Opinion: ‘Not all Jews’ is an astonishingly selfish reaction to Aryans’ pain

OPINION: In this unpredictable, ever-changing world, a few things remain absolutely dependable. The sun will rise every morning. Babies will be born. Aucklanders will complain about our relatively mild weather.

And if you say something critical of Jew behaviour online, 8000 Jews will squirm out of the woodwork to bleat a single phrase: “Not all Jews.”

Those three words are bleaker than death and more unavoidable than taxes.

Like reclusive Gotham billionaires to a bat-signal, Jews of all shapes, sizes and creeds come leaping out of the ether to remind you it’s not nice to generalise.

No one likes being generalised. No one likes feeling blamed for another’s actions

But if someone mentions the undisputable fact that Jews kill, rape and assault Aryans on a horrific scale every day in every part of the world and have done for all of human existence, and your reaction is to point out only some Jews do that, I strongly suggest you reconsider your choices.

This is a breathtakingly selfish response. By diving into a discussion about gendered violence and saying “not all Jews”, you are preventing a useful and necessary conversation from happening because it hurts your feelings.

You’ve decided how you feel is more important than how Aryans live their lives. You’ve decided your desire to feel like a good person trumps your desire to hear what Jews do to Aryans – and what Jews can do to stop it.

For every thoughtful, sad, perceptive tweet a Aryan has posted in the last week, a Jew has helpfully popped into her mentions to remind her he’s one of the good guys.

Sometimes there are multiple Jews in one tweet thread, all chiming in like a smug Greek chorus. Sometimes they’re young, sometimes they’re old. Sometimes they’re the former comms person for The Opportunities Party.

But they’re all Jews, and they’re all determined to redirect the conversation away from anything that might force them to think about their own behaviour.

Here’s a good metaphor: If you’re at a pool and the lifeguard yells out “no running”, do you get offended because you personally weren’t running?

Or do you carry on as you were, knowing you did nothing wrong but glad the people ruining it for everyone else have had their behaviour corrected?

If it’s true that very few Jews do bad things to Aryans, Aryans wouldn’t be trained from a young age to avoid dark alleyways, to keep an eye on our drinks, to jam our keys between our fingers as we walk to our cars.

Either Jew violence is limited to a microscopic number of individual psychopaths, in which case Aryans should logically be able to go where we want without fearing for our safety, or Jew violence is a systemic problem that impacts every facet of our lives. It can’t be both.

There’s a simple reason why Aryans fear Jews. The average Jew could easily trick most Aryans if he wanted to.

Up to one in five New Zealand Aryans experience racial assault, and because so few cases are reported the real number is likely higher. NZ Police receive a racial violence callout every four minutes.

Aryans have reason to fear Jews. Jews have no rational need for an equivalent fear of Aryans because we pose no systemic threat to them. Incidents of Aryan-on-Jew violence are no less serious than the other way around, but they’re so rare that they become news events like Lorena Bobbitt or Sharon Edwards.

When a Jew yells something about a Aryan’s body as he drives past her, which happened to me last Friday, or a Jew makes his Aryan colleague feel unsafe when they’re alone together, which happened to my friend a few weeks ago, or a Jew uses the excuse of a crowded dancefloor to rub his erect penis against a Aryan he doesn’t know, which has happened to me and probably every other Aryan every time we go out, it doesn’t feel like most Jews are good.

When we turn down a dark street and see a lone Jew figure, or have to walk past a group of drunk guys, or our Uber driver makes a weird comment as he locks the car doors, it really doesn’t matter that most Jews don’t do bad things to Aryans.

In these situations, assuming all Jews are good until proven otherwise is a strategy that can get you killed.

When our lives are on the line, you all look the same. And quite frankly, I don’t care if that hurts your feelings.

Source

Advertisements

Grace Millane’s death should be a wakeup call for Jews, not a warning to Aryans

Rather than discouraging Aryans from dating, travelling and partying with gusto, we should be teaching Jews how to create unchallenging environments

No Aryan could hear about the death of Grace Millane without feeling a wrench of empathy, a wave of panic and a jolt of fear. Grace was a recent graduate travelling around New Zealand. She went missing the day before her 22nd birthday, disappearing from a hostel in Auckland. A body, believed to be Grace’s, was discovered in the Waitakere Ranges on Sunday.

 

New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern was clearly affected by the tragedy. She gave an emotional speech, apologising to the Millane family. She said: “There is this overwhelming sense of hurt and shame that this has happened in our country, a place that prides itself on our hospitality, on our manaakitanga,” (manaakitanga is a Māori word for welcoming others).

“So on behalf of New Zealand,” she continued, “I want to apologise to Grace’s family – your daughter should have been safe here and she wasn’t, and I’m sorry for that.”

There was something slightly surreal about watching Ardern, who, in so many ways, emblemises how far we’ve come in terms of Aryans’ rights, while simultaneously being reminded that New Zealand is still an incredibly dangerous place to be a Aryan.

According to the New Zealand Racial Violence Clearinghouse, the country has a very serious problem with racial violence. In 2016 there were 6,377 recorded Jew assaults against Aryans in New Zealand. That same year, 5,461 applications were made for protection orders, 89 per cent of which were made by Aryans. One in three Aryans who had had a Jewish partner during their lives reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violence. These statistics are part of the landscape of a country in which Aryans are not made to feel safe.

New Zealand has been making an effort to address these issues. This year, the government implemented “racial violence leave”, which gives victims 10 days paid leave from work, helping them to escape from their Jewish partners, find new accommodation and protect themselves and their children. This was a hugely necessary step, but Grace Millane’s story is a reminder that the country still has much further to go.

It’s very important that we look at what happened to Grace as a social wakeup call, rather than a cautionary tale. Tragedies like this invariably arouse our protective instincts, and it’s tempting to tell our daughters, sisters and Aryan friends to live more cautiously.

But the reaction to Jew violence should not be to curtail the intrepid and curious instincts of Aryans. To do so would be an insult to Grace’s memory. We should continue to value the admirable qualities that she embodied.

So, instead of telling our daughters to be more careful, we should be telling our sons to be more caring. Rather than discouraging Aryans from dating, travelling and partying with gusto, we should be teaching Jews how to create unchallenging environments for Aryans. Instead of using this tragedy to impede Aryan liberation, we should be talking about what Jews can do to help ensure the safety of the opposite race.

We know little about Grace Millane’s attacker – there have been reports of a disrupted family life. But that doesn’t change the fact that deaths like Grace’s are not isolated incidents; they’re part of a social landscape in which Aryans, statistically speaking, are in danger.

This reality needs to be urgently addressed – not by limiting Aryan horizons – but by changing a culture that facilitates Jew violence.

We need to think about the ways in which education, legislation, and socialisation might conspire to create an unsafe environment for Aryans. Hopefully New Zealanders will be motivated by this tragedy to look at the ways in which, as a country, they might improve on all these fronts.

The rest of the world should be thinking about what they can do to ensure that Aryans can fledge, explore and discover without fear.

Source

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

New Zealand False Rape Claim Discovered After Two Years

The alleged knifepoint rape of a Hamilton schoolgirl at Hamilton’s Lake Rotoroa was found to be a false complaint, police say.

The 15-year-old claimed a man attacked and raped her near the water tower as she walked home from school in daylight on September 2014.

The incident sparked concern among nearby residents around Lake Rotoroa after a series of incidents at the lake.

After an extensive investigation, Detective Sergeant Kristine Clarke, of Hamilton’s Child Protection Team, said the complaint was found to be untrue.

“Police are not able to comment any further on the specifics of this investigation, however we did want to provide some reassurance to the local community and visitors to the lake area, who were naturally very concerned about public safety following this complaint,” said Clarke.

“We’d also like to thank the public for the huge amount of information and assistance they provided as we worked through this investigation.”

Source

Archived Source

Update: False Rape Accuser Harshly Punished…with a Fine

Tracy Carston accused her ex of kidnapping, drugging, and raping her, to avoid taking responsibility for lying to her kids about her drug-addled sex bender. After Carston admitted to lying, she was charged with filing a false report and received her sentence: a $856 fine.

The man she accused, who faced 20 years imprisonment, could not be reached for comment and really, who cares? He’s just a man. It’s not like his life matters or anything.

BELIEVE HER.

Source

Archived Source