Wednesday, September 27, 2017






We're just too clever to find a boyfriend! It may sound insufferably smug, but these women say their high intellect means they struggle to meet someone

There is some truth and a lot of mistaken assumptions below. Men are less keen on going to university these days because that is no longer where the money is.  Tradesmen such as electricians and plumbers are the high income earners these days. So for a woman to find a man with similar interests and background is difficult. 

But it always was.  Traditionally women were interested in clothes and babies while men were interested in cars and beer. Interests in common have never been a major factor in  male/female pairings and it is foolish to expect it.

And the women described below have, if anything, accentuated that difference.  They all seem to have done do-gooder studies of some sort. That fits a woman's biological role as a carer but it is not a biological role for a male and is more likely to put men off than elicit approval.  And for a women to have done feminist studies is worst of all.  That would send most men running.  Feminism is just too hostile to them.

And the claim below that a brainy background is uniquely handicapping to women is an example of how identity-conscious people routinely assign to their identity something that is not identity related at all. 

Take the example of blacks.  Everyone experiences social exclusion and disapproval of some sort for all sorts of reasons but a black will often attribute all such disapproval to his blackness when it may have many other causes -- such as his excessive self-esteem.

And it is true that a highly educated person will be somewhat isolated by that.  But such isolation happens to MEN TOO.  When I used to go to parties many years ago, I would have two answers ready to the usual "what do you do for a living" question.  At that time I was a university lecturer but also drove taxis part time for a bit of extra money. 

If I replied to the party question "I am a university lecturer", the space around me would clear within minutes.  Nobody wanted to talk to me.  On other occasions I would reply "I am a taxi driver".  That was a great social success.  Everybody would want to talk to me about taxi drivers they had met etc.  So the ladies below should stop being sexist about what is in fact normal social segregation. They are feeling unreasonably aggrieved and grievance has its own problems.

The focus on conversation is one I share but it is not necessarily wise.  In Australia the population is about 5% Han Chinese so there are a lot of short little Asian young ladies about.  And they HATE being shorter than almost anyone else around.  So they are determined to have taller children.  But the only way to do that is to get a tall man.  But the tall men are almost all Caucasians.  So that is what the little ladies go for. So it is common out and about where I live to see little Asian ladies on the arms of tall Caucasian  men.

So how come those Asian ladies can get a man  when the ladies below cannot?  Simple. Asian ladies don't want to know what the men think of Mr Trump or social issues generally.  They just want to know what he wants and do their best to give it to him.  And that suits the men.  Asian ladies tend to come across as very feminine and their obliging nature makes the man think he has hit the jackpot.  So there will be a lot of Eurasian children about in Australia before long.

So are there any lessons from that for the bereft ladies below?  There is a BIG lesson.  It is relationships that matter not your hobbies -- intellectual or otherwise.  Concentrate on people before all else and you will do well.  You might even find that "dumb" electrician to be a nice guy who will keep you in style.  And you can have your specialized conversations with your friends.

That's roughly what I do.  As a much published Ph.D. academic and as someone who ran Sydney Mensa for a number of years, I am betting that I have even greater difficulty than the ladies below in finding similarly qualified women to relate to. I never have.  So I don't try.  I seek and find women with a good heart and have my specialized conversations mostly with my son.

What I have just said runs hard against what women are mostly told these days but it is also traditional wisdom. And what has worked for thousands of years may have something to be said for it.



For Natasha Hooper, the most important part of pre-date preparation isn’t getting her hair done, waxing her legs or buying a new dress.

Instead, she is more preoccupied with composing a list of conversational topics which she hopes will bridge the gap between her highbrow preoccupations, and the more mainstream interests of her dates.

Waiting in a bar for a young man a few weeks ago, she ran through possible options, before settling on the subject of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. A surefire way, the 22-year-old undergraduate reasoned, to guarantee an interesting debate.

Yet while the 30-year-old office worker who sat down in front of her was handsome, polite and smartly-dressed, the minute Natasha brought up the Labour leader’s policies, any spark of attraction was extinguished. ‘When I mentioned Jeremy Corbyn he said: “Who’s that?” I couldn’t believe it,’ says Natasha.

After 90 minutes discussing what she describes as ‘benign’ subjects, such as reality TV and football, Natasha made her excuses and left, no closer to finding Mr Right.

With long dark hair, big brown eyes and a stunning Size 8 figure, Natasha — entering her final year at Goldsmiths, University of London — has no problem attracting male attention.

The issue, she explains, is the calibre of men she attracts. ‘I’m not claiming to be Albert Einstein, but I can’t seem to meet a man I find intellectually stimulating,’ she says. Nor is she the only well-educated young woman who says she is too clever to find love.

Indeed, she is one of a growing breed of women who fear — perhaps with good reason — they will be left on the proverbial shelf because of a shortage of educated men.

Recent figures from the university admissions service UCAS showed that 30,000 more women than men are starting degree courses in the UK. On A-level results day last month, 133,280 British women aged 18 secured a university place compared with 103,800 men of the same age.

The effects of this carry over into the workplace, where women aged from 22 to 29 typically now earn £1,111 more a year than their male peers.

This growing gulf between male and female attainment — the result, many believe, of the feminisation of the education system, with more female teachers, less physical exercise and an emphasis on the arts — is having troubling repercussions when it comes to relationships.

A recent study found more than 90 per cent of predominantly graduate women surveyed were delaying motherhood not to pursue careers, but because they couldn’t find a suitable man.

Some were so despairing they were considering freezing their eggs as an insurance policy.

Put simply, it is an oversupply of educated females. In China, they are called ‘leftover’ women.

‘It sounds cold and callous, but in demographic terms it’s true. There are not enough graduates for them,’ said the study’s author Marcia Inhorn, professor of anthropology at Yale University.

The upshot? Frustrated young women terrified of being left single and childless — and men driven by a sense of inadequacy.

‘Men may claim to want educated women, but don’t know how to deal with those they meet and some say they’re intimidated by me,’ says Natasha, who grew up in Birmingham and is single after breaking up with her boyfriend this year.

‘I feel I’m hitting a brick wall.’

Like many arts degrees, her media and communications course is dominated by female students, and Natasha claims the few male undergraduates ‘lack the intellectual maturity to handle conversations’.

‘One cancelled our date four times because he was too busy getting drunk. In class, their conversations centre around going to gigs and smoking weed at weekends, which is not what I’m looking for in a date.’

She prefers instead to date older men she meets through her part-time job as a nightclub promoter.

Yet even more mature men fail to show the requisite enthusiasm for her university projects — which include a radio documentary she recently produced on ‘the pressure that black women are under to adhere to white beauty stereotypes’.

One can imagine how such a topic could be a little alienating to many men, and Natasha herself admits ‘there’s only so much I can talk about my own interests without sounding patronising.’

She says that men often try to change the subject matter back to lads’ nights outs, holidays and sporting hobbies.

‘I’ll always listen to be polite, but superficial, self-indulgent conversation is an immediate red flag,’ she says.

Since the breakdown of her most recent relationship, with a DJ ten years her senior, Natasha has had a handful of dates, but declined to take things further.

‘Afterwards I’ll text to say our conversations weren’t flowing in the right direction. Most accept it although one, a company director, went on the defensive, saying I thought I was a princess,’ says Natasha.

‘I think he had anger issues.’ British women began to ‘catch up’ with men’s educational attainment levels in the Sixties, when larger numbers entered universities, but only recently have the roles been dramatically reversed, with men falling behind at an alarming rate.

‘In the Sixties there was a gendered way of pushing female graduates into jobs such as teaching and nursing,’ says Nichi Hodgson, author of The Curious History Of Dating: From Jane Austen To Tinder.

‘And only 20 or 30 years ago a man wanted his female partner to be smart because the assumption was that she would be the primary carer, staying at home to raise their children, who would then absorb her intellect.’

But now women are competing with men for the same careers — there are more female junior doctors than male, for example, while nearly two-thirds of practising lawyers in Scotland under 40 are women — their achievements have become more problematic.

‘Smart women raise the issue of who would take time off when they have children,’ says Hodgson. ‘After all, why should a female partner stop working if she’s studied hard for her career?

‘The reality is that with women getting more — and better — degrees, in the next ten to 20 years women will be smarter than men, in terms of how well they’re educated. And I don’t think men are ready for this.’

This is no surprise to Becca Porter, who graduated last year from Manchester University with a joint honours degree in history and sociology, and is now starting a masters in disability studies at Leeds University.

‘The sense of achievement I derive from learning seems alien to most men,’ says Becca, 23. ‘At school I wasn’t bothered about boys, but I’m at the stage where I’d like to share my life with someone.’

With a working-class upbringing — Becca’s mother is an activities co-ordinator and her father an engineer — Becca was not only the first in her family to go to university, but an anomaly among her male peers in Burnley, Lancashire.

Among those from poorer backgrounds, the gender divide is highly pronounced, with young women who were on free school meals 51 per cent more likely to go into higher education than men in similar circumstances.

‘The boys at my school mostly went into manual jobs after we left and seemed to think I had a high opinion of myself for going to university,’ says Becca. ‘They say I’m too bright for them.’

Becca recalls a factory worker she asked out in a bar while home for the holidays turning her down because she was ‘too clever’ for him.

‘We were having a great chat until he found out I was at university,’ says Becca. ‘I insisted I wasn’t too clever for him and he agreed to go on a shopping trip together for our first date.

‘But it was awful. I think he felt I should lead the conversation, so he barely spoke and I felt too awkward to say anything.’

Her longest relationship was with a car mechanic from Burnley last year. It lasted a few weeks.

‘He thought I viewed myself as a big shot,’ says Becca, who admits she found him ‘monosyllabic’.

‘Our conversations were mundane. When I tried to start an informed discussion — about religion or terrorism, for example — he had no idea how to react.

‘He didn’t understand that my degree meant I had a head full of information and when I asked him about his work all he could muster was that it had been “fine”.

‘In any case, there’s only so much you can talk about when you do the same job every day.’

Andrea Gould, 41, has two degrees and says her intellect has prevented her from finding love and having the family she longed for

In the event, Becca ended the relationship because, she says, he was always at work — an unfortunate fact of life many of us might sympathise with, but one Becca intends to put off for much of her 20s by doing a PhD in disability research after her masters.

She has dated around eight men in total — all non-graduates.

‘I know deep down they didn’t see me as relatable,’ she says. ‘I get the impression they’d rather date a girl without a degree. They don’t know how to react to my different life experiences and see my education as a barrier.’

So why doesn’t Becca date fellow students? Because, she says, of the class divide.

‘The few boys I met at university came from middle-class families in which a degree was expected of them,’ she explains. ‘They weren’t generally interested in their studies, whereas my degree was a big deal — I was there to learn.’

She acknowledges some of her degree subjects were a bit ‘out there’ — they included gender and sexuality in Africa and reproduction in new medical technology — but adds: ‘It was hurtful that men didn’t want to talk about them.

‘One date found the fact I studied from a feminist perspective offputting. Most mistakenly assume I hate men.’

Many believe the growing number of casualties from the intellectual chasm will be educated women in their 30s and 40s, who’ve failed to find men they deem their equal and are running out of time to start a family.

Andrea Gould, 41, from Frinton-on-Sea, Essex, has two degrees and says her intellect has prevented her from finding love and having the family she longed for.

‘Being an A-grade student has been an obstacle as much as a blessing. It has limited my choices in men,’ she says.

During both her degrees — she first studied English and German at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, then social policy at the same university for an extra ‘challenge’ — she claims male students fell into two camps. ‘There were geeky types into computer games, and leery lads who just wanted to drink and were intimidated by my studious nature,’ she recalls. ‘I didn’t want to be around either.’

Throughout her 20s and 30s Andrea — who worked as a foreign languages teacher before setting up an online furniture store — struggled to find anyone suitable.

Her longest relationship, for two years, was in her mid-30s with a musician. It ended because she disapproved of his use of cannabis.

‘Since then I’ve used online dating and tried to date only those who specified a similar level of education on their profile,’ she says.

‘But we had nothing in common. Men think I’m too serious. I want to talk about psychology and literature — they’re obsessed with UFOs and Harry Potter. Perhaps I’m too fussy, but I’m bored within an hour.’

Dr Elle Boag, a social psychologist at Birmingham City University, says: ‘More women graduate with the expectation of being challenged by conversation in a romantic context as well as in their careers. ‘This in turn can be intimidating for men, who often feel belittled by women who’ve outgrown them.’

For her part, Andrea insists that scintillating conversation isn’t too much to ask for. ‘I’m not after a man with money or a high-powered career, just someone to have an intellectual conversation with.

‘But I’m running out of time to start a family and that gives me a sense of emptiness.’

The solution, perhaps, for Andrea and the growing number of women in her situation, could be to master the art of compromise.

After all, as Dr Boag puts it: ‘A degree might make you think differently, but it doesn’t make you a better person. As women continue to excel, many might be better off exercising a bit more humility.’

SOURCE






Research Into ‘Non-PC’ Transgender Surgery Regret Blocked by British University

A British University has blocked an academic studying a reported surge in people regretting transgender surgery, claiming a “social media” backlash to the “politically incorrect” research could harm the institution.

Bath Spa University stopped Psychotherapist James Caspian from examining cases of people who had surgery to reverse a “gender reassignment” after finding they regretted the decision.

Mr. Caspian, 58, a councilor of 16 years who has specialized in and worked with transgender issues for years, slammed the institution for failing to respect “the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of inquiry”.

“The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media and criticism of the research would be criticism of the University and they also added it was better not to offend people,” he told BBC Radio 4.

Adding: “I was astonished at that decision. I think a University exists to encourage discussion, research, dissent even, challenging ideas that are out of date or not particularly useful.”

He pointed out that studies of the percentage of people regretting “transitioning” their gender ranged from a couple of per cent to 20 per cent, and said new research was needed as attitudes changed and practitioners observed a rise in those reversing surgery.

The university initially approved his research, but after he proposed finding more participants online and sent his ideas to the ethics sub-committee for clearance, he was told: “engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the University”.

“Attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university,” university authorities added, The Times reports. “The posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the university.”

Opponents of transgender ideology have claimed the transgender lobby is aggressive and even violent in its attempts to promote transgenderism and silence criticism, and some feminist campaigners have been physically attacked by trans activists.

“It’s ridiculous. I’m in my late fifties, I’m an expert in my field and I’m not even on social media. I’m not frightened at all. Asking questions is not a hate crime,” Mr. Caspian complained.

Continuing: “Where would stand the reputation of a university that cannot follow the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of inquiry?”

Bath Spa University said it was unable to comment while Mr. Caspian’s complaint was being investigated.

So-called “gender identity clinics” in the UK have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people claiming to be transgendered in recent years, with referrals shooting up by several hundred per cent at some.

In 2015, the National Health Service increased its budget for “treating” the transgendered to £22.72 million a year, up from £17.13 million.

SOURCE





The NFL's Worst Fumble Yet

President Donald Trump tapped into the sentiment of the vast majority of Americans over the weekend, and the Leftmedia hate him for it. "Trump turns sports into a political battleground," headlined The Washington Post, as if athletes, coaches, owners and commentators hadn't already politicized sports. What Trump did do was give voice from the most powerful bully pulpit in the land to what many Americans already think: Athletes who make millions of dollars each year to entertain us on the field should not spit in the face of our great nation by disrespecting the national anthem before games. Take the activism off the field.

"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a b—h off the field right now. Out! He's fired. He's fired!' " Trump said Friday. "You know, some owner is going to do that. He's going to say, ‘That guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired.' And that owner, they don't know it [but] they'll be the most popular person in this country." Trump made other similar comments throughout the weekend.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell responded with a complete lack of self-awareness: "Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities." It is the NFL that is allowing divisiveness and "an unfortunate lack of respect" for our country to be showcased every Sunday.

"Roger Goodell of NFL just put out a statement trying to justify the total disrespect certain players show to our country," Trump responded on Twitter. "Tell them to stand!"

The reaction in the NFL was predictable. Many more players joined the anthem protests, taking knees and locking arms. Even a couple of owners joined in. One instance that stood out was the Pittsburgh Steelers, who didn't take the field at all until after the national anthem — except for Steelers offensive tackle and former Army Ranger Alejandro Villanueva. "This We'll Defend" is the U.S. Army motto, and he upheld it with honor. For his part, coach Mike Tomlin was critical ... of Villanueva. "I was looking for 100 percent participation. We were gonna be respectful of our football team," he complained of Villanueva standing alone. Tomlin hoped to avoid controversy by skipping the anthem entirely, he claimed, but we'll bet his Rust Belt fan base sees it differently. The same goes for the Tennessee Titans and Seattle Seahawks, who skipped the "Star-Spangled Banner."

Worse, the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took their protest to London, where they disrespected our nation and flag on foreign soil. Yet they stood for the UK's anthem, "God Save the Queen." God save the one who can't see why that's outrageous.

Of course, it all started last year when Colin Kaepernick, who was abandoned by his black parents, then adopted and raised by a loving white couple, complained, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color." Leftists made Kaepernick a hero for his, er, stand, and then a martyr when no team would pick up the struggling quarterback and his following media circus.

Two weeks ago, ahead of the 9/11 attack observance, former Cleveland Browns Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown criticized the Browns team and Kaepernick for disrespecting our country: "I'm going to give you the real deal. I'm an American. I don't desecrate my flag and my national anthem. I'm not gonna do anything against the flag and the national anthem. ... This is my country, and I'll work out the problems, but I'll do it in an intelligent manner."

That is the "real deal," and the Browns got off their knees, but apparently there are still a lot of petulant overpaid adolescent athletes who think NFL fans are buying their fake celebrity indignation.

As The Wall Street Journal put it, "Americans don't begrudge athletes their free-speech rights — see the popularity of Charles Barkley — but disrespecting the national anthem puts partisanship above a symbol of nationhood that thousands have died for. Players who chose to kneel shouldn't be surprised that fans around the country booed them on Sunday." Millions more aren't booing — they're just tuning out.

And while the media blame this all on Trump, all he did was represent Americans fed up with the Left's political garbage.

SOURCE





Same-sex marriage supporter's racist rant

A SAME-sex marriage supporter has been captured on video in an expletive-ridden rant against a “Vote No” campaigner in Sydney.

The clip, which has now gone viral on Facebook after it amassed more than 53,000 views, shows a young man pointing his finger yelling, “It’s people like you in the country, are what are bringing this f**king country down.”

It comes after a group of “No” campaigners were handing out ‘It’s OK to vote No’ pamphlets at Chatswood on Sydney’s North Shore.

Shocked bystanders watched as the man said, “You’ve come here, we’ve accepted you into this country.”

When a woman hit back saying “we’ve accepted you into this country too” the man fired up saying “I’m Australian — my parents are Australian. I’m not being racist! I’ve got Aboriginal family. I’m not being racist at all.”

“You’re just being a f**king d***head by voting ‘No’. F*** you. F*** you. Respect people’s rights you gronk,” he yelled as he walked off.

A social media user uploaded the footage to the public on Facebook with the caption, “Your weekly dose of tolerance.”

“This man approached one of our team members and started yelling,” he wrote online.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************

Tuesday, September 26, 2017


Is multiculturalism destructive?

Bill Berotti

Yes, almost always. I am in favor of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multi-racial society but only as long as that society is not moving towards becoming multicultural.

And I am especially not in favor of the kind of multiculturalism that is nothing but a very transparent mask worn by people who, for one reason or another, feel an inexplicable need to express their hostility towards a dominant Western culture which, for the most part, has gotten things right, as evidenced by how many people are desperate to live here and how few seem desperate to leave.

People should of course feel free to be different, and I think these differences should be respected and even appreciated -- but not necessarily celebrated at a time when the core values and history of Western Civilization are coming under attack.

Unless I hear some good arguments to the contrary, it seems to me that multiculturalism is the very opposite of the kind of assimilation that allowed a country (or entire civilization) to feel as though they were one people, and that the proponents of multiculturalism are not, as they allege, bringing people together in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect but are instead driving us further apart with consequences that, though difficult to accurately predict, may nonetheless prove catastrophic.

If the critics of Western Civilization who claim that the West is intolerant and chauvinistic continue to grow, and if their voices continue to scream above those who disagree with them, these critics will soon get what they claim they fear.

SOURCE





France Apparently Has A Problem With Macho Men

French President Emmanuel Macron is planning to put an end to a big problem in France. No, it’s not terrorism. It’s the French “macho culture.”

According to Macron and his Gender Equality cabinet member Marlene Schiappa, French men are too manly. They’ve become so dangerous that women don’t feel safe dressing or walking how they please.

Which is surprising, as most French men and women dress alike. Gender equality at its finest.

Macron says French men can expect to be punished for cat calling women and asking for their numbers if the law goes through.

It’s pretty easy to see why some might think France is overly macho. It’s nearly impossible to carry a gun, lawmakers want to fine professional sports teams and political parties if they don’t meet a certain quota of female members, and the country has virtually open borders.

These poor 120 lb. French guys frolicking around in skinny jeans and blowing kisses to women from across the street are getting a bad rap. They’re not the problem.

The real problem in France is that they serve terrorism on a baguette and call it diversity.

While French men are legislated into helplessness, the country’s growing population of predominately Muslim immigrants have sectioned off areas of “no go zones” in big cities. These pockets aren’t made to assimilate and they surely aren’t told to be less macho. They’re notorious as one of France’s leading exporters of jihadists.

But it’s the French guys asking for a woman’s number that are the real problem.

SOURCE






Antifa -- America's Taliban

As columnist Charles Krauthammer once pointed out, one the first acts of the Taliban in Afghanistan was to blow up centuries-old statues of Buddha carved in a mountain cliff. They did it not because they were built by the United States or Israel or represented Western colonialism. They did it because they represented civilization and culture and ideas that were different than their own.

Today statues of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and other “racist” figures, with the exception of statues of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, a KKK “Grand Kleagle”, are the new statues of Buddha and the black masked Antifa thugs that confronted those white nationalists at Charlottesville are the new Taliban. President Trump was right to say “both sides” were at fault at Charlottesville, including the Black Lives Matter and Antifa mobs that showed up in black ninja outfits complete with shields and blunt instruments. Ironically, Trump’s words after Charlottesville, clear enough for those not already hating Trump, were more than enough for Susan Bro, mother of Charlottesville victim Heather Hyer:

The mother of the woman killed at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., thanked President Trump on Monday after he spoke out against hate groups for their role in the weekend’s violence.

“Thank you, President Trump, for those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred,” Susan Bro said in a statement, according to NBC News.
Antifa is a domestic terrorist group which, like the Taliban, wants to erase history and any national ideology that challenges their own virulent and violent ideology. They are, like their Taliban and brown shirt brethren, nihilists, bent on destroying anything that does not fit their jaundiced world view.

The violent presence of Antifa at Charlottesville was typified by the assault on a black conservative student at a Charlottesville vigil for Heather Heyer, who was killed during the violence:

A black student says he was assaulted over the weekend at a vigil for the victims of the Charlottesville protests because of his conservative beliefs.

Caleb Slater, the president of the Ithaca College Republicans in New York, was wearing a Young America’s Foundation hat at a Sunday evening vigil for Heather Heyer, the woman who was killed when a suspected white nationalist drove his car into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville on Saturday.

The vigil was organized by the Syracuse, New York, chapter of Black Lives Matter.

When masked members of the militant-left group Antifa saw Mr. Slater, they approached him, asked him about his hat, told him to leave and attacked him.

He said his assailants grabbed him by his clothes, choked him with his camera strap and pushed him into the street.
A new report shows that even the Obama administration was aware of this violent group as it participated in and eve precipitated violence at places lik Berkeley and at Trump for President rallies:

Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO.

Since well before the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, DHS has been issuing warnings about the growing likelihood of lethal violence between the left-wing anarchists and right-wing white supremacist and nationalist groups.

Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.

After President Donald Trump’s election in November, the antifa activists locked onto another target — his supporters, especially those from white supremacist and nationalist groups suddenly turning out in droves to hail his victory, support crackdowns on immigrants and Muslims and to protest efforts to remove symbols of the Confederacy.
Don’t expect this to be broadcast widely by the likes of CNN and MSNBC as they ignore the spread of Antifa into a national infestation of anarchy and violence. Recently the Daily Caller documented the spread of Antifa’s cancer to Philadelphia, the birthplace of American democracy:

An armed Antifa group is launching a new cell in Philadelphia, with support from the “alt-left” alternative media.

The group currently hosts anti-police workshops called “Our Enemies in Blue.” The group draws inspiration from convicted murderers and calls for violence against the police, theft of goods, and armed insurrection.

Antifa websites like It’s Going Down, Sub.Media and Insurrection News have been promoting the group, which calls itself the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, calling on their readers to donate to a Fundrazr account for the creation of the new cell….

Taking pride in the “legacy” of “Philadelphia’s rich revolutionary tradition,” RAM cites Mumia Abu Jamal, the Black Panther activist who shot and killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.

It also cites Russell Shoats, who shot a police officer in the back five times in 1970. Similar to Antifa, the actions of the Black Panthers have been described as having a “very undefined purpose of assaulting police officers.”
Looking for white nationalist under every bed has replaced the fruitless search for colluding Russians under those beds But there is a real and growing threat being ignored, or perhaps being silently encouraged, by the liberal media. It is Antifa, the American Taliban, which reared its ugly and violent head at Charlottesville.

SOURCE





A Nation of Sheep: Understanding England and the English

You see, we are an extraordinarily nationalist people. Our nationalism, however, doesn’t cause us to hate foreigners. Instead – and this applies also, and indeed particularly to Americans – we don’t hate you: we just feel sorry for you.

But I’ll not patronise you this morning. I’ll even avoid telling you the truth – that, in the development of our modern civilisation, two great nations have the greatest honour: England and Germany; and that, of these two, England is by far the greatest. What I will do is confess what you must have noticed for yourself – that something has gone badly wrong in England. Exactly when the rot began is a subject that would require far longer to discuss than the time given to me this morning. But you can see the earliest plain evidence of national derangement when the Princess of Wales died in 1997. I watched in horror as the mountains of flowers piled up, and as the funeral was made into a carnival of insanity.

The examples have multiplied beyond counting. I won’t give examples of the multicultural frenzy. Instead, I’ll talk about the sexual mania.

First, there is the legal privileging of homosexuality. In doing this, I speak with much security. I began denouncing the laws constraining homosexual conduct when I was a schoolboy – at a time when what I was saying might have got me roughed up in the playground, and certainly got me funny looks from other boys and teachers alike. I also wrote one of the earliest and best analyses of the Spanner Case. Since then, though, persecution has given way to privilege.

Take, for example, the case of the Rev. Alan Clifford, Pastor of the Norwich Reformed Church. A few months ago, the Norwich Gay Pride organisation held a rally in the middle of Norwich. Dr Clifford and four members of his congregation attended and handed out leaflets of the usual kind. Afterwards, he sent the leaflets out to everyone on his mailing list. This now included the leaders of Norwich Gay Pride. They complained to the police, and Dr Clifford was visited in his home by the police. They told him that a homophobic hate crime had taken place, and gave him the choice of confessing, in which case he would be given a police caution and made to pay a £90 fine, or of denying guilt, in which case he might be prosecuted.

Not surprisingly, Dr Clifford chose to deny his guilt. If the authorities ever do take him to court, they will probably get a bloody nose. Dr Clifford is a Calvinist. His sort drove Catholicism out of England in the sixteenth century, and pulled down the Stuart state in the seventeenth. He will turn up in court with the Bible in his hand and speak to a public gallery filled with his congregation. But his example is important as illustration. There is a regular persecution of Christian   street preachers in England. There are new cases several times a year.

The next example is of the Late Jimmy Saville. During his lifetime, he was adored by the media for his charity work and his public eccentricity. When he died in 2011, enough hot air about him went up to fill a balloon. Then, in 2012, it came out that his sexual taste had been for pubescent girls. The media went hysterical. His family joined in. Early in 2013, his grave stone was torn up, its inscription ground smooth, and then smashed into small pieces and taken off for landfill.

I suggest this is evidence of great mental derangement. It is certainly unEnglish. The custom so far has for the dead to be left to rest in peace.

These are two examples of the madness that has gripped England. Of course, the madness is not universal. If you look at the continuing popularity of Gary Glitter, it seems that many people – perhaps the majority – do not partake of the madness. But it can be seen in every organised area of our national life.

What is the cause? The answer is complex. There is no single cause. But one cause worth exploring is the unbalancing of our Constitution during the twentieth century.

In 1908, Rudyard Kipling published a short story called The Mother Hive. In this, the bees in a hive decide to drop all outmoded ideas of hierarchy and to make everyone equal. This includes the right of workers to eat royal jelly and to mate with the drones. In the spreading chaos that results, traditionalist dissidents are first shunned and then murdered. Eventually, the bee keeper looks into the hive, and sees the empty honeycombs and the horribly deformed offspring of the workers. His response is to poison all the bees.

Now, something like this has happened in England. In the past few generations, the whole of national life has been taken over by the cultural Marxists. They run government and the administration, and the law, and education and the media, and business too. They have imposed on us a nasty hegemonic discourse. Cultural Marxism is ultimately to be traced to European thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser and the Frankfurt School. But this has come to England in American clothing. It has prestige because it was taken up by the American universities.

In America, however, the progress of cultural Marxism has been resisted, or slowed, by a strong religious right and by a written constitution that it is taking a long time to subvert. Here, we have no religious right, nor an entrenched constitutional law. In the past, freedom and common sense were safeguarded by an hereditary land-owing aristocracy and gentry. These ran the country, and did much to determine its moral tone. During the twentieth century, they were marginalised and then eliminated from government. They remain as a class – still very rich – but the tacit deal since at least the 1940s has been that they will be left alone, so long as they keep out of politics. Government has been left to middle class lefties. The effect followed the cause only after several generations. But here it is.

It may be interesting for you, as foreigners, to learn an answer to the implied question in the title of this speech. But it is essential for the English to think about the question and its answers. You see, like both the Germans and the Russians, we have had a revolution. Unlike them, we have had no obviously revolutionary event. The Russians had the storming of the Winter Palace and the murder of their Royal Family. The Germans were utterly defeated in 1945. Their cities were bombed flat. Their country was occupied and divided. Every German knows either that German history came to an end in 1945, or at least that a new chapter in German history had begun.

We do not have that awareness, and it would be useful for us to understand, even so, that we are living in a state of revolution. England has become the Mother Hive.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************



Monday, September 25, 2017



'Handmaid's Tale' Lunacy
   
Donald Trump, much to his chagrin, never won an Emmy for “The Apprentice,” but he can now take indirect credit for a clutch of the awards.

The Hulu series “The Handmaid’s Tale” won eight Emmys on Sunday night, a sweep fueled, in part, by the widely accepted belief in liberal America that the show tells us something about the Trump era.

Based on the 1985 novel by Margaret Atwood, the series depicts a misogynist dystopia. Christian fundamentalists have established a theocracy that — after an environmental debacle craters the birth rate — forces fertile women, called handmaids, into sexual slavery.

Set in contemporary America, the show combines the atmosphere of “The Scarlet Letter” with “1984.” It is bleak, plodding, heavy-handed and occasionally gripping. What has given it extra oomph is the trope that it is relevant to Trump’s America. This is a staple of the commentary, and everyone involved in the show’s production pushes the notion.

According to Atwood, people woke up after Trump’s election “and said we’re no longer in a fantasy fiction.” The series is indeed highly relevant — as a statement on the fevered mind of progressives.

The president doesn’t want to impose his traditional sexual morality because, for starters, he doesn’t have any to impose. His critics are mistaking a thrice-married real estate mogul who has done cameos in Playboy videos and extensive interviews on “The Howard Stern Show” with Cotton Mather. He isn’t censorious; he’s boorish.

“I thought this could be a great cautionary tale,” director Reed Morano says of the show. “We don’t think about how women are treated in other countries as much as we should, and I guess I thought this would raise awareness.” Fair enough. “The Handmaid’s Tale” does have something to tell us about, say, Saudi Arabia. But, in an uncomfortable fact for Christian-fearing feminists, none of the world’s women-hating theocracies are Christian.

Elisabeth Moss, who won an Emmy for her portrayal of handmaid Offred, warns of “things happening with women’s reproductive rights in our own country that make me feel like this book is bleeding over into reality.”

What this means is that Republicans want to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and roll back Obamacare’s contraception mandate. If they succeed, this would mean less government intervention in matters of sexual morality, rather than more.

The progressive mind is unable to process that it has won the culture war in a rout (except for abortion, where conservatives are trying to chip away at our extremely liberal laws at the margins). We live in a country where Christian bakers get harried by government for politely declining to bake cakes for gay weddings, yet progressives still believe we are a few steps away from enslaving women.

For sheer obtuseness, it’s hard to beat executive producer Bruce Miller’s comment about a protest scene from the show that has been compared to the anti-Trump Women’s March. “You’re seeing exactly the same signs,” he told Vanity Fair, “exactly the same images, and you’re also seeing Capitol police with guns, not firing them, thank God, but it’s the same image.”

Actually, it’s the opposite image. There’s a vast difference between the forces of a totalitarian state crushing a protest, as happens in the show, and police maintaining the peace during a demonstration in a robustly free country, as occurred right here in Donald Trump’s USA.

According to Atwood: “If you’re going to get women back into the home, which some people still firmly believe is where they belong, how would you do that? All you have to do is remove the rights and freedoms that [women] have fought for and accumulated over the [past] 200 years.”

Yeah, that’s all you have to do. Atwood doesn’t explain who, straw men aside, actually wants to do this, or how they’d go about it. She wrote a book that, despite her intentions, has become a cautionary tale about how sophisticated people lose their minds.

SOURCE





I’m a Descendant of Holocaust Survivors. Why I’m Appalled at the Comparison of Christian Bakers to Nazis

It’s November 1938, and the Nazis have confiscated a silk factory owned by the same Jewish family for over a decade, arresting the owner.

Fast forward to 2014, and a state official has compared a Colorado Christian baker to the same group that took away what belonged to the Jewish silk factory owner—the father of my grandmother’s cousin, Godofredo.

This in a country founded by people who fled religious persecution.

While America, the country that mostly turned away Jews fleeing Adolf Hitler, is thankfully not on a course to repeat the Holocaust’s atrocities, some of its citizens have taken to comparing matters of individual freedom—such as a baker refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake—to the actions that led to the deaths of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews and 1.5 million children.

Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner Diann Rice said, “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

Especially as the grandson of Holocaust survivors, my message for Rice and for those who make religious liberty comparisons to the Shoah is simple: Stop it.

The late Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust, warned against comparisons like this. He said: "Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz. I went to Yugoslavia when reporters said that there was a Holocaust starting there. There was genocide, but not an Auschwitz. When you make a comparison to the Holocaust it works both ways, and soon people will say what happened in Auschwitz was “only what happened in Bosnia.”

Apply that logic to the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips: Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz.

I went to Colorado where a baker refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. I personally think it’s a shame, but it’s a private business refusing to bake a cake for a purpose of which the owner doesn’t agree.

It was a denial, not an Auschwitz. To cheapen the Holocaust by making such comparisons is to convolute and deny its atrocities.

The Holocaust, which only started with the discriminatory Nuremberg Laws only to end up in genocide, didn’t happen so much because of a hatred of a religion, but rather an explicit hatred for a people. This hatred extended to people who helped those the Nazis targeted, like the family who hid my only living grandmother when she was a child in France.

In fact, once Hitler took power, he sought to reduce Christianity’s influence on German society.

Rice’s comment was nothing but perverted and bigoted. I dare her to tell my living grandmother that what the Colorado baker did compares to the atrocities at Dachau, of which her late husband survived (his father perished there), and about which Phillips’ father wrote notes regarding the atrocities there and other places like Buchenwald, which he helped liberate.

Hypocritically, those on the left, like Rice, cite the plight of Jewish refugees during World War II as a reason for why the U.S. should take in refugees from war-torn places like Syria. Apparently they failed to learn about the Holocaust, which consisted of Jewish bakeries and other businesses being looted on Kristallnacht, or “Night of the Broken Glass,” let alone being sent to concentration camps.

(Important side note: Where is the outrage from the left over the atrocities in Rohingya, Darfur, Tibet, in Iraq against the Yazidis, and other persecuted groups in the Middle East? Those conflicts are severe compared to a bakery refusing to bake a same-sex wedding cake.)

Intolerance was part of the Holocaust. Blatant discrimination was part of the Holocaust. Concentration camps and gas chambers were part of the Holocaust. Death marches were part of the Holocaust. Indifference was part of the Holocaust.

Bakers refusing to bake same-sex wedding cakes were not part of the Holocaust. Rice seems indifferent to the magnitude of the Holocaust’s barbaric and sadistic acts, and instead chose to relate them to a baker who simply followed his conscience in declining to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Would Rice equate Phillips refusing to make a “divorce” cake to the Holocaust? Would Rice compare Phillips refusing to make Halloween-themed cakes to that of the Holocaust?

The famous psychologist Rollo May said, “The opposite of courage in our society isn’t cowardice. It’s conformity.”

It’s astonishing that America, which eventually admitted my surviving grandparents, is in 2017 a place where some are trying to coerce others to conform to an ideology, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

In Nazi Germany, if you weren’t an Aryan as Hitler prescribed in “Mein Kampf,” you would perish. Is it somehow acceptable to compare this baker or anyone coerced by those with differing ideologies to the Nazis?

If we’re going to say “Never again,” let’s also say “No more.” No more false equivalences. No more hate. Conversing, not ostracizing, is the solution to bridge divisions between people.

Let’s judge people personally—not by their background, but rather by their character.

SOURCE





Likely Next Solicitor General Fought for Nuns, Against Disputed Obama Appointees

After racking up victories against the Obama administration before the Supreme Court, Noel Francisco is expected to be confirmed by the Senate to manage the Trump administration’s cases there.

President Donald Trump nominated Francisco, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, to be his solicitor general.

A Senate committee approved the nomination four months ago. Democrats have stalled a final vote, but an end looks in sight.

While working in private practice for the Jones Day law firm, Francisco, 48, successfully argued before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, winning a 9-0 decision.

He also gained a 4-4 tie at the high court after arguing for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns, against Obamacare’s mandate requiring employers to cover contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.

In another widely publicized case that made its way to the high court, Francisco helped overturn the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, on charges of public corruption.

The Supreme Court is set to begin hearing new cases Oct. 2. Some of the more high-profile cases concern the separation of powers, Trump’s “extreme vetting” order blocking immigration from certain failed states, and religious freedom.

“There are a number of very significant cases before the court and he is equal to the task for any cases before the Supreme Court,” John Malcolm, who heads the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Noel Francisco is exceptionally bright and has impeccable character, and the nation will be well served to have him as solicitor general.”

Francisco, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line, 11-9 vote in June, is one of many Trump nominees whom Senate Democrats have managed to prevent from coming to a final floor vote.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group, watched Francisco argue the NLRB v. Noel Canning case before the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously ruled the president could not make recess appointments—installing appointees without Senate confirmation—while the Senate was not officially in recess.

Severino said Francisco’s impressive record was on display in his actions as a litigator.

“This has been another shameful holdup by the Senate Democrats who dragged this nomination out much longer than necessary,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “Noel Francisco is very well-known attorney and a very skilled litigator.”

“I’m glad he’s on board,” she added, “but we are still moving at a pace of confirmation that it would take three terms to confirm all of this administration’s nominees.”

The U.S. solicitor general works in the Justice Department, charged with managing the defense of the federal government’s cases in front of the Supreme Court. In many cases, the solicitor general argues the case.

Francisco briefly served as acting solicitor general until Trump nominated him for the position in March. Jeffrey Wall, who has served as acting solicitor general, is set to take the office’s No. 2 slot upon Francisco’s confirmation.

Francisco grew up in Oswego, New York. Francisco received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1996. He clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit before clerking for Scalia at the Supreme Court.

“If you asked any conservative attorney in this town, they would put Noel in the top five legal minds,” said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice and a legal affairs fellow with FreedomWorks, both conservative organizations.

“Given the resistance to Trump in the federal courts, almost everything could be dealt a blow by a district court somewhere, it’s important to have someone with executive branch experience, and it’s more important than ever for not only the country but for this administration,” Levey told The Daily Signal.

SOURCE






Gov. Seeks to Normalize Transgenderism Via Science  

When science and social politics collide, science is often co-opted to promote political ideology rather than genuine science instructing public policy. The former seems to be the case (again) regarding the National Science Foundation’s spending of over $100,000 to create “safe zones” for LGBTQ students. Some $114,116 was given to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for the purpose of studying ways to “increase the inclusion of LGBTQ students and professionals in engineering.” According to the grant, the field of engineering can be an “unfriendly or a chilly” climate for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals.”

The grant also states that “the research will be the basis of systematic development and formative refinement of an online SafeZone course to provide inclusion training to engineering students and professionals nationwide.” Is this science or politically motivated social engineering?

The federal government’s use of “science” to further push the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism onto the American public doesn’t stop there. The National Institutes of Health will be spending $200,000 on “exploratory or developmental research on the health of transgender and gender nonconforming people.” The NIH announcement further stated, “Transgender and gender nonconforming people encompass individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex on their original birth certificate, including individuals who are making or who have made a transition from being identified as one gender to the other, as well as individuals who are questioning their gender identity, who identify with more than one gender, or whose gender expression varies significantly from what is traditionally associated with or typical for that sex.”

It’s important to note that studying the problems of gender dysphoria and the impact it has on individuals is not unwarranted or unscientific research. But in today’s politically correct environment — where transgenderism is being celebrated as normal, and anyone questioning its normality or morality is labeled a bigot and a hater — it’s pretty clear this is an attempt to use “science” as a tool to further justify forcing the American public to accept transgenderism as normal. Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is drinking the Rainbow Mafia’s Kool-Aid. He is co-sponsoring a bill that would prevent the military from banning transgenders from serving.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************



Sunday, September 24, 2017



More Leftist bigotry and racism

A CANADIAN film director says he has received “racist attacks” and death threats over a plan to charge “white cis-straight able-bodied males” double the price to see his documentary.

Shiraz Higgins, 27, sparked uproar this week with the “justice pricing” policy, which listed tickets to the upcoming screening of his comedy film Building the Room as $20 for “cisgender” males and $10 for everyone else.

Cisgender is a word used to refer to a person “whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex”. As of 2016, it was one of 33 possible genders listed on the Australian Sex Survey alongside the likes of “genderfluid”, “genderqueer”, “non-binary” and “poligender”.

Building the Room is a behind-the-scenes documentary about a group of comedians developing a stand-up comedy show. Mr Higgins initially used the false name and email account “Sid Mohammed” when promoting the stunt to Canadian media because he was concerned about his safety.

“I’ve been wanting to have a layer of safety between me and angry citizens in order to keep the tension from being completely locked in on me,” he told The Canadian Press. “It’s clearly become very heated.”

He said the policy was not about “retribution or putting white men in their place”, but confirmed organisers were pushing ahead with a plan to charge white males more than others. “This is not a publicity stunt,” he said.“[We are] pushing forward because we believe it is an important piece of overall conversation that is happening in society right now.”

The Blue Bridge Theatre Society, owners of the Roxy Theatre which the director rented for the screening next week, distanced themselves from the controversy. “Blue Bridge was not at any time consulted regarding these policies and, had it been, would not have agreed, nor will it ever agree, to policies that are discriminatory towards any person,” a spokeswoman told The Canadian Press.

“While we deny any responsibility for the polices by the organisers of event, we are deeply regretful for any offence the polices may cause.”

Mr Higgins, who received $40,000 in funding for the film from internet TV service Telus Optik, admitted that the stunt to raise awareness of income inequality had gone further than he originally expected.

“It’s gone so far beyond what it was intended to be,” he told The Hollywood Reporter. “It was never intended to be a national conversation. It’s a local screening, featuring an unknown cast of comedians, from an unknown director, in an little-known city. For some reason, the national media thought it was a story that needed to be run far and wide.”

On his blog, he called for the death threats sent to the “Sid Mohammed” email address to stop. “That kind of behaviour doesn’t solve any problems,” he wrote.

Publicity stunts attempting to draw attention to pay inequality are nothing new. Earlier this year, a vegan cafe in Melbourne introduced an 18 per cent “gender gap” surcharge, following a similar move by a travel insurance company. Last year a New York pharmacy introduced its own “man tax” to draw attention to price discrimination.

SOURCE 




UK: Father-of-five taxi driver was shunned by local Muslim community after student, 22, falsely accused him of groping her when he refused to accept her kebab-soaked £10 note


The nasty bitch herself. Good that the Brits do lock these menaces up

A father-of-five taxi driver who refused to accept a student's kebab-soaked £10 note for religious reasons has revealed he was shunned by his local Muslim community after she lied that he sexually assaulted her.

Sophie Pointon, 22, whose dream was to become a police officer, falsely claimed she had been groped in the back of the cab she had been picked up in after a night out in Leeds and has been jailed for 16 months.

She rang 999 in the early hours of April 22 this year and continued the deception by signing a statement, giving an account of the 'attack'.

Leeds Crown Court heard the driver, a father-of-five, was tracked down and kept in custody for six hours.

In a moving impact statement he described how the claims had left his life in tatters but her spurious accusations.  The Asian father-of-five told the court through a personal impact statement that he was a practising Muslim - and the accusations had caused him to be shunned. He was also banned from entering the homes of his colleagues and friends.

He said: 'I am now extremely reluctant to take lone females in case I am accused again. 'The girl who accused me is the same age as my own daughter - I cannot comprehend why she made this allegation. 'I feel religiously tainted from this, and no help from the police or the courts can help that. 'Friends stopped speaking to me and letting me in to their homes. People in my community do not even want to be seen with me.'  

But the case against him never even went to court, as a telephone recording of the incident, with his taxi firm, cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Pointon pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and was handed a prison sentence yesterday.

Kate Bisset, prosecuting, said the driver was interviewed and said he could recall Pointon being 'extremely drunk' when she got into his car holding a kebab.

He said Pointon threw £10 note at him when they reached the Hyde Park area but he refused to accept it as it was covered in oil from the kebab.

The driver said Pointon, who graduated this summer with a BA Honours in criminology from Leeds Beckett University, then became abusive and ran around the car opening doors.

The prosecutor said: 'He did not think much of it at the time because such incident with people who are intoxicated are not unusual.'

A recording of a conversation between the driver and a phone operator at his taxi office supported his account.

The court heard a GPS tracker fitted to the car also revealed Pointon's description of the taxi journey to be untrue.

Pointon broke down in tears and asked if she could drop the charges when her account was challenged by police.

She pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. Denise Breen-Lawton, mitigating, said Pointon, from Manchester, had been studying in Leeds at the time. 

She grew up in a £250,000 semi-detached home, owned by her parents, in a Victorian suburban street.

She said her hopes of becoming a police officer were now ruined. Yesterday, she was jailed for 16 months.

Judge Christopher Batty told her: 'Your malicious complaint has done a huge disservice to those seeking justice through the police and courts.'

The driver was stripped of his taxi licence for four weeks during the investigation into the claims.

He described in a statement how the false allegation had caused him to suffer from stress.

SOURCE





White Supremacists Under The Bed

"White supremicist" is the new all-purpose term for anybody with whom a Leftist disagrees

by TOM MCLAUGHLIN

"That's so bourg," said one of the Saul Alinsky community organizers I was working with forty-five years ago in Massachusetts. Though I didn't know what "bourg" meant, I got that it was a pejorative. "Bourg" meant "bad." Only later did I ask the full meaning. It was short for "bourgeois," she said, as if that explained everything.

I still didn't understand but the word sounded familiar and I knew its spelling so I looked it up. Bourgeois meant "middle class," but I was still perplexed. I saw myself as middle class and still do. What was so bad about middle class?

 Well, just about everything, I guess. At the ultra-progressive, ivy-league University of Pennsylvania, a law professor named Amy Wax is being vilified as "racist" and "bigoted" by students, faculty, and alumni for daring to write that bourgeois values exemplified in 1950s America are superior to those prized in today's progressive America. She asserted in a Philadelphia Inquirer  op-ed that in the 1950s people believed you should:

"Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."

The last straw came when Wax dared criticize mores in sacrosanct sub-cultures:

"the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white' rap culture of inner-city blacks; [and] the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants." Wax asserted those were, "destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans."  

UPenn took all that as a declaration of war and several scorching columns appeared in UPenn's daily newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian. One, signed by fifty-four faculty and doctoral students declared that Wax's bourgeois culture:

"stem[s] from the very same malignant logic of hetero-patriarchal, class-based, white supremacy that plagues our country today," and "These cultural values and logics are steeped in anti-blackness and white hetero-patriarchal respectability, i.e. two-hetero-parent homes, divorce is a vice, and the denouncement of all groups perceived as not acting white enough i.e. black Americans, Latino communities, and immigrants in particular."

Forty-five years ago bourgeois culture was still acceptable but today it's anathema to the progressive left which rules media and academia. Above her original op-ed, Wax included a picture of actor John Wayne from Director John Ford's 1956 film: The Searchers, the film was depicted as reinforcing bourgeois culture and further enflaming the UPenn establishment.

Other symbols of the bourgeois 1950s like "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It To Beaver" are often derided by progressives. Must we now regard Jim Anderson and Ward Cleaver as hetero-patriarchal white-supremacists? Were baby boomer minds corrupted by their propaganda? Do we need reeducation and sensitivity training? To remedy this, perhaps there could be another remake of "Leave It To Beaver" in which Lumpy Rutherford marries Eddie Haskell. Maybe Whitey Whitney can renounce his white male privilege and transition into a woman. Maybe June Cleaver can organize a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood.

NBC's Chuck Todd invited Dartmouth's Chris Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook onto the August 20th "Meet The Press." Bray argued for Antifa's use of violence in opposition to fascist white-supremacists. Arguing against was Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Then Dartmouth President Phil Scanlon denounced Bray's remarks, only to be himself condemned by 100 active Dartmouth faculty. Sounds a lot like UPenn's antics.

Thus is political polarization exacerbated. Antifa uses violence not only against real white supremacists, but imagined ones as well. The Marxist left, which seems now to control of the Democrat Party, sees anyone who opposes it as white supremacist.

So when Antifa beats up Trump supporters, capitalists, readers of Ann Coulter's columns, and anyone it considers conservative, leftist Democrats either cheer them or keep silent, recent remarks by Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding.

Perhaps observing how Maine's rural 2nd District where I live went for Trump in 2016, former Trump campaigner staffer Mark Braynard is bringing his "Look Ahead America" organization to New Hampshire. Interviewed on WMUR-TV, Braynard said he identified 15,000 to 100,000 disaffected rural voters he'll try to register. In response, NH Democrat Party Chairman Ray Buckley called these disaffected citizens "white supremacists."

Who knew there were so many white supremacists in NH? Might these disaffected citizens also consider themselves middle class? Bourgeois? Whereas the late Senator Joseph McCarthy saw communists under his bed and everywhere else in the 1950s, it appears today's Democrats are seeing white supremacists everywhere now.   

SOURCE






The Emerging New World

by HERBERT LONDON

It is clear that the free exchange of opinion that once characterized university life is now being challenged. The avatars of social justice have arrogated to themselves the role of arbiter in the university curriculum. But it hasn't stopped there. Now monuments of the past are being put through the probity of present standards as one statue after another is in jeopardy of tumbling. Here is a foreshadowing of a "new America", one in which the evils of the past are to be redressed by the self-appointed czars of the moment.

Where this ends isn't clear, but I have a strong belief that the revolutionaries in our midst are intent on altering the Constitution converting it into a Red Book of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

After all, for many the First Amendment is in tatters already. Free speech no longer exists for unpopular speech or "hate speech," even though it is precisely unpopular expression that the Constitution protects. Hate speech is loathsome, but it is protected speech precisely because any line drawn against it is arbitrary and subject to the will of the censors. Like many, I was appalled at the anticipated Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois (which never happened), but I defended the right of these barbarians to do so as First Amendment expression. As I see it, the danger of censorship was greater than the psychological damage of ugly expression.

For many Americans, the Second Amendment protecting citizens to bear arms must be modified or erased. In the minds of these revisionists guns are the problem fomenting violence in our cities. Despite the obvious point that a gun isn't a weapon in the hands of St. Francis, but is dangerous if wielded by a felon intent on criminal behavior, gun baners rarely make distinctions.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that due process will accompany legal charges, indictments or the sequestration of property; in other words life, liberty and property cannot be arbitrarily denied without a legal process that assures the rights of the victim. However, at many universities the due process clause is only honored in the breach. It is often sufficient for an allegation of rape or sexual abuse to be made before the accused is found culpable. Reputations are sometimes destroyed on the basis of empty allegations, but kangaroo courts of this kind have proliferated throughout higher education.

The Tenth Amendment gives to the states the powers that remain without enumeration in the other Amendments. Hence education is one such area that accrues to the state governments. Unfortunately, teachers' unions want to consolidate power through national organizations and have been pressing in recent years for authority to be vested in the Department of Education exclusively. It is a clear and undeviating attack on federalism which has central and state governments sharing power. For extremists, the mitigating influence of the states is unnecessary.

In the aggregate these reforms and reformers constitute a revolutionary force. Their goal is to shift the organs of national power. They intend to use the vulnerability of the moment to espouse a newly created nation from the political graveyard of the past. America's Red Guard will determine what one can believe and what is unacceptable. The Color Guard will carry the black flag of revolution and the Founders will be interred for their regressive ideas.

Welcome Comrades to the New World. You have nothing to lose, but your chains. Of course, there are chains you will wear that will be dispensed by the Party. Those who resist will be relieved of all they love. For even love itself is retrograde; either one believes, or one is ostracized. Tolerance is weakness, hate is intensity and good will is cowardice.

The world will be turned upside down with many wishing they were facing downward. For those who have seen signals of the New World, it is a dark place bereft of an enlightened Constitution.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************

Friday, September 22, 2017




France may make wolf-whistling and asking women for their phone number a CRIMINAL offence

This is almost certainly aimed at egregious immigrant behaviour

WOLF-WHISTLING is set to be banned in France as the government declares war on men hassling women in public.

Under new plans bugging women for their telephone numbers and following them could also be prohibited.

The crackdown comes after surveys show virtually all French women have been harassed on public transport, in the street or elsewhere at some time.

France’s new leader, President Emmanuel Macron, has pledged to end this during his election campaign this year.

Only a few countries, including Belgium and Portugal, have banned such behaviour.

The UK and others have broader laws against harassment in general but none so specific.

Some lawyers believe men should only be prosecuted when police officers witness an offence.

Others say women should be able to file criminal lawsuits against offenders at a later date.

But Marlène Schiappa, the under-secretary for gender equality, defended the plan and gave an example of behaviour that would be illegal. She said: "You are a woman in an underground train. I am a man. I follow you. "You get off the train. I get off. “You get on another train. I get on too. I ask you for your telephone number. I ask again. I ask a third time.

“You feel oppressed. That is street harassment."

Gilles-William Goldnadel, a lawyer, accused Ms Schiappa of seeking to outlaw "heavy Latin chat-up lines".

He said the only consequences of the law would be to enrich feminist lawyers and to clog up the court system.

SOURCE





Women soldiers are facing an enemy within

Rates of suicide and sexual attacks by male troops are shockingly high in the US military

Last Friday at 5pm the Veterans Affairs Department in Washington released its analysis of suicide statistics for the 55 million people who left the US armed services between 1970 and 2014. It’s a quiet time of the news week, designed to attract little interest. And that’s not surprising because the figures were shocking. They showed that male veterans had a 20 per cent increased risk of suicide over male non-vets. Female veterans, though, were 250 per cent more likely to kill themselves than other women.

Which raises the question: just as women are being encouraged to join in larger numbers, what is happening to them that so markedly increases their suicide risk? Serving in an army at war is stressful but why should women suffer so much more than men?

In the general population women are much less likely to kill themselves than men. Male suicide rates are 3.5 times higher. But the experience of serving pushes their rates up dramatically. When you break the figures down it is clear that it is the youngest veterans of both sexes who are by far the worst affected. Men under 30 who are serving have almost triple the suicide rate of male civilians. For women under 30 the rate is more than six times.

In the past three decades the official view of women in the military has shifted from keeping them at the fringes to declaring that there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be at the centre. Fifteen per cent of America’s 1.34 million active duty troops are female.

In December 2015 the US defence department announced that women would be allowed into frontline combat, driving tanks, firing mortars and leading infantry, as long as they could meet the same physical standards as the men. Last October the first ten female infantry leaders graduated from their course.

The assumption is that women in the forces should be treated equally. Unfortunately, the reality is that women are more likely to be assaulted, harassed and discriminated against within the military, and find it harder to get jobs and homes when they leave. For many, joining the forces is still a good career choice, offering opportunities that they wouldn’t have in their home towns. However, most women are simply not having the same experience that’s on offer to men.

The bleakest difference is in the rates of rape and assault. A 2013 paper on treating US veterans found that 25 per cent of military women have been assaulted and up to 80 per cent harassed. Women report being commonly referred to by male soldiers as either bitch, slut or lesbian. A 2014 survey commissioned by the defence department found that 6.5 per cent of women in the navy, almost 5 per cent in the army and 7.9 per cent in the Marines had been sexually assaulted in the preceding year. The figures for men were between 0.3 per cent and 1.1 per cent.

In 2013 a PBS documentary reported that a woman in a combat zone was more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy. The Pentagon estimates that only one in six assaults is reported. That is probably because women are 12 times more likely to experience retaliation for their reporting than they are to see their attackers convicted. Almost 60 per cent of victims are assaulted by a supervisor or unit leader. Fewer than one in ten cases are tried but more than half of women are professionally or socially victimised for reporting assaults.

Women recount the terrible disorientation they go through when this happens. In a discussion thread online one soldier described how she tried to stick to “the good guys” in her unit for security, only to be raped by one of her best friends after a year. The betrayal is immense, she says, and so is the confusion because everything in your training teaches you to cut ties with outsiders and rely on your small group, and yet they can turn out to be your greatest threat. The camaraderie that men can trust in does not exist for them.

A Marine told Human Rights Watch what happened when her attackers were cleared. She had anonymous text threats, her car was vandalised, her picture was posted to a Marines Facebook page, saying she was a “wildebeest” who must be silenced “before she lied about another rape”. Someone posted: “Find her, tag her, haze her, make her life a living hell.” She stopped going to the dining hall out of fear.

The differences between men’s and women’s experiences are compounded when they leave the forces. Women find it harder to get jobs, possibly because their skills are likely to be in classically male areas. While 40 per cent have children, they have less support from partners and three times as many women as men are single parents. Those who have been raped or violently attacked are more than six times more likely to be homeless.

Veterans’ mental health support groups are geared to men; a single woman doesn’t want to join a group of nine men to discuss her trauma from military sexual assault.

America is working on all this, collecting evidence, tracking veterans’ health, trying to transform sexist military culture. But what the evidence tells us is that women are being betrayed by optimistic assertions of equality and opportunity. They are dying for it.

Britain is taking the same path but with even less research or follow-up. Last year it too lifted the barriers on frontline troops. This isn’t good enough. Women cannot serve on equal terms unless the military finds effective ways of constraining male aggression. Until then women on the front line risk being sacrifices rather than leading lights.

SOURCE




Atheist Hypocrisy and the Assault on Religious Liberty

Attacks on faith have increased dramatically in recent years, but there's still hope and reason to fight

Knowing the perils of disease, shipwreck and discomfort, the Pilgrims boarded the Mayflower in search of one thing: religious liberty. While many died on the voyage, and half of those who made it here died in the first winter, they knew that their lives were but “stepping stones” for the next generation’s freedom to practice Christianity. Their journey had taken them from an underground church in Scrooby, England, to an escape in Holland. However, as Holland’s secular society began corroding the hearts and minds of their children, they realized that a voyage to the New World was worth the risk. The Plymouth landing in 1620 stands as one of the earliest pieces of our country’s quest for religious liberty.

Today, almost 400 years later, the United States has become an increasingly difficult place for a Christian to work, be educated, and to serve his or her country. This has happened despite the statement found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In fact, First Liberty Institute’s 2017 report notes that in the past five years, documented attacks on religious freedom have increased 133%. In the past year, attacks have increased 15%. These attacks take place across broad sectors of the public arena — education, religious institutions and the U.S. military.

A case from the public arena, Barton v. Balch Springs, involved a Texas senior center in which city officials told the senior citizens that they could not pray before meals, listen to messages with religious content, or sing gospel music because public buildings do not allow religion. The senior citizens filed a lawsuit, and the government officials threatened to take away their meals if they won because praying over meals paid for by the government violated the “separation of church and state.”

In Pounds v. Katy I.S.D., a school district in the Houston area banned religious Christmas items and religiously themed Valentine’s Day cards. School officials told one student that she could not answer the question “What does Easter mean to you?” with “Jesus.” A federal court ultimately ruled against Katy I.S.D. for its hostility to religion and for violating the student’s constitutional rights.

In Sterling v. United States, Montifa Sterling, a Marine Corps lance corporal, placed three notes in her cubicle that referred to the Bible verse: “No weapon formed against you shall prosper” (Isaiah 54:17). While her supervisor allowed the other service members to display personal items, he ordered Sterling to remove the notes. Sterling believed that her First Amendment rights protected her ability to post the notes, so when she found them in the trash the following day, she reposted them. As a result, Lance Corporal Sterling was court-martialed. The highest U.S. military court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, believed the note to be minor and thus unworthy of religious protection. First Liberty Institute is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

These examples, a small selection of more than 1,400 documented incidents, illustrate the direct assault on the constitutional rights of Americans. A combination of misinformation among the populous and lobbying efforts by atheist groups such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the American Humanist Association and the American Atheists have resulted in prayers being banned, Ten Commandments displays being made illegal and veterans memorials with crosses being torn down or moved.

The American Atheists claim to not be a religion, yet require equal representation of their “non-religion” at interfaith events and councils. Additionally, college campuses routinely list humanists, secularist, free-thinkers and agnostics among other religious groups. They claim to believe in nothing, but in fact believe in a lack of belief and have faith in a lack of faith.

Atheists claim that Christians force their religion on others. Yet atheistic secularism has been forcing students, military personnel, ministers and workers to adhere to their lack of belief standards or suffer the consequences. Far from learning to “coexist,” as many bumper stickers advertise, atheist lobby groups seek nothing less than to persecute and destroy all religions except their own lack of one. Their rejection of religion is their religion and their unrelenting desire to “convert” the rest of us is unconstitutional, intolerant and wrong.

In terms of the quest to totally eradicate religion, the Soviet Union at least communicated its objectives honestly: to destroy religion and establish an atheist, secular state. A state church or a state “non-church” both qualify as an establishment of a religious state. Are atheist lobbyists, then, not the greatest offenders of their own unconstitutional demands of others?

The Pilgrims came here for religious freedom, not freedom from religion imposed on them by atheist lobby groups. The right to “not be offended” does not outweigh the right to practice one’s religion. Ironically, people rarely ask Christians if it offends them to have their child told he cannot pray. Christians have a right to believe in God, just as much as atheists have a right to believe in nothing. The assault on religious liberty only gains victory if people of faith choose fear over courage. As Ronald Reagan stated, “Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.” While courage may cost social standing, job mobility or favor among others, ultimately standing tall in the face of evil gives others courage and reminds us of our purpose: to do the right thing, despite the consequences.

If you are experiencing religious persecution and need legal representation, contact these non-profit law firms:

SOURCE





Public fury after Australian discount chain removes the word CHRISTMAS from its replica Christmas trees

Discount department store Big W has removed the word 'Christmas' from boxes and signage in the lead-up to the holiday season.

The decision to remove references to the Christmas tradition from product lines in their Australian stores has baffled and infuriated shoppers.

Big W's Facebook page has been inundated with posts accusing the store of bowing to political correctness and 'banning Christmas'.

'You are joking,' wrote one disgruntled consumer. 'Banning the word Christmas. Hang your head in shame.'

Fabian Iuele, owner of Christmas Tree Farm, called the move 'disappointing' and said the store was ignoring both history and tradition, The Herald Sun reported.

'That's really sad. It ignores the religious element and history of the holiday which is still important to people,' he said.

'We get people from other religions purchasing our trees regularly but they always know that they're called Christmas trees like everybody else does.'

Renamed trees include the Black Forest [Christmas] Tree, White [Christmas] Tree, Emerald [Christmas] Tree and Mayfair [Christmas] Tree.

Cameron Harrison, a Big W Highpoint customer, said the store was overreacting and using the word Christmas is not a problem.  'Christmas did have a religious meaning but we are not a religious country. I think it’s more of a tradition these days,' he said.

Facebook has filled up with furious customers claiming they will be shopping elsewhere for Christmas.

'Big mistake Big W, how many people decorate their houses with trees just for the sake of it? It is Christmas CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS stop the ridiculous wording on your CHRISTMAS trees,' wrote one irate shopper.

'I will be shopping elsewhere from now on! One completely offended (former) customer.'

'If you don't want to acknowledge Christmas, don't sell it! Lost this customer. Plenty of other places to spend my money,' wrote another.

The Big W website still has trees listed under their original names, and spokeswoman told The Herald Sun the chain was proud of its line of trees this year.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************