False Rape Society writes:
U.S. Military, D.C. and Washington state now put the burden on the accused to show consentThere is a gradual, but indisputable and disturbing, trend to engorge the definitions of rape and sexual assault in order to snag more convictions. All of these changes, which typically occur beneath the radar, are initiated at the behest of victims’ advocates, and there is rarely ever more than cursory and superficial consideration given to insuring that innocent men and boys are not punished with the guilty. While everyone with a passing interest in this area knows about this trend, few are able to articulate exactly what is happening.
One of the most important, and startling, efforts to engorge the definition of rape has been to flip the burden of proving consent on the accused. This is both important and starting because the very essence of rape law is the absence of consent, and shifting the burden of proof to the accused about a matter that goes to the essence of a criminal offense raises a host of due process concerns. To put it in plain English, shifting the burden of proof enhances the risk that the innocent will be punished with the guilty.
Depending on one’s citizenship, men are either the negroes or the jews of such legislation.
Second class citizens. One set of rules for due process for the higher race, caste or sex, another for the lower one. For the beastly, primitive, prone to violence and perversion, the pariah, the subhuman, the dangerous one. The ones closer to beasts of burden than human beings. The ones fit for the role of serfs, of slaves, of chattel. The canaille in discrimination from nobility.
Enough said? Yes. But obviously not. Because people of education, of a conscious sense of impeccable morality, of literacy and an ideal of humane judgment, of justice and fairness, of the rule of law, of the protection of civil liberties and rights, of defending the constitution of equal birth and equal treatment under the law do decree and consent to such aberrations from the principles they believe in and do not get weary to affirm in all their words and thoughts.
Unless. Unless it comes to women. To women accusing men of wrongdoing against them. All of a sudden, in a blink, all good judgment and all sense of justice and fairness seem to be thrown overboard. In good conscience. No, as the very proof of the best of good conscience. Something absurd happening there, something strange to the degree of weirdness, something unbelievable but gravely real.
Men striving for justice for men have repeated it over and over. It is chivalry. It is the white knight in shining armour, eager to defend and protect women and children and all other victims of the crude, rude brutes who abuse their power.
But never there was the idea the knight should do injustice in favor of the weak. The very notion of the knight’s calling is to defend justice where it is breached, to correct the abuse of power where it is inflicted.
Therefore it is not at all the sense of justice, the ideal of fairness which motivates the men in charge and command and legal authority who implement rules and legal provisions which counteract the very principle of justice, which abolish the crux of the constitutional rule of law, which is the presumption of innocence as long as the prosecutor has not succeeded in establishing the proof of guilt of the accused.
It is something entirely different. Something that has gained influence, momentum and authority among the men (and women) in charge of the constitution, of the principles of public morality, of the very law itself, of political decisions, of politics’ spirit and demeanor. And it is not of a noble origin.
To the very contrary, it is of ignoble origin. It is of corruption. It is of weakness. It is of lowliness. It is of the very opposite of the defense of justice and fairness. It is the counter-position to the ideals of knighthood and of true manhood. Oops! Yes, it is the betrayal of the ideal of manhood. Stand by your ideals, stand up for what you believe is right and righteous. Do not give in to opportunism, to fear, to ambition, to the promise of reward, to the bribing or blackmailing so common among the morally corrupted. So common, yes, that is constitutive for the ideal of manhood, so common among womanfolk. Who do not have to carry the responsibility for the greater good, who are allowed to go after their very own petty desires and gains, as long as that indulgence does not damage the wider morals and righteous order of society.
From Adam on, man had to fight against his weakness in face of woman’s charms she used to bribe, to blackmail, to manipulate man in a million ways. An anthropological given. Which means, it is not dependent on and does not change with the times, the culture, society or the progress of philosophical and legal concepts. We of today face the same instinctively founded challenge as the hunters and gatherers of prehistoric times. For us it is no less difficult to remember and uphold our better insight and conscience than for Adam when we are addressed by woman’s appeals. Her sex-appeal and her pity-appeal in the myriad of performances which enact the myriad of alterations of these archaic powers she is endowed with by nature itself.
It is the power of the weak over the strong which nature has provided and ingrained in the depths of subconscious mind without a chance of evasion or eradication. Neither women nor children nor any clan, tribe or nation could survive in dire conditions of scarcity and threat to life if men had not this basic instinct of protection and defense and support of their weaker kin.
But the strength of this instinct is man’s weakness, at the same token. Only his better judgment can save him from the instinctively elicited blind impulse to respond to the crying, the groaning and moaning of suffering, women (and children) quickly learn to use as a method to get their will from men (and parents or adults in the case of children).
Each generation of men has to gain this judgment anew, and each generation of women does its best to confuse, trick and overwhelm men in order to gain as much advantage from the instinctual disposition as possible. The control of women’s sexual behavior is therefore crucial to prevent the indiscriminate falling of men for women’s wanton desires and neglecting the governance of the development of society towards higher morality and greater sophistication in the cultural and technical mastery of the conditions of life. It has nothing to do with an egoistic self-service of men greedy for power and control, as feminism rationalizes the issue in the spirit of creating justification for the victim role and the pity-appeal the female mind knows to apply for woman’s control of man.
It is no wonder that the military is among the first to drop the core of the enlightened stage of civilization’s principle of due process, the presumption of innocence. It requires the courage to think on one’s own and to assert one’s very own personal insight from conscious individual thinking if one is to withstand the given train of manipulation by pity-appeal sweeping the culture and all cultures of contemporary civilization. The military rests not on individual thought and judgment but on submitting to authority. Therefore, in the moment the law changes, the marines strife to be the most successful in recruiting gays, lesbians and so-called transgenders, as BBC reports so clearly. In the same spirit of constituent and routine blind obedience the suspension of due process is adopted when the law determines such, or the dominant mindset affects the commanders in charge of military justice or public relations.
The military is the prime arena where being good, however society defines it, is exemplified to the very last order and measure. The military is the proverbial noble knight, and if the noble spirit is defined by society as protecting the poor suffering women by reversing due process from the burden of proof of guilt to the burden of proof of innocence, as long as the accused is a man and not a lesbian, than be it so, for the sake of exemplary righteousness.
The tragic development is that of academia and politics, and of the media which are supposed to control politics. The military as well as the civil courts would not dare the reversal of the burden of proof if the congress would not sanctify it. The congress would not dare to do so if the media fulfilled their calling and duty to criticize totalitarian legislation according to its defiance of the constitution and the philosophy of due process.
The academic institutions would not tolerate any publication of a professor that dared to propose the proof of innocence in any case where women would be the defendants. In other words, the colleges and universities indulge in feminist ideology and propaganda, not only in their policies about ethical conduct but also in their standards of academic performance in teaching and publication. Which in itself is nothing new. Totalitarian ideology has been finding its adherents and militant proponents with the rise of nationalism and antisemitism at the end of the monarchy in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire as well as after the first World War.
It is not easy to be a man. It is much more difficult than to be a woman. It needs an extra effort beyond doing what is expected by society. It needs the conscious effort of thinking about what is true and just and serving the good of the whole of society. Men do that spontaneously, but it needs a constant effort of discipline of will and strength of mind. You can’t just flow with the stream of public opinion or political ideology. You can’t just listen to the loudest voices and abide by their demands. And you can’t just listen to the voice of woman and obey, be it for the sake of peace or to secure your comfort, your little satisfactions, your pleasures and gratifications.
You have to be your own authority, with all the struggling and doubts and risks and suffering on your path. That is how evolution has come about, how civilization has developed, how progress in mind and action has been created.
And the core of all civilization’s progress is the adherence to the ideal of truth and justice. Otherwise we would have never come up with anything else but cruel tyranny and relentless slavery organized with high-tech instruments of oppression and exploitation.