This document is part of an archive of postings on Political Correctness Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written.
My Home Page. Email John Ray here. My other blogs: "Tongue Tied" , "Dissecting Leftism" , "Australian Politics" , "Education Watch International" , "Immigration Watch" , "Greenie Watch" , "The Psychologist" (A summary blog). Those blogs are also backed up. See here for details
With particular attention to religious, ethnic and sexual matters. By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
This page is a backup. The primary version of this blog is HERE
30 November, 2023
Tennessee Town Stirs Debate Over 'Holiday Tree'
Nothing changes: Christmas hatred lives
Germantown, an affluent community with more churches than coffee houses, recently celebrated the lighting of the city's "holiday tree."
"The City of Germantown presents Holiday Tree Lighting," read an announcement that was sent to citizens.
"Watching the first flicker of the white light on the holiday tree is a long standing tradition in Germantown. On Friday, November 24, gather with your family and neighbors in Municipal Square to sing holiday songs, toast marshmallows and enjoy the beginning of the holiday season as a community. Afterward comes the much anticipated lighting of the tree," read another posting on the city's official Facebook page.
Lots of folks had questions about the holiday songs, the holiday refreshments and the holiday tree, including yours truly. I happen to be a resident of Germantown.
Which holiday, specifically, was the city of Germantown celebrating?
"Why does Germantown have something against Christian holidays and traditions," said conservative activist Justin Johnson.
"Coming on the heels of our GMSD School Board wanting to rename Easter to 'spring holiday,'" said Kristen New, with the Shelby County Moms for Liberty. "Seeing the pattern, yet?"
The city's school district drew national headlines when a committee recommended to rename "Good Friday" and "Easter Monday." A calendar draft showed that both Christian holidays had been designated as “spring holiday.”
Parents and KWAM News Talk listeners rose up in protest and the board ultimately decided to keep Good Friday. They eliminated Easter Monday as a school holiday.
"Have you noticed the liberal mentality of these people in this thread or is it just me? Jesus is the reason for the season and these people are mad about it. It's pretty sad," New said. "Merry CHRISTmas."
"Isn’t it odd that the word “holiday” is derived from the words “holy day,” and these vacuous knuckleheads in local government think they are avoiding the religious issue by using that word," added conservative Bob Hendry.
"They don't want to offend the snowflakes by saying Christmas, so they offend the decent people instead," another resident said.
But many leftists and Christmas-haters defended the city's decision to be tolerant and inclusive. And they posted their objections by the hundreds on KWAM's social media platforms.
"Not everyone who lives in Germantown celebrated Christmas. They are trying to be inclusive not exclusive like some of y'all," one resident said. "You can call it whatever the F you want to but the city is acknowledging ALL ITS RESIDENTS and ALL RELIGIONS! Why does this offend you? Not very Christian of you."
Will Germantown rename Hanukkah the “Holiday of Candles”?
I sincerely doubt the leftists would be so tolerant or inclusive if Germantown had renamed MLK Day or Gay Pride Month.
"How dare you homophobic bigots call it 'Holiday Pride Month,'" I could imagine the Alphabet Activists yelling.
So, let's cut to the chase - the holiday we are commemorating with trees and cookies and songs is called Christmas. Jesus is the reason for the season.
******************************************************
When did populism become a dirty word?
Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., speaks during a campaign event at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2023, in Miami, Fla. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee )
I am fascinated by the opposing connotations some political words have in the United States, on the one hand, and in Europe and Latin America, on the other.
One such word is “liberal” — which in the U.S. is associated with the left and big government, but in Europe and Latin America stands for individual liberty, property rights and small government.
Another is “populism” — which the increasingly visible presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought back to the forefront.
American populism champions the little guy against the corrupt “establishment” that rigs the system to make a mockery of equality before the law. In Europe and Latin America, it also has an anti-elitist connotation, but the word evokes primarily a disregard for liberal democracy and the rule of law in order to quickly achieve certain goals.
On the left (as the right sees it), it means destroying the economy through expropriation, taxation and redistribution. On the right (as the left sees it), it almost means fascism, i.e., authoritarianism based on a mystical idea of the nation and “traditional values,” as well as a draconian approach to law and order.
In Spain, the current government (an alliance of socialists, communists and regional parties fighting for Catalonia’s independence) is considered a left-wing epitome of populism, while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is the consummate right-wing populist. In Latin America, Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro is a perfect example of a dictatorial left-wing populist, while El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele or Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro embodies right-wing populism.
In the U.S., populism is not always used to praise a leader or movement, but the word has a refreshing connotation. Many of the Founding Fathers are considered populists “avant la lettre,” or before the concept existed. A compilation of Thomas Jefferson’s writings edited by Martin Larson came out with the title “Jefferson: Magnificent Populist” in the 1980s.
In Europe and Latin America, Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to aggrandize the federal government, would have been considered a populist because of it, while James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton’s centralizing, interventionist instincts, would have been considered the opposite.
In the latter part of the 19th century, with the emergence of the People’s Party, which stood for monetary expansion, government control of the railways and restrictions on land ownership, American populism did have a connotation more like Europe’s and Latin America’s today. Progressives, with their naive belief in the power of the federal government to cure social ills, would also be considered “populist” in the pejorative sense.
Yet the word continues to enjoy a benign aura in America. To make things more interesting, the growth of government in the last few decades has played into the hands of “good” and “bad” populism, with the erosion of the middle class and the enrichment of an elite that owes a lot more to mercantilism — the connection between political and business interests — than to the competitive marketplace and healthy capitalism.
We have been constantly told by Biden and previous administrations that employment has improved at a healthy pace, but the index of hours worked indicates that its rate of growth since 2000 is one-third the rate between the 1960s and the end of the century. As for real median household income, its annual rate of growth since the beginning of the century is barely 0.6 percent, while in the second half of the 20th century, it was three times greater.
By contrast, the net worth of the proverbial top 1 percent has more than quadrupled since 2000 in real terms — while the Fed has printed money like crazy, inflating the price of speculative assets held by rich folks. The federal government has run up so much debt that it is now paying almost $1 trillion a year in interest. In the process, it has stifled wealth creation — to the detriment of the middle class. Instead of addressing this, the Biden administration wants to dish out another $106 billion that it simply does not have to various foreign actors.
That’s the perfect scenario for populism, both of the right kind (anti-elitism in the name of individual rights) and the wrong kind (big-government protectionism and economic nationalism in the name of the little guy). No wonder populism is making itself felt in the run-up to November 2024.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4323128-when-did-populism-become-a-dirty-word/
****************************************************
The Feds’ Vehicle ‘Kill Switch’ Mandate Is a Violation of Privacy
In November 2021, former US Representative from Georgia Bob Barr wrote a little-noticed political column claiming that buried inside President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure legislation was a dangerous provision that would go into effect in five years.
“Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a ‘vehicle kill switch,’” wrote Barr, who was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 2008.
Like most Americans, I had never heard of this alleged “kill switch” until a few days ago when Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, proposed to strip the mandate’s funding.
“The right to travel is fundamental, but the government has mandated a kill-switch in new vehicles sold after 2026,” said Massie. “The kill-switch will monitor driver performance and disable cars based on the information gathered.”
Nineteen Republicans joined all but one Democrat in opposing Massie’s amendment, which failed.
True or False?
The claim that the feds would mandate that every new motor vehicle include technology that could disable the vehicle seemed ludicrous. So I started Googling.
To my relief, I saw several fact-checkers at legacy institutions had determined the “kill switch” mandate was not true.
“Our rating: False,” said USA Today.
“ASSESSMENT: False,” said the Associated Press.
“We rate it Mostly False,” concluded PolitiFact.
(Snopes, a reliably left-leaning fact check group, was a little less conclusive, saying the claim was a “mixture” of true and false.)
Unfortunately, my relief evaporated once I looked at the bill itself.
Sec. 24220 of the law explicitly states: “[T]o ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.”
The legislation then goes on to define the technology as a computer system that can “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” (emphasis added).
How the system will make this determination is unclear, as is the government’s potential role in apprehending suspected drunk drivers (more on that later).
But the law’s language could not be more clear: New motor vehicles must have a computer system to “monitor” drivers, and the system must be able to prevent vehicle operation if it detects impairment.
“No Mention in the Bill of a ‘Kill Switch’”
How fact-checkers determined the “kill switch” narrative to be false is odd, especially since the articles don’t deny Barr’s central claim: The legislation mandates a computer system that will monitor driving performance and be able to disable motor vehicles.
The Associated Press conceded the law would “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” if the system suspects the driver is impaired, even “disable a vehicle from being operated.” So did USA Today and PolitiFact.
To arrive at their conclusion that this car-killing mechanism is just a fantasy, fact-checkers resorted to sleight of hand. A common tactic was to debunk social media posts that were actually false or unfounded, like the popular claim that the systems would be required to alert law enforcement if the drivers were deemed impaired.
“None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement,” the Associated Press assured readers.
In an odd bit of uniformity, each of the fact-checkers said spokespeople for groups who support the system, such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), told them they would never support giving law enforcement access to the system.
My personal favorite, however, was PolitiFact.
“[We] found no mention in the bill of a ‘kill switch,’” PolitiFact concluded.
The idea that the absence of the words “kill switch” in the bill is evidence that a disabling mechanism doesn’t actually exist in the legislation is nothing short of gaslighting.
‘Secure in Persons and Effects’?
The unpleasant truth is that lawmakers slipped into a massive spending bill a mandate that stands to require all new vehicles to have AI-driven technology that can disable your vehicle if the technology determines you’ve had one beer too many. And fact-checkers are using headlines to make it sound as if the legislation does no such thing.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2023/11/28/fed-vehicle-kill-switch/
***********************************************
Conor McGregor 'Knocks Some Common Sense' Into the Irish Taoiseach Over His Hamas Hostage Tweet
I would hope everyone was scratching their heads over the Irish Taoiseach’s tweet about the release of Emily Hand, the Israeli-Irish 9-year-old girl Hamas kidnapped during the October 7 attacks. Hand was thought to have been killed in the attacks, which makes her release more of a feel-good story. What makes it odd, sadly, was Leo Varadkar describing her disappearance as something akin to losing your kid in a supermarket.
The Taoiseach wrote, “This is a day of enormous joy and relief for Emily Hand and her family. An innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief. Our prayers have been answered.”
It was a tweet that got a community note for the obvious: she was kidnapped by terrorists.
Mixed martial artist and boxer Conor McGregor was incensed by Varadkar’s post, with the UFC champion laying haymakers on the Taoiseach for being exceptionally dumb with his remarks:
She was abducted by an evil terrorist organization. What is with you and your government and your paid for media affiliates constantly down playing / attempting to repress horrific acts that happen to children. You are a disgrace. The day after a stabbing of children in Ireland, NOT ONE PAPER HAD IT ON THEIR FRONT COVER. We will not forget.
An Algerian did go on a stabbing spree in Dublin last week, which set off massive unrest in the city.
****************************************
29 November, 2023
It's frankly Orwellian that Britain could face censure by the UN for daring to state that biological sex matters
What awful crimes might it take for a nation to be blacklisted by the UN on human-rights grounds? Detention without trial? Summary executions? Torture, public floggings and the persecution of racial minorities?
Perhaps. But, in Britain's case, the answer may be rather more surprising. Merely to state that biological sex matters could be enough to confer this disgrace.
Yesterday it was reported that Britain might soon be expelled from the UN's 'Human Rights Council' because our own Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously recommended that single-sex spaces should be protected according to a person's physical sex rather than their more nebulous 'gender identity'.
In plain terms, that means that a male-bodied individual who wishes to use a female-only changing room could do so simply because they 'identified' as a woman. Anything else could be a breach of their human rights.
Following complaints against the EHRC from trans-rights groups — including Stonewall — a process has begun that could see the EHRC's ranking by the UN slip below that of comparable organisations in such bastions of liberty as Palestine and Zimbabwe, leaving us on a par with Libya and Venezuela. We would be, in short, a pariah.
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, an independent body that provides accreditation to the UN, will rule on the EHRC's fate next spring.
Now, it goes without saying that Britain, like other Western countries, helped to shape human rights as the world understands them. It's frankly Orwellian that we should face censure on such grounds.
But the truth is that no one should be surprised at this preposterous state of affairs. For this is only the latest in a series of increasingly bizarre tussles involving the UK and the UN.
Earlier this month, the British government received a lecture of inconceivable pomposity, as the UN's 'rapporteur on climate change and human rights', Ian Fry, took us to task over the imprisonment of two Just Stop Oil eco-zealots.
Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland were convicted of halting traffic on the M25 last year by dangling off a bridge on the Dartford Crossing, and in April were jailed for two and three years respectively.
Cue anguished wails from Fry over the 'severity' of these jail terms — which strike me as having been lenient — and limiting the rights of activists to mount 'peaceful protests'.
Fry, an Australian-born environmental lawyer, even asked ministers to explain how the treatment of the pair 'is compatible with international norms and standards', as though Britain were a rogue state rather than the pioneer of parliamentary democracy.
Yet Fry's employer, the UN, has itself an appalling record of support for genuinely oppressive regimes, barbarous terrorist movements and corrupt despots.
Its 'Human Rights Council', so ready to censure Britain over whether trans women should enter female changing rooms, has members from the notably liberal regimes of China, Cuba and Pakistan.
Only a few weeks ago, it appointed Iranian diplomat Ali Bahreini to chair its 'Social Forum' in Geneva.
Bahreini is the representative of a savage theocracy that hangs gay people, executes protesters and deploys its squads of moral guardians to beat up women who refuse to wear the burka.
Fry's absurd bleating about the Just Stop Oil bridge-climbers, coupled with the UN's ugly embrace of Iran, is typical of the body's repellent double-standards.
This bloated bureaucracy trumpets its role as a global peace-keeper, yet stands accused of helping to bankroll Hamas through its mis-directed aid programmes and its collusion with Iran.
It loves to shriek about the iniquities of racism yet is plagued by anti-Semitism. It is ferocious in denunciating oppression, yet its recent record is packed with sex scandals in which its own employees have oppressed women.
Given the UN's obvious failings, it is particularly galling that the West — and the UK in particular — should so consistently prove the targets of its criticisms. Any potential sanctioning of the EHRC would be clearly absurd.
Many in Britain will be wondering how much longer we can endure the UN's pious lectures and hypocrisy.
**************************************************
Here We Go Again: Americans Prepare to Teach Target Another Lesson Over LGBTQ Christmas
There’s a popular meme that originates with an episode of “SpongeBob SquarePants” in which a previously beaten-up individual once again is surrounded by angry townsfolk. As they close in, one attacker shakes his fist and shouts, “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?”
Target Corp., the popular American department store chain, may be in for another round of lessons in the consequences of annoying its consumers with “Pride” merchandising. With the Christmas season approaching quickly, Target has a special gift for Americans: a woke Christmas.
Shoppers can expect to see “gay Santas and LGBTQ-themed nutcrackers” on Target’s shelves of this season, the Washington Examiner reported.
Erik Thompson, identified as a “Senior LGBTQIA+ Segmentation Strategist & Pride Lead,” announced he would be joining Target in an Instagram post earlier this week. His post appears to have been deleted.
In the post, which decried the devastating consumer boycott over the summer after Target sold creepy LGBTQ-themed merchandise marketed to minors, Thompson promised “Glitter & Hellfire” to “rip that old world to shreds.”
Quite frankly, I’m almost awestruck at the doubling-down amid what has been, unequivocally, the most powerful year for boycotters of absurdly liberal business promotions.
Lest we forget, the conservative backlash against Anheuser-Busch for partnering transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney with its Bud Light brand cost the company at least $15.7 billion. It also resulted in lots of Bud Light sitting unpurchased on thousands of pallets around the country.
Benoit Garbe, Anheuser-Busch’s former U.S. chief marketing officer, was removed Nov. 16 after Bud Light sales refused to bounce back.
Target suffered similarly, with stock losses of nearly $14 billion and sales slumps of 5.4% in stores and 10.5% online in the second quarter. Target’s CFO blamed the losses on the “reaction to our Pride assortment.”
The Walt Disney Co.’s woke strategies met similar reactions, with streaming subscriptions slumping, park attendance abysmal, and movie releases failing box office expectations. Releases of the live-action “The Little Mermaid” and Disney-owned Marvel’s “The Marvels” lost hundreds of millions apiece for the megacorporation.
In September, Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors that he would endeavor to “quiet the noise” of Disney’s previous political posturing, and since has delayed release of the live-action version of “Snow White” by a full year, following leaks that revealed a serious departure from Disney’s original animated movie from 1937.
Despite crystal-clear indicators that this is the perfect time for companies to quit political posturing and pushing liberal propagandistic efforts, it looks like Target will take the same lessons yet again—and stubbornly so.
The reaction to Luke Gentile’s reporting in the Washington Examiner already looks bad for Target.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., calls it an insult to his constituents and warns of legislative consequences.
“When companies like Target that insult conservatives seek Republicans’ help on Capitol Hill,” Cotton said, “our response will be: ‘I’m sorry that’s happening to you. Best of luck.’”
In a market where traditionally brick-and-mortar stores face increasingly threatening competition from online retailers, Target can’t afford to play so loosely during the holiday season. Anheuser-Busch’s decision to double down after the Mulvaney fiasco cost the beermaker far more than profit margins; such arrogance cost many of its employees their jobs because of the brewery company’s unwillingness to appease the market.
The answer to such inflammatory shenanigans is deceptively simple: Apologize and get back to doing what you do best.
Heckler & Koch, a German arms manufacturer I’m quite fond of, previously employed a social media manager who had begun to use her platform at the brand to lecture H&K fans about sexism.
The backlash began to build following a Twitchy article, with boycotts almost certain. But Heckler & Koch then broke the mold. It fired the woke social media manager and issued a statement on X, formerly Twitter: “H&K does not engage in identity politics. A policy was violated. Changes were made.”
Since that post, H&K sales have risen comfortably. No boycotts, no drop in sales, no problem.
If Target wants a merry Christmas and a happy new year, it only has to stop with the identity politics that have fatigued millions of Americans. We don’t need to hear about Santa’s sex life or which gender the nutcracker is pretending to be.
As one consumer posted on X: “This is so annoying, I just want to shop.”
How executives can miss the forest for the trees in such a monumental blunder is truly beyond me. If Target wants to learn the same lesson again, then by all means we will deliver until the corporation’s leaders get the message.
*************************************************
Banning ‘Thin Blue Line’ Flag on Township Property Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules
A Pennsylvania town’s resolution prohibiting the display of the “Thin Blue Line” flag supporting law enforcement was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.
According to several reports, U.S. District Judge Karen Marston ruled that the town’s ban on the flag restricts free speech of public employees under the First Amendment.
“The Township repeatedly suggests that the Thin Blue Line American Flag is of limited, if any, public value or concern because it is ‘offensive’ and ‘racist,’” Marston reportedly wrote in the court opinion. “But as this Court previously told the Township, ‘the First Amendment protects speech even when it is considered “offensive.”’"
The township argued that the flag was creating “discontent and distrust” in the community against the police. The dispute initially began in 2021, around the time of the Black Lives Matter riots in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death (via AP):
Tensions began when the township police department’s union voted to incorporate the flag into its logo in 2021. Several of the township’s commissioners opposed the decision, due to the fact the symbol has become associated with Blue Lives Matter, a term which has been used by some police supporters in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.
[...]
In October 2022, the matter escalated when the township’s lawyer and manager sent a cease-and-desist letter to the union, saying that the use of the flag in the union’s logo “unnecessarily exacerbates the ongoing conflict between police officers and the communities they serve,” directing the union to stop using the flag or remove Springfield Township from its name.
After the union refused to drop the flag or change its name, the commissioners adopted a policy that barred township employees, agents or consultants from displaying the flag while on duty or representing the township. It prohibited the display of the flag on personal property brought into a township building or from being displayed on township-owned property, including vehicles.
Wally Zimolong, an attorney representing the police officers, said that the court’s ruling was a victory for free speech.
"It was a resounding win for the First Amendment and free speech," he said. "It showed once again that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination based upon a message it disagrees with or finds offensive."
*******************************************************
ICC bans transgender women from elite cricket to protect ‘integrity and safety’
Australian-born Canadian trans cricketer Danielle McGahey has expressed disappointment but vowed to continue to fight for equality over the International Cricket Council’s decision to ban transgender women from playing international women’s cricket.
The international career of McGahey appears over after the ICC ruled players who have been through testosterone-fuelled puberty will not be able to compete in international women’s cricket.
The change in regulations appears to have been prompted by the case of McGahey, who became the first transgender cricketer to take part in an official international match when she featured in a Women’s Twenty20 fixture for Canada against Brazil.
The Brisbane-born 29-year-old, who played grade cricket in the men’s competition in Melbourne, moved to Canada in 2020. After her transition, she began playing women’s cricket in Canada and was called into the national team in October 2022.
The opening batter went on to play all six of Canada’s matches during the Women’s T20 World Cup Americas region qualifiers event in Los Angeles, to add to national team appearances previously in fixtures which did not hold official ICC status.
Canada came second in the four-team event, failing to qualify, with McGahey making 118 runs at 19.67 with a top score of 48 against Brazil.
Transgender athletes have been banned from taking part in elite women’s competitions in other sports such as swimming, cycling, athletics, rugby league and rugby union.
“Following the ICC’s decision this morning, it is with a very heavy heart that I must say that my international cricketing career is over. As quickly as it begun, it must now end,” McGahey wrote on social media.
“Thank you so much to everybody who has supported me in my journey, from my all of my teammates, all of the opposition, the cricketing community and my sponsor …
“While I hold my opinions on the ICC’s decision, they are irrelevant. What matters is the message being sent to millions of trans women today, a messaging say that we don’t belong.
“I promise I will not stop fighting for equality for us in our sport, we deserve the right to play cricket at the highest level, we are not a threat to the integrity or safety of the sport. Never stop fighting!”
Brazil women’s captain Roberta Moretti Avery said on Wednesday the timing of the ICC’s decision had been “unfortunate”.
“It’s a decision that appears to have been made by the ICC in good faith with the benefit of the most recent scientific advice. That said, the timing of the decision is really unfortunate,” Avery told ESPNCricinfo.
“Danielle McGahey was allowed to play in the recent World Cup qualifier on the basis of the rules that applied at the time. As a result, she was subjected to a lot of abuse from people who have never met her and who do not understand the difficult journey she has been on.
“She and her teammates also had a reasonable expectation that she would be allowed to play in future matches. So it’s unfortunate that this decision has been made after the event, once Danielle’s hopes had been raised and after she has already been exposed to a huge amount of scrutiny and abuse. That can’t be good for anyone’s mental health. The ICC lifted the hopes of a whole community and it feels like those hopes have now been dashed.”
Under the ICC’s previous regulations, which were effective from October 2018 and amended in April 2021, McGahey had satisfied all of the eligibility criteria.
However, following an ICC board meeting, new gender regulations have been announced, which follow a nine-month consultation process with the sport’s stakeholders.
“The changes to the gender eligibility regulations resulted from an extensive consultation process and are founded in science, aligning with the core principles developed during the review,” ICC chief executive Geoff Allardice said.
“Inclusivity is incredibly important to us as a sport, but our priority was to protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players.”
The review, led by the ICC medical advisory committee and chaired by Peter Harcourt, relates solely to gender eligibility for international women’s cricket. Gender eligibility at domestic level is a matter for each individual member board.
****************************************
28 November, 2023
A woman who does not understand how it works
TikTok has become a breeding ground for women to get candid about the dating landscape and the struggles they’re facing with single men. TikToker @ms_petch posted a video that has gone viral in which she laments over the fact that liberal men aren’t living up to her standards.
TikToker Complains That Liberal Men Are Not Masculine Enough
@ms_petch shares something on TikTok that has made dating very difficult lately. She calls it “one of the saddest realizations” she has had recently. “As a liberal woman, it is really hard to find a man who’s willing to play the more traditional masculine role in the relationship in today’s day and age who is not a conservative,” she admits.
She attributes certain characteristics to a traditional, masculine man: paying for the first date, opening the door for the woman, caring for and providing for the woman. She wants all of this in a man — as long as he’s not conservative.
“Obviously as a liberal woman, I do want to be respected for my independence and I do want to have my own autonomy in the relationship and not be conformed to the traditional female homemaker, childbearing role,” she continues. “And most of the men that I dated who do have that more natural provider masculinity about them are normally conservative.”
She is at a loss because she wants to be with a masculine man but doesn’t want to compromise her morals and values. She asks her followers if she is asking for too much when she requests a man she can be “equal” with while he still provides for her.
The responses on Twitter reveal that nobody feels sympathy for her dilemma. In fact, they find it amusing that she wants such a masculine man who has liberal values.
“Typically liberal ‘doesn’t want to compromise values’ but at the same time wants to reap the benefits ultra right leaning chad men provide,” one user commented.
“No, she can’t have her cake and eat it too. Masculine men want feminine women. Her views don’t align with that,” another said.
“Me married to a conservative man with all of what she wants,” another person wrote.
Others joked about her hitting the wall, so to speak, and realizing that she was looking for the wrong thing in men all along. Regardless of what happens to this particular woman and her romantic future, she has highlighted a universal truth that would make dating so much easier for women if they would just accept it.
Yes, Conservative Men Are Indeed More Masculine
A Pew Research survey found that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to describe themselves as very masculine (39% compared to 23%). Similarly, 78% of Republicans say masculinity is a good thing for society, compared to 49% of Democrats.
Aside from surveys, you can look around our culture and see pretty clearly that men who are on the right act and look more masculine than their liberal counterparts. Is this a coincidence? Or is there more behind this difference?
When you consider the basic values of the right, it becomes clear why masculinity is more prevalent. Conservatives tend to be more involved in organized religion, which results in their being more likely to acknowledge that God created a specific order of the world that includes the natural relationship between masculinity and femininity, as well as a family that includes a father, mother, and children.
Conservatives also value a strong family unit that maintains its independence from the federal government, a nation that stands strong against foreign powers, and personal responsibility. A country cannot achieve any of this without strong men at the helm who are willing to provide for their families and lead their communities.
Liberals, on the other hand, value diversity and equality above all else, and they also believe that there is no natural order involving men, women, and children. After all, if there were a natural order, then equality and equity would not be possible for them.
People on the left often demand the government intervene in social issues and provide welfare for certain communities, allowing people to shirk personal responsibility on a grand scale. This overall mindset doesn’t require men to be masculine leaders of the home or the country.
Ironically, @ms_petch claims that she doesn’t want a conservative man because she likes her independence, her autonomy, and equality in a relationship — and yet, she is searching for all the qualities of a conservative man. Of course, she wants a man who provides for her, opens the door for her, and pays for the date. This is a natural desire for women because of their natural femininity. They were biologically and spiritually created to be cared for and protected by men.
It shouldn’t mean or indicate that they give up all their independence and ask for permission before they do things in their day-to-day life, but it does mean they are given the gift of having a man look after them. And in return, they nurture his home, give birth to his children, and care for the family.
Sadly, many modern women have been convinced that having independence and being provided for by a man are mutually exclusive. That’s how you end up with single women like @ms_petch who have bought into a lie that prevents them from finding a lifelong relationship that will honor their femininity.
**************************************************
Uncovering the Truth: New Documentary Reveals ‘The Fall of Minneapolis’
A new documentary titled “The Fall of Minneapolis” brings to light the shocking truth behind the riots that swept across the city in the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd. The film, produced by former CBS news anchor Liz Collin, uncovers evidence of injustice and corruption that has been swept under the rug by the mainstream media and political leaders.
Collin, who was demoted from her news position due to her husband’s role as the Minneapolis police union chief, sets out to present a dispassionate yet damning account of the events that unfolded in the wake of Floyd’s death. Through interviews with key figures, including Chauvin and his mother, the documentary reveals new evidence that calls into question the narrative that has been pushed by the media and politicians.
One of the most shocking revelations in the film is the existence of police bodycam footage that was withheld from the public for two months. This footage, along with other evidence, shows that the hold used by Chauvin on Floyd was an approved technique taught by the Minneapolis Police Department. Despite this, Chauvin was portrayed as a rogue cop in the media and charged with second-degree murder, along with three other officers who were fresh out of the academy.
The documentary also sheds light on the intense pressure placed on prosecutors to throw the book at Chauvin and the other officers. And while the initial autopsy report found no evidence of asphyxiation or physical injuries to Floyd’s neck, the FBI’s involvement led to a revised report that was used in the trial.
The film also unveils a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy, which claims that Attorney General Keith Ellison and other officials railroaded Chauvin and the other officers in order to appease the “Defund the police” movement. Sweasy and three other prosecutors refused to work on the case, stating that it violated professional and ethical rules.
The documentary calls out the cowardice and incompetence of key figures, including Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who immediately branded Floyd’s death as murder, and Judge Peter Cahill, who refused to allow exculpatory evidence to be presented in the trial. It also exposes the failings of Mayor Jacob Frey, Governor Tim Walz, and Attorney General Keith Ellison, who all failed to contain the riots and hold the responsible parties accountable.
In the end, “The Fall of Minneapolis” serves as a reminder that the events of the summer of 2020 were not just about seeking justice for George Floyd, but were also driven by political agendas and lies that continue to have a devastating impact on our society. It is a wake-up call to remember the truth and demand accountability from our leaders.
https://patriotnewsfeed.com/uncovering-the-truth-new-documentary-reveals-the-fall-of-minneapolis/
**********************************************
The widespread destruction of American values by the Left
Last week, writers Francesca Block and Suzy Weiss co-authored an article in The Free Press describing the phenomenon of (largely progressive) Western women converting to Islam.
On the same day, Teri Christoph published a piece on RedState in which she remarks on how many of the recent displays of antisemitism (ripping down posters of kidnapped children, calling for the elimination of Jews at protests, denying accounts of the horrific sexual abuse, torture and death inflicted upon Israeli women and girls during Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel) have been perpetrated by women.
To add further salt to a wound that has never fully healed, social media exploded last week with TikTok videos made by young people expressing support for Osama bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York City, Washington D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Hundreds of TikTokers forwarded links to a letter bin Laden penned in 2002 justifying the mass murder, along with comments like, "Wow, Osama bin Laden had a point," "This will blow your mind," and "I look at everything differently now."
What all these stories and others have in common is a population searching for meaning in lives that have become utterly bereft of it.
We are witnessing the consequences of the West's self-immolation: the dumbing down of American education and resulting ignorance; the demonization of prominent historical figures, destruction of statues and renaming of buildings and monuments; the absurd oversimplification of history into "oppressors" and "the oppressed," and the equally ahistorical beliefs that human beings who trace their lineage to Europe bear disproportionate responsibility for slavery and other human ills throughout history.
Indeed, the currently popular attacks on "whiteness" -- "white privilege," "white fragility," "white supremacy" -- aren't really about skin color (which is why a Black man like Larry Elder who does not hew to the leftist party line can be called, with no trace of irony, "the Black face of white supremacy.")
What the so-called anti-racist race-baiters are really attacking is Western civilization itself.
A perfect example is the display that the National Museum of African American History and Culture put up in 2020 (only to remove it after a firestorm of controversy). The poster attacked as "Aspects of Whiteness" concepts like "independence and autonomy," "the nuclear family," "rational thinking," "hard work," "respect for authority," "planning for the future," "private property," being "on time," problem-solving and "decision-making."
These practices are neither unique to "whites" nor problematic. They form the basis for successful individuals, stable families, and prosperous societies.
While no civilization is perfect (and that is not the standard against which any can be measured), the West was founded upon some of the greatest principles identified or revealed in the history of human civilization: Greek and Roman definitions of good citizenship and ordered liberty, British notions of individual rights, justice and due process dating back to the Magna Carta, and -- above all else -- Judeo-Christianity, with its emphasis upon natural law, the inherent dignity of the individual, personal accountability and public charity.
When we remove those principles that formed the foundation of America, other, more malignant notions will take their place.
As we see in the tumult, people need meaning and transcendent truths. Without direction, they are adrift. In a culture that preaches nonstop self-indulgence, some will fall into destructive behaviors like drug and alcohol abuse or a life of meaningless sexual encounters, with all the attendant chaos and heartache those choices produce. The damage this has already caused to our country is immeasurable.
For others -- particularly on the left, which is abandoning organized religion in droves -- politics has seeped in to fill the void left by the absence of religious faith. Arguments about political, cultural, and social issues take on the fervor of religious zeal, complete with the vocabulary of faith ("Don't you believe in 'climate change'?" "Are you an election denier?") and threats of being shunned. "Correct" viewpoints are morally superior, and those holding "incorrect" ones will find themselves doxxed, "canceled," censored, or estranged from loved ones.
Hypocrisy is not an insurmountable obstacle for those who unshackled themselves from Western notions of philosophical consistency. The same "progressives" who mock -- if not outright condemn -- Judaism for its practice of circumcision seem to have no trouble supporting the mutilation of children's bodies if they claim to have a gender different than their biological sex. And, as Block and Weiss describe in their Free Press article, self-identified feminists critical of Christianity for its "subjugation" of women now find comfort in Islam. This belief system is orders of magnitude more oppressive of women than Judaism or Christianity have ever been.
The lost among us seek reasons for self-sacrifice in a time of self-indulgence, certainty in a climate of moral relativism, truth in a culture that professes nonexistent, and a sense of belonging to heal their sense of alienation.
Why aren't we there for them?
Because we have abandoned our identity, we are losing our young people -- and much more. Americans have spent decades apologizing for our culture, thinking it made us more "enlightened," only to watch the younger generations flock to politics and philosophies that are more violent, more oppressive, and more likely to promote human suffering.
There have always been and will always be those for whom the Western/American way of life holds little appeal. They should be free to seek meaning and purpose in other traditions (as long as those do not entail self-destruction or the destruction of others' lives or property). But their choices should be grounded in truth, not propaganda.
We should not give the next generation a reason to abandon their heritage by allowing it to be continually maligned and misrepresented, thereby disavowing it ourselves.
https://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2023/11/23/lives-bereft-of-meaning-n2631579
*************************************************
Make masculinity great again
By Australian libertarian Senator Ralph Babet
Babet is of ultimately Indian heritage
Sunday was International Men’s Day but blink and you would have missed it. International Women’s Day (March 8) is always marked by widespread celebrations of female achievement. LGBTQ people get a whole month in June to promote Pride, as well as half of February and March which is given over to coverage of events related to Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Men, however, who are, after all, half the human race, get one day.
The International Men’s Day website says the day ‘celebrates worldwide the positive value men bring to the world, their families and communities’, highlights ‘positive role models’, and raises awareness of men’s well-being.
Sunday (November 19) was International Men’s Day but there was precious little positivity. In part, that was because the theme for 2023 was ‘Zero Male Suicide’. There is no doubt that male suicide is an extremely serious problem. Over three-quarters of all Australians who take their lives are male and while the female suicide rate decreased in 2022 by 2 per cent compared with 2021, for men it increased by 3 per cent. Unfortunately, the main media coverage was an interview on the ABC which which didn’t celebrate men’s achievements or the positive contribution they make to humanity. Rather, it put the ‘spotlight on the high rate of male suicide’.
The failure to celebrate male achievement is perhaps one reason why too many men feel down but it’s not the only problem. There is a relentless attack on so-called ‘toxic masculinity’. Yet here’s the thing. While there is no doubt some male behaviour is toxic, so too is some female behaviour, and, for that matter, some LGBTQ behaviour. No sex or gender has a monopoly on behaving badly but it is masculinity that is under constant attack.
Indeed, the Albanese federal Labor government recently announced $3.5 million in funding for what it calls the healthy masculinities project. The goal of the project is supposedly ‘to help combat harmful gender stereotypes perpetuated online’. A government media release claims that 25 per cent of teenage boys in Australia look up to social media stars who perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and condone violence against women.
But you won’t find the government admitting that some cultures have more toxic masculinity than others. Labor, the Greens, and the left-leaning independents refused to have a Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse in Indigenous communities because they can’t bring themselves to face the reality that there is a higher rate of sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. So it’s not surprising that there was no mention in the media release on healthy masculinities that Indigenous communities suffer higher rates of sexual assault and domestic violence.
There’s another problem men face. When it comes to sexual allegations, the #MeToo movement has reversed the onus of proof. Men are assumed to be guilty until they prove themselves to be innocent. In the US, Brett Kavanaugh, who is now serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court, was dragged through the mud in the court of public opinion about uncorroborated, decades-old sexual allegations.
In reality, the government’s healthy masculinities program is unlikely to address real instances of toxic behaviour and instead, waste taxpayer money emasculating and gaslighting healthy young men and promoting the idea that you have to be a woke left soy boy and apologise if you happen to be white or straight.
Teenage boys should be mentored by their parents and the government should do everything they can to support the family including tax arrangements that permit income-splitting to allow mums to stay home when children are small and to work part-time as children grow up.
If Labor is serious about helping families it has to address the cost-of-living crisis that is putting far too many of them under financial stress. One way to do that is to abandon its crazy climate change policies that are pointlessly driving up the cost of energy and driving Australian jobs offshore to places like China that are building new coal-fired power plants every week.
If the Labor Party is genuinely worried about teenage boys following poor gender stereotypes online then it should seriously address the elephant in the room which is the number of teenage boys that grow up without a father in their home. There is a mountain of evidence showing that too many of these boys are more likely to commit crimes.
This is not so surprising. It’s only in recent times that we have been crazy enough to imagine that we can raise a fatherless generation and outsource parenting to the nanny state with teenage boys mentored by far-left activists.
There are no easy answers for single parents, just a role for extended families, and church and youth groups to provide healthy male role models and create opportunities for teenage boys to meet together for face-to-face sport and recreation rather than spending their lives glued to screens playing video games.
Unfortunately, Labor’s healthy masculinities project is unlikely to help. It is more likely to create gender confused, non-binary they/thems than happy, healthy, strong, confident young men.
It is undeniable that weak men create hard times and we are seeing this play out in Canberra as the Albanese government flounders its way through its first term. It is too weak to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It is too weak to address the crisis created by criminals gaming the refugee system. It is too weak to set a sensible immigration level that won’t put homeownership out of the reach of young Australians.
Perhaps that’s why Labor has funded a project that will make young men weak. Perhaps it wants men who won’t stand up for themselves when the state overreaches as it did during the pandemic, men who won’t fight for their rights and push back against authoritarianism, men who won’t defend their families, their faith, their culture, their nation.
We need boys to be proud of their masculinity just like we need Australians to be proud of their country. The good news is that while weak men like Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese create hard times, it is just as true that hard times create strong men, and strong men create good times. That’s what we aim to do at the United Australia party. So, sound the starting gun because with your help at the next election, we’re going to make masculinity – and Australia – great again.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/make-masculinity-great-again/
****************************************
27 November, 2023
Aussie living in London reveals British things she thought were weird after making the move
She is absolutely right about British customer service. Wnen I would walk into a London shop for any reason, all the staff would pretend I did not exist. But I never tolerated that for more than a minute. I would simply say in a loud voice "I hate being invisible". That would be an electric shock to the staff concerned. They would literally run to serve me. Why? I had done that most abhorred British thing; I had "made a scene". I can be something of a stentor at times so that would have helped too
She mentions her shock of British customer service and that when she first arrived, she thought 'everyone was so rude'.
She said 'No one says hi to you when you first walk into a shop, people will literally just ignore you customer service wise.
'When I went and got my phone plan down, I sat down and was like "hey I want a phone plan' and they're like 'yep no worries".
'The girl turned around tapped in her computer for no joke 20 minutes, did not say a word to me and didn't even look at me.
'I was like is this normal? This is the most awkward thing I've ever done.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-12775789/Aussie-living-London-British-things-weird.html
***************************************************
Hamas Atrocities Against Israeli Women Met With Deafening Silence
Showing that all the moral claims of the Left are a sham
Misogyny and cultural “norms” subjugating women are widespread in much of the Islamic world. These include female genital mutilation, forced marriages, persecuting women for not dressing according to strict Islamic standards, “honor killings,” and much more.
It’s no surprise then, but shocking and horrific nonetheless, that one “weapon” in Hamas’ inhuman massacre of over 1200 people in Israel on October 7, brutalizing thousands, and kidnapping more than 240, including young children and elderly women held hostage in Gaza, was the raping of Israeli women in the process. Underscoring that these are not individual criminal acts but part of something widespread and deliberate, it’s been described as a sexual pogrom.
Adding insult to injury, groups and people that should be advocating for women’s rights and under any other circumstance would be calling out such criminal behavior, have turned a blind eye to the forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and confessions of Hamas terrorists as if the victims and sexual crimes didn’t matter just because they are Jews. The evidence is clear. Medical examiners have reported that some of the rapes were so violent that the women’s pelvises were crushed.
A growing chorus has condemned ignoring these crimes or even denying that they happened using the hashtag, "#Metoo_unless_UR_A_Jew."
If the crimes happened to anyone else in the world, women’s groups, human rights organizations, the UN, and others would be decrying it. But the silence to these crimes that depict a depraved pattern of sexual violence used by the terrorists against their victims, is criminal in of itself.
If Hamas’ goal was to murder as many as possible, how did the terrorists allow themselves to stop for a gang rape? How is rape in any way part of any “resistance” that Hamas claims and the Islamic world celebrates? How did those fighting for the “resistance” ever think this was acceptable? How could any one of the Islamic terrorists be aroused when inflicting such horrors, much less multiple gangs of them? The answer is simple. It was premeditated. It is inhuman evil Islam at its worst. It’s the marrying of worship of massacring Jews with the overall repression of women. It’s a marriage made in hell.
This inhuman behavior does not stop at the borders of Gaza. It is at the core of how the Iranian Islamic regime treats women, and which trickles down to other adherents of the “religion of peace.” This is documented widely, including in the book “A Love Journey With God” by my friend Marziyeh Amirizadeh. If not for public outcry after her arrest and death sentence for converting to Christianity in Iran, she’d likely have experienced much more of the suffering that many Iranian women who she knew in prison did, including the raping of virgins before they are executed as executing virgins goes against “Islamic values.”
The threat of raping Jewish women in support of Hamas’ inhuman behaviors also made it to the celebrated halls of Ivy League colleges. Last month, Patrick Dai, a junior at Cornell, was arrested on federal charges of posting threats to “kill or injure another using interstate communications.”
In public online posts, Dai threatened to "shoot up" a campus building targeting Jews, said he would "stab" or "slit the throat" of Jewish men, and rape or throw off a cliff Jewish women on campus.
Other than the threatening remarks being horrific enough, it’s impossible to imagine how anyone could allegedly advocate for the Palestinians in upstate New York by threatening to rape Jewish women. It’s obscene.
The raping of truth also comes from women who are charged with protecting women from sexual violence. The University of Alberta fired Samantha Pearson the head of the campus sexual assault center who signed an open letter denying Hamas terrorists raped women during the October 7 massacre. The letter censured Israel for repeating “the unverified accusation that Palestinians were guilty of sexual violence.”
“Naturally,” antisemites around the world, including women who would never question the allegations of rape by anyone else, are challenging the facts specifically because Israel is sharing these. Fortunately, non-Israelis have witnessed and reported on this reality. After witnessing the gruesome evidence of rape, filmed and broadcast by the terrorists themselves, journalist Jotam Confino wrote he saw, “Two dead women lying on the grass at musical festival – both with no pants on. One has her panties taken half off. The other doesn’t appear to have any on at all.
He saw an “eyewitness describing how she saw a woman being raped by several Hamas terrorists, pulling her hair as they raped her and took turns. One of them cut her breasts off – the others played with them like a toy. The last terrorist to rape her shot her in the head and continued to rape her until he finished.”
Most of the most horrific documentation has not been widely released out of respect for the victims, and because this is part of ongoing investigations and likely additional criminal charges. But the terrorists’ confessions alone are abundant.
One terrorist was asked during his interrogation: “And why take the kids and babies?” He replied, “To rape them.” Another terrorist also confirmed that babies were abducted and raped.
These captured terrorists were not acting as “freelancers.” There’s documented evidence of Hamas commanders issuing specific orders to the terrorists who perpetrated the massacres not only to kill and kidnap as many Jews as possible but to rape and sexually mutilate Israeli women.
In any other circumstances, where women ranging from babies to the elderly had been the victim of such ferocious, repeated sexual attacks, the #MeToo masses would have swung into full action. Yet that’s not happening. UN Women which published numerous articles decrying the situation of women in Gaza, has ignored crimes against Israeli women. There has not been any recognition of Israeli women who were burned alive, beheaded, raped, had their breasts cut off, had their babies cut out of their stomachs, or been violently kidnapped.
The silence of those who purport to fight sexual violence on behalf of all women everywhere has been deafening. It’s especially problematic in light of November 25 being the United Nations-designated International Day for the Prevention of Violence against Women.
Rape and sexual assault as a tactic in the context of terrorism and war is a war crime. The Geneva Convention requires “women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honor, in particular against rape or any form of indecent assault.” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that “rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, or any other form of sexual violence” is a crime against humanity.
In numerous previous wars, crimes against women were a cornerstone of international criminal indictments and prosecution of men responsible for orchestrating and participating in rape. Based on the silence of the world about these heinous Hamas crimes against women and girls, it is unimaginable that any special prosecutor will be enlisted to protect Israeli and Jewish women. The International Criminal Court has historically been so biased against Israel, as happens in many rape cases, it’s not impossible to see the ICC even blaming the victims. Maybe for dressing too provocatively.
******************************************
Rita Panahi: Right moves show voters reject far-Left idealism
Argentina: Elections have consequences and after years of far-Left, Peronist rule Argentina is a country in crisis with the inflation rate hitting 143 per cent earlier this month. Argentina has gone from a wealthy nation with an enviable standard of living to one plunged into poverty and economic chaos.
This week, firebrand Javier Milei, a conservative, libertarian, vehemently anti-socialist, anti-woke anarcho-capitalist won the presidential election in a landslide.
The world’s media went into a predictable meltdown – similar to when Italy elected centre-Right Giorgia Meloni as prime minister last year – but Argentinians have finally woken up to the lunacy of watching close to half of the population living in poverty despite being blessed with abundant natural resources.
Milei is no milquetoast politician, he is an outsider who has been clear in his desire to tackle the bloated bureaucracy that has so poorly served the country. He understands the ideological battle in Argentina, and the broader West, is not limited to economic policy.
“You can’t give leftards an inch,” he said before the election. “If you give them an inch, they will use it to destroy you. You can’t negotiate with leftards … Since they can’t beat us with real arguments, they use the repressive apparatus of the state (to destroy us)”. And like Trump before him, despite being falsely labelled a fascist and Nazi, Milei is ardently pro-Israel and plans to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem.
Time will tell if he delivers on the comprehensive reforms he has promised or whether the “apparatus of the state” frustrates his agenda.
Anti-EU, right-wing populist Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has won the most seats in the Dutch general election. Picture: AFP
Anti-EU, right-wing populist Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has won the most seats in the Dutch general election. Picture: AFP
The Netherlands: In the space of three days we’ve seen the triumph of the Argentinian Trump and the Dutch Trump. On Thursday anti-EU, right-wing populist Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party won the most seats in the Dutch general election.
Wilders, who wants a more restrictive immigration policy and an end to what he calls “the Islamisation” of the Netherlands is set to become the country’s first hard-Right prime minister.
“The people must get their nation back,” Wilders said.
He is likely to end the emissions war against Dutch farmers and walk away from many of the Netherlands’ destructive climate change policies.
From Italy to Sweden and Finland to stalwart Hungary and now the Netherlands, hard-line conservatives are winning elections across much of Europe. Meanwhile in the UK, the lily-livered, Malcolm Turnbull-esque Tories are trailing Labour in the polls.
*********************************************
Anarcho-Capitalism And Dr. Javier Milei
First Giorgia Meloni was elected prime minister of Italy. This despite the objections and smears of the self-important and seemingly all-powerful US Deep State and its Mockingbird press, which in the run up to the Italian general election had painted her as the second coming of Benito Mussolini
Never mind that the politics of the corporatist Deep State are a lot closer to Mussolini’s fascist vision than those of Meloni, who in the “real world” pragmatically governs from center-right – to the great disappointment of many on both sides of the spectrum.
In the current US corporate media-approved version of the political spectrum, the go-to political character assassination terms “Trump-like”, “alt right”, “far right”, fascist, libertarian, neo-Nazi, and radical are all bundled up as synonyms, interchangeably and reflexively applied to anyone whose political beliefs are to the right of the modern embodiments of Marx and Engels’ version of socialism collectively referred to as “Woke” culture.
Each interchangeable term being repeatedly weaponized and launched in harmonized Qassam rocket barrages against non-sycophant independent thinkers, writers, politicians, scientists or physicians who refuse to contort their speech to fit the approved narratives, gender identifiers and pretzel logic of the Globalist oligarchy.
Unfortunately for those who maintain the thesaurus of approved “advocacy journalism” euphemisms, “anti-Semitic” has recently become both too inconvenient and too complicated, necessitating that it be struck from currently approved character assassination lexicon.
After decades of alternating corrupt mismanagement by the two entrenched traditional Argentine parties (Peronists vs Radicals), an academic economist of the Austrian school named Javier Milei has been elected President of Argentina, adding salt to the self-inflicted wounds of approved narrative defenders.
And once again, we are predictably being gifted with the usual stream of character assassination and hate speech from Deep State corporatist media lapdogs. My, how the Mockingbird does love to sing.
As with Meloni’s election, we have been treated to yet another peek at the Wizard behind the curtain playing his Mighty Wurlitzer. Labeling Javier Milei as a television personality, a common trope in both domestic and international corporate media, is a gross distortion of reality.
Why is Milei’s training in the Austrian School of economics relevant?
Because the economic logic of the Austrian School is based on strict adherence to the idea that social phenomena result exclusively from the motivations and actions of individuals. Austrian school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action.
In other words, growth in the “wealth of nations” is the consequence of actions of the individuals which create value and wealth. The Austrian School emphasizes the importance of free markets, individualism, and minimal government intervention.
It should come as no surprise that Ayn Rand highly recommended the economic writings of the Austrian school, particularly those of Ludwig von Mises. Is this starting to make sense now?
In Ayn Rand’s literary metaphor of Galt’s Gulch, the productive have fled and formed their own community, where free-market principles prevail and those who are enterprising succeed without the need for government regulation.
“We are not a state here, not a society of any kind – we’re just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man’s self-interest.
I own the valley and I sell the land to the others, when they want it. Judge Narragansett is to act as our arbiter, in case of disagreements.
He hasn’t had to be called upon, as yet. They say that it’s hard for men to agree.
You’d be surprised how easy it is – when both parties hold as their moral absolute that neither exists for the sake of the other and that reason is their only means of trade.” (Rand, 2007, p. 748)
Dr. Milei is basically an intellectual academic who became a truth warrior in response to the damage he saw being done to his country by a parasitic administrative state. In other words, he is yet another intellectual critic who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
He graduated with a degree in economics from the University of Belgrano, and continued on to obtain a masters degree and doctorate in economics from the Instituto de Desarrollo Economico y Social and Torcuato di Tella University.
For over twenty years he taught University-level courses in macroeconomics, economic growth, microeconomics, and mathematics for economists, and authored several books in economics and politics.
His signature presidential campaign rallying cry has been “Long live freedom, damn it!”, coupled with criticism of the “thieving and corrupt political class” of Argentina. Austrian school logic formulated as populism for the masses. Labeling Dr. Milei as Trump-like is clearly a gross oversimplification.
Don’t cry for Argentina, a once and future jewel and the second largest South American country, which is endowed with an embarrassment of natural resource wealth.
Which assets have been mismanaged for decades by a parasitic and dysfunctional government, resulting in widespread economic devastation. During the 19th century the country enjoyed an almost-unparalleled increase in prosperity, resulting in early 20th century Argentina becoming the seventh-wealthiest nation in the world.
In 1896, Argentina’s GDP per capita surpassed that of the United States, and the country was consistently in the global economic top ten until at least 1920.
Argentina remained among the fifteen richest countries until the meteoric mid-century rise to the Presidency of a previously unknown minor military leader named Juan Perón.
This political earthquake was followed by a cascade of bad management, political, social, and economic upheaval, USG meddling, and a notorious “dirty war” of the State against dissident citizens.
Now, after decades of high government spending and economic stagnation, despite abundant natural resources, Argentina has become one of the poorest countries in the world. A case study in how a prosperous modern economy can be strangled by an overbearing and corrupt administrative state bureaucracy. Sound familiar?
Dr. Javier Milei leads the “La Libertad Avanza” (Liberty Advances) coalition, and has vowed to “put an end to the parasitic and useless political caste that is destroying this country”.
His parties’ campaign has broken the mold of traditional Argentine politics by focusing heavily on social media, particularly TikTok and YouTube, where he developed a strong following among younger supporters. “Today, the reconstruction of Argentina begins” he confidently asserted, as historic election results poured in.
“Argentina’s situation is critical. The changes our country needs are drastic. There is no room for gradualism, no room for lukewarm measures.” “Argentina will return to the place in the world which it should never have lost.”
No wonder the US Deep State and it’s Mockingbird media are out to draw blood from this charismatic populist economist. One who dares to combine alternative social media presence with attacks on a parasitic and useless political caste.
The elite members of the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations must be wetting themselves. Time to let slip the dogs of the censorship-industrial complex, and to watch the Wikipedia and Google ranking manipulation begin. Don’t forget the popcorn.
The truth is that they should be running for their stockpile of Depends. For Austrian school economist Milei self-identifies as an anarcho-capitalist. Not as a “Trump-like”, “alt right”, “far right”, fascist, libertarian, neo-Nazi radical.
As such, Milei happens to be at the leading edge of a growing contrarian intellectual movement which directly challenges the legitimacy of the administrative state.
One which has now grown to the point where it can no longer be dismissed as “a small minority opinion”, and has been catapulted onto the world stage by an independent Latin American nation with nothing to lose and everything to gain.
https://principia-scientific.com/anarcho-capitalism-and-dr-javier-milei/
*********************************************
How on earth can the Black Death prove Britain was racist in the 14th century? That's the incendiary claim from the Museum of London
More pseudo-science in the service of Leftist racial hate
In a sick attempt to legitimise their Final Solution, Nazi 'doctors' in the 1930s and 40s would measure human skulls to try to prove the biological difference between Jews and non-Jews.
There was no scientific foundation for this revolting behaviour. How strange then that, almost a century on, self-professed 'anti-racist' academics are using methods that appear so similar.
This week, bizarre new research by the Museum of London sparked mockery and confusion after it concluded that black women were the group worst affected by the Black Death in 14th-century London.
It stated that their apparently inflated chances of death from plague were the result of the 'devastating effects' of 'pre-modern structural racism'.
Historians were outraged. One prominent academic described the findings as 'preposterous', while Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch went as far as writing an open letter to the museum accusing it of 'whipping up tensions around history and racism'.
The research — which has not yet been made public — took remains from 145 people buried at three known plague cemeteries in London.
Of these, 49 died from plague and 96 from 'other causes'. It drew its conclusions seemingly from finding that nine of the people who died of plague 'appeared' to be of African heritage, while 40 seemed to be white, making 18 per cent of plague victims black.
Among those who died from other causes, eight were deemed to be black and 88 white, making only eight per cent black.
It thus concluded there were significantly higher proportions of 'people of colour and those of Black African descent' in plague burials compared to regular graveyards, leading the researchers to conclude that black people were more likely to die of the plague.
So what is the truth? Is it really possible to deduce from a tiny sample that black people were more susceptible to the disease?
Let us look first at the immigrant population of 14th-century London. Dr Joseph Hefner, one of the authors of the report, claims in a convoluted metaphor: 'This research takes a deep dive into previous thinking about population diversity in medieval England.'
The obvious trouble here is that Hefner has not yet publicly elaborated on how 'diverse' England was back then.
Records contain the names of 65,000 immigrants resident in England between 1330 and 1550. In the year 1440, the names of 14,500 foreigners were recorded, among a general population of approximately two million.
The overwhelming majority of these immigrants, however, were simply from other parts of the British Isles, including Scotland, Ireland and the Channel Islands. Others hailed from European nations such as Portugal, Sweden, Greece and Iceland.
There were certainly people of African descent living here — often referred to in historic records under the catch-all terms of 'blackamoor' or 'Ethiopian'.
One black man, known as Bartholomew, lived in Nottingham in the 13th century, and is mentioned in the 'Pipe Roll' of 1259, a financial record kept by the Exchequer. But it's challenging, if not impossible, to pinpoint an exact number of black people living in London, as such records barely exist.
One author of the Museum of London research has even admitted: 'We have no primary written sources from people of colour and those of black African descent during the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.'
Indeed, one record for the tiny parish of St Botolph without Aldgate, located within the City of London, shows there were just 25 black people living there. They were servants, traders and free or enslaved people from Spanish warships.
But that record is for the 16th century, some 200 years after the Black Death, and there is little other evidence available.
Given such tiny numbers and insignificant records, the burden of proof that these researchers must show to justify what appears to be their theory of racism is extremely high. The truth is that the actual numbers of black people living in London during the 14th century was likely to be vanishingly small.
Yet, here we come to the second issue with the report — its deeply questionable methods of research. It's worth noting that the authors of the study stressed that their methods were significantly more advanced than controversial 'cranial measuring' methods — such as those employed by the Nazis on Jews.
Whatever the truth, claims about the ancestry of the plague victims were made by examining the skull features and bones that made up the faces and by comparing them to modern populations.
But as David Abulafia, Professor of Mediterranean History at the University of Cambridge, explains, 'all sorts of factors' impact bone development, including diet and puberty. Ethnic origin is thereby difficult to determine. What's more, previous research into plague victims has shown that comparing bone structures of our medieval forebears to our own is redundant, as modern faces are significantly different.
Dr Peter Rock, who led research into the way the shape of the human skull has changed over the centuries, has described the differences between modern and medieval features as 'striking'.
Only this year, there was embarrasment when the BBC had to remove a plaque in East Sussex that claimed an ancient skeleton known as 'Beachy Head Lady', dating from the Roman period, was the first known person of sub-Saharan origin in Britain. This conclusion was reached by scientists who — you guessed it — had measured her skull.
DNA analysis would soon establish that the woman was far more likely to be of Southern European origin, possibly Cyprus.
This did not stop the Museum of London researchers from using comparable methods, concluding that the apparently inflated death rate among black people during the plague was the result of 'devastating structural racism'.
Given that England in the medieval period was a feudal society, hardship was widespread, regardless of ethnic background. But the researchers have not indicated how they distinguished between the impact of poverty and nutrition on facial structures and the impact of race.
Richard Landes, an expert in medieval history and former professor of history at Boston University, described the Museum of London findings as 'theory over data' and 'a weaponised combination of post-colonial and critical race theory' developed in the States.
'Applying [these theories] to medieval Britain and using tiny, questionable numbers to somehow imply that the Brits in the 14th century were racist is silly,' he said.
Professor Abulafia echoed these sentiments, dismissing the claims as an attempt to 'rewrite the past', asserting that 'nowadays, the idea that we have to reinterpret the past in light of our concerns about equality, diversity and inclusion risks rewriting the past to fit in with contemporary ideologies'.
Rather than examining the facts, he warned, we're creating a case of 'my history versus your history'.
One absurd example of how contemporary comparisons were drawn by researchers came from Dr Rebecca Redfern, who worked on the report. 'As with the recent Covid-19 pandemic,' she told the BBC, 'social and economic environment played a significant role in people's health and this is most likely why we find more people of colour and those of black African descent in plague burials.'
This tenuous connection with the most recent pandemic incensed Kemi Badenoch.
She pointed out in her letter to the museum that government research into disparities in Covid infections among ethnic minority groups found that 'socio-economic factors, such as occupation, household composition and location were the real drivers behind higher rates of infection, and not racism'.
She added: 'In fact, the latest ONS data showed that females in the black African group had lower Covid rates than their white British counterparts — as did black African and black Caribbean men — during the Omicron period of the pandemic.'
Dr John Reeks, a lecturer in Early Modern History at Bristol University, also cautioned against making such direct links with present challenges. He said: 'The small sample size makes it very difficult to extract general lessons about things like social and economic status or health, or to draw comparisons to modern pandemics, such as Covid-19'.
The sad fact is, it seems Museum of London researchers have been desperately trying to push their narrative for some time, but until now had failed to find 'evidence' of discrimination. In 2019, when researching medieval remains recovered from plague burials, once again they took various skull measurements and compared these to modern-day human data to determine ethnicity.
However, they were then forced to admit that 'when [they] looked at how the skeletons were buried at East Smithfield, [they] found that none of the plague victims with Black African or mixed heritage had been maltreated as you might expect to see in a population group that might have suffered from discrimination.'
Perhaps this lack of evidence for racism in earlier research spurred the researchers to dig deeper in the hope of finding some.
Whatever the case, so excited was the BBC by the new findings that it shared details of the report on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Its post has been viewed nearly eight million times and received almost 6,000 comments — yet, predictably, the Corporation has so far failed to acknowledge the backlash and concern voiced about it by academics and the public.
The post, which includes a link to an article on the study, received a Community Note (context or clarifications provided by other X users) around 24 hours after it was first published. The note read: 'A previous study 'failed to identify any health disparities'. The current unpublished research found 9/49 of plague burials and 8/96 non-plague burials had African cranial measurements.This is not a statistically significant difference, even without cluster effects.'
The Community Note system only allows a note to be published on a post if people from varied political sides and opinions concur that the note adds something worthwhile to the post, or misses other serious context.
It is a sad testament to the state of academic research and to the BBC when ordinary Twitter users are better able to decipher the facts than our institutions.
**********************************************
26 November, 2023
‘I could have gone blind if I hadn’t been able to go private’
This is very common with governent heathcare but this instance from Britain is particularly disturbing. It's a bit better in Australia. Once you get into a government hospital the treatment is very good. But the waiting list to get in can be very long, several weeks at least. No good for anything urgent.
When her sight started to blur in one eye, Marianne Jones wasn’t too worried – but what happened next was terrifying and exposes the broken state of an NHS system failing millions of patients every day
Marianne Jones had always been short-sighted but, when her eyesight began to fail, she was facing a terrifying choice – pay now or pay with her sight later
It was three days before my silver wedding anniversary holiday that I booked an optician’s appointment to check out my suddenly blurry right eye.
For days previously, all I could see were wavy lines, distorted faces and floating blobs. I’ve been extremely short-sighted since I was a teenager (my nickname is Mr Magoo) and have check-ups more regularly than most. So, I was concerned but not overly so, putting my eye problems down to the strain of staring at the computer for too long. Still, I wanted to put my mind at rest before heading off for a 12-hour flight to Mauritius, for a celebration we’d saved long and hard for.
I hadn’t planned for the potential dire consequences of my symptoms, or the very British drama that came next. One hour later, on a Friday afternoon, the optician studied a scan of my problematic eye and declared I needed emergency treatment for what appeared to be fluid leaking into my retina.
I was told to head to the A&E department at Moorfields NHS Eye Hospital in London, as soon as possible. “You never know, they might treat you straight away,” my optician offered, not very convincingly.
I fear he knew what was coming. I arrived at Moorfields bright and early the next day as an emergency out-patient. A kind security guard pointed out the reception area, where I fumbled with the paperwork and tried to return it through the wrong gap. By now I could only make out dark shapes through my bad eye and even putting one foot in front of the other was disconcerting. I was nauseous, disorientated and alone, my husband having driven to the Midlands the previous morning to drop off our dog with relatives.
There was already a queue, but not a huge one. After handing in my “cheese counter” numbered ticket, I joined a row of other patients on plastic chairs. One woman was sobbing, her husband with his arms around her, another couldn’t open her eyes and had to be led around by the professional but harried staff who looked like they hadn’t sat down in a long time.
Two sets of tests and three hours later, I was ushered into a tiny, blue-curtained booth, where a registrar told me that I had a condition called Myopic CNV, brought on by my short-sightedness and resulting in blood vessels growing where they shouldn’t and leaking into my retina. It’s not common and it is very serious. The treatment – an injection into the eye – took seconds, was easy to administer and had a high success rate. But speed was of the essence and I was already approaching the danger zone.
I kept hearing the words “urgent” and “emergency” and it suddenly occurred to me that I was in real danger of losing my sight.
I’m almost certain that, had I waited the full three weeks, I would now be blind in one eye
A member of staff was dispatched to find the next available slot for treatment. Naively, I presumed it would happen that same day, but she returned to report that the next emergency NHS appointment at Moorfields was in three weeks’ time.
The registrar said what I was thinking: “That’s too late”, and picked up the phone to call hospitals nearer to my home in Kent (I’d chosen Moorfields that day because it was the easiest hospital to get to on public transport). Eventually, she reached a registrar at the ophthalmology department of Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup. More “urgents” were used and I was put into their system. I asked how soon the hospital might contact me, the registrar hoped it would be soon but gave me the phone number to write down. I must call them first thing Monday morning, she told me. I thought it was odd to be asked to chase up my own emergency referral, but sensed that she had been here before.
My worried husband and delighted dog arrived back home that night to find me in a state of panic, the sight in my eye having become progressively worse. I wasn’t in pain but could see almost nothing but dark shapes. After two sleepless nights and the day I should have been jetting off to the sun, I shakily called the hospital phone number. Over the next two hours, I repeated this dozens of times, but the line simply rang out before cutting me off.
The craziness of being unable to contact the hospital I’d been told to chase so that I didn’t go blind, led to us quickly making the decision to go private. I simply wasn’t prepared to play Russian roulette with my eyesight.
I called Moorfields – this time its private wing. They answered straight away. The price of the consultation, scan and one injection came to Ł2,799. I could be seen immediately. So, that lunchtime I had the surreal experience of walking past the A&E department where I’d been 48 hours earlier and round the corner to its private hospital, with shiny sofas, vases of hydrangeas and serene staff who had time to chat about their weekend.
Within the hour I’d been talked to, examined and scanned by a consultant who also worked over the road at the NHS hospital. He told me he needed to treat me immediately. I was too shocked to feel squeamish as he led me to a surgery room and injected medication into my eye to help restore my vision (you’re awake but anaesthetic drops mean it isn’t painful).
For a perverse crumb of comfort, I asked him what would have happened had I gone on holiday and taken my chances with the NHS appointment. He informed me that, in his opinion, my eye condition was so severe that had I left it another week there was a 30 per cent chance of me losing the sight altogether, a statistic that increased with every passing day. I’m almost certain that, had I waited the full three weeks, I would now be blind in one eye.
I have now become just another statistic, with four in five high street optometrists saying their patients have paid for private procedures in the past six months. There are about 640,000 people waiting for an NHS ophthalmology appointment, more than any other speciality – accounting for roughly one in 11 people on a waiting list of a record-high 7.8 million people. Being told an easy treatment was effectively out of my reach unless I paid for it, brought home that our NHS is not only broken, but shattered and in tiny pieces on the floor.
Two days before my sudden visit to Moorfields, prime minister Rishi Sunak walked through its doors to learn about the research being carried out in the world of artificial intelligence. I couldn’t help but wonder whether the real-world problem of humans not receiving urgent treatment in time was discussed.
I walked out of there almost Ł3,000 lighter, but not blind. Three weeks on I have still heard nothing from the hospital in Sidcup and wonder if I ever will. I’m now back in the NHS system and have been referred to a different hospital for a follow-up appointment. My condition is one that will need regular monitoring, quite possibly for the rest of my life and I couldn’t possibly fund this privately even if I wanted to. I frequently think about those other distressed souls that I shared the emergency waiting room with a few weekends ago. How many of them had savings to raid or a supportive family to offer help? I wonder which of them needed emergency treatment that day to save their sight and who was offered the appointment that I turned down. The one that quite possibly came too late.
****************************************
Why are young people pro-Palestine?
One of the most alarming developments of recent months is the realisation that not only is antisemitism on the rise, but that young people in the West think that it’s somehow or other justified.
Unfortunately, one doesn’t have to look far to understand why this is happening. For the Western Education system is increasingly being highjacked by political activists. For example, James Morrow, writing in The Daily Telegraph recently reported:
Parents have described themselves as ‘disheartened’ by an attempt by a group of activist teachers to promote a one sided view of the Israel-Hamas conflict in classroom.
The group, calling itself Teachers 4 Palestine, has through its social media accounts accused Israel of ‘genocide’ online while encouraging teachers to ‘light up our schools for Palestine’.
The group not only encourages students to skip school for a planned unauthorised protest on Friday, but also tells teachers to ‘wear Khaffiyehs’, ‘Palestine badges’, and ‘make Palestine visible in our schools’ by, for example, taking group photos with pro-Palestine signs.
Consistent with the tactics of Hamas, pro-Palestinian protestors are using children as human shields to defend their actions. Note how children were present at the recent unauthorised rally in Port Botany, while at the same time then blaming the police for their ‘thuggery’ at upholding the law.
In a far-reaching interview with John Anderson – the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia – distinguished historian and author, Niall Ferguson, makes the following cogent observation:
I think the strange thing about all of this is the generational divide that’s opened up. It’s very remarkable if you look at polling in the United States, Britain, or Continental Europe, that older people strongly sympathise with Israel and younger people strongly sympathise with the Palestinians. In fact, the youngest group surveyed – 18 to 24 in the US and in the UK – is strongly anti-Israel, and pro-Palestinian.
And that’s why when you look at the protests that you see in support of the Palestinians, they are very youthful when you look closely. And I think there’s a very good reason for this, and it’s an extremely important point which some of us have been making for years. It’s that the universities – and to an extent the schools too – have been systematically infiltrated by propagandists in favour of Islamism and anti-Zionism.
And we are now reaping the harvest of allowing the infiltration of higher education by radical leftists and Islamists. That’s the best explanation I think for this generational divide. It’s not just that the passage of time has dampened public sympathy for Israel. I think it’s something much more sinister than that.
Ferguson argues that the new current generation of leftists are different to their classic liberal forebears, and that there is even a ‘strange unholy alliance’ between Islamists and radical leftists who are both completely obsessed with identity politics. As Ferguson explains:
I think what has happened is there has been an unwitting, leftwards lurch. Liberals of the 1968 era, the anti-Vietnam types, thought when they saw the radicals of the next generation that they were seeing of themselves. Ah yes, to be young and radical again. And they appointed people who were far to the left of those anti-Vietnam liberals.
And one obvious distinction is, those anti-Vietnam liberals were at least in favour of free speech. But the new generation of leftists are not liberal at all. They’re totally against free speech. Nor are they secular. They’re highly susceptible to the Islamist arguments, which is remarkable when you consider some of the other things that they believe.
They passionately believe in LGBTIQ+ rights. They passionately believe that there are fifty-five genders … this is what is so bizarre about this coalition which has formed. It’s a strange unholy alliance between Islamists and radical leftists, completely obsessed with identity politics.
So obsessed with identity politics that they don’t recognise that the Palestinians are not just another minority like the transgender rights activists, but are really part of a globalist movement which is profoundly hostile to all the things that they care about, particularly when it comes to gender.
It’s a very strange – and I think unintended – consequence of the penchant liberal professors have to hire people further to the left of themselves.
This also goes a long way to explaining why so many young people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden’s actions on September 11, 2001 were in fact, justified. It’s because their whole lens for viewing the world is that of oppressors and victims. Of those who have power and those who do not.
This powerful – but also poisonous – philosophical paradigm is why the younger generation today is coming to a profoundly different position regarding Palestine. What should be condemned is now celebrated. What should be denounced is now defended. And the reason why that is so is because that is how they’ve been taught to think.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/why-are-young-people-pro-palestine/
*******************************************
Why Radicals Want to Sully Thanksgiving
Gratitude is peculiarly conservative. Leftism is anger, which is the opposite of gratitude
If you ask many people what Thanksgiving is about, they will provide an honest and accurate response: family and gratitude. And here we see why some radicals want to sully a unifying and wholesome holiday like Thanksgiving. Doing so taints a family occasion and promotes ingratitude, which helps undermine the American character.
So it’s easy to see why they’re targeting a holiday centered around the family. As Pope St. John Paul II wrote, “The future of humanity passes by way of the family.” Through the sacrament of marriage, men and women learn from one another, and the character of children is formed within the family. These are the bonds that root the individual and offer purpose.
Families are built around the small moments and the deliberate protection of those moments: of making time to read to children at bedtime and having a standing tradition of sharing a meal together amid the busyness of everyday life. Thanksgiving is naturally a precious occasion and is often a connecting point enveloping multiple generations.
The attack on gratitude is just as serious. Like forgiveness, gratitude is a choice, not grounded in naiveite or ignorance. Both forgiveness and gratitude require a confronting of wrongdoing, followed by a decision to dwell in the good rather than the bad.
Sometimes, like forgiveness, gratitude is difficult. Sadness and negativity have a way of lingering like unwanted guests. Those who, through habituation and resolve, have inculcated gratitude in their character, even amid the most devastating of life’s circumstances, arrest our attention the way virtue and fortitude tend to do.
Fostering gratitude is beneficial for the individual as well as for the nation. This republic we now seek to repair and maintain has always depended on a virtuous citizenry. That requires strength—and a gracious people is a strong people.
What is the intention of those who would deprive the American people of the spirit of thanksgiving, by sowing discord and inserting partisan politics into every aspect of the American way of life, by claiming that reflections on the American heritage should inspire nothing but shame and resentment? Are we to expect such assaults on the dignity of the individual to have no effect on the dignity of the nation?
While habituating gratitude on the individual level is an act of will and practice, doing so as Americans is aided through the study of history. We see in primary documents evidence that the founding generation strove to establish a wonderful continuity of gratitude and obligation that would form a single people. In the 1774 Suffolk Resolves, they declared,
That it is an indispensable Duty which we owe to GOD, our Country, Ourselves and Posterity, by all lawful Ways and Means in our Power, to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious Rights and Liberties for which many of our Fathers fought—bled—and died; and to hand them down entire to future Generations.
The debt of honor began with the men and women of the Revolution who, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, laid “so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.” And it extends forward to posterity, as an invitation to join in the great project of preserving the experiment in self-government.
The most appropriate response to such a debt is not a material offering, as it itself is not a material gift. It is a gift of character, and we respond with the dedication of our very person.
Like others, Lincoln knew that the memories of the deeds of the Revolution would fade as new Americans were born and journeyed to become possessed by the land. Along with that fading could come the fraying of Americans’ binding gratitude. Fortunately, common history is not all that ties us together. For,
when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.
What a wonderful thought to linger on this Thanksgiving.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/22/the-virtue-of-gratitude
*********************************************
The Christophobic ‘Wall of Separation’
Leftists only care about the Constitution when they’re defending what’s not in it.
That’s our takeaway from the latest flap over House Speaker Mike Johnson. We wrote a couple of weeks ago about Johnson and leftist Christophobia — the affliction that renders sufferers incapable of tolerating anyone who espouses patriotism and Biblical faithfulness. This was again on full display after Johnson made comments that left journalists in triggered hysterics.
Appearing on CNBC yesterday, Johnson was asked about praying on the House floor the day he was elected speaker, which his interlocutor said provoked a “question about the separation of church and state” and public perception about the whole episode. (Translation: I don’t like what you did, so explain yourself.)
Johnson’s reply, in which he even accurately quoted our Founders from memory, was a brief and incredible history lesson that every American should hear, so we’ll quote him in full:
Listen, faith, our deep religious heritage and tradition, is a big part of what it means to be an American. When the Founders set this system up, they wanted a vibrant expression of faith in the public square because they believed that a general moral consensus and virtue was necessary to maintain this grand experiment in self-governance that we created — a government of, by, and for the people. We don’t have a king in charge, we don’t have a middle man, so we’ve got to keep morality amongst us, so that we have accountability. And so they wanted faith to be a big part of that.
The separation of church and state is a misnomer. People misunderstand it. Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that [Thomas] Jefferson wrote [to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802]. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is, they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It was exactly the opposite.
[George] Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” And John Adams came next and he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
They knew that it would be important to maintain our system, and that’s why I think we need more of that — not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody’s vibrant expression of faith because it’s such an important part of who we are as a nation.
If members of Congress understood history and faith half as well as Johnson just articulated, we wouldn’t be facing most of the issues we do as a nation. If children in our public schools learned that instead of divisive critical race theory or family-destroying gender-confusion, our culture wouldn’t be falling apart at the seams.
Unfortunately, there was predictable outrage among ignorant journalists over Johnson’s comments.
Media outlets didn’t, of course, explain that Johnson is right about the “wall of separation.” Though NBC News did concede that “it is technically true that the words ‘separation of church and state’ are not written in the Constitution,” its story went on to insist that unnamed “legal scholars” believe the doctrine is key to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Our Mark Alexander debunked that myth way back in 2005.
Instead of the truth, other headlines across the board treated separation as if it’s a constitutionally settled doctrine, which, again, it’s not. They decried that Johnson called it “a misnomer.”
For good measure, the UK’s Guardian added a subtitle with what the paper obviously considers a smear: “Christian nationalist House speaker bemoans ‘misunderstanding’ of one of US’s founding principles.”
Correction: Johnson was articulating one of America’s founding principles.
Taxpayer-funded NPR might take the cake, however. In a related hit piece, it headlined about “Speaker Johnson’s close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe.” The story delves immediately into a pastor who a quoted “expert” claims helped “organize Christians for January 6th.”
Indeed, NPR proceeds to warn, Johnson and this “network of religious leaders who have advocated to end or weaken the separation of church and state” are a threat to democracy. “Taken to its extreme — as it was by some adherents on Jan. 6 — it embraces anti-democratic means to achieve their end.”
Your tax dollars at work.
This hyperventilating about Johnson is really quite something to behold. This “mastermind of the January 6 plot” is also a “theocrat” who poses a “threat to democracy.” Why, you’d almost think that authoritarian abortion zealots like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are the real Christians.
Time will certainly tell what kind of leader Johnson will be, but it speaks volumes that the Christophobic media is waging a shock and awe campaign to utterly discredit him. When it aids their cause, they’ll espouse and exploit historical ignorance about “separation of church and state” to scare people about a fundamentally decent man.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/102209 ?
**********************************************************
'Dutch Trump' Geert Wilders shocks Netherlands with huge election win
The Netherlands has a lot of poor immigrants who live permanently on welfare payments. That jars on the hard-working Dutch. And the sheer numbers of "asylum-seekers" arriving is very disruptive
Far-right firebrand politician Geert Wilders has won a 'monster victory' in yesterday's Dutch general election that has shaken the Netherlands and Europe.
The 60-year-old - who is anti-Islam, known as the 'Dutch Trump' and was once turned away from Britain's Heathrow airport for being too extreme, now faces an uphill struggle today to woo rivals to form a coalition government in parliament.
His populist PVV (Freedom Party) won 37 seats, more than doubling his share from the last election and outstripping opponents, according to near complete results.
A left-wing bloc trailed far behind on 25 seats, with the centre-right VVD on 24 - a catastrophic result for the party of outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
The result puts Wilders in line to lead talks to form a new ruling coalition in the country's 150-seat parliament, and possibly become the country's first hard-right prime minister at a time of political upheaval through much of the continent.
'I had to pinch my arm,' a jubilant Wilders said. Addressing cheering supporters in The Hague after exit polls, he doubled down on his anti-immigrant rhetoric, saying the Dutch had voted to stem the 'tsunami' of asylum-seekers.
'The PVV can no longer be ignored,' he cried, urging other parties to do a deal.
The unexpected landslide win prompted immediate congratulations from fellow far-right leaders in France and Hungary but will likely raise fears in Brussels - Wilders is anti-EU and wants a vote on a 'Nexit' to leave the bloc.
Hungary's nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban hailed 'winds of change' after the exit poll, while France's Marine Le Pen cheered his 'spectacular performance.'
Although he softened his anti-Islam rhetoric during the campaign, the PVV programme pledges a ban on the Koran, mosques and Islamic headscarves and Muslim community leaders in the Netherlands were quick to voice concern.
In his first reaction, posted in a video on social media, Wilders spread his arms wide, put his face in his hands and said simply '35!' - the number of seats an exit poll forecast his Party for Freedom, or PVV, won. The number has since risen to 37.
But as of Thursday morning, it is not clear how he can scrape together the 76 seats he needs for a majority in the 150-seat parliament.
Former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, whose Green/Labour bloc came in second, immediately ruled out cooperation, saying it was now their job to 'defend democracy' in the country.
Anti-corruption champion Pieter Omtzigt, whose New Social Contract party scored 20 seats, seems certain to play a role and indicated he was 'available' for talks, but admitted they wouldn't be easy.
Dilan Yesilgoz, who led the centre-right VVD to a disappointing 24 seats, was coy on election night, saying Wilders would have to see if he can forge a coalition.
She first opened the door to Wilders joining a VVD-led government but has stressed she would not serve under him.
Diederick van Wijk from the Clingendael Institute told AFP news agency the Netherlands was now in 'uncharted territory' after the 'landslide victory' of Wilders.
'A Prime Minister Wilders could be within reach,' he said.
Dutch media were left agog by the margin of Wilders' victory.
'No one expected this, not even the winner himself,' said the Trouw daily.
Even the usually unexcitable NOS public broadcaster called it a 'monster victory', a phrase that featured in several media.
The Financieele Dagblad said the result 'turns politics in The Hague on its head' while the NRC daily describes it as a 'right-wing populist revolt that will shake the Binnenhof to its foundations', referring to the government quarter in The Hague.
Wilders has built a career from his self-appointed mission to stop an 'Islamic invasion' of the west, but during his campaign sought to tone down his message, saying he could put some of his more strident views on Islam 'in the freezer'.
He stressed he would be prime minister for everyone 'regardless of their religion, background, sex or whatever', and insisted the ongoing cost-of-living crisis was a bigger priority. But his opponents allege his PVV manifesto tells a different story.
Wilders is known as the 'Dutch Trump', partly for his swept-back dyed hairstyle that resembles the former US president, but also for his rants against immigrants and Muslims.
From calling Moroccans 'scum' to holding competitions for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, Wilders has built a career from his self-appointed mission to stop an 'Islamic invasion' of the West.
****************************************
23 November, 2023
The facts that pro-Palestinian demonstrators need to know
The writer below sees a knowledge of the full facts as an antidote to the present upsurge of antisemitism. I think he is being far too optimistic. What the pro-Palestinian demonstrations reveal is how deeply runs the river of antisemitism in the West, a river that has now burst its banks.
Memories of Germany's Nazi horror have long kept antisemitism from being expressed in Western societies but that historic hatred has always been there and the Gaza conflict has caused it to burst into the open.
The big fault in Jews that causes them to be hated is their success in all sorts of ways -- particularly financial. And that provokes envy, a powerful destructive force that is such an ancient human folly that it is expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. It is a huge mental affliction that seethes in the minds of many unbalanced people.
And if Jewish success generally is offensive, Israel is REALLY offensive. Israel is not only succesful at building prosperity in what was once desert, it is TRIUMPHANT. It has repeatedly defeated attacks on it despite all odds against it. And that triumph provokes burning rage. A triumphant Jew is the very antithesis of what Jew-critics want. It is a towering insult to the envier mind
And where a towering rage is what is driving antisemitism, reason, rationality and facts are of no effect. What the pro Palestinian demonstrators say is founded in rage only, with the facts being completely irrelevant. The facts will be rearranged to suit the rage
And where does the rage come from? It comes from the Left, for whom rage is basic. The eruption of hate that emerged when Trump was elected reveals what drives Leftists. Rage and hate are the drives of most Leftists. So, where I see Israel as admirable in its success, the Leftist sees it as outrageous and deserving of total hate.
The divide over the Gaza war is a window into the ghastly reality of what drives the Left/Right divide in modern Western societies. Its "pro-Palestinan" motive is just window dressing for Leftist hate. It is not "pro" anything. It is just a demonstration of deeply-rooted hate.
During a call-in show with the late Christopher Hitchens, many years ago, a lady asked a simple but discerning question. After praising Hitchens for his insight, she asked how much of that insight came from talent and what rested on simply ‘knowing about stuff’.
While few can attain the knowledge, experience, and wit of Hitchens, knowing a few basics facts is surely considered the bare minimum to be a member of a society who wishes to participate in the marketplace of ideas… Or, if you don’t know ‘stuff’, you should at least be open to learning.
In our self-censorious age, it is more fashionable and pseudo-sophisticated to regurgitate the prefabricated phrases of the ‘bien-pensant’. It saves the effort of learning and thinking. Given this, we should not be surprised to find so many spouting propaganda without knowing the depth of their ignorance. Nothing illustrates this better than the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel, beginning on October 7, killed around 1,200 Israelis, mainly civilians, making it the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. One mustn’t forget that many Israeli Arabs also perished. One of these inconvenient facts forgotten by pro-Palestinian placard-wavers (who are really pro-Hamas, even if they don’t know it), is that some 20 per cent of Israelis are Arabs and 17 per cent are Muslim. Documents found on the bodies of Hamas terrorists show that the intent of Hamas was to kill as many civilians as possible, including detailed plans to target elementary schools. Another note, recovered by the Israeli Defence Force, read as follows:
‘You must sharpen the blades of your swords and be pure in your intentions before Allah. Know that the enemy is a disease that has no cure, except beheading and removing the hearts and livers. Attack them!’
Video footage, gathered from bodycams of the terrorists, shows them torturing their victims. The bodies found of Hamas’ victims bear the scars of the inhuman suffering they were subjected to before they were killed. There is a recording of a Hamas terrorist calling his parents with the phone of his victim, bragging with glee that he killed 10 people. Another is of terrorists boasting of having cut off the heads of their victims and playing with them.
This is the conduct of Hamas, an organisation designated as a terrorist group by, among others, the US, the UK, the European Union, and Australia. Remember, Hamas was voted into power in 2006 by a slim margin over Fatah in the Gaza Strip, they never allowed another election.
Another ignored fact is the fundamental difference between Israel and Hamas in how they treat their citizens and civilians during conflicts. While the former has made sure that every one of its citizens have access to shelters from the random rocket attacks, Hamas shelters their rockets in schools and hospitals, using civilians as human shields for weaponry and combatants, knowing that Israel will hesitate to attack due to humanitarian reasons. For Hamas, this is a win-win situation – either its civilians will prevent Israel from attacking, or if Israel does strike, the civilian casualties will be used for PR and engender sympathy among the gullible.
The actual welfare of the civilians has never been a consideration for Hamas, underscored by a report that said Hamas is hoarding 200,000 gallons of fuel for its militants, who hide in hundreds of kilometres of tunnels, while hospitals and water treatment plants are running low. Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and yet Israel is the one providing clean water to Gaza.
Even after the slaughter of Israelis, the Israeli military sent advice to residents in Gaza to move to the south in anticipation of their ground offensive in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties. Which other country will tell their enemies in advance of their combat strategy to avoid civilian casualties? The Hamas leadership, on the other hand, has ordered the civilians in the north to stay.
Around the world, mindless mobs have gathered and marched in support of Hamas and in condemnation of Israel, as if there is any moral equivalence. It is petulant and self-righteous. In Victoria, protestors saw fit to storm the office of Defence Minister Richard Marles. In Sydney, protestors were shouting ‘F*** the Jews!’ Elsewhere, the language reveals the callous nature of pro-Hamas protesters, with one man in London saying that ‘Hitler knew deal with these people’.
One might be tempted to say, and many do, that the slaughter of 1,200 Israelis is the culmination of Israel’s occupation of Gaza. But Israel does not have any presence in Gaza. In 1967, during the Third Arab-Israeli War, Israel occupied the then-Egypt-controlled Gaza (which is seldom mentioned), only after being fired upon from positions within Gaza. In 2005, Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza, forcibly removing the few thousand Jews who settled there.
But Israel has cemented the borders of Gaza, meaning that it is an open-air prison, others might pipe up. Perhaps Israel wouldn’t need to if the Hamas Charter didn’t specifically say that it intends to obliterate the state of Israel. But Gaza also has a border with Egypt, which the Egyptians have kept closed without any condemnation. Is it not morally worse for Egypt, an Islamic country that had occupied Gaza for years, as well as all the other Arab states in the area, many of whom very wealthy, not to open their doors to their brother and sister Muslims? The reality is that the Arab nations, like Hamas, care not a jot for the citizens of Gaza, whom they see only as a useful chess piece in the game of international relations against Israel.
The moral confusion over the Israel-Hamas conflict stems from not knowing ‘about stuff’. For if people knew a little more, there would be mass pro-Palestinian protests against Hamas. As such, in the utter moral confusion, antisemitism of the crassest kind is allowed to flourish again in the West, decades after ‘never again’ was promised.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/revelation-of-ignorance
***********************************************
Medical antisemitism
If we want to understand why medical professionals are drawn to acts of antisemitism despite their advanced levels of education, we need to look at what their medical associations and schools are teaching them. Those institutions not only advance an ideology that facilitates Jew hatred, they demonstrate by the example of their public statements that they hold Jews and the Jewish state to a different standard.
Assuredly, the great majority of medical practitioners have made no public statements or made benign remarks that did not warrant news coverage. Still, Stop Antisemitism, an organization that calls attention to public displays of antisemitism, has recorded many medical practitioners whose speech or conduct related to recent events clearly demonstrate untrammeled Jew hatred. The fact that some of those health professionals were subsequently disciplined by their employers is reassuring. But the fact that so many would feel the urge and freedom to engage in overt Jew hatred despite their advanced professional training is alarming.
Several doctors publicly celebrated the savagery that Hamas inflicted upon Israel, which featured barbarism that rivals some of the darkest episodes of human history. Dr. Shiraz Farooq took to social media to post a Palestinian flag with the caption “about time!!!” As of today it appears he is still leading the ColoWell proctology clinic in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Majd Aburabia, the medical director of a cancer center in Dearborn, Michigan, posted on social media: “What a beautiful morning. What a beautiful day,” referencing the musical Oklahoma! to express joy about the Hamas assault. An update posted by Stop Antisemitism claims that her employment at Beaumont Hospital was terminated, but as of today she is still listed as an employee on the hospital’s website.
The unbridled adoption of extreme progressive political orthodoxy (and particularly identity politics) raises the specter that a field entrusted with healing is instead becoming a vehicle for hatred.
Dr. Abeer Abou Yabis, a physician at the Emory Winship Cancer Institute, similarly took to social media to celebrate Hamas’ attack, writing “They got walls we got gliders glory to all resistance fighters.” She is no longer employed at Emory. Dr. Dana Diab commented on Instagram that “Zionist settlers” got “a taste of their own medicine.” She was subsequently fired from her ER physician job at Lenox Hill. Raeda Saeed, a registered nurse in the Chicago area, sent a direct message expressing her desire that a Chicago-area mother and daughter who were kidnapped be “burned alive and fed to Israel dogs.” It’s unclear if she has faced any professional consequences. Zaki Massoud, a medical resident at NYU Langone Winthrop hospital, commented on Instagram, “Let them call it terrorism. Extremism. Barbarianism. We call it liberation. Decolonization. Resistance. Revolution.” He was relieved of his position.
Other doctors made grotesque remarks in characterizing Israel’s military response to the massacre that Hamas perpetrated. Alaa Ramadan, a Houston-based pediatrician, posted an Instagram image claiming that the “only” difference between children murdered in Israel as part of Hamas’ genocidal campaign and Palestinian children killed during Israel’s war to eradicate Hamas is that “you won’t find Youtube ads for the death of these (Palestinian) children ... Because they have no hidden agenda or propaganda to spread—just raw images.” Her employer, Pediatrix, sheepishly commented that “we find all forms of racism and antisemitism abhorrent. Individuals commenting on their personal social media pages do not represent an official statement on behalf of the company. We will not be commenting further on this matter.”
In other cases, health care providers landed in hot water not for their own speech but for attempting to stifle the speech of others. Zena Al-Adeeb, a Boston-based endodontist, was filmed ripping down posters of Israeli civilians. Her employment was terminated. Dr. Mohammed Alghamdi, a physician and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, also ripped down posters of kidnapped Israelis. As of today he is still listed as an employee of the school.
Many health professionals were eager to endorse hateful messages crafted by others. More than 3,000 health care providers worldwide (including hundreds from the U.S.) signed an open letter making numerous demands of the Israeli government but none of Hamas. Worse, it originally demanded the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza but explicitly stated that this demand was removed after internal deliberation. The doctors who signed the letter apparently do not see the release of hostages as a priority the way that they see an “immediate cease-fire” with Hamas butchers as a moral imperative.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/antisemitism-medical-institutions
****************************************************
After Hamas Pogrom, Qatar Must Finally Pay For Its Sponsorship of Terrorism
The Iranian regime is the "head of the snake," as Israeli intelligence is known to refer to it, when it comes to state-funded Islamism and jihadism across the Middle East. But often absent from the discussion is Iran's chief Sunni ally, a fabulously wealthy tiny emirate that funds and houses Hamas and disseminates Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamism throughout the region via its state-owned network, Al Jazeera: Qatar.
In the aftermath of the single largest slaughter of Jews since the defeat of Nazi Germany, as well as the single biggest American hostage crisis since Tehran in 1979, Qatar cannot be allowed to get away with its duplicity any longer.
Along with Iran, Qatar is one of the primary state bankrollers of Hamas. It is also the physical home of Hamas' organizational leaders, who live lavishly in five-star luxury hotels in Doha, far removed from the mayhem in Gaza. The Qatari regime has provided material aid and comfort to myriad other Islamist outfits, once even offering banking services for the branch of ISIS responsible for the brutal on-camera beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff in 2014.
Qatar, via both diplomatic support and Al Jazeera's fanning of the flames of Islamism, was also the tip of the spear of the tumultuous Arab Spring uprisings a decade ago. Today, Qatar's state-sponsored Islamism makes it a convenient ally of Iran -- although the emirate's non-Islamist Gulf Cooperation Council neighbors, such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, view it with skepticism, if not outright disdain.
Qatar manages to evade Western scrutiny for its sundry malign activities via a multifaceted strategy, centered around Al Udeid Air Base, strategic Western investments, and a sprawling, deeply sophisticated information operation.
Al Udeid Air Base is the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, and Qatar looks the other way when the U.S. launches strategic operations, such as the January 2020 assassination of Iranian arch-terrorist Qasem Soleimani, from the base. The fact that Al Udeid is shockingly close to the Doha penthouses where Hamas leadership physically lives seems not to bother top U.S. military brass. On the contrary, Qatar's cynical loaning of Al Udeid has been so successful in duping Americans that the emirate is on "our side" that the Biden administration even formally designated Qatar a "major non-NATO ally of the United States" in March 2022. The administration is also currently indulging the farce of Qatar "mediating" hostage negotiations with Hamas in Gaza -- the equivalent of enlisting the arsonist to put out the fire.
Qatar, which sits on the world's third-largest natural gas reserve and is one of the wealthiest per-capita countries in the world, also attempts to indoctrinate and strategically buy out gullible, venal Westerners. The Qatar Investment Authority, the emirate's sovereign wealth fund, invests in many key assets, such as the Empire State Building in New York City and Heathrow Airport in London. Qatar has also been the single largest foreign state investor in American universities since 9/11, investing considerable sums in such prestigious institutions as Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, and Carnegie Mellon -- many of which now have branches in Doha.
Qatar invests heavily to promote its image as sleek and "forward-looking." It quite literally bribed its way to hosting the World Cup last year, and state-owned Qatar Airways is one of the most visible and ubiquitous sponsors of Formula 1 racing across the world. Al Jazeera's English-language outlet, AJ+, is also overtly progressive in its political slant.
Unfortunately, the Qatari information operation is multilayered, complex, and quite effective. It has duped successfully many Western elites in both North America and Europe. But no matter how much money Qatar sinks into its global P.R. campaign, and no matter how much the U.S. benefits from Al Udeid, the emirate cannot escape the fact that it is one of the leading sponsors of Islamism and jihad the world over.
The U.S. State Department currently only lists four State Sponsors of Terrorism: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Qatar should be added to the list, but stripping it of its ludicrous "major non-NATO ally" status would be a fine place to start.
***************************************************
UK: Liberty fought tyranny in a barely noticed court hearing last week, in what I believe is one of the most important cases of our time
By PETER HITCHENS
Liberty fought tyranny in the High Court in London last week, in what I believe is one of the most important court cases of our time. The issues were simple. Is it permissible to disagree publicly with the British Government's foreign policy?
If not, how much do you have to disagree with it to be in trouble? And can you then be severely punished without a proper trial?
I have a strong personal interest in this, since I often (in fact, almost always) disagree with British foreign policy. This frequently seems to have been made by bomb-happy teenagers who have never looked at a map, opened a history book or done any proper travel.
These are surely huge issues for any country. Apart from anything else, if foreign policy cannot be criticised, how long before domestic policy is protected in the same way?
Yet this titanic and principled struggle has been taking place all but unnoticed in one of the smaller courtrooms at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The case dates back to July 2022 when the Foreign Office imposed sanctions on a video blogger called Graham Phillips, a UK citizen and former civil servant living in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine.
Described in Parliament as a 'pro-Russian propagandist', Mr Phillips was made the subject of an 'asset freeze' and is challenging the sanctions decision.
Although most people would find his views repellent and believe he has behaved badly in other ways, as the great US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said: 'The safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.'
The High Court heard how sanctions mean Mr Phillips is 'experiencing hardship'. He cannot be paid for work, pay bills or his mortgage on a London house or even his Council Tax. Although he can apply for licences to be allowed to do so, he refuses on principle to live by Government permission.
Does the Government’s power breach the right of free speech
Unable to afford a lawyer, a young barrister, Joshua Hitchens (no relation to me) believes the principles behind the case are so important he has taken it on without a fee.
During last week's two-day hearing before Mr Justice Swift, lawyers for the Foreign Office argued that some material produced by Mr Phillips, which has been widely shared on social media, was created in collaboration with Russia. They also pointed to an interview with Aiden Aslin, a UK national captured by Russians after travelling to Ukraine to join the fight against Russia.
Joshua Hitchens told the court that the UK Government's action was an unlawful encroachment on the right to free speech.
He argued it is an unprecedented power with serious implications for free speech and that the sanctions could not fulfil their stated aim, which is 'to prevent Russian attempts to destabilise Ukraine and undermine its territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence'.Lawyers for the Foreign Secretary argued that the 2019 Russia (Sanctions) Regulations specified a broad range of activities. This could include speech or communication, such as propaganda or disinformation, that supported Russia's war aims.
Joshua Hitchens was arguing for liberty, with a solitary solicitor to help him. On the other side, a large and costly Foreign Office team was headed by a distinguished KC, Maya Lester. Behind her sat three other barristers, supported by about half a dozen assorted aides and assistants.
Graham Phillips (at one point accompanied by a black and white cat) watched via video link from his home somewhere in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine.
His lawyer had a simple but big point. Does the UK Government have the power it has used to punish Mr Phillips? And, if it does, is that power lawful, or does it breach the fundamental rights to free expression? The sanctions against him are a punishment, a 'draconian measure which prevents a person from living his life'.
They are penalising Mr Phillips, it was argued, for exercising his freedom of speech and they discourage him and others from exercising that right in future. It is impossible to know, Mr Phillips' barrister argued, if such rules will, in future, be applied to others. There is also no telling when they might end if they are applied. They are not like a fine or a prison sentence which, once paid or served, are over and done with.
Ms Lester had lots of small points. She argued that the expression of support for ('glorifying') the Russian invasion, of which Mr Phillips is accused, was itself some sort of material help to Russia or did damage to Ukraine.
She did not accept Mr Phillips's lawyer's point that the expression of an individual view was utterly different from the paid-for pushing of propaganda out of an official broadcasting station or pro-government newspaper. This was linked to Mr Phillips' opinions on Ukrainian military action in its eastern districts, and his attacks on neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
Mr Phillips is also accused of having been present at battles, observing them from the Russian side.
Well, this is certainly unusual. But, during the 1930s Spanish Civil War, in which Britain also did not take a direct part, British journalists covered it from both the government and rebel sides.
The BBC has reported on neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who very much exist. And Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens have suffered at the hands of Ukrainian troops.
Ms Lester is plainly a fine lawyer with a brilliant mind, but does she know much about the history of Ukraine? Does anyone in the FO? What did they think they were doing when they sanctioned Mr Phillips, who is probably unknown to anyone important in Moscow?
Ms Lester argued that he had received payments from the Russian state broadcaster RT, (which very few people watch) but did not mention anything very recent.
The real point of the case, in which the judgment has been reserved until a later date, is this: If a British subject chooses to say things which could be said to be 'destabilising' or otherwise upsetting the Republic of Ukraine, so exactly what?
If Britain was at war with Russia in alliance with Ukraine, then no doubt such statements might be deemed some sort of treason.
But the UK, for whatever reason, has not declared war on Russia. The British Government supports Ukraine and even I, who think this policy is mad, deplore the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
But Graham Phillips is entitled to disagree with the British Government and with me.
We may not like this, or like him. But if the British Government has the power to ruin people's lives merely for disagreeing with their opinions, or for sympathising with a country it does not like, then we are not free and our own cause is polluted.
We should all be hugely grateful to barrister Joshua Hitchens for taking on this unpopular case.
In the long run, our liberty depends on people like him.
****************************************
22 November, 2023
Here’s the Truth Regarding Complaints About the U.S.’s High Incarceration Rate
Some good points below but we are not allowed to mention how many of the incarcerated are black. If you broke out the figures for whites only the incarceration rate in America would be far lower and less out of line with other countries. Per head, America's crime problem is mainly black
Progressives have complained about high incarceration rates in the U.S. for years, but conservatives are finally being forced to address the problem as well, due to the left coming after them with politically motivated prosecutions. The U.S. has the sixth highest incarceration rate in the world, after El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda, Turkmenistan and American Samoa.
While superficially it sounds great to stop incarcerating drug users, the full picture is far more complicated. No one was ever sentenced to jail for marijuana; the main type of “drug user” that is incarcerated is a hard drugs dealer who also engaged in violence. CNN hysterically claimed in a 2016 article that “drug arrests actually increased about 10% from the previous year,” but failed to point out that’s because more drug dealers are being arrested due to the increase in hard drugs like fentanyl coming over the border as a result of the increasingly powerful cartels, not because your neighbor is getting arrested for smoking pot. “Drug abuse” violations sounds like it refers to use, but it includes selling and manufacturing.
While Pew has fairly biased surveys, one fact that crept out of a 2022 report was that between 2009 and 2019, “[t]he numbers of people admitted to and held in state prisons for drug offenses both fell by about a third, accounting for 61% of the overall reduction in prison populations and 38% of the total decline in admissions.” That same report claimed that arrests for drug possession remained almost the same during that time period, but didn’t bother to include any statistics on actual incarceration — because so many who are arrested for mere possession are released quickly after arrest.
What people don’t understand is that due to our porous southern border and huge population, we have one of the biggest influxes of hard drugs coming into the country, and violent crime goes hand in hand with drug dealing. The left likes to pretend that the U.S.’s high crime rate is due to guns, while ignoring the elephant in the room and pretending we’re imprisoning mere drug users.
El Salvador is considered the most violent country in the world, and its gang members are pouring over our borders unchecked by Democratic officials in border states and Democrats running the country. Why are we blaming high rates of crime on sentencing and guns, when it’s the open border policy welcoming the worst criminals in the world here?
According to DOJ statistics, the U.S. prison population decreased by 25% since 2011, but don’t expect to read that in the MSM. The sentencing rate is down 29%. Although blacks have the highest incarceration rate, the percentage of blacks in prison decreased the most among ethnic groups, 40%.
While the incarceration rate has been decreasing, violent crime has been increasing. Philadelphia saw an all-time high of murders in 2021, with 562 murder victims. That is an increase of 12% over 2020 when President Donald Trump was in office. And at least 10 other major cities saw recent historic levels in murders. The Washington Post pointed to the increase occurring after the death of George Floyd, tacitly admitting that the activists who riled people up over the incident stirred them into committing violence. There is a correlation in violent crime increasing close to the time Joe Biden took office with a significant decrease in incarceration.
At the same time, incarceration rates in several other countries are increasing, according to a 2021 report. The prison population in Europe (excluding Russia) increased by 5% since 2000. Excluding the U.S., in the rest of the Americas the total prison population has increased 138%.
A big part of the reason why the U.S. has higher incarceration rates is because violent crimes carry higher penalties here. In the UK, murderers rarely serve a full life term in prison. Many serve fewer than 10 years, and most serve only 10 to 18 years. In contrast, in the U.S., the median time served for murder is 17 years. You don’t hear the MSM bringing that disparity up.
Do we want murderers to serve fewer years in prison, especially considering how high their recidivism rate is? A recent DOJ study found that 10 years after release, 82% of state prisoners had been arrested again — an average of nearly seven arrests each.
One of the reasons the U.S. has such a high incarceration rate is because we stopped hospitalizing much of the mentally ill and drug addicts in the 1960s. The ACLU led successful litigation to stop this practice, so now those troubled people are out on the streets committing crimes. But no one likes to talk about that.
The U.S. has higher rates of mental illness than other developed countries, but lower treatment rates, according to the World Health Organization. Estimates state that over a quarter, 26%, of U.S. adults have a mental illness, about twice the world’s average. According to Human Rights Watch, 60 countries institutionalize their mentally ill, or family members lock them up at home. Denmark, for example, has come under criticism for sharply increasing the number of those institutionalized between 1990 and now. There were over 3,500 institutionalized in 1990, which increased to about 8,500 in 2020.
Banning guns doesn’t seem to have helped the murder rate in other countries. In England and Wales, the most prevalent method of murdering people is with a knife or other sharp object. Shooting makes up only 4% of murders.
The dilemma is whether to continue relaxing sentencing laws in the hopes that it will provide some relief for conservatives wrongly targeted by the left. Unfortunately, laws against violent drug deals don’t overlap very well with amorphous, broad catchall laws used to target conservatives, like RICO and insurrection statutes. Society is going so downhill as progressives take over and dominate so many areas, including the justice system, that it is probably naive to hope there is some correlation that can benefit conservatives.
********************************************
Progressives appeal to base emotions
It's not just envy that drives them. It is hate generally
Lionel Shriver
After all the identitarian left’s defence of peoples historically wronged, all their horror of the ‘violence’ in silence or biologically correct pronouns, all their advancement of ‘diversity and inclusion’ – which you would suppose would encompass all religions and all minorities, especially the persecuted ones – ghoulish celebrations of Hamas’s throat-slitting melee in southern Israel last month among some western ‘progressives’ were incomprehensible at first. But on reflection, the BLM brigade joining the ghastly Muslim chant of ‘Glory to our martyrs’ makes perfect sense.
Does this clamorous crowd seem happy? Are they enraptured by visions of a better world?
Let’s put aside the numbing jargon of this movement, and let’s put aside its dogma. I’m a novelist, and literary writers do deal in language and ideas, but most of all we deal in feelings. So never mind what they say or what they claim to believe. What emotions emanate from Hamas’s ‘useful idiots’? Does this clamorous crowd seem happy? Are they enraptured by visions of a better world? Given that the hard left’s rhetoric gestures (if condescendingly) towards the uplifting of the downtrodden, do its activists exude kindness, tenderness and compassion? Are they visibly bursting with love for their fellow man? Do we see the gleam of a radiant future glinting in their puppy-wide eyes?
Like many Speccie readers, I’ve followed the ‘culture wars’ closely for years, so to cheerfully overgeneralise – or simply to generalise – let’s itemise the emotions that overwhelmingly preponderate identitarians’ marches, oratory and screeds.
Free-floating fury – though exactly what they’re so angry about is a bit obscure. Anger does have an energising side, but it’s corrosive. Anger is a battery acid that eats you up.
Hatred. Beware folks who ceaselessly decry ‘hate’ while as ceaselessly spewing antipathy themselves, whether despising ‘white supremacists’, another name for ‘white people’, or ‘Israeli colonisers’, another name for ‘Jews’.
Vengefulness – which has a certain crude logic when manifested in minorities who feel hard done by, although many of the shrillest minority voices on university campuses hail from prosperous families. Opportunistic advocates of Critical Race Theory such as Ibram X. Kendi have done terribly well for themselves. Vengeance for what, then? Ditto affluent white wokesters: where’s the beef? A thirst for vengeance runs contrary to a desire for a better world, which would certainly involve less vengeance.
Resentment. Younger generations are bludgeoned with doom. They will never own property. They will be replaced by AI. The Earth will erupt into a giant fireball within their lifetimes. They will be poorer than their parents. Besides, people of all ages are often tortured by the suspicion that others out there are leading more satisfying lives than theirs. But resentment just sits there. It doesn’t improve matters. It’s a befouling, inert sensation, akin to the experience of lying in your own excrement and never changing the sheets.
Mercilessness. This unforgiving movement is Old Testament. It’s all damnation without redemption. The public apology simply invites a greater pile-on. And it believes in predestination: if your skin is on the pale side, you’re going to hell.
Aggressiveness. They’re bullies.
Cynicism, if not nihilism. Traditionally, the left was naively utopian. This left is apocalyptic. No sunlit uplands await, once we’re all anti-racists who accept there are 3,042 ‘genders’ and counting. Rather, modern progressivism needs racism to have purpose, so will invent prejudice where none exists if need be; ‘systemic racism’ is gloriously ineradicable. Even climate fanatics don’t believe net zero will succeed. They’re in thrall to a pending holocaust of humanity, which they seem to be looking forward to.
Sadism. The sole positive emotion these people evidence is delight in ruining the lives of others. ‘Cancel culture’ is a blood sport.
All these emotions are dark. This is a movement without humour and without joy. It is anti-everything and pro-zilch (the emotion driving support for Palestine is loathing for Israel). No wonder it’s in league with Hamas. It’s anti-life.
In a recent appearance, I submitted guiltily that my boomer generation may have originated identity politics, and a woman about my age objected to me afterwards: ‘But we weren’t like that!’
I took her point. The difference? We had fun. We had great music. We took drugs, to further exoticise the exhilaration of being alive. Yes, we went to protests. Yes, we were intoxicated by self-righteousness. Fancying ourselves mavericks, we were also conformists, in uniforms of beads and bell-bottoms. We said lots of stupid stuff. I declared at dinner at 14 that the entire US Defense Department should be eliminated, and even my peacenik parents chorused: ‘Well, I don’t know about that!’ In America, it was a time of farcical foolishness and unfeasible idealism mixed with the well-founded fear that you or your brother would land in Vietnam and genuine grief over the assassinations of Martin Luther King and RFK. Yet the largely unserious revolutionism of the 1960s was buoyant, exuberant, upbeat. The lingo was goofy but ebullient: groovy, far out, sock it to me, baby!, which sure beats rape culture and heteronormativity. Whatever our vague intention to transform the future, we were bent on having a good time in the present.
As a rule, note not merely what activists assert, but which emotions infuse the message. This latest iteration of Elvis Costello’s ‘peace, love and understanding’ is bleak. It’s a hostile, vicious, dismal and destructive gestalt with no vision of some resplendent new world that will rise from the ashes. Relishing the beheading of babies fits right in.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and co
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/progressives-appeal-to-base-emotions/
*******************************************
It's Simple Why No Arab Countries Are Taking Palestinian Refugees. They Know Better
When Israel began conducting airstrikes in Gaza, everyone knew there was going to be displacement. The military operation comes after Hamas invaded Israel on October 7, murdering 1,200-1,400 civilians in a coordinated assault involving well over 1,000 terrorists. The level of barbarity was unprecedented, leading to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forming a unity government that aims to destroy Hamas. On October 28, the ground invasion began, leading to scores of Palestinians attempting to make their way south to safety. Hamas shot some who tried to flee.
As the Left rages against Israel, hurling antisemitic slurs and chanting for more Jews to die, some might want to consider why the civilians have nowhere to go. Okay, maybe these folks do know but don’t care, but liberals are historically illiterate, so who knows? It goes beyond geography. The Palestinians bring trouble and have a long, sordid history of fomenting mayhem and terrorism in other Arab nations.
Egypt is the logical destination for these Palestinians, but Cairo doesn’t want them, and for good reason: terrorism. The border crossing at Rafah remains closed, with tanks now deployed to ensure their border is secure. Egypt’s prime minister even said his country is willing to sacrifice millions to ensure no Palestinians ever enter Egypt en masse (via WSJ):
If Hamas cared about Palestinian civilians, it would encourage them to leave Gaza. But instead it is demanding that they remain. The terror group intends to use its own people and the hostages it abducted from Israel as human shields. Their hope is that either Israeli concern about causing collateral damage or global opprobrium will force Israel to scale back its counter-invasion.
Egypt is the only place to which Gaza’s civilians can flee for now. Yet Cairo insists on maintaining its strict quota for entries from Gaza via the Rafah crossing—with only 800 able to leave on Monday, and the crossing reportedly closed in recent days.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi bears no warm feelings toward Hamas, which is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood that tried to impose an Islamist regime in his country not too long ago. He’s concerned that Hamas terrorists might slip across the border into Egypt with a tide of civilians.
One way to reduce that possibility would be to house refugees in camps while they’re vetted for Hamas ties. The rest of the world should support a United Nations effort to help. But taking on this practical and financial burden is a risk Mr. Sisi may not want to take two months before Egypt holds what pass for elections there.
The timing is bad for Mr. Sisi, but unless he budges Egypt will become partly responsible for what could become a terrible humanitarian crisis—and that’s if Israel succeeds in rooting out Hamas. If Hamas’s strategy succeeds and Israel is forced by international pressure to scale back its defensive operations, Egypt will have to live with an entrenched and emboldened Hamas on the other side of the Rafah crossing.
If Hamas and the Palestinians aren’t freely moving into Egypt, they’ll be okay with it. Also, Israel has resisted ceasefires and has continued to chip away at the terror group’s infrastructure in Gaza, but a humanitarian crisis could still emerge.
As the tweet above mentioned, the Palestinians tried to take over Jordan in the 1970s, leading to the late King Hussein declaring war on them and driving them out. They were booted from Kuwait after collaborating with Saddam Hussein’s forces before the Gulf War. They set off a powder keg in Lebanon, a nation that has yet to recover from its brutal civil war that lasted 15 years. No Arab country wants these people because they bring instability and trouble. They’re not importing terrorism; that’s what we’re doing wholesale.
*******************************************************
Local government Christophobia
A Texas church is suing the local government, claiming that “illegal excessive” fees to install a water tap violate the U.S. Constitution and the state’s religious freedom law.
First Liberty Institute, a legal organization focused on religious liberty, and King & Spalding LLP, an international law firm, filed the lawsuit Wednesday against Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District on behalf of Grace Community Church in The Woodlands, Texas.
“The county’s water tap fee scheme is a thinly veiled illegal property tax on Grace Community Church,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement Thursday. “Local governments like Montgomery County, in search of new revenue, are illegally targeting churches and other non-profits with similar schemes.”
The district initially told the church that labor and materials would cost $24,900 to connect to the water line. Later, the church asked the district to install the water tap, which the district said would cost $61,500, which is much higher than the actual cost. The church challenged the cost because of its tax-exempt status, at which point the district countered with a tap fee of $147,938, more than doubling the prior fee. Eventually, the church had no choice but to pay the fees.
“No government agency should impose a ‘fee-in-lieu-of-taxes’ against faith-based entities,” Dys told The Daily Signal. “What we see now is merely an effort to generate revenue by those the State of Texas have protected against taxation because of the tremendous good they do in the community.”
Dys said the church had not heard of any other complaints about the district placing illegal fees on any other entities.
“To be clear, there is no dispute that Grace should pay and is willing to pay tap fees reflecting the district’s actual costs to install a water tap and provide service to Grace,” the church writes in the lawsuit’s preliminary statement.
The district is instructing Grace Community Church to pay additional fees that aren’t related to the water tap or any service provided, and the district “admits as much,” according to the preliminary statement.
The church is making three legal claims against the district: that the district violated the Texas water code, that the district violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that the district violated the free exercise clause in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
“A party that pays unlawful taxes or fees to a governmental entity under duress may recover those fees” under the Texas water code, the lawsuit notes.
The lawsuit claims that the district violated the Texas religious freedom act by placing “a real and substantial burden on Grace’s and its members’ free exercise of religion.”
The suit also claims that the district’s move “restricts Grace’s ability to provide services tied to the central tenants of Grace’s and its members’ faith,” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Dys told The Daily Signal that he is hopeful Grace Community Church will triumph in this lawsuit.
“Churches like Grace Community are important parts of the communities they serve,” Craig Stanfield, a partner in the firm of King & Spalding, said in a statement on the lawsuit. “The resources of churches are best used in fulfilling their mission to serve their congregations and communities, not in paying unlawful taxes. We look forward to securing a refund for Grace Community.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/17/local-government-charging-taxes-church-disguised-fees
****************************************
21 November, 2023
The problem with trying to ‘fix’ men
The problem with any drive towards ‘fixing’ men’s mental health is a lot of blokes like being blokes. It is easier. An important reason why men on average die younger than women is that they do more dangerous things -- both at work and during recreation. Male suicides are often the result of a judicial system weighted against them in family court matters. And the biological differences between men and women are an obvious cause of differing disease patterns between the sexes. So attempts to "reform" men are unlikely to affect such important differences
International men’s day takes place today. There are plenty of good people working hard to raise the event’s status, but in many quarters it’ll be greeted with shrugs.
The same compelling stats will again do the rounds: that men die younger, receive longer prison sentences for the same crimes, do worse academically, represent the vast majority of our homeless and remain much more likely to kill themselves. Most will only be aware of the last statistic, even though it’s most likely the net consequence of all the others. Some people will acknowledge the problems facing men and boys but only offer up cursory platitudes and simple fixes. ‘Men need to talk more’, ‘Men need to cry more’, ‘Men need to hug other men without the catalyst of a last-minute goal’.
The subtext of such attitudes is almost always that men need to change. Women it seems, are the eternal finished product, ready for market. Whereas men are the equivalent of one of those robot dogs you see online that can do a bit of dancing but can’t quite master the stairs.
Even when men aren’t seen as individually defective, they are often viewed as collectively at fault. Feminists who take a sympathetic view of men’s mental health will sometimes go on to assert that men’s problems are yet another consequence of the patriarchy. But this just can feel like an attempt to get back to the ‘real’ agenda, like whenever the latest ‘Just Stop Something’ protest group inadvertently reveal that a sudden obsession with cavity insulation has something to do with Karl Marx.
The patriarchy is often imagined as a self-conscious act by men to protect both the status quo and each other’s interests. I’m not sure we’re all that concerned about one another’s welfare, given we are after all a species for whom the funniest thing imaginable is seeing our best mate take a football to the nuts. Most blokes don’t want a cultural revolution or, indeed, those fix-all solutions favoured by the ‘manosphere’ either, where they tell men to ‘crush’ self doubt and ‘unleash’ their inner beast. The closest most of us come to unleashing our inner beast is when a visiting in-law puts the heating on in September.
On a day-to-day basis the vast majority of blokes are doing their best to protect and provide for the people they care about. They may be a bit rubbish at remembering important dates, or the names of any children other than their own, but most are trying to be a dependable presence for the people they love.
When it comes to mental health, they would probably like to feel a bit happier, a bit calmer, sleep a bit better and feel less alone. It’s a hard thing to admit, but middle age and fatherhood can be a lonely business. At this age women are often still making friends: Annabelle from NCT, Claire from the school gate, Hannah from tumble tots, and that Pilates instructor who insists on leading all female classes. When I’m at the school gates my intention isn’t to make friends, it’s to, and this might sound crazy, pick up my son and take him home. Women excel in their ability to share the details of their lives with friends and family. It’s why a show like Loose Women has existed for nearly a quarter of a century; we recognise the value of a group of women getting together to share, moan a bit and laugh about the rubbishness of the hapless blokes they’ve been saddled with.
This kind of exchange is a lot harder for most men. For a start, when we do get time together, the last thing we want to do is talk about anything meaningful. This can easily lead to a situation where a man comes back from three days with his mates and has no new information to report to his partner. She’ll seek life ‘news’ but the only new thing he’s sure about is Greg’s fringe, which Greg spent the whole time getting hammered for.
His partner might conclude that this emotional distance is sad. In some ways she’s right, one of the great tragedies of being male is you never get to tell another man how you truly feel (the flipside being that you don’t have to listen to their woes – it may be flawed, but it’s not without logic).
The downside of this system is that as blokes bumble into middle-age the tough stuff of life becomes inevitable – disappointments, death, the cost of a family pass at Centre Parks. When the sad stuff goes undiscussed men can end up existing in an emotional vacuum.
But are those who say ‘men just need to talk more’ right? I suspect that even if men are encouraged to open up more, most of us are never going to become head tilting empaths or help our mate journey to find his ‘inner child’ (in fairness, we’d instantly forget the name of that child).
I suspect the real answer is something of a compromise: with men opening up more, but gradually and at their own pace. I wonder if something like the successful campaign for eating five fruit and veg a day could help. When spending time with a friend, aim for five new things you can tell your partner about them when you get home. In the process of finding out those things you might end up discovering something important. Or maybe, just like the original fruit and veg plan, you’ll only manage two, but at least you can convince yourself that the emotional equivalent of a Terry’s chocolate orange counts for the other three.
The problem with any drive towards ‘fixing’ men’s mental health is a lot of blokes like being blokes. The simplicity, the directness of communication, the fact you can make a full plan using just nine words spanning three text messages. So men might be open to some adjustments in behaviour, but only if it’s evolution rather than revolution.
We should keep this in mind the next time yet another campaign for men’s mental health calls on us to bare our souls. Men may need to talk a bit more – but let’s retain a bit of realism, the average bloke isn’t likely to go from nought to 60. Emotionally speaking, we’re less sports car and more family saloon.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/the-problem-with-trying-to-fix-men/
************************************************
The Muslim challenge to multiculturalism
With the Hamas atrocities exposing a deep social divide across the West, everyone suddenly sees the problem with multiculturalism. Increasingly the ‘D’ word, deportation, is on politicians’ lips, from Germany to the Nordic countries to the US. Decades of multiculturalism and mass migration have laid the tinder, with the Hamas-Israeli flashpoint now fuelling civic protests and violence across the globe.
The long-held Western assumption that all of the globe’s different cultures can live together amiably may turn out to have been naive, if one group continues to deny another group basic human rights – such as existence.
Multiculturalism was always predicated on a core loyalty to basic values, such as freedom of speech, tolerance, equal opportunity, democracy and the rule of law. It has worked for a long time, with many proud to boast that Australia was one of the world’s most successful multicultural societies. Indeed, around one in three Aussies is born overseas, and yet we remain remarkably peaceful.
However, the Western world, and the Australia into which multiculturalism was introduced in 1978 was very different from now. After World War II Southern and Eastern Europeans emigrated en masse to Australia and North America, boosting post-war prosperity. I grew up among them in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, where I had Maltese neighbours on one side, Russians the other and Ukrainians, Estonians and Latvians over the road. Native-born Australians were a rarity and cultural diversity the norm. Then the Wall fell, the Cold War ended and liberal democracy’s dominance was such that US academic Francis Fukuyama could write an influential book arguing that ideology was over and we had arrived at the end of history. The West seemed strong and victorious.
Now we are entering a multipolar world, with a weakened USA, and an aggressive, still-communist China and other rivals challenging Western hegemony. We face the recurring spectre of Islamic terrorism and massive refugee flows, even as our societies fragment and splinter with identity politics. Culture itself is becoming more important than ever, with race, religion, skin colour and ‘diversity’ new markers of social status. The Voice campaign exposed a bitter indigenous separatism. Our societies are no longer as unified as they once were, in a world that has become more threatening.
Academics such as Robert Putnam have long argued that multiple ethnicities decrease social trust, forcing a retreat from the public space into tribes. This was supported in 2020 by a Copenhagen University meta-analysis of 87 studies which found ‘a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies’. This is, in other words, Balkanisation, a society of tribes.
Bipartisanship has for decades muted any criticism of multiculturalism, and many are the politicans who followed in Enoch Powell’s path and were flayed for doubting some cultures’ adaptability to Western values. Eminent voices are now being raised, however, as doors are closing all across Europe. Elder statesman Henry Kissinger lashed Germany’s ‘grave mistake’ of letting in ‘so many people of totally different culture and religion and concepts’. Former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman, herself of Indian descent, labelled multiculturalism a failure. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has vowed to toughen migration laws and increase ‘large-scale’ deportations. Crime-hit Sweden’s Prime Minister recently denounced the country’s ‘irresponsible immigration policy and failed integration’. Hungary’s Orbán has predicted that the next European elections would focus on migration and terrorism. Five Nordic nations agreed in October to collaborate on tighter migration controls, including paying migrants to go home.
These issues are arising as the Albanese government is bringing in an extraordinary flood of migrants – a new Canberra every year – when infrastructure, particularly housing, is already failing our young people, especially in our capital cities. Moreover, a recent Australian High Court decision has upset the indefinite detention apple-cart, its decision leading to the release of both a child-sex offender and a Malaysian contract killer into our communities – on the grounds that no one else would take them in.
Meanwhile, it sometimes feels as if, in a world where culture is increasingly significant, the only culture that is not respected is the host Judaeo-Christian one. Just as anti-white racism is dismissed in some quarters as a definitional impossibility, since whites are the colonising oppressors, so the traditions of Western host nations can be disrespected. Did London’s big pro-Palestine march have to be on Remembrance Day? Did pro-Palestinian slogans have to desecrate Melbourne war memorials, of all places? Did the Caulfield protesters have to choose a synagogue to assemble outside? Where is any respect? My daughter, in her twenties, was recently surprised to be asked what her ‘ethno’ was – as if everyone automatically came from elsewhere. I have a niece who has relocated to Italy because ‘Australia has no culture’.
The question is, can the West’s multiculturalism survive the conflict with radical Islamists? Or is it out of date, a policy for a different era? These radicals don’t accept Australian values, instead preaching jihad and displaying contempt for our laws. Supporters of the status quo would argue this is simply the difference between terrorists and otherwise peaceful Muslims, and leave multiculturalism out of it please.
But a more basic cleft between Judaeo-Christian values and Islamic ones may be emerging. Pundit Douglas Murray recently pointed out that Nazi soldiers had to get drunk to deal with the horrors of the gas chambers they administered. Hamas fighters, by contrast, rang home to celebrate, gleeful at how many Jews they had killed. Donald Trump Jnr recently shared a video of a German Islamist asserting that as soon as they outnumbered the locals, Sharia law would come in. ‘Once Muslims are in the majority, it is our duty to conquer Germany’. He then cited taqiya, the doctrine of lying in a pious cause, when asked if ‘normal’ Islam agreed with such approaches. Most Muslims in the West have been peaceful, but judging from the 300,000-strong pro-Palestinian march in London, the radical fringe is not tiny. And it has few qualms about asserting itself.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently argued that radical Islam provides a civilisational challenge to the Judaeo-Christian West. It’s past time to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us, a debate that I fear terrorism will force upon us.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/bell-tolls-for-multiculturalism/
**************************************************
The Politics of black crime
In August of 2023, a criminology professor named Eric Stewart of Florida State University was fired for, at the very least, “extreme negligence” in his research praxis. Six of the tenured academic’s publications were formally retracted, most by major journals like Law & Society Review and Criminology. The withdrawn papers are likely to be followed by further retractions. The ivory tower scandal broke after former graduate student Justin Pickett “blew the whistle on his research” four years ago.
This wonky-sounding dispute between two gentlemen of letters in fact matters a great deal to public discourse. Stewart’s faked studies included explosive claims that American whites—presumably including jurors—“wanted longer sentences for Blacks and Latinos accused of crimes” than for Caucasians; that conservatives are on average more racist than liberals; and that the “legacy of lynching” continues to measurably influence perceptions of Black crime today.
These arguments were hardly made in obscurity. According to Google Scholar, Dr. Stewart is one of the most cited figures in all of Criminology, with 8,673 total citations and 3,965 citations (as of Nov. 14) since 2018. As the New York Post noted, Stewart was named one of the American Society of Criminology’s four highly distinguished criminologists in 2017 (the society selects only as many as five fellows annually). It is no exaggeration to say that Stewart did more than almost anyone to popularize the purely academic idea of systemic racism—and much of what he said was simply not true.
The iconic narratives used to prop up the “continuing oppression narrative” have an odd habit of turning out to be false, and the reaction in U.S. cities to Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre is the latest example of the same phenomenon. A curious feature of this process is the interchangeability of both the iconography and the rhetoric of various street-action movements demanding redress for different identity groups. The stock of common slogans, brandished with religious fervor, share a peculiar quality in common: They bear no relation to reality.
Take the use of the word genocide. Over the past month, claims by pro-Palestinian mobs of an Israeli “genocide” in Gaza mirror long-standing claims of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, for example, that U.S. police are perpetrating a “genocide” of African Americans. Both forms of sectarian group mobilization in America rely on conspiracism and falsehoods, and on the participation of the media in enforcing a hierarchy of victimhood. Insofar as this sectarian narrative is officially sanctioned, it is presented not only as reflecting the lofty ideals and values of what it means to be American, but also as indisputable empirical truth.
The emblem of the BLM narrative, the May 2020 death of George Floyd, is a case study in why language is important and how lying corrodes public trust and the health of our national discourse. It is useful, then, to revisit the considerable evidence that has emerged recently, which indicates that even the widely accepted account of Floyd’s death is possibly false, or at the very least incomplete.
The iconic narratives used to prop up the ‘continuing oppression narrative’ have an odd habit of turning out to be false.
A full and unredacted version of Floyd’s primary autopsy report notes simply that Minnesota’s Hennepin County medical examiner identified “no injuries of … muscles of neck or laryngeal structures” that would indicate strangulation or any other “life-threatening injuries.” Further, it notes, Floyd had taken a potentially life-threatening dose of “11 ng/mL” of fentanyl.
A deposition in relation to a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy against former County Attorney Mike Freeman revealed remarkably frank statements by county officials in 2020. Under oath, Sweasy disclosed that, the day after Floyd’s death, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker told her “there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.”
Whether Floyd’s death was literally a homicide or not—at the very least, a cop charged with corralling an overdosing suspect should have called in the EMTs rather than continue to restrain him—there was never much evidence that a racist cop was out to murder a Black man. In reality, Derek Chauvin was an urbanite in an interracial marriage, and the team of officers sent out to respond to the initial complaint against Mr. Floyd included two minority cops in addition to two whites. Without calling into question the ultimate verdict in Chauvin’s case, we can simply observe that his case is the one typically considered the gold standard when it comes to hard evidence for the ongoing “genocide against colored people” in the United States.
And most other BLM martyr cases collapse even more quickly. Jacob Blake, probably the second-best-known innocent victim of police violence of the past few years, turned out to be an alleged rapist who returned to his victim’s house after she told him not to, and he held a knife as he resisted arrest after she called the cops on him. Michael Brown, the “gentle giant” of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” was a violent felon who robbed a popular minority-owned business on camera an hour before struggling with a police officer for his gun, resulting in his shooting. So unambiguous was the justification for Brown’s shooting that the Justice Department of President Barack Obama cleared the officer, with Obama himself stating that he had “full confidence” in the decision.
Even the less lethal, sometimes more amusing stories that nevertheless contribute to the false sense of all-consuming racial tensions in America typically turn out to be hoaxes or nothing burgers. The actor Jussie Smollett famously faked his own beating. The Covington Catholic kids were, if anything, the victims of the stupid confrontation that made them famous. None of the middle-class civilization-maxxing white women accused of being “Karens” did much of anything wrong; one of them turned out to be a pregnant nurse absurdly accused of jacking a bicycle from five fighting-age Black men. And so forth.
With regard to police violence, during the fairly typical year of 2015 that I reviewed in depth for my book Taboo: 10 Facts You Can’t Talk About, the total number of fatal police shootings nationwide was 999. Of those, 258 (26 percent) of the victims were African American, which seems low given our younger average age and higher crime rate, and exactly 17—across roughly 60 million police-citizen encounters—involved unarmed Black men shot by white cops. Since that year, the negligible total has remained stable or even improved somewhat: 2022 data from The Washington Post’s “Killed by Police: Fatal Force” project indicates that exactly 12 unarmed Black citizens were shot and killed that year, by police officers of all races.
Data on interracial crime—often discussed on social media as though it involved a constant wave of “Barbecue Beckys,” “Pool Patrol Paulas,” “Dog Park Divas,” and similar harridans physically and verbally assaulting completely innocent Black taxpayers—also provides no support for the idea of ongoing systemic racism. In reality, once we break out the national crime report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, and focus on a representative year, “classic” inter-race crime (violent crimes involving a Black person and a white person) is revealed both to be only about 3 percent of crime—and more than 80 percent Black-on-white. During 2018–19 (the last year to include all major races as both victim and offender categories), there was a combined total of only 607,726 violent index crimes involving both Blacks and whites—out of roughly 20 million total crimes—and 547,948 were Black-on-white while just 59,778 were white-on-Black.
Even more detailed and serious claims of “systemic racism” tend to collapse when analyzed using any sort of modern empirical modeling technique. Years back, the well-regarded econometrician June O’Neill reviewed the 15+ percent gap in annual earnings that exists between white and Black men in the United States—almost universally attributed to racism—and noted that this shrinks to 1 to 2 percent when professional adjustments are made for variables like age, region of residence, and any board test or IQ test score.
As a once fairly apolitical Dinesh D’Souza noted back in 1996, it simply makes no sense to notice that a young Black man living in rural Mississippi makes less money year-over-year than an old white man living in Manhattan, and attribute this to “racism.” What does a young white man living in rural Mississippi make, comes the question? For that matter, did both Mississippians go to the University of Mississippi, or did one attend Directional Crawdad State and suffer financially afterward? Seems relevant, as the kids might say.
All of these are relatively simple and obvious points, which raises another question: Why are people in the “systemic racism” debate so often so reluctant to make them? My older cousin Glenn Loury has a good three-word answer to this question: “presumption of inferiority.”
From Ibram X. Kendi over to the dissident “alt-right,” a surprisingly common claim in American high- and upper-middlebrow discourse is that the only two factors that can plausibly explain large gaps in group performance are basically racism (however vague or subtle) and genetic inferiority. To quote Jared Taylor, who arguably founded the alt-right: Good liberals fear relaxing their vigilant belief in racism as the universal explanation for sky-high Black rates of, say, crime or fatherlessness, because doing so “leaves the door open for a possibility too dangerous to be countenanced.”
In fact, this binary argument is fatally simplistic. In reality, a third and superior “Thomas Sowell Alternative” exists: Dozens of social and cultural factor variables, including details such as daily hours of study time, explain group performance means and performance gaps. Two of the factors O’Neill examined—median age and regional culture—obviously have pretty much nothing to do with genetics, or indeed with racism. Even the third, test scores by group, correlates heavily with the amount of time members of different populations spend hitting the books and working with tutors—with Asian-Americans unsurprisingly spanking African-Americans 3:1 and whites roughly 2:1 against these metrics.
This logically obvious “culturalist” point is lavishly supported by hard data: Many of the most troubling contemporary problems are entirely modern in their origins, and essentially did not exist for any group in the recent past, when racism was far worse and the U.S. population was more genetically similar. The African American birth rate outside of marriage was roughly 11 percent in 1938, for example, while it is 69 percent today. The rate has surged from 4 percent to 36 percent among whites in the same period. Similarly, homicides across all races jumped from 8,640 in 1963 to 24,530 30 years later. The murder rate holds relatively steady today following substantial increases during the peak of the BLM era.
Problematic patterns like this have trackable causes, which, in 2023, are quite unlikely to include ubiquitous racism. Fortunately, they also have public policy solutions—typically quite logical and time-tested ones. To have any hope of enacting them, though, we first need to move beyond the illiterate sloganeering and made-for-TikTok street-protest mentality which is once again dominating the discourse.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/politics-tribal-nonsense-wilfred-reilly
******************************************************
Sheldon Whitehouse versus the Supreme court
As a sitting United States senator, Sheldon Whitehouse gets to live the life of the rich and famous even if he is neither. Being powerful is a good substitute, I guess. Or perhaps more particularly, the rich and famous deign to rub elbows with the powerful for their own reasons.
In all events, Sen. Whitehouse, D-R.I., has a standing invitation, for instance, to the events put on by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Senators are flown on a private plane chartered by the DSCC” to these “luxurious” and “lavish” “retreats,” “which are held at five-star resorts like the Ritz-Carlton,” reports MSNBC. These “semi-annual DSCC retreats on Martha’s Vineyard and in Palm Beach, Florida … always feature a large group of Democratic senators who are brought to schmooze with donors.” Senators can hang at the pool, walk the beach, enjoy the buffet, or take a private shoreline cruise with lobbyists and megadonors.
Yet Sen. Whitehouse is offended—outraged—that U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have friends who have invited each one to their private homes, and those homes are well, as nice as the houses one might find on Martha’s Vineyard or Palm Beach. And so Sen. Whitehouse, who has been on a conspiratorial jihad against the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for years, and his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee are moving toward subpoenas to force these friends to disclose the details of their association.
Whitehouse’s investigation is nothing more than McCarthyism—“I have here in my hand Clarence Thomas’s Christmas card list.” This is the same sort of shenanigans that brought shame on the Nixon White House—before there was Watergate, there was the Nixon administration’s enemies y’s list of potential candidates for IRS audits, bureaucratic harassment, and contract denials. It’s no accident the three subjects of the putative subpoenas are two successful businessmen who have been generous supporters of Republican and conservative causes and Leonard Leo, an influential conservative power-player, particularly on legal issues. The Democrats’ lawfare against Republican donors, staffers, and activists is well-known—Whitehouse’s latest stunt is of a piece with a mindset that grips the Department of Justice and other organs of power: that special counsels, subpoenas, and FBI raids are the normal tools of the trade to target the players on the other side. If they’re Republicans, they must be doing something wrong.
Whitehouse would love nothing more than for these Republican supporters to decide now is the time to step back from politics.
The supposed investigation here is especially ridiculous given its thin-as-gruel rationale. Sen. Whitehouse has been pushing a bill to impose an ethics code he has crafted on the Supreme Court. That bill has already been adopted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. So it’s hard to believe evidence is needed to inform the Committee’s consideration of a bill that has already been voted on.
In reality, this is about intimidation, institutional credibility, and feeding the political base. Intimidation is evident in subpoenas, which are a useful tool to bully people into silence. Whitehouse would love nothing more than for these Republican supporters to decide now is the time to step back from politics. Institutional credibility is at risk because the accusations cast aspersions on Thomas and Alito and make them look unethical. The insinuation is then that all of their decisions are somehow “illegitimate,” like having an asterisk in a sports scorebook after a win. And it’s about feeding the liberal Democratic base with the idea that Republicans are stonewalling an investigation to hide their dirty laundry, as though the government is entitled to see and expose the private activities of people in public life and their friends.
All three of those considerations are just symptoms of the underlying disease: Whitehouse and the Democrats are angry that the U.S. Supreme Court has a conservative majority that is actually committed to following the Constitution and respecting the rule of law. They’re beside themselves that Justices Thomas and Alito and their colleagues reversed Roe and are paring back the bureaucratic behemoth in Washington. So they’re using every tool at their disposal to attack, undermine, and bully the Court in the hopes that the justices will pause or pull back from their convictions.
I wouldn’t bet on it—these justices are made of stronger stuff than that. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and Whitehouse’s latest stunt is not going to throw them off course.
https://wng.org/opinions/sheldon-whitehouses-risky-game-1699911576
****************************************
20 November, 2023
The big peril of non-monogamy
Your partner may meet someone whom they like better than you.
"Open" relationships are often tried and seem a good idea at first but in the end a committed monogamous relationship is a better route to long term security in a relationship. The woman below found that out the hard way. She has lost her partner and is suffering badly as a result
For those of you who have been following my last few posts, you know that my relationship with my husband is tenuously holding on by a very thin thread. Four years into our non-monogamous exploration, his new, very serious, relationship with an HSV2+ partner has caused our relationship to implode.
In the nine months since he started dating his new partner, we have had to grapple with the significance of introducing someone with an STI into our sexual lives, in the face of very different views on the associated risks. We’ve also had to negotiate my husband’s request to change our non-monogamy agreement and transition to becoming non-hierarchical. And, on top of that, we’ve been navigating the contrast between his new, highly sexually and emotionally charged relationship and our long-term, relatively less sexually intense relationship involving three kids, a dog, a mortgage, bills and the other realities of married life.
Yeah… it’s been a fucking awful few months….
From my perspective, all of this started nine months ago. Right around the time — actually, to be totally exact, it was exactly at the time — that he met his new partner. Before that fateful point in time, things had been mostly humming along between us. We’d survived the roller-coaster of the first few years of the massive transition from monogamy to having sex and relationships with various new partners. We’d entered a fairly stable phase of our non-monogamy.
I was pretty confident we were kind of normal. Yes, obviously, there were some points of friction and just general blah-ness that comes with a quarter of a decade of living together, but overall I felt good about our relationship. We were talking about the future. We were going out on date nights every couple of weeks. We enjoyed our time together on vacation. And we were getting through the daily hum of family life without too many hiccups. Plus we were kind of rocking non-monogamy, with both of us having stable partners that added rather than depleted from our life.
I totally acknowledge that there were parts of our relationship and life together that weren’t perfect. There were days were we struggled with our different communication styles — I’m rapid-fire and he’s a thinker-before-speaking type of guy. There were periods when we felt a bit less connected, preferring to spend our evenings on our separate mobile devices watching our own shows rather than spending the evening compromising on watching a show together. It wasn’t shits and giggles every single minute.
But I still felt our relationship was good.
Nine months ago, it wasn’t just between us that it was good. Our family unit was strong. With three teenagers in the house, many people assumed our home life was full of teenage hormones, drama and rolling eyes. In reality, our three kids have always been fairly lovely people to be around, even during the throes of adolescence. Unlike many families in which the teenagers disappear into grungy basements to sit in front of screens all day and all night, our teens spend a lot of time with us. In fact, we spent so much time together that we would sing-song to each other “just the fiiiiive of us” as we sat down for our almost-daily family dinner.
Up until recently, I thought we were the lucky ones — lucky to have such a close, connected family. I felt lucky to have a 25+ year relationship with a man that I loved, respected and wanted to grow old with. An us against the world kind of feeling.
And then, there was this fateful day when he met her and suddenly things changed.
The shift was neither subtle nor slow to come about. It happened fast. Practically overnight my husband became distant and irritable around us, spending more and more time out of the house. He stopped coming to bed at the same time as me preferring to stay on the couch until the wee hours of the night texting with his new partner. His evening absences met fewer family dinners and those that he was physically present for, he didn’t contribute to the conversation.
I started to gripe about the situation. I even dared suggest that his new relationship was causing more harm than good and that maybe it was time to end it and get ourselves back on more stable footing. I foolishly thought that if she was out of the picture we could go back to the way things were before. I was wrong.
Instead of considering the role that this new relationship was having on us, my husband was thinking something very different. He finally told me that he’d been unhappy for years. He felt that’s why we were in the situation we were in. Whereas I completely blamed his new relationship and felt that his emotional connection with his new partner was causing havoc on our relationship and the sanctity of our family unit, he thought the havoc had nothing to do with her. I was gob-smacked — and if there was ever a time to use the word gob-smacked this is it — when he told me that the problem was our relationship. He said that he had felt our marriage had been lacking for many years and he was done with being unhappy.
Since that shocker, he has made clear that he is “digging in his heels and pushing back” on what he views as years and years of me not paying enough attention to him. The problems in our relationship, according to him, are so bad and so terrible, that we need to fix them now or he will leave.
I am totally destabilized. I feel complete dissonance between what I experienced and what he says he experienced in our marriage. I thought we were happy. Perfect? No. But happy. He says he wasn’t for years. I did not know and feel blindsided by his newly expressed version of our life together.
I admit, I have struggled to believe him. The timing is problematic. If he’d been unhappy for years why did it only come out when he met his new partner? I can’t help but think he is actively trying to rationalize his decisions about his new partner by convincing himself that he was unhappy with me. Re-writing our history and making me the bad guy may be a lot easier than taking a look at his actions.
He admits she’s been a “catalyst” but even without her, he says it was a matter of time before he was going to leave me. Seriously?
I want to scream at him: What were you doing or going to do to stop this from happening? Why didn’t you fight for us? Why didn’t you tell me before it got this bad?
We are now in a stalemate. I blame him for falling in love with someone and being blind to the impact this has had on his decisions and thought process. He blames me for not believing that there has been a big problem between us for years.
I feel like I have two choices in front of me: Either continue to believe that the problem stems from her or start to reflect on whether there were major cracks in my marriage’s foundation that I didn’t see (or didn’t want to see). Was our non-monogamous exploration an attempt to fill those cracks? Did we open up because our marriage was unhappy? If so, can we fix things before things crumble completely?
I desperately want to go back to believing we are the lucky ones. But I am not sure it will ever be “just the five of us” again.
************************************************
Israeli Arab journalists show the way in reporting on the Hamas October 7 attacks
Yes. A substantial number of Israeli citizens are Arabs, not Jews
Journalists here struggling to speak with moral clarity should read the work of Israeli Arab journalists and activists to see how some Palestinians can grieve for Gaza yet react in horror to the barbaric massacre of civilian Jews in their homes on October 7 and understand Israel’s need to take military action to ensure such crimes never happen again.
Highlighting the idiocy of arguments by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese across ABC platforms last week that Israel is an apartheid state, many Israeli Arabs have spoken passionately about the Jewish homeland in which they live as Muslims who vote and elect Arab members to the Knesset.
For heart-breaking honesty, nothing beats the live to air October 11 news broadcast of prominent journalist and Channel 13 presenter Lucy Aharish, an Arab married to popular Jewish actor Tzahi Halevi. The pair launched their own personal rescue mission, coordinated by phone as Aharish spoke with residents in Kfar Aza while terrorists were attempting to break into their safe room. Halevi and his reservist unit rescued the trapped family.
Just as confronting is the interview she did with CNN on October 13.
She concludes the almost nine-minute interview saying what is happening to Israel is an “Awful truth. A brutal truth. Catastrophic truth.” She calls on fellow journalists around the world and social media platforms to “stop the lies” she says are discounting October 7 and portraying Israel as an aggressor – even though it had not occupied Gaza since 2005.
Aharish concludes: “As a Muslim, this is not Islam. What Hamas is doing in the name of religion is not being a Muslim. This is being a monster.”
At our ABC, news and current affairs broadcasts continue to quote Hamas spokespeople denying the massacre or denying Hamas is hiding rockets under schools and hospitals. It’s like quoting a spokesman for Osama bin Laden denying al-Qa’ida flew planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
LGBTQ activists in effect standing with Hamas, the ideological soulmate of the ISIS fighters who threw gays from rooftops in Syria eight years ago, might care to read Tel Aviv-based queer activist Muhammad Zoabi, an Arab Israeli supporter of Palestinian rights. He wrote in Newsweek on November 1 that October 7 “made us feel more Israeli than ever – when we saw not only footage of our mass murder (100 Arab Israelis were killed in the Hamas massacre), but the celebration of it in Gaza”.
He quotes published polling showing 80 per cent of Arab Israelis reject that attack on innocent civilians and 70 per cent support Israel’s right to respond militarily. He says historically conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has created sympathy for fellow Arabs among his community. No longer.
Also worth a read is Arab Israeli vlogger Nuseir Yassin, who on October 22 told Globes business news, “This is Israel’s 9/11, unfortunately. When 9/11 happened, Muslim Americans were American first, so now I am Israeli first. When there is a Hitler-level event, you cannot be neutral.”
Here lies the problem with much of the media’s moral equivalence over reporting in Gaza the past six weeks. Journalists show no understanding of the existential threat Israelis of all ethnicities and political persuasions felt on October 7.
Why do so many reporters at the ABC raise the dangers of Islamophobia when it was Islamic protesters who threatened Jews at Friday Shabbat in Melbourne’s Caulfield Synagogue last Friday week and Islamic bike riders who intimidated peaceful protesters in Sydney’s heavily Jewish Coogee the following day?
Why haven’t more journalists been clear about the outrageous Sydney protesters on Monday October 9 chanting “gas the Jews” within a couple of days of the worst loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust. How do journalists think that makes local Holocaust survivors and their descendants here feel?
A young journalistic generation is falling into classic anti-Semitism. By inadvertently repeating the sly lies of Islamist social media activists, journalists here are perpetuating stereotypes about Jews, a tiny group of 16 million globally compared with the world’s two billion Muslims.
Israel is not a European coloniser. More than half its Jewish citizens are Mizrahi and had always lived in the Middle East. When 700,000 Palestinians left Israel in 1948 after Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon attacked Israel and lost, another 850,000 Middle Eastern Jews were forced out of their homes in those countries to come to Israel.
Nor can any serious lawyer accuse Israel of genocide. Genocide requires a population to decline, as the Jewish world did during the Holocaust. The Palestinian population is the fastest growing in the Arab world.
When journalists compare Israel to Germany’s Nazi regime, they are slyly denying the realities of both the Holocaust and the Palestinians’ own history of allegiance with the Third Reich and the Arab anti-Semitism discussed in this column on October 14, October 29 and November 7.
When ABC reporters quote Hamas spokespeople as if they were civilian bureaucrats, they privilege a racist Islamist ideology committed in Article 7 of its own 1988 original charter to the mass murder of the Jews and destruction is Israel.
When supporters of Israel say Arab extremism is the greatest threat to Palestinians, they are correct. Had Israel’s neighbours accepted the boundaries set out by the UN, Palestinians would not have lost a series of wars that cost them land in 1948, the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. No doubt they will lose more after this war.
How can ABC journalists not know Hamas has been using Palestinians as shields in hospitals and schools for years. Even UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it last week: “Hamas and other militants use civilians as shields and continue to launch rockets indiscriminately at Israel.”
The UN’s own investigation under former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon found exactly that in 2015. Why don’t ABC editorial executives know this?
The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday editorialised that Human Rights Watch had admitted as far back as 2007 that Hamas was using the Al-Shifa hospital to fire rockets at Palestinian rival Fatah. The New York Times reported Hamas openly used the hospital as a base in the 2008-09 war. The Washington Post in 2014 described Al-Shifa as Hamas’s de facto headquarters.
Yet as recently as last Thursday, ABC AM was still quoting unnamed Hamas officials denying it had used the hospital to launch attacks against Israel. And despite a week of claims the hospital was under attack, AM failed to point out no patients or staff had been hurt by Israeli soldiers who took control of the largely undamaged building last Wednesday.
Israel has little choice but to ignore the useful fools of the Western media.
As Yossi Klein Halevi wrote on his blog on The Times of Israel on November 12, “The Jews of Israel must remain the ‘lonely people of history’.
“Naively we had assumed that the October 7 massacre would linger in the world’s consciousness. Surely those who played down Israel’s security fears would now understand the nature of the threat we face on our borders. No, we patiently explain, the massacre was not in response to anything Israel does but to what Israel is.”
*****************************************************
Doctors step up calls for gender care re-examination
The battle over gender-affirmative medicine in Australia has intensified with a call to arms by two experienced psychiatrists for their fellow doctors to resist the pressure of activism that has triggered the widespread “subordination of clinical governance to social and political goals” in the rush to affirm distressed children’s chosen gender.
The psychiatrists used an academic paper in a top psychiatry journal to urge the medical profession to heed the “cautionary tale” posed by the healthcare scandal that unfolded at London’s Tavistock clinic and in British compensation cases they say are directly relevant to Australia.
Monash Medical Centre child and adolescent psychiatrist George Halasz and Andrew Amos, an academic psychiatrist who has previously held a training role with Queensland’s health department, went as far as to remind doctors of their obligation to observe the Hippocratic oath in questioning the evidence base of affirmative medicine.
In an article in the journal Australasian Psychiatry, They urged doctors to examine the ethics of a model in which powerful hormone drugs are prescribed despite a lack of evidence that the affirmation of a child’s perceived gender identity and subsequent medical transition eases teenagers’ mental distress.
“The natural history of gender dysphoria suggests two critical ethical questions: first, is the ‘transition pathway’ – social, medical or surgical – in the best interest of the child?” the two psychiatrists wrote. “Second, is that pathway consistent with the principle ‘first, do no harm’?”
But even as the explosive article was published, paediatricians and their colleagues at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne – home of the nation’s leading experts in gender-affirmative medicine and the self-appointed setters of quasi-national guidelines adopted by most of the country’s children’s hospitals – quietly published an updated version of their standards of care that endorse a radical expansion of the affirmative model.
The new guidelines endorse the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones by general practitioners, outside a multidisciplinary model led by specialist children’s hospitals – the model explicitly endorsed as of utmost importance by the Cass Review in the UK.
The review by pediatrician Hilary Cass of the Tavistock clinic’s Gender Identity Development Service began in 2022 and triggered the institution’s closure. It confirmed a limited evidence base for gender-affirming care, systemic failures of clinical governance, and unjustifiable risks of harms to children and families, amid re-examination of the affirmative model in academic literature and policy in countries throughout Europe.
Despite this, the new RCH guidelines do not reference the Tavistock fallout at all, or the fact puberty blocker drugs are only able to be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial now in England. Nor do they mention the growing caution that has prompted a rollback of the medical model in countries that had previously adopted it, including Finland, amid the recent scientific discrediting of the Dutch “affirmation model” on which Australia’s approach is still based.
“It is unrealistic that all trans and gender-diverse adolescents in Australia will be able to directly access comprehensive specialist paediatric services, especially with these specialist disciplines co-located within a public health service,” the new guidelines state. “Provision of a multidisciplinary team approach with co-ordination of care from general practitioners, private specialist practitioners and community-based clinicians can be an effective alternative in ensuring best practice and accessibility to medical intervention.”
The RCH was approached for comment and declined.
Clinicians pushing for clinical accountability and transparency said they were stunned that the new guidelines fail to consider any of the newly emerging evidence or systematic reviews post-2020 that have dismantled the credibility of the original Dutch model that underpins gender-affirmative medicine and also cast doubt on the efficacy of the approach, highlighted in Australia this year by research clinicians at the The Children’s Hospital at Westmead.
In interviews with The Weekend Australian expanding upon their academic paper, Professor Halasz and Dr Amos expanded upon their concerns that there were “major risks associated with gender-affirming care”. Yet the new version of Australia’s guidelines “reads as if there is simply no controversy”.
Professor Halasz said it was beyond time for Australia’s children’s hospitals – in particular in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth – to review their approach.
“I think it’s wise that any hospital that has been following what’s happened to the Tavistock to start to distance itself as much as possible, as urgently as possible, lest they suffer the same fate,” Professor Halasz said. “What I would ask is, where is the transparency? Where (are) the outcomes of the procedures, whether they are social transitioning procedures, or medical procedures of prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones?
“And where is the data on the number of surgical interventions that follow after the Royal Children’s Hospital care is finished and these patients transition over to adult services? Where is the data? Or the follow-up to document detransitioners? Where is the evidence?”
The psychiatrists said the rise of gender-affirmative medicine had been heavily influenced by trans activist groups whose lobbying was aggressive and intimidatory. And that culture had flowed through into medical training. “As someone involved in the education of training psychiatrists, I am particularly concerned at how effective trans advocacy has been in training young doctors to reflexively reject any evidence that there might be negative consequences to gender-affirming care,” Dr Amos said. “Trainees appear to believe that simply acknowledging there are alternative approaches to gender dysphoria actually threatens harm to the transgender community. I would describe that as magical thinking.
“I think there’s been a failure of leadership across medicine. Individual practitioners have been able to have huge influence because medical colleges have not stepped in to provide guidance.”
Professor Halasz, who trained in the UK and was in close contact with doctors who watched the Tavistock scandal unfold, described the rise of gender-affirming medicine as taking place within a radical form of social activism. “It was a culture of intimidation, silence, and I think threat,” the professor said. “And I just thought ‘this is so outside of my understanding of what medicine is about’.”
The psychiatrists said they were concerned by the suspension of Queensland specialist child psychiatrist Jillian Spencer, who had come into conflict with hospital bosses at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Brisbane over clinical practice in treating gender-questioning children.
Dr Spencer, a vocal critic of affirmative care, has been stood down from her role as a senior staff specialist at the hospital for months following a patient complaint – a fact that concerns Dr Amos.
He said it has been very difficult to get psychiatrists to make public statements about gender dysphoria even though the majority appeared to share a more moderate, exploratory approach. Doctors were afraid for their professional reputations.
“The major reason for this fear is that trans advocates appear to be both aggressive in their rhetoric, and unwilling to engage in any discussion that does not adopt their basic viewpoint,” Dr Amos said. “While I do not know the specific details, the protracted suspension of child psychiatrist Jillian Spencer for expressing an alternative view of the approach to gender dysphoria appears to have confirmed the real threat behind such fears.”
And the overriding of parents’ frequent gut instinct for caution over affirmation had damaged psychiatry as a profession, according to Professor Halasz.
“Our profession is entrusted by parents to do what’s in the best interest of their child,” he said. “The trust that we have built up with families over years, I believe, actually has been absolutely shredded by this process.”
*****************************************************
Argentina elects Trump-like libertarian Javier Milei as president
Like Trump, he is an economist so that augurs well for Argentina
Buenos Aires: Argentina elected libertarian outsider Javier Milei as its new president on Sunday, rolling the dice on an outsider with radical views to fix an economy battered by triple-digit inflation, a looming recession and rising poverty.
Official results have not been released, but his rival, Peronist Economy Minister Sergio Massa, conceded in a speech. His candidacy was hampered by the country’s worst economic crisis in two decades while he has been at the helm.
Milei, who has frequently been compared to ex-US president Donald Trump, is pledging economic shock therapy. His plans include shutting the central bank, ditching the peso, and slashing spending, potentially painful reforms that resonated with voters angry at the economic malaise, but sparked fears of austerity in others.
“Milei is the new thing, he’s a bit of an unknown and it is a little scary, but it’s time to turn over a new page,” said 31-year-old restaurant worker Cristian as he voted on Sunday.
But Milei’s challenges are enormous. He will have to deal with the empty coffers of the government and central bank, a creaking $US44 billion debt program with the International Monetary Fund, inflation nearing 150 per cent and a dizzying array of capital controls.
With many Argentines not fully convinced by either candidate, some had characterized the vote as a choice of the “lesser evil”: fear of Milei’s painful economic medicine versus anger at Massa and his Peronist party for an economic crisis that has left Argentina deeply in debt and unable to tap global credit markets.
Milei has been particularly popular among the young, who have grown up seeing their country lurch from one crisis to another.
“Our generation is pushing the presidency of Milei to stop our country being a pariah,” said Agustina Lista, 22, a student in Buenos Aires.
Milei’s win shakes up Argentina’s political landscape and economic roadmap, and could impact trade in grains, lithium and hydrocarbons. Milei has criticised China and Brazil, saying he won’t deal with “communists,” and favours stronger US ties.
The shock rise of the 53-year-old economist and former TV pundit has been the story of the election, breaking the hegemony of the two main political forces on the left and the right - the Peronists and the main Together for Change conservative bloc.
“The election marks a profound rupture in the system of political representation in Argentina,” said Julio Burdman, director of the consultancy Observatorio Electoral, ahead of the vote.
Supporters of Massa, 51, an experienced political wheeler-dealer, had sought to appeal to voter fears about Milei’s volatile character and “chainsaw” plan to cut back the size of the state.
“Milei’s policies scare me,” teacher Susana Martinez, 42, said on Sunday after she voted for Massa.
Milei is also staunchly anti-abortion, favours looser gun laws and has called Argentine Pope Francis a socialist “son of a bitch”. He used to carry a chainsaw in a symbol of his planned cuts but shelved it in recent weeks to help boost his moderate image.
****************************************
19 November, 2023
Can A Woman Fall In Love With A Man She’s Not Physically Attracted To?
The conclusions Sabrina Haynes comes to below are congruent with my personal experience. I have never been better than average in looks but for most of my life I have had no trouble attracting women, usually pretty good-looking ones. Why? In line with what she says, I have a lively sense of humour and high intelligence. I joke a lot and understand a lot. And I have great self-confidence
I was always confident that if I could just get a woman to have a meal with me, the magic would happen rapidly and she would want to see me again. Now that I am 80 and physically frail, it no longer works but it did work for many years. Sabrina does nail it below
The dominant social narrative currently at play is that a majority, if not all women are superficial beings who want a guy with a six pack who earns six figures. Women who are picky (or merely just selective) about their mate rightfully end up sad and alone, while the men they rejected go on to be successful.
At least, that’s what the manosphere thinks. The more reasonable among us probably disagree with this. In many couples, one individual is more attractive than the other. This isn’t always the case, of course, but there are actually benefits to women being the one who is more attractive in these scenarios. One study found that couples, where the wife was more physically attractive, had better positive outlooks as opposed to couples where the husband and wife matched one another in attractiveness.
Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t all about looks, money, success, or what car he drives for a lot of women (I can already hear the protests coming from the responses), but how exactly do women fall in love with unattractive men? The answer isn’t all that surprising, really.
The Pete Davidson Conundrum
Davidson isn’t a supermodel or even very good at his job, according to some, but that hasn’t stopped him from being romantically linked to some of the most successful and beautiful women in the public eye.
To be fair, you might not think that Kim Kardashian, Kate Beckinsale, Phoebe Dynevor, or Emily Ratajkowski are the most deserving of fame or success, but from a somewhat objective standpoint, they have the advantage over him in terms of physical appearance. Whenever there’s a question of inequality, specifically in terms of attractiveness, it boggles the mind. Women might look at that and think, what’s she doing with him? Men might think, what does he have that I don’t?
It’s been scientifically proven that women find a funny man “irresistible.”
I received a fair amount of pushback in my circle for arguing that Davidson’s girlfriends, both past and present, choose to be with him because he’s funny, sweet, and vulnerable (their adjectives, not mine), but the science doesn’t lie. It’s been scientifically proven that women find a funny man “irresistible.”
Pete Davidson and his famous celebrity girlfriends might be a bit too far-removed for some of us, so I’ll use a more realistic example. A friend from college, let’s call her Helen, confirms this.
In our senior year, she briefly went out with a friend of hers, so I called her to talk about their first date. “We had been friends for several years before this,” she says. “I didn’t think he was drop-dead gorgeous or anything, but he wasn’t terrible looking.” I can corroborate that, but here’s where it gets interesting. “We had amazing chemistry,” she says, still gushing, though this happened years ago. “He was super smart, very sweet, with an amazing sense of humor. We shared similar interests, and when we talked, it was a back-and-forth, effortless kind of banter.” Sadly, they didn’t last due to distance, but she says, to this day, it was the best first date she’s ever had.
Comedian Iliza Schlesinger Explains
We know that it’s possible for men who aren’t the most visually stunning to land a 10, but how exactly does it happen? Comedian Iliza Schlesinger, winner of Last Comic Standing and a frequent guest on The Joe Rogan Experience, explains it for us.
A matter of years ago, Iliza was flying back to her home in LA when she struck up a friendship with the man sitting beside her, Brian. He worked at a hedge fund, was a Yale graduate, and owned a home in Beverly Hills. They got along, but he wasn’t the most physically attractive guy. And, to make things complicated, he was into her, and she didn’t feel the same at first. But all of that changed.
“You cannot fake intelligence, you cannot fake sense of humor, you cannot fake wit. He had those things. He was unattractive,” she says, “We were friends for a full year.” But as their friendship grew, his feelings for her did as well. She wasn’t into him, until he revealed that his mom had cancer and became really emotionally vulnerable with her. “This is my big thing. As a woman, you can become attracted to a man you’re physically not attracted to because of personality. [For] men, it doesn’t work. You’re never like, that girl is a warthog, but it turns out she’s really funny, so I wanna put my mouth on hers.”
“It was all the kindness, how smart, how funny, all the stuff…my heart opened up.” Iliza admittedly fell in love with a guy she wasn’t attracted to who had been more or less pursuing her, but unfortunately, it didn’t end well. As it turns out, Brian lied about his mom being sick, his job, and his college education, among other things, and she eventually found out. After they broke up, she went on to write and star in Good on Paper on Netflix, based on her experience with him.
Women Are Cerebral, Men Are Visual
“Women are cerebral, men are visual,” Iliza explains. This, in part, is what she attributes to how she fell in love with a man she wasn’t initially attracted to. It’s also important to note that though she wasn’t attracted to him when their friendship began, her feelings for him grew as she got to know him.
It seems that a lot of men feel that most women initially write them off right away if they’re not better looking — but in a lot of cases, that isn’t accurate. Had she never formed a friendship with this man, she wouldn’t have become attracted to him. But his character (at least at first) made up for that.
Even the looks of a Hemsworth brother can’t prevent the most boring man from being off-putting.
Men often misguidedly think that women want the hottest man possible because it’s what they themselves value in a mate. Women want an attractive man, but even attractiveness can’t save a man who takes himself too seriously, can’t take a joke, knows nothing of personal hygiene, can’t hold a conversation, or doesn’t know how to dress well.
The same study, which found couples are more positive where the wife is the more attractive of the two, also found that a man’s attractiveness wasn’t the sticking point for wives — it was his level of support for her. At the same time, the couples where the husband was the most attractive found lower levels of support.
A subreddit on r/dating provides a wealth of knowledge on this topic. One guy sums it up perfectly:
“Women, for the most part, do not find men attractive the same way we find them attractive. Meaning that I would go out with a girl as long as she is attractive, sexy, or pretty…I will give her a chance. She doesn’t have to be smart, funny, etc. And I know that might seem wrong for some, but I understand that, by nature, that’s how most guys are. Women, on the other hand, are attracted to something special about you. Not necessarily your looks, I know plenty of guys who are very handsome and attractive but lack personality, social skills, confidence, and so on. That’s why a lot of average-looking guys can get women to notice them if they are funny, mature, and confident with who they are. I think that’s what most women see as attractive. Anything physical is a bonus.”
It wasn’t Brian’s looks or even his fake Yale degree that attracted Iliza to him. It was his emotional vulnerability, his sense of humor, his intelligence, and so much more.
For my friend Helen, her amazing chemistry with her long-time guy friend wasn’t based on his appearance, but on their shared interests, their ability to keep up with one another, their conversation. “Sparks were constantly flying,” she tells me. “Over time, I grew to be more physically attracted to him because I was so engrossed in him. Our connection was magical.”
The Take-Away
Is it possible for a woman to be attracted to a man’s mind? The short answer is yes. Attraction is a powerful thing, and we can’t over-analyze or explain it a lot of the time. Again, even the looks of a Hemsworth brother can’t prevent the most boring man from being hard to be around and off-putting. Similarly, intellect, sense of humor, character, charm, and all the other indescribable qualities we’re drawn to can’t stop us from falling for the guy we wouldn’t think we’d be interested in at first glance.
*****************************************************
‘Spermageddon’: Behind the headlines of the great Western fertility furore
Just a bad research summary behind the scare
In 2017, an 81-year-old American scientist named Professor Shanna Swan, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, published a study which suggested that human sperm counts had dropped by more than half in the past 40 years, and that our species was, as a result, hurtling toward an imminent reproductive crisis. The paper, which was co-authored by Hagai Levine of Hebrew University, among others, was the largest ever study of human sperm counts: a meta-analysis of 185 papers and 42,935 men that claimed to show that total sperm count had declined by 59.3 per cent between 1973 and 2011, at about one per cent a year. A follow-up paper in 2022 was even more alarming, suggesting that the decline had accelerated markedly since 2000.
Scientists are usually known for their circumspection, but Swan was unambiguous about the implications. In interviews with journalists, she suggested that by 2045, men’s median sperm count could be zero, and that, as a consequence, most babies might have to be conceived using artificial means. The decline was nothing short of a “global existential crisis”, she wrote in her 2021 book, Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development and Imperilling the Future of the Human Race. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival.”
The story soon went viral. Newspapers described Swan’s findings as “spermaggedon” and “sperm-pocalypse”. Swan, meanwhile, became a star. She appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and was interviewed by Russell Brand. In 2022, she headlined a live science event at the Koncerthuset, in Copenhagen, where the announcer introduced her as “The one and only Shanna. F---ing. Swan!”
In her book, Swan mostly blamed the sperm decline on a range of widely used chemicals, including bisphenols and phthalates, which appear in many plastics, including food containers and baby bottles, and which interfere with the body’s production of the hormones testosterone and oestrogen.
But, of course, everyone had a theory of their own. It was feminism, porn, tight underwear, soy milk. It was veganism or COVID or COVID vaccines or political correctness or climate change. In today’s politically disordered landscape, “spermageddon” was embraced with equal gusto by people who otherwise wouldn’t want to breathe the same oxygen, from environmentalists, who wanted to end plastics and Big Ag, to culture warriors and men’s rights groups, who wanted to end gender pronouns and marriage equality. By the time doubts about “spermageddon” began to surface, the story had assumed a life of its own, spawning narratives every bit as intriguing as anything Shanna Swan had written.
The paper, which was published in Human Reproduction Update, attracted controversy from the get-go. For one thing, Swan divided her findings into two categories: “Western” and “Other”. “Western” included men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand – white-majority areas. The “Other” category included Africa, South America and Asia – that is, mainly black and brown populations. The distinction, which seemed inherently racialised, became more problematic when it emerged that Swan had only observed a significant sperm count decline in “Western” men. On the face of it, African, Asian and Latin American sperm was fine.
Once the initial panic over “spermageddon” plateaued, questions emerged about Swan’s study. Some were predictably partisan. Swan, who had long argued for tighter regulation of the chemical industry, was ridiculed on junkscience.com, a website run by Steven Milloy, a noted climate sceptic and advocate for Big Tobacco and oil companies. (She had been similarly targeted by Jon Entine, a journalist who has written in defence of the agrochemical industry and founder of the educational non-profit Genetic Literacy Project, which has long advocated for the use of GMO foods and pesticides.)
“You can get a sample from one man and … give one half to one lab and the other to another lab, and often you get two markedly different results.”
But other criticisms are harder to dismiss. One of the main ones concerns methodology. Swan and her team didn’t perform any original research; it was a meta-analysis, meaning an analysis of previous studies going back to 1973, the reliability of which is difficult to gauge. “Lots of the studies used for Swan’s 2017 analysis don’t contain all the information that is needed,” says andrologist Robert McLachlan, the medical director of Healthy Male (formerly Andrology Australia), a federal government-funded men’s health body. “In some cases, the ages of the men are missing. Almost 45 per cent of the studies she used don’t include the year the sperm sample was collected, and 29 per cent don’t mention the average sperm concentration.” (Where such data was missing, Swan and her team made estimates.)
Technology is also an issue. “Over the decades that these studies were performed, we have no way of knowing how closely the labs adhered to best practice,” McLachlan says. “Even today, you can get a sample from one man and split it in half and give one half to one lab and the other to another lab, and often you get two markedly different results. And not just small differences – several-fold.”
Besides, there were plenty of findings that contradicted Swan’s work. Between 1992 and 2012, there were 35 major papers examining changes in sperm count. Eight of them suggested a decline, and six showed ambiguous or conflicting results. But 21 studies, involving 112,386 men, showed either no change or improvements in semen quality. Needless to say, none of these 21 studies made the news. That Swan’s work has so dominated the narrative says a lot about the way science works in the age of mass media. “Scientists are incentivised to publish work that shows sensational results,” says Tim Moss, health-content manager at Healthy Male. “They have this publish-or-perish professional landscape. You get grant money if you have your work published, and it’s more likely that your work will be published if you can show some effect. For example, if you do a study comparing two groups of people, and you show there is no difference, it’s harder to get that published than if you did a study that shows a big difference.”
****************************************************
Disunity in the British Labour party over Gaza
Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major blow to his authority after Labour MPs staged a mass rebellion over his stance on a ceasefire in Gaza.
A total of eight members of the Labour leader’s frontbench resigned or were sacked as more than a quarter of his MPs defied him to support an immediate cessation in the fighting.
Jess Phillips, shadow minister for domestic abuse, was the most high-profile member of the frontbench to quit as 56 Labour MPs in the House of Commons backed the call for a ceasefire.
Ms Phillips said she had resigned with a “heavy heart” but added that she could see “no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region now and in the future”.
The Labour leader has called for a humanitarian pause in the war and warned a full-scale ceasefire would only “embolden” Hamas to regroup and plan more atrocities. Labour MPs had been ordered to back the party’s amendment to the King’s Speech, in line with that position.
They were also on a three-line whip to abstain on the SNP’s amendment calling for a ceasefire. MPs voted 293 to 125, majority 168, to reject the SNP’s King’s Speech amendment calling for “all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza. But 56 Labour MPs backed the position.
Yasmin Qureshi, the shadow women and equalities minister and MP for Bolton South, was the first to announce she had resigned to back the SNP call. She described the scale of bloodshed in Gaza as “unprecedented” and said MPs had to “call for an end to the carnage to protect innocent lives and end human suffering”.
She was followed by Afzal Khan, the shadow minister for exports and MP for Manchester Gorton, who said supporting a ceasefire was “the very least we can do”.
Paula Barker, shadow minister for devolution and the English regions and MP for Liverpool Wavertree, also anounced she would be standing down saying she had to follow “my conscience”.
As well as the shadow ministers who quit, frontbenchers Rachel Hopkins, Sarah Owen, Naz Shah and Andy Slaughter also quit after breaking the party whip to back the amendment.
Parliamentary private secretaries Dan Carden and Mary Foy have also left their positions on the frontbench, said Labour.
Sir Keir said he regretted that party colleagues had not backed his position, but added: “I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand.”
Before the vote more than 70 Labour MPs had publicly backed calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. But a Labour spokesperson said that a Commons vote was a different matter, adding: “This is a whipped vote and every MP knows what the consequence of that means.”
During Wednesday’s Commons debate, Ms Shah was the first Labour frontbencher to tell MPs that she intended to support the amendment. She was followed by shadow minister Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, who told the Commons that “a ceasefire is surely the minimum we should be demanding in the face of such horrific suffering”.
Labour’s decision not to back a ceasefire has also prompted the exodus of a series of councillors from the party, and Sir Keir was forced to hold a crunch meeting last month with a group of Muslim Labour MPs to address anger over his handling of the crisis – including comments in which he appeared to back the cutting of power and water to Gaza.
However, frontbencher Imran Hussain ultimately resigned “with a heavy heart” last week, saying he was quitting his role as a shadow minister to be able to “strongly advocate” for a ceasefire.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-gaza-ceasefire-vote-result-b2448234.html
*************************************************
Quality life in Chicago
A Chicago family who were attacked and robbed by carjackers in their driveway earlier this month have been targeted again by thieves.
Chicago police confirmed they responded to a call of a stolen vehicle at the 9300 block of South Pleasant at 7.30am on November 14.
The car was later recovered near the 9700 block of South Merrill. Police have yet to confirm if the thieves are the same men who attacked and stole the Pettiford family's first car only 12 days earlier.
Pettiford had been returning from a volleyball event with her daughter when they were held at gunpoint by two unidentified men on November 2.
After terrorizing Pettiford, the men managed to steal Pettiford's car and run away.
While the family has not commented on the incident, Chicago Alderman Matt O'Shea confirmed that they had been robbed a second time.
After the first incident, the family spoke out about their terrifying encounter to spread awareness among other residents in the area.
Footage recorded on the family's Ring camera showed one of the attackers pushing Pettiford to the ground and demanding her car keys while snatching her purse. The other one is seen running behind her daughter, who got inside their house and called the police.
Video then shows the attackers continuing to threaten Michele and rummaging through her purse while her husband, Jeff, walks out of their back door.
Jeff is then seen trying to de-escalate the situation and pointing at his car parked in the driveway with the keys inside but one of the thieves manages to find Michele's keys and start her car.
The two suspects eventually jumped into her Audi A7 and drove off, leaving the traumatized parents on the ground in their own backyard.
****************************************
16 November, 2023
Why I’m optimistic about multiculturalism
I agree with Toby Young below. English customs, traditions and attitudes are powerful in helping people to get along with one-another. Australia retains a strong English influence but is even more multicultural than Britain -- and we too have an almost seamless multiculturalism.
When I sit in my favourite breakfast cafe, I often find that among all the customers there is only one or two who have my fair Celtic skin. There are always people of Chinese and South Asians as fellow-diners there plus a great majority with Mediterranean skin -- presumably from everywhere between Spain and Iran. And there is NEVER the sligtiest disruption. People line up nicely to order their food and the waiters keep bringing out wonderful-looking meals. I have never heard so much as a raised voice. That is real-life multiculturalism at work.
And it so happens that I have these days a female friend of Indian heritage whom I am rather soppy about. See below:
Many of my conservative friends are beginning to catastrophise about the future of Britain in light of the pro-Palestinian protests that have erupted in our major cities over the past month. ‘I think you’re screwed,’ an American philosopher told me on Monday. ‘You should have raised the alarm about immigration from Muslim countries 25 years ago and now it’s too late. The fox is in the hen house.’
Such pessimism is coming to a head this weekend, with tens of thousands of protestors threatening to disrupt the Remembrance ceremonies which are taking place over two days owing to 11 November falling on a Saturday. If the two-minute silence is interrupted on either day by chants of ‘from the river to the sea’ or the Cenotaph has a Palestinian flag draped over it, we can expect a lot of hand-wringing about the failure of multiculturalism from right-of-centre columnists, as well as some Tory MPs. But unusually I find myself at odds with my colleagues on this issue. I’m not quite ready to conclude that a significant percentage of Britain’s Muslim population remains stubbornly unassimilated and rejects our way of life.
To begin with, the vast majority of Britain’s four million Muslims haven’t participated in these protests. Let’s suppose – generously – that 250,000 people have taken part in a pro-Palestinian protest in the UK since 7 October. If you subtract the 50,000 or so who aren’t Muslims but the usual middle-class rabble clutching Socialist Workers party banners, that means just 5 per cent of the Muslim population have been on the streets calling for the destruction of Israel.
And what of that 5 per cent? The press has focused on the most extremist people, like the two young women with pictures of paragliders stuck to their jackets and the young men using loudhailers to denounce the Jews – and such behaviour is deeply shocking. But there’s no evidence that most of the protestors support Hamas or Hezbollah or want Israel’s seven million Jews to be slaughtered by Islamist paramilitaries, even if that would certainly be their fate if the state of Israel ceased to exist.
I think the majority are engaging in a kind of wilful blindness, their natural humanity temporarily silenced by the excitement at being swept up in a tribal conflict. They remind me of QPR fans on their way to play a local rival like Fulham. Loud and intimidating and prone to chanting some quite unpleasant things, but they don’t even represent themselves – certainly not their best selves – let alone the entire population of Shepherd’s Bush.
Am I being too generous? Not according to the survey evidence. An ICM poll for Policy Exchange carried out in 2016 found that more than half of the UK’s Muslim population want to ‘fully integrate’ (53 per cent) and the vast majority share the hopes and concerns of the rest of Britain’s citizens. True, they’re more likely to believe conspiracy theories – 7 per cent believe the Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks – but they’re also more likely than the general population to condemn acts of terrorism (90 per cent compared with 84 per cent) and less likely to sympathise with terrorists (2 per cent against 4 per cent).
We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Britain is one of the most successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith societies in the world. We have a Hindu Prime Minister, a Buddhist Home Secretary and a Muslim Mayor of London. Yes, there are occasional bouts of ethnic conflict, such as the clashes between Muslims and Hindus in Leicester following India’s victory over Pakistan in the Asia Cup cricket match last year. But, in general, Britain’s different ethnic groups rub along together remarkably well. In my part of west London I’ve never witnessed any racial tension. Catholic Poles and Muslim Somalis may not worship in the same temples, but when Saturday comes they cheer along the same football team at Loftus Road.
I hope I don’t sound too complacent. I know anti-Semitic incidents have increased by several hundred per cent in the past month, which is one of the reasons I helped create the October Declaration, an expression of solidarity with Britain’s Jews that has attracted more than 75,000 signatures. But I don’t feel as depressed about the future of our society as some of my fellow conservatives. I pray that nothing will happen to undermine the solemnity of the Remembrance weekend, and the pro-Palestinian protests will fizzle out as winter comes in. My hope is that the ugly scenes we’ve witnessed on our streets will be remembered as a blip, not as a watershed moment when we realised how catastrophic mass immigration has been for our way of life.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/why-im-optimistic-about-multiculturalism/
*******************************************************
NewsGuard: Surrogate the Feds Pay to Keep Watch on the Internet and Be a Judge of the Truth
In an exchange that came to light in the “Twitter Files” revelations about media censorship, Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, touted his product, NewsGuard, as a “Vaccine Against Misinformation.” His written pitch highlighted a “separate product” – beyond an extension already on the Microsoft Edge browser – “for internal use by content-moderation teams.” Crovitz promised an out-of-the-box tool that would use artificial intelligence powered by NewsGuard algorithms to rapidly screen content based on hashtags and search terms the company associated with dangerous content.
How would the company determine the truth? For issues such as COVID-19, NewsGuard would steer readers to official government sources only, like the federal Centers for Disease Control. Other content-moderation allies, Crovitz’s pitch noted, include “intelligence and national security officials,” “reputation management providers,” and “government agencies,” which contract with the firm to identify misinformation trends. Instead of only fact-checking individual forms of incorrect information, NewsGuard, in its proposal, touted the ability to rate the "overall reliability of websites" and “’prebunk’ COVID-19 misinformation from hundreds of popular websites.”
NewsGuard’s ultimately unsuccessful pitch sheds light on one aspect of a growing effort by governments around the world to police speech ranging from genuine disinformation to dissent from officially sanctioned narratives. In the United States, as the Twitter Files revealed, the effort often takes the form of direct government appeals to social media platforms and news outlets. More commonly the government works with through seemingly benign non-governmental organizations – such as the Stanford Internet Observatory – to quell speech it disapproves of.
Or it pays to coerce speech through government contracts with outfits such as NewsGuard, a for-profit company of especially wide influence. Founded in 2018 by Crovitz and his co-CEO Steven Brill, a lawyer, journalist and entrepreneur, NewsGuard seeks to monetize the work of reshaping the Internet. The potential market for such speech policing, NewsGuard’s pitch to Twitter noted, was $1.74 billion, an industry it hoped to capture.
Instead of merely suggesting rebuttals to untrustworthy information, as many other existing anti-misinformation groups provide, NewsGuard has built a business model out of broad labels that classify entire news sites as safe or untrustworthy, using an individual grading system producing what it calls “nutrition labels.” The ratings – which appear next to a website’s name on the Microsoft Edge browser and other systems that deploy the plug-in – use a scale of zero to 100 based on what NewsGuard calls “nine apolitical criteria,” including “gathers and presents information responsibly” (worth 18 points), “avoids deceptive headlines” (10 points), and “does not repeatedly publish false or egregiously misleading content” (22 points), etc.
Critics note that such ratings are entirely subjective – the New York Times, for example, which repeatedly carried false and partisan information from anonymous sources during the Russiagate hoax, gets a 100% rating. RealClearInvestigations, which took heat in 2019 for unmasking the “whistleblower” of the first Trump impeachment (while many other outlets including the Times still have not), has an 80% rating.
Independent news outlets with an anti-establishment bent receive particularly low ratings from NewsGuard, such as the libertarian news site Antiwar.com, with a 49.5% rating, and conservative site The Federalist, with a 12.5% rating.
As it stakes a claim to being the Internet’s arbiter of trust, the company’s site says it has conducted reviews of some 95% of news sources across the English, French, German, and Italian web. It has also published reports about disinformation involving China and the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars. The model has received glowing profiles in CNN and the New York Times, among other outlets, as a viable solution for fighting fake news.
NewsGuard is pushing to apply its browser screening process into libraries, academic centers, news aggregation portals, and internet service providers. Its reach, however, is far greater because of other products it aims to sell to social media and other content moderation firms and advertisers. “An advertiser’s worst nightmare is having an ad placement damage even one customer’s trust in a brand,” said Crovitz in a press release touting NewsGuard’s “BrandGuard” service for advertisers. "We're asking them to pay a fraction of what they pay their P.R. people and their lobbyists to talk about the problem,” Crovitz told reporters.
NewsGuard’s BrandGuard tool provides an “exclusion list” that deters advertisers from buying space on sites NewsGuard deems problematic. But that warning service creates inherent conflicts of interest with NewsGuard’s financial model: The buyers of the service can be problematic entities too, with an interest in protecting and buffing reputations.
A case in point: Publicis Groupe, NewsGuard’s largest investor and the biggest conglomerate of marketing agencies in the world, which has integrated NewsGuard’s technology into its fleet of subsidiaries that place online advertising. The question of conflicts arises because Publicis represents a range of corporate and government clients, including Pfizer – whose COVID vaccine has been questioned by some news outlets that have received low scores. Other investors include Bruce Mehlman, a D.C. lobbyist with a lengthy list of clients, including United Airlines and ByteDance, the parent company of much-criticized Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok.
NewsGuard has faced mounting criticism that rather than serving as a neutral public service against online propaganda, it instead acts as an opaque proxy for its government and corporate clients to stifle views that simply run counter to their own interests.
The criticism finds support in internal documents, such as the NewsGuard proposal to Twitter, which this reporter obtained during Twitter Files reporting last year, as well as in government records and discussions with independent media sites targeted by the startup.
*********************************************
The Greatest Hypocrites Are Among Us
Hamas is less hypocritical than its American apologists. This is clear after listening to the cant coming from many in our colleges and Congress. Hamas has been comparatively straightforward in its hatred and intent to exterminate Israel; not so for those seeking to cover for it here at home.
In 1948, immediately after Israel declared its independence, what is today known as Gaza was used as a launching point for Egypt’s (and four other Arab nations’) attack on Israel. Despite this failed attempt to wipe out Israel, Gaza remained under Egyptian control. It was then used again in 1967’s Six-Day War — yet another attempt to destroy Israel. After this second attempt, Israel remained in Gaza. (READ MORE: Five Stupid Things the Left Would Have You Believe)
In 1988, Hamas issued its charter, which clearly laid out its intent:
This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave.
Hamas identified itself and its enemy in no uncertain terms: “Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion.” And there was no mistaking its goal: “Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”
Israel’s presence in Gaza lasted roughly four decades until it withdrew in 2005. In short order, Hamas won control of Gaza’s government. In 2017, Hamas released a revised charter that, in the words of a RAND Corporation analysis at the time: “appears to soften the group’s stance toward Israel”:
The major takeaway is that Hamas is open, at least in principle, to accepting the 1967 borders of a Palestinian state—a major sticking point in previous failed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Its previous position had always been to call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Even so, the revision still contained “some of the more incendiary language of the original.”
Six years later on Oct. 7, Hamas apparently reverted to its original charter and its original intent by putting those earlier words into action. Yet some here in America continue to dispute both the words and the deeds of Hamas.
Early in the conflict they called for a ceasefire. They did not, however, call for one immediately — when Hamas was still conducting its prolonged terrorist attack. What came immediately were instead supposedly pro-Palestinian rallies, such as the one in New York on Oct. 8 that was organized by none other than the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — the party that includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), both members of the Squad (more about this far-left House group later). This pro-Palestine rally included the burning of an Israeli flag and a rally attender displaying a swastika on his cell phone.
On Oct. 16, several members of the far-left House group known as the Squad introduced a resolution calling for a ceasefire. It would be interesting to know if the ceasefire they imagine would look anything like what existed on Oct. 6 — before Hamas broke it with a hideous terrorist attack targeting Israeli citizens.
Does the ceasefire they imagine require Hamas to first release the hostages it had taken? Interestingly, the Squad members’ resolution makes no mention of the Israeli hostages Hamas took. Does it envision Hamas turning over the terrorists who committed the atrocities in Israel? These would all seem to be reasonable preliminary steps of a party now seeking ceasefire.
These apologists certainly profess concern about civilian casualties. But do they in any way blame Hamas for these — first for the innocent civilians that were its deliberate and premeditated targets in Israel and second for the innocent civilians that are its deliberate and premeditated collateral damage in Gaza? By embedding its terrorist infrastructure deeply in and around civilian targets, Hamas knew exactly what it was doing to the human shields it was using. And Hamas has used them in other instances for some time.
What those calling for a ceasefire in Congress and on campuses are seeking can be fairly ascertained from a video that Tlaib released, in which she included protesters chanting “from the river to the sea.” The river is, of course, the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean. What lies between these two points, Tlaib? Israel.
Despite Talib’s hollow claims that the chant is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” from the river to the sea leaves no place for Israel. The chant is nothing more than the Hamas charter simplified into a slogan. It is not surprising that the House voted to censure Tlaib, but it is appalling that 188 members voted against it and four could only vote “Present.”
There have always been what the Bolsheviks once called “useful idiots” — those people who repeated the rhetoric and propaganda of liars bent on evil. While the two may seem but two sides of the same counterfeit coin, there is ultimately a forthrightness in the liar. Liars’ actions become their admission. There is a truthfulness in liars’ deeds that never exists in pure hypocrites — those who continue to insist that the lie is the truth and that what happened did not.
Hamas has made itself clear — an admission by atrocity — that it is who it said it was from the beginning. In contrast, its American apologists are still trying to obfuscate. They are still speaking the old, and now disproven, lies; still calling for our actions to respond to those lies.
America’s Hamas apologists are not the greater evil, but they are clearly the greater hypocrites. And, apparently, they imagine us the greater fools.
https://spectator.org/the-greatest-hypocrites-are-among-us-hamas/
****************************************************
Women pay the price for the government's productivity ambitions
Despite a rapidly declining birth rate across the Western world, new research out of the United States shows many people want more children than they are having. The study published by Ohio State University’s Institute for Population Research suggests demographic decline could be reversed if people simply had the children they claim to want.
Yet birth rates in countries like Australia continue to fall. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the birth rate has fallen three per cent since 2021 and the total fertility rate has dropped to 1.63 children per woman.
The reasons for this are both socio-political and financial. They are proof that we live in a society that increasingly does not value motherhood, children, or family.
Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made this abundantly clear during a recent keynote address to The Australian’s Economic and Social Outlook conference.
‘We’ve narrowed the gender pay gap to its lowest point on record– and we’re not done yet,’ he said. ‘That’s why we have made equality for women a central economic priority – because it is central to our future economic success.’
Increasingly the political class measure a woman’s success by her contribution to the national economy. This feeds into the narrative that success should be viewed through a commercial lens and that employment is empowerment.
Mr Albanese continued, ‘Making child-care more accessible and affordable is an economic reform that boosts productivity and participation for working women in particular.’ He added, ‘It has also delivered real and immediate help for around 1.2 million family budgets.’
What the Prime Minister pointedly failed to admit is this policy only helps mothers who want to return to the workforce, not the stay-at-home mum. Today’s policies around childcare, while pushed in the name of female empowerment, have everything to do with economic interests and very little to do with giving women a choice.
This is further exacerbated by an economic climate that is not family-friendly. According to the ABS, the average annual income for a man in Australia is about $90,000. However, with inflation at 5.4 per cent and interest rates recently increased to 4.35 per cent, the average salary does not stretch as far as it used to.
Confronted with rising rental and housing prices, many women are forced to return to work sooner than they would have liked. Cost-of-living has killed the stay-at-home mum, and for many women, the choice between returning to work or devoting more time to caring responsibilities has been made for them.
Today, women’s workforce participation in Australia is at 62.2 per cent. However, according to the latest Gallup poll, 50 per cent of women with children under 18 would prefer to stay at home.
Women are being sold a lie. It suits the interests of the political class to support the perception that wealth, career, and lifestyle are the key markers of success. It certainly suits the budget bottom line. The Prime Minister acknowledges this when he says that women’s productivity is ‘essential to boosting productivity’.
When you hear motherhood described as ‘unpaid caring’ and a ‘penalty’, replace those words with ‘unpaid taxes’ and a ‘penalty on the national GDP’. These politically opportunistic catchphrases have nothing to do with empowerment but are rather about encouraging women to make a rapid return to work.
Under the guise of supporting women, the Prime Minister in fact does a disservice to all women by making the ‘gender pay gap’ a top priority for his government.
Moreover, this type of rhetoric fuels the grievance industry by promoting the idea that the patriarchy is preventing women from succeeding in the workforce.
Our elected representatives should be focusing on much more pressing issues, such as improving the national economy by cutting taxes, income splitting, and making housing more affordable, thereby enabling families to survive on a single income.
The 3 per cent fall in the birth rate since 2021 speaks to a society that has forgotten the value of family and the stay-at-home mum.
While feminism has achieved huge wins for women, we must not be deceived by anti-motherhood and anti-family rhetoric. True liberation is about choice, not employment.
*****************************************************
15 November, 2023
Why do they pull down posters of kidnapped Israelis?
Evidence of Palestinan barbarity upsets their belief in Jewish guilt and Palestinian innocence
Immediately, people began pulling down the pictures of hostages from walls, subways, bus stops, telephone poles, angrily, purposefully, often tearing the paper posters right across the faces of kidnapped children. They carried them away in self-righteous handfuls or stuffed them in trashcans. In addition to helping raise awareness of the fate of the hostages, Bandaid and Nitzan’s poster campaign was now also highlighting the startling prevalence of raw antisemitism within the flagships of Western enlightenment—in large cities and on university campuses.
“The first torn-down posters we saw I think was a video coming from London,” Bandaid recalls, “two Muslim women tearing down posters.” When observers criticized the women, they responded, “We are doing this for Palestine.”
It was not immediately clear, to most normal observers, why concern for the fate of hundreds of innocent people grabbed from their homes and held as hostages in inhumane circumstances in blatant violation of international law should elicit any reaction but grief. Yet the teardowns increased, and soon became the story. Some of the vandals filmed themselves tearing down posters and uploaded footage of their actions to social media, as proofs of their virtue and in the hopes of inspiring others. Others yelled at strangers filming them. The destruction went on in Boston, London, Miami, New York, Melbourne, Philadelphia, Ann Arbor, Los Angeles, and Paris. Hitler mustaches were drawn on the faces of two 3-year-old twin girls. Vandals scrawled “Actors” and “Lies” on others.
“There is no possible justification for such heartlessness,” wrote Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe. “The whole purpose of the fliers is to heighten awareness of the Israeli (and other) civilians kidnapped by the Hamas terror squads—to put names and faces to the hostages, all with one goal: to bring them back home. How can a project so heartfelt and humane trigger such a poisonous response?”
The vandals had their own ideas. These ideas were often confused, illogical, sometimes wrong on the facts, but were all expressed with intense, shaking emotion. They seemed rooted in a deep identification with the hapless, helpless, and voiceless, which in their minds justified not just tearing down posters of real human beings in terrible circumstances but also the kidnappings themselves.
The hundreds of videos of people tearing down posters have become as widespread as the posters themselves. Some of the perpetrators are enraged and inarticulate; some are furtive and defensive; some are proud of their actions; some are creepily smug. All of them seem to be operating on a similar odd frequency, in which their actions signal their belonging to a group with impenetrable beliefs that are not open to discussion or questioning, like a cult. In the U.S., at least, nearly all were current or aspiring members of the professional classes.
A worker at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School, videotaped while tearing down posters on campus, was asked why he was destroying posters of innocent victims. He shouted, “Get the fuck out of my face,” and when informed the photos were of innocent victims, said “There were people killed in the hospital bombing,” referencing the deaths at the Al Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza that was later attributed to an Islamic Jihad rocket gone astray. When asked why she was tearing down the posters, a woman in New York said, “Because they are fake.” Francesca Martinez-Greenberg, who according to her LinkedIn profile is a graphic designer at the Center for National Security at Fordham Law School, said, “This is part of a concentrated propaganda effort to rile up support for the genocide of Palestinian people.” A man identified as Joe Friedman tore down posters at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, explaining, “what about the Palestinian children?” and then made fun of an observer’s Israeli accent, calling it “fake.” Friedman, who comes from tony Silver Spring, Maryland, was previously arrested while disrupting a pro-life event on campus at VCU.
The barbarity of the Hamas attack on innocents was thus impossible for those who hate Jews to process, so they didn’t. Rather, they attempted to deny the evidence by throwing away photos of the real-life Jewish victims, in a vain yet chilling attempt to resolve their own logical impasse.
The teardown artists elicited their own social media-driven response, which in some cases included real-world consequences. Observers hunted down the rippers on social media and outed them. NYU law student Ryna Workman, who was filmed destroying posters with a companion, who coyly said she was “very proud” of their actions, saw her job offer from a top law firm rescinded after video of her acts was posted online. Laurel Squadron, who works part time as a babysitter for ArtistBabysitting, a boutique child care agency serving families in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and New Jersey, was filmed tearing down posters of children and screaming, “you support genocide you asshole,” at observers. The agency later denounced her actions and pulled her profile off the job site. An endodontist tearing down posters in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, was outed by StopAntisemitism and fired from her job. New York County public defender Victoria Ruiz was filmed tearing down posters of kidnapped Israeli children, and she later resigned from her position.
In a viral incident reported by the New York Post, construction workers jumped out of their truck to stop a man in Queens from tearing down the posters. “This is a free country,” said one of the men, named Paulie. “You can wave your Palestine flag and say death to the Jews and America whenever you want, but we can put up f–king signs.” He pointed out the man was breaking the law by littering.
Although Bandaid had anticipated some trouble, he admitted the poster destruction “was not so nice to see.” He was also surprised to observe the vandalism on the Upper East and Upper West sides of Manhattan. “You would think there are so many Jews there, that maybe it will be more protected, but you can feel the hate.”
And hate it was—sometimes calm, cool, self-confident, and entitled, and sometimes hysterical. A 24-year-old Israeli student enrolled in general studies at Columbia University in New York City was putting up posters on campus when he was assaulted by a masked female Jewish student named Maxwell Friedman, who was later arrested and charged with assault after breaking her victim’s finger with a stick. A vandal tearing down posters while walking her dog in Miami admitted Hamas was a “terrorist organization” but, shaking with emotion, she said she was ripping down the pictures of hostages to “protect Palestinian civilians” who “over decades have been oppressed; they’re in apartheid because of what Israel is doing.”
One observer on Instagram understood right away what was happening. A young Israeli woman from South Africa explained the rippers were compelled to tear down the photos of innocents kidnapped because “it doesn’t fit the propaganda they’ve been feeding the world,” which denies the humanity of Jews and Israelis while painting them as monsters who oppress innocent Palestinians. “Every video we post, every death and missing person we announce, it’s all ‘fake’ and we’re ‘making it up,’ never mind the fact that the most graphic videos we have of the crimes committed on our innocent Israeli angels are taken by their own leaders.”
The barbarity of the Hamas attack on innocents was thus impossible for those who hate Jews to process, so they didn’t. Rather, they attempted to deny the evidence by throwing away photos of the real-life Jewish victims, in a vain yet chilling attempt to resolve their own logical impasse. “Precisely because the massacre and abductions had been so unspeakably horrific,” Jeff Jacoby wrote, “it was necessary to reinforce the narrative of Jewish villainy.”
Mintz and Bandaid are hurt by the blood-curdling reactions, but they remain undeterred. “You know, we are only going to put the posters up again, and all the thousands of people who are with us, they just print more and put them back up,” says Bandaid. “We put innocent civilians on these posters because we know they can’t speak for themselves right now. We have to keep their names up there and keep spreading awareness until they gain their freedom.”
Bandaid and Nitzan’s posters continue to be downloaded. (There are fewer reported teardowns in the Far East.) Posters have been displayed on 240 chairs surrounding an empty Shabbat table that has been constructed and displayed around the world: in New York, Geneva, Boston, Berlin, Rome, Frankfurt, Washington, D.C., Johannesburg, London, Copenhagen, Tel Aviv, Melbourne, Tbilisi, Chicago, Vienna, LA, and Lisbon, to name a few.
In the fourth week of the war, analytics show that kidnappedfromIsrael.com has been visited an average of 30,000 times per day.
Nevertheless, Bandaid has to admit the rage is terrifying. “They tear down photos of babies and elderly people!” the artist told me. “It’s just pure evil. It’s not human. It’s really crazy. It’s really upsetting. We see antisemitism rising everywhere. It’s not a nice feeling to have when you’re abroad, and we feel less and less safe. It’s scary and it’s depressing to see the world act like that. But we will just go out and put up more.”
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/the-art-of-the-teardown
***************************************************
UK: Sacked Suella Braverman accuses Rishi Sunak of needing ‘comfort blanket’ in an explosive missive
Sacked Home Secretary Suella Braverman has delivered a withering take-down of Rishi Sunak, accusing the British Prime Minister of being so weak that he uses wishful thinking as a “comfort blanket” to avoid making hard choices.
Ms Braverman has accused Mr Sunak of betraying the British public and failing to uphold four key of promises he made to her when she backed him – and brought along a swath of supporters – so that he could be Prime Minister in a leadership ballot last year.
She said she had worked up legal advice, policy detail and action to take on those issues – the significant one being to stop the flood of small boats crossing the Channel with illegal migrants – but was “often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest” by Mr Sunak’s team.
Suella Braverman has accused Rishi Sunak of “betrayal” over a… promise to stop small boat crossings in an incendiary letter after being sacked as home secretary. In a broadside aimed at the Prime Minister, she accused him of having “manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver” on key policies, More
She added: “You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises.”
Ms Braverman was sacked from her high profile and senior position after claiming the Metropolitan Police had applied double standards to pro-Palestinian protesters in allowing “hate marches” across Britain.
In her statement she said Sunak had failed “to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets”.
“I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion,” she wrote, accusing Mr Sunak of instead trying to minimise his political risk.
“Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years. I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs.”
The four key points in her deal with the Prime Minister related to some of the most explosive and voter-sensitive issues facing Britain.
She said the deal with Mr Sunak, worked out over a dinner, was to reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto as well as dealing with illegal migration by including specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats. This would entail excluding the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law which was obstructing progress.
She was to also deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable.
The fourth point was in relation to transgender issues and she was to issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.
She said in her statement to Mr Sunak that his decisions about the boats were “magical thinking”, adding, “You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.”
The missive was no surprise given Ms Braverman’s direct and blunt approach, but will unsettle the rejigged Cabinet which now includes ex-prime minister David Cameron as foreign secretary.
”Ms Braverman wrote: “Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently.”
She believed Mr Sunak has no real intention of fulfilling his pledge to the British people to stop the small boat crossings because he has wasted a year on the Illegal Migration Act and he has failed to prepare any credible Plan B in the event of legal defeat. She said she had received no reply to the back up migration plan she had prepared.
In her statement she said: ”I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite for doing what is necessary, and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people’’.
She said that she had striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported the Tory party in 2019.
“These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged.”
And her parting shot?
“In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good. It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself.”
************************************************
When identity trumps merit we all lose in the end
Possibly the most important contribution Western liberalism has made to the development of civilised society is the notion that we should judge people on their individual characteristics, not on what tribe or collective they belong to.
Tragically, this foundational principle is being challenged everywhere – sometimes overtly, sometimes by subterfuge. If one went in search of a sure-fire way to dumb down our society, this is it.
Cue the Queensland government and Queensland University of Technology. Both are abolishing merit-based hiring for public servants and academics, allegedly to stamp out “unconscious bias”.
The government and QUT are dumping the word merit from their selection policies and will instead hire staff based on “suitability”. Apparently, bad references or a history of disciplinary action – such as being fired from a previous job – will be handled differently for Indigenous applicants on cultural grounds. In other words, applicants will be judged at least partially on the colour of their skin.
A courageous woman, Rochelle Hicks, has blown the lid on the real-life impact of this sort of discrimination. Earlier this year, Transport for NSW failed to take steps to remove Aboriginal man Ian Brown from being involved in a major infrastructure project she oversaw even after he made a death threat against her. Hicks wanted to deal with the situation herself. If a white employee or a contractor had made a death threat against a woman, they would have been removed swiftly. End of story.
Not here. Imagine the diversity tangle for Transport for NSW. Senior honchos want to attract more women into its traditionally male-oriented construction and infrastructure areas. Then an Indigenous man on its payroll makes a death threat in front of a witness against one of their most respected executives.
A workplace safety report finds the threat credible. Does Transport for NSW support Hicks? Or does Transport for NSW apply a different standard to Brown? In short, in the hierarchy of diversity claims, does race and cultural sensitivity trump gender and safety at work? Transport for NSW effectively choose the former, leaving Hicks feeling unsafe and unsupported by her employer.
This debacle comes from not judging a person on their merits. And there are a million different ways to sideline merit.
A more subtle method is to redefine merit or demand it be assessed in a more holistic way. Just change the criteria applied to judge merit so that it fits whatever hiring result you want to reach.
Earlier this year I suggested, tongue in cheek, that it wouldn’t be long before diversity divas in corporate Australia demanded that the criteria for picking company chief executives be broadened to allow for more heads of human resources and in-house general counsel in the top job. I said if you thought it was bad enough that HR departments controlled chief executives, wait until HR people actually ran the joint.
It was a joke. Except, right on cue, and as if to prove there is no claim so outrageous that Chief Executive Women can’t make it with a straight face, the organisation’s new president, Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, was quoted as saying that boards should broaden the talent pool from which chief executives were selected to include people from HR.
Lloyd-Hurwitz referred to her own experience as chief executive of Mirvac, claiming “90 per cent of what I did was around people, so why would coming through a human capital and culture function not equip you very well for that?”.
This is surprising coming from a woman who once said she needed to do an MBA because “having done urban geography as an undergrad, I was woefully underprepared for the world of finance and commerce”, and then proceeded to follow an extremely high-powered career in funds management and real estate.
Isn’t there something ever so slightly revisionist about a woman who now thinks you can be a chief executive while still having your training wheels on when it comes to reading a balance sheet?
Given the gullibility with which every breathless new CEW claim is greeted by latter-day equivalents of the late, unlamented Male Champions of Change, a little hard-nosed cross examination of these claims might help avoid wholesale adoption by scared boards of this latest lunatic piece of gender activism before it dooms our public companies to financial and commercial illiteracy.
The problem is this. Women now significantly outnumber men at universities and institutions of higher learning. But, damn it, not only do they choose the wrong courses (at least if you want to be a chief executive) but they keep compounding the error by subsequent career choices.
As the Workplace Gender Equality Agency coyly puts it, “Women and men continue to follow different educational paths and the pattern of female and male segregation into different industries remains.”
For example, recent figures show that around 60 per cent of women tend to study education, health, society and culture, and creative arts while information technology and engineering are male-dominated.
CEW would no doubt blame the dreaded patriarchy for dragooning young women into filling out their tertiary application forms in traditionally sexist ways, and by logical extension doing the same to young men. This is rubbish.
Judging from the assertive young women I know, treating them as automatons choosing university courses and subsequent careers at the whim of some great unseen sexist god is offensive in the extreme.
At this point in their lives – the time of university entrance – there is a strong argument women appear to have achieved equality of opportunity with men. Their apparently superior school results give them first crack at whatever university choices and careers they wish. It is the voluntary choices that young women make then, and later, that lead to different career outcomes.
One of the biggest failures of CEW and other like organisations is the determined refusal to recognise, indeed celebrate, freedom of choice and individual responsibility. This brings us back to why merit is being defined down.
As the 2022 CEW survey revealed, while numbers of women in executive leadership teams continue to grow, they largely choose so-called functional roles (HR, legal, marketing, communications and so on) in greater numbers than the operational or line roles that lead naturally to CEO succession.
This infuriates the CEW ideologues for whom equality of opportunity is never enough. Only equality of outcome will do.
You would think CEW would recognise the lessons of centuries of business practice, the learnings of companies through business cycles, the acres of academic texts and simple common sense, all to the effect that, as a general rule, executives with line and operational experience make the best chief executives.
Not CEW. If the facts don’t fit CEW’s preferred hypothesis, it seeks to change the facts. If the assessment of individual merit doesn’t get you the right outcomes, change the definition of merit.
CEW seems to accept it can’t force more women to choose the career paths that lead to the chief executive’s office, so its solution is to try to redefine the CEO’s role and qualifications so it fits women’s preferred career paths. CEW wants to welcome you to the world of chief executives who may be financially illiterate, commercially obtuse and strategically sterile but who have empathy, are terrific at compliance and know HR backwards. No thanks.
My advice to you is that if any company you have invested in appoints an HR executive or the general counsel as CEO, do what I think a young Lloyd-Hurwitz would have done when she was a fund manager: short the stock.
***********************************************
The poisonous results of a refusal to compromise
Their enmity to Israel hurts Palestinians most of all
One month into the latest round of the Gaza war, Saturday has become Protest for Palestine Day among TikTok generation students and Islamists.
It follows the same pattern as the Friday Strikes for Climate championed by Greta Thunberg, her high school acolytes, and the Socialist Workers’ party members of the teachers union.
With the inevitable clash this Saturday of youthful, useful idiots and their parents’ generation who will be commemorating Remembrance Day, here are some Post-it notes to point out to the protesters that they won’t see in their social media feeds.
November 11 is Armistice Day but not all armistices are equal. In the West, an armistice signals the end of hostilities. Not in Islam. Ever since Hamas invaded Israel on 7 October it has repeatedly called for a ceasefire yet it is Hamas that shatters each ceasefire to which it agrees. It’s not an accident. What Hamas calls for, a ‘hudna’, is a fake ceasefire in today’s parlance. It’s a term that Mohammed used in his battle with his own tribe, the Quraysh. It allows each side to regroup and in the case of the Prophet to craftily defeat his enemy.
The war between Hamas and Israel has nothing to do with Palestinians who were assaulted in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in September 2023, mistreatment by Israeli security forces, settlements in the West Bank, or returning to the 1967 borders; indeed there is nothing Israel can do to broker lasting peace because Hamas doesn’t accept the right of Israel to exist at all. As Mahmoud al-Ramahi the secretary-general of the Palestinian parliament put it, ‘We accept that Israel as a state exists, but we will never recognise the right of Israel to exist in our land.’
For the same reason, Hamas will never agree to a two-state solution. The only solution it will accept is a Palestinian caliphate in the entire area once referred to under the British as Mandate Palestine and even then this is just a stepping-stone to a global caliphate. Protesters should note that they will not be able to choose their gender or pronouns in a caliphate. As Hamas commander Mahmoud Al-Zahar put it in a video published in December 2022, ‘Israel is only the first target.’ The plan is that, ‘The entire planet will be under our law.’ This is the goal of all Islamists. At the Mufti Mehmood conference in Pakistan on 14 October, Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, emir of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl told the crowd that ‘we are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the mujahideen… to destroy Israel, and throw its corpse into the Dead Sea’ and as Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al said at the same conference, Hamas is working for the implementation of sharia law not just in Palestine but all over the world.
The disruption of Remembrance Day commemorations should serve as a reminder that Islamists did not side with the West in the second world war; they fought with Hitler. The Islamist ideology of Hamas and its spiritual forerunner the Muslim Brotherhood stems directly from a strand of Islamist antisemitism that fused with Nazism before and during the second world war. Unfortunately, despite the well-documented collaboration of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler and his enthusiastic endorsement of the Final Solution he was never indicted for war crimes and after the war became a hero to Islamists continuing to propagate lies that fuelled religious intolerance, antisemitism, rejection of liberalism and of the state of Israel. His nefarious influence continues to this day. That’s why a former Guantanamo prisoner associated with Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taleban posted a speech by Hitler on Telegram (translated by the Middle East Media and Research Institute MEMRI) inciting Muslims to kill Jews.
Islamist support for Nazism leads to genocidal gymnastics in which Islamists celebrate the Holocaust, deny the Holocaust occurred, and claim Israel is a Nazi state. Examples of each abound. Dutch Islamist soccer fans chant ‘Hamas, Hamas, All Jews to the Gas’, an Australian Islamist ‘scholar’ Nassim Abdi referred to in a Facebook post on 10 October ,‘the so-called oppression of the Jewish people, and the so-called Holocaust’ (translated by MEMRI) while UK Labour councillor Hajran Bashir last week compared Israel to Nazi Germany.
Hamas is not interested in protecting Gaza civilians. Instead, it counts on the Western media to attribute every death in Gaza to Israel and to put pressure on it to let Hamas get away with its perpetual attacks and rearmament. In the messianic mission of Hamas to build an earthly caliphate, the suffering of Gazans serves a useful purpose. As Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, put it in a speech on 26 October, ‘The blood of the women, children and elderly… we are the ones who need this blood, so it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit, so it awakens within us resolve.’
When Mousa Abu Marzouk, a member of the Hamas politburo was asked on 27 October why Hamas, which has built 500 kilometres of tunnels, hasn’t built a single civilian bomb shelter he said that the tunnels in Gaza were built to protect Hamas fighters from airstrikes, not civilians, and the protection of the people of Gaza was the responsibility of the United Nations and the ‘occupation’ ie. Israel, even though Hamas has had full control of Gaza since its bloody coup in 2007.
Given the ruthlessly cynical way in which Hamas inflicts and exploits the suffering of Gazans, it’s hardly surprising that Hamas isn’t popular in Gaza. In 2023, polling indicated that a majority of Gazans were opposed to breaking the ceasefire with Israel and almost three-quarters think Hamas is corrupt. Unlike Hamas, most Gazans are prepared to support peace plans and Hamas is far from popular throughout the Middle East. Egyptian TV host Ibrahim Eissa slammed Marzouk and the Hamas leadership calling them ‘disgraceful cowards’ who were ‘peddling’ the lives of Palestinians instead of protectng them.
Yet thanks to TikTok, young people get a constant flood of pro-Palestinian propaganda which has persuaded young Australians to sympathise with Palestinians as the victims. But if they are victims of anyone, they are victims of Hamas.
Unfortunately, thanks to migration, Australia has also imported its share of Islamist ideologues. Islamic ‘scholar’, Brother Ismail, used a Friday sermon in Sydney on 27 October to call on Muslims to wage jihad, raise the flags of Isis and Al-Qaeda, and condemn the ‘betrayal sheiks’ that ‘suppress the rage of Muslims who cannot wait to wage Jihad and die as martyrs’. He told Australian Muslims that, ‘By Allah, (Australians) don’t love us and they would like to kill all of us.’ ‘But,’ he said, ‘whether the Australian government or the Australia Security Intelligence Organization likes it or not, or wants to deport me, jihad is the solution… there is no other way to defend the Muslims and erase this humiliation from the Islamic nation, but to fight for the sake of Allah. Jihad is … one of the highest pillars of our religion. Hamas freedom fighters … are the most honourable men, and more honourable than you, who are labelling (them) terrorists.’
With sermons like these and with TikTok propaganda brainwashing young people, Australia can expect Remembrance Day disruptions for many years to come.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/tiktok-time-bomb
****************************************
14 November, 2023
The reward for being tall and well built
Tammy Hembrow knows what she likes and it shows. Too bad for short dumpy guys. Life is not fair
*************************************************
Jeremy Corbyn refuses to call Hamas a terror group
Former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to label Hamas a terror group Monday during a heated interview with talk show host Piers Morgan.
The far-left pol wouldn’t give a straight answer when Morgan repeatedly asked him if the Palestinian militants who launched a devastating attack on Israel last month were terrorists during a “Piers Morgan Uncensored” segment.
“Are they a terror group?” Morgan asked.
“Everybody knows what they are,” the member of Parliament replied to the TalkTV host.
“Are they a terror group?” Morgan asked again. “Can you say it? Can you say it? Can you call them a terror group?”
“Is it possible to have a rational discussion with you?” Corbyn asked in reply as he tried to talk through Morgan’s repeated questioning.
The verbal fracas came to an end when Morgan’s other guest, ex-General Secretary of Unite the Union Len McCluskey, said “Of course” Hamas is a terror group.
“Why can’t you say that?” Morgan directed at an annoyed Corbyn.
Hamas, the ruling body in Gaza, has been designated a terror group by the United States, the UK government and the European Union.
************************************************
How the US Spent $4.1 Billion on Global LGBT Initiatives
During the past three fiscal years, $4.1 billion in federal money from taxpayers has flowed to LGBT initiatives in the United States and around the world, an Epoch Times investigation has revealed.
From Oct. 1, 2020, through Sept. 30, 2023, the U.S. government issued more than 1,100 grants to fund LGBT-promoting projects around the world, according to a review of a federal spending website.
The scope of projects varies widely.
Plans to create a "safe space for LGBTQ youth and adults to seek support and resources" earned a $1.8 million grant from the U.S. government in 2022 for the LGBT Life Center in Norfolk, Virginia.
A proposal for encouraging "diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities by promoting economic empowerment of and opportunity for LGBTQI+ people in Serbia" was also a winning plan. To fund it, the U.S. government awarded Serbian activist group Grupa Izadji a grant of $500,000.
An Armenian activist group, the Pink Human Rights Defender, received $1 million from the United States "to empower the LGBTI community" in Armenia, a tiny country next to Turkey.
The federal spending website can be filtered to show entries that include specific keywords. A list of payouts filtered by using the keyword "LGBT" included 1,181 grants, 31 loans, and nine direct payments during the past three fiscal years.
Overall, during the past fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, the government issued 454,821 grants.
Government grants may be direct payments to groups that are unrestricted or for a specific use. Federal loans can be repaid over long periods of time at low interest rates.
Of grants connected to the keyword "LGBT," individual payouts of at least $1 million totaled more than $3.7 billion combined. Many additional smaller grants also were awarded for LGBT initiatives.
Filtering the list for grants that included the word "transgender" returned 574 entries. In that category, grants that paid out at least $1 million totaled nearly $478 million.
An independent researcher who asked to remain anonymous has been tracking how the federal government spends money on grants related to gender ideology.
He started the work when he was laid off from his oil field job in the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. After doing some digging, he was shocked to learn that, while he and his friends got little relief from the federal government, taxpayer dollars poured into LGBT activist causes, he said.
"I just couldn't believe it," he said.
He now works at a politically left-wing oil company and his superiors likely would object to how he now presents his findings on social media, he told The Epoch Times.
"I could write for 20 years about just the money that's already been spent over the past three or four years," he said. The oil worker-turned-investigator shares his findings on X under the handle Randoland.us.
A Department of Education search revealed an ongoing grant paid to Emory University for researchers to study "the rectal mucosal effects of cross-sex hormone therapy among U.S. and Thai transgender women," The Epoch Times confirmed.
The project started in 2019 with a projected end date of July 2024. According to the government website, researchers will receive almost $3.5 million from the U.S. government to do the work.
The project is categorized under "allergy and infectious diseases research," with the stated purpose to "assist public and private nonprofit institutions and individuals to establish, expand, and improve biomedical research and research training in infectious diseases and related areas," according to the federal spending website.
Some small grants focus on studies that examine equally tiny portions of the population.
One grant recipient examines the effects of alcohol on intimate partner violence in transgender and non-gender-conforming adults, The Epoch Times confirmed.
A 2023 project received nearly $350,000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to translate the “Homosaurus”—a thesaurus of LGBT terms—into Spanish.
The Homosaurus website includes definitions for sexual terms such as: "anonymous sex," "aromantic porn films," "pederasts," "children's sexuality," and "gay children."
The Homosaurus has reclassified as "fetishes" the words "gerontophilia," "ephebophilia," and "hebephilia," Greek words that mean sexual attraction to the elderly, people aged 15 to 19, and children aged 11 to 14, respectively.
*************************************************
UK: Farmer, 64, who faced jail after the RSCPA wrongfully charged him with trying to behead a sheep was left 'depressed' and Ł90,000 out of pocket during five-year battle to clear his name
The rogue RSPCA again. They are under strong influence from one-eyed animal rights activists
A farmer who was prosecuted by the RSPCA over unfounded animal cruelty allegations has been awarded almost Ł30,000 over his wrongful arrest.
Courton Green, 64, faced jail after the animal charity brought a controversial private prosecution against him, based on the testimony of an inexperienced farmhand that he had been mistreating his sheep.
A judge cleared the lifelong farmer of all wrongdoing in 2020 and condemned the RSPCA - finding that it had 'cut corners' during an interview following an unlawful arrest by Lincolnshire Police.
Mr Green was arrested at the behest of the charity in January 2018 and was interviewed by RSPCA inspector Rebecca Harper on police premises. The charity accused him of trying to behead a sheep, which it claimed was alive, using the bucket of a tractor.
The only witness was an inexperienced farmhand who was unaware that dead sheep must have their necks broken before they can be skinned for dog food.
Mr Green, from Sleaford, Lincolnshire, has a 315-acre farm in Lincolnshire with 400 cattle and 4,000 sheep. The 64-year-old was brought up on a farm and has three daughters, two of whom are also livestock farmers.
Now, after a two-year battle with the force, Mr Green has been awarded compensation of Ł28,311 over the arrest that made him a 'pariah' in his local community.
Mr Green welcomed this but last night he blasted the RSPCA for bringing a case that has hung over him for five years', costing him his reputation and his 'life's work' to cover legal bills that he is unable to recover from the charity.
He told the Mail: 'I don't need to exaggerate because I'm through the other side now, but I was left very, very depressed for a considerable period of time by this.
'It cost me Ł90,000 and I've got very little of that back. I had been building up livestock all my life and got to about 400 cattle, every single one of those had to be sold and couldn't be replaced.
'I moved to a new farm, near a village with about seven or eight houses, and I wanted to make friends, be accepted and be a part of the village community. I was made a pariah as soon as they found out what I'd been arrested for.'
Clearing Mr Green of seven charges of mistreating sheep after a four-day trial, judge Peter Veits said that the case raised concerns over the charity's role as a prosecutor. He said that it had 'become involved in matters that could have been left to the appropriate bodies'.
He said: 'When you have livestock you have to go to markets and I didn't want, in 20 years' time, either of my daughters to be in the market selling sheep and people pointing and saying 'that's Courton Green's daughter, he got prosecuted'. I just couldn't have that.'
It comes as a primary school teacher who was sacked after appearing in a viral video which showed her striking a horse criticised the RSPCA after she was cleared of animal cruelty last month.
In 2021 the charity announced that it would halt private prosecutions to prevent 'reputational damage' following criticism from judges in a series of high-profile court defeats. It has since brought other cases.
Mr Green's solicitor, Iain Gould, said: 'Lincolnshire Police regrettably allowed themselves to be used as unthinking pawns by an animal welfare charity seeking to operate in the style of a law enforcement agency, causing considerable hardship and suffering to my client as a result.'
An RSPCA spokesman said: 'This case was three years ago and the issue of wrongful arrest is a matter for the police and not the RSPCA.
'There was no suggestion that the trial should not have taken place; the judge was clear that he could make no criticism of the way this case was presented in court; and the court awarded no costs to the defendant
************************************************
Australia: Most journalism is now an arm of the government, with little loyalty to the common people
Who knew that news media services would become so partisan that they would support government agendas that conflict with the common people? The Albanese government is attempting to prioritise the failing ABC and SBS news services over other news on smart TVs and social media while also trying to control ‘the truth’ through its proposed Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. The recent Voice Referendum demonstrated how out of touch the mainstream media has become.
In the absence of journalism that gives a voice to the trials and travails of the common people, the fourth estate – and therefore liberal democracy itself – is under threat.
Journalism is traditionally the engine room of the fourth estate in liberal democracies. Leigh Hunt, a supporter of Byron, Keats, and Shelley, and editor of The Examiner, was imprisoned in 1813 for his political writings. He was known as ‘a martyr in the cause of liberty’. He and his brother fought against oppression and for reform. They were often charged with libel, but usually won by acting in their own defence until they took on the Prince Regent.
To me, Leigh Hunt was the quintessential journalist who looked after the interests of we mere commoners.
Hunt’s father was a Tory who had escaped from Philadelphia to England during the Revolutionary War. Leigh Hunt, who was against slavery, epitomised the idea of the ‘fourth estate’, a term often attributed to the 19th Century politician Edmund Burke by the philosopher Thomas Carlyle. The other estates, according to Carlyle, were the Lords Spiritual (the clergy), the Lords Temporal (the secular members of the House of Lords or the upper house), and the Commons (or the House of Commons which traditionally represents the ‘common people’). Hunt looked after the interests of the rest of us and set the standard for today’s journalists.
The fourth estate, or the free press (which Carlyle considered to be far more important than the other estates), has the ability to report on political activities and to frame political debates. A key role for the free press in liberal democracies is ‘spreading facts and opinions and sparking revolution against tyranny’. It is another check and balance that fits neatly with the doctrine of the separation of powers.
I often tell my students that the separation of powers is unlike the experience of your mum’s version of the rule of law. Most of us can recall a time where we were told that we could go outside and play, but only if we finished the dishes first; only to be told that it was subsequently too late and it was now bedtime. Or else. If only we had the judiciary to interpret the playtime laws back then!
(For Millennials and above, our parents were the rule of law back in our day, we couldn’t complain to the state or our school and have our parents’ rights overturned. When you become a parent, and you are wondering why you feel like your own children are your bosses, you did this to yourselves. Enjoy.)
The Hunt brothers’ Examiner and later Robert Stephen Rintoul’s The Spectator were founded on a zeal for reform and for improving the lot of the common people. The Hunts eventually had to rely on advertising revenues and their readership declined as the Examiner changed its purpose and political position over time.
The Spectator was not immune from such influence, and it was Leigh Hunt’s son, Thornton Leigh Hunt, who acted as a ‘front’ for its American purchasers. This period of decline in this masthead’s readership was the result of straying from its values and supporting American President James Buchanan who dithered about as an antebellum ‘lame duck’. The Spectator briefly dithered about, too, until the masthead was sold at a marked-down price to the journalist Meredith Townsend.
As current UK editor Fraser Nelson states, The Spectator has rarely strayed from its values, and in particular, remains ‘unafraid to go against the grain’. However, the Voice to Parliament, coastal wind farms, industrial relations, and even a Special Rate Variation to IPART in my local community have seen the news media support the government and stifle debate while completely ignoring the interests of the people.
It beggars belief that journalism has shifted from looking after the common people to now supporting governments and their political agendas. The current cost-of-living crisis is exacerbated by the federal government trampling on the political and property rights of ordinary Australians while trying to crash through or crash. The government seems hell-bent on rushing to undermine our freedoms and our prosperity.
Saying ‘the science is settled’ is pre-Enlightenment dogma that is inherently political. Whether ‘the science’ relates to climate, the food we eat, the cars we drive, or whatever, in John Stuart Mill’s time ‘the science’ included phrenology. Although the courts weren’t convinced by phrenology, which is now regarded as quackery, the use of phrenology as a defence for criminal responsibility for those suffering from mental illnesses helped to improve the quality of medical testimony.
It is interesting that one of the foremost writers on the philosophy of scientific method, John Stuart Mill, wrote for The Examiner. Further, if you are Gen X or older and you read Mill’s On Liberty, you will find nothing new or controversial in it – but in his day it was radical. And key to Mill’s ideal of free speech is to let bad ideas be heard so they can be debated and discounted. As with phrenology, along the way we might arrive at a better conclusion than had we censored debate.
How we got here in the first place is for further discussion, but the bottom line is that the Albanese government’s plans to prioritise the ABC and SBS over other media outlets assumes that state-funded media somehow knows better than everybody else. This should make Leigh Hunt turn in his grave.
Leigh Hunt would have stood up for the common people. His historical actions prove it. He went to gaol (not jail!) for his views, much like Australia’s only political prisoner, Pauline Hanson.
Leigh Hunt was a fourth estate journalist in the true sense of the term. He supported the common people. Not the uneducated idiots as the Wokerati might proclaim, but the people who do the work that allows many others to enjoy free speech, liberty, and prosperity.
News media services are now joining with the Wokerati and spruiking the quotes of politicians and their sympathisers while ignoring the common majority. Cost of living pressures, rate rises, transmission lines, coastal wind farms, and so on are rarely reported as problems created by our own political leaders. In many cases, social media has become the last remnant of the liberal democratic public sphere where the people’s views are being heard.
All the evidence suggests we are heading toward a cost-of-living Armageddon created by our government. If our politicians are the opponents of the common people, and the courts appear to be increasingly in step with the narrative, then the fourth estate might once have acted as our saviour. But based on the majority of the fourth estate’s performance to date, it is quite the revelation that perhaps only God can save us now.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/whither-journalism-for-the-common-people/
****************************************
13 November, 2023
Critical Race Theory bears fruit: Nashsville massacre was motivated by anti-white racism
More than seven months ago, a sociopathic “transgender” woman attacked The Covenant School in Nashville, murdering three nine-year-old children — Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs, and William Kinney — and adults Katherine Koonce (headmistress), Cynthia Peak, and Mike Hill. We always want to remember their names and what they stood for. They were Christians who loved Jesus and were educating, caretaking, or being educated with their whole lives ahead of them. They were living life to its fullest until life was taken from them by an evil and disturbed woman.
It’s understandable that the victims’ families and others did not wish for the killer’s so-called “manifesto” to be released to the public, as they hoped to avoid exacerbating the pain and trauma. In some ways, our nation would be better off never giving notoriety to the deranged rantings of mass murderers. Many of them kill for the attention and the fame, which is why, with rare exception such as an active manhunt, we don’t name mass killers. Deprive them of what they seek.
The counterargument is that a free society ought to be informed about who committed atrocities and why, not be misinformed about or distracted by how they’re perpetrated. Without knowing a killer’s true motivations, the narrative, bereft of context, inevitably turns to the tool.
In any case, after most mass shootings, we quickly learn what drove the killer. Not so after this one. Why?
That’s rhetorical. The obvious answer for this particular “manifesto” is because it would almost certainly show that leftist ideology — specifically “transgender” ideology — was the reason for this otherwise senseless assault against conservative Christians. The media, which usually craves such sensational manifestos, was suddenly totally incurious and instead obsessed over other narratives like whether people were “misgendering” the assailant. The FBI even effectively censored the “manifesto” despite early assurances from Nashville police that it would be released.
Under this tension, it was perhaps inevitable that the Nashville “manifesto” was going to be leaked. Conservative pundit Steven Crowder did just that yesterday. Nashville police have now authenticated the writings, though social media outlets are censoring it. We’ll get to specifics in a moment.
First, an important caveat: We use quotes around “manifesto” because what’s scrawled on a few scraps of notebook paper is hardly a coherent or cogently explicated worldview, nor does Crowder’s release appear to be her complete journal.
Now, to the killer’s purported motivation.
“Kill those kids!!! Those crackers going to private fancy schools with those fancy khakis + sports backpacks w/ their daddies mustangs + convertables [sic],” she allegedly wrote on February 3. “I wish to shoot you weak*ss d**ks w/ your mop yellow hair, wanna kill all you little crackers! Bunch of little f**gots w/ your white privileges.”
“I hope I have a high death count,” she wrote March 27, the day of the attack. “Ready to die haha.”
There’s more vulgarity and hate, but that much will suffice. Clearly, her mental state was suicidal in addition to murderous. Nothing in those excerpts indicates that the killer’s gender dysphoria played a role other than being part of her overall mental illness, though the rest of her journaling may get into that. She was, however, evidently thoroughly indoctrinated in the Left’s anti-white racism. Marxist-based critical race theory treats people not as individuals but as helpless oppressed masses or as cogs in an oppressive wheel. That dehumanization is precisely why CRT is so dangerous.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/101944
******************************************************
‘Progressives’ have no idea what would be done to them in Gaza
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
When I was a student at the University of Leiden in The Netherlands between 1995 and 2000, my professors introduced me and my fellow students to a sensitive and difficult discussion: the betrayal of the Jews to the Nazis by Dutch collaborators during World War II. Three-quarters of Dutch Jews were murdered.
Inspired by Daniel Goldhagen’s 1996 book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which argued that ordinary Germans were complicit in the Holocaust, my professor had us reckoning with a dark chapter in the Dutch past. To what extent were ordinary Dutch people responsible for the deportation and murder of their Jewish neighbours? Would we have joined the brave men and women who protested against the persecution of Jews or would we have been among the silent, if not complicit, majority?
Most of us at Leiden thought we would be in the former camp, which is very easy to say in hindsight. There were few students who thought it inappropriate of the professor to make us go through that exercise of moral reckoning, though perhaps these days more would say they felt “unsafe”.
Now we are facing another reckoning, and all of us in the West must ask and answer that same question when it will really make a difference. In the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s response in Gaza, the poison of anti-Semitism is coursing through the veins of the West once more. This time it manifests itself as a well-orchestrated campaign against Israel, the state founded as the nation of the Jewish people, a place Jews can call home without fear of discrimination, pogroms and the threat of genocide.
In major cities all over the Western world, from London to Sydney, as well as on the campuses of elite universities from Harvard to Stanford, pro-Palestinian protesters chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – that is, Israel will be wiped off the map. Anti-Semitic hate crimes are up 1350 per cent in London. A Jewish prayer walk in London was cancelled after police informed the organisers that attendees would not be safe (a pro-Palestinian march was taking place 11km away on the same day). Petrol bombs were hurled at synagogues in Berlin. Posters of Israelis kidnapped by Hamas have been torn down systematically in London and New York, and Jews are being told to make themselves inconspicuous for their own safety.
‘Even when jihadist terror groups are militarily defeated, as ISIS was and Hamas may be, the dogma lives on in mosques and online.’
In short, Jew-hatred is again on the march in the heart of Europe less than a century after the Holocaust.
Why are moral, well-educated people on the left so keen to excuse the Hamas butchers and march alongside people calling for Israel’s annihilation?
Many of these people say they are anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. They insist they are affected by the plight of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and do not endorse the terrorist tactics of Hamas.
But what exactly is anti-Zionism? At best, it is a lazy attitude that makes pristine moral demands of the state of Israel. It is an attitude that never questions Palestinians or for that matter Arab leaders on why they find it acceptable for Hamas terrorists to hide behind women and children and launch rockets from schools, mosques, hospitals and other civilian sites.
Take the example of the rocket misfired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad that hit a hospital in Gaza. After the fog of the initial confusion lifted and it became clear that PIJ was responsible, did any “anti-Zionists” marching for the Palestinian cause pause to digest what had happened? PIJ had clumsily killed – byHamas’s own account – more than 400 civilians. It did this while Hamas urged the residents of Gaza to stay put, knowing full well Israel was preparing a surge to clear Hamas out of Gaza. Hamas is dishonest in so many ways but at least it is honest about the fact it does not value human life – least of all the lives of those unfortunate enough to reside in Gaza.
My question for Western supporters of Palestinian activism is simple: Where was your outrage on October 8, the day after 1400 Israelis were slaughtered? Whatever your rationalisation, there must be a reason you feel less empathy for them than for the Palestinians who have been put in harm’s way by the actions of Hamas. Are you quite sure your anti-Zionism is not an old hatred clad in new clothes?
In some cases it is clear we are dealing here with privileged woke types indulging in revolutionary cosplay who just as readily might attend a Black Lives Matter demo or a Just Stop Oil action.
The odd thing is that such people – who are invariably passionate believers in the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender minorities – are so willing to align themselves with the Islamists who are now the principal proponents of anti-Semitism in the world.
The Palestinian cause was once the cause of Marxist-Leninists and secular nationalists. No longer; today, the toxic ideology of Islamism is the principal driver of the war against Israel, and a core element of that ideology, genocidal anti-Semitism, has been spread to the Muslims of the West by Islamist propagandists.
The Western left tends to look away from the theological underpinnings of the likes of Hamas, al-Qa’ida and Islamic State, blaming their atrocities on Western foreign policy or the alienation of young Muslim men. Western governments, meanwhile, have seen the problem narrowly as a military or security issue to be solved with the tools of intelligence and counterterrorism. Both groups fail to recognise that Islamism is a collection of deeply held sacred beliefs. They ignore the cries of “Allahu Akbar!” and “Jihad!” and the use of faith-based symbols such as the tawhid (the raised index finger of the right hand) by terrorists.
Even when jihadist terror groups are militarily defeated, as ISIS was and Hamas may be, the dogma lives on in mosques and online, spread by Islamist networks, including charities, under the protection of the Western norm of free speech. The Islamists use the freedoms of the West – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association – against the West.
All one has to do is look at the original Hamas charter – which invokes Islamic scripture to justify its hatred of Israel and the Jews and calls for the destruction of Israel – to see the religious foundations of its ideology.
The same goes for groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood (from which Hamas is descended). These and many other Islamist groups have infiltrated the West and indoctrinated a whole new generation of Muslims with their vile beliefs. But what is truly astonishing is that “progressives” on the left join forces with the Islamists, apparently oblivious to the fate that awaits any member of the LBGTQ+ community who makes the mistake of coming out in Gaza.
The answer to this problem is not as British Home Secretary Suella Braverman has suggested – for the police to arrest those who call for jihad in the streets of London. Braverman’s call for police intervention was rightly rejected by Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police.
As a free speech fundamentalist, I disagree vehemently with the criminalisation of any sentiment, however vile. For too long we have looked to the police to make the problem of Islamism go away. But it is not their job to erase religious dogma. The real challenge is to reform our institutions of education and culture, which have abjectly failed through negligence or going woke.
The real battlefield is not for control of the streets but for hearts and minds. Only by countering Islamist ideology through working with groups such as the anti-Islamist CLARITy Coalition (of which I am a founding member) can the new anti-Semitism be defeated and the naive leftists who support it persuaded to change their minds.
Everyone in the West is now being asked the same question that the people of Europe were asked during World War II. For, if historian Bernard Lewis’s prediction that Europe will become majority Muslim at some point this century is fulfilled, and if the Islamists – already so popular and influential in our democracies – gain real political power in the West, I do not think it alarmist to worry that another Holocaust will be the result.
Right now, the Islamists are, however dangerous, nowhere near as powerful as the Nazi invaders were, but too many of us are hesitant to stand up to them. We must reckon with Islamist anti-Semitism now, while we still can. Alas, on the basis of what we are seeing in our cities right now, I fear we will fail our Jewish friends and neighbours yet again.
Thank God the proposal to rename a German daycare centre named after Anne Frank in deference to “parents with a migrant background” appears to have been defeated. But the fact anyone could suggest such a change takes me back to The Netherlands. On August 4, 1944, Anne Frank and her family were arrested. She died, probably of typhus, in Bergen-Belsen about six months later.
**************************************************
"USA Today" Reveals True Colors With Front-Page Hit Piece on Libs of TikTok
They still call their national newspaper USA Today, but on some days, the front page looks more like “LGBTQIA Today.”
The bold top headline for Oct. 6 was “When Libs of TikTok posts, threats increasingly follow.” The author of the story is Will Carless, whose beat is “extremism.”
Beware, that beat is almost always just “right-wing extremism.” That’s how they define the wildly successful Twitter account of Libs of TikTok, operated by Chaya Raichik.
In a front-page text box, USA Today warned that Libs of TikTok is a “creator of, and a force multiplier for, right-wing outrage.” It’s a “hive of conservative politicians, media personalities and far-right online influencers.”
With badly disguised propaganda such as this story, that can be reversed: USA Today is a creator of, and a force multiplier for, left-wing outrage. The reporter, Carless, came to the “hive” of McPaper from the far-left Center for Investigative Reporting.
This new Carless front-pager spread to an entire inside page. It began with a list of alleged bomb threats and public ridicule of drag-queen events and hospitals performing mutilations, which they call “gender-affirming care.” Then USA Today blamed Libs of TikTok.
“In almost every case, the perpetrator of the threat is unknown, and Chaya Raichik, the far-right influencer who runs Libs of TikTok, says she opposes violence, and that because there have been almost no arrests, there’s no proof the threats come from her followers,” Carless admitted in his story.
But he warned of a “clear pattern,” writing: “USA Today has confirmed dozens of bomb threats, death threats and other harassment after Libs of TikTok’s posts since February 2022.”
Based on what? “Exclusive new research from the progressive analysis group Media Matters for America.”
So USA Today is partnering with the passionate LGBT advocacy group Media Matters, not unlike the media’s public alliance with the censorship group GLAAD. The method is the same: Suggest that anyone and everyone who spreads information resisting their revolution is an extremist that spurs violence. It’s meant to ruin reputations and intimidate people into silence.
Anyone who calls in a bomb threat, even if they have no intention of acting on it, is committing a crime. That’s why they’re usually anonymous. But sometimes bomb threats are faked by “victims,” just like actor Jussie Smollett faked a late-night beating in Chicago by Trump fans.
“Extremism” reporters like Carless are hot to find the “far-right” threats and ignore the behavior of their side.
Speaking of extremism, Carless used experts such as Media Matters’ Ari Drennen, who recently tweeted that “homeschooling should be illegal. Too many parents use it to abuse their children, keeping them ignorant and easy to control.”
Wow. That’s just like The Washington Post, which once described conservative Christians in a 1993 front-page article as “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.”
Carless also quoted Alejandra Caraballo as “a clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic.” He noted Caraballo was “openly critical” of Raichik, but not that Caraballo is a radical “trans woman.” Last month, Caraballo attacked owner Elon Musk after headlines vanished in posts on his social media company X, formerly Twitter.
“Elon Musk was arrested after being found in the street in a ketamine induced fugue state,” Caraballo messaged. That was a lie. Then came a much worse lie: a retweet of another account claiming “evidence showing Elon Musk is a pedophile mounting quickly.”
Chaya Raichik tweeted: “This is the person that the media cites as an ‘online safety expert’.” Musk tweeted emojis that Caraballo was “bat [guano] crazy.”
That context might have balanced the USA Today story a tad.
Carless let Raichik defend herself, but nothing about this USA Today article was balanced or fair. It was designed to shame and degrade any resistance to the “LGBTQIA Today” agenda.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/09/usa-todays-unbalanced-front-page-lashing-of-libs-of-tiktok
***************************************************
Australia: New wave of anti-Semitism rolls in from the left
Nazism resurgent. The original Nazis were socialist so not much has changed
On Friday night a pro-Palestinian mob descended on Caulfield, in the heart of Melbourne’s Jewish community, and incited anti-Semitic violence on the 85th anniversary of Kristallnacht.
In response to this grotesquerie, Foreign Minister Penny Wong released a social media post condemning “anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” in reference to the “violence in Caulfield”.
While it is reasonable to warn against both forms of prejudice in the context of community tensions, only one of them was on display in Caulfield on Friday night.
Wong’s tendency to draw moral equivalences seems to be increasingly habitual. This was again evident on Sunday morning when she revealed the government is pushing for a ceasefire in the Hamas-Israel war, noting Israel needed to be held to higher standards.
In a recent photo posted to her official social media account, Wong stands next to Nasser Mashni, the president of the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network. Last week it was revealed Mashni has a history of demonising Jewish people and as recently as last year he called for the destruction of Israel.
“The power structures that exist in the world all focus upon Zionism,” Mashni said on his radio show. “Israel is the domino. Israel falls over, not just the Middle East – South America, the Africans, the world is a far better place once we destroy Western imperialist control of the world.”
While there is no suggestion Wong knew of such rhetoric when she posed for a photograph with Mashni, the incident highlights a major blind spot when it comes to anti-Semitism on the left.
Of course, the roots of anti-Semitism stretch deep into history, and Jew hatred has attached itself to many different ideologies. Early leaders of Christianity wrote polemics against the Jews, and derogatory references can be found within Islamic texts. But, while it’s important to acknowledge these historical forms of prejudice, contemporary variants have also become relevant today.
One of the most influential pieces of modern anti-Semitism is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged document that emerged from Imperial Russia in 1903. This document popularised the conspiracy theory that Jews were engaged in worldwide control. Hitler referred to the Protocols in Mein Kampf and this conspiracy theory became part of the broader Nazi propaganda campaign.
Yet while the Nazis were defeated in 1945, the Protocols did not die with them. The Soviets repurposed the Protocol’s conspiracy theories in their own propaganda during the Cold War, which ramped up after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War. In order to signal support to Egypt and Syria (who had lost the war) anti-Zionist propaganda became part of the Soviet’s broader Cold War strategy. This strategy aimed to push back against the US and strengthen Soviet influence in the Middle East.
Izabella Tabarovsky, a scholar of Soviet Jewry, writes that the Soviets took Nazi propaganda and simply substituted the word “Zionist” in place of “Jew”. She explains: “Soviet ideologues relied for inspiration on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, on the ideas of classic religious anti-Semitism, and even Mein Kampf, but adapted them to the Marxist framework by substituting the idea of a global anti-Soviet Zionist conspiracy for a specifically Jewish one.”
Such propaganda spread through multiple channels. In the ’60s and ’70s, newspapers such as Pravda published cartoons that were then reprinted by communist-aligned media in the West.
Tabarovsky points out that the Soviets were well aware Europeans were particularly sensitive to accusations of racism, and of anything associated with Nazi Germany – so they cynically used this against Israel by equating Zionism with Nazism. Soviet cartoons of the ’70s depict Jews looking into mirrors only to be greeted with reflections of Hitler, and Stars of David superimposed over swastikas.
In 1975, a UN General Assembly resolution was passed that declared “Zionism is Racism”. The controversial resolution was passed only with support of the Soviet bloc, Arab states and various African nations (it was overturned in 1991). Michael Heller and Aleksandr M. Nekrich, historians of the Soviet Union, argue this resolution was one of the Soviets’ “greatest victories”.
It was a victory because it successfully decoupled the demonisation of the Jewish people from associations with the far right. As Quillette editor Jamie Palmer wrote in 2016: “The claims that Zionism is racism, the instrument or puppeteer of Jewish and American imperialists, a project of Western colonialism, or a template for Jewish world domination; that Zionists were co-conspirators and ideological ancestors of Nazi Germany who control markets, industry, and media, and; that Israel is a ‘terrorist regime’ – all such claims originated in Soviet propaganda and are widespread on today’s activist left.”
The Soviets targeted Israel with their propaganda because they saw the only parliamentary democracy in the Middle East as a proxy for the West. In a recent address, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his “fists clench and eyes tear up” over Israeli military actions in Gaza drawing parallels between the Russian military and Hamas.
The scenes in Caulfield, where pro-Palestinian groups tried to intimidate local Jews, are echoed worldwide, from Ivy League campuses in the US to the streets of London during Remembrance Day.
I asked Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, about rising anti-Semitism in Australia. He told me by email: “There is a lag in reporting and chronic underreporting due to shame and embarrassment, but the incidents we have received show an increase of at least 600 per cent from the previous month.”
But aside from the explosion in incidents, what alarms Ryvchin the most is the “mindset of the contemporary anti-Semite”. Explaining that “the expulsion or destruction of Jews was always framed as a necessary, righteous act”, he sees the attitude appearing on Australian streets today. The mindset of today’s anti-Semites, according to Ryvchin, “is what is most concerning because it means there is no shame in their deeds and instead a sense of mission and purpose that can turn an aggressive fringe movement into something truly terrifying”.
Ryvchin’s observations reveal a disturbing normalisation of anti-Semitism. And at least some of it stems from the fact that the left has never grappled with its own history of anti-Semitism. And is ill-equipped to deal with it when it arises.
If a Coalition minister posed in a photograph with a neo-Nazi who had called for Jews to be murdered on a radio show, the Australian media and public would rightly be apoplectic. But Australia’s Foreign Minister can pose with the left-wing equivalent, and it barely raises a yawn.
****************************************
12 November, 2023
Toxic femininity
Most women think they’re easy to get along with. We think if men would just shape up, everything would be fine.
Toxic masculinity is the answer to every problem.
After years of dating stories and observations, I’m not so sure anymore. I think women spend a good chunk of their dating years just as confused and bewildered as their male counterparts.
It’s not always the guy’s fault. Sometimes women suffer from toxic femininity, the other side of the dating mirror.
Not all women are born with an innate talent for relationships. They don’t arrive with dating firmware. Sometimes it’s the woman who needs work. She might be vain or immature. She might be carrying baggage. Any problem a guy can drag into a relationship, she can too. And yet, she might spend half her life blaming men for her problems, because she’s highly attractive and successful. She might think she’s two pounds and one facial peel away from total perfection, flawed or damaged in ways that only make her more endearing, like all the movies she watches. She might anticipate a personal transformation, but it’s only slight.
Here’s a handful of accounts of what it’s like to date women like this, followed by some discussion of why it all matters:
“She was immune to compliments.”
One guy I know landed his dream girl, but it didn’t last long. She seemed to enjoy making him feel insecure.
Even his compliments weren’t good enough.
One day he complimented her eyes. Not just their color, their shape. They were in bed after dating for a couple of weeks. He just happened to notice them and thought he’d say something sweet.
She sighed. “Yeah, everyone tells me that.” Then she stared at him, like she was waiting for him to do better. They broke up a few weeks later. She said he wasn’t ready for a mature relationship.
This woman had been through some of her own tough relationships. She’d been dumped by rich, successful CEO types who used her for sex but never quite felt she was good enough to enter their social world. She was making the mistake of trying to exorcise her own relationship trauma by enacting it on someone else, otherwise known as baggage.
“She talked to her ex-boyfriend every day for six months.”
Another guy I know started dating a college friend later in his 20s. They’d always had a crush on each other. Serendipity brought them to the same city. He was in grad school. She was floating after a bad breakup with an emotionally abusive jerk.
Their relationship felt healthy and intuitive at first. They both loved reading and the great outdoors. She seemed drama free.
Then one day she confessed.
“So I’ve got to tell you something,” she began. “Promise you won’t get upset.” She explained she’d been talking to her emotionally abusive ex-boyfriend for months, every single afternoon, while he was in class or teaching. Even worse, she hadn’t even mentioned him.
They’d been dating for almost a year.
She was letting her ex think she was single and available.
She was keeping her options open. After all, the ex was almost done with med school and was still incredibly fit.
To his credit, my friend didn’t get upset. He tried to figure out what the ex-boyfriend was providing that he wasn’t. She promised to stop. She promised to commit. Of course, the ex-boyfriend found out about it all and flew down to see her. That’s when she decided it was too stressful to deal with. A few days later, she dumped them both.
“She was a serial flirter.”
This one couple, I met toward the end of college. We stayed in the same city and became a fixture of the same social groups. Boy, did she treat him like trash. They were both extroverts. They liked throwing parties. They liked holding court at bars.
She liked male attention on the side.
Sometimes it’s not that hard to see the guy’s angle when tensions escalate. She would break away from him at large gatherings, often ensconcing herself in prolonged conversations with random men. Some nights she spent so long flirting with other guys, it ruined their plans.
She was practically the only woman on earth to have a boyfriend who enjoyed dancing, and she burned it down to the ground. Anytime they went to a club, she would promise to meet him on the dance floor. Fifteen minutes later, he would find her trying to get guys to buy her drinks. She would pretend she was single, and then lie about it to him.
Their relationship ended a few days after he caught her spooning with his best friend at a Halloween party.
“She made fun of my whiskey dick.”
Another guy I know had no problem at all getting dates. Women used to hand him their phone numbers on the street. Strangers stopped him in grocery stores and tried to guess which celebrity he looked like.
You’d think a guy like that would have nothing to complain about, no weird stories. But he did struggle with erections, like a lot of guys. Coffee. Alcohol. A little stress. It didn’t take much. One of the handsomest, smartest men in the world had a pretty fragile boner.
Not everyone he dated was understanding.
One night he met a beautiful woman at a teachers’ conference. He wasn’t planning to hook up with anyone. As such, he didn’t think to pack his little blue pills. They went out to dinner, then wound up getting tipsy in her hotel room. That’s when she initiated sex.
When he couldn’t get it up, she started asking harsh homophobic questions about his sexuality. “Are you gay? Seriously, tell me.” It didn’t exactly help the mood. He got up to leave. On his way out she shouted, “Why are you so sensitive? I was just kidding!”
“She could make any conversation about my faults.”
Another guy started dating a girl he knew from the outdoor recreation shop where they used to work together. They spent a lot of their early dates hiking down trails and kayaking up rivers.
For a while, it felt like the ideal relationship. But it was hard to open up to her about anything. It felt like she was constantly vetting him.
If he ever mentioned an uncle with heart disease or a cousin with a drinking problem, she would tense up and start looking at him like he was contagious. One afternoon, she suggested he overhaul his diet.
He thought he was eating pretty healthy. He didn’t smoke. He rarely drank or ate red meat. He liked kale. That wasn’t good enough. She told him he had too many hereditary problems running in his family to ever veer from a strict vegan diet. She made it a deal breaker. So he broke the deal.
Toxic femininity in a nut shell.
All of these stories point toward the same problem.
Toxic femininity.
When a woman has internalized normative ways of thinking, they almost can’t help but sabotage their relationships. They can’t get enough male attention, so they engage in reckless flirtation.
They hyper-evaluate their potential mates.
They’re so terrified of winding up alone and miserable, they engage in destructive mating behaviors, like keeping multiple boyfriends stashed all over the country — and not telling them.
They think every problem, including sexual dysfunction, is a comment on their physical appearance. If they’re a little crazy, it’s because society has filled their heads with a bunch of conflicting nonsense.
It takes a while to sort through all that.
Mature men don’t dwell on their relationship fails.
The mature men I know don’t demonize their exes. (The same goes for women.) They talk about them in a relatively objective way. They try to reflect on what happened, and what responsibility they share. Sometimes they share very little, and sometimes it’s a lot.
Most of the time, the woman isn’t crazy. The guy isn’t abusive. There’s just a problem that escalates too quickly for them to identify and handle. The woman might be unreasonable. But there’s a logic to her behavior, maybe something she won’t see until years later.
This happens a lot when you’re younger, because you’re inexperienced. The guys I know don’t get hung up on how they got screwed over by women in their 20s. But they tell some funny stories.
They learn from their experiences. No matter what happens, or how crazy the girl seems, there’s always a lesson in human behavior.
Let’s stop the gendered bad love narratives.
The problem with our stories of heartbreak is that we often filter them through gender stereotypes. We create our own cliches, or perpetuate the myths we see in pop culture.
Women can be narcissists, just as often as men. The problem is that it’s hard to describe a woman as a clinical narcissist without stumbling into a bunch of gender stereotypes that obfuscate. When we dismiss everyone as a different kind of crazy ex, we shortchange our own growth.
Women screw up their relationships for a lot of the same reasons men do. It just looks a little different, because they’re often taught to behave in more passive aggressive ways. They’re taught to keep their true feelings and emotions hidden, just like men. They simply hide them with fake smiles passive strategies instead of threats and grunts.
Tell stories to reflect on your relationships.
Narrating your relationship history is good for you. It’s healthy to do on your own, in a journal. It’s healthy to talk about with your partner, and your friends, or a counselor. It’s not healthy to spread gossip.
It’s not healthy to craft a narrative where you’re always the victim of bad romance, regardless of your gender.
Not every guy who treats you poorly is a narcissistic psychopath. Not every ex-girlfriend is a selfie loving, jealousy fueled drama queen.
We’re more complicated than that.
Usually.
https://psiloveyou.xyz/what-its-like-to-date-women-according-to-men-i-know-224ecb769545
*****************************************************
Only conservative values can save us
In the endless cycle of the Social Media doom scroll, I came across a meme not too long ago that illustrated the transition of man from strong-to-weak based on the times created by his predecessor.
We have been blessed to live in a time of extraordinary wealth, privilege, and living standards. We have taken for granted the things that even our grandparents would have found remarkable and landed in the world of the uppermost echelon of Maslow’s hierarchy – ‘self-actualisation’. The pro-level of human needs.
And so it is that our social media feeds explode with a plethora of hashtags championing any range of social causes with outrage and supposed impatience for change. These are the only virtues that hold currency in modern-day polite company as each of us, in turn, needs to scream louder about how benevolent and post-prejudice they have become. Surely these virtues would apply universally? All for one and one for all.
The depravity of fundamentalist religious sects in our world is nothing new and neither is the sewer of antisemitism that has exploded onto our streets in subsequent weeks.
What is indeed new is the accompanying shock of many in the West to the protests, along with the condemnations and hatred directed towards Israel and the Jewish people.
Moreover, the resulting shock emanates from a wilful failure to recognise the insidious elements buried deep within each and every single ‘Woke’ cause from #MeToo to #BLM to campaigners for the Voice.
The perpetually offended crowd of activists who make it their business to be outraged at every injustice – perceived or imaginary – almost always contain an overt or covert scent of antisemitism. No march down Swanston Street is complete without a Palestinian flag and the supposed intersection of the Palestinian struggle and whatever ‘struggle’ is fashionable on that particular day.
The grotesque acts perpetrated by a medieval death cult known as Hamas against innocent Israelis on October 7 should have served as a reminder to the so-called rich world that the hatreds and values previously considered to be confined to the pages of history are very much alive and well in our world in 2023.
As a Millennial who has only ever voted for conservative parties and values, I consider myself to be very much an oddity within my generation. When my peers would talk about the need for change and so-called social justice, my response was to apply a careful, judicious, and meticulous analysis to any such proposals and reverse the onus of proof on proponents of change to argue for their virtues rather than have me defend the status quo. The desire to conserve is the quintessential foundation of being a conservative.
The march of the Left has so enervated our institutions of the will to fight that we have the previously unthinkable situation unfolding in peace-loving Australia of Jews being barred from Circular Quay for fear of being assaulted because of their race. It’s almost as if the road to public hatred has been paved by the virtues of tolerance and justice.
We are in the fight of life for our way of life and recent events prove that no grassroots popular movement is coming to stand with us or take the knee in protest.
History’s eternal whipping boy shall once again confront the ghouls of evil with or without the enlightened fighters for social justice. Let’s hope that these dark times create enough strong men and women to weather this storm.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/only-conservative-values-can-save-us/
********************************************
NBA great Andrew Bogut slams Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for 'telling boys they are toxic simply because of how they are born'
Andrew Bogut has hit out at Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for 'telling boys they are toxic' in a social media rant.
Bogut, 38, a former NBA championship winner with the Golden State Warriors, is a vocal critic of the government and regularly posts about 'woke' culture.
On Thursday, the Australian took to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to hit out at Albanese's pledge to 'help young men learn to have healthy, respectful relationships' with women.
He wrote: 'Dear @AlboMP 'I'll raise my two boys to be good people, without telling them they could be toxic because of their gender.
'I'll raise them without your Gov funded lackies telling them they are toxic simply because of how they are born. 'I will however raise them to know just how toxic Governments are.'
It is not the first time the basketball legend has discussed controversial subjects. Earlier this year, he was labelled 'transphobic' after claiming a 'biological male' will be playing in women's basketball this season.
'Word is NBL1 South Women will have a biological Male playing this upcoming season. Are you ok with sacrificing the sanctity of Female Sport in the name of 'inclusion'?,' he wrote.
'#GirlDads where are you? The hashtag is trendy until action is needed.'
It quickly ignited a storm of controversy, with some labelling him 'transphobic' and misogynistic, while others shared his outrage.
AFLW and NBL1 star, author Saraid Taylor, was scathing of Bogut, sarcastically thanking him for his 'concern', and labelling him 'transphobic' for his views.
'Hey, thank you so much for your concern about the sanctity of women's sport. It seems genuine,' she said, in a brutal takedown on his social media post.
'If you wouldn't mind using your energy to highlight legitimate issues women athletes face, instead of perpetuating transphobia, that would be so appreciated!
The furious star athlete then slammed Bogut for revealing what club he believed the 'biological male' played for - which was followed by a stream of outrage directed towards the club.
'This is so wildly irresponsible. It makes me sad reading the majority of comments you receive on your tweets,' said Taylor.
'Does it make you sad? Or do you enjoy the power you have to cultivate hatred in the world?'
*************************************************
'PassportBro' TikTok hashtag sees American men detail attempts to find wife abroad after blasting feminism and 'impossible standards' sought by US women
American men using TikTok are sharing their attempts to find a wife abroad, as they detail their struggle to keep up with the 'impossible standards' of US women.
The men are known as 'Passport Bros', a viral movement which refers to men who travel overseas to find a more 'traditional'.
The movement has exploded in popularity, with the hashtag commanding more than 114.5 million views.
The rise has been linked to the working from home culture, which emerged during the pandemic, and which has allowed men to relocate to countries where they feel they might be more lucky in love.
Popular destinations for Passport Bros include Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe.
The movement grew in popularity around the time Covid hit and has been linked to the explosion in home working which allows people to be digital nomads
The decision to move abroad to find a wife often relies on stereotypes about foreign women, including that they are more likely to be submissive or prioritize family, according to those involved in the movement.
One man, using the TikTok name PassportBros.Org talks about how he chooses to date women in Africa as, 'there is no helping women that believe in feminism hardcore' because they, 'really don't want a man'. 'If they did, they would submit,' he adds.
Another says that foreign women are 'easier to talk to, easier to be around with' because there is 'no tension between men and women overseas'.
Dr. James Braham, an education expert and researcher analyzing conceptual foundations of biology, told Fox News: 'Many passport bros express a sense of disconnection from the dating culture in their home country, which they perceive as being influenced by elements they find unappealing, such as excessive feminism, materialism, and a perceived lack of commitment and loyalty in relationships.'
He explained that Southeast Asian countries are often seen as places where women are raised with a strong sense of respect and commitment to family, while Eastern European women are perceived as embracing traditional gender roles.
Meanwhile, Latin America is seen as a place where 'warmth, passion, and family values' are prevalent.
The movement has seen an uptick since Covid-19 and the emergence of digital nomads.
Members of the movement believe that US women have 'insane' standards as a result of feminism and prefer to date what they perceive as traditional women
Three years after the pandemic, more than a third of people with remote jobs are now working from home, according to a new Pew Research Center.
While by 2025, an estimated 32.6 million Americans will be working remotely, equivalent to more than a fifth of workforce, according to Upwork.
And with US dollars stretching further in many overseas countries, scores of men are choosing
One member of the movement, Austin Abeyta, known as Digital Bromad on TikTok, explains how his relocation to Colombia has afforded him a much higher quality life.
He claims that America is 'the worst place in the world to date if you are a man' because salaries do not stretch as far as in the US, which he believes impacts his chances with the opposite sex.
Abeyta explains that a 'conflict of genders' in the US is making women 'much less approachable' and that it is 'so much easier to get girls overseas'.
The Passport Bros trend has been noted on dating site OKCupid which has seen a 50 per cent increase in cross-border connections, while 10 per cent more of users were in interracial relationships.
While on Tinder, 16 per cent of users are talking to people overseas. In 2020, the year the pandemic broke out, there was a seven fold increase in people using the app's passport feature.
A sense of adventure following months of lockdowns could also be behind many US men's decision to move abroad.
Hundreds of posts under the Passport Bros hashtag talk about the opportunity to experience a new culture through dating in a different country.
However, posts on Reddit forums from men curious to join the movement suggest their motivation may be more based on insecurity and a belief that foreign women are easier to approach.
One 28-year-old poster 'broken by so many rejections', said US women's standards are 'insane'.
He asked: 'Recently I've been hearing about passport bros in order to look for a wife across the seas. And I've been hearing stories that sound like a fantasy. Nobody or relationship is perfect, but like I can approach women without worrying?'
The movements origins has also been attributed by the Salt Lake Tribune to a 2011 film by Al Greeze called 'Frustrated', which explored a growing number of black men who travel abroad for love after becoming fed up with racism they receive at home in the US.
As one TikTok user, PassportBrotherhood, says in his video: 'They [foreign women] are just better.
****************************************
10 November, 2023
Why the Left Hates Israel and America
They hate success and happiness in others
Star Parker
This week, my organization, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, held an event in Michigan's 12th congressional district, the district of Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Forty Christian pastors -- white, Black, Hispanic -- attended to speak out in support of Israel.
We brought these Christian spokespersons into the backyard of one of the most aggressive voices in the U.S. Congress speaking out against Israel and supporting the terrorism and aggression against the Jewish state.
But a crucial element in our message is that the policy turf being staked out in this debate has implications far beyond providing moral and material support to Israel.
We're talking about values that are as central and crucial to the future of our own country as they are for Israel.
Regarding Tlaib, per Census Reporter, her district is 43% Black; the poverty rate is 21% (150% the national average); and 61% of adults are unmarried -- a rate 25% higher than the national average.
Tlaib's voting record is hardcore left. She gets a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, reflecting her support of abortion. She gets a 100% rating from teachers unions, reflecting support of failing government schools and opposition to parental choice in education. And she gets a 0% rating from organizations supporting lower taxes and spending, such as Americans for Prosperity, Campaign for Working Families, and National Federation of Independent Business.
Tlaib consistently supports, along with her colleagues of "the squad" -- Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts -- the left-wing agenda expanding the welfare state, tilting at climate change windmills and supporting values like abortion that contribute to the breakdown of the traditional family.
In other words, Tlaib aggressively supports the very policies that keep her district poor.
These are also the values that are bankrupting our country, as government spending now sucks up 25% of our GDP and we drown in debt.
In 2020, when the country was torn apart with riots after the death of George Floyd, my organization did a campaign posting billboards in low-income neighborhoods promoting the "success sequence."
The "success sequence," based on policy research in Washington, points to the personal behavior that leads to the best chances of avoiding poverty and moving from low-income status to middle class. That is, finish high school, get married, and take any job.
When we posted billboards with this message that this is the way to avoid poverty, Black Lives Matter went to the billboard company and demanded they take them down.
What about our message so offended Black Lives Matter?
They reject, along with all those on the left, values that rest on personal responsibility. They embrace only a culture of victimhood and blame.
In this worldview, the only explanation for achievement is exploitation.
This is their explanation for the success of Israelis, who built, from nothing, a modern country with per capita GDP higher than most European countries. And this is their explanation for those who have achieved success and wealth in our own country.
This year, for the first time ever, in the Gallup annual survey asking about sympathy for Israelis compared to sympathy for Palestinians, those identifying as Democrats expressed sympathy for Palestinians 11 points higher than Israelis. Our youth, those born between 1980 and 2000, expressed sympathy for Palestinians 2 points higher than for Israelis.
The culture of blame and victimhood has captured the left and our youth.
These values are incompatible with the values of a free country, which can only exist when individuals take personal responsibility.
It should be clear that those expressing opposition to Israel are also voices antipathetic to America's future as a free country.
Our shared values with Israel go beyond democracy. They are about the most basic ingredient of a free society. Personal responsibility. This is the value that the left so deeply hates.
https://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2023/11/08/why-the-left-hates-israel-and-america-n2630922
*************************************************
Judge makes major move against transgender athletes
This week, a Miami federal judge upheld a law that bans transgender athletes in public schools and universities, ruling against a student’s claims of discrimination.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Roy Altman ruled that Florida’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act does not violate the 14th Amendment – the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The judge ruled that “sex-based classifications are substantially related to the state’s important interest in promoting women’s athletics,” according to the Florida Sun-Sentinel.
The judge, who was appointed by former United States President Donald Trump, explained the decision in a 39-page order dated Monday.
“The Plaintiff is right to say that the statute treats transgender girls differently from both cisgender girls and transgender boys,” the judge wrote. “Under the law, after all, biological females (whether cis or trans) can play on both girls’ and boys’ sports teams. Transgender girls, by contrast, considered male by birth, cannot play on girls’ sports teams.”
“But not all gender-based classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause,” he said.
The Washington-based Human Rights Campaign brought the case on the student’s behalf. In a statement to the Florida Sun-Sentinel, the organization said that its litigation team “is actively working with the plaintiffs on potential next steps” following the judge’s decision.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/nba/judge-makes-major-move-against-transgender-athletes/ar-AA1jAjR0
*************************************************
‘This Is How I Know God Has His Hand on It’: Riley Gaines Made Advocating for Women’s Sports Her Full-Time Job
Twelve-time NCAA All-American college swimmer Riley Gaines questioned, “Where are the feminists?” when she was forced to compete against a male athlete who said he was a transgender woman. He was “leading the country by body lengths” in swim competitions, leaving his female competitors behind.
“Our equal opportunities, our dignity, our mental health, all of the different things, our feelings—the words they [those on the Left] love to use—that doesn’t matter,” Gaines told Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts on “The Kevin Roberts Show” podcast. “What matters to them is protecting the feelings of a male, even if it means we [women] become collateral damage in the process, which we most certainly have.”
Gaines was swimming for the University of Kentucky when she competed against Lia Thomas, formerly Will Thomas, in the 200-meter freestyle. But the NCAA told her teammates and her that Thomas’ swimming was “non-negotiable.”
“We felt violated. We felt humiliated. We felt betrayed. We felt belittled,” she said.
Gaines and Thomas ended up tying, but there was only one trophy, so they gave it to Thomas because they said it would look good for photos, Gaines recalled.
“It wasn’t until they really reduced everything that we had worked our entire lives for down to a photo-op to validate the feelings and the identity of a male. It wasn’t until that, ultimately, I realized I was done waiting,” Gaines said.
Gaines had plans to go to dental school once she graduated, but after tying to the hundredth of a second, she has made advocating for women’s fairness in sports her full-time job. “This is how I know God has His hand on it,” said Gaines.
She said she frequently talks to people who support her but can’t speak out because of fear they could lose their jobs. But she said to remember “we are in the overwhelming majority. Again, if you just saw how politicians voted, you wouldn’t think so, but we are. Even the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party knows this is wrong,” she said.
“If we want a change, you have to use your voice. We have to let people know as a group that a majority of us female athletes—or females in general—are not OK with this,” she declared.
“We have an administration in the White House right now, who is changing Title IX to where it’s no longer preventing discrimination on the basis of sex, it’s preventing discrimination on the basis of gender identity,” the All-American said.
“This means men can join sororities. This means men will have full access to bathrooms, locker rooms, changing spaces. This means men could take academic and athletic scholarships away from women. Men can live in dorm rooms with women. So, it’s bigger than just women’s sports.”
Gaines said her faith is what has kept her grounded. People will direct personal attacks and “negative comments” toward her. But she realized, “Why would I want to please those people? We have an audience of one [God]. … That’s who we should be looking to please.”
“I avidly want to stand for the truth in whatever capacity that is, whatever topic that is. There is one objective truth,” she said. “There is one biblical truth. The Left, they love this language of ‘speak your truth.’ OK: There’s one truth.”
****************************************
Mark Houck, Family Sue Biden DOJ for ‘Malicious and Retaliatory Prosecution’
Pro-life activist Mark Houck and his wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, are suing the federal Department of Justice over the DOJ’s treatment of their family, accusing the DOJ of a “faulty” investigation that led to an excessively forceful arrest and a “malicious and retaliatory prosecution” that has severely impacted their entire family.
Houck is a Catholic father of seven who was arrested and charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act by President Joe Biden’s administration. A jury found him not guilty of the federal charges in January, and he announced in August that he is running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District.
The DOJ’s FACE Act charges stemmed from a 2021 incident outside a Philadelphia-based Planned Parenthood where Houck pushed an abortion clinic volunteer who was repeatedly harassing his son, Mark Jr. Local authorities ultimately dismissed the matter—until the Biden DOJ re-upped it in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Mark and Ryan-Marie Houck believe they were targeted by the Biden DOJ in an effort to intimidate, silence, and scare the family for their pro-life work—praying outside abortion clinics for the women headed inside to abort their unborn babies.
“This lawsuit will send a strong message to the DOJ that the United States of America does not belong to [Attorney General] Merrick Garland or the FBI; it belongs to all Americans, despite our many disagreements on different issues,” said Shawn Carney, president of the pro-life organization 40 Days for Life, which is representing Houck. “We all believe that we should have the right to free speech and be protected from unlawful infringement by our own government.”
He added: “Mark and his wife have valid and critical claims against the government that raided their house and pointed guns at them and their screaming children. Mark, his wife, and their seven children have been devastated by this horrific event, which should never have happened if not for the bigotry of our compromised DOJ.”
The Lawsuits
Houck and his wife filed their lawsuits against the DOJ on Monday but did not formally announce the news until Wednesday morning. Their complaints detail the trauma that the entire family suffered when they discovered armed FBI agents banging on their door early in the morning on Sept. 23, 2022.
Mark Houck’s suit describes this arrest as an “unnecessary and unlawful show of force,” accusing the agents of intentionally seeking to assault him and deprive him of his Fourth Amendment rights “by using excessive force to arrest him on non-violent charges when he had not threatened law enforcement, did not own a gun, and had offered to turn himself into authorities if indicted.”
Ryan-Marie Houck’s complaint describes how profoundly her husband’s arrest has impacted their children, Mark Jr., Ava Marie, Kathryn, Therese, Joshua, Augustine, and Imelda.
“Her children have also suffered immense emotional trauma and physical manifestations of stress that Mrs. Houck has carried alone while her husband was away during his imprisonment and prosecution,” the complaint says.
Most tragically of all, her complaint says, Ryan-Marie and Mark Houck have lost three babies through miscarriages “due to the stress of the FBI’s conduct and resulting prosecution.”
“The stress of these events was so difficult that the Houcks have been diagnosed with infertility,” the complaint says.
It describes in detail how Ryan-Marie Houck has suffered “severe emotional distress and physical manifestations of stress and post-traumatic stress” since the Sept. 23, 2022, raid, noting that the stress of these events has taken “an immense toll on her body.”
In addition to the “trauma, paranoia, and anxiety she has suffered,” the suit says, “she now carries the grief of losing three children and the pain of infertility.”
Mrs. Houck has also shouldered the emotional distress of caring for her seven children and their individual needs as they each process their own trauma from these events. The children continually come to her crying and suffering from nightmares. They slept in bed with her and her husband for the first month after the arrest, and they continue to ask to sleep in their parents’ bed. The children are easily triggered whenever the situation is brought up or unannounced guests arrive at the property, and she spends a significant amount of time counseling and comforting them.
Ryan-Marie Houck is seeking $3.25 million in damages for herself and for her children. Mark Houck seeks $1.1 million for malicious prosecution, retaliatory prosecution, false arrest, abuse of process, and assault.
Harm to the Houck Children
Thirteen-year-old Mark Jr., who “shouldered the emotional burdens of his mother his younger siblings” during his father’s arrest and prosecution, suffers from “immense anxiety” compounded by his “continual sleep deprivation and nightmares from the stress.” He and his siblings are seriously emotionally triggered if they encounter law enforcement in public as well as by the arrival of unexpected guests upon the property.
Eleven-year-old Ava Marie has “taken on an immense amount of stress” as she cares for her younger siblings in the aftermath of her father’s arrest and prosecution, the complaint says, causing her to endure severe sleep deprivation and nightmares and forcing her to take sleep medication in order to rest. “A once happy eleven-year-old girl, she now carries a great deal of sadness from the trauma of these events,” the complaint says.
Ten-year-old Kathryn has “experienced a severe loss of joy and deep sadness at her young age,” suffering from “severe anxiety and worry” and carrying “deep-seated fears that she will lose her father.” She also suffers from severe sleep deprivation and nightmares.
Nine-year-old Therese is the “most deeply traumatized of the children,” as the memory of SWAT personnel “staring her down at the back door” continues to haunt her to this day. Like her siblings, she struggles to sleep and with severe anxiety.
Seven-year-old Joshua, who was 6 years old at the time of the arrest, sobbed as he watched the FBI take his father away at gunpoint, yelling, “Please don’t take him, he is my best friend.” According to the complaint, Joshua becomes emotional if anyone mentions that day, is constantly worried about losing his father and his mother, and suffers from severe sleep deprivation like his siblings.
Four-year-old Augustine “cannot express in words the amount of worry and trauma he has suffered,” though he will often shout and cry for his parents, according to Ryan-Marie Houck’s complaint. He has started sleep-walking from the stress, and the suit describes him as “deeply impacted and traumatized by the raid and subsequent prosecution.”
Two-year-old Imelda, the youngest Houck, carries “deep-seated trauma.” She similarly suffers from anxiety and poor sleep, the complaint says.
***********************************************
9 November, 2023
If You Care About Social Mobility, You Need to Let Markets Work
A recurrent trope in American politics is that the American dream—the ability to go from rags to riches—is dead (or dying). That trope has been made so many times before that its current iteration is not particularly novel. But thanks to a couple of recent advances in data science, it might become so again.
The first is the “Great Gatsby Curve”—a term popularized by Miles Corak—which shows the link between a country’s income inequality and the likelihood of its residents to experience upward mobility. Being born into wealth means you can easily tap into your family’s financial resources to grasp opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach.
Conversely, those from poorer backgrounds are restricted by their limited means. Consider the example of education as a pathway to earning more than one’s parents. If the financial burden of education weighs more heavily on the poor due to the need of forgoing years of income and having minimal savings, then the wealthy are in a better position to invest in their education. Ergo, charts representing the relationship between income inequality and income mobility across generations tend to show a strong correlation. Since American inequality is believed to be on the rise, mobility must be waning.
The second is from the work of Raj Chetty (and many others who teamed up with him). Creating a rich dataset of mobility of individuals in the United States across generations, Chetty argued that social capital—the connections we share with each other—is a crucial determinant of mobility. As measures of social capital appear to be falling since the 1970s, it is easy to make the connection to falling intergenerational income mobility (something that Chetty himself has documented).
Both of these schools of thought, however, fail to consider one of the recurrent counters made regarding the failing American dream: that institutions matter. Multiple scholars have emphasized that intergenerational mobility can be heavily affected by institutions that encourage entrepreneurship, that increase the returns to efforts and that secure the rights to the fruits of those efforts. This is “economic freedom,” and it acts as a lure that motivates attempts at jumping up the income ladder. Simultaneously, economic freedom also entails that incumbent firms and businesses should not be protected from competition or be given special privileges. This amounts to stating that no “legalized” castes or privileges that cement existing socioeconomic statuses and limit intergenerational mobility should exist. The ability to contest incumbent players, which is what economic freedom secures, is thus a key ingredient of greater intergenerational income mobility.
This frequently stated counter has not been updated to respond to the newest iteration of the “American dream is dying” argument. In a recent working paper with Alicia Plemmons and Justin Callais, I decided to make such an update to account for the great data advances of the last decade. More specifically, we used the data assembled by Raj Chetty and his team in conjunction with the estimates of economic freedom in the different metropolitan areas in the United States. Our goal was simple: set up a horse race between economic freedom and the other variables and see which horse runs the fastest.
Our results show that economic freedom is a potent determinant of intergenerational income mobility. A person born in the economically freest quartile of metropolitan areas experiences between 5 and 12 percent more intergenerational income mobility. This effect is systematically larger than the effect of income inequality (something that echoes earlier work using international data by Justin Callais and myself). It is also stronger than all but one of the measures of social capital that Raj Chetty and his team used.
It could well be true that the American dream is dying as many pundits claim. Even though I personally doubt it, the remedy remains the same as it was before: Bet on the “economic freedom” horse.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2023/11/07/social-mobility-markets-work/
********************************************************
Christian Wedding Photographer Who Refused to Celebrate Same-Sex Marriage Wins Settlement
Virginia state officials agreed to settle a lawsuit with a Christian wedding photographer after he refused to use his business to celebrate same-sex marriage, according to a press release.
Bob Updegrove filed a lawsuit against then-Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring in September 2020 after a state law required him to affirm same-sex marriage in his photography business, according to court documents.
Alliance Defending Freedom, the nonprofit public interest law firm representing Updegrove, announced Monday that the state had agreed to settle, following the recent Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which determined that the government cannot compel a business owner’s speech.
“Free speech is for everyone. As the Supreme Court recently affirmed in 303 Creative, the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe,” Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, counsel for ADF, said in the press release. “This victory for Bob underscores how the 303 Creative decision will protect countless Americans from government censorship and coercion. The U.S. Constitution protects his freedom to express his views as he continues to serve clients of all backgrounds and beliefs.”
The Virginia Values Act prohibits businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation, and Updegrove argued in the lawsuit that the law aims to “regulate Bob’s views—that marriage should be between a man and a woman—out of existence.” He claimed that under the law, he would be unable to publicly state anywhere on his website or business social media that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, ultimately violating his right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
A district court ruled in March 2021 that while the case “creates ‘the odor of a case or controversy’ … the scent is not strong enough” for the court to rule in its favor, according to the opinion, forcing Updegrove to appeal. However, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that the state of Colorado could not force Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer, to make websites celebrating same-sex marriage and chill her right to free speech.
As a result, the state agreed to settle to “avoid further costs and expenses of litigation,” according to the court documents.
“We commend [Attorney General Jason Miyares, who defeated Herring in November 2021 assumed the AG’s post after the lawsuit was filed] and his office for agreeing that state officials cannot punish Bob for exercising his First Amendment rights,” Widmalm-Delphonse said in the press release.
The AG’s office and the Office of Civil Rights did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
**********************************************
How a Working-Class Coalition Is Remaking the Republican Party
Patrick Ruffini is a Republican pollster with a reputation for deciphering data and spotting trends. His new book, “Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP,” takes a deep dive into one of the biggest political realignments of our lifetime.
Ruffini spoke with The Daily Signal about the demographic changes that are rapidly transforming America’s two biggest political parties—and what it means for the 2024 presidential election and beyond.
“When I first started in politics, Republicans had this reputation as being the country club party,” Ruffini said. “Democrats had this reputation as being the party of the people, the party of the working class.”
He added, “Flash forward almost 20 years, and that trend has completely almost reversed.”
Recent election results show the GOP’s gains with working-class voters were not an aberration or confined to one candidate. Republicans today are increasing their support among non-college voters—the type of working-class Americans who once loyally supported Democrats.
“The parties used to be defined by income and now they’re defined by education,” Ruffini said. “I argue that that’s good news for Republicans in the sense that you have many more working-class, non-college voters in the country than you have college-educated voters.”
The breakdown for 2024, according to Ruffini, is about 60% non-college voters compared to 40% who have a college degree. This, he surmises, will provide the GOP with an advantage in upcoming elections. Factor in Republican gains with Hispanic and black voters, and you have a different GOP from the one of yesteryear.
Most surprising to Ruffini, however, is how the political alignment happened.
“I did not expect Donald Trump to be the one who was able to pull this off, but my credit goes to him for getting us to this point,” Ruffini said.
“The fact that he was able to expand the Republican coalition first to include the Rust Belt states and dramatically expand Republican performance among working-class voters in 2016, and then in 2020, almost defying the odds and winning re-election with the help of more Hispanic voters and continued progress among black voters,” he added. “It really has upended what we think the two parties are about.”
Ruffini began writing “Party of the People” after observing the trends of the 2020 election, and he hopes it serves as a helpful guide for readers to understand the realignment.
************************************************
UK: Why won’t Gary Lineker call out the fascism of Hamas?
One of the most curious things following Hamas’s massacre of the Jews on 7 October was the silence of Britain’s fascism-spotters. You know these people. They see fascism everywhere. Everything from a fiery speech by a Tory politician to millions of ‘gammon’ going out to vote for Brexit reminds them of the 1930s. The minute someone says something they don’t like or votes for a thing they disapprove of, they’re logging onto Twitter to wail: ‘Is this Nazism?!’
It’s striking that someone so interested in contemporary events that echo the evils of the 30s has had so little to say about the worst anti-Jewish pogrom in 75 years?
And yet when Hamas carried out the worst assault on Jews since the Holocaust, the fascism-spotters were nowhere to be seen. In the wake of that unconscionable act that really did echo the 1930s, the virtue-signallers just stopped signalling. You and me saying ‘We hate the EU’ gets them weeping about the rebirth of the 30s, but the sight of a marauding gang of anti-Semites slaughtering Jewish men, women and children seemingly does not.
I’m afraid to say that Gary Lineker is a classic example of the centrist dad who wrings his manicured hands over ‘fascism’ yet falls strangely silent when actual fascism occurs. Lineker caused a stink earlier this year when he accused Suella Braverman of using ‘language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s’. Braverman’s linguistic crime was to say ‘we must stop the boats’. Given his keen interest in things that are ‘not dissimilar’ to 1930s Germany, Mr Lineker must have been all over the horrific anti-Jewish pogrom of 7 October, right? Oddly, no.
On the day of the atrocity itself, there wasn’t so much as a whisper about it, or about the 1930s, on his Twitter page. He did, however, find time to congratulate Spurs for getting to the top of the league and pat William Dalrymple on the back for his ‘great podcast’. How about the following day, when the dust was settling on the most violent anti-Jewish event since the death camps? Again, not a peep from our esteemed worrier about the 1930s. Instead he spent the day retweeting praise for his podcast The Rest Is Football.
Finally, on 9 October, he said something. A thundering denunciation of this terrible assault that was ‘not dissimilar’ to the violence of the thirties? A stinging critique of Hamas for its ‘immeasurably cruel’ behaviour (the words Lineker used to describe Braverman’s anti-boats policy)? Nah, he retweeted a link to a new episode of The Rest is Politics podcast about the Israel-Hamas conflict. The Rest is Politics, of course, is produced by Lineker’s pod empire, Goalhanger Productions.
Now, I’m not one of those people who thinks that just because someone tweets about things that he has to tweet about everything. In fact, I would prefer that Lineker only tweeted about football. And that everyone at the BBC whose wages are paid by us would stop spouting their milquetoast meanderings on world events. And yet it is striking, is it not, that someone who is so interested in contemporary events that echo the evils of the 30s has had so little to say about the worst anti-Jewish pogrom in 75 years?
Lineker would perhaps argue that he is unable to comment on the October 7 attacks after the BBC updated its social media guidelines for presenters earlier this year. But his latest intervention into the Israel-Hamas issue raises more questions about his selective moralism. He has locked horns with Braverman again, this time over her criticisms of the ‘pro-Palestine’ marches taking place every weekend. She says they’re ‘hate marches’, he says they’re not. ‘Marching and calling for a ceasefire and peace so that more innocent children don’t get killed is not really the definition of a hate march’, he tweeted. But that isn’t all that’s happening on these marches, is it Mr Lineker? You must know that.
We’ve seen mobs of men cry for ‘jihad’ (i.e. holy war) against the State of Israel. People have been arrested for chanting ‘God’s curse be upon the Jews’ and for glorifying the paragliding terrorists who descended upon southern Israel to murder Jews. We’ve seen people celebrating historic anti-Jewish massacres. We’ve seen Zionism being denounced as the ‘New Nazism’ – Jew-baiting dressed up as political critique. Some British Jews have said they avoid central London when these marches are taking place. Who should we trust on whether or not a public gathering feels hateful – our Jewish citizens or a former footballer? What a stickler.
Open cries for more violence against the Jewish state. Jewish schools temporarily shutting down to protect pupils’ safety. A Holocaust museum desecrated with graffiti saying ‘Free Gaza’. A massive hike in anti-Semitic attacks. Is any of this reminding you of the 1930s, Gary? Explain to us, please, why Suella Braverman’s immigration-control policies made you think of Nazi Germany but the horrendous fallout from Hamas’s act of evil seemingly does not. This goes for all those centrists and leftists who’ve spent the entire Brexit and Trump era fretting over fascism’s return: why so quiet now?
I believe we are witnessing the twilight of the virtue-signallers. The pompous ‘anti-fascist’ posturing of the middle-class left, of both rich centrists and overeducated radicals, now stands starkly exposed. These people love the moral pantomime of damning their political foes as ‘fascists’, but they run away from the generational moral challenge posed to us all by the barbarism unleashed on the Jewish people on 7 October. Their self-satisfied preening is worse than useless in the face of a growing global hatred that really is ‘not dissimilar’ to the 1930s.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/why-wont-gary-lineker-call-out-the-fascism-of-hamas
****************************************
8 November, 2023
End DEI
Bari Weiss
Twenty years ago, when I was a college student, I started writing about a then-nameless, niche ideology that seemed to contradict everything I had been taught since I was a child.
It is possible I would not have perceived the nature of this ideology—or rather, I would have been able to avoid seeing its true nature—had I not been a Jew. But I was. I am. And in noticing the way I had been written out of the equation, I started to notice that it wasn’t just me, but that the whole system rested on an illusion.
What I saw was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob.
People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues. According to them, as Jamie Kirchick concisely put it in these pages: “Muslim > gay, Black > female, and everybody > the Jews.”
I was an undergraduate back then, but you didn’t need a Ph.D. to see where this could go. And so I watched, in horror, sounding alarms as loudly as I could. I was told by most Jewish leaders that, yes, it wasn’t great, but not to be so hysterical. Campuses were always hotbeds of radicalism, they said. This ideology, they promised, would surely dissipate as young people made their way in the world.
It did not.
Over the past two decades, I saw this inverting worldview swallow all of the crucial sense-making institutions of American life. It started with the universities. Then it moved on to cultural institutions—including some I knew well, like The New York Times—as well as every major museum, philanthropy, and media company. Then on to our medical schools and our law schools. It’s taken root at nearly every major corporation. It’s inside our high schools and even our elementary schools. The takeover is so comprehensive that it’s now almost hard to notice it—because it is everywhere.
Including in the Jewish community.
Some of the most important Jewish communal organizations transformed themselves in order to prop up this ideology. Or at the very least, they contorted themselves to signal that they could be good allies in the fight for equal rights—even as those rights are no longer presumed inalienable or equal, and are handed out rather than protected.
For Jews, there are obvious and glaring dangers in a worldview that measures fairness by equality of outcome rather than opportunity. If underrepresentation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias, then overrepresentation—and Jews are 2% of the American population—suggests not talent or hard work, but unearned privilege. This conspiratorial conclusion is not that far removed from the hateful portrait of a small group of Jews divvying up the ill-gotten spoils of an exploited world.
It isn’t only Jews who suffer from the suggestion that merit and excellence are dirty words. It is strivers of every race, ethnicity, and class. That is why Asian American success, for example, is suspicious. The percentages are off. The scores are too high. From whom did you steal all that success?
Of course this new ideology doesn’t come right out and say all that. It doesn’t even like to be named. Some call it wokeness or anti-racism or progressivism or safetyism or critical social justice or identity-Marxism. But whatever term you use, what’s clear is that it has gained power in a conceptual instrument called “diversity, equity and inclusion,” or DEI.
In theory, all three of these words represent noble causes. They are in fact all causes to which American Jews in particular have long been devoted, both individually and collectively. But in reality, these words are now metaphors for an ideological movement bent on recategorizing every American not as an individual, but as an avatar of an identity group, his or her behavior prejudged accordingly, setting all of us up in a kind of zero-sum game.
We have been seeing for several years now the damage this ideology has done: DEI, and its cadres of enforcers, undermine the central missions of the institutions that adopt it. But nothing has made the dangers of DEI more clear than what’s happening these days on our college campuses—the places where our future leaders are nurtured.
It is there that professors are compelled to pledge fidelity to DEI in order to get hired, promoted, or tenured. (For more on this, please read John Sailer’s Free Press piece: "How DEI Is Supplanting Truth as the Mission of American Universities.”) And it is there that the hideousness of this worldview has been on full display over the past few weeks: We see students and professors, immersed not in facts, knowledge, and history, but in a dehumanizing ideology that has led them to celebrate or justify terrorism.
Jews, who understand that being made in the image of God bestows inviolate sanctity on every human life, must not stand by as that principle, so central to the promise of this country and its hard won freedoms, is erased.
For Jews, there are obvious and glaring dangers in a worldview that measures fairness by equality of outcome rather than opportunity.
What we must do is reverse this.
The answer is not for the Jewish community to plead its cause before the intersectional coalition, or beg for a higher ranking in the new ladder of victimhood. That is a losing strategy—not just for Jewish dignity, but for the values we hold as Jews and as Americans.
The Jewish commitment to justice—and the American Jewish community’s powerful and historic opposition to racism—is a source of tremendous pride. That should never waver. Nor should our commitment to stand by our friends, especially when they need our support as we now need theirs.
But “DEI” is not about the words it uses as camouflage. DEI is about arrogating power.
And the movement that is gathering all this power does not like America or liberalism. It does not believe that America is a good country—at least no better than China or Iran. It calls itself progressive, but it does not believe in progress; it is explicitly anti-growth. It claims to promote “equity,” but its answer to the challenge of teaching math or reading to disadvantaged children is to eliminate math and reading tests. It demonizes hard work, merit, family, and the dignity of the individual.
An ideology that pathologizes these fundamental human virtues is one that seeks to undermine what makes America exceptional.
It is time to end DEI for good. No more standing by as people are encouraged to segregate themselves. No more forced declarations that you will prioritize identity over excellence. No more compelled speech. No more going along with little lies for the sake of being polite.
The Jewish people have outlived every single regime and ideology that has sought our elimination. We will persist, one way or another. But DEI is undermining America, and that for which it stands—including the principles that have made it a place of unparalleled opportunity, safety, and freedom for so many. Fighting it is the least we owe this country.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/end-dei-bari-weiss-jews
**********************************************
A media giant tried to diversify its staff - white workers sued
After more than 20 years of working for his hometown newspaper, the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, New York, Steve Bradley was laid off amid pandemic-induced cost-cutting in May 2020. He was crushed, but he eventually took a communications job for a local school district.
Then, two years later, he received a startling message.
Sitting in the bleachers at the school softball field in July 2022, Bradley took a phone call from an unknown number. He listened as J. Nelson Thomas, an employment lawyer he had never met, presented a jarring claim: Bradley was laid off because he is white.
Now, Bradley is one of five named plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit that claims the country’s largest newspaper publisher “discriminated against non-minorities” to achieve diversity goals. Filed in August in Virginia federal court, the suit alleges that Gannett fired white employees, denied them opportunities for advancement and replaced them with less-qualified minority candidates as the company sought to diversify its workforce.
The case is among the first to test the legality of corporate diversity practices in the wake of a June Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions. That decision has sparked a wave of litigation aimed at racial considerations in the workplace, including claims that corporate efforts to increase diversity have disadvantaged white employees.
For Bradley, 56, the decision to pursue legal action wasn’t easy. He had always thought it was good that Gannett was working to boost diversity. But he also “wanted to be judged” based on his work and the work of his team, he said, not his race.
“Somebody needed to stand up to them,” Bradley said in an interview. To know “that the decision was made because of how I look? I’m not okay with that”.
In a statement, Gannett declined to discuss the lawsuit but said it “always seeks to recruit and retain the most qualified individuals for all roles within the company”.
“We will vigorously defend our practice of ensuring equal opportunities for all our valued employees against this meritless lawsuit,” Polly Grunfeld Sack, Gannett’s chief legal counsel, said in an email.
Private employers have been barred for decades from making employment decisions based on race. Long-standing legal precedent has allowed companies to take targeted, temporary steps to mitigate historic racial inequalities in their workforces.
But the recent ruling on university admissions suggests that it’s “no longer appropriate to be looking at someone’s race for the benefit of diversity,” said Devon Westhill, president and general counsel at the Centre for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank.
While the vast majority of Americans are in favour of equal opportunity, “the way in which it’s practiced really is divisive,” Westhill said. “It foments resentment.”
In recent years, claims of race-based discrimination by white workers have made up only about 11 percent of charges submitted for review by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to data obtained by The Washington Post. But now many legal experts expect those numbers to soar. Westhill said race-based employee affinity groups, fellowships and grant programs exclusively for minorities are especially likely to face legal challenges, as are company policies that tie executive compensation to diversity targets.
Those targets are intended to promote racial and gender equity, which remains a struggle in corporate America. Women and people of colour hold less than 14 percent of C-suite roles across Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies, according to data from executive search firm Crist Kolder Associates. Last year, American women earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by white men - a gap that worsens for women of colour, according to data from Pew Research Centre.
Leon Prieto, a professor of management at Clayton State University, said discrimination claims from white people often fail to acknowledge “the historical context” of workplace discrimination. “Historically speaking, many corporate cultures have been rooted in biases that favour Americans of European descent over others,” Prieto said. “This has been well-documented.”
Indeed, the earliest efforts to tackle racial disparities in the workforce began in the 1960s and ’70s, when companies used racial quotas to combat those biases in hiring, Prieto said. Such quotas were later deemed unconstitutional; Prieto said some companies still overly emphasise racial diversity among new hires instead of taking the more modern view that “DEI [diversity equity inclusion] is not just about hiring ethnic minorities, it’s about embracing all talent”.
“A myopic focus on quotas doesn’t really address inclusion efforts,” Prieto said.
In the wake of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police in May 2020, Gannett was among scores of corporate giants that made sweeping commitments to increase workforce diversity.
The media juggernaut, which owns several hundred daily and weekly newspapers across the country in addition to its flagship publication, USA Today, repeatedly expressed aims to “reach racial and gender parity with the diversity of our nation,” according to the lawsuit. Along with other goals, the company set a target of increasing the number of people of colour in leadership positions by 30 percent by 2025.
**********************************************
Elites Are Confounded by Populist Sentiment
American populism’s rise is directly connected to the failures of our self-styled elites. American elites have in numerous instances missed the coming of important crises, some of which they have caused. Average Americans have borne the brunt of these crises. Today’s populist rise is simply the people’s recognition of the elites’ hypocrisy and culpability in what they have had to endure.
In less than a generation, America has undergone a series of important crises across virtually every aspect of life.
Just fifteen years ago, the nation’s finances collapsed; the economic system teetered precariously. The collapse wiped out families—foreclosing houses, businesses, and opportunities. The recovery was long and painful; many folks never did. (READ MORE from J.T. Young: Democrats Begin Scapegoating Biden)
There is a division between elite and populous. It is one that elites seek: after all, without their separation from the populous, they could not be an elite.
Not long after, America’s very health was threatened; our health care system teetered precariously. The threat appeared existential; many died. Virtually all were affected to some degree. The recovery is still ongoing.
COVID’s crisis spawned a governmental one. Local, state, and federal governments all ran amuck, assuming unheard of power and inflicting onerous — frequently contradictory, often harmful — mandates that affected people from home to school to business and all points in between.
Yet amidst government assuming unheard of power over average citizens’ lives, government seemed willing to relinquish control elsewhere. So busy imposing itself on normal citizens, it shifted focus from its normal functions. Policing, education, even the border — all were seemingly abandoned by government. The result was a social crisis — a catastrophic situation that continues to escalate.
Now, in the wake of Hamas’s unmasked evil in Israel, America finds itself confronting not only a horror abroad, but a homegrown one here: moral collapse in many of our supposedly elite institutions. Despite claiming to be places of higher learning, many college campuses appear to lack basic human decency in their unwillingness to distinguish between innocent victims and premeditated terrorism: an inability to distinguish between right and wrong.
Repeatedly during the financial crisis, Americans heard our elites exonerate themselves with “no one saw this coming.” Essentially the same excuse was trotted out for COVID: they neither saw it coming nor knew what to do when it arrived. When their pronouncements finally came, they were often wrong (recall the on-again/off-again/now-on-again of masking). Amidst the social crisis of border chaos and urban chaos, the elite again seem befuddled as to what is happening and why — spectators baffled by the obvious.
Yet even in these crises, elite fingerprints were discernible. In the financial crisis, they promoted the policies that led to it, and created and invested in the financial instruments that metastasized it. In the COVID crisis, so-called experts were involved in the gain-of-function research that increasingly appears to have been at the heart of the outbreak. The social crises America faces are not natural disasters; they are the result of elites’ conscious decisions to stand down law enforcement throughout society.
When government overreached during COVID, elites were falling over themselves for the power to impose their policies. What began with shutdowns became shout-downs of any and all who disagreed with them — even experts offering contrary data and conclusions that could have saved lives.
In the moral crisis on many American college campuses, elites are not simply witnessing and housing it in their midst; they are the moral crisis. Ideas that once went cloaked under hoods and sheets now preen publicly beneath caps and gowns. Instead of educated and educating elites, some of America’s top institutions appear to be matriculating a group of educated fools.
In each of these successive crises, it has been America’s populous — not its elites — that have suffered the worst. During the financial crisis, it was the populous who lost houses and savings: there were no bailouts. In COVID and government’s responding overreach, it was among the populous that small businesses were closed and children barred from public schools. In the social crisis of open borders and unsafe streets, it is the populous that pays the price of elites’ virtue signaling. And in the moral crisis, it is the elites’ colleges that get a pass on their moral bankruptcy.
There is a division between elite and populous. It is one that elites seek: after all, without their separation from the populous, they could not be an elite.
Our elites have succeeded in separation like never before. They are more connected, more single-minded in thought, more desirous of imposing their thought, and more able to do so — through media, culture, and government. Never have the rules between Thee and Me diverged more completely and clearly. (READ MORE: Biden’s Upside-Down Economy)
The only ones who do not see these incongruities are the elites themselves — because to them they are natural and desirable. Instead, they are surprised that from the people they have repeatedly victimized has come populism: a people’s response to what the elites have done and continue to do.
https://spectator.org/elites-confounded-by-populist-sentiment/
******************************************
Deadly coloniser: Iran’s tentacles threaten the free world
Despite the barbaric Hamas massacres on 7 October, extremist Muslims, the far left and the mainstream media predictably rallied to attack Israel. Although Jews have been indigenous to the land for more than 3,000 years, these groups brand Israeli Jews as non-indigenous colonisers. Such accusations turn a blind eye to Iran; a belligerent, imperialist coloniser with antisemitic, genocidal intent.
Iran’s patronage of its proxy Hamas led to the latest conflagration in the volatile Middle East, exposing the Islamic Republic’s radical Shia ideology that threatens Israel, Sunni Gulf Arabs and beyond. Yet Iran’s malign extra-territorial warfare has attracted little general attention.
In contrast, the egregious human rights violations within Iran’s authoritarian theocracy are well known, although executions of gay men and minors, or imprisonment of women for ‘bad hijab’, have not mobilised the left or feminists. During waves of unrest, protesters were killed, injured and arrested by ‘morality police’.
Recently increased surveillance and punishments for hijab transgressions are consistent with the hard-line views of current President Ebrahim Raisi, known as ‘The Butcher of Tehran,’ for his part in the mass executions of Iranian political prisoners during 1988.
Iran’s leadership applauded the vicious torture and murder on 7 October, and its fingerprints can be seen in the training, weapons and finance for Hamas in Gaza – about US$100 million annually with additional funding for its sister militia, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).
Hamas, PIJ and many Palestinian Arabs have been infected with antisemitic ideology from two sources. First, the wartime Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who collaborated with Hitler. Second, the antisemitic Soviet propaganda that inspired current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to write his thesis on Holocaust denial while studying at the Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University in Moscow.
Little wonder that Hamas ideology incorporates an extermination jihad against Jews and Israel in addition to creating a global caliphate. These goals align with the ideology of Isis jihadis, who tried to secure a worldwide caliphate. With similar aims, Iran deploys the radicalised Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), sworn to Iranian expansionism and an ‘ideological mission of jihad’ to export the theocracy’s Shia revolution globally. Any attempts at reform or Westernisation are rejected in the drive to create a greater ‘Islamic civilisation’.
As part of Iran’s agenda of Holocaust denial, the regime has held international Holocaust cartoon contests and a conference with neo-Nazi participants.
Hamas is a minor example of the multiple, armed, Iran-backed proxy militias based in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Yemen and Bahrain that form a string of conquests for their hegemonic patron. The largest militia, Lebanese-based Hezbollah, receives about US$700 million annually from Iran, and boasts a greater army than Lebanon itself, with drones and more than 130,000 surface-to-surface precision-guided and unguided rockets. Hezbollah was part of a coalition that won the 2018 Lebanese election, gaining a majority of seats in parliament and markedly increasing Iran’s regional expansion. During the Syrian civil war, the paramilitary fought for President Bashar al-Assad’s survival. Together with Iran-supported militias in Syria and a line of credit from Iran, al-Assad’s dependence on the Islamic Republic was ensured. At the same time, Iran began to colonise Syria by transferring Shia Muslims from Iraq and Lebanon to areas abandoned by Syrian refugees.
Unlike Hamas, Hezbollah has a global footprint, perpetrating suicide attacks and bomb plots in Europe, the UK, Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia and the US. The militia also has deep roots throughout Latin America, and is reportedly involved with drug cartels and money laundering.
In Iraq, several Iran-backed militias or Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMFs) together with allied political parties are bent on imposing a Shiite state and preventing the emergence of secular parliamentary democracy. Exploiting their advantage in the International Zone, Iran-sponsored PMFs have attacked the US and British embassies in Iraq, and two years ago bombed then prime minister, Mustafa al-Khadimi’s residence while he slept.
When the PMFs fought together with the coalition to destroy Isis, they were accused of committing such sadistic atrocities there was little difference between PMFs and Isis.
Another proxy militia, Yemen’s Iranian-allied Houthis, have fired deadly drones and missiles on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, causing massive worldwide disruption of oil supplies after the attack on Saudi Aramco oil facilities.
Training of Iran’s proxies is coordinated by the IRGC and its extraterritorial arm, the Quds Force (IRGC-QF). Comprising ground, aviation and naval troops, the IRGC, which reports directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, protects Iran’s missile program and nuclear facilities, and controls a significant portion of the economy.
The US has designated as terrorist groups the IRGC and IRGC-QF, as well as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iran-backed PMFs. But the Biden administration’s perceived weakness associated with the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, inadequate response to escalating IRGC-QF maritime attacks, and appeasement of Iran during nuclear deal negotiations, has energised terror groups. Crucially, billions of dollars became available for the IRGC-QF because the US chose to ignore the Islamic Republic’s sanctions evasions.
As a regional and global threat, Iran tests the will and moral compass of the West. Simply placating Iran’s proxies won’t succeed. Israel tried to deal with Hamas by improving life in Gaza, where unemployment was nearly 50 per cent. They believed economic progress, stability, goodwill and growing social contacts would tame Hamas after Israel opened its gates to about 20,000 Gazans workers. Unfortunately, Hamas remained true to its foundational charter and patron’s ideology.
Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain fear Iran and seek peace and stability, but believe it prudent to form closer ties with their old adversary Qatar, a state-sponsor of Hamas that blamed Israel for the massacre and harbours Hamas rulers in Doha.
With the force of a tsunami, moral coherence was quick to drown after 7 October, and a shocking reversal of roles washed up when large demonstrations of Islamists and the far left blamed the victim for the genocidal terror, hatred and bestial impulses of the aggressor.
Nevertheless, the free world is waking up to the danger of an aggressive, colonialist Iran and its brutal jihadi proxies dotting the globe.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/deadly-coloniser/
****************************************
7 November, 2023
Autistic problems
The article below could be misleading. Autism occurs on a spectrum -- from completely non-verbal people to high functioning autistics who can live a fairly normal life. I am one of the latter.
And although I had a rather withdrawn childhood, I was pretty happy. I just read a lot of books instead of going out socially. And seeing I am now 80, I can't complain about my lifespan.
My autistic withdrawal was largely responsible for the failure of my four marriages and other relationships but I enjoyed all four marriages plus some good relationships. And they all ended amicably. And my three university degrees came easily.
So at 80 I find myself with several girlfriends and live in material comfort. On balance, autism has been for me a privilege. So I wanted to say all that as a counter-balance to the tale of woe below. Not all autistics are the same
Below are two pictures of me taken 60 years apart (yes, 60). Do they suggest a life of suffering?
I was in primary school when I told my mother for the first time that I wanted to die.
At age 12, tortured by tiny noises in my head, I had my first nervous breakdown.
At 16, when my father died from a long, traumatic fight with cancer, I fell into a deep depression I couldn’t escape from.
At 23, while studying overseas, I battled an unknown illness that left me dizzy, half-deaf and in constant pain. As fellow exchange students went clubbing and enjoyed German Christmas markets, I stopped eating and wandered the empty, icy streets of Berlin alone contemplating suicide.
By the time my mother died suddenly and unexpectedly of a heart attack and when I was 27, I’d already resigned myself to a life of suffering. Despite medication and therapy, depression and anxiety had been my constant companions.
Unbearably sensitive to the world, unable to sleep, constantly sick, and achingly lonely, I also couldn’t shake the feeling there was something else going on. Something was secretly, fundamentally “wrong” with me.
Why did I feel alone in a crowd? Why couldn’t I verbalise my innermost feelings? Why was eye contact painful, and human touch sometimes electric?
Why did I feel comforted and connected lying alone listening to the same albums on repeat but feel nothing talking to the people I knew in real life?
At 28, I was finally diagnosed with autism.
Though finding out I am autistic has made my entire life made sense, my relief at the diagnosis has been short-lived. As well as looking back and reassessing every pivotal moment in my life, I’ve begun to look forward, and the future is terrifying.
As well as experiencing higher rates of homelessness and being eight times more likely to be unemployed, autistic people have a life expectancy 20 to 36 years shorter than the general population.
Though the exact reason for this horrifying lifespan discrepancy is unknown, it’s most likely got something to do with the comorbidities autistic people often live with.
As well as facing physical and neurological comorbidities like congenital abnormalities, epilepsy, insomnia, and gastrointestinal disease, autistic people are also prone to psychological conditions like depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and bipolar disorder.
We’re also more far more likely to commit suicide.
In one Australian study of autistic people without intellectual disability, 66 per cent of respondents reported suicidal ideation, with 35 per cent reporting suicide plans or attempts – about five times higher than the general population.
But why can life be so unbearable for autistic people?
The sad reality is that we’re just not made for the neurotypical world. In a world built by and for neurotypical people, is it any wonder that autistic people struggle to work, house ourselves, or fight constantly against our physical and mental illnesses?
In Australia, up to 75 per cent of autistic people do not complete education beyond year 12, with a federal parliamentary inquiry finding that a “significant proportion of autistic people are reliant on their families and/or government funded services and benefits, such as income support payments”.
What governments fail to mention, however, is that these income support payments are rarely above the poverty line, with many autistics ineligible for the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) let alone the DSP (Disability Support Pension) anyway.
Currently, the maximum “basic rate” DSP a single adult can receive is just $501 per week. With Australia’s poverty line at $489 per week and the median rent in Sydney now at $670 per week, it’s hardly surprising that even autistic people with access to the DSP or NDIS are struggling.
So how can we make life better for autistic people, and help change the terrifying statistics we live with?
In my opinion, it begins with our governments and communities listening to us – to what we really need to not only survive, but thrive.
In October, Australia’s first National Autism Strategy (NAS) opened for public feedback, and I’m hoping our voices will finally be heard.
Having grown up in poverty and government housing, with no idea I was autistic, I’m lucky I’ve made it out. Though it’s taken a huge toll on my mental and physical health, I’ve managed to graduate university, hold ‘good; jobs, make friends, and find secure housing (well, as secure as rentals can be). Today, even with a diagnosis and (expensive, self-funded) support, I still struggle. Mostly, however, I am doing OK.
But I’m in the minority. And like my parents who died young and the quirky, sensitive friends I’ve lost to suicide, autistic people deserve better.
***********************************************
Feminists Are Consenting to Hamas’ Rape Culture
On Oct. 7, Hamas unleashed a savage assault on southern Israel. These marauders were equal-opportunity killers, kidnappers, and abusers. Their bloody frenzy targeted everyone in their path—babies, Thai workers, Israeli Arabs, Bedouins, the elderly, special needs children, and, of course, Israeli Jews. They particularly relished targeting women—slaughtering them, raping them, cutting babies out of pregnant women’s wombs, torturing mothers and grandmothers in front of their families—and, many fear, sexually enslaving some of the hostages.
The world witnessed these perversions because the villains proudly filmed them, then inspired Palestinians and pro-Palestinian progressives to spread them across social media. This secondary, digital, GoPro assault on the victims’ dignity made this orgy of misogyny one of the bloodiest and most publicized attacks on women in history.
Nevertheless, more than three weeks later, the feminist community remains silent. In May 2021, within days of Israel counterattacking in self-defense against yet another Hamas bombardment, over 120 gender studies departments denounced the Jewish state. Declaring that “justice is indivisible,” they proclaimed that our work is “committed to an inclusive feminist vision,” as per the National Women’s Studies Association’s 2015 Solidarity Statement, “that contests violations of civil rights and international human rights law.” The call was so popular, the Palestinian Feminist Collective asked for patience. “Please note, due to the overwhelming response we are only uploading names twice a day. Please be patient as we are stretched to capacity.”
Now, despite seeing Hamas’ rape cult, not one gender studies department has defended even one victimized woman. Feminists have long taught us to believe the accuser and not blame the victim. For years, progressives insisted, in academic papers, on T-shirts, even on coffee mugs, that when fighting oppression, “silence is consent,” or even that “silence is violence.” On Oct. 7, the violated women shouted, shrieked, cried, begged, rape after rape, cut after cut, fighting off these assaults with their voices and their bare hands as best each could. Some hostages may still be struggling. By contrast, violating every feminist principle I’ve ever read and respected, today’s feminist movement is violently, silently, consenting to this mass crime against women and against the victims from three-dozen different countries. Some even doubt the testimonials—and the staggering, bloody, heartbreaking evidence of stripped women paraded through Gaza’s streets. Robbing someone of their story is a secondary offense—but nevertheless inexcusable.
If justice is indivisible, these women deserve justice—and empathy too—whether or not you like Israel or abhor it and its policies. If rape culture is never OK, all civilized people should repudiate so many Palestinians’ and progressives’ delight in spreading these videos and cheering these crimes. In their silence, most leading feminists became complicit, aiding and abetting this mass attempt to dehumanize women just because they’re Jews—or happened to be on the Gaza border that day.
Violating every feminist principle I’ve ever read and respected, today’s feminist movement is violently, silently, consenting to this mass crime against women.
Beyond the sheer cruelty and unfathomable scale of suffering, these crimes devastated so many people, Jews and non-Jews alike, who recognized the barbarians’ perverted pedigree. President Joe Biden connected the historical dots on Oct. 18, saying that when this “sacred Jewish holiday, became the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust,” it “brought to the surface painful memories and scars left by a millennia of antisemitism and the genocide of the Jewish people.” He added: “The world watched then, it knew, and the world did nothing. We will not stand by and do nothing again. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.”
Indeed, these crimes echoed the mass murders and sexual assaults the Nazis perpetrated during the Holocaust, that Arabs perpetrated on their Jewish neighbors during the Hebron Massacre of 1929, that Cossacks perpetrated on so many Jews during pogroms—and so many other Jew-haters perpetrated on Jewish women, no matter how young or old over millennia.
In singling out women, those guilty of this gendered violence want to dehumanize doubly. They seek to strip Jewish women of their dignity by abusing them in unspeakable ways. And they try humiliating Jewish men, treating them as so helpless they cannot even defend their women and children.
After three weeks of hearing how this sadistic saturnalia “exhilarated” too many progressives, those justifiably appalled by these enablers of evil are now being told the worst abuses never happened. Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning. Feminists teach that denying sexual assault intensifies the trauma, erasing the victim’s personhood yet again. Nevertheless, some feminists are questioning the stories—perhaps because they don’t want to question their blind support for the Palestinian cause. They want to deny the vile photos and videos, the reports from IDF officials, pathologists and volunteers at the overworked morgues, or testimonies from captured Hamas criminals describing “having sex with dead bodies, meaning the body of a dead young woman,” because the goal was “to dirty them, to rape them.”
The horrors of Oct. 7 were so unnerving that the characteristic gallows humor of the Israelis has been muted. The first joke I heard, however, is tragically on point: If gaslighting is denying you said what you said …. Gaza-lighting is denying you did what you did—after broadcasting it broadly to the world.
While I don’t judge others who watched the videos to share the victims’ pain, I refused to watch the snuff and rape videos. I will not collaborate in this dehumanization process. Those who still doubt can find relevant evidence widely here and here and here and here.
That few feminists, especially gender studies professors, have denounced this familiar yet deplorable evil exposes a darkness deep in their soul. It is part of a broader scandal in higher education some are now, belatedly, starting to recognize. Call it fruits from the poisoned Ivies. For years, America’s most elite universities have been cultivating a generation of grievance junkies—dividing the world into “the oppressed,” who are forever blameless, and “the oppressors,” who are forever guilty. Those deemed “oppressors” are often accused of enjoying “privilege,” although those grade-grubbing radicals dining out on their parents’ Black AmEx card as they pay $70,000 university bills, somehow don’t count themselves as “privileged” either.
Since Oct. 7, these fanatics have emerged as Ivy League jihadis, leveraging the Palestinian brand as the world’s most oppressed and blameless people, suffering from the evils of Zionist colonialism, to silence condemnation of inhumane butchery.
The feminist blindness to these crimes is particularly outrageous given gender studies’ stated commitment to eradicating rape culture, with its silence, its skepticism, its victim-shaming, and its victim-blaming. But this violation also points to a deeper, endemic scandal the feminist movement has suppressed, namely, many radical feminists’ instinctive aversion to Jewish women and Jewish issues.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/feminists-are-consenting-to-hamas-rape-culture
*************************************************
The Crime Wave In America Is Crippling Our Nation
The cry "defund the police" ushered in a crime wave
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, crime has precipitously skyrocketed in cities across the country, as demonstrated by a recent report published by Our America. One crime in particular, retail theft, has destroyed businesses across the country, hurting consumers and businesses alike.
While shoplifting is nothing new, there is more than meets the eye with this recent trend. Progressive prosecutors who refuse to prosecute retail theft are enabling Mexican drug cartels, international money launderers, and other highly sophisticated criminal enterprises.
Leftwing reformers hold out the late surge in shoplifting as a non-problem and have refused to prosecute – or even denounce – smash-and-grabs and other brazen thefts. This policy choice, championed by prosecutors aligned with George Soros, fails to appreciate the serious role organized retail theft plays in transnational crime.
It’s a grave mistake to wave organized retail crimes away as a problem of corporate balance sheets. Much like a hub and spoke, organized retail crime is linked to the most heinous transnational criminal organizations. Investigators and industry experts are finding that these Mission Impossible style crimes are a gateway to the world’s worst criminals.
Organized retail theft is sophisticated, high-volume shoplifting that involves two basic players. “Boosters” steal products in bulk from major retailers. Boosters target high-value goods such as medication, beauty products, or power tools. “Fences” acquire stolen goods at a fraction of their retail value, then sell them at a profit.
Online marketplaces, such as eBay or Facebook Marketplace, are a common vector for redistribution of stolen goods. But sophisticated fences often present as wholesalers and sell pilfered products in bulk, sometimes even to the company from which they were stolen in the first place.
Organized retail crime supports the world’s most dangerous criminal networks. The Homeland Security Department’s ‘Operation King of Thieves’ is a case in point.
The operation targeted two closely associated retail theft rings working in Texas and neighboring states, according to a third-party report. The ring leaders, two Palestinian brothers named Yasser Ouwad and Bilal Awad, paid coyotes to smuggle boosters into the U.S. Most coyotes are agents of the drug cartels who dominate the U.S.-Mexico frontier. Boosters were made to steal for the brothers until their coyote-fee “debt” was repaid.
The rings targeted chain pharmacies and stole expensive but easily concealed products such as shaving razors and diabetic test kits. Boosters cleared shelves at as 30 stores per day across multiple states, packing products into aluminum-lined bags that defeat store alarm systems. Some thefts were more brazen, with boosters pushing shopping carts full of stolen merchandise out to a waiting car, a sight that’s become depressingly familiar.
Ring leaders hid stolen products in storage facilities before shipping them to a New England wholesaler who sold the goods back to major retailers. Authorities estimate that the brothers moved $8 million in stolen goods before they were caught.
King of Thieves investigators identified a wealthy Houston-area businessman, Mohamed Mokbel, as a fence working with the brothers. Mokbel has since been indicted in a $150 million healthcare fraud scam that targeted senior citizens.
Retail theft rings do not brush up against transnational crime by coincidence. Shoplifting sprees are a low-risk, high reward proposition for crime lords accustomed to darker trades. Stolen products also facilitate money-laundering. One advanced money-cleaning technique, called trade-based money laundering, moves value through trade transactions to disguise illicit cash.
The Associated of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMLS) describes one such scheme in this way: syndicates in the U.S. steal or fraudulently obtain cellphones from a major retailer. Thousands of phones are stockpiled, then sold to a Chinese “money broker.” This transaction is often executed via shell companies. The money broker, a free agent who facilitates money laundering, sells the phones in a different country. The proceeds from that sale are then used in any number of cash-cleaning operations for any number of unsavory characters.
These are not pesky shoplifting rings. They are international criminal enterprises integrated with elder fraud, money laundering, and traffickers in drugs and people. At the risk of stating the obvious – not all, or even most shoplifters are international criminal masterminds. But when rogue prosecutors abdicate their responsibility to enforce the law, they create the conditions in which genuinely dangerous syndicates thrive.
New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, and the Baltimore-D.C. metro area lead the nation in reported organized retail crimes by volume, according to the Coalition of Law Enforcement And Retail (CLEAR). Soros prosecutors lead LA, Philly, and Chicago. And one of Gotham’s five DAs, the infamous Alvin Bragg, was elected with Soros money.
Soros prosecutors hold themselves out as upright people with big minds and bigger hearts. But their refusal to take shoplifting seriously is a boon for the worst criminals on Earth.
****************************************************
Stop telling children they can be born in the wrong body and end the 'demonstrable attack on biological reality' by the trans lobby, demand coalition of politicians, campaigners and celebrities
Children must no longer be taught they can be born in the wrong body, a coalition of politicians, campaigners and famous names demands today.
In a major campaign, more than 80 pressure groups and public figures have come together to call for an end to the spread of gender ideology across society.
They say the NHS and private doctors must never prescribe drugs to stop young people going through puberty, and schools should never allow pupils to 'socially transition' by letting them change names, pronouns and uniforms.
Their Declaration for Biological Reality also seeks to strengthen women's rights by protecting single-sex spaces such as toilets and hospital wards, as well as banning transgender athletes from female sports.
And to defend freedom of speech they say no one should be reprimanded for saying humans cannot change sex, while public bodies such as the NHS and police must stop displaying 'ideological symbols' such as the rainbow flag.
Prominent signatories include MPs Mark Jenkinson, Nick Fletcher and Neale Hanvey, peer Baroness Fox of Buckley, Olympic athletes Sharron Davies and Mara Yamauchi, plus comedy writer Graham Linehan and pioneering headmistress Katherine Birbalsingh.
Writing in the Mail, declaration co-ordinator James Esses says: 'All signatories are united by their desire to uphold biological reality in society. This is not about Left or Right. It is about right and wrong.'
The rallying cry comes amid bitter disputes in courts, Parliament, the public sector and on social media over the belief that self-described gender identity is more important than biological sex.
The declaration begins: 'Over recent years, there has been a demonstrable attack on biological reality in the United Kingdom.
This has skewed public policy and discourse in favour of an ideology that has no scientific basis and which poses safeguarding risks to some of the most vulnerable groups.'
Ministers have attempted a fightback with plans to rewrite the Equality Act to make it clear that the term sex is based on biology rather than gender identity.
Last week the Labour-run Welsh government was accused of trying to introduce gender self-ID by the back door.
And Scotland's Court of Session has ruled that a transgender woman who obtains a Gender Recognition Certificate is a woman under equality law, a decision which campaigners say means biological males can be considered lesbians.
*******************************************************
Why rule of law can’t be sacrificed to secure conviction
Does anything justify putting innocent people in jail? That is the big risk when we drop standards
Why do so many cases of sexual abuse fail? Many fail because they were weak cases in the first place that were pursued only for reasons of political correctness.
A case that boils down only to she says/he says should not be prosecuted but if the allegation gets publicity few prosecutors would refuse to prosecute -- lest they be accused of covering up an injustice
In Australia, the Higgins/Lehrman case was an example of that, and prosecuter Drumgold was an example of a politicaly correct prosecutor. In the end, Drumgold was the only one penalized, which was justice of a sort
Improving outcomes for sexual assault victims will not be achieved by diminishing the fundamental foundations of the rule of law.
As Walter Sofronoff KC recently observed, when it comes to addressing allegations of sexual assault, there are two separate but parallel systems operating: the victim support system and the criminal justice system.
In the former, accepting without challenge what a victim asserts, using language such as “victim-survivor”, “her truth” and “believe all women” often will be necessary and appropriate in that therapeutic environment to provide the best emotional, financial and other supports needed by victims of sexual violence.
However, when an allegation of sexual assault leads to a criminal investigation or prosecution, the fundamentals of the criminal justice system must be maintained.
This includes the presumption of innocence, the obligation of the prosecution to prove a criminal allegation beyond reasonable doubt and the right of an accused to remain silent.
Much recent debate in this area has ignored the significant differences and purposes of these systems and focused on raising low conviction rates, which are often quoted as being about or below 20 per cent.
These statistics generally ignore all the allegations resolved by pleas of guilty.
Proposals have included better education (and re-education) of judges and lawyers, abandoning trial by jury and standing up specialist sexual assault courts staffed with specially trained judges and advocates where (presumably) more guilty verdicts will be returned.
Such “reforms”, even if made with good intentions, would pave the way to a drastic erosion of the rule of law in this country.
If two convictions for every 10 trials is unacceptable, what number would be deemed acceptable? Fifty per cent? Eighty per cent?
Presumably to those who subscribe to the “believe all women” philosophy in the criminal justice system as well as in the victim assistance space, anything less than 100 per cent would be unacceptable.
Which, then, of those three or eight people found not guilty in this sample should have been found guilty? And why? Because it is implicit in these proposals that if we are to achieve some arbitrary acceptable metric, like a 50 per cent conviction rate, then at least two or three more not guilty verdicts should’ve been guilty verdicts.
Eighteenth-century jurist William Blackstone wrote, “It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” The principle behind this statement finds voice in concepts such as the presumption of innocence, and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Do we as a liberal democratic society still subscribe to this principle? Or are we content to allow some innocent people to suffer the consequences of a wrongful conviction (and their loved ones and dependents necessarily as well)? Do we relax or abrogate the presumption of innocence or the standard of proof only in sexual assault prosecutions or across the board?
Is this visceral (and justifiable) desire to better recognise the failures of the past, to acknowledge and address the alarming levels of sexual and domestic violence and abuse in this country, justify us essentially adopting a warlike footing where collateral damage is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of winning the war? For some advocates the answer appears to be a resounding yes. Presumably though, qualified to the extent that they, or their partner, father, brother, relative, friend, colleague etc isn’t among the putative innocents to be subjected to this form of collective punishment.
Experienced criminal lawyers across this country lament that prosecutors will rarely (if ever) decline to prosecute an allegation of sexual assault. Recently the media has reported examples of sexual assault prosecutions that, on any objective assessment, were doomed to fail.
While there may be cases of juries deciding the case having relied on rape myths – such as a genuine victim would say no or fight back or complain immediately, or a genuine victim would not go out in those clothes or to those places – I suggest these are rare.
Modern juries give little credence to such ignorant and outdated propositions. Judges are now particularly vigilant to identify and direct juries from engaging in such reasoning.
There are certainly cases where police could and should have done more thorough investigation and where a failure to secure crucial evidence may well have led to an acquittal. But the most significant factor in explaining why we have such low conviction rates among sexual assault prosecutions is that prosecutors insist on running cases that have no reasonable prospect of succeeding.
“Let the court decide” is an all too familiar refrain from prosecutors around the country who are not prepared to make the difficult decision not to prosecute an allegation of sexual assault even when it is apparent there is no realistic prospect of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether this is because of a fear of being criticised by a vocal complainant, interest group or the media is difficult to know.
Not proceeding to prosecute a particular allegation of sexual assault should not and does not have any impact on that complainant’s capacity to receive support from victims of crime services. It does not mean the prosecutor does not believe the complainant. It is simply a consequence of the obligation to prosecute only cases that have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. Even assuming there is a public interest in prosecuting every allegation of sexual assault, the overriding obligation remains not to prosecute any person on a charge unless there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.
Every jurisdiction has some variation of the “reasonable prospects” test. In the ACT section 2.4 of the Prosecution Policy provides: “The decision to prosecute can be understood as a two-stage process. First, does the evidence offer reasonable prospects of conviction? If so, is it in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution.
In any 10 sexual assault prosecutions at least four of those 10 cases are pursued without any reasonable prospects.
Apart from imposing significant financial and emotional tolls on the accused person, the prosecution of these cases also means the complainant will go through an unnecessarily stressful and traumatic trial process.
In addition, it’s likely at least one of the remaining six cases might have been successful if police had undertaken a better investigation. On this analysis, three of the six cases that met the reasonable prospects test would have resulted in guilty verdicts – giving a conviction rate of 50 per cent. A more than doubling of the current rate without resorting to re-education camps for lawyers and judges, specialist tribunals or abolishing juries.
Higher conviction rates in sexual assault prosecutions can be achieved without entering into a Faustian-like pact with the devil; in this case a bargain in which the soul of the rule of law is sold into damnation on the promise of higher conviction rates.
****************************************
6 November, 2023
Navigating the Storm: The Unseen Impact of Soaring Interest Rates on Everyday Consumers
As we stand on the cusp of what may be a new era in our economic landscape, marked by soaring interest rates, it's not just the commercial real estate sector or big-time investors who should brace for impact. This shift is a red flag for average consumers, households across the nation, and anyone who relies on credit for their day-to-day expenses. With three decades in commercial real estate, I've seen how financial ebbs and flows can alter lives. Consumers have a right to know how this impending surge in rates is rippling across their lives.
The core CPI's recent spike isn't merely a data point for economists to ponder; it heralds a potential tightening of financial conditions that is reaching into every wallet and every home. As rates climb, the effects permeate every corner of the economy. Loans for cars, education, and homes are becoming more expensive and out of reach for many people. Credit card rates have risen, and the dream of homeownership has slipped further away for many. This isn't just a matter of higher payments; it's about the very real possibility of consumers finding themselves with less disposable income, facing heftier debt burdens, and potentially curtailing their spending — all of which are indicators of a slowing economy.
Consider the household with existing debt, a reality for many Americans. As interest rates continue to rise, so does the cost of servicing that debt. What was once a manageable monthly payment has inflated, leaving less income for savings, essentials, or the occasional luxury. This scenario is a looming reality for individuals already grappling with debt or those not being able to make ends meet and living paycheck to paycheck.
Recent data is startling: Rates on 30-year fixed mortgages have surged, now teetering around 8%+, a stark increase from the 3% enjoyed during the last decade. This leap is the highest we've seen since December 2000, bringing us closer to a reality where 8% mortgage rates are the norm, not the exception. The repercussions of this uptrend are not just numbers on a paper; they translate into significant financial strain on households across the nation.
Let's put this into perspective. A comparative analysis by FOX Business highlighted the profound difference a mere percentage increase can make. If you were to take out a mortgage now, with rates nearing 8%, you could end up paying hundreds of dollars more monthly compared to a mortgage with a 3.09% rate from just two years ago. Over the lifespan of a 30-year loan, this difference could add up to an eye-watering $400,000. Presently, a median-priced home could see mortgage payments soaring to approximately $2,720 per month, a steep climb from the more manageable $1,581 just a couple of years prior.
The ripple effects of these swelling rates are multi-faceted. For one, they're throttling consumer demand. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported a significant plummet in mortgage applications, hitting their lowest since 1995. On the supply side, homeowners are hesitant to sell, wary of relinquishing their low-rate mortgages amidst this spike. This reluctance contributes to a stark housing shortage, with available home supply down a staggering 45.1% from pre-COVID-19 levels.
But it's not all doom and gloom. Times of economic strain also present opportunities to build resilience. High interest rates can foster a culture of savings, as people seek to avoid costly debt. They can inspire more cautious borrowing, with individuals weighing the true cost of a loan more carefully. For investors, these times are stark reminders of why a diversified portfolio is key in weathering market vicissitudes.
Yet, none of this diminishes the need for vigilance and proactive planning. Now is the time for consumers to reassess their financial health: to review and adjust budgets, strategize to reduce debt, and perhaps most critically, to build an emergency fund if they haven’t already. Caution is also warranted when considering new debts, as the cost of borrowing is on an upward trajectory.
The prospect of high interest rates is undeniably challenging, but it's not insurmountable. I believe in our collective ability to navigate this storm. With informed, proactive strategies, consumers can manage these financial challenges and potentially emerge even stronger. Every economic cycle, with its highs and lows, imparts valuable lessons; our task is to learn and adapt, ensuring we're better prepared for the next turn of the tide.
**************************************************
Country Singer Calls Out TikTok for Flagging New Song Mentioning Bible as 'Sensitive,' Banning Ads
Cody Webb is a country music artist who is a Christian—not to be confused with a Christian music artist, he says.
This simply means he makes country music and happens to believe in God.
It’s an important distinction because when he released his latest song in August, “If Daddy Didn’t Have a Truck,” he got a notification on TikTok pertaining to its “sensitive” religious content.
Mr. Webb, 35, was trying to promote his new song on said mega platform when the message popped up: “Not Delivering.”
The notification explained:
This video either can’t be promoted or can’t receive full traffic for the following reasons: The ad or video features sensitive religious content. This could include disrespectful actions, words, or symbols toward a religion.
He said he still cannot place ads on the post with his new song.
Days later, Mr. Webb made a video of himself and shared with the world what happened: "I’ve been chewing on this for a minute now, and I’d like to put it out there,” he is heard saying in his car before going on to read said notification.
He afterward told his followers: The last thing I want to do is be divisive. I don’t want to try to force people to believe how I believe, or force people to think how I think. I believe we all have the freedom to be who we are.
The song “If Daddy Didn’t Have a Truck” expresses who he is, and he subsequently fell in love with it for that reason. Speaking to The Epoch Times, Mr. Webb told what that means to him as a country singer and a Christian.
“All it's really saying is, I wouldn't be who I am if mama didn't have a Bible and daddy didn't have a truck,” the artist said. He vocalized some of the lyrics to flesh out the idea:
I'd never known Jesus love me,
Fell in love with kicking up dirt,
I’d never known how forgiveness or a carburetor works,
Only the good Lord knows where a good old boy like me,
Might have wound up,
If mama didn't have a Bible,
Daddy didn't have a truck.
Mr. Webb’s life began in a tiny town, then of only 800 people, called Ridge Spring in South Carolina, where his mom led a choir in a Baptist church, and his dad played in a Southern band. Mr. Webb first headlined with his dad’s band at a local poultry festival at age 12.
“We weren't playing what was on the radio at the time,” he told us, adding that they instead preferred the music of the Nolan Brothers, George Jones, Hank Williams Jr., Waylon Jennings, and other Southern rock classics.
Years later, after graduating from Clemson University, he took his singing career to the next stage in 2014 by moving to Nashville.
“My strategy was to save up as much money as I could and figure out how to move there,” he said. “I didn't want to move there and be broke and have to get a job. I wanted to be a full-time songwriter.”
Mr. Webb then came full circle by returning to headline at the very same poultry festival, having become a seasoned and modestly successful Nashville country singer. More than anything else, though, he's a Christian—the Baptist church was his life.
Mr. Webb notes the irony of how “If Daddy Didn’t Have a Truck” went viral after—perhaps because—he named TikTok for its censorship, yet he still finds it unnerving. He worries what will become of future generations if Big Tech controls how people think—particularly younger people. “I’m not saying I’ve been hurt by this [censorship], but I am worried about it for my daughter, who’s 4 years old,” he said.
The song has now been viewed millions of times, he said, exceeding in downloads all of his other songs over the last several years combined.
“I couldn’t imagine growing up with all these platforms, Instagram, TikTok, all this stuff to influence my life,” he said. “I’m at an age, I’m pretty grounded and know who I am—I’m not going to change much.
“But, man, when you’re in middle school or high school, you’re still figuring out who you are; these platforms are starting to try to control what you see.”
He said, “It’s going to make a big impact on our future generations. ... That’s what really scares me, I think it struck a nerve with a lot of people.”
The vast majority of the thousands of comments the singer has received in response to his post echoed his sentiment—some were outraged, some saddened—while a handful were negative or called him out, he said.
His calling out TikTok isn’t the first accusation against Big Tech for suppressing religious content. Worship leader and Christian music songwriter Sean Feucht blamed Twitter and Instagram for shutting down an account that shared Bible verses “about peace.”
The real model for online religious censorship has been communist China, where even the streaming of Christian services has been disabled by authorities.
Moving back to North Carolina, the country music artist now walks a fine line. On one hand, it’s his job to attract more listeners; on the other, he wants to truthfully express who he is through his music.
When asked if he would stop singing lyrics with Christian content, he answered, “Absolutely not.”
Meanwhile, he's “tried to stay out of politics,” he told us. “I don’t think of myself as extreme right or left or any of that.
****************************************************
Defund SJP and deport Hamas-supporting visitors
When Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered more than 1,300 men, women and children dead, Students for Justice in Palestine promptly organized rallies across U.S. college campuses, heralding the murderers as “liberation fighters” showing the “creativity necessary” to accomplish their mission.
But on this so-called “Day of Resistance,” the SJP went far beyond just celebrating the odious massacre dubbed Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. In the official information "toolkit" issued to coordinate these rallies, the SJP proclaimed: “Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.”
In response to this overt admission of being “PART of” this Hamas movement to eradicate the Jewish state of Israel, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) instructed the Florida public university system to deactivate campus chapters of National Students for Justice in Palestine. The governor also demanded deportation of Hamas-supporting students.
Both the governor’s order and his demand are prudent, lawful and constitutional.
In ordering the deactivation of SJP chapters, DeSantis cited Florida state law making it a felony to “knowingly provide material support … to a designated foreign terrorist organization." The U.S. Department of State designated Hamas as a Foreign Terror Organization (FTO) in 1997. To repeat, SJP claims not just to stand “in solidarity with” those who are committing the atrocities against Israeli but to be “PART of this movement.” The governor seeks to enforce existing state law.
Make no mistake. Withholding material support (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act) for an entity claiming to be part of the Hamas’ Operation Al-Aqsa Flood terror campaign does NOT suppress free-speech rights. Individual students remain free to espouse their Jew hatred and to applaud both the means and aims of Hamas — vile though they are.
However, universities must cease providing SJP access to university facilities, storage units, student government funding, catering services, participation in student fairs, space to hang flyers, and access to staff and leadership training. It is appalling that university resources across other parts of the nation continue to freely flow to SJP.
Ongoing funding of SJP also violates civil rights law. Jewish students must be accorded the same civil rights protection as every other racial and ethnic group — no more, no more less. University-sponsored or enabled discrimination — including toleration of antisemitic (including anti-Zionist) behavior that goes beyond the bounds of free speech — must stop.
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. But when antisemitic activity breaches these bounds, universities must comply with their obligations under the Civil Rights Act. Sadly, many universities fail to prevent or respond properly to non-constitutionally protected antisemitic activity.
For years, SJP members have engaged in unlawful practices, including a prolonged interruption in 2019 of a Vassar College event focused on the indigenous Jews of the Middle East — lambasting the audience with chants of “from the river to the sea” — the Hamas call for the genocide of Jews living in the Jewish homeland between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea.
In addition to defunding SJP chapters, it’s prudent to deport foreign students here on student visas who are “activist” members of SJP and other pro-Hamas student organizations. We’ve seen numerous examples of hate-filled student organizations treating Gazan paragliders who slaughtered more than 200 Israelis at a music festival as honorable heroes and encouraging even more violent “resistance” to Israel’s existence.
The Immigration and Nationality Act specifies that "any alien who endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization … is inadmissible." Immigration law also deems inadmissible anyone “whose entry or proposed activities in the Unites States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious and adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Some mistakenly rely on a 1945 Supreme Court case — Bridges v. Wixon — to argue the Constitution prohibits deportation on such grounds. At the time, the law required deportation of those affiliated with the Communist Party. The majority opinion overtly refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of deportation based on Communist Party affiliation.
Instead, the majority held the deportation unlawful because of a “misconstruction of the term of [Communist Party] affiliation” and an “unfair hearing” related to Harry Bridges’ membership in the Communist Party. So, no, this case does not provide a legal argument for permitting Hamas celebrants to remain in the United States.
We lawfully CAN deport Hamas supporters. As a matter of prudent public policy, such deportations must become reality.
As for Hamas-supporting student organizations: No more free pizza, meeting spaces and marketing courtesy of decent, hard-working taxpayers. Defund SJP, and deport supporters of terror NOW.
******************************************************
Australia: Police investigate Islamic preacher ‘Brother Ismail’ over Hamas, jihad comments
A southwest Sydney religious centre has refused to condemn a preacher who delivered a radical sermon that called on Muslims to wage jihad, declared Australia hypocritical for labelling Hamas’s massacre of innocent Israelis as terrorism and claimed Anthony Albanese had “dirtied” a mosque with “lies”.
The comments, revealed by The Australian, are now the subject of a NSW Police investigation and have been slammed by political and Jewish leaders.
“Brother Ismail” gave a sermon at Al Madina Dawah Centre in southwest Sydney after the October 7 massacre in Israel, taking aim at the Prime Minister, the government, and Islamic leaders who had criticised jihadi groups, as well as calling jihad the “solution”.
He also called Australia “hypocrites” for describing Hamas as terrorists but forgetting about its own “dark” colonial past.
“There is no other way to defend Muslims … they are looking forward to joining the mujahideen,” said Brother Ismail, whose full name has not been disclosed.
An Al Madina Dawah Centre spokesman refused to condemn Ismail’s comments, saying Palestine’s Muslims “unequivocally” had “every right to defend themselves”.
“Our centre, and the entire Muslim community, stand by anything that is authenticity quoted from the Koran and Sunnah,” the spokesman said.
He said the government had “marginalised Australia’s Muslim community by aiding Israel against innocent Palestinian people”. “(There are) double standards that allows dual Australian and Israeli citizens to participate in the current conflict freely, without the Jewish community ever feeling being pushed to the corner,” the spokesman said. Ismail said in his sermon that those Hamas terrorists who committed the October 7 attack on Israel were not terrorists, but “freedom fighters”. “That hypocrite Albanese … came and dirtied one of the mosques … putting the mouth of hypocrisy and lies to Muslims, (saying) that we love and respect Muslims,” he said.
“Allah exposed his lies when he (Mr Albanese) said Israel had the right to defend itself and labelled Hamas as terrorists.”
Ismail said the nation was collectively “hypocrites” for calling Hamas terrorists while, he said, forgetting its “dark” history.
“Did you really forget what your ancestors did to the country’s Indigenous people,” he said.
“How they killed them, how they chained them like dogs … did you forget that you celebrate every year a massacre you did to the Indigenous people. “You want to come and teach us about morals?”
Ismail threatened that such moves could risk the safety of Australia’s “security system”.
“When you start labelling Muslims as terrorists, you are pushing us into a corner,” he said.
“You are creating a test for the national security system, we will not back down …”
Ismail dared the government to deport him for his comments. “If the government or ASIO like it or not, if they want to deport me or not – jihad is the solution for the Ummah (the Islamic community)…” he said.
****************************************
5 November, 2023
Israel-Hamas War Keeps Getting Sicker
Victor Davis Hanson
There is something surreal, even sick about the current Israel-Hamas war.
Throughout European and American cities and campuses, tens of thousands of Middle East immigrants and students, and radical leftists chant nonstop, “Free Palestine from the River to the Sea.”
More recently, they are also yelling, “Israel, you can’t hide, we caught you in genocide.”
Consider the hypocrisy of that dual messaging.
Hamas and its supporters are openly and eagerly calling for the genocidal end of Israel by wiping it out from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Yet at the same time they also claim it is Israel that is committing genocide—the very current, self-described agenda of Hamas and its expatriate community of devotees!
The war has become crazier still.
Hamas and its megaphones abroad also blast Israel daily for retaliating for the Oct. 7 butchery of some 1,400 Israeli infants, children, women, and the elderly.
They further demand Israel must be selective in its airborne targeting of the Hamas killers, who burrow beneath hospitals and mosques while using civilians as shields.
Hamas takes for granted that a supposedly heartless Israel nevertheless will be reluctant to strike the Hamas terrorists when and if they are surrounded by civilians.
Indeed, Gazans are put in more danger by Hamas than they would otherwise be by the Israel Defense Forces.
Yet the world accepts that Israel itself would never employ such a ruse of using civilians to shield its cities from indiscriminately fired Hamas missiles.
The world further knows that if Israel ever employed such a barbaric tactic, Israeli civilian shields would attract—not deter—Hamas rockets.
Hamas’ apologists insist that Israel warn civilians in advance to keep clear of Israeli bombs.
Yet at the same time, Hamas daily launches rockets into Israel. And no one in the international community lectures Hamas first to drop leaflets or text Israeli civilians that Hamas rockets are on their way into their vicinity.
Instead, the only purpose of Hamas rockets is to indiscriminately strike and kill Israeli civilians.
So the real issue is not about the principle of civilian deaths—given Israel is damned when it tries to avoid noncombatants and Hamas is cheered on when it deliberately targets them.
Instead, the asymmetry is explained by the efficacy of the Israeli response and impotence of Hamas rocketry.
In other words, Hamas cannot stop the Israel Defense Forces from hitting its targets, while Israel can knock down far more Hamas rockets.
And so Israel is being blamed for being too effective or “disproportionate” in its bombing, and Hamas is rewarded for being too ineffective in its rocketing.
There are other sick paradoxes in this war.
Hamas started the conflict by sending death squads of 2,000 killers into Israel at a time of peace to surprise and murder more than 1,000 Israeli civilians.
There was no precivilizational, unspeakable atrocity that the butchers did not commit—torture, beheading, rape, mutilation, and necrophilia.
The terrorists were followed into Israel by a multitude of opportunistic Gaza civilians, who in turn joined in the violence and looting.
Back in Gaza, crowds reviled and tried to harm Israeli captives bound as hostages to trade for jailed terrorists in Israel.
In sum, the population that once elected Hamas into power, and cheered on its bloodletting—as long as there was yet no Israeli response—now claims to have no connection at all with Hamas. Yet the world assumes correctly that the people of Israel are inseparable from its military.
The surreal paradoxes of this war still do not end there.
In its mass murdering spree of Oct. 7, Hamas butchered more than 30 American citizens, and perhaps another 13 still are unaccounted for—and are likely hostages inside the tunnels of Hamas in Gaza.
Yet the Biden administration has not forced Hamas to return kidnapped Americans, much less responded to its killing of U.S. citizens.
Why then, despite all the rhetoric of solidarity, is the United States constantly pressuring Israel to be measured in its retaliation against the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, pressure that will only make things easier on Hamas?
Why are we seeking to restrain those who are trying to destroy the killers of Americans, and indirectly aiding those who murdered them?
And why is the global elite community siding with the murderous aggressors and not those seeking justice for the murdered?
Lots of reasons.
There are 500 million Arabs in the world, and nearly 2 billion Muslims—but only 9 million or so Israelis.
Nearly 50% of the world’s oil reserves are found in the Muslim Middle East.
Westerners, like tiny Israel, are considered too rich and powerful, while non-Westerners are romanticized as blameless, victimized underdogs.
But the best way of understanding this sick war is that Israelis are Jews and the ancient plague of antisemitism is again sweeping the globe.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/03/one-sick-war
*********************************************
Boston Children’s Hospital Received $1.4 Million In Taxpayer Dollars For ‘Gender Transition Services’
Boston Children’s Hospital was reimbursed $1.4 million by the state of Massachusetts for its “gender transition services” from January 2015 to May 2023, according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation through a public records request.
Boston Children’s Hospital, which claims to have created the first pediatric and adolescent transgender health program in the country, was hit with heavy backlash in 2022 for performing gender transition surgeries on minors, including vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, chest reconstruction and breast augmentation, according to a since-deleted website. The Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) of Massachusetts told the DCNF on July 25 that it paid the hospital over $1.4 million for “Gender transition services (i.e., physician’s services, inpatient and outpatient, hospital services, surgical services, prescribed drugs, therapies, etc.)” from January 1, 2015, to May 1, 2023.
The hospital performed 204 “gender affirmation” surgeries from 2017 to 2020, the same time as the EOHHS funding, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. 177 were chest reconstruction surgeries, and 65 of those surgeries were for patients under 18 years old.
Boston Children’s “Center for Gender Surgery” web page, which has since been removed, contained dozens of videos discussing gender dysphoria, transgender sex, “top” and “bottom” surgery, and even a how-to guide for talking to friends and family about the subject, according to an archived version of the page. The website stated that “surgery is never the first step in a gender transition” and suggested that newer patients start with socially transitioning and “supplemental hormones.”
Patients as young as 15 years old could obtain breast or chest augmentation provided they have their parent’s consent and a letter from a “medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have ‘persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria,'” according to the website.
Boston Children’s also offered vaginoplasty surgeries to 17-year-olds without any parental consent, but said that it would only perform a phalloplasty or a metoidioplasty, which are surgeries to construct a penis, on patients 18 years or older, according to its website.
The hospital did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding whether or not taxpayer funding was used for transgender surgeries for minors. The public records response did not provide any further explanation regarding the specific “gender transition services” for which the state had reimbursed the hospital.
The hospital’s “Gender Multispeciality Service” website explains that it is “committed to providing the best care for ALL of our patients, regardless of their gender identity” and that children should get the support they need to “live, grow and thrive with love and support.”
“We believe in a gender-affirmative model of care, which supports transgender and gender diverse youth in the gender in which they identify,” the hospital wrote. “This is a standard of care grounded in scientific evidence, demonstrating its benefits to the health and well-being of transgender and gender diverse youth.”
The hospital currently offers a “Transgender Reproductive Health” program where patients can get help with menstrual suppression, including egg freezing and sperm banking, and contraception counseling. The program also does “gender-affirming hysterectomies” but only on patients that are 18 and older, according to the website. If a transgender patient has already had a vaginoplasty, the hospital offers “dilation therapy and care of neovaginas” as well.
On a resources page, the hospital suggests that male teenagers can use things like duct tape for “safe tucking” in order to give the appearance of having a vagina. While the hospital notes that tape is not the recommended method, it lays out steps to use it safely and provides images to demonstrate.
The number of U.S. teenagers getting transgender surgeries has increased over the last several years, according to a study published by the JAMA Network, a medical journal. Surgeries for Americans aged 12 to 40 almost tripled between 2016 and 2019 from 4,552 to 13,011, with minors making up 3,678 of the procedures. The study also noted that just over 25% of patients obtaining gender transition procedures did so using state-funded insurance through Medicaid.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/30/childrens-hospital-transgender-services
***********************************************
Italy Joins Hungary as European Leader in Pro-Life, Pro-Family Policies
Italy is announcing a new initiative to raise the nation’s flagging birthrate. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government approved a new budget last week, setting aside 1 billion euros (nearly $1.1 billion) in funding to support mothers and families, in an effort to boost the national birthrate.
Some of those measures include increased financial aid to working mothers with two or more children, increased government funding for day care facilities, and extended parental leave. Meloni, herself a working mother, said, “We want to dismantle the narrative that birthrate is a disincentive to work. We want to incentivize those who give birth to children and want to work.”
The prime minister added:
We want to establish that a woman who gives birth to at least two children has already made an important contribution to society, and therefore, the state partly compensates by paying social security contributions.
Italy’s birthrate is currently one of the lowest in Europe. At the end of the 19th century, the Italian birthrate was 5.06 children per woman, but since the 1970s, the birthrate has declined rapidly, dropping from about 2.66 children per woman at the end of the 1960s to 1.24 in 2020, and the population’s average age has increased, with 20% of the population being over the age of 65.
In addition to the measures noted above, Italian Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti implemented a plan earlier this year to adjust tax breaks so taxpayers with children can keep more of their paychecks. He also announced plans to offer income-tax deductions for families: Those with one child may deduct 2,500 euros ($2,641) from their taxes; those with two children may deduct 10,000 euros ($10,567), and those with more than two children may deduct an additional 2,500 euros ($2,641) per child.
When Meloni came to power as prime minister last year with the slogan “Dio, patria, famiglia” (God, fatherland, family), she pledged to make Italian families and the nation’s birthrate priorities for her administration. In order to achieve that goal, Meloni established a Ministry for Family and Birth, telling Italians that it is “time to rediscover the beauty of parenting.”
Meloni has made family—not just birthrates—a chief focus. She opposes abortion, which is currently legal in Italy during the first 90 days of pregnancy, and same-sex marriage, which is not legally recognized in Italy. Under Meloni’s administration, same-sex partners have also been banned from being listed as parents on a child’s birth certificate; the new laws require both biological parents to be named.
Surrogacy, which Meloni called “an abomination that seeks to reduce human life to a bargaining chip,” is also illegal in Italy, and the prime minister has introduced legislation in Parliament to criminalize Italians seeking surrogacies abroad.
According to Meloni, her government is turning to conservative-led Hungary for inspiration in bolstering families. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been working hard since coming to power in 2010 to support families in his country and increase birthrates, implementing a slew of pro-family policies. Last year, for example, Orbán exempted mothers under 30 from paying income tax.
Previously, the conservative prime minister introduced government subsidies for large families and granted tiered tax breaks for mothers. His party also passed a law requiring women seeking an abortion to listen to their unborn baby’s heartbeat before making a decision, although the party has proven unsuccessful in its attempts to completely outlaw abortion.
Speaking in the Hungarian capital of Budapest last month, Meloni declared, “I think a great battle for somebody who is defending humankind and the rights of people is also to defend families, is also to defend nations, is also to defend identity, is also to defend God and all the things that have built our civilization.”
The policies she and her Hungarian counterpart have enacted are clearly designed to uphold that mantra.
Meloni’s new budget also cuts payroll taxes across the nation, netting an estimated 14 million Italians an extra €100 ($106) per month.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/10/30/italy-devotes-1-1-billion-to-bolstering-families-children
*************************************************
Tracking men likely to kill: The radical proposal after five women dead in nine days
The proposal below is way over the top. It is a basic principle of natural justice that you cannot punish people for things that they have not done. That someone thinks you MIGHT do something does not alter that.
The big deficit in the article below is that it shows no real understanding of the psychology behind domestic homicide. What women need to be told is that rejection by a woman can be deeply and dangerously distressing to a man, engendering a huge sense of loss. And that can make him very angry with the perceived perpetrator of the loss. And anger very commonly results in violence.
So for a woman to save her life she may need to compromise with the rejected man in some way, difficult though that may be. At a minimum, she could offer a guarantee of continued friendship, even if cohabitation is no longer possible.
In short, to save their lives, women may need to be acutely aware of the huge pain rejection can lead to in some men. It is really important for the man not to feel completely cut off. Sorry if that is not the authoritarian solution the nitwits below were looking for. Human problems require human solutions, not ankle monitors
Men flagged as potential killers would be GPS-tracked and monitored online under a radical proposal family violence experts want governments to consider after five women were killed in nine days.
As despair mounts about the failure to curb the numbers of Australian women seriously injured or allegedly killed by men, experts are calling for more direct intervention with “fixated” men – who stalk, harass, monitor or threaten intimate partners, but may not yet have offended.
They say a program designed in the UK to protect public figures, which is now also being trialled there for potential domestic violence perpetrators, should be introduced and trialled in Australia to de-escalate potential violence against women.
It would involve intelligence gathering by specialist police to find and observe men, possibly including GPS tracking of them and monitoring their online and social media activities, and bringing them in if their behaviour indicated they had moved into a violence-planning stage.
Experts including violence researcher Dr Hayley Boxall, formerly of the Australian Institute of Criminology and now with ANU, say rather than working with offenders to reform their behaviours after violence has commenced, more direct methods such as this could help stop violence before it happens.
National Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin said the proposal, included in Boxall’s homicide research for Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), is worth considering given the “devastating” deaths of women in Australia this year.
The spate of women’s alleged murders around the country had distressed her deeply, and “it is very clear this year we’ve seen rates [of violence against women] increasing, not rates decreasing”.
“That’s what keeps me up at night; what is it we can do that will shift the dial?” said Cronin from the Northern Territory, where she will attend a landmark coronial inquest on Monday into the violent deaths of four Aboriginal women, allegedly by domestic partners.
Women including Perth family lawyer Alice McShera, 34; Bendigo mother-of-four Analyn “Logee” Osias, 46; and Lilie James, a 21-year-old water polo coach at a Sydney private school, all died violently between October 25 and 29.
Men have been charged in the cases of Osias and McShera and are on or awaiting trial, but the suspected killer of James was found dead by police.
In 2023, 43 women have allegedly been killed in domestic and family violence incidents, along with 11 children.
The number of women who have died in intimate partner homicide per year in Australia has hovered about 68 since 1989-90, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows, and intimate partner homicide is the country’s most common form of homicide.
This week the Australian Institute of Family Studies found one in three Australian teenagers had experienced intimate partner violence, and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics released data showing rates of domestic and family violence had not decreased in the last 12 years.
‘What we need to do in this country more is to really understand, and focus on, the men who kill women and use violence against women.’
“What we know from Australian Institute of Criminology research [the Pathways to Intimate Partner Homicide] is that there are pathways into perpetration … and what we need to do in this country more is to really understand, and focus on, the men who kill women and use violence against women,” she said.
“We’ve moved women around, removed women from their homes to safe houses, we tell women not to go walking at night; all the attention is on what women can do to keep themselves safe rather than holding men who use violence accountable.”
Boxall’s proposal to introduce a system of monitoring and intervening with men who had not yet committed violence, but whose actions suggested they were likely to, “could be worth exploring”.
One-third of perpetrators of intimate partner homicides in Australia fit the “fixated threat” category of men who have not previously come to the attention of the justice system, Boxall found.
“Despite being jealous, controlling and abusive in their relationships, (fixated threat) offenders were relatively functional in other domains of their life,” she wrote.
“In many cases they were typically middle-class men who were well respected in their communities and had low levels of contact with the criminal justice system.“
She found their behaviours escalated as the victim was perceived to withdraw from the relationship.
Boxall said a dedicated family violence Fixated Threat Assessment program, staffed by specialist intelligence-gathering police, would help to “keep eyes” on such men and allow police to gauge if and when they may pose a lethal threat.
Many men who go on to commit murder, but had not yet used violence, did show signs that could have helped prevent deaths, Boxall said. Dedicated threat assessment structures could give bystanders a way to get interventions started.
“In 25 per cent of cases, the perpetrator [of intimate partner homicide] has told friends and family members he was going to murder his partner,” Boxall said.
“In a number of cases there was evidence this was followed up with a police report: in one case, he [the eventual perpetrator] told his golf buddies, ‘I’m going to kill her by smashing her head in with a golf club’, and he did it a few months later – but nobody had done anything.”
“We think we know that guys who will murder their partner look a certain way; but these are guys living among us.”
The death of Lilie James highlighted that progress is needed to understand who is capable of violence against their partner, and a more sophisticated threat assessment would be a tangible way to help find out.
Professor Michael Flood, a researcher sociologist at Queensland University of Technology who has written about engaging men and boys in violence prevention, agreed with Cronin and Boxhall that earlier intervention with men at risk of murdering their partners or ex-partners is “entirely warranted”.
He agreed that the focus had been primarily on victims and how they could avoid victimisation, and far more effort needed to be placed on changing young men’s attitudes towards women.
National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women Survey data had revealed this year that, “a substantial proportion, particularly of young men, think it’s legitimate for men to dominate women in relationships,” he said.
“There is still a level of social tolerance of dominance and abuse in relationships that we have to address.” This would mean more education on healthy masculinity, and “the way harmful forms of masculinity feed into perpetration … we still need to scale the work with men and boys up much more”.
On the ground, police forces in New South Wales and Victoria have made strong, one-off family-violence blitzes this year, in which hundreds of people, many with outstanding warrants, were charged with various offences including weapons, firearm and drug offences.
But existing fixated threat assessment is focused on lone-actor, “grievance-fuelled violence” perpetrators such as terror offenders, not family violence prevention.
“Police will of course act if we identify a threat to any individual including a current or former partner,” a Victoria Police spokesman said. There are no plans to create a similar centre specifically for family violence.
“Any decisions around fitting trackers to family violence offenders is a matter for government,” the spokesman said. “Police see the devastating impact of family violence every day.”
****************************************
3 November, 2023
Unrealism in Modern Dating
I have a story that rather reinforces what the wise woman below says:
I was sitting in a Wimpy restaurant in Kings Cross years ago having some late lunch. There were no other customers about so I overheard the two waitresses talking to one-another. Discussing relationships, one of them said "I'm waitingfor my millionaire". So who and what was she? She was short, overweight and with short bleach-blonde hair. Millionaires have choices and none would choose her. But she seemed to believe that she had prospects of partnering with a millionaire. Extraordinary unrealism
When I was in college, a woman a few years older than me gave me this piece of advice. “You deserve a 10. Don’t settle for less.”
So — what exactly is a 10? Whenever I ask single women what they want in a partner, it usually sounds something like this:
“First, I have to be attracted to him. He should be tall, have good hair, and a fit body. Lots of other girls should find him cute, but he shouldn’t have a ton of exes or a high body count, cause he’s gonna need to be loyal and committed to me.
Oh, and he needs to have a REAL job, like one that pays enough that he can have his own car and apartment and pay for dates and take me on vacations.
He should come from a nice family, and be educated and classy. But his family can’t be judgemental of me. And he should have lots of friends and a vibrant social life, but they shouldn’t be girls because that’s suspicious.
He should love me the way I am and call me beautiful every day. And want to marry me and have kids. He needs to fully trust me with finances, cause I’d never sign a prenup. Also, he can’t have any kids with other women cause that’s a dealbreaker.”
There you have it, folks. He’s the 10/10. There’s just one teeny, tiny problem —
He doesn’t exist.
Why does everyone assume that they deserve a perfect partner?
Nobody ever imagines that they will end up with a man who’s short, chubby, with a regular job, and flaws like everyone else.
There’s always a wishlist of requirements. Attractive, six-figure salary, similar hobbies and interests, humor, great body…you get the gist.
What amuses me the most is when women have high standards for men, while they aren’t offering anything of value.
We love to list the qualities we’re looking for but seldom stop to think about what we can offer.
It’s socially acceptable for women to assert their standards and have other women cheer them on. Nobody is brave enough to ask, “And what are you going to offer a man in return?”
And if I do ask, I always get a shallow, completely lacking in self-awareness response that amounts to nothing more than, “well…he gets me!”
Out of all available women, why would he choose you?
Imagine if the average man had a similar response when asked about his standards. Picture a group of guys at the sports bar, talking about women. One of them says:
She has to be beautiful. Blonde, D-cup boobs, long legs, and nice butt. She can’t be taller than 5'6 or heavier than 120 pounds. She should be a virign (or close to it) cause I don’t want a woman who’s been with everybody.
But she has to be amazing in the bedroom, and willing to sleep with me after a month or two cause I’m not wasting my time in a sexless relationship. And she can’t be jealous and crazy over the other women I’ve slept with. That’s not her business.
She should be educated, but not too educated cause I don’t want a radical feminist who thinks she doesn’t need me. She also has to make her own money so I know she’s not a gold digger.
She has to want sex at least three times a week, and be able to keep my apartment clean if she lives with me. She can’t have any serious exes who she still talks to or any kids with any other men. She has to let me go out with the boys whenever I feel like it. She can’t nag me about marriage cause that’s a dealbreaker.
Would it be a surprise if this hypothetical man is single? Would it be shocking if he — an average man — couldn't attract this type of woman? Again, out of all the men this ideal fantasy woman could date, why would she choose him?
The “never settle” mentality only works if you’re prepared to be single for the rest of your life. At some point, compromise will be necessary.
We should take note of the types of people who are attracted to us. This may be a good barometer for the value that they bring to potential partners in the dating sphere.
Are you attracting the types of people you desire? If not, this may be an indicator that your perceived value to men (or women) is not quite accurate.
We would all do better to have more realistic standards. Because guess what? Perfect people don’t exist.
Final thoughts
Should we have standards for the people we choose to spend time with? Of course. But we shouldn’t let those standards get so out of hand that we find ourselves waiting for an imaginary dream guy (or girl).
Rather than making a checklist of all the things we want, we should make a checklist for how we will better ourselves and strive for virtue in our lives.
Until we do this, choosey beggars will be single.
https://medium.com/hello-love/modern-dating-where-every-beggar-can-be-a-chooser-e044a7c951cf
*************************************************
Elon Musk unleashes in fiery Joe Rogan podcast: Tesla owner slams George Soros for 'eroding the fabric of civilization'
Elon Musk on Tuesday declared that George Soros 'hates humanity', because he backs policies which 'erode the fabric of civilization'.
Musk, 52, appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast, with the pair swilling what appeared to be whisky and smoking cigars as they roamed over a broad range of issues over two hours.
The X CEO said he bought Twitter a year ago because he felt it was 'having a corrosive effect on civilization', and spreading the 'woke mind virus' at a dangerous pace, and condemned COVID restrictions, claiming that people put on ventilators were killed by the ventilators, not the virus.
The pair - Rogan in a blonde wig and Puerto Rico shirt for Halloween; Musk with a silk scarf around his neck - even went out to the parking lot to fire arrows at Musk's Tesla Cybertruck.
Musk bet Rogan $1 the arrows would not pierce the truck's sides. Musk won.
Musk repeated his long-running criticism of billionaire financier George Soros, 93, who has for decades backed progressive causes and angered Musk in May by dumping his Tesla stock.
Soros, born in Budapest, survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary and moved first to Britain, then the United States, where he began his hugely-influential philanthropy.
'He is I believe the top contributor to the Democratic party,' Musk told Rogan. 'The second one was Sam Bankman-Fried.
'And Soros, he had a very difficult upbringing.
'In my opinion, he fundamentally hates humanity. That's my opinion.'
Musk said that he was deeply opposed to Soros' work backing progressive district attorneys, who pursued policies he saw as soft on crime.
'He's doing things that erode the fabric of civilization - getting DAs elected who refuse to prosecute crime,' said Musk.
'That's part of the problem in San Francisco, and LA, and a bunch of other cities.
'So why would you do that?'
Rogan asked: 'Is it humanity, or just the United States?'
Musk said it was worldwide.
'He's pushing things in other countries as well,' Musk said.
Musk told Rogan that he thought Soros was 'basically a bit senile at this point' - in June, Soros handed control of the Open Society Foundations and the rest of his $25 billion empire to his 37-year-old son, Alex.
The foundation directs about $1.5 billion a year to groups such as those backing human rights around the world and helping build democracies. Alex Soros said he intends to broaden the foundation's priorities to include voting and abortion rights as well as gender equity.
Musk said that the elder Soros had been 'very smart' in using his money to achieve his goals.
'He's very good at arbitrage - famously he shorted the British pound,' explained Musk. 'That's how I think he made his first money.
Arbitrage is spotting value for money that other people don't see.
'And one of the things he noticed is that the value for money in local races is much higher than it is in national races.
'The lowest value for money is a presidential race. Then next lowest value for money is a senate race, then a congress.
'And when you get to city and state district attorneys the value for money is extremely good.'
Musk said that Soros found he could help push policies he approved of through local officials.
'Soros realized that you don't have to actually change the laws,' said Musk.
'You just need to change how they are enforced.
'If nobody chooses to enforce the laws, or the laws are differentially enforced, then its like changing the laws.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12695205/elon-musk-joe-rogan-george-soros-twitter-x.html
***********************************************
'Traditions Are Experiments That Worked': Feminist Author Argues Against the Sexual Revolution
The undermining of traditional ethics in the sexual revolution brings more harm than good and results in children being the greatest “losers,” a British feminist has argued.
Louise Perry, journalist and author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, told the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference on Nov. 1 that most women are not the winners in the sexual liberation, but rather some individual men.
The sexual revolution, which was influenced and encouraged by neo-Marxism, came to the fore in the United States in the 1960s and led to the weakening of traditional family values.
Ms. Perry, who is the director of The Other Half, a London-based feminist think tank, told the panel that while the rejection of traditional sexual norms is at the core of the sexual revolution, it was traditions that were the “experiments that worked.”
“The idea that we can just throw them out the window and have one very simple rule, which is that everyone should be able to consent. And then apart from that, you sort of make it up as you go along,” she said. “What we have found, having rejected the sexual norms of the past, is that they were there for a reason.”
The British author also noted that children lose out the most because of the sexual revolution, pointing to the high rates of fatherlessness. She added that traditional sexual ethics fostered a “good culture” that encourages people to “make decisions that are good for us long-term and also good for our descendants.”
The sexual revolution also has a material aspect which manifests as technological changes. This includes the introduction of the birth control pill, among other inventions, she said, noting that such changes have “transformed our lives and transformed gender relations.”
'Transhumanist Revolution'
The sentiment was echoed by British columnist and author of the book Feminism Against Progress, Mary Harrington, who argued that technological development was the foundation of an “illusion” where people could escape traditional sexual norms by trying to “flatten the fundamental differences between the sexes.”
She compared this process to a “trans humanist revolution.”
“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been using technology to overcome the apparent limits of the human condition,” Ms. Harrington told the panel.
“The sexual revolution is distinctive because that was the point at which we turned those technologies inward to the human body, you know, in that sense, I see the sexual revolution more accurately as the transhumanist revolution.
“That was the 90s; we were 50 years into the transhumanist revolution. And we've been we've been living in that world for all of that time.”
The British writer argued that while technological advances seemed to have led to increased freedom in gendered relations, they didn’t necessarily lead to human flourishing.
“I would challenge everybody here to think to try and think as concretely as possible about what we really mean when we say progress,” she said.
“Do we just mean more freedom underwritten by technology?
“Because I would put it to you, based on the evidence from the sexual revolution 50 years of transhumanist revolution, that it comes with as many downsides as costs.”
Ms. Harrington noted that the challenge people face now is to grapple with technological advances and “reorder those technologies to human flourishing rather than to their individual liberties.”
**************************************************
Feminism is no guarantee of women’s happiness
Claire Lehmann
Prior to the 1970s, survey data shows the happiness gap favoured women. Another 2022 follow-up study found that contemporary women still experience more unhappiness in the form of anxiety, fearfulness, depression, loneliness and anger relative to men.
Of course, many other social changes – aside from the sexual revolution – have occurred since the 1970s, so one has to interpret such results with caution.
Nevertheless, the data does indicate that despite the advances women have made in the economic and political spheres, and despite the breaking down of traditional gender roles, women – at least in the aggregate – have not become happier.
Mainstream feminists will argue that women are unhappier today because the revolution has not gone far enough. Australian feminist Clementine Ford, for example, has just published a new book arguing that marriage is an oppressive institution and needs to be abolished. Other feminists will argue that gender norms need to be broken down further, and the very concept of “gender” needs to be erased.
But, while conventional feminism is recycling the radicalism of the past, women such as Perry offer something new. She does not argue that we need to wind back the clock and uninvent the pill – the technology that made the sexual revolution possible – but simply that we should encourage an awareness that “traditions are experiments that have worked”, and endless exploration of gender roles has diminishing returns.
Perry discusses a concept familiar to psychologists, but she presents it in a straightforward manner that strikes a chord. Evolutionary psychologists have theorised, for example, that traits that were adaptive in our evolutionary past can sometimes become “mismatched” to our modern environments. And the stress of this mismatch can cause disease.
One example might be our preference for sweet foods. In a hunter-gatherer environment, having a preference for sweet foods was not a problem, as the only sweets available were mother’s milk and fruits. But in our modern environment, where ice cream and chocolate can be accessed from the convenience store at any time, this preference for sweetness may lead to diabetes.
A corollary can be made with regard to sexual behaviour. In our evolutionary past, it paid for women to be careful about which men they had sex with, because any act of sex could lead to pregnancy. In our modern environments, of course, sex has become unlinked from pregnancy, allowing women to have much more freedom with respect to sexual partners. At the same time, however, this freedom has created stress.
Perry argues that even if women can control their fertility with reliable contraception, if they are having sex with a man who they would not want to have a baby with, then this may cause emotional harm.
The other scenario that may cause emotional harm is the feeling of being used or exploited by a noncommittal male. Researchers in evolutionary psychology know that, on average, men prefer a higher number of sexual partners than women.
They also know a certain subset of men, who are high in “Dark Triad” traits (psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism) pursue short-term mating strategies and may use deceptive and underhanded tactics when doing so.
Previously, societal norms protected women from men with these Dark Triad traits by setting standards for both male and female sexual behaviour.
Now that these norms have been loosened, this small subset of men are free to pursue and exploit women with very little consequence. And the result for many women is misery.
A potential flaw in Perry’s argument is that she overly simplifies and idealises a past that was often harsh to women but in different ways.
Before the sexual revolution, women who fell pregnant and who were unmarried were often pressured to give up their babies, causing lifelong emotional scarring to both mother and baby.
The babies of unmarried mothers were often abandoned, in foundling hospitals or orphanages, and so-called “illegitimate” children were often raised in terrible conditions, with a social stigma attached for life. The fact that we have moved on from this archaism is an undeniable form of progress. We should not want to go back.
Perry might sometimes simplify complex topics, but her points are valuable and she presents them clearly. She believes that while we can’t undo the invention of the pill (and we wouldn’t want to), women should understand that their nature differs from men’s. Recognising this distinction is crucial for mental wellbeing. Perhaps the problem is not the sexual revolution, but rather the refusal to acknowledge our inherent differences.
****************************************
2 November, 2023
TikTokers are Romanticizing the Stay- at-Home-Girlfriend Experience
The feminist writer excerpted below refers to history a lot but is very judgmental about it. She seems oblivious to the fact that men and women are different. And part of that difference is that women have always accepted the role of being economically supported by men. She is firmly convinced that that is always a bad thing. That women might live happily in that situation seems beyond her.
Her principal evidence for her beliefs is that her mother was unhappy as a bored housewife and became happier only when she got a job. I have no argument with that. I am sure there are other women who have had that experience. But generalizing that to ALL women is just plain dumb. As the old saying goes: "One man's meat is another's poison". Some women may be perfectly comfortable living in traditional sex roles. To deplore them doing so is simply arrogant.
Let me counterpose her examples two other examples from my own life
1. My mother was a classic stay-at-home mother. And she wanted nothing else. Hints from my hard-working father that she might get a job were firmly rebuffed. She lived entirely on the money his work brought in. A dependent life was her firmly and deliberately held choice. So was she happy? She mostly was. How do I know that? I know that because she was a compulsive talker, like rather a lot of women I know. And she did not stop talking when she was home alone. But a lot of the time I was home so she talked to me, kid though I was. And she talked with great frankness. I heard just about everything that passed through her head. She was quite a critic of other people but I can remember no occasion when she said she was unhappy or even looked unhappy. She read novels, had afternoon naps cooked very basic dinners and attended to her four children with great devotion. Her traditional role was a choice and she was happy with it. I think she was rather wise.
2. Not entirely coincidentally, I married a rather voluble lady who also thought that the traditional female role was a great racket for women. When I met her she was a single mother working with three children. We formed a good relationship and I soon told her she could quit work and become a full-time wife and mother. She leapt at it. She accepted my offer without reservation. She was profoundly glad that I enabled her to spend lots of time with her children while they were growing up. And she was NOT bored. I also gave her a small car and while the kids were at school, the car was rarely at home. She would frequently go out to go shopping, see friends, pursue hobbies and do anything that pleased her. She was a happy woman
So in MY experience, women who choose to be supported by men may make GOOD choices, choices that can suit them very well. I feel rather sorry for women who take the hard road, as feminists do
When I first discovered the stay-at-home-girlfriend (SAHG) viral trend on TikTok, I thought it was a new form of entertainment. I just couldn’t look away as I watched several of the videos.
I’m the last person who ever intentionally judges anyone for how they live their lives, but what I saw upset me. I couldn’t help it, I found the videos to be disturbing, regressive, and anti-feminist.
Was I really seeing what I thought? Is this a genuine new lifestyle trend or a gigantic ruse to drive Social Media views and make buckets of money?
Why would anyone want to be a stay-at-home girlfriend?
What is the stay-at-home-girlfriend trend? It’s typically a young GenZ woman who doesn’t work, relying primarily on her partner’s income.
The self-proclaimed leader of the SAHG movement who receives millions of views is TikToker Kay Kendel, 26, who showcases her routine in meticulous detail (as shown above).
Her daily life consists of performing household chores, drinking green drinks, managing hair and skin care, performing exercise regimes, and catering to her millionaire boyfriend, Luke Lintz, 23.
The trend, which started in 2020, is growing. TikTok videos with the hashtag #stayathomegirlfriend have more than 200 million views, which has raised lots of red flags for people like me.
The videos primarily portray decadent and luxurious lifestyles — showcased by mainly 20s, Caucasian, childfree women living off their partners.
How do aspiring young women hop onto the SAHG experience? The formula isn’t all that complicated. To succeed, they have to look hot, find a rich boyfriend (or girlfriend), and then create endless videos about their perfect lifestyle.
Even if you can pull it off and snag a rich boyfriend who hands over his credit cards, is the fantasy anything like reality?
Another TikTok trend is the sugar baby lifestyle, similar to the SAHG experience.
The #sugarbaby tag has been viewed 1.9 billion times on TikTok. The difference between the two submissive lifestyles of the SAHG and the Sugar Baby is whether you live with someone caring for you.
Naive people don’t realize the potential death-related dangers tied to entering the sugar baby arena. If you strip away the cool labels, SAHG and SugarBabies are just different names for the working girl.
A common denominator in all viral aspirational pay-to-play girlfriend trends is that they’re created by and designed for young girls and women. They emphasize attaining the shallow goals of picture-perfect hair, skin, make-up, and bodies.
The SAHG trend is harmful because it glorifies extreme weight loss, eating disorder culture, and unhealthy attitudes about food and weight. It also promotes a life of emptiness and subservience, which puts women at potential risk of abuse.
Influencers hop on the latest microtrends constantly being introduced.
Shockingly, many of the latest potentially harmful beauty trends are mistakenly labeled as ‘empowering’ and ‘feminist.’ They also imply female aging is the worst thing a woman can experience.
Feminists are constantly fighting against the reinforcement of gender norms and beliefs that aging is anti-feminist and ultimately supports patriarchal agendas.
*********************************************
Hamas Killed My Wokeness
ALEX OLSHONSKY
In high school in the early 2000s, I assumed the role of Palestine in our semesterlong “Model U.N.” class. It was, in part, a feeble act of rebellion against spending weekends at a Conservative synagogue during my angstiest years.
Although my comprehension of the Middle East conflict was in its infancy, an innate sense of justice drove me to defend the Palestinian cause. To characterize my choice as merely “rebellion,” then, doesn’t capture the full picture. My mother, a New Yorker with fierce feminist beliefs, raised me with quintessentially progressive Jewish values. I was taught that we, as Jews, stand with the oppressed—because we were the oppressed. This sentiment was often reinforced by my grandparents who arrived in America penniless, the Nazis hounding at their heels.
I took my role seriously, making it my mission to call for an immediate halt to the bulldozing of Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza. I plunged into extensive research and armed myself with the knowledge to effectively champion a two-state solution—a belief I passionately held in high school and continue to endorse today.
Later, as a man in his 20s, it was only natural that I found myself firmly situated within the progressive left. I never once questioned my political home. Guided by my Jewish values, during the George Floyd tragedy and the racial reckoning that followed, I wholeheartedly embraced anti-racism initiatives. I read Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, and I even took on the role of facilitating international dialogues on collective sense-making and healing. I strove to be a good “white ally.” Truly, I did.
Then came a flexion point: During a 2021 Bay Area psychotherapy training, in a “processing session” around race, a woman vulnerably shared her firsthand experience with a horrific act of antisemitic hatred. To my astonishment, the two facilitators, both white women, chastised her—yes, chastised—stressing the session’s emphasis on anti-Black racism. This episode unveiled a disconcerting bias in this community that routinely minimized antisemitism, to the point it was no longer considered “legitimate” racism. The young Jewish woman who’d shared was cowed into silence. From within my depths, I could hear my grandfather’s groan from eternity: This, still, here?
At that moment, it became clear to me that “wokeness,” or whatever term we may use to describe the new progressive social justice ideology, didn’t seem fully compatible with the perspective I had developed in a family that was very liberal because of our lineage of Holocaust survivors.
Since then, I’ve struggled to find my political footing while maintaining a commitment to the pursuit of truth and justice. I started noticing the sinister shadow of postmodern progressivism everywhere: a seeming insistence on “pluralism” that, in practice, often lacks genuine embodiment and quickly devolves into its own form of dogmatic and reductive tribalism.
I began to feel as though I had been baited into an a priori virtuous worldview that, in a twisted way, sows more division than it does healing; more concerned, as it is, with retribution than reconciliation. That my Judaism was utterly swept away (even shadow-demonized) in the context of this conversation only left me more disillusioned.
Any ideology that ‘justifies’ or minimizes the tragedy of civilian casualties is broken and perverse.
Yet my affiliation with progressivism persisted. Say what one will about the oversimplifications and occasional insincerities of the progressive left, I told myself, their hearts were in the right place.
Then, two weeks ago, Hamas grotesquely murdered 1,400 Israeli citizens, including 270 at a pro-peace music festival, a gathering my friends and I would have joyously attended if we were in the Holy Land. While these events were deeply disturbing to me, and all fellow members of the diaspora, what was even more shocking was the response from segments of the online left back home. These are progressive groups that, ostensibly, should cherish all human life and abhor all wanton violence.
Instead, many celebrated—yes, celebrated—these attacks as a form of “anti-colonialist resistance.” Memes circulated, like the now infamous Chicago #BLM paratrooper, that quite literally glorified an unimaginable slaughtering. Student groups at Harvard decried Israel as “entirely responsible” for Hamas’ attack; groups at the University of Virginia went a step further in saying that “colonized people can resist occupation of their land by whatever means they deem necessary”; and groups at Tufts took the cake by praising Hamas’ ingenious creativity.
The straw that broke my proverbial “progressive” back occurred last Thursday, when students at a high school in the Bay Area, my home for the last 15 years, were seen chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” They marched in the hallways of a public school ringing the jihadist rallying call that implicitly calls for the erasure of the State of Israel. And all those who live within it.
Do these high schoolers, who are the same age I was when I debated on behalf of Palestine in Model U.N., grasp the underlying antisemitic implications of their words? Or might they simply be aligning with a far-left mindset that unreservedly and reductively supports the “oppressed”?
Zooming out, it has become clear to me, and devoid of the Israeli-Palestinian context, there’s a dark reality: Our Western culture is riddled with ambient antisemitism. Screeds by such celebrities as Kanye West testify to the fact. As Israel is pulled into a conflict governed by jihadist game theory—where civilians are intentionally used as shields so that dead children can be broadcast as propaganda puppets on social media—antisemitism has and surely will continue to intensify around the world. In London, antisemitic hate crimes have already risen by 1,350%. Watch it grow, worldwide.
Yet, it’s the latter question—how so many hypereducated students have steadfastly embraced far-left ideology—that raises my greatest concern for our future. This should not have to be said, but if you find yourself mourning some civilian deaths while celebrating any others, there’s an objective problem with your worldview. And you. The notion that one can distill our world’s most complex, historically dynamic, and challenging conflict into simplistic binaries is so utterly absurd that it clearly exposes the shortcomings of “woke” ideology. Or any dogmatism, for that matter.
Outside of lacking vital historical context, I’ve been aghast to learn that this branch of the progressive left does not seem to understand why such horrors were committed upon Israeli citizens. Unfortunately, there is an explanation beyond “colonial resistance”—radical jihadism. Granted, not all forms of jihadism are based on terrorism, and all Muslims are, of course, not jihadists. But make no mistake: The ones who are responsible for these brutal acts of murder, rape, and mutilation are radical jihadists. Groups like Hamas are, quite literally, death cults that are not consequentially distinct from Nazism—the death cult that systematically annihilated my grandparents’ entire extended family. The cult that the Allied West had no confusion about needing to destroy. Hamas’ stated intention is the eradication, first, of Israeli Jews—then all Jews everywhere. That is a genocidal agenda. The IDF, with all its flaws, which are numerous and sometimes deadly, avoids civilian Palestinian deaths whenever and however possible. That is the opposite of a genocidal agenda.
I truly wish it were as simple as reducing this conflict to an oppressor/oppressed dynamic. I am waiting, with horror, as Israel prepares for a ground invasion that will claim thousands of thoroughly innocent lives. I do not want any Gazan children to be collateral damage. My Jewish values, along with what I’ve learned advocating for Palestinian statehood, continue to affirm my belief in the importance of upholding the rights of Palestinian civilians.
Any ideology that “justifies” or minimizes the tragedy of civilian casualties is broken and perverse. That is not to say that all such casualties are avoidable. Reform Jews of my generation are unified in a desire for a two-state solution that provides Palestinians with safety, dignity, and rights. Over the past two weeks, I have heard no American Jew wish violence upon Gazans; I’ve witnessed many American so-called progressives who wish violence upon Jews. In response to raped teenagers and headless babies, a common leftist online refrain has been: “What did you think decolonization looked like?”
That’s not progressivism. That’s bloodthirst.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/hamas-slaughtered-wokeness
****************************************************
The Food Insecurity Lie
John Stossel
President Joe Biden says 24 million Americans "suffer from food insecurity!"
News anchors were shocked that there is "food insecurity in the richest country in the world!" ABC hosts turned "insecurity" into "hunger."
But in my new video, Rachel Sheffield, who researches welfare policy at the Heritage Foundation, explains, "Food insecurity is not the same thing as hunger. It just means that they had to rely on cheaper foods, store-brand alternatives ... or reduce variety."
Really? The alarm about "food insecurity" is based on that? Well, yes. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its fine print, admits that "for most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety of food rather than insufficient quantity."
"They always want to create a crisis," I say to Sheffield.
"Government programs want to keep themselves going," she replies.
She's talking about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; the Women, Infants and Children program; the National School Lunch Program and the other constantly growing handouts that make up America's welfare system.
The biggest effect of these handouts is to harm the people they want to help. They harm people by making them dependent on government.
Before government's War on Poverty began, Americans were steadily lifting themselves out of poverty. Year after year, the number of people living below the poverty line dropped.
That natural progress wasn't good enough for us.
We (I include myself because I believed it, too) who wanted to reduce poverty declared "War on Poverty." Welfare checks poured out. The poverty rate continued to drop for seven years. But then progress stopped.
What happened? Why did progress stop?
Because handouts taught people to be dependent.
Welfare payments did something remarkable. They created a new class of dependent people -- a nearly permanent "underclass," where generation after generation lives in poverty.
Today, government does things to perpetuate that, like claiming millions of Americans are "food insecure." Charities raise money using the same language.
But the opposite is true.
"Americans consume too many calories," says Sheffield. "Food insecure" adults are more likely to be obese.
When that became obvious, activists promoted a new myth: Poor people are overweight because they live in "food deserts," neighborhoods where healthy foods are much less available. Michelle Obama talked about that a lot. She claimed some poor people had to take three busses to buy healthy food.
Nonsense.
When government officials first labeled "food deserts,' they deviously ignored small stores, only counting stores with more than $2 million in sales. It's true that one "food desert" Obama visited didn't have a supermarket. But it had multiple smaller businesses selling fruits and vegetables. Government officials just didn't count them.
Now the media claim college students are food insecure.
But most college goers gain weight at school! At school!
It's bizarre that when obesity is the bigger problem, government hypes food insecurity. But of course, "that creates the rationale for expanding food assistance programs, expanding the welfare system," explains Sheffield.
Expanding welfare seems to be the government's goal. "We've spent more on the War on Poverty than all the military wars combined in the United States without any success," says Sheffield.
Really? More than all our wars combined? Well, yes. We've spent $23 trillion on the War on Poverty. So far.
"Actually," says Sheffield, "it's been a success in one way. It increases dependence on the federal government." That's what bureaucrats consider success.
The handouts are good for the people who dole out the money. They're good for politicians who get to look like "good guys."
But they're bad for poor people.
Before government handouts began, private charities helped people escape poverty. They encouraged people to learn how to take care of themselves. Work gradually lifted people out of poverty. "Work also has a lot of other benefits," Sheffield points out. "It builds a greater sense of community, gives people access to resources and friend networks that help them improve in their lives."
Encouraging self-sufficiency is so much better than what government does.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2023/11/01/the-food-insecurity-lie-n2630606
*************************************************
American tourist shocked to see $15,000 bike left safe, unattended on Singapore street
An American tourist has gone viral online after expressing disbelief at the sight of a $US15,000 road bike left unattended on the street in Singapore.
“The ultimate Singapore culture shock: a $15k bike left unattended,” Nick Whitaker wrote on X, sharing a photo of a yellow Pinarello Dogma F12 leaning against a wall next to a coffee shop.
The post has been viewed one million times on the platform since Monday, with users highlighting the obvious contrast in crime rates between Singapore and the United States.
Singapore, an island nation home to 5.6 million people, is notoriously tough on even petty crime and as a result has some of the lowest crime rates in the world.
In 2021, Singapore was ranked third in The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Safe Cities Index, behind Copenhagen and Toronto, although the authors noted in terms of crime rates Singapore scored equal best next to Tokyo and Osaka.
Whitaker, founding editor of Works in Progress magazine — part of payments platform Stripe — is based in New York, which like other major US cities is experiencing an unprecedented rise in crime.
Many users questioned why Singapore could control crime while the US struggled. “About a month [ago] in Singapore, a woman left an expensive bag on an outdoor table to hold it,” commented travel writer Charlie Hub.
The island nation is known to be strict on petty crimes.
“She then went into the McDonald’s at Raffles City Mall to order. My old NYC brain realised what had been out of place. I no longer needed my urban danger vigilance. It was a deeply cathartic experience.”
Finance professional Lyall Taylor added, “When I first moved to Singapore, I was stunned to see a friend I was meeting at a busy inner-city restaurant for lunch, ‘reserve’ us a spare table by leaving his phone unattended on said table while we ordered at the interior counter outside of eyeshot. He had no concern whatsoever of it being swiped.”
Mr Taylor claimed crime was “virtually non-existent in Singapore” due to “extremely strong deterrence … coupled with care about who they let in the country” that had created a “remarkably safe country with a pervasive, productively law-abiding culture”.
One X user argued “this should be the norm everywhere” and “anything less is a policy failure”, while another agreed “we could have this here too”.
“This is the type of ordinary, first-world behaviour that surprises Americans because their country has fallen so low, that the concept of civility is outlandishly incomprehensible to them,” one person wrote.
Another said, “Aspiring to this level of law and order should be like aspiring to clean drinking water: obvious and uncontroversial. Tolerating routine crime and disorder is like tolerating a poisoned water supply.”
Former NFL player Jake Bequette wrote, “We could live like this in America, but our leaders decide every day they’d rather have crime.”
Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) warns travellers that Singapore has strict laws, including caning and the death penalty for serious drug offences.
It also harshly penalises so-called “outrage of modesty” offences or being drunk and disorderly in public.
“You should avoid any action that could be interpreted as molestation, including inappropriate touching or language,” DFAT says. “Penalties include jail, fines and caning.”
Singapore also has “strict laws and penalties for acts that are legal or minor offenses in Australia.”
“These include smoking in public places or restaurants, spitting, importing or chewing gum, chewing tobacco, littering and jaywalking,” DFAT says.
“Penalties are severe for crimes that affect social, racial or ethnic harmony. These include racial insults and promoting ill will and hostility between different races or classes.”
The number of physical crime cases rose 5.4 per cent in the first six months of 2023 to 10,080, but remained lower than pre-Covid numbers, according to the Singapore Police Force
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
1 November, 2023
Finnish psychiatrist who pioneered 'gender-affirming care' but now shuns it slams US policy of pumping kids with hormones, says child DIED after surgery - and believes around a third may end up detransitioning
A woman who led European efforts to give puberty blockers to trans children has bared all about U-turning on gender-affirming care, as it is known, and debunks treatments she now calls 'dangerous.'
Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, chief psychiatrist at the Tampere University Hospital Department of Adolescent Psychiatry in Finland, has revealed why she changed her mind about helping minors medically transition.
Writing in The Free Press, Dr Kaltiala says the Western medical establishment has been cowed by trans activists into a 'dangerous groupthink' of pushing risky sex-altering drugs on children.
'Gender transition has gotten out of hand,' says Dr Kaltiala.
'When medical professionals start saying they have one answer that applies everywhere, or that they have a cure for all of life's pains, that should be a warning to us all that something has gone very wrong.'
Dr Kaltiala's article is just the latest in a slew of insider revelations to question America's model of affirming trans kids, and offering them puberty blockers, hormones, and even surgery as treatments.
Providing such care has become a hot-button issue in culture wars between conservatives and progressives, and a major tension within the pediatric community.
Advocates of gender-affirming care say trans-identifying kids should be helped with puberty blockers and other treatments.
They say it's a human a right and maybe the only thing that could save them from suicide.
Critics say kids are too young to opt for irreversible sex change treatments, and often just need mental health counselling instead.
They are borne out by a growing number of 'detransitioners' who come to regret their often painful procedures and seek medical help to reverse them.
Several have launched malpractice lawsuits against their former doctors.
In her article, Dr Kaltiala explains how she was tasked in 2011 by Finland's health ministry with opening the country's first gender clinic.
It was launched to help the small number of minors who felt discomfort with their sex, a condition known as gender dysphoria.
The move came after the release of research from the Netherlands about the benefits of helping gender dysphoric minors, by using hormones to stop them going through puberty, which was known as the 'Dutch protocol'
She quickly became alarmed when the clinic opened and patients 'came in droves,' she says.
But the patients were not like those covered in the Dutch protocol — a small number of boys who had felt for many years they were really girls, said Dr Kaltiala.
Instead, they were overwhelmingly girls aged 15-17 who had only recently come out as male, she said.
Worse still, they also 'presented with severe psychiatric conditions' like autism, she says.
Still, doctors followed the Dutch protocol and provided puberty blockers — but they often did not help the troubled teens, says Dr Kaltiala.
'The young people we were treating were not thriving. Instead, their lives were deteriorating,' she wrote.
'They were withdrawing from all social activities. They were not making friends. They were not going to school.'
The patients were also 'networking and exchanging information about how to talk to us' and qualify for sex-altering treatment, she said.
That's how she realized she was dealing with a 'social contagion,' not a medical problem.
The Dutch protocol had 'serious problems,' wrote the 58-year-old.
Researchers had failed to study detransitioners or those who had problems with their treatment.
'One of the patients had died due to complications from genital transition surgery,' she wrote.
About a third of trans kids who undergo treatments come to change their minds, she said.
Conversations with clinicians in other parts of Europe revealed this was a continent-wide trend.
She tried to publish papers and sound the alarm. But the medical community had been hijacked by activists and succumbed to a 'dangerous groupthink,' she says.
'Anyone, including physicians, researchers, academics, and writers, who raised concerns about the growing power of gender activists, and about the effects of medically transitioning young people, were subjected to organized campaigns of vilification and threats to their careers,' she wrote.
But the research is finally catching up and experts now understand that fast-tracking trans kids onto puberty blockers makes for terrible policy, she says.
'For the overwhelming majority of gender dysphoric children — around 80 percent — their dysphoria resolves itself if they are left to go through natural puberty,' she wrote.
'Often these children come to realize they are gay.'
Dr Kaltiala says her native Finland, the UK, Sweden, and other European countries restrict puberty blockers nowadays.
But trans ideologues have a stranglehold on US medical societies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, she says.
She tried to raise her concerns at an annual conference, but her proposals were rejected by the academy, she says.
'This is highly disturbing,' she wrote. 'Science does not progress through silencing. Doctors who refuse to consider evidence presented by critics are putting patient safety at risk.'
The AAP did not immediately answer DailyMail.com's request for comment.
In August, the academy renewed its support for the gender-affirming model of care, but launched a review into the evidence underpinning it.
*****************************************************
Woke campaigners are 'authoritarians' using hate speech laws to stifle free speech, report warns
Woke campaigners have been condemned as 'authoritarians' who deploy hate speech laws to stifle free speech.
A report from a think-tank said elements of the Left have 'successfully weaponised' concepts such as hate speech to 'silence their political opponents'.
It highlighted the 'hard inner core' of campaign groups such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion.
Describing the intolerant woke as the 'Culture-Control Left', or CCL, the report said their views now 'stretch beyond the traditional confines of the left and now heavily influence big business, public sector bureaucracies (including the police) and some Conservative politicians'.
The report noted how the woke movement was leading to people being forced out of jobs over their 'gender critical' views on transgender rights, and to a growing number of 'campaigns to remove or deface statues'.
The report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) added that hate speech laws are applied by police in a 'partial and inconsistent way'.
It said that 'when someone who is not white makes what seem like racist remarks' it is regarded as a 'form of cultural resistance' rather than as a crime.
Those seeking to suppress alternative viewpoints in favour of woke views are part of a 'form of authoritarian politics', it added.
'They see censorship as a tool to transfer power between social groups,' it said.
'They threaten any open society.
'Being accused of hate speech is the contemporary equivalent of being charged with blasphemy or seditious libel.' The paper concluded: 'The damage that has been done by the CCL at the legal and institutional levels must be undone.
'This will be a considerable challenge, given the degree of penetration the CCL has achieved into the public life of Britain.
'Opponents of the CCL must make a special effort to identify and reform specific laws and practices that are incompatible with a truly liberal political order.
'In particular, advocates for free speech must now create an inventory of specific pieces of legislation that should be amended or abolished.
'The governing objective should be to have only those laws in place that criminally prosecute speech that directly and immediately threatens or incites violence, or speech that is intrinsically connected to criminal acts such as fraud, robbery and murder.'
Author Marc Glendening, of the IEA, said: 'British democracy faces an existential threat from those seeking to silence debate.
'Defenders of political pluralism now need to wage a counterattack based upon a foundational, natural rights-based defence of free speech.' The Government had previously outlined plans to bolster free speech in a new Bill of Rights, but it was dropped in June.
The legislation would have made free speech a 'trump card' over other rights, barring the creation of European-style privacy laws through the back door.
When the Bill was dropped by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government, former justice secretary Dominic Raab - who drew up the proposals - said it was a 'disappointing' decision which would mean 'all the wrong people will celebrate'.
************************************************
Black activist ditches his progressive, defund the police beliefs after being arrested for defending himself against homeless knifeman in his Oakland garden
A black activist has renounced his beliefs about defunding the police and set out to save his crime-ridden home city, Oakland, from what he calls 'phony progressives'.
Seneca Scott, 44, used to be a self-proclaimed 'leftie'. In 2020 he ran for elected office in Oakland, calling for 'shifting budgets away from the police' and a 'complete overhaul of how we want our communities to interact with law enforcement.'
But now he is vehemently anti what he terms the 'woke left' and 'phony "progressives"' who he says are 'dismissive towards black and brown people'.
Scott told The Free Press that he changed his views when he realized 'how deep the damage was' and how 'the people we had put in place were just complete frauds'.
He decided to run for mayor last year after his own run-in with police, when he was arrested for defending himself against a knife-wielding thief in his own garden.
At around 10pm on October 30 2021, Scott discovered two men were trying to steal the water heater from his garden. He went down to confront them, taking his gun for protection, and found they had set up a tent and laid out drugs on his picnic table.
He told them to put down the water heater and one of them pulled a knife. Scott showed them his pistol and again told them to put down the water heater.
At this point one of the men fled, but the other flagged down a police car and told them Scott had pulled a gun on him. Police arrested Scott on charges of brandishing a weapon and carrying a concealed firearm.
The charges have all since been dropped.
Scott said: 'It’s unfortunate that we’re forced to self-help right now. Just that same night, an hour earlier, my neighbor was shot in his face while holding his baby. That was on the same street, like eight houses down.'
Since Oakland officials cut $18million from the police budget to pay for social services in 2021, Scott says crime has gone through the roof.
He said: 'There's no rule of law. Our crime labs don’t work. We have to go out and subcontract to other places to do DNA tests or fingerprint tests. And sometimes they deny us.
He says police response time to crime is 'insane' and it can take '45, 50, minutes' for police to arrive.
Police data shows the city now has the second worst 911 response time in California, while the number of homicides has jumped by 79 per cent from 2018 to 2022.
In the year to date, violent crime is 22 per cent higher than last year, motor vehicle theft is 51 per cent higher and robbery is 36 per cent higher.
Scott said there is a huge problem with 'drug addicts and drug tourists', adding: 'Anyone who has the ability is making an exit plan. Like you're in a country going to war soon and people are looking at it like, how do we get out?'
Scott, who graduated from Cornell, has activism in his blood - his father was Martin Luther King Jr's wife, Coretta's, cousin.
He grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, but his family left the inner city to escape the crack epidemic. He moved to Oakland in 2012.
He lost his 2022 mayoral campaign, but is now focused on forming a new party, filled with nonpartisan political candidates.
He is particularly opposed to the current Oakland officials and the mayor, Sheng Thao, who has faced fierce opposition to her crime policies - including defunding the police.
Oakland NAACP leaders called for a state of emergency in August over the soaring crime rate, as they attributed it to the defund the police movement and Price.
Sharing a video of a rubbish filled encampment in Oakland on Twitter, Scott said: 'Remember @carol_fife claimed back in February she could "clean up any encampment quickly" once Sheng took the mayor's seat? What happened to that?'
He says doesn't do left-right politics any more, adding: 'The Democrats wrongly demonize everybody who’s a white man or say every single thing that’s wrong with society is white supremacy. It’s bull****.'
Instead he says: 'I’m post-partisan. I don’t go left or right. I go up and down. Either you have integrity and solutions or you don’t.'
Through his nonprofit Neighbors Together, Scott is planning to find 100 nontraditional candidates like himself and help them get elected to positions on city councils and boards across America.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12693221/Oakland-Seneca-Scott-crime-defund-police.html
*************************************************
Astonishing moment feminist author Clementine Ford leaves Project hosts stunned by claiming marriage is 'built on the oppression of women'
Clemmie is a very typical feminist in her devotion to broad generalizations. The fact of the matter is that there are as many variations of male/female relationhips as there are men and women.
And it can as easily be the man as the woman who gets the short end. Men often feel that a full-time wife and mother has got a pretty good deal but accept that out of appreciation of the woman -- particularly in view of the great attention she can give to the chidren.
Even where both partners work, mutually agreed divisions of labour are often entered in to. That's not always so and it is those situations that Clemmie presumably has in mind in her rant She does have a partner herself so should probably acknowledge that good male/female arrangements can happen
Controversial feminist figure Clementine Ford has described marriage as being 'built on the oppression of women' and compared wives to slaves in a new book.
The best-selling author appeared on The Project to outline an alternative view on marriage in her latest book I Don't, describing how she wants women to question what they've been told about it.
'My biggest issue with marriage is that I think that it's a fundamentally flawed institution that is built on the oppression of women,' she said on the program.
'...But also that it's presented to people now as something that it never has been, which is something that we need in order to have happiness and love.
'Love marriage is only about 200 years old, so the idea that somehow marriage is an essential thing that will elevate our life to something better is historically wrong and I think that we would be much better as people focusing on how to make ourselves happy.'
She went on to say that marriage was largely 'great for men', while women were left with a large burden inside of the relationship.
'One of the chief complaints a lot of women have about their husbands is that they don't really feel like their husbands see them, all they are is kind of like a glorified all-in-one appliance for them,' she said.
Ms Ford said she was 'not at all against people falling in love and forming families', but urged people to consider whether they needed to get married in order to have significant relationships.
'If you have essentially all the same legal rights in a de facto relationship as you would in a marriage, what is the marriage and the piece of government paper giving you that a relationship doesn't?' she asked.
Host Waleed Aly then pointed out to Ms Ford that the dynamics of de facto relationships are often similar to marriages, posing the question to her that marriage may not be the issue after all.
'It's a good question Waleed, well maybe the plan is to go for de facto relationships next,' she said. 'My goal is to really get women to see something bigger and better for themselves than just being someone's partner or wife.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12692785/Feminist-Clementine-Ford-Project-marriage.html
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
