And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
There are these men that are primarily classified as mentally ill or disabled that live together and one of them has difficulty leaving the house so I brought them McDonald's food. One of the other individuals was very rude to me and is rude to other people plus he can easily leave to get his own food and I do not have unlimited money.
While he called one of the people there the N word to retaliate for not getting anything and the other person grabbed something to either fight him or threaten to fight him but did not end up attacking him.
I told the person who grabbed something he should have said nothing and let the person attack him instead of grabbing something, so he can call the police on him and get him kicked out instead of nearly getting himself kicked out and that if the other person does not attack him then there is no physical harm. He said he is good at talking to the police. He changed personality from being a rude violent person the moment the police arrive so it is not a uncontrollable temper caused by mental illness beyond his control and he should be held morally responsible and not given free treats for acting like a jerk in my opinion.
I was thinking of getting him a McDonald's arch card and a box of crackers and crossing off the word cracker and writing his name in black permanent Market because he likes to throw around the N word. But would I have to convince the court system my racial identity at the time was white and therefore I could not be racist against white people and I say racial identity because apparently people can change gender so I guess I am not sure what race i am and do not want to declare myself as a permanent racial label but I might have racial fluidity that fluctuates. Anyway I am probably not going to do it because it costs time and money.
I suggest the practice to sue those who sue Facebook for twice as much per comment Facebook deletes as Facebook would have to pay for not deleting the comments for suppression of the right to free speech via government policy. Or to simply ban countries that fine Facebook excessive fines from facebook.
Germany is censoring free speech not only of Gentiles but also of Jews. Even if Germany is censoring so called anti semitic speech that comes from Jews this is still an anti semitic act as it portrays Jews as only having viewpoints that Germany endorses. Since Germany's political positions are so ridiculous yet Jews have a disproportionate share of media ownership, when all viewpoints that are not Germany approved are censored this creates the illusion that the viewpoint of Germany is the viewpoint of the Jews. Since Germany's policies such as hatred of free speech and treating refugees with a different legal standard than natives is rightfully unpopular this increases anti semitism because Jewish media owners like Zuckerberg take the blame for the censoring of the mainstream media and now in Zuckerberg 's case the alternative media when this is actually the fault of the believers in the German government or the German government's narrative.
Germany's policy on treating refugees with a different standard is not only antisemitic but also Islamaphobic (islamophobic) as the refugees would not commit kidnapping ( "sex trafficking" ), rape and murder in such large numbers if Germans were armed with weapons and they (the refugees) were prosecuted for it and those with a known history of violence were not allowed to enter, I assure you an increased number of Germans would do the same in Muslim countries if Muslim countries treated Germans the same way that Germans treat refugees and this would influence people to hate Germans.
I do not necessarily deny the mainstream narrative of the holocaust as a historical event but claim it to be more complicated than generally explained due to an attempt to defend against potential enemies who were committing economic war against Germany. Many Jewish media sources (in 1933 prior to the start of world war two in 1939) declared economic war against Germany and some Jews, perhaps a minority of elite Jews (as opposed to the majority of poorer Jews who might have been their economic prey along with gentiles) had a disproportionate influence on German economics per capita(there was a lower percentage of gentiles doing usurous crimes than Jews.) Additionally, there was a disproportionate number of Jewish Bolsheviks or "communists" who posed a danger to Germans and Russians or Slavic peoples where the "communist" Soviet Union government was murdering its own citizens. Jews who are baptized into Christian Churches by Jews are generally still considered Jewish in race or ancestry by many Jews and may have posed a hidden threat due to this economic warfare proclaimed by Jewish media sources prior to world war two. Since Hitler could not always tell which Jews were part of the economic warfare and which were not and they would use baptism in Churches as a way to try to hide while still committing economic warfare in some cases this put Hitler in an inconvenient position to racially profile Jews although he was not prejudice against all Jews and even appointed some Jews to key positions and married a Jewish woman. Unfortunately a lot of innocent Jews and Gentiles were rounded up in camps but did not die in massive numbers until Germany hit a crisis near the end of the war and were originally planned to be protected as they were given food and medical care. The original plan could have been justified if more lives were saved by rather letting innocent people temporarily be housed in a area of restricted exit than letting the guilty go free, this was the same philosophy America initially used when imprisoning Japanese Americans when Japan was at war with America even though not all Japanese Americans were guilty of treason due to conflicted allegiances between their country of ancestry and America. German propaganda had many sweeping statements against Jews, but these statements clearly did not apply to all Jews as demonstrated by treating some select Jews differently, however it is easier to say, "Jews" then a disproportionate number of Jews in public speeches, none the less there probably were some people that were simply prejudice or racist against all Jews who behaved very badly during this time, just as there are some racist Donald Trump supporters who simply hate immigrants but that does not mean Donald trump is racist because he mentions criminal immigrants and now is deporting some innocent immigrants in order to keep guilty immigrants out. I do not deny that at the end of the holocaust when Germany hit a crisis Jews might have been executed in massive numbers many and possibly even most of whom may have been innocent.
Now although I do not necessarily deny the mainstream holocaust narrative that Jews were executed in massive numbers there are Jews who do deny it and believe that Jews died in the camps due to other causes than execution primarily when rations were cut short as an economic result of the war and that the Zyklon B was actually used for killing parasites such as lice not killing Jews. It is not only anti semitic Gentiles that are being censored but also Jewish holocaust deniers who are not anti semitic and Gentile holocaust deniers that are not anti semitic that are being censored and in some cases prosecuted by the German government and even Zuckerberg who supports free speech for holocaust deniers in spite of professing belief in the mainstream holocaust narrative even though ironically he is Jewish.
But Angela Merkel's policy of hate extends not only to Jews, Muslims and foreigners but also to native Germans as she has implied essentially that she would be okay with Germany dying off because of the holocaust even though Germans alive today did not execute Jews in concentration camps. ( I am having trouble finding this reference again even though I remember viewing it before to the best of my recollection because of the large number of other articles and videos about Merkel recently.). She recently had appeared with a facade of repentance through changing policies of refugee location but clearly has not repented as her censorship policy continues which is at the root of the problem, the refugee issues merely being a symptom.
Her evil policies of censorship apply not only to Germany but worldwide and she now is the fascist bent on the destruction of humanity for she not only supports the destruction of access to information akin to burning books but the destruction of people that inevitably came through her censorship policy. Facebook is a platform with a worldwide audience but she wishes to censor the speech of everyone in the world through using Facebook to delete comments.
I suggest the practice to sue those who sue Facebook for at least twice as much per comment Facebook deletes as Facebook would have to pay for not deleting the comments for suppression of the right to free speech via government policy, this can reimburse Facebook for the cost of maintaining comments, reimburse the victim and create desensitive for censorship.
Since the fees per comment plus the lost revenue from customers offended at such a high level of censorship, may exceed ad revenue gained from Germany it maybe more profitable to ban Germany from Facebook than to comply with German regulations.
Cancel culture is spreading from college campuses to the rest of the public square. According to JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin, “a country where cancel culture has become pervasive is not a safe place for democracy or Jews.”
In early 20th century English rape used to mean sex without having consent
Or sex that occurred under undue influence which would not have occurred without undue influence
But here are some new definitions of rape created by neo feminists in the late 20th century and early 21st century. I might provide references later but remember finding all or most of these definitions.
1 you are one day younger than the age listed on the books as legal
2 you change your mind later after the fact
3 you are not a male claiming to have been raped because if you are your a rapist since men can not be raped by women and all men are rapists
4 a woman wants you to be prosecuted
5 an accusation is made without evidence
6 you looked at a picture of a woman's face and used an app that is designed to create an image to simulate what her face looks like without make up on
7 you either talked to a woman or gave her the silent treatment
8 you refused to have sex with a woman which is now defined as reverse raping her
9 you asked her for permission to ask her out on a date without first asking for permission to ask for permission to ask her out on a date
10 you refused to marry a woman who proposed to you
11 You are a man. All men are rapists
12 Her consent was not enthusiastic enough and you failed to understand the tone of her voice
13 Any other definition created by a neo feminist out of no where
I am not denying that the holocaust occurred in this article. But I am saying some of the mainstream claims about it are ridiculous. If you assume such a large percentage of eye witnesses are lying the way the author did below then you have no more basis to determine history. It would be akin to someone saying they saw the Queen of England turn into a Velociraptor in front of a crowd of thousands of people at a speaking event that really occurred and the majority of people at that speaking event saw her turn into a Velociraptor, the eye witnesses were then interviewed by a third party and the majority of them told the third party they never saw the Queen of England turn into a Velociraptor. This third party then decides they are lying and not telling the truth because she really did turn into a Velociraptor and it is impossible not to notice it rather then
1 it could have happened and they did not notice it
2 or it could have possibly not happened
3 or the event one person perceives as shape shifting, transforming or polymorphing into a Velociraptorcould has happened in such a way that it seemed to happen to some witnesses and not to have happened to other witnesses to the same speaking event because history is more complicated than over simplified pictures people give it. That is there could have been a event of great significance that was described in a over simplified manner and did truly occur but not in the over simplified way described.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 July 15
Dr. Dean, a co-researcher, said the findings left no doubt in his mind that many German citizens, despite the frequent claims of ignorance after the war, must have known about the widespread existence of the Nazi camps at the time.
“You literally could not go anywhere in Germany without running into forced labor camps, P.O.W. camps, concentration camps,” he said. “They were everywhere. "
Giving taxpayer pork subsidies a whole new meaning
The picture of the face had to be censored to meet community standards for certain social media platforms, hopefully it is less offensive now
Can't find original image source for knowledge of attribution purposes but it says Dixon Diaz 2017 on the child's arm. Dixion Diaz can feel free to contact me with proof of rights to picture if Diaz wishes to dispute my rights to use this picture but I am placing it in protest of the censorship of Diaz artwork and thus assume Diaz's approval furthermore this is fair use.
I met the attribution requirement listed in wikipedia for the picture of Zuckerberg's face
IQ studies are fundamentally flawed because they leave out many areas of knowledge. Also the claim that ravens progressive matrices is language neutral is not valid as there are an unlimited number of functions that fit any set of finite points making the test 100% invalid unless it is described in one's native language how the methodology for ravens progressive matrices determines what is the correct answer, although one could argue it is language neutral because they do not give good directions on the written tests usually.
People who know how to survive in the African wilderness without modern technology are smarter in African wilderness survival situations than people who have a high IQ but do not know how to survive in the African wilderness and do not have access to modern technology.
Yet some IQ tests list Africans as having low IQ and Ashkenazi Jews as having the highest IQ in the world. When one considers these results, it is important to consider what percentage of the people in charge of the design and use of IQ tests are Ashkenazi Jews and what proportion of Ashkenazi Jews have what views on race and intelligence and what if any Eugenics goals they have. Some sources for a starting point on Jewish views of different races which are not held by all Jews but are very common among Jews are below. I might get into this in more detail in a different article but wish to have more sources first. It is also important to point out that Ashkenazi Jews are not on the top of all racial comparison IQ studies.
Now I am not denying that if each "race" or subspecies within the homo sapiens species has tendencies towards different biological characteristics including outward appearance and different results in medical tests such that in clinical laboratory studies racial differences are compared it would only make sense that their would also be biological differences in brains that would be partly genetic but this is irrelevant. The reason this is irrelevant is niche adaptation.
If indeed different subspecies of humans evolved or radially adapted for different environments than it is not wise to compare intelligence across races with a single one dimensional scalar number. As brains may adapt differently for different environments thus an adaption of the brain that is beneficial in one environment maybe harmful in another environment. Even if one denies such a theory of evolution or selection and believes each human "race" or subspecies was created but biology does not adapt through death and breeding or inability to survive to breed from one generation to the next people would still have incentive to travel to locations where their individual biological differences better fit the environment which would result in tendencies towards clustering of different biological traits among individuals to suit the environment they are in resulting in geographic tendencies towards biological differences in human as is obvious in that lighter skin shade Europeans are not well equipped for the African sun as darker skin shade Africans which partly explains geographic connection with skin shade patterns although this does not happen completely because people do not always choose where they live as well as for other reasons.
Throughout history slavery has occurred moving people's location without there consent and this has not only happened with Africans but also Slavic people from which the word "slave" is believed to derive as well as in many other ethnic groups, Europeans included.
One must consider how the slave trade of Africans had a cultural impact. Many slave masters tried to deprive the Africans living in America of knowledge and after the civil war the Dixiecrats who were a group of democrats created many policies with systematic discrimination against Africans via the State this is a cultural factor not necessarily a genetic factor that effected the subsequent descendants of Americans with African ancestry.
Although some claim studies on African Americans adopted by "white" parents show that lower scores on IQ tests for African Americans are primarily genetic this is not necessarily so as one must consider the potentially traumatic effects of perceived identity in American culture these individuals experience despite having "white" adoptive parents. But even if all this is true about "race" and intelligence and I am wrong to criticize the idea that one race is smarter than another people should be treated kindly regardless of alleged genetic "superiority" or "inferiority" and given an opportunity to improve regardless of genetics.
That being said I oppose suppression of the freedom of speech to discuss "racial" differences in IQ tests even if I think conclusions of superior intelligence of one "race" or another is untrue except in a specific sense related to what environment or circumstances the type of intelligence is used for. That is people can be skilled at one thing and unskilled at another, clearly the type of skills tested on an IQ test are not the most important for groups of people that have low IQs in many circumstances such as those who grew up in a dessert without textbooks in Africa who do not need to know word association games to gather water. How foolish to value booksmarts as more important than water getting smarts in a desert society without books where one has no manual to read how to survive available.
