Skip navigation

Tag Archives: american exceptionalism

The Americanization of Natalie

“Just perfume and liquor, perhaps so, but we haven’t managed a Hitler or Mussolini yet.”

Πως ξορκίζουμε το φασιστοποίημενο Γρύλισμα


“Sometimes people claim that they hear Lieberman speaking from within me, but I think they exaggerate. The fact that I was raised to love and adopt these views doesn’t mean that he is literally within me. Νο. I do not feel that Lieberman inhabits my body.”

“As preparation for the exorcism I’ve researched Lieberman thoroughly because you cannot approach an exorcism with negative feelings only. You have to be able to identify with the demon, to find empathy towards him so that you’ll detect the tricks he is employing and seduce him to leave the body. This cannot work through power alone. Affection and empathy to the demon must also be at work. It’s very easy to use him and present him as the fascist, as this destructive drive, so that the rest of us will be presented as sane. As if life in Israel is normal except for those few Liebermans. My main problem as an exorcist is that Lieberman is a very evasive demon. He goes out of one body and enters another. He resides, in fact, at the heart of our collective body. That’s why each time he can be found inside a different surrogate. I hope that armed with this insight that Lieberman is not the demon, but only one of its incarnations and that the real demon belongs to us all, perhaps I’ll succeed in fighting it where others have failed.”

“How do I feel about the possibility that Lieberman will be expelled from within me? I am against it. I feel he is part of me. His opinions ripened inside me, like a baby growing in its mother’s belly. In this sense ripping Lieberman from me is a little like performing an abortion with a hanger. It’s scraping parts of me so that he will come out.”


I have already written here many times about the draconian fascist anti-speech laws of the censorious DICKtatorship known as the Netherlands. There is no freedom of speech in the Netherlands whatsoever. What kind of expression is legal in the Netherlands?  Here are some descriptions of American torture porn that Dutch children, and actually children across the whole of Europe, can watch on the American part of the internet right now, and there is nothing that the EU or the UN, or the Dutch Public Prosecutor or the Dutch police are going to do to stop this kind of American misogynist sexist torture porn from entering European homes and affecting European kids. Every single film scene described in the segment quoted below is supposedly legal and sanctioned by law under the First Amendment. Why is such footage of unrepentant hatred towards women allowed to be streamed into Europe, where we supposedly have anti-hate laws which are supposed to protect women? Because Americans are above the law on the internet and they get to dump and pour their sexist misogynist filth into other countries:

I recently became the recipient of three secret torture videos (complete with captions and descriptions). The anonymous senders said they trusted I’d “make good use” of them. So, with this important mission in mind, please allow me to introduce a horrifying but illuminating glimpse into the terrorist mindset.

The first footage showed a bruised and battered captive stripped naked and being kept in a small cage, a cage too small to allow the person to either stand or lie flat at full extension. The victim was wearing some kind of collar which was connected to cage itself by a long chain leash of sorts.

We next see a terrorist enter the room, open the cage, and disconnect the chain. He uses the chain leash to lead the captive out on all-fours. Interestingly, the victim makes no effort to resist but perhaps the caption explains why: “Pacification through terror.”

The last few minutes of the video involves the hate-fueled torturer pushing the captive into a prone position, face-up, and then straddling them — knees pinning the victim’s arms to the filthy floor. At this point, the sadist begins to pummel the captive’s face and upper body with punches in what looks like a MMA match without a referee. The sound of clenched fists hitting flesh is nauseating.

Video #2 begins with the victim already naked, on all-fours, and seemingly under the influence of some kind of sedative or narcotic. Three torturers are in the room.

One roughly holds the captive’s head in position so they can see what’s happening. A second terrorist inserts a clear plastic tube into the victim’s anus. At the other end of the tube is a large plastic funnel. The third abuser holds a pail filled with water.

Swimming in the water are live silvery fishes about six inches long and maybe 1.5 inches in diameter. He lifts the pail up and pours several of the fishes into the funnel. Gravity forces the fish to swim through the clear tube and into the victim’s anus.

The clip ends with a shot of the captive’s expressionless face, eyes rolling back in their head. Caption: “It should be more compliant after this treatment.”

Finally, we see another naked victim being held in an intricate restraint on a tall table. Their spread legs are held in place with knees bent up towards their chest, arms cuffed to the table at the wrists, and head held in place by a thick iron collar that’s also attached to the table.

Judging from the open cuts, bruises, welts, and scars, the victim has been subjected to a brutal beating. A terrorist stands close by, holding a small jar bearing the label “Fire Sauce.” He uses a medium-sized paintbrush to stir the sauce, bringing the gooey brush close to the victim’s nose. The victim recoils. This substance is obviously quite potent.

The laughing sadist then uses the brush to slowly and meticulously “paint” the hot sauce onto the victim’s shaved genitals. The result: harrowing shrieks and howls of agony — made even more unforgettable by the words used to describe the terror tactics: “Cannot move, cannot scream, cannot rest, cannot escape. Can only endure.”

I turned off the last video and wondered: What kind of hate must one feel to perform such torture and to film it? Who are these savages and who is funding them? ISIS? CIA? Mossad? Al Qaeda? Did this cruelty take place at Gitmo or perhaps a secret prison in North Korea?

But just then, a second e-mail arrived to reveal the origin of all three videos of sadistic abuse. And what a relief to learn it was a false alarm! The source was a popular social media website.

It wasn’t terrorism. It wasn’t torture. It wasn’t even illegal! It was just mainstream, easily accessible porn.

(And thankfully, the individuals I called “victims” were just women.)

When you read about violent gang-rapes in India, or in Brazil, or in Pakistan, or Thailand, or in Burma, or Indonesia, or in Cambodia, or in Argentina, when you read about gang-rapes in any country that isn’t Western, don’t you ever wonder whether those men have been watching American torture porn on their mobile phones? What happens when Americans stream their violent misogynist torture porn into countries that barely have any women’s rights? What happens when Americans stream their torture porn into counries where men can really have their way with women who are the most powerless or powerless females on the planet, women who literally have no access to law enforcement or the law to defend themselves against men re-enacting the torture porn they’ve seen on the internet on their bodies?
The social media site in question is Tumblr. European governments will censor their own citizens and threaten them with jail time over political speech, but they allow Americans on Tumblr to pump this torture porn filth into European homes and into the minds of European kids. Read more about this Tumblr torture-porn phenomenon in another article by the same author:

Has Tumblr mainstreamed misogyny and rape culture?

This article lists (fortunately doesn’t link to) a number of torture-porn sites that the average teenager can access on Tumblr right now as we speak. These pages are NOT hidden behind an age-wall or credit card check or anything like that, and are literally at anyone’s fingertips.

Torture videos are illegal and are taken off the internet when they are produced by ISIL, but misogynist torture video are considered legal and acceptable when it’s Americans torturing women in the name of male orgasms and so-called consent and posting this hateful filth on Tumblr.

Because expressing and depicting hate and violence against women, especially when this hatred of women is depicted in the extremely gross and grotesque torture porn such as that described above is always  protected freedom of speech, in America and in Europe and especially in the Netherlands, a country which has long been an importer of such American misogynist filth. The question remains: why is it legal to hate women in the Netherlands and why is it legal for American to make torture videos in which women are brutalized and to broadcast these into Europe? Why speech so relentlessly policed and censored in Europe, but not visual imagery expressing unmitigated hatred and violence towards women?

Why are male orgasms in the Netherlands considered more imporant than a woman’s free speech right to talk about the violent abuse she has suffered at the hands of men?!

Institutionalized American exceptionalism at the International Criminal Court, or why Americans are literally above the law and will never be persecuted much less tried for war-crimes at the “World Court” or ICC.

The 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act threatened to limit us participation in un peacekeeping operations, unless the Americans involved were granted immunity from any potential icc prosecution

it also authorized us Marines to ‘storm the beaches of Holland to rescue any American citizen who might languish in icc custody’

In response to this threat to invade the Netherlands for the purpose of “rescuing” (read: kidnapping) an American citizen brough to trial at the ICC, the World Court gave explicit assurances to America that no American official will ever be prosecuted or indicted by the ICC.

I have seem may people in the social media who have recently been reblogging and posting a bunch of articles suggesting American will now finally be persecuted for war-crimes. I have said this before and I will say it again: no American will ever be persecuted for war crimes, ever. Americans have literally been declared above the law and beyond reproach by the World Court prosecutors. I have been posted the article below from the New Left review, and I will continue to post this until people get this through their heads: America LITERALLY THREATENED TO INVADE THE HAGUE if an American official was ever indicted, captured and brought to The Hague for trial at the world court. In fact, America literally adopted a new law, the so-called 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act, giving America the right to invade the Netherlands and kidnap any American official brought to trial at the World Court in The Hague. It is an article of faith of the globalist courts that no persecution of an American citizen will ever be undertaken and that International Criminal Law is mainly to be used to civilize the “dark savages”.

Get it through your heads people: Americans are literally above the law when it comes to international criminal law. International criminal law is just a means to institutionalize American white supremacy and American exceptionalism and to extend American jurisdiction beyond American borders, giving America the literal right to invade other countries, including Western countries like the Netherlands, to kidnap American officials.

Now, let’s quote the relevant excerpt in full from the New Left Review article about the World Court or ICC caving into American threats to invade The Hague and declaring Americans literally above and beyond the law when it comes to the indictment of war criminals on the basis of International Criminal Law at the ICC:

Fears that the icc might become ‘politicized’—code for the investigation of American war crimes—were repeatedly rejected as ‘unwarranted’ and ‘far-fetched’, a most ‘unlikely eventuality’, against which the Rome Statute had plentiful ‘safeguards’, ‘checks’ and ‘restraints’.34 The Bush Administration, gearing up after 9/11 for the invasion of Afghanistan, and with sights already set on Iraq, demanded harder guarantees.

The 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act threatened to limit us participation in un peacekeeping operations, unless the Americans involved were granted immunity from any potential icc prosecution it also authorized us Marines to ‘storm the beaches of Holland to rescue any American citizen who might languish in icc custody’.

The courts’ jurisdiction was established by fiat of the occupying powers, who appointed both prosecutors and judges, while granting themselves impunity. As the Indian judge Radhabinod Pal put it in his dissenting judgement at Tokyo, it appeared that ‘only a lost war is a crime’.

Bush need not have worried. As Luis Moreno Ocampo, the incoming icc Prosecutor, hastened to assure a us official in March 2003, he ‘could not imagine launching a case against a us citizen’.

The Athens Bar Association submitted a call for an investigation of acts in Iraq ordered by Blair, Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw.40 Ignoring the whole question of the Iraq war, Ocampo’s first statement as Prosecutor suggested that the Court might enjoy a Zen-like inactivity: its efficiency should not be measured by the number of cases it took up; on the contrary, ‘the absence of trials led by this court as a consequence of the regular functioning of national institutions would be its major success.’41 The ngo lobby was affronted by this do-nothing approach; the Prosecutor had to do something. The Office of the Prosecutor began scanning the world for sites of violence other than Afghanistan and Iraq. At his July 2003 press conference, Ocampo announced that he would be examining the situation in eastern Congo.

In July 2012 the Office of the Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation in Mali, its eighth formal investigation—and the eighth in Africa.75 The Court’s myopic focus has caused anger on the continent. That military intervention by former colonial powers has been followed, almost de jure, by juridical intervention by the icc, leaves Africans understandably suspicious. At the African Union summit in Addis Ababa in May 2013, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn accused the icc of ‘hunting’ Africans because of their race.76 The notion that international criminal law is a neo-colonial imposition is no longer limited to critical international legal theorists; it is now heard most loudly from the post-colonial elites of Addis Ababa and other African capitals.

That the Court’s investigations have coincided with imperial concerns is apparent; that they are motivated by simple racism is less evident, although this is not to downplay the court’s role in reproducing a longstanding dynamic of racialization in international law.78 On the Court’s record, crimes against humanity and war crimes are acts committed by non-Westerners. The Hague’s courtrooms replicate a historical pattern in which, as Makau Mutua puts it, ‘morality comes from the West as a civilizing agent against lower forms of civilization’.

The doctrine of ‘complementarity’, too, affirms a sharp division between Western countries, with their developed judicial architecture—which, as the German representative gloated, will never be found unable to carry out a prosecution—and the rest of the world, where the icc may more readily make out a case for a judicial system’s ineffectiveness. In this respect, the Court appears to reproduce the colonial international law of the 19th century, underpinned by a distinction between civilized and uncivilized states.

As the reactions to Ngudjolo’s acquittal revealed, many of the human-rights and international-justice advocates who once concerned themselves with the rights of the accused have become preoccupied with victims and the ‘scourge of impunity’ instead. Prosecution and conviction are increasingly conceptualized as the ‘fulfilment of the victims’ human right to a remedy’, as Darryl Robinson has noted.85 Amnesty International once focused on the release of political prisoners, with ‘amnesty’ central to its mission; on the treatment of defendants in custody and their right to a fair trial. Today, with the rise of an international-criminal-justice complex, Amnesty consistently opposes amnesty laws and is not wont to challenge the treatment of defendants accused of international crimes.86 This was evident at the Rome Conference, where human-rights ngos under the cicc umbrella were the most strident pro-prosecution voices. These groups advocated loudly for broad and open-ended definitions of crimes and modes of liability—and narrow defences—so as to avoid acquittals that would risk ‘victims’ rights to justice’.

Yet far from ending the de facto impunity long enjoyed by the powerful, the icc has helped to institutionalize it. The Court’s selective and highly politicized interventions have operated to reproduce one-sided narratives of complex conflicts, demonizing some perpetrators as hostis humani generis, while legitimating military interventions in the name of humanity. The logic of ‘international criminal law’ on this model was spelled out with refreshing frankness by the former Prosecutor in a recent interview on Canada’s cbc. nato and the Court should work hand in hand, serving one another: ‘Integrate the sc, the icc, nato forces.’89 Once celebrated as an avatar of Kantian cosmopolitanism, the icc has served rather to shield and strengthen the imperial powers, less a tool of international justice than the judicial concomitant to Western intervention.

– excerpted from “Dispensing Global Justice” by Tor Krever for the New Left Review at

OK, boys and girls in filmschool, today I am going to show you how to instantly recognize a Certified Arrogant Indie Asshole™® of a filmmaker in the American indie film industry. After wasting everyone’s time, effort and money on tanked projects, these Certified Arrogant Indie Assholes ™® continue to talk about themselves in glowing terms, refusing to admit they were wrong, refusing to take responsibility for being irresponsible with investors’ money, while spewing self-inflating crap very similar to this:

“Indeed, Æon Flux ultimately made $25.9 million domestically and $52.3 million worldwide, a costly and embarrassing flop for Paramount.”

Kusama’s agents told her in a singsong, jokey tone that she was “in movie jail now.” It’s an industry term for the fate of filmmakers who helm a box office bomb, and the implication is that, eventually, you’ll be released from movie jail.

“It’s the sense that each movie represents some kind of finality, potentially, to their career, as opposed to the sense of you have hits, and you have misses. That’s called being an artist.”

“I know when I sit in these studio meetings — I’m not afraid to say this — I’m one of the smartest people they’ve ever met, and I’m certain it’s terrifying [for them],”

GET OVER YOURSELF LADY! Also, someone please find me one interview where Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, Steven Soderbergh, Richard Linklater or any of the other men name-dropped in this article are claiming to be the smartest guy in the room like Karyn Kusuma does, bragging that their superior intelligence is scaring the studios. Arrogant statements like this make you sound like a self-absorbed asshole artiste, irrespective of sex. As for the ridiculous claim that male filmmakers supposedly get a free pass to fail over and over and waste investors’ millions  like Kusama did “because I am an artiste and I should be allowed to have misses, it’s called being an artist” (ON YOUR OWN DIME LADY!), tell that to Adam Rifkin who tanked with The Dark Backward and never made another feature movie again. Tell that to Samuel Bayer who tanked with the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot and never made another feature movie again. So no, this myth that men get a free pass to fail time and again in Hollywood just because they are male is a lie.

Now, with regards to Karyn Kusama’s tanked Aeon Flux project and the long shadow this epic #FAIL cast over the rest of her career, the author of this article ridiculously claims that “Zack Snyder went from making Legend of the Guardians ($140,073,390) and Sucker Punch ($89,792,502) to making Man of Steel ($668,045,518)”. Actually, Zack Snyder went from making 300 ($456,068,181) and Watchmen ($185,258,983), two successful comic book based movies, to making Man of Steel ($668,045,518). Even Zack Snyder’s most #failed project, Sucker Punch, made more money than any movie Kusama has ever made. The author of the article then goes on to write: “After David Fincher bombed with Alien 3, he made Seven.”… but Alien 3 didn’t bomb. Alien 3 made $159,814,498 with a 55 million dollar budget. Since when is making 3 times your budget considered a bomb? Not too bad for Fincher’s first feature movie. Something tells me the author of this article is just blindly repeating bullshit examples that Kusama fed him during the interview without fact-checking whether any of these claims are true. Serenity didn’t bomb, it was a close call, as was Zathura. The Frighteners wasn’t Peter Jackson’s first big movie, that was King Kong, and he had already made Heavenly Creatures before that, and the fact is that The Frighteners managed to earn back its money. Literally the only example in this list that bombed hard the way Kusama’s Aeon Flux did was Apt Pupil. How dare she compare herself to male filmmakers who did way better on their projects than she did on hers.

Now let’s look at what actually happened with the Aeon Flux #FAIL. Kusama, then a 30something newbie with no sci-fic experience, seemingly out of the blue was given a XL-sized million dollar film despite having no prior experience whatsoever with a multi-million project or with a project involving a super-hero character associated with an existing media product. Why give such a huge project to a newbie like her and not another more experienced filmmaker? Am I the only one who sees the gaping hole in this story? Something tells me that the studio went shopping around for a director and all the others they had approached (probably all men and more experienced filmmakers) had turned Aeon Flux down. Why would these other filmmakers turn it down? Because the screenplay was lousy. Peter Chung, the maker of the Aeon Flux cartoon, has stated that he had a bad feeling about the movie after reading the screenplay. Everyone who is serious about filmmaking knows that you can’t make a good movie out of a lousy screenplay, period. Kusama can complain all she wants about the studio cutting 30 minutes out of her movie, but something tells me everyone but Kusama, the self-declared smartest girl in the room, had already recognized that Aeon Flux was a kiss-of-death project. Gee, maybe the self-declared smartest girl should’ve taken a hint from all these male filmmakers instead of seeing dollars&stars? If I was a newbie filmmaker and I was handed a huge-ass sci-fi project that everyone around me was turning down, all my alarm-bells would be going off.

And to add insult to injury, Kusama ends up falling in love with one of the two MALE screenwriters who wrote the lousy Aeon Flux screenplay that Peter Chung said was bad news from the moment he first read it and made him feel “humiliated” when he saw the end result on screen. Quoting from an IMDB review of Aeon Flux: “The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he’s never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling.”. Everyone who has ever been to LA knows that losers of a tailfeather in the Los Angeles indie film industry tend to flock together.

So no, I’m totally not buying this “Hollywood’s sexism crushed this visionary female filmmaker” narrative. Don’t go around blaming sexism when you are too arrogant to admit you foolishly took on a project that everyone else (with a dick?) wisely foresaw was a kiss-of-death project because of the screenplay.

What is the moral of this Karyn Kusawa Aeon Flux #FAIL story, boys and girls?

1) You can’t make a good movie out of a bad screenplay. PERIOD. When the screenplay stinks, just say no. Don’t marry the screenwriter.

2) Avoid anyone who claims they have a right to waste investors’ money because “I am an artiste and I have a right to fail, it’s called being an artist“. No, that’s actually called being irresponsible with investor’s moneys. A big commercial movie with a multi-million dollar budget is a profit-making business venture. Not art. You can make art and fail hard on your own dime.

3) Avoid anyone who claims they are the smartest boy/girl in the room like Karyn Kusama does in the above interview. Always be humble and remember you can learn from people who will never know as much as you. Being arrogant and self-important in the aftermath of failure is not feminism or assertiveness. It’s called being delusional.

4) Yes, there is sexism in Hollywood, but that has as much to do with the audiences as it does with those who hold the purse-strings. Read this list of TV shows that failed in 2014-2015, and you will see that several of these failed shows were trying to be a form of diversity programming. The undeniable fact is that diversity-projects tend to flop despite the best of intentions because of audiences themselves not wanting to change their viewing-habits. It’s OK to admit this. All it means audiences have to become more progressive along with Hollywood.

5) If you are a filmmaking newbie and aspirant and one day Hollywood approaches you of the blue, inviting you to helm a huge sci-fi project that all the older and more experienced male filmmakers they had approached before you have already turned down… wipe the stars and the green from your eyes and just say no. Learn to recognize a kiss-of-death project. (see #1)

6) NO, male filmmakers do NOT get a free pass to fail over and over again and waste investors’ money just because they are men. That is a myth.

7) Weaponized Femininity is not feminism


Scene from the American movie The Midnight Meat Train (2008), based on the 1984 short horror story of the same name by the British author Clive Barker, wherein the tragic protagonist has his tongue cut out by the subterranean elites he is thus forced to serve.

Mister “Ronald Vincent” or whatever your real name is,

I live in a country where it is illegal to advocate in favour of mass murder. Because of our history we Europeans know all about mass-murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing, especially when these are aided, abetted, perpetrated and promoted by America to serve its geopolitical agenda. If a European vegan had posted something similar to what you have written and posted on your WordPress blog, they would have already been home-raided, detained, indicted and jailed for criminal incitement and criminal threats.

Since you have no problem with advocating in favour of murdering a group of people simply on the basis of their diet, this diet being the diet of choice for the majority of people in Europe who are omnivores, you are banned from commenting on my blog. I am not going to let you post whatever you want just because you think that you as an American should be able to wipe your ass with what is legal and illegal in other countries around the world and assume you can do so simply because you are expressing yourself on the internet under the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment where I live, period. You might imagine yourself are above the law because you have, quote, “no respect for human law”, but you are not above the law on this blog.

Lastly, given the long and documented history of American vegan animal rights activists abusing the courts to intimidate, harass, bankrupt, violate and silence their critics (source and source), going as far as to use a faux SWAT team with fake badges as a coercion tactic against their targets (source), I feel that vegans and animal rights activists should be blanked-banned all over the internet and not be allowed to post anything anywhere. American vegan animal rights activists are the modern day equivalent of book-burners and witch-burners. They should be subjected to the exact same censorship they have forced others to endure. Don’t come around here expecting people with far less speech than you to give you a podium. And don’t fucking tell me how you are willing to die for my right to free speech and other such jingoistic American platitudes. You Americans have waged endless globalist wars and have murdered 20 million people since the 2nd WW to maintain your “freedoms”, such as the very American “freedom” to advocate in favour of mass-murder on the internet. Your American rights are penned in the blood of your victims.

drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou

American vegans on WordPress: “Let’s start shooting those who murder animals” –>

An American vegan animal rights activist who goes by the name of “Ronald Vincent” (is this a real or a fake name?) who is apparently associated with an organization that calls itself the Animal Rights Leadership Council and is using a Los Angeles PO Box address posted the following article on recently:

“Let’s start shooting those who murder animals”

Sooo, when is the Openbaar Ministerie going to indict the author of this blog and throw him in jail for openly advocating for the murder of omnis?

Oh, that’s right, he’s American and he gets to openly advocate in favour of mass-murder all day long with no consequences. As an American vegan, he can advocate the mass-murder of omnis on his American blog and broadcast that content to countries where such statements are against the law. The Openbaar Ministerie, which jails its own citizens for saying “fuck the king” at a political rally and also jailed a rapper for saying “fuck the police” at a rap concert, is perfectly fine with Americans broadcasting such content into the Netherlands. As if an American advocating mass-murder were any different from a Dutch person advocating mass-murder. I have repeatedly explained on my blog that if the Openbaar Ministerie were really concerned about incitement it should go ahead and jail anyone and everyone who advocates mass-murder, regardless of who or where they are… but apparently Americans get a blank check from the Openbaar Ministerie to advocate mass-murder.

American vegans can advocate in favour of mass-murder on WordPress, as long as they are Americans… but don’t you dare call them “eco-terrorists” for doing so, because that’s “criminal defamation”. Anyway, it should be abundantly clear that the Openbaar Ministerie doesn’t give a flying fuck about putting a stop to incitement. The mere fact that the above WordPress article is allowed to exist plainly demonstrates how Americans in Los Angeles are allowed to post their mass-murder advocacy on the internet all day long targeting everyone around the world who eats animal products *simply because they are Americans*. The opportunistic and hypocritical manner that the Dutch authorities claim jurisdiction over Dutch speech posted on American sites while simultaneously denying jurisdiction when it is Americans themselves who are advocating mass-murder, all this plainly shows that the purpose of international criminal law is to re-enforce American exceptionalism and American white supremacy through selective censorious fascism.

Either all incitements are illegal speech, or none of them are. There can be no legal exceptionalism or favouritism towards Americans in this matter.

But then again, these American vegans literally consider themselves above and beyond the law and plainly state so on their blogs. From the same blog as the above article: –>

“I Am A Lawyer. But I Have No Respect For Human Law.”

So there you have: vegans opportunistically abuse the courts to silence their critics, but they will openly declare themselves above the law because they “have no respect for human law”. If a Dutch lawyer ever posted a blog article saying “Ik ben een advocaat maar ik heb geen respect voor de door mensen bedachte wetten” he would be disbarred overnight and banned from ever practicing law again. Why is an American lawyer allowed to post this and to broadcast it into countries where such statements are illegal? Because Americans are above the law, and international globalist law was put in place to reinforce the white supremacy of Americans.

So, here we have an American animal rights activist who claims he “doesn’t respect human law” but is all too happy to exploit the fact that the very human law called the First Amendment gives his Yankee ass the right to openly advocate for the mass-murder of omnis on his blog and to broadcast these views even into countries where expressing such views is illegal and criminal. If “Ronald Vincent” were posting such articles in Europe he would’ve already been arrested for incitement. Instead he wallows in his American exceptionalism to post such things on his American blog all day and broadcast them all around the world with no legal consequences. Afterall, who cares about Americans advocating mass-murder on their blogs when Americans are free to mass-murder around the globe under the guise of fighting terrorism?

Hey, wait a minute, wasn’t it against the law to say or even hint at the phrase “fuck the police” in the Netherlands because that would constitute incitement? Wasn’t that why rapper Lil’Kleine got arrested last year? WTF is this then? –>


Apparently saying “fuck the police” in the Netherlands is no longer illegal if your name is Jacob Appelbaum and you are an American fugitive on Dutch soil studying for your PhD at the prestigious Technical University of Eindhoven! In that case, you can even freely express your sincere and heartfelt hope that blackhat hackers (basically hackers who break the law) launch cyber-attacks against the police in your own home state of California in the US, and you still don’t have to worry about being arrested for incitement JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AMERICAN posting the likes of this on Twitter –>



Here we have an American hacker openly saying that he hopes blackhats (criminal hackers) are going to launch cyber-attacks (“owned”) against the San Francisco police. What is the Openbaar Ministerie going to do about this tweet? Isn’t this incitement? If not, then why is this not incitement and is a hip-hopper raising the middle-finger and telling his audience to do the same so at a rap concert actionable? Suffice to say, if I or any Dutch citizen was posting such tweets on the internet, the Openbaar Ministerie or the Dutch Public Prosecution Service would’ve already busted down our front doors with 11 officers and held us in custody for three days in isolation while indicting us and criminalizing us.

Indeed, someone using the handle “Netzblockierer” immediately rushes in to warn Appelbaum about the above tweets appearing to constitute incitement and this being illegal in the Netherlands:

“you know that calling for data manipulation may be outlawed at your current location, too?

Another person called “Peter Davidson” also chimes in with the opinion that the above tweets appear to constitute incitement:

So, here is how the Dutch law apparently works, kids: everyone in the Netherlands who is Dutch is prohibited from uttering the phrase “fuck the police” in a public forum lest they end up arrested and indicted like Dutch rapper Lil’ Kleine, but if you are an American fugitive living in Eindhoven saying “fuck the police” you can do that with no consequences to yourself, because Americans are demigawd overseers and are hence above the law wherever they happen live, work or be in the world. There is no other logical explanation for such blatant opportunism and hypocrisy in the enforcement of the applicable law. Americans are planetarchs and hence don’t have to worry about respecting the laws of their host counries. Only we the slave-citizens living there have to speak and think by the book lest we be arrested and indicted thought-crimes and speech-crimes. Isn’t American exceptionalism just great?

Either the Openbaar Ministerie Parket Eindhoven is now going to arrest and indict this American like they did with rapper Lil’Kleine, or they are going to admit that they selectively and opportunistically enforce Dutch speech-laws to silence and criminalize Dutch citizens while declaring Americans living in the Netherlands above and beyond the law so that Americans can continue to evade Dutch speech-laws with impunity. Either all public instances of “fuck the police” are illegal and actionable under Dutch law or none of them are. Which is it going to be? Are the Dutch authorities openly going to admit we are living under a regime of global American exceptionalism and legal impunity?

drs. Efthimia Dilpizoglou, censorship victim of draconian vexatious Dutch speech-laws