Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

29 September 2013

American Communism & the Making of Women's Liberation

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."

Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)

In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's  movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)

In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)

Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.

Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)

The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)

The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.

Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.

Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.

Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:

    Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.

    Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.

    Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.

    Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.

    Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.

    Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.

    Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.

    Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.

    Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.

Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.

The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]

These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.

In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)

Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."

Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's  movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
  • Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.

  • Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.

  • Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.

  • Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.

  • Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.

  • Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.

  • Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.

  • Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.

  • Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
- See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html#sthash.1cZJU3bJ.dpuf
by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."

Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's  movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
  • Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.

  • Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.

  • Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.

  • Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.

  • Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.

  • Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.

  • Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.

  • Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.

  • Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
- See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html#sthash.1cZJU3bJ.dpuf

28 September 2013

Secret Videos Taken at Muslim Hate Schools in Great Britain: Pupils Beaten and Taught “Hindus Drink Cow Piss”

Source

The true face of Islam…
(Daily Mail) — It is an assembly hall of the sort found in any ordinary school. Boys aged 11 and upwards sit cross-legged on the floor in straight rows.
They face the front of the room and listen carefully. But this is no ordinary assembly. Holding the children’s attention is a man in Islamic dress wearing a skullcap and stroking his long dark beard as he talks.
‘You’re not like the non-Muslims out there,’ the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. ‘All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking . . . you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.’
He refers to the ‘non-Muslims’ as the ‘Kuffar’, an often derogatory term that means disbeliever or infidel.
Welcome to one of Britain’s most influential Islamic faith schools, one of at least 2,000 such schools in Britain, some full-time, others part-time.
They represent a growing, parallel education system.
The school is the Darul Uloom Islamic High School in Birmingham, an oversubscribed independent secondary school.
Darul Ulooms are world-renowned Islamic institutions and their aim is to produce the next generation of Muslim leaders.
In fact, these schools have been described as the ‘Etons of Islam’.
This school is required by its inspectors to teach tolerance and respect for other faiths. But the Channel 4 current affairs programme Dispatches filmed secretly inside it — and instead discovered that Muslim children are being taught religious apartheid and social segregation.
We recorded a number of speakers giving deeply disturbing talks about Jews, Christians and atheists.
We found children as young as 11 learning that Hindus have ‘no intellect’ and that they ‘drink cow p***’.
And we came across pupils being told that the ‘disbelievers’ are ‘the worst creatures’ and that Muslims who adopt supposedly non-Muslim ways, such as shaving, dancing, listening to music and — in the case of women — removing their headscarves, would be tortured with a forked iron rod in the afterlife.

Rabbi Baruch Efrati: 'Islamization of Europe a good thing'

'Islamization of Europe a good thing' - Rabbi Baruch Efrati believes Jews should 'rejoice at the fact that Europe is paying for what it did to us for hundreds of years by losing its identity.' He praises Islam for promoting modesty, respect for God

As concerns grow over the increasing number of Muslims in Europe, it appears not everyone is bothered by the issue, including an Israeli rabbi who even welcomes the phenomenon.

Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, believes that the Islamization of Europe is actually a good thing.

"With the help of God, the gentiles there will adopt a healthier life with a lot of modesty and integrity, and not like the hypocritical Christianity which appears pure but is fundamentally corrupt," he explained.

Rabbi Efrati was asked to discuss the issue by an oriental studies student, who inquired on Judaism's stand toward the process Europe has been going through in recent years.

Following the election of a hijab-wearing Muslim woman as the mayor of the Bosnian city of Visoko for the first time in continent's history, the student asked the rabbi on the Kipa website: "How do we fight the Islamization of Europe and return it to the hands of Christians and moderates?"

Efrati wrote in response that the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons – as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered "idolatry" from a halachic point of view.

"Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there," the rabbi explained as the ethical reason for favoring Muslims, quoting shocking descriptions from the Rishonim literature (written by leading rabbis who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries) about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.

"We will never forgive Europe's Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity…  A now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won't be able to atone for."

'Islam a relatively honest religion'

The theological reason, according to Rabbi Efrati, is that Christianity – which he sees as idolatry – has a tendency to "destroy normal life and abstain from it on the one hand, while losing modesty on the other hand," as it "ranges between radical monasticism to radical Western licentiousness."

Islam, the rabbi added, is "a religion which misjudges its prophets but is relatively honest. It educates a bit more for a stable life of marriage and creation, where there is certain modesty and respect for God."

Efrati ruled, therefore, that "even if we are in a major war with the region's Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity."

He added, however, that Jews must pray that the Islamization of most of Europe will not harm the people of Israel.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/clpoel8 

27 September 2013

Feminists Are Wrong — True Gender Equality Would Be a Nightmare

Skilled specialists should get paid accordingly, irrespective of gender. Talented students should get admittance to higher education according to their abilities and potential, irrespective of gender.

I welcome the developments of the last 50 years that narrowed the inequality gap between men and women. Yet the byproducts of these developments — namely the socio-cultural changes they brought — have been most deplorable, as they break thousands of years of existing traditions and threaten to create a new genderless society where gender identities would be erased.

It has become fashionable of late to preach that our gender identities — those of men and women — are largely created by the society and mainly consist of stereotypes and clichés. While there may certainly be some truth to that, we need to ask ourselves a question: Why do we need to destroy these gender identities? The whole beauty of our society is that men and women are inherently different, not just biologically, but socially and cognitively as well. This constitutes the notion of family.

What would be the society where men were more feminine and women more masculine? It would be a genderless nightmare where there would be no stability and no progress, no love and no art. The fundamental law of physics dictates that positive charge attracts the negative one.

By letting men become fragile, emotional and submissive and accepting the culture of women who would be strong, dominant, and promiscuous, we risk creating a society of complete equilibrium, characterised by lack of energy. The state of complete neutrality and lack of motion.

It is strong men, of tough body or sharp intelligence, who have historically led society towards progress and realization of the post-modernity we are living in. It is loving and devoted women whose support in raising children and taking care of their husbands was indispensable for enduring stability and progress of societies.

This harmony of opposite genders has maintained stability in our society. Wars, revolutions, and societal changes occurred, but so long as the traditional gender roles remained intact, there was no fundamental threat to our society.

Art, the whole cultural heritage of mankind, exists within the framework highlighting the difference of genders. Literature, music, films, paintings, and sculptures emphasize the bravery of men and gentleness of women. Hercules and Aphrodite, the Three Graces and David, Othello and Desdemona, d’Artagnan and Lady Winter, Napoleon and Josephine, Sean Connery and Marilyn Monroe — all works of art from antiquity through to modern days are inspired by the difference between men and women.

This is why the stance taken by feminists is destructive. They are trying and succeeding at destroying the most important expectation from women: the expectation of morality. The so-called “liberation of women” has done little more than to say that is it normal for women to act disgracefully: to act like a prostitute, not to care about the household and family, and to indulge themselves in vices of men.

It is certainly shameful if a man gets drunk, sleeps around, or acts irresponsibly towards his family. Yet it is more shameful when a woman does so, precisely because women are the child-bearers and the morals and values they have will be passed onto their children. Men, as risk-takers, shelter-protectors and food-providers, can in the process of fulfilling these duties get rough and divert from what is moral.

This is where women, the moral-keepers, the hearth of the house, come in. They restore the inner balance in men, making sure men will not turn into savages. If women lose their morals completely, the society will descend into the state of animals.

The point of this article is not to offend women in any way, but to send a message to those who are nearly subverted by feminist thought:

Girls, we guys may smoke, swear, drink, fight, and sleep around — but your disapproving look will make us ashamed. If you, however, decide to smoke, swear, drink, fight, and sleep around as well, what will happen to our society? Who will we look up to? Who will our children look up to?

Yes, we love it when you make us sandwiches, but it is not because “your place is in the kitchen, woman!” It's simply because we are lazy bastards. And we are always grateful to you for your care.

We love you because you are not like us. Because you are different. Because you are better.

Please don’t give in to the feminist discourse. Do become CEOs or engineers if you really want to, but don’t let your career make you forget that you are a woman, a mother, a wife. Don’t throw away the gender identities and don’t endanger our society by trying to change it. Let us men handle that.

Source: http://ow.ly/pfWZn - Admin 2

* * * * * * *

There is a balance in nature, and that balance exists for a reason.

26 September 2013

The Jewish role in Communism.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel, is quite open about the Jewish role in Communism.

Under the entry for “Communism”: in Volume 5, page 792, the following appears:
“The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part In Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II.”
On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to say that ”Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.

The Encyclopedia Judaica on page 793 then goes on to reveal that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as to ”not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.

The Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to describe the overwhelming role Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says : ”Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime.

On page 794 of the Encyclopedia Judaica, this Jewish reference book then goes to list the Jews prominent in the upper command of the Russian Communist party: these included Maxim Litvinov, (Later foreign minister of Soviet Russia); Grigori Zinoviev, Lwev Kamenev, Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Karl Radek, amongst many others.

The organizer of the Revolution was Trotsky, who prepared a special committee to plan and prepare the coup which brought the Communists to power. according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, this committee, called the Military Revolutionary Committee, had five members three of whom were Jews.

The Politburo, the supreme governing body of Russia immediately after the Communist Revolution had four Jews among its seven members, according to page 797 of the Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica.

Source: http://ow.ly/pfPSc
 

Study: Same-Sex Households Endanger Kids

http://www.charismanews.com/us/33615-study-same-sex-households-endanger-kids

A new study, authored by Associate Professor Mark Regnerus from the University of Texas, shows alarming child endangerment in same-sex households:
• Parental pedophilia is widespread: 23 percent of children with a lesbian mother reported having been touched sexually by a parent or adult, compared to 2 percent of those raised by biological parents.
 • Rape is rampant: 31 percent of children raised by a lesbian mother and 25 percent raised by a homosexual man report that they were forced to have sex against their will, compared to 8 percent from intact families.
 • Sexually transmitted disease (STD) is epidemic: over 20 percent of those brought up by two women and 25 percent raised by two men reported having contracted an STD, compared to 8 percent from natural families.
• Suicidal tendencies are startling: 24 percent of children raised by homosexual men and 12% of children raised by lesbian mothers admitted to having recently contemplated suicide, compared to 5 percent of those raised by biological parents or even a single parent.
 Published in the journal Social Science Research, the study of nearly 3,000 young adults is perhaps the most scientifically credible study on the topic ever conducted. Regnerus collected his data from a random sample of young adults. Other studies have based their findings on nonrandom, nonrepresentative data from small samples recruited at lesbian events, bookstores, or in lesbian newspapers. In addition, Regnerus surveyed children of homosexuals, rather than the homosexual parent.

The study proves what we have known all along--that children fare better when raised by their biological mom and dad,” says Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “We should be passing laws that strengthen the family, not tear it down. Children raised in homes where homosexuality or other same-sex behaviors are present face increased risks. The policy of same-sex unions says that moms and dads are irrelevant to the well-being of children. The social experiment of same-sex unions will prove disastrous for children,” Staver concluded.

24 September 2013

Norway Destroying Masculinity

Norway destroying masculinity - Admin 2

Boys in primary school talk about their feelings and hold hands. And they are very, very concerned about their bodies and appearance.
Share This:
4

According to new Norwegian research, decades of gender equality measures have helped to change children's upbringing and their understanding of gender.

"It's not that boys used to be naughty and now they are nice," says Stian Overå.

"But compared with previous classroom research, I've found a change in how boys relate to emotions. Being personal and talking about feelings was not problematic or feminine in their eyes. It was almost an ideal. And it was more important to be kind than to be strong."

Overå, a social anthropologist, recently defended his doctoral thesis on gender in primary schools. For an entire year he followed two groups of pupils aged 6-12 in a modern primary school in a suburb of Oslo. The area does not have a distinct working-class or middle-class profile. About 15 percent of the pupils had a native language other than Norwegian.

Gender equality measures work

Much of what Overå found was known from previous research. His study documents gender-stereotyped behaviour, such as girls who prefer to play in pairs and be best friends and boys who play in larger groups and have visible hierarchies with clear leaders.

But the boys observed by Overå behaved differently than the boys described in previous studies. So differently that it makes sense to talk about a change in the way boys behave

"Gender equality measures work," Overå states.

"Gender roles in the Nordic countries are changing. Several new Nordic studies have had similar findings. Gender used to be rooted in tradition. Today it is more fluid."

Scratch each other's backs

According to Overå, the boys aged 6-8 had the most relaxed attitude towards feelings and touching. These boys had "positive touching" as a daily school activity in which the pupils learned to touch each other. The objective was to create a sense of belonging to a group where everyone can touch and stroke each other regardless of whether they know each other and regardless of gender.

"The pupils liked it a lot. It was not strained in any way," says Overå.

"The youngest boys could scratch each other's backs and hold hands during recess."

When Overå presented the phenomenon of "positive touching" for a group of researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, they were flabbergasted.

"It's not coincidental that these measures are developed in Norway or the other Nordic countries," says the researcher.

"I think the changes I've observed are connected with Nordic ideals of gender equality and measures that are introduced as early as pre-school."

Considerate boys

The older boys, aged 9-12, did not have such a relaxed attitude towards bodily contact. They had to be on guard for being called "gay."

In spite of this, both the younger and older boys were considerate towards each other.

Other studies have found that boys' interactions are characterized by rough attitudes, aggressiveness and rule-breaking. In contrast, the groups of boys observed by Overå were friendly, inclusive and good-natured. And they talked about their feelings.

"Boys are not aggressive or emotionally incompetent. That is not my experience. In many situations the boys talked openly and thoughtfully about girls they had crushes on, difficulties at home, and anxiety and expectations about the future," says Overå.

"When one boy opened up, the others tried to support him and shared similar stories about fear or vulnerability."

Strong and kind

There was a lot of play fighting and other physical tests of strength as well, but this was mainly done at the beginning of the school year, before hierarchies were established.

"The boys organize themselves in a hierarchy with a clear pecking order and role differentiation with regard to leadership. Some would interpret this as a sign of aggression. I perceived it more as a game and a friendly form of contact," says Overå.

Physical strength, excelling at football and wearing fashionable clothes could win popularity points. But the most important factor for securing a high position in the boys' hierarchy was being a nice guy -- someone who is kind, funny, extroverted and relaxed with a "good personality."

The importance of hair wax

However, a boy's position in the hierarchy determines how much latitude each boy has, such as how physically intimate or fashionable he can be.

"The fear of being called 'gay' works like kryptonite on the boys' attempt to construct their masculinity," explains Overå.

Boys who cared too little about their appearance risked being called childish, boring or a nerd. The ones who cared too much risked being called feminine or gay. Two of the coolest boys wore eyeliner.

"Their masculinity and heterosexuality was not threatened by it," says Overå.

A less popular boy, however, should not try to do the same. The general rule was that boys do not wear make-up. Their hair, on the other hand, should be styled.

"Boys have fewer cards to play than girls when it comes to aesthetics, so their hair becomes a sacred domain," says Overå.

In a group interview, the boys talked about a day at school when a cool teacher had let them eat cake during home economics class. "I remember that! It was the day when I didn't use hair wax!" exclaimed one of the boys. The researcher was taken aback, and the boy explained: He got so much grief from the other boys that he understood he had better not go to school again without wax in his hair.

"It's not new in itself that boys are concerned about their bodies and appearance. What is new is the extent of their concern. They talk about it a lot. And there is a great deal of unseen work involved," explains Overå.

Metrosexual role models

A strong, well-defined, athletic body was the ideal for the older boys, who talked incessantly about each other's bodies in the locker room. One boy had read that football star Cristiano Ronaldo does 3,000 sit-ups every day, so he had started to do sit-ups every evening. He thought his ab-muscles were becoming more visible already and gladly lifted his shirt to demonstrate for the other boys.

"For young people today it's legitimate to try out new masculine expressions inspired by metrosexual idols like Ronaldo and David Beckham, who have their own lines of hair products and boxer shorts. This is different compared to 20 years ago when the role models were more traditionally masculine," says Overå.

Effortlessly successful

The boys need to be concerned about their bodies and appearance, but this concern must not show. In the same way, they should do well at school, without giving it prestige or putting work into it.

"It was an ideal to succeed in an effortless kind of way," says Overå.

"The boys did a great deal of unseen work, both with regard to their appearance and to their schoolwork. Many of them worked a lot at home, but claimed before a test, for example, that they had only studied for five minutes. They had to hide how much it meant to them to do well and look good, and how much effort they put into it."

The problem with boys

The focus of Overås' thesis is gender as such, but he has chosen to focus mainly on boys for two reasons: Descriptions of boys' lives and perspectives are underrepresented in the literature from school research, and today's society is especially worried about the situation for boys in school and society at large.

The debate about boys as losers in a gender-equal society and the feminized school arose in the 1990s. In the 2000s, stories about boys who did poorly in school dominated the debate.

But the differences in school have more to do with socioeconomic class, particularly when it comes to school performance, according to Overå. The fact that girls perform slightly better than boys in school has been known since measurements began in the 1950s. Concerns about boys arose only after girls started to maintain their advantage at higher educational levels.

Socioeconomic class more significant

"It's a mistake to let the overall discussion focus on gender when large-scale qualitative and quantitative studies show that socioeconomic class is far more significant than gender with regard to grades in school," says the researcher.

Overås' data confirm previous studies that find that girls handle the demands of school better than boys. A few more girls than boys were moved to higher levels in those subjects in which the school offered this.

"But when I controlled for class, it was clearly more significant whether a pupil came from the working class or middle class than if the pupil was a girl or boy," says Overå.

"It's problematic to talk about differences in the schools only regarding gender. Just as there are boys who do very well, there are girls who struggle. Using gender as an explanation for this is discriminatory for both sexes."

Source: http://tinyurl.com/mq6mg6m

* * * * * * *
From one of the natons that gave us the brave and very masculine  vikings, we now get the effete, gay-looking, clown-smiling, man-touching, dress-wearing, cabbage-eating, Lady Gaga-loving, sensible "man".

And why is this? Because it's easier to control a feminized nation than a masculine one. Men don't submit easily. Women do (it's not a flaw; in women, this is a positive trait). 

That is why the central bankers finance feminization since by doing that, they reduce the chances of a popular revolt.

Valley teacher surprised by jail time for sex with student

A tearful apology from a former teacher couldn't convince a Fresno County judge to let her stay free after admitting to sex with a student.

Megan Denman, 30, pleaded guilty to six felony charges just a few months after her arrest. But she wasn't expecting to serve any jail time.

Denman came to court knowing other female teachers in her situation had avoided prison or even jail time. She was emotional throughout the hearing, and the worst of it came when she found out she wouldn't be as lucky as her peers.

Megan Denman's already wet eyes filled with tears as a deputy put her in handcuffs for a long trip to the Fresno County jail -- a trip her attorney says came as a shock.

"Was Megan ready to go to jail today?" an Action News reporter asked her attorney, Roger Nuttall.

"I don't think so, mainly because I didn't think she would go to jail today," Nuttall replied.

That belief was based in part on the sentence given to former Washington Union teacher Nadia Diaz less than two months ago for her sexual relationship with a 15-year-old. Diaz got probation and no jail time.

In Denman's case, she faced as long as 26 years in prison for a lengthy sexual relationship with a student. The former social sciences teacher was 28 when it all started. The victim was 16.

Prosecutor Lara Clinton argued that a sentence of probation would prove a double standard for female teachers.

"I think if we were talking about a 28-year-old man having sex with a 16-year-old student who is a child, his student, that would be pretty repulsive," she said.

But the victim didn't want Denman prosecuted, psychiatrists said she's extremely unlikely to repeat the crime, and she gave the judge an emotional apology.

"I'm very sorry for ther disappointment I've cause co-workers, students, myself, my husband," she said. "Every day I live with the guilt and hate that I have for what I've done."

The judge's final ruling means she'll carry that guilt to jail.

Denman is scheduled to get out of jail on April 30. She won't be able to work as a teacher again, but the judge also ordered she won't have to register as a sex offender.

Source: http://ow.ly/p9Lr1

23 September 2013

‘Homophobic’ gay blood ban risks lives

Gay rights advocates have called on the Australian Red Cross Blood Service and Government to remove restrictions on gay men donating blood, describing the Red Cross policy as homophobic and discriminatory.

At present, the Red Cross ‘defers’ blood donations from men who have had sex with men in the past 12 months, effectively barring donations from sexually active gay men.

In 2012, a proposal by an independent expert committee convened by the Red Cross advocated easing the restriction on blood donations from 12 months to six months, and though this advice is yet to be acted on by the Red Cross, gay rights campaigners have criticised the proposal for perpetuating misleading stereotypes of HIV risk among gay men.

Michael Cain, the unsuccessful complainant in a landmark 2008 case that saw gay blood deferral brought before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, said reducing the deferral period to six months would merely be a cosmetic change to discriminatory practices.

“It will mean the overwhelming majority of gay men who, like me, have safe blood to donate and are still banned from donating … Gay men will continue to be stigmatised as a threat to public health, and the Australian blood supply will continue to stay only a day or two ahead of demand.”

The Australian Red Cross aims to have six days’ worth of supply of all blood types, and at present the blood supply of the universal blood type O-negative is running low with the blood bank currently possessing only three days’ supply of it.

Matthew Ng, committee member on the LGBT Catholic Ministry Acceptance Sydney, said the Red Cross has a responsibility to increase the total number of Australians donating blood from current levels of 600,000 by removing the ban on gay blood donations.

“Only one in 30 Australians donate blood, but one in three will need blood. As people grow more accepting of the LGBT community, more people will come out and won’t be able to donate blood, making the problem worse.

UNSW Arts/Law student, Sean, 20, agreed. “On one hand, it promotes a really homophobic view, being wrapped up in ideas of purity, and of gay men being impure. But on the other hand, it’s actually costing lives. Straight people are dying because gay men can’t give blood. So even homophobic straight people should wake up to themselves and realise that having a gay man’s blood in them won’t kill them — in fact, not having it will.”

This view was shared by Rodney Croome, spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay Men Rights Group and researcher on Michael Cain’s case against the Red Cross.

“The gay blood donation ban has two consequences. It means gay men are stigmatised in public health, and it means that there’s less safe blood available for the public. The Australian Government needs to take a stronger position on this issue and insist that the Red Cross adopt a policy that is more appropriate.”

However, according to Jennifer Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, the risk of HIV infection among gay men is significantly higher than for heterosexuals, claiming that even in monogamous relationships between men, one partner may cheat on the other, increasing the risk of HIV transmission.

“The risk of acquiring HIV is up to 300 times higher for gay men than for people in a heterosexual relationship. In 2009, 90 per cent of newly diagnosed cases of HIV infection in Australia involved men who reported sexual contact with men,” Williams argued in an article published online by the ABC.

Croome contested this viewpoint as being patently prejudicial, noting the use of similar arguments by Red Cross lawyers in Cain’s 2008 anti-discrimination case, which were rejected by the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal at the time.

“I’m usually judicious about the use of the word ‘homophobic’, but the Red Cross put forward a number of homophobic arguments, arguing that gay monogamy is a myth, and exaggerating the risk of HIV infection associated with gay sex.

“And the tribunal threw all those discriminatory and prejudicial claims out, saying it had good evidence that the risk of HIV infection associated with men in monogamous relations is less than the Red Cross claims,” Croome said.

Australian Red Cross media manager, Kathy Bowlen, argued otherwise, stating that the independent review commissioned by the Red Cross had recommended that “removing the deferral for men who have sex with men in monogamous relationships would introduce an unacceptable risk to the ongoing safety of the blood supply.”

UNSW student Sean said this recommendation is still rooted in discrimination between heterosexual sex and sex between men.

“It seems to me the risk factor would be unsafe sex, regardless of who you are and who you’re sleeping with — not who you’re sleeping with.”

Croome agreed. “The gender of a sex partner is irrelevant to the safety of blood. What is relevant is the safety of sexual activity. That’s what creates a risk, and that’s what the Red Cross should screen  for.”

Under the existing Red Cross policy, heterosexual men who have sex with multiple partners without the use of contraception are eligible to donate blood. By comparison, gay men who engage in protected oral sex with monogamous partners are immediately excluded from donating blood.
“The Red Cross should revise their policy to one that is based upon medical evidence of the causes of HIV transmission, and which applies consistently to everyone regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender,” Sean said.

Micheal Do, raconteur and Art History/Law student at UNSW, agreed. “Given the current state of medical research, I don’t understand why this discriminatory practice rooted in homophobic and bigoted assumptions about homosexuality still exists.”

Jarron Rapley, 21, echoed this viewpoint, stating that while it is important the Red Cross maintains stringent testing standards in regard to blood donations, excluding sexually active gay men from donating is an archaic policy.

“The simple fact is that every time a gay man is denied the right to donate, a patient is denied a potentially life-saving blood transfusion.”

According to Matthew Ng, the deferral on blood donations is stigmatising and damaging for gay men.
“We’re being excluded from being part of the community,” Ng said. “And I already feel slightly less valued than the entire community, so this is just something that doesn’t make sense to me.”
Worldwide, 36 countries currently have a deferral or complete ban on accepting blood donations from men who have sex with men. In the United States, Canada and much of Europe, sexually active gay men cannot donate blood at all, while in the United Kingdom, a one year deferral is in place.

 Ammy Singh  -http://tharunka.arc.unsw.edu.au/homophobic-gay-blood-ban-risks-lives/

Elizabeth Coast's False Rape Claim Leads To 2 Months Jail In Virginia

A Hampton, Virginia woman who falsely accused a man of raping her -- landing him in prison for four years -- will spend two months in jail.

Elizabeth Paige Coast, 26, will be allowed to serve her sentence on weekends. She came forward in 2012, saying that she lied about Johnathan C. Montgomery raping her. He spent four years in prison over the false claim, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports.

Coast told a judge Monday that when she was caught by her mother looking at pornography on the internet, she said she had been sexually assaulted, blamed her neighbor. The lie snowballed from there, she said.

"I had no idea how far this lie would go," Coast said.

During Montgomery's case, Coast testified that he molested her in 2000 when he was 14 and she was 10. Montgomery was convicted and sentenced to more than seven years in prison, according to the Washington Post.

When Montgomery was arrested, Coast said she stuck by her lie.

"I was petrified of the police ... everyone in my life knew," she said. "I was afraid of what my family would think."

Despite a lack of evidence in the trial, the judge took Coast's word over Montgomery's and sentenced the innocent man.

"It's just too awful," Montgomery told the Associated Press after his 2012 release. "She can't take it back. She did what she did and she has to deal with the consequences."

The consequences for sending an innocent man to prison for four years include paying $90,000 in restitution along with her jail sentence.

Source: http://ow.ly/p73ip

* * * * * * *
Your daily dose of "male privilege".

The End of Woman

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

I have been attending a small vegetarian cooking class. The teacher is a woman aged 70 who could pass for 55. There is another female classmate, a French Canadian retired teacher in her 60's who is also quite vivacious.

Normally I don't notice women my age (almost 64) but there is something uncannily different about these ladies. I felt so relaxed in their presence that I almost fell asleep. Then I realized what it was: these women are feminine. I had stumbled upon a species that is almost extinct: "woman."

Like myself, these women came of age in the 1960's, a time of transition. But, in high school, girls still took home economics and boys took shop. Boys asked girls out on "dates" - to dances or the movies. Premarital sex was still frowned upon and illegitimate children were called "bastards."  A popular song had the chorus: "Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage." We were taught to question authority, not our gender.

What is it about these two cooking class women that define "feminine?" If I had to choose one word, it would be "vulnerability." These are women who do not kill their own snakes. They rely on a man, their husband, to protect them and for direction. They do not compete with men.

Another key word is sacrifice. They are dedicated to their families and are cherished in return. They are loved not for their looks, careers or repartee but for their contribution to their families.

Another key word is surrender. You feel that a loyal man with vision and determination could could earn the life-long devotion of women like these.

Both men and women have been grievously injured by the Illuminati social engineers who have undermined gender and marriage with the complicity of our government, media and education system. Women have been "empowered" and men emasculated. The purpose is to neuter and re-engineer humanity as a slave race.

Women were designed by nature to sacrifice and surrender for family.  But feminism taught young women to be "strong and independent" and regard men, marriage and family with suspicion. As result, women have been deprived of fulfillment they crave and can only achieve through selfless dedication to a loving husband and children. This also extends to their sexual fulfillment (http://www.savethemales.ca/000441.html).

Women used to be essentially different from men. Their focus was the home.  Their spirit made them a refuge and harbor for a man. Their energy balanced his energy.

Young women today are so busy pursuing careers, they are barely distinguishable from males. Feminism has fitted many with a psychological penis.

Many suffer from what I call "personality deficit disorder." They may have looks but they have little personality, style or charm.  They can't be men, and they don't know how to be women. They are mutants.

In contrast, there is a lightness and charm about feminine women of my generation. They don't take themselves so seriously. A man can relax in their presence. They are still girlish and attractive in their 60's and after.

Under the guise of gay and women's "rights", the Illuminati has waged war on gender and has crippled heterosexuals psychologically.  Only Satanists could attack the love between husband and wife, mother and child. Men today are always portrayed as feminine and pussy-whipped. Women cannot love these men.

The essence of masculinity is power.  My advice to young men is to find a rewarding career that you enjoy. Define a vision for your life and a place for the woman in it. Then help a young woman find her fundamental feminine nature by accepting you as her leader. You must be the boss or a woman won't respect you. You will be her brother or son.    -

Source: http://ow.ly/p72wK


22 September 2013

Evolution: Basis for Racism

By Dr. Don Boys

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

I wonder what the "climate" is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race! Wonder what Jesse Jackson thinks of that?

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

"Dusky cousins!" How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human! Wow! the most KKK nut doesn't believe that!

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be." Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever becoming a life member of the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

© 2000 Cornerstone Communications

21 September 2013

Canadian Dad Sacrifices Self to Save Wife, Unborn Child in Car Crash

A heroic split-second decision by a young husband and father in the moments before a severe car accident that ultimately took his life has made headlines across the continent.

Brian and Erin Wood were driving across Washington State to visit relatives Friday when a car, later found to contain drugs, swerved suddenly into oncoming traffic in front of the couple's car. Erin maintains that her husband made the quick decision to swerve the car to the right as he braked, thereby ensuring that he took the brunt of the impact, while saving her life and the life of her unborn child, the couple's first. A week after the crash, Erin says she is doing well physically and that the baby appears not to have suffered significant trauma.

"His first thought was for that baby and his wife, so I'm sure he did it without consciously realizing it," said Brian's mother Janice Wood.

An ABC TODAY show headline celebrated Woods' sacrifice for both his wife and his child in the womb, and featured an interview with Erin, who said that the sacrifice of her husband of 4 years was "not a surprise at all" to those who knew him.

"He was very excited for this baby, and always just incredibly loving towards me and putting me first, and just an amazing guy," she said. "I'm just glad that he's being remembered as someone who was willing to make that sacrifice."

The young mother also said she took comfort in taking care of her baby in the weeks leading up to her November 5 due date.

It gives me some comfort just to focus on [the baby] and to focus on the joy that we’ll have once this baby is born,” she said on TODAY. “I’m just trying to draw a lot of strength right now knowing that [Brian] made that choice to save me and the baby, so I can’t waste that gift — and he wouldn’t want me to.

"I'm trying to focus on what I need to do right now, which is eat and sleep and take my vitamins, and just do my job as a mom," she said.

I really would give anything just to see Brian and hug him one more time,” she added, saying that she hopes people will learn from her husband’s sacrifice. “So if that just acts as a reminder to everyone to do that with people that they’re blessed to have in their lives, that’s my hope.

Source

* * * * * * *

Some MRAs don't like it when I (admin 2) say this, but men are female-oriented (not in a mangina way, mind you). Men always seek the welfare of women (most of the times, even if that means reducing his own welfare).

The problem starts when we swap gynocentrism (which was built by the patriarchy) with gynonormativism. The first is the normal condition of men, while the second is a political tool for cultural subversion (we usually call it "feminism").

Feminism in its goal to isolate women from men, is making room for female unhappiness since there is no one more willing and qualified to protect women than a man who cares for her well being.  (Key words: a man who CARES for her well being.)

Review of Kerry Bolton’s “Revolution from Above"

(...)

The global revolution that had its origins at the time of the Russian Revolution persisted in the Western world throughout the postwar era, even if not by violent means, and was backed by the same forces that had financed the Revolution of 1917. Since the Second World War, the revolutionary strategy pursued in the West has focused on seeding culturally destructive ideas and promoting anti-social behavior in order to break down the cultural, intellectual and moral fabric of society. This is always done in the name of — what else? — “liberation.”

The agenda of the gradual destruction of the White, Christian West was first expressed clearly and coherently by the Frankfurt School, in the form of “critical theory.” The explicit purpose of this purportedly scientific endeavor was the destructive criticism of morals, tradition, faith, family, and nation — in short: all the cornerstones of Western civilization. Bolton notes that political correctness, the intellectual disease which has infected the contemporary mentality in general and academia in particular for almost half a century, can be directly traced to the Frankfurt School.

As the name suggests, this neo-Marxist school of thought was developed at the University of Frankfurt, Germany’s financial capital. An organization affiliated with the university, the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research), was founded there in 1924, funded by the wealthy Argentinian-German Jew, Felix Weil.

It attracted young, almost exclusively Jewish, socialist intellectuals from all over Central Europe who, even if they remained Communists, had lost faith in the “revolutionary potential” of the working class. In the eyes of these academic revolutionaries, the workers were instinctively conservative. The destruction of the despicable civilization of Christianity demanded a more thorough revolution in mentality. That was the underlying notion that united Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and their ilk.

The first chapter in the history of the Frankfurt School ended in 1933, when Hitler came to power. Then, this entire group of Jewish Communist academics, humorously enough, relocated from the German capital of finance, Frankfurt, to the world capital of capitalism, New York, where the exiled Institute was hosted by Columbia University. Prominent members such as Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann spent the 1940s in dividing their time between the prestigious Ivy League university and the Office of Strategic Services, which was the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Later, in the 1960s, Marcuse was to become the Grand Old Man of the “New Left” and on a par with his colleague Wilhelm Reich as the main ideologue of the “sexual revolution.” Bolton documents how abortion, homosexuality, feminism, psychedelic music, and degenerate art has been fostered by the CIA and lavishly funded by Big Money’s tax-exempt foundations such as Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller. The feminist icon Gloria Steinem has admitted to having worked with the CIA. Evidence has also been uncovered linking drug guru Timothy Leary, propagator of the “turn on, tune in, drop out” catch-phrase of the hippies, to the CIA.

Really, this should come as no surprise to anyone. It goes without saying that if these “subversives” had not had the approval and support of those truly in power, they would have remained in obscurity. It’s that simple.

Source: http://bit.ly/16o7Wei

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More