Jesse Jackson Accused Of Squeezing A Thigh And Looking Too Much

An allegation has emerged of sexual harassment by Black activist and former Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson.  The story broke on November 6 at The Root in the article “Don’t Let the Smile Fool You. I’m Cringing on the Inside”.  Although overshadowed by the ongoing Hollywood mess, the allegations against Jesse Jackson have been picked up by Breitbart and the Daily Mail.

Jesse Jackson

First, Danielle Young relates an incident three years ago concerning Jesse Jackson.  As a guest speaker, he had delivered a rousing discourse to her company.  Following that, the attendees got their pictures taken with him.  And then:

I walked toward Jackson, smiling, and he smiled back at me. His eyes scanned my entire body. All of a sudden, I felt naked in my sweater and jeans. As I walked within arm’s reach of him, Jackson reached out a hand and grabbed my thigh, saying, “I like all of that right there!” and gave my thigh a tight squeeze.

I was shocked, to say the least. Even though Jackson had had his hand reached out, I had no idea that he would touch me in a sexual way.

I did what most women in an uncomfortable position do: I giggled. And I continued to giggle as he pulled me in closer, stared down at my body, smiled and told me he was only kidding. The entire time, my co-worker snapped photos.

In many of the photos, you can see that I am visibly uncomfortable but attempting to laugh it all off. In the last photo, I am pointing to the camera, asking him if we can just take the picture.

There are, in fact, two pictures with Jackson posted onto the article.  Neither shows the thigh-grab, or seems to depict visible discomfort.  It’s unclear what happened to those photos.

When I was finally able to pull myself away from the Rev. Jackson’s grip, I was deflated. I admired this man who marched alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a man who represented our ability to overcome, a man who is really … just a man.

Indeed, celebrities are people too, despite their larger-than-life stature (and egoes).  Everyone has dirty laundry to some degree, though some individuals could keep a dry-cleaning shop in business.  What’s rather refreshing about Jackson is that everybody understands that he’s a politician rather than a media-deified figure like MLK.

He’s the better of the two, actually.  To compare MLK’s grotesque personal life to Jesse Jackson’s over-gazing and thigh-grabbing would be like comparing Bernie Madoff to a kid who shoplifts a candy bar.  If you include Jackson’s baby-daddy drama, we could upgrade the comparison to a kid who steals a bike.

John Singleton

The rest concerns a similarly awkward meeting with John Singleton.  That one’s a different narrative, so I won’t go into it.  However, the first comment to the article does, and quite scathingly:

Wtf?! , in regards to only John, i was at ABFF. & I remember this instance as I was with the entire cast of Snowfall & John the entire day. And during this particular segment, i was in arms length of you both when the photo was taken. You’re exaggerating and piecing little lies together to gas your article.

The most salient part is this:

This day & age women are so off-put by a man simply complimenting them, they believe it must be a sexual innuendo or have a hidden agenda. As a woman, also against sexual harassment, I saw no sign of discomfort when you were begging for a picture and continuing your playful banter as we exited the main area.

Ouch!

Analysis

Once again, as I did for Bush the Elder, I find myself in the odd position of sticking up for an elderly political figure for whom I lack enthusiasm.  Although I don’t care for Jackson’s ideology or his Alinsky style tactics, this episode doesn’t make him a monster.

Was Jackson wrong to look admiringly?  Although women do check out guys, a man being too visibly impressed risks trouble these days.  However, it’s a natural right for people to use their visual perception as they wish within public spaces.

As for thigh-grabbing, although the leg is not a sexual organ, again I don’t recommend it.  Thus far (as is usual for “he said / she said” cases), it’s a one-sided story.  Given the article’s second picture, it seems doubtful that Jackson’s regular-sized hand (seen fully on her arm) would be capable of tightly gripping her very plus-sized thigh.  Be that as it may:

A few of my co-workers saw Jackson’s hand grip my thigh as it was happening, and they laughed harder than I did. Their laughter didn’t feel like the same type of nervous laughter I had when my thigh was in his hand. Theirs was as if they had just heard the best joke ever. It was almost an encouragement of Jackson’s behavior. I’m not blaming them; I’m just curious as to why most of them thought what happened was more funny than alarming. That’s concerning.

So there was a jubilant atmosphere.  Further, there was a plausible lack of signs by which he could’ve detected discomfort on her part (such as “Don’t do that” or trying to walk away).  Again, I don’t recommend thigh-grabbing, but we can absolve Jackson of wrongful intent; he’s not a mind reader.

Conclusion

The recent Hollywood mess set off quite an avalanche.  There was a lot behind that:  hush money, a large number of accusers alleging genuine harassment and other illegal activities, supporting evidence (for example, a recorded conversation and a police report), among other strangeness.  Following the aftermath, though, lately we have an outbreak of old stories, difficult to verify, sometimes relating no more than bad taste (if that), involving no bodily harm or career damage.

There’s a danger that this will cause a fatigue effect which will make it more difficult for those who’ve been grievously wronged to seek justice.  The other danger is that this will turn into a full-blown witch hunt.  In fact, that’s already claimed one life.

The article calls the Jackson incident “sexual harassment”.  That’s a legal term with a specific meaning:  either quid pro quo offers (Hollywood “casting couch” stuff, for example), or creating a hostile work environment (like saying “nice dress”).  Since Jackson was only a guest speaker, neither applies.  This legal term should not be used for other things, such as awkward encounters, bad game, or even being a douchebag.  That may be reprehensible in some instances, but the current trend of expanding definitions isn’t helpful.  Call out this misnomer when you hear it.

Advertisements
Jesse Jackson Accused Of Squeezing A Thigh And Looking Too Much

Why calling out cultural Marxism and degeneracy is important to your future

Some wonder why the culture war matters—political correctness, feminists, trannies, urban rioters, population replacement policies, and all the rest of the craziness.  Should we “go with the flow” and try to enjoy our civilization’s decline?  Embracing apathy and defeatism will only allow things to get worse.  First is the bad news.

The leftist agenda never sleeps

If a time traveler from 1987 saw us now, he would be rather horrified.  Someone from 1957 would think he’d entered the Twilight Zone.  The future thirty years ahead will be considerably more degenerate and dysfunctional—unless we stand together and put a stop to it.

The profound changes beginning in the 1960s didn’t “just happen” spontaneously.  Existing tensions were exploited and amplified, moderate protest movements were radicalized, all as part of a greater subversion effort.  Leftists made their “Long March through the institutions” into influential places like education, the media, government agencies, foundations, etc.  Because of this, their ideology took on a life of its own, eventually becoming orthodoxy.

For them, too much is never enough.  Six decades of the “demand / compromise / repeat” script haven’t made them happy yet.  Therefore, further appeasement obviously is pointless.  It’s time to start telling the spoiled brats “No!”

Their agenda leads to aimless nihilism

They want to remake the world according to their utopian notions—no matter how much social engineering, meddlesome micromanagement, and encroachment on freedom this involves.  The spotlight circles around from one cause-of-the-month to another.  Ultimately, it’s endless change for its own sake.  This means chaos. Their goals are impossible to achieve, but they’ve made quite a mess trying.

Cultural Marxism causes disunity

Regimes have a guiding principle, such as piety, obedience, democratic consensus, or national unity.  For cultural Marxism, the point is divisiveness.  Earlier forms of liberalism had a coherent philosophy, but the most they have today are elaborate rationalizations for double standards.  Their subversion strategy involves reducing society to squabbling factions and attacking its most successful elements.

What kind of government can result from an ideology about social sabotage?

It’s become directionless demoralization

When cultural Marxism began, the purpose was to cause weakness, disunity, and rootlessness.  They hoped class consciousness would become the only thing that matters, making the world ripe for an eventual Communist revolution.  They attempt to delegitimize our history, traditions, religion, majority ethnic identify, and concept of self-defense.  The media and education establishments have been filling the public’s heads with this stuff for decades.  The Soviet Union is gone, but their useful idiots over here are still at their wrecking job.

The USSR’s downfall only made them go further off their chain.  For example, Herbert Marcuse did his part to make the young Boomers under his spell become the hedonistic “Me Generation”.  Harry Hay had his own peculiar agendas.  However, not even they would’ve imagined that their “anything goes” stuff would be so successful that the US military would start paying for sex changes.

Today’s leftists are not constructive

They use agitation to get angry masses to support them.  This method of gaining power involves exacerbating grievances among some groups and demonizing others.  Inflammatory rhetoric and fuzzy statistics are their usual propaganda tools.  If they stopped the demagoguery, or actually fixed problems, it would let the steam out of their pressure cooker.  This is why their policies are remarkably dysfunctional.  Even when they make an apparent gain, it usually makes things worse, even for those they represent.

Before cultural Marxism reached prominence in the 1960s, liberals were about improving the lives of the masses (1890s and onward) and economic recovery (1930s and onward).  They still talk a great game, but the rhetoric is just a means to power.  Is it any wonder why today’s leftists are dead wrong about so many things, 180 degrees off course from sensibility?

They want to make things worse

To leftists, counterproductive policies (“accelerationism“) and destructive actions are useful wrecking balls.  This script has a long track record:

…and after the glorious revolution burns society to the ground, socialist paradise will emerge magically.  Awesome plan!

They’ve abandoned principles

According to the Alinsky playbook, “the ends justify the means”.  That conveniently excuses them from playing by the rules.  Leftists think anything they do toward their “greater good” is okay, even if it’s sneaky, hypocritical, wrong, illegal, or treasonable.  Common examples include “advocacy journalism“, disrupting meetings, censorship, mob violence, terrorism, subversion, or even staging coups.

Are these people trustworthy?  Can you negotiate with them?

Hypocrisy is standard operating procedure

Meanwhile, another Alinksy favorite is to “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”  While leftists do whatever they can get away with (see above), they complain bitterly about any perceived inconsistencies by their opponents.

Obligingly, the right plays along with their game.  Therefore, the gloves come off only when the country is on the verge of collapse.  When would-be revolutionaries get one-way helicopter rides, they experience profound moral indignation all the way down.

They want power, not “progress”

One final Alinsky shtick is that the issue is never the issue.  It’s all about power.  The activists at the bottom sincerely pursue whatever they believe is just or in their own interests.  However, things get pretty cynical in higher echelons.  (Remember, fixing problems would be counterproductive for them.)  Professional activists need continued grievances, or they’d have to find a real job.  It’s little wonder why they’re such glaring hypocrites.

Their own supporters can’t even count on them to get positive results.  We certainly can’t expect them to govern wisely.

They can’t be trusted

Abuse of power certainly isn’t a new phenomenon.  It’s a danger for any type of regime.  Leftist utopianism, impracticality, “anything goes” anti-traditionalism, and lack of principles are a particularly bad combination.  When unchallenged, they get pretty brazen.  If they attain absolute power, things really go off the rails.  The Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge are examples of this “Year Zero” mentality leading to a reign of terror.

Now for the good news

To paraphrase Napoleon, you can’t win if your strategy involves always retreating.  Unfortunately, the right has been playing defense (and rather badly) in the culture war.  Spineless politicians and judicial overreach caused some of the decline, but they couldn’t have held out indefinitely against a united public.  The major problems are misinformation of the modern left’s true nature, fear of taking action, and especially apathy.

Although things look grim, opportunity calls.  The last US Presidential election gave the public a glimpse of how the “kingmakers” operate.  Further, those who exposed this helped elect a President who wasn’t endorsed by the globalists—the first in decades.  Despite much howling, leftist scientific dogma has been disproved.  Most people—even liberals!—now realize that the mainstream media is propaganda.  Narratives are crumbling, and people are awakening.  Despite intimidation and heavy-handed censorship, our side is nearing critical mass.

This is why we expose cultural Marxism’s true nature, and how it’s affecting society.  Shining a spotlight on their degeneracy—which normal people find revolting—illustrates their dysfunctional nature.  You too can help get us closer to critical mass by spreading awareness of the problem, to defeat apathy and remind everyone of what’s at stake.

The outcome is too important to sit idly by and hope this will happen all by itself, or wait for another Napoleon to fix everything.   To save our civilization, we must to pull together and get involved.

Read More: The Resistance Pyramid: A Strategy For Men To Defend Themselves And Fight Back

Why calling out cultural Marxism and degeneracy is important to your future

Welsh Cabinet member Carl Sargent’s suicide results from anonymous sexual harassment allegation

On November 3, 2017, Welsh politician Carl Sargeant was implicated in a sexual harassment scandal, forcing him out of office:

Carl Sargeant has been suspended from the Labour Party as an investigation takes place.

He was [Cabinet] secretary for communities and children.

Mr Sargeant has called for an “urgent” investigation “in order to allow me to clear my name”. First Minister Carwyn Jones made the announcement ahead of a reshuffle of his cabinet team.

[…]

In a statement, the Alyn and Deeside AM said: “I met with the first minister today and he informed me allegations had been made about my personal conduct, which was shocking and distressing to me.

“The details of the allegations have yet to be disclosed to me.”

In an update on Monday:

The first minister said he had become “aware of a number of incidents at the beginning of last week”.

“I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents. As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party.”

Mr Jones said the women spoke to his office on the basis of confidentiality.

Then on November 7, 2017, he was found dead at home, considered a suicide. As the Daily Mail reports:

His wife Bernie, 48, and children Jack, 23, and Lucy, 25, said they are ‘devastated beyond words’ because the family have lost ‘the glue that bound us together’.

Mr Sargeant was sacked by Carwyn Jones on Friday after three women contacted the First Minister’s office and made allegations of sexual misconduct.

The father-of-two was in New York with his wife of 25 years when it emerged and he had pledged ‘to clear my name’ in a statement four days before his death.

Again, what led up to this:

Father-of-two Mr Sargeant returned from his family US break to be called into the office of the Labour First Minister Carwyn Jones, who sacked him.

By many accounts, Sargent truly cared about his constituents – a rare breed of politician these days:

A neighbour across the road from his home, who did not want to be named, said: ‘He’s got a wife and children over there, my heart goes out to them, it’s shocking.

‘I’ve known him since being a child. He would be going about canvassing with the local MPs and that type of stuff.

‘He’s a man who still lives in an ex-council house, he’s down to earth and a family man. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?’

Another local said: ‘He’s a lovely, loyal, honest man, who would do anything to help anyone.

‘He would try his hardest to sort anything out for you, no matter who you were or where you came from. He knew his roots. These allegations, it’s all a load of c***.’

His colleagues paid their respects too, including the guy who fired him:

First Minister Carwyn Jones said: ‘Carl was a friend as well as a colleague and I am shocked and deeply saddened by his death. He made a big contribution to Welsh public life and fought tirelessly for those he represented both as a minister and local assembly member. He will be a great loss to our party and to the Senedd.’

Yeah, too bad about your friend, right?

Perhaps the best lesson is that if accusers are anonymous, the accused should be too, and due process should occur before actions are taken.

The meaning of his death

Was Carl Sargeant’s suicide evidence of his guilt? The opposite is more likely. Guilty parties often will hide behind lawyers, issue non-apology apologies, or perform similar antics. However, the falsely accused sometimes have been known to kill themselves. Several occurrences could be named, but the following particularly stands out.

In the aftermath of the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, one of the accused men – Officer Harry Crist Jr. – killed himself four days later. After a media circus lasting nearly a year, the grand jury – a judicial institution that will proverbially “indict a ham sandwich” – dismissed it as a hoax, so it never went to trial. Assistant DA Steven Pagones – another one of the falsely accused – won a defamation lawsuit and eventually started collecting a little of the damages.

For a respected citizen, it’s certainly shocking to be blindsided by a sex scandal – faced with ignominy and loss of livelihood, and his friends turning away from him. Events like that can prompt thoughts of suicide, and others carry it further.

Unanswered questions

Presently, details are still sketchy. Did Carl Sargeant say “nice dress”, or was it something more? Did anything happen at all? We don’t know. All this was undisclosed stuff from anonymous sources. They didn’t even tell him what he was accused of doing – a shtick straight out of Kafka’s The Trial. The only hints so far might be in another recent article:

Cathy Owens, who runs political consultancy agency Deryn, spoke out about the issue and said a politician once tried to get into bed with her while staying overnight at her house.

She was speaking to Sunday Politics Wales about the sexual misconduct scandal engulfing Westminster.

Welsh party leaders will discuss the issue at the Senedd on Tuesday.

It’s not clear if Carl Sargeant is included in all this, but if so, at least the Welsh Senate had one less item to discuss, as Tuesday was when he killed himself. Further:

She said: “I was very early on in my career, this was an elected representative, I made clear that nothing was going to happen, he was staying in the spare room, and sometime later [I remember him] coming into my bedroom and trying to get into my bed.

“In another situation someone has come into the taxi that I’m going home in.”

If Carl Sargeant was described in either of these two incidents, I’m guessing that’s the second matter. As a married man, he probably wouldn’t be staying overnight in someone else’s house. Riding in the same taxi seems more likely (which is all the article has to say about it). If that’s all there was to it, then up until now, I wasn’t aware that riding in the same cab was even “problematic”.

The final and greatest question is this: was it worth his life?

Welsh Cabinet member Carl Sargent’s suicide results from anonymous sexual harassment allegation