Sept. 17, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:00:11
4198 What Pisses Me Off About The Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Accusations
Is a conservative about to achieve a position of power in the United States of America? Cue the unprovable and unverified sexual assault allegations! As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was headed for confirmation to the nation’s highest court, he now faces an allegation from Christine Blasey Ford that he drunkenly sexually assaulted her 36-years ago while he was in high school. Kavanaugh “categorically and unequivocally” denied the unsubstantiated allegation, but that didn’t stop the regressive left from demanding Kavanaugh withdraw from consideration for the Supreme Court. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
My friends, we are going to use the accusations leveled against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford to show just how deep the hellish mouth of Satan rabbit hole goes because the Machiavellian workings of the will-to-power post-Darwinian universe are a horrifying thing but incredibly instructive when we do a flyby of the horror movie that is Modern Political Motivations.
So, let's get started, shall we?
Speaking publicly for the first time, Christine Blasey Ford, who is 51 years old.
Now, she is a research psychologist at Palo Alto University in California.
Okay, so here's where we have to stop right up front, because here we have California University.
Palo Alto University, psychologist.
Hmm. I wonder if we slice and dice these demographics, if we can lay a fair amount of money, if not downright a loved one's kidney, on the possibility that she's a leftist.
So, psychology, California.
Now, the field of psychology as a whole is largely crap.
There is an initiative called the Reproducibility Project, also known as the Fail to Reproduce Project.
And this is led by Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia.
So what happened was these project members collectively tried to repeat a hundred published psychological experiments.
And were able to replicate the results of just one third of them.
Now that's what I call not a science.
And, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, one of the core members of the psychological community, and I'm here quoting from the New York Post.
And I quote, one of the most famous and controversial psychology studies ever conducted is a fraud, a scientist claims in a new report.
Not only was the Stanford prison experiment a sham, but its mastermind, Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, pushed participants towards the results he wanted.
Dr. Ben Blum claims in a report published on Medium last week, The study has long been subject to scrutiny.
It was never published in a mainstream journal or subjected to peer review, but it is still widely taught in schools.
Blum's report has spurred professors to call for the experiment to be scrapped from textbooks.
Psychologists, please read this.
We must stop celebrating this work.
It's anti-scientific.
Get it out of textbooks, tweeted UC Davis psychology professor Simin Vazair.
It's also irresponsible in many other ways.
Socially, politically, she added, I'm embarrassed that my field treated this work and this man as heroic.
And sources to all of this will be below.
I'm sure you've heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
I believe it's being recast as the Stanford Prison Experience.
So, there's a huge mess of confirmation bias, lack of diversity, and outright falsification, it would seem, at times, in the field of psychology.
Now... Whenever you go, and I did put on my hazmat suit of leftist indoctrination and travel by the Palo Alto University website, and of course it's all about diversity and inclusion and multiculturalism and making sure that we have a wide variety of perspectives around the table.
Psychology as a whole has a massive problem with diversity.
And here's another somewhat informal study that leads to a more formal study.
So January 27th, 2011.
At the San Antonio Convention Center, a fellow named Jonathan Haidt talked to the participants at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
And the whole idea was a vision for social psychology of the year 2020.
Sorry. I just vision is one of these.
I have a vision. I have a vision statement.
I have a dream. I have an illusion.
Do you have any facts?
2021, we start having facts.
So Haidt reviewed the field for what?
Moral psychology, which is one core part of what they talk about.
So then, he wanted to get a little bit of audience participation.
He said, okay, by a show of hands, this is a paraphrase, by a show of hands, how would you describe at the moment your political orientation?
Are you a liberal?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
Absolutely. It's like a sea full of Clintons reaching for lawyers' phones repeatedly.
Sea of hands. About 80% of the room, top people in the field, about 80% of the room are liberals.
Now, are you a centrist or a moderate?
Maybe about 20 hands. Are you a libertarian?
12 hands. And are you a conservative?
Three hands.
Three hands went up.
Conservatives, about 50% of the population, three out of a countless horde of top people in the field are conservatives, or at least willing to admit so in public.
So 2012, they did a survey of these social psychologists.
In America, found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was 14 to 1.
14 to 1.
So women, about 50% of the population, of course.
Republicans, about 50% of the population.
Can you imagine if there was a field where 50% of people were in the field, but there was a 14 to 1 male to female ratio and 50% of the people in the field were women?
It would be absolutely astonishing.
But that's the ratio.
Now, they did not just ask political orientation, but went into actual social issues.
And in the study, more than 90% of these people reported themselves to be liberal and just under 4% conservative.
4%! Now, of course, what happens is they say, well, why do you have so few conservatives?
And people say, well, they're just not smart enough.
They're just not interested in the field.
They just can't handle the math.
They're anti-science, right?
Yeah, try that with any other demographic group and see how you do.
Now, as far as the whole peer review goes, and psychologists have the least possibility of justifying this because they're supposed to be so aware.
Self-knowledge and understanding of confirmation bias and in-group preferences, this is all well understood in the discipline as a whole.
And an early study had psychologists review abstracts for studies, and the abstracts were identical except for the result.
And found that participants, and I quote, rated those in which the results were in accord with their own beliefs as better.
As better.
Reviewers, in another study, reviewers rejected papers if they found the findings to be controversial because of poor methodology, while if the identical methodology was used, but if they supported more conventional beliefs, they were just fine.
Just fine. So, graduate students and practicing scientists were subject to another study, and this showed that research was rated as higher, like a good deal higher in quality if it accorded with the reviewer's prior beliefs.
Like, hey, this confirms my past beliefs.
This is a high-quality study.
This does not confirm my prior beliefs.
This is a low-quality study.
Oh, my gosh.
Yeah, controversial topics are reviewed far more harshly, which of course puts everyone in line.
And because you have a mono-culture, because you have a mono-leftist and pretty hard leftist culture, what is considered controversial is anything that goes against prevailing leftist narratives.
And in fact, most psychology goes, most scientific psychology goes against prevailing leftist narratives.
Personality traits are largely inherited, largely genetic.
They can't find much impact of the family and home environment on life outcomes.
IQ is a bell curve.
IQ bell curves differ between ethnicities and differ between males and females, which goes vastly towards closing the loophole of explaining why various groups do differently in a meritocracy, because IQ is a foundational measure of how well you're going to do in a meritocracy and so this stuff all is the best science that they have and it is all rejected by the racism and sexism and homophobia and prejudice explain all group differences in outcomes there is ideology And there are facts.
And because of the overwhelming leftist echo chamber in psychology, everything which is actually a fact, everything that is measurable, everything that is objective, the fact that men's brains are larger than women's brains, and men at the highest levels of IQ are much more numerous, even when adjusting for body size, well, they just have to go against that.
So it's more of a cult and less of a science, and you can see this with the confirmation bias.
So I did go to Palo Alto University webpage, and it links to an article from the American Psychological Association called Eight Ways to Advocate for Psychology.
See, we're doing deep backstory here, my friends.
And in this article from the APA, not only, of course, did they talk about how everyone's freaking out in 2017, which, of course, is the Trump Derangement Disorder, But here's a quote from the article, Eight Ways to Advocate for Psychology, from the American Psychological Association.
You see, very, very concerned.
The American Psychological Association, very, very concerned with ethics, you see, and virtue and integrity and being a fine, upstanding citizen and doing the right thing and all that.
Don't worry, this statement will pay off in a moment.
And I quote, volunteering is a great way to dip your toe into the political process.
If you wonder whether volunteers can really make a difference, look no further.
than the 2017 Democratic victories in the Virginia State Assembly.
Analysts and advocacy organizations, including Emily's List, credited the Democrats' success in large part to the unprecedented number of volunteers who mobilized to help get out the vote.
I will leave it to you, my friends, with your newfound knowledge and facts about psychology and psychologists.
I will leave it to you to wonder, to ponder perhaps, whether any examples of helping Republicans was included in this article.
Here's another quote. From this article from the American Psychological Association, and I quote, it can be as short-term as joining a one-day event, such as the Women's March, or as extensive as working for the length of a candidate's campaign, right?
So, American Psychological Association may be really, really concerned with ethics, or are they?
So, this is from The Economist.
James Risen, a New York Times reporter, published a book in 2014 accusing the American Psychological Association, APA, the largest professional organization of American psychologists, of working with the Bush administration on torture.
The APA issued a swift rebuttal.
So the APA, because they wanted to be transparent, they commissioned an independent investigation.
To make sure that neither the association nor any of its 122,500 members endorsed or supported the government's use of, well, they call it enhanced interrogation techniques, but basically torture.
So, the investigation ended up producing a 542-page report.
And back to The Economist, and I quote, its findings diverge considerably from the APA's expectations.
Far from upholding the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, APA psychologists did indeed work with officials from the Defense Department and the CIA to facilitate the torture.
This involved issuing loose ethical guidelines that endorsed existing DOD interrogation policies and permitted psychologists to participate at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, unlike their colleagues in the field of psychiatry who refused to back the government's evolving interrogation tactics.
Though the APA's policies adhere to U.S. law, they violated medical ethics.
Boy, you know, if you're doing nasty stuff that even psychiatrists who will drug children as soon as look at them won't do, let's just say you are not floating in the high pink clouds of platonic moral idealism.
So, California, the left coast, crazy liberal.
Psychologist. For the most part, crazy liberal.
So let's just set that as the background before we dive into this stuff, and then I will tell you how I, as a non-lawyer, would cross-examine this woman.
So, Christine Blasey Ford...
The professor said Brett Kavanaugh, this is 36 years ago-ish, said Kavanaugh and a friend were, quote, stumbling drunk, end quote, and laughing, quote, maniacally, end quote, when they corralled her into a bedroom at a party in 1982-ish.
I read a couple of different reports.
I don't know if they've settled down anywhere, but...
Early 80s. So she was in her mid-teens.
And Brett Kavanaugh at the time would have been about 17 if she's got the year right.
So, Ford told the Washington Post, hmm, there's your first clue, that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and groped her and tried to remove her one-piece bathing suit and her clothing.
And then when she tried to scream...
He put his hand over her mouth.
She said, and I quote, I thought he might inadvertently kill me.
He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.
Now there was another man in the room, according to her, and his friend, whose name was Judge.
I know it's just strange but true.
So Kavanaugh thrust his body against her.
Tried to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing that was over it, and this is again according to what Ford told the paper.
So a guy named Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend who was in the room, jumped on top of them, and then she managed to escape, locked herself in a bathroom, and then ran out of the house.
And she said, this woman Ford, she said that she didn't tell anyone at the time of what had happened, right?
Didn't tell her friends, her siblings if she has them, her parents, her grandparents, counselor, teacher, no one.
I'm going to guess not the priest.
So, here's a quote from her.
My biggest fear was, do I look like someone just attacked me?
She said, adding that she remembered thinking, and I quote, I'm not ever telling anyone this.
This is nothing. It didn't happen.
And he didn't rape me.
Well, it didn't happen.
Boy, that's post-modernism for you, right?
Unpleasant stuff just doesn't exist.
So she has strong memories of what happened to her after the attack, right?
So this will come up later.
She has very strong memories of what happened after this alleged attack, right?
So then...
Christine Blasey Ford has engaged the services of Deborah S. Katz.
And she's an attorney.
And Deborah has said that her client considered the incident to be an attempted rape.
And Katz told NBC's Today, quote, She believes that if it were not for the severe intoxication of Brett Kavanaugh, she would have been raped.
So, mind reading a drunk person from...
36 years ago, boy, we have come a long way from innocent until proven guilty and reasonable standards of proof.
So, how did this come to the forefront at the moment?
Well, of course, because it's leftist media, but also what happened was the woman contacted the Washington Post in early July.
Why? Because when it began to become evident that Kavanaugh would most likely be a nominee to replace Justice Kennedy, hmm...
She contacted the Washington Post.
Now this is quite something.
So Kavanaugh has been in the law since 1990, and he's been a U.S. Circuit Judge since 2006.
So this is one of the things, I'm just telling you my opinion here, obviously.
This is one of the things I look for with these kinds of accusations.
Is I look for someone who says, I feel terrible because I didn't bring this up, I didn't go to law enforcement, I didn't do this, I didn't do that.
And therefore, this guy could have done terrible things in the 36 years since.
That to me is one of the key things.
Because if the woman says, well, I was just too scared, I didn't know, I didn't believe, didn't want to get in trouble, and so on, then they're not thinking about the consequences.
Because if she's scared of this guy becoming a Supreme Court justice, why would she not also have been scared since he was practicing, since he was in the law since 1990, he's been a U.S. circuit judge since 2006?
Could he not have done harm, given her evaluation of his personality and past transgressions?
Could he not have done harm in those positions?
Why wouldn't she do it then?
So, the woman, the alleged victim, or the alleging victim, I suppose, she also contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, and she sent a letter via Eshoo's office to California Senator Dianne Feinstein, and she's the Democrat, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Feinstein. Feinstein?
Feinstein. Ah, I remember her!
She was the woman who actually hired, as her driver and an aide, a communist spy who stayed by her side, listening in relentlessly for almost 20 years.
Almost 20 years.
So there was this Chinese spy.
He was Feinstein's driver.
He also served as a gopher in her Bay Area office and was a liaison or, I guess, amateur diplomat to the Asian American community.
He also went to Chinese consulate functions on behalf of the senator.
So he's driving her around.
He's the gopher. He's a liaison.
He attends functions on her behalf.
For 20, almost 20 years, and he's a Chinese spy.
Not a suspected Chinese spy, a real honest to goodness Chinese spy.
Now, she was also, she had a lot of security and classified information.
And of course, you know, you get trained on what to say and what to say and what not to say and so on.
But you got a driver tooting you around, you're on the phone, 20 years almost, day in and day out.
Let's just say that there is an occasional possibility that there might have been some kind of slip-up.
I mean, can you imagine? Can you imagine what the media would do?
If Trump's current driver turned out to be a Russian spy, they would go mental.
Or, if you want to see bias on the part of the FBI, in my opinion, look at how a Democrat versus a Republican are treated, right?
Hmm. So what happened was, the FBI contacted Feinstein and said, this guy's a spy, we think he's a spy, and she fired him.
This was about five years ago, I think.
So, what happened?
Did they just give a briefing and give Trump a chance to deal with this?
No. I mean, so the FBI says that it had concerns that About low-level Trump campaign staffers in spring of 2016, right?
So we're talking about Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and so on.
They had concerns, they say, that these dudes were colluding with the Russians.
So, why didn't they do what they did with Dianne Feinstein?
Sit down with her, give her defensive briefing, and so on, figure out what to do?
No, what did they do?
The FBI launched a pretty unprecedented counterintelligence investigation into...
Trump's presidential campaign.
It ran informants against the campaign.
It obtained surveillance warrants and so on.
Why? Why not give the same kind of briefing that they gave Feinstein?
Well, it's crazy, right?
And in my view, I mean, if you've had a Chinese spy floating around your orbit, driving you around for almost 20 years, the Chinese basically own you.
Right? So Feinstein can see into a murky self-reported drunken party 36 years ago, but can't see that the guy right in front of her is a spy.
So, Feinstein knew of the allegations against Kavanaugh since July, when this woman's information floated up to her.
But she didn't raise the issue during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing.
She didn't raise the issue during a closed session where sensitive information about Kavanaugh was discussed at least according to a spokesperson for the Judiciary Committee.
So why not?
So she got the letter months ago.
She sat on the letter and she said, well, the woman wanted privacy.
But then last week, she revealed the existence of this letter to her Democratic colleagues.
And then she turned the letter over to the FBI just on Thursday.
So why sit on it for months and then reveal it all?
Because the woman went public after the letter was revealed and people were closing in.
Reporters were figuring out who she were.
Then she went public.
So what changed?
Well, we all know the answer to this, and it's as easy to pronounce as Anita Hill.
The answer to this is that there won't be any chance for proper vetting, for proper procedure, for any kind of cross-examination of the accusing woman before the vote.
*clap* So Feinstein said Thursday, and I quote, that individual strongly requested confidentiality declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.
I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.
Right, you know, the investigative authorities that did such a crackerjack job figuring out what Hillary Clinton did with her server and how the information leaked to just about every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the known universe.
And what is going to be investigated?
Again, I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand it, the statute of limitations for both civil and criminal matters is long past.
So what are they going to investigate?
So the FBI received the letter with the woman's name redacted.
This is according to a GOP official.
And then the FBI sent that letter with the woman's name redacted to the White House to be included in the background file for Kavanaugh.
And then the White House sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
By Friday, the details of the letter had leaked.
And what happened?
Well, reporters went everywhere and the woman ended up.
Breaking her silence. So, obviously, this is a drunken incident.
At least, the boys are claimed to be drunk from 36 years ago.
What other evidence is floating around?
Well, there's two that seem to be important.
One, therapy, and two, lie detector.
So, what happened was, the woman, Ford, the accuser, shared her claims during couples therapy in 2012.
And I don't know exactly how this works, but, you know, the therapist takes notes, and I guess the client can request the notes from the therapist.
So then she got the therapist's notes, and then she gave the Washington Post portions of the therapist's notes.
And they say, the notes, that Ford reported being attacked by students.
And that these students ended up being, and I quote, highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.
Now, the name Kavanaugh was never mentioned.
So this is in 2012, during couples therapy with her husband, Russell.
She told this story, and the therapist took notes.
She got these therapist notes, and she turned the therapist notes over to the Washington Post, and she says, this is the facts.
Now, what's interesting is that part of the notes that the therapist took say...
That Ford had reported that four boys were involved in the alleged attack.
And this is according to the Post.
So immediately we have two versions, right?
So we have the version that was written down by the therapist in 2012, and now we have the version that's been told now in September of 2018.
In the first version from 2012, the therapist was told that four boys were involved in the attack, and Ford says that the therapist wrote this down by mistake, in error.
Now that's interesting.
And not particularly nice towards the therapist, right?
Because, you know, the therapist is making notes about, I guess, it's a central traumatic event, right?
So this, if it was 82 and it's 2012, it's 30 years later, 30 years later, after this alleged attack, she's talking about it In couples counseling with her therapist.
So this is a very, very big deal.
This is a core issue, I suppose, for her to bring up in therapy.
So the therapist is writing down.
But the therapist just, what, wrote it down wrong?
Wasn't listening? Didn't really pay attention?
Didn't get any details right?
Or didn't get these details right?
Could be, of course, right?
Could be. But it doesn't make the therapist look very good.
So Ford, the woman, says that the therapist wrote down...
By mistake, she said, no, there were four boys at the party, but only two were in the room.
Now, that's interesting.
There were four boys at the party, but only two were in the room where the alleged assault occurred.
It's not really a party.
Four people, I've been to a lot of parties in my youth.
Not really a party.
I don't know if any girls were there, or any other girls were there.
This wasn't mentioned.
Now, her husband also told the paper that his wife, Ford, described being trapped in a room.
There were two drunken boys.
One assaulted her and prevented her from screaming.
And the phrasing is interesting.
He recalled that she used Kavanaugh's name.
Not, this was Kavanaugh, used Kavanaugh's name.
That is an interesting way of phrasing it.
In another little odd plot twist, a little eddy in the bicurrent of this story, there are reports that Judge Kavanaugh's mother foreclosed on Christine Blasey Ford's parents' home, which is just an odd little twisty coincidence I just wanted to sort of mention.
So... Of course, well, let's talk about the response.
So on Sunday, the White House sent out a statement that Kavanaugh had said last week, and he said, I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation.
I did not do this back in high school or at any time.
That's what Kavanaugh said in response.
Now, his friend, judge, did not initially respond to requests for a comment, but on Friday, He specifically denied that any such incident occurred.
And I quote, It's just absolutely nuts.
I never saw Brett act that way.
So now we have a problem.
Because the woman is saying it happened when she was in her mid-teens.
Brett Kavanaugh says it didn't happen.
His friend Judge says it didn't happen.
So the only other witness says that she's lying.
Well, so the two men are saying that she's lying, and she says, of course, that she's telling the truth.
I'm beginning to understand Sharia just a little bit more every day.
I don't want to, but I am.
Now, the upshot of this, of course, Democrats have said, well, we've got to have a delay on the vote for Kavanaugh's nomination, which is supposed to be on Thursday in the Judiciary Committee.
Committee Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, is actively working to hold bipartisan calls with Kavanaugh and with Ford, given this new information.
So a Grassley spokesperson said just yesterday, and I quote, given the late addendum to the background file and revelations of Dr.
Ford's identity, Chairman Grassley is actively working to set up such follow-up calls with Judge Kavanaugh and Dr.
Ford ahead of Thursday's scheduled vote.
The now increasingly appropriately named Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, said he's quote, not comfortable voting yes, end quote, on Kavanaugh's nomination.
Coming up on Thursday, given these allegations.
And I quote, he said, we need to hear from her, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
And that's what he said to Politico.
So, to return back to this is what was released Sunday afternoon from Senator Chuck Grassley, he's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I quote, it's disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago during high school would surface on the eve of Of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July.
It raises a lot of questions about Democrats' tactics and motives.
Does it? Does it really, Chuck?
Does it really raise questions about Democrats' tactics and motives?
See, they have been largely talking about, by any means necessary, whatever means necessary.
This is going all the way back to 2001.
This is back when the Democrat from South Dakota, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, Within days, days of George W. Bush taking office in 2001, Daschle promised to use, and I quote, whatever means necessary, end quote, to block and defeat and stymie Bush judicial nominees.
Nobody's disavowed that.
Nobody's changed course. You know, there's still a lot of worship of the...
By any means necessary approach.
So yeah, what do they want to do?
They want to stall this, of course, until they, Democrats want to stall this until they take over the House and Senate, hopefully for them, in November, and then, well.
Now just compare this.
It's a fascinating comparison.
Compare this.
Unsubstantiated, denied, no proof, allegation from 36 years ago or so.
With Keith Ellison.
Now, if you don't know who Keith Ellison is, he's the DNC deputy chair.
He's giving up his Congress seat to run for Attorney General in Minnesota.
He's a Muslim, lots of Muslims in Minnesota.
You know how this works, right? Now, Keith Ellison's girlfriend says that he called the horrible names and beat her up.
And another ex-girlfriend has said that there was abuse and there's a nine...
On one call that seems to support this, and that story just vanished, right?
That story just vanished.
So, Grassley says the committee vote on Kavanaugh's nomination is going to go ahead on Thursday.
And... I don't know.
Again, this time frame is weird to me.
So Christine Blasey Ford says it's a summer in the early 1980s that this, you know, stumbling drunk Kavanaugh and a friend of his corralled her into the bathroom and blah blah blah.
And that is a very, very tough time frame to work with, right?
So, because where's your alibi going to be?
You know, if somebody says, well, it was July 4th, 1982, well, you can look back, you can talk to your family, you can check any notes, whatever you had going on.
Maybe you were out of the country, maybe you were working, maybe you were on vacation, maybe you were, I don't know what, maybe there was some alibi, but if it's just like, well, it was some summer in the early 80s, there's no possibility that you can rebut based on any facts, that's a huge problem.
That's a huge problem.
Now, The lawyer that Ford engaged is Deborah Katz.
She engaged this lawyer and according to reports Katz gave Ford the advice to take a polygraph.
So she took in early August a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent.
And then Katz, the lawyer, provided the results of this polygraph to the Post, concluding that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations.
So the polygraph seems to indicate that it's valid.
Now, all Klingon magic aside, polygraphs are not considered credible.
So this woman... Here's a psychologist.
The American Psychological Association says, and I quote, most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
And I repeat this just so you understand.
This is a woman who's a psychologist.
The APA says most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
So if she knows this, and I assume she would do the research or knew this, Then why would she give a polygraph test if her governing body says it's not credible?
Why would she do it well?
To make it sound more credible to people who don't know the ridiculously voodoo-based, shaky, non-science behind polygraphs, right?
So going back to Jeff Flake, right?
So he says, I'm uncomfortable moving forward with a yes vote until we hear from Ford.
And fellow Judiciary Committee member Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, also urged caution.
But Graham said, let's not have a pause.
He said, and I quote, if the committee is to hear from Ms.
Ford, it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled.
If Ms. Ford wishes to provide information to the committee, I would gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all the other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh.
Now, you know the old saying, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?
Well, this has all happened before with Clarence Thomas.
So Thomas was about to be nominated as a Supreme Court judge, and then this woman, Anita Hill, leveled charges of impropriety against him.
Now, this was between the end of the hearings and a floor vote, which is exactly, almost the exact point that these Kavanaugh accusations...
Are coming up. So this is what has been done before.
It almost worked before.
It didn't quite work before and Clarence Thomas did a magnificent speech where he talked about this being kind of a high-tech lynching and so on.
So that is quite important.
Now, according to journalist Mike Cernovich, he says that Christine Blasey Ford is a far-left activist, and all this weekend she was rabidly deleting her social media accounts.
Again, just an important tidbit to keep in the back of your mind.
So, something may have happened 36 years ago in a time frame that is indeterminate, in a location that is hard to remember, The only other witness says that it never happened and the allegations are absolutely nuts.
And I will leave a link if you want to have a look because this is, you know, for your information or background only.
You can look at the Rate My Professor website.
I'll put a link to it below and the student reviews are pretty brutal and You can read through them if you want and make your own judgment.
So, what's the philosophical takeaway of all of this?
I appreciate your patience. I want to do sort of big background stuff so that we don't keep falling down the same ridiculous rabbit holes.
This question of accusation equaling truth is horrible.
It is vicious. It is destructive.
You've got fascist countries, communist countries, socialist countries, theocratic countries.
What happens? Well, an accusation is considered to be proof.
People get...
Arrested. They get imprisoned.
They get tortured. Sometimes they even get killed based on accusations alone.
You think of the Stalin show trials.
There are counter-revolutionary insurgents up against the wall.
Bang! Bang! Bang! We must hold on.
Hold on, my friends, to innocent until proven guilty and standards of proof that are high, particularly in the criminal realm.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which means like 95% proof, it's overwhelming the evidence.
It's hard to dismiss it at all.
He said, she said can never rise.
In my view, can never rise to the standard of proof required even for civil matters, which is a preponderance of evidence or like 50 plus 1% or whatever.
As far as criminal goes...
No. You need physical evidence, you need corroboration, you need witnesses, you need the whole thing, especially for something as horrendous as an accusation of sexual assault.
As far as watching the gruesome spectacle of the Democrats pretending to care about sexual assault, Or assault or violence against women when you've got the whole trail of women behind and under Bill Clinton.
You have Keith Ellison.
You had them defending, of course, other people who've been accused recently.
Think of Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy, pretty much responsible for the death of a young woman.
You can be a chronic alcoholic.
You can get wrapped up in rape trials and so on.
And eventually, you can just be considered the lion of the Senate.
They don't care. They don't care at all.
And what is Brett Kavanaugh going to do?
What's he going to do? Let's say it was just 1982, sometime in the summer of 1982.
What's he going to do? Is he going to provide an alibi for the whole summer?
Of course not. That doesn't mean that there's no way to try and get more truth about the situation.
Because to me, there's ways of asking questions to try and tease out more details about what happened.
So these are just questions that I would have, you know, like you can think of me, you know, striding around asking questions of this woman, right?
So let's say that she was 15.
I would say, okay, well, how did you get to this party?
I mean, you're too young to drive, right?
Did you walk there?
Was it very close? Because remember, she said she had a one-piece bathing suit on underneath her clothes at this party.
Now, I'm not Borat.
I have not worn a one-piece bathing suit.
But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's kind of like wedgie-based.
Especially, you know, in the 80s there were these real high-hip bathing suits, right?
These Jamie Lee Curtis-style bathing suits.
Not very comfortable to walk in a one-piece bathing suit.
Now, I go to pool parties.
Friends of mine have a pool.
And when I go to pool parties, I don't wear my bathing suit underneath my clothes.
The question is, why were you wearing your bathing suit?
What I do, what everyone else does is you get your clothes on and you put your bathing suit and your towel and your goggles or whatever into a pool bag and then you go change there and so on, right?
Because it's not that comfortable to walk around, even with the netting and all of that.
I don't think in the early 80s the Bermuda shorts thing, like the big baggy shorts that really come in.
Anyway, so... How far was it?
And also, why did you not take a pool bag, right?
Why did you not take a pool bag?
Why did you wear the bathing suit underneath your clothes?
Now, I don't know if it was some sort of side sarong tie or a little...
I mean, I don't know, right? But I would ask those questions.
Now, if it's close enough to walk...
Then it's pretty close.
If it's not close enough to walk and you can't drive, did you get a friend to drive with you?
Was there a friend there? Could your friend corroborate anything?
Because if you come out shaking and crying and saying, we have to go, we have to go, your friend would probably remember that and would say, what happened?
What happened? What happened? Did your parents drop you off?
Hmm. Interesting. Because my sort of thought about it is that you would wear a one-piece bathing suit underneath your clothes because you didn't want your parents knowing where you were going, like to a pool party or something like that, right?
But maybe the parents did know.
So did the parents drop you off?
Did your parents know these boys or these boys' parents?
Now here's another interesting thing.
She says that her one-piece bathing suit was under her clothes.
So there's two possibilities.
One, she got there and this happened right away before she had gone swimming, right?
Because, you know, you would take your clothes off, you'd swim, and then afterwards you'd change out of your one-piece bathing suit and put your clothes back on because you don't want to sit around in a wet bathing suit with your clothes on.
So either A, she had the one-piece bathing suit on and this happened right away, right away.
Or, she was there for hours, she went for a swim, she sat around, and the bathing suit dried.
Maybe in the sun, or I don't know what time of day it was.
But the bathing suit dried.
Now, it's kind of tough to dry a bathing suit, because you're sitting a lot of times.
But if you're sort of running around, or whatever.
So that's the only way that her bathing suit would be on.
She either got there and this happened right away, or she was there for a long, long time, swam, and then her bathing suit dried.
Because otherwise, you take your bathing suit off, and it's not under your clothes, right?
Because it's wet. So that's fascinating.
Why is this important? So let's say it happened right away.
Let's say it happened right away.
She gets to the house, she's lured up into the bedroom, and this alleged assault occurs.
She's still got her bathing suit on because she hasn't even gone to the pool yet.
She's right. But she says these guys are stumbling blind drunk.
So that means she went to a party where the guys who are stumbling blind drunk went in and it just went from there.
Why wouldn't you just turn around?
You go to a party, you're sober, and there are four young men there.
I assume that they're all stumbling by and drunk because usually there's not a...
This is the 80s. There wasn't a big designated driver push.
And so you go to this party.
Were there any other girls there?
Because if you are a 15-year-old girl and you go to a party with four young men who are years older than you and they're all stumbling drunk, why would you go in?
I mean, it's not even that complicated a sense of self-protection, right?
Now, if you're at a party and the young men are drunk right away and lure you up to some bedroom, okay, so that follows, that's why she would have her bathing suit on.
If she swam and then hung around and then It all dried, and then she put her clothes back on.
Again, having a one-piece bathing suit on under her clothes, not that comfortable.
Well, for whatever reason, right? Maybe she was trying to cover it up for her parents.
Who knows, right? But then if she's there for the afternoon, like she's swimming for a while, and then she lets her bathing suit dry for a couple of hours, and then the clothes are on over top, was she drinking?
Because, I don't know about you, but most people drink when they're at parties with people who are drinking, because if you're not drinking, it's really not a lot of fun.
People just look kind of stupid, right?
I mean, drinking just makes you kind of dumb.
I was so drunk that hurt, right?
What's that old phrase, no good story ever started with?
Well, first I had a salad, right?
So, if she's for a couple of hours around guys who are blind drunk and she's not drinking at all, how much fun is that?
It's not fun at all. So was she drinking?
That would be an interesting question.
Did you tell the truth to your parents about where you were going?
I mean, did you say to your parents, okay, there are four boys at a pool party, and I'm going to go there, I'm going to be the only girl, and I'm a couple of years younger than them.
I mean, come on, even by boomer parent standards, that's not a recipe for no risk whatsoever, right?
Now Ford, the woman, does say that she didn't tell anyone about the incident at the time because she was terrified of what her parents would say, I guess what trouble she would get into if they found out that she was at a party where people were drinking.
So, the question is, I would ask is say, did you know that they would be drinking at the party before you went?
Because that would accord with some of the facts.
So, if she knew that they would be drinking or had reason to believe that they would be drinking at the party before she went, then it would explain why she put her one-piece bathing suit on under her.
Her clothes, because it would be to hide her parents about where she was going, because, you know, you got a 15-year-old kid, and she says, I'm going, and you say, well, where are you going?
Going to a pool party. Oh, who's going to be there?
Four boys two years older is all I know, and there's probably going to be drinking going on, then they're going to say no.
So that would be the question.
Did she know ahead of time that there was going to be drinking?
And the other, I guess, issue is what kind of relationship do you have with your parents where you can't say, listen, I got almost attacked, I maybe almost got raped, almost got assaulted, or got assaulted.
And I know I was at a party with drinking.
It was a bad decision. You have a conversation about it, right?
You talk about it.
Did she tell her parents later?
Did she ever tell her parents?
I remember she's wrestling with this issue in therapy 30 years later.
It's interfering with her marriage, which is, I guess, why it's coming up in marital therapy.
But she says, my parents obviously would have gotten really mad at me if they knew that I was at a party where there was drinking.
So, of course... The other thing you do is if you go there...
Well, first of all, if the parents drop you off and there are drunk boys around, they won't let you go, right?
Because they can see clearly that it's drinking.
If you went on your own and walked over or somehow got there with the bathing suit underneath your clothes, if you go there and the guys are already drunk...
Then you say, oh, I got to make a quick phone call.
This is before cell phones, right?
You go in, you call your parents, and you say, listen, I came to this party.
Turns out there's drinking. I want to come home, and then they come and pick you up.
So there's just, to me, a lot of the stuff that doesn't really hang together, but this is the kind of conversation you'd have if you were trying to figure out what was going on.
Now, of course, what she can say, which is not wildly uncommon, is, I don't recall, I don't remember, I don't recall, I don't remember, I don't recall, I don't remember.
That may tell you a lot of what you need to know just in those kinds of responses.
So, how long had the party been going on when you were invited?
That's important as well.
So, if she shows up there, she's got a bathing suit on, she's lured upstairs, she's allegedly attacked.
Has the party been going on for a couple of hours?
I mean, I've been around some people who drank when I was teens and I had a couple of incidents where I... Spent the entire Sunday going, well, this really isn't worth it now, is it?
But it takes a while. People don't just pound, pound, pound, pound, pound.
I mean, it takes a couple of hours for them to get that drunk.
So had the party been going on for a long time?
Or did it start when you got there?
Now, if it started when you got there, it would explain why your bathing suit wasn't wet, but it wouldn't explain how they got drunk so quickly, right?
So... This is, these are all sort of very sort of foundational and important questions.
Now, I don't know about you, but I was just thinking about this.
Parties that you went to 35 years ago, 36 years ago, or whatever.
Well, do you remember who was there?
Do you remember the last names of the people?
How did you know these boys?
Right? Did you know these boys?
Did you know Judge?
Did you know Kavanaugh? Whoever else was there?
Did you know them ahead of time? What about the other two boys who were at the party?
Do you know their names? Can they be contacted?
Do they remember anything odd that happened?
Do they remember when you showed up or what happened, right?
So, how did you actually find out who this was?
Did you ever see Judge O'Kavanaugh again?
And these are all, again, sort of foundational questions.
Did you know of any of the reputations?
Like when I was in high school, I knew who was the stoner, I knew who were the drunks, I knew who was promiscuous.
You just know these things. There's just this sort of distant drumbeat of social reputation that occurs.
So did you know? Because Judge later wrote a book talking about his problems with alcohol.
Kavanaugh talked about being part of a keg party and I think in one of his high school yearbooks.
So yeah, these guys were known for killing a few brewskis, right?
So did you know?
I mean... I would know if I was invited to, when I was invited to a party, I'm going to say if like it never happened, when I was invited to parties in high school, you know, you know, if you're invited and it's like we're going to play Dungeons and Dragons, then you know there's not going to be a whole lot of drinking, right?
If you're going to go to particular people's houses, you just know whether there's going to be drinking.
So who invited you? Who invited you?
When did you get the invitation? Did you just get a phone call saying, hey, we need some girls here, come on over?
Like, what happened? Was it the day of?
Were they drunk when they invited you over?
Was it before? Were you late?
Right? Because if the guys are drunk when you show up, maybe you show up at like 5 o'clock, the party started at 2, like a pool party, right?
So, were you late? And also, important question, how did you get home?
How did you get home?
If it's close enough to walk, your parents may have some idea who it was.
You know, in your neighborhood, right?
This is, for a lot of modern people, this doesn't really make much sense, but this is back when people knew each other as neighbors and there was a community, right?
It could be, right? How did you get home?
Now, she could say, well, I don't remember.
But, remember I said this earlier, she does remember her thought process after the alleged assault, right?
So she does remember...
Her thought process, so why would she remember her thought process?
And also when you get this kind of trauma, unless it's like hitting you on the head, right?
I mean, my understanding is things are kind of vivid.
I mean, the closest thing I can remember is when I went skydiving as a teenager.
I remember very vividly, you know, the training.
I remember very vividly jumping out of the plane.
I remember floating down through this like Mormon Tappanacle Choir album cover of Clouds and Sunset.
It's beautiful. And I also remember when I hit the ground.
I remember having huge trouble getting my parachute to come down because it was kind of windy.
I was just being dragged across the ice.
I went in winter because it was cheap.
And I remember finally folding this parachute up.
And I remember walking back.
I had to go a long way to get back to the base.
And I remember being so exhausted because the adrenaline dump had been so intense.
So how did you get home?
Now, when you got home, did your parents notice anything amiss?
I mean, I'm a parent.
I know when my daughter's happy or unhappy.
I know when she's upset about something, like, right away.
Did your parents notice anything amiss after this alleged assault?
Now, we know it was a big deal because she's talking about it in therapy 30 years later.
I assume it's being brought up in marital therapy because she's having issues, maybe even romantic issues, with her husband.
So, did your parents notice anything different?
Because it was such a big deal that you were in therapy for 30 years later, did your school marks suffer?
Did you get rid of any extracurricular activities?
Did you stop working?
Anything. Any evidence outside of your simple statement denied by the two other boys around?
And they're not saying, well, this party happened and it never...
Like, they don't, from what I've read, they don't even know, they don't remember, didn't know who it was.
It's a terrifying thing, you get that?
Like, someone can just come crawling out of your vicinity of history from 36 years ago, accuse you of something you have no memory of, no idea about.
And that's your life now.
That's your life.
I mean, it's funny, it's these kinds of accusations, which are depressingly common.
It's actually a kind of affirmative action for women, because women are less likely to be accused of this kind of stuff.
And so it favors women moving into positions of power because men can be accused much more credibly, so to speak, than women can as a whole.
So it's just another one of these gynocentric promoters of women's power.
And it bothers me because, again, as a father to a wonderful daughter, like, I care about these kinds of situations enormously.
And I feel like this sort of feminist...
idea of believe and believe and believe it's like it's like we're kind of enslaved because we care about women's security Women's safety.
We care about a man who assaults or rapes a woman.
We care! And I feel like that caring has been used to enslave us in the same way that we care about people who are poor and uneducated, who don't have access to healthcare, and therefore socialism.
We're enslaved by our caring to the point where it almost feels like you've got to cut out your caring because it's what's being used to crash in the noose against you.
It's horrifying. And this I mean, I grew up.
I'm a couple of years younger than Brett Kavanaugh.
I grew up in this time frame.
It was a mess. It was a mess as a whole.
The boomers who inherited a civilization completely gave up on the downward transmission of that civilization and its values to the next generation.
I don't know if it was the welfare state or debt or feminism or postmodernism or Marxism, probably some combination of all of these things and more.
But all of the structures and the scaffolding that kept society together for thousands of years was all torn down.
In one generation, gone!
From chaperones and no sex before marriage and certainly no pregnancy outside of marriage or it's give your kid up for adoption, we went to rampant, rampant promiscuity.
Key parties where married couples in the suburbs would throw their car keys into a dish, you'd just grab it out and have sex with whoever.
We turned into a massive, oiled, squirming, octopus bunch of shaved bonobos squirting and grabbing at everything for the mere squalid sensuality of tickling our hormones and dopamine in the here and now.
To hell with the future! I want to get my rocks off!
That's what we became.
Are we...
Are we tired of this yet?
Do we see how this has played out?
Do we see why belief systems like Islam are spreading?
Who specifically require chaperones in general for women?
Who discount the testimony of women in these matters?
Who require multiple witnesses for these kinds of things?
I'm not saying I agree with all of that.
I'm just saying I understand why those beliefs could develop.
Are we tired of subsidizing all of this squalid sexual addiction?
Are we tired of people who are so sex-obsessed that they're willing to trade all their political freedoms and property rights and independence just so that they can play out their sexual addictions without having to pay for any of the consequences so that men can have sex with women without having to marry them and take care of their children because the state will rush in and do it for them?
Or that the public health system has to pay for free condoms and has to pay for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and has to pay for endless abortions?
Can we not lasso and capture our sexuality and turn it back into the service of, I don't know, stable two-parent households that is the best and safest place for children to grow up in?
The sexually squalid nature of single mother households in general, on average, there are exceptions, I know, but I saw this up close from the 70s onwards.
Do you know that children in a single mother household, if there's a non-biologically related man in the household or floating through the household, they are more than 30 times more likely to be abused.
Single motherhood is a toxic environment.
For children. Single mothers and boys.
Boy, I saw this play out a whole bunch of times and that those tentacles almost ripped off my nads as well.
The emotional incestuous nature of single moms and their little boys who have to be the pretend husbands and have to be the confidants and have to listen to all the problems and have to grow up way too quickly and entirely in the wrong direction.
