Tuesday, March 8, 2011


This will be a short Post. I simply want to add this recent article that outlines in more detail the antics and devious doings of the Swedish allegants and the Swedish law enforcement types in regard to the case from the very beginning.

The SO community won’t be surprised by all this hugely dubious maneuvering between allegants, their attorneys, police and prosecutors, and even the media. But it’s interesting to see an example of how this whole frakkulent scheme plays out, especially under the pressure of (multiple instances of) political and electoral maneuvering.

I do, however, want to point out just one quotation in the article. Marianne Ny, the sorta prosecutor of gender-crimes who issued the arrest-warrant says that “it is a good idea to have the man detained, because it is not until he is arrested that the woman has time to think of her life in peace and realize how she has been treated”. [italics mine]

THIS is a prime example of the presumptions – not widely publicized, although I imagine cheeribly received among klatsches of the cadres and true believers and advocates – that underlie the SO Mania Regime. And, by the way, clearly reflect what they are teaching now in law-schools all over the Western world.

Why, especially in a case like this, is it so necessary to have ‘the man’ (i.e. the accused alleged perpetrator) not only arrested (bad enough) but also ‘detained’ (which in Sweden means held incommunicado with no possibility of bail)?

The reason put forth is that somehow the allegant (the woman) won’t be able to think things through until he is locked away. Why would that be? How could it be? The presumption seems to be that in any ‘sex’ matter the female is so fragile in her ability to process thought that she is unable to concentrate or think things through. This is a key and classic trope of victimist thought, but a) I can’t see how it works psychologically; and b) it seems to paint females as rather fragile and emotional creatures who can’t concentrate in a challenging situation; and c) the most relevant immediate challenge in this type of situation is NOT that the female be comfortably situated to undertake a major life-and-self review and analysis, but rather that the female as formal legal allegant be able to come up with the relevant (and theoretically necessary) statements of fact necessary to justify police and criminal-law action against the male whom she has now formally accused and embroiled in the sovereign toils of the Law.

(I won’t even get into the conceptual incoherence that this presumption creates in a comprehensive cultural agenda that more generally insists upon the complete reliability of the female to participate in authoritative positions (executive, professional, political) of great responsibility, requiring clear-headedness and the ability to focus no matter what personal distractions might also press upon her. And of course, if I may, this goes even more so for such positions as military duties, especially in any sort of command position.)

And even if one wishes to point out that in genuine rape cases this just might be applicable, such is not the case here. Although, in its eagerness and calculations to ‘keep up the numbers’ by casting the widest possible net and creating ‘trip-wire’ law enforcement responses, the SO initiative crosses the line into a Mania Regime.

I wonder too just how much such an arrest (with its inevitable detention) simply feeds on revenge of some sort.

And on a more tactical level, as I have pointed out in prior Posts on this subject, how much this gambit pretty much ensures that the now-detained male’s side of the story is greatly and effectively stamped out. Leaving, by amazing coincidence, the public-relations field to the advocates so-called and to the allegant, and their friends and useful idiots or outright collaborators in the media.

Looking back on things over the past few decades, it seems to me that there has been a step-by-step progression.

First there was a certainly legitimate effort to ‘raise public awareness’ about an issue. This is what I call the first level of ‘advocacy’ and it’s a perfectly acceptable one: bring a new point of view to a previously established consensus (or just a habit within the culture that had formed long before and hadn’t been looked at recently). In this vision, the public would now be provided with another point-of-view when it came to forming an opinion about how this type of incident (sexual assaults) should be looked at when they arose. This would then filter along in due course to affect how the tried-and-true public machinery of legislation and law-enforcement and government action would handle such matters.

But this apparently wasn’t enough for the advocates. It was too slow, perhaps, and too unpredictable (public opinion might not widely accept the new point-of-view, at least to the liking of the advocates).

So now instead of merely informing public opinion, advocates tried to manipulate it – and more specifically to stampede it. With help from the media (which might have already felt through its tingling whiskers that some political weight was behind the gambit) instances are selectively reported, given lurid play, perhaps even inaccurate assertions. Simultaneously, ‘friendly scholars’ (perhaps realizing that grant money was going to start flowing in this new channel) and assorted non-accredited ‘authors’ start putting it out there that there is wide ‘proof’, adducing the bottom-line statistics of this or that ‘study’ or –even worse – ‘survey’ (where you simply ask folks and they can pretty much respond with whatever they’d like to say). The media amplifies it relentlessly.

On the basis of the ‘studies’ and all the ‘new knowledge’ the advocates can then move to the next level, and start arm-twisting the politicians (who may have their doubts, or may be perfectly willing to be given a pretext to claim they are merely being ‘responsive’). By this time the politicians’ whiskers are also tingling as they realize there are votes to be won or lost, perhaps in large numbers, depending on how they roll on this thing.

Law-enforcement and prosecutors – also bewhiskered and perhaps ‘educated’ into the new approach – now start coming up with any evidence they can; like bird-dogs that sorta just know in their depths when master wants them to come back out of the swamp tail-wagging and with a bird-body between the eager jaws.

So now at this third level of advocacy, the actual official organs of government in its Branches are starting to become deformed in the service of the agenda.

And as certainly happened here, the public then winds up being side-stepped rather completely, having been a) stampeded by the deformed information, and b) shocked by the media ‘reports’ and all the ‘studies’, and c) increasingly cowed by the draconian application of the police power which – many realize – is either only going to be aimed at somebody else (the targeted males, in this case) or else may somehow be aimed at them if they stand up and say something (e.g., if you don’t agree with us and what we’re doing then you’re obviously in favor of rape and ‘sex offenders’).

And THEN it proceeds to a point where not only is the application of the laws deformed, but the actual structure of the laws is deformed (“victim-friendly courts” being the most pithy official description of it, including as it does all sorts of dismantling of ancient Western protections against the misapplication of the sovereign police power of the state).

AND in support of that – which is necessary in a still-functioning democracy the way it wasn’t in dictatorships and tyrannies of which Stalin’s and Hitler’s are only the most well-known – philosophical assertions are made that have the necessary and intended effect of undermining the entire foundations upon which the already-deforming laws were originally built. Thus: all Law is merely an opportunity for oppression; there is no objective truth that can be claimed to stand in the way of what we want to do; rights don’t apply to ‘evil’ persons even if they are formally Citizens; ‘all men are rapists and all sex is rape’ anyway, so this is just a ‘reform’ to even the score. And etcetera and etcetera and etcetera.

Worse, that this crime is so egregious and constitutes such an ‘emergency’ and outrage that public deliberation can’t be allowed to interfere, nor public opinion if it is against what we want to do; that to provide Constitutional process is to re-victimize the (as yet unproven) victim; that this crime is so outrageous that it doesn’t deserve to be defended in public discourse and our agenda should never be discussed.*

But then came 1970 and it was all about gender, not so much race, and the whole national discussion was faced with a far more subtle and hardly-clear challenge involving gender.

And eventually, within 15 or 20 years, came the Mania where NO-body dared to ‘speak up’ unless it was to say that the SO Mania was a good idea and – anyway – it wasn’t a Mania, only a little tweaking that was, somehow also, a revolutionary reform (which is almost a contradiction in terms).

So from informing the public, the advocacy mutates into an active force for undermining the very foundations of the national ethos and polity.

Because I would say that you can HAVE they type of government the Mania Regime requires for its agenda to ‘work’, but then you WON’T HAVE a Constitutional, limited democracy such as the Framers envisioned. You will have something else.

Pasternak, in ‘Doctor Zhivago’, described the early revolutionary warlord Strelnikov, bloody and robust dispenser of bullet-ridden revolutionary justice: “Disappointment embittered him; the revolution armed him”. This is a consequence of the American mutation of Victimology that hasn't been sufficiently considered.

Stalin, Pasternak noted, realized that the secret to dispensing revolutionary justice and law was not – as Lenin had imagined – to be predictable (if you oppose us you will surely be shot or sent to Siberia), but rather to be capricious (if you oppose us, no matter how secretly, we may show up on your doorstep any day any night any time and that will be the end of you and maybe your family and your little dog too).

Only a very foolish or courageous citizen would not say: maybe best if I just keep my mouth shut, and even better not to even think about it.

Now, with declining government funds and the public so wrapped up with genuinely monstrous national problems like an economy that is never coming back to pre-2008 levels for most people, the advocacy approach is to hide behind ‘the children’ and what are made out to be little volunteer groups of ‘concerned citizens’ who would like (and are vigorously but surreptitiously angling for) lotsa money and the power to conduct their own law-enforcement, since the official agencies are starting to realize they have more genuinely dangerous threats to deal with in the matter of public order and the commission of crimes.

And politicians who have already gone wayyyyy too far out on the limb to now try to admit it, and anyway figure that they need the support of whatever ‘base’ they can manage to keep happy.

Perhaps the government will quietly walk away – sort of like it did in Vietnam – and declare victory and go home: leaving the wrack and ruin ‘back there’ for ‘them’ to deal with now. To see that happen in the SO Mania might seem at least a better outcome than the still-frakking Mania Regime that’s still in business (with government money).**

But I am worried that the government will back away while leaving the Regime’s enabling legislation still intact. And given the tremendous insult and assault that such legislation presents to Constitutional praxis and ethos, it will remain a submerged or buried mine waiting for another chance to blow a hole in what is left of the America bequeathed to Us in that amazing Moment 235 years ago).


*This was Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 assertion, looking back from the vantage point of an American university gig to the Nazi era he had lived through: he reasoned that the ideas Hitler spewed about German race superiority and the evils of weakling democracy and that the foolish limits imposed by constitutions on governments should not be allowed to interfere with what he wanted to do for Germany. Looking back, Marcuse thought that if somehow Hitler had been prevented through government authority from proposing these ideas in public, then Germans might never have supported him and he never would have gotten to power.

Interesting thought. Although how the Weimar government could do that and still remain a constitutionally-limited democratic government is something Marcuse doesn’t care to think about.

Worse, he was wondering if the same type of dynamic wasn’t usefully applicable to the United States of 1965. Suppose, say, that Jim Crow supporters weren’t allowed to spew their noxious race-subjugation or race-separation ideas publicly. And then came the 'culture and gender wars'. Political Correctness as We know it begins here.

**I wonder if it wouldn’t be a sound economic plan, and would also serve to demonstrate just how much public support really exists (or doesn’t), for the assorted Mania-related organizations to rely on private donations? I seem to recall a year or two ago that one of the marquis priest-abuse organizations was thinking of shutting its doors due to lack of funds (after, interestingly enough, the lawsuits had died down).

No comments:

Post a Comment