The sex-trafficking ring in Rotherham may well be the worst in the West ever, or so one would hope. British officials have now identified at least three hundred suspects in a crime syndicate that raped and trafficked underage British girls for years, while local police ignored signs and clues for years…

It was already known that the perps were almost exclusively what the Brits call “Asian men” – in this case, Pakistani – and the victims were underage white girls, mostly poor and often neglected. So, what’s new?

It’s the stunning scope of the abuse and the extent to which the system of police and social services, tasked with helping the girls, ignored or often exacerbated the problem. The initial abuse was really only the first step for many of these girls and families.

The numbers are staggering. A summary:

Here are eight essential quotes from @RupertLowe10’s Rape Gang Inquiry.

1) This was a nationwide, not merely local, phenomenon.

“…that this was never a series of isolated local failures. It was a coordinated, nationwide pattern of organised child sexual exploitation that repeated in town after town, city after city, from the far north to the south coast.”

2) The scale was enormous, more than anyone dared to think.

“The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma. The true number is probably higher.”

3) As has been reported, the vast majority of perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims.

“In court records and official inquiries, around 87% of those convicted in these group-based child sexual exploitation (‘CSE’) cases bore distinctively Muslim names… Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam with the Oxford Islamic Congregation, believes the true proportion of gang members who are Muslims to be around 95%.”

4) Vulnerable girls were targeted using a consistent method.

“Organised networks of perpetrators built coordinated operations that transported victims between locations, supplied them with drugs and alcohol, recorded abuse for distribution and blackmail, and passed girls between multiple adult men.”

5) The police, and other institutions, knew what was happening and ignored it.

“Police forces ignored repeated reports, criminalised victims instead of perpetrators, destroyed evidence, and allowed known rapists to walk free on bail. Social care services undermined protective parents, placed children in trafficking hubs inside children’s homes, closed cases despite clear indicators of exploitation, and retaliated against whistleblowers. The NHS recorded genital injuries, multiple sexually transmitted infections in children as young as 13, pregnancies caused by rape, and suicide attempts, yet discharged victims back to their abusers without safeguarding referrals or trauma care. Schools observed older men collecting girls at the gates, heard disclosures of rape on school premises, and responded by excluding victims rather than protecting them.”

6) Those in these institutions did so because they were afraid of being called ‘racist’.

“Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.”

7) Parts of the foster and orphan care system became exploitation hotspots.

“Children’s homes became trafficking hubs where staff failed to stop older men collecting girls at night. Local authorities often returned children to unsafe homes and placements despite repeated disclosures of grooming… Social care across England systematically enabled organised grooming and the rape of children. Children’s services, local authorities, foster carers, children’s homes, and independent units repeatedly returned vulnerable children to known risk.”

8) Multiple offenders explicitly linked their treatment of these girls with their own religious and cultural beliefs, and the girls’ white ethnicity.

“They were taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were “white trash” or “kuffar” who merited punishment.”

I haven’t read the actual report; it’s over 200 pages long. It can be found here, if you care to wade through it. I assume that summary hit the most salient points, but I hope to read the report soon or at least skim it heavily. In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts and questions (the full report may answer some of the questions, however):

(1) Was this multi-culti virtue-signaling run amok, or some even greater evil on the part of British authorities?

(2) Note that there were whistleblowers, so not everyone was a cowardly enabler. But there were “retaliations” against whistleblowers, and this almost certainly had what in the law biz is called a “chilling effect” on further whistleblowing.

(3) What finally changed and resulted in the news coming out?

(4) And what of Starmer? This tweet mentions that Starmer himself let off 13,000 of the perps.

(5) Will there be any further consequences now, or will the whole thing be a case of, “we’ve aired it and it’s time to move on”?

Some quotes from the report can be found at Ace’s. Here are some:

The behaviour is deeply tied to tribal structures prevalent in parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Somalia:

– Family honour is primarily vested in the conduct, modesty, and virginity of girls and women. Strict codes require obedience, covering, and restricted interaction with outsiders. Breaches within the community trigger severe sanctions, including honour killings or collective retaliation by male clan members.

– When the target is a non-Muslim girl — particularly White British girls perceived as unguarded, dressed in Western styles and lacking male protectors — the risk calculation shifts. No retaliation is expected from the girl’s family or community, so some young men feel emboldened to treat her as property and then approach, assault, groom, share among the group, and sell her services.

– This proprietorial view of women escalates into organised networks that traffic girls across regions. Impunity fuels the cycle: initial assaults without consequences create a perception of Britain as a place where such behaviour carries no risk, turning vulnerable girls into commodified products.

I would say it wasn’t just a perception of Britain as a place where such behavior is risk-free. The perception was correct for a long long time.

More:

While the foundational system is tribal rather than purely religious, Islamic elements provide ideological justification, communal shielding, and strategic expansion. Perpetrators sometimes hide actions from families, mosques, and imams because the behaviour brings disgrace to the community. Yet remorse toward British victims is limited because non-Muslim girls are not viewed as fully human individuals deserving protection, but as unprotected outsiders available for abuse without moral consequence. This fosters widespread silence within affected communities.

The Inquiry evidence points to a fundamental clash of worlds. Across the West, our historic respect for the individual has, thanks to mass immigration, been overpowered by the more primitive attitudes that prevail elsewhere, according to which group membership matters first and foremost. The elite obsession with diversity has invited the latter to take advantage of the former. Scare-words like ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’ have been deployed to exploit the good will of Western host societies, paralysing investigation and enforcement.

Again, there’s nothing really new there – except for the scale of the horror. And horror it was.

There’s also the class issue; these girls were not from rich families. They were disposable, according to the politicians, sacrifices to the need not only to virtue-signal as a non-bigot, but to get the votes of the growing population of “Asian” voters.

I see no indication that the present government in Britain will change anything, and I’m not even sure that a replacement on the right would do much. Democrats here are fully capable of similar enabling, although I don’t think the problem here is anything like it was across the pond. Here it seems to take the form of winking at massive fraud and theft of government largesse, and the red cities and states are not immune.

What a terrible mess.

NOTE: In 2008 I wrote two posts on cultural and moral relativism. I believe this one is particularly apt. An excerpt:

But somehow the idea that we cannot, and should not, judge other cultures at all has taken hold in recent years; not just in anthropology but in the West as a whole, and especially in our school system. The proper name for this is moral relativism, as opposed to cultural relativism. This phenomenon is a combination of a decline in our own previous attitude of celebration of Western civilization—and an emphasis instead on its sins, its mea culpas—combined with a romantic Rousseauvian attitude toward the other, of which the “noble savage” is a familiar subset.

One of the reasons that judgment of other cultures has been nearly abandoned is that one of our highest values has become that of tolerance. But tolerance was only meant to mean that we not look down on others merely because of the fact that they are different from us. It does not mean we need to tolerate their destructiveness, their hatred, or their intolerance—the latter of which should always define the limits of “tolerance,” or tolerance would become a value that would lead inevitably to its own contradiction and destruction.

The post In the UK, there has been widespread child sacrifice on the altar of diversity and tolerance appeared first on The New Neo.

Ace describes some of the claims thusly:

NYT: “Ex GF of Platner Says He Knew All About “My Totenkopf,” Used Physical Force Against Her, Bragged That He Would Rape His Male Enemies, “Not in a Gay Way,” But to Show “I’m Dominant” …

Most of the Democrats refused to address this except to say that Platner’s reformed, and that he needs to beat Collins and is poised to beat Collins and that this will give them a Senate majority, as though that would justify anything. And of course, in their eyes it would.

Fetterman was one exception, however (although here he’s addressing some previously-revealed offenses of Platner’s):

“[Platner] is a guy that had a problem with me, how I dress, but he seemed to have no problem posing in a towel at a disgusting website that consistently had serious problems about that kinds of depravity,” Fetterman told Fox News host Sean Hannity. …

“Let me make a deal. I’ll tell P-Hustle, I’ll wear a suit every day, if he releases all those texts and messages that he’s had,” Fetterman said. P-Hustle is a reference to the account name Platner reportedly had on his Kik account. …

Fetterman replied [when asked if there were more lies to come from Platner], “Well, he lied to everybody. He said that there wasn’t any after his Nazi tattoo situation. And now there’s more and more of the things. So he’s already lied about that.”

Fetterman added, “So I assume, you know, it’s like they say, for every ranch you see in Texas, there’s 50 that you haven’t seen. So I’m sure there’s plenty, a lot of more ranches in P-Hustle’s life.”

I think the Democrats actually would like to rid themselves of Fetterman, or at least muzzle him. But he’s not up for re-election until 2028, and they won’t replace him then unless they find someone they think can win in Pennsylvania.

But I digress.

The story behind the Times story about Platner’s girlfriends actually seems to have been even more Byzantine than I originally suspected. Take a look:

But these allegations [of girlfriend abuse] are buried [in the Times story] under mountains of campaign flack bullshit and then packaged as “intimidating” and “unsettling.” Normal people have another phrase for it: domestic abuse.

That characterization is by design.

Let me be clear: the New York Times story was not journalism. It was a soft catch-and-kill operation. It was a favor to Platner’s campaign, a disservice to readers, and an insult to the women who say they were hurt by him.

One of those victims, Lyndsey Fifield, is my friend.

Fifield has been attacked by the left as not credible because she’s on the right politically – therefore, of course, lying. Believe all women – if they’re Democrats.

More:

The term ‘catch and kill‘ refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or ‘stumbled’ upon a negative story about a client to effectively ‘catch’ and then ‘kill’ the story — or delay it until it no longer has impact.

A ‘soft catch and kill’ works similarly, though it mostly involves the publication still running the story in a timely manner, but the details are softened or buried deep in the narrative to soften the bite. …

In fact, for the first third of the New York Times expose, they focused on women provided to the newspaper by the Platner campaign — who, of course, sang the degenerate former bartender’s praises. And frankly, that is all many readers will come away with, because that is about as far as their attention span lets them get into the narrative. Which is, again, the point.

I didn’t know that “catch and kill” terminology, but that’s the sort of thing I meant by “getting ahead of the story.” In other words, the friendly outlet shapes it before an unfriendly one does.

This is the part that wasn’t apparent from the story itself:

Prior to publication, I’m told that the Times spoke to two women who had credibly accused Platner of sexual assault. This detail was revealed to Fifield — likely in an effort to encourage her to divulge more of her story. Those women’s allegations never made it into the story. They were effectively ‘killed’ by the Times’s editors and by Platner’s attorneys, I’m told. …

Even more telling, and perhaps a tip of the hat to the nature of this soft catch and kill, is the fact that numerous Democrat aligned influencers and operatives were essentially flooding the zone on social media in the hours before the story was published. Somehow, they knew that one of the women was an activist in the conservative movement — a detail that surmisably came from the New York Times or from the Platner campaign, or both, ahead of publication. Others appear to have known details that were cut from the story.

Then there’s Fifield herself (see this describing and quoting a series of tweets of hers on X) [my emphasis]:

Fifield explained that in early April, the New York Times contacted her and she told them she was not interested in discussing her story. The reporter told her there are other women coming forward about Platner’s conduct. “ They said but wait—there are other women. Women terrified to tell their stories, too, and you need to band together. WE will help you. We will protect you. Men can’t keep getting away with this,” she wrote.

You could say that the Times was another abusive, lying boyfriend. Don’t ever believe what they promise [my emphasis]:

After seeing former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s downfall, she reversed course. She told them her story and even “let them take pictures of my diary pages.” She sent screenshots of her message exchanges with Platner.

“I explained very clearly that, like many women abused by their partners, I had not told anyone about his violence at the time—I had covered for and defended it. I accepted his earnest apologies. They said that’s fine because the diary entries and my on the record story was enough,” Fifield wrote.

The reporters connected her to other victims and she told them they were “doing the right thing” even though they had misgivings. Fifield also realized that Platner was in a relationship with one of the other victims while she was dating him.

She further explained that she felt guilty about having remained silent for so long, but at some point, she decided she couldn’t continue to keep this under wraps. “I couldn’t stay silent as he continued to lie and lie and lie. I want my daughters to boldly speak out if they’re ever abused as I was,” she wrote. …

“After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?

“Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?”

The piece was obviously written in a way that would discredit her and/or make it easy for the left to attack her. She was naive, but it makes sense that she wanted to tell her story. It was a mistake to tell it to the Times – but then again, if it had appeared in an outlet on the right, it would also have been discredited because the only true “truth” appears in the leftist MSM.

ADDENDUM:

More here, including this from Fifield:

It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.

As Fetterman said, there are probably “a lot more ranches in P-Hustle’s life.”

The post Think the <i>NY Times</i> story about Platner’s ex-girlfriend’s complaints was an anti-Platner hit piece? Think again. appeared first on The New Neo.

According to [Byron] York, the probe appears to zero in on the very origins of Carroll’s case – a story that traces back to a swanky Manhattan ‘Resistance party’ where anti-Trump operatives, deep-pocketed donors, and eager lawyers cooked up the defamation lawsuit that later ballooned into a full-blown battery claim under New York’s specially tailored Adult Survivors Act.

Carroll’s story of rape never passed the smell test, for a host of reasons I and many others have written about before. You can read York’s own effort from 2023 here. In summary: her accusations against Trump were incredibly weak and both politically and financially motivated, in addition to being a reflection of Carroll’s quest for notoriety.

But her accusations aren’t the issue now except tangentially. The issue is her funding:

On the reported criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll — this is apparently what it is about. From April 2023, "Carroll v. Trump: The rape case that started at a Resistance party." https://t.co/yszo2259QM pic.twitter.com/XCdEBgcliT

— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 28, 2026

If you don’t have access to X:

There’s also this, which downplays the perjury aspect and focuses on other irregularities and possible charges:

The probe is focused on a trust founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, whose nonprofit helped pay some of Carroll’s legal costs, two sources said. Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, is an outspoken critic of Trump.

The crimes under investigation are possible money laundering, obstruction, and conspiracy, one of the sources said. Investigators are also looking into a possible perjury charge against Carroll related to her testimony in the lawsuits, the source said, but it’s not the main focus of the probe.

Will a prosecution come from this? I doubt it, but it’s possible.

The post E. Jean Carroll is being investigated by the DOJ appeared first on The New Neo.

As I thought, he says the lawsuit won’t work in the US. One reason is that an entity like Israel can’t sue under US law; it has to be a person who was harmed. Plus, the standard is very high in the US when suing a newspaper for defamation, due to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (ironic, isn’t it, that the case involved the Times?).

Nevertheless, Dershowitz makes the point that Israel could sue in other countries that make it easier to win against media outlets, such as in Britain.

Dershowitz also points out that the NY Times’ printing of these particular allegations – which already had been floating around online for ages – gives the stories a kind of gravitas they didn’t have before, and could convince credulous readers who were neutral on the Israel question to turn against Israel because they trust that the Times wouldn’t print mere online rumors or mere Palestinian propaganda. Those who follow the Times more closely know that of course the paper would do that – and already has, many times. But lots of people aren’t that tuned in to these topics and can be persuaded by the Times’ high reputation of old.

Dershowitz also points out that the article was careful not just to be published as opinion – which doesn’t really protect it legally, although that’s the goal – but to not name any of the persons being accused of these crimes. Naming a person falsely would give that person a viable causer of action in the United States.

Plus, Dershowitz says that journalists are the most unethical group of people he’s ever dealt with; I can well believe it.

This National Review article describes what the advantages would be of a defamation lawsuit in Israel, even if the defamation case would basically go nowhere if brought in the US:

Which brings us to the real mechanism: 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

Once an Israeli proceeding is in reasonable contemplation, an interested person can apply in the Southern District of New York (where the New York Times is headquartered) to compel evidence production from a U.S. entity for use in foreign litigation. A properly framed § 1782 application does not ask the court to adjudicate the case; it simply asks the court to order the Times to produce the factual basis for one published allegation.

The subpoena categories write themselves: documents identifying the source and evidentiary basis for the dog allegation; fact-checking notes and editorial review records; communications with cited human rights organizations about this specific claim; internal discussions of reliability or corroboration. The Times will obviously raise reporter’s privilege. That is expected. But the answer here is a measured response: Nobody is asking for every source on every story. The request is for the factual foundation for one allegation the Times has publicly called corroborated and extensively fact-checked and “deeply reported.” Either show the corroboration or explain why you cannot. Both answers are informative.

None of this is a technical defamation case, but the critics declaring the claim dead on arrival are focusing on the colloquial use of the word “defamation” expressed in a spokesperson’s tweet and missing the tree for the forest. The real question is whether there exists a narrow, disciplined legal theory that forces the Times to produce the evidentiary basis for one of the most inflammatory factual allegations it has ever published. And there is.

Of course, many many more people have paid attention to the Kristof piece (many of whom might believe it) than would pay attention to any legal findings delegitimizing it. The Times and Kristof are well aware of that. They want their lies to get all the way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on.

The post Israel’s defamation lawsuit against the <i>NY Times</i> for publishing the Kristof piece appeared first on The New Neo.

Mann, now 40, broke down several times during her painful testimony as she faced off against her abuser for the third time after a jury at last year’s retrial could not convict the ex-powerhouse producer of rape.

“I said, ‘No’ over and over and I tried to leave,” Mann said through sobs, shortly before she demonstrated to jurors how Weinstein allegedly pinned both of her wrists above her head during the sex attack.

Mann had testified that she did have a consensual relationship at one point because she felt it could lead to a “loving relationship” — while also acknowledging she knew about Weinstein’s power in Tinseltown and how it affected her decision to get involved with him.

At what point did that consensual relationship end, how clearly was that communicated to Weinstein, and why were they alone together at the time of the alleged rape? Did the jury factor into their deliberations the fact that Mann is an actress and that her tears could be performative?

Most important of all, probably, was this piece of evidence [my emphasis]:

Weinstein’s attorney Teny Geragos held Mann on the ropes during a brutal, multi-day cross-examination when she was pressed repeatedly about her relationship with Weinstein and a so-called love note — written by Mann just two days after the alleged New York City attack — which was introduced for the first time at any trial.

“Do I love him or the idea of him? With him — easy. The idea of expanding that — fulfilling,” Mann mused — two days after she said she was sexually assaulted by Weinstein in a room at the DoubleTree hotel in Manhattan.

Based on that note, I think he should have been acquitted – not because he didn’t rape her (that is unknown and at this point unknowable), but because the note introduces very strong reasonable doubt that he did.

Sexual relationships are often fraught with miscommunication and/or misperception, plus failures of memory and ex post facto revisions of memory. The year 2013 is also a long long time ago.

The post Why was the Harvey Weinstein jury hopelessly deadlocked in his <i>third</i> NYC sex crimes trial? appeared first on The New Neo.

Some excerpts:

The libel [Kristof] dutifully repeated in “The Paper of Record” was a hundred years old when he printed it. The Palestinian propaganda has not changed in a century. The Western press, which once exposed it, now promotes it.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man Palestinian historians call the father of their national movement, distributed the original handbills in the summer of 1929. The text called on Arab men to rise against the Jews, an enemy who had “violated the honor of Islam and raped the women and murdered widows and babies.” The leaflets had been printed in advance.

No Jewish man had raped any Arab woman. That didn’t matter.

He paired the rape libel with a second weapon. His crowds at the Nebi Musa riots of 1920 had chanted “Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs.” Dogs in Islamic law are najis, ritually impure, the same religious category as pigs and bodily fluids. Calling a Jew a dog made a religious statement about defilement. Twin demonizations, both concocted and distributed with the specific intent of inciting violence against the Jews.

The author goes on to describe the Hebron massacre that resulted, in which Palestinians (not called that back then, of course) committed barbaric crimes against Jews that have a great deal of resonance with what occurred on 10/7, nearly 100 years later. There are resonances with other historic events in the area, too.

I strongly suggest you read the whole thing; it can’t be summarized. It’s an extraordinary history.

The post 100 years of rape inversion appeared first on The New Neo.

But I find that simply won’t work. It’s too emblematic of so many things that are deeply and destructively wrong. Thus, this post.

First, some background:

In the months following the October 7 attack, antisemitism shed its inhibitions.

What distinguishes this moment is the collapse of stigma. Expressions that would have ended careers a decade ago now generate applause, clicks, and campaign donations. Language that would trigger immediate condemnation if directed at other minorities is routinely excused, contextualized, or ignored when directed at Jews. Hostility that once hid at the margins has migrated inward—into campuses, political platforms, cultural institutions, and digital ecosystems. The result is an old hatred on steroids—newly unmoored from consequence.

This normalization is not diffuse, but has taken shape through two distinct but mutually reinforcing channels. The progressive left frames Israel as fundamentally illegitimate, a country of inherent injustice. That creates an atmosphere in which hostility toward Israel is cast as an ethical obligation. And for many on the left—and their Muslim activist allies—the distinction between Jews and Israelis frequently collapses.

On parts of the populist right, antisemitism has reemerged through the architecture of conspiracy theory. Jews are cast not as oppressors, but as puppet masters—orchestrators of migration, finance, media narratives, and foreign entanglements. The vocabulary differs from that on the left, but the structural function is identical: Jews are assigned exceptional and malign agency.

What differentiates left and right is not just their emphases, but also the fact that leftist leaders join in and leaders on the right condemn the Jew-hatred. It remains a fringe thing on the right – and many of those involved in it are not even on the right anymore, if in fact they ever really were.

Also from the Posner article:

Holocaust inversion—labeling Israelis as Nazis or Gaza as Auschwitz—has appeared with increasing frequency at demonstrations and across digital platforms.

That inversion – the turning of something upside down or into its opposite – is the Hallmark of modern-day Jew-hatred masquerading at times as anti-Israel sentiment and at other times ripping off the mask. And this inversion is what we have in the Nicholas Kristof article alleging that Israelis systematically rape prisoners, including (and perhaps especially?) with dogs that are trained to rape humans.

Let’s start out by saying that the latter is not even possible (not that Kristof or the NY Times care; the goal is getting the story out there):

Kristof continues to cite medical journal articles he claims prove dogs raping humans is possible. There’s one problem. …

Those medical journal articles talk about the opposite issue … that is, humans practicing bestiality on dogs, not the other way around.

And here is an excerpt from the abstract of one of those articles:

This report delineates a case of anal injury in a 12-year-old boy who gave a detailed history of bestial behavior with a male bulldog. The child described how he had seen this behavior modeled on the internet and subsequently initiated contact with his own dog, causing the dog to penetrate him anally. This type of juvenile bestial behavior with injury has only been reported once previously in the medical literature. … Spontaneous sexual assault of a human by a canine has never been described in the human or veterinary medical literature, nor is such a thing likely.

Dogs cannot be trained to do this – and yet the charges against Israel have a lengthy history:

Grok: Dog handling and canine behavior experts (along with military K9 analysts) have explicitly stated that training dogs to perform sexual assault/rape on human command is not possible in any operational or standardized way.
The Palestinian allegations you’re referring…

— Aaron Poris (@a_poris) May 11, 2026

Grok: Dog handling and canine behavior experts (along with military K9 analysts) have explicitly stated that training dogs to perform sexual assault/rape on human command is not possible in any operational or standardized way.

… [C]laims of IDF or prison guards in facilities like Sde Teiman or Ofer using trained police/military dogs to rape or sodomize detainees—originated primarily from anonymous testimonies collected by groups such as Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (often described by critics as Hamas-linked), the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and amplified by CAIR, Middle East Eye, and some UN summaries.01823 These accounts describe dogs being “let loose” or commanded to mount and penetrate restrained prisoners, sometimes with details like a handler saying a name like “Messi.”

However, these specific “dog rape on command” claims have been widely labeled as baseless propaganda or recycled antisemitic blood libels by fact-checkers and Israeli advocates. They rely on hearsay with zero corroborating evidence: no names, dates, videos, forensic records, or named witnesses—unlike documented cases of muzzled dogs being used for intimidation, biting, or general attacks on detainees (which appear in BBC reporting and human rights monitors).

Multiple sources directly addressing canine training confirm the core point you raise: there is no known training framework anywhere in the world for conditioning dogs to perform directed sexual acts (mounting and penetration) on command in a controllable, repeatable, operational setting. This is not how K9 programs work—IDF’s Oketz unit or any police/military dog units train for detection, tracking, apprehension, or attack bites, not sexual behavior. Sexual mounting in dogs is driven by instinct (arousal, dominance), not precise obedience like “attack” or “sit.” It cannot be standardized, deployed reliably, or switched on/off without massive ethical, legal, and practical barriers.

This impossibility aligns with basic canine biology and professional dog handling: you can train dogs to aggress or intimidate, but engineering them into tools for targeted rape defies how animal behavior is conditioned. Claims of this nature echo historical fabrications and lack any precedent in real military or law-enforcement dog programs.

Neither Kristof nor the Times cares to do the most basic fact-checking of the claim, which of course is “too good to fact-check.”

The Kristof article is Orwellian. The Times should be deeply deeply ashamed of publishing it. But in the current climate, it could get a Pulitzer to go with Kristof’s two previous ones.

The article is an excellent example of the Islamic terrorist’s propaganda modus operandi, and in particular the favorite Palestinian ploy of accusing your enemy of what you yourselves do – not rape with dogs, of course, but rape, humiliation, degradation, and torture of enemies. Kristof’s article is a bunch of propagandist rumor dressed up as news (but placed, interestingly enough, on the “Opinion” page, probably for legal reasons), but it came out one day before a report on Hamas’ 10/7 atrocities – which were exhaustively documented by Hamas’ selfie videos and the testimony of survivors. The evidence is night and day, although the allegations in both pieces are horrific and disgusting, because torture and rape are horrific and disgusting. But the content of the Hamas report is one of the most horrific and disgusting things ever (and I don’t say that lightly), and has the extra-horrific element of being true.

But “horrific and disgusting” really doesn’t even begin to cover it. I don’t think any words do. You can read the report here, or you can read summaries here and here – if you can stomach it.

How can people champion those who perpetrated these vile offenses and videoed themselves in the act? By denying the atrocities or by excusing them or by reveling in them. Those three responses are quite different from each other, but they have the same effect in the end.

I have read a great deal of Holocaust literature in my lifetime. Some of the descriptions of what happened back then are so awful I wish I’d never read them. The same is true of this, about which I have only read summaries but those are bad enough. The deeds are demonic, depraved, sadistic, limited only by the human imagination (which at times seems unlimited).

Many Holocaust survivors have reported that their tormentors often told them two things while they were in the camps. The first was that the victims would never get to tell their tales, because they would all be killed and the Nazis would successfully destroy the evidence. That didn’t happen, although the Nazi perpetrators tried to make it happen. But the Gazans of 10/7 weren’t interested in hiding the evidence; they broadcast it. They knew from previous experience that the some would deny despite this evidence, and some would goulishly delight in it and be inspired. This makes them arguably worse than Nazis.

This is a fascinating report based on intelligence captured from Hamas. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but here’s a relevant excerpt:

To light that internal powder keg, Sinwar needed a spark. This necessity explains one of October 7’s most gruesome aspects. Sinwar was convinced that capturing and broadcasting “explosive images” right at the start of the offensive would “trigger a surge of euphoria, frenzy, and momentum” among Palestinians and Arab Israelis. The goal was to spur a violent mass uprising while simultaneously paralyzing the Israeli public with terror. That is why Hamas terrorists wore body cameras and gleefully livestreamed their own atrocities.

I think they also must have believed that the West would not object – that either terror or excuses and justification (or denial) would be the West’s reaction. They almost certainly knew that the West had been primed, saturated for decades with Pallywood propaganda and taught by pro-Palestinian professors, with the cooperation of “journalists” – such as Kristof.

The other thing the Nazis told their victims was that, even if any of them did somehow manage to survive, the world would never believe them. When Eisenhower made and then released films of what the Allies found when they liberated the camps, and when he made some of the locals come and see the dead, he was aware of the risk of non-belief and he wanted to document at least some of the atrocities for future generations. And yet there are plenty of Holocaust deniers today, as well as Holocaust celebrators.

The post The Kristof article, plus the report on Hamas’ 10/7 atrocities appeared first on The New Neo.

Embattled former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax killed his estranged wife and himself inside their million-dollar home outside the nation’s capital early Thursday, cops said.

The 47-year-old Democrat repeatedly shot Cerina Fairfax in the basement of their Annandale residence just after midnight before turning the gun on himself in another part of the abode, according to Fairfax County Police Chief Kevin Davis.

The couple’s two teenage children were inside the home at the time of the murder-suicide, and their son called 911 to report the shootings.

A bit of background – during 2019, when Governor Northam was facing calls to resign, Fairfax had been the subject of allegations of rape from over fifteen years earlier. They were never proven, he denied them, Northam stayed put, and Fairfax lost a 2021 run for governor. Fairfax is black, his wife is black, and the rape accusers were black. More recently Fairfax’s life seemed to be falling apart:

“I don’t think it’s a secret that there’s been a divorce proceedings that have been ongoing. From what I understand in this early stage, former Lieutenant Governor Fairfax was recently served some paperwork associated with an upcoming court proceeding that apparently led to this incident last night.”

Conservative columnist Sophia Nelson, who described Fairfax as a “close friend,” claimed on X that he was “deeply depressed” due to the ongoing divorce battle, but insisted “we never saw this coming. Ever. We are all devastated.”

Police had responded to the family home back in January after Fairfax accused his wife of assaulting him.

Investigators later determined he’d lied after reviewing footage from multiple cameras that Cerina had set up inside the home.

How did police know so quickly that he killed his wife and then himself? It was on those same cameras, which he did not bother to disable

More here, from documents filed by his wife during their divorce. Again, we don’t know if this is true, but at this point it’s easy to believe it is:

Fairfax apparently was drinking so heavily that he would lock himself away in the office of his family’s home, where he lived among “empty wine bottles, trash and piles of dirty laundry” — and would only emerge “long enough to get food or smoke cigarettes,” the documents allege.

Cerina alleged that Fairfax “had chosen not to be a productive member of the family and that the dictionary definition of ‘deadbeat’ was accurate as applied to him,” the filing states.

The judge noted that Fairfax, who was representing himself in the acrimonious divorce, didn’t dispute the facts of the allegations against him.

As a result of his deadbeat behavior, a judge had ordered Fairfax to leave the family home by April 30.

It’s also a logical conclusion that the order to vacate was the immediate motivation for the murder-suicide. With 20/20 hindsight, it’s also easy to say that he should have been removed from the home earlier by police and sent to rehab (involuntarily if necessary), although that kind of action would have been unusual.

Things had gotten this bad financially:

Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax was more than $750,000 in debt when his estranged wife Cerina filed for divorce this past July, according to documents reviewed by The Post.

Fairfax, who shot and killed Cerina and himself early Thursday in their Annandale home, claimed in financial disclosures to have set up a private law practice out of his residence. However, his gross income was given only as “varies” and his frequency of pay was listed only as “periodic.”

The onetime Democratic rising star also claimed to have no cash on hand, credit card debt nearing $28,000, an additional personal loan or lien against him worth an estimated $25,000, and outstanding student loans worth an estimated $33,700.

Fairfax also claimed a line of credit worth $550,000 from Long Island-based mortgage lender Arcdec Capital Solutions and a separate $117,000 loan from Florida-based AHA Real Estate LLC.

This seems to be a case of a man spiraling down into failure, alcoholism, and degradation, who decided not to let his wife escape either. It is a terrible tragedy and crime and I see no particular political implications in it. I hope the children get a lot of help; I assume they will need it.

[NOTE: Here’s a post I wrote about Fairfax back in 2019, when the sexual allegations were in the news.]

The post Former lieutenant governor of Virginia kills wife and self appeared first on The New Neo.

Swalwell announced his resignation in a statement posted to his X account, while still denying some of the allegations made against him in recent days.

“I am deeply sorry to my family, staff, and constituents for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegation made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make,” Swalwell said in the statement.

Which is which?

Gonzales – a Republican – also resigned:

… Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, who has been dogged by allegations that he had an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide …

Gonzales, who admitted to the affair and said he would not run for reelection, announced in post to X on Monday he would file his retirement from office when the House returns on Tuesday.

“There is a season for everything and God has a plan for us all,” Gonzales said. “When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office.

A recent accuser of Swalwell says this:

[In 2018 Swalwell] invited me to two public events. I knew he was married and that his wife was pregnant. He was my friend.

On the third occasion, I believe he drugged my drink. I only had one glass of wine. We were supposed to go to a political event, and he said he needed to get paperwork from his hotel room.

When I arrived at his hotel room, I was already incapacitated, and I couldn’t move my arms or my body.

He raped me. And he choked me.

And while he was choking me, I lost consciousness. And I thought I died.

I did not consent to any sexual activity.

Although I did not undergo a rape kit at the time, I disclosed the assaut to the people closest to me. I also recorded these events in my handwritten calendar.

The assault and its impact were later documented during my therapy sessions at a sexual assault center.

Although she has only come out recently with the public accusations that are from 2018, if there is earlier (especially if close to that time) documentation of her discussing this with a therapist, that would tend to corroborate her story. But her story itself, although chilling, has a vulnerability common to many such stories: because she was drinking, and says she was incapacitated, was it from a drug Swalwell gave her or from her own drinking – the amount of which she’s underestimating? And far more importantly, in her diminished capacity can her memory be trusted?

At any rate, it was plenty enough, added to the other stories (supposedly including lewd emails a la Anthony Weiner), to get Swalwell to resign. In this case, there may indeed be truth behind the accusations.

The post Swalwell quits the House; Gonzales quits the House appeared first on The New Neo.

The average height for women in the U.S. aged 20 years and older is 5 feet 3.5 inches. This average is based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2015-2018 and the U.S. National Health Survey.

The average height for women in the U.S. also varies based on your genetic background. Non-Hispanic Black women aged 20 years and older have the highest average height at 5 feet 4 inches. Asian women have the lowest average height at 5 feet 1.5 inches. …

Women in the U.S.’s 5-foot-3.5 average is near the middle of global height averages.

That’s me; Ms. Average. And when they measure me these days, I’m still somewhere between 5’3 3/4″ and 5’4″. The residual effects of all that ballet training? Hope it lasts.

Meanwhile, the average male height in the US is 5’9″, and the average worldwide is 5’7 1/2″. The means that, among all the considerations I’ve had to think about when dating, height has rarely if ever been one of them – except in junior high or the early high school years when females had usually attained their adult height but a significant percentage of males had not. And I wasn’t really dating until later in high school, and by that time almost all the boys were taller than I was or at least as tall.

Recently there was a discussion on this blog about the issue of male/female couples’ heights. It started with this comment by commenter “Kate”:

On the video, speaking as a tall woman, tall men should date girls more nearly their size.

There were a number of responses, such as this one by commenter “TommyJay”:

Re the video: I like tall women. For me, equality between the sexes isn’t just a political idea ? . But it is not at all a “deal breaker” for me. Unlike almost all the single older women I meet, each one of which seem to have dozens of deal breakers.

I looked up some dating surveys of unknown quality a couple years ago. 96% women refuse to date a guy who are even slightly shorter than they are. I’ve met women who require that the man be at least 6 or 8 inches taller. Living and walking a lot in a tourist area where I’ve seen a thousand or more couples, I think the correct number is more like 98% of women.

However, 25% of men wouldn’t mind dating a woman taller than themselves, myself included. Though, even I think that more than couple inches would look a little strange. That leaves the other 75% of men who like the traditional difference.

I’ve wondered about the why’s of all that, myself included. People like, or are impressed by, tall people. Just a basic fact.

Myself, I met a couple of lovely tall young ladies at an impressionable age in high school. One was 5? 11?, the other 6′ 1″. Never got over it. (I’m 5′ 10″ now, and lost about 0.5″ since high school.)

As for me, I’ve never been especially drawn to tall men. My ex was rather short – maybe 5’7 1/2″, but it never was an issue. Even if I wanted to wear very high heels, what did I care? In fact, the only tall man I’ve ever had a relationship with was Gerard, who was somewhat over 6 feet. Everyone else was between 5’6″ and 5’10”. Note, though, that means they all were indeed taller than I. Because of my height, a taller man was never something I had to seek, because the vast vast majority of men are already taller.

Would I have dated someone smaller than I? I don’t know for sure, since it never came up. But I do know that most women prefer to be with a man who gives them the sense that they could physically be protected by the man. I think it’s just a natural element of attraction, although it can be overridden.

The post Women and men, men and women – short and tall, tall and short appeared first on The New Neo.