November 27th, 2017

“Credible” stories

In the wake of the recent spate of sexual offense allegations, “credible” and “credibly” are the latest buzzwords.

Just as an example, take this Politico piece, which is by a former Bush speechwriter named Matt Latimer [emphasis mine]:

In the wake of the Roy Moore fiasco, a number of “hot takes” have made their rounds in the media. How obviously hypocritical it is, for example, for evangelical leaders to stand behind a man credibly accused of sexually assaulting a minor…

…How have we reached a point in this country when nearly half the voters of a U.S. state so mistrust, and even revile, major media outlets that they are willing to brush aside credible evidence and elect an accused sexual predator simply out of spite? …

…[We live in an] an era where some 50 people can credibly report sexual misconduct allegations about a Senate candidate to a major newspaper and yet that candidate still has a chance to win…

The rest of the article goes on to give a fairly good, if limited, description of the liberal/left bias of the press, and why the right has come to distrust it (although it doesn’t go into why that distrust is not just limited to the right). But what is with this “credible” business? I’ve seen it over and over to describe the Roy Moore allegations, as well as allegations against other figures in cases in which I don’t find the allegations especially credible although they might be true.

What is Latimer talking about when he writes that “50 people” have “credibly report[ed] sexual misconduct allegations” about Moore? I’ve never seen the number 50 in connection with that story. But Latimer just throws the number out there without explanation or details or names or even a link. Is that credible? The closest I can find to what he might be referring is the following, and it’s not at all close. It’s from the WaPo article in which the story originally broke:

This account is based on interviews with more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982, when he served as an assistant district attorney for Etowah County in northern Alabama, where he grew up.

That’s the sort of assertion that often gets tossed into the mix, until it’s almost literally impossible to remember what has actually occurred in a story and what hasn’t. What’s more, because all the Moore accusations have been lumped together (as often happens in these cases), it’s easy to forget that there are only two women (one of whom was underage) who have alleged acts of Moore’s that could be called some sort of assault. If you care to try to sort out the actual accusers, here’s a list that I believe is comprehensive.

What does “credible” mean in terms of the accusations against Moore or against anyone else? The word is defined this way:

1. capable of being believed; believable:

2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy:

Those two definitions are very different, are they not? Definition number one fits the accusations against Moore (I’m talking about the two serious accusations rather than the kissing, the latter of which is more credible and which Moore has not even strongly denied), and they certainly might be believed. They’re not fantastical, not literally impossible; they might be true. I won’t go into the reasons to disbelieve them—there are many, some of which have been discussed previously on this blog—but suffice to say that reasonable people can differ on this issue.

Personally, I’ve come to have considerable doubts about the stories of these witnesses, but I still consider that they might be telling the truth. However, they might be lying, and there are reasons to think so. That brings us to definition number two. Are the two accusers worthy of belief or confidence? I see no reason to invest that sort of trust in them, due mostly to a host of glitches in their stories and the timing of the accusations.

But according to the current PC belief system, women are credible by definition, merely on account of being women. We are supposed to believe women without serious challenge to their stories or even any serious fact-checking. This is a pernicious and dangerous sort of reasoning that leads to miscarriages of justice, both in the legal system and outside of it. It makes it impossible—literally impossible—to separate the wheat from the chaff, truth from fiction. It allows anyone with a political agenda and the will to create a good story to destroy a political figure or other public figures.

“Believe the women” is meant, however, to correct for a different sort of injustice: that of letting sexual assaulters/harassers go free because the allegations can’t be proven. In the past, that was the more likely scenario, but now that’s been turned on its head.

Each camp is going on “credible” evidence rather than anything even remotely approaching highly convincing evidence. Much of it is an emotional reaction to the accuser’s tale, and reflects a sort of hubris about our ability to detect a liar vs. a truthteller, based on that emotional reaction (and sometimes an over-identification based on personal experience). Almost any story about anyone can sound “credible” unless it contains obviously fanciful elements that are literally impossible. Are we all now required to believe any allegation by a woman against a man that is not impossible?

52 Responses to ““Credible” stories”

  1. Frederick Says:

    There’s multiple issues with the Moore reporting:

    1) Conflation: Serious criminal accusations (sexual assault of minors) are mixed with accounts of troubling behavior (dating and other interest in high-school age teens) mixed with out and out rumors (the mall ban list).

    2) Corroboration: The criminal accusations are entirely the word of single witnesses, with “corroboration” limited to “the accuser told a similar story at a different time to someone else”–every alien abduction tale is “corroborated” if this is the standard. We are not given enough detail on what was said when to know if these accusers have told consistent stories over time or not. We are being told only now, what supposedly has been told over the last 40 years, but we cannot actually compare what was said then to what is said now.

    3) Fairness: The accusers do not give dates or enough other details that could even in principle be corroborated, even at the level of “the accuser and the accused were in the same place at the time of the assault”. Nelson did not even specify the month in which she says she was assaulted. Charges that are too vague to refute should not have to be refuted. If Moore has no documentation for how he spent his evenings in December and January of 77/78, or only has documentation for a few days, how is he supposed to refute the charge? The accuser is not expected to provide anything, but to “credibly” refute Moore is expected to provide everything.

    With, for example, Al Franken, whatever he did in posing for those photographs, the photographs at least establish independently that he and his accusers were in the same place at the same time and when that was. For Moore, nothing. There were never any witnesses or records that can put him in the same place as the accuser on the date of the assaults–we don’t even know what those dates are.

  2. Frederick Says:

    I fully expect, that in six months, there will be another Columbia Journalism Review article on what the Post did wrong, just as Rolling Stone went through with Jackie Coakley. It is instructive to read that article now, and its list of recommendations on how to report on accusations of rape–it is as though the media has collectively decided to do the opposite of everything on that list.

    Jackie Coakley also told the same story to many people. The Rolling Stone article also contained a mix of documented facts, rumors, and allegations of more-or-less severity backed up by more-or-less definitive evidence.

    It took weeks for enough evidence to accumulate to determine that Coakley’s story is probably false–weeks that might be too late to do Moore much good. And anyone who suggested that Coakely’s story was not plausible, or well-corroborated, was attacked as an apologist for rape.

    Moore is not getting trial by media so much as trial by op-ed, with hundreds of editorial voices claiming that the accusations are “credible” and “corroborated”, but not going into any detail on what constitutes either.

  3. Griffin Says:


    Only if Moore loses the election. Then there will be a few chin scratching think pieces on how these allegations were really weakly sourced. Because of course it won’t matter then.

  4. Tom Says:

    I think the Democrats and media have lost all credibility on this whole thing when they talk about due process for Conyers, and don’t demand Al Franken’s immediate resignation. I also wonder if they aren’t trying to put this genie back in the bottle, because it seems to be taking out FAR more liberals than conservatives. I get the feeling that it’s only wrong if conservatives do it.

  5. neo-neocon Says:


    Yes, indeed.

    Whether Moore in guilty or whether he is innocent, all your listed concerns are very very valid. It is very troubling that the MSM and most people—and I include many Republicans here—don’t see the problem.

    In the case of Moore, we don’t even know—it never has been independently corroborated—that he was even a customer of the restaurant, or whether the accuser worked there! I originally assumed both were true, because otherwise the lie would be too easily debunked, but I’ve not heard much if anything to corroborate that part of the story. Moore has denied even being a customer there: “I don’t even know where the restaurant is or was…”

    I’ve never seen a former customer say Moore was indeed a customer there. Not that such an assertion would be definitive either, but we’ve not even heard one. That link was to an entire article about how hard it is to get any information about the restaurant:

    Yet few who recall the restaurant remember it well, and none of Moore’s colleagues questioned by The Star on Tuesday from the time could say whether he was a regular there or not.

    “I don’t really have a dog in this fight,” said Tom Davis, a Gadsden lawyer who was in practice downtown in the late 1970s. Davis said he’d encountered Moore back then, but “couldn’t place” the Olde Hickory House.

    “I’m sorry, I can’t help you,” said another longtime lawyer, James Pruitt. “I never even ate at that restaurant. I believe it was in East Gadsden.”…

    Barbecue joints named “Hickory House” were commonplace in the area in the 1970s, if ads in past issues of The Star are any indication. The Meighan Boulevard Hickory House isn’t listed as a registered business with the Alabama Secretary of State, though city directories list it as belonging to D.E. Locklear, a businessman who owned multiple businesses in Anniston as well.

    Attempts to reach Locklear were unsuccessful…

    What’s “credible” about this? Sounds like the Twilight Zone.

  6. Griffin Says:

    I think the best way to approach this entire sex panic saga is to ask what would be happening right now if we had President Hillary. I would bet that none of the Weinstein stuff would have ever been published or would have been so downplayed by the elite media so as to suffocate the fire before it became a raging inferno. And of course all of this would have been because of Bill Clinton being back in the White House.

  7. steve walsh Says:

    If they had objective and verifiable evidence they wouldn’t need ‘credible’ and ‘credibly’.

  8. M J R Says:

    Griffin, 4:50 pm —

    “I would bet [if we had President Hillary] that none of the Weinstein stuff would have ever been published or would have been so downplayed by the elite media so as to suffocate the fire before it became a raging inferno.”

    Calls to my mind this witticism [attribution unknown to M J R]:

    “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

  9. Dave Says:

    Roy Moore must win or Conservatives run the risk of legitimizing these sort of ridiculous fabricating character assassinating hit jobs against conservatives. It is like reading the real life version of to kill a Mockingbird. You have two accusers who have made any substantial criminal level accusations against Moore. one is a proven pathological liar, who was so troubled that even her mother couldn’t stand her and had to shove her back to the father, and the other one with a forged yearbook and represented by an unethical lawyer Gloria Allred with a history of representing fake sexual assault victims. Somehow they tried to make us believe these ridiculous allegations with clear political motives by providing equally not creditable supporting evidences like unsubstantiated claims of random misbehavior and rumors.

    Looks matter, and to be honest, Roy Moore just doesn’t look the part of a child molester. Bill O’Reilly, the fox news CEO guy, Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, Al Fraken, Anthony Weiner, John Conyers all look like creeps, but not Roy Moore, he looks like tough cowboy but no pervert.

  10. Dave Says:

    whether something is creditable depends entirely on the beholder and accused person’s party affiliations. If the the accused is Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush with the exact same sort of evidence the whole GOPe would come out to defend him.

    Everything happens in the span of a year, they can’t even find someone accusing Roy Moore of any wrongdoings outside of that period, the yearbook is so creditable that they won’t release to a third party for further examination. Do you know all the Deputy DAs in your county or city or whatever? somehow these women all recognized Roy Moore who wasn’t famous at all as the stranger who groped them 40 years ago. Moore has hundreds of closely related female colleagues as his character witnesses to corroborate that he is a upstanding gentleman, and somehow the GOPe and Media tell us we have to take the liars words over these honest and creditable women.

  11. Dave Says:

    was the woman who was 14 year old at the time able to tell the brand of car Moore was driving?

  12. OKBecky Says:

    Two thoughts:

    (1) The common fallacy of equivocation: changing the meaning of the word being used in an argument, mid-argument, in order to win via verbal subterfuge. That’s exactly what I see, regarding the two definitions of “credible” and how people switch between them.

    (2) I am grateful to Brendan O’Neill, editor of the online British publication Spiked!, for pointing out that our country has previous experience with “always believing the accuser” regarding rape accusations:

  13. Dave Says:

    why should we have a judicial system if the accusers are always right? why not just just fire all the lawyers and judges and sentence all accused to a life sentence if accusers never lie.

  14. Mike K Says:

    The Democrats and the GOPe are now panicking that the molestation stories are not getting traction. They have now recruited a retired Marine to conduct a last minute write- in campaign to throw the election to the Democrat.

    This is all despicable behavior. I thought Marine Colonels had better ethics.

  15. blert Says:

    Moore has been so controversial for so LONG… I can’t believe that his victims were never ‘discovered’ before this.

    I just can’t.


    We went through the same drill with Mr. Cain.

    At the end of the day, EVERY gal was PROVEN to be a liar.

    It was all smear-politics, then as now.


    As for chasing high school skirt ?

    Moore wanted to marry a VIRGIN.

    Fat chance of finding a virgin of college age… unless she was defective… even back then.

    One might note that after being married, Moore is not (credibly) known for chasing skirt.

    The contrast with Spacey, Franken, et. al. is striking.

    As for dating 16 year old babes — good grief — that’s as old as the ages.

    The Shrew was 19 — and deemed an old maid — almost.

    Until modern times, gals were EXPECTED to be married by the age of 18… twenty would be deemed the desperate hours.

  16. neo-neocon Says:


    I seem to recall (can’t find the quote now) that the accuser said it was an “old car” but that she didn’t know the make.

    That may sound odd to a guy, but under similar circumstances, at that age or any other age, I would not have been able to identify the car unless it was a very distinctive one like a Corvette or a VW bug or something of that sort. Cars tend to look alike to me.

    So although I find other aspects of her story raise red flags for me, that’s not one of them.

  17. TommyJay Says:

    First we have David Frum and now some character named Matt Latimer. I suppose I should have known of him before, but hadn’t. I must make a mental note to remember him as yet another Bushie with zero credibility.

  18. AesopFan Says:

    steve walsh Says:
    November 27th, 2017 at 4:53 pm
    If they had objective and verifiable evidence they wouldn’t need ‘credible’ and ‘credibly’.
    * * *

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    This is a pernicious and dangerous sort of reasoning that leads to miscarriages of justice, both in the legal system and outside of it.

    Most people would agree except the people doing it…

    they have a revenge mentality in which punishing that which oppressed them since people were people and kept them down is a good thing, even if its for the wrong offense, no offense, accidentally, or very very often passive aggressively (like the feminist teachers group discussing how to mentally screw up boys)..

    this been going on a long time… but you realize what happens if someone tried to say anything? even with their wacko quotes about exterminations and other stuff most don’t believe but support even if its by not opposing.

    and most dont really realize how bad its getting!!
    you have the marriage strike, herbivore men, MGTOW, now VR and what amounts to sex androids nacently starting, lowest birth rates in history, below replacement for decades, and more…

    they are shameless…

    Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist, killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves Bitch

    Taiyesha Baker at Indiana University


    “I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but…you’re forming a white family [and] reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?”

    Jessie Daniels City University of New York (CUNY)

    Daniels notes that she’s not alone in her hostility towards the family. Other scholars have a “feminist critique of The Family as an inherently conservative force in society,” she says, citing the work of feminist scholars Peggy McIntosh and Michele Barrett, who argue in their book that the nuclear family structure is a “fact to be lamented.”

    the leaders who get to use the money and political relationships and speak for women and all that lot, well, they are perfectly fine with false accusations. to them: Every man is guilty of some long myth of oppression and even professional rapists too, so all are guilty, how they get a punishment is not really a thing to quibble over, is it?

    It makes it impossible—literally impossible—to separate the wheat from the chaff, truth from fiction. It allows anyone with a political agenda and the will to create a good story to destroy a political figure or other public figures.

    yup… and gives which side a nuclear button advantage that they refuse not to use when men refuse to shoot each other and get into fist fights… oh my…

    maybe, just maybe, this was why things in the past seemed oppressive and imposed when we are seeing the later results of what happens when these customs are removed and more and more moral momentum of older people who still kind of follow them, make way to younger who dont or wont.

    think.. in the old days, we thought no man was to be alone with a woman cause they are all cads and rapists, but maybe its cause a decent man is easy to tarnish and remove and so the more decent, decide to practice a mode of self protection and even require chaperones…

    Vice President Mike Pence has a rule: He never eats alone with a woman other than his wife. It was widely mocked as prissy just a few months ago.

    who could imagine that removing the social contracts would result in behavior that would have those that removed them calling for them or worse… like re-education of all males and boys… (yup they did… )

    the past was all about reputation, and now we are surprised it matters today too?
    that people at the head of a movement that sided with the soviet ideal because they believed it would afford women the most freedom have been whats leading ladies for a long time (even if the ladies claim they are not – can you imagine patty duke twerking? on tv?)

    but the foundations of the pc arguments for women been the norm repeated over and over for a very long time… its one reason for mgtow and those other orgs. if you have no hope of parity or fairness, stay away… duh…

  20. AesopFan Says:

    M J R Says:
    November 27th, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    From the Wayback Machine aka Google, the originator is David Burke aka Iowahawk:

  21. AesopFan Says:

    This is an interesting wrinkle, make of it what you will.
    Of course, we have to take WaPo’s word about their investigation of the “informant” – but at least they were suspicious of somebody.
    They allege that the accusation is false because the woman was observed going into the offices of Project Veritas (and a few other items of “evidence”).
    They may be correct, but they didn’t consider the possibility that she was shopping her story to O’Keefe.

    I do applaud their due diligence, but they only went far enough to substantiate their own world view, which is what happens when the police stop looking as soon as they find a suspect that fits their preconceived theories of a crime.
    Doesn’t mean they’re right, even if they are plausible.
    WaPo sure as heck isn’t credible anymore.

  22. Artfldgr Says:

    sorry i screwed up the blockquotes above..

    here is some of the originating logic you guys are discussing its fruits…

    Men who are in prison for rape think it’s the dumbest thing that ever happened… It isn’t just a miscarriage of justice; they were put in jail for something very little different from what most men do most of the time and call it sex. The only difference is they got caught. That view is nonremorseful and not rehabilitative. It may also be true. It seems to me we have here a convergence between the rapist’s view of what he has done and the victim’s perspective on what was done to her. That is, for both, their ordinary experiences of heterosexual intercourse and the act of rape have something in common. Now this gets us into intense trouble. because that’s exactly how judges and juries see it who refuse to convict men accused of rape.

    A rape victim has to prove that it was not intercourse. She has to show that there was force and she resisted, because if there was sex, consent is inferred. Finders of fact look for “more force than usual during the preliminaries.” Rape is defined by distinction from intercourse—not nonviolence, intercourse.

    They ask, does this even look more like fucking or like rape? But what is their standard for sex, and is this question asked from the woman’s point of view? The level of force is not adjudicated at her point of violation; it is adjudicated at the standard of the normal level of force. Who sets this standard?”

    Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (1987)

    Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike
    the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.
    Male sexuality is apparently activated by violence against women and expresses itself in violence against women to a significant extent.
    Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: “Pleasure under Patriarchy” (1989) Ethics, Vol. 99, No. 2

    You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.… You learn how to leave your body and create someone else who takes over when you cannot stand it any more. You develop a self who is ingratiating and obsequious and imitative and aggressively passive and silent — you learn, in a word, femininity.

    Only Words (1993)

    Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.
    Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory (1982) Signs Vol. 7, No.3

    Catharine Alice MacKinnon (born October 7, 1946) is an American radical feminist, scholar, lawyer, teacher and activist. Born in Minnesota, MacKinnon attended Smith College and earned her J.D. and Ph.D. from Yale University. She is the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School.

    As a legal scholar, MacKinnon has addressed the issues of sexual harassment and pornography.

    above you read some of her comments on the issues with some going back to the 80s…
    oh well

  23. Richard Saunders Says:

    Notice that the accusations against Jeremy Pivin went away as soon as he took, and passed, a polygraph test. Yes, I know they’re not perfect, but they’re pretty damn good — note their use by our intelligence agencies for vetting for many years, right up to the present day. It takes a highly trained agent or a true sociopath to fool the box, and there aren’t nearly as many of those as television and movies would have us believe.

    I think it should be mandatory in these she said/he said cases that both accuser and accused should have to go on the box.

  24. William Graves Says:

    Good analysis. Credible comes from the French croyer…to believe, so croyable…believable. Thus incroyable…unbelievable. “He assaulted me” is an assertion. It’s not true because it was asserted. It’s credibility rests on the credibility of the witness. An important point in the evaluation is the witness’ understanding of the term ‘assault.’ This term has a number of legal and other definitions. Which one was asserted? By not providing a detailed description of the ‘assault,’ the critic leaves the definition to the reader, relying upon undefined, emotionally charged concepts previously known to the audience to make the point, perhaps quite deceptively?

  25. AesopFan Says:

    Even the National Review is credible occasionally (depends on the columnist — I have a little list).

    “None of this should be hard. Due process applies when the government attempts to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Thus, when the government initiates an effort to deprive a person of a liberty or property interest (such as a college education), then the requirements of fair notice and a fair hearing lock into place. When voters are weighing candidates — or when politicians are deciding whether to publicly call for the resignation of a colleague or the withdrawal of a candidate — then due process is irrelevant. They make their judgment on a case-by-case basis weighing the available evidence and information. Pelosi, by contrast, is seeking to strip due process from young, non-iconic men when their liberty interests are at stake while at the same time rigorously and wrongly applying due process to her mere opinion about Conyers’s political fate.”

    I don’t actually agree that the political accusations are lacking in effect on liberty and property, and thus entitled to some semblance of due process, but so long as we are engaged in Ordeal by Pundit, we are stuck with the witch hunts (which were actually judicial investigations / trials — just sayin’).

  26. AesopFan Says:

    A riposte to the previous post on a possible O’Keefe sting.

    “Why did O’Keefe choose this target, this time? If he was really trying to make a broader point about the Washington Post’s poor reporting and editorial standards, not only did he fail spectacularly, but he set himself up to have a very poor percentage chance of succeeding in the first place. On the other hand, if O’Keefe’s goal was just to discharge flak into the winds of a nasty, nihilistic Senate campaign in the stretch run, without much regard for actually damaging the Post’s credibility, the decision makes a lot more sense and further degrades any reason that anyone on the Right has to treat him a journalist, even a bad one.”

  27. The Other Chuck Says:

    If only we had Oliver Goldsmith to write a play. Instead of Cripplegate the lame dancing instructor, Mrs. Oddfish, Tony Lumpkin, and The Hardcastles, he would assemble the assorted dregs of America’s cultural and political establishment into another type of show and tell.

    They Stoop to Conquer: A Comedy of Manners

    Cast of Main Characters:

    Judge Moore – A man of faith who preaches hellfire and brimstone from the bench, quotes Leviticus and The Ten Commandments, and takes to heart marriage customs of the ancient Hebrews. Played by Sir Anthony Hopkins

    Harvey Weinstein – The pockmarked film studio head whose real life excursions into degrading sex and hedonistic abandon are evident in his physical appearance, while hanging in a locked room is a portrait made in his youth that never ages. Played by Harvey Fierstein

    Senator Al Franken – A comedian turned politician whose meager intelligence is matched by his meager talent. After resigning from the Senate he resumes his career as a second rate performer. Played by himself

    Gloria Allred – The feminist lawyer and ambulance chaser who dissembles, fabricates, and lies to gain notoriety and money, who would sell out her mother or her country, in short a whoring bitch. Played by Jane Fonda

    Charlie Rose – The liberal faux intellectual who built a reputation by interviewing his betters, all the while exposing his mental as well as physical limitations in a vain attempt at compensation. Played by Harvey Keitel

    Kevin Spacey – The talented Hollywood actor and would be/wanna be pedophile who thought Shakespeare In The Park the perfect cruising venue, in fact any park, bar, party, or working lunch a time for an unwanted grope or come on. Negotiations under way for the actor to play himself after he leaves rehab.

  28. Ymar Sakar Says:

    People have sometimes said online that you can’t trust wikipedia. Since it is written by humans with an agenda, trusting in one source is unwise without independent triangular 3x verification.

    But they trust the media. Even though many people say the media is biased, when they read a news report, they at least think it exists as a story, even if they think the news is hiding or deceiving them with something. Meanwhile in media AP stories, which are AP stories because all the Local News and national news and CNN stuff source their stuff directly from AP for headlines, pictures, editorial content even, do not have source links for their lines. Wikipedia does. If you have the time and access, you can even view the transparency behind the scenes and see who changed what when.

    So if it is something on wikipedia, ignore it as a source. But if you see it on the news or journalists talk about it, it has to be real.

    This has led to interesting strong delusions amongst the humans of this world. They even have to go back to Matrix metaphors like taking the Red Pill to get out of it. This is why the Alt Right is growing, it is backed originally not by a political attraction but by people who know everything they have ever been told was a lie.

    And by everything I don’t mean just Kennedy assassination. There’s a whole list of other conspiracies that are being investigated and have followers as numerous and strong as the conspiracy theory that the IRS targeted the Tea Party on somebody’s orders or that Benghazi and HRC were connected and HRC deleted her emails which had the evidence.

  29. Ymar Sakar Says:


    O Keefe and Veritas are not journalists. They are special forces operators working against the Left. While National Review think themselves part of the Ruling Class, the 4th estate, the special elites that were granted special immunities and powers under the non existent Constitutional mandate of a free press.

    A free press is the freedom to use any publishing press you can own or use, like the internet. It’s not Journalism and those who Rule Over You. Bet they don’t teach that in your highly praised public education and indoctrination centers.

    “Journalist” is an NLP trigger word and loyalty proof. It shows which side you think you are on here.

  30. Ymar Sakar Says:

    It takes a highly trained agent or a true sociopath to fool the box, and there aren’t nearly as many of those as television and movies would have us believe.

    The problem with polygraph tests is that the weak link in the chain is the person that reads and interprets the test.

    Bribe or crack that person, and it doesn’t matter what is on the charts because that has to be interpreted through an expert. Gateways of information always produces weak points.

    It’s not a high tech gadget that tests someone and puts out Yes/No. So people have to trust in experts. And they fall to deception as a result.

  31. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    Or concealed political bias…

  32. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Slightly off topic but highly relevant: The Wages of Inversion

    IMHO, Solway is a Canadian national treasure. This article is one of his most cogent and clear analyses.

  33. Dave Says:

    people are so afraid of coming to Roy Moore’s defense risking being branded as a rape apologist is what makes this strategy work. the blanket criminality of “If you dare to try to help the witch you are a witch too and be punished as such” is what makes this type of white terror persecution terrorizing. not a Conservative has the guts to stand up for Moore and defend this man’s due process tells me we haven’t learned nothing from a century of the communist terror, nothing.

  34. Dave Says:

    A Roy Moore’s victory will be the victory for due process and justice. I would rather let one sexual offender get away then letting the leftists destroying due process, innocent until proven guilty and all the other great American judicial values granted by the greatest justice system in the history of mankind just so they can get a Trump’s guy. The leftists are trying to replace our system with the failed communist one, if it was so great Soviet Union should had emerged as the victor in the cold war instead of us. Liberals are always like that, always trying to replace a better system with a failed system proven by history like replacing capitalism with socialism and replacing Christianity with atheism/Islam both were responsible for death in millions.

  35. arfldgrs Says:

    “In 1964, with great fanfare, President Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act, including Title VII, which for the first time protected all Americans from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” attorney Gerald Skoning wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2013. “But the law exempted Congress from its coverage, so thousands of staffers and other employees on the Hill were left with no equal-opportunity protection. Staffers could be discriminated against or sexually harassed with legal impunity.

    that was one of the largest moves to end Lex Rex and return society back to (under socialism) Rex Lex!!!

    [rex lex rule by kings queens and court / lex rex, rule by law over all, including kings queens and court]

  36. Larry Says:

    To M J R ….looks like that quote is from the incomparable David Burge,aka Iowahawk.

  37. arfldgrs Says:

    It takes a highly trained agent or a true sociopath to fool the box, and there aren’t nearly as many of those as television and movies would have us believe.

    actually it is… and no, does not require highly trained

    i know… i been under investigation for murder of a person who 30 years later, is still not dead…

    so i know a lot of how these tests are abused
    because by the time they were done, they had inconclusive results due to the fact that when they decided to punk me on the test i punked them back

    ie. the test giver was not seated at the table all the time, he would move around me, so as to change the needles moves based on invading personal space and jerking fast causing reactions that assumptions of proper test could only mean one thing!!!

    i watched a whole police department, detectives squad, and others work together to frame a completely innocent man of murder and going for a capital offense.

    they had me in a bar i had never entered
    met a person i didnt know
    bought i gun i dont own or anyone has
    witnesses that were near the act that never happened

    ruined my life, career, friendships
    even affects my chances at work today

    oh, her?
    she got with a feminist working for welfare that decided to work that crap out using the laws and things as a machine for their use..

    i am VERY well informed as to this subject
    harrasement accusations are piddly compared to murder of your girlfriend for custody of a baby, while she pulled gone girl bs i didnt know about till later (like shoplifting and telling the clerks when caught she has to cause i am not paying for food and so on!!!)

    i was told i had no rights
    this was not allowed in the custody case where i got joint custody
    but i never got to be with my kid at all
    i had to pay double child support (to her and my parents who were actually raising my son)

    she ended up taking my son, and two of her other kids and trying to rob a bank… she got caught, and spent 2 years in club fed… my son was in jail for nearly a day before he broke down and called my family…

    and THAT was why we started MGTOW among others, like the idea of impugning salary you cant make so you go to prison… like the man who set himself on fire in protest… (we remember the vietnamese buddishst doing this, do you remember the father that did? )

    this was all the fathers rights stuff till MGTOW said disconnect there is no winning this game…

    if they win, we all lose

    if the men fight back and win, we all lose (which is why the men havent fought back in 50 years they smarter than the dumbasses who are dying out and destroying their own society under the idea that communism will be great for women (at least the ones they are not holding down and sterlizing while ripping out a child!!))

    so the men disconnected…
    the only way to win, is not to play

    gendar wars are nuclear wars on the personal front

  38. arfldgrs Says:

    dont worry
    right now, they are being bred out of the race..
    think of it… they are funding their own replacments and their genius is going the way of the Dodo…

    a population that maintained a TFR of 2.0 over a long time would decrease, unless it had a large enough immigration.
    As of the beginning of 2016, there are 59.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44; this is the lowest number since records have been kept since 1909
    [yeah, like having a WWI without the mess!!!]

    [the left leaders konw they are exterminating their supporters through feminism and importing replacements as they are already dead… walking dinosaurs!!! to recover they would have to want to become breeder cows and have 5 children families again… they wont.. they are at RECORD lows. as if a selective nuclear bomb went off and removed a few 10s of millions of people!!!!!! why do you think its the most important program of the left that no one can touch????????????]

    However, it may take several generations for a change in the total fertility rate to be reflected in birth rate, because the age distribution must reach equilibrium. For example, a population that has recently dropped below replacement-level fertility will continue to grow, because the recent high fertility produced large numbers of young couples who would now be in their childbearing years

    which is why until its too late you can argue its not happening!

    This phenomenon carries forward for several generations and is called population momentum, population inertia or population-lag effect. This time-lag effect is of great importance to the growth rates of human populations.

    Americans keep having fewer babies as U.S. birthrates hit some record lows / For the second year in a row, the number of babies delivered in the U.S. fell in 2016, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics. For some groups of women, the birth rate reached record lows.

    this battle is about eugenics..
    The easiest way to defeat the people who made america, wanted it and made it great was to convince the women to self exterminate their kids for a liberated life..
    which they did…
    demographically they are Kaput
    and this and fighting in military will doubly insure it

    However, the fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born!!!!

    The total number of babies born in the U.S. last year was 3,941,109. That’s 37,388 fewer babies than were born in the U.S. in 2015, which represents a 1% decline.

    In 2016, the U.S. general fertility rate hit a record low of 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 2015, the general fertility rate was 62.5

    In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.

    In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women.

    The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).

    hey.. you now have it in print AGAIN
    you going to argue against the science of demographics and birth?
    you have been.. .we been sounding the crypto eugenics movement of the feminists and sanger lovers who loved ernst rudin (father of the shoa) who thought their ideas were great way to change a society by removing those who after generation and generation would behave right!!! (Thats the point of the jewish question, what do you do with people who will not abandon god or their ways generation to generation? you have to remove them as you cant change them)

    you can look up in any demographics science book well known research on populations in general… you dont have to be a researcher to understand what happens. they know, they catalogue it.. but what will happen is that the end result is denied till its too late to prevent the end result

    like this current “hysteria” on harrasment that has a big poltical benefit and low risk for those using it… (so far)

    thanks to feminism
    The ages of women giving birth in the U.S. has been skewing older for several years, and that trend continued in 2016.

    [this means the genetic fitness of the population is declining… as well as the population… and the replacements are no longer selected from the able and having something to offer, but now we let in what we used to not let in]

    Birth rates for women 30 and older hit their highest levels since the 1960s, and women in their early 30s had the highest birthrate of any age group.

    In 2016, there were 102.6 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 30 and 34. The last time it was that high was 1964.

    hey… you want to go back and look at what was argued against demographic destryuction? the same thing that was argued to make pc culture accept women never lie even if they do its ok…

    There were also 52.6 births per 1,000 women ages 35 to 39, the highest that figure has been since 1962.

    The birthrate continued to taper off for women in their 40s, with 11.4 birth per 1,000 women between the ages of 40 and 44 and 0.9 births per 1,000 women ages 45 and up. Those were the highest birthrates for those age groups since 1966 and 1963, respectively.


    birthrates for women in their teens and 20s hit record lows in 2016.

    The teen birthrate reached a new low of 20.3 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19. That’s 9% lower than it was in 2015; 51% lower than it was in 2007 (when the current downward trend began); and 67% lower than it was in 1991 (the year with the most recent peak).


    Just under 40% (39.7%) of all babies born in the U.S. last year were born to unmarried women. In 2015, that figure was 40.3%.

    The birthrate for single mothers peaked in 2007 and 2008, at 51.8 births per 1,000 unmarried women of childbearing age. After falling for eight straight years, it hit 42.1 births per 1,000 unmarried women in 2016.

    they are leaving out hte magic number that would make it easy to look up what happens when ANY mamalian population falls below a certain mark

    Sub-replacement fertility
    Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate (TFR) that (if sustained) leads to each new generation being less populous than the older, previous one in a given area. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates
    [so many items on the feminists docket are in the page as CAUSES]

    read above, we are WAY BELOW 2.1 since the late 1960s (about 50 years!!!)

    this harrasment thing is going to cool the desire in good men
    it wont have much affect on morons and criminal and perverts
    it will leave women to swim in a pool where good men leave!!!!!

    The term “lowest-low fertility” is defined as TFR at or below 1.3
    This is characteristic of some Eastern European, Southern European and East Asian countries In 2001, more than half of the population of Europe lived in countries with lowest-low TFR

    The countries that tried free love liberation feminism that we have now
    when they found out it led to demograhic destruction as large as a nuclear bomb [how many millions were never born rather than killed by a bomb??????]

    they invented the first human mental virus to inflict damage to a population under the false auspices of improvement and so on..

    White Europeans: An endangered species? – Yale Daily News

    ‘Demographic dividend’ is under way with collapse in fertility

    ANY attempt not to be exterminated will be seen as white supremecy, which is why they moved on to telling white women to self exterminate!!

    as the population turns, its gonna get interesting
    Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist, killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves Bitch

    by that time, my wife and i will probably be in indonesia reading the press..

    “I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but…you’re forming a white family [and] reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?”

  39. arfldgrs Says:

    Richard Saunders the number of sociopaths in the population is about 1 in 25… number of red heads in the general population is about 1 in 100… there are 4 times the number of sociopaths as red heads in america…

    The sociopath makes up approximately 3 to 5 percent of the general population. According to the American Psychiatric Association, about three out of 100 males and one in 100 are sociopaths. Approximately 70 percent of sociopaths who come from fatherless homes and 30 percent are born out of wedlock. As many as 15 to 25 percent of prison inmates who show signs of being sociopaths.

    given communist society is a society build for sociopaths
    that makes sense to make more of them to make that happen

    but why bother to actually study the subject

    beating a test is easy and the way they use them in the NSA, CIA, etc are different… (i know, been through theirs)

    the problem is that there are too many ways to play games with the tests… on BOTH sides.. of course the agencies do things right, and with great rigor, and so it works for them… but the ability to game it, prevents it from being used in the general population as there is no way to guarantee things like that!!

    one way to make a test inconclusive is to not answer yes or no… real tests are only yes and no questions… so, if you try to speak sentences the person giving the test will get all emotionally flustered and upset thinking your gaming it… for some you are, for others they just want to explain…

    other ways are variations on the thumbtack in the shoe trick… ie. when they ask the test questions to determine your baseline for truth vs lies, you stab yourself with the pin on a lie.. now everything other than pin stab is the truth… 🙂

    so the agencies make sure your shoes are ok, etc..
    they also make sure you dont have a fist… (fingernails)
    and so on… police dont… their tests are crappy at BEST

    to hide the issue if you have to, takes only a large grain of sand and nailpolish…

    people who are not in the arts of gaming systems have hard times seeing how things are gamed!!!

    this is why the man who designs a prison cant break out of his own prison, but someone else can… 🙂

  40. artemptydgr Says:

    Today is the anniversary of
    Tawana Brawley is found covered with feces and wrapped in garbage bags outside the Pavilion Condominiums in Wappingers Falls, New York. Brawley appeared to have undergone an extremely traumatic experience: parts of her hair were cut off, her pants were slightly burned, and there was a racial slur scrawled on her body. Brawley told authorities that for four days she had been held against her will and repeatedly raped by a gang of white men, one of whom she claimed had a police badge.

  41. neo-neocon Says:


    Some posts I’ve written on the subject.

  42. Richard Saunders Says:

    C’mon, Ymar, Artfl — or course the competence and objectivity of the polygraph operator are important. Same is true of a detective, judge, or welder, for that matter. But being required to take a polygraph test is much more intimidating than having a detective investigate an accusation of heinous behavior — the accuser has already decided she can fool the police, let’s see if she thinks she can fool the polygraph.

  43. n.n Says:

    Credible or viable evidence is the last refuge of the Pro-Choice quasi-religious cult and the twilight faithful.

  44. Dave Says:

    Tucker carlson was a victim of a hoax sexual assault allegation.

  45. AesopFan Says:

    arfldgrs Says:
    November 28th, 2017 at 10:27 am
    … “But the law exempted Congress from its coverage, …
    * * *
    This appears to be their favorite tactic: good enough for the peons but not for the elites. Obamacare was heralded as applying to Congress and staff, but then they quietly vacated that provision after everyone quit looking (except the conservatives).

    When I was in graduate school, one of the other students in our department (Government aka Political Science) interned in DC for a summer. He smuggled some papers over to a copier and spread the word that Congress was exempting itself from another of the “great leaps forward” — don’t remember now, but it might even have been the sex discrimination rules. That was in 1974-75.

  46. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    November 28th, 2017 at 9:55 am
    A Roy Moore’s victory will be the victory for due process and justice. I would rather let one sexual offender get away then letting the leftists destroying due process,
    * * *
    For some reason the Left and much of the Right thinks it is perfectly okay to let 10 guilty people go free rather than convict one innocent one when the charge is murder or some capital crime — everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and sometimes after that because we now have many organizations dedicated to re-opening verdicts when new evidence surfaces, usually DNA.

    But they would rather have 10 innocent men be condemned rather than maybe let one guilty one skate when the charge is any kind of sexual harassment.

    In the case of actual rape (or as Whoopie would say, rape-rape), the “10 guilty free” standard is still followed when the cases are already adjudicated and the (to them still alleged) perpetrator is in one of the Approved Victim Classes.

    I prefer that we follow due process, assess evidence carefully, and convict the guilty / free the innocent without getting any of the verdicts wrong.

  47. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    November 28th, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Tucker carlson was a victim of a hoax sexual assault allegation.
    * *
    Excellent. Tucker’s failure to persuade the feminist he interviewed is horrifying.

  48. Dave Says:

    The tide will begin to change if enough men begin to make allegations against women of sexual assaults. since the left has changed the rule that sexual assaults now include groping without penetration, women are basically as capable to sexual assault men as men assaulting women if all it takes to constitute sexual assault or even rape is a hand touching a sexual organ.

  49. AesopFan Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    November 28th, 2017 at 8:44 am
    Slightly off topic but highly relevant: The Wages of Inversion

    IMHO, Solway is a Canadian national treasure. This article is one of his most cogent and clear analyses.
    * * *
    The prophets of doom always have a long lead time. It’s a shame so few people listen to them.
    On the other hand, some people are looking at their predictions and applauding.

  50. The Other Chuck Says:

    The left is cleaning house. Conyers, Weinstein, Franken, and the latest, Matt Lauer, are some of the sacrificial offerings. They are laying the groundwork for the big prize – Donald Trump. When the House goes Democrat next year and the impeachment proceedings start, I will tune out of the farce and lose myself in gardening and my blessed avocation. That is, if we aren’t in a nuclear war by then.

  51. Dave Says:

    I posted during the breaking of the weinstein scandal that the left’s end game of exposing their own perverts was to get Trump. They have finally realized that the reason why none of the sexual allegations with strong supporting evidence like the Bush tape couldn’t hurt Trump was because Bill Clinton’s sexual wrongdoings and Democrats’ adamant support of him and his enabling wife was Trump’s perfect protective shield deflecting all attacks back to the democrats. Now they are trying to clean house, truly reinvent themselves into this super morally faultless holier than thou intolerant of any immoral misbehavior party and hopefully that will enable them to get Trump.

    Now is the perfect opportunity for a new realignment for republicans to take it on the feminist fascist to become the party of due process and justice and anti-witchhunt, if the GOPe ain’t too busy joining the liberals in this latest wave of witchhunt. defending liberals’ due process is the right tactic because we will be fighting the war in their frontline not ours. Democrats have a lot of support of powerful people because of their willingness to defend perverts. If Republicans are willing to defend the due process of potential perverts in the name of justice those supports could become ours.

    How easy is it to frame someone of sexual misconducts if there is no due process? it is as easy as knowing which room Macro Rubio is going to stay in and put a naked woman there before he arrives, so GOPe don’t think you are safe, no one is safe even a virgin because the democrats can set you up.

  52. Dave Says:

    Democrats offering protection for perverts while collecting evidence of these perverts’ misconducts and willingly scarifying these perverts in time of need when the party needs to reclaim the moral high ground in the political war, what an evil party, a devil making deals with faulted people and willing scarify them at anytime.

    As a decent man I will always value due process over covering up. I don’t need cover up of my wrongdoings because I have none, I only need due process so I don’t get wrongly accuse of something I didn’t do.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge