Well, this is a relief.
I was worried that the judge was going to ban me from my daily sessions of masturbating to nude images of Katie Hill, which along with Jen Psaki ASMR, is really the only thing keeping me sane.
A judge has tossed a lawsuit by former representative Katie Hill, ruling that her nude photos that were leaked to the media amid claims she had affairs with staffers were not revenge porn, but covered by the freedom of speech.
Los Angeles Judge Yolanda Orozco sided with the Daily Mail as she ruled on Wednesday that naked images of Hill taken by her ex-husband Kenny Heslep and leaked to the paper “were a matter of public issue or public interest,” since they were indicative of Hill’s “character and qualifications for her position.”
BASED Latina natural conservative ftw.
Orozco noted that the photos in question showed Hill with a campaign aide, with whom she reportedly had an affair at the time, as well as appearing “to show [her] using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol.”
The judge rejected the argument by Hill’s attorney that the paper could have just limited its scoop to describing the images without publishing them, calling such reasoning “unpersuasive.”
“The fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern,” Orozco said.
The story made headlines in October 2019, and ultimately resulted in Hill’s resignation despite the outpouring of support she received from her own party and the mainstream media that rallied to her defense. Facing accusations that she had multiple affairs on the job, including with her legislative director, Hill admitted to a relationship with one female campaign staffer, but rejected any other allegations of inappropriate behavior. She vowed to take the British tabloid, which exclusively published the images, including the one showing her smoking a bong naked and spotting what appeared to be a swastika tattoo, to court, arguing she was a victim of “revenge porn.”
It’s not a Swastika (and it’s concerning that RT thinks it is, actually) – it’s an Iron Cross.
But I’m pretty sure it is a Nazi symbol.
Maybe RT was confused, thinking that the Swastika that was featured inside the Iron Cross military award during the Nazi era was visible in the tattoo.
But it isn’t.
But I don’t know what that could be other than a Nazi-related symbol.
I don’t think if she was a fan of the Kingdom of Prussia, she would get a tattoo of a symbol that is now so strongly associated with Nazism.
What a weird story this was.
It was also interesting, because it proved that feminism trumps association with Nazism. You know, we do wonder about these things – about the order of the various grievance groups, and who trumps who.
- We know that Moslems are above white homosexuals because Antifa has attacked white homosexuals for having a gay pride parade through a Moslem neighborhood
- We know that blacks are above Latinos because of the prosecution of George Zimmermann for defending himself from Tray-Tray Martin
- We know that feminism CAN in certain cases trump both Jewishness (most of metoo) and blackness (Bill Cosby) – however, this one is less clear, because blacks have gotten away with “sexual harassment” much easier than whites would in various situations
- We know that anti-Russian sentiment trumps Nazi sympathies, as in both the Ukraine and the Baltics, neo-Nazi groups have been endorsed by the West and NATO because they were anti-Russian; in Estonia, World War II parades that celebrate Nazism (and attack Russia) have been praised by the media
- We know that transsexual men are way above white women, as evidenced by everything, and probably, a white male transsexual is above any race of woman
- We know anti-Semitism trumps blackness, as evidenced by attacks on Louis Farrakhan, Kanye West, Nick Cannon, et al.
- We know that supposed historical oppression of India (colonialism) trumps global warming, as the Paris Climate Accords show and as Greta Thunberg herself has stated (that used to be true of China as well, but it isn’t anymore)
- We know that Asians are virtually exempt from any form of grievance politics, as evidenced by attacks on Chinese racism, use of affirmative action against Asians, and others (nonetheless, the new “anti-Asian hate bias” campaign the media has launched is trying to use black attacks on Asians to attack whites)
- We know that vaccines trump blackness, as evidenced by concerted campaigns against black anti-vaccine efforts claiming that the vaccination agenda is representative of white oppression of blacks
The fact that the media sided with Katie Hill after the printing of the nude photos proved that being a AWFL trumps associations with Nazism.
However, at the same time, AWFLs have been labeled “Karens” and attacked as anti-black racists for being afraid blacks were going to attack them, or being upset that blacks were committing various crimes.
Most infamously, a woman alone in Central Park with her dog thought a black man – who claimed to be a bird watcher – was going to rape her and called the police. (There is a Wikipedia page about this incident.)
She was disgraced as a white racist hater, despite the fact that I’m very certain she had BLM stuff all over her social media.
She really got wrecked – she was fired, and this is going to be a stain attached to her for the rest of her life (or as long as this current system lasts).
So according to current logic, if we take the Katie Hill nudes and the Central Park Karen incident alongside each other, thinking a black man is going to rape you is worse than being a Nazi.
But let’s take a step back here: just even wanting to classify this logically is probably the wrong approach. It is right-wing, white male thinking to say “give me an ordered list of who is the most and least oppressed, and whose grievances trump whose grievances.”
I don’t think any of the bulletpoints I outlined above actually represent any definitive policy or ideological belief, I think they just signal pragmatism: everything is always against heterosexual white men, but when the grievance interests collide, the rulers just choose whatever is more beneficial to the bigger agenda.
I think this is the biggest problem that right-wing people have with the left: there is no internal logic or consistency to any of it. It is all based in feminine drives and Jewishness (which is itself a feminine drive), and feminine drives are entirely based on emotionalism. There is no consistency in emotionalism, as it is entirely based on an arbitrary feelings-response to any stimuli.
The media is capable of manipulating emotional responses, completely. That is how they’ve used the empowerment of women, and the de-masculinization of men to create a system where nothing that happens has a requirement to make any sense. As long as women, and other emotional people, can be swayed by a media presentation, the presentation works.
Consensus on Irrational Nonsense
Along with making decisions based on emotions, women are obsessed with consensus. Therefore, the media is very capable of forming consensus around things that make no sense.
Anyone could have seen that the lockdowns would be much more damaging to society than the virus, based on all of the official data presented by the establishment. That was clear as soon as the hospitals were empty during the initial two week “flatten the curve” event. But the consensus formed was that it didn’t matter how many people suffered or died as a result of the lockdown, because the only thing that mattered was lives lost from the virus.
Glenn Greenwald – who is a homosexual, and thus totally paranoid about germs – was on Tucker Carlson the other day to talk about having been robbed at gunpoint at his weekend home in Brazil.
(Here is the article Glenn wrote on the topic, though I haven’t read it because save for a few special occasions, I don’t read any contemporary internet nonfiction prose as a rule, because I don’t want it to influence my own writing.)
He said that as a journalist, he didn’t like writing about himself, but decided to write about the robbery because he’d seen the video of the little Vietnamese girl talking about how her family was robbed and how she can’t sleep because she thinks the robbers are coming back.
During that robbery event, the mother of the family says that one of the black robbers whispered in her ear something to the effect of: “we’re not going to kill you or rape you, we just don’t have any money because of the virus.” That didn’t mean much, because one of the other blacks was pointing the gun at the little girl and saying he would kill her. But I guess it did mean something, because no one was killed or raped.
The video of the girl is really moving, actually.
(There is actually probably some commentary on race that could be said here, given that a white girl presumably would not be able to compose herself and speak on the event in such a straightforward way.)
If the media wanted to, this video of the Vietnamese could be used to create an emotional consensus that:
- The lockdown is a crime against humanity
- Black people are violent animals
It is all completely arbitrary.
If I had control of the media for one day, I could form an emotional consensus belief about all of my personal issues within a couple of hours. Then, when the media was turned back over to the Jews the next day, they could reestablish their own positions in the same timeframe.
It is all totally arbitrary.
Greenwald notes that much of the crime that is happening is a result of the lockdown, and that the consensus put a taboo on talking about the effects of a lockdown in contrast to the supposed effects of the supposed virus.
The lockdown is a part of the rising crime phenomenon, and the lockdown is doing other horrible things. But the main driver is the BLM movement. That is another emotional consensus that makes no sense at all.
Look at this:
Those murders are virtually 100% black-on-black, and they rose at such a rate because of the BLM movement.
If you were a racist, and you wanted to kill as many black people as possible, you would create the BLM movement to defund the police.
But the media has created the emotionally-driven consensus that anyone who believes the police should exist at all is an anti-black racist. Despite the fact that it is simply an objective reality that defunding the police (as well as removing cash bail and “prison reform”) has led to mass black deaths.
This brings us back to the bottom line: there is no logic in this system. You can’t unravel the logic of it, because there isn’t any logic in it. What that means in practical terms is that there is literally no purpose in attempting to push back against this system using logic. Not anymore. There was a purpose to that in 2015, because the information was not widely available, and in some cases, the arguments weren’t available at all. That changed with /pol/ and (not to toot my own horn) the Daily Stormer (which is mostly ripped off of /pol/) turning these arguments and facts into repeatable sound bites.
At this point, everyone who is capable of being swayed by logical arguments already has been. The only thing left to do now is to figure out some way to build a counter-consensus. The MAGA movement, including QAnon and others, are ripe for that, but they are flailing around, swallowing up disinformation.