“Brutalist” India, China Vs. “Humanitarian” US

The Hindu:

“President Vladimir Putin thanked India for taking a “restrained and objective” stand on Russia’s muscle flexing in Ukraine.

Addressing a joint meeting of the Russian Parliament on Tuesday on the occasion of Crimea’s reunification with Russia Mr. Putin singled out China and India as the countries that showed understanding for Russia’s role in the Ukraine crisis.

“We are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea,” Mr. Putin said. “We are grateful to the people of China, whose leadership sees the situation in Crimea in all its historical and political integrity. We highly appreciate India’s restraint and objectivity.”

India did not join the Western powers’ condemnation of Russia’s intervention in Crimea and kept a low profile on the issue.”

While the Western media has reported India’s position as pro-Russian, the transcripts of the Ministry of External Affairs, show a relatively even-handed approach, calling for peaceful discussion and restraint:

“India calls for sincere and sustained diplomatic efforts to ensure that issues between Ukraine and its neighbouring countries are resolved through constructive dialogue,” said the statement.”

Brutalist Humanitarians Vol 3: The Pederast as Pedagogue

I formally apologize – nay, grovel – before STEVE HORWITZ

for his incorrect, hasty, and shoddy perception that I was intentionally attributing a review of Paul Goodman, a libertarian, to him, with the explicit purpose of “insinuating” that he was a pedophile apologist, which he claims is “insane.”

Since his remark was extraordinarily rude for a person in his position, I deleted it.

Since it was accurate as to confusion of identity, I have taken the essence of it and placed it above.

He also said I was a “shoddy researcher.” Weep.

How will I endure?

Well, in this post, there was certainly a mistake, but not anything crucial.

The misattribution of the quote doesn’t in the slightest bit deter from the central argument.

To be honest, though, I’m nonplussed.

There is nothing immoral or wrong about writing about Goodman’s homosexuality or his pederasty, so why should anyone get so upset – incorrectly – to be associated with that writing, especially when it’s critical of Goodman?

If I suggested anyone was a pedophile apologist, it was Goodman….and I didn’t even really do that. I cited people who documented he was a pederast.

Meanwhile, I found Horwitz’s phrasing interesting.

It’s exactly the opposite of the phrasing Bob Wenzel used about me (“Careful researcher”) at EPJ just yesterday, for analyzing Tucker’s piece with the brutalist metaphor. Hmm….

I also note that I wrote this blog post almost five days ago, but that Mr. Horwitz only posted this today, after Bob’s comment.

Apart from Goodman, the only person I could be said to have questioned (in the faintest way) was Charles Burris at Mises, for citing Goodman…but I didn’t even do that.

As for Horowitz, the author, I insinuated nothing about him, except to say that he was a Tuckerian libertarian. Is that hate speech now?

I didn’t even actually identify the author Horowitz with the BLHer Steve Horwitz.

For all anyone knows,  the author of the passage, Horowitz, who is a neo-functionalist, as Goodman was (look that up), might well be a Tuckerian libertarian, even if he doesn’t know it.

That was the point of my piece. Tucker’s term is typically leftist.

I actually wrote the author’s name correctly as STEVE HOROWITZ, when I originally read the piece.  Then I came back to my incomplete draft, in between reading stuff on the BLH site ( trying to figure out if they were Tuckerians or not), and saw the name spelled HORWITZ in one part (accidentally).

That made me wonder, so  I put down Tuckerian libertarian in the draft, thinking I would check back to find out if it was the BLHer of that name.

When I got back to the blog, I forgot that I’d set it aside to research and just published it, without checking, with the note still in brackets, as it was published.

Hasty, true. Over-worked, true. Too many fingers in too many pots, very true.

How to shoot down daily propaganda from all sides, with most people unwilling to get in the direct line of fire, without making a silly mistake?

But shoddy? Not really.

Insane, no more than Mr. Horwitz, and much less than this BLHer friend of his whose sock-puppet internet adventures as a female are described here.

In any case, Tuckerian libertarians (including the BLHers) would never consider homosexuality or pederasty (which is promoted with it) a negative.

So why would anyone be that upset because they were mistaken for an apologist for it, especially when the alleged apologia was NOT an apologia?

So one last time – the only thing I’m insinuating in this piece is that Tucker’s division is one-sided and that brutalism is found on both sides of the political and ideological divide, as Mr. Horwitz just proved.

We’re all human beings here.

So, I apologize for your hurt feelings, Mr. Horwitz, and I give my regards to you and to your friend, Mr. Tucker.

Tell him I’ve been waiting for his apology…..or the correction from his friends, for nearly two years now…

ORIGINAL POST

Charles Burris comments on left-libertarian Paul Goodman and his critique of compulsory education.

Pedagogy being an interest of mine, I began researching Goodman. I’d known only that he was an influential figure in the counter-culture and a prophetic social critic.

Turns out he was also – interestingly for a writer on education cited by a paleo-libertarian site –  a practising pederast:

“Goodman is now mainly remembered as a notable political activist on the pacifist Left in the 1960s and early 70s. Politically he described himself as an anarchist, sexually as pederast (Rossman, 1976, pp.87-92), and professionally as a “man of letters”. Less widely known is his role as a co-founder of Gestalt Therapy.

Born in New York City, he freely roamed the streets and public libraries of the city as a child (and later developed, from this, the radical concept of “the educative city”). He taught at the University of Chicago while he was taking his Ph.D., but fell in love with a student and was dismissed. He fathered a family by two common-law wives, and his early years were characterized by menial and teaching jobs taken to enable him to continue as a writer and to support his children. ……
The freedom with which he revealed, in print and in public, his homosexual life and loves (notably in a late essay, “The Politics of Being Queer” (1969)), proved to be one of the many important cultural springboards for the emerging gay liberation movement of the early 1970s. However, his own views ran counter to the modern construction of homosexuality. It was his opinion that it was pathological not to be able to make love to someone of the opposite sex, but that it was equally pathological “not to be able to experience homosexual pleasure.” Likewise, it was his view that sexual relationships between men and boys were natural, normal and healthy, and that they could lay the foundation for continuing friendship even after the sexuality is outgrown (since “sex play does not last long between males, as a rule”).(ibid, p.88)

In discussing his own sexual relationships with boys, he acknowledged that public opinion would condemn him, but countered that “what is really obscene is the way our society makes us feel shameful and like criminals for doing human things that we really need.” In diagnosing the problems of modern education, which even in his time was accused of killing the spirit of the youngsters and leaving them bereft of curiosity and creativity, he underlined that “a good pupil-teacher relationship inevitably has sexual overtones” and that acknowledgement and proper channeling of these tensions would lead to a better educational environment.”

A substantial portion of Goodman’s literary output was devoted to discussing his sexual proclivity in fictional form, thus, Martin, New York, 1933.

What’s even more interesting is that Goodman’s difficulty with the educational establishment was only partly due to its bureaucratic structure. It was mainly due to his habit of diddling, or trying to diddle,  his young charges. Indeed, that was the subject of an autobiographical novel he wrote three years after one of his three firings. Steve Horowitz reviews Goodman’s book, “Parent’s Day,”

“DESPITE Paul Goodman’s accomplishments as a writer and social critic, he has been best remembered as an educator. Yet Goodman hadano great success as a teacher. He never could get along well with the bureaucracies of large institutions, and though he had many teaching
jobs, they rarely lasted more than a year. Goodman’s positions were not renewed, usually because of his homosexual activities.

Goodman’s theories on education generally concerned children rather than college students. He was angry about the way the  American school system functioned to reduce a child’s individuality. Goodman was especially interested in questions about adolescent sexuality and school structure. The “most pressing issue in most of our homes,” he wrote A.S. Neill of Summerhill fame back in the early 1950s, was “the witnessing or not-witnessing (and participation or censoring) of children in the first years of the sexual intercourse of the adults.” Goodman believed that educators needed to help students with their sexual development. Ideas like this earned Goodman a reputation as a dangerous crank during the 1940s and 1950s. Neill considered Goodman a theorist, rather than a pragmatist, when it came to education. But Goodman had taught at Manumit, a progressive school in upstate New York, back in 1943. Goodman was fired from this job, again because of his homosexual activities. Parents’ Day is the story of Goodman’s experience at Manumit. It is a work of autobiographical fiction, as Goodman exaggerates what happens as he struggles to gain perspective. The homosexual relationship between teacher and student is bluntly stated. Goodman wrote the book three years after the fact as part of his Reichian self-analysis. He tries to understand his behavior, rather than justify it. Parents’ Day could not find a publisher during the 1940s because of its explicit homo-erotic content.

A friend printed up an edition of five hundred in 1951. It received only one review and has been unavail­able for many years. Black Sparrow Press, which has been reissuing much of Goodman’s self-published work, has recently made Parents’ Day available to a wide audience for the first time.

The book is often hilariously funny. The seriousness of the mem­ories and ideas discussed does not dampen the narrator’s enthusiasm.

His predicament (Why am I living/how do I get laid?) is only exacerbated by this constant self-questioning. He never finds any satisfactory answers, but after a while, just asking the questions brings him relief.

It’s like that joke with which Woody Allen begins Annie Hall : two large middle-aged Jewish women are eating dinner at a popular

Catskill resort hotel. One woman says to the other, “The food here is awful.” To which the other responds: “Yes, and such small portions.”

[Lila: Not surprising that Horowitz would bring up Woody Allen, since Goodman made a cameo appearance in Annie Hall and Allen’s resume also includes pederasty and pedophilic abuse, which it would be brutalist, I suppose, to mention.

It might also be brutalist to point out that Goodman endlessly cruised the waterfront for young males, even while going through two common-law wives and had a reputation for being callous to people – not exactly a preferred trait in an educator. Indeed, he was a poster-child for arrested development (he was, after all, effectively fatherless):

“He would, as the composer Ned Rorem tells it in the film, make “passes at literally everybody. I mean everybody—men and women and people’s mothers and the president of the university.”

He once shocked guests by French-kissing his dog.

Nathan Abrams in The Triple Exthnics lists Goodman, along with Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, as the intellectual vanguard of the sexual revolution that normalized homosexuality and pornography in the US in a matter of a few decades:

“Goodman knows he cannot resolve his mixed feeling about his tenure at Manumit. He acted on his sincere desires, yet he hurt other people.

Still, Goodman isn’t sure if he would act any differently if the situation reoccurred. He is introspective, but non-judgmental.
What Goodman learned from teaching at Manumit, and his reflec­tions while writing this book, form the basis of his thought on young  adult education. In Parents’ Day, one can glimpse the human teacher inside the humanitarian educator with all his faults. As such, the book makes a powerful statement. Follow your impulses, Goodman says, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. That is the only moral choice one can make in this imperfect world.”

Here we see a core principle of  the politically correct libertarians – every choice is equally good and none can be judged. The only wrong is to find anything wrong.

The only brutes, to paraphrase Jeffrey Tucker, are those who condemn brutality.

Yet, what could be more brutal than a grown man, with ample outlet for his sexual proclivities, abusing the trust of parents to violate their children and then indoctrinate them with beliefs in direct opposition to their own?

A man who teaches young children that every impulse must be followed? A man who was incapable of controlling his own impulses, and more importantly, incapable of regretting them.

“His private journals, Rosenberg wrote, were a chronicle of hunger for sex, recognition, community, and transcendence.”

A man who could not ever escape from his hungers and his own self.

A defender of pedophilia:

“My own view, let me say, is that no sexual practices whatever, unless they are malicious or extremely guilt-ridden, do any harm to anybody, including children. Certainly far more harm is done by any attempts to repress, frighten, or denigrate.”

One of the trio (Marcuse and Reich were the other two) who sold the West on the gospel of sex.

A disappointed man, even in lust:

A historian trying to explain the emptiness of modern leftist thinking could do worse than start with Growing Up Absurd.

An arrogant men, obsessed with his own sexual prowess:

“Goodman was a hard guy to like. Acquaintances described him as arrogant, self-absorbed, and sexually unremitting. When he wasn’t coming on—to women and men (mostly men); old and young (mostly young); sailors, waiters, and college presidents—he was talking about it. “He was so goddamn proud of his prick,” Grace Paley notes, visibly unimpressed, in Lee’s film.”

If that is not brutalism, what is?

Goodman was, of course, much more than his sexual identity practices.

But clever theories and high-flown rhetoric aside, the liberty he  practiced – and espoused- conforms to the Jeffrey Tucker vision of “humanitarian” liberty, wherein those with the loudest lobbies determine which exercise of liberty is brutal and which humanitarian.

I guess children aren’t part of the humanity that can pay good money to propagandists to put lipstick on libertarians pigs.

Bionic Mosquito on Libertarian Purges

I have had my problems with both Rothbard and Ron Paul, but I can see where Bionic is coming from. My problems with R & RP are that they don’t give enough to conservatives, not that they are too conservative (socially), which is why they’re unpopular with the Bleeders and their friends. The Bleeders object to R and to RP from the left.

Mind you, I consider myself a bleeder. I bleed for people mangled in war, starved; deprived of electricity by cyber-attacks; deprived of food and water by rotten policies; deprived of clean air and roads by rotten human beings.

So I don’t have much blood left over to bleed for  the freedom to corrupt children on tax-payer money or practice the perversion-du-jour free of criticism.

  1. It is not the beginning of a purge, it is the continuation of the (attempted) purge of Rothbard with a tangential chapter being the (attempted) purge of Ron Paul.

Anyway, I must say I respect Ron Paul for his stance on abortion, which has been unvarying.

Brutalist Humanitarians: Volume 2: The Corruption of Children

The Sodomizing of Our Churches, by O.R. Adams:

“The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States is a high sounding name chosen by the Kinsey group to indoctrinate children and young people with their perverted ideas on sexuality. It is not an institution of our federal government. “In 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was launched by the Kinsey Institute. Its objective was to teach Kinseyan ideology as sex education in our schools. SIECUS (which now calls itself the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States ) imprinted the new Kinsey variant standard on almost all sex education curricula.”[15] Wardell Pomeroy was a coauthor with Kinsey on sexual publications, was Kinsey’s biographer, and worked with him on the “sexual research” with small children.[16] “The SIECUS Sex Education Curriculum Board was led by Pomeroy, Bell, Calderwood, Calderone, and McIlvenna – all Kinseyans and all committed to Kinsey’s research findings, deviant standards and pedophile promotions.”[17]

A PDF on SIECUS sex education can be downloaded from its website. It is very subtle and misleading, but even in this publication, it advocates homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and presents many kinds of perverted sexual activity as normal, and without censor as being wrong – even between small children. It presents “masturbation, either alone or with a partner,” as an acceptable practice for children. (Page 52, of PDF) The SIECUS sex education material is designed for presentation to all children, from kindergarten to grade 12. The actual workings of this organization and the sex education programs are far worse than even the PDF guidelines. They bring in lesbians and “gays” to indoctrinate the children with every kind of perversion there is. Much of the material and activity is vile and pornographic. Many lawsuits have resulted from parents who try to keep their children from being subjected to this vile trash.

We should ask ourselves why anyone would want to give sex education to small children – even as young as those in kindergarten. I believe that there are two primary reasons. One is that they want to brainwash children into the acceptance of homosexuality at an early age. This will pave the way for the selling of the homosexual agenda later, including same-sex marriage. Also, more of them may become homosexuals. The other reason is that SIECUS is still a Kinsey type organization. Kinsey and his associates seemed to have an obsession with sexual abuse of small children – only they did not consider it abuse. They argue that it was beneficial to the child. The same argument is made by the pedophile organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. (NAMBLA).

Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy’s sexual research with Kinsey on small children included the infamous “Table 34”, which lists sexual responses in babies as young as four months old—data that could only have come from child molesters, or people lying about it.[18]

Pomeroy’s books for children “ten and up,” “Boys and Sex” (henceforth, BAS) and “Girls and Sex,” consistently encourage kids to experiment with sex and ignore parental teaching.[19] He also promoted vile and bizarre sadomasochism and brutality as being “loving and sexually exciting.”[20]

Both Kinsey and Pomeroy seemed obsessed with “pre-adolescent eroticism and orgasm” and stimulating babies, some so young they couldn’t even talk, to try to get them to have orgasms.[21] It has never been clear to me to what extent they actually participated in this criminal behavior of molesting such small children, but it would appear that there had to be at least some hands on participation, as well as cooperating with other pedophiles in this criminal behavior.

Pomeroy has noted that the Kinsey team tested for motility of sperm, obtained from masturbation of small boys, with microscopic examinations.[22] Now just how close would that participation necessarily be? The opinion of Dr. Lester Caplan, a Baltimore physician and member of the American Board of Pediatrics, was that children of that age would not have willingly submitted to such abuse.[23]

Kinsey publicly claimed that his “scientific” findings showed children “derived definite pleasure” from their experiences.[24]

Pomeroy recommended sex with animals ‘potentially joyous,’ unless one is discovered by the inhibited and sexually repressive ‘Mrs. Grundys’ of the world.”[25]

“Like Kinsey, the SIECUS Report (1996) urged the use of ‘sexually explicit visual, printed, or online materials for school children … .”[26]

In actual practice, this so-called sex education in public schools has turned out to be extremely vile, filthy and bizarre. It has included such things as having children put condoms on such things as bananas and cucumbers; instructing them graphically about the engaging in oral and anal sex – both homosexual and heterosexual. And such things are always presented as normal and acceptable conduct. Homosexual marriage is promoted to the children with special books for that purpose. All of this is covered at length in As We Sodomize America, under books, on this website, and can easily be found from looking at the table of contents. Also, material may be quickly found by doing word searches using the words, sex education, and SIECUS, in the book.

The homosexualists plan to sell pedophilia to us in the same manner that they have homosexuality, generally:

The classification of pedophilia as normal sexual orientation is not the final step of the Kinseyesque agenda. Another sex theorist has attempted to advance the status of the pedophile to that of Good Samaritan, dedicated to helping children learn about, and develop, their sexuality. In other words, pedophiles could be viewed as natural helpers of children, with special gifts—much as John Money views homosexuals as special People … .

In her article “Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experience” (Journal of Sex Education & Therapy 15(1):3-12, 1989), Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., advocates a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the child. She minimizes the harmful effect of what has generally been perceived as child sexual abuse; and she emphasizes the harmful effect of “society’s condemnation” of adult-child sex—an approach straight out of the pages of Kinsey et al. *** [27]

Kinsey’s research contains the only body of experimental data purporting to demonstrate that children from a very young age are sexual and have sexual needs. This wisdom is part of the “scientific” foundation of modern sex education, allowing Lester Kirkendall, a sex education pioneer and Kinsey colleague, to predict in a profession journal in 1985, that once our sense of guilt diminishes, cross-generational (adult-child) sex and other forms of sexual expression “will become legitimate.”[28] [Emphasis added.]

So, we see how this sex education is a part of the homosexual-pedophile agenda.

Many of these things remind me of the following from a part of a homosexual activist’s fantasy that has now become true:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We will seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.[29]

When churches and their members can be convinced that sodomy is moral, they have been convinced that wrong is right and right is wrong. It shows that people, generally, can be convinced of anything with enough incessant pressure and propaganda.

Now the affirming United Churches of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Churches, who have declared sodomy and homosexual marriage to be acceptable things, are embracing the SIECUS sex educations programs for their children, from kindergarten on up. There is no record that even Sodom and Gomorrah advocated homosexual marriage – much less the indoctrinating of children that sodomy and homosexual marriage are acceptable things. The sodomizing of these churches is now complete. It would be much better for a decent family to belong to no church at all, or even be atheists.

Jeffrey Tucker’s Brutalist Humanitarianism

UPDATE 3: The real brutalism: A critique of Jeffrey Tucker (American Catholic)

UPDATE 2:

“Thick and thin: The Libertarian Split,” C. J. Engel, reformedlibertarian.com

expresses what the minority of Christian libs feel about Tucker’s underhanded attack on them.

UPDATE:

I knew that the brutalist architecture = totalitarian ideology rang a bell for me and after some digging I found that the equation has been made before:

“Ayn Rand, Totalitarian Architecture, Brutalism, and Busselization,” (October, 2011)

Given Tucker’s attitude toward IP (pro-hacking and plagiarism) and my own experience of his negligence with attribution, I wonder if this piece isn’t where he picked up the idea.

ORIGINAL POST

Jeff Tucker, ex of Mises, now of Agora, the guy who reduced me to an editor of a book I co-wrote, then got sniffy at my objecting  to his misattribution (which was choreographed by certain enemies of mine who pay his check, one way or other)…that Jeff Tucker has got the libertarian world roiled up over a fairly inane article in which he divides libertarians into two camps –  brutalists and humanists.

Really?

Why not Guns and Roses? Or Beauties and Beasts?

Guess which side he belongs to?

Yeah….surprise.

The brutes versus humanitarians thing is just a replay of a tactic left-libertarians have been using for a while now to purge the libertarian movement of paleo-libertarians – people who hold Christian or traditionalist views of things, but don’t intend to use the law to enforce their views.

That describes the LRC crowd and their fellow travelers. I used to think I was one of them until I suspected that they might be the right-wing of the controlled opposition.

Tucker and Co. of course are almost certainly the more lucrative  left-wing controlled opposition.

For the sake of keeping the libertarian sheep happy, both groups vociferously shout their libertarian slogans, but their silences say more than their shouts and by their silences are they known.

Between the two, the LRC crowd is by several orders of magnitude more honorable and scholarly, so despite all my reservations, I tend to agree with them.

Besides, no one else is rooting for babies.

But the continual creation of divisions – thick and thin libertarians (Bleeding Heart Libertarians), gorillas versus gods (Paul Rosenberg of Cryptohippie), and now, brutalists versus humanitarians (Tucker and the IP socialists) betrays an agenda – these are all ways to ostracize and shame Christians for their beliefs, while preventing Christians from even expressing their core beliefs.

In other words, this is a WAR of ideology….the transvaluation reversal of traditional values.

That’s firmly in the “activist” tradition of the Jewish-led Civil Rights coalition, which, having got its start busting up the networks of the Anglo-Saxon dominant class and forcing entry into the halls of Gentile power, then turned around and practiced a far greater ethnic solidarity and nepotism, once the “commanding heights” of the economy were taken.

Now that the Gentiles have gotten wise, the left-liberal establishment is tightening the screws. Hence libertarian thought-control, right (Rothbardianism) and left (“brutalism,” and the Gorilla-God dichotomy).

What it amounts to is that you can call the Madonna a whore and you can call a whore Madonna,  but you can never call a whore a whore.

Not unless you want to be a brutalist. Or a thin Gorilla.

In other words, employ all the coercive power of language (“bigots” “haters”) to traditional views, while denouncing plain-speaking, even when it’s not intentionally shaming (“sodomy”, “prostitution,” :homosexuality,” “baby”).

Most of all, insist on manipulative euphemisms  – gay, hooker, foetus – that assume the moral high-ground.

Tucker’s piece is that kind of Orwellian exercise, only largely unsuccessful and easy to see through.

Thus it was seen through. Thank God.

See below for the overwhelmingly negative response (except from other IP socialists/communists)

“Jeffrey Tucker reduces core libertarian ideals to brutalism” (Robert Wenzel)

“Jeffrey Tucker’s Case Against Libertarianism” (Christoper Cantwell)

“Jeffrey Tucker and Libertarianism.me” (Bionic Mosquito)

“Why is Jeffrey Tucker promoting cultural brutalism?” (Ian Huyett)

In defense of libertarian brutalism” (Kathy Shaindle)

“A Critique of Against Libertarian Brutalism” (Paul Bonneau)

“Libertarianism Ill-defined” (Anarchist Note-book)

“Libertarians are either brutes or humanitarians, so says collectivist libertarian” (freefabulousgirl)

“Against libertarian post-modernism” (The Right Stuff)

Getting liberty wrong,” (Politics and Prosperity) – a conservative site, which actually makes the most cogent intellectual argument against the piece – it commits an enormous act of intellectual collectivism, while claiming to be individualist.

Of course, that’s a problem with ALL of libertarian ideology, which is why I am not a libertarian after the American model.

I don’t think I ever really was, because I always took a minarchist position and I have never been an absolutist about rights: I don’t think they over-ride or excuse obligations.

I defend liberty, not libertarianism.

Another side of Belle Knox

#79 Last spring I was really depressed. I got a text from Miriam Weeks. She realized I hadn’t been myself and asked me what was wrong. I haven’t told her, but when I got that text I was about to kill myself. That was really the first time I felt like someone cared about me. She saved my life. Thanks

A short history of US Government human experimentation

From WhatReallyHappened.com, a short history of the US Govt’s human experimentation:


PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79]
TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520
“CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM”

The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies.”


“The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States].”

-SOURCE-
Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.


DOES OUR GOVERNMENT RESPECT HUMAN LIFE?

The following list comes from declassified documents, news reports, videos, the National Archives, and from the final report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive/radiation/

1833): Dr. William Beaumont, an army surgeon physician, pioneers gastric medicine with his study of a patient with a permanently open gunshot wound to the abdomen and writes a human medical experimentation code that asserts the importance of experimental treatments, but also lists requirements stipulating that human subjects must give voluntary, informed consent and be able to end the experiment when they want. Beaumont’s Code lists verbal, rather than just written, consent as permissible (Berdon).

1845: (1845 – 1849) J. Marion Sims, later hailed as the “father of gynecology,” performs medical experiments on enslaved African women without anesthesia. These women would usually die of infection soon after surgery. Based on his belief that the movement of newborns’ skull bones during protracted births causes trismus, he also uses a shoemaker’s awl, a pointed tool shoemakers use to make holes in leather, to practice moving the skull bones of babies born to enslaved mothers (Brinker).

1895: New York pediatrician Henry Heiman infects a 4-year-old boy whom he calls “an idiot with chronic epilepsy” with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

1896: Dr. Arthur Wentworth turns 29 children at Boston’s Children’s Hospital into human guinea pigs when he performs spinal taps on them, just to test whether the procedure is harmful (Sharav).

1900: A U.S. doctor doing research in the Philippines infects a number of prisoners with the Plague. He continues his research by inducing Beriberi in another 29 prisoners. four test subjects die (Merritte, et al.; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Under commission from the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Walter Reed goes to Cuba and uses 22 Spanish immigrant workers to prove that yellow fever is contracted through mosquito bites. Doing so, he introduces the practice of using healthy test subjects, and also the concept of a written contract to confirm informed consent of these subjects. While doing this study, Dr. Reed clearly tells the subjects that, though he will do everything he can to help them, they may die as a result of the experiment. He pays them $100 in gold for their participation, plus $100 extra if they contract yellow fever (Berdon, Sharav).

1906: Harvard professor Dr. Richard Strong infects prisoners in the Philippines with cholera to study the disease; 13 of them die. He compensates survivors with cigars and cigarettes. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors cite this study to justify their own medical experiments (Greger, Sharav).

1907: Indiana passes the world’s first law authorizing the state to force the sterilization of those it deems unfit to reproduce. In Germany, Adolph Hitler is only 18 years old.

1911: Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research publishes data on injecting an inactive syphilis preparation into the skin of 146 hospital patients and normal children in an attempt to develop a skin test for syphilis. Later, in 1913, several of these children’s parents sue Dr. Noguchi for allegedly infecting their children with syphilis (“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War”).

1913: Medical experimenters “test” 15 children at the children’s home St. Vincent’s House in Philadelphia with tuberculin, resulting in permanent blindness in some of the children. Though the Pennsylvania House of Representatives records the incident, the researchers are not punished for the experiments (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

1915: Dr. Joseph Goldberger, under order of the U.S. Public Health Office, produces Pellagra, a debilitating disease that affects the central nervous system, in 12 Mississippi inmates to try to find a cure for the disease. One test subject later says that he had been through “a thousand hells.” In 1935, after millions die from the disease, the director of the U.S Public Health Office would finally admit that officials had known that it was caused by a niacin deficiency for some time, but did nothing about it because it mostly affected poor African-Americans. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors used this study to try to justify their medical experiments on concentration camp inmates (Greger; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

1918: In response to the Germans’ use of chemical weapons during World War I, President Wilson creates the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) as a branch of the U.S. Army. Twenty-four years later, in 1942, the CWS would begin performing mustard gas and lewisite experiments on over 4,000 members of the armed forces (Global Security, Goliszek).

1919: (1919 – 1922) Researchers perform testicular transplant experiments on inmates at San Quentin State Prison in California, inserting the testicles of recently executed inmates and goats into the abdomens and scrotums of living prisoners (Greger).

1925: Margaret Mead publishes “Coming of Age in Samoa”, an account of adolescent life in Samoa apparently devoid of the angst and stress of adolescence in more modern cultures. Liberals seize on this work as proof that by re-engineering the society, man himself can be re-engineered for the better; that environment only is what determines behavior. Being the provenance and justification of the liberal philosophy, Mead is elevated to a cultural heroine.

However, as Freemen pointed out in his critical analysis, Mead erred in using only two young women as her source of information. Samoans love a good joke, they love to “talk story” and during a later investigation by the government in Samoa, the women that Mead had talked to were not shy about admitting they had simply told Mead what Mead clearly wanted to hear, unaware of what Mead would do with the information, and Mead, dearly wishing to hear what she heard, never bothered to speak with any other Samoans. Had she done so, she would have found that Samoan children go through the same growing pains as children everywhere. The most obvious evidence that Mead was wrong was her assumption that Samoans were sexually promiscuous because the Hawaiians of the time were. In fact, the Samoan culture has never been a sexually promiscuous one.

Virtually the entire justification for government intrusion into private lives derived from Mead’s work, and it should hardly come as a surprise that both the liberal and anthropological establishment have reacted to this controversy much as the Catholic Church reacted to Galileo, and even though Mead’s basic conclusion of environment over heredity has been called into question, public policy continues to be shaped by it’s assumption.

1927: Carrie Buck of Charlottesville is legally sterilized against her will at the Virginia Colony Home for the Mentally Infirm. Carrie Buck was the mentally normal daughter of a mentally retarded mother, but under the Virginia law, she was declared potentially capable of having a “less than normal child” after having one normal child (by rape) and was forcibly sterilized.

The settlement of Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital (same institution, different name) in 1981 brought to an end the Virginia law. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 perfectly normal women were forcibly sterilized for “legal” reasons including alcoholism, prostitution, and criminal behavior in general.

1931: The Puerto Rican Cancer Experiment is undertaken by Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, Rhoads purposely infected his subjects with cancer cells. Thirteen of the subjects died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of details of his experiment , and in spite of Rhoads’ written opinions that the Puerto Rican population should be eradicated, Rhoads went on to establish U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama. He later was named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and was at the heart of the recently revealed radiation experiments on prisoners, hospital patients, and soldiers (Sharav; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.). these are covered in the ACHE report. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive/radiation/

1930s: Seventeen U.S. states have laws permitting forced sterilization. German officials cite those laws as precedent for the forced sterilization of Jews under Nazi rule.

1931 – 1933: Mental patients at Elgin State Hospital in Illinois are injected with radium-266 as an experimental therapy for mental illness (Goliszek).

1932: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek, University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library). (The government office supervising the study was the predecessor to today’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC)).

1932: Margaret Sanger. the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote in “A Plan For Peace” that her aims were, “To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization”. Between 2000-4000 forced sterilizations per year were taking place in the United States. The following year, when Ernst Rudin established the Nazi system for forced sterilization of those it deemed unfit to reproduce, Rassenhygiene (Race hygiene), he chose as his inspiration and model the writings of William H. Tucker, associate professor of psychology at Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey, USA. When Rudin’s forced sterilization of Jews by irradiation with X-rays was revealed, Margaret Sanger refused to denounce him.

1932: Veterans from WW1, made homeless by the stock market crash of 1929, build a tent city near Washington D.C. while they try to collect on a promised combat bonus which the government has failed to pay (a situation the US troops in Bosnia and Iraq can identify with). Rather than pay the money, the government orders US Cavalry to destroy the tent city. The troops attack the camp on horseback with drawn sabers, against unarmed men, woman, & children.

If anyone doubts that our government would use it’s own weapons against it’s own troops, gaze upon this atrocity. These were not deserters. They were honorable soldiers, who had won the World War, been refused their promised pay, made homeless by the government’s economic policies, then cut down.

1934: Leon Whitley, of the American Eugenics Society, receives a letter requesting a copy of his recent book,”The Case for Sterilization”. He mails it off, and soon receives a personal letter of thanks…from Adolph Hitler.

In his letter of thanks for American writer Madison Grant, Hitler declares Grant’s book,”The Great Race” to be his “bible”.

1935: The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.

1937: Scientists at Cornell University Medical School publish an angina drug study that uses both placebo and blind assessment techniques on human test subjects. They discover that the subjects given the placebo experienced more of an improvement in symptoms than those who were given the actual drug. This is first account of the placebo effect published in the United States (“Placebo Effect”).

1939: In order to test his theory on the roots of stuttering, prominent speech pathologist Dr. Wendell Johnson performs his famous “Monster Experiment” on 22 children at the Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home in Davenport. Dr. Johnson and his graduate students put the children under intense psychological pressure, causing them to switch from speaking normally to stuttering heavily. At the time, some of the students reportedly warn Dr. Johnson that, “in the aftermath of World War II, observers might draw comparisons to Nazi experiments on human subjects, which could destroy his career” (Alliance for Human Research Protection).

1941: Dr. William C. Black infects a 12-month-old baby with herpes as part of a medical experiment. At the time, the editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Francis Payton Rous, calls it “an abuse of power, an infringement of the rights of an individual, and not excusable because the illness which followed had implications for science” (Sharav).

1941: An article in a 1941 issue of Archives of Pediatrics describes medical studies of the severe gum disease Vincent’s angina in which doctors transmit the disease from sick children to healthy children with oral swabs (Goliszek).

1941: Drs. Francis and Salk and other researchers at the University of Michigan spray large amounts of wild influenza virus directly into the nasal passages of “volunteers” from mental institutions in Michigan. The test subjects develop influenza within a very short period of time (Meiklejohn).

1941: Researchers give 800 poverty-stricken pregnant women at a Vanderbilt University prenatal clinic “cocktails” including radioactive iron in order to determine the iron requirements of pregnant women (Pacchioli).

1942: The United States creates Fort Detrick, a 92-acre facility, employing nearly 500 scientists working to create biological weapons and develop defensive measures against them. Fort Detrick’s main objectives include investigating whether diseases are transmitted by inhalation, digestion or through skin absorption; of course, these biological warfare experiments heavily relied on the use of human subjects (Goliszek).

1942: U.S. Army and Navy doctors infect 400 prison inmates in Chicago with malaria to study the disease and hopefully develop a treatment for it. The prisoners are told that they are helping the war effort, but not that they are going to be infected with malaria. During Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors later cite this American study to defend their own medical experiments in concentration camps like Auschwitz (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

1942: The Chemical Warfare Service begins mustard gas and lewisite experiments on 4,000 members of the U.S. military. Some test subjects don’t realize they are volunteering for chemical exposure experiments, like 17-year-old Nathan Schnurman, who in 1944 thinks he is only volunteering to test “U.S. Navy summer clothes” (Goliszek). The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.

1943: In response to Japan’s full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.

1943: In order to “study the effect of frigid temperature on mental disorders,” researchers at University of Cincinnati Hospital keep 16 mentally disabled patients in refrigerated cabinets for 120 hours at 30 degrees Fahrenheit (Sharav).

1944: U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.

1944: As part of the Manhattan Project that would eventually create the atomic bomb, researchers inject 4.7 micrograms of plutonium into soldiers at the Oak Ridge facility, 20 miles west of Knoxville, Tenn. (“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge”).

1944: Captain A. W. Frisch, an experienced microbiologist, begins experiments on four volunteers from the state prison at Dearborn, Mich., inoculating prisoners with hepatitis-infected specimens obtained in North Africa. One prisoner dies; two others develop hepatitis but live; the fourth develops symptoms but does not actually develop the disease (Meiklejohn).

1944: Laboratory workers at the University of Minnesota and University of Chicago inject human test subjects with phosphorus-32 to learn the metabolism of hemoglobin (Goliszek).

1944-1946: In order to quickly develop a cure for malaria — a disease hindering Allied success in World War II — University of Chicago Medical School professor Dr. Alf Alving infects psychotic patients at Illinois State Hospital with the disease through blood transfusions and then experiments malaria cures on them (Sharav).

1944: A captain in the medical corps addresses an April 1944 memo to Col. Stanford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section, expressing his concerns about atom bomb component fluoride’s central nervous system (CNS) effects and asking for animal research to be done to determine the extent of these effects: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect … It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor … Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure.” The following year, the Manhattan Project would begin human-based studies on fluoride’s effects (Griffiths and Bryson).

1944: The Manhattan Project medical team, led by the now infamous University of Rochester radiologist Col. Safford Warren, injects plutonium into patients at the University’s teaching hospital, Strong Memorial (Burton Report).

1945: Continuing the Manhattan Project, researchers inject plutonium into three patients at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital (Sharav).

1945: The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence and the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States (“Project Paperclip”).

1945: Researchers infect 800 prisoners in Atlanta with malaria to study the disease (Sharav).

1945: “Program F” is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. (Griffiths and Bryson) One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.

1946: Gen. Douglas MacArthur strikes a secret deal with Japanese physician Dr. Shiro Ishii to turn over 10,000 pages of information gathered from human experimentation in exchange for granting Ishii immunity from prosecution for the horrific experiments he performed on Chinese, Russian and American war prisoners, including performing vivisections on live human beings (Goliszek, Sharav). Male and female test subjects at Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratories are given intravenous injections of arsenic-76 so that researchers can study how the human body absorbs, distributes and excretes arsenic (Goliszek).

1946: Continuing the Newburg study of 1945, the Manhattan Project commissions the University of Rochester to study fluoride’s effects on animals and humans in a project codenamed “Program F.” With the help of the New York State Health Department, Program F researchers secretly collect and analyze blood and tissue samples from Newburg residents. The studies are sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission and take place at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Strong Memorial Hospital (Griffiths and Bryson).

1946 – 1947: University of Rochester researchers inject four male and two female human test subjects with uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per one kilogram of body weight in order to study how much uranium they could tolerate before their kidneys become damaged (Goliszek).

1946: Six male employees of a Chicago metallurgical laboratory are given water contaminated with plutonium-239 to drink so that researchers can learn how plutonium is absorbed into the digestive tract (Goliszek).

1946: Researchers begin using patients in VA hospitals as test subjects for human medical experiments, cleverly worded as “investigations” or “observations” in medical study reports to avoid negative connotations and bad publicity (Sharav).

1946: The American public finally learns of the biowarfare experiments being done at Fort Detrick from a report released by the War Department (Goliszek).

1946 – 1953: The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission sponsors studies in which researchers from Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Boston University School of Medicine feed mentally disabled students at Fernald State School Quaker Oats breakfast cereal spiked with radioactive tracers every morning so that nutritionists can study how preservatives move through the human body and if they block the absorption of vitamins and minerals. Later, MIT researchers conduct the same study at Wrentham State School (Sharav, Goliszek).

1946: Human test subjects are given one to four injections of arsenic-76 at the University of Chicago Department of Medicine. Researchers take tissue biopsies from the subjects before and after the injections (Goliszek).

1947: Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).

1947: A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

1947: The CIA begins studying LSD’s potential as a weapon by using military and civilian test subjects for experiments without their consent or even knowledge. Eventually, these LSD studies will evolve into the MKULTRA program in 1953 (Sharav).

1947: (1947 – 1953) The U.S. Navy begins Project Chatter to identify and test so-called “truth serums,” such as those used by the Soviet Union to interrogate spies. Mescaline and the central nervous system depressant scopolamine are among the many drugs tested on human subjects (Goliszek).

1948: Based on the secret studies performed on Newburgh, N.Y. residents beginning in 1945, Project F researchers publish a report in the August 1948 edition of the Journal of the American Dental Association, detailing fluoride’s health dangers. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) quickly censors it for “national security” reasons (Griffiths and Bryson).

1950: The CIA and later the Office of Scientific Intelligence begin Project Bluebird (renamed Project Artichoke in 1951) in order to find ways to “extract” information from CIA agents, control individuals “through special interrogation techniques,” “enhance memory” and use “unconventional techniques, including hypnosis and drugs” for offensive measures (Goliszek).

Belle Knox: Flipping Off Biology

Catholic writer Nick Steves, at the Reactivity Place, addresses the unedifying saga of Duke University freshman and A student, Belle Knox, the pseudonym under which the 18 year old daughter of a US army hematologist and devout Catholic, Kevin Weeks, has become notorious.

Belle Knox’s notoriety stems from her work as a star in “barely legal” adult films in California. She filmed porn when she was on break from college. No one knew about the secret life of the freshman sociology and women’s studies major until a fellow student at Duke outed her to their classmates.

The outer himself suffers from a $1000/month porn habit.

Fighting back against a barrage of abuse, threats, and insults from her peers, Knox, a self-styled libertarian Republican and sex-positive feminist, has taken to the national media, with a defense of her career choice and a twitter stream of raw images from it.

No one is exploiting her, she claims, and she finds her “home,” her “art,” and her “joy” in porn.

Just to be clear, the videos in question are both raw and violent, not Playboy shoots.

Her first recorded act is described as a “rape” by her co-star.

This is another story I don’t want to write about, but feel compelled to, especially as “Belle Weeks” is half Indian (her mother is Punjabi).

Both parents are said to be devout Catholics. Her older brother, Paul, and his wife, are engaged in Christian out-reach. She herself worked for Catholic charities, while she was a high school student at Gonzaga Prep.

Nick Steves describes his reaction to the story, as the father of four daughters:

“The Weeks family is devastated, Belle’s Jesuitical protestations notwithstanding. I don’t need a news report to tell me that. The somewhat flexible and fluid boundaries of normal human psychology do not stretch that far. Any father who would not fly into a murderous rage at the pimping of his daughter is profoundly defective. I would. I’d kill the bastard(s) if given the glimmer of a chance and leave not a few permanent stripes on the daughter in question to boot… and I wouldn’t even say I was sorry (‘cept maybe to God). And a sane society would moreover look the other way when these, necessarily rare, acts of vengeance occurred.

Of course we do not live in a sane society— where mere symptoms are treated as pathologies, and genuine pathologies no longer even have names that can be spoken.

What of Miriam Weeks, who claims to “know exactly what” she’s doing? She’s ruined. Oh she’ll enjoy the rush of brain chemicals for a few years more no doubt. Money, attention, big *****. But she’s no idea of the barren, lonely hell she’s cultivated for herself. It is unclear any woman under 30 can truly contemplate it. Certainly not an 18-year old Duke freshman. Biology is the biggest bitch of all, and you think you can just flip her off? Good luck with that.

Comment:

For the liberal media, and many libertarians, it’s all no big deal.

“Make love, not war,” says Robert Wenzel at Economic Policy Journal, an outlet for many paleo-libertarians.  If the paleos feel that way, imagine the lemming libs.

“Prostitutes are noble.”

That’s the new mantra, replacing the old religious ones. It’s still a mantra, though.

Prostitutes qua prostitutes are not noble, though individuals might well be. They might not be much worse than their fellow man, but their chosen life is certainly worse.

Prostitution is not Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman.”

The average age of prostitutes is around 25.

(The statistic of 12-13 years average age of entry into prostitution seems to be hype or propaganda, even though it appears on apparently sober government websites).

The average prostitute has a past of sexual and physical abuse, a present of sexual disease and drugs, and a future of early death. The average age of death for prostitutes is 34.

That is the feminist empowerment that Belle Knox and her enablers are applauding.

Khobragade charges dismissed; court disses Bharara

Well, now you know whom to go to when you have the New York prosecutor on your tail  – Daniel Arshack, Devyani Khobragade’s lawyer, who won a dismissal of the charges against his client being pursued by the New York attorney, Preet Bharara, who, until now, has had a perfect score as a prosecutor:

CNN reports:

“New York (CNN) — The Indian diplomat whose arrest sparked a testy exchange between the United States and India won a dismissal of a federal indictment Monday, according to court documents.

Devyani Khobragade was arrested and strip searched by federal agents in New York City in December after federal authorities accused Khobragade of lying on a visa application about how much she paid her housekeeper. She was indicted on January 9 by a federal grand jury on one count of visa fraud and one count of making false statements.

Khobragade then filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming she was “cloaked in diplomatic immunity at the time of her arrest,” according to the motion.

The court agreed, stating that Khobragade was “appointed a Counselor to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations, a position that cloaked her with full diplomatic immunity,” according to court documents. She was appointed to that position on January 8, a day before she was indicted.

“Even if Khobragade had no immunity at the time of her arrest and has none now, her acquisition of immunity during the pendency of proceedings mandates dismissal,” U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote.

“The government may not proceed on an indictment obtained when Khobragade was immune from the jurisdiction of the court,” Scheindlin continued.

Khobragade’s attorney, Daniel Arshack, said in a statement that Khobragade is pleased that “the rule of law has prevailed.”