Lesson Learned From Feminism: Never Sympathize With Women

I’m an idiot.

I should know better by now than to read the New York Times, but I do it anyway. I should have more self-control than to be taken in by clickbait titles. But, my curiosity overwhelms my reasoning and I’m drawn in.

That’s how I came across an Op-Ed piece entitled, “Who Gets to Define Campus Rape?” written by two Sociology students, Miriam Gleckman-Krut and Nicole Bedera of the University of Michigan. It is a reaction to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos deciding to review a 2011 decision by the Office of Civil Rights to impose a “preponderance of the evidence” on colleges that adjudicate claims of sexual impropriety as civil rights violations.

The general premise is that men don’t matter and that women should have the power to freely accuse and destroy men without any checks or barriers.

Who should have the right to define rape: survivors who have experienced sexual violence or those who are accused of perpetrating it?

Correction: Who should have the right to define “rape”? The accuser, who is not placed at hazard by the process? Or the accused, who is placed at hazard by the process?

The correct answer is neither one. The party that defines rape is the party that enforces the rule against rape. Feminists like to jump out of the box and frame the argument in a way that they cannot lose.

That is the core question raised by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s decision this month to replace Obama-era guidelines on how universities handle sexual misconduct complaints. In a strongly worded speech, Ms. DeVos made clear that she believed the previous administration had used “intimidation and coercion” to force colleges to adopt disciplinary procedures that deprived accused students of their rights.

The Obama-era guidelines were likely issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, which requires notice and hearing via a period in which the public can comment on the proposed rule before the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights can issue the rule.

Why do feminists have such trouble with due process?

To come to these conclusions, Ms. DeVos and her staff appear to have given special consideration to the concerns of men accused of sexual assault. After one hearing about campus rape policies, Candice Jackson, the top civil rights official in the Department of Education, said, “The accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk, we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.’ ”

Special consideration for men accused of sexual misconduct? Apprently that is any consideration at all if the pearl-clutching by ThinkProgress, Vox, and Slate are indicators.

Ms. Jackson has since called these remarks “flippant,” but they reveal a gross misunderstanding of sexual assault. Ms. Jackson essentially intimated that she believes either that alcohol-facilitated sexual assault and intimate partner violence are not real or that, at the very least, they are not harmful enough to merit disciplinary action. No wonder Ms. DeVos thinks many sexual assault complaints on campus are baseless. According to Ms. Jackson’s incorrect logic, almost any college man facing disciplinary proceedings would be falsely accused. And yet there is plenty of evidence that false accusations of rape are rare.

Stating that 90% of rape claims surveyed were the result of a drunken tumble and hurt feelings is “flippant.” Rattling off that “false accusations of rape are rare” is not flippant because it’s not like you go to prison, have your rights stripped away, are forever branded a felon and a sex offender.

Obama-era policies did not malign men. What they did was make it easier for victims to come forward. A 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter from the Obama administration advised universities to change the standard for how to determine guilt from proof that was “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of evidence” — or, more colloquially, more likely than not.

Publicly accusing someone of a felony without proof of their guilt is defamation per se. Despite the feminist whining about “rape culture” in a country that, for a large part of its history made rape punishable by death, having one’s name associated with felonious crimes is inherently detrimental to a man’s reputation.

Before 2011, most colleges had already voluntarily made these changes. There are several good reasons for that. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard usually applies to criminal charges — and college tribunals are not criminal courts. Colleges can’t determine whether or not an assailant will go to prison. But they are required to keep students safe and promote equal access to education under Title IX, the civil rights law that secures nondiscrimination on the basis of sex or gender in federally funded educational programs. Sexual assault complaints are essentially civil rights disputes, and a preponderance of evidence standard is what is legally appropriate in civil rights cases.

Colleges shouldn’t adjudicate felonies. If a college suspects a felony has been committed, they should contact the police. College is not its own little pocket universe. A person kicked out of college for a “civil rights dispute” based on a woman saying “he raped me” will not be dealt with by the public as a “civil rights violator”; he will be regarded as a “rapist” without ever having received the benefit of the protections that defendants are entitled to before having that label attached to them (to use the subpoena power, to take depositions, to call witnesses in his own defense, to speak on his own behalf, to submit evidence in his own defense, and a neutral trier of fact).

Feminists are calling Brock Turner a rapist, even though he was never convicted of rape and did not commit rape as defined by the state of California (finger-popping is not sexual intercourse).

The preponderance of evidence standard is also survivor-centered. When judging whether someone has been raped, it’s almost impossible to assert that a sex act constituted violence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many survivors struggle to produce what campus hearing boards would consider evidence, especially when it comes to acquaintance- or date-based sexual assaults in which alcohol made it impossible for someone to physically resist. Sexual assaults also commonly occur away from third-party witnesses, limiting the potential for corroborating testimonies. Finally, trauma can make survivors seem disorganized to campus administrators who are untrained.

The standard for rape is not “violence beyond a reasonable doubt”; The standard at common law is sexual intercourse, obtained by force or coercion, and lack of consent by the victim. Physical resistance is not required to prove a rape.

The burden of proof affixed to a crime is typically commensurate with the weight of the crime and the severity of the penalty associated with the crime. A man is not carried off to prison when he is falsely accused of rape and kicked out of college, but feminists, as pointed out with Brock Turner above, have no problem playing fast and loose with the label of “rapist.” The ordinary person will not distinguish “rape as a civil rights violation” from “rape as a felony.” And that’s a problem. Even taking the typical penalty for rape off of the table doesn’t address the social stigma sufficiently to justify a reduced burden of proof.

The difficulty in providing hard evidence has long presented a devastating barrier for victims’ access to recourse and remedies, and it discouraged survivors from coming forward. The Obama administration responded to survivors’ needs by lowering the burden of proof necessary to gain access to institutional support. That more survivors than ever are reporting their sexual assaults to their universities shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that more college students are being raped or that more students are lying — just that more feel comfortable coming forward.

Feminist Barbie: Evidence is harder than math.

Of course, being accused of sexual assault hurts. And there are things that we can and should do to help accused students — namely, providing them with psychological counsel. But accused men’s pain does not excuse rape, and men shouldn’t be the ones defining it. Most rapists, even those who have been criminally convicted, will never label themselves as such. More broadly, there is a tendency on the part of college-age men to define sexual assault according to their own standards, not according to campus guidelines.

Psychological counsel? Are you fucking kidding me? How about providing the accused with a lawyer, you miserable fucking assholes? How about protecting a man’s rights before torpedoing his college career and his reputation? It doesn’t matter whether or not a criminally-convicted rapist labels himself as such or if any felon personally rejects the idea that they are a felon. The law and the state have attached the label to him AFTER it overcame the presumption of his innocence and AFTER he had the opportunity to defend himself against being labeled as a rapist.

The ramifications of sexual assault are severe. Especially when they don’t receive services, survivors often experience post-traumatic stress, depression and suicidal ideation. They are at a higher risk of chronic health conditions, future sexual victimization and lowered academic achievement. Though they vary, the approximations of how many women have been sexually assaulted in college are always high.

That should be the education secretary’s biggest concern.

And the ramifications of a false accusation of rape are severe. The accused experience post-traumatic stress, depression, and ACTUAL suicide.

“Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of “rape.” She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. “To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don’t care a hoot about him.” Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

– Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar to Time Magazine, June 24, 2001

I add the Comins quote because it captures attitude of authors and of feminists in general: They do not give a damn about what happens to men. Despite the propaganda of women being more empathetic than men, these women don’t give a damn when an injustice is done to a man based on the word of a woman. They are silent when Brian Banks has his life destroyed based on a false accusation. They are silent when Emmett Till is murdered based on a false accusation. They are silent when Kevin Baruxes is thrown in prison for 7 years or when Howard Dudley is thrown in for 25 years.

As Comins states above and the authors intimate, Feminists don’t care about injustices done to men by women, they care about power.

This not an attitude unique to feminists. When men articulate their problems, concerns, or fears, they are answered, by women in general with standard feminist pablum about “women have it worse than men, so shut up” and “well, it’s ONLY 2-10% of false rape accusations, so shut up.”

The chance of being attacked by a shark are 1 in 11.5 million, but when the lifeguard spots a shark fin, everybody runs out of the water.

So I offer women the same thing Comins and the authors of this opinion offer when I see women suffer some injustice. When I read about “woman beaten by boyfriend” she should seek psychological counseling. When a woman gets raped, especially by an acquaintance or a date, it should “initiate a process of self-exploration” about what it is she finds so personally appealing about rapists. Woman gets killed by her boyfriend or husband, just like men should be taught not to rape, women should be taught not to fuck murderers.

Archived Source

Advertisements

FBI And Homeland Security Recognize Antifa as Domestic Terrorists

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

– Karl Marx, The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna

Yesterday, Politico published an article entitled, “FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks.”

The article cites internal government documents from April 2016, identifying Antifa as the primary instigators of violence at public rallies on various targets. This is a sensible conclusion. The German Antifa perfected this tactic as seen most notably in Leizpig where Antifa will arrive at demonstrations unmasked, blend into crowds before forming a “Black Bloc” and attacking their targets.

The “mostly peaceful”Progressive/Socialist demonstrators will never be forced to take responsibility for acting as a Trojan horse for Communist violence. Less than 5% of the participants in a “free speech” march bring NSDAP flags, and the whole thing is a “White supremacist rally.”

But, I digress.

The April 2016 documents also reported that federal law enforcement suspects that Antifa may begin bomb attacks similar to those committed by Communists in Greece, Italy, and Mexico.

Antifa is just another Communist movement, that has not yet flowered into full-blown terrorism, but they are inching ever-closer to that end. Antifa is the brainchild of German Communists who picked up their ideology from the Italian Autonomist movement.

Here are a few examples of where Communist “militancy” eventually end:

Action Directe

In 1977, Jean-Marc Rouillian, a French Marxist/Internationalist, created Action Directe for the purpose of carrying out, as the name suggests “direct action” (an anarcho-communist euphemism for political terrorism) in France. The group committed approximately 50 crimes, ranging from property destruction, to robbery, to murder before French authorities arrested and disbanded the group in 1987.

– May 1, 1979: Action Directe shoots up the headquarters of the CNPF (National Council of French Employers) in Paris.

– May 25, 1979: Action Directe bombs a real estate agency in Sceaux.

– March 16, 1980: Action Directe attacks the DST (Directorate of Territorial Surveillance) office in Paris.

– March 18, 1980: Action Directe shoots up the Ministry of Cooperation, hitting minister Robert Galley several times.

– August 2, 1984: Action Directe bombs the European Space Agency, wounding six.

– August 23, 1984: Action Directe leaves a 23-kg car bomb outside of the Western European Union office. Authorities defused the bomb before it detonated.

– January 25, 1985: Action Directe kills René Audran, Engineer-General of the Corps of Attainment, in front of his home.

– June 26, 1985: Action Directe attempts and fails to assassinate Henri Blandin, Comptroller-General of the military.

Japanese Red Army

In 1971, Shigenobu Fusako, founded the Nihon Sekigun, or the Japanese Red Army, after having been radicalized as a student at Meiji University. She traveled to Lebanon and allied with the Palestinian Liberation Front with the aim of creating a worldwide socialist revolution.

– May 30, 1972: Three members of JRA attack Lod Airport (now Ben-Gurion Airport) in Israel with guns and grenades, killing 26 people and wounding 80.

– July 20, 1973: Five JRA members hijack Japan Air Lines Flight 404 after takeoff from Schiphol.

– September 13, 1974: JRA members take the French ambassador and ten others hostage at The Hague, Netherlands.

– August 5, 1975: The JRA takes 50 hostages at the American Insurance Associates building in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.

– August 11, 1976: JRA and PFLP members kill four people at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey.

December 4, 1977: JRA hijacks and crashes Malaysian Airline System Flight 653, killing all passengers and crew aboard.

– April 12, 1988: A New Jersey State Trooper arrests JRA member Kikumura Yū on the New Jersey Turnpike with three pipebombs in his car.

– April 14, 1988: The JRA bombs a USO club in Naples, Italy, killing one and wounding four.

The Red Brigades

In 1970, Renato Curcio, Margherita Cagol, and Alberto Franceschini. Curcio and Cagol were radicalized at the University of Trento. Franceschini was the grandson of the founder of the Italian Communist Party. In the beginning, the Red Brigades satisfied themselves with industrial sabotage of factories in Milan and burglarizing factory and union offices. In 1972, the Red Brigade kidnapped a factory foreman and photographed him with a placard declaring him to be a “Nazi.” Despite the arrest of the founding members in 1974, they continued to direct terrorist activities to members outside of prison until 1988 when the majority of its members were either dead or in jail.

– April 18, 1974: The Red Brigades kidnaps Assistant State Attorney Mario Sossi.

– June 17, 1974: The Red Brigades attack the headquarters of the Italian Social Movement, killing two.

– November 16, 1977: The Red Brigades shoot and kill Carlo Casalegno, deputy editor of La Stampa, in Turin, Italy.

– March 16, 1978: The Red Brigades kidnap and murder Aldo Moro, president of the Christian Democratic Party, along with five of Moro’s bodyguards.

– May 20, 1981: The Red Brigades kidnap and murder, Giuseppe Taliercio, an chemical engineer and manager of Montedison.

The Red Army Faction

The Red Army Faction was a West German Communist militant group, originally supported by the East German Stasi (State Police). The group was inspired by various murdering “revolutionaries” such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara, and based its thinking on the Italian Autonomism, as well as Gramscian and Frankfurt school culture criticism.

All of that “thinking” they imbibed led to them blowing up a lot of stuff, robbing a lot of places, and killing a lot of people.

The surviving members of the group rationalized their campaign of violence by arguing that former Nazis, real or perceived, were in positions of authority in Germany and came to the conclusion that any negative they saw in German society was akin to “Naziism.” There was also an element of “sinfulness” in their actions and the need to purge themselves of the taint of their parents’ sin of being Nazis, or complying with Nazi rule.

The fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany cut the RAF from its primary sources of funding. Many of the RAF members fled Germany with new identities, supplied by the Stasi in its last days, to Yugoslavia, Poland, and the Middle East.

– October 22, 1971: The RAF kills Sergeant Norbert Schmid.

– December 22, 1971: The RAF kills police officer Herbert Schoner during a bank robbery.

– May 11, 1972: The RAF kills US Army Lt. Paul A. Bloomquist in a bomb attack in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

– May 24, 1972: The RAF kills three Army personnel in Heidelberg by bomb.

– April 24, 1975: The RAF kills two in an attack on the West German embassy in Stockholm, Sweden.

– April 7, 1977: The RAF kills Attorney-General of Germany Siegfried Buback by shooting into his car at a stoplight.

– July 30, 1977: The RAF kills Jürgen Ponto, chairman of Dresdner Bank, in the course of attempting to kidnap him.

As the above quote and history indicate, Communism is a political philosophy of unjustifiable political terrorism and all Communist movements eventually end up engaging in terrorism in service to it.

Antifa, and its various American organs and derivations, drink from the same philosophical well as Action Directe, the Japanese Red Army, the Red Brigades, and the Red Army Faction. They already have their justification in place when they giggle to each other about “Bash the Fash.”

It’s a short leap from beating a man in the name of politics, to killing him for his politics.

Source

Archived Source

Former Occupier Mark Bray Writes a Book in Defense of Antifa

It is no secret that the American universities are infested with socialists and other reprobates unfit to any honest labor (in Animal Farm parlance, they are “brain-workers” or pigs). The more well-heeled universities have been a breeding ground for technocrats and petty tyrants that have held the American Republic hostage for nearly a century while building a permanent government in Washington D.C., teaching them how to smile and spout talking points while binding once-free men in chains made of inscrutable law and inescapable debt.

Out of this morass of intellectual dishonesty steps one Professor Mark Bray, late of Dartmouth College, alma mater of such luminaries as Meredith Grey, to explain why Antifa (Communist) violence is acceptable because Fascists are just that much worse.

After decades of relative obscurity, the fringe “antifa” movement is becoming a household name after followers clashed with white supremacists at the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally where extremist Alex Fields is accused of murdering 32-year-old activist Heather Heyer in a car attack.
But the movement is still loosely defined and organized, making it difficult to get a grip on its size and aims.

Professor Mark Bray, a historian and lecturer at Dartmouth, has tried to fill the gap in his new book, “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” that chronicles its rise. While Bray doesn’t participate in the group’s protests, he nonetheless considers himself an ally.

President Donald Trump called out the antifa movement by name at an Arizona rally last week, but they’ve attracted criticism from conservative and liberal commentators alike for its use of violent protest to shut down public events featuring far-right speakers. Bray has attracted his own criticism: Dartmouth’s president put out a statement distancing the college from any “endorsement of violence” after Bray defended antifa tactics on Meet The Press.

Bray talked to NBC News about the antifa movement — and the role violence plays within it — on Friday. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

NBC News: How would you define the antifa movement?

BRAY: It’s basically a politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right.

It’s a bunch of socialists, running riot in the streets, looking for class enemies to lynch. Got it.

But don’t take my word for it. Take it from the OGs of Antifa and their pamphlet “Das Konzept Antifa“:

The anti-capitalist orientation was characteristic of the revolutionary Antifa in the 1980s. This approach went back to the K(Communist) groups and the militant fighting groups, which were defamed as “terrorists”. The corresponding contents were made unpopular by the partially original transference of the so-called “Dimitrov theory” of 1935. Dimitroff, in his capacity as Secretary General of the Communist International, represented the thesis that Fascism was “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary Chauvinist, most imperialist elements of financial capital.”

So the theory runs “kill capitalism, kill fascism.” Kind of like the plot of Terminator: Kill Kyle Reese in the past to prevent him from destroying SkyNet in the future.

Fascism is merely the label that Antifa as decided to affix to anything they perceive as “morally impure.”

This is a phenomenon that’s gotten more attention in recent months, but your book traces their history back decades around the world. What would you say are the main roots of the American version?

In its modern variant, we can see it with Anti-Racist Action (ARA), which formed in the late 1980s in the Twin Cities out in Minnesota among anti-racist skinheads who were trying to fight back against the growth of a neo-Nazi skinhead movement that was essentially exported from Britain. That’s the real germ of this. They didn’t call themselves antifa, but it was the same basic politics.

Placeholder.

Is the movement actually larger now or are we just paying more attention to it?

It is actually larger now. A lot of the groups I spoke to formed in 2015, 2016 and even 2017. There were hundreds of groups in the ARA network in the ’90s, then it went into a lull in the 2000’s and picked up a little bit again in late 2000’s and early 2010’s, but even in radical left circles was very far down the list of prominent activities. But with the Trump campaign revving up and then his victory, that made more people convinced of its usefulness.

The nationalist candidate wins, the internationalist candidate loses, and now the Communists are ready to crawl out from under their rocks and try to fight in the streets.

You wrote in your book: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” What do you mean by that?

Anti-fascists are illiberal. They don’t see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion. They view organizing against them as a political struggle where the goal is not to establish a regime of rights that allow neo-Nazis and victims to coexist and exchange discourse, but rather the goal is to end their politics.

That is not a surprising admission. Communists are illiberal. Like the Antifa of the 1930s (Mark Bray insists that we must focus on the 1930s), the Communists are not fighting “Fascists” in defense of any personal liberty interests or universal principle at all.

Antifa is motivated by class warfare and political tribalism to silence its perceived foes with violence, or, as Bray said, “end their politics.”

The reason Communists refuse to engage so-called “Fascists” in rational discourse is not because they have successfully dispensed with their arguments; most of them have never read Mein Kampf or the Doctrine of Fascism, as they are too pure to sully their minds with such forbidden and profane texts. They can’t even be bothered to read “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” which is probably the best book on the topic of Nazi Germany. Communists do not engage in reasoned discussion is because they cannot engage in reasoned discussion.

If you establish that so-called fascist speech is illegitimate, then who decides who will be targeted as fascist? Can’t it lead more mainstream politics to end up being targeted?

When anti-fascist groups successfully defeat the organizing of local neo-Nazis and fascists, what usually happens is their group falls apart and individuals go back to being labor organizers or environmentalists or whatever kind of leftist. The lifecycles of anti-fascist organizing rise and fall with the organizing of the far right.

Anti-fascists oppose anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and there is a certain political lens that — agree or disagree with the lens — there is an element of continuity in terms of the types of groups targeted. I don’t know of any Democratic party events that have been ‘no platformed’ (shut down) by anti-fascists. So there is a political lens, people will quibble about what the lens is, who designs the lens, but I don’t think the slippery slope is actually, in practice, nearly as much of a concern as people imagine it would be.

Bray is arguing that Antifa is a MORALLY RIGHTEOUS LYNCH MOB. When the shopkeepers and farmers and town hicks decided they were going to don white hoods and masks string up a black man for the unpardonable sin of violating a white woman, that’s evil and racist. When Antifa decides to string up anyone they deem to be “fascist.”

And Bray will see no problem with these extrajudicial punishments or Antifa installing itself as a cross between a lynch mob and a NKVD Troika.

To zero in a bit, though: Your book references actions targeting actual neo-Nazi groups, who were very visible in Charlottesville, but also general clashes with police and property damage as means of protest, like at the Berkeley rally which was about a controversial speaker. Doesn’t that extend the lens?

Antifa are revolutionaries and they are almost always anti-police. That’s partly why they organize how they do: If they were pro-police they’d be more inclined to say, ‘Hey, police, why don’t you take care of this.’ But as anti-capitalist with a sort of police-abolitionist lens, they view the police as problems, as defenders of the capitalist order, and also all too often as sympathizers with the far right. So they view both sides as being opponents, but once again opposition to police is fairly clear cut and comes from a political tradition stretching back 200 years — so it’s not arbitrary, even if you disagree with it.

You also mentioned property destruction. Yeah, property destruction is certainly part of the repertoire of what some of these groups will do to achieve their goals. Some say it’s violence, some say it’s not because it’s not against human beings, that’s a matter of opinion.

Weren’t the Cheka “police”?

When the police work for the “capitalists” it’s bad. When the police work for the people’s glorious revolution and run Gulags stuffed with class enemies and counter-revolutionaries, it’s a-okay.

Dear reader, please understand this, if you take away nothing else: Communists have only one principle and that is the acquisition and maintenance of absolute power over society. They wail and beat their chests about the capitalist, about the bourgeosie, about the police, but when power falls into their hands, they will murder, torture, rob, and destroy without hesitation or remorse.

The Communist is hostis humani generis.

You write that violence represents a “small though vital sliver of anti-fascist activity” and you mention that it’s not the only thing they’re up to. But what makes it so vital?

Even if a group does not intend for that to be the way to go about it, if you’re organizing against violent fascists, being able to defend yourselves can unfortunately come in handy. The other part of it is looking at the broader historical trajectory of the rise of and fascism and Nazism in Europe, the liberal playbook for stopping the advance of fascism failed.

The liberal playbook did stop national socialism. The national socialists’ allies attacked the United States. The national socialists declared war on the United States. The United States declared war on the national socialists. The United States & Co. proceeded to kick the national socialists’ collective teeth in. The national socialists surrendered. The liberals picked the former national socialists up out of the dirt, dusted them off, and taught them the ways of liberalism, and welcomed them back into the brotherhood of humanity.

Well, half of them, anyway. The other half became communist vermin.

Another book on protest movements out now is by Zeynep Tufecki, who takes the exact opposite view. To quote Tufecki: “Plainly: historically, anything that looks like street brawls helps fascists consolidate power. ‘Many sides’ is their core tactic. [It] works.” In other words, they often use violence to justify an electoral backlash which they then use that to justify a state crackdown.

The question is more what to do when you’re at the early stages of struggle, before you get to the point where there are tanks and airplanes. I agree most of the time, in most circumstances, non-violent means are effective and it’s really very fundamental to building a popular movement to influence public opinion. The question is how bad does it have to get before self-defense becomes legitimate.

Part of what happened in interwar period is there were a lot of people arguing against pulling the emergency brake and escalating resistance. And looking back on the history, those are tragic calls for moderation.

Bray is asking that his fellow Communists be excused from the rules of civilization because it’s REALLY important and given carte blanche to run roughshod over people they don’t like.

Do you consider Trump one of those emergency moments where potentially more violent tactics are necessary?

The anti-fascist argument is that any amount of white supremacist or neo-Nazi organizing is worthy of emergency consideration — by no means can we allow this to take one step farther. Trump in office obviously from their perspective exacerbates this situation and empowers them and helps them to grow, but even if Hillary Clinton were in office, anti-fascists would still want to block the advance of…any of these kind of small little Nazi groups.

Special pleading.

One concern is that a movement, especially one facing an emboldened far right and a president pouring fuel on the fire, could become more radical over time. In the 60’s and 70’s, they went from street protests to eventually splinter groups of terrorists, especially in Europe, some of whom used anti-fascism a rallying cry.

I don’t think so. You’re right to point out some of the armed-struggle groups of the US and Europe in 60’s and 70’s, such as the Red Army Faction (in Germany), for example, saw what they were doing as anti-fascist struggle against a West German state they considered to be insufficiently de-Nazified. But the more specific form of anti-fascism that informs the groups today is the antifa model of the 70’s and 80’s which grew out of street confrontations, not out of an armed struggle background.

The kind of profile of the armed struggle within radical left thought in the U.S. since the 80’s has basically disappeared. No one ever seriously considers forming a small cell with arms to attack the government. It’s, at best, a joke.

Yes, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, a bunch of Communists terrorists financed by the Stasi of East Germany, a puppet state of the Soviet Union.

Refresh my memory, who exactly appointed the Communists as the arbiters of sufficient “de-Nazification”?

If you answered, NOBODY, you would be correct.

And yet, the Communists felt morally justified in murdering 34 people in West Germany because they “perceived” West Germany as Fascist.

Fun factoid: One of the founders of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Horst Mahler, is now a Neo-Nazi.

There really isn’t much daylight between a National Socialist and an International Socialist.

Dartmouth’s president put out a statement distancing the school from your remarks, saying they don’t support violence of any kind. You also faced a lot of criticism in the conservative press, saying you were defending offensive violence against fascists. How would you respond to that criticism?

I believe that the statement oversimplifies and distorts and decontextualizes my arguments. Because I’m not against free speech, I’m against those who are trying to shut down free speech, and I think it’s in the interests of humanity and diversity to try to prevent those who want to murder much of the population from being able to get anywhere near doing that. I wouldn’t characterize my political perspective as being “violent protests” so much as community self defense.

If Bray was against those who are trying to shut down free speech, he wouldn’t be penning defenses for Communists, who are trying to shut down free speech. In fact, he should pen a defense of Adolf Hitler; after Hitler was released from Landsberg after the Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazi press had been banned from publishing and Hitler was banned from publicly speaking for two years.

It’s almost as if curbing speech doesn’t kill ideas.

Bad ideas are not killed by fists, or bike locks, or urine balloons, or cans filled with cement, or by driving them from the public sphere; bad ideas are killed when they are dragged into the sanitizing light of reason and exposed for what they are.

Once again, socialists are ill-equipped to this task because they are irrational. Hitler was a socialist, surrounded by other socialists in Weimar Germany. Who was there who could have exposed his hucksterism for what it was without destroying their own political power?

When you say self defense, are we talking about guarding clergy members in Charlottesville who are under attack when the police aren’t there, or do you consider self-defense charging neo-Nazis with clubs even if they haven’t necessarily attacked you?

I’m doing a couple of different things. I’m trying to lay out the history and the perspective of the anti-fascists themselves who are doing this work, and I’m situating myself certainly ethically and politically in this context. What I’m trying to say is that the various differing ways anti-fascists go about resisting fascism are legitimate to be considered, that they are historically formed and ethically reasonable. I try not to wade too far into “What about this and what about this.” I like to leave it as general as “I support collective self-defense against fascism and Nazism.”

Mob rule has never been, and will never be, ethically reasonable. Bray is unwilling to articulate the principle he is advancing because it is appalling in nature:

“Violence against people I don’t like should not be a crime.”

If Bray was the historian he claimed to be, he would know and point out, that violence not only did not stop the National Socialists in Germany, it emboldened them. The anthem of the Nazi Party, Horst-Wessel-Lied was supposedly written by a Brownshirt who was subsequently murdered by Communist Party members and was elevated to a martyr by Joseph Goebbels.

Let’s go even further: Antifa are claiming they have to stop people they believe to be fascists and MIGHT oppress someone, somewhere, at some unknown time, by engaging in actions that ACTUALLY oppress people in the present.

As always, if you can suppress, harass, beat, and run Fascists out of public because they are going to kill lots of people, by the same token, Communists should be run out of the public sphere and beaten at every opportunity FOR THE SAME REASON.

So basically, you don’t want to take a clear position on that specific distinction (between self defense and preemptive attack).

In the abstract. I’m going to leave it at that if you don’t mind.

And here Mark Bray exposes himself for the pathetic, middle-class revolutionary weasel that he is. He is fine with others fighting his battles, but will not risk his comfortable position as a Dartmouth professor to advance the cause of the People’s Glorious Revolution.

At least the other weasel, Eric Clanton, had big enough balls to actually try and draw blood in the name of the revolution, even did wear a mask and run away afterwards. This cockless wonder Bray is just going to sit on the sidelines and offer golf-claps while the other middle class revolutionaries eventually get themselves into a fight that they aren’t going to be able to walk away from.

The answer to the Communist Spartacus League in Germany was the Freikorps.

Source

Feminist Equates Men with Terrorists

Another day, another Feminist writing garbage.

Today’s big winner Jean Hatchet, who would like to conflate “domestic violence” with terrorism and equate “terrorist” with “man.”

And then feminists wonder why some of us don’t like them.

Terrorism affects our lives with quite miserable regularity at present. Most days we wake up with the niggling fear that somewhere in the world a man will have driven a car or lorry into a crowd. Or a man will have walked into a pop concert with an explosive. Or a man will have reversed his car into a protesting crowd. We are afraid of men in airports. We are afraid of men while on demonstrations and marches. We are afraid of men on public transport. We are afraid of men while we walk around cities.

MUH FEELZ!

Your paranoia is neither my fault or my problem.

Some men, and some women, will be bristling angrily already while reading this. I am using the word “man” they will be thinking. They will probably be shouting in annoyance, “that is sexist!” “Women kill too” they will protest.

Yes, women do kill too. Mainly, they kill children and each other.

Truth isn’t sexist. All of the men who have committed all of the most recent acts of global terrorism are men. All of them.

Except for the ones who were female.

Britain’s first ‘All-female terrorist gang’ at Old Bailey – two allowed to hide faces

Female terrorists and their role in jihadi groups

Indictment against female terrorist who stabbed Israeli Arab in Jerusalem

Greece to Extradite Belgian Female Terror Suspect

Beware the Women of ISIS: There Are Many, and They May Be More Dangerous Than the Men

It was therefore frustrating to see Jason Burke in the Guardian at the weekend finding all sorts of different links between the perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks except the one that was blindingly obvious. They are all men. Violent men.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is the same line of reason in which an abundance of Jews in Hollywood = Hollywood is controlled by THE Jews.

But okay, let’s ignore the culture, ethnicity, and the…religious ideology or political ideology of terrorists and just chalk it up to them having a penis.

By the way, who initiates the majority of the divorces in the Anglosphere?

70%+ women? That must mean vaginas inevitably lead to divorce.

Joan Smith wrote here about the other notable link amongst other recent male terrorists. They frequently, so frequently that it is impossible to exclude its relevance, have a history of violence against women. Often the violence is against women they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unless the men in question hit the women in question over the head with a stick and dragged the women in question back to their man-cave, she knowingly selected this man to associate with.

Men present value; women accept value.

If a woman picks a man with a tendency for beating ass, that’s her fault.

Since that article one of the suspects in the Barcelona attack has been shown to have a history of domestic abuse. James Alex Fields Jr. the murderer in Charlottesville had a history of domestic abuse of his own mother.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

James Fields is a diagnosed schizophrenic, but let’s leave that crucial fact out. Don’t want to fuck up this anti-male narrative we’ve got going on here.

The World Health Organisation report ‘Violence Against Women. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women’ in 2016, showed that globally 30% of women will experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.

Let’s think about that. Terrorism is horrific. But 30% of the global population will not experience directly an act of terrorism that harms them physically. 30% of women will.

That’s a shame. Sounds like they should have picked a better dick.

On my project ‘Ride for Murdered Women’ the other day the woman I honoured on bike ride 72 was a 43-year-old, qualified solicitor by the name of Alison Jane Farr-Davies. Alison had been beaten to death and thrown downstairs naked by her boyfriend.

James Dean, her murderer, hit her like a rocket or a bomb. It could be said that he was her war. Being in a relationship with a violent man is similar to being in a war. It hurts like war. It is perpetual lived terror. It hurts like terrorism.

Ha. Now for some fact that are inconvenient to Hatchet’s narrative: First, the guy’s name is DEAN JONES, not James Dean. I’m not even English and figured that out in 30 seconds. Huffpo, tell your bloggers to step their game up.

Second, Farr-Davies was a drug addict. She was an addict prior to her relationship with Jones, who is also a drug addict.

Like attracts like. Farr-Davies met Jones, accepted the value he presented (fellow druggie), and consented to a relationship with an unstable drug addict who ended up committing manslaughter on her (the court agreed that he did not intend to kill her).

Feminists can blather on about “domestic violence” until they are blue in the face, but they cannot talk their way out of basic sexual economics and the fact that while men may express interest, ultimately, women choose men, especially in the world of the “liberated woman.”

And when a woman chooses a man who has some blatant, obvious moral defect, then she gets what are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of entering relationships and having sex with morally defective men, whether it is losing their money, getting their skulls cracked, or ending up dead at the bottom of the stairs.

Violence and abuse of women is committed in such numbers that it is, and should be seen as, terrorism. It is designed to create terror in women specifically and to stop them going about their daily lives in safety.

Interesting. Allow me to pull a few numbers.

From the 2015 Uniform Crime Report prepared by the FBI:

Total murders reported for 2015: 13,455.

Total number of male victims of murder: 10,608

Total number of female victims of murder: 2,818

From the UK’s Office of National Statistics for the year ending March 2015(Caveat: The UK jukes its murder stats so they aren’t really reliable)

Total number of male victims of murder: 331

Total number of female victims of murder: 186

Let’s try another. From Juristat in Canada for 2015:

Total number of male victims of murder: 428

Total number of female victims of murder: 175

Getting the point yet? Allow me to make it unambiguously. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence, up to and including murder, than women. And now feminists want to expand the already overbroad umbrella of “terrorism” to cover their demonstrated inability to pick a morally upright man? They want to raise the hue and cry when women are less likely to be murdered, both in total and per capita, than men?

Absolutely not.

It does. It should be tackled as a priority as high on the list of global governments as any extremist terrorist threat. There should be a COBRA meeting, or its global equivalent, called every day that a woman dies. A woman dies like this somewhere in the world every day.

Call the meeting.

When a woman dies, there needs to be a Cabinet-level meeting. When a man dies, just broom his corpse off the street and continue with business as usual.

Explain this feminist definition of “equality” to me again, because I, for the life of me, am not getting it.

Wait a minute, I think I’ve got it now: In Feminism, equality means that women are sacred and men are disposable.

Source

Feminist Rails Against Legalized Prostitution Based on Fundamental Misunderstanding of Economics, Criminology, and the Sexual Marketplace

Kat Banyard, a British Feminist and founder of UK Feminista, attempts to explain why prostitution is exploitative…and fails.

Right now, a global push is under way for governments to not only tolerate but actively enable the sex trade. The call is clear: decriminalise brothel keepers, pimps and other “third parties”, allowing them to profiteer freely – and certainly don’t dampen demand for the trade. This is no mundane policy prescription. The stakes are immense.

Feminists know everything under heaven except how voluntary transactions work and why they are preferable to involuntary transactions.

For all the ways it is marketed, the sex trade boils down to a very simple product concept: a person (usually a man) can pay to sexually access the body of someone (usually a woman), who does not freely want to have sex with him. He knows that’s the case – otherwise he wouldn’t have to pay her to be there. The money isn’t coincidence, it’s coercion. And we have a term for that: sexual abuse. Getting governments to facilitate a commercial market in sexual exploitation therefore requires masking it with myths such as: that demand is inevitable; that paying for sex is a consumer transaction, not abuse; that pornography is mere “fantasy” and that decriminalising the entire trade, pimping and brothel keeping included, helps keep women safe.

This is some top-shelf nonsense. By her standard of “coercion” every person who works a job for money is “exploited.” How many men throw garbage into trucks because they freely choose to dig into other people’s waste? How many people mop floors because it edifies their soul? How many men’s life long dream is it to be a truck driver, or a gravedigger, or any of a hundred more dangerous and lower paid jobs than being a whore?

In Pimp State, I set out to track down the reality behind these myths.

It took me to a multi-storey brothel in Stuttgart, where I accompanied Sabine Constabel, a local support worker, as she went room to room to let women know there was a doctor available for them to see that night. Thirteen years earlier, the German government had bowed to calls for pimping and brothel keeping to be decriminalised, so this one operated openly and legally, with fewer regulations placed on it than the restaurants we passed to get there. Constabel didn’t hesitate when I asked her who drove efforts for prostitution to be recognised as work. “It was people running the brothels … they wanted these laws that made it possible to earn as much money as possible.” Those laws have certainly delivered for some. Germany is now home to a chain of so-called “mega-brothels” and a sex trade estimated to be worth €16bn (£14.5bn) annually.

That sounds pretty civilized to me. People petitioned the government, the government approved of their petitioning, and they got what they wanted. No guns needed to be fired, no blood was shed, no one was beaten, or killed, or anything of the other events arise when political discourse breaks down.

The women Sabine and I met that night in Stuttgart lived and “worked” in their single room in the brothel. None spoke German as a first language, and all were young – most around 20 years old. The brothel owner charged each woman €120 a day for her room, which translated as having to perform sex acts on about four men every day before she could even break even. “I have women here, young women … They say: ‘I died here,’” Sabine told me. “I can empathise with what they mean. I believe them. I believe them that in reality the ‘johns’ can damage the women to the extent that it is not possible for everything to go back to normal.”

And now…it’s time for math!

€120 for four johns equals €30 per hour. That’s some pretty economically-priced pussy. I am assuming that the brothel-keepers, in line with industry standards in America, stipulate that the €30 covers the first hour or the first nut, whichever “comes” first, so whores are typically not getting railed for an hour straight. Four hours covers the expense of the room. If a whore works four more hours, she walks away with €120 in her pocket. According to Glassdoor.com a McDonald’s Crewmember in Germany earns €8.85 per hour. In the same eight-hour shift, our non-German speaking whore would gross €80.50 for the day. Our actual whore is grossing €39.50 more than our imaginary McDonald’s worker in the same period of time for less physically rigorous work.

In the feminist narrative, no female would WILLINGLY sell pussy. In reality, selling pussy is not only an economically sound decision for many women with few useful job skills, but it is a smart economic decision for an attractive woman who could easily clear €120 in an hour or less.

Researching Pimp State also led me to spend hours speaking to johns – sex buyers – after placing an ad in my local paper for men willing to talk about why they pay for sex. Based on the response my advert got, there is no shortage of sex buyers ready to ruminate about what they do. Indeed, the number of men who pay for sex in the UK almost doubled during the 1990s to one in 10, with a survey of 6,000 men finding that those most likely to pay for sex were young professionals with high numbers of (unpaid) sexual partners. I heard a range of justifications rolled out by the men I spoke to about why they pay women for sex: “I don’t have any option … At the moment I’m just single so I have to buy it”; “It’s just a male thing where it’s get as many as you can” … “I think it’s just a fact of ‘I’ve done my duty’,” for instance.

I’m not certain why it is more honorable to bid for pussy with food and entertainment than it is just pay for it with actual cash.

What united these men, however, was an overpowering sense of entitlement to sexually access women’s bodies. Some explicitly drew on the notion that they were merely consumers availing workers of their services. One complained about occasions that had been “poor value for money” – which he defined as “them clearly not enjoying it”. Another man described having paid for sex with a woman who obviously didn’t want to be there as a “very bad service, very”. He recalled over the phone: “We went upstairs and, how can I say, she was, like, very frigid. Very frigid. It was very disappointing in the sense I was paying … no touching in places like I would like. Even the sex was really, really crap. It was really, really disappointing.”

Yes, when you pay for prostitution, you are buying a service. If you paid for a massage and the massuese spent an hour beating you in the head with a stick, you would probably complain that it was a bad massage and you didn’t enjoy it. If you went to a restaurant and the waiter slapped you across the back of the head everytime he passed you, you would complain about the service, no matter how good the food was. If you hailed a taxi and the drive crashed into every lamppost on the way to your destination, you would complain that it was bad service, despite reaching your destination.

An “expectation” is not an “entitlement” but a customer in a freely-bargained for exchange of goods for services is entitled to complain when the services aren’t what he bargained for or expected.

Above all, the journey of unpicking the myths that surround the sex trade led me to the inescapable conclusion that change is possible, that we don’t have to live within cultural and legal lines laid out by pimps and pornographers, that there is an alternative. And it is the courage and compassion demonstrated by the many inspirational campaigners I met while writing the book that is required to get us there. Campaigners like Diane Martin CBE, who after being exploited in prostitution in her late teens, spent nearly two decades supporting other women to exit the trade, and now campaigns for an abolitionist law in the UK. First pioneered in Sweden, the abolitionist legal framework works to end demand for the sex trade. It criminalises sex-buying and third-party profiteering, but it completely decriminalises selling sex and provides support and exiting services for people exploited through prostitution.

Ah, the “Nordic Model.” And how is that working out?

Amnesty International published a report on May 23, 2016 about the effects of the “Nordic Model” anti-prostitution law in Norway where “buying sex is illegal, but selling sex is okay”. Let’s take a quick peek:

Police are required to enforce the ban on promotion, the law against trafficking and the ban on buying sex. The regulations are based on the legislators’ view on prostitution as an unwanted phenomenon, and a wish to stop all forms of organization of these activities. The tasks of the police when meeting with people in prostitution are, therefore, complex and challenging.

As a preventative measure against the establishment of the brothel run by foreign human traffickers, the police in Oslo for example enforce the Penal Law through their prohibition to rent out facilities for use in prostitution. People who sell sex from rented apartments risk being evicted, since the landlord may incur criminal liability based on current legislation.”

Prostitution by whores who don’t own their own premises are grounds to evict them. Good job, feminists.

The concept of “promotion” under
the law is broad enough to include sex workers working together or with any other person, such as a cleaner, receptionist or security guard, for the purposes of safety. Working together also increases the likelihood of raids and subsequent evictions as is likely to be viewed by police as “organized prostitution”.

Prostitutes can’t hire security or screeners or door guards, because that would be “promotion” and “organization.” Good job, feminists.

Amnesty International’s research found significant evidence that sex workers continue to be criminalized and penalized directly and indirectly in a variety of ways by the legal framework in Norway – whether they are selling sex from rented premises or hotels or working together or whether they are migrants and in the country on tourist visas. Sex workers also told Amnesty International that the threat of losing their livelihood meant they were unlikely to go to the police to report buyers unless they were extremely violent. In terms of seriousness, the threat and impact of forced eviction, deportation and loss of livelihood on people who sell sex far exceeds the implications of a 15,000 – 25,000 kroner (US$1,700–2,850) fine for buyers. Amnesty International does not consider that buyers now “have most to fear” from the police in Norway. The aim of the “Nordic Model” that the balance of criminalization should be shifted from seller to buyer -has not been realized for the majority of people selling sex in Norway, particularly the most marginalized, who are still penalized, and potentially criminalized, under the law.

Whores will only go to the police if a john roughs them up too much, and whores are afraid to report johns out of fear of losing their livelihood? Good job, feminists.

Here’s another place where the feminist narrative and reality part ways. There is a concept in criminology and economics called the “black market premium.” The more penalized a good or service is, the more expensive it becomes (evading law enforcement ain’t cheap) and the more likely it is to draw dangerous people into supplying and producing it (a person who willingly commits one felony for money will likely commit other felonies). In America, we saw alcohol prohibition turn portions of America into a war zone between law enforcement against criminals and criminals against each other. American and European drug prohibition has turned petty criminals into millionaires and warlords. Sex prohibition has created multimillion dollar human trafficking operations from Eastern Europe and South East Asia and parts of Africa.

But feminists will never let collateral damage happening in the real world tarnish their affection for plainly destructive and irrational policies.

Back to the article:

A trade based on men paying to sexually access women’s bodies is fundamentally incompatible with sex equality. It is up to us to make sure equality wins out.

The sexes are not equal. Pussy is expensive and dick is cheap. That concept is universal across all sexual species on Earth. Males demonstrate value, females accept value in exchange for access to sex. It doesn’t matter if it is a wedding ring, a house, or a €30 toss in the sack.

Until females are willing to buy dick, or stop trading pussy for resources, the sexes will never be equal. Men will play the game for sex, not by the “rules” that feminists articulate, but by the rules they see females actually playing by … which is pussy for resources and status.

Source

Aspiring Female Oligarchs Blame Bro Culture for Not Being Oligarchs

USA Today published an article today blaming the lack of “Women in the Boardroom” on Bro-Culture, or men associating in ways that feminists disapprove of.

“Bro Culture,” the exclusionary, male-centric vibe at some companies that’s led to a spate of powerful men such as Uber CEO Travis Kalanick losing high-profile roles is under heavy assault.

Misogyny is the new blasphemy.

However, many women remain skeptical that their complaints and the recent outcomes will make a dent in what they view as long-standing issues of inequality and harassment in the business world.

Women will rarely succeed in outperforming men, but they always succeed at out-complaining men.

Why is this?

Because females are rewarded for being weak.

A female’s tears and complaints get her what she wants.

A man’s tears and complaints get him scorn and derision.

“Will people stop sending memos about what kind of sex is appropriate at a company party? Likely,” says Jessica Rovello, CEO of interactive content company Arkadium, referring to a memo that Kalanick once wrote. “But will this change the way people operate? Probably not.”

Ingrained male habits die hard, Rovello says, recalling countless meetings where, as the only woman in the room, questions she asked were answered with the speaker addressing a male colleague.

I wouldn’t address her either. Females in the corporate setting have successfully turned every word, every glance, every gesture, into an actionable offense that could cost the offending party and the company millions of dollars and one or more people their jobs.

Origin of the species

The word “bro” is a white appropriation of the African-American greeting derived from “brother.”

But as a term describing an ethos, bro culture has come to represent a testosterone-charged group reminiscent of a sports team or frat house, and for some harks back to powerful white privilege that has caused women and minorities to struggle for equality since the founding of the country.

It’s a passive-aggressive slur used by Feminists and Social Justice Warriors against any white male who offends them.

Please, continue.

At its core, bro culture aims to create a space where boys can be boys, says Michael Kimmel, founder and director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University and author of Angry White Men: Masculinity at the End of an Era.

What we mean when we say ‘bro culture’

“It’s a reaction against the entry of women into virtually every public space, which they see as an invasion,” he says. “Once upon a time, every place was a locker room.”

Why is the “locker room” such a magical, forbidding place to these feminists? Here’s a free clue from someone who has been in the locker room:

Locker rooms fucking stink. Sweat-stained clothes, sweat-stained gear, sweat-stained towels, dirt, grass, mud, and blood are the wonderful bouquet of smells you get to enjoy in a locker room. Showers that rarely get cleaned. A couple of vending machines if you are lucky. No normal person would just want to hang out in a locker room.

But when your friend and teammates are in the locker room with you, the guys who you have just played a three-hour game against another team, guys you have trained with, played with, fought with, laughed with, cried with, bled with, then the locker room is not that bad of a place.

When feminists sneer about “locker rooms”, the thing they are actually attacking is male camaraderie, friendships between men born out of mutual respect and shared experience. It is evident in the feminist attacks on male spaces. The desired world of feminists is one where men scramble for the approval of females rather than the respect of other men.

Echoes of Wall Street

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which battled Wall Street on the behalf of women decades ago, says women continue to come forward even though the agency hasn’t filed any major financial industry sex discrimination cases in New York City in recent years.

“That doesn’t mean similar discrimination is not occurring. We certainly have continued to see allegations like that,” says Raechel Adams, an EEOC supervisory trial attorney who worked on one such case 13 years ago.

Every female is a lawsuit waiting to happen. She is a frag grenade with tits.

Naturally, she runs to the biggest, baddest alpha male on the block to punish men who have offended her: The government.

“Culture at work is so long-standing, and it’s just impossible to beat it down,” says Allison Schieffelin, who won a Wall Street discrimination settlement a decade ago in a case that showed bro culture is hardly a new phenomenon.

Case-in-point: Schieffelin worked for Morgan Stanley and later sued the company for “sex bias” (wah! They aren’t promoting a strong, independent woman like me at the speed I deserve!). She ran to the EEOC to defend her feminine honor against Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley saw the writing on the wall and settled for $54 million of which Schieffelin received $12 million. Where did the rest of the money go?

If you answered “the government” you win the prize of…the pleasure of being right.

$42 million went to the government, thanks a female pointing the finger at the company she probably told an interviewer she would love to work for and would be an amazing employee of and it was her dream to be at.

A female protects no secrets but her own and holds faith with no one but herself.

Serious consequences for bad actors

Even so, women working in Silicon Valley have made men think twice about the potential consequences of indecent behavior.

Venture capitalist Justin Caldbeck was forced to resign from Binary Capital after being accused by many women of inappropriate advances during business negotiations.

Former Uber engineer Susan Fowler wrote a detailed blog post in February about the ride hailing company’s sexist environment. Her charges started a cultural tailspin that led co-founder Kalanick to resign in June after eight years of helming his $70 billion startup.

You continue doing business with females, you get what you get.

And Google fired engineer James Damore Aug. 7 after he questioned the tech giant’s diversity program.

Questioning the official narrative gets you shit-canned. Misogyny is the new blasphemy.

Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit organization that champions equality for women, says there is no question that sexual harassment is rife in all types of workplaces. Nonetheless, outrage over bro culture has not been unanimous.

Men and women in the tech industry stood by their embattled colleagues, characterizing their downfalls as witch hunts. “How is it that men should pay with their careers for a moment of weakness?” asks Michael Petraeus, a start-up entrepreneur who calls McClure’s ouster a “crucifixion.”

Loyalty? Surely not! Haven’t these infidels heard to the good news of “Listen and Believe Her”?

Wall Street’s cautionary tale

History suggests that it may take far more than a paper billionaire’s demise to clean up bad behavior.

A few decades back, Wall Street was riddled with the same sexual discrimination issues as junk bond and derivatives wizards reinvented investing much the way today’s tech entrepreneurs have disrupted the taxi and lodging sectors. Their success often bred a feeling of invincibility and supremacy.

But some women wouldn’t stand for it. In 1996, Pamela Martens and two other women filed a federal complaint against Smith Barney, which had doled out 95% of its brokerage jobs to men, according to the lawsuit.

The case became known as the Boom Boom Room lawsuit, after a Smith Barney basement party room from which women were barred. Because all employees had signed agreements to take any claims to mediation, trial revelations were avoided in exchange for mediated settlements for nearly 2,000 women.

Irony of ironies, the Boom Boom Room case came about because of women signing arbitration agreement, and then failing to abide by it.

The settlement in that case called for Smith Barney to hire and train even more women, which is akin to inviting even more snakes into your house after one bites you in your sleep.

Feminists complain mightily about Wall Street being a No Girls Club and not being invited to off-hours excursions with male co-workers. Surely such strong, independent creatures could start their own All Girls Club.

Why the hell would they? It comes back to loyalty. There are hundreds of articles of women triumphantly crowing about how they “stuck it” to their former employer for millions of dollars for the glory of womankind. Why would any man bring a female along when any part of a conversation might become the basis for her multi-million dollar EEOC discrimination lawsuit?

Females have become personal and professional liabilities to most men and men are limiting their liability by keeping their professional and personal contacts with females as limited and public as possible.

Source

Yvette Felarca/Yvonne Felarca Argues “Bash The Fash” as a Legal Justification to Assault; Communists of r/Anarchism Offer Support for Assaulting Wrong-Think

“Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”

– Squealer, Animal Farm

Yvette, or Yvonne Felarca, went to court to face charges of felony assault and inciting a riot for her role in a riot by Communists in Sacramento back in June 2016. Video shows Felarca punching a man repeatedly, despite him having his hands raised over his head during the assault, and was walking towards police to seek help.

Felarca made a statement with respect to her charges:

“Standing up against fascism and the rise of Nazism and fascism in this country is not a crime. We have the right to defend ourselves.”

That’s right. Beating up someone seeking police protection is “standing up against fascism” and “not a crime.”

Felarca is scheduled to return to teach at Berkeley Middle School at the end of August, because teachers cannot be fired unless they are convicted of a felony.

Yay, public unions!

Various breeds of Communists lurk on reddit, mostly on r/Anarchism. Aside from being revolutionary LARPers and Antifa fanboys.

Why are they worthy of any consideration?

Because they argue that National Socialists are terrible people to whom violence must be done on sight without any protections or due process.

International Socialists on the other hand, are a-okay, despite having engaged in more wars, killed more people, expropriated more wealth, and conquered more land by force of arms than the National Socialists could ever hope to.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 826 points

McCarthyist witch hunts are not a thing of the past! Remember, this is a charge from the protest where multiple people were stabbed by neo-nazis who have not been arrested for the attempted murders: https://torchantifa.org/?p=568

Attempted murders? Try self-defense.

From June 27, 2016

“Neo-Nazis didn’t start the violence at state Capitol, police say”

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The Communists showed up looking for a fight and are now crying crocodile tears for sympathy when they actually got one? Nah.

/u/AutumnLeavesCascade 170 points

I was an Antifa street medic in Sac and saw the aftermath of the Neo-Nazis stab at least one black Anti-Fascist and one trans Anti-Fascist, they had been chosen specifically as targets of hate, the black man for instance had had the n-word shouted at him by the Nazis and his intestines were hanging out, I provided auxiliary first aid support for him with two primary medics until he could get to the ER. Up to 6 people were stabbed by the Nazis at that rally, I have been doing therapy do help process the level of violence I saw that day. Being 12 inches from spilled intestines in an attempted hate murder will definitely fuck you up.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5770402c/turbine/la-5-stabbed-at-neo-nazi-rally-in-sacramento-20160626/650/650×366
EDIT: I think the above pic is the other black man the Nazis stabbed, since he is closer to the paved area. Here is a full article about the individual I was talking about, not going to post any of the grisly photos just going by the article: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/06/stab-victim-neo-nazi-rally-remains-unidentified/

That’s your own fault. You wander around looking for a fight, and want someone else to feel bad because it didn’t go your way? Not going for it.

Next time, bash your dick instead of the so-called “fash.”

/u/Empiricalknowledge 301 points

400,000 American soldiers died to stop the spread of Nazism. Did we forget the mission of the Nazis is to see most of us dead?

400,000 American soldiers died BECAUSE the Congress of the United States declared war against Germany on December 11, 1941 AFTER the Germany declared war against the United States on the same day.

/u/nuthernameconveyance 186 points

And 60 million Russians.

There are few things more beautiful than one group of socialists killing another group of socialists in large numbers.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 201 points

I wish the liberals would realize that comprehensive anti-fascist arguments are based on the historical study of fascist movements, and are not comprehensively explainable in 1 or 2 sentences on reddit comments.
Here is an interview with someone who explains the full argument, if anyone who doesn’t understand why anti-fascists are against letting nazis publicly organize wants to try and actually understand it, before spouting kneejerk platitudes about non-violence at us like we wouldn’t also prefer non-violence: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/16/antifa_a_look_at_the_antifascist

The principle of actual liberals is “non-aggression” not “non-violence.” We, as liberals, do not attack people for their words. We attack people who have initiated the attack against us, or we can reasonably perceive as an immediate threat.

But it is revealing of what Communists actually think of Liberals, that, despite their excuse of 400,000 Americans dying to destroy Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Empire of Japan, that we are, to their view, a bunch of pacifist pussies and pushovers.

/u/darlantan 90 points
Hey now, it’s not Nazi enabling to want everybody to get along, it’s the good ol’ Centrist way! You guys stop punching Nazis and we all compromise in the middle. We’ll give their platform a voice and let them recruit a little bit, and then we’ll politely ask them to step it back a little bit. Maybe let them kill just the jews, or the blacks, or maybe it’d be fair to just pick a minority at random. See! Compromise is clearly the way.

…or, you know, you can just go shove a Nazi back into their box today and call it done.

Again, Communists conflate “non-aggression” with “pacifism” or, more accurately “martyrdom” and think that Liberals are a bunch of pussies who are unwilling to defend their principles with force. It’s also their ardent hope that Liberals are pussies so that they can forcibly impose Communism on people without the liberals fighting back against them.

I have no problem putting Nazis in a box, so long as there is plenty of room in there for the Communists. Two murderous philosophies that deserve to be buried on top of each other and walk through the gates of Hell arm-in-arm.

/u/Nihht anarcho-communist 1245 points
The riot cops grabbed her by her hair and threw her onto the pavement. They did more damage to her than she did to that Nazi. Not to disparage her, because her actions are absolutely admirable, but she is pretty small and it really didn’t seem like she hurt him much if at all. And she’s the one being charged over this.
Say it with me folks:

MONOPOLY ON LEGITIMATE USE OF VIOLENCE

She does violence to others, but I’m supposed to be upset that violence was done to her, because she’s a female and she’s small, and she didn’t hurt him much if at all.

Nope.

Don’t want to get hit? KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS TO YOURSELF.

How hard is that principle to understand? Keep your hands to yourself. Oh, but I forget myself. Communists don’t operate on principles, they operate on desires, as in “I desire the People’s Glorious Revolution, NOW!” “I desire the wealth of the Capitalists, and the Bourgeosie, and the Kulaks, and the Landowners, NOW!” “I desire absolute power over the nation-state, NOW!”

/u/Hulabaloon 112 points

I’d like to know when it became not ok to punch a Nazi in the face.
They’re fucking Nazis man.

V-E Day, May 8, 1945, when the German government signed the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, giving the Allies jurisdiction to try Nazis for acts committed before and during World War 2, rather than just “punching them in the face.”

Communists are creatures of desire, not reason. They have no respect for the rule of law, or even civilization. “Me want punch Nazi, NOW!” “Me want sleep, NOW!” “Me want woman, NOW!”

Communists are just animals that can lie.

/u/SolidWookie 516 points

If you ever wondered how the Nazis took power just look at how this person is defending them now.

The Nazis didn’t “take” power. The Nazi Reichstag was the duly elected parliament of the German people. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) couldn’t win an election because they were paid stooges of the Soviet Union and everyone in Germany knew it.

Also, the Nazis were really good campaigners.

/u/LothartheDestroyer 437 points

They won an election on rhetoric playing to nationalism.

They won because the opposition wasn’t doing enough to stop the rhetoric.

Half right, but not accurate. The Nazis’ 1930 campaign was based on repudiating Versailles, ending government corruption, increasing jobs, and bringing the so-called money barons of Weimar Germany to heel (especially if those money barons were Jewish).

/u/IAmARantallionAMA 140 points

Wow wow wow what?? You go read a history book! The context for those elections was a Germany wracked by 10 years of street violence, perpetrated by Nazis, and Hitler used the Nazis control of the streets to win the election. Furthermore once Hitler won the election he used the threat of violence to take powers for himself contrary to the German constitution and centralise power in his own political office.

Also are we going to conveniently forget Italy where Mussolini didn’t even need the support of the majority let alone to win an election to ascend to power? He just needed 30’000 marching fascists and he was handed power by the Italian government. Fascists don’t need to win elections, Hitler just used electioneering as a tool, but it wasn’t necessary for his rise. A bit like dictators around the world nowadays use elections despite the fact they don’t need to win them.

Here is another example of a Communist with a fetish for violent revolution and bloody murder. The Nazis did not “control the streets” but the Brownshirts surely fought the Communists for them. Interestingly, the Brownshirts were originally created to protect Nazi meetings from disruption by Communists.

The Nazis winning elections was necessary because the Nazis could not overthrow the Weimar government from the outside without arousing the ire of France and England before it was prepared to fight them, the German Army and the Freikorps would not have stood for another armed overthrow of the government after the Spartacist Rebellion and the Kapp Putsch.

/u/ThisPlaceIsToxic 2 points

Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.”
Kindly fuck off* Nazi Sympathizing Scum.
http://www.snopes.com/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/

/u/LothartheDestroyer 4 points
Wait. Is the fuck off directed towards me?
I hope not.
Because I’m not a sympathizer. It feels strange having to type that out.

This is so wonderful it almost brings a tear to my eye. Socialists having to prove their purity to each other by who can rend their garments, tear out their hair, and denounce “Nazi-sympathizers” the loudest.

/u/mosneagubeat 88 points

Through the very existence and proclamation of their ideology fascists are violent.

Hitting fascists is self-defence, not violence.
Bash the fash!

And when the fascists open your intestines up on the Sacramento pavement, what’s your next move, cupcake?

Also, better dead than red.

/u/Free_Bread 32 points

This is some 3rd grade playground shit
Right, you don’t hit people just because you simply disagree with them. You do attack when they threaten your safety and right to exist

Seriously, do you think we all just go around attacking anybody who disagrees with us? No, because that’d be dreadful. Obviously we understand that concept, and there’s a reason we only advocate for attacking fascists. Despite that we vehemently disagree with liberals, we don’t attack them, and will even work with them.

This isn’t some fine line, it’s as thick as it gets. Once you start advocating and organize to violently remove people from society based on inherent traits like race, ability, or sexual orientation, you will be shut down.

Do you go around attacking anybody who disagrees with you? No. Is that your likely aspiration to do so? Yes. On what evidence do I base that statement? Nearly every socialist revolution of the last 200 years has involved some massive purging of its ideological foes, whether those foes are named “Girondins”, “Whites”, “Kulaks”, “Roaders”, “Bourgeosie”, “Capitalists”, “non-jurors”, etc.

And no, I do not hold the mass murder of people based on their political or social or economic characteristics to be morally superior to mass murdering people based on their race or ethnicity.

/u/clean_void 45 points

advocating for a racially “pure” ethno-state is violence. “it’s not okay to murder people or advocate the wholesale slaughter of others you don’t like” is some pretty basic shit.

Speech is not violence. Speech, by its very nature, cannot be violent. Speech may incite violence, but the act of uttering words is not an act of violence against anyone.

/u/dreamgirl777 23 points

why do people pretend like nazis should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a white ethnostate through genocide?

Why do people pretend that Communists should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a proletariat state through mass murder?

MakeGenjiGreatAgain 21 points

Violence against nazis is always okay imo

Violence against Jews is always okay imo – Hitler

Violence against Kulaks is always okay imo – Stalin

Violence against landowners is always okay imo – Mao

Violence against intellectuals is always okay imo – Pol Pot

Violence against infidels is always okay imo – Muhammad

/u/Random_CommieBut 57 points

Dear centrists:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
“nazi’s should be allowed to organize”
“obviously they won’t get violent”
“but muh free speech”
Get fucking real.

Blah, blah, blah, take it to the poetry slam. Communists do not hold freedom of speech to be an idea worthy of defending. They cannot defeat Fascism or Naziism in an exchange of ideas because Communism and Fascism are built on the same foundation (Class Struggle), and in practice result in the same outcomes (absolute state control of the economy, mass murder, deprivation of natural rights).

The Communist does not wish to “bash the fash” because the Fascist is an enemy of the peoples’ freedom. The Communist and the Fascist are rivals in the same industry, tyranny, and they are busy trying to eat each other’s lunch.

This is getting tiresome now, so here’s the archived link to the reddit thread, peruse it at your leisure or desire and remember.

Oh, and remember: Better dead than red.

Berkeley Teacher Filmed Punching Neo-Nazi Arraigned

r/Anarchism