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.
