Sunday, July 16, 2017

Multicultural seduction

A 19-year-old woman who was held captive in a dog cage in the basement of a Milwaukee home and forced to have sex with multiple men finally managed to escape when her alleged captor left to appear in court on other charges.

Benjamin Hooks, 24, is accused of forcing the teenager to wear a dog collar while she was tied down, blindfolded and raped by multiple men at the home on the city's north side during the fall of 2016.

The victim told police she would only get one to two meals a day and she had to share them with a pit bull that was also locked in the basement with her, according to a criminal complaint obtained by Fox6.

He is currently facing a string of human trafficking charges in a separate case involving a 20-year-old woman and 15-year-old girl.

The woman told investigators that she had gone to live at the home - which features three homes adjacent to each other - to take care of the 69-year-old female property owner. She said people, including Hooks, started showing up and taking over the property shortly after she arrived.

The homeowner told Fox6 that Hooks had made a home there secretly after someone had moved out. 'I didn't have a f***ing thing to do with this. He snuck in. He snuck in and did it,' she said.

He has three open cases that were filed between January and May this year.

In January he was charged with substantial battery, intentional bodily harm, habitual criminality repeater.

In early May he was charged with a string of offenses, including first degree sexual assault, use of a dangerous weapon and false imprisonment. He was charged with human trafficking in late May.


Poll: Majority of Italians Say Government Committing ‘Ethnic Replacement’

The majority of Italians want to see migrant arrivals stopped completely, and believe the ‘ius soli’ law being pushed by Italy’s globalist government is “ethnic replacement”, enacted to boost the proportion of left wing voters in the nation.

The ruling Democratic Party (PD) say that passing the long-awaited ius soli (meaning ‘law of the soil’ in Latin) bill, which would make it much easier for second generation immigrants to gain citizenship, would send an important message that “migrants are an integrated part of society”.

But the law, which experts say would grant citizenship to around 800,000 people overnight and a further 60,000 each year, has the support of only a third of Italians, most of whom are strongly opposed to policies of mass migration.

Political Thermometer last week reported the results of a survey which found that 64 per cent of 2,900 respondents said they disapprove of the bill, which is currently being debated by politicians in Italy, with 33 per cent saying they are in favour.

According to the poll, 58 per cent of Italians believe ius soli is being pushed so as to increase PD’s share of the votes, while 37 per cent said they think politicians in support of the law have other motivations for doing so.

A majority of respondents (51 per cent) said they consider the bill to be part of an ongoing attempt to “ethnically replace” the Italian people, while 42 per cent disagreed, and seven per cent said they do not know.

The survey found strong opposition to mass migration, with more than 70 per cent of people polled disagreeing with the statement: “[Italy] must welcome the Africans who are arriving in boats.”

Thirty-eight per cent said the country has to put a stop to the boats and prevent them from arriving, asserting that Africans should only be helped in their homelands, while 35 per cent said it is right that Italy rescue migrants in danger of drowning at sea but that the nation should immediately expel everyone who is not entitled to asylum.

A poll for Rome newspaper Il Messaggero on Saturday revealed similar results, finding a majority of Italians of all political stripes saying they want to see migrant arrivals stopped, a sentiment which was highest among supporters of the populist Lega Nord party (96 per cent).

Though the least keen to put a stop to migrant boats, a majority of PD supporters (52 per cent) want to block their arrival  — a figure which rises to 62 per cent among undecided voters, 70 per cent among supporters of the left wing populist Five Star Movement, and 79 per cent among voters of the centre-right Forza Italia party.

The survey showed rising fatigue in Italy over the new arrivals, with the figure who said the nation has a duty to welcome, house, and feed Africans arriving in boats down 10 per cent from a year before, having fallen to 33 per cent.


The Terrifying Way Sweden Is Killing Itself

I could be writing every week about Sweden. Every day. Every hour. For reasons that will be analyzed by historians for a long, long time – provided the Western world doesn't become so thoroughly Islamized that the possibility of objective historical scrutiny is utterly obliterated – the Swedes have chosen a path of cultural and societal suicide that puts all other countries in the shade.

For anyone curious about self-destructive psychopathologies, it is a grimly fascinating phenomenon. Why, of all places, Sweden? How can a Swedish woman raped by an illegal Muslim immigrant be so bursting with racial guilt that she hesitates to report the crime to the police for fear that her report might lead to her rapist's punishment or deportation? Or, more generally, because news of the offense might result in an increase in “Islamophobia?"

This is the kind of madness that's going on in Sweden now. More than any other country in Europe, it has a government and a media that are in denial about the truth, a legal system that punishes those who dare to tell the truth, and a people who have been brainwashed for decades with the vile lie that they have a moral obligation to hand their country over to hostile, despotic strangers from far away.

No, Sweden isn't North Korea. The ugly news does get out, one way or another. Some of it, anyway. It's just that, with extremely rare exceptions, the important facts about the nation's disastrous Islamization don't find their way into the country's own mainstream media. On the contrary, Sweden's major TV, radio, and print outlets are notorious for the fidelity with which they parrot the government line and omit or whitewash uncomfortable news developments.

No, if you're looking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about most of the nasty stuff going on in Sweden these days, you're better off checking out Swedish websites such as Avpixlat and Fria Tider, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and two Norwegian sites: and, the latter being the site of the organization Human Rights Service.

I've previously quoted a March 11 Jyllands-Posten editorial that spelled out the Swedish situation quite frankly: what should “most worry Sweden's neighbors,” the Danish editors wrote, is the Swedes' “unwillingness to openly and honestly discuss the government-approved multicultural idyll. ... In the long run, the mendacity that characterizes the Swedish debate cannot be maintained. The discrepancy between the official, idealized version of Sweden, 'the people's home,' and the brutal reality that everyone can see has simply become too great.”

Indeed. This is a country where rapes by Muslim men are systematically ignored by the authorities or responded to with minimal punishment. Routinely, Swedish courts refuse to return these monsters – some of whom have repeatedly subjected small boys and girls to violent sexual abuse – to their home countries for fear that they'll be put in danger. In other words, Swedish judges care more about the safety of foreign rapists than that of Swedish children.

(No wonder U.S. News and World Report has just named Sweden the best country in the world to be an immigrant. Yet another cockeyed ranking. The proper question isn't which country is best for immigrants, but which country has the most sensible immigration policy.)

It's a country where even prominent Swedish feminists – fanatical boosters of multiculturalism – are now moving out of Muslim-heavy neighborhoods not only because of the Muslim rapists but because of the Muslim “morality police,” who are less concerned with monitoring rapists than with controlling women's conduct. (One such feminist organized “coffee shop meetings” with Muslim male community leaders in an attempt to resolve the situation, but gave up.)

It's a country where the government rolls out the red carpet for returning ISIS members, giving them special benefits, in hopes that they'll see the light and put down their weapons.

It's a country where, while Muslim rapists and terrorists are forgiven, critics of immigrant conduct are punished. In May, a 70-year-old woman in Dalarna, Sweden, was arrested for writing on Facebook in 2015 about immigrants who “set cars on fire and urinate and defecate in the streets.” (She faces up to four years in prison.)

No surprise, then, that on July 7, Jyllands-Posten reported that the Swedish government plans to alter the nation's Constitution in such a way as to give itself the power to limit online free speech about precisely these ticklish matters. Among other things, wrote Jyllands-Posten, it will become illegal “for certain websites to publicize information about private persons' ethnicity or conviction of crimes.”

Of course: the best way to address the ever-rising tide of Muslim criminality is to close down every last media outlet that reports honestly about it. The mainstream Swedish media are already playing ball; it's just a few recalcitrant websites that need to be scrubbed clean. Presumably the next step will be to block access in Sweden to Jyllands-Posten and other foreign news sources that tell Swedes the truth about what's going on within their own borders.

Then everything will be just perfect, no? And what are the chances that no matter how much Sweden tightens its already alarming (if currently tacit) limits on freedom of speech, Reporters without Borders will keep Sweden at its ridiculous #2 spot on the World Press Freedom Index?


Australia: voters demand same-sex marriage be decided by a public vote

A new push within Coalition ranks to hold a free vote in parliament on same-sex marriage by the end of the year has been dealt a blow by a special Newspoll showing Australian voters have swung in behind a national plebiscite.

More Australians now support a popular vote on same-sex marriage than holding a free vote in parliament in a surprise reversal of the views expressed just 10 months ago when Bill Shorten and others vowed to block the plebiscite in the Senate.

The Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian, reveals that 46 per cent of voters prefer a plebiscite while 39 per cent want politicians to decide the outcome, with 15 per cent undecided.

The results show a fall in support for a parliamentary vote since the height of the debate last September, when 48 per cent of voters wanted politicians to decide and 39 per cent backed a plebiscite.

Coalition MPs yesterday stood by the government’s election commitment to hold a plebiscite after West Australian Liberal senator Dean Smith confirmed he was drafting a private member’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage, which he wants debated by the partyroom when parliament returns in August. In a danger sign for the Coalition MPs who are trying to ramp up an internal campaign for a free vote in parliament, the Newspoll shows a dramatic shift in support from Coalition voters for a plebiscite rather than a decision made only by politicians.

While 47 per cent of Coalition voters backed a plebiscite and 44 per cent backed a parliamentary vote in the Newspoll survey last September, this changed to 54 per cent and 33 per cent respectively in the poll conducted from Thursday to Sunday. The latest poll comes after Christopher Pyne was recorded telling members of the Liberals’ moderate faction in June that same-sex marriage would happen “sooner than everyone thinks”.

The comments from Mr Pyne — in which he boasted about the moderate faction being in the “winner’s circle” — triggered a bitter round of infighting and a swift conservative retaliation led by Tony Abbott.

Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz — a staunch defender of traditional marriage — yesterday said there was community support for a people’s vote and attacked Labor and the Greens for opposing the plebiscite in the Senate.

“The partyroom decided that we were in favour of marriage being between a man and a woman but we were cognisant of the fact that there were differing views within the partyroom and the community and therefore a plebiscite would be the best way to resolve it,” he said. “There remains strong support in the community for a plebiscite and, if it were determined by a plebiscite, I think that matter would then have the support of the Australian people.”

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield also played down the push for a new private member’s bill but dodged questions on whether the government would take the policy for a plebiscite to the next election.

“This is something that could have already been done and dusted. We would have already had a plebiscite take place if the Australian Labor Party had not blocked the plebiscite bill,” Senator Fifield told Sky News. “And there’s no reason why the Australian Labor Party should have blocked the plebiscite bill because Bill Shorten himself previously advocated for a plebiscite on this subject.”

The Opposition Leader has blasted the plebiscite as a waste of money, given its estimated $160 million direct cost, and he has called on Malcolm Turnbull to allow Liberal MPs to vote with their conscience in parliament to end the dispute over whether to amend the Marriage Act.

South Australian Labor MP Nick Champion yesterday argued a parliamentary vote was the most appropriate way to resolve the issue. “We have a system of parliamentary democracy and it has held us in very good stead for a very long time,” he told Sky News.

“If you go and ask someone in the pub do they want a say, they say ‘Yep.’ And when you ask should we spend $180m giving you a say, they say no, spend that on a local hospital or local roads.”

Former prime minister Julia Gillard and Labor frontbenchers including Chris Bowen and Tony Burke voted against marriage equality in 2012, alongside Tony Abbott and Mr Turnbull, in a decision that left the issue to be decided by a future parliament.

Labor frontbenchers including Mr Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Albanese, Jenny Macklin, Jason Clare and Mark Butler voted in favour of change.

A shift in sentiment in the past five years has fuelled hopes among marriage equality advocates that a conscience vote would succeed in both houses of parliament. Same-sex marriage advocate Rodney Croome said he believed Senator Smith’s push would succeed.

“I’m more confident now that we’ll see marriage equality achieved in the near future than at any other time since the last election,” he told ABC radio. “The moment MPs on all sides are allowed to vote according to their conscience, believe me, this will pass.”

The latest Newspoll shows that Greens voters are the strongest supporters of a conscience vote in parliament, with 62 per cent in favour, but this is down from 71 per cent in the September survey.

One Nation voters are the strongest supporters of a plebiscite, with 55 per cent in favour compared to 24 per cent for a conscience vote.



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


No comments: