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

Advertisements

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

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

How to be a good Nazi in 8 easy steps

1. Make a Firm Commitment to Democracy…At First

After the Beer Hall Putsch, the NSDAP was in shambles and the subject of ridicule among the German people who were then drunk on cheap American loans. While Adolf Hitler was in prison in 1924, he explained to Nazi financier and fundraiser, Kurt Ludecke:

“When I resume active work it will be necessary to pursue a new policy. Instead of working to achieve power by armed coup, we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag against the Catholic and Marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the result will be guaranteed by their own constitution. Any lawful process is slow . . . Sooner or later we shall have a majority – and after that, Germany.”

1923 had taught the Nazis an important lesson: “Armed struggle” might be the masturbatory fantasy of Marxists everywhere, but the average person has little taste for perpetual, violent revolution. The Spartacist coup launched by the Communist Party of Germany was still fresh in the minds of the German people and they remained clamorous for peace and prosperity.

2. Be A Great Community Organizer With A Big Tent Philosophy

The first step was to secure the party’s finances. In 1925, the number of dues-paying members of the NSDAP was 27,000. By 1929, it was 178,000. Not bad in an era where it was impossible to spam the electorate with obnoxious fundraising emails.
In keeping with the new policy, Hitler restructured the NSDAP to mirror the political structure and social structure of Weimar Germany. Each of the Reichstag districts had an gauleiter personally appointed by Hitler. The districts were subdivided into Kreises, each led by a kreisleiter. The smallest subdivision was an Ortsgruppe.

As the famous Democrat Party leader, Tip O’Neill, once said, “all politics is local.”

Additionally, the NSDAP organized a state-within-state, appointing its own officials responsible for coordinating Nazi policy on law, agriculture, commerce, labor, transportation, culture, engineering, foreign affairs, etc. In 1936, after he was installed as Chancellor, Adolf Hitler revealed the purpose behind having such an intricate organization before policymaking power was ever acquired.

that it is not enough to overthrow the old State, but that the new State must previously have been built up and be practically ready to one’s hand. . . . In 1933 it was no longer a question of overthrowing a state by an act of violence; meanwhile the new State had been built up and all that there remained to do was to destroy the last remnants of the old State – and that took but a few hours.

This NSDAP innovation of a “Shadow Government”, ready to be deployed by the opposition, would be implemented in Britain after the war by Churchill opponent Hugh Gaitskell of the Labour Party in 1955.

And of course, the individual special interest groups could not be neglected. The NSDAP created organizations for adolescent men of 15 to 18, the Hitler Youth. For boys, there was the Deutsches Jungvolk. For the women, there was the N.S. Frauenschaften. For the girls, there was the Bund Deutscher Maedel. Other groups and occupations had separate organizations under the NSDAP umbrella, such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, bureaucrats, intellectuals, and artists.

3. Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

All that serves to precipitate the catastrophe . . . is good, very good for us and our German revolution.”

– Gregor Strasser, NSDAP politician

Three weeks after the death of German financial wizard Gustav Stresemann who had moved heaven and earth to put the Weimar Republic on track to paying off its war reparations, the Great Crash of 1929 happened. Like a partygoer waking up after a night of binge drinking, the world had awoken up from a binge of cheap credit and the American lenders were demanding repayment of loans made to Germany. Millions of Germans were thrown out of work. Millions of unemployed, disaffected young men were looking for some hope of a stable future. (Sound familiar yet?)

The NSDAP had that ever-ready panacea of all political ills and misfortunes that result from the poor political choices of the electorate: Blame someone else and demand the keys to the state. The NSDAP propaganda helpfully pointed out these hidden enemies: The enemies who defeated and subjected Germany to the Treaty of Versailles, the Marxist rabble-rousers stirring up trouble in the streets and the unions, and the greedy bankers and industrialist who profited from the German people’s misery (especially the Jewish bankers and industrialists).

It seemed to have worked well. In 1928, the NSDAP received 810,000 votes and 12 seats. By 1930, it had6,409,600 votes and 107 seats. Practically overnight, the NSDAP went from the ninth-largest party in Germany, to the second. However, they were shut out of the ruling government by a coalition of the Social Democrats, As the Great Depression deepened and German unemployment grew from The next election in 1932 saw the NSDAP seize the Reichstag with over 13 million votes and 230 seats.

As the world would soon learn, elections, with over 80% voter turnout, have consequences.

4. Accept Tribute From Wealthy Industrialists While Smearing Them Publicly

The hallmark of powerful people is knowing how to stay close to, and in the good graces of, people of equal or greater power. In 1930, the NSDAP star was rising and the captains of industry were lining up to pay tribute to the new German Caesar named Adolf Hitler and his Nazi legionnaires. By this time, the S.A. and the S.S. were larger than the German army, so Hitler had a lot of mouths to feed. NSDAP propagandists Gregor Strasser, Joseph Goebbels, and Gottfried Feder publically denounced the moneyed industrialists whose greed had betrayed Germany. In private, Adolf Hitler allayed their fears and reassured them cooperation with the soon-to-be Nazi government meant the preservation of their power and wealth.

There are no exact figures as to how much the business interests paid to the NSDAP to keep their industrial fiefdoms, but whatever it was appeared to have worked in their favor for at least awhile.

5. Rock The Vote

Now it will be easy to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money.”
– Joseph Goebbels, February 3, 1933

There is a liberal principle of office-seeking: Let the office seek the man, and not the man seek the office. Men who are anxious to fill offices are not best-fitted to fill them.

A good Nazi has no time for that nonsense. Hitler, following a legal maneuver that allowed him to become a German citizen in time to run for President of Germany in 1932, campaigned like a madman. The Nazis hung millions of posters, distributed millions of pamphlets and newspapers, and held thousands of meetings throughout Germany. Hitler, thanks to the high-tech invention of the charter plane, held 3 to 4 rallies per day.

The office went to Hindenberg, with a clear majority, but only after a second election. However, the 85-year-old Hindenberg lacked the vitality to effectively govern and the newly minted Nazi Reichstag made clear that they intended to be “ungovernable” by anyone but Hitler. And they would get their wish when Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany at noon on January 30, 1933.

6. Use Government Power to Silence and Harass Your Enemies

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
– Decree for the Protection of the People and the State

The NSDAP wasted little time in securing its political power. The new Chancellor banned Communist meetings and newspapers. Social Democrat rallies were broken up and members publically beaten of the S.A . Hermann Goering, Reichsstatthalter of Prussia, ordered police to raid the Communist Party headquarters in Berlin (most of its members fled by this time).

Marinus van der Lubbe, a feeble-minded Dutch Communist and serial arsonist, started the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, for which the Nazis speedily tried and beheaded him. The fire was grounds for the Nazis to push for the signing of the Decree for the Protection of the People and the State on February 28, suspending civil liberties and permitting Nazi officials to impose death sentences for a variety of offenses.

7. Use Journalism Is A Public Service…to Protect the Political Narrative

In this matter the Eher Verlag, together with publishing concerns owned or controlled by it, expanded into a monopoly of the newspaper publishing business in Germany . . . The party investment in these publishing enterprises became financially very successful. It is a true statement to say that the basic purpose of the Nazi press program was to eliminate all the press which was in opposition to the party.
– Max Amann

Once the Communists and Socialists had been sufficiently chastised or exiled, the NSDAP turned its attentions on newspapers and radios. October 4, 1933, the government passed the Reich Press Law. The law declared that journalism was a “public vocation.” And as we know, those who accept the mantle of “public service” must submit to public control. And because the NSDAP represents the voice of the public…you get the idea. The law placed German citizenship requirements on employment, barred Jews from the industry, and placed subject-matter restrictions on content.

The Berliner Tageblatt, the Frankfurter Zeitung, and the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, were all allowed to survive after divesting themselves of any unfortunate Jewish ownership interests and staff. The surviving Berlin newspaper editors were required to personally attend Joseph Goebbels, now Minister of Propaganda, and receive instruction on what they would and would not print, how it would be written, and how it would be delivered. And the press eagerly prostituted themselves to Nazi truth in the name of their survival.

8. Seize Control of the Schools Through the Federal State

When an opponent declares, ”I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ’Your child belongs to us already . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short tune they will know nothing else but this new community.’
– Adolf Hitler, November 6, 1933

The NSDAP quickly took control of the schools by two prongs of attack: seizing the teachers and seizing the youth. Teachers, from kindergarten to the university, were legally required to join the National Socialist Teachers’ League. The subsequent Civil Service Act of 1937 required teachers to be “the executors of the will of the party-supported State.” Male teachers were required to have been members of the S.A., the Labor Service, or the Hitler Youth. Additionally, all teachers were required to attend “observation camp” where Nazi psychologists assessed them for “political reliability” before they could receive a license to teach.

Schools and universities that had once been controlled by the states were brought under the purview of the Minister of Education, who had the power to appoint rectors, deans, student union leaders, and lecturers’ union leaders. The Nazis also introduced courses in Rassenkunde (racial science). The University of Berlin offered 25 courses in this “burgeoning” field. Going one step further, the Nazified academics of Germany perverted the natural sciences by prefixing them with German and teaching them as a sub-field of “racial science.”
Compare and contrast:

”German Physics? ’But,’ it will be replied, ’science is and remains international.’ It is false. In reality, science, like every other human product, is racial and conditioned by blood.”
– Professor Philipp Lenard of Heidelberg University

“Modern Physics is an instrument of [world] Jewry for the destruction of Nordic science . . . True physics is the creation of the German spirit . . . In fact, all European science
is the fruit of Aryan, or, better, German thought.”
Professor Rudolphe Tomaschek, director of the Institute of Physics at Dresden

On the youth side, the NSDAP seized control of the German Youth Association, performed a shotgun wedding between it and the Hitler Youth, and banned all non-Nazi youth organizations. Training followed a strict line for boys to be admitted into the Hitler Youth, and later, the Labor Service or Army. The girls followed a similar path, although they passed into the Bund Deutscher Maedel rather than the Hitler Youth. Parents who attempted to withhold their children from the Nazis’ compulsory educational program were subjected to imprisonment.

That’s the list. Hope you enjoyed it.

Hoes Gonna Be Hoes featuring Julie Bindel

While watching The Guardian circle the toilet bowl, paid Feminist talker Julie Bindel has added her voice to the cacophony of harridans screeching for the destruction of due process and defendants’ rights. In this episode of “Hoes Gon Be Hoes” Julie discusses why trial by jury should be done away with. But only in rape cases. Because matters of the Holy Vagina shouldn’t be entrusted to the hoi polloi.

Almost a decade ago I wrote that rape might as well be legal. I feel the same way today. In 2013-14 in England and Wales, about 16,000 rapes were recorded by police, but only a third of these cases were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Approximately 15% of the recorded offences resulted in a charge. The actual attrition rate – meaning from reporting to conviction – is estimated at about 6%.

By “16,000 rapes,” Julie means 16,000 “reports” or accusations of rape. The one-third sent to CPS presumably had sufficient evidence for the police to say “we think there’s enough here.” In the absence of stating a conclusion, Julie would like to assume that 16,000 women in England and Wales were raped because “why would a woman EVER lie about rape?” (Except when they do). The alternate (and better) conclusion is that those cases not forwarded to CPS and not charged were either A) false, or B) lacked sufficient evidence.

One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors in sex crime trials, and appoint a specially trained judge.

“Specially trained” by who? And trained in what capacity? Also, how did we go from statistics showing that police and prosecutors sifting through rape accusations, to an indictment of the right of trial by jury in felony cases?

The minds of feminists are peculiar indeed.

I am wholly in favour of our jury system, but even more in favour of ensuring that rapists and other sex offenders do not walk free.

Anyone who tells you they are in favor of something BUT is not actually in favor of that thing.

New Zealand could be the first country to rid sex crime cases of jurors if one key recommendation from a recently published report by its Law Commission is implemented. The commissioners have suggested that there is a case for having sexual violence trials decided by a judge, either alone or with two expert “lay assessors”.

How will these “lay assessors” be qualified as “experts”? No wait, let me guess, master’s degrees in Gender Studies and Sociology with insightful publications on “why penises are the root of all evil” (jobs for the girls).

Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?

In response to the first question, I’m sure Julie will feed us a healthy dose of “Believe Her” non-logic. In response to the second question, no. Trial by jury (there is no “jury system”) is one of many rights recognized for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the overwhelming power of the state. Your own Magna Carta provides a wonderful list things the state was no longer permitted to do without the judgment of a jury:

Captured, Imprisoned, Disseised (deprived) of his freehold (property), Disseised of his liberty, Disseised of his free customs, Outlawed, Exiled, Destroyed, Proceeded against by force, and Proceeded against by arms.

Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment. In their report, the New Zealand commissioners found that rape trials feature “powerful cultural conceptions” that are “unique to sexual violence as a form of criminal offending” and absent from, for example, a case involving a man hitting another man in the street or pub.

That’s a lot of words to say “please let me prejudice the jury before any evidence is presented.”

I have sat through a number of rape cases over the years, and, despite legislation introduced in 2001 that aimed to restrict the use of previous sexual history evidence unless there is a compelling reason for including it, the defence barrister will often find a way to bring it up. I saw one man acquitted after the defence suggested that the complainant was desperate for sex because her husband had become impotent in recent years. The defendant in this case had met the complainant at 2am in the back streets as she was walking home, totally sober. Almost all the other cases I heard involved the complainant being trashed as a reliable witness because she had been drinking (alcohol is the new short skirt).

It’s the defense lawyer’s (or barrister’s) job to present such theories as cast reasonable doubt on the state’s case. Holding it against jurors for finding the defense’s arguments credible, and against defense counsel for presenting the argument, compel the question of “why allow the defendant in a rape trial legal counsel at all?”

Claims that the complainant is lying are all the more believable because of the disproportionate media coverage of false rape allegations. Also jurors – in particular female ones – do not want to face the fact that those who commit rape include a broad cross section of men, and rarely fit the stereotype of a masked madman leaping out of a bush. Even when a judge permits expert evidence that challenges these myths, this cannot possibly compete with the bombardment of prejudice and misinformation that jurors absorb from some sections of the media on a daily basis.

Pray tell, what is the “correct” proportion of media coverage for a false rape allegation? In the best case scenario, the accuser recants before anyone’s name is splashed across the papers and the internet. Worse case, a man loses years from his life, his freedom, his sanity, and his reputation. But who cares, right? So long as all not a single rapist anywhere goes free, a couple of innocent men here and there is acceptable collateral damage.

There is also a nice bit of doublespeak buried in the middle: “[T]hose who commit rape include a broad cross section of men, and rarely fit the stereotype of a masked madman leaping out of a bush.” Given that the public has been bombarded with the theme of “acquaintance rape” for nigh-on twenty years, making it incredible that anyone in the Anglosphere holds the position of “women can only be raped by strangers.” A stereotype far more common and prevalent among jurors that I have observed is the idea that “the defendant wouldn’t be at trial if he weren’t guilty of something.”

Her refusal, or inability to identify any common traits shared between rapists, she leaves an unwary reader to draw the conclusion that ANY man could be a rapist. Julie is sort of like our Feminist Morpheus walking Neo through the training Matrix and explaining that anyone can transform into an Agent, then when Neo takes a second look at the woman in the red dress, she’s actually an Agent with a semi-automatic pointed right at his head.

Finally, if a bad juror makes it onto the jury panel, it is the fault of the lawyer for not conducting sufficient questioning during voir dire.

That’s exactly how men work in Feminist La-La Land.

Unlike jurors, judges at least get a day or two of training in sexual offences, which includes dispelling the myths and understanding why complainants do not necessarily break down in tears during evidence. My only misgiving in wholly supporting doing away with jurors in rape cases is that it might give leverage to those who wish to abolish the jury system altogether as a way to save money.

Who said complainants (thank Aqua Buddha she didn’t say “victims” again!) needed to cry on the stand? Since we are trading anecdotes, I saw a man convicted of rape on the testimony of an accuser who testified against him and was absolutely stone-faced through direct and cross-examination.

I’m glad to see that Julie concerned that the state doesn’t cut any money as opposed to, oh, the defendant’s rights. But to a feminist, defendants have no rights where the Holy Vagina should be concerned.

If we are serious about ensuring that those guilty of rape are convicted, public education of the type that will robustly challenge the lies and misinformation about rape has to be given priority. It is the public who become jurors and ultimately decide on such cases. The way that men who commit sex crimes are excused, and the women and men experiencing them are blamed, leaves me with no confidence in non-expert citizens delivering justice in rape cases.

“Public education” = “Spend more tax money indoctrinating potential jurors in the Gospel of BELIEVE HER-ism!”

Feminists truly are the handmaidens of tyranny.

Archived Source

Berlin Police: She Wasn’t Raped, White Knights. Go Home.

Berlin police rejected a 13-year-old girl’s accusation that she was raped by swarthy foreigners from the “southern countries.” I was curious what a “southern country” is relative to Germany or Russia. It appears to be short hand for Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece (thus the reference to swarthiness). The Berlin police also warned internet white knights to settle the hell down, take off their capes, and stop rushing to save hoes.

The girl claimed that three men of the swarthy persuasion kidnapped her from a train station in East Berlin, drove her to an apartment, beat her, and raped her. Subsequent police investigation led the police to the conclusion that no kidnapping, assault, or rape occurred. This has not stopped gynocentric men in Germany and Russia from taking up the lance, mounting their steeds and crying “SAVE OUR WIMMINZ!”

White knights, please go get a hobby. Simping is a bad look, fellas.

Link

Archived Link

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Meghan Murphy

Meghan starts with a grandiose condemnation of the “bepenised ones.” I’m guessing this is feminist-speak for men. Because we are really just walking dicks, sort of like how women are just tits and vaginas. That’s how this thing works, right? She moves to decry the #RefugeesWelcome groping, molesting random women on New Year’s Eve. She waves off the fact that:

The German authorities on Friday tied asylum seekers for the first time to the wave of violent assaults on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve as debate intensified over whether the country had made a mistake in opening its doors last year to more than a million migrants.

The Interior Ministry said 18 of the 31 people identified so far as suspects in the violence in Cologne had applied for asylum in Germany. The disclosure further stoked fears about security and culture clashes between the newcomers, mostly from Muslim countries, and Germans who are confronting the costs of assimilating them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/cologne-new-years-eve-attacks.html?_r=0

Meghan bemoans that mayor of Cologne would dare make the positively misogynistic suggestion, that strong, independent women who “don’t need no man” be careful, sort of like how men have had to mind their own safety for millennia and still are the primary victims of violent crime in the world. How dare he give women the same advice that men receive.

She then peddles a little more fearmongering, in case the her vegetative readership didn’t fully get her point. Women are scared. Scared at home, scared walking, scared at parties, scared in their cars, scared at the bus stop. It’s a wonder women manage to put on skirts (or pants) without worrying about a random dick attack.

Meghan then calls for a “feminist revolution.” What would this revolution entail? Who knows because she certainly doesn’t disclose HOW it will come about, but she does have an amusing list of expectations:

• “Real consequences for men who rape, harass, and abuse women” (because….prison isn’t a real consequence?)

• “Ensuring women are financially independent and that they are able to leave abusers safely” (women with jobs and their own money? Sounds like a plan.)

• “A cultural shift that addresses male entitlement” (Translation: Send men to reeducation camps since the already feminized education system isn’t indoctrinating men sufficiently)

• “Porn culture” (My body, my choice…except when it’s time to take dicks on camera for money)

• “And the objectifying male gaze” (Unless you’re Christian Grey or Magic Mike. Then you can objectify her all night long)

• “An end to masculinity” (Feminists don’t hate men. Honest guys. Feminism is for you too. Don’t you trust Emma Watson?)

• “And more broadly, gendered socialization that says men are actors whereas women are passive recipients (It would be nice if women got off their asses and stopped expecting men to do all of the relationship work)

She goes on to denounce “liberal feminists” for their counterrevolutionary refusal to regard men as the spawn of Satan and reminds the readers that, well, women are scared of stuff and adds cabbies to the list of things she checks under her bed for. Amusingly, she thinks men have free reign to behave how the wish, disregarding the hundreds of thousands of men who did what they wished and landed in prison for their trouble.

With all that said, she finally gets to her “modest proposal”: a curfew for men only. Because a minority of men break the law, Meghan decides it is appropriate to deprive ALL men of their freedom based on their sex. Her reasoning is that it would “send a message.” What message? That despite all of the feminists 140 years of howling that they are equal to men and that men are unnecessary to women, when the rubber meets the road, you have little Meghan running to the front of the class demanding that the teacher do something about mean, yucky boys? That feminism once again exposes itself to the world as a cult of female supremacy which regards the penises the same way slaveowners regarded black skin as the mark of a cursed, servile race? Who would implement this curfew? Who would enforce it?

Now, this is the usually the part of the program where the less bloodthirsty adherents of the feminist cult claim “oh, she doesn’t represent feminism.” My answer to this is, she is a graduate of Simon Frasier University with a Master’s Degree in Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies (i.e. useless shit). Her credentials in said useless shit make her better indoctrinated and more in tune with the academics who rule and direct the feminist cult than even the most devoted Jessica Valenti reader.

When confronted with usual feminist talking point that “feminism is about equality/unity/puppies & rainbows & sunshine” Meghan quickly slaps down the bepenised LukeReddin and reminds him that he is guilty of original Patriarchal Sin and that violence suffered by men is of no concern to her.

MMurphy01

Question: If feminists don’t care about violence suffered by men, why should men care about violence suffered by feminists?

When asked how this male only curfew to be enforced, she is surprisingly honest in her expectation that men with badges will threaten violence other men with violence in the name of feminism (which is technically true, but still pretty damned appalling):

MMurphy02.jpg

If by “plenty of men” she means male feminist quislings, there isn’t enough fortitude among them to enforce order at a Middle School boy/girl party, let alone enforce an extended curfew across any given municipality.

Of course, this isn’t the first time when feminists have had the perfectly rational idea that the only way to protect the holiest of holies known as The Vagina was to strip men of their right to travel. In 1991, when false rape accuser Janet Berger claimed that some skateboarders had raped her, feminists helpfully provided support in the forms of flyers and graffiti containing helpful ideas like “Dead Skaters Don’t Rape” and “A Curfew For Men.”

The most amusing part of this is that “curfew for men” and its rationale sounds suspiciously similar to a policy once enshrined in several states and municipalities that established a “curfew for Negroes.” Notably, Mobile, Alabama, in 1909, passed an ordinance forbidding black residents from leaving their homes after 10 p.m. the reasoning being that blacks roaming around after dark, apart from being hard to see, would make all kinds of mischief, including violating the most sacred white vagina via rape. It’s good to see that feminists are still the handmaidens of tyranny and the enemies of liberty, even in the 21st century.

If you want read Meghan’s nonsense for yourself, here’s the link.