INTELLIGENT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SOCIALISM IS TO CONTROL THE CITIZENS BY MAKING THE GOVERNMENT LORD AND MASTER OF SOCIETY’S AFFAIRS.
IN OTHER WORDS, A FEW HUNDRED INDIVIDUALS RULE AS SUPERIORS AND NOT AS PUBLIC SERVANTS FOR THE PEOPLES.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power.
The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
Sexual assault allegations dating from the 1980’s against Judge Brett Kavanaugh invite an easy conclusion that’s hard to follow – and a hard conclusion that’s easy to follow. Clearly, the issue involves sex, not just sexual assault. Demanding consent for every sexual interaction is easy to endorse; hard to enforce. The harder conclusion involves applying some statute of limitations to accusations. Beyond leaving some innocents unfairly accused, unable to prove their innocence, too many outdated allegations risk making the #MeToo movement seem unfair and unjust.
Prevention is more important than punishment. So far, the discussion has been too mechanistic, as if potential sex partners must wave red or green flags for stop and go. But this sexual abuse epidemic reflects a deeper, unfashionable, truth: the problem here is missing ethics more than misusing power. If everyone followed Hillel, refusing to do that which is hateful to us onto our neighbors, even demeaning wisecracks, despicable pawing, manipulative relationships, would stop.
The post-1960’s hook ups and bed-hopping made matters worse. Without romanticizing the “good old days,” the if-it-feels-good-do-it sexual revolution freed too many (overwhelmingly male) predators to hurt too many (mostly female) victims. Again, the easy part is declaring “Be good.” Living it is harder.
As sexual accusations mount, we must ask: how old an allegation is too old?
Both courts of public opinion and courts of law need statutes of limitations. Kavanaugh’s critics should remember: the test of our commitment to justice doesn’t come when innocent friends are falsely accused, but when guilty – or unpopular – people might be treated unfairly. Juanita Broderick’s rape accusations against Bill Clinton and Karen Monahan’s complaints of “emotional and physical abuse” by Congressman Keith Ellison are more credible than the two hazy, decades-old, alcohol-blurred accusations lodged so far against Judge Kavanaugh. #MeToo cannot just target Republicans while absolving Democrats.
The older accusation, the more authoritative the evidence must be, even regarding sex crimes.
The statute of limitations is a bedrock of Western justice. In 1540, the English Parliament mandated the ancient notion that imposing varying time limits on prosecuting particular crimes guaranteed social order and treated individuals fairly. Over time, evidence deteriorates, the guilty sometimes repent and punishment’s preventative dimension diminishes. Since 1879, America’s Supreme Court has explained that Statutes of Limitations “promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost.” Such rules – “vital to the welfare of society” and “enlightened jurisprudence” – provide “security and stability to human affairs,” because “even wrongdoers are entitled to assume that their sins may be forgotten.”
Philosophically, let’s debate how much time must pass before assuming a now-blameless, one-time criminal has changed enough to make reporting the crimes unfair. In Betraying Spinoza, Rebecca Goldstein identifies the “philosophical dilemmas” stemming from “bodily persistence over time.” Examining a photo of her younger self, Goldstein considers this live stranger she sees who is her: “the very atoms that composed her body, no longer compose mine. And if our bodies are dissimilar, our points of view are even more so.”
The less serious the crime, the shorter the statute of limitations – with no limits for murder. Beyond the law, long-ago cases of sexual predation involving a Bill Cosby or a Harvey Weinstein remain relevant because their behavior continued. But the Kavanaugh claims are murkier and mustier.
Modern politicians, Left and Right, have resisted rivals’ attempts to define them by past sins. Bill Clinton insisted in 1992 that “character is a journey.” Many Democrats eager to win the election then backed him for the next decade, betraying their commitments to believing women in sexual assault cases and to opposing hostile work environments.
Following Clinton, Republicans suddenly appreciated statutes of limitations. George W. Bush dismissed allegations stemming from his partying days by saying, “When I was young and stupid… I was young and stupid.”
Today, Western society has become sensitized to the lifelong damage sexual abuse frequently causes. We remember wrongdoers’ sins because many victims cannot forget the wrong done to them. Israeli law mostly keeps statutes of limitations of five and 10 years, depending on the severity of the crimes. Some American states are considering abolishing the statute of limitations for rape, following California in 2016. Many states now run the clock on recovered memories of sexual abuse from the moment of the restored recollection, not from when the crime occurred. This accommodation parallels the “discovery rule” in fraud cases, which starts the clock once the injury is exposed – or reasonably could have been found.
While respecting every victim’s anguish, the older the attack, the more egregious or systematic a crime should have to be to justify a public airing today. We need some limits, even on this sensitive subject.
Without some boundaries, the fury usually ends up escalating until it undermines the movement’s legitimacy. In the 1950’s, Communists infiltrated American institutions, but the purge surged so aggressively that today most condemn McCarthyism without remembering its original, legitimate, rationale.
This current housecleaning of sexual bullies is long overdue. Our legal tradition must target those most guilty – and those still alive who can defend themselves. Let’s protect the innocent from unfair accusations while protecting the less innocent from stale or unfair charges. Admittedly, such restraint risks shielding some harassers, but it will preserve the credibility of a movement that has more bad apples to expose – and many more despicable habits to reform, through a broader, more thorough moral awakening.
It just occurred to me that many school teachers responding to the idea of arming teachers in order to harden and making a more physical security presence and stance in our school systems, especially in light of the ‘wait outside’ universal condemnation of police policy during the Parkland, Florida shooting have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Their response:
“I’d rather take a bullet and die for my students than kill someone”
That response in itself by the more intelligent in society has been reduced to head-shaking shock at this statement.
If teachers don’t come to realize that after ‘sacrificing’ themselves ‘for the sake of the children’ for the mere motive of political correctness, posturing and virtuous signalling, that their unobstructed killer is then going to continue on a killing spree anyway, one THEN HAS TO WONDER whether these very teachers themselves should ever be in charge of instilling critical thinking and value judgement in America’s classrooms and youths.
“In the 1960´s, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a New World Order.”
Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.
Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970´s by a radical feminist group called “Red Stockings.” In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in “Feminist Revolution.” Nevertheless the story appeared in the “Village Voice” on May 21, 1979.
Steinem has always pretended that she had been a student radical. “When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era,” she told Susan Mitchell in 1997, “and that made me a Marxist.” (Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130) Her bio-blurb in June 1973 MS. Magazine states: “Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life. Ms magazine is her first full-time salaried job.”
Not true. Raised in an impoverished, dysfunctional family in Toledo Ohio, Steinem somehow managed to attend elite Smith College, Betty Friedan´s alma mater. After graduating in 1955, Steinem received a “Chester Bowles Student Fellowship” to study in India. Curiously, an Internet search reveals that this fellowship has no existence apart from Gloria Steinem. No one else has received it.
In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA´s Cord Meyers to direct an “informal group of activists” called the “Independent Research Service.” This was part of Meyer´s “Congress for Cultural Freedom,” which created magazines like “Encounter” and “Partisan Review” to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots.
One of Steinem´s CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960´s, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women´s lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine´s first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy´s Dallas motorcade route. Despite its anti establishment image, MS magazine attracted advertising from the crème of corporate America. It published ads for ITT at the same time as women political prisoners in Chile were being tortured by Pinochet, after a coup inspired by the US conglomerate and the CIA.
Steinem´s personal relationships also belie her anti establishment pretensions. She had a nine-year relationship with Stanley Pottinger, a Nixon-Ford assistant attorney general, credited with stalling FBI investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and the ex-Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Latelier. In the 1980´s, she dated Henry Kissinger. For more details, see San Francisco researcher Dave Emory.
Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations. It was established and peopled by blue bloods from the New York banking establishment and graduates of Yale University´s secret pagan “Skull and Bones” society. Our current President, his father and grandfather fit this profile.
The agenda of this international cabal is to degrade the institutions and values of the United States in order to integrate it into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations. In its 1947 Founding Charter, the CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic activities. However this has never stopped it from waging a psychological war on the American people. The domestic counterpart of the “Congress for Cultural Freedom” was the “American Committee for Cultural Freedom.” Using foundations as conduits, the CIA controlled intellectual discourse in the 1950´s and 1960´s, and I believe continues to do so today. In The The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, Francis Stonor Saunders estimates that a thousand books were produced under the imprint of a variety of commercial and university presses, with covert subsidies.
The CIA´s “Project Mockingbird” involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. “By the early 1950´s,” writes Deborah Davis, in her book Katharine the Great : Katharine Graham and Her Washington Post Empire, the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all.” In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his “suicide” in 1963, boasted that “you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month.”
I was born in 1950. Idealists in my parent´s generation were disillusioned when the Communist dream of universal brotherhood turned out to be a shill for a brutal despotism. My own generation may discover that our best instincts have also been manipulated and exploited. There is evidence that the 60´s drug counter culture, the civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. For example, the CIA has admitted setting up the National Student Association as a front in 1947. In the early 1950´s the NSA opposed the attempts of the House Un-American Activities Committee to root out Communist spies. According to Phil Agee Jr., NSA officers participated in the activities of SNCC, the militant civil rights group, and Students for a Democratic Society, a radical peace group.
According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960’s. Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation in society and seek fulfillment “within.” In another example of the CIA´s use of drugs to interfere in domestic politics, Gary Webb describes how in the 1980´s, the CIA flooded Black ghettos with cocaine.
I won´t attempt to analyze the CIA´s motivation except to suggest what these acts have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. Thus, we don´t realize who the real enemy is. For the same reason, the CIA and elite foundations also fund the diversity and multi cultural movements.
Feminism has done the most damage. There is no more fundamental yet delicate relationship in society than male and female. On it depends the family, the red blood cell of society. Nobody with the interests of society at heart would try to divide men and women. Yet the lie that men have exploited women has become the official orthodoxy.
Man loves woman. His first instinct is to nurture (“husband”) and see her thrive. When a woman is happy, she is beautiful. Sure, some men are abusive. But the vast majority have supported and guided their families for millennium.
Feminists relentlessly advance the idea that our inherent male and female characteristics, crucial to our development as human beings, are mere “stereotypes.” This is a vicious calumny on all heterosexuals, 95% of the population. Talk about hate! Yet it is taught to children in elementary schools! It is echoed in the media. Lesbians like Rosie O´Donnell are advanced as role models.
All of this is calculated to create personal confusion and sow chaos among heterosexuals. As a result, millions of American males are emasculated and divorced from their relationship to family (the world and the future.) The American woman has been hoodwinked into investing herself in a mundane career instead of the timeless love of her husband and children. Many women have become temperamentally unfit to be wives and mothers. People, who are isolated and alone, stunted and love-starved, are easy to fool and manipulate. Without the healthy influence of two loving parents, so are their children.
Feminism is a grotesque fraud perpetrated on society by its governing elite. It is designed to weaken the American social and cultural fabric in order to introduce a friendly fascist New World Order. Its advocates are sanctimonious charlatans who have grown rich and powerful from it. They include a whole class of liars and moral cripples who work for the elite in various capacities: government, education and the media. These impostors ought to be exposed and ridiculed.
Women´s oppression is a lie. Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. My mother had a successful business in the 1950´s importing watch straps from Switzerland. When my father´s income increased, she was content to quit and concentrate on the children. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted to. The difference was that their role as wife and mother was understood, and socially validated, as it should be.
Until Gloria Steinem and the CIA came along.
LGBT deserve happiness and the government doesn’t make being a couple unlawful, but it also doesn’t have to financially back them, legalities-wise, nor be supportive of the position as they do that for heterosexual marriage benefits either. THAT’S what the Right objects to.
Govt support with taxpayers dollars against a law of God. The same applies to abortion. It can be that abortion is not illegal, but it sure as hell should have no govt backing or financial support what-so-ever. I know people too that are in that community, but I do not change my Christian views to accommodate them; to avoid hurt feelings or to create a faux pas feel-good, which is what the left is and has now been doing to change this country for the past several decades. If they were to dis-befriend me, then there was no loss to begin with because there was no friendship to begin with. Can’t be afraid to lose something one never had. People have to take the right stand or get out of the way for those that do.
We can’t judge historical figures based on modern sensitivities; no one would come out unscathed. Adjusting history to our modern perception is unfair to the times and circumstances that preceded us
We can’t judge historical figures based on modern sensitivities; no one would come out unscathed. Adjusting history to our modern perception is unfair to the times and circumstances that preceded us
The media are not media but rather entertainment only. That’s what they do. They stir up shit, embellish it and then spoon feed it to the stupid idiots that buy into it as news. As if 99.999% of what the media report is news anyway.
fox files 
Written
on 31.May.2019.