March 16, 2020
Neo-Nazis not understanding how the Weinstein case could be “precedent” is some of the worst of this. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Jew has manipulated and is obviously still manipulating the legal system. Saying “rape is already illegal” is so stupid that it’s painful. What happened in this case will be what everyone who made law review at every law school in the country will want to write about. These (((students))) will get acclaim and recognition for these articles. These are the people who go on to clerk for judges before they become judges, themselves. All of the (((feminist))) legal societies will push this by writing about it, holding seminars about it, and educating the prosecutors on these wonderful tools for getting high profile convictions. Armies of social workers will have another thing to coach “victims” about. They just made a fake rape charge easier to make stick.
Rape is already illegal. Brilliant observation. Lots of things that are illegal have defenses. If you can prove the elements of your defense, it doesn’t matter what the prosecution proves. Consent is a defense against rape. It defeats an element of the crime. If the “victim” can withdraw consent after the fact, then the defense has been eroded in a significant way. It’s a matter of what can even be presented to a jury of women and niggers (who are easily manipulated by a crying woman on the witness stand). At one time, spousal rape didn’t exist. Marriage was implied consent. The charge wouldn’t even be made, much less put to trial. But rape was still illegal.
The famous “Burning Bed” case is a good illustration. Murder was and still is illegal. Feminism managed to alter the law in that case. A “battered spouse” can simply kill her husband while he’s asleep, and it’s self defense. But murder is still illegal.
Rape remains illegal; that didn’t change. Making the charge stick just became a lot easier. Gee, neo-Nazi retards, I’m sure that will only be used against Jews and niggers, just like the Patriot Act is only used against Muslim terrorists, right? Gloria Allred has your best interests in mind, right? They just changed the definition of rape right before your very eyes, and they got you to go along with it by sacrificing a grotesque member of their own group. No wonder they win; you people are too stupid to beat them.
Nobody is defending Harvey Weinstein. Neo-Nazis know that. They are being dishonest. If they think that Weinstein going to jail is the end result of this thing, then they are also stupid. Do they really believe that law enforcement isn’t already trolling for whores who can make rape allegations against “White Nationalists”?
And of course, the feds already did this to Cody Wilson, maker of the plastic gun and a defender of the free speech of whites, with an entrapment scheme using the “statutory rape” hoax, which is also a new form of “rape” that they invented so they could engage in hoaxes.
In that hoax, the girl lied about her age, and I’m sure there was also a precedent set at some point where when the girl lies about her age, you’re guilty anyway. There clearly must be case law on that, because otherwise “she lied about her age” should be a good defense in a “statutory rape” case.
Precedent-setting cases are definitely a thing.
On the issue of statutory rape, for example, the case of Hermesmann v. Seyer set the precedent that a woman can sue for child support even if she conceived the child while committing a crime. The girl, Colleen Hermesmann, was 16 and babysitting a 12-year-old boy, Shane Seyer. As you’ll have, the girl had sex with the boy, and got pregnant. When she sued for child support, the defense argued that she couldn’t get it because it was “rape” that got her pregnant – but no, the court decided she should still get child support, and now it is the law that “she was committing a crime when she got pregnant” is not a defense against child support payments.
There is no “book of registered precedent-setting cases” – every case that is ruled on by a court can be used as precedent by another case. So saying “this doesn’t set precent” is absolute gibberish, and these people saying that are again either lying or are dangerously stupid. Precedent also determines what future cases are brought to courts by prosecutors, based on what they think they can win. White knights claiming “there is no precedent” are mocking your lack of information on how the court system works in order to manipulate you into supporting their feminist agenda.
All sorts of new precedents are ready to be referred to in the Weinstein case in future cases, including, but not limited to:
- No evidence is needed to prove rape, beyond the word of the woman
- If a woman withdraws consent after the event took place (even years after), it’s still rape
- A years-long friendly, sexual relationship is not evidence that you didn’t rape a woman years earlier (you can rape your girlfriend/wife and she can remain your happy and loving girlfriend/wife for years and it’s still rape)
Basically, this case broke down every possible defense in any rape case, which means that all heterosexual sex is de facto rape, and it is just a matter of whether the woman decides to press charges.
As a mental exercise: can you think of a way you could prove you didn’t rape a woman, after this case?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question, because the fact that a woman’s word is now evidence means that no matter what, she can say you’re lying.
Jessica Mann, the lead accuser in this case, actually said that she pretended to enjoy the sex.
Weinstein told her to sit on the bed and performed oral sex on her. Mann said she pretended to have an orgasm so he would stop.
So even if you have a tape of the entire encounter, where the girl consents, and she appears to be enjoying it all the way through, she can just say “I didn’t consent in my heart,” and you’re guilty of rape and have to go to prison for decades.
The neo-Nazis claiming to not understand what “precedent” is are either lying on purpose or are so stupid that they must be dismissed out of hand as dangerously stupid.
Remember: even as the neo-Nazis claim that this doesn’t set precedent, the people who they are quoting when they say “this is rape” are saying that it completely transforms the entire future of rape cases.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said:
This is a new day. Rape is rape whether the survivor reports within an hour, within a year or perhaps never. It’s rape despite the complicated dynamics of power and consent after an assault. It’s rape even if there is no physical evidence.
Tina Tchen, Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff and current CEO of “Time’s Up,” a metoo legal group, said:
I think the Weinstein conviction and today’s sentencing really marks a new era of justice in our country, where survivors are going to be believed, prosecutors are going to see these as cases that they should take to trial and juries are going to believe survivors when they testify and they’re going to convict people…and now judges are going to sentence them for long prison terms. Up until now the reality has been, of every 1,000 perpetrators of sexual assault 995 go free, either because nobody reports them or nobody prosecutes them or juries don’t convict. I think that is finally going to change.
Those are particularly powerful quotes from particularly powerful people, but women everywhere are saying the same thing: this case will be used to punish all sorts of men.
Washington Post Jewess Alyssa Rosenberg said:
I mean, one of the things that Miriam Haley said that I thought was really important is that this case sets a precedent. She said if Harvey Weinstein had not been convicted by this jury, it would have happened again and again. I’m relieved to know – I’m relieved he will now know that he’s not above the law. I’m relieved there are women out there who are safer because he’s not out there. And I think the precedent here was incredibly important.
The Atlantic Jewess Megan Garber said:
Believe women has been a slogan and a correction and an extremely modest rallying cry. Now it is precedent. Now more progress might be made. The jury took the women, at least in part, at their word.
Jewess Kirsten Shaffer, head of “Women in Film,” said:
It is what we hoped for but, we were unsure. We have men accused of sexual assault in the White house and on the Supreme Court and that makes many women apprehensive about how assault cases will be decided and sentenced.
It makes women feel more comfortable in coming out and telling their stories. Hopefully it sets a precedent for more cases to come forward.
Jessica Barth, head of feminist group “Voices in Action,” said:
I feel like not enough of these cases get prosecuted and that the standards that they are held to are unreasonable. I hope that prosecutors understand that this is a new era and a new day. Juries will convict serial predators and victims are being believed.
Even outside of the United States, women’s legal activist groups are praising the precedent.
Time’s Up UK released a statement after the Weinstein verdict, which said:
Today’s landmark sentencing decision is a major moment for the silence breakers and for women battling everywhere for their right to work in a safe workplace without fear of abuse and harassment. It is also a major moment for justice and the system of justice. At its heart is a jury who are charged with deciding who they believe about a criminal act which rarely has forensic evidence nor witnesses. Most rape and assault cases never come to trial because fundamentally women are not believed.
The precedence of this case cannot be underestimated. A group of brave women were listened to and believed. A man who abused his power has faced consequences (and may face further consequences in the months to come).
It is about BELIEVING WOMEN.
And the fact that they’re talking about it outside of the United States indicates that it is going to be used as a new definition of rape by the entirety of the international women’s lobby.
But the neo-Nazis are telling you that they believe everything about the arguments these women’s rights activists made during the Weinstein case, but they don’t believe them when they say this is a precedent that they’re going to use to throw more men in prison?
As far as I’m concerned, this is all the proof that anyone needs that neo-Nazism is a joke. They don’t care about white people. They are a women’s activism group that puts the desires of women ahead of what is good for white people in every situation, and so it makes it impossible for them to ever do anything at all that is good for white people, because what makes women feel good will always be in opposition to what is good for white people.
“I Just Hate All Jews and Want to See Them Suffer!”
With neo-Nazis feeling the heat as they have been called out as supporters of radical feminist gender theory nonsense, some of them are now resorting to “I don’t care if it was unjust – I just want to see Jews suffer! If you don’t want Jews to be falsely charged and convicted for crimes they didn’t commit, you’re just a kike shill! Only a kike shill would be worried about precedent!”
Besides the fact that this is retarded on the face of it, and makes you wonder just how dumb these people actually are, it is surely untenable to allow Jewish lawyers to throw random Jews in prison and set precedent for all kinds of future prosecutions.
What if Julian Assange was a Jew, would they support him being prosecuted for journalism? And say “the precedent doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is that a Jew went to prison!”? And I guess they would support the rape hoaxes against him too? And be screaming histrionically about how having sex with a girl without a condom when she thinks you’re wearing a condom is “THE DEFINITION OF RAPE”?
Glenn Greenwald is Jewish, and people are trying to prosecute him for doing journalism, so do neo-Nazis support that? Because their strategy to fight Jews is to support unjust prosecutions?
What if a Jew gets prosecuted for anti-Semitism? According to Jews, there is such a thing as an “anti-Semitic Jew,” and Jews want to pass laws against anti-Semitism, so it is actually likely that they would prosecute a Jew first, to make the case seem more reasonable. Would neo-Nazis support outlawing anti-Semitism because a Jew went to prison? According to the responses I’m seeing, yes, they would.
Gilad Atzmon, an anti-Zionist Jew, is being prosecuted in the UK for anti-Semitism.
So, neo-Nazis support this? After all, he’s a Jew, right? And he might end up going to prison? And it doesn’t matter why, it’s just good that Jews go to prison, right? Even when they’re being sent there by other Jews, in order to promote a Jewish agenda?
It’s all so very, very tiresome.
I just hope people learn a lesson here.
I don’t know if neo-Nazis are malicious or just unbelievably dumb, but they are absolutely dangerous, and people should be wary of them.