Jewish people need to be aware that there’s psychological pressure deployed against them through the many fake videos and reports about Jews in America being assaulted on campuses and in the streets. That video of a Jewish student being crowded at Harvard, for example. It’s a craftily edited, manipulative piece. The student got in the face of some protesters, and they got in his face in response. That’s what students do. Nobody was harmed, and the Jewish student clearly felt very safe to confront the protesters. And the same goes for the obviously fake video of “Jews hiding in a campus library”.
This is done on purpose to make you weak. Every time you get scared, angry, upset, you become a leaky vessel. Don’t watch videos where you are a victim. Watch the ones where you are a winner.
It’s good advice for everybody.
Clarissa's Blog 
In Israel those videos play a different role…
In other news:
// Of the 35 hospitals in the sector (they are small there, funded by various charitable organizations), only 19 are working – there is no fuel for generators. At the same time, an audio recording of a conversation between the commander of one of the battalions of the “Izaddin al-Qassam Brigades” and the management of an Indonesian hospital was published: “We are taking fuel from you, acting as a government in the interests of the country” (!)
AND
На 10 чрезвычайной сессии Генеральной ассамблеи ООН постпред РФ Василий Небензя заявил, что у Израиля, «как у оккупирующей державы», нет права на самооборону.
🙂 🙂
LikeLike
What led you to believe that video from the library was obviously fake?
LikeLike
You don’t see what’s happened before or what took place after. Whenever you see something that begins so clearly in medias res, you are being manipulated.
Real videos are by definition a lot more boring because they aren’t edited for impact.
We saw, for example, how during the Trump presidency, the most shameless editing took place to present a certain image. I highly recommend studying the coverage of the famous “grab them by the pussy” and “mocking a disabled reporter” clips. Literally millions of people believed the insanely edited and dishonest coverage.
We need to train ourselves how to interact with visual or textual narratives because most people are completely clueless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I watched the entire Access Hollywood tape. Trump bragged to a reporter that when you’re a star, women let you do anything, including grab them by the pussy. What was misleading there?
Less sociopathic men would brag about women throwing themselves at you when you’re a star. Do you not understand the big difference between the two?
You’re probably imagining yourself slapping him in the face if he grabbed you by the pussy. I am not so arrogant to believe that if I were a young woman who was powerless compared to Trump, I wouldn’t just freeze in shock when he did that.
LikeLike
In many reports, Trump’s words were cut off before the words “and they let you.” So the legend of “Trump committed sexual assault” was born.
Many people honestly didn’t know he said “and they let you”.
I also have to say that I never fantasized about being grabbed by Trump and I resent this accusation.
LikeLike
You’re making up the accusation as I never used the word “fantasized”. I used the word “imagine” – as in, what you imagined you would do if you were in the same situation. You could substitute the word “thought” for “imagined”. My apologies for not using the correct tense in my previous post.
I understand, you’re saying that it’s only sexual assault if the powerless woman grabbed by her genitals by a powerful man (without an invitation to do so) is a perfect victim who slaps him and then files a sexual assault claim with the police.
LikeLike
If you want to attribute long screeds to me and then respond to them, maybe you don’t need me in this conversation at all.
I’m not “saying that it’s only sexual assault”, etc. That’s all your invention. I’m saying that a famous video clip was edited and reported irresponsibly.
“Imagining” famous people grabbing you constitutes a sexual fantasy that’s typical of erotomania. I want to discuss video clips. You want to dwell on imagined grabbings and the issue of genitals. See the difference?
LikeLike
I am saying that people who have heard the words “and they let you do it” consider Trump’s behavior sexual assault.
I was focusing on how a woman might respond to unwanted sexual touching by a powerful man, which is obvious to anyone reading what I said.
LikeLike
It’s everybody’s absolute right to consider any words in any light they wish. What I’m saying is that many people weren’t allowed to hear those words and make their own judgement because the words were excised.
This was the case with many of Trump’s scandalous statements. They were creatively edited for political and ideological purposes. In this particular instance, the words that were edited out make no difference to you, which is fine. But once we accept that this is an ok thing to do, tomorrow something will be edited out that would make a difference to you. It’s the principle of the thing. Are you completely sure there’s no text or recording of you that can be edited to make you sound like an absolute evildoer?
LikeLike
Of course not. Someone could grab a sentence I said where I would look absolutely evil if you don’t include the rest of the conversation.
I just don’t think Trump comes off as evil and amoral because of the editing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a colleague who once said in class, ‘The character’s stepfather was black. This was 16th century, and the way people saw it, having a black relative was unacceptable.’
He was accused of being a racist who taught in class that having a black relative is unacceptable. He was cleared in an internal investigation but for years people said behind his back that they heard he was a racist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So what you’re saying is…”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I express myself verbally for a living. I tend to think I’m quite good at it. This is why it’s particularly galling when people try to translate what I say.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was having this entire conversation with you without logging in.
I tried to infer what you personally think given the following:
“In many reports, Trump’s words were cut off before the words “and they let you.” So the legend of “Trump committed sexual assault” was born.”
It follows that you didn’t think it was sexual assault. To me his phrasing – “when you’re a star”, “you can do anything”, “they let you” – describes a situation where Trump initiated the action without receiving signals from the women it was desired, and they didn’t scream, or slap him, as they would if he were a random nobody. How do you interpret it? Don’t you think that he would say that they were throwing themselves at him or something along those lines if they were inviting him to touch them?
I think people concluded he did commit sexual assault because they interpreted his words the same way I did.
LikeLike
But why would you assume that everybody else hears it the same way you do?
LikeLike
Methylethyl, I thought that liberals who have heard the entire tape, including “they let you do it”, and concluded it was sexual assault interpreted it that way. Not everyone. I asked Clarissa how she interpreted it. How do you interpret it?
LikeLike
I don’t, and it’s complicated.
I’m autistic. When I try to infer or attribute meaning to other people’s utterances based on my own thought processes, I’m mostly wrong, because my thought processes are very different. Painful experience teaches avoidance. When normies try to do the exact same thing they are mostly right, because… apparently you all think alike. It’s incredibly weird and sort of creepy. But when normies encounter someone who doesn’t think like them, and use their normal “inference from self” trick, and it doesn’t work, they tend to get all weird and offended and… then they never talk to you again. Normies lack a “Theory of Different Thought Processes”, which is a source of unnecessary friction.
The Trump quote… is an utterance from a completely alien culture. The man is rich (objective), and amoral (subjective). I am a very literal-minded, rule-loving person and in the culture in which I am embedded, it is never appropriate for a man and a woman who are not married to have any kind of sexual contact. This is a nice, clear rule that I can understand and follow. Mainstream sources inform me that the only rule held sacrosanct by the larger culture regarding sexual contact is explicit verbal consent for everything, and that if I try to apply my own sexual ethics to form an opinion of anything, I am a bigot. But mainstream sources also seem to indicate that this rule– the one big rule– is almost never actually followed. Which means there is some other implicit rule or rules operating. Since nobody seems willing to bring that rule out and make it explicit so that the inferentially-impaired such as myself might know what it is… we are left utterly in the dark and can only theorize clumsily from incomplete data.
To my mind, the implicit rules seem to be something like: 1) Women can do whatever they like to men without asking first, and if the men are not happy about it they have no recourse because they will be blamed so they can just shut up, because women are the weaker sex, always innocent, pure as the driven snow, and never lie, except politically when we have to say they’re just like men. 2) Men can do whatever they like to women as long as the women are telegraphing the correct nonverbal signals to indicate their interest. If the advance turns out to be unwanted, or if interest was initially signalled but the man turned out to be inept, have bad breath, or then failed to read other nonverbal signals indicating rejection, hesitation, fear, or other negative emotional state, then he is guilty of assault and may be trashed in the press, in the courts, and social media, or have his employment prospects shredded. This is particularly puzzling because men are also supposed to be worse at picking up subtext and nonverbal cues, than women.
I personally suck at reading nonverbal cues, so I vastly prefer a situation where there is a clear, explicit rule, such as “no sexual contact between unmarried persons”. I’m not psychic, and I can’t tell what other people are thinking unless they say it out loud– and even then sometimes they lie– so I don’t know if I’ve correctly worked out the implicit rules. But also, because I suck at reading nonverbal cues… I friggin’ HATE situations where explicit rules exist and are clearly not followed by the vast majority of people– even people who explicitly advocate those rules. Like, do you people really ask for consent every time you kiss your husband? I don’t. It’d be super weird.
So mostly what I “infer” from something like that Trump quote is: “Normies gonna normie.” Y’all have a whole lot of rules that you don’t follow, but which seem to exist for the sole purpose of trashing each other in public fora. What is up with that? Until somebody publishes the explicit guide to the ACTUAL rules of sexual conduct for people who don’t believe that any restrictions on sexual conduct are fair, just, or beneficial… what am I supposed to think? I’ll stick to my simple rules, and degenerates can do what they like. But don’t ask me to judge sexual conduct in the broader culture. The stated rules are different from the actual rules, and the actual rules are some kind of secret taboo thing that nobody can say out loud. That’s too complicated for me. I’m baffled how anybody thinks they can judge that. How do you make a ruling based on secret laws?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If men make unwanted advances, they are creeps. If they make wanted advances, it’s all good. But you can’t know if advances are wanted or not, until you make them. Trying to read signs is a waste of time because if you misread them, you are not only a creep but a victim-blamer.
There’s another component to this which is that any degree of attraction needs to lead to immediate sex. Any compliment is a beginning of a sex act. This is a very American thing. When I go to Spain, I immediately start hearing compliments and have playful exchanges with people where nobody believes any of it has to lead to sex acts. It’s hard to explain but there we can be women and men instead of asexual robots, and it doesn’t lead to anybody expecting sex.
People need to remember that there’s an enormous amount of space between feeling that somebody looks nice and has a pleasing personality and having sex with that person.
It’s really very hard to explain but I have this colleague with whom for years we have existed in a state where we silently recognize that we are an attractive woman and an attractive man. I have zero interest in having sex with him. I’m deeply in love with my husband, so the idea of sex with anybody else feels disgusting. Even if I were single, it would be out of the question. But it’s a nice feeling. It’s very rare in America but in other places it’s completely normal. I don’t even have words to describe what I’m talking about because they don’t exist in this culture. Maybe it’s the price for eliminating sexual harassment which doesn’t exist in America. And that’s good but it’s also kind of sad that I can’t sit next to a man on an airplane without him being terrified and me uncomfortable the whole time. Instead, we could sit there with a realization that he’s a man, I’m a woman, and we are sexual beings without needing to proceed to have sex over this realization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mega-rich, famous men do have women throw themselves at them. Let’s not sit here and pretend this isn’t true.
If what Trump described is sexual assault, then everything and nothing is sexual assault. The term becomes stretched out to the point where it means absolutely nothing.
And guess what? The absolute majority of people agrees with me. I know it because if the words “and they let you” meant nothing, they wouldn’t have been excused from the clip. They were edited out precisely because for many people they mean consent. And consent, as we’ve all been schooled for decades, is sacred.
LikeLiked by 2 people
consent is sacred…
except it isn’t, really. It’s a soviet-style “everybody’s guilty” law, where it’s completely ignored, right up to the point where you don’t like someone and need a justification for removing them– so then you go back and find one of the myriad stated rules that everybody violates, find someone who’ll testify that the violation happened, and off to the gulag they go! This sort of rule isn’t a real rule, it exists for the sole purpose of pre-incriminating everyone so you can then remove them when they become inconvenient to you.
Funny story. Remember Julian Assange? So back when he was arrested over the “sexual assault” in Sweden, it got picked apart minutely in the news– IIRC what he was actually charged with was initiating sex, with a current voluntary sexual partner, while she was sleeping. Which is illegal in Sweden, even between married people. I read about this, and like most things involving mainstream sexual culture… it left me confused and squicked out.
Not long after, I got into a seriously uncomfortable conversation with an oversharing older relative. “Have you ever” she said, “had that wonderful experience where you wake up, and you’re having sex with your husband, and you have no idea who started it? (husband) and I do this all the time!”
And once I got past the (OMG I can’t believe we are even having this conversation. TMI!), all I could think was… you could both be arrested for this in Sweden.
It seems like the sort of rule where, the main determiner for whether what happened is a crime or not is completely a function of whether you are amicable with the sexual partner, or had an ugly breakup. Which means that, according to the stated (but not actually observed) rules of sexual conduct, anybody in any kind of sexual situation, is liable to be prosecuted for it afterward, if the other party is angry enough at you, for any reason, or someone offers to pay them to testify.
These are rules with no objective standard for misconduct.
Like, when the rule is “no sexual contact between unmarried persons”, that’s an objective standard. People violate it, voluntarily, all the time. But inside the community we all agree on the rule, and also on the path to redemption: if you violate this rule, you’re supposed to repent, and seek absolution in the rite of confession. AFAIK, people generally do. We’re all sinners.
I don’t understand how anybody operates in an environment of completely subjective rules. It’s extremely stressful, and there is no way for a socially-inept person like myself to navigate it successfully. I will inevitably offend someone without meaning to, and then get stomped for violation of rules that other people continue to violate with total impunity because they’ve remained in the good graces of the enforcers. Those aren’t real rules. They’re arbitrary punishment tools for people you don’t like, and I’ve ended up on the punishment end of it far too often. Which is why I’m a huge fan of the whole “rule of law” idea.
LikeLike
Clarissa: of course it’s true that women throw themselves at rich/powerful men. I don’t know where “pretend it isn’t true” came from. I’m still curious about how exactly you interpret Trump’s words and whether you think I misinterpreted them, but it’s clear you won’t answer.
Methylethyl: mainstream culture is very misleading when it comes to heterosexual dating, I agree. People don’t ask for explicit verbal consent for everything from kisses to sexual acts. I think it’s also true in practice that the exact same actions would be welcome from an attractive man, but might be considered harassment if they come from an unattractive one. I also think that an initial attempt to flirt, or ask a woman out should never be considered assault or harassment. That should only to apply repeated advances after a woman has declined.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I interpreted them exactly as I said. And as he said. Women are happy to let him make aggressive advances because he’s rich and famous. He gets consent because he’s a mega-rich star.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some women. Not “women”. Gold diggers or groupy types.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. I’m not like that, you are not like that. But many women are.
LikeLike
@BlogReader
Mainstream culture is misleading about far more than just heterosexual dating rules. It is clear to me, from my own ethical/moral framework, that what Trump was bragging about is very wrong. It would be wrong even if the woman desperately wanted it because that person was (we assume, but don’t know for sure from his statement) not his wife. But when people are all like “let’s get together and hate on Trump because he’s a sex criminal”, that’s not what they’re talking about. They’re invoking instead, “consent”– which they lie about constantly and outrageously. I can’t comprehend the logic behind a bunch of people who clearly don’t observe, or even respect “consent” as they themselves define it, going on an extended witch-trial lynch-mob style pursuit of “justice” (as they define it) over the purported violation of that same rule. That is a very clear case of “rules are only for people we don’t like.”
I’ve had quite enough of that in my life. I don’t personally like Trump or condone his behavior, but I hate asymmetrical, vindictive norm enforcement wherever I encounter it. I expect many autistic (and even some completely normal) people have similar feelings on the subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have turned “consent” into a sacred cow, on par with “choice” and “freedom”. But it’s stupid because nothing in life can be reduced to a single buzzword. Reifying consent has led to a myriad problems, and I’m in favor of moving away from it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The latest joke —
Александр Коц, блогер, военкор, член Совета по правам человека при Президенте РФ
О борьбе с фашизмом по русски
Если вы хотите убивать евреев, давайте в Газу или в Киев, дам адрес – Банковая, 11
This is Russian call for peace and against pogroms. 🙂
LikeLike
I completely agree with what you said. Bari Weiss posted this yesterday. The title of the article: “I’m a Jew at ‘The Guardian.’ I Don’t Feel Safe at Work.”
It’s one thing to not feel safe on the streets of sharia england, but if you’re not feeling safe in the offices of the guardian, there’s something wrong here and you need to look inward. She’s completely adopted the liberal framing of safetyism, yet another genius invention from the “words are violence” crowd.
https://x.com/bariweiss/status/1719873417045037429?s=20
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t this the exact same article Clarissa posted in her most recent Link of the Day post saying it really spoke to her?
LikeLike
It describes exactly how I felt. But it doesn’t describe how I dealt with the feeling. I can give lectures on how to make people care about your cause. If need iron discipline, a complete control over your emotions, great patience, and serious strategic skills.
Nobody has to care. Nobody. When people do, this should be greeted as a miracle and not entitlement. I’m abjectly grateful to anybody who does anything for our cause. Another component is being able to identify the people who are unpursuadable and not wasting energy on them. Not being a leaky vessel because that’s a loser position.
So yeah, I get the sentiment that this author is expressing but I bemoan the methodology. It’s ok, it’s early days. She’ll learn.
LikeLike
Soon the UK or France will need a “two-state solution” not just Israel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s definitely going in that direction.
LikeLike
“That video of a Jewish student being crowded at Harvard, for example. It’s a craftily edited, manipulative piece. The student got in the face of some protesters, and they got in his face in response.”
yeah, I saw this video and my bullshit meter immediately went off. I did get outraged just a for a few seconds, then thought about it a little more and did some minor search and realized this was either staged or exaggerated; so I’m not surprised to learn it was a manipulative piece.
A conspiracy theorist would believe hidden powerful forces are out to create hatred, fear, division, etc. What a wonderful world that would be, a world where there actually is someone in control of these things, someone to blame, and potentially defeat to create a better world. But no, the truth is this creates clicks, advertisement revenue, political gain, etc. and everybody is doing it, not some hidden forces. What a lame world we live in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly. People are doing it because it pays off financially and emotionally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fancy name is behavior manipulation and everyone is doing it. Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter, Democrats, Republicans, etc. are all about behavior manipulation to get you to buy or do things they want. Anything that elicits an emotion out of you is a win on their part.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a crucial point. Emotional incontinence makes one a victim that the more emotionally self-contained people prey on.
LikeLike
“This is what is called psychological aikido – use the enemy’s strength against him!))”
Paris today — the below photo was first, then people added symbols to create the upper beauty:
LikeLike
Just to make 100% clear — the lower photo shows the initial hate crime. The upper one – how people decided to turn it into a show of solidarity and support.
The upper words mean “Jewish people are alive”
The lower smaller words read “all of us are together with Israel”
LikeLike
I love it! Those bastards thought they were going to intimidate the Jews who live there but it was transformed into a showing of strength.
That’s how you do it.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, first blood drawn in the coming US pogrom?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also this:
LikeLike
Was this 78 year old (pro) Jewish? What was the croud’s problem? This looks more and more like aggressive Arab youths searching for somebody to pogrom, like they tried to do at the airport in Russia or during BLM in some American places.
I would love this to be the sign of coming change, but sadly doubt it:
// Brandeis University has become the first private university in the United States to ban the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the organization behind many pro-Palestinian protests across the country. The university administration informed the leaders of the campus group that, despite a commitment to free speech principles, the organization’s overt support for Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization, was the driving factor behind this unprecedented decision. Brandeis University is known as a Jewish stronghold, but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has already announced to the state’s public university network that he is also taking steps to shut down chapters of the pro-Palestinian organization. (Daniel Adelson, New York)
LikeLike