anglo-Saxons did better; the new order is a disaster.

If You Were Uncertain About Whether You Live Under Totalitarianism, Now You Know

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

The Baby Boomers may have been the first generation to expose America to autocracy. That was the idea that if you had the money, you should be able to do whatever you wanted; this clashed with the WASP idea that good money should do what was right, and arose from the mixing of different European groups in the United States, removing that WASP order.

Autocracy is power for its own sake, as opposed to aristocracy in which power is a means-to-an-end, namely the idea of avoiding bad fates and promoting good possibilities. It corresponds to Plato’s transcendentalism-infused statement of “good to the good, and bad to the bad” as a high civil ideal.

But when that perished, the idea of autocracy took on a new form: people who wanted things done a certain way so that they did not offend the sensibilities of the herd, which had gotten together and agreed on what should be true, in its view, rather than what could be done with what was actually true.

In that moment, bourgeois sensibilities about keeping up appearances merged with Leftist dogma and the commonsense pacifism of socially diverse places which consists of offending no one and always pandering to whatever fascinates the group at that moment. We might call this “carny ethics” because essentially, it is a variant of the old circus maxim that “the show must go on.”

Since that time, we have been gaily tripping into decentralized totalitarianism while congratulating ourselves on being precious little ethical snowflakes. Surprise! Suddenly you have a society where people are jailed for Facebook posts, in a modernized take on the Soviet approach:

An extremist who made anti-semitic comments and shared Hitler imagery online has been jailed for four years.

Lawrence Burns, 26, had earlier been found guilty of two charges of inciting racial hatred in a string of provocative Facebook posts in 2014.

Again: his only crime was having the wrong opinion… and typing it on a keyboard somewhere that spread it to other people. They might be offended. That means customers would leave, the circus would fail, and we might appear to be less upstanding and self-righteous citizens than our neighbors in the suburbs. Crisis!

In the meantime, real crimes are not being prosecuted because they might make us all look bad, and then the show could not go on. Witness this tragicomedy of justice from the UK where rapists get cautions instead of sentences:

In the last five years, police forces in England and Wales cautioned 45 adults for rape and 1,585 for sexual assault, The Mirror reports.

Over the same period, 148 children were cautioned for rape and 606 for sexual assault.

There were also 745 adults and 185 children cautioned for indecent exposure.

Welcome to the upside-down world where individualism rules. Instead of having a goal in common, and cooperating and using power as a means-to-an-end of that goal, we are goals in ourselves and power is a goal in itself. Appearance rules over fact. We respond more to symbolic sleights than to real threats. And so all societies go, when they extinguish themselves.

Rape Laws Are Just Ways To Assassinate The Reputation of Politically Incorrect Men

Monday, May 8th, 2017

It’s hell to get on the wrong end of a false rape allegation. It’s awesome to be in the protected class of men who can do any damn thing to a schmokin’ hunk of poon that crosses their sick and depraved imagination. It’s like there are rape laws in the United States that encompass only particular subsets of the population.

Duke Lacrosse Players, NYPD detectives, and white male univeristy students at Columbia, !OBERLIN! and UVA can be thrown to the hungry dogs on hearsay. Men of power and influence like, a POTUS beloved by the media, or politically protected classes like minorities in Houston, #Rapefugees in Germanyand Sweden, or the “undocumented” Rapadores in Maryland get off Scot free. It’s a double standard that calls into question why the US still has laws against rape on the books.

In riposte, I still think there is a strong majority in our country that believe rape is a horrible thing that should never occur. This is an obvious good. I’d be mortified if it ever happened to my six-year-old daughter. We outlaw barbarism in order to avoid having to live next door to the barbarian. If civilization is worth defending; it has to have a code to give it meaning.

But then again, I just don’t have that proper elitist mindset. If it happened to a woman I cared about, I wouldn’t be seeing the bigger picture. There are good tactical reasons to debate whether some incidents qualify as rape-rape. We all wanna forgive the “good guys” like Roman Polanski an occasional faux paus. You know how erratic the creative people can get. You just have to see this stuff from altitude and distance and see how critical the narrative is.

And that is what an elitist considers rape laws good for. Once you have that first concentric circle of private security around you and yours, then only a backwoods redneck would favor building the damn wall. Put that second Ma Deuce on the roof like Zuckerberg, and rape laws are for the protection of the little people. Once the important people are safe and sound, these rape law thingies have to be put to some other useful purpose. Got an enemy that needs wrecking? If it’s an enemy with a dick, you can do a serious job on him if his hormones ever start to work harder than his cerebral cortex.

And that’s why we have A False Rape Accusation Industrial Complex featured by the elites. Julian Assange was a pain in the butt. It was definitely ¡RAPE-RAPE! even if it never took place. And silly Ray Donovan and Stupid Robert Bork. Where do they go to get their reputation back? Cue the frikken’ laugh track.

Once the grand and noble concept of dueling was banned, your reputations were there for the, dare I say it, despoiling. If using rape as a weapon still remains out of bounds for our hideously deranged elite, than using rape laws certainly is not. And that, Ladies and Germs is why they still remain on the books to occasionally vex even the Jolly Old William Jefferson Clinton.

Maryland Flies The White Flag on Civilization

Friday, March 24th, 2017

The greatest lie a pacifist will tell you is that surrender to an aggressive belligerent will always lead to peace. If the aggressive belligerent is both amoral and rational, surrender will backfire every time.

The surrendering party gave the belligerent what that person wanted without a fight and therefore validated the strategy of pounding that wimp like a piece of cheap veal. Remember, terrorists are rarely desperate and often not particularly ignorant. They aren’t forced into terrorism. They do it because it works like hell. Maryland, quite sadly, has failed that lesson.

Harm City capitulates in war on crime. It’s no use fighting back, says the mayor, rather the city will have to take steps to appease the criminal element with giveaway and patronage job programs. In the meantime, Harm City denizens are advised to “just give the thugs what they want and you won’t get hurt”. Time and place of the formal surrender ceremony TBD.

The Mayor, it seems, grasps the fact she is allowing mayhem. She tells us firebombing is like premeditated murder. I’m glad she had a boffo score on the English portion of her PSAT. The Merit Scholar discusses below.

“These problems are not just police patrolling the street. Somebody throwing a bomb into somebody’s house, this is like premeditated murder,” Pugh said. “This is individuals, people in our communities that for some reason think it is OK to escalate violence and to destroy the lives of other people. It is not acceptable.”

Which is exactly why she’s cutting the Municipal Police Force budget. Just stop arresting them, and they’ll be glad to stop firebombing. At least in some alternate reality. Now that firebombing worked, she is invested in their behaving. They can continue rising the price of that good behavior. If she reneges on directing the Baltimore City budget where the thugs want it directed, they can resume violence and mayhem and chase her sorry posterior out of office in favor of someone else that will remain dutifully cucked. There is no reason to foreswear jacking the price of compliance to Obamacare levels of insurance rates.

And it is a form of insurance that she is purchasing. I mean here’s this horde of Visigoths telling her. “Nice Brownstone neighborhood of taxpayers you have there ma’am. Really classic Georgian Urban Architecture. Shame if it got firebombed tomorrow night….” So she pays off the Visigoths, but what pray tell of the Vandals and the Huns? You haven’t been informed? There’s a reason for that.

The “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC continued their shameful blackout into Wednesday night of the horrifying alleged rape of a teenage girl in a Washington D.C. suburb high school bathroom by two men, including one here in the U.S. illegally..

So two high school freshmen (both 18 years old and of some dubious Hispanic origin) grabbed a fourteen-year-old classmate and used her as a semen storage unit in a bathroom of a Montgomery County School. Spend too much on the cops, and they’ll never be able to afford to subsidize her abortion of the resulting mutt. CNN, perhaps out of shame and humiliation over their own complicity in the dishonest narrative gives us a refreshingly honest description of what is taking place.

The student, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez-Milian, was arrested Thursday at Rockville High School in Rockville, Maryland, along with 17-year-old classmate Jose Montano. Both students are being charged as adults with first-degree rape and two counts each of committing a first-degree sexual offense, Montgomery County Police said. Andrew Jezic, attorney for Sanchez-Milian, told CNN on Wednesday, “Our client will plead 100% not guilty.”

But, but, but “Muh Narrative!” We were good pacifists. We paid our Dhimmitude. We virtue signaled by bringing in lots of immigrants. It has to work. If reality disagrees, reality must be wrong. It’s reality’s fault that happened. As punishment, reality will be denied. That’s when you hire the scumbag lawyer from the Youtube atop the post.

Once we lie and just argue she was wet, sloppy and stupid enough to want it; we can deny lots of unpleasant realities. We can deny violent people are violent by design instead of social injustice. We can deny that people who willfully and knowingly go somewhere illegally maybe, just maybe, have a higher marginal propensity to break other laws as well. We can deny that letting violence get its way rewards it as a future course of action in similar situations. By all means, assholes, hire the best legal minds George Soros can afford.

Many miles away, by a cottage on the shore of a dark Scottish Loch, there is a problem. Reality is stubborn and inconsolable. The laws of economics are laws. They are not suggestions. Human psychology is human psychology. It is an unalterable part of the flawed human species. If raping her in the can to scratch an itch goes unpunished and relieves classroom boredom, then next week they’ll drag her skanky butt to the porta-crapper. Why not? The best lawyers in town are fighting to prevent any form of punishment on this one.

This is why appeasement fails. We’ve been kissing North Korea’s butt for at least three decades now. Still waiting for the first successful rice crop. Or, for that matter, anything resembling a civilized and final resolution of the Korean War so we can bring home the second ID. Pacifists are like any other SJW. They always lie, they always fail and they forever double down. Why wouldn’t they? They get rewarded while some fourteen-year-old girl pays the humiliating price in a grubby school crap room. What a bargain! Who wouldn’t want to be a flaming leftist? Like terrorism, it works like hell.

Why Diversity Can Never Work

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


Many of us in the West reacted in shock to the headline “Iraqi refugee who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in a ‘sexual emergency’ has his conviction overturned because the Austrian court ‘didn’t prove he realised the boy was saying no'” since it contradicts every principle of common sense.

When we look more closely into it, we see the failure of diversity the way it always fails and the reason for which it was made policy. Diversity destroys social standards, starting with day-to-day behavior. For example, apparently it is not clear that this rapist knew the boy was saying “no”:

The rapist, identified as Amir A, 20, violently sexually assaulted the boy in the changing room of Theresienbad pool in Austria claiming it was a ‘sexual emergency’ because he had not had sex for four months.

But an appeal court in the country accepted the defence lawyer’s claim that the lower court had not done enough to prove he knew the schoolboy was saying no and overturned the conviction.

This implies a few things. First, the court obviously wanted to reach the “right” decision, which is that indigenous people are always wrong and third world invaders are always right, because this advances the liberal agenda of destroying culture and replacing it with Leftism.

But even further, the court copped out of a difficult case by possibly claiming this was a language issue. They can only lose by finding the refugee guilty, because racism is the one sin remaining in our society, and so their only option was to let him off, and they found a loophole.

Looking even deeper however, what they did was to point out the obvious: when all of us are Germans, we not only speak the same language but have roughly the same public behaviors; normally, this is called “culture,” but it is not like ideology something that can be taught, since it is something we know by intuition arising from our genetic makeup which is shared.

With diversity, there is no standard. This destroys social trust. Most people, wanting to believe their society is still functional after diversity, choose to scapegoat the visible Other instead of realizing that diversity itself is the problem, because if diversity goes, equality, democracy and the welfare state — part of the same political movement — must also go, and people fear that much change.

However, in the West, diversity has died. It is not that we are different from Other groups, or the degree of difference, but that there is any difference at all. Homogeneity works; heterogeneity destroys. Most questions of leadership are this simple, but clash with Leftist dogma, so the explanation is complex and usually ignored.

Our governments support diversity because this strengthens the party that has for the most part been in power since the end of the Second World War. This party, like all Leftist parties, wants to eliminate anything that can compete with ideology for prominence in the public mind: family, culture, heritage, customs, values and language. They want to replace all of those with Leftism and be permanent rulers of the new third-world state.

This is why “refugee resettlement” — bureaucrat-speak for sudden mass immigrant relocation — tends to resemble a military attack instead of a gradual process in which the inhabitants of a place have any say. Take a look at how refugee resettlement resembles a government-funded invasion:

[A] new resettlement site cannot be established unless it starts with 50 refugees in the first year. Then, like it or not, the pattern is that the next year they will get 100-150 until they are like the town of Lancaster, PA be swamped with 700 needed third worlders arriving every year!…Once a site is opened, there will be no going back and your town will not get to pick from the ethnic groups the DOS is bringing in.

The governments of the West recognize that liberal democracy has failed, and the last chance to maintain power for these politicians — who like all corrupt people refuse to visualize time past their own lifetimes — to commit ethnic genocide against the indigenous population and replace them with imported third world voters. Ancient Athens and Rome did the same, and died shortly thereafter.

Daily Nonsense (#1)

Monday, June 6th, 2016

The Guardian rambles on about rape in South Africa, and then sidesteps a crucial issue:

The notion that rape in South Africa is a specifically post-apartheid problem is dismantled by Gqola, a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand.

It is natural that rape statistics would rise after 1994, she writes, because black women felt more comfortable to come forward. Police stations under apartheid had previously been deeply unfriendly places.

This is obvious nonsense: if the apartheid government hated blacks, it would have kept as many negative statistics as possible. More likely is that, as with the general rise of crime and corruption brought on by South Africa’s post-apartheid state, rape rose as well.

No one will point out the obvious, which is that the lack of social trust and social order has brought on the rise in many crimes that were previously kept suppressed by the notion that there was a system which punished misdeeds. Under diversity, social trust collapses and social order cannot exist because of the disparate standards between ethnic groups — white, black and Indian — occupying South Africa.

Instead, we get silly nonsense to make us nod our heads as we read/skim, accept it as plausible because that is most convenient, and then move on.

Legalize Rape III

Wednesday, April 20th, 2016

Some time ago, I wrote two articles on legalizing rape. My point was that consensual casual sex treats sex as a commodity and makes choice of partner arbitrary, which means that we should no longer treat rape as the life-wrecking crime it once was, but as a lesser crime related to theft.

That blew up the SJWsphere. My Facebook account was deleted; complaints rolled in via email; I was unfriended by all sorts of people on social media. I had transgressed the ultimate boundary, sinned the ultimate sin, and was destined to be exiled from the good graces of good people forevermore.

Except that I was right, as a sex worker admits:

‘If sex is just a service, then rape is just theft. If sex is to be equated with any other service, then we cannot complain about the rape of a woman in prostitution any differently than we could complain about someone having their sink fixed and not paying the plumber.

‘Rape is disappeared here. In ‘sex work’ ideology, we are dealing with theft, not rape.’

When women stayed virginal for marriage, rape was a terrible and destructive crime.

Now that women are far from virginal by marriage and proud of this fact, and having sex constantly, rape looks more like “unrewarded services” instead of a life-wrecking act.

What this means in converse is that casual sex is the equivalent of rape: it destroys their lives, but by their own hands, and their quest for a scapegoat is why feminists are angsty about rape despite being unlikely to face it in their lifetimes.

If women stopped getting blind drunk and having sex, most “rapes” would vanish. But as long as they engage carelessly in casual sex, a few of the wrong penises are going to sneak into the great stack of dongs they will have given entry by the time they hit “the wall” in their late 30s.

Contrary to what anyone will admit, in a casual sex society women trade sex for advantages all the time. The most common method is trading sex for companionship, which leaves the woman baffled when the man fails to stick around (hint: he found the same advantage elsewhere with fewer strings, which women tend to pile on as the relationship advances).

Women trade sex for favors at work, for status in social groups, and for alcohol and drugs on a regular basis. The biggest story of last year was the rise in “Sugar Daddies,” or men who found many women willing to provide sex on a regular basis in exchange for a monthly stipend, gifts and apartments.

Casual sex is like every other liberal idea a form of legitimized parasitism. Women behave badly, then blame men when anything goes wrong, and get paid money to just keep being themselves. Alimony is similar. A woman can break up a marriage and then demand a monthly payment for life just because once she was married.

This is why the “77%” figure about female salaries relative to those of men is so sacred to Leftists. When that illusion falls and they realize that women are in fact earning more than men and having a much easier time getting hired, the illusion of alimony also collapses.

But in the meantime, the rule with women as with any other Left-politicized minority is to keep the franchise alive. Get the white man — the average, working, responsible, family-oriented Western European man — on the hook for taxes, historical debts, guilt money, blood money, shame money, alimony, and quivering in fear of rape charges.

Government is the weapon of the weak and small-minded. In its hands, an irresponsible person who does stupid things but can find someone to scapegoat as a “victimizer” is owed money, legal vengeance and perpetual subsidies. This is what government exists for: to find ways to expand its power and tax base.

Right now it is taboo to mention that casual sex = sex work, but unpaid. In the future this will not be so. People are recognizing that chastity protected more than a woman’s future choices; it protected society. Once you let casual sex through the door, everyone becomes a whore.

Treating rape as a property crime just formalizes that arrangement, instead of allowing women to operate in the pocket between how things were, upon which our legal system is based, and how they actually are now. No one cares when a whore is raped like no one cares when a thief is robbed. These are people who violate the common sense and logical values by which the good people in our society (mostly) abide.

Sex buyers know exploited individuals don’t choose this life for themselves. The fact I had needle tracks on my arms and other parts of my body, and was obviously impaired by drugs, are indicators that each exchange was only about the sexual gratification of the sex purchaser.

Again, how is this different than casual sex? A man meets up with a woman in a bar, and it becomes clear that she drinks too much and goes to bars to have sex, has a boring job and a lonely life, is personally disorganized and slovenly, and has no clue where her life should go. It is pretense that this woman is that much better off than a heroin addict.

Feminism has made itself powerful by portraying women as victims, rather than accepting that the poor choices of women — casual sex, delayed or denied family, excessive drink, entering the working world — have created a world of misery for women. No wonder they are looking for someone else to blame, and have settled on the mythical Rapist as their target.

Realistic approaches to sex crimes

Monday, March 14th, 2016


The myth of equality distorts our thinking at every level. In the area of crime, we remain divided between a desire to destroy those whose actions contradict our Utopian notions, and wanting to “rehabilitate” them because they are equal blank slate people.

A recent comment on nerd enclave Slashdot brought this contradiction to the fore:

It is near the top of a very short list of big affronts, because the implementation does not live up to the spirit of the law. Registries increase the risk of recidivism because they ruin the life of the person.

A criminal who is ready to change his ways finds out that nobody will hire him, nobody will lease to him, and because of this he cannot make ends meet. Even if the frustration alone wasn’t enough to push him right back into a life of crime (which it understandably is), the inability to afford food and heat force the issue.

There is also the issue of vigilantism, which is itself illegal, but registries enable it. These self-appointed judge/jury/executioners decide to dish out a little more punishment whenever they feel like it, and people who are trying to put their lives back together are made vulnerable to injury/death because if the registries.

I realize the intent if registries is noble. But the application is far from it. Since they don’t work out in practice as they are envisioned in theory, they should be eliminated.

Justice isn’t just about protecting the innocent, but also about correct treatment of the reformed.

Here we see the typical iconoclastic liberal mindset: reality must be inverted so that we can prove that the individual is indeed good. Instead of looking at the obvious facts, we look at human emotions, and project ourselves into the situation at hand. Thus we find ourselves worrying more about the convicted felon than the victim, society, tradition, principle or social standards.

The grim fact is that our society is schizophrenic in its treatment of sex crimes. We cannot admit, for example, that honest-to-goodness pedophiles are something we simply do not want around us, ever. A century ago, we called them perverts and locked them up in mental institutions or executed them. The reasoning was simple: no one will ever trust them again.

But in our modern schizophrenic view, they are not Bad Animals but Equal Citizens. And so, having paid their dues — a moralistic phrase taking place of logical, practical analysis — they should be turned loose to be equal again. Never mind that the cause of their recidivism has nothing to do with socioeconomic status, and everything to do with an inner compulsion to destroy others for their own sexual gratification. No, we must think of the victims… and now, the victim is the poor misunderstood sex offender.

Older societies knew the realistic use of signaling: some crimes were made so bad that everyone knew in advance that to attempt these was death. Rape, for example, back when it was recognized that chastity and family-orientation was the one path to happiness. Pedophilia is another. Someone who engaged in that was too broken to save, so the signal went out loud and clear: if you do this, we destroy you.

But in our neurosis we have eroded these signals. Maybe this pedophile is the one in ten thousand who can be rehabilitated by anything other than getting too old to be sexually active. Just maybe… and on that slight chance, we will let his victim face him in the streets and alter our civilizational principle that pedophilia is wrong. The ripple effects of this are shocking.

In the same way, rape has become confused by casual sex. When things were saner, we recognized the taking of a woman’s virtue as a serious crime because it destroyed her hopes of marital bliss not so much externally as internally. Sex will never be an innocent pleasure for her again but always haunted by a dark spirit, and that may be passed on through her family, spreading neurosis like a wave of infection. And so we told our sons: if you do this, we throw you away, so make very sure to never go close to that line.

But the line has blurred with casual sex. As I wrote in two controversial articles, rape is no longer the intrusion of a penis where it should not go. It is the intrusion of the wrong penis. When women have casual sex at the drop of the hat, especially while spuriously intoxicated, there is no virtue to be taken. Thus rape should be a lesser crime in those situations, more like a property crime or someone parking in the wrong parking space.

If instead of going through months of trials and lawsuits and recriminations, we simply awarded the woman $500 for mistaken consent, we would escape the misery and destructiveness of false accusations, and also recognize that in a casual sex world, there is no virtue. There is only choice. This means that barring a masked intruder in the bushes who leaps out with blackjack in hand, “rape” means mostly confused consent, especially when the young ladies are already having casual sex with abandon and/or having sex with the alleged rapist on a regular basis, as was the case with Emma Sulkowicz and seems a common denominator to many of these cases.

We cannot say the same thing about a pedophile. He has taken virtue from a child. This is more like the original crime of rape as was punished by the rope. If we want to be consistent, and thus escape our schizoid neurosis, we will acknowledge that these two are now radically different crimes. The pedophile is a bad animal with a broken mental state and cannot be rehabilitated convincingly enough that any of us want him in the neighborhood; the casual sex “rapist,” on the other hand, is too drunk and too frivolous to understand consent, much like his partner. We can either have casual sex be good, or extreme punishment for rape be good, but not both.

However, like this Slashdot commenter, the vast majority of our people are too busy preening and fluffing up their feathers, trying to look generous to others so they get mistaken for natural leaders. They do not care about the victim or the damage to society, but see this event as an opportunity to make themselves look good. With that as the basis of our policy, it cannot fail to be schizophrenic, with the honest victims being the real sufferers.

Why diversity trumps feminism every time

Monday, January 11th, 2016


So imagine it’s your daughter’s first day of college. She is on campus for her Freshman Orientation. Dean IP Freely stands up and announces that all freshmen girls have to stay at least one arm length away from co-eds because there is no other way to prevent the guys on campus from raping them at random. If they dress too provocatively, they’re asking for it good, long and hard. But you don’t want to question the behavior or origins of these men committing all of these sexual assaults, you will be guilty of ¡HATE SPEECH! Once found guilty of ¡HATE SPEECH! You will be cast forth into the void with wailing and gnashing of teeth. What would be the response?

Can you imagine how generations of American Feminists starting with Camille Paglia and going all down the line to Jessica Valenti would respond? The Huffington Post would demand I.P. Freely’s head in a basket within the day. But what if the rapists were diverse? Let’s suppose their perversions were multicultural even? What if they were poor, suffering, down-trodden Syrian refugees? You could either be a ¡RACIST! or a ¡RAPIST! As IBM used to put it in the commercials: You make the call.

The German city of Cologne gives us the chance to see this seemingly unlikely dynamic actually play out. ABC News gives us gory details.

A string of sex assaults and robberies during New Year’s celebrations in Germany has fuelled debate about the country’s ability to integrate large numbers of migrants, after police said that men who targeted dozens of women in the western city of Cologne appeared to be of “Arab or North African origin.” Political leaders including Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the attacks, though many also warned against hasty conclusions about the perpetrators. But to some Germans already uneasy about the one million asylum-seekers their country took in last year the incident seemed to confirm simmering fears.

But since the rapists are multicultural, since they are diverse, since they are refugees, we have to be humane about it. The charming examples of necessary diversity are helpfully explaining this to anyone who will engage in properly constructive dialogue once they’ve wiped their mentullae off after the gang-bang.

But the leaked police report, published in Bild newspaper and Spiegel, a news magazine, claims that one of those involved told officers: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” Another tore up his residence permit before the eyes of police, and told them: “You can’t do anything to me, I can get a new one tomorrow.”

In this case, we get a news blackout* worthy of a Colin Flaherty book. What happens when the rapists are diverse? White Girl ends up bleeding a lot. We get clear and shocking details from Rotherham, England. The term “grooming” gets introduced. It’s like they are training horses.

What this obvious double standard accomplishes is to specifically clarify what feminism now consists of. Feminism has less and less of anything to do with Women’s Liberation. It is now a targeted method of violence used to wreck the lives and career prospects of men that the wielder of the feminism does not like. If an “Asian Gang” can drug, beat, terrorize, rape and then peddle the pudendae of 1,400 underage sexual slaves, than who can take the recent uproars over guys named Bill all that seriously? The people who peddle feminism could give a rat’s rear-end less whether the average woman on the street gets raped and left for the maggots. Their only question is whether or not the perpetrator is someone they’d like to take down a peg.

The collision of feminism and multiculturalism is going to prove fatal to one movement or the other. You can’t simultaneously weep for Lena Dunham and ignore the rape conga lines of Cologne. Or maybe you can, but not if an aversion to rape is your genuine reason to sympathize with Dunham. Or if you do actually believe that women are singled out far too often for sexual assaults, than you can’t continue to give diverse rapists a pass on their criminality because they are diverse.

At some point the fundamental contradiction we are seeing today from the Progressive Elite is going to be resolved. The voting calculus, the economic incentives and the cultural zeitgeist are all going against Sandra Fluke. Population replacement is a far more important goal to the Cathedral than Feminism. In a head-on collision between feminism and weaponized diversity, feminism will end up being totally destroyed.

* – ¡RACIST! – news dimming of illumination is a more socially acceptable term.

Recommended Reading