The creeping dictatorship of the Left...

The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. Email John Ray here. See here or here for the archives of this site.

For a list of blog backups see here or here.

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

The picture below is worth more than a 1,000 words ...... Better than long speeches. It shows some Middle-Eastern people walking to reach their final objective,to live in a European country, or migrate to America.

In the photo, there are 7 men and 1 woman.up to this point – nothing special. But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman has bare feet,accompanied by 3 children, and of the 3, she is carrying 2.There is the problem,none of the men are helping her,because in their culture the woman represents nothing.She is only good to be a slave to the men. Do you really believe that these particular individuals could integrate into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions ????


31 July, 2018

High-flying career women are refusing to 'marry down' despite struggling to find a Mr Right with similar earning power and intelligence

Ho hum! This story again.  We have heard it from Britain and now we hear it from the USA.  Its basic premise is faulty.  There is no shortage of bright men.  To the contrary, the distribution  of female IQ is leptokurtic so there are many more men in the top range than women.  So the problem is with the women not with the men.  The "stranded" women are just too snooty I expect.  Let them test themselves and their female friends by answering what "leptokurtic" means.  I think they will be deflated by finding that far more men can answer that, despite women generally being good with words 

Career-focused women are struggling to meet men with a similar level of education and financial income - but refuse to ‘marry down’.

A generation of high-flying women cannot find eligible men that they would consider marrying, and this is down to their lack of degrees and high incomes, a US academic study claims.

For women marriage often involves ‘marrying up’ but as personal fortunes have increased, expectations have failed to adjust.

The study said: ‘Unmarried women, on average, are looking for a man who has an income that is about 66% higher and a likelihood of having a college degree that is about 49% higher than what is available.’

The lead author Daniel Lichter, professor of sociology at Cornell University, and co-author Joseph Price of Brigham University, think they’ve created a formula for working out what unmarried women desire in a potential partner.

Analysing data from 10.5million households surveyed for three years from 2010 by the US Census Bureau, they established the traits of married couples aged between 25 and 45-years-old.

In their working paper, Mismatches in the Marriage Market, they assume that unmarried women are searching for men similar to those already married.

Price said the findings were relevant to Britain due to the similar trends, the Times reported.

Lord Willetts, chairmen of the Resolution Foundation think tank, added: ‘This American research is telling us that the days of the conventional male breadwinner are disappearing and this changes relationships between the sexes.’

Fifty-five per cent of women enter higher education by the age of 30 compared to 43 per cent of men and the amount of couples where only one adult works has nearly halved in the past 40 years, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Susanna Abse, a psychoanalytic psychotherapist, said both sexes are to blame and that people should be more satisfied with ‘ordinary’ partners and not hold onto a fantasy idea.

The academics said this could lead to many career-focused women deciding to stay single or if they do marry, it will be poorly matched economically.

Harry Benson, research director at the Marriage Foundation, said: ‘The marriage market may be further skewed against high-flying women because potential male partners are still predisposed to “marrying down”.’

But he added that what makes a marriage work isn’t usually anything to do with income or education but instead commitment and interests along with friendship and kindness.


Child Brides in Turkey

Where would you like your daughter to be when she is 13? In school, or in bed with a grown man? The answer to this question is largely beyond argument in much of the world. In Islamic societies, however -- including non-Arab and theoretically secular Turkey -- the answer is anyone's guess. Usually in such states, the police power of the government does not fight the patriarchal tradition; instead, it supports it.

Turkey's former president, Abdullah Gül, incumbent Islamist strongman Recep Tayyip Erdo?an's former ally and co-founder of the party that has ruled Turkey since 2002, was a 30-year-old man when he married his wife Hayrünnisa when she was 15. Gül, nominated for the presidency by Erdo?an, was Turkey's first Islamist president.

Conservative Turks, instead of questioning Gül's marriage to a child, cheered his rise to the presidency. This author was privately -- but not politely -- warned several times by senior politicians against bringing up the issue in his column in another newspaper.

According to Turkish Philanthropy Funds (TPF), 40% of girls under the age of 18 in Turkey are forced into marriage. TPF found that the Turkish national average of female high school dropouts was 56%. It further found that early marriage is seen in families with a low education level. "Low education" means almost all of Turkey: The average schooling in the country is a mere 6.5 years. In 45 Turkish provinces, the schooling rate is below the national average.

The Islamist rule in the once secular country has added to the problem of child brides instead of combating it. In November 2017, President Erdo?an signed the "mufti law," which allows state-approved clerics (or simply imams) to conduct marriage ceremonies, "despite concerns from civil society that this could have an impact on child marriage."

In January 2018, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) -- a government body under Erdo?an's jurisdiction -- suggested that according to Islamic law, girls as young as 9 years old and boys as young as 12 could marry. Diyanet is responsible for administering religious institutions in Turkey. Its website reaffirmed that, according to Islamic law, whoever had reached the age of "adolescence" had the right to marry. This "fatwa" prompted the country's main opposition party, a secular group, to call for an investigation into child marriages.

The arrival of around three million Syrian refugees to Turkey since civil war broke out in the neighboring country has made things worse. For instance, a social worker at the Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital in Istanbul's Küçükçekmece district revealed that the hospital treated 115 pregnant underage girls, including 39 Syrian nationals, between Jan. 1 and May 9, 2017. The social worker complained to prosecutors that the hospital tried to cover up the pregnancies and did not notify the authorities, as is a legal requirement for the treatment of all pregnant girls younger than 18 in Turkey. Such examples are only the "tip of the iceberg," according to Canan Güllü, head of the Turkish Women Associations Federation.

A recent case of Syrian refugee-related child abuse is an embarrassment not only for the Turkish political culture that has nurtured the malady but also for the Turkish judiciary:

Fatma C., a Syrian child refugee arrived in Ankara, the Turkish capital, with her family four years ago. In 2017, according to an indictment, she was forced at the age of 13 to marry her relative, Abdulkerim J. The marriage was not civil but religious (made legal under Islam by an imam). Fatma C. got pregnant and was taken to a local health center where, because she was younger than 18, authorities informed law enforcement authorities.

Prosecutors decided that the girl's husband and her mother, Emani B., should stand trial for forcing an underage girl into marriage. So, stand trial they did. But a court in Ankara ruled during the first hearing of the case to acquit them. The defendants maintained that they did not know the Turkish law on marriage and that the girl had married "under Syrian law." An unusually tolerant Turkish prosecutor ruled that the "marriage took place not with the intention of committing an offense."

"It is universal rule that not knowing the law is not an excuse when one offends," said Ceren Kalay Eken, a lawyer from the Ankara Bar Association. "The appropriate place for a 13-year-old girl is on the school bench, not tending to the cradle."

It is amazing how soft and tolerant Turkish law enforcement can be when the offenders act from motives derived from austere Islamic values and traditions. Around the same time as the child bride's abusers went free during their first hearing, another Ankara court arrested four university students for exhibiting at their graduation ceremony a placard that the court deemed insulting to President Erdo?an. In Turkey, you may abuse a 13-year-old and walk free, but you may not tease the president.


5 Ugly Truths About Women That Young Men Need to Recognize

I love women. Not in the social justice warrioresque “We must praise women as strong, capable CEOS and STEM graduates who can do anything men can do, but in heels” way, but in an old-school way. It’s easy to respect a mother who watches out for her children, a wife who is loyal to her husband, or a sister who cares for her brother. I love a beautiful woman. I love a sexy woman. I love a woman who gives off that amazing feminine energy. As a man, being around a woman like that is just good for your spirit.

All that being said, this is not about the more wonderful traits of women. To the contrary, it’s the kind of warning about women that fathers used to give their sons, but that’s frowned upon today. You see, in our society we can hammer home the faults of men until they become stereotypes, but we’re not supposed to point out the similarly damaging, but often very different flaws of women that young men need to worry about.

I think lions are extraordinarily beautiful and powerful creatures, but I also know if you make a wrong move around one, you can lose an arm. Women are much the same. They are magnificent but dangerous and since men pursue them, they need to understand what they’re getting into.

1. Beauty fades

Men don’t like to admit this, but the first thing they think about when it comes to women is beauty. Not only are we drawn to it, but it’s a status symbol. When a man has an attractive woman, other men think more of him. In fact, it can become such a powerful draw that some men put beauty first and second — and whatever comes third doesn’t matter. This is a mistake if you plan to be with her beyond a date or three because beauty fades for all of us, but it fades faster and harder for women. Moreover, beauty in and of itself only attracts for so long. As the old saying goes, “No matter how good she looks, someone out there is tired of her sh*t.” Point being, make sure you judge a woman on a lot more than beauty alone because the time is going to come when one way or the other, that beauty is going to fade in your eyes.

2. After your relationship ends, you may be surprised at the ruthless treatment you get

Men tend to be famously ruthless about relationships a few dates in when women fall for them way too early and the men only care about sex. On the other hand, women tend to be much more ruthless than men when a relationship is ending. This is hard for a lot of men to believe because they can’t imagine the sweet, uplifting, nurturing woman they were in a relationship with is taking them to the cleaners in divorce court or using their kids as a bargaining chip after the divorce.

3. Women are much more status-oriented than men

Women tend to put the same kind of emphasis on status that men put on beauty. That doesn’t mean it’s the end all and be all of everything, but it does mean status is a lot more important to women than it is to men. What that means is that as a man, if you ever stop performing at the level your woman is accustomed to, you may lose her regardless of everything else. Lose your job, get demoted, take a big pay cut, lose your moxie somehow and women are much more likely to walk away than a man would be with a woman in the same situation. That doesn’t mean it’s a given, but it does mean that going backward in status as a man risks your relationship with a woman.

4. Women are not as stable as men

There are exceptions to every rule, but the most stable woman is as emotional as an unstable guy. Women are more emotional, more hormonal than men. Women are, at best, more tolerant of drama than men and at worst, they seek it out. They will become upset for no good reason, act irrationally, and are more prone to things like anxiety than men. The point of this is not “women are unstable and bad,” it’s that women are very different in this area and you need to be ready to deal with it. At times there’s going to be crying, no matter what you do. At times, your girlfriend / lover / wife is going to become angry at you even though you’ve done nothing wrong. Wise men learn that there are times to ignore things women say rather than get in a fight because ten minutes later, their mood will improve. To men who aren’t used to it, all of this can be freaky, but it can also help keep things fresh and exciting once you learn to navigate it.

5. Women may come to hate you for your weakness

If your woman is stronger than you, she may still date you. She may love you. She may even marry you one day. However, on a fundamental level, she will not be able to respect you if you are not strong and competent enough to lead her. Women don’t want to be the ones who make all the decisions and wear the pants in the family and if you force her to do that, it will wear on her and she will come to resent you. How will that resentment play out? At best, probably unhappiness and at worst, cheating, divorce or contempt that’s so bad that you wish you were divorced. I’m not telling you to be a jerk, but I am telling you that if you are not a stronger person than your woman, you will ultimately be sorry.


Australian navy nailed to the wall for PC post

A bearded Australian naval officer holding up his painted pinky finger­nail in hot lolly pink was an absolute money shot for the 100 Days For Change campaigners.

Yet when the Australian navy posted photos of the unlikely poster boy across social media, it didn’t go down well with the troops.

Navy was pilloried for being ­focused on a “politically correct” campaign rather than focusing on the defence of the realm.

The 100 Days For Change campaign was launched this month by Women and Leadership Australia to promote a ­nationwide push among companies for gender ­equity in the workplace. Journalist advocate Tracy Spicer is the public face of the campaign.

NSW RSL president James Brown said last night the navy should never have been dragged into such a loaded political exercise.

“Navy has made great progress in making sure women aren’t unfairly treated,” he said. “But ordering uniformed personnel to join social-activism campaigns is a step too far and risks politicising the defence force.”

Lauding the aims of the campaign on the official navy website, Deputy Chief Mark Hammond said 21.3 per cent of the navy’s workforce was female, “a statistic navy can be proud of, but more needs to be done”.

Rear Admiral Hammond said the navy needed to look at a range of measures — from supporting women’s sporting events to ­reviewing procedures for unconscious gender bias.

“We must do this as one navy, regardless of age, rank, race, ­religion, sexual orientation, ability or gender,” he said. “We cannot afford to leave anyone behind.”

The Defence Department tweeted that the navy had recently become involved in the campaign. “To encourage gender equality and diversity in the workplace, personnel in Sydney painted their pinky fingernails pink as a visual indication of support,” the department said.

The campaign partners include the not-for-profit Australian Gender Equality Council and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, an Australian government statutory agency.

“What I love about this campaign is the focus on practical change, from the grassroots to the top end of town: action, not words. It will be exciting to see what we are able to achieve,” Ms Spicer said of the campaign.

There are various pledges for change on the campaign website, including from Warrant Officer Gary Wight of the Royal Australian Navy. “I will focus on the strength and increased capability we gain from a truly diverse and inclusive workforce,” he said.

Former Labor leader Mark Latham let loose yesterday. “THIS WILL SCARE THE ENEMY,” he screamed on his Facebook and Twitter feeds. “Sadly, this is not a joke. It is the Australian Defence Force under Marise Payne and Malcolm Turnbull.”

On Mr Latham’s Outsiders Facebook page, it was open ­season. Phil said: @Bullshit! Really! This is the limit! … The services (navy, RAAF, army) need men and women who will fight for our country with devotion and guns, not dresses and hair dryers.”

Rob said: “When I was in the army 30 years ago we thought the navy wore pink nail polish anyway.”

Mr Latham told The Australian the 100 Days For Change campaign was another doomed “PC project”. “These guys are fighting for their country … why engage in pathetic virtue signalling?” he said.

The office of Defence Minister Marise Payne did not respond to inquiries.



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

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

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


30 July, 2018

Poisonous Jewish far-Leftists

A 20-year-old supporter of President Donald Trump resigned from her position as a counselor at a summer camp known as “Commie Camp,” she told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an exclusive interview.

Gabriella Mamet said she resigned as a counselor at Camp Kinderland in Tolland, Massachusetts, after nearly a month of Trump-bashing, Black Lives Matter chants and hostility from campers. Progressive film director Katie Halper coined Kinderland “Commie Camp” in a 2013 documentary.

“They didn’t really mention how political of a camp it was in the phone interview or anything,” Mamet told TheDCNF. “I went on their website and I thought it was pretty much a normal camp and when i got there during orientation it was kind of surprising at how political it was.”

The 20-year-old worked at the camp from the June 28 orientation until she quit July 22. Camp Kinderland assigned her to 14- and 15-year-old campers. Her campers allegedly wanted to know the Trump supporter’s views on political issues, but Mamet was not comfortable sharing them.

Camp Kinderland is a “multicultural summer camp and community that honors our progressive secular Jewish roots through our commitment to economic, racial, and social justice,” according to its mission statement. “Kinderland’s summer programming and year around activities integrate progressive values with arts, recreation, and activism in a compassionate and caring environment.”

Campers were “attacking me for my political views and just saying that they would feel threatened with me as their counselor,” Mamet said. “They were saying that they felt threatened by me as a counselor and not knowing my views on gun control … they said to my face all Trump supporters are bad people. They’re racist, homophobic and we don’t want them at our camp.”

She said the staff had a meeting following a July 20 article in TheDCNF showcasing the nearly 50 Antifa flags campers had designed. Mamet said staff members were instructed not to use social media at the meeting.

Aside from Antifa flag-making, Mamet said campers participated in an event called “Peace Olympics.”

There are “five teams and every team gets an issue and my particular team was Black Lives Matter,” she said. “We would have to make chants about Black Lives Matter and chants in favor of that particular thing. … Some of the chants they made were attacking Trump. ‘No more Trump, no more Pence. We don’t need a bigger fence.'”

Campers “were justifying the police officers being shot [in Ferguson],” Mamet, whose father is a police officer, explained to TheDCNF. “They were basically saying that it was okay for the police officers to be shot because people were so angry.”

Mamet was supposed to switch bunks on the day she resigned, due to what she felt was hostility from her campers.

“The program director came and talked to the campers about why I was moving and I wanted it to be clear that I was moving because the way they were treating me. But the program director told the campers it was just because I was needed somewhere else,” Mamet said. “They weren’t doing anything to hold [the campers] accountable because they were obviously just trying to keep their money.”

Camp Kinderland did not respond to a request for comment.


Alberta man legally changes sex for cheaper car insurance

An Alberta man has legally changed his gender purely to benefit from the lower car insurance rates offered to women.

“I didn’t feel like getting screwed over any more,” the man, identified only as “David,” told CBC this week.

For more than three years, Alberta has been among several provinces in which residents can legally change the sex on their birth certificates without providing evidence of genital surgery.
Under a 2015 reform brought in by Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives, to change the gender on a birth certificate applicants need only provide a note from an accredited physician or psychologist indicating that they identify as a different sex.

“It was pretty simple. I just basically asked for it and told (the doctor) that I identify as a woman, or I’d like to identify as a woman, and he wrote me the letter I wanted,” David told CBC.

Once a birth certificate is amended, it’s then a simple process to have the change applied to an Alberta driver’s licence.

David noted in a post to Reddit last April that he would have paid $4,517 if he had insured his car as a man, but the cost dropped to $3,423 once he became a woman.

“I am now a woman … I now pay $1,100 less for auto insurance. I won. The end,” he wrote.

Alberta’s sex change requirements weren’t intended to help Albertans welch on their insurance premiums, of course, but rather to cut red tape for the transgender community. A statement at the time called it “a major step forward in supporting transgender individuals and their families.”

In the United States, data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has concluded that men are roughly twice as likely to die in fatal car crashes as women.

Part of this is because more men are employed in jobs that require time behind the wheel. However, rates of speeding, impaired driving and reckless driving are also higher among males.

Indeed, David’s insurance rates were particularly high in part because, despite only being in his early 20s, he already has a collision and several tickets on his driving record.


Just more of the global outbreak of mental illness. Move along

On Sunday night, a Muslim named Faisal Hussain strolled calmly down Danforth Avenue in Toronto’s Greektown, a popular area known for its restaurants and cafes. Hussain pulled out a weapon and started firing into some of those restaurants, murdering two people and injuring another 13.

The most obvious explanation for this is that Hussain was answering the call of the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qaeda for individual Muslims to murder civilians in Western countries. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

"So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him…."

Hussain’s family, on the other hand, was ready with a different explanation. His parents issued a statement saying: “Our son had severe mental health challenges, struggling with psychosis and depression his entire life….While we did our best to seek help for him throughout his life of struggle and pain, we could never imagine that this would be his devastating and destructive end.”

This might be more convincing had we not heard it so many, many times before. Just a few of many available examples:

Last week in Paris, a Muslim hit a 69-year-old Jewish man, knocking him to the ground, and then dragged him by the hair, all the while screaming “Allahu akbar, long live Hitler, death to the Jews.” The attacker was sent for a psychiatric evaluation; French authorities are apparently not even considering the possibility that he is a jihad terrorist with Islam’s special hatred for Jews.

Likewise in June 2017, a Muslim who stalked through a Jewish area of London screaming “Allah, Allah” and “I’m going to kill you all” was not a jihadi. A police spokesman explained: “He was detained by officers under the Mental Heath Act. No one was injured. This is not being treated as terror-related.”

Also in June 2017, a Muslim in a Metro station in Lausanne, Switzerland began screaming “Allahu akbar,” causing commuters to run away in terror. But there was nothing to be concerned about: the prosecutor explained that “this is a person who was afraid his life was in danger. At the height of his crisis, he began to face paranoia. Then he called to God for help. This is what he did last Friday in the subway shouting Allahu akbar.”

In March 2017, a Muslim in Germany attacked a 59-year-old man riding his bicycle, bashing his skull with a hammer. Police announced: “The suspect may have a mental illness” and stressed that this was not a jihad attack, as the attacker was simply  “mentally ill.” Another Muslim in Germany who wounded nine people with an axe in a train station was also not a jihadi; he had “mental health problems.”

In May 2016, a Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” and “Infidel, you must die” stabbed four people, killing one, at a train station near Munich. Nonetheless, Bavarian security officials immediately denied that he “had an Islamic extremist motive.” Then what caused the attack? Bavaria’s state interior minister Joachim Herrmann said that the attacker had “mental disorders.”

A Muslim was arrested in June 2016 for a jihad plot to attack tourists and police. He was found with a knife and a machete. According to the Telegraph, “the suspect has a history of psychiatric problems and has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, but is considered nonetheless ‘truly radicalised’ with a ‘serious profile.’”

In August 2016, a Muslim stabbed six people in London, murdering one of them. The BBC reported that “the Met Police’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, Mark Rowley, said the investigation was increasingly pointing to the attack being ‘triggered by mental health issues.’”

That was also the verdict in the case of Gyulchehra Bobokulova, the Muslim woman who in May 2016 beheaded a four-year-old girl and then paraded her severed head through the streets of Moscow. She screamed “Allahu akbar” while brandishing the girl’s head and said that Allah had ordered her to behead the girl. She seems to have had an Islamic State boyfriend. She had become religious not long before the beheading, and started wearing hijab. She says the beheading was revenge for Russian airstrikes on Muslims in Syria. She told her son to pray five times a day and live in accord with Sharia. Despite all that, however, she was declared insane and not brought to trial.

In Uruguay, a Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” stabbed a Jewish man to death, and later explained that in committing this murder, he had “followed Allah’s order.” But a judge ruled that he was “suffering from chronic psychosis of schizophrenic type” and “was not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.”

In the same way, a Muslim who was shouting “Allahu akbar” outside a Brooklyn synagogue in July 2016 and had two knives in his car was, according to the New York Daily News, nothing to be concerned about: “investigations by the NYPD and FBI showed Joudeh, 32, was emotionally disturbed and not a terrorist threat.”

Mental illness is also the cause of anti-Americanism among Muslims. Military Times reported that in November 2015, “a Jordanian police captain opened fire in an international police training facility, killing two Americans and three others. The government subsequently portrayed the police captain as troubled.”

Of course. What else could he be?

What those who dismiss jihad activity as mental illness never consider is that it could be both. If Faisal Hussain really struggled with mental health issues throughout his life, as his family claims, he may have considered himself to be under a curse from Allah, and decided to do something great in order to get into the deity’s good graces. And Islam teaches that there is no deed greater than jihad: a hadith has a man asking Muhammad, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” Muhammad replied, “I do not find such a deed.” (Bukhari 56.4.2785)

If Faisal Hussain was tormented by the idea that he had sinned, he also might have been trying to make sure the scale holding his good deeds outweighed the scale holding his evil deeds (cf. Qur’an 21:47) by performing what is, in Muhammad’s view, the greatest deed of all.

There is, in sum, no reason why an act of jihad terror cannot be performed by someone who is on the psychically marginal edge, and plenty of reasons why someone who is psychically marginal might opt for jihad.

But we are certain to hear even more the same old excuses in the coming days, along with admonitions that only by rejecting “Islamophobia” can we prevent future Faisal Hussains. The mental health of would-be Islamic jihadis will be, like everything else, made the responsibility of non-Muslims, just as it is the responsibility of non-Muslims to bend over backward to accommodate Muslim demand so as to prevent “radicalization.”

The jihad imperative in the Qur’an and Sunnah, however, is open-ended. Jihad is to be waged against all infidels, not just to those who are “Islamophobic” and not appeasement-minded. And so all the claims after this latest jihad attack that Muslims are the real victims of jihad and require special accommodation may well result in that accommodation in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, ostensibly to prevent more Faisal Hussains from going round the bend, but it will do nothing to blunt the force of the advancing jihad.


Germany: Rise of the Salafists

The number of Salafists in Germany has doubled over the last five years and now exceeds 10,000 for the first time, according to Germany's BfV domestic intelligence agency. BfV estimates that Germany is home to more than 25,000 Islamists, nearly 2,000 of whom pose an immediate threat of attack.

The new figures are included the latest annual report of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV), and presented by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer and BfV President Hans-Georg Maaßen in Berlin on July 24.

The report, considered the most important indicator of internal security in Germany, draws a bleak picture. The BfV estimates that the number of Islamists in Germany increased to at least 25,810 by the end of 2017, up from 24,425 in 2016.

Strangely, the report does not provide any estimates for the number of followers of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda living in Germany. As a result, the actual number of Islamists in Germany is undoubtedly higher than 25,810.

According to the report, Salafists comprise the single largest Islamist group in Germany. The number of Salafists in Germany jumped to 10,800 in 2017, up from 9,700 in 2016; 8,350 in 2015; 7,000 in 2014; 5,500 in 2013 and 4,500 in 2012.

The BfV report states:

"Salafists see themselves as defenders of an original, unadulterated Islam. They model their religious practice and lifestyle exclusively on the principles of the Koran, the Prophet Mohammed and the first three Muslim generations, the so-called righteous ancestors (Al-Salaf al-Salih in Arabic). As a consequence, Salafists want to establish a 'theocracy' according to their interpretation of the rules of sharia, one in which the liberal democratic order no longer applies.

"Political and jihadi Salafists share the same basic ideology. They differ primarily in the means by which they wish to achieve their objective, the 'Salafist theocracy.' Political Salafists spread their Islamist ideology through intensive propaganda activities — which they describe as 'missionary work' (Dawa) — to transform society, through a long-term process, according to Salafist norms.

"Many political Salafists position themselves as being against terrorism. They emphasize the peaceful nature of Islam and reject open calls for violence. Nevertheless, it should be noted that political Salafism has an ambivalent relationship to violence because in principle it does not exclude religiously inspired violence as a means to achieve its goals.

"In their interpretations of Islam, political Salafists make selective use of the classical works of the Islamic legal literature, which affirms a strong affinity to violence when dealing with non-Muslims. Salafists believe that the universal claim of Islam, due to its superiority as the divine plan of salvation for all of humanity, must be imposed by force if necessary. Therefore, the fundamental affirmation of violence is an intrinsic part of Salafist ideology.

"The two Salafist currents have different but easy-to-bridge views on under which prerequisites violence may be used. This explains why the transition from political to jihadist Salafism is fluid."

The BfV report states that Salafists are focusing their proselytizing and recruiting efforts on migrants seeking refuge in Germany:

"Under the guise of humanitarian aid, Islamists succeed in radicalizing migrants. In the past, Salafists in particular tried to reach out to migrants. They visited refugee shelters for this purpose and offered assistance. The target group was not only adult migrants, but also unaccompanied adolescents, who, due to their situation and age are particularly susceptible to Salafist missionary activities.

"The diverse propaganda activities of Salafists, which they play down as 'proselytizing' or 'inviting people to Islam' — it is in truth a systematic indoctrination and often also the beginning of radicalization — are successful: Salafism is the fastest growing Islamist trend in Germany.

"The Salafist scene represents the essential recruitment field for Jihad. Almost without exception, all persons with a German connection who have joined the jihad were previously in contact with the Salafist scene."

According to BfV, the growth of Germany's Salafist movement is being fueled in part by migrants from Chechnya:

"Within the Salafist scene in Germany, actors of North Caucasian origin — especially from the Russian Republic of Chechnya — have gained importance. Particularly affected are federal states in Eastern and Northern Germany, as well as North Rhine-Westphalia.

"The North Caucasus Islamist scene is characterized by sprawling, Europe-wide networks and characteristics. It is largely sealed-off to the outside. A critical factor for radicalization is the personal contact spectrum, which connects elements from the religion and the traditional clan structure. The North Caucasus Islamist has established contacts with Middle Eastern jihadi groups due to the 'successes' of the North Caucasus fighters in Syria or Iraq."

The BfV report makes a direct link between the increase in anti-Semitism in Germany and the rise of Islamist movements in the country:

"Islamist propaganda often combines religious, territorial and/or national-political motives with an anti-Semitic worldview. The 'enemy image of Judaism' therefore forms a central pillar in the propaganda of all Islamist groups....

"The BfV recorded a large number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2017. The spectrum of incidents ranged from anti-Israeli banners at public events and anti-Semitic sermons to anti-Semitic posts on social media and verbal or physical attacks against individual Jews.

"The BfV has found that all the Islamist groups active in Germany spread and nurture anti-Semitic ideas. This poses a significant challenge to the peaceful and tolerant coexistence in Germany."

According to BfV, the second-largest Islamist movement in Germany is Millî Görü? (Turkish for "National Vision"), which has around 10,000 members in the country. The movement is strongly opposed to Muslim integration into European society:

"The movement believes that a 'just' political order is one founded on 'divine revelation' while those systems designed by humans are 'vain.' At present, the 'vain' Western civilization dominates, based on violence, injustice and exploitation of the weak. This 'vain' system must be replaced by a 'just order,' based exclusively on Islamic principles, rather than man-made ones and thus 'arbitrary rules.' All Muslims should contribute to the realization of the 'just order.' To do this, Muslims must adopt a certain vision (Görü?) of the world, namely a national/religious ('Milli') vision, a 'Millî Görü?.'"

In addition to the Salafists and Millî Görü?, BfV estimates that Germany is now home to 1,040 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, 950 members of Hezbollah and 320 members of Hamas.

After presenting the BfV report Interior Minister Horst Seehofer demanded that the government speed-up deportations of Islamists. "We do not have anything under control in any area," he concluded.



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

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

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


29 July, 2018

Court Drops Bogus Charges Against David Daleiden for Exposing Planned Parenthood Baby Part Sales

A court has dropped some of the bogus charges against pro-life advocate David Daleiden, who exposed the sales of body parts from aborted babies at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and throughout the abortion industry.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) dismissed seven out of eleven claims on Friday against Daleiden and his organization, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in court on Friday. In 2015, NAF sued David and CMP after they began releasing undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of baby body parts. Buying and selling fetal tissue is illegal under federal law.

Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund attorney Charles LiMandri said NAF successfully obtained a “gag order” from the court preventing Daleiden and CMP, during the course of litigation, from releasing the undercover videos recorded at NAF abortion conferences.  Although dropping seven of the charges is a positive step, by dismissing the seven claims NAF is trying to speed up the case so it can secure a permanent gag order against David and CMP, which would block the release of the videos regardless of the case’s outcome, he said.

“NAF’s latest litigation maneuvering shows that this case has only ever been about one thing—an unconstitutional silencing of a pro-life hero. As the Trump Administration continues its investigation of NAF’s gruesome actions, we expect their lawyers to do everything they can to permanently silence David. After all, NAF realizes just as much as we do that criminal indictments for many of NAF’s members are only a matter of time,” LiMandri said in a statement.

NAF’s remaining claims accuse David and CMP of fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory fraud, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy. For instance, NAF complains that David broke the law because he allegedly violated the purported confidentiality agreements he signed at NAF’s annual conference.

LiMandri said: “NAF is using these purported confidentiality agreements to hide their criminal deeds. But the public has a right to know about the true nature of the abortion industry. We hope that as this case moves forward, the court concludes that NAF’s remaining claims are meritless.”

FCDF attorneys and co-counsel at the Thomas More Society will be filing a motion to dismiss NAF’s remaining claims.

LiMandri added: “Seven down; four to go.”

Daleiden tweeted the good news late Monday from his Twitter account.


Rep. Gohmert: Hate Crime Laws Will Be ‘Used to Persecute Christians'

At a conference for young conservatives on Wednesday, House Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said that he knew “hate crime legislation … would one day be used to persecute Christians.”

At the Turning Point USA High School Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., Gohmert said, "I knew 10 years ago, when hate crime legislation was being pushed, that it would one day be used to persecute Christians, and that is coming about – U.S. Commission on Civil Rights talks about this hate group, evangelical Christians."

Gohmert was referring to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which includes additional penalties to criminal violent acts that are motivated by hate.

In a commentary he wrote on the hate crime law, Gohmert gives an example where someone who shoots a homosexual after hearing a religious leader preach “that homosexuality is wrong and leads to the ultimate destruction of moral society,” it could be argued that “the teaching of the minister/rabbi/imam is what ‘induced’” the shooter to commit the crime.

He also mentioned his commentary during his speech Wednesday, saying, “The message of the federal hate crime bill, that is still in law, is if you are going to hurt me, shoot me, brutalize me, but please don't hate me.  Make it a random, senseless crime of violence instead.  You’ll walk free from the federal charges under the new Hate Crimes bill if you do.”


Nude Customer Reveals a lot about Gym

If you think you’ve had a rough month, try being in the PR department for Planet Fitness! First, the gym was slammed for revoking the membership of a woman who complained about a biological man sharing her locker room. Then, in an ironic twist, the same argument they used to defend that outrage came back to haunt them when a 34-year-old man decided to visit a Massachusetts chain and workout in the nude!

I thought it was a “judgment-free zone,” 34-year-old Eric Stagno told police. That is, after all, what Planet Fitness told the woman in Florida (and another in Michigan) about sharing private spaces with the opposite sex. If it’s okay to let men undress in front of women in their locker rooms, why not out in the open?

“The story we got from witnesses,” police captain Brett Morgan said, “was that the guy walked in, stripped down right there in front, left the clothes and belongings at the front desk, walked back and forth across the gym a couple of times and then settled in over at the yoga mats.” Other exercisers said they felt “sick,” “unsafe,” and “disgusted” — the same words that could have been used by women who were shocked to find out that Planet Fitness’s unposted policy was to let men expose themselves in the women’s showers or locker rooms any time they wanted!

Unlike Jordan Rice, who was supposedly justified in horrifying “Mrs. H” in Florida, Eric Stagno was charged with “indecent exposure, lewdness and disorderly conduct.” Apparently, Planet Fitness isn’t always judgment-free — just when it comes to political correctness. And that’s where their logic breaks down. Extremists, like the ones at Planet Fitness, who think it’s okay to put women in dangerous situations because “tolerance,” don’t seem to understand that once you abandon millennia of moral values, it’s impossible to draw a line. How can you say to one person that public indecency is wrong if you allow it behind locker room doors?


Diversity worship only divides us further

“BBC CHIEF STUNNED BY SECRET SEX SURVEY.” The headline blaring from Britain’s Mail on Sunday one balmy morning in London a few weeks ago was irresistible. And the news report didn’t disappoint. “Can someone have a guess at how many people we’ve got who have disclosed they are transgender at the BBC? Ten? Anyone else? Twenty?” asked the BBC’s director of diversity at a social policy forum last month.

“I’ll put you out of your misery. We’ve got 417 people within the BBC who have said they are transgender, almost 2 per cent of the ­organisation.”

Using personal information from staff, diversity bean counters at Britain’s national broadcaster found 11 per cent of its employees are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Diversity executive Tunde Ogungbesan says that while the number of transgender people is “very, very high”, the broadcaster needs more lesbians.

The real misery is that we count this stuff at all. Extrapolating from the diversity director’s comment that “what gets measured gets done”, the next advertisement for a BBC job will logically need to seek a candidate with the following qualifications: must be able to write, have proven reporting skills, work effectively in a small team and be a lesbian. And how do they check the veracity of a candidate meeting that last stipulation? If only this were a facetious ­scenario.

A few days later, on July 4, former US president Bill Clinton tweeted: “E pluribus unum — out of diversity comes a deeper strength and unity rooted in the timeless ideals that we celebrate today. It’s ‘We the People,’ not ‘Us vs Them’…”

If only that were true. Instead, we are being sold a lemon every time someone says diversity makes us stronger and unites us.

Diversity, the new buzzword, has much in common with its older sibling, multiculturalism. The celebration of diversity and the daily condemnation of white male privilege has morphed into a project that divides us. When anchored to group identities, this new diversity project becomes the antithesis of the liberal model that emerged from the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. The timeless ideal that all individuals are revered as equal regardless of colour, creed and gender is being turned on its head.

To be fair to the BBC, by crunching the numbers about the sexual identity of its staff, the diversity bean counters are simply doing their bit, as disciples of this new project. But it didn’t need to unfold this way. Respecting diversity is admirable because it unifies us. Worshipping diversity as some kind of new age god in a secular world is destructive.

The more we label and encourage people to join smaller identity groups defined by being transgender or black lesbian or Muslim gay, the “other” — the outsiders — grow larger in number. There are more people outside the group to be suspicious of, to fear and even loathe.

People gathering in groups, associating with tribes, preferring their own kind, is as old as the history of mankind. As English philosopher Roger Scruton said as he watched the 1968 Paris protests — when middle-class students turned out to protest without really knowing what they supported — craving membership is “a deep adaptation of the species”.

Whereas people in previous centuries joined or were born into religious communities, in the modern secular West the search for meaning is leading people to seek out different group identities. It raises the real threat of a new and different form of sectarianism as politics and policies, even if well-meaning, encourage people to be defined by smaller and smaller group identities, fracturing along sex, sexual identity, race, colour, creed or other such traits.

Group identities don’t unify people, they build walls between people. Loyalty to the tribe, for example, means members are less likely to publicly countenance divergence from group orthodoxy even if they disagree in private. Tribal loyalty explains why it’s harder for an indigenous man, such as Warren Mundine, or an indigenous woman, such as Bess Price, to diverge from indigenous orthodoxy on anything from welfare to family violence to education and employment.

It explains why feminists within the #MeToo movement cling together, even if they harbour private reservations about trivial complaints about bad sex that have formed part of the ­movement.

Tribal loyalty explains why so few Muslims will say what Ayaan Hirsi Ali dares to say about aspects of Islam. Only the bravest speak up, understanding that they will be cast out as apostates, joining the ranks of “other” — people beyond the group — who are treated with suspicion, and worse.

Tribal loyalty explains how the heartbreaking case of Nia Wilson has given identity politics a new battleground. Last weekend the teenager was changing trains with her sister in Oakland, California, when a white man stabbed her in the throat. Police are exploring a race-hate motive. When I typed Wilson’s name into Google, up popped actress Anne Hathaway’s thoughts on white privilege. Not a news piece about what happened to Wilson.

Rachel Cargle, who describes herself as the “Beyonce of Academia” created an Instagram post exclusively for people of colour to share their feelings about Wilson. “No white women, no men,” she wrote. She asked people to tag their favourite white feminists who had yet to talk about Wilson.

The misguided Beyonce of Academia is building walls. Separating feminists according to skin colour creates more otherness, more fear, more suspicion. It does not help black women. It creates “us vs them”.

Worshipping diversity also has led to more victimhood, not empowerment. Just as tribes compete, grouping people according to sex, sexual identity or other human traits fuels a marketplace of outrage. Different groups vie for top billing as the biggest victims, to attract public attention or policy responses or both.

Over at Meanjin, a left-wing artsy publication, a few indigenous women were outraged when, on the last cover, editor Jonathan Green decided to cross out the indigenous title of the magazine, replacing it with #MeToo. How dare white feminists trump indigenous women. Green confessed his sins and apologised profusely for his white, male privilege.

The diversity cult is not breaking down barriers by encouraging intellectual sharing of ideas and experiences between people. Instead, it’s constantly searching for malfeasants guilty of the new sin of for cultural appropriation.

This month, Scarlett Johansson pulled out of playing a transgender man in Rub & Tub, a movie about Dante “Tex” Grill, who ran brothels in 1970s Pittsburgh. Her first response to claims that a “cisgender” woman should not play a transgender man was to direct the complaints to media representatives of Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto and Felicity Huffman, three cisgender actors who won rave reviews, awards and nominations for playing transgender women.

Inevitably, Johansson succumbed, saying she was grateful that the casting decision sparked a conversation about diversity. But it wasn’t much of a conversation. It came down to a stifling and one-dimensional, simplistic story that only a transgender man can play the role of a transgender man. And when journalist Daniella Greenbaum wrote a piece for the website Business Insider defending an actress who was hired to act in a role as a transgender man, her column was spiked by editors for “violating editorial standards”.

Respecting diversity should encourage us to step into the shoes of someone else, to empathise with their stories that define them as human beings. Instead, in the Age of Diversity, we are told a single story about people premised on their sex, sexual identity or skin colour.

In a TED talk some years ago, Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie spoke superbly about the danger of the single story. She recalled one of her professors telling her that one novel “was not authentically African”.

“Now I was quite willing to contend that there were a number of things wrong with the novel,” said the author of Half of a Yellow Sun. “But I had not quite imagined that it had failed at achieving something called African authenticity. In fact, I did not know what African authenticity was. The professor told me that my characters were too much like him, an educated, middle-class man. My characters drove cars, they were not starving. Therefore, they were not authentically African.”

Adichie confessed to falling for single stories about others. Growing up in Nigeria, she saw the family’s house boy only through a prism of poverty. When she visited the boy’s home she was startled to see a beautiful multi-coloured basket woven by his brother. “It had not occurred to me that anybody in his family could make anything,” she said. “Their poverty was my single story about them.”

When people choose to define themselves according to a single identity, they encourage a single story about their sex, or their sexual identity or their skin colour with a focus on negatives. Black Lives Matter tells a tiny, incomplete, story about black people in America. A dance performance last month, Where We Stand, suffered the same flaw because a dance student thought it clever to force whites to stay in the lobby while people of colour, brown people, indigenous people and members of the Asian diaspora were invited to enter the theatre.

Revering diversity encourages an ugly backlash, too, attracting opportunist grandstanders such as Canadian woman Lauren Southern, who arrived in Australia wearing a T-shirt that read “IT’S OK TO BE WHITE”. It’s not smart to answer toxic identity politics with tit-for-tat toxicity, where people treat their pale skin as a badge of honour. Southern’s white identity politics marks a low point of the new sectarianism. We are regressing further and further from the liberal project that treats all ­humans as equal regardless skin colour.

As Adichie said, telling one story based on negatives about people flattens their experience. “The consequence of the single story is this: it robs people of dignity — it makes recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasis how we are different rather than how we are similar.”

In a recent podcast, Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, recalled the 1934 experiment by American psychologist Richard LaPiere when he researched whether people were more racist in practice or theory. LaPiere took a Chinese student to a restaurant that had a sign saying they did not serve Chinese. At a time of growing American resentment towards Chinese, the student and the psychologist ordered and ate their meal without a hitch. LaPiere took the Chinese student, and his young Chinese wife, on a road trip across America, visiting 251 establishments, bars, bowling alleys, hotels and ­restaurants. The couple was denied service once. When LaPiere returned to his campus office, he sent questionnaires to each place — “would you serve members of the Chinese race?” More than 90 per cent said no.

Defining people according to race elicits divisive reactions, whereas a name and a face is a human story that attracts respect and empathy. As Brooks said: “Stories unite. Identities divide.”

Remember that next time an overpaid corporate executive or public bureaucrat champions diversity using a set of numbers based on gender or sexual identity or race.



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

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

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


27 July, 2018

Out of control British police again: Police officer described as 'bully in uniform' used knife to saw through innocent man's windscreen after mistaking him for drug dealer

A police officer who was caught on video smashing a driver's windscreen after mistaking him for a drug dealer is a "bully in uniform", a court heard.

PC Joshua Savage, 28, pounded on the Ford Fiesta before sawing his way through the glass with a lock knife during the attack in north London, jurors were told.

The driver, Leon Fontana, filmed from inside the car as Savage shouted "get out of the car" and "you're not allowed to drive it", jurors heard.

Prosecutor Jonathan Polnay told Southwark Crown Court: "It's not unfair to say that he [Savage] comes across in that clip as a bully in uniform."

Mr Fontana was left with glass in his eye and had to fork out £175 for a new windscreen. The police officer had mistakenly identified him as a local gang member well-known to the police.

Mr Polnay added: "PC Savage knows perfectly well how to behave. In two minutes of footage that you have just seen did he once say please? Did he once call Leon Fontana sir or mister or show him any degree of courtesy?

"When he [Mr Fontana] was saying 'I have a licence and insurance', he was telling the truth. No one is above the law - not you, not me, not even the judge for that matter nor is PC Savage.

"The law says that you, as a person driving the car, must stop if they are asked to by police. There's absolutely no obligation for the driver to get out of the car.

"Having said that, in reality what was happened here, as well as being unlawful, he's absolutely lost his temper. He has lost it.

"This behaviour was against the very laws he was there to uphold."

Mr Fontana, 27, was pulled over in Weedington Place, Camden, at around 5.45pm on 16 September 2016 because police mistook him for a known local gang member, TJ Dixon.

On the mobile footage, Mr Fontana can be heard saying "I'm not TJ, I'm not TJ," referring to the gang member he had wrongly been mistaken for.

Savage received an incorrect radio message that the driver only had a provisional licence, he shouted: "Get out the car, you're not allowed to drive it. You're disqualified, you're not allowed to drive."

The prosecutor told the jury that there is "no power for police to force entry" to a car in this scenario.

But Savage then took out his baton and began attempting to smash the passenger window. When that failed, the officer started sawing a hole in the windscreen using a Swiss Army knife.

Mr Fontana finally got out of the car through the passenger door and was wrestled to the ground while saying: "I'm recording for my safety".

The driver told the court he thought his life was in danger when PC Savage started smashing the windscreen.

Mr Fontana told jurors: "He came straight up to my window and he looked like he was in an emergency to talk to me or something."

"I didn't want to get out of the car - I wasn't doing anything illegal. I felt threatened and very frightened, I definitely wasn't leaving the car.

"I thought if I left that car I would be in danger certainly. I was not getting out to a police officer with a cosh and a knife so I got out the other side."

Mr Fontana told the court he was in handcuffs for "15 to 20 minutes". In his police statement, Savage claimed he was acting in self-defence. "I formed the belief that the male may have access to firearms, offensive weapons or drugs," he said. "There was a real and immediate risk that the male could cause harm or risk to me or my colleagues."

Mr Polnay questioned why Savage was not heard warning his colleagues on the video if he was truly concerned he had a weapon. "The prosecution say this is simply not true," he added.

Savage, of Hermon Hill, Wanstead, east London, denies common assault, possession of a bladed article and destroying property.

The trial continues.


Colonel removes Bible from POW/MIA memorial because atheists were offended

Todd Starnes of Fox News reports the commander of F.E. Warren Air Force Base in my hometown of Cheyenne, Wyo., removed the Bible from a POW/MIA memorial. The commander was responding to demands by a one-man, left-wing, anti-religion organization. F.E. Warren has a storied legacy in the American West and has been the way station for generations of military leaders who served their country.

Col. Stacy J. Huser, by removing the Bible and by mouthing the offended group’s politically correct, bumper sticker, psychobabble nonsense, brings dishonor on this country’s uniform, those who served on the base before her, and those venerated by the memorial. President Trump, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, or Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson should remove Huser and restore the Bible to its rightful place.

I was born in Cheyenne; my father, mother, and brother are buried there; and my family has a lifelong connection to Warren. As a brash young man, Uncle Joe Wyrick fled the harsh hill country of Harlan County, Ky., enlisted in the U.S. Army, and ended up at Fort Francis E. Warren. My mother soon followed, met my railroader father who chased Depression Era jobs from the Arkansas Ozarks to Wyoming’s capitol, married, had my brother Barry and me, and, after jobs waitressing, became a nurse at “the base.” In the quiet of the graveyard shift, she watched over newborns and their mothers, most of whom were the wives of young, naive, and far-from-home enlisted men.

First called Fort D.A. Russell, after Civil War Brig. Gen. David A. Russell who was killed at the Third Battle of Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley, it was established by the U.S. Cavalry in 1867 near Crow Creek Crossing, later Cheyenne, on the treeless high plains at the far western edge of the Great Plains to protect those working on the Union Pacific Railroad. It was home to three black regiments, including the 24th Infantry, the famous “Buffalo Soldiers,” and by the turn of the century, it was one of the largest cavalry bases in the United States, with its men fighting the Indian Wars, sent to war in the Philippines, and deployed along the Mexican border. In 1930, its name was changed to honor Wyoming’s first governor Francis E. Warren, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for battlefield gallantry in the Civil War.

In 1949 it became an Air Force base and, in 1958, part of the Strategic Air Command. In 1961, it became headquarters for the 90th Strategic Missile Wing, which controlled more than 200 intercontinental ballistic missiles, with their nuclear warheads buried deep in silos at the end of dusty dirt roads across southeastern Wyoming. With those ICBMs the likely target of incoming Soviet missiles, Paul Harvey labeled Cheyenne “Bull’s Eye, USA.” We were proud to be noticed, but, in the era of the “duck and cover” campaign and films of nuclear testing in the Nevada desert, it generated nightmares of a nuclear blast sweeping through my father’s windbreak outside my window at our home east of Cheyenne.

The base was not just named for heroes; warriors who became heroes once called it home. One of them, World War I fighter ace and Medal of Honor recipient Captain Eddie Rickenbacker, crash-landed his plane on its dirt strip and survived. Other hereos include Gen. Mark W. Clark, who saw action in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War and was the youngest Army four-star general in WWII; Maj. Walter Reed, M.D., the U.S. Army physician who first postulated and confirmed the connection between mosquitoes and yellow fever (Walter Reed Army Medical Center is named after him); Maj. Gen. William L. “Billy” Mitchell, the military aviation visionary and father of the U.S. Air Force; and Gen. Carl A. Spaatz, who successfully commanded the Strategic Air Forces over Europe in 1944 and became chief of staff of the newly formed U.S. Air Force in 1947.

Most significant for me, however, was General of the Armies John Joseph “Black Jack” Pershing; after all, we drove Pershing Boulevard from our home to school, town, and the base where he served.

Fast forward to days ago, when Col. Huser acceded to the demands of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which claims to fight “virulent religious oppression” waged by “incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.” According to Starnes, MRFF President Mikey Weinstein says he has “36 unnamed clients” at Warren who were offended by the Bible at a POW/MIA table. To increase “the sense of belonging for all our Airmen,” Col. Huser announced the Bible will be replaced by a “book of faith” with “spiritual writings and prayers from the five [U.S. Department of Defense] Chaplain appointed faith groups and a sixth set of blank pages to represent those who find solace by other means.”

Gen. Pershing removed the Germans from Allied territory and, days ago, Col. Huser removed the Bible from a memorial. It is not your grandfather's Air Force anymore. What say you, Mr. President, Secretary Mattis, and Secretary Wilson? Is it yours?


The Great British Foreign Office Fantasy

According to the British Foreign Office, the Golan Heights are 'occupied'. They have been 'occupied' -- according to the logic of the UK Foreign Office -- since 1967, when Israel took the land from the invading forces of Syria. Ever since then, the Israelis have had the benefit of this strategic position and the Syrian regime has not. This fact, half a century on, still strikes the British Foreign Office as regrettable, and a wrong to be righted in due course.

Of course, since the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the official position of the UK government has become ever-harder to justify. For example, if the Israeli government were at some point over the last seven years suddenly to have listened to the wisdom of the Foreign Office in London and handed over the strategic prize of the Golan, to whom should it have handed it? Should Israel be persuaded to hand over the territory to the Assad regime in Damascus? It is true that, throughout the course of the Syrian civil war, the one bit of territory to which the Syrian regime has laid claim and which it has not been able to barrel-bomb and otherwise immiserate the people there has been the Golan Heights. Only in the Golan has anybody in this 'Greater Syria' been able to live free from the constant threat of massacre and ethnic, religious or political cleansing.

Other candidates for the territory naturally presented themselves across the same time-frame. The armies of ISIS came right up to the villages on the Syrian side along the borders of the Golan. There, they were able to bring that form of peace-through-barbarism which the world has come to know well. If ISIS had triumphed in the Syrian conflict rather than suffering repeated set-backs, would the UK Foreign Office have handed them the territory by way of reparational justice, or victor's prize? If not them, then perhaps the armies of Iran or Russia could have been the recipients of this feat of restorative diplomacy? Perhaps anyone who wished to lay claim to the Golan could have had it. So long as it was not the Israelis.

The ongoing madness of the British Foreign Office's position has been highlighted in recent days thanks to a request which came from the British government, as well as the governments in other European capitals and in Washington. A request which also involved the Golan.

Over the weekend, it emerged that the British government was among foreign governments to have made a dramatic request of the Israelis. As the war in Syria appears to be clarifying towards its end-point, a group of around 800 members of the 'White Helmets' and their families had reportedly become trapped near the southwestern border near the Golan Heights. The White Helmets only operate in 'rebel areas' and are despised by the Assad regime. With Syrian government forces moving in, a massacre may well have been about to occur.

At the request of these foreign governments, the Israelis just carried out an extraordinary and unprecedented mission. In recent days, a reported 422 of the intended evacuees and their family members were saved by the Israelis. The other -- almost half -- of the intended number appears already to have been cut off by other forces. Nevertheless, those who did make it out were transferred by Israeli forces across the Golan and have now reportedly arrived safely in Jordan where their future status will be determined. Some may stay in Jordan; others will be moved abroad to Western countries.

The painful irony of this situation should be clear to all observers. If the Israelis did not lay claim to the Golan, there would have been no means to have got the White Helmets and their families out of Syria. Had Israel not made the Golan the peaceful and thriving area it is, it would simply be another part of Syria in which different sectarian groups were slaughtering other sectarian groups.

As it is, the area is in the control of Britain's most reliable ally in the region. An ally which -- even as it is lectured by Britain -- agrees to requests from the British government that takes advantage of a strategic reality, one which the British government still refuses to accept.

The Israeli government has given the British government what it wanted. Perhaps now would be a good time for the British government to reciprocate in some way? There could be no better means of doing so than by admitting that the British policy of the last half a century has been a Foreign Office fantasy and a wholesale dud of 'realist' regional thinking. The Foreign Office will have to back out of its self-imposed corner regarding the Golan at some point and accept the reality on the ground. How much better it would be if it did so now in a spirit of goodwill and reciprocity, rather than later on in a spirit of inevitable and grudging defeat.


Ireland's Anti-Israel Bill and the Muslim Brotherhood

On July 11, the Irish Senate approved a bill criminalizing local companies that engage in commerce with Israeli firms based in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Introduced in the body's Upper Chamber by independent member Senator Frances Black, the bill passed initial muster, in a 25-20 vote with 14 abstentions. The Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill, 2018 would prohibit any import of goods or services from "occupied territories," with financial penalties of a quarter million euros in fines and up to five years imprisonment for violators.

Israel's reaction to the Irish Senate's vote was swift. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned Ireland's ambassador, Alison Kelly, for a reprimand. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman called for the immediate closure of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin. It is unlikely, however, that Israel will follow through on Lieberman's threat, as Ireland's governing party, the Fine Gael, is opposed to the bill, which in any case must pass in Ireland's Lower house of Parliament, the Dáil, before becoming a law.

A U.S.-based litigation outfit, The Lawfare Project, which fights anti-Israel discrimination -- with the help of UK Lawyers for Israel -- has initiated legal action against the proposed legislation. The litigators say that the Irish bill could have a negative impact on American companies with subsidiaries in Ireland: it is illegal under US anti-boycott laws to cooperate with a ban on commerce with Israeli settlements. Compliance with US boycott laws would, in turn, cost US companies a good deal in fines for violation of the Irish boycott.

What, then, is behind the proposed bill? One possible explanation is the prominent role played by Islamic institutions and organizations in Ireland, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's influence in Dublin, the nation's capital, is evidenced by the easy access its key personnel have to Ireland's government.

There is evidence to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood has established its European headquarters in the Emerald Isle. The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (ICCI), which hosts several Muslim institutes affiliated with the international Sunni group that many view as a terrorist organization, is located in Clonskeagh, a suburb south of Dublin. The ICCI complex includes the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), a prestigious institute of Islamic jurisprudence, which was founded by the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), itself a Muslim Brotherhood institution.

Dubai's ruling al-Maktoum family, a key Muslim Brotherhood financier, donated the money to erect the ICCI complex, which also houses Ireland's largest mosque. Furthermore, the ICCI's Campus Dean, Imam Sheikh Hussein Halawa, is a former colleague of the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Qatar-based Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi, the chair of the ECFR, was denied entry into Ireland in 2011, after he expressed support for the suicide bombing of Israelis. Since then, he has not been allowed into Ireland.

Sheikh Halawa, in addition to being the dean of the ICCI, also chairs the Irish Council of Imams, made up of at least 35 Sunni and Shia Muslim scholars in the Irish Republic. As a result, he maintains a high public profile, which has awarded him invitations to state events with Ireland's prime minister and president, and with the mayor of Dublin.

Despite popular support in Ireland for same-sex marriage and other liberal causes, Halawa openly sanctions the death penalty for gays, and the ICCI has a record of hosting radical Islamic speakers. One such speaker, Saudi Mullah Aed al-Qarni, told Iqra TV in 2004 that the "brothers of apes and pigs" (i.e. Israelis and Jews) killed arch terrorist Hamas leaders Abd al-Aziz al-Rantisi and Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. In 2005, al-Qarni sermonized about Jews "that throats must be slit and skulls must be shattered."

Another Saudi firebrand, Salman al-Ouda, delivered sermons at the ICCI in 2007. Egyptian imam Wagdy Ghoneim, who visited the center in 2006 and 2007, denounced Jews as pigs and apes at a conference of the American Muslim Society in May, 1998 at Brooklyn College. He was eventually banned from the UK and the US for having issued a fatwa urging Muslims to kill American troops fighting in Muslim lands, specifically to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

Classified cables exchanged in 2006 between the State Department and the US Embassy in Ireland -- and published by Wikileaks in 2011 -- revealed that the administration of George W. Bush was trying to find out whether the European Council for Fatwa and Research and other such groups were working to legitimize Sharia (Islamic) law in Western Europe.

According to James Kenny, the American ambassador to Ireland at the time, a certain journalist claimed that outside of Qatar, Ireland had the strongest Muslim Brotherhood presence, and that al-Qaradawi "runs Islam in Ireland."

The White House's concern may have been warranted concerning some Muslim Brotherhood zealots in Ireland. But there are other Irish Islamic leaders who are more willing to compromise with Ireland's values, if not assimilate. In his 2014 book, Islam and Education in Ireland: An Introduction to the Faith and the Educational Challenges It Faces, Dr. Ali Selim -- the ICCI spokesman and secretary general of the Irish Council of Imams -- called for a reform of Ireland's education system, to make it more "inclusive" for Muslims. Among the changes he advocated was gender segregation in gym, music and art classes, where there could be "a clash of values" with Islam. Selim was interviewed in the Irish press and asked whether he favored Sharia to be implemented in Ireland. He responded that only in the case where Muslims are a majority is Sharia likely to be enacted.

Nor is Islamic extremism in Ireland limited to the ICCI campus alone. The leaked US Embassy cables also indicated that even some Irish Muslims refer to a certain mosque in Dublin as "Tora Bora," a cave complex on Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. One of the mosques imams, Yayah al-Hussein, originally from Sudan, is a member of Hamas, and many of its congregants are Bosnian and Afghan jihadists.

That jihadist groups feel comfortable in Ireland is understandable, given the country's genuine societal openness to Islam in general and Muslim immigrants in particular. In addition, Irish politics tend to favor the narrative of Palestinian Arabs in their conflict with Israel. This is due, in part, to their viewing -- inaccurately -- the plight of the Palestinians through the prism of their own history of occupation by England. But the Irish never aspired to displace Great Britain.

Even so, in Northern Ireland's Province of Ulster, still part of the United Kingdom, Palestinian flags can be seen flying from private homes.

Meanwhile, the recently-replaced Lord Mayor of Dublin Mícheál Mac Donncha is a member of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which supports the global boycott effort against products made in Israel.

Politics aside, the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood -- and its use of Ireland as a friendly base from which to spread its doctrine throughout the rest of Europe -- should be a cause of great concern not just to Dublin, but to democracies everywhere. Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi summed up the Muslim Brotherhood creed while running for election in 2012:

"The Koran is our constitution;
The Prophet Muhammad is our leader;
Jihad is our path and death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration;
Above all, Allah is our goal."

Is it any wonder, then, that chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat welcomed the Irish Senate's bill? In a statement quoted by the official Palestinian Authority news agency Wafa, Erekat said, "This courageous step builds on the historic ties between Ireland and Palestine, [and] shows the way forward for the rest of the European Union."



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

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

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


26  July, 2018

In Chicago, Police Are Not the Problem

Will anyone in Chicago be embarrassed by this? Will any of the perpetually and professionally outraged say, “Gosh, maybe we were too quick to judge”? Will any of them look at the police body camera footage and say, “Yes, the guy had a gun and was trying to pull it out on the officers, so they had to shoot him”?

When Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., nearly four years ago, the fable quickly spread that he had presented no threat, that he had said to the officer, “Hands up, don’t shoot” just before he was mercilessly cut down. Investigators learned this was false within an hour of the shooting, yet the myth of Michael Brown as martyred hero was allowed to persist, and even when it was proven false beyond any doubt by the local investigation and that conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice (headed by Eric Holder, remember), the roots of the myth had grown so deep that, sadly, there are many who still believe it.

Despite the myth’s foundation on a lie, riots and protests continued for months in Ferguson and throughout the St. Louis area, with similar protests occurring across the country. Those protesters, I said at the time, were deluded fools, and I pointed out that a march in downtown St. Louis passed along a route that took them within a block of the scenes of two recent murders, both of which had claimed the lives of black victims. In St. Louis, it seemed, the only black lives that mattered were those taken by the police.

Which brings us to recent events in Chicago, where foolish delusion appears to have reached new heights (or lows, if you prefer). On Saturday, Chicago police officers on foot patrol in the South Shore neighborhood approached Harith Augustus, whom they suspected was carrying a gun. What happened next followed a script that has been repeated over and over, with only the details changing from one incident to the next. Augustus refused the officers’ commands and ran away while trying to pull the gun out of a holster. To protect himself and his partners, an officer shot and killed him.

And what then followed also conformed to a familiar script: Protesters gathered at the shooting scene and pelted the police with various projectiles, including bottles filled with urine. “He was unarmed,” they said. “He was a nice guy . . . He didn’t bother anybody . . . He was a good father,” and on and on and on.

In the initial absence of reliable information there is always speculation about what happened, with people of a certain mindset ready to believe even the most phantasmagorical tales about how the police may have transgressed. So, yes, people have the right to protest no matter how uninformed they might be on the issue, but they don’t have the right to do it violently.

But, even after being informed, even after being offered irrefutable evidence that Augustus was indeed armed and attempting to draw the pistol he was carrying, even after seeing the video which shows exactly what happened and how close one or more of those officers came to being shot, when you still take to the streets and call the shooting “murder,” it is not the least bit unfair to call you, yes, a deluded fool.

On Sunday, police released body camera footage captured by the shooting officer. The video, which was released without audio, shows the shooting officer and three others approach Augustus on the sidewalk outside the Jeffrey Big Market at 2016 E. 71st Street (Google street-view image is here). Absent the audio we don’t yet know what was said, but it’s clear that the officers were attempting to detain Augustus and had focused on what he had in his right waistband. The officers surrounded Augustus and tried to grab him, but he pulled away and walked quickly backward toward the street. As he did so his T-shirt was raised to reveal a holstered pistol on his right side and two extra ammunition magazines on his left. He turned to run into the street while reaching for the pistol, but it appeared he wasn’t able to draw the gun before he fell mortally wounded in the street. We haven’t yet been told where the police rounds struck Augustus, but it’s possible one or more of them hit him in the back. If this turns out to be the case, does it make it a “bad” shooting?

Of course not. An officer presented with a deadly threat, as Augustus plainly was, has no obligation to wait until that threat is facing him before defending himself. As the video shows, Augustus turned toward the officers in an instant while still trying to draw his gun. Had he not already been shot, he may have pulled it out and shot one or more officers.

And yet, as if none of this were now widely known, there were more protests Monday evening. Indeed, even in the face of clear evidence, there are those who insist the video shows Augustus was complying with the officers. “You can see [in the video] that he has what looks like a wallet in his hand,” said Maria Hernandez of Black Lives Matter Chicago. “He was trying to comply and he was shot in the middle of complying. Roughed up and shot,”

Maybe Hernandez was watching some other video, but it’s plain that’s not what was depicted in the one released by Chicago police on Sunday.

But again, to Hernandez and her fellow travelers in the grievance industry, it’s not all black lives that matter, only those lost to the police, no matter how justifiably those lives may have been taken. The Chicago Tribune informs us that in 2017 there were seven murders within a few blocks of where Augustus was killed, and that so far this year there have been two more. There have been seven non-fatal shootings in the same area in just the last 30 days. I searched in vain on the Internet for news on protests over even one of these crimes.

And now Harith Augustus will be placed on his pedestal alongside Michael Brown and all the other “victims of police violence,” and as people march in his name and pretend he didn’t bring on his own demise, violence on the streets of Chicago will continue as always while people ask why the police aren’t doing anything about it.

In Chicago, as elsewhere, the police are not the problem.


Who Knew? A Bad Marriage Can Damage Health

It should be obvious that a bad marriage can damage your health and that it is especially bad for men but here is the latest:

Psychologists monitored 373 couples over 16 years and found that couples who disagree often have poorer health – especially for men.
A bad marriage with frequent conflicts could have a serious detrimental impact on your health, according to psychologists.

The researchers at the universities of Nevada and Michigan monitored 373 heterosexual couples to investigate whether disagreeing about multiple topics – such as children, money, in-laws and leisure activities – had negative health implications.

“We followed married couples over the first 16 years of marriage and compared the subjective health of wives and husbands who reported a greater number of conflict topics to those who reported fewer,” said Rosie Shrout, who presented the preliminary results at the International Association for Relationship Research conference in Colorado.

The researchers found that marital conflict negatively affected health for both husbands and wives, although there was a greater impact of conflict on men than women. Couples who agreed with each other more experienced health benefits early on in their relationships, but this protective effect wore off in the later years of marriage....

“It’s not the act of walking down the aisle or signing a marriage licence that is beneficial for health – it’s what spouses do for each other throughout the marriage.”

The study also looked at the number of marital conflicts and the health impacts this had on wives and husbands individually. Whereas for wives the specific number of disagreement topics was unrelated to their health, the decline in husbands’ health was driven by the number of disagreement topics.

It is hard not to have disagreements with someone in a marriage who tends to be disagreeable and defensive and externally blames others. Women are taught now to blame men for everything and in a relationship, this can often lead to stress and health problems. It is best to stay away from "woke" women in relationships or those who externally blame others.


Fighting for Faith

The House of Representatives passed an appropriations bill on a narrow vote of 217 to 199. Tucked inside that bill is legislation that effectively guts the Johnson Amendment, thereby allowing pastors to speak freely from the pulpit about public policy without fear of the IRS.

To give you some idea of why this legislation is necessary, just consider what happened recently to Catholic bishops in Texas.

They were sued by abortionists challenging a state law requiring that abortionists respectfully dispose of the bodies of aborted babies. The Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops had offered to provide “free or low-cost burials.”

In their legal challenge to the law, the abortionists demanded all the bishops’ documents and communications regarding abortion, miscarriages, the law, and any communications with Texas officials and legislators in the past two years. Incredibly, a left-wing judge ordered the bishops to comply.

Thankfully, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the lower-court judge had violated the First Amendment rights of the Texas bishops. Judge Jim Ho wrote, “It is hard to imagine a better example of how far we have strayed from the text and original understanding of the Constitution than this case.”

This isn’t the first time religious leaders in Texas have been threatened by leftist politicians and activists for speaking out on matters of faith and public policy.

My friends, there is no question that religious freedom is under fire from the Left.

Thankfully, President Trump and his Senate allies are making tremendous progress appointing conservative judges to the courts. In fact, they have set a record. But there are still many more vacancies to fill.

We must expand our majority in the Senate this year in order to confirm Trump’s judges and defend religious liberty!


The figures that lay bare the African gang crisis in Victoria: Sudanese-born people are 57 times more likely to commit a robbery than Australians and 33 times more likely to riot

Sudanese-born people in Victoria are far more likely to be charged with aggravated robbery and riot and affray than their Australian-born counterparts, according to recent crime figures.

Victorian Crime Statistics Agency figures to the end of March reveal they are 57 times more likely to be charged with aggravated robbery and 33 times more likely charged with riot and affray than Australians ,The Australian reported.

Sudanese-born offenders ­accounted for 8.5 per cent of ­aggravated robbery offences and 6.9 per cent of riot and affray ­offences in the year to March - despite only accounting for 0.15 per cent of the state's population.

The highly politicised debate regarding African crime has reignited in recent days following the alleged stabbing murder of Melbourne woman, Laa Chol, who was at a party gatecrashed by African-Australian men early Saturday.

Federal Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton declared Victoria has a major law and order problem following the teenage girl's death, accusing Premier Daniel Andrews of failing to acknowledge the issue of Sudanese gangs.

Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Minister Alan Tudge also entered the debate, claiming the shocking crime levels in Victoria were not seen in Sudanese communities in NSW and Queensland.

'Basically the crime data is kept by country of origin, and what it shows is that typically the Australian-born commit most of the crime, naturally, because three-quarters of Victoria are Australian-born,' Mr Tudge told Sky News.

'But often now, Sudanese-born is No 2 or No 3, despite them being a tiny proportion of the population, so there clearly is an issue going on there, and the Victorian public know this.'

Mr Andrews was reluctant to respond to Dutton's comments on Monday. 'In relation to the very tragic death of Laa Chol, I don't think her family will be getting much comfort from this sort of discussion,' he told ABC Radio. 'I don't think her family, I think they deserve fundamentally better than what they've been given these last 12 or 24 hours.'  

But the head of police taskforce set up to investigate violent gang crime in Melbourne slammed Mr Dutton for suggesting the stabbing death of a young woman was related to the city's problem with South Sudanese gangs.

Commander Stuart Bateson said the death of Ms Chol, 19, had nothing to do with violent gangs or ethnicity. 'This is not to do with warring factions,' he said. 'The suggestion that Laa Chol, the victim, was a member of a gang just not true.'

3AW's Neil Mitchell agreed, saying that politics needed to be 'taken out of it' and said 'What Peter Dutton has said overnight is just wrong.'

Waleed Aly launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over his views on African gang violence in an eight minute segment on The Project last Thursday.

He admitted that while crimes committed by those of African descent were 'over-represented' and 'unacceptable' in some areas, they account for one per cent of crime, compared to 71 per cent of crime committed by Australian-born people.

'I'm not saying that African-Australians don't commit crime. And I'm not denying that victims of those crimes have a right to feel afraid,' Aly said.

'But it's just a fraction of the crime being committed, and to suggest a city is gripped by a fear of African gangs is just untrue.'



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

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

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


25  July, 2018

Those anti-Trump protests in Britain were really, really weird

This was atomised middle-class angst dressed up as radicalism.

We have to talk about those anti-Trump protests. We have to talk about how unusual they were. We have to talk about what a disturbing spectacle they were.

Some people claim the protests were in keeping with a long tradition of radical gatherings in Britain, from Suffragettes confronting coppers, to the mass rallies against the Vietnam War, to marches in solidarity with striking miners. But this is wrong. The anti-Trump protests were something new, and something very strange. These weirdly playful carnivals against Trump, people’s dancing and prancing and tweeting of their emotional disgust with the American president, speak to a new kind of apolitical protest, in which the aim is not to change the world but to trend online; in which people come together not to make a political statement but to make a personal one.

To those of us who take politics seriously, virtually everything about these protests was annoying. There were the cloyingly twee placards, desperately designed to make a stir on Twitter. You know the kind: ‘Things are so bad even introverted people are protesting’; ‘I hate Trump so much I hope he gets stuck on the Central Line in rush hour’; ‘Not usually my thing, marching – but honestly’, etc, etc.

There was the childishness: kids were everywhere, holding anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-border control placards as if they know the first thing about politics. I wonder if they are the sons and daughters of well-connected Remainers and Guardianistas, by any chance…? Indeed, the Guardian published a piece by an eight-year-old explaining why she attended the demo. Of course it did. ‘I want Donald Trump to know we don’t like what he’s doing’, the brat said, which is funny because that infantile take on global affairs summed up the entire demo. And when an eight-year-old can capture the spirit of your protest, you know you have left the realm of adult politics for the playpen of emotionalism.

There was the disorganisation. People wandering around aimlessly, no one leading chants, no one really knowing where they were going, or more importantly why. Some people complained about imminent climate collapse, others worried about the return of Nazism, some were concerned that Trump would embarrass the queen. You could listen to one protester say the world will shortly end courtesy of eco-criminal Donal Trump, and another saying, ‘Oh my god, his tiny hands will touch OUR queen!’.

Get some structure, people. Get some focus. Is the world ending, or not? What was your key complaint? What do you want politicians to do? Because if you can’t answer these questions then your demo just looks like a rowdy middle-class picnic at which a hundred thousand people are in essence letting off personal emotional steam. This was less a coherent mass statement, as protests have traditionally been, than it was a few thousand declarations of personal angst, or moral superiority. Witness the placards saying things like, ‘We care’ and ‘I care, do you?’. It was strangely atomised. It wasn’t a political force, it was a lonely crowd: disparate individuals joining together as much to say something about themselves as about the world.

And there was the identity politics, too. I’m sorry, but to refer to the collective of drag queens who were spreading their legs for the cameras and instructing Trump to keep his hands off their (non-existent) pussies as ‘The Resistance’ is an insult to actual resistance movements that stood up to actual fascism. The self-aggrandising title of ‘resistance’ felt utterly out of place on a demo where people weren’t saying anything politically serious, weren’t saying what they were for, and looked absolutely knackered by the time they got to Trafalgar Square – I’m not sure these folks would have lasted long in the Spanish Civil War or running messages to rebels in Vichy France.

What all of this points to is a new kind of protest. There is a new generation for whom protesting is largely indistinguishable from a music festival. It has the same vibe, the same style, and the same constituency: the non-working classes, who define themselves through culture rather than labour, and who see themselves as having more in common with global technocratic institutions like the EU than they do with some of the people who live in their own towns (but on the other side of the tracks). If this is radicalism – which it isn’t – then it is passive radicalism. It is an entirely contradictory phenomenon, where on the one hand protesters are telling us actual Nazism is making a comeback, but on the other hand they’re not going to do anything about it except chill out in Trafalgar Square and post to Instagram a photo of them and their friends holding a ‘FUCK TRUMP’ placard.

The contradictory nature is captured in their use, or rather misuse, of language. To the leaders of these protests, everything is white supremacy; every bad Trump policy is an echo of the Holocaust; everything they disagree with – whether it’s the Brexit vote or clampdowns on immigration – is proof of the imminent return of fascism. This is a deeply cynical exploitation of the crimes of history to try to give their lame, shallow, playful protests a sense of historic meaning and urgency. Recognising, at some level, that it is bizarre to try to cohere a new movement around an American president who, historically and politically speaking, is not that different to other American presidents, they have to look for a way to justify their disproportionate anti-Trump obsession and emotionalism – and they do it by rebranding Trump ‘Hitler’ and therefore themselves as ‘The Resistance’. Never mind cultural appropriation – this is historical appropriation, the marshalling of 20th-century horrors to inject some depth into their childish, festival-like expression of middle-class angst.

That is perhaps the most disturbing thing about the new apolitical protest. Such is the playfulness that even history becomes their plaything. Even the Holocaust becomes their plaything. They denude these crimes and events of meaning and turn them into memes to make themselves look good. That really is unforgivable. In the process of bigging up themselves, they demean the unique barbarism of the Holocaust and fascism’s other crimes.

And the aim of it all? To trend. To make a spark on Twitter or Instagram, which is increasingly the only public spheres the disconnected political and cultural sets have access to. The new left gets as excited about trending online as the old left did about helping to get a wage rise for hard-up workers. Contrast the shrillness and hyperbole and moral self-righteousness of this anti-Trump lobby with the principles and patience of Brexit voters. And yet the latter are continually insulted while the former are celebrated. We should turn this on its head. You want to see some genuine political radicalism in Britain today? Look to Brexit. That was a calm, grown-up demand for sweeping political change, whereas the posh rage against Trump is little more than a pining for the old status quo dressed up as a new edgy resistance.


The British Labour Party’s problem with Jews is getting worse

The message is clear now: we trust you less than other minorities.

The left treats Jews by a double standard. And this week we’ve seen that made crystal clear. Compare and contrast what happens to people who criticise Islam and people who criticise the Jewish State. A couple of days ago, grouchy New Atheist Richard Dawkins expressed dislike of the Islamic call to prayer. It sounds ‘aggressive’, he said. He said that, despite being godless, he prefers the sound of church bells. He was instantly denounced as bigoted. Even racist. Prominent Corbyn supporters branded him far right. He was a fascist simply for criticising an aspect of Islam.

At the same time, precisely as these denunciations of Dawkins were taking place, Labourites were arguing that public life must find a way to accommodate stinging, even ugly criticism of the Jewish State. As part of the debate about Labour’s new code against anti-Semitism, some insisted that ridicule of the Jewish State must be tolerated because it is illiberal to ‘curb’ legitimate discussion in relation to political and ideological matters.

Why is open and free discussion important on Jewish matters but not Islamic ones? Why is it always Islamophobic to criticise the call to prayer or ridicule the Koran or question the wisdom of women wearing the veil, but it is not anti-Semitic to obsess over the Jewish State and write it off as evil, racist and nasty? Or consider how leading Labourites, including Emily Thornberry, responded last week to Donald Trump’s mild criticisms of London mayor Sadiq Khan for his handling of terrorism. Trump’s comments were ‘racist and Islamophobic’, they said. The accusation of Islamophobia made instantly when a Muslim public figure or an Islamic belief is criticised, yet when the Jewish State is demonised, as it so often is by the new left, Labour says we have to stop and think before we say it is prejudiced speech — why?

It should be clear to everyone by now that the left treats so-called Islamophobia more seriously than anti-Semitism. Or to put it another way, modern leftists and liberals are incredibly sensitive when it comes to public discussion of Islam, overly sensitive, to the extent that they convince themselves that any questioning of Islam or its adherents is borderline fascistic. Yet they suddenly become more measured – an unusual trait for them – when it comes to discussion of the Jewish State. One ideological outlook is off-limits, the other is fair game.

This pertains to the controversy over Labour’s newly adopted code on anti-Semitism. Following the exposure of numerous instances in which Labour figures, including Jeremy Corbyn himself, were found to have expressed or shared or commented favourably on explicitly anti-Semitic imagery and ideas, Labour has been promising to stamp out anti-Semitic thinking in its ranks. From shrill memes accusing Israel of joyously spilling the blood of Palestinians to a mural showing hook-nosed old men overseeing the world’s economic affairs (the one Corbyn commented on favourably), the socialism of fools has been evident a great deal lately in what passes for radical circles today. And so Labour promised it would boost its rules against anti-Semitism. Yet in the process it has found itself coming in for even more flak.

Labour has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism. This is the definition of anti-Semitism that is used by various governments, including the UK government. It describes anti-Semitism as ‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews’. It gives various examples of speech that can be considered anti-Semitic, including when Israel is referred to as a Nazi entity or when Jews are said to be more loyal to Israel than to the nation they live in.

And Labour has landed itself in hot water because while it has adopted the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, it has changed or left out some of the IHRA’s 11 examples of what constitutes anti-Semitism. For example, Labour’s code says it is ‘wrong’ but not necessarily anti-Semitic to say Jews are more loyal to Israel. And it says comparing Israel to the Nazis is only racist if ‘anti-Semitic intent’ can be proven on the part of the person making the comparison.

Jon Lansman, a member of Labour’s national executive committee and key supporter of Corbyn, says Labour made these tweaks – others call them ‘fudges’ – in order to ‘protect freedom of speech’ on Israel. And here’s the thing: Lansman has a point. It is important that we maintain a distinction between hatred for Jews and criticism of Israel. That can be difficult these days, as anti-Zionism is very often a sly cover for old hatreds. Witness the way Israel is treated as a uniquely destabilising force in the world, as the puppeteer of the Western foreign-policy establishment, as a peculiarly bloodlusting state: anti-Semitic tropes refashioned as anti-imperialist critique. And yet we must defend the right of people to slam Israel without their automatically being written off as racist.

But there remains a question for Lansman and for others in the Corbyn camp: why is it suddenly important to know the true ‘intent’ of the speaker and to defend his or her freedom of speech when it comes to Jews or the Jewish State, where that isn’t important when it comes to Islamophobia, transphobia, misogyny?

We should be sceptical when Labour talks about freedom of speech, because this is a party that does not believe in freedom of speech. At all. This can be seen in everything from Corbyn’s threats against the tabloid press, to the threatened expulsion of female members who criticise transgender ideology, to, indeed, the instantaneous mauling of Dawkins by Corbynista Twitter. Yet on the Jewish State, and Zionism, and the question of whether Israel is evil, freedom of speech suddenly becomes important.

What Labourites are really talking about here is not freedom of speech, which, by its very definition, must apply to everyone, including people who want to ‘blaspheme’ against Islam or question trans thinking. No, they are talking about the freedom to hate Israel. The quite specific, seemingly specially protected freedom to say certain things about the Jewish State. And again that huge question, that question they cannot convincingly answer, looms into view: why the double standard? Why do you utter the words ‘freedom of speech’ almost exclusively in relation to hating Israel?

Many criticisms can be made of the IHRA code. It doesn’t account for the fact that anti-Semitism is increasingly expressed in an underhand way. And to those of us concerned about freedom of speech – all of the time, Mr Lansman, not only when someone wants to rage against Israel – there is indeed a concern that the IHRA code could be used to delegitimise normal criticism of Israel. And yet Labour’s bristling at the IHRA code doesn’t make sense from the perspective of Labour’s own views on prejudice and identity.

For example, Labour accepts the Macpherson definition of racism as any act perceived by the victim to be racist – except on anti-Semitism, where sometimes the intent of the speaker must override the perception of the victim. Labourites and other leftists continually blur the lines between legitimate criticism and prejudiced thinking, on everything from Islam to transgender – except on anti-Semitism, where suddenly rigid lines distinguishing illegitimate views (hatred of Jews) from legitimate views (hatred of Israel) are necessary. On anti-Semitism, it’s clear now: Labour applies a tougher burden of proof than it does to any other form of prejudice.

spiked is a longstanding critic of the Macpherson approach to prejudice, on the basis that it makes hatred such a subjective experience that almost any interaction can be branded ‘racist’, if the victim, or anyone else for that matter, feels it was racist. And spiked defends free speech for all, including Israel-haters. And including even anti-Semites (in that we don’t believe there should be state punishment of anti-Semitic thought – it is of course fine for parties and organisations to refuse to associate with anti-Semites). But Labour isn’t a critic of Macpherson. And it isn’t a defender of free speech. Except on Jewish prejudice.

Why? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that much of the left views accusations of anti-Semitism sceptically, and thus feels the need to devote more resources to questioning them than it would to any other form of prejudicial speech. The message seems clear: we are cynical about anti-Semitism; we don’t always believe it; we think it is sometimes weaponised to shut down our radical ideas; we believe Jews less than we believe Muslims, trans people, black people. This is the double standard in action. Jews are treated differently to everyone else. Jews are trusted less. If only there were a name for such behaviour.


Bathroom Wars Reach Critical Mass

Just how unpopular is the transgender movement? Even Massachusetts isn’t buying it! Two years after the legislature opened up the state’s bathrooms and showers to both sexes, even Bay State voters are drawing the line. The fight has been an eye-opener for Democrats, who are scrambling to protect their agenda from an embarrassing loss in one of the bluest states in the union. Turns out, you don’t have to be a conservative to understand how dangerous gender politics can be!

No one — including Gov. Charlie Baker (R) — saw the opposition coming. In 2016, party leaders were apparently reading their own press releases and watching MSNBC and thought the countermovement was a joke. Now, two years and more than 50,000 petitions later, no one is laughing — least of all Democrats.

Before Baker’s signature was even dry, Keep MA Safe went to work, sending an army of volunteers and church groups to neighborhoods all across the state. In 45 days of door-knocking, the coalition did what no one thought was possible: It not only hit the 32,000 threshold for signatures but it exceeded it by 17,000! Now, thanks to their hard work, a repeal is on the ballot this November, and LGBT activists are panicking that common sense might win.

Like other sexual orientation-gender identity laws (SOGI), this one affects everything from hotels, bars, and restaurants to gyms, libraries, and theaters. Even private schools would have to open their stalls to anyone on days when they’re hosting public events. Object, the state says, and go to jail. That goes for parents who don’t want men sharing private spaces with their little girls to students who are scared to change for gym with teenage boys in the room.

In an op-ed that desperately tries to downplay the risks of Massachusetts’s policy, state House Speaker Robert DeLeo makes the ridiculous claim that there’s been no fallout from laws like this one. “Opponents to this common-sense protection routinely and falsely claim that the law could be abused by criminals seeking to harm women and children in public restrooms,” he writes. “The facts simply don’t support this fiction.”

He apparently doesn’t shop at Target! What does DeLeo call this laundry list of police reports here and here? The threats associated with Massachusetts’s law aren’t something conservatives invented (unlike the Left’s latest definition of gender). There are very real patterns of voyeurism, harassment, and abuse that result from open-door policies like this one.

Still, DeLeo insists, “I’ve had the good fortune of meeting transgender residents of our Commonwealth one-on-one, and I recognize that they only want to go about living their lives just like all of us.” Where have we heard that before? Americans have been down this road of “coexistence” for the last two decades, and all they’ve gotten in exchange are attacks on their religious liberty, personal safety, parental authority, and financial livelihoods. If DeLeo and company were truly interested in letting people go about their lives, he’d let business owners and school boards make their own rules — not force them to adopt extremists’.

Fortunately, a lot of Massachusetts voters agree. According to polling, the repeal effort is dead even, which has come as a huge shock to leftist Democrats. Even DeLeo is acknowledging that liberals have zero margin for error, “We can take nothing for granted. Recent public polls show this as a 50/50 race.” Yvette Ollada, the campaign manager for Keep MA Safe, says the coalition is confident that “a strong education effort about the dangers of this law will ensure a victory for our side in November.”

But, she cautions, “though we have a very good chance of winning, it’s all reliant on a well-funded campaign. We need resources to get our message out to voters… Once voters learn that a man can just say he is a woman; in order to access bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms; it only makes sense to vote ‘NO’ to protect women, children and vulnerable minorities. The other side may have the mainstream media and a lot of money on their side, but if we focus our resources strategically, we will defeat them on Election Day.”

She’s right about the money. This week, the far Left announced a million-dollar ad buy for a massive push this fall. Of course, that over-the-top spending wouldn’t be necessary if its policy was as popular as LGBT activists say it is! For conservatives, meanwhile, there’s a very real opportunity here to send a message to the nation that transgender politics are out of step with even the most liberal Americans! As Massachusetts Family Institute’s Andrew Beckwith says, we can’t underestimate the importance of this moment.

This is an important fight for the Commonwealth and the pro-family movement, since Massachusetts could be the first state to attempt to repeal a law like this at the statewide level. We are ground zero! We need help, though, from faithful people across this country, because the other side is well funded and well organized. If we all come together we can and will defeat this horrible law.


African gangs: It’s not racist to name it for what it is

Ayaan Hirsi Ali comments on African gang violence in Melbourne, Australia

How should we think about recent incidents of violence and anti-­social behaviour by first and second-generation immigrants? Or should we just not think about them at all, for fear of thinking something politically incorrect?

Last Friday Victoria police announced they were investigating the attack and robbery of a 27-year-old man by a group of young people “perceived to be of African appearance” while he paid for a parking ticket in Melbourne’s central business district.

Earlier this month a group of young people, described by their victim as “African”, were reported to have bashed a 73-year-old man living opposite a house in Hawthorn they had rented for an all-night party.

We heard the same story in April when a group of young people — again of “African appearance”, according to police — rented a North Melbourne property online for a short-term stay using a stolen credit card and false identity. They partied hard, trashed the house and, on their way out, were reported to have stomped on police cars and thrown garbage bins at police.

In December, homes in Werribee and Altona as well as a community centre at Tarneit, in western Melbourne were trashed, and police acknowledged an ongoing problem with “a small cohort of African youth”.

This pattern of behaviour is not an aberration. It is a feature of failed integration policies in liberal societies the world over. Illustrative of the problem is the reluctance of police, government and the media to name and shame the community groups responsible.

Integration is a perennially difficult policy question. It’s something I have been researching since I settled in The Netherlands in the early 2000s. Since that time, no matter the reality on the ground, tender-hearted multiculturalists have insisted that immigrants import only positive cultural ideas when they arrive. Liberal democratic societies are expected to turn a blind eye to any problematic cultural behaviour they bring with them, especially if the immigrants have brown skin.

Of course, many South Sudanese immigrants and refugees have settled successfully and adapted to their new lives here. And all-night parties, property damage and assaults are carried out by hooligans of all ethnicities. My concern is only with those immigrants who have adjustment problems. We are living in denial if we do not attempt to identify those values that some bring with them that may have been necessary for survival in their countries of origin but lead to conflict and stunt their opportunities here.

One of those is the glaring difference in attitudes towards violence between Westerners and war-torn communities such as South Sudan. As a migrant from that troubled region of East Africa I was accustomed to the use of viol­ence as a way of life in a society up-ended by civil war. In the communities where I grew up in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, children were taught that might was right and conflicts were resolved by physical force. Hitting a child or wife was how misbehaviour was corrected; it was not seen as a crime. Children were encouraged to fight out peer squabbles and affronts to the clan. If a child was bullied at school, the parents or siblings didn’t complain to the teacher but mobilised relatives to beat up the bully after class.

In communities such as ours, the police were not viewed as a disciplined service maintaining public order. Interactions with police were always bad news. They only showed up to extort, beat or haul people off to prison, not to resolve conflicts at the neighbourhood level. In Australia and other developed countries, by contrast, the state has the monopoly on viol­ence. Citizens are not permitted to exert physical force over their families or anyone else. When I explained this conceptual difference towards the use of violence to my parliamentary colleagues in The Netherlands 15 years ago, one MP remarked that it sounded medieval. It surprised me to hear Victoria police commander Russell Barrett say the Australian Sudanese community was “just as shocked as the broader community in relation to the incidents we’ve seen recently”. He may be shocked but, if they’re being honest, the Sudanese must be reminded of home.

As set out in this newspaper in May, Victorian Crime Statistics Agency data shows Sudanese immigrants are six times likelier to be arrested than those born in Australia. A disproportionately high incidence of violent crime among immigrant populations is not a uniquely Melburnian phenomenon. It is noticeable in many Western regions that have welcomed and then cocooned new immigrants.

Victoria police are taking great pains not to make any connection between culture and violence among South Sudanese youth in Melbourne. A police spokesman stated in May that “the problem is not tied to any particular cultural community, but rather it is young people more broadly who tend to be involved” and that the force has a “zero-tolerance policy towards racial profiling”. Yet they have established an African-Australian Community Taskforce to consult community members about preventing these crimes. This special “African” infrastructure conveys the message that Sudanese immigrants and their children need their own style of policing.

In a twisted way, this approach is truly racist. It is an example of the “poverty of low expectations”, which puts political correctness over cultural realities.

Media reporting on the rising incidence of crime among the Sudanese immigrant community has been portrayed by some commentators as racially motivated discrimination. Politically correct apologists have been quick to point the finger at socio-economic disadvantage and institutional racism. One South Sudanese community spokesman suggested that property owners using Airbnb were partly to blame for the increase in crimes committed by his community’s young people.

Most are concerned that revealing the ethnicity of the culprits could cause a backlash against the South Sudanese community. The Victorian bureaucracy is singing from the same hymn book. Equal Opportunity and Human Rights commissioner Kristen Hilton said: “The majority of Victorians who champion multiculturalism should not have to put up with journalists and politicians undermining their communities and workplaces with racially divisive rhetoric.”

Placing this type of taboo on the cultural factors associated with crime is also a feature of the debates in Sweden, the US, Germany, Austria and Britain, all of which are grappling with the same issue. Authorities and media commentators in Europe also worry that pointing out ethnic or cultural roots of crime will spark backlash and ignite race wars. The Asian “grooming” gangs in the north of England and the mass groping of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2016 are two examples of stories the mainstream media was reluctant to report.

More HERE 


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

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

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


24  July, 2018

Why protecting your kids from failure is not helpful

In recent years, there has been a concerted effort to protect children from failure in order to safeguard their fragile self-esteem. This seems logical – failure is unpleasant. It tends to make you look bad, you have negative feelings of disappointment and frustration, and you often have to start again.

While this is logical, it actually has the opposite effect. Children and adolescents in Australia appear less able to cope than ever before.

The problem is, in our efforts to protect children, we take valuable opportunities for learning away from them. Failure provides benefits that cannot be gained any other way. Failure is a gift disguised as a bad experience. Failure is not the absence of success, but the experience of failure on the way to success.

The gift of coping

When we fail, we experience negative emotions such as disappointment or frustration. When children are protected from these feelings they can believe they are powerless and have no control over mastery.

The answer is not to avoid failure, but to learn how to cope with small failures. These low-level challenges have been called "steeling events". Protecting children from these events is more likely to increase their vulnerability than promote resilience. When adults remove failure so children do not have to experience it, they become more vulnerable to future experiences of failure.

The gift of understanding natural consequences

One of the greatest gifts failure brings is we learn natural consequences to our decisions. It's a very simple concept developed by early behaviourists: "when I do X, Y happens". If I don't study, I will fail; if I don't practice, I may lose my spot on the team.

Allowing children to experience these outcomes teaches them the power of their decisions.

When parents and teachers derail this process by protecting children from failure, they also stand in the way of natural consequences. Studies show children who are protected from failure are more depressed and less satisfied with life in adulthood.

The gift of learning

Mistakes are the essence of learning. As we have new experiences and develop competence, it's inevitable we make mistakes. If failure is held as a sign of incompetence and something that should be avoided (rather than a normal thing), children will start to avoid the challenges necessary for learning.

Failure is only a gift if students see it as an opportunity rather than a threat. This depends on their mindset.

Children with a growth mindset believe intelligence is malleable and can be changed with effort. Those with a fixed mindset believe they were born with a certain level of intelligence. So, failure is a signal for growth mindset children to try harder or differently, but a sign they aren't smart enough for children with a fixed mindset.

Praise should be focused on effort

Praise can be used to compensate and help children feel valuable in the face of failure. We see this when children get a participation ribbon in a running race for coming in last.

But research indicates, paradoxically, this inflated praise has the opposite effect. In the study, when parents gave inflated praise ("incredibly" good work) and person-focused praise (such as "you're beautiful", "you're smart" or "you're special"), children's self-esteem decreased.

Praise that is person-focused results in children avoiding failure and challenging tasks to maintain acceptance and self-worth. This is because praise is conditional on "who they are" rather than their efforts.

Praise for effort sounds like "you worked really hard". This is better because children can control how hard they work, but they can't control how smart or special they are. Children need to be free to learn without there being a risk to their sense of worth.


Mass Migration: "The Fatal Solvent of the EU"

Today, 510 million Europeans live in the European Union with 1.3 billion Africans facing them. If the Africans follow the example of other parts of the developing world, such as the Mexicans in the US, "in thirty years... Europe will have between 150 and 200 million Afro-Europeans, compared with 9 million today". Smith calls this scenario "Eurafrique".

The controversial quota system for migrants has already failed. The European Court of Human Rights condemned Hungary for detaining migrants. European governments cannot stop, deport, arrest or repatriate the migrants. What do the authorities in Brussels suggest? Bring everyone to Europe?

French Jews have fallen victim to a form of ethnic cleansing, according to a manifesto signed by, among others, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy and former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

"Far from leading to fusion, Europe's migration crisis is leading to fission", Stanford's historian Niall Ferguson recently wrote. "Increasingly, I believe that the issue of migration will be seen by future historians as the fatal solvent of the EU". Week after week, Mr. Ferguson's prediction seems to be turning into a reality.

Not only does Europe continue to fragment as anti-immigration sentiment gathers political strength, but, as a result of the migrant crisis, the EU's border-free internal zone, Europe's most cherished prize after the Second World War, is now defined as "at risk" by the Italian government, among other governments, such and Austria.

Immigration is also redefining the intra-EU contract.

The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, the so called "Visegrad Group", recently called for EU border defense. "We have to have a Europe capable of defending us", Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said as well, after he was invited to join the Visegrad meeting.

The new Italian populist government, after Italy saw more than 700,000 migrants arrive on its shores in the past five years, also embraced a hard-line policy. Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini recently closed Italy's ports to migrant vessels. In Germany, after the German chancellor clashed on immigration with her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, migrant policy could also lead to the "end of Merkel's tenure".

"Italy's new populist government signals a major challenge to the European status quo, but not in the way most observers initially expected", the author Walter Russell Mead recently commented in The Wall Street Journal. "The governing coalition has put the challenge to its euro policy on hold. Instead it is turning to a subject on which the European establishment is more vulnerable: migration".

The entire European political consensus is fracturing under the seismic impact of the migrant wave. Migration to Europe has become a political issue "as toxic as ever", the New York Times just noted about the current debate inside the European Union. The EU's current trouble seems to come from a deafness among the policy elites, who refuse to take into account the problems for their citizens that have followed unvetted mass immigration.

Mass migration in the last years has simply created major troubles for Europe's internal stability. First, there has been a security challenge. According to a new report by the Heritage Foundation:

"Almost 1,000 people have been injured or killed in terrorist attacks featuring asylum seekers or refugees since 2014. Over the past four years, 16 percent of Islamist plots in Europe featured asylum seekers or refugees. ISIS has direct connections to the majority of plots, with Germany targeted most often, and Syrians more frequently involved than any other nationality. Nearly three-quarters of plotters carry out, or have their plans thwarted, within two years of arrival in Europe.


"Since January 2014, 44 refugees or asylum seekers have been involved in 32 Islamist terror plots in Europe. These plots led to 814 injuries and 182 deaths."

There is also a severe challenge to ethnic and religious coexistence posed by immigration. French Jews have fallen victim to a form of ethnic cleansing, according to a manifesto signed by, among others, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy and former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. "Ten per cent of the Jewish citizens of the Paris region have recently been forced to move because they were no longer secure in certain council estates" the manifesto said. "This is a quiet ethnic cleansing".

The threat Europe is facing if it refuses to close and control the borders is examined by Stephen Smith, an expert on Africa and admired by French President Emmanuel Macron, in his new book, The Rush to Europe: Young Africa on the Way to the Old Continent. Today, he notes, 510 million Europeans live in the European Union with 1.3 billion Africans facing them. "In thirty-five years, 450 million Europeans will face some 2.5 billion Africans, five times as many", Smith predicts. If the Africans follow the example of other parts of the developing world, such as the Mexicans in the US, "in thirty years", according to Smith, "Europe will have between 150 and 200 million Afro-Europeans, compared with 9 million today". Smith called this scenario "Eurafrique". Europe's largest migration wave since World War II has also become an increasingly urgent problem as Europe's indigenous populations continue to age and diminish in number.

The controversial quota system for migrants has already failed. The European governments also cannot really deport migrants. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned the Italian government and ordered it to pay thousands of euros to two dozen immigrants it deported to Libya. Italian authorities had intercepted the migrants in the Mediterranean Sea when they were trying to get to the Italian island of Lampedusa from Libya. Three years later, the European Court again condemned the Italian government for deporting migrants. The European Court of Human Rights also condemned Spain in its judgment to expel of a group of 75-80 migrants from the Melilla enclave. The ECHR then condemned Hungary for detaining migrants. Europe cannot stop, deport, arrest and repatriate the migrants. What do the authorities in Brussels suggest? Bring everyone to Europe?

Andrew Michta, dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, recently wrote that, under this mass migration, European democracies risk their own "decomposition". We will not only see the "fission" of the already fragile European Union, but that of the Western civilization as well.


The MAGA Hat That Wasn’t There

Have you heard of an accused killer named Timothy Kinner?

No? Well, it’s not really surprising if you haven’t. Unless you were paying very close attention to the news on July 1, you wouldn’t have noticed the story.

On the evening of June 30 a Mr. Kinner, a resident of Los Angeles, allegedly entered an apartment in a refugee-resettlement complex in Boise, Idaho. He was carrying a knife, and started stabbing people at the party, most of them immigrant children. The nine victims were from Syria, Ethiopia and Iraq. One of them — the 3-year-old birthday girl — later died in the hospital.

With all those puir wee bairns, the attack should have been a top news story for weeks. Especially since the victims were black or brown “refugees”. Their photos should have been shown over and over again on every news broadcast. Nancy Pelosi should have been tut-tutting on the floor of Congress about the puir wee bairns.

But it didn’t happen. The story quickly disappeared. If you’re wondering why, take a look at the photos at the top of this post: Timothy Kinner is the man on the left.

On the other hand, you’re probably aware of a man named Jarrod Warren Ramos, the accused killer of five people at the offices of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Ramos committed his alleged atrocity just two days before Mr. Kinner’s. The story hit the news big time, and stayed there. It was prominent enough to merit its own Wikipedia page.

Jarrod Ramos is the man on the right in the photo at the top of this post. He and Timothy Kinner share certain characteristics: each has long hair and an apparent sullen attitude. But there are certain significant differences, as you can see.

If Mr. Ramos — or any other white man — had attacked the “refugees” at that birthday party in Boise, the story would still be making above-the-fold headlines every day. Talking heads on all the major media channels would still be discussing it every evening. There would be massive anti-racism protests on the Mall in Washington DC. The photo of the appealing wee bairn would be on everyone’s TV screen all the time. It would be Trayvon Martin on steroids.

But it didn’t happen that way. Once the photo of the sullen man with the dreadlocks appeared, the story disappeared from the national news. I looked for it two weeks later, and it was gone.

When black people kill black people, it just isn’t news.

Black people kill black people nearly every day in Chicago — on some weekends there are six or eight shooting fatalities in the city — and not infrequently little children are victims of stray bullets. But without a white man as perpetrator, there’s zero interest in the story. It merits a couple of lines in the local news, maybe. Ho hum, another shooting in the city. And now for the weather…

And there’s another reason why the Boise story faded away: it can’t be a “hate crime” when a black man kills black people. That’s what the Boise police chief said about Timothy Kinner — no evidence of a hate crime. And without a white man committing a hate crime, it’s not a very interesting story.

But back to Jarrod Ramos. After the massacre in Annapolis, the media were slavering for a Trump supporter as the perp. They knew the shooter was white, so that was a head start. A man named Conor Berry, a reporter for the Republican in Springfield, Massachusetts, tweeted that the killer had dropped a MAGA hat in the offices of the Capital Gazette during his shooting spree. It wasn’t true, of course. And it hadn’t even been a rumor — the reporter just made it up out of whole cloth. But if you hang out in progressive circles, it makes sense: the murderer was white, carried a “long gun”, and shot a bunch of people. How could he not be a Trump supporter?

Poor Mr. Berry was forced to resign his position a few days later.

It’s been a pattern in mainstream media ever since Trump won the Republican nomination two years ago: whenever some white guy shoots people, the media snoids immediately speculate that he’s Trump supporter. So far they’ve always been disappointed. Oh, I’m sure an occasional Trump supporter runs a red light or gets drunk and punches somebody. But I’ve haven’t heard about avowed Trump supporters killing people. And if there were any such, you can be sure the media would be shrieking about them.

Funnily enough, there have been several mass killers who were progressives and Obama supporters. For example, the late James Hodgkinson, who shot up the congressional baseball practice session last year. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that he was a “left-wing activist”.

Another one may have been the late Stephen Paddock, the man who massacred 58 people in Las Vegas last fall. Although his ideological leanings are not entirely clear, he was definitely not a Trump supporter.

The left-wingers in the media — which means almost everyone in the media — haven’t given up hope. They’re expecting a Trump supporter to step up any day with an uncontrolled gun and shoot a lot of brown people out of “hate”. They know that a MAGA hat will appear at the crime scene eventually — it’s just a matter of time.


Australia: When Yes means No (?)

"Enthusiastic consent" to sex means "You must explicitly ask for permission to have sex." If it's not an enthusiastic yes, then it's a no.  A lot of perfectly normal sex would become illegal with such a law and consent would still be hard to prove or disprove with such a law.  It would be the ultimate intrusion of government into private life. Even the Fascists did not go that far

A message from Bettina Arndt [bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au]below:

I have just completed a skype interview with Lorraine Finlay, a very brave law lecturer from Murdoch University in Perth, about proposed changes to sexual consent laws in NSW. Lorraine is a former WA State Prosecutor and co-author of the 2015 book “Criminal Law in Australia”.

The NSW Law Reform Commission has been asked to review the laws and the state government is pushing hard to promote these changes. What worries me is that there is hardly anyone involved in the public debate explaining why enthusiastic consent laws are a really bad idea – despite the fact that in America these laws have been in place for decades and the results are very clear. They dramatically shift the burden of proof favouring rape accusers and denying due process rights for young men. Across the United States, legal organisations, law professors and other academics have been speaking out about the damage caused by such laws. Yet, here in Australia, it looks like once again we will allow the feminist narrative to silence proper debate on the issue.

I’ll be letting you know when the Law Reform Commission is seeking further public consultation and hope I can inspire many of you to express your views. Along with this video I am posting some relevant material on my low bar below the video, so you have material you can use to make your arguments. Rest assured that all the women’s organisations will be arguing for enthusiastic consent laws to be introduced – just one more means of pushing for their end goal which is more rape convictions. We need to get active to protect the legal rights of young men. Think of your sons and all the young men you know and love - they will be even more vulnerable if we let these changes go through.  

So here’s the video:

Please help circulate this so we can alert people to what is going on here.


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

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

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


23 July, 2018

The strange death of Protestant Britain

There is an article under the title above in "The Tablet", an international Catholic publication. It is very graphic in documenting the decline of church attendance in Britain. A small excerpt below. What the author, Ian Bradley, writes is no great surprise of course.  The churches themselves have long been agonizing over their steadily shrinking congregations.

What is interesting however is the report that the peak year for both Catholic and Anglican churchgoing was 1955.  That's pretty recent. What can have happened around that time to have caused such a decline?

To answer that, however, we have to look much more widely than Protestant Britain, because the truth is that Western Europe as a whole has lost faith.  It is only in the former Communist countries where faith survives, mostly Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox  faith.

Bradley, a Presbyterian minister, asserts that Catholic congregations have held up better in England than Anglican ones but is rather glib about that.  Is he unaware of the boost to Catholicism in Britain from Poland? Many Catholic congregations in Britain are now largely Polish. And there are also immigrant contributions from Asia (the Philippines and Vietnam) and Africa. So purely British Catholicism is also in sharp decline.  That is most clearly seen in the dearth of vocations these days. Australia is much like Britain and in Australia, as the old Irish priests die off, your priest these days is likely to be Asian or black.

So what is it about Western Europe and its derivative societies that has killed faith?  The answer is rather clear, even as to timing:  It is the Welfare State.  The Welfare State in Britain was the work of Clement Attlee, who was a politician for the Labour Party who served as Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951. The welfare State was widely adopted to varying degrees elsewhere in postwar Western Europe and took away most of the great anxieties in life.  You no longer risked hunger or unattended ill health and your children had good opportunities for advancing themselves through education.  The State became God. It did what God merely promised.

There were of course some other influences pushing in the same direction.  WWII spurred a great upsurge in scientific knowlege and technical innovation (think penicillin) that gave us more control over nature.  Instead of nature being "red in tooth and claw", it became "endangered". It was no longer a source of fear. Instead of misfortunes being caused by "hobgoblins and foul fiends", they are now caused by well-understood meteorological events and viruses, for instance.

That the welfare state was central, however, is powerfully shown by the example of Eastern Europe, including Russia.  Under Communist tyranny, everybody lived under a very comprehensive welfare state -- in theory.  In practice, the state was a source of fear. If you kept your head down, you had a job but the food was mostly poor and only intermittently available.  And health care was rudimentary for most. 

So Eastern Europe experienced the welfare State as a nightmare, with only the afterlife promised by the church offering any prospect of relief.   And, now that Communism has gone from those unfortunate lands, the promises of socialism are still regarded with great cynicism and the faith that it tried to suppress forcibly is remembered as the true hope.

So that accounts well for the decline of the mainstream churches but Bradley also acknowledges the flourishing of smaller, often Pentecostal churches.  So what have those churches got that the old mainstream churches have not?  It would be very easy to say that they have a revised form of Christianity.  Perhaps their theory and practice is more "modern".

But that is not at all true.  Sin still matters to them.  Heaven and hell still matter to them.  They are "old" not "modern".  It is the mainstream churches who have gone "modern" in a desperate quest to hang on to their congregations.

Many would see the watershed for that transition in the book "Honest to God" by John A. T. Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich, published in 1963.  Not to put too fine a point on it, that book marked the introduction of atheism into the Church of England.  There was no longer a God.  There was only a "ground of our being", whatever that means.  So eventually you would even get Archbishops of Canterbury, such as Robert Runcie, claiming that in private they meditated rather than praying.

So it seems clear that the mainstream churches have moved in  exactly the wrong direction to hold their congregations.  This is most clearly seen in the case of the Anglican diocese of Sydney in Australia.  Sydney is a big city but it has only about a sixth of the Australian population -- but it has a third of Australia's Anglicans. And it is very "old fashioned".  Most of its clergy could probably assent sincerely to the declarations of the "39 articles of religion" found in the Book of Common Prayer, first published in 1662.

To put it in a nutshell, the Sydney diocese still preaches the old Protestant faith of 400 years ago -- and thrives doing so. Where the Sydney Catholic seminary has about 6 students, the Anglican church's Moore College has about 300.  The old Protestantism was a deliberate and sustained attempt to get back to the religion of the New Testament -- and in doing so they tapped into a spiritual powerhouse.

The rise of Christianity out of Israel into all the European world in its first few centuries was meteoric and transformative.  From the words of an obscure Judean prophet it became the religion of all Europe, sweeping all the old religions of Europe aside.  So tapping into that faith was to tap into great religious power. The old churches have become weak but Christianity has not.  It still has its old power to transform lives if it preaches redemption instead of homosexuality

So Eastern Europe and the Sydney diocese are strong counterpoints to the decline of traditional Christian Europe.

I have not so far mentioned the USA but my analysis applies well there also.  America is MUCH more religious than Europe. Why?

1). America still has a rather patchy welfare state with quite a lot of people falling into severe poverty at times. And access to healthcare is also very patchy, made worse by Obamacare.

2) America was founded by religious fanatics and there have long been religious "revivals" in America which keep the old Bible faith before people's minds. And that works all the old transformative Christian magic.

IN ST ANDREWS, my home town, the Presbyterian church built to commemorate the four Protestants burned to death here during the Reformation was recently turned into a university research library. Next door there was for many years a Salvation Army Citadel, a testament to the virtues of teetotalism and evangelical assurance championed by General William Booth. It is now a "Beer Kitchen".

A similar fate has befallen much of the rest of the Protestant landscape of Britain. In the South Wales Valleys Nonconformist chapels have all but disappeared, languishing, rotting and deserted where they have not been turned into second-hand furniture depositories.

In 1901 the city of Hull, long known as "pure and Protestant Hull", had one of the highest churchgoing populations in the country and 115 places of Christian worship, most of them Nonconformist chapels. Now just 11 remain in use and Hull has the lowest level of church-going of any British local authority. It is those denominations that have been the bedrock of British Protestant identity that have declined most spectacularly in the last 60 years. The two national denominations, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, have each lost 75 per cent of their membership over this period


A Month of Data Provides Ample Evidence for Why Law-Abiding Citizens Own Firearms

There is no denying that lawful gun owners use their firearms in self-defense far more often than those decrying the “myth” of a good guy with a gun would care to admit. Firearms are, in fact, used for self-defense often and effectively.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notorious for its anti-gun bias, acknowledges as much in its 2013 report on gun violence research.

There, in conjunction with the National Research Council, the CDC concluded that almost all national, comprehensive studies on the subject find that firearms are used for lawful defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3.5 million times every year in the United States.

Even assuming that the actual number of defensive uses is on the low end of that range (and there’s good reason to believe that, in fact, it falls at the higher end), firearms are used to protect life and property more often than they are used to commit crimes, according to the CDC.

The month of June 2018 provided ample evidence of just how valuable a firearm can be in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.

A cursory review of news stories from that month reveals the following:

On June 1, a concealed carry permit holder in Cape Coral, Florida, shot a convicted felon who had pulled a firearm on employees of a roofing company. Police said the unnamed good Samaritan acted in self-defense and will not face criminal charges, while the convicted felon—who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm—will be charged with aggravated assault.

On June 4, a 63-year-old Chicago man with a concealed carry license used his lawfully-owned firearm to fight off three young, attempted robbers, one of whom pulled out what was only later discovered to be a replica firearm. The man shot one of the robbers in the leg, which caused the other suspects to flee.

Also on June 4, an 18-year-old man in Arlington, Tennessee found himself “rejected” at gunpoint when he assaulted and attempted to rape his friend’s mother during a sleepover. The man forced the woman on a bed and began putting his hand down her shorts before she was able to knee her attacker in the groin and retrieve her handgun, which was stored in the bedroom. The woman sustained a black eye, but told law enforcement officers that she prevented the man from sexually penetrating her.

On June 8, a Jacksonville, Florida, man stole cash from a Walmart register and then tried to steal a truck at knifepoint before the truck owner pointed a handgun at the man. The man fled to a nearby Starbucks parking lot, where he again attempted a carjacking—only to be confronted by another armed civilian. Police finally arrived to find the man barricaded inside a Supercuts bathroom, where he was eventually arrested.

Also on June 8, in DeKalb County, Georgia, three armed individuals followed a couple out of a grocery store, where police believe they intended either to rob or carjack the couple. The would-be attackers failed to account for the possibility that the couple might also be armed, and all three suspects found themselves in the hospital after a shootout, while neither of the would-be victims was injured.

On June 10, two armed men broke into the Cleveland home of an 84-year-old man, where they found themselves in a shootout when the elderly homeowner did not back down. The homeowner suffered a gunshot wound to his side, but the attackers fled the scene. The homeowner’s 17-year-old grandson called 911 after climbing out a window and onto the roof to escape the gunfire.

On June 13, a Toledo, Ohio, resident intervened to save the life of a woman being attacked by a man with a hatchet. Police say the resident retrieved a firearm out of his home after witnessing a man in a truck at the nearby intersection repeatedly strike the woman. Neighbors told the media that the woman was screaming for help before the gun owner shot the man attacking her.

On June 14, a quick-thinking five-year-old saved his mother’s life by handing her the family firearm to defend herself. The woman’s ex-husband had broken into her Houston home, where he started choking the woman in front of their four children. The woman’s eight-year-old daughter attempted to pry the ex-husband off of her mother until the five-year-old obtained the weapon, which the mother then used to shoot the ex-husband in the arm. The mother survived, and none of the four children—ages 8, 5, 2, and 1—were hurt in the confrontation.

In the early morning hours of June 16, a Parkland, Washington, woman shot a 16-year-old who broke into her home and continued approaching her after she fired a warning shot and told him not to move. When the intruder continued to approach her, she shot him in the shoulder. The teenager allegedly collapsed to the floor and continued to yell, “I’m so high” until law enforcement arrived. He is expected to survive the wound.

On June 17, in Tumwater, Washington, an armed local pastor was credited with stopping a potential mass shooting when he shot and killed a gunman in a Walmart parking lot. The gunman had fired rounds inside the Walmart, apparently trying to break into an ammunition display, before shooting two people during an attempted carjacking. The pastor was aided by a second lawful gun owner.

Also on June 17, across the country in Pennsylvania, a man and his 17-year-old daughter teamed up to successfully defend their home against a would-be arsonist who entered their home and started pouring gasoline all over the floor. The father tried to push the would-be arsonist out of the door, but was overpowered and assaulted until the daughter was able to retrieve his handgun. He then fired one shot at the intruder, striking him in arm and stomach, and neutralizing the threat until law enforcement could arrive.

On June 22, a Virginia woman successfully used her firearm to defend her 14-year-old daughter against a knife-wielding would-be kidnapper who had flown to the United States from New Zealand as part of a “carefully planned trip.” The New Zealand man was also carrying pepper spray and duct tape when he used a landscaping brick to smash a glass door, only to be confronted by the teen’s better-armed (and presumable very angry) mother.

On June 30, a Tennessee teenager used her father’s shotgun to ward off a would-be burglar who approached the front door after stealing two pressure washers from the driveway.

As these stories demonstrate, lawful gun ownership can often mean the difference between a “victim” and a “would-be victim.” This is also consistent with the CDC’s conclusion that “[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive gun uses have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other strategies.”

There are, of course, individuals who would use firearms to commit heinous criminal acts. But the proper response to this reality is not the wholesale stripping of constitutional rights from otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the prohibition of entire classes of firearms commonly used by those law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

That framework of broad gun control makes no one safer–least of all the brave citizens highlighted above.


It's one of Europe's most proudly liberal nations. So why is Denmark banning the burka and threatening to end benefits for migrants whose children don't integrate?

Juicy pomegranates are piled outside the entrance to a supermarket in Norrebro, a district of Copenhagen. There are queues of customers at the till most of the day and into the early hours, buying Middle Eastern pastries, exotic fruit, dates and ice-cream which remind them of home.

Yet beside the pomegranates is a deep hole in the metal door frame. It was made one night by a bullet fired from a 9mm pistol by a member of a drug gang guarding his trading pitch near by.

Ismail Schbaita, a 55-year-old originally from Palestine who helps runs the supermarket, remembers the chilling moment last March only too well. ‘The gunman was high on drugs. Luckily, his bullet missed the staff and the customers. Gangs are always shooting each other around here.’

For Norrebro is a dangerous area of the Danish capital. A stone’s throw from the supermarket is the city’s most notorious housing estate, Mjolnerparken, where mothers told me this week they are afraid to let their children walk to the sweet shop alone because of the knifings and shootings.

Across the country, 21 other such places with high crime rates, soaring unemployment and more than 50 per cent non-Western residents have been given the same name. They are due to be ‘eradicated’ by 2030, following the introduction of controversial laws aimed at protecting ‘Danishness’ and ridding the country of so-called ‘parallel’ societies.

Later this year, legislation will force all families living in these ghettos to send their toddlers, as young as one year old, to approved day centres to learn the Danish language and Danish values.

The children will have to complete 25 hours of compulsory state education and, while the primary focus will be on language skills and learning, the plan is to educate the mainly Muslim children in the Danish way of life, as well as to give instruction on religious holidays, Christmas and Easter, and their importance in the Christian calendar.

Parents who fail to sign up have been told they could lose their child benefits.

This is the radical policy of a government that, like so many others in Europe, has accepted hundreds of thousands of migrants over recent years and is trying desperately to tackle the problems of integration. Indeed, the challenges Denmark is wrestling with are replicated across the EU as countries including Greece, Italy, Austria and Germany struggle to assimilate large numbers of migrants.

One disturbing common factor in these countries has been the emergence of strong far-Right political parties, and a return of the kind of ugly nationalism many hoped had died after World War II.

Denmark has long been proud of its reputation as a liberal, tolerant nation. But the fact that it has been forced to introduce tough laws to accelerate integration of migrants shows such tolerance has its limits.

Inevitably, some say the new laws are ‘racist’. They include a burka ban from next month, with fines of up to £1,200 for repeat transgressors. In the inner-city ghettos — where last year two thirds of residents were non-Western immigrants — there will be double the normal penalties for those who commit crimes.

Police will be given the freedom to conduct more intense surveillance of residents in order to curb extremism and violence, while migrant parents who send older children on trips back to their home countries in the Middle East and Africa could face four-year jail sentences if suspected of radicalisation.

The centre-Right Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, says these new laws are necessary because the number of first and second-generation non-Western immigrants has grown from 50,000 in 1980 to almost 500,000 today — a sizeable proportion, in a country of only 5.7 million people.

Rasmussen has said: ‘People with the same problems have clumped together. We have (until now) let it go, perhaps with the naive idea that integration would happen on its own over time ... but it hasn’t.’

Inger Stojberg, the hardline integration minister, has gone further. The crackdown on ghettos — a word with awful Nazi overtones, to which the Danish policymakers seem oblivious — is a centrepiece of her legislative reforms.

When Stojberg clocked up her 50th amendment to the laws relating to migrants, she baked a celebratory cake and posted a smiling picture of herself with it online.

All this sounds very un-Danish. Yet more and more people here — even some migrants — seem to agree with her. Mr Schbaita, at the bullet-hit supermarket, told me: ‘It is too late to stop the problem of parallel societies in my lifetime. But I hope the new laws will help future generations live together.

‘The problems in the ghettos are caused by ignorance about Western ways and a lack of education.’

He says employers won’t hire anyone who says they live in Mjolnerparken. This means the residents are often poor, at a loose end and ‘turn to crime’.

He says migrants were originally placed in Mjolnerparken because the Government wanted to give the mainly Muslim incomers a sense of community. ‘It was a humanitarian act, a kindness. But now the politicians are asking what went wrong in this part of town.’

Mr Schbaita left Palestine for Moscow to train as a pharmacist before arriving in Denmark, where he married a fellow Muslim and raised a family.

His solution to the problems is to pull down the ghettos. But he is concerned that the new laws are being pushed by a small political elite who unfairly blame Muslims for all the country’s wrongs.

He may be right. Yet indigenous Danes have shown remarkable enthusiasm for the changes.

One of Inger Stojberg’s most popular ideas is for migrants who have lived in Denmark for more than three years to pay for translators’ services when visiting a doctor, rather than relying on the State.

She says: ‘Unless we dare to make demands on foreigners, we will fail to address the serious problems of parallel societies where people neither work nor speak the language and don’t have Danish values.

‘A good place to start is to give back responsibility to those who have come here: learn the language or pay for your interpreter.’

In a poll by the newspaper B.T., 93 per cent of Danes questioned agreed with the minister’s plan.

Miles away from the ghettos, on the outskirts of Copenhagen, there are quiet, well-ordered towns where daily life appears, at first glance, untroubled by the controversies over migration.

One of them is Hvidovre, where there is no mosque and the old Protestant church with the Danish flag flying proudly outside on a manicured lawn has a flourishing 7,000-strong membership.

Yet even here immigration is a heated topic.

‘People are afraid of the consequences,’ said Annette Bjerregaard, 54, who works at the church. ‘If they feel people are integrating, they are positive. If not, they are not so positive.’

Annette’s son went to what was known among local Danes as ‘the white school’, where all the pupils were ethnic Danes. In this part of town there are neat privately owned homes, shops and pavement cafes.

Yet a mile away in a poorer part of Hvidovre it is very different. Here 5,000 people, both foreigners and Danes, live together in a sprawling council-run housing estate.

Larry Ellis, a debonair 65-year-old resident with a shock of white hair, works as a gardener at the local university. Having finished his shift, he is relaxing with friends outside the estate’s community centre.

They all agree there are too many migrants coming to Denmark. ‘That is the problem and it has not been addressed for years,’ he says.

‘Even here, we are housed in different parts of the estate to the migrants. The council has put ethnic Danes in blocks on one side of the road and Muslims in blocks on the other. We just don’t mix, and religion is part of it.’

This does not bode well for the Government’s efforts to encourage integration. And indeed, some Danes want to crack down against migrants still harder.

As the mainstream politicians react to a growing sense of disillusion about mass migration, a new party led by a 42-year-old architect called Pernille Vermund has seized the moment.

The divorced mother of three, who lives far from the Copenhagen ghettos, hopes her party — the New Right — will gain seats in elections next year on a hardline anti-migrant manifesto.

It calls for the residence permit of any ‘foreigner convicted in court’ to be withdrawn and for no more welfare benefits, housing subsidies and other state payments to anyone except Danish citizens.

She told me: ‘Politicians for decades have let people into our country who do not share our values. They do not assimilate. Now the politicians make a patchwork of rules to try to correct their own mistakes. Forcing Muslim mothers to deliver their toddlers into state-run daycare is not going to make them Danish, or less Muslim. It simply will not work.’

Her views would have been condemned as xenophobic extremism in liberal Denmark a few years ago. But mass immigration has hardened attitudes.

Politicians fear that if they ignore the problem, they will lose ground to parties such as the New Right.

Back in Mjolnerparken, where 1,752 people of 38 nationalities live cheek by jowl, I meet one of the community elders.

An Iraqi Kurd by birth, smartly dressed Taher Mustafah, 59, came to Denmark in 1985. He has worked for years as a civil servant and helped run an Islamic charity.

We stand on a busy street corner to chat, as Danish girls in skimpy shorts cycle past women with veiled faces shepherding children along pavements, closely watched over by their husbands. Truly, it is a stark clash of cultures.

Taher looks at one of the veiled women and shakes his head.

‘I know her,’ he says. ‘She is Tunisian and her husband is an Iraqi. My view is that if you live in a country, you should show respect for the society in which you live. She should not wear the burka here in Denmark and soon she will not be allowed to.’


‘White feminists’ blame colonisation for indigenous domestic violence

Why not blame it on the Dinosaurs? Might as well.  The causal chain is just as absent

A new taxpayer-funded report that claims domestic violence against indigenous women and children is caused by colonisation has been criticised as a kind of “white feminism” that excuses male violence in some cultures and ignores victims of domestic crises.

The national organisation Our Watch, funded by the commonwealth, state and territory governments, released a report yesterday examining ways to prevent family violence affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children that appears to blame settlement for contemporary violence.

The organisation is chaired by Natasha Stott Despoja and has just two indigenous members on its board — Vicky Welgraven and Jeremy Donovan — alongside Lieutenant General David Morrison and former NSW Liberal MP Kerry Chikarovski.

“While there is no one ‘cause’ of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, its three key underlying drivers can be understood as: the ongoing impacts of colonisation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the ongoing impacts of colonisation for non-indigenous people and in Australian society and gendered factors,” the report says.

“(This includes) both gender and inequality in a general sense, and specific gendered drivers of ­violence that are a consequence of colonisation.”

Indigenous academic Marcia Langton said some of the conclusions in the report were an “outcome of white feminists ignoring the voices of Aboriginal women”.

“White feminists largely have a poor understanding of the challenges faced by frontline Aboriginal female workforce with little support from police and courts,” she told The Australian.

“The male perpetrators are represented in court; victims and families are not. Still, across most of the country, this is the case. Aboriginal women victims of domestic violence are ending up in jail at ­astonishing rates.” The latest statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, released in February, show that indigenous women are 32 times more likely than non-indigenous women to be hospitalised because of family ­violence. Similarly, indigenous men are 23 times more likely to be hospitalised.

Two in five indigenous homicide victims — 41 per cent — were killed by a current or former partner, compared with one in five non-indigenous homicide victims, the data shows.

National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples co-chairwoman Jackie Huggins said while the drivers of violence were “inextricably linked with the legacy of colonisation”, it was time to change focus.

“Now peoples and communities need to come together to find solutions. Colonisation should never be used as an excuse for ­violence,” Dr Huggins told The Australian.

“In the past, the conversation about family violence has talked about women in a way which has erased the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women facing family violence. I’m very pleased to see the voices and experiences of our women being elevated in these conversations.”

Our Watch acknowledges that many indigenous women have white partners or partners from other backgrounds, and that men should never be taught that violence can be excused.

One of the key recommendations of the Our Watch report is for “specific healing strategies for women, men, children and young people as well as holistic strategies to enable community healing”.

In an essay in Griffith Review published in April, Professor Langton dismissed the concept of healing for violent men.

“Another excuse for the violence — the dominant one, I think — is that Aboriginal men are the victims of ‘colonisation’ and ‘need to heal’ before we can deal with the violence,” she wrote.

“Again, the argument, the logic and the consequences are repugnant and should be dismissed. The logical answer is that men who do not approve of such violence should stand beside Aboriginal women advocates to end the violence and defend their cause.

“They should report perpetrators of assault and rape to the police. They should demand that the criminal justice system deal with these matters effectively. But the justification for violence is that Aboriginal men have been colonised and are victims who need to be addressed as a priority over their victims. Why? Well apparently because men come first, if we follow this specious reasoning.”

Dr Huggins agreed that the effects of colonisation played a huge role in under-reporting of violence, because “many peoples mistrust the police, and for good reason”.

Our Watch chief executive Patty Kinnersly told The Australian the report was clear that there was no excuse for violence against women. “It unequivocally points to the need to ‘challenge the condoning or excusing of violence’ in all contexts — by men, women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and non-indigenous Australians,” she said.

“It examines the impacts of colonisation and intergenerational trauma as ways to develop a deeper understanding of the issue, because they are some of the many factors driving it. It also prominently features input from Aboriginal people — both men and women — who stress that while these issues need to be understood and addressed, they are not excuses for violence.

“Changing the Picture states explicitly and frequently that nothing excuses violence, and instead seeks to offer insights that will prove constructive in building a future free from violence.”

The resource also debunks some of the myths about indigenous violence and says explicitly, despite the claims of some men, that “violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women is not a part of traditional culture”.

Social Services Minister Dan Tehan said Our Watch was an independent body and the content of the report was a matter for its members. “The government’s Stop it at the Start domestic violence campaign emphasises as its priority personal responsibility and respectful relationships.”



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

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

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


22 July, 2018

I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me

I drive food delivery for an online app to make rent and support myself and my young family. This is my new life. I once had a well paid job in what might be described as the social justice industry. Then I upset the wrong person, and within a short window of time, I was considered too toxic for my employer’s taste. I was publicly shamed, mobbed, and reduced to a symbol of male privilege. I was cast out of my career and my professional community. Writing anything under my own byline now would invite a renewal of this mobbing—which is why, with my editor’s permission, I am writing this under a pseudonym. He knows who I am.

In my previous life, I was a self-righteous social justice crusader. I would use my mid-sized Twitter and Facebook platforms to signal my wokeness on topics such as LGBT rights, rape culture, and racial injustice. Many of the opinions I held then are still opinions that I hold today. But I now realize that my social-media hyperactivity was, in reality, doing more harm than good.

Within the world created by the various apps I used, I got plenty of shares and retweets. But this masked how ineffective I had become outside, in the real world. The only causes I was actually contributing to were the causes of mobbing and public shaming. Real change does not stem from these tactics. They only cause division, alienation, and bitterness.

How did I become that person? It happened because it was exhilarating. Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.

Just a few years ago, many of my friends and peers who self-identify as liberals or progressives were open fans of provocative standup comedians such as Sarah Silverman, and shows like South Park. Today, such material is seen as deeply “problematic,” or even labeled as hate speech. I went from minding my own business when people told risqué jokes to practically fainting when they used the wrong pronoun or expressed a right-of-center view. I went from making fun of the guy who took edgy jokes too seriously, to becoming that guy.

When my callouts were met with approval and admiration, I was lavished with praise: “Thank you so much for speaking out!” “You’re so brave!” “We need more men like you!”

Then one day, suddenly, I was accused of some of the very transgressions I’d called out in others. I was guilty, of course: There’s no such thing as due process in this world. And once judgment has been rendered against you, the mob starts combing through your past, looking for similar transgressions that might have been missed at the time. I was now told that I’d been creating a toxic environment for years at my workplace; that I’d been making the space around me unsafe through microaggressions and macroaggressions alike.

Social justice is a surveillance culture, a snitch culture. The constant vigilance on the part of my colleagues and friends did me in. That’s why I’m delivering sushi and pizza. Not that I’m complaining. It’s honest work, and it’s led me to rediscover how to interact with people in the real world. I am a kinder and more respectful person now that I’m not regularly on social media attacking people for not being “kind” and “respectful.”

I mobbed and shamed people for incidents that became front page news. But when they were vindicated or exonerated by some real-world investigation, it was treated as a footnote by my online community. If someone survives a social justice callout, it simply means that the mob has moved on to someone new. No one ever apologizes for a false accusation, and everyone has a selective memory regarding what they’ve done.

Upon reading Jon Ronson’s 2015 book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, I recently went back into my Twitter archives to study my own behavior. I was shocked to discover that I had actually participated quite enthusiastically in the public shaming of Justine Sacco, whose 2013 saga following a bad AIDS joke on Twitter forms one of the book’s central case studies.

My memory had told me different. In my mind, I didn’t really participate. It was others who took things too far. In reality, the evidence showed that I was among the most vicious of Sacco’s mobbers. Ronson describes a central problem with Twitter shaming: There is a “disconnect between the severity of the crime and the gleeful savagery of the punishment.” For years, I was blind to my own gleeful savagery.

I recently had a dream that played out in the cartoon universe of my food-delivery app, the dashboard software that guides my daily work life. The dream turned my workaday drive into a third-person video game, with my cartoon car standing in for me as protagonist. At some point, I started missing some of the streets, and the little line that marks my trail with blue pixels indicated where I’d gone off-road. My path got erratic, and the dream became other-worldly, as dreams eventually do. I drove over cartoon sidewalks, through cartoon buildings and cartoon parks. It’s a two-dimensional world in the app, so everything was flat. Through the unique logic of dreams, I survived all of this, all the while picking up and dropping off deliveries and making money. In my dream, I was making progress.

As my REM cycle intensified, my dream concluded. I was jolted from my two-dimensional app world and thrust back into the reality of the living world—where I could understand the suffering, carnage and death I would have caused by my in-app actions. There were bodies strewn along the streets, screaming bystanders, destroyed lives, chaos. My car, by contrast, was indestructible while I was living in the app.

The social justice vigilantism I was living on Twitter and Facebook was like the app in my dream. Aggressive online virtue signaling is a fundamentally two-dimensional act. It has no human depth. It’s only when we snap out of it, see the world as it really is, and people as they really are, that we appreciate the destruction and human suffering we caused when we were trapped inside.


No, mobile phones still won’t give you brain cancer

That the upsurge in mobile phone use over the last 20 years has not coincided with an upsurge in brain cancer is total disproof of any link

The supposed health risk from mobile phones is the story that will never die. The latest claim, branded an “inconvenient truth” by the Observer newspaper, is that new research shows they cause cancer in rats. But like all previous incarnations of this tale, the real truth is that the evidence has been overblown and there is nothing to worry about.

Cell phones have been accused of everything from causing brain cancer to “frying” men’s testicles over the years. Phones emit radiation to communicate with mobile phone masts, and radiation has always had a bad rap, thanks to the well-known effects of X-rays and nuclear fall-out.

But phones use a form known as non-ionising radiation, meaning it doesn’t carry enough energy to tear electrons away from their atoms and turn them into ions. It’s this electron-stripping that means X-rays, for instance, can cause cancerous mutations in our DNA.

The latest work, done by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), exposed rats and mice to non-ionising radio-frequency radiation like that emitted by phones. As the NIH already reported in interim findings two years ago, some of the exposed animal groups did have a higher incidence of damage to the heart, and cancers in nerves to the heart.

But the animals were given much higher doses of radiation than people experience in real life – even those of us who are glued to our phones. They were kept in special chambers that exposed them to high levels of radiation over their whole body, for nine hours a day for the duration of their two-year lives. So the findings cannot be assumed to also apply to humans, NIH researcher John Bucher said in a statement.

No good evidence

More importantly, there has been no good evidence that cancers of these types are increasing in people. Our use of mobile phones and other wireless devices in our homes has been increasing at unprecedented rate. Cancer incidence is tracked carefully in countries such as the UK and the US – if tumours of the heart or brain were on the rise, we would know about it by now.

It’s impossible to prove a negative, of course. And with phone technology changing all the time, it’s right that we continue to study this question.

Still, the lack of an increase in cancer rates suggests that if phones have any effect on our risk of developing tumours it seems to be minuscule compared with the other everyday risks we are happy to take – and so not worth worrying about.


NEW BOOK: Politically Correct Fairy (in the Mythical Little Magic Person Sense) Tales and Conservative Rebuttal Tales

by Dr. Sam Bierstock

A hilarious look at Political Correctness in today's society with classical fairy tales rewritten from both the politically correct liberal vantage point, and conservative counter versions of the same fairy tales. A satirical commentary on the relentless drive to offend absolutely no one and the ludicrous extent to which society has gone down this path.Enjoy "Snow Melanin Deficient and the Seven Height-Challenged Individuals" and "Little Ruddy Riding Hood" among other tales designed to be sure that absolutely no feelings are hurt - together with the corresponding tale from the vantage point of conservative thinkers.


Pompeo: Trump Administration Sounding 'Clarion Call for Religious Freedom Around the World'

In anticipation of next week's Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Washington Watch today that the Trump administration is sounding the "clarion call for religious freedom around the world" and that many foreign officials, religious leaders, rights advocates, and NGOs will be attending the event July 24-26 at the State Department in Washington, D.C.

This gathering is "incredibly important for our administration, President Trump’s administration, to make the case, sound the clarion call for religious freedom all around the world," Secretary Pompeo told host Tony Perkins.

"We believe religious freedom is important for every citizen around the world and we want to bring everyone together to discuss how all faiths have the right -- people, individual -- have the right to worship in the way they choose," he said.  "Every country ought to honor that."

Secretary Pompeo stressed that the ministerial is not just talk but action. "“We expect this to be far more than just talk," he said. "Putting people together from all across the world in a room talking about this topic will empower them to go back to their home country and advocate for religious freedom as well."

"It’s difficult, as you know, in many countries to even speak of religious freedom," said the secretary. "So we hope to provide a support system and  a basis for some of them to head back to their own countries. We’ll announce the number of initiatives. The vice president [Mike Pence] will be speaking. Senator Brownback will be speaking there."

"We’ll be laying out a path where we are hopeful the State Department here in the United States can lead a process where religious freedom is raised as a priority for the citizens of every country," he said.  "And we will have our teams in the subsequent weeks and months talking about religious freedom on a continued basis."

“We have just three days here, but this will be a mission of the State Department every day," said Pompeo.

Tony Perkins then commented on how the Trump administration is taking practical steps to help advance religious freedom, especially in countries where it is a taboo topic.

“You see that with President Trump very clearly," said Secretary Pompeo. "We think that this forum will reinforce for countries that enjoy that religious freedom and encourage those that are on the cusp, in a place where it’s more challenging, will help provide them courage to continue to make religious freedom a priority for the citizens of their own countries as well."

“This was laid out in the president’s national security strategy," he said. "It was unique and different from previous administrations. We do place a high priority on religious freedom and we will continue to fight for it every place that we travel."

Secretary Pompeo noted that Uzbekistan has "started to move in the right direction" on religious freedom, but added, "this is a long march."


Lauren Southern needs a new t-shirt

 Jeremy Sammut below preaches in favour of the individual and against the fractionating into groups preached by the Left. I wholeheartedly agree with him. He does not however confront the question: "How do we get there from here?"

And that is the fatal flaw in his criticism of Lauren Southern below.  Multiculturalism has an almost complete monopoly of the media.  We are constantly told that no other system of thought can possibly be virtuous.  We are constantly presented with the wonders of all sorts of minority groups.  And those groups are always held up relative to white males.  White males are the boogeymen, the villains.  You can be proud of your identity as long as you are not a white male.

That monologue has to be disrupted if we are to defeat racism.  Because multiculturalism has become a form of racism.  White males are what the Jews historically were:  A group that is too successful and has to be cut down to size wherever possible.

So Lauren disrupts that monolithic narrative.  She shows that another view is possible.  And in so doing she exposes the emperor's clothes.  She openly challenges the "consensus" and shows that there is no answer to her challenge.  Multiculturalists abuse her but no reasoned argument from them is forthcoming. Trump won power by challenging the hate that the Left pour out on ordinary white people so there is great potential for Lauren's message also to hit home.

White males do still undoubtedly rule the roost so they are not as vulnerable as Jews once were but it does get tiresome to be identified day in and day out as the source of all evil.  And it is more than tiresome.  It is borderline deranged. Lauren is in the end standing up for sanity.

Below is a picture of two blue-eyed, blond-haired white men of European origin who rule very big roosts.  Multiculturalism seems to be some way off yet.

It is fair to say that in these politically correct times there is a lack of political leadership around many contentious social issues that many politicians and community leaders hesitate to speak out about.

It is also a truism that politics abhors a vacuum. However, we should be careful not to fill the vacuum with another vacuum.
This thought is prompted by the controversy generated by the visit to Australia by the 23-year-old Canadian alt-right activist Lauren Southern.

Southern — who had already tried to drum up publicity over her initially rejected visa application — pulled another stunt upon arrival in Brisbane by wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan ‘It’s Okay to be White.’

This was followed by Southern — who speaks fluent soundbite — telling the media how pleased she was to be in country committed to “Western culture — something that may not be here for much longer if left-wing Australian politicians continue their pathological worship of multiculturalism.”

If Southern’s heart is in the right place, her arguments certainly aren’t. For many of the things she is saying on western culture and multiculturalism, claims to stand for, and literally wears on her ‘T’, are mutually exclusive.

Yes, ‘hard’ multiculturalism poses a danger to Western culture when migrants from countries with conflicting cultural values migrate and are not encouraged to integrate with the norms and values of their new country.

But, no: the answer to multiculturalism is not to practice a different form of identity politics — a new form of tribalism — by being proud of ‘whiteness’.

What is actually worth defending about Western culture (and is the antidote to identity politics and multiculturalism) is the fundamental principle of respect for the individual — regardless of superficial differences such as those that are literally skin-deep.
If Southern really wants to defend Western culture and all it should truly stand for, she should buy a new T-shirt.
This one should be emblazoned with that famous quote by one of the greatest proponents of the respect for the individual, Dr Martin Luther King: “judge not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”



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

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

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


20 July, 2018

The transgender posse vs. Scarlett Johansson

I can see Jeff Jacoby's point below but in the end I don't agree with him.  This business of women playing men and blacks playing whites seems stupid and inauthentic to me. Why would you do that?  There are plenty of actors and actresses of all shapes and sizes. The case Jeff discusses may be an exception in that there may be no good tranny actors. Transgenderism is a mental illness so that may interfere with good acting.  Looking at it the other way, however, if trannies are bad actors, bad acting is to be expected in the part. 

And why was Scarlett Johansson chosen to play a rough bird dressed up in men's clothing?  She is a gorgeous female. It's a crazy way to cast her.

I am a devotee of Viennese operetta and in some operettas women were deliberately cast in male roles ("trouser roles").  And I greatly dislike  that. As far as I can see, it was just an instance of the decadence that was common throughout the German lands in the early C20 -- particularly in artistic circles.

The present fashion also has whiffs of decadence.  It is a feminist credo that men and women are so similar that  either sex should be able to play any part, whether the part is male or female.  That seems to me as blind as the rest of feminism.

Men and women are stylistically different in all sorts of subtle ways:  The way they stand, the way they walk, the way they run, the way they drape scarves around themselves, the way they simper, the way they talk etc.  It is rare for a male to be able to portray a female convincingly and I doubt that there are  even many actors who can do so.  I see trannies around the place at times and to me they stand out like dog's balls.

It should simply be easier to get a convincing performance from a member of the group concerned

SCARLETT JOHANSSON IS no stranger to left-wing pressure. In 2014, protesters demanded that she sever her ties to an Israeli company, SodaStream. Last year a racial interest group condemned her for playing the character Motoko in "Ghost in the Shell," a Hollywood remake of a Japanese classic.

The posse came after Johansson yet again last week. Her supposed sin this time: agreeing to star in the upcoming movie "Rub & Tug," which tells the story of Dante "Tex" Gill, a brothel owner in 1970s Pittsburgh who was born female but lived as a man. The casting of Johansson triggered a backlash from transgender actors, who not only argued that the role should go to someone who personally identifies as transgender, but claimed it would be unethical and hostile to do otherwise.

Typical of the criticism was a tweet from Jen Richards, a transgender activist: "Here are the rules we the Trans decided," she posted. "Until the world stops erasing/oppressing/murdering us, trans women play trans women, trans men play trans men, nonbinary people play NB people."

The self-described "queer and trans" Yas Necati was even more categorical. "I don't care if Scarlett Johansson gives the performance of her life playing Gill," she wrote. "I don't care if it's beautifully acted, emotional, or even convincing. She shouldn't be playing a transgender man as a cisgender [i.e., conventional] woman."

This may pass for sophistication in Hollywood and other lefty precincts. It strikes me as pernicious nonsense.

To begin with, it denies the legitimacy of acting as a profession. Actors make believe. They portray characters who they aren't, and the more gifted and perceptive the actor, the more penetrating and meaningful the portrayal. In past films, Johansson has played a 17th-century Dutch servant, a high-school dropout, a drug mule who develops psychokinetic powers, and an extraterrestrial in human form. If Johansson's real identity didn't disqualify her for those roles, why should it disqualify her from the role of Gill?

To act is by definition to pretend — to pretend to be severely deformed, to be a Mafia don, to be the queen of England, to be a paralyzed mathematical genius.

Or to be transgender.

The demand that only transgender actors be cast in transgender roles is similar to the demand that only nonwhite actors be cast in nonwhite roles, and vice versa. The late playwright August Wilson, whose work chronicled the black experience in America, vehemently pressed that view in a series of high-profile clashes 20 years ago with Robert Brustein, the renowned drama critic and founder of the American Repertory Theater. Wilson argued that black actors should never appear on stage except in black roles (and, for that matter, that women should never play men). Brustein passionately rejected such separatism. The deepest purpose of drama, he said, was to illuminate "the workings of the human soul, which has no color."

Happily, Wilson's view hasn't prevailed. Some of the most memorable performances in modern times have been explicitly colorblind. To cite only a single illustrious example, think of Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton," with its cast of nonwhite Founding Fathers.

Catholic roles do not automatically go to Catholic actors. You don't have to be an immigrant in real life to play an immigrant in a film. Gay actors are not restricted to gay parts.

Great actors transcend their demographic categories. It would be folly to demand that casting decisions be rigidly confined within them. The last thing transgender actors should want is a rule restricting them to a ghetto of transgender roles.

Under pressure, Johansson has withdrawn from "Rub & Tug." Now it isn't clear the movie will even be made. The protesters may have ensured not only that Gill won't be played by a non-transgender woman — but that his life won't be depicted by anyone at all.


UK: Why has Labour run the risk of alienating progressive Jews?

You catch it on the edge of a remark,” says Harold Abrahams of antisemitism in Chariots of Fire. Three decades on from its success at the 1982 Oscars, you should marvel at how “progressives” have progressed: antisemitism is no longer on the edge but at the centre of leftwing life.

Conspiracy theory binds Corbyn’s disparate militants. Labour cultism fools members, who never had a racist thought before Corbyn became leader, into believing accusations of antisemitism are Zionist “smears”. To think otherwise would mean their leaders have dark flaws, and that remains a truth large numbers of otherwise robust democratic citizens won’t grasp.

To see how deep the rot has penetrated, imagine a racist police force – it isn’t hard to do. Imagine a chief constable had endorsed fantasists who say black men are natural criminals and Muslim men are paedophiles. Imagine, to the relief of everyone who thought the police should fight crime rather than race wars, the chief constable announces that there is “no place for racism in my force”. If the chief constable then wrote his own definition of racism and drew its terms so tightly that hardly any officer fell within it, no one would find his conversion convincing.

Rather than building a popular front to fight Trump and Brexit, Labour has taken it upon itself to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. Don’t panic, the alliance isn’t a Jewish conspiracy. It states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Its working definition is accepted by thousands of public bodies. But not the British Labour party.

Labour dropped the alliance’s stipulation that it was racist to accuse Jewish citizens of having a greater loyalty to world Jewry than their own country, or to hold Israel to a higher standard than other democratic nations. The international definition implies that Ken Livingstone’s “Hitler was a Zionist” fake history or comparisons of Israel with Nazism are racist. Labour prefers to hide in a forest of equivocation. It is normal to draw metaphors from history, its Jewsplainers state. It is not antisemitic to use them “unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent”. As you can rarely look into another person’s soul and prove intent, I take that to mean Labour is giving many of its racists a free pass.

Its press officers assured me that the party wasn’t rigging the system. As they are good people wasting their lives working for compromised men and women, they must believe it. We do not. Recently departed Labour staffers describe as a “political project” the party’s decision to make Jews the only ethnic minority Labour denies the right to define the racism they face. Dissident leftists are already providing examples of the anti-Jewish hatred the new guidelines might allow.

To ask why Labour has chosen to alienate progressive Jews just days before a Trump visit that demands liberal-left unity is as futile as asking why it chooses to alienate opponents of Brexit as the Tories lead the country into chaos. Understand that its leaders care only about the creation of a new extremist party, and you know all you need to know. From Labour’s point of view, the toleration of antisemitism is in its interests. Just as Viktor Orbán can target Muslim refugees as there are hardly any Muslims in Hungary, so Labour faces few electoral costs from baiting Britain’s tiny Jewish minority.

 Labour now needs the Muslim vote, and antisemitic prejudice is higher among Muslims than the general population. Although it is false to say all Muslims are antisemites, it is true to point out that antisemitism is endemic among the political Islamists who back Corbyn.

His other “base” is among former Stalinists from the old Communist party and Trotskyists from the remnants of Militant and the Socialist Workers party. Stalinists and Trotskyists once hated each other (Stalinists spent a part of the early 20th century murdering Trotskyists, after all.) . Neither has anything in common with Islamists, whose theocratic dreams could not be further from Stalin’s and Trotsky’s utopias.

All three are united by conspiracy theory, however. And all conspiracies go back to Jews in the end. Antisemitism isn’t like other racisms. There’s almost a note of envy in it. Ordinary racisms hate the foreign “other”. The prejudice is bound up with notions of filth and promiscuity – as shown by the picture of the refugee as rapist painted by today’s far right.

By contrast, 20th-century fascists thought the Jews so brilliantly cunning they could be behind both capitalism and communism simultaneously. Their successors find them responsible for everything from 9/11 to the Salisbury chemical weapons attack.

It ought to be notorious that antisemitism is an anti-democratic project built on almost two millennia of religious prejudice. The Tsarists and fascists used it to dismiss human rights and free elections as tricks the Jews used to hide their secret power. The old Marxist-Leninists who surround Corbyn were not so different. They also believed human rights and democracy were shams – only in this instance they hid the machinations of corporate capitalism. It’s only a small leap to say the capitalists are Jews – or “Rothschilds” as Corbyn’s supporters so tellingly call them – and you have reached the other side.

Whenever you raise leftwing racism, Labour activists accuse you of repeating Tory smears. You reply that politicians always smear their opponents: what matters is whether the accusation is true. They say: “Jeremy’s words have been taken out of context.” You show they have not. They say: “But what about right-wing Islamophobia?” You reply that a true anti-racist would fight both. That used to silence them. But now they will be able to produce the conclusive rejoinder that Labour has investigated and found to its relief and delight that antisemites barely exist.


Germany's Dysfunctional Deportation System

A court in Gelsenkirchen has ruled that deporting a self-declared Islamist — suspected of being a bodyguard of the former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden — was "grossly unlawful" and ordered him returned to Germany.

The case has cast a spotlight on the dysfunctional nature of Germany's deportation system, as well as on Germany's politicized judicial system, which on human rights grounds is making it nearly impossible to expel illegal migrants, including those who pose security threats.

The 42-year-old failed asylum seeker from Tunisia — identified by German authorities as Sami A., but known in his native country as Sami Aidoudi — had been living in Germany since 1997. Aidoudi, a Salafist Islamist, is believed by German authorities to have spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan before the al-Qaeda attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. Since then, he was under surveillance by German intelligence for propagating Islamist teachings and attempting to radicalize young Muslims. He had "far reaching" relationships with Salafist and jihadist networks, according to an official report leaked to the German newsmagazine, Focus.

Aidoudi's asylum request was rejected in 2007 after allegations surfaced that he had undergone military training at an al-Qaeda jihadi camp in Afghanistan between 1999 and 2000. During his training, he had allegedly worked as a bodyguard for Osama bin-Laden. Aidoudi denied the charges and claimed to have been studying during that time in Karachi, Pakistan.

Despite rejecting Aidoudi's asylum application, German courts repeatedly blocked his deportation out of fears that he could be tortured or mistreated in his homeland.

In April 2017, for instance, a court in Münster ruled that Aidoudi faced "the considerable likelihood" of "torture and inhumane or degrading treatment" if he returned to Tunisia.

In April 2018, Aidoudi's continued presence in Germany sparked public outrage when it emerged that he had been living in Bochum for more than a decade with his German wife and their four children — at taxpayer expense — even though German intelligence agencies had classified him as a security threat.

In response to an inquiry from the anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD), the government in North Rhine-Westphalia confirmed that for years Aidoudi had been receiving €1,168 ($1,400) each month in welfare and child-support payments.

In May 2018, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled that another Tunisian jihadi — identified only as 37-year-old Heikel S., accused of involvement in the March 2015 jihadi attack on the Bardo museum in Tunis — could be deported to his homeland.

Interior Minister Horst Seehofer seized on this ruling and called on immigration authorities to make Aidoudi's case a top priority. "My goal is to achieve deportation," he said.

On June 25, Aidoudi was detained after Seehofer ordered immigration authorities to expedite deportation proceedings.

A few weeks later, on July 13, before dawn, Aidoudi, escorted by four federal police officers and a doctor, was placed on a specially chartered Learjet and flown from Düsseldorf to Tunisia. Aidoudi's deportation cost German taxpayers nearly €80,000 ($95,000), according to Focus magazine.

Although the Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court had blocked Aidoudi's deportation the night before, the decision was not passed on to immigration authorities until the next morning — after the plane was already airborne.

When the court learned of Aidoudi's deportation, it demanded that he be returned to Germany. The court said that Aidoudi's deportation had infringed upon "fundamental principles of the rule of law." The judges, apparently sensing that they had been duped, complained that German immigration authorities had failed to reveal to them the time of Aidoudi's flight and implied that those authorities had "knowingly" defied the court's order.

The next day, on July 14, Tunisian authorities added fuel to the fire by saying that they had no plans to return Aidoudi to Germany. "We have a sovereign justice system that is investigating him," a spokesperson for Tunisia's public prosecutor's office, Sofiene Sliti, told the DPA German news agency.

On July 17, Aidoudi claimed that his deportation was "pure racism" and implied that he would file a lawsuit against the German government. In an interview with Bild, he said:

"I was kidnapped from Germany. At three o'clock in the morning they simply took me away. I told the police: 'This is not possible. A court has blocked my deportation.' But they said the order had come from the top and that I could not do anything about it. I was not even allowed to see my lawyer. They also prevented me from contacting my wife and children."

Seehofer blamed the deportation on a "communication failure" but his critics accused him of knowingly trying to out-maneuver the German courts.

Justice Minister Katarina Barley, a Social Democrat, said: "What independent courts decide, must apply. When the authorities choose which judicial decisions they will follow and which they will not, that is the end of the rule of law."

In an interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Greens leader Robert Habeck said: "Either it is absolutely embarrassing chaos, or it stinks to high heaven, because the authorities at the interior ministry wanted to make an example [of Sami A].

"First and foremost, we need to clarify whether Interior Minister Horst Seehofer personally tried to circumvent the court's decision. "In any event, the damage that has now been done is much greater than waiting for the court decision. The authorities are weak and stupid, especially in times when trust in institutions is dwindling."

By contrast, critics of Germany's deportation system called for changes to the existing laws. The CDU/CSU parliamentary group member Axel Fischer said that under the current system, "The personal rights of Islamists are given more weight than the security interests of the German people." He added that current legislation "gives the impression that it is virtually impossible to deport Islamist perpetrators to countries such as Tunisia, regardless of how dangerous they are."

In an editorial published before Idoudi's expulsion, the newspaper Bild commented on Germany's dysfunctional deportation system:

"The deportation lunacy of ex-bin Laden bodyguard Sami A. is never-ending. German authorities still see no way to send the top Salafist back to his homeland — even though Tunisia's Minister for Human Rights, Mehdi Ben Gharbia, assured Bild that there is NO risk of torture in Tunisia.

"Since 2006, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia have been trying in vain to get rid of the former confidant of the mass murderer Osama bin Laden.

"Although the al-Qaeda man (living in Bochum since 1997) is classified by the constitutional protection as a 'dangerous preacher,' he continues to be tolerated in Germany, and collects 1,100 euros in monthly support.

"In the words of Alexander Dobrindt, a Member of the German Bundestag, 'Salafists such as Sami A. have no business in Germany and should be deported. Germany should not be a retirement retreat for jihadists.'"


‘They prefer to back a regime of murderous thugs’: Left-wing Australian unionists push for Israel ‘genocide’ motion

Leftist antisemitism goes all the way back to Karl Marx, who hated Jews even though he was one.  In his day it was a common saying: "Der Antisemitismus ist der Sozialismus der dummen Kerls." (Antisemitism is the socialism of stupid people).  Not much has changed

A SENIOR union official has broken ranks with his colleagues to speak out against an “anti-Semitic” push to condemn Israel for the “genocide” of Palestinians.

The resolution, which called on a Labor government to immediately recognise a Palestinian state, was passed overwhelmingly by the Left Caucus at the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress in Brisbane on Monday afternoon.

The Left Caucus makes up roughly 400 of the estimated 1000 union delegates attending the three-day union meeting, which will set the scene for Labor’s upcoming National Conference in December.

“The motion itself condemned Israel for the ‘genocide’ of the Palestinian people and called on a Labor government to immediately recognise the Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders,” said Jeff Lapidos, tax branch secretary of the Australian Services Union.

The left and right factions met separately on Monday to put forward motions that would then be debated on the floor of the congress. ACTU members collectively represent an estimated two million Australian workers.

A delegate from the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union put forward the anti-Israel motion, calling for it to be put direct to the ACTU executive to avoid debate on the floor, where it would be voted down by the right.

“They didn’t want a divisive debate,” Mr Lapidos said.

“He made it clear that the Right Caucus didn’t support the motion but the left had a majority at the ACTU executive, so the plan obviously is to discuss it behind closed doors and ram it through.

“I got up and spoke against it, that it was wrong and shouldn’t be supported. I spoke for a minute or two, someone else spoke in favour for 30 seconds, then it was passed by an overwhelming majority by a vote of the hands.”

In 2011, ACTU secretary Sally McManus said she vigorously supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel “to end the violation of human rights and to campaign against ­Israel as a means of peaceful resistance”.

Mr Lapidos stressed he was speaking in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the ASU, which unlike more militant left-wing unions does not take positions on international affairs.

He said the motion was effectively a “vote of no confidence” in the Labor Party’s current policy on Israel “which is to be even-handed”, and was the only motion that had to be “debated behind closed doors”.

“For reasons I don’t fully understand, the left in Australia has developed a very anti-Israel, anti-Semitic passion,” he said. “Instead of backing the only democracy in the Middle East, they prefer to back a regime of murderous thugs. That’s what Hamas is, that’s what the Palestinian Authority is.”

Mr Lapidos said it was a “big distraction for the ACTU”. “Most ordinary working people aren’t interested in the socialist revolution,” he said. “They want a better outcome for them and their families.”

An AMWU spokesman said, “It would be inappropriate for us to distribute any motions before they have been debated and voted on at the ACTU executive or congress. We don’t intend to make any further comments about this matter.”

Peter Wertheim co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said accusing Israel of genocide was an “outrageous lie, in fact an inversion of the truth”.

“It is Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas, which has a charter pledging that it will ‘obliterate’ Israel, who adopt the cowardly practice of hiding behind Palestinian civilians in Gaza while targeting Israeli civilian population centres with thousands of rockets and mortars, and burning hundreds of hectares of crops and nature reserves in Israel with incendiary devices,” he said.

“The Palestinian population in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza has increased fivefold since Israel was established, but if the Palestinian leadership had their way, the Jewish population of the country would be evicted or exterminated.

“This is why Israel defends its people so determinedly. Israel has offered the Palestinians statehood on at least three occasions, but the Palestinian leadership gives far higher priority to destroying the Jewish State than establishing a Palestinian State.

“If the ALP Left really champions human rights, as it claims, it should come to grips with these realities instead of indulging in outdated polemics.”

Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong distanced the party from the motion. “This is a motion before the ACTU Conference — it is a matter for them and has no relationship to the position of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party,” a spokesman said.

“Labor has long supported, and continues to support, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We support Israel’s right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

“A just two-state resolution will require recognising the right of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to live in peace and security.

“Labor, whether in government or opposition, will continue to work with the parties to the conflict, with our allies, and with the wider international community to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.”



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

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

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


19 July, 2018

Standing Against the Rainbow Mafia's Speech-Squelching Agenda

Republican Gov. Paul LePage of Maine "just said no" to a plank of the homosexual agenda

A funny thing happened on the way to another progressive effort, led by the Rainbow Mafia, to restrict Americans’ freedom:

Republican Gov. Paul LePage of Maine “just said no.” He vetoed a bill that would have banned state therapists from working with individuals troubled by feelings of same-sex attraction or the idea that their gender identity and chromosomal reality are a mismatched set — a.k.a. gender dysphoria.

LePage’s reasons for doing so couldn’t be clearer. “This [bill] is so broad that licensed professionals would be prohibited from counseling an individual even at the individual’s own request,” he wrote. “We should not prohibit professionals from counseling an individual even at the individual’s own request. We should not prohibit professionals from providing their expertise to those who seek it for their own personal and basic questions such as, ‘How do I deal with these feelings I am experiencing?’”

He also struck a blow for religious freedom and parental rights. “Parents have the right to seek counsel and treatment for their children from professionals who do not oppose the parents’ own religious beliefs,” he added. “Because the standard of practice for these professionals already prohibits any practice or therapy that would amount to physical or mental abuse, what we are really trying to regulate are the private, consultative conversations between a licensed provider and a client.”

Anyone remember which side of the political divide champions the right to privacy, to the point of indulging in hysterical paroxysms with regard to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the thought that Roe v. Wade might be overturned? That particular right to privacy has precipitated more than 60 million abortions since 1973, making a complete mockery of Bill Clinton’s 1996 assertion that the Democrat Party’s policy stance on abortion was that it should be “safe, legal and rare.”

The Rainbow Mafia and its allies in the media and Democrat Party denigrate any conversation between a therapist and a patient that attempts to address an individual’s own concerns with homosexuality and transgenderism as “conversion therapy.” And while a UCLA study revealed that historical concerns about some of the techniques employed in conversion therapy that began as early as the 1890s are legitimate, LePage made it clear he isn’t endorsing anything that could be construed as abusive. “At no time should such treatment take the form of mental or physical abuse,” he wrote, “and such treatment should always be subject to the statutory requirements of the standard of care for that profession.”

The same study reveals that nine states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont — as well as the District of Columbia currently ban conversion therapy. Therapists in those states who employ the practice can be disciplined for doing so. Yet even those states can’t ignore the First Amendment: The laws generally don’t apply to religious or spiritual leaders acting in a religious capacity, provided they are not paid for their services.

The study further notes that opinion polls show a substantial majority of Americans in Florida, Virginia and New Mexico have supported a ban on conversion therapy, and that members of Congress have introduced a bill, The Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, aimed at classifying conversion therapy provided for a fee as consumer fraud.

No doubt it’s indelicate to ask, but who’s attempting to convert whom? Perhaps polls should be taken to find out whether Americans are on board with state-sanctioned ruination of religious Americans’ livelihoods for failing to embrace the homosexual agenda, or teaching the transgender agenda at the kindergarten level in public schools to children — often with no opt-out choice given to parents who don’t want their children indoctrinated with “LGBTQ” propaganda.

Maybe Americans should be asked if they were okay with an Obama administration that mandated the imposition of the transgender agenda absent any input from Congress. Using Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as their vehicle, Obama & Co. threatened to initiate lawsuits, and withhold federal education funds from states that did not give students claiming to be members of the opposite sex access to bathrooms and lockers rooms of their choice. Other entities followed suit, ultimately leading to a 2015 law in Oregon that provides Medicaid coverage for the gamut of transgender treatments, including surgery — regardless of age.

The ultimate abrogation of parental rights regarding this particular type of “conversion therapy”? In Oregon, patients as young as 15 are not required to get parental consent for it. In other words, children can decide on their own to get life-altering vaginoplasties and double mastectomies — but psychotherapy advising them that such drastic measures might not be a good idea is forbidden.

Matt Moonen, executive director of Equality Maine, insists LePage is wrong. “Studies show that this actually causes harm to minors who are subjected to this so-called treatment so this sends a pretty terrible message from the governor to LGBT kids across the state,” he stated.

Here’s a message for kids across the state: Extensive data collated in 2016 by Dr. James Cantor revealed that 60-90% of children who believe they are transgender change their minds when they reach adulthood. Here’s another message: These children attempt suicide at a rate 20 times higher than their peers.

But psychotherapy that might address these realities should be banned?

LePage pointed out that Maine’s legislature, which failed to override his veto, has a decidedly curious outlook with regard to human rights. Led by Democrats last April, they voted against a bill that would have criminalized female genital mutilation (FGM) — as in the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia for cultural, rather than medical, reasons. “What we should not be doing is counting potential victims at-risk by counting the number of Somali, Egyptian and Gideon females in immigrant families in Maine. Not unless we are willing to face the racism in that calculation and the racism and misogyny entrenched in so many of us,” declared Democrat State Rep. Charlotte Warren at the time.

How about facing the calculation that progressives will abide barbaric traditions utterly inimical to American values under the rubric of supporting multiculturalism and diversity?

LePage sees the irony in the legislature’s priorities. Yet irony is the wrong word, and California’s legislature reveals why. While Maine legislators would like to see certain conversations banned, California legislators passed a law in 2015 compelling conversations: Pro-life medical clinics were ordered to supply abortion literature to their clients. That law was just overturned (5-4) by the Supreme Court, which viewed the mandate as a violation of free speech.

How can two different state legislatures reach diametrically opposed ideas regarding free speech? Because protecting it comes in a distant second to serving the progressive agenda. And if it takes diametrically opposed and thoroughly misguided positions on the First Amendment to “win by any means necessary,” so be it.

Gov. Paul LePage is one governor who won’t be intimidated by the Rainbow Mafia — at least this time. Here’s hoping there are others.


Facebook ‘tells trainee staff not to take down violent videos’

Just conservative ones

Facebook content moderators are instructed to leave videos of violent abuse on the site to improve user experience, an investigation has found.

When dealing with a graphic violent post, moderators are told that they have three options — ignore it, delete it, or mark it as disturbing, which places restrictions on who can see the content.

Clips showing the “repeated kicking, beating or slapping of a child or an animal by an adult”, “the inflicting of a burn or a cut wound by an adult” or “the tossing, rotating or shaking of an infant too young to stand by their wrists, ankles, legs, arms or neck” are not taken down. Instead they are marked as “disturbing child abuse” and remain accessible to anyone who claims to be over 18.

An undercover reporter for Channel 4’s Dispatches filmed training sessions at CPL Resources in Dublin, Facebook’s largest centre for UK content moderation. Trainees were shown a video of a young boy being stamped on as an example of what type of abuse would be allowed to remain on the platform.

When asked why violent content was left on the site, a moderator told the reporter that it was “for better user experience”. He added that “if you start censoring too much, then people lose interest in the platform . . . It’s all about making money at the end of the day”.

Roger McNamee, a venture capitalist and an early investor in Facebook who has since criticised it, told Dispatches: “From Facebook’s point of view this is, this is just essentially, you know, the crack cocaine of their product. It’s the really extreme, really dangerous form of content that attracts the most highly engaged people on the platform.”

Nicci Astin, who campaigns against child abuse, reported the clip of the boy being stamped on to Facebook in 2012 but was told it did not violate the terms and conditions. It was not removed.

“Initially you see a little tiny boy, he must be about two or three in the video, with a man talking to him and shouting at him,” she told Dispatches. “Then he was hitting him and punching him, he was throwing him about. Then he was stamping and kicking on him. And then obviously the video cut. You’re left with knowing absolutely nothing apart from a sickening feeling that you’ve just seen some man beating up a tiny little boy.”

It emerged that the boy was treated in hospital and his stepfather jailed in Malaysia, where the clip was shot. The video, shared 44,000 times in the first two days of posting, remains online without a graphic content warning.

Facebook told Dispatches that it did escalate such issues and contact the authorities. It said that the video should have been removed.

Richard Allan, vice-president of public policy at Facebook, said: “Shocking content does not make us more money, that’s just a misunderstanding of how the system works. . . People come to Facebook for a safe, secure experience to share content with their family and friends. The vast majority of those two billion people would never dream of sharing content that, like that, to shock and offend people.”

Julian Knight, a Tory member of the Commons digital, culture, media and sport committee, said the revelations were alarming but not surprising and criticised Facebook’s response to the MPs’ questions about extreme content.

In the documentary, to be shown tonight, Facebook bosses also admit that moderators are not allowed to take down pages with many followers, such as that of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, even if they breach its rules.


In Germany, the 'Immigration' Worm Has Turned

I'm in Berlin at the moment, staying not far from Checkpoint Charlie, through which I passed many times during the Cold War, and not far from the spot where, sledgehammer in hand, I did my small bit to dismantle the Berlin Wall in November of 1989.

So much has changed in the nearly 30 years since that memorable moment: McDonald's and KFC have franchises on either side of the intersection of the Friedrichstrasse and the Zimmerstrasse, where the Wall briefly opened to allow a narrow passage from the American sector's principal checkpoint across a short block flanked on both sides by the Todesstreifen of barbed-wire and machine-gun free-fire fields.

On the western side -- actually the southern side, by the compass -- the fearsome Wall was gaily painted with graffiti; on the other, it was a blank slate of gray concrete, fully reflective of the Stalinist Leftist orthodoxy of the only captive nation that even remotely tried to make a go of the Marxist economic, social, and moral lie.

Now, three decades after the Wall came down, I'm back in East Berlin talking to old and new German friends -- most of them Ossis, or East Germans -- about the current state of Germany's overriding social and political issue: the influx of more than one million cultural aliens, mostly from the Muslim ummah and thus by faith and profession profoundly opposed to Western Judeo-Christian civilization. And their answer is... not good for the Merkel administration.

Since the end of WWII, the German impulse has been to apologize for... well, just about everything since Arminius wiped out the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9 AD. And, to be fair, they've had a lot to apologize for. In the western sectors, occupied by the French, the British, and the Americans in the war's aftermath and united to form West Germany, they quickly got their economic system up and running, restored much of the infrastructure that had been obliterated, and got on with the business of building a social democracy that became a model for the rest of Western Europe.

But the restoration of Germany society was in part paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, who supported an enormous military force (upwards of 200,000 military personnel at the time of reunification in 1990) as the U.S. and NATO faced off against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact nations across Charlie and all over Europe.

Too Late, Germany Realizes Its Mistake

The American presence preserved the peace and, eventually, was critical in the West's victory in the Cold War. But it was bad for Germany in that it gave the Germans the luxury to take the "high moral ground" and abjure their own self-defense while they poured money into social programs. Having been effectively a ward of NATO and America, the Germans unhappily combined their war guilt with the mistaken moral superiority of their newfound pacifism.

The result was that they were completely unprepared for the consequences of their Ossi-raised chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow free entry to the "Syrian" "refugees" in 2015, a vast trekking horde of mostly male Muslims of military age from as far away as Afghanistan, who marched on the rich countries of the West, passing through Greece and Hungary and Italy on their way to the greener pastures of France, England, and Germany. Proudly proclaiming a "welcoming culture" and mouthing Merkel's slogan, "Wir shaffen das" (We can handle this), Germany opened its arms to the "diversity" delusion.

What the Germans expected to welcome were people fleeing oppression, and who would abide by German norms of social civility, which include peace and (especially) quiet, who would quickly learn to converse and interact on a sophisticated level -- who would become, in short, exactly like most Germans. What they got was an Islamic rabble wholly uninterested in Germany except how to exploit its hospitality while loudly complaining about it. The molestation of more than a thousand German girls in Cologne by Muslim "refugees" on New Year's Eve in 2015 was the first indication that North African sexual norms were coming to roost in Germany. And while the government has downplayed "migrant" crimes against the local women, the word still gets out and around.

In Germany, the case of a young Muslim refugee charged with the rape and murder of a teenage girl has captured media attention and rocked Germany’s Jewish community: The victim, 14-year-old Susanna Feldmann, was Jewish. Missing since May 22, the girl’s  body was found June 6 buried in a shallow grave near her hometown of Mainz. The case has rattled Germany, which is beset with worries about crime emanating from the large Muslim refugee population — many of whom are young, single men, frustrated and aimless.

While many facts have come out since the body of Susanna Feldmann was found and the suspect was arrested and interrogated, the incident still feeds populist speculation and anger at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in 2015 opened the door to more than a million refugees from the war-torn Middle East on humanitarian grounds. Many are young, single men between 16 and 30 years old — like Ali Bashar,  the 20-year-old former asylum seeker who admitted killing Susanna.

Now the realization is dawning that few, if any, of Mutti Merkel's kinder are going to turn into Germans or become assimilated into the host culture. The realization has been delayed by the international media's cultural-Marxist insistence on conflating citizenship with ethnic nationality and declaring there is no difference between them. This may be true in the United States, which is unique among nations, but most definitely is not in continental Europe, where the modern nation-state first evolved; in Germany, the jus sanguinis made possible the prompt repatriations of the Volga Germans -- whose families had lived in Russia for hundreds of years -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, until 1990 when Germany introduced a very limited form of birthright citizenship, children of foreigners born and raised in Germany had no call on German citizenship at all.

It's not a conclusion most Germans are comfortable with, but as the gap between fantasy and reality widens, inevitable conclusions are being reached. Merkel's recent climbdown on "immigration" may have temporarily saved her administration, but it's only a matter of time before she falls, to be replaced with someone who realizes "Wir kann das nicht schaffen."

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers and to tighten the border with Austria in a political deal to save her government. It was a spectacular turnabout for a leader who has been seen as the standard-bearer of the liberal European order but who has come under intense pressure at home from the far right and from conservatives in her governing coalition over her migration policy.

Although the move to appease the conservatives exposed her growing political weakness, Ms. Merkel will limp on as chancellor. For how long is unclear. The nationalism and anti-migrant sentiment that has challenged multilateralism elsewhere in Europe is taking root — fast — in mainstream German politics.

Ms. Merkel agreed to the latest policy after an insurrection over migration policy led by her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, threatened to bring down her coalition. Mr. Seehofer demanded that Germany block migrants at the border if they have no papers, or have already registered in another European country. Ms. Merkel, who supports free movement across Europe’s borders, has been opposed to any moves effectively resurrecting border controls until Monday night, when she made the deal to stay in power.

Anyone who's ever spent a week in Germany -- and I've spent a good deal of my life here -- could have known that Merkel's social experiment in soft-headed egalitarianism was doomed to failure. The Islamic invasion of the West is succeeding in places like France, where it has taken advantage of the French civic dogma of laïcité and the residual anti-Christian sentiment of the French Revolution, first by having the religious trappings of Islam ignored and now, as the Muslim population grows, by forcing the French to take notice of their faith and demanding its open expression in contravention of French law.

Meanwhile in Britain, the church founded by Henry VIII in a fit of pique, and currently presided over by a 92-year-woman, looks to be on its last legs except in a strictly ceremonial sense; into this spiritual void has rushed the former colonials of Africa and Pakistan, bringing vibrant Islam with them.

Whether the Germans are made of sterner stuff than the Brits and the French remains to be seen. Certainly, everyone is trying to tread as lightly as possible, tiptoeing around the unpleasant truths while trying to avoid the even-more-unpleasant consequences of Merkel's folly. At this point, the best that can be hoped for is a halt to further invasion, rapid processing of the alleged "asylum" seekers and speedy repatriation of those found to be unqualified, even under the generosity of the German constitution's Asylrecht -- which has already undergone a considerable rollback since 1993.

It's important to remember that the Germans have seen this movie before, starring the Turks, who came as Gastarbeiter in the 1960s and, rather than returning home the way the Spanish, Greeks and Italian guest workers largely did, stayed in Germany to evolve a parallel society in which they stayed Muslim and Turkish. But the non-assimilation of a new, restive group of militant Muslims who've arrived not in search of a job but of a handout, is a whole new order of magnitude for Germany.

How will they react? With the Wall now gone for longer than it was up, Germans still shudder at the memory and don't wish for Checkpoint Charlie to reappear in the form of restrictive immigration policies. But that Wall was built by the Communists, and meant to keep the East Germans in, whereas the nationalist movements now sweeping Europe want to keep Islam out -- the way they have since the Battle of Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. The Germans are going to have to decide, and quickly, which side of the Wall they're looking at it. The future of Europe depends on it.


Australian judge bans niqab in court's public gallery

A Victorian judge has banned a woman whose husband is facing terrorism charges from wearing a niqab in court, saying it posed a potential security risk.

The woman applied through her husband’s lawyers to wear the face veil, which she said was a “a fundamental way in which she observes her faith”, while sitting in the public gallery to support him through the six-week trial.

She said she had been permitted to wear the niqab during a committal hearing in the magistrates court and was willing to show her face to security guards manning the metal detector and weapons check at the court entrance to verify her identity.

But the supreme court judge Christopher Beale said the risk of a mistrial or other incident caused by “misbehaving” in the public gallery would be heightened if a person could not be instantly identified because their face was covered, and ruled that the risk outweighed the infringement upon the woman’s right to freedom of religious expression.

“Deterrence, identification and proof are all served by a requirement that spectators in the public gallery have their faces uncovered,” he said in a decision handed down on Monday.

Beale said lawyers for the accused had indicated there were other women who would also wear niqabs in court if permission were granted, which would further confuse identity issues because “such dress tends to be very similar”.

Lawyers for the woman argued that she did not pose a security risk and would abide by all court orders, but Beale said the stress felt by people accused of serious crimes was often shared by family members and that “as a consequence of that stress, incidents happen from time to time in court”.

“Australia is obviously a multicultural society and I agree that religious dress should be accommodated as much as possible, but the right of religious freedom and the right to participate in public life are not absolutes,” Beale said in his decision.

He said the Victorian charter of human rights recognised that rights “may be subject to limitations which can be ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom’”.

Lawyers for the woman said there was an implied right of wear a veil when not giving evidence, citing a number of cases in Commonwealth countries.

Those cases generally concerned whether a person was able to wear religious facial coverings while giving evidence and did not contest a person’s right to wear religious attire when not on the stand. Among them is a ruling by the New South Wales court of appeal concerning a civil damages trial against NSW police, which upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the complainant could not wear her niqab while giving evidence.

“A requirement that spectators have their faces uncovered is not to force anyone to act immodestly,” Beale said. “First, the exposure of one’s face in a courtroom cannot reasonably be viewed as an immodest act: subjective views to the contrary cannot rule the day, or the management of a courtroom.

“Second, if someone feels strongly that it would be improper for them to uncover their face in court, they can choose not to attend.”

He said the trial could be livestreamed to another room in the court building to allow the woman to follow it if she chose not to remove her veil.

The Victorian equal opportunity and human rights commissioner, Kristen Hilton, said religious and cultural rights were protected under Victorian law, and that those rights also applied in a courtroom.

“Victorian law is clear that when courts are acting in an administrative way – such as making decisions about procedure in the courtroom – they must consider and act compatibly with human rights,” Hilton said.

“The law allows for restrictions on human rights, such as restricting a person’s right to observe their religion or culture through what they wear, but limits are only justified where there is clear evidence the limit is reasonable.”



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

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

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


18 July, 2018

UK Cathedral Had Man Arrested For the 'Disturbance' of Reading the Bible

Last month, British police arrested a man for reading the Bible outside of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. The police officer asked the preacher to move off of Cathedral property, at the request of church staff. When the man refused, he was arrested for a "breach of the peace." In a statement to PJ Media, the Cathedral defended its actions, but went on to say that it worked out a deal with the preacher to allow him to read the Bible going forward.

"Why am I having a problem reading the Bible, the Word of God, when the Lord has told me to read the Bible here?" the preacher asked the policeman in a video of the incident.

"Security staff here have asked me to move you off the property," the cordial policeman replied. "Staff here have asked you to leave." The officer suggested that all the preacher needed to do was move a few feet. "All you need to do to save any kind of breach of the peace and anyone getting in any trouble is to move your location."

To this, the preacher refused. "Then we're going to have to arrest you for breach of the peace," the officer responded.

"Yeah, you'll have to do that to me. You'll have to take me in, because I'm not moving," the Bible reader responded. "The Lord has asked me to read the Bible here. These people need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. You're not allowing them to hear it."

The preacher went on. "This Bible is all I'm reading. It's the King James Bible, which is authorized by the Queen."

Later, the Bible reader became more belligerent. "You are trespassing on God's authority," he told the policeman. "I am telling you, sir — I know you're police, I appreciate your work — I am not committing a crime. I am giving the word of God and that is not a crime."

As the preacher turned back to read the Bible, the policeman arrested him, and a woman filming the encounter asked, "Are you saying reading the Bible is breaching the peace?"

The Cathedral argued that it was breaching the peace, but not because he was reading the Bible.

"In order to provide a prayerful and safe space for all, including on the Cathedral's land at the entrances to the building, St. Paul's Cathedral has a policy of limiting any form of public protest, demonstration, preaching or other source of disturbance to people outside the Cathedral," a St. Paul's spokesperson told PJ Media on Thursday.

"The Chapter's policy is to allow a short interval and then ask the person to desist, and to involve the police if they refuse to stop or to move off the Cathedral's land," the spokesperson added.

Then the Cathedral spokesperson directly addressed the incident. "The police are supportive of this policy and on one occasion briefly arrested a man who had persistently returned to read loudly passages from the Bible because he was refusing to respond to police requests from Cathedral staff to move on."

The Cathedral made peace with the street preacher afterwards. "After this incident, the man concerned had a meeting with one of the Cathedral clergy, following which Chapter agreed to suspend its policy for this particular person so that he could read the Bible, as requested, for half an hour outside the Cathedral once a week."

The Cathedral ended its statement by insisting that it upholds the Bible. "the Bible, including the King James version, is read within the Cathedral at every one of the four weekday services, five on Sundays," the statement concluded.

Last October, on the 500th anniversary of Reformation leader Martin Luther nailing the "95 Theses" to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, conservative Anglicans protesting the British church's growing acceptance of same-sex marriage and homosexual activity. Both practices contradict clear Bible teachings.

"When the church redefines sin and eliminates repentance, it can no longer offer the good news of eternal salvation from sin in Jesus; the church no longer remains distinctly Christian; it is no longer salt and light in the world," the Reformation-style declaration read.

"Where leaders refuse to repent and submit themselves to the Word of God, the Lord raises up new leadership for His church and new structures: just as He did through Martin Luther 500 years ago," the statement ominously declared.

One of these protest documents appeared on the doors of St. Paul's Cathedral, which was the tallest building in London from 1710 to 1867 and remains the second-largest church building in Britain. A symbol of British identity, St. Paul's hosted the funerals of Lord Nelson, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher.

Following the unbiblical trend in favor of LGBT issues, St. Paul's Cathedral has an LGBTQ ministry called "Integrity." In 2012, the new dean of St. Paul's, Rev. Dr. David Ison, said the Church of England should embrace gay marriage.

No, Jimmy Carter, Jesus Wouldn't 'Approve of Gay Marriage'
"We need to take seriously people's desire for partnership and make sure that the virtues that you see in married relationships are available to people who are gay," Ison declared. "You can regard two Christian gay people as wanting to have the virtues of Christian marriage." He also insisted that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

It remains unclear whether this street preacher who insisted on reading the Bible is part of the same protest movement regarding St. Paul's Cathedral's acceptance of LGBT identity, but given the Cathedral's original hostility to him and given his insistence on reading the Bible as if it were not being preached there, it stands to reason.


Gun policy climbdown

Earlier this month, a long-running legal dispute between a self-described anarchist and the US government was finally settled. The outcome will have significant ramifications in the United States and potentially even the rest of the planet.

But let’s step back for a sec.

This all started with a guy called Cody Wilson. He runs a company called Defense Distributed that makes 3D guns and shares the blueprints so that anybody can download them in their own homes.

The US State Department took legal steps in 2013 to stop Cody’s company from operating, saying it violated international traffic and arms regulations - basically, firearm exportation laws.

Cody and the Second Amendment Foundation - a gun rights group - fought the restrictions by saying that it violated two parts of the US constitution - the right to own a gun and the right to free speech, which they argued was implied in the sharing of the gun blueprints.

Last week, the US State Department settled its case with Cody and the Foundation, dropping its claims that posting the blueprints online violates export laws.

“Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3D files and other information at issue,” the Second Amendment Foundation said in a statement

The government will also pay back a “significant proportion” of the lawyer’s fees used to fight the case for the last five years, the Foundation said.

Cody did not respond to Hack’s request for interview, and the Second Amendment Foundation declined a similar request.
What does this actually mean?

The settlement creates a big roadblock for any further attempts at gun control in the US. If people can simply download a blueprint and print it at home, restrictions on the physical manufacture and sale of weapons may become obsolete.

In fact, just months after going live, Cody’s website had 400,000 downloads. That was back in 2013, when 3D wasn’t as advanced as it is now.

Cody, who described himself as a “principled anarchist”, says he’s making a deliberate political statement in opening up gun manufacturing for everybody.


Military Vets of Another War: On Gender

While the two parties get ready to rumble over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement, there’ll be no argument over one thing: just how important the courts have become. Republicans and Democrats may be animated over President Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Brett Kavanaugh, but it’s because they all agree — the courts’ decisions are affecting every facet of American life. And the latest debate at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is living proof.

With the exception of Barack Obama and his administration, there aren’t a whole lot of Americans clamoring to spend their taxpayer dollars on gender reassignment surgeries. The 44th president did his best to force the issue, insisting the VA, HHS, and Defense Department make these procedures the newest (and most controversial) obligation of unwilling Americans. Then, to our great relief, voters elected Donald Trump — many, based on his pledge that he would do away with the radical social experimentation of his predecessor.

Fortunately, they didn’t have to wait long. The new commander-in-chief rolled back the transgender policy in the military and did his best to put the brakes on the fierce debate over taxpayer-funded sex changes. Everything was going according to plan — until the courts got involved. At least two military veterans decided to sue the Trump administration into an all-expenses-paid gender transition (which, if you ask medical professionals, hasn’t proven effective in treating serious mental health conditions like this one). Now, thanks to the courts, the VA is under significant pressure to reconsider its position on covering gender reassignment surgeries for vets.

Last Friday, the VA put out its first official “feelers” on the issue with a request for public comment. And while liberals insist that the department is just “going through the motions,” there’s no telling what the activist courts (which have become quite fond of stripping this president of his constitutional authority) will demand next. The VA did point out that the Defense Department memo on the president’s transgender policy “noted considerable scientific uncertainty and overall lack of high quality scientific evidence demonstrating the extent to which transition-related treatments, such as sex reassignment surgery remedy the multifaceted mental health problems associated with gender dysphoria.”

That’s certainly in keeping with the latest research from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, both of which wrote in JAMA that despite what the sexual extremists might say, there’s absolutely no conclusive evidence that procedures like gender reassignment are actually helping people. (Obama’s CDC admitted as much in 2016.) In fact, part of the VA’s hesitation is spelled out in its public comment page. One of the questions asked is: “Given the challenge of the high rates of Veteran suicide, what does the evidence, including peer-reviewed evidence, suggest about the impact of gender alterations on the rates of suicide and suicide ideation among those suffering from gender dysphoria?”

FRC’s Peter Sprigg knows the answer to that one. In several of his papers, he cites a very important 2011 Swedish study, which showed that even AFTER having gender reassignment surgery, people who identify as transgender had a suicide rate 19 times higher than the general population. That completely undermines Obama’s suggestion that giving people who identify as transgender everything they ask for will do anything to reduce their suicide rate. On the contrary, extreme policies like this one come at the expense of the population they claim to help!

Then, of course, there’s the sky-high price tag (which the other side denies). “It’s just a ridiculous argument that this is going to be some costly issue that they have to cover,” said Sasha Buchert, the attorney representing the veterans. But, as Peter has pointed out, it’s not as ridiculous as Sasha thinks! Male-to-female surgery would cost a whopping $110,450 per person, and female-to-male up to $89,050. And that doesn’t include the rounds of pre- and post-hormone therapy!

When America’s heroes can’t even get the routine care they need, surely we can think of a better investment than this one — a radical procedure that too many patients live to regret


Boys and girls ARE very different -- and only feminists would be warped enough to claim otherwise

Outnumbered: Parents reveal what it's like when their entire brood is the opposite sex, including a disappointed father who spent thousands trying to get his girls interested in football

All parents struggle with the demands of family life from time to time. But spare a thought for those who aren't just overwhelmed — they're also hopelessly outnumbered in terms of gender.

Whether it's a mum of all boys or a father with lots of little girls, it can be lonely when you're the only representative of your sex in the family. So, do the outnumbered parents secretly yearn for a child made more in their image, or would they never have it any other way? And what do they say to strangers who ask if they're going to try again for that elusive boy or girl baby?

Jamie Crawford, 40, is a business owner and lives in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, with his wife Frances, 32, a civil servant. They have four daughters, Ella, eight, Faye, six, Juliet, three, and Cora, seven months.

Jamie says: At the gym I'm teased for only producing girls. But I laugh along because I genuinely couldn't be happier to be a dad of daughters. I don't feel less of a man because I don't have a son, although I know that attitude still exists.

At work, customers are always asking me when Frances and I are going to try for a boy. They can't believe our family is complete without one.

But I grew up the youngest of four boys, and I've got lots of male friends. I don't need a boy at home, too!

Since Ella was born I've been on a steep learning curve in all things female. Sometimes I can't believe the things I know — like how you only put conditioner on the ends of your hair to stop it getting greasy, and which outfits go on what dolls.

Quite often, after dropping the older girls at school, I'll find myself singing along to their Frozen CD, forgetting it's just me in the car. I know all the words! I can be in and out of the bathroom in ten minutes flat, and as the girls become teenagers I suspect I'll be allowed even less time.

I don't want to turn into an over-protective dad, but I know the world can be a dangerous place, especially for young women — so I'm planning to teach them all self-defence.

I was actually relieved when we found out we were having a fourth girl last year. A boy would have been smothered by three big sisters, it just wouldn't have been fair. We've no plans to try for a fifth, our family is definitely complete.

Wife Frances says: With each pregnancy all I cared about was that the baby was healthy — not its gender. But by the time Cora came along we'd decided to find out early what we were having, because I couldn't bear the incessant 'you must be hoping for a boy' comments.

The only downside is that because they like the same toys and TV shows, there's a tendency to lump them together. I have to remind myself to give them enough one-on-one attention.

Claire Rocks, 33, lives in Darlington with her husband Matthew, 41. They run a childcare business and have five sons, Cameron, 15, Harvey, 12, McKenzie, seven, Caelan, five, and Cohen, three.

Claire says: I live in a world of superheroes and smelly socks, and keeping the fridge stocked is a daily struggle. We get through eight loaves and 24 pints of milk a week. As I'm just 5ft 1in it's a matter of time until I'm the smallest in the house.

I get cross, though, when people make assumptions about my boys. Everyone presumes the house is chaotic and boisterous, with Matthew and I more like referees than parents. I hate those negative stereotypes, because it's how you raise children that dictates their behaviour, not their gender. My sons may argue, like all siblings, but they don't fight — I simply wouldn't tolerate it.

I'm quite a firm mum. They are the men of the future and I'm raising them to respect and value women, and to be gentlemen.

I found out with each pregnancy what I was having but only because I'm impatient. I was never disappointed. We did pay for an extra private scan with my last pregnancy, though, because neither of us could believe it was a fifth boy. A part of me assumed we were due a girl after four sons! I know there are things I won't get to experience, such as girly days out with a daughter and helping to plan her wedding.

But then I see the amazing relationship the boys have, and I know this is the right dynamic for me.

Husband Matthew says: We've been asked so many times if we are going to try for a daughter. I can't understand why people feel our family is less than perfect, as it's just right for us. I even think dads who don't have sons might envy me a bit — having five boys is brilliant.

We did consider a sixth baby, but decided five was enough. If we had a daughter now it would be a shock.

Daniel Nutkins, 36, lives in Harlow, Essex, with wife Gemma, 34, and they are health coaches for a nutrition company. They have four girls, Lois, ten, Jamie, nine, Taylor, seven, and Thea, 22 months.

Daniel says: When Gemma was pregnant with our youngest, she kept saying she felt different and was convinced it was a boy. Deep down, I hoped she was right because I knew that was my last chance to have the son I've always dreamed of. When Thea was born I was thrilled, but a boy would've been wonderful, too.

I've spent thousands of pounds trying to interest the girls in football, which is my passion. I've tried everything from pink Arsenal strips to training camps and trips to matches, but none of them has any interest.

So I've resigned myself to playing shops, beauty salons and hairdressers. I even had my hair cut short because I was sick of them 'styling' it for me!

Recently I went to see my GP with a sore ankle. As I took off my shoe and sock to be examined, I remembered too late that the girls had insisted on painting my toenails with glitter polish. He was very surprised.

But when I'm snuggled up on the sofa with my daughters, I couldn't be happier. I love all the cuddles I get.

Wife Gemma says: When I see families with just boys I feel relieved I had girls, as I think they're calmer and easier to manage. I love dressing them all the same, they get so much attention when we're out and it looks adorable. I'll be sad when they refuse to let me!

Becky McCall, 42, is a full-time mum. She lives in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, with husband Richard, 43, chief operating officer of a London brokerage firm, and their four sons, Noah, 12, Ethan, 11, and twins Jacob and Isaac, seven.

Becky says: When we tried for a third child, I did think it would be nice to have a girl after years of toy trains and cars, but Richard was sure it would be a boy. He's one of three brothers, and was convinced we'd only have boys, too.

Then we found out it was twins — and the shock eclipsed the news they were also both boys. I decided it was for the best after all, because boys are all I know.

Still, when Richard and the boys are huddled around their latest Lego creation, I crave female company. Someone to watch Mary Poppins with, or just browse the shops.

Instead I have spent a lot of time hunting for insects in the garden and watching sport. I realised early on you have to exhaust boys or they get up to mischief, and they rarely sit still.

I've lost count of the trips to A&E with broken bones and cuts needing stitches. While friends' daughters will chat about their day at school, I'm more likely to get a grunt and a one-word answer.

But it's totally worth it. Walking down the street surrounded by my handsome sons, I feel like such a proud mother.

I love that we can do everything as a family because the boys like the same things.

Husband Richard says: I'd have loved a daughter. but it's tougher on Becky. With a girl, the house would feel more balanced. But as a father to four sons I feel very lucky.

Jamie Hallworth, 29, lives in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester, with his wife Lauren, 29, who works in the NHS, and their daughters Lacey, eight, Bryleigh, five, and two-year-old twins Tilly and Heidi.

Jamie says: Sitting in a Saturday morning ballet class, I do marvel at how my life has changed. I've swapped football with friends for tutus and pirouettes.

I really wanted a son. Someone to kick a ball about with and to carry on my family name, because both my sisters plan to change theirs when they get married.

With our first baby, I hardly had time to think about whether I wanted a girl or a boy — it was so busy and exciting. But the second time around, when the 20-week scan revealed it was a girl, I admit there was a flicker of disappointment. At that stage we weren't planning to have more children, and I thought my last chance for a son had gone.

When we decided to try again, and Lauren became pregnant, I thought maybe it would be third time's a charm! But it wasn't to be, and Lauren and I agreed it was probably better as our home was so girl-orientated by then.

I've learned it's all about the details when you have girls. They must have the right coloured hair bows, and if one gets a French plait I have to do one for all of them!

We can't leave the house without being bombarded with comments from passers-by. Some of the best were: 'Is that why you lost your hair?' 'Do you have two bathrooms?' and 'They must cost you a fortune!' I just laugh along.

People tell me that when girls are older they stay closer than boys do, and I hope that's true. I see the bond Lauren has with her mum and I want to be as close to the girls when they grow up.

Wife Lauren says: I tell Jamie he was destined to be surrounded by women! I was desperate for our first baby to be a girl, because I'm an only child and very close to my mum, so I really wanted that bond with my own daughter.

I did feel a bit disappointed each time for Jamie, as I knew he'd have loved a son. Practically though, it's so much easier only having one gender. They're such a little pink pack, I couldn't be happier.



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

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

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


17 July, 2018

Dads Needed

John Stossel

Warren Farrell was once considered a feminist leader. He hung around with Gloria Steinem and wrote about why men and women should break out of rigid old gender roles.

But then, as he learned more, he started to disagree with parts of modern feminism.

“I don’t agree with the part of feminism that says men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed,” he says in our latest Stossel TV video. “That part of feminism is sick.”

In Farrell’s new book, The Boy Crisis, he argues that hostility toward males undermines boys’ psychological development. “Boys are a third less likely than girls to get college degrees, twice as likely to commit suicide.”

We pushed back, pointing out that men make more money, run most companies and run most of the government.

“Our dads and grandpas,” he responded, “made sacrifices to make more money! Then the feminist movement turned all of that sacrifice against men.”

He says he wishes once in a while feminists would say, “You [men] were discriminated against in your own way. You were obliged to earn more money or we wouldn’t even think about marrying you and having children with you.”

In The Boy Crisis, Farrell notes that dads routinely get passed over when it comes to custody of kids, even though kids benefit enormously if they have male role models. Boys without fathers suffer more, he says.

Why does a same-sex role model matter more for boys?

“Boys tend to not have as many skills at developing friendships and emotional connections,” answers Farrell. “So when the family connection breaks apart, it affects boys more profoundly than it does their sisters. Boys are then far more likely to be disobedient, delinquent, drop out of school.”

One reason fathers are critical, says Farrell, is because men tend to parent differently. For example, men roughhouse more with kids.

“Roughhousing creates so many skill sets,” said Farrell. “It creates a bond with the child, so the children don’t mind discipline. … [T]he discipline is the price they pay for more fun with dad.”

But aren’t mothers more attentive to children’s needs?

“As a rule, mothers are more empathetic, but an empathetic parent does not create an empathetic child,” answers Farrell. Instead, “It may just teach children to expect others to think of their needs.”

Real empathy, by contrast, is created “by the father or mother requiring the child to think about the father’s needs, the mother’s needs, their brother’s needs.”

Fathers often fulfill that role by being a little more demanding of kids.

“Moms are filled with love, and they want to make sure their children do well, so they often do for the children,” says Farrell. “Dads are also filled with love, but the way that dads love is to think, ‘I need to love the children by having the children learn how to do for themselves.’”

Studies consistently find that having both an involved mother and father leads to the best outcome.

A government summary of studies on parenting concluded that “children who live with their fathers are more likely to have good physical and emotional health, to achieve academically, to avoid drugs, violence and delinquent behavior.”

Yet government policy simultaneously discourages fatherhood. Welfare programs give more money to households in which the father is absent. Even now, although teen birth rates are down, the percentage of kids who don’t live with fathers is up.

In a world with more fragmented families, Farrell argues that we should think about ways to reintroduce masculine role models in boys’ lives. He wishes there were more male teachers.

“Not just males who are imitation females, but males who have some background in doing more traditionally masculine stuff. Then the children would have role models of a female, and a male who’s softer and also a male who is more traditionally male,” he says.

“Currently, many boys go from all-female homes to all-female schools, and then we go, gee, I wonder why they were vulnerable to a gang leader saying, ‘I’ll show you what being a man really is.’”


LOL: Antifa Spazzes Out Over No Longer Being Able To Hide Their Faces

The liberal terrorist group, who call themselves Antifa are “spazzing out” over a newly introduced bill that is long overdue and would severely punish a person whose attack on another human during a protest or political demonstration.

The bill targets those who “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” while hiding their identity with a mask.

It’s no secret in 2018 that the liberal media have done all they can to incite these radical individuals to carry out acts of violence against the right. That being said, it is no shock that HuffPo disavows the unmasking law. Antifa has been allowed to run around like America is a lawless country terrorizing and intimidating productive members of society and supporters of President Donald Trump.

Even with countless hours of video footage of their crimes, people are lashing out via press releases, denouncing the bill. Vice quotes Carmichael Monaco, a member of the Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council, as saying,

    [The unmasking law] takes a pro-fascist stance in its very name, and doubtlessly in its enforcement. In the current political climate, antifascists who speak out against fascism, racism, xenophobia, etc. are routinely harassed, threatened, and attacked by the far right, often supported by the police, who are notably exempted here. Families and friends of antifascists also become targets of far right violence. The wearing of a mask is an act of self-defense often necessary to ensure one’s right to free speech.

Mark Bray, a professor at Dartmouth who studies human rights and radical politics also gave his two cents on the matter.

    “It’s a law that threatens to clamp down on direct action politics more broadly. I think it sets a disturbing precedent,”

Well if you don’t want the government to take certain measures to keep the American people safe from masked individuals who assault people they don’t like, then don’t assault people you don’t like.  It didn’t work out for the KKK so why would it be any different for Antifa?


France: Freeing Extremists

450 Radicalized Islamists to Be Freed by 2019

The same government that wants to deport Japanese investors, accepted 100,000 migrants from Sub-Saharan and Northern Africa alone in 2017 -- most of them with no skills and no money.

The same government that wants to deport the Japanese creators of a spectacular new wine in France is about to release from prison an Al Qaeda terrorist, Djamel Beghal, linked to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015.

"We fear a possible connection?between Muslim gangs from the suburbs and jihadists soon to be liberated on one hand, and jihadists coming back from war in Iraq? on the other". — A source who asked to remain anonymous.

A curious story is getting attention in France. Two Japanese winemakers who have been living in Banyuls-sur-Mer since 2016 were notified that they would have to leave France due to a lack of financial resources. Rie Shoji, 42, and Hirofumi Shoji, 38, had arrived there in 2011 with the idea of ?? becoming winemakers.?First they worked as farm workers and wine merchants in Bordeaux and Burgundy, and studied and received degrees in farm management and oenology.?In 2016, they invested 150,000 euros ($170,000) to buy land. Their plan was to produce a natural, organic wine, in an area -- the eastern Pyrenees -- where everything is done by hand.

Their first wine, named Pedres Blanques, appeared in 2017, and was considered a "revelation". It is already on the wine list of many famous restaurants in France and Spain. "Its price is skyrocketing," said ?their lawyer, Jean Codognès, "and the prefecture is saying that their wine has no future. The government is not thinking straight".

The same government that wants to deport Japanese investors has accepted 100,000 migrants from Sub-Saharan and Northern Africa just in 2017, most of them with no skills and no money.

The same government that wants to deport the Japanese creators of a spectacular new wine in France is about to release from prison an Al Qaeda terrorist, Djamel Beghal, linked to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015.

On August 5, 2018, Djamel Beghal, 52, will reach the end of his combined prison sentences for a series of crimes that include planning to blow up the American Embassy in Paris. France wants to deport Beghal to Algeria the day he leaves Vezin prison, in Rennes. Beghal has an Algerian passport, but his lawyers insist that his life would be in danger if he returned to the country where he was born. Until now, the Algerian government has not replied to French government requests. On June 13, Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet said in a radio interview, "It is not yet assured that [the Algerian government] will welcome Beghal, who is no longer a French citizen..." What will happen if Algeria does not want him? "He will be settled under house arrest."

According to a new anti-terrorism law adopted in 2017, "house arrest" can be expanded to encompass a district in a city or enlarged to cover the city of residence, in order to ensure greater freedom for a terrorist to enjoy a work life and a family life.

Djamel Beghal's is not an isolated case. From now to the end of 2019, the justice minister announced, France is poised to release 50 Islamic terrorists and 450 radicalized prisoners from their cells. "450 radicalized prisoners will be out of prison by 2019, plus 50 Islamic terrorists," she said to the news channel BFMTV.

"There will be 20 Islamic terrorists who will leave prison this year and 30 other Islamic terrorists next year. 450 radicalized prisoners will get out of prison from now to 2019. Among them, we find simple criminals who have been radicalized during their jail-time ...

"Of course, I believe that everything is implemented to protect our fellow citizens. We are really determined to track these people. The creation of a national bureau to centralize information about the most dangerous is an effective answer."

We have to remember that the 19-year-old ISIS jihadist who slit the throat of a priest, Father Jacques Hamel, in Saint-?tienne-du-Rouvray had been under surveillance and was being monitored with an electronic ankle bracelet.

The ISIS jihadist who slit the throat Father Jacques Hamel (left), in his church in Saint-?tienne-du-Rouvray (right) on July 26, 2016 had been under surveillance and was being monitored with an electronic ankle bracelet.

In January 2018, the same, much-too-kind justice minister, Nicole Belloubet said publicly that France would intervene if a French jihadist were sentenced to death in Syria or Iraq. "The French state," she said, "would intervene, by negotiating with the other state in question." That announcement took place just after that an Iraqi court condemned a German woman to death by hanging after finding her guilty of belonging to ISIS -- the first such sentencing involving a European woman. France and the European Union have a long-standing policy against capital punishment and all member states have abandoned the practice.

In fact, the French officials display mixed feelings about how ISIS jihadists should be dealt with. Publicly, they extend a hand to?pull jihadists?into French?society. But in reality, they seem, not surprisingly, to be afraid of these types of citizens. In May 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an investigation claiming that French special forces had provided a hit list to Iraqi forces of around 30 men who were "identified as high value targets". Former French President François Hollande confirmed that he personally had authorized at least four killings of "high value targets" by special forces in what are known as "homicide" operations in France.

According to figures released by the government in November 2017, about 1,700 French Muslims joined ISIS in Iraq and Syrian since 2014. At least 278 died and 302 returned to France, including 66 women and 58 minors.?The others were captured in Syria or Iraq, killed in the fighting or fled to the remaining IS-held territories or other jihadist fires (in Libya in particular).

According to a government source, who requested anonymity, however, French officials are beginning to be particularly concerned about a possible connection between radicalized Muslims liberated from prison and jihadists coming back from Syria and Iraq to France on one side, and Muslim gangs from the suburbs on the other side. "Suburbs" in France have come to mean "no-go zones" -- areas that are mainly Muslim, and controlled by Salafists and drug dealers. According to the source:

"We know for sure that a significant flow of weapons is flooding into the suburbs. Most of these weapons [Kalashnikovs, Uzis] were for many years in the hands of drug dealers. The news is that those people are now using these weapons to control their territory more tightly."

In May 2018, a video showing gang members dressed in black and shooting Kalashnikovs at members of other gangs and at the police went viral on social networks. According to multiple sources, "Three to seven million illegal weapons are in circulation in France".

"We fear a possible connection?between Muslim gangs from the suburbs and jihadists soon to be liberated on one hand, and jihadists coming back from war in Iraq on the other,?" said the source. "?We lack information. The question is not the threat, the question is our capacity to fight back. At present, we have no preparation or capacity to strike back at such a possible alliance".

To understand the danger, we have to make a simple calculation, says the source:

"We have 400 'suburbs' in France. They represent five million people, mainly Muslim. Ninety percent of this population are working hard to survive. But 10% -- half a million people -- are working for the Salafists or the drug dealers. If 10% of that 10% make an alliance with jihadis, it represents an army of 50,000 soldiers. The police are not able to fight an internal enemy like that?".


Revolt against collectivism in Australia

A lack of leadership lies behind the Australian Senate's stoush on pepper spray

By Corrine Barraclough, who has written wisely before.  She even likes Mr Trump!

If politics is the robust exchange of ideas, there are certainly times when one must look beyond personalities to see the crux of what is being debated.

In the furious exchange between Sarah Hanson-Young and David Leyonhjelm many have become fixated on male versus female or civility versus offensive language. However, it strikes me that the crux of this debacle is actually about collectivism.

Whatever the specifics of the exchange in the Senate were this much we know for sure: Leyonhjelm is rejecting misandry and blanket blame being placed at the feet of all men as penance for the crimes of some.

Men as a collective gender should not, cannot and will not be blamed for the actions of criminals.

Of course, individual responsibility is at the very heart of Liberal Democrat Leyonhjelm’s belief system. It decrees that each individual is solely responsible for his or her choices and accountability sits squarely with the person rather than the community or society as a whole.

It is utterly absurd that during a time when diversity is being forced down our collective throats, gender politics is speaking in such clearly divisive language. While diversity agendas are a priority in businesses and institutions across the country gender politics clearly defines bias which gender discriminates between male and female.

No wonder there is a growing revolt against the collectivism that gender politics dictates. Make no mistake, this is not going to conveniently vanish; it will keep rearing its ugly head no matter which personality happens to personify the problem in the political arena at any given time.

Before Leyonhjelm told Hanson-Young to ‘stop shagging men’, the debate on that day in the Senate was about women’s safety. Senator Fraser Anning put forward a motion to relax the import on pepper spray or mace. ‘Access to a means of self-protection by women in particular would provide greatly increased security and confidence that they will not become just another assault, rape or murder statistic,’ Anning said. This comes after police were widely criticised for advising women to take care after the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in Melbourne.

The troubling coverage of Dixon’s death shone a bright and damning light on the stalemate we have arrived at in Australia regarding collective male blame.

Fierce feminists on one side say rather than telling women to take care we should be telling men not to rape. This is collectivism in its clearest form. The fembot army wants all men to step up and fix the reality of crime. Not only is that unreasonable, it’s impossible.

After Dixon’s murder it was clear to see how deeply far left activist messaging has permeated society’s narrative on ‘violence against women’.

Through the dark magic of gender politics, all women are deemed under threat from all men.

Such collectivism is a destructive and unhelpful worldview. Ultimately, this may well be what ensures feminism implodes.

The reality is, our battle in life is good versus evil rather than men versus women. In that, feminism has collectivism all wrong – and the masses are beginning to revolt.

The response to Anning’s motion in the senate came from Senator Janet Rice. ‘The last thing women in Australia need now is another man in power telling us that we are responsible for violence against us. The priority must be to eradicate men’s violence.’

Those two words, ‘men’s violence’, are commonly used when left feminists screech that it is all men’s cumulative responsibility to end crime.

Statistics are pored over, dead women are counted in the name of political point scoring, so that far left fembots can wag their finger in men’s faces and tell them, ‘this is your mess, clear it up’.

What they fail to acknowledge is that schooling the good will never eradicate evil.

On this issue both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are as clueless as each other. There is no leader between them.

So desperate are they to virtue signal their way to securing the female vote they have both bought into this costly narrative.

After Dixon’s death, Turnbull told parliament, ‘Our hearts go out to Eurydice’s family. Our prayers, our sympathy, our love are with them as they grieve her loss. Women must be safe everywhere. On the street, walking through a park, in their home, at work. We need to ensure that we have a culture of respect for women.’

He added, ‘I believe, Mr Speaker, that I speak for every honourable member in saying we must never, ever, ever, tolerate violence against women. Eurydice Dixon, we mourn her loss. We grieve with her family. And we say “never again”.’

And with that, Turnbull promised to end crime; he was just too blinded by feminist brainwashing to realise it.

Shorten said on that day in parliament, ‘Women in Australia have a right to movement. It is not the fault of women if they choose to walk home from transport to their house.’

He added, ‘We need to tackle the enablers of violence and we need to change the attitudes of men.’

He too promised to end crime – and he too was too blinded by incontestable bias to recognise.

Both Turnbull, Shorten and the majority of politicians have bought into the collectivism that feminist theory outlines. Apparently all have forgotten that any ‘ism’ is dangerous.

Fast-forward again to Anning’s motion to relax the import on pepper spray in an effort to help women feel safer. This new spat between Hanson-Young and Leyonhjelm centres on precisely the same issue.

Why? Because we do not have a leader strong enough to stand up to the feminist army and tell them that not only is ending crime unreasonable, it is utterly outrageous to lay the blame for violence at men’s feet.

It is offensive and sexist that we have arrived at a position where we’re talking about ‘male violence’ unchallenged.

Leyonhjelm is entirely correct to say that misandry is equally as objectionable as misogyny. What a crying shame it is that ‘slut-shaming’ ever entered this debate and the real issue wasn’t addressed.

The focus should be on misandry. We should all be talking about the injustice of blanket blame.

Ultimately, each and every one of us should be voicing our collective fury at the injustice of feminist collectivism and defending the right of good men not to be tarred by criminals.



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

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

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


16 July, 2018

Preventing domestic violence:  There is only one way

Wife and partner bashing is an abhorrent crime and one reads almost daily of stories about it.  You find stories in the mainstream media with some frequency but where you really read such reports is in Quora.com, which solicits all sorts of stories direct from individuals.

Given the large concern about such incidents, governments have been exerting themselves to do something about it. But their efforts are ridiculous.  They just make statements about it and say what a naughty thing it is to do.  There is no evidence that such preaching does any good -- probably for the excellent reason that it does in fact do no good.

The nice middle class people who hear and read such messages are the ones to need such advice least. 

There is of course no perfect solution but there is one that would PREVENT, not just punish, most such behaviour.  And that flows from the fact that most such assaults are by people already well-known to the police for aggressive behaviour.  Most have  prior convictions for violence or at least have in their past come to the attention of police for such behaviour

So if any offender has a record of any serious violence towards people or animals they should simply have their liberty permanently taken away.  In most instances they should be jailed.  They won't be able to act out in jail.  And such a policy would protect the community generally, not only women, which is a big bonus. If they show no respect for others, they cannot expect  others to respect them

The cost would be a larger jail population but how do you count the cost of saving the lives and well-being of many abused women? A one-percent cut in the bureaucracy would probably yield enough to cover he cost.  And jailing could be a lot less costly than it now is. Instead of the motel-like conditions that are now often provided in jails, a bare minimum for life support could be provided.

This is of course a "tough" solution but it is the only one with any prospect of effectiveness.  Anything else is pissing into the wind

I have argued previously that releasing serious criminals after a short period of imprisonment is asking for trouble.  See also here -- JR

Man Who Stopped Gun Thief Fired For Good Deed

A manager at Academy Sports was fired from his job after he prevented a would-be robber from stealing a firearm from the Florida sporting goods store.

Dean Crouch, 32, was working at Academy Sports in Tallahassee when Jason White walked up to the firearms counter and asked to look at a .40-caliber handgun, reported The Tallahassee Democrat. White allegedly raced for the front door when handed the firearm, and Couch quickly tackled him to the ground. (RELATED: Armed Walmart Shopped Kills Alleged Carjacker)

While waiting for police to arrive, White was taken to the store office where it was discovered that he had allegedly stolen a backpack, two matching magazines and five boxes of matching ammunition.

“He repeatedly said ‘I stole and I admit to it’ and ‘I will steal again when I get out of jail,'” a Tallahassee officer wrote in a police report.

Crouch was put on suspension following the incident and after a month-long investigation, Academy Sports notified him on Tuesday that he was fired for violating a company policy prohibiting employees from touching customers, according to Fox News.

The spokeswoman for Academy Sports defended the company’s actions telling the Democrat “While the incident ended without injury, actions inconsistent with corporate policies were taken.”

Crouch, who is married and the father to two young children, is now facing financial distress. Without the income from his job, he is forced to put the family’s home up for sale.

“I was really dumbfounded honestly, that Academy would do something like this. I worked so hard for Academy, put some blood, sweat, and tears into this place,” Crouch told WTXL. “I had great staff and for them to come through and fire me over trying to protect the community, it really hurts me personally.”

Crouch has been an employee of Academy Sports for more than two years and is considering a lawsuit for wrongful termination.


‘Extreme Poverty’ Is Extremely Rare in the U.S., Says New Research

Overestimates appear to be the product of unreliable survey data.
A recent dust-up between the U.N. and the Trump administration reinvigorated the debate over “extreme poverty” in the U.S. The U.N. claimed an astounding 18.5 million Americans were mired in this condition; the latter said the true number was a mere 250,000 — fewer than one in 1,000 Americans.

As I’ve noted previously, the U.N.’s number was absurd, relying on a definition of extreme poverty that no one else uses. But there is a legitimate debate over the true extent of extreme poverty — typically defined as a household income under $2 per person per day, which is something like one-tenth of the poverty line — with estimates ranging from a few hundred thousand to a few million. And in new research presented at the American Enterprise Institute Tuesday, the economist Bruce D. Meyer and two co-authors make a forceful argument that the lower numbers are the correct ones.

Their own estimate is that “at most one-quarter of one percent of households are living on less than $2/person/day” — about 326,000 individuals in total — and that these are overwhelmingly single adults, sometimes students. Indeed, the authors were unable to identify a single family with children that was extremely poor in their data.

Claims of rampant extreme poverty first rose to prominence with the 2015 publication of the book $2 a Day, the central claim of which was that 4 percent of American families with children fell below that cutoff — largely because the 1996 welfare reform made it harder to get cash assistance. The book itself made clear some serious limitations of this number, though. For one thing, it was limited to cash income, and the estimate fell by half when food stamps were included. And for another, it was based on survey data, meaning that individuals reported their own income. It’s well known that people tend to underreport their welfare benefits and off-the-books cash in surveys, and responses are particularly suspect when individuals claim to subsist on essentially no money.

In response, some critical researchers tried to correct the survey data to account for underreporting, or looked at households’ spending rather than their income, and reached radically lower estimates. But neither approach is entirely satisfactory. That’s where the new work of Meyer et al. comes in.

Meyer’s team has assembled an impressive data set that starts with the government survey used in $2 a Day (the Survey of Income and Program Participation, or SIPP), but also includes administrative data from various government agencies. As a result, instead of trying to statistically estimate whether a survey respondent is underreporting his income and benefits, Meyer et al. can simply look at federal and state records to see how much that individual received. This allows the authors to make more comprehensive and accurate adjustments to the survey data than anyone else has been able to. The biggest tradeoff is that they currently have administrative food-stamp data from just eleven states, so their fully adjusted national estimates need to be scaled up from those — but fortunately, these states are demographically similar to the country as a whole.

Their raw estimate, based only on cash income reported in the survey, is that 3 percent of all households (and nearly 10 percent of single-parent households) live in extreme poverty. Add in self-reported non-cash benefits and it’s down to 2.1 percent. Account for the fact that a small share of respondents claim to have little or no income despite working many hours at a paying job — clearly a mistake — and we’re at 1.3 percent. Reclassify low-income households that actually have substantial assets (such as $5,000 in cash or $25,000 in real-estate equity), and it’s 0.9 percent. And when you consult the administrative data to account for the underreporting of income and benefits, it falls more than two-thirds, reaching the final estimate of 0.24 percent. Incredibly, many of the individuals who move out of “extreme poverty” when these adjustments are made appear not to even be poor, much less extremely poor.

Meyer et al. demonstrate beyond a doubt that claims of extreme poverty are tremendously overblown.

The results are similar when they switch gears, repeating the analysis with the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), another government survey they can match to their administrative data: Just 0.12 percent of households are in extreme poverty once the proper corrections are made. This is an estimate of full-year extreme poverty, whereas the SIPP estimates pertain to a four-month period, which likely explains why it’s so much lower.

This is not quite the final verdict on the extreme-poverty question. As the authors note, none of this accounts for off-the-books income that people might not report to survey-takers, and the authors’ administrative data are far from comprehensive; they aren’t able to correct for underreporting of unemployment insurance, veterans’ benefits, workers’ compensation, cash welfare, or the child tax credit. On the other hand, however, just as surveys undercount government benefits, they also neglect the homeless, which number in the hundreds of thousands on any given night. The authors suggest a “next step” to their research will be to mine additional sources of data to address both of these limitations.

At the event debuting the results, Laura Wheaton of the Urban Institute also raised some technical issues with the analysis, including the way the authors estimated earnings for people who reported working for pay but not earning much money (they multiplied the hours by the minimum wage, which may overestimate earnings for some self-employed and tipped workers).

Meyer et al. demonstrate beyond a doubt, though, that claims of “extreme poverty” are tremendously overblown. One can be concerned about the poor without claiming that such incredibly severe deprivation is common in this country — so perhaps it’s time to shift our focus accordingly.


Australia: Protesters accuse NSW library of ‘spreading propaganda’ with drag queen event

ANGRY protesters have slammed an upcoming storytelling event for children and adults which will be hosted by a drag queen.

As a gesture of support for the Wollongong Queer Arts Festival, the city’s central library is hosting the July 21 event, in which Roxee Horror — the alter-ego of Adam Larkham — will read stories, sing and make crafts.

However, the seemingly harmless event has raised the ire of hundreds on social media who have launched homophobic slurs at the event and its host.

Many accused the library of using taxpayer’s money to “spread propaganda” and “sexualising children” by choosing a drag queen to host an event that will be attended by people of all ages.

Some irate locals even wrote to the library to express their dismay and called for the event to scrapped.

However, staff hit back at some of the abusive messages posted on the library’s Facebook page.

“Thank you for your feedback,” wrote a spokesman for Wollongong City Libraries. “The libraries’ support of the Wollongong Queer Arts Festival is an opportunity to highlight that it doesn’t matter who you are, where you are from or what motivates you to come into the library, this is a safe and inclusive space for everyone.”

Messages of support for the event have also begun to appear on the library’s Facebook page — with one reading, “If you don’t like it, don’t come.”

Another commenter wrote: “I think this is marvellous. Teaching kids and the community that people come in all shapes and sizes through the art of storytelling, and demonstrating the importance of respect, love, kindness and education.”

Another said: “Don’t let the haters get you down. This is a wonderful opportunity for children who may be LGBTQ+ or children of parents within the LGBTQ+ community to see positive role models out and about in the wider community.”

Ms Horror, who hosts drag bingo nights and other events in the area, appeared to be excited for the event when she announced it on her public Facebook page.

“Cannot wait to read some books and do some craft!” she wrote.

The library’s manager Jenny Thompson told the Illawarra Mercury she doesn’t care about the criticism of the event.

“The central library is a pretty big place, and our community and our world is a big place and there is space for everybody,” she said.

“We offer a range of different events for all different parts of the community and this is, I guess, part of our community we haven’t done that overtly for before. “So it’s important to us that we’re getting with the program.”



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

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

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


15 July, 2018

Why do so many people hate Trump for telling truths they don’t want to hear? Isn’t that what ALL politicians are supposed to do?

By Piers Morgan

President Donald Trump is the kind of guy who comes to your house for dinner and then half way through the meal says he hates your food. Oh, and as he leaves, adds for good measure that he’s not very keen on your curtains either.

He wouldn’t see that as being rude so much as being brutally honest.

Plain, blunt speaking has been the hallmark of his bombastic, in-your-face behaviour throughout his 50-year career as a billionaire real estate tycoon.

I’ve known President Trump a long time and he’s always called things exactly how he sees them in the moment, regardless of any offence they may cause.

This tendency has made him a massive success in business, and helped land him the presidency of the United States.

It’s also made him one of the most divisive and polarising public figures in the history of Planet Earth.

But one thing it’s no longer credible to feel is ‘shock’ when he does it.  He ALWAYS does it.

So spare me all the risible ‘I’ve never been so offended!’ nonsense spewing forth from the usual suspects today at Trump’s tub-thumping tirade against his host Theresa May and her Brexit policy, as he arrived in Britain.

President Trump calls a spade a spade. We know that, and we can expect that every single day of this extraordinary presidency.

And this morning, he didn’t just call a spade a spade so much as take the spade and smash it all over Theresa May’s political career, reputation and backbone.

He believes the British Prime Minister’s severely watered down new Brexit plan, rubber-stamped with her cabinet at her country home Chequers a week ago, is not actually Brexit because the EU would still retain some control over trade deals.

‘If we do a deal like that,’ Trump told The Sun, ‘we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK so it would probably kill the deal because we have enough difficulty with the European Union. We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading.’

Trump said May ignored his advice on how to negotiate Brexit. ‘I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route.’

Now, it obviously wasn’t particularly tactful for him to say this literally as Marine One, the presidential helicopter, landed at Blenheim Palace for last night’s fancy dinner hosted by the target of his attack. But that doesn’t mean Trump isn’t right both in his sentiment and his timing.

Full disclosure: I voted Remain. I don’t think Britain should be leaving the EU and wish the 2016 Referendum vote had agreed with me.  But it didn’t.

Instead, a whopping 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU, and they understood that to mean we leave the club and all its rules, seizing back full control of our economy, our borders and our laws.

They understood that because May’s predecessor David Cameron, who was the Prime Minister who called the Referendum, repeatedly made this crystal clear in the run-up to the vote.

A major positive of life after Brexit, we were assured by the politicians who drove the Leave campaign, would be that we could trade completely freely with countries outside the EU and in particular America.

Yet May’s new plan doesn’t allow for that, however she tries to spin it. As Trump told The Sun: ‘The deal she is striking is a much different deal than the one the people voted on. It was not the deal that was in the referendum.’

No, it’s not. And no amount of frantic political spinning can change this unarguable fact.

It’s not just Trump who thinks that. David Davis, May’s own Brexit Secretary, resigned within 48 hours of the plan being ‘agreed’, closely followed by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

They too believe this plan does not amount to Brexit and that it’s a betrayal of the democratic will of the majority who voted for it. I agree with them, even if personally I hope we end up with a deal so fudged it’s like we never really left.

Just as I also agreed with Trump’s scathing criticism earlier this week of America’s NATO colleagues for not paying their proper bills on defence.

It’s absolutely disgraceful that Germany, the biggest country in Europe, pays just 1.2% of its GDP on defence (compared to America’s 3.8%), yet rakes in billions from Russian gas supplies – empowering Vladimir Putin, who many view as the biggest security threat to Europe.

Trump’s rhetoric may be inflammatory, his tweets may be provocative and occasionally insulting, and some of his policies like the recent immigrant child separation scandal have been disgraceful, but that doesn’t negate his right to criticise his friends when they’re wrong. Isn’t that what proper friends so?

I certainly do that to my friends, and I expect them to do the same to me, so long as it is delivered without personal abuse.

Theresa May has boxed herself into a predictably awful place. Her new Brexit plan is deeply unpopular with everyone – from the EU to Remainers who don’t think she’s gone far enough and Brexiters who don’t think she’s gone far enough.

So as things stand, Britain is heading off an enormous, historic cliff in a few months time with huge new doubt over its ability to use its biggest parachute – a big new trade deal with the U.S. - for a soft, safe landing.

In these circumstances, it’s not rude and offensive of Trump to tell her straight what the reality is – it’s a cold, hard and vitally important truth.

And isn’t there a wondrously delicious irony that all those screaming ‘Don’t be so rude, Mr Trump!’’ are the same ones gleefully supporting the absurd, pathetic 20ft orange baby Trump balloon that flew over Parliament today? For sheer breath-taking rudeness, mocking the leader of our No1 ally in such a childish, pitiful way takes some beating.

Yet it’s entirely consistent with the rank hypocrisy that surrounds so much of the Trump-bashing agenda.

The same people who fiercely defended President Barack Obama when he urged Britain to vote Remain in the referendum are now furiously condemning Trump for ‘sticking his nose into Brexit’.

And the anti-Trump protests today are substantially bigger than anything seen for the recent visits to the same city by President Erdogan of Turkey and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia – two men who make Trump look like a choirboy when it comes to their dictatorial, war-mongering, human rights abusing, women and gay oppressing regimes.

I’m glad President Trump has come to Britain and given my Prime Minister some home truths. It’s the perfect time for him to do it. If she has any sense, she’ll pour him a cup of tea and listen to him.


Columnist Resigns After Her Site Removes Her Piece on Transgenderism and Hollywood

Conservative columnist Daniella Greenbaum announced her resignation from Business Insider on Thursday after the news website deleted her opinion piece arguing that actress Scarlett Johansson should not be chastised for playing a transgender role.

“I wish I could say I am surprised,” Greenbaum wrote in her resignation letter. “Unfortunately, what happened with my piece—the tarring of a commonsensical view as somehow bigoted or not thought out; the capitulation on the part of those who are supposed to be adults to the mob—is a pattern happening all over the country.”

Greenbaum’s column about Johansson’s role in upcoming film “Rub & Tug” was published on Friday. It was later deleted when other Business Insider employees claimed they found it offensive.

“Scarlett Johansson is the latest target of the social-justice warrior mob,” Greenbaum wrote in the column. “The actress is being chastised for, well, acting.”

I believe female actors can play men and trans men. That is the apparently controversial view that inspired BI to take down my piece. I have resigned from @businessinsider and explain why in my letter to

The column was originally scrubbed from the site. Business Insider partially republished it on Tuesday as a heading with no text, except for a note stating that Business Insider deleted the column because it did not meet “editorial standards,” reported CNN.

Business Insider created new guidelines for its opinion pieces on “culturally sensitive topics, such as marginalized communities, race, or LGTBQ+ issues” because of Greenbaum’s column. Its global editor-in-chief sent an internal email on Monday announcing that all “culturally sensitive” stories will be examined by the writer’s editor and a site executive editor or editor-in-chief, reported CNN.

“Ultimately, it is the first editor’s responsibility to flag culturally sensitive stories,” Nicholas Carlson, Business Insider’s global editor-in-chief, wrote in the email. “It may be hard to tell which are and which are not. The policy is to err on the safe side, even if it slows us down.”

Carlson also banned the phrase “social justice warrior,” which Greenbaum used in the first sentence of her column. “There should be no partisan name-calling,” he wrote in the email.


Anti-Catholic bigotry

Are there too many Jews on the Supreme Court? Just raising the question is enough to raise eyebrows. In some circles it would be proof of bigotry. Count me among those who would detect at least a whiff of anti-Semitism. Why, then, are pundits questioning the Catholic representation on the Supreme Court, and getting away with it?

The latest example comes by way of an article originally published by Religion News Service on July 11; it has been picked up as an op-ed by several newspapers. “Catholic-Heavy Supreme Court Moves Right as the Church Moves Left.” That is the title of an article by Jacob Lupfer.

What occasioned Lupfer's concerns about a “Catholic-Heavy” Supreme Court was President Trump's selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court. Lupfer describes Kavanaugh as a “doctrinaire conservative,” one who is “more heavily and outwardly invested in his Catholic identity than his mentor [Justice Anthony Kennedy].”

Is this because Kavanaugh is a lector at his parish? Is it because the nominee cited his work helping the poor while working for Catholic Charities? The red flag thrown by Lupfer was followed by some red meat for anti-Catholic bigots. He says Trump is “exacerbat[ing]” and “heighten[ing]” the “angst (or excitement, depending on who’s being asked)” about “the institution's ever more conservative Catholic majority.”

In other words, it is not the bigots who are to be blamed for raising the issue about too many Catholics on the high court. It's Trump's fault.

Lupfer then offers a pass to Senator Dianne Feinstein for her anti-Catholic attack on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was on Trump's short list to replace Justice Kennedy.

In her questioning of Barrett, Feinstein said of her, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” We all know what that meant. Lupfer manages to spin Feinstein's bigoted comment saying it was nothing more than a “gaffe.” No, a gaffe is unintentional. Feinstein's comment was scripted. And she never apologized.

Worse, Lupfer then accuses Feinstein's critics of using her remark as a “rallying cry for conservatives enthralled with the notion that devout, orthodox religious people are systematically excluded from positions of elite influence, and particularly positions of legal authority.” In other words, when those offended by bigoted comments complain, they are exploiting the issue. Would this apply to others as well, or just Catholics?

Lupfer offers a dire warning. “The triumph of conservative Catholicism on the court has a dark lining,” he informs. The darkness, he says, is evident in the way “the Catholic Supreme Court” has ruled on liberal causes.

“The Catholic Supreme Court”? Kavanaugh, who is Catholic, may replace Kennedy, who is also Catholic. The other four Catholics are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It should be noted that Sotomayor identifies as a “cultural Catholic,” not a practicing one.

Conveniently, Lupfer never mentions that three of the Supreme Court Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan—are Jewish. Do we have too many Jews on the Supreme Court?

Jews are approximately 2 percent of the population, yet they make up a third of the high court. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented: they are approximately 25 percent of the population and make up slightly more than half of the Supreme Court.

We don't have too many Catholics or too many Jews on the Supreme Court. What we have are some of the best jurisprudential minds in the nation. Those who think otherwise are the problem, not the religious affiliation of those on the high court.


Lauren Southern appears on Sky News Australia, making one point very clear

CONTROVERSIAL alt-right YouTube star Lauren Southern has appeared on Sky News Australia making it clear that she is “happy to be white”.

The 23-year-old Canadian activist, who touched down in Australia yesterday, told Sky News host Rita Panahi that she feels “zero shame whatsoever for being white.”

“If I were black I could say I’m proud, if I were Asian I could say I’m proud, if I were any other ethnicity I could say I’m proud because that’s how our culture is, but if I’m white and I say I’m proud the media will go nuts.”

Ms Southern, who previously worked for Canadian website Rebel Media, was barred from entering the UK earlier this year for distributing “racist” flyers reading “Allah is a Gay God” and “Allah is trans” outside a restaurant in the English town of Luton.

Ms Southern is in Australia to headline a tour that advocates for free speech.

She was originally denied access from entering the country, but her visa was approved by the Home Affairs Department on Tuesday.

After landing in Brisbane on Friday sporting a “It’s okay to be white” T-shirt, Ms Southern claimed to have received online rape threats. “I was just reading the comments on the article that came out about the ‘It’s okay to be white shirt’, and someone was saying, ‘I hope she gets raped’,” she told The Daily Telegraph.

She told the publication she believed the “unprecedented” number of hurdles being put in her way to enter Australia were due to her criticism of radical Islam. “There are so many people that are offended by debate and free speech that sometimes governments cower. It’s just way easier to play into the hands of people who are totalitarian,” she said.

“I have criticised radical Islam, I have criticised the increasing blasphemy laws that are being brought into our societies. You won’t see Christians violently attacking people for criticising their religion like you do with Islam, things like the Charlie Hebdo attack.”

The outspoken activist will tour Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Auckland alongside commentator Stefan Molyneux later this month.

Ms Southern’s visit will also feature screenings of her documentary film Farmlands, which delves into the racially charged issue of South African farm killings.

The alt-right activist has also revealed that she plans to have dinner with Pauline Hanson after receiving a Tweet from the One Nation Leader on Tuesday.

“Sorry to hear about your trouble getting a visa @Lauren_Southern,” the senator tweeted. “If you are still in Oz when Parliament sits in August you have an open invitation to dinner. “I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the situation in South Africa & on Islam. “Good luck with your tour.”

In a wide-ranging interview with The Daily Telegraph, the activist said Australians should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves against a “totalitarian” government.

“I think the Americans have it right. The idea of having guns is essentially to protect yourself from a totalitarian government,” she said.

“You can see that, for example, in Paris — where they have horrific shootings and terrorist attacks, the theatre attack, the Charlie Hebdo attack. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the world in France yet these horrific attacks and shootings still happen. Unfortunately there will always be bad people and bad people don’t follow the law.”

Australia has had just one mass shooting — a domestic violence incident — since former Prime Minister John Howard banned semiautomatic and other military-style weapons in 1996. America has had 154 this year alone.

During her week-long visit in Australia Ms Southern, a friend of confessed troll Milo Yiannopoulos, told The Daily Telegraph there would be heavy security at her shows to protect herself from “crazy protesters”. She said she regularly received death threats.



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

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

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


13 July, 2018

Making the police afraid to do their jobs is not a good idea

The heavy attacks on police under Obama are now bearing fruit -- with escalating crime.  Note that the cops accused in the Freddy Gray case were all eventually exonerated

BALTIMORE – Just before a wave of violence turned Baltimore into the nation’s deadliest big city, a curious thing happened to its police force: officers suddenly seemed to stop noticing crime.

Police officers reported seeing fewer drug dealers on street corners. They encountered fewer people who had open arrest warrants.

Police questioned fewer people on the street. They stopped fewer cars.

In the space of just a few days in spring 2015 – as Baltimore faced a wave of rioting after Freddie Gray, a black man, died from injuries he suffered in the back of a police van – officers in nearly every part of the city appeared to turn a blind eye to everyday violations. They still answered calls for help. But the number of potential violations they reported seeing themselves dropped by nearly half. It has largely stayed that way ever since.

“What officers are doing is they’re just driving looking forward. They’ve got horse blinders on,” says Kevin Forrester, a retired Baltimore detective.

The surge of shootings and killings that followed has left Baltimore easily the deadliest large city in the United States. Its murder rate reached an all-time high last year; 342 people were killed. The number of shootings in some neighborhoods has more than tripled. One man was shot to death steps from a police station. Another was killed driving in a funeral procession.

“In all candor, officers are not as aggressive as they once were, pre-2015. It’s just that fact.”
Gary Tuggle, interim Police Commissioner of Baltimore

What's happening in Baltimore offers a view of the possible costs of a remarkable national reckoning over how police officers have treated minorities.

Starting in 2014, a series of racially charged encounters in Ferguson, Missouri; Chicago; Baltimore; and elsewhere cast an unflattering spotlight on aggressive police tactics  toward black people. Since then, cities have been under pressure to crack down on abuses by law enforcement.

So has the U.S. Justice Department. During the Obama administration, the department launched wide-ranging civil rights investigations of troubled police forces, then took them to court to compel reforms. Under President Donald Trump, Washington has largely given up that effort. "If you want crime to go up, let the ACLU run the police department," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a gathering of police officials in May.

Whether that scrutiny would cause policing to suffer – or crime to rise – has largely remained an open question.

In Baltimore, at least, the effect on the city's police force was swift and substantial.

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent.

“Immediately upon the riot, policing changed in Baltimore, and it changed very dramatically,” says Donald Norris, an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, who reviewed USA TODAY's analysis. “The outcome of that change in policing has been a lot more crime in Baltimore, especially murders, and people are getting away with those murders.”

Police officials acknowledge the change. "In all candor, officers are not as aggressive as they once were, pre-2015. It’s just that fact," says acting Police Commissioner Gary Tuggle, who took command of Baltimore's police force in May.

Tuggle blames a shortage of patrol officers and the fallout from a blistering 2016 Justice Department investigation that found the city's police regularly violated residents' constitutional rights and prompted new limits on how officers there carry out what had once been routine parts of their job. At the same time, he says, police have focused more of their energy on gun crime and less on smaller infractions.

"We don’t want officers going out, grabbing people out of corners, beating them up and putting them in jail," Tuggle says. "We want officers engaging folks at every level. And if somebody needs to be arrested, arrest them. But we also want officers to be smart about how they do that."

The change has left a perception among some police officers that people in the city are free to do as they please. And among criminals, says Mahogany Gaines, whose brother, Dontais, was found shot to death inside his apartment in October.

 “These people don’t realize that you’re leaving people fatherless and motherless,” Gaines says. “I feel like they think they’re untouchable.”


Dr. Peterson and the Reporters

One ingredient in the astounding fame of Jordan Peterson is his capacity to show just how lazy, obtuse, unprepared, smug, knee-jerk, and prejudiced are many journalists at leading publications.

In a tendentious New York Times profile, for example, Peterson is held up for ridicule when he cites “enforced monogamy” as a rational way of fixing wayward, sometimes violent men in our society. If men had wives, they’d behave better, Peterson implied, and they wouldn’t “fail” so much. The reporter, a twenty-something from the Bay Area, has a telling response to Peterson’s position: “I laugh, because it is absurd.”

Her condescension is unearned. With no background in social psychology or cultural anthropology, she doesn’t get the framework in which Peterson speaks. But that doesn’t blunt her confidence in setting Peterson’s remarks into the category of the ridiculous. And the category of the sexist, too, as the subtitle of the profile makes clear: “He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women—all these wives and witches—just behave?”

By “enforced monogamy,” though, all Peterson means is a society that prizes stable one-to-one relationships, not a society that forces women into domestic servitude. It’s a term drawn from sociology (hardly a right-wing, patriarchal zone). But the reporter, Nellie Bowles, casts it as pernicious nonetheless. She didn’t bother to do any homework in the fields in which Peterson works.

Another blatant case of ineptitude is an interview a Vox reporter did with a feminist philosopher, the subject being Peterson’s recent book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The reporter, Sean Illing, displays his integrity with one of his first questions.

    Peterson has been called a “sexist” and a “misogynist.” To be honest, I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of his work, but I haven’t read his book and I haven’t listened to all his lectures. I’m curious what you think.

What is one to say about a journalist who not only doesn’t bone up on the central subject of an interview, but also doesn’t realize that admitting this destroys his credibility? (Peterson has a rebuttal to the Vox interview here, where he points out the astonishing professional irresponsibility of the professor.)

A few weeks ago, Peterson sat down with the Economist for a long interview largely on the issue of male-female relations. At one point (around minute 43), Peterson notes that everyone in society is “controlled” in one way or another. The conversation shifts into the ways in which women sometimes get out of control, acting in a “bullying, detestable manner” (Peterson’s words) toward other women. It’s hard to “cope” with that, he observes, because it can be “unbelievably vicious,” and it usually takes the form of “reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip.”

It isn’t hard to imagine the interviewer, a liberal female, growing irritated at a man talking about women behaving badly. When Peterson concludes that women engage in those kinds of tactics much, much more than men do and states, “That’s what the data indicate,” she has to interrupt.

“Where is that data on innuendo and gossip?” she asks, in a tone blending mockery and annoyance.

Clearly, she thinks that no such data exist. Peterson pauses for a moment, as if he has just understood that she has no awareness of the context of his remarks. The area of adolescence studies has probed these tactics thoroughly, he tells her, and “it’s a well documented field.” Researchers have studied aggressive behavior and found clear differences in male and female expression. Women prefer verbal forms of it, men physical forms.

“There’s a whole literature on that,” he continues.

But the interviewer still has a hard time accepting it: “Just to be clear, you think that is predominantly a female modus operandi.”

Peterson rightly picks up on her choice of words. “It’s not that I think it. It’s that the clinical literature indicates that. … I’m not  making this up!”

She still acts as if the whole outlook is new to her, and rather offensive, too. Once again, we have a journalist who didn’t read anything of the background material when she prepared for this interview.

These three cases typify what we might call the Peterson Effect. Peterson brings social science findings to bear on thorny matters of men and women. Those findings run against the progressive goal of eliminating male-female differences. The journalists are unaware of the science, but they are steeped in the ideology. It’s an obdurate mix of ignorance and certainty.

Peterson fans like his interviews because they have experienced that smugness before. To watch someone stand up to it, to hear him cite clinical data and hold firmly against a party line they know is dishonest and coercive—that goes a long way to explaining the Peterson phenomenon.


CNN Has Complete Meltdown Over Kavanaugh Decision, Cannot Believe He Is a White Male

It’s not as if the media didn’t have enough reasons to melt down over federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh being picked to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump. But did you know he’s a white, cisgendered male?

… Oh, you did? Well, this is apparently a shocking fact inside CNN, and they’re not taking it well at all.

An article that may truly break new ground for inanity even for the fine folks at CNN reports that most justices have been white males, and this is apparently an incredibly bad thing.

“Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, 113 justices have served on the bench. Of those, 107 have been white men,” the article reads.

“On Monday night, President Trump announced his nominee to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals. If confirmed, he would be the 108th — and wouldn’t shift the diversity of the current court.”

The six exceptions, just in case you weren’t keeping track, are Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

“The first appointment — when Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall — wasn’t until 1967. When Johnson announced the nomination, he said he thought it was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. Thomas’s appointment happened decades later, in 1991 under George H. W. Bush (the first Bush),” CNN reported, the parenthetical apparently for the kind of low-information reader CNN loves.

“Sotomayor, one of the four female justices, is also the first and only Hispanic justice in history. (Some say Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who was Portuguese, was the first Hispanic member, but he doesn’t qualify under current census standards.)”

“No justices so far have identified as Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander.”

Now, wait a minute — I didn’t think one could identify as being a different race. Didn’t some NAACP chairwoman get in trouble for this? I can’t seem to remember her name (probably because she changed it).

Of course, two different minorities are overrepresented on the court, and you may not be surprised to know what they are (at least in a CNN article).

“We’ve never had a Jewish president, but eight Jewish justices have sat on the bench, including current justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Stephen Breyer,” CNN reported.

“At its founding, the court was made up of almost entirely Protestant members, and a majority of the 113 justices throughout history have been Protestants.

“The court today, which also has five Catholics, is more diverse. Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated last January, was raised Catholic but now worships at an Episcopal church.

“Most of the US population isn’t Catholic or Jewish. Of those who are religious in the US, about 23% identify with one of these sets of beliefs, according to the Pew Research Center.”

The clear intimation is predictable for CNN. White males = bad. Not white males = good. Religious minorities = probably not that good, especially if they’re overrepresented.


Australian Men's rights activists have a new hero: David Leyonhjelm

This is from a Leftist source but there may be something in it. It is written from a feminist and hence unmoored from reality perspective. Evidence of that is seen in the words below: "women have gained access to a measure of equity in education and the workplace". That's just paranoia. "A measure of preference" would be more like it.

Women these days make up roughly 60% of university admissions and get extensive job preference.  "Most new Australian jobs were filled by women over the last three years ".  Women have by now got it all -- to the disadvantage of men. Reality sure beats believing in myths, doesn't it? The writer, Jason Wilson, is just clinging to old hates. 

Wilson is also a bit of a nong in his usage of "dogwhistle". Dogwhistle refers to something understood by only one side of politics.  What Lion Helmet said was as clear as crystal to anybody

Senator David Leyonhjelm threw out a dogwhistle to the men’s rights movement, and it appears to have been answered.

First, Leyonhjelm made crude comments about Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s sex life in the Senate. Then, he reiterated those comments on the Sky News program hosted by Ross Cameron and Rowan Dean. Now, Hanson-Young is promising to sue her Senate colleague for defamation.

Leyonhjelm’s explanation for his comments tapped into a long-standing concept beloved of men’s rights activists, “pick up artists”, incels, and assorted antifeminists in all corners of the “manosphere”: misandry.

 This is Australian-style sexism brought to you by a senator and Sky News

The context was a debate arising from the murder of Eurydice Dixon, where Leyonhjelm was among those who were proposing that the right solution was to arm women with mace and other personal defence technologies

Hanson-Young voted against the motion and told the Senate on 28 June that during the debate, Leyonhjelm told her to “stop shagging men”. Interestingly, he told Sky that “what I was objecting to was the misandry, the blaming of men for the actions of individual criminals”, saying she had accused all men of being rapists, a claim she denies.

When Malcolm Turnbull called on Leyonhjelm to apologise, he said that the prime minister should call out Hanson-Young’s alleged misandry, which is “equally as bad” as misogyny.

By last Wednesday, on A Voice for Men, one of the foremost blogs of the men’s rights movement, Mark Dent had written of Leyonhjelm: “I have a new hero”. One of A Voice for Men’s tagline’s is: “Humanist counter-theory in the Age of Misandry”, and its mission statement says it exists to raise boys and men “above the din of misandry”.

Dent’s article on Leyonhjelm was titled, “A man takes a stand”.

Dent praised Leyonhjelm’s abusive characterisation of Turnbull as a “soft cock” and a “pussy”, saying “these words could not be more appropriate”. And he thanked Leyonhjelm for spotting Hanson-Young’s comments as “attack on all men which it clearly was”.

He also published the email Leyonhjelm sent in response to his fan letter, wherein it was explained that: “Apologies are only appropriate when there is fault. I am not the party at fault – misandry is not something that can be excused.”

It’s a neat trick – a debate over a murder with misogyny at its core gets turned into a petulant and stubborn insistence on the victimhood of men at the hands of women. And it plays into the hands of the large, reactionary political movement built on male victimhood.

“Misandry” is a word that means a hatred for men. It arose as a neologism in the late 19th century, modelled on the word misogyny, which has more ancient roots. As Australian sociologist Michael Flood puts it, misogyny is “an ideology or belief system that has accompanied patriarchal, or male-dominated societies for thousands of years”.

“Misandry” has been employed in antifeminist discourse as an inversion, and a kind of parody of the politicised understanding of misogyny that arose in the feminist movement. Some men saw, and still see, the gains made by women as attacks on their own rights and privileges.

So as women have gained access to a measure of equity in education and the workplace, reproductive rights, no-fault divorce, and a measure of personal and sexual autonomy, some men have seen only an attack on their prerogatives as husbands, fathers, privileged employees, etc.

For some antifeminists, the concept has extraordinary explanatory power. They see it as the motivating force for a feminist movement which, they allege, exists mostly to persecute men. And they believe it to be so powerful and widespread that it can explain not only the problems that they say affect men as a gender, or social class, it is also at the root of personal tribulations of individual men struggling with romantic problems, marital breakdown, or professional failure.

A vast ecosystem of blogs, websites, forums, subreddits, and social media accounts promote this topsy-turvy vision of gender hierarchy. Misandry, and the accompanying narrative of male victimhood, are their currency.

So it was that Leyonhjelm was praised on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the MGTOW (men going their own way) subreddit, and on Braincels (which sees itself as the intellectual end of the incel movement).

In turn, Leyonhjelm responded to the controversy – entirely created by him – by inviting antifeminist Bettina Arndt to parliament to address the topic of misandry.

Many have wondered why Leyonhjelm has kept this story alive with his own media appearances, even in the face of clear legal risks.

Part of the answer may be in the way in which his citation of one of the key concepts of organised misogyny has been noticed in key forums of that subculture.

Leyonhjelm’s ostensible core ideology, libertarianism, is not popular. He was fortunate to be elected at all in 2013. He will need to fight another election soon.

But misogyny has a constituency. His fights with mainstream media interviewers resonate powerfully among a group of men who are alienated by, and bitterly opposed to, gender equality.

By speaking to them, and being boosted in their media ecosystem, Leyonhjelm might become the men’s rights candidate.



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

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

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


12 July, 2018

Residents of California city once known as 'America's foreclosure capital' are set to get monthly $500 stipend, with NO strings attached, in bid to boost local economy

Note:  Only 100 people.  There have been lots of trials of this idea over the years but it has always proved too costly

Stockton, California will become the first city in the country to participate in a test of Universal Basic Income, in which 100 residents will be given $500-dollars-a-month, with no strings attached.

The program aims to create a level of income that no one will fall beneath.

By providing impoverished residents a regular sum of money that they can use on anything they wish, be it food, clothes, gas, or [drugs] starting a new venture, those behind the program believe it could go a long way to give people enough support to try out new ideas.

The program in Stockton, which was once known as America's foreclosure capital, will see the program launched by 2019, and the payments will continue to the individuals chosen for the program for a full 18-months.

The Stockton UBI program has heavy backing from one of the wealthiest areas of the country- Silicon Valley, according to CNN Money.

The idea is, in part, to off-set the economic distress the growing automation industry is expected to cause to American laborers, as well as a way to potentially reduce poverty.

One of the backers for the Stockton UBI program is Facebook's co-founder Chris Hughes, whose organization, the Economic Security Project, contributed $1 million to the Stockton initiative.

'It is such a fundamental idea behind America that if you work hard, you can get ahead, and you certainly don't live in poverty. But that isn't true today, and it hasn't been true in the country for decades,' Hughes told CNN Money.

'I believe that unless we make significant changes today, the income inequality in our country will continue to grow and call into question the very nature of our social contract.'

One-in-four people in the city of more than 300,000 live in poverty, with the median  household income sitting at $49,271, compared to $57,617 nationally.

The city's inhabitants are also largely minorities with 70 per cent identifying themselves as such.

'Stockton is a city that looks a lot like the rest of America,' said Natalie Foster, co-founder and co-chair of the Economic Security Project.

Several heavy hitters in Silicon Valley have touted the importance of exploring funded programs for those living in poverty, such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.

'We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,' Zuckerberg said at a Harvard commencement address in May 2017.

'We have a bunch of folks starting off life already behind, born into communities that don't have a lot of opportunity,' said Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs.

'My mom always used to say, 'You have to get out of  Stockton.' ... But I want Stockton to be a place people want to live in.'

And a real fear for cities like Stockton is the 'looming threat of automation and displacement,' as Tubbs puts it.

He says the companies that are building these technologies, like the ones in Silicon Valley, ultimately 'have a responsibility to make sure people aren't adversely impacted and also make their communities better places.'

'I've watched the tech community become very interested in Universal Basic Income for the past several years. I think it stems from one part guilt and one part optimism,' Foster said.

'These are folks who believe in the moonshot, believe in the big ideas, and that nothing is too big.'

Meanwhile existing cash transfer programs such as one in Alaska- where for the past 40-years residents receive varying annual cash payment from oil royalties- are being looked at as an example of the possibilities UBI could hold for under-served communities. 

'They use it to save for education, to get them through seasonal changes in their work, or to pay for heating during the winter when that gets much more expensive,' Foster said.

Similar UBI programs have been tested around the world by various organizations such as in Finland, Italy, Uganda, Cambodia and India.

For example in Finland, a monthly stipend of 560 euros was given to 2,000 unemployed people between the ages of 25 and 58. In Cambodia, $5 a month went to pregnant women and children.


'I believe Islam killed my daughter': A grieving mother tells how her daughter cut off all contact with family and friends to marry an older Muslim man who left her on a bathroom floor for FIVE DAYS to die

Siobhann Brown had not heard from her eldest daughter since she called five years earlier saying she was converting to Islam to get married and have her first child. Then two Victoria Police detectives arrived at her door.

Ashlee Brown, 25, had been found dead on her bathroom floor with more than 100 blunt and sharp force injuries covering most of her body.

The mother of three children under five had been bound, gagged and had her long strawberry blonde hair cut off. 

Ashlee's husband Mohamed Naddaf, 37, told police he had found his wife in that state in their garage about five days earlier but chose to 'care' for her in the bathroom rather than call Triple 0.

Ms Brown had to run out of her house in disbelief when she heard how her daughter died. She is now faced with Naddaf pleading guilty to manslaughter, without ever going to trial.

'Ashlee was a fun-loving girl,' Ms Brown told Daily Mail Australia. 'She was giving. She was loving. She loved the sun, the beach. She loved singing, dancing, having fun.'

Ashlee had been raised in country Victoria as a 'typical Aussie girl' and gradually grew restless as she hit her late teenage years.

She took increasingly regular trips to Melbourne, once returning to introduce her family to Mohamed Rannaf when she was was about 18. 'She introduced him as "Macca",' Ms Brown said. 'It was very brief.

'He seemed like a nice, very polite, young man. It pains me to say that. I didn't see him again after that.'

There was no communication for some time before a phone call came 'out of the blue' that would herald the end of all contact between Ms Brown and her daughter.

When Ashlee was about 20 she rang to say she was pregnant and wanted her mother's blessing to convert to Islam and marry Mohamed.

'She said to me, "Mum, I need your blessing to become Muslim". She said "I'm three months' pregnant and I'm engaged to Mohamed. I would really like to marry him, mum, and settle down and have a baby".

'I said to her, "Darling, I don’t know anything about the Muslim religion. As long as you know what you're doing. 'I said, "Do you have to wear one of those burqas or hijabs? I didn't know what they were called.

'She said, "No mum, only when I go into the mosque because it's disrespectful for a woman to show her face before God".

'I said to Ashlee, "As long as you're making a fully informed decision and it's what you really want".'

Ashlee said that it was.

'There was a pause after that,' Ms Brown said. 'She said. "Thank you, mum". And then her voice seemed to change and she said, "It's Islam". That didn't mean anything to me at the time.

'We said goodbye to each other and we hung up and I didn't hear from Ashlee again.'

Ms Brown said she was convinced the lack of subsequent contact with Ashlee was solely down to her religious conversion and Rannaf controlling his wife. 'I believe Islam killed my daughter,' the 46-year-old said.

'If I could have taken that phone call back I would have not have given her my blessing. I would have said "No, sorry love".

Police initially charged Naddaf with assault and false imprisonment, after paramedics found her dead in the couple's home at Craigieburn, in Melbourne's north, on November 6, 2016.

They later accused Naddaf of killing his wife, but then prosecutors agreed to let him plead guilty to manslaughter. 


Italy turns away ITALIAN ship from its ports because it had rescued migrants as anti-migrant minister condemns 'do-gooders'

Italy has turned away an Italian ship from its ports because it had rescued migrants - as the country's anti-migrant interior minister blasted 'do-gooders.'

A commercial ship that supplies oil platforms off the coast of Libya pulled 66 migrants to safety on Monday, but it was told not to bring them to Italy, an Interior Ministry source said.

Italy was sticking to a hardline policy on new arrivals as it presses European allies to share the burden of hosting an influx of displaced people.

Transport Minister Danilo Toninelli, who oversees the coast guard and the country's ports, said the migrants had been transferred to an Italian coast guard vessel on Tuesday after some of them threatened the lives of the Italian crew.

They will be brought to Italy, one source said, though the interior ministry source would not confirm.

The commercial ship picked up the migrants though it had been told Libyan patrol boats were coming to retrieve them, the interior ministry source said.

Meanwhile,  Italy's hard-line, anti-migrant interior minister Matteo Salvini challenged the 'do-gooders' who want to open Italy's ports to migrants to visit the San Ferdinando slum in Reggio Calabria.

He vowed to enforce only 'limited, controlled and qualified' immigration as he toured a crime-laden migrant shantytown in the southern Calabria region.

There, he heard of shameless farmers exploiting migrant workers and women being forced into prostitution to get by. Last month, a migrant was killed in San Ferdinando by his former boss.

'The Libyan ports are more than safe and as minister I can guarantee you that the good times are over for the traffickers,' Salvini added during a visit to a camp for migrant fruit and vegetable pickers in the southern region of Calabria.

Salvini has launched a crackdown on migration, closing Italy's ports to aid groups that rescue migrants and vowing to renegotiate the terms of European missions in the Mediterranean to prevent migrants from disembarking in Italy.

The move comes two days before a meeting of European interior ministers in the Austrian city of Innsbruck, where German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer wants his far-right Italian counterpart to agree to take back migrants who arrive at its borders from Italy.

'What is certain is that for Italy there is no plan to take back who has gone abroad. It's the last thing that could happen,' Salvini said in an interview with Il Messaggero newspaper.

'If the Germans and the Austrians are thinking only about sending migrants back to us, helping us close the external borders first would be a step forward,' he said.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government teetered on the brink of collapse last week as Seehofer's Bavarian conservatives demanded a unilateral tightening of German border controls that she was prepared to concede only in the framework of a European agreement.

Italy's new government, which took office on June 1, has helped thrust immigration back on to the European agenda by closing its ports to humanitarian ships that rescue migrants off the coast of Libya, and it has so far refused to accept migrants sent back from the German border.


Thieves Find Riches in Golden State’s Prop 47

Many Californians had high hopes for Proposition 47, a ballot initiative passed in November 2014 with 60 percent voter approval. The measure reduced penalties for some crimes, including certain drug violations, and helped relieve overcrowding in state prisons.

But while Prop 47 succeeded in meeting those objectives, it also triggered a wave of “smash-and-grab” motor-vehicle burglaries and a surge of retail shopliftings. For this reason, Prop 47 has earned the dishonor of receiving Independent Institute’s fifth California Golden Fleece® Award, recognition given quarterly to state or local government programs or laws that swindle taxpayers or break the public trust.

By raising the monetary threshold for a felony theft to $950 in property value, up from $500 before the measure passed, Prop 47 lowered thieves’ expected cost of criminal violations. Thus, “Prop 47 de-prioritizes justice for California residents and businesses, who are now increasingly victims of vandals and thieves operating with near impunity,” writes Independent Institute Senior Fellow Lawrence J. McQuillan, in his new report, California Property Crime Surge Is Unintended Consequence of Proposition 47.

After delving into the damage caused by Prop 47, the report issues several recommendations. These include lowering the threshold for a felony to property valued at closer to the pre-Prop-47 amount of $500. Also, when sentencing a thief, courts should be allowed to consider the total combined value of all stolen property across multiple incidents. Law enforcement should make property crimes a higher priority, pursuing arrests even for small crimes, so that track records of criminal activity are established.

Ultimately, people will help by reporting more crimes when they gain more confidence that law enforcement is taking the problem more seriously. Residents and businesses should also invest more in security technology and use social media to monitor and discourage criminal activity. “Property crimes produce true victims, McQuillan writes. “Californians deserve a legal system that provides true justice.”



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

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

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


11 July, 2018

Refusal to Use Preferred Gender Pronouns Costs British Doctor His Job

The belief that gender is assigned at birth has cost one British doctor his job as a disability assessor for the Department of Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom.

Dr. David Mackereth, 55, the father of four, was dismissed from the department after only recently being hired because he told the instructor for a training course that he would not recognize a pronoun that didn’t correspond to a patient’s biological sex, the Telegraph reported Sunday.

Mackereth, who worked 26 years for the National Health Service, says sex is established at birth and is both genetic and biological. That’s something that “has been believed by mankind for centuries,” he said.

“I’m not attacking the transgender movement,” Mackereth said, “but I’m defending my right to freedom of speech, and freedom of belief.”

Mackereth, from Dudley, West Midlands, was hired by the Department of Work and Pensions for “interviewing and then writing independent reports about the health of those claiming disability benefits,” the Telegraph reported.

“I don’t believe I should be compelled to use a specific pronoun. I am not setting out to upset anyone. But if upsetting someone can lead to doctors being sacked, then, as a society we have to examine where we are going,” he told the London newspaper.

After informing the instructor of his objections, “Mackereth then received an email from Advanced Personnel Management, the agency that employed him and would have hired him out to the DWP,” the paper reported.

The email explained that he could “undergo training” regarding the Department of Work and Pensions’ policy, but if he did not address his clients by their preferred pronoun, such action could be “considered to be harassment as defined by the 2010 Equality Act.”

Mackereth now accuses the Department of Work and Pensions and Advanced Personnel Management of violating his right to freedom of speech. The Telegraph also reported that he has concerns that “many other” people of faith like him could be dismissed from jobs if they believe in birth-assigned gender. He is a Reformed Baptist.

A Department of Work and Pensions spokeswoman told the Telegraph: “Dr. Mackereth made it clear during his training that he would refuse to use pronouns which did not match his own view of a person’s biological gender,” and that he would be violating the Equality Act by discriminating against individuals with a “protected characteristic.”

But Mackereth maintains that he is being discriminated against for his beliefs and even went so far as to say that the UK government was policing thought.

“Firstly, we are not allowed to say what we believe. Secondly, as my case shows, we are not allowed to think what we believe,” he said. “Finally, we are not allowed to defend what we believe.”

“The best biology, psychology, and philosophy all support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality and of gender as a social manifestation of bodily sex. Biology isn’t bigotry,” said Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.”

“Government shouldn’t coerce people to think, speak, or act in ways that violate these basic truths. Indeed, there are human costs to getting human nature wrong,” he said.


Preventing abortion

Comedians making jokes about getting your abortions now, before the Supreme Court abolishes Roe v. Wade. Emojis indicating a woman won’t have sex with a man who is anti-abortion. Headline declarations that “There’s A Special Place In Hell For Women Who Gut Abortion Rights.” Such has been the digital deluge after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court.

What is the future of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in all three trimesters of pregnancy? This issue has polarized much of the country. It’s an opportunity to ask: Who are we and who do we want to be? A people who let the court determine things we should be talking about on a more intimate level, or a people known for stepping up to the plate when life gets hard?

Friends of mine who just returned from the Holy Land mentioned a group that they encountered along their travels called Efrat. The name comes from Miriam, the sister of Moses. She was a brave prophet who was called Efrat, a name that has the same root as a word meaning “to populate the world.”

As the group’s website tells her story: “Pharaoh decreed that all male Jewish infants were to be drowned, and declared the death penalty to anyone evading his orders. Miriam personally intervened, endangering her own life to save Jewish children from certain death. In addition, she provided the children’s families with all their needs. As a result of her bravery, the Jews continued to multiply and the Jewish nation survived.”

The organization is dedicated to saving the lives of unborn Jewish children.

For Efrat, this is an existential movement, to ensure that Jews will have a home in the world, saving one baby at a time. But there’s a lesson for us all beyond only Jews or Israel.

The people who run Efrat put their resources toward making it possible for a woman to do what seems impossible and sparing her from a life of agony about wondering what could have been if she had let her child live.

Our abortion debates can bring out the worst in our politics. But the people who do the work of listening to and walking with women in their hours of need are some of the saints and saint-makers among us. The woman who trusts enough to believe that she will be able to raise an unexpected child or who gives her child to a loving couple for adoption is one of the most generous among us. The family that opens its home to a foster child for an uncertain amount of time is one of the most loving among us. They are the kind of people we should be giving more headlines and attention to, celebrating and emulating. And we should be asking them, always: What more do you need?

A privately funded project, Efrat’s Yad Chava Baby Fund, is determined that a woman should not have to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons. Its workers have put together kits, delivered to homes, that will get things started and help along the way. The website explains that you can save a baby with a $1,200 donation. “True, money cannot always save lives. But, when generosity and wisdom combine, vision and vigor unite, and then miracles occur. Lives are saved, children are loved, and families are healed and made whole.”

We need more of that.

The chairman of Efrat has said: “We do not have a single case of a woman who was sorry in the end that she brought her child into the world.” Isn’t that the side we ought to be erring on? Not promising simple ways out — that aren’t simple at all — but helping women make choices for life and love? People are doing that in the world, and in ways that aren’t mired deep in miserable abortion debates. They somehow bypass them by addressing real-life needs rather than scaring people further in already trying situations. Instead of adding to the screaming, what if we all found a group and got more involved, financially or with our time? Or we could look around and fill some real needs of people around us. It’s harder work than pontificating about the president’s latest move. And it’s more fulfilling, too. It could even save a life.


Law Firm Faces Charges for Defending Christian Women's Homeless Shelter

An Alaska law firm has been accused of violating a city’s nondiscrimination ordinance after it provided legal representation to a Christian women’s shelter accused of violating the same ordinance.

The Anchorage Equal Rights Commission filed a formal complaint against Brena, Bell & Clarkson, charging the law firm with committing “unlawful discriminatory acts or practices” in violation of a city ordinance regarding sex and gender identity.

Its alleged crime is punishable by fines and possible jail time.

In early 2018, Kevin Clarkson was asked to represent the Downtown Hope Center, a faith-based nonprofit that provides free shelter for homeless women and abused women.

In February the shelter turned away a biological male who identifies as a female. Shelter leadership said the individual was intoxicated.

However, as a religious organization, it does not house biological men in its abused-women’s shelter because doing so would traumatize abused and battered women.

The transgender person filed a complaint against the shelter citing the policy over sexual orientation and gender identity.

It was in the context of that incident that Clarkson made comments to local news media regarding the case. And that’s why he’s now facing charges.

The law firm is being represented by First Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s top legal groups specializing in religious liberty cases.

“It’s the most outrageous case I’ve ever seen,” First Liberty’s Hiram Sasser told the “Todd Starnes Radio Show.” “Because he wrote a brief to the commission defending the shelter and portions of that brief were quoted in the media — he is accused of being in violation of their provision that prohibits you from talking about a policy.”

It raises serious questions about whether American citizens or organizations that are accused of violating sex and gender laws are eligible to receive legal assistance.

“You should be able to have legal counsel and that legal counsel should be able to represent you in court,” Sasser told me. “In Alaska they don’t see it that way.”

First Liberty said the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission is charging its client simply for representing its client.

“This has a tremendous chilling effect on any lawyer who would represent a homeless woman’s shelter,” Sasser said. “To go after the lawyer — that sends a message to all the other lawyers: Don’t take on these cases or we will come for you too. That’s extremely scary.”

Every American citizen should have their day in court. To deny someone legal representation because you don’t like his or her religious viewpoints is unthinkable.

Under the city’s ordinance it’s not out of the realm of possibility that even First Liberty Institute could face charges simply for representing the local attorney. “We are fully prepared if they charge us,” Sasser said.

Pamela Basler, the executive director of the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, did not return calls seeking comment.


Amazon is used to promote white supremacist merchandise, report says

The definition of white supremacist seems very elastic, as it usually is with the Left

Two nonprofits are criticizing Amazon for allowing its platforms to spread white supremacy and racism, identifying in a report how shoppers can buy onesies for babies stamped with alt-right images, Nazi-themed action figures, and anti-Semitic books and music.

The report, released Friday by the Partnership for Working Families and the Action Center on Race and the Economy, said Amazon’s policies allow it to bar hateful or offensive merchandise and content, but the policies are “weak and inadequately enforced” and allow hate groups to “generate revenue, propagate their ideas and grow their movements.”

The report outlines a number of items available as of June, including a costume that makes it look as if wearers have marks around their neck from being hanged from a noose, and onesies for babies that include images of a burning cross emblazoned across the front and Pepe the Frog.

The report identified dozens of e-books being sold in Amazon Kindle formats that were published by groups labeled “hate organizations” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremist groups.

It also criticized Amazon’s CloudFront content delivery network for “facilitating the publication and distribution of digital media” associated with Islamophobia.

As of Sunday afternoon, Amazon appeared to have removed many of the items identified in the report but others, such as a sword with Nazi symbols, remained.

“Either Amazon does not find the materials outlined in this report offensive or otherwise contrary to its policies, or it does not consistently enforce its own policies,” the report said. “Amazon has been reactive, not proactive, in its response to use of its site by peddlers of hate.”

In the report, the organizations asked Amazon to develop better policies for policing its platforms, to destroy hateful merchandise in its warehouses, and to stop allowing such goods and content to be distributed through its services.

An Amazon spokesman said in a statement Sunday that third-party sellers that use its marketplace service “must follow our guidelines and those who don’t are subject to swift action including potential removal of their account.”

Amazon did not answer questions about what specific items it had removed or what measures it was taking to vet other merchandise. The Washington Post reported that the company was working to remove neo-Nazi bands from its music platform.

“They’re making money, they are doing business with the people who are selling these things,” said Mariah Montgomery, campaign director for the Partnership for Working Families and one of the report’s authors. “The company has tremendous resources, and some of them should be devoted to making sure they are not propping up racist organizations.”

Amazon reported net income of more than $1.6 billion in the first quarter of 2018, more than double the amount for the same period in 2017.

The debate over how emerging technologies are being harnessed by those looking to spread hateful or bigoted ideas has raged for decades. In 2000, Yahoo was sued because it allowed Internet users in France to visit its auction sites, which sold Nazi memorabilia.

But the debate has ramped up in recent years with an emboldening of white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups and pressure from countries in Europe to get US technology companies to crack down on hate speech, said Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law and author of the book “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace.”

Nationally, the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents surged 57 percent in 2017, up to 1,986 from 1,267 in the previous year, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which linked the increase to the divisive state of US politics, a rise of extremists, and the effects of social media.

“This isn’t happening in a vacuum, this report,” Citron said Sunday. “It’s happening when there’s a lot of pressure on companies to remove and filter and block hate speech.”

Citron said companies are not legally liable for distributing goods or merchandise that reflect hate, though such practices might violate a company’s policy. She said Amazon has faced less scrutiny compared with companies like Twitter and Facebook, which are rethinking their policies.



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

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

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


10 July, 2018

Smart women need to marry down to become mothers because there aren't enough smart men to go around, researchers warn

Miz Inhorn again.  A singularly unfortuate surname for a feminist, one would think.  It is however her Ashkenazi father's surname. As the originating paper is unpublished, I cannot check what she actually said this time but if it is like the report below she is under a strange misapprehension. Education is NOT IQ. There is about a 50% of shared variance between them but that is a long way from identity.

So there is NO shortage of high IQ men.  The average male IQ is in fact slightly higher than for females and the distribution is leptokurtic, meaning that at the highest levels of IQ there are a LOT more men than women. So if the women cannot find them they are looking in the wrong place.

So what is it that Miz Inhorn has missed?  She has missed the fact that women have been slower to wake up to the education racket than men have. For a lot of people a degree confers NO economic advantage -- the graduate burger flippers in McDonalds, for instance.  And for others the advantage is only slight -- often too slight to make up for the years of missed employment. The history of an advantage to education is a history of a shrinking quantum.  It is not inconceivable that it will go into reverse as all the overeducated women search desperately for jobs

As ever, it is in business and the trades where the big money lies these days -- and many men go there in various ways rather than wasting time seeking the dubious honor of a degree. So females who aspire to marry a high earner would be wise to get to know some tradesmen and business types.  If she does that she is unlikely to find a less intelligent man -- just a more realistic man.

She may of course find him "uncultured" -- in which case she will get the just reward for her snobbery.  Perhaps some Christian values might be helpful to such a woman.

It is relationships that matter not your hobbies -- intellectual or otherwise.  Concentrate on people before all else and you will do well.  You might even find that "dumb" electrician to be a nice guy who will keep you in style.  And you can have your specialized conversations with your friends.

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

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

Intelligent women should consider marrying less clever men if they want to start a family, according to researchers.

There are simply not enough brainy men to go round – so women may need to widen their search, warned the author of a report that found a growing number of professional women were freezing their eggs because they couldn’t find ‘Mr Right’.

‘There are fewer educated men in the world for educated women to partner with,’ said Marcia Inhorn, professor of anthropology at Yale University.

‘So if women want to find a partner with whom they can have children, they need a more expansive notion of who is Mr Right.

‘A good partner might not be exactly someone of similar educational background and socio-economic circumstances but there can still be really wonderful relationships with men who are interested in marriage and parenthood.’

According to the World Bank, 70 countries have more women educated to university level than men. In Britain, the proportion of female students rose from 45 per cent in 1985 to 54 per cent in 2000.

Those who graduated in 2000 are now in their mid to late 30s and, according to Prof Inhorn, many are turning to egg freezing because they are unable to find partners of similar intelligence and educational background.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said 1,173 British women had eggs frozen in 2016, a ten per cent rise on the previous year.

Professor Inhorn’s study, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology’s meeting in Barcelona, involved questioning 150 American and Israeli women with high levels of education who had chosen to freeze their eggs.

She found that 85 per cent of them were single and the majority had opted for egg freezing due to a ‘lack of a stable partner’.

But women may be slow to follow Professor Inhorn’s advice as her own research also shows that hypogamy or ‘marrying down’ is unpopular with women.

‘They didn’t want to marry or partner with someone less educated and of lower socio-economic status,’ she said. ‘They wanted equality in their relationship.’ In fact, another study co-authored by Professor Inhorn found women often desired men from a higher socio-economic level.

‘Traditionally, women in societies around the world have tried to achieve hypergamy, or “marrying up” in an attempt to secure a better future for themselves and their children,’ the study said, although it acknowledged that with more women in education, ‘these trends may be reversing’.


Questioning the Push for Diversity

Forced diversity at any cost seems to be the reigning ideal.

I can’t escape the diversity mandate’s effects for a day?—?nearly every time I watch a movie or TV episode, there are moments its agenda is so glaring I can’t help but wince. For instance, Jessica Jones Season 2 is loaded with leftist identity politics (typical for Marvel): white men are portrayed as evil and incompetent; most couples are gay; women are strong, dominant, and independent; casual sex makes for an empowered heroine. (Nevermind that even still things never seem to be diverse enough, as Shoe0nHead comically ranted about.)

In the Slack channels of a Google-affiliated scholarship program that I was part of, an individual crusaded for the creation of a Slack channel for “people of color.” When I worked up the nerve (fearing that I would be removed from the program as a result) to state my objections to the proposed racial segregation, saying it would be a racist move and suggesting we should all help each other out as fellow aspiring web developers and look past racial differences, someone countered that it just makes them feel better to be with other black people (yeah, nothing wrong with wanting to be with people who share your skin color) and that black people can’t be racist. (A channel was created, but with the name “diversity in tech.” Somewhat less exclusive, but what is implied by a channel called something along the lines of “diversity in tech” is “white men are unwelcome in this channel.”)

When diversity occurs naturally, I have nothing against it. My attitude is indifference. But pushing for it is sinister and the justifications often provided are illogical.

Forcing Diverse Outcomes Necessitates Discrimination

Socially engineering equal representation in our workforce, schools, and even media is not progress. It is blatant racism and sexism that is not about fixing discrimination, but turning the tables with further discrimination. People should not be privileged or condemned on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, but on their efforts, achievements, and conscientiousness?—?or lack of thereof. It was Martin Luther King, Jr., who said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Today, that desire is interpreted by many as bigotry.

I think people who grew up destitute and/or were abused as children should be given additional help, but race, gender, and sexual orientation are the wrong determinants. Should a white person who was born to homeless high school dropouts, physically abused throughout childhood (in addition to witnessing domestic violence), and eventually placed in foster care receive less assistance/opportunity than someone born into a wealthy, highly supportive, nonabusive family but who happens to be black? I think not.

Regarding race, of course, it’s not just a black-and-white issue. Evidence has come out that Asian people are being discriminated against by colleges implementing racial quotas (such as Harvard) and that they must work considerably harder than those of other races to be admitted.

Forced Diversity Means Sacrificing Better-Suited Candidates

When you need an important surgery, do you want to entrust your life to the most competent surgeon you can find, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, or do you want one less skilled but a member of group that was historically discriminated against? (In today’s ideological climate I suspect this question may not be received as rhetorical.)

Likewise, if a company is to maximize their profits, should they be hiring on the basis of competence alone or based on race, gender, or sexual orientation?

Of course, I’m not saying every person who is granted a position in order to fill a quota is not the most competent or appropriate for that position when the factor of their group identity is removed. But inevitably this will occur, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

Forced Diversity May Lead to Doubting of Merit

When you know some people at a company are being hired on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, people may speculate that some employees are there as “diversity hires.”

Recall the surgeon example. A patient may wonder: Is this black lesbian female doctor working here because she is highly competent, or is she actually subpar at her job and here to contribute to the projection of a diverse image?

People may have lower expectations for women in tech because companies are hiring more of them to make their companies appear more diverse. Men may resent them because some can get farther with less effort (as a result of something that involves nothing other than luck). The dynamic of certain members of a company being privileged and punished may understandably lead to some resentment.

If you want members of a group that was historically oppressed or simply underrepresented in a career field (such as women in STEM) to be perceived as equally fit for their positions, privileging them in the workplace as a result of something wholly unrelated to their competence is doing them a disservice.

Further, for a refreshing perspective on racism toward blacks, see Coleman Hughes’ The High Price of Stale Grievances.

Diversity Shouldn’t Be Considered Important

One of the arguments for the importance of diversity is so people see other people who look like them in certain positions and feel like they too can achieve the same thing. If you can imagine it, you can do it, they say.

This is an irrational and toxic mentality. While it comes naturally, it is wrong to identify with others based on things like skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. This is the worst breed of tribalism: one based not on ideas or actions, but on things one cannot change.

If you want to do something, don’t let “external messages” influence you. If people who look like you don’t happen to be equally represented, so what? That doesn’t determine what you can or should do with your life. So long as you have an equal chance to pursue whatever endeavor is of your liking, that’s all that matters. I am a champion of equal opportunity for all, but vehemently against discrimination?—?even when it benefits individuals belonging to a category that was historically oppressed.

The Ironic Responses to the Anti-Discrimination Stance

As Thomas Sowell said, “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

In my experience anytime someone publicly voices an anti-racist, anti-sexist position or even a fact-based stance regarding forced diversity, they are attacked as a racist, sexist, and so forth.

It happened to James Damore, who was fired from his job as a senior software engineer at Google (despite having had just gotten the best possible performance evaluation) for posting this on a skepticism message board that was only visible internally. Essentially its message was that it’s unlikely that discrimination is the only reason for the discrepancy between the number of men and women in tech given the ample evidence that women tend to (at the group level) prefer to work with people, while men tend to work with things (many ignore or deny this inconvenient detail, attributing the disparity entirely to discrimination), and that it’s immoral to have female-only groups and policies that privilege women while punishing men in the company. See also feminist Christina Hoff Sommers’ commentary on the memo and James Damore’s interviews with Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan.

Listen to Dave Rubin’s intolerant, hostile treatment by protesters at a lecture he gave at the University of New Hampshire. His message was essentially the same as MLK’s: that we shoudn’t prejudge people based on immutable characteristics; yet students continually tried to drown him out with loud noises and robotically chanting “black lives matter,” and when given the opportunity to respond to what he was saying, they couldn’t produce anything of substance. (One female who did bother addressing him in some way other than a droning chant ended her spiel accusing him of not wanting to hear a woman speak defiantly?—?a nonsequitur, unrelated to anything he has said?—?followed by fervent applause from her fellow hecklers.) This encapsulates the word “farce.”

Bret Weinstein, a professor at Evergreen College, was castigated and eventually resigned (as students called for) because he refused to stay home on a day on which a group of people at that college ordered white students, staff, and faculty to absent themselves from campus. Here’s an uncut video of his treatment by a vicious, thoughtless mob of students subsequent to his act of defiance. He attempts to reason with them: “I’m interested only in dialectic, which does mean I listen to you, and you listen to me,” to which a female voice spews, “We don’t care, you white turd. We are not speaking on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion,” followed by the group’s sputtering of obscenities and chasing him down the halls, chanting “Hey hey, ho ho, Bret Weinstein has got to go!” Listen to an excerpt of his interview with Joe Rogan in which he recounts the debacle and provides his justification for choosing not to participate.

I know that voicing my views?—?clearly wrongthink and heresy in this atmosphere dogma?—?will bring me enemies. When I have done so in the past, I have been accused of being a white supremacist, sexist, and other antithetical labels. And of course, it would be more convenient for me to remain silent on these issues. But as the late Christopher Hitchens advised, “Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence.”


Political correctness can’t tranform boys into girls

Connecticut lately is getting plenty of practice trying to believe impossible things, not least because of high school sports contests that let boys compete as girls if they insist that they want to be girls. Two such boys, excellent athletes, recently have been finishing first and second in track meets for girls.

There has been some grousing that this is unfair, but on the whole it seems that those most directly aggrieved by the expropriation of the girls events are afraid of coming out as politically incorrect. They fear acknowledging the obvious - that there are physiological differences between the sexes, starting with the male and female chromosomes, differences that in general give athletic advantages to males, advantages confirmed by the instant success of the boys competing in the girls track meets.

Connecticut law now presumes to deny this basic science by insisting on the right of people who reject their biological gender to use the bathrooms designated for the other gender. The ancient right of sexual privacy has been crushed under the heel of this political correctness.

Biology and science are being discarded in favor of mere individual desire, leaving society with no objective criteria for determining whether someone is male or female. People are to be only what they call themselves, though it used to be understood that, as Lincoln noted, just calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

If, as this trend presumes, there are really no differences between the sexes, there no longer will be any rationale for gender divisions in sports, from schools right up through professional leagues. As men who impersonate women begin competing that way, athletic opportunities and recognition for women will be reduced, as the success of the transgendered high school runners in Connecticut already has reduced them. Are women really going to sit quietly through this?

Requiring those runners to compete against their biological gender would deny them no opportunity. As this would remain a free country, the boys could still style and present themselves as girls. No one would have any power to interfere with their personal lives. There would be no need to review their medical histories, as is done elsewhere with claims of transgenderism, nor to psychoanalyze them. They could be themselves and their unconventionality would be no more publicized than it already is. No longer taking advantage of others, they would be less resented.

Indeed, in that case any honors they won might be considered not just more fairly but also more courageously won than honors they won by pretending to be girls.

Political correctness can intimidate people into silence but it can’t control what they think, and honors received by able-bodied boys and men competing athletically against girls and women are not likely ever to be considered completely legitimate - and they shouldn’t be, no matter how much the White Queen enjoyed believing impossible things.


Half of Tasmania’s Anglican churches are slated for sale, leaving communities reeling. Is this Tassie Christendom’s death knell?

C'mon!  Anglicanism tells us nothing about Christendom.  Homosexuality is all they seem to believe in these days.  They have left both the Bible and their own "39 articles" behind years ago.  They still sometimes talk the old talk but their churches are now little more than social clubs

Ron Sonners strides through the tombstones and crosses that creep up a gentle grassy slope, stopping just shy of the portal into St Peter’s, an elegant Georgian church perched on a hill overlooking the Tasmanian farming village of Hamilton. He wants to show me the war graves but the most frequented plot in the grounds of this heritage-listed Anglican church is the fresher mound where his niece’s son lies ­buried. She brings flowers and her unfathomable grief twice a week, seeking solace. He knows who is here in the cold, packed earth because he ­gardens and cares for this place, proud of the new cemetery gates, the old wooden door rehung, floorboards replaced and recarpeted, improved wiring, the levelling of the flagstone entrance, all done with volunteer money and labour.

The passage of convicts, free settlers and their kin has worn a shallow dip across the threshold slab of pale stone through almost two centuries of service since the church opened in 1838. Tested by the vicissitudes of fortune and faith, the dwindling congregation scraped by cheerfully enough until last month, when parishioners learnt St Peters was on a hit list of 76 churches in Tasmania — more than half the total 133 — slated for auction to fund compensation for victims of child sex abuse by the Anglican clergy. Forget “temporal things” such as bricks and mortar, Tasmania’s Anglican Bishop, the Right Reverend Richard Condie, urged clergy and lay members of the governing synod that endorsed the scheme last month. “What a miserable and pathetic gospel we would have if it could be destroyed by the loss of a building. Our ­discipleship, our following of Jesus, our trust and hope and life is so much more than real estate.”

Sixty-one of the churches under threat are in pinched rural hamlets. Five of the six Anglican churches in the vast central midlands parish of Hamilton have a “for sale” sticker. These towns have lost services, post offices, banks and now churches that in many cases dominate the skyline, the main street, occupying parcels of land donated in perpetuity by private citizens, built through subscriptions, maintained for 100 years or more by the collection plate and the sweat of parishioners.

At Windermere, on the Tamar River north of Launceston, a psychologist and stalwart of ­St Matthias says: “I’ve cried and prayed every night over this decision.” In the West Coast town of Queenstown, where the local mine has closed, volunteer preacher and businessman Kevin ­Bailey admits to being “very stressed” about the ­potential loss of St Martin’s, which would force folk to drive 50km on winding roads to the nearest alternative. The church warden of St Marks at Cressy, south of Launceston, hasn’t slept for three weeks: “It tears the heart out of you.” In Pyengana, a speck in the state’s far north-east, the tiny white clapboard church, recently painted and reclad by locals, offers sanctuary to a dairy farmer who goes there anytime he feels the need to be close to the graves of his two teenage children.

“Country people vote with their feet. They just leave and they don’t come back,” says Nichola Ball, whose family have been baptised, wed and buried at St John the Baptist in Ouse, 15km north-west of Hamilton, for four generations. With its pressed tin spire, wooden fretwork and chunky blue stone, the tiny church was built by her great-great-grandfather in 1843. “Whoever buys this is going to have to buy Walter Ross Bethune,” she hoots of her great-uncle’s resting place under the altar. The blackwood lid of the stone baptismal font was carved by revered ­Tasmanian arts and crafts artist Ellen Payne. “We love this church,” Ball sighs, pausing to read the rapturous comments from tourists and others tracing their ancestral footprints who have signed a leatherbound book in the porch. “Door is not locked. Visitors welcome,” says the sign.

Ball has joined Sonners on the frontline. Her cultivated manner camouflages a soldiering bloodline. “Unconscionable … disingenuous,” she says of the bishop’s plan to sell “our light on the hill”.

Parishes have until December to secure an exemption. Once churches are sold there’ll be the sweetener of diocese funds available to bankroll new ministry in school halls, living rooms, coffee shops, wherever. The fate of the graveyards is ­anyone’s guess; the state government is urgently reviewing its Burial and Cremation Act. Plots have been paid for everywhere I visit. Trust deeds are being pored over. Meetings are underway. This could be the saving grace of Tasmania’s Christendom or its death knell. Heritage, history, culture, religion: the social fabric of an island state is up for grabs.

Huge inverted red neon crucifixes menace the night sky on Hobart’s waterfront for Dark Mofo, the annual winter festival of the Museum of Old and New Art, a cultural phenomenon that has ­turbocharged Tasmania’s tourism-led economic recovery. The upside-down motif decried as blasphemous by Christian leaders is a neat metaphor for the turmoil triggered by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

At Anglican church headquarters in nearby Macquarie Street, next to St David’s Cathedral, the fallout is written in Bishop Condie’s taut ­composure. “I’ve worked pretty much seven days a week for the last couple of months on this, as much as is possible humanly to do,” he tells me. “I’ve been trying to lead calmly but sometimes I think people have understood that to mean that I don’t care about this. I’ve wept over this. This is the hardest thing I could do and I’m incredibly sad that the Anglican Church in Tasmania is in this position. Evil people in our history did these terrible crimes and now our generation is paying for it, but I’m also filled with compassion for survivors of child abuse who have sat in this room and told me their stories. I can’t ignore that.”

His office in a city precinct of blue-chip real estate bears none of the lustre of corporate foyers. Worn carpet, cheap framed prints and mismatched furnishings are testament to a cash-strapped purse as well as a nobler disregard for secular trappings. Burdened by an annual deficit of $95,000, Condie insists he could neither ­borrow the $8 million for redress nor raise money through the sale of commercial assets, since these provide essential ongoing revenue for an institution in decline. “It would cripple us and we’d go out of business pretty quickly,” he says.

Tasmania has the lowest religious affiliation of any state and falling, according to the latest census, although the proportion of Anglicans compared with other religions, while also shrinking, is higher than the national average. To prepare for a looming compensation bill, the state synod last year introduced a sustainability test to determine parish viability. Churches had to demonstrate attendance by 30 households; sufficient funds to pay a full-time minister; ­pathways to encourage families and children; and ­evangelical and outreach activities. Survival of the fittest doomed the frailest rural congregations for auction despite the best efforts of parishioners to make ends meet. In Hamilton, for example, the elderly priest is part-time and unpaid. She earns a small salary from school chaplaincy work and the parish bought her a car and covers petrol expenses as she rotates Sunday services between churches.

Ministry matters more than church buildings in the figuring of Bishop Condie, an evangelical Christian aligned with the GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) strand of conser­vative Anglicanism. Melbourne born and bred, his only exposure to a rural ­community occurred during an early two-year posting in a parish in northern NSW. Anglican officials around the country are ­monitoring his ambitious reversal of authority. Traditionally, veto over the sale of church property is vested with the parish councils but the Tasmanian synod handed the bishop power over the fate of 108 properties.



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

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

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


9 July, 2018

Incels: the ugly truth

There have always been both males and females who fail to find sexual partners ("Incels") -- but in the past they had Christianity to give them a reassuring perspective on it.  Sexual abstinence was even admired as holy.  But for most Western populations, Christian faith is now a relic for all but a few.  Leftists actively despise it. 

But there is very little now to replace Christianity and that is tragic.  Christian thinking was an evolutionary product.  It evolved over a period of thousands of years as an authoritative answer to life's dilemmas.  It made sense of your world and guided you through it.  It was our folk wisdom, the wisdom inherited from many generations of experience

So what is to be done, as Lenin once asked?  The hope I see is only for the young.  The existing generations of incels are probably beyond help.  Teenagers are generally much more open to exploring faith.  A bigger effort to introduce teenagers to Christianity could help.  Evangelical churches do a great work in such outreach but maybe we have got to a point where the churches alone are not effective enough.  Perhaps there needs to be a general societal push to propagandize for the benefits of Christian faith.  The Left regularly preach anti-faith messages.  Perhaps conservatives need to preach pro-faith messages.

And conservatives do not themselves need to be religious. Jordan Peterson has cut a very useful mould in that connection.  He is a great advocate of traditional Christian thinking but is not himself a believer.

I have not read enough of Peterson's life history to be sure but I strongly suspect that he was a Christian in his youth -- as I was.  I was deeply religious throughout my teens.  I was in a very puritanical denomination in which everyone was EXPECTED to be an "incel" and I don't doubt that there were incel personalities -- socially inept personalities -- in the faith.  But, far from feeling inadequate, the incel personalities were praised and supported.  They had a positive role.  And, ultimately, they would marry. Community expectations would be influential and religious faith would provide an emotional bond that would lead to an agreement to marry "in the faith". Their social ineptitude would be excused as spiritual-mindedness.

And what would happen once these unlikely marriages took place?  The incels would learn.  They would learn by doing.  By being tied together they would figure out what they had to do to get on with one another.  They would eventually become a fairly normal, well adjusted couple.  Their ineptitude would mostly fade away.

I left the faith before I got to that point but have the warmest memories of my religious teens and am profoundly thankful for the guidance it gave me through the confusions of teenagerhood.  I did none of the self-destructive things that  teenagers now so often do. I drank no alcohol, used no drugs and committed no crimes. I didn't even take up smoking and to this day have not once smoked or been tempted to do so.  So even as trivial a vice as smoking I was protected from. And I still enjoy the great old hymns.

And, perhaps predictably, I see no harm that my Christian years did to me.  My years as as religious "incel" did not harm my social evolution as far as I can see.  And the fact that I have now been married four times probably makes me as far from an incel as you can get. I have had a great time.

And my son also went through a religious phase in his teens -- with my warm approval.  And it did him no harm either.  His only addiction -- and one he battles manfully -- is to flavoured milk.  He has to hurry past the flavoured milk shelves in the supermarket in order to protect his waistline.  And he is engaged to be married to a pretty woman of strong character and a good brain -- whom he lives with.

So I think Jordan Peterson has shown the way forward.  Conservatives need to do more to promote Christianity and counter the foul moral emptiness of the Left.  Regardless of your own religious beliefs -- and I have none -- one can still see Christianity as a great benefit to the person -- particularly to young persons.  It is our wisdom heritage and cannot easily be replaced.

The strange, self-loathing world of incels owes much to mainstream sexual confusion.

‘The Incel Rebellion has already begun’, wrote Alek Minassian, a self-described ‘incel’, in a Facebook post, minutes before he drove a rental van into pedestrians on a crowded street in Toronto in April, killing 10 and injuring 15. He was inspired by Elliot Rodger, whose shooting and knifing spree in Isla Vista, California killed six in 2014. Mass murders committed by incels have brought incel subculture to mainstream attention, but killers like Rodger and Minassian are a rare, extreme manifestation of the broader incel phenomenon.

Incels are ‘involuntary celibates’ – men frustrated with their inability to find a sexual partner. Estimates on the size of the incel community vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands. The forum ‘r/incels’ on Reddit had 41,000 members when it was banned in November 2017 for violating the site’s rules on violent content.

Incel forums, like the website incel.me and the message board /r9k/ on 4chan, are awash with anonymous declarations of self-pity, self-loathing and, at times, a violent misogyny directed at the women deemed responsible for their loneliness. Behind a great deal of mindless chatter and ‘shitposting’ is a shared understanding of how they came to be despised by the opposite sex, alongside a bewildering array of slang terms to describe and explain the various states of ‘inceldom’.

According to the incels, there is a ruthless sexual hierarchy, and as ‘beta males’, they find themselves at the bottom. The foil to the incel is a ‘Chad’ – a confident, attractive man with multiple sexual partners, comprising usually attractive but supposedly shallow women, known as ‘Stacys’. Chads are envied and despised in equal measure. Then there are the ‘normies’ (normal people), hated for their herd-like mentality and mocked for their ignorance of incel culture. ‘Blackpilling’ refers to the acceptance that the traits you are born with mean you are destined to be romantically unsuccessful. The term is a play on the moral dilemma presented by the 1999 film, The Matrix, in which Neo is offered a blue pill to remain in a world of illusion and a red pill to see the world as it truly is – ‘redpilling’ is a central trope in online men’s rights’ activism, while blackpilling is the incel equivalent. Physical traits such as height, facial features or penis size (sometimes posted with accompanying pictures), are said to play a big role in the incels’ low status, while a large number of them also blame self-diagnosed mental-health problems, particularly autism-spectrum disorders.

But while many incels are open about their flaws, ultimately the blame is laid on the women who overlook them. Women are seen as effectively slaves to their biology, guided by so-called ‘hypergamy’: an attraction to higher-status men linked to evolutionary psychology. Some parts of the so-called manosphere – a loose constellation of male-dominated online subcultures, including men’s rights activists and pick-up artists – believe that evolutionary psychology can be used to a man’s advantage, that certain techniques can be deployed to overcome a lack of attractiveness and confidence to manipulate women into bed or into a relationship. Incels reject even this bleak view and insist that beta males accept their place in the social-pecking order.

Incel forums are awash with anonymous declarations of self-pity, self-loathing and, at times, violent misogyny

This belief in a rigid social hierarchy inevitably produces problems when it comes to race. ‘Ricecels’ (incels of Chinese and South East Asian origin) and ‘currycels’ (of South Asian descent) are often found posting photos of ‘proof’ of a theory called ‘JBW’, that in order for them to be successful with women they should ‘just be white’. Some white incels look upon black men with envy for their perceived sexual success, while a minority rail against any kind of ‘race mixing’ – even as a form of escape from inceldom.

In addition, incels speak of an ‘80:20 rule’ when it comes to sexual competition: the most attractive 20 per cent of men are said to be sought after by the most attractive 80 per cent of women, with the least attractive 80 per cent of men left to compete for the remaining 20 per cent of women. In previous eras, this situation would have supposedly been prevented by institutionalised monogamy. Some incels call explicitly for a return to a patriarchal society. Today’s world of relative sexual freedom, contraception, no-fault divorce and dating apps, on the other hand, is blamed for offering an abundance of opportunities for Chads and women, at the expense of incels.

Ultra-conservative calls for enforced monogamy may sound like they sit uneasily with a professed jealousy for the promiscuous lifestyle enjoyed by the Chads. But the incel relationship to sex is one of extreme ambivalence. A lack of sexual contact is seen, on the one hand, as the source of all life’s misery. On the other, it is central to the construction of incel identity. Forums are strictly policed in an attempt to root out ‘fakecels’ (fake incels), who are more sexually successful than they claim. ‘Bragging’ about relationships can lead to bans or having certain posting privileges revoked. This can be devastating to those who have invested such a great deal in this identity. Take 19-year-old Jack Peterson, one of the few incels to declare himself publicly to the media. Jack was banned from the forum incel.me after another user questioned his status as an incel, accusing him of bringing up a previous abusive relationship in order to brag about it. The Daily Beast reports that he spent three days straight (occasionally passing out) producing a 30-minute video and Powerpoint presentation that outlines in extensive detail why he believes he is sufficiently ugly and sufficiently mentally ill to still be considered an incel.

Angela Nagle argues in her book Kill All Normies that several of the bizarre online subcultures, from the manosphere to the alt-right, developed in tandem with, and are defined in opposition to, the extremities of the identitarian left. This is clearly the case with incels, where the currency found in unattractiveness on incel forums finds its parallel in the so-called ‘oppression olympics’ of identity politics, where a sense of identity and social status are tied inexorably to victimhood. In the incel world, many seem to revel in their repulsiveness – not only in their frequent use of foul language and imagery, but also in their choice of profile pictures. As most users post anonymously, their avatars might feature anything from other ugly men to frogs, aliens and Hitler.

When the media attempts to account for the incel phenomenon, they rely heavily on the trope of toxic masculinity. It is true that the incels exhibit a great sense of what might be called ‘male entitlement’, to women and to sex, and that they openly lament the passing of a male-dominated world. But far from upholding masculine values like stoicism and self-reliance, the incel subculture is imbued with today’s therapeutic sensibility. Far from being buttoned-up and unwilling to discuss their feelings like the masculine men of old, incels are spilling out their deepest, darkest thoughts and frustrations to strangers. Elliot Rodger spent 14 of his 22 years visiting multiple therapists and wrote a 114-page manifesto detailing his feelings of rejection before going on his killing spree. Plus, it is not only incels like Jack who talk up the poor state of their mental health online to gain the approval of their peers. Teenagers today regularly take to Twitter or Instagram to post about a litany of often self-diagnosed disorders.

Although the incels’ own explanations for their plight border on the absurd, can the emergence of incels be traced to real-world shifts? Research by the UCL Institute of Education suggests that one in eight 26-year-olds in Britain have yet to lose their virginity, up from one in 20 at the same age a generation ago. According to Ipsos MORI, 32 per cent of US millennials (born 1980-1995) are abstinent compared with 19 per cent of Generation X (born 1966-1979). What is more, its polling shows, paradoxically, that the proportion of millennials engaged in promiscuous sex is also higher than previous generations.

Many incels seem to revel in their repulsiveness

Concerned with this mismatch, economist Robin Hanson has proposed redistributing sex, just as the welfare state redistributes income. ‘Those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organising around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis.’ Some denounced the idea as effectively a ‘right to rape’ or dismissed Hanson as creepy. Ross Douthat in the New York Times and Toby Young in the Spectator both say that we will have to redistribute sex eventually and that sex robots might offer a partial answer.

But clearly there have always been lonely, loveless men in society. What these debates miss is that the growth of the incel subculture is a product not just of young men not having sex, but of a society which has no agreed-upon cultural script when it comes to sex. The sexual revolution liberated a generation from religious attitudes and superstitious understandings of sex. But now that the sexual revolution is fading from view, there are few robust defenders of sex as a fun and guilt-free source of pleasure today. Ross Douthat writes that ‘culture’s dominant message about sex is essentially Hefnerian’ and promotes ‘frequency and variety in sexual experience’, but this misses key developments of recent years.

While it is unlikely that most ordinary people believe we live in a ‘rape culture’, this idea is nevertheless accepted and promoted by many educational institutions. In the UK, consent classes have been proposed not just for university students, but also school children and even MPs. While older millennials may have escaped them, their schooling still delivered grave warnings not only of unwanted pregnancies and STIs, but also of the emotional dangers of casual sex. The #MeToo movement has led to people being punished as sexual deviants for knee-touching and telling racy jokes. That is not to say that young people are now terrified of sex, or even that they buy into what they learn about sex from school or the media. Rather, it is that mainstream society offers no coherent or compelling understanding of sex and sexuality. Cultural norms are in flux and this produces a great deal of confusion. How else would 28 per cent of young women come to believe that winking ‘usually or always’ constitutes sexual harassment, compared with just six per cent of over-55s? How else can we account for the absurdity of mutually non-consensual sex? In the absence of a coherent mainstream, the incels’ bizarre world of Chads, Stacys, blackpilling and 80:20 rules seems to fill that void for some lonely young men. Just as many young feminists can relate their beliefs to the all-encompassing theory of rape culture, being ‘blackpilled’ provides a framework through which the incel can make sense of their place in a confusing sexual landscape.

The growth of the incel subculture is a product of a society that has no agreed-upon cultural script when it comes to sex

Then there’s the question of masculinity. While it is overblown to say there is a ‘crisis of masculinity’ – talk of such a crisis has been ongoing since the mid-1980s – clearly this is another area where the modern world offers little more than confusion. For Jack Peterson, incel forums offer respite from society’s contradictory messages to ‘both “man up” and renounce your masculinity… it is like the one bright light you see is this community’. The explosion of popularity in clinical psychologist turned YouTube self-help guru Jordan Peterson (no relation to Jack) seems to confirm that the need to fill that void goes much deeper than the incels. His 12 Rules For Life is an international bestseller and he sells out arenas, preaching ‘masculine’ virtues. Peterson sets out to counter the ‘lack of an identifiable and compelling path forward’ for young people, particularly young men, who make up 90 per cent of his audience.

Overall, as strange, repulsive and extreme as the incel subculture appears, it is far from alien. Its absurd narrative of sexual politics is seized upon by misguided, alienated young men struggling to make sense of the adult world while the norms of masculinity and sexuality are in constant flux. Ironically, it channels a great deal of the excesses of the West’s therapeutic culture, identity politics and the fetishisation of victimhood – the very things that came to take the place of the old world that the incels claim to pine for.


Kentucky Defies Leftists & Atheists, Brings the Bible Back to Schools

The state of Kentucky just defied those who want every remnant of the Christian faith to be removed from public schools.

In a ceremony last week, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed a bill that allows public schools in the state to teach the Bible, WDBP reported.

“The idea that we would not want this to be an option for people in school, that would be crazy,” Bevin said at the ceremony. “I don’t know why every state would not embrace this, why we as a nation would not embrace this.”

The new classes would be electives, not requirements, CNN reported.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. D.J. Johnson, pointed out what many Americans already know to be true — that the Bible is foundational to the American founding and a reliance on God is vital for our nation to flourish.

After all, the freedom and religious liberties we enjoy are based on the knowledge our Founding Fathers had that our rights and value as human beings come from God, not the government.

“It really did set the foundation that our founding fathers used to develop documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,” said Rep. Johnson. “All of those came from principles from the Bible.”

Unsurprisingly, there are a few unhappy individuals over the new law. “The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky told CNN affiliate WDRB it will be closely monitoring how the law is used by school boards,” CNN reported.

“A Bible literacy bill that, on its face, may not appear to be unconstitutional, could in fact become unconstitutional in its implementation,” ACLU Advocacy Director Kate Miller said. “We want to make sure that teachers can teach and make sure that they don’t go in to preach,” Miller added.

But Gov. Bevin pointed out that religious people shouldn’t be the only ones who think the law is a good idea. “You could be an atheist, and you would appreciate there’s a lot of wisdom in the Bible,” he said.

According to The Daily Caller, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama have also been pushing for religion to remain in the classrooms of public schools.

The state of Kentucky has taken a bold stand for the Bible — hopefully, it encourages others to do the same.


Terry Gilliam on diversity: 'I tell the world now I’m a black lesbian'

Terry Gilliam has responded to the BBC diversity debate which referenced Monty Python by saying: “I tell the world now I’m a black lesbian.”

Gilliam was commenting on the row over diversity triggered by the BBC’s unveiling of its new comedy programming, announced in June, at which the BBC’s controller of comedy commissioning Shane Allen emphasised the corporation’s commitment to “the stories that haven’t been told and the voices we haven’t yet heard”. In response to a question about Monty Python’s Flying Circus, Allen said: “If you’re going to assemble a team now, it’s not going to be six Oxbridge white blokes. It’s going to be a diverse range of people who reflect the modern world.”

Speaking at a press conference at the Karlovy Vary film festival, where he was presenting his new film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, Gilliam said: “It made me cry: the idea that ... no longer six white Oxbridge men can make a comedy show. Now we need one of this, one of that, everybody represented... this is bullshit. I no longer want to be a white male, I don’t want to be blamed for everything wrong in the world: I tell the world now I’m a black lesbian... My name is Loretta and I’m a BLT, a black lesbian in transition.”

He added: “[Allen’s] statement made me so angry, all of us so angry. Comedy is not assembled, it’s not like putting together a boy band where you put together one of this, one of that everyone is represented.”

Gilliam follows fellow Python member John Cleese’s angry response to Allen’s comment, who tweeted: “Unfair! We were remarkably diverse FOR OUR TIME ... We had three grammar-school boys, one a poof, and Gilliam, though not actually black, was a Yank. And NO slave-owners.”

Gilliam has previously attracted controversy for his comments on the MeToo campaign, likening it to “mob rule” and saying: “ It’s crazy how simplified things are becoming.”


Minister in fresh push for freedom of religion in Australia

Social Services Minister Dan Tehan has called for a religious discrimination act to provide greater protections to people of faith, in a move that raises the stakes for the Turnbull government as it responds to a key ­review of religious freedoms.

Delivering the St Thomas More lecture in Canberra last month, Mr Tehan said the “creeping encroachment from the state on religious belief” was a key issue, given new conflicts in the areas of euthanasia, same-sex marriage and the sanctity of the confessional.

However, he identified the main threat to religious freedom as the growing influence of ­empowered minorities that used political correctness as a weapon against traditional beliefs and ­customs.

The address, being made public today, represents a rallying cry for Coalition MPs who ­expect Malcolm Turnbull to deliver a substantive response to the ­review of religious freedoms led by former attorney-general Philip Ruddock following the same-sex marriage victory last year.

Mr Tehan, who describes himself as a “far-from-perfect Catholic”, said all Australians of faith should “take a stand” and “strongly defend our rights and responsibilities to take part in ­debates of national significance”.

His proposal for a new ­religious discrimination act offers a path for the Turnbull government to legislate at a federal level to address concerns that ­religion is being driven from the public square. Citing John Howard — a leading advocate for traditional marriage — Mr Tehan warned against the rise of “minority fundamentalism”, which the former prime minister has called “the ­assumption that traditional beliefs and practices represent an ­attack on those who do not support them”.

“Australia has reached an ­unusual point where the tools of oppression — sowing the seeds of division, conquest, manipulation and cultural division — are being wielded by the minority against the majority,” Mr Tehan said.

“We have not realised Martin Luther King’s dream of a society where you are judged by the content of your character, not the colour of your skin. Instead we have woken up to a nightmare where the value of your contribution to a debate depends on what you claim to be a victim of.”

Mr Tehan pointed to the push to sack Australian rugby union star Israel Folau over his social media posts on homosexuality and the boycott on Coopers Brewery products after it sponsored a debate between both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

“In a liberal democracy, people must have the freedom to air unpopular views, including those ­informed by their faith, and those views must be open to challenge,” Mr Tehan said. “My observation, however, is that there is more disrespect directed at people who share their faith publicly and that is to the detriment of us all.”

There is frustration in ­Coalition ranks at Mr Turnbull’s ­decision to facilitate the passage of a same-sex marriage bill through parliament last year without a series of protections proposed in a set of amendments.

Promoted by a range of senior MPs, including Scott Morrison, Michael Sukkar and Andrew Hastie, the amendments were supported by a majority of Coalition MPs but defeated on the floor of parliament with Labor opposition.

Liberal senator James Paterson, a supporter of same-sex marriage who advocated for greater protections for religious freedoms, yesterday told The Australian it was important for the government to deliver a meaningful response to the Ruddock review.

“The Ruddock review provides the government with a unique ­opportunity to secure the freedoms of Australians with faith,” Senator Paterson said. “We all ­deserve the equal right to live our lives ­according to our values, free from state coercion.”

There is concern within the ­Coalition that a weak ­response to the Ruddock review could reopen an ideological divide within the government and allow Labor a chance to steal the initiative, given that it holds nine of the western Sydney seats that voted against change in last year’s plebiscite. One Liberal MP said: “The time for action is now. We need to protect conscience and ­religious faith because Labor and the Greens won’t.”

The Ruddock review was ­delivered to the government in May after receiving thousands of submissions. It is unlikely the review or the government response will be released until after the July 28 Super Saturday by-elections.

Mr Tehan bolstered his case for a new religious discrimination act by relying on census data to throw forward to an Australia where people of faith had become a minority with only limited legal protections in the form of ad-hoc exemptions to anti-discrimination laws. He warned the trend towards atheism in the 2016 census was “especially stark” among those aged 18 to 34, with 39 per cent saying they had “no religion” — more than three times the number who identified as Christian. “If this trend continues — and there is no reason to believe it won’t — then one day in the ­future the Australians who are part of any religion will become a minority,” Mr Tehan said.

“In preparation for that day, we need to consider how we will defend religious rights in this country from political correctness.”



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

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

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


8 July, 2018

Leftist viciousness never stops

Their reply to criticism is to attempt to hurt the critic.  Debate is not on their agenda.  Below is an email received from a conservative correspondent that shows their inability to handle even mild mockery

I got called up to HR because two feminist women complained about an email I sent. On June 15th it was "Raising awareness of elder abuse day". The colour of the cause is purple, so purple ribbons and balloons were put up around the workplace and around town. An email was sent to everyone advising all staff to wear something purple.

I sent back a reply asking, "Are we expected to take the vow not to abuse old people?"

Two women went to HR and lodged a complaint about me. They are both radical feminists who coordinate the November white ribbon day in which people are encouraged to walk around the town park and men are encouraged to buy and wear a white ribbon and take a vow not to abuse women.

They lodged a complaint, suggesting I was mocking white ribbon day and requested I receive a written warning.

The HR manager did not do that. We had a good laugh about it

Migrant Beheads 1-Year-Old Girl In Germany; Merkel Bans Media Reporting

Angela Merkel’s pro-migrant government has banned German media from reporting on a barbaric crime involving a Muslim migrant who allegedly beheaded his one-year-old baby daughter on a train station platform in Hamburg.

According to eyewitnesses, the 33-year-old suspect, Mourtala Madou, beheaded his one-year-old daughter in front of a horrified crowd of commuters at Jungfernstieg station on Thursday April 12, and then stabbed his German girlfriend, the mother of the child.

The suspect allegedly stabbed the infant from behind, while she was sitting in her stroller, and then severed her neck. He then allegedly stabbed his girlfriend in the chest before fleeing the scene, dumping the murder weapon in a train station trash can. He was later arrested

The woman, a mother of four other children, later died at hospital of her injuries.

Video footage has been uploaded to the internet showing the aftermath of the brutal and senseless double murder that was described as “very targeted” by police spokesman Timo Zill and an “honor killing” by witnesses. The victims bodies can be seen in the video but not their faces.  Eyewitnesses can be heard saying that the suspect cut the babies head off.

The Ghanaian Christian gospel singer who captured the footage on his cell phone can be heard saying, “Oh my God. It’s unbelievable. Oh my God. It is unbelievable. Oh Jesus, oh Jesus. oh Jesus. They cut off the head of the baby. They cut off the baby’s head. Oh my God. Oh Jesus. “

German media has been allowed by the government to report on the murder of the mother, but Angela Merkel’s pro-migrant government banned German media outlets from reporting on the decapitated baby.

Germany’s largest newspaper, Bild, report on the death of the mother of four, without mentioning the details regarding the barbaric murder of her child.

Merkel’s government have been under intense pressure in recent months regarding the open borders policy that is responsible for millions of Muslim migrants settling in Germany during the last three years. Many Germans believe the government issued a blanket ban on reporting this story because they believe it will turn the public mood against the government and represent the final nail in Merkel’s political coffin.

German authorities have also been ordered to clamp down on independent bloggers caught sharing the damning footage.

When Hamburg blogger Heinrich Kordewiner posted the video on Facebook and his own YouTube channel, a police investigation was launched. Kordewiner’s apartment was searched by police and his personal belongings were confiscated. Kordewiner says he and his roommate were awakened at 6:45 am by a squad of prosecutors and police officers seeking access to their home. When they were denied, they forcibly gained access by drilling the door lock.

The Christian gospel singer who recorded the video on his cell phone has also had his home raided and personal belongings confiscated. Police claim they are operating under orders to confiscate material in order to protect the rights of the victims.

But who are they really protecting? Many Germans believe they are protecting the migrant and alleged murderer, Mourtala Madou, as well as the German government guilty of allowing millions of migrants to settle in the country against the wishes of the German people.

A handful of mainstream media articles, worried about the publication of the video, have been published since the police raids, but none of them mention the decapitated one-year-old girl. The case has been completely covered up by the German government.

However they cannot keep the case quiet forever. The fact the one-year-old child had her neck severed is mentioned in the published files of the Hamburg District Court. Stefan Frankreports on achgut.com about this today.

But it seems the German government gag order extends beyond the media. A request by the AFD faction (number 21/12844), regarding the nature of the child’s injury, was redacted with the details blacked out before the Civil Law Court replied.

Even the German judiciary are going out of their way to ensure that the barbaric crimes of Muslim migrants are kept hidden from the German public.


Leftmedia Exploits Child for Homosexual Agenda

Using a confused 10-year-old boy who dresses in drag to promote "pride" is actually child abuse.

Dogmatic commitment to an ideology will ensure that both truth and individuals are sacrificed in support of furthering the greater cause. The reality of this scenario has been repeatedly demonstrated in particular by those committed to the leftist agenda of “social justice.” Ironically, details and facts of specific cases of injustice, abuse or crime are often ignored or misapplied in order to support the desired ideological narrative. Likewise, the exploitation of various vulnerable individuals is accepted and even celebrated if it serves to further the broader cause.

Such is the case with a 10-year-old boy named Desmond. He is clearly struggling with gender dysphoria, though he — with his parents’ encouragement — claims otherwise. You see, Desmond dresses in drag. He says he was inspired to do so at the age of two when he first watched an episode of “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” He also claims to have come “out of the closet” as a homosexual at age of three. So a 10-year-old prepubescent boy is able to experience a sexual desire that his hormones have yet to express? What kind of parents would allow their child to live in such a delusion, and not only allow but exploit it? According to Desmond, his parents “didn’t think it sounded like a good idea to force a child to do something they didn’t want to do.”

Forcing kids to do what they don’t want to do is called “parenting.”

The Washington Examiner’s Nicole Russell writes, “That’s nonsense. Parents can and should do this all the time. My children would likely eat Little Debbie Cakes and watch movies all day long without intervention. School, chores, homework, reading — those are all things kids would often rather not do. Do we indulge that fantasy? Heck, kids would rather run out in the middle of the street, go eight days without bathing, and eat Pop Rocks all day long — do we indulge them in that too? There are no perfect parents, myself included, but the fine line between boundaries and freedom is one that every parent must navigate with their children.”

And yet, for that Leftmedia rag called The Huffington Post, Desmond served as the perfect “poster child” for promoting the pro-LGBTQ agenda. The Post tweeted out its celebration of the end of “Pride Month” by featuring Desmond along with this tripe: “As Pride month comes to a close, Desmond Is Amazing, the ten-year-old drag kid from New York, is proof that the future is queer.” No, this is actually proof that The Huffington Post condones exploitation and child abuse. Renowned University of Toronto professor of psychology and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson responded, “In what moral universe is it acceptable to encourage a 10 yr old boy to dress like an adult male mimicking a sexualized adult female, use that as a ticket to fame and then claim it as virtue? If you don’t see that this child is being exploited then ideology has possessed you to the core.”


It’s rape if a woman does not say yes: Pru Goward

To be authentically Australian about it, one is inclined to ask if Pru has ever had a good root? There would be a very large number of mutually enjoyed sexual encounters that would be criminalized by this airy-fairy nonsense

Sex will be deemed rape unless a woman gives vocal consent, a minister in Australia’s most populous state has proposed.

Pru Goward, New South Wales minister for the prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault, said: “If you want sex you have to ask for it, and if you want that sex, you have to say yes.”

Ms Goward said the state was seeking to enshrine the requirement for a woman’s audible consent in law, and that its main law advisory body had been tasked with reporting on how the legislation should be drafted. “Often you don’t say no. You say nothing, and that’s why you need to say yes,” Ms Goward said.



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

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

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


6 July, 2018

The Utility of Peterson

Like anybody who specifically targets the left, and criticizes their hostile disposition toward enlightenment values and the individual, Jordan Peterson is the object of much animosity and attempted speech suppression. But his fame and belovedness, as prominent as they are, naturally have made him a hot target for politically motivated equivocation by left leaning smear artists.

It is Jordan’s vociferous and impactful criticisms of postmodernism and Marxism that influence such people to conflate his reverence for the underpinnings of western culture with far right chauvinism. But to anybody who has taken the time to absorb a lecture of his (impartially), it’s readily apparent that his material is born out of a surplus of kindness and authentic investment in the wellbeing of all people.

Far from resembling the sociopathic caricature of the world’s Cenk Uygurs’ archetypal “right-winger”, a category classical liberals are now commonly pigeonholed into, Jordan is known for extending a hand of sympathetic understanding to those most of society would consider irredeemable wretches, upon whom he rarely confers undue moral judgments.

He refers to his enemies even as being under the possession of bad ideas, rather than painting them as evil. He does not lower himself to the common impulse of dehumanization most people act on with reference to their enemies. He’s someone brimming with compassion, particularly for those who feel lost or disenfranchised, and have nobody to represent their feelings in good faith.

Though the left has made an increasing number of character and credibility assassination attempts on Peterson, they fail to realize he is one of the few voices regularly defusing the complicated grief of many young men which left untreated could grow into violent attempts at retribution, shootings, and other rampages. In spite of all the left does to paint Peterson as mysoginistic, angry, and unhinged, he is actually the one assuaging the male rage while the leftists continually exacerbate it.

Peterson gives expression to the anger many young white men justly feel, having been abandoned by their own culture and local institutions, and tries to remake it into a positive sense of responsibility and motivation toward success. These are people who feel that the entire world is rigged against them, and Peterson would like to guide them toward a renewed understanding of the potential and meaning of their lives.

Anger is a natural expression of despair and grief, and while Peterson tries desperately to provide the correct outlet for it, the left alienates those who feel angry by perpetually demonizing them. This comes from the idea on the left that those who are not part of a protected class have no right to ever feel angry or left out?—?an impossible standard that shits on the validity of their feelings in perpetuity.

And because leftists call everything they did not create fascism, and call everything that doesn’t benefit them fascism, and call everything that doesn’t subjugate itself to their own whims fascism, they cannot allow this. But Peterson is actually a huge moderate attempting to bridge the culture gap. Not to mention Peterson is an actual anti-facist, in the sense that he understands and fights against legitimate fascism. By tearing him down, they’re only widening the culture gap and increasing the likelihood of future civil conflict.

Now, I’m not a Peterson acolyte. I have some criticisms of him. For one, it’s unsure whether mere individualism and the rejection of identity politics can actually conserve our embattled liberty. In other words, maybe the gap can’t be bridged. It may not be enough to simply exhume “the father” and think we can return to the golden age of liberty and social trust by some miraculous resurgence of old values. Who knows?

Another point of criticism is the apparent existential relativism of his philosophy, which is cause for much concern, and something I haven’t been able to overlook since he came to prominence. This is made worse by the stream of consciousness style of his lectures. If his philosophy is to be taken seriously, he better articulate it more coherently. Otherwise, he’s no better than an Oprah or a Dr.Oz, and we’ve got enough of those.

But in spite of this, we can’t overlook the good things he’s done. He’s a powerful influencer, spreading awareness of the caustic nature of campus cult ideology. Thousands of parents are now conscious of the free-thought-inhibiting indoctrination occurring in schools all throughout North America. People are ostensibly more enthusiastic about Western society and identity, and the preservation of the values contained therein. Those who faced lives of total depravity have discovered a rebirth of purpose, and are enthusiastic about the future for perhaps the very first time. These are not small accomplishments.

So, give the doctor his due.


‘Experts’ Rank US in Top 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women—Almost as Bad as Nigeria

Suggesting that many of the world’s most grave problems have been solved, experts in women’s rights from around the world rank the United States among the 10 most dangerous countries for women.

Sadly, however, issues such as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, rape as a weapon of war, honor killings, and maternal mortality haven’t stopped.

Rather, leading “experts” in their fields appear to have lost any perspective, categorizing the U.S. as almost as dangerous as Nigeria, where Boko Haram militants kidnap, rape, and sexually exploit women and girls.

The ranking was compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Reuters, “the world’s largest news and information provider.” The foundation asked 548 “women’s rights experts” to name the most dangerous countries from among the 193 United Nations member states in health care, access to economic resources, customary practices, sexual violence, and nonsexual violence and human trafficking.

The results came in as follows:

Saudi Arabia
Democratic Republic of Congo
United States
Notably missing from the Reuters list:

—South Sudan and Central African Republic, where the armed forces systematically rape women as a weapon of war.

—Mauritania, where an estimated 40 percent of the population is enslaved, presumably many of them women.

—North Korea, where tens of thousands of women are trafficked and trapped in prison camps.

—Iran, where women are arrested for taking off their hijabs and protesting an oppressive regime.

—China, where millions of baby girls were murdered under the country’s one-child policy.

—And Myanmar, where a genocide is happening under our watch.

I could go on. But somehow, it’s the U.S. where women are doomed.

If living in the United States is more dangerous for women than living in a country where boy’s and men’s bodies are used to create bonfires while women are raped and baby girls are grabbed by the leg and thrown into the fire to burn, then forgive me—I must be missing something. As far as I was aware, women in the U.S. face injustices, but we still have equality before the law.

The same can’t be said for these nine other countries, or the dozens of others that didn’t make the list of most dangerous countries for women.

The inclusion of the U.S. in this group demonstrates the level of ignorance among “women’s experts,” and why so many of them shouldn’t be trusted. It reflects the dangerous “victimhood” ideology that’s pervasive among college students, and shows how selfish American feminism has become.

Harvey Weinstein, after all, does not equate with Boko Haram.

In explaining the decision to rank the U.S. as the 10th-most dangerous country for women, the Thomson Reuters Foundation said:

The United States shot up in the rankings after tying joint third with Syria when respondents were asked which was the most dangerous country for women in terms of sexual violence including rape, sexual harassment, coercion into sex and the lack of access to justice in rape cases. It was ranked sixth for non-sexual violence.

The survey was taken after the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment went viral in October last year as Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 70 women, some dating back decades. Hundreds of women have since publicly accused powerful men in business, government and entertainment of sexual misconduct and thousands have joined the #MeToo social media movement to share stories of sexual harassment or abuse.

Specifically, experts ranked the U.S. the third-worst country for the category Sexual Violence, “including rape as a weapon of war; domestic rape; rape by a stranger; the lack of access to justice in rape cases; sexual harassment and coercion into sex as a form of corruption.”

That puts us just between Syria and Congo, the latter once called “the rape capital of the world.”

The U.S. also ranked sixth in Non-Sexual Violence, “including conflict-related violence and forms of domestic physical and mental abuse.” That leaves us just before Saudi Arabia, where women recently gained the right to drive.

#MeToo was a long, overdue movement, and the good news is that it’s creating change. Men who do wrong are being held accountable, and more women feel empowered to speak up. Yes, there’s still a lot of work to do. But the majority of our #MeToo cases don’t compare to women’s cries in the Middle East. Nor do our injustices hold water to the inequalities of women in the developing world.

We might face sexual harassment, assault, and even violence, but it’s not systematically used as a weapon of war. And sure, some of us don’t like our leader, but our government isn’t gassing its own people.

Speaking in relative terms, women in the U.S. are safe.

For anyone who’s perplexed about the level of outrage in America today, look no further than the results of this survey. According to “women’s experts,” there are 183 countries where women are better off living than the U.S.

To be fair, the U.S. does allow women to be thrown out of restaurants, and Democratic leaders call on their supporters to harass political opponents. But even so, women here have it pretty good. So good, in fact, that our borders are overwhelmed with people dreaming of calling this place “home.”

To pretend that life in America is more dangerous than so many other countries is nothing short of sad, insulting, and ludicrous. Because let’s be clear: Women are far better off living in the U.S. than they are in places like Myanmar.

“Women’s experts,” of all people, should know this.


Marine experiment finds women get injured more frequently, shoot less accurately than men

Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield, according to the results of a long-awaited study produced by the service.

The research was carried out by the service in a nine-month long experiment at both Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. About 400 Marines, including 100 women, volunteered to join the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, the unit the Marine Corps created to compare how men and women do in a combat environment.

“This is unprecedented research across the services,” said Marine Col. Anne Weinberg, the deputy director of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office. “What we tried to get to is what is that individual’s contribution to the collective unit. We all fight as units… We’re more interested in how the Marine Corps fights as units and how that combat effectiveness is either advanced or degraded.”

The study, an executive summary of which was released Thursday, was carried out as all the services prepare to submit recommendations to Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter this fall on whether any jobs should be kept closed to women. In a landmark decision in January 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rescinded a decades-old ban on women serving in combat jobs like infantry, but gave the services until this fall to research how they wanted to better integrate women and if any jobs should be kept closed.

The Pentagon faces increasing pressure to fully integrate women, following the historic Aug. 21 graduation of two female officers from the Army’s Ranger School. The legendarily difficult school was opened on an experimental basis this spring, with 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, 25, and Capt. Kristen Griest, 26, completing the requirements. Sixteen other women who attempted the course failed, while one other woman remained in the school’s third and final phase at Eglin Air Force Base as of last week.

The Marine Corps’ research will serve as fodder for those who are against fully integrating women. It found that all-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated better performance on 93 of 134 tasks evaluated (69 percent) than units with women in them. Units comprising all men also were faster than units with women while completing tactical movements in combat situations, especially in units with large “crew-served” weapons like heavy machine guns and mortars, the study found.

Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found.

The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.

The full study is more than a thousand pages long, Marine officials said. They anticipated publishing it online in coming days.

A physiological assessment carried out by the University of Pittsburgh’s Neuromuscular Research Laboratory found that the average man in the experimental integrated unit weighed 178 pounds with 20 percent body fat, while the average woman weighed 142 pounds with 24 percent body fat.

Researchers hooked men and women alike up to a variety of monitors, and found that the top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25th percentile of men when it came to anaerobic power, a measure of strength, Marine officials said. Those numbers were expected to a degree given the general size difference between the average man and woman.

The gender-integrated unit’s assessment also found that 40.5 percent of women participating suffered some form of musculoskeletal injury, while 18.8 percent of men did. Twenty-one women lost time in the unit due to injuries, 19 of whom suffered injuries to their lower extremities. Of those, 16 women were injured while while carrying heavy loads in an organized movement, like a march, the study found.

The kinds of injuries varied, too: The majority of women in the unit who lost time due to injuries suffered through hip problems, with foot and toe injuries also problematic. In men, the most common injuries were to the feet and toes, followed by the ankles, Weinberg said.

The research raises the question whether the Marine Corps may press to keep the infantry and Special Operations, in particular, closed to women. If they do so, they could face resistance from above: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who oversees both the Navy and Marine Corps, already has indicated that he sees no reason to keep the infantry closed to women.


Australia: Toy guns, superhero costumes and even LEGO could be banned from childcare centres as experts claim they encourage violent behaviour

Where is the evidence that such bans will have any benefit?  There is none

Children may be banned from playing with toy guns, fake plastic swords and even Lego due to fears they encourage violent behaviour.

Games such as 'cops and robbers' and mock bows and arrows could be barred at preschools as childcare centres try and stamp out what they believe is 'violent' behaviour.

Australian Childcare Alliance NSW president Lyn Connolly said children who want to make a gun from Lego blocks should be told 'how they can hurt people'. 

Ms Connolly told the Daily Telegraph that the potential effects of guns should be discussed with children.

The Australian Childcare Alliance will survey its 1,600 childcare centres for policies regarding toy weapons.

Ms Connolly said early childcare centres usually have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to fake weapons.

Child psychologist Dr Justin Coulson said there is no evidence playing with toy guns has an impact on behaviour.

'Even if we were to ban guns, kids will find other things to use if they want to play a 'goodies versus baddies' game.

'While I personally don't like it when kids play with replica guns and I have a personal and moral distaste, there is no evidence to suggest it causes any problems.'

Early Childhood Education Minister Sarah Mitchell said the NSW state government was able to take action against childcare providers that used toys which could pose a safety threat.

Australian Childcare Alliance vice president Nesha Hutchinson said children in rural areas often used toy guns as a teaching tool.

They would often have seen their parents using real weapons on farms, she said.



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

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

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


5 July, 2018

Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it

One could point out many examples of the saying that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.  The one that presses on us all most these days has to be the finding that a majority of Amerrican young people think well of socialism. That is not too surprising given that a modern American education usually includes little history. Even so, that there clearly is for many no memory of the Soviet or Maoist tyrannies is disturbing.

It is not socialism that is most at issue, however.  It is the culture wars.  The ferocious attacks on critics of homosexuality are a good example.  How can anybody be so dogmatic about the unattackable righteousness of homosexuality, knowing that only a few decades ago it was so execrated as to be illegal? Being informed by history, however, in particular by Karl Marx's hostility to the family, it seems to me that homosexuality is now being used by Leftist haters as a tool to attack the traditional family. I see a pretense that a perversion is being promoted as being in some way equal to normal family life.

So ignorance of even recent history  can be deplored. So what about the history of times much further back? I like to go back to Beowulf, an epic poem that is the only substantial remainder of pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon literature.  The values one encounters there are the values of our relatively recent ancestors -- people who came out of the womb very much like us -- and yet they are at huge variance with current Western values.  Formidableness in battle was the chief value then.

So Beowulf is a hugely useful corerctive to all assumptions that our culture is in any sense absolutely right.  It alerts us to the way our values are a product of our time and place and that they may be replaced by something quite different in the future.  It introduces us to humility about our beliefs.

In saying that, however, I realize that very few people are going to take time to read a poem from a thousand or more years ago.  So I am very pleased to have found a much shorter peom set to good music which has basically the same values as Beowulf.  It was written quite recently by Scottish/Canadian tenor John McDermott, well known in Canada.

I rather wonder what made McDermott able to think within a primitive pre-Christian mindset but he has done it  The values seem insanely warlike to a modern mind but they are in fact the values of our own pre-Christian ancestors so they should alert us to  how unwise it is to be dogmatic about the rightness of anything.

Below is a video and the lyrics of McDermott's version of Scotland the Brave. The values in the song probably do well represent the values of the Scots of old. They probably had to have such values to survive as an independent people.  To be a little bit Jungian about it, perhaps there was in McDermott a folk memory of how his remote Scottish ancestors would have felt.

Let Italy boast of her gay gilded waters
Her vines and her bowers and her soft sunny skies
Her sons drinking love from the eyes of her daughters
Where freedom expires amid softness and sighs

Scotland's blue mountains wild where hoary cliffs are piled
Towering in grandeur are dearer tae me
Land of the misty cloud land of the tempest loud
Land of the brave and proud land of the free

Enthroned on the peak of her own highland mountains
The spirit of Scotia reigns fearless and free
Her green tartan waving o'er blue rock and fountain
And proudly she sings looking over the sea

Here among my mountains wild I have serenely smiled
When armies and empires against me were hurled
Firm as my native rock I have withstood the shock
Of England, of Denmark, of Rome and the world

But see how proudly her war steeds are prancing
Deep groves of steel trodden down in their path
The eyes of my sons like their bright swords are glancing
Triumphantly riding through ruin and death

Bold hearts and nodding plumes wave o'er their bloody tombs
Deep eyed in gore is the green tartan's wave
Shivering are the ranks of steel, dire is the horseman's wheel

Victorious in battlefield Scotland the brave
Victorious in battlefield Scotland the brave


I wondered what McDermott was referrring to in his verse about Italy.  The best I could come up with was Monteverdi madrigals.  Below is "Chiome d' Oro" ("Tresses of gold" -- i.e. praise of a blonde woman)  A wonderful rendition performed on original instruments below.  Wait for the words:

Italian text

Chiome d’oro, bel tesoro,
tu mi leghi in mille modi
se t’annodi, se ti snodi.

Candidette perle elette,
se le rose che scoprite
discoprite, mi ferite.

Vive stelle, che sì belle
e sì vaghe risplendete,
se ridete m’ancidete.

Preziose, amorose,
coralline labbra amate,
se parlate mi beate.

O bel nodo per cui godo!
O soave uscir di vita!
O gradita mia ferita!

English translation

Golden tresses, oh so precious,
you bind me in a thousand ways
whether coiled or flowing freely.

Small, white matching pearls,
when the roses that conceal you
reveal you, you wound me.

Bright stars that shine
with such beauty and charm,
when you laugh you torture me.

Precious, seductive
coral lips I love,
when you speak I am blessed.

Oh dear bonds in which I take delight!
Oh fair mortality!
Oh welcome wound!

And then there is "Zefiro torna", which some regard as the best of Monteverdi's madrigals:

First in Italian then translated into English.


Zefiro torna e di soavi accenti
l’aer fa grato e’il pié discioglie a l’onde
e, mormoranda tra le verdi fronde,
fa danzar al bel suon su’l prato i fiori.

Inghirlandato il crin Fillide e Clori
note temprando lor care e gioconde;
e da monti e da valli ime e profond
raddoppian l’armonia gli antri canori.
Sorge più vaga in ciel l’aurora, e’l sole,
sparge più luci d’or; più puro argento
fregia di Teti il bel ceruleo manto.

Sol io, per selve abbandonate e sole,
l’ardor di due begli occhi e’l mio tormento,
come vuol mia ventura, hor piango hor canto.


Return O Zephyr, and with gentle motion
Make pleasant the air and scatter the grasses in waves
And murmuring among the green branches
Make the flowers in the field dance to your sweet sound;
Crown with a garland the heads of Phylla and Chloris
With notes tempered by love and joy,
From mountains and valleys high and deep
And sonorous caves that echo in harmony.
The dawn rises eagerly into the heavens and the sun
Scatters rays of gold, and of the purest silver,
Like embroidery on the cerulean mantle of Thetis.
But I, in abandoned forests, am alone.
The ardour of two beautiful eyes is my torment;
As my Fate wills it, now I weep, now I sing.

Gina Miller’s nasty elitism sums up Britain's EU enthusiasts

How dare you plebs question us experts? This is the cry of Remainers.

It’s not often I say this, but we should be grateful to Gina Miller. Ms Miller is the wealthy businesswoman who says the Brexit vote made her physically sick and who is so barren in the category of self-awareness that she once gave an interview to a fawning New Statesman hack in which she gabbed about the problems facing 21st-century Britain while ‘spread across a velvet sofa’ in a ‘high-ceilinged drawing room’ while her ‘multimillionaire husband’ acted as her bodyguard. So Caligulan! These are the people the left now loves. Anyway, we should nonetheless be grateful to Ms Miller because her latest outburst has really shone a light on what is driving elitist Brexitphobia.

On Friday, Ms Miller and a host of other female members of the great and good – lawyers, professors, peers, the daughters of filthy-rich capitalists, etc – wrote a letter to the Guardian – where else? – in which they opined that women’s rights would collapse post-Brexit. Because before the EU came into existence in 1992 – the year of Wet Wet Wet, John Major and Damien Hirst’s shark, in case you’re one of those people labouring under the illusion that the EU has existed forever – British women basically had no rights, right? It is only thanks to the grey, stale, quite male oligarchy in Brussels that British women were able to shake off the shackles of oppression. What an insult to the generations of British Suffragettes and libbers who spent decades struggling for freedom before the EU was even a glint in the eye of scheming bureaucrats.

Not surprisingly, Miller and Co’s ridiculous letter – long on initials after the signatories’ names, short on facts – caused annoyance. Not least among some of the millions of women who voted for Brexit. Ms Miller, incredulous that such inhabitants of the plebeian sections of society would presume to question her and her friends, all of whom are well-educated and read broadsheet newspapers, fired back at these little people on Twitter. ‘People responding negatively to our letter [regarding] loss of women’s rights post-Brexit know more than the top women signatories?’, she asked. Then she listed some of these ‘top women’. ‘Jessica Simor QC, Caroline Criado-Perez feminist activist, Cherie Blair QC, Helena Kennedy QC, Shona Jolly QC, Susie Courtault rights campaigner…’

We get it, you know a lot of QCs! And QCs count for more than you and me. This is what Miller is saying. She knows this is what she is saying, we know it is what she is saying, so can we cut to the chase here? Ms Miller is really asking, in the tone of a 17th-century monarch, or 19th-century boss, ‘Do you think you know more than me?’. And we should be glad she is, because this Twitter freakout, this rage of a businesswomen who puked over our vote, this listing of people who are better and cleverer than the rest of us, captures the essence of elitist Remoanerism – which is the belief that some people’s political views are worth more than other people’s, and therefore should carry more weight. Autocracy, as some of us might call it. Whatever it is, it isn’t democracy, which is a system in which everyone’s views, regardless of our racial, gender or educational background, are meant to impact equally on the fate of the nation.

Miller’s unguarded snobbery, her probably accidental exposure of her belief that lesser citizens should stop criticising people with letters after their names, confirms what lies behind Remoaners’ deification of expertise. It is a belief, as old as politics itself, that the well-educated and well brought-up are better placed to make political judgements than the rest of us. Right from Plato’s ‘Philosopher Kings’ to the complaint that was made about women demanding the vote in the late 19th century – as one misogynist politician put it, women ‘lack the expertise… which is necessary for informed political activity’ – there has always been this idea that some people, us, are better at thinking and deciding and doing politics than other people: them. You know them: the kind of folks who vote for Brexit or who outrageously clog up Ms Miller’s Twitterfeed with – brace yourselves – negative comments.

This is the tyranny of expertise. This is the thing Michael Gove was dead right about – and you could tell he was dead right because his comments sent the chattering classes into a political tailspin – when he said people have ‘had enough of experts’. This public bristling against the elevation of expertise in political and social matters isn’t philistinism, as the elitists claim it is, and nor is it a folk-wisdom that prefers the diagnosis of a witch doctor over the insights of Western science. Rather, it is part of a great and democratic growing discomfort with the way in which the beatification of experts grates against the ideal of ‘one person, one vote’ by suggesting, or outright arguing, that some people and some groups should have more say than us.

The populist revolt against experts is a wonderful and positive moment in British politics. This is people saying, ‘Our views count as much as yours. When it comes to politics, our say is absolutely equal to your say, even if we might be poorer than you and have fewer PhDs’. This is in keeping with virtually every stab for the expansion of democracy in history, all of which have relied upon a scepticism about elevated expertise and a conviction that ordinary working people have just as much to contribute to political debate as lords and ladies and business owners do.

In fact, I’d go further: in answer to the question Miller is really asking – which is, ‘Do you lot think you know better than us?’ – we should say ‘Yes’. Yes, by dint of the fact that ordinary people really live in society in a way that bureaucrats and businesspeople often don’t, and therefore are very often more sensitive and alert and thoughtful about the difficulties facing that society, they know more than you. They are better than you at making long-term political decisions that will benefit everyone. They are more politically trustworthy than those who have vested interests, narrow experiences, and a sometimes jaundiced view of society and its inhabitants. But don’t worry, we are democrats, which means we won’t let the fact that ordinary people are better placed than the elites to make sensible political decisions get in the way of your rights. So you’ll still have a vote. That’s all, though. One vote. Like the rest of us.


Why Britain's Deradicalization Programs Are Failing

A. Z. Mohamed says radical Islam is straight from Muslim scriptures so you must tackle that in some way to have much  success

The vast majority of deradicalization programs in the UK are at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive, according to a recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT, also known as the "nudge unit"), a social purpose company partially owned by the UK government, but that works in partnership with the Cabinet Office.

As the Times reported recently, BIT examined 33 deradicalization programs across Britain, in schools, youth centers, sports clubs and English-language classes. Most of these are part of Prevent -- a strategy presented in 2011 to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department -- designed to keep vulnerable citizens from becoming terrorists or supporting any form of violent extremism inspired by radical Islamist or right-wing ideologies. BIT found that only two of the programs have been successful.

The main reason for the failure of the other 31 programs, according to the Times' report on the study, is:

"...that facilitators were uncomfortable dealing with sensitive topics and would often refuse to engage if they were brought up. BIT found that teachers in particular were afraid to bring up matters of race and religion with their students without appearing discriminatory, often causing them to refuse to talk about these topics entirely."

The two effective initiatives, according to the Times, were "one defying political correctness and tackling difficult issues head-on and the other directly addressing extremism in religious [Islamic] texts."

In Britain, the majority (82%) of the 228 people in custody for terrorism-related offenses espouse Islamist extremism. In August 2017, the EU's counter-terrorism coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, said that the UK has more radicalized Muslims than any other European country. He added that Britain "has identified 20,000 to 35,000 radicals. Of these, 3,000 are worrying for MI5, and of those 500 are under constant and special attention."

In a speech in London on June 4, Britain's recently appointed Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP, said that the UK's "... biggest threat [today] is from Islamist terrorism – including Al Qa'ida, but particularly from Daesh.

"While the so-called caliphate is a thing of the past, Daesh continues to plan and inspire attacks both here and abroad as well as recruiting British citizens to fight.

"Over the past 5 years, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have foiled as many as 25 Islamist-linked plots."

"But the threat doesn't only come from Daesh. "Extreme right-wing terrorism is also an increasing threat... Daesh and the extreme right wing are more similar than they might like to think. "They both exploit grievances, distort the truth, and undermine the values that hold us together.  "And they don't hesitate to learn lessons from each other."

"Misapprehensions around Prevent are often based on distortions.  "They are based on a lack of understanding about the grassroots work that is involved, and the efforts by civil society groups and public-sector workers to protect vulnerable people.

"We have a moral and social obligation to safeguard vulnerable people from the twisted propaganda of those seeking to radicalise them. "And Prevent is about doing just that."

To illustrate the benefits of Prevent programs, Javid told the story of a 13-year-old boy:

"He witnessed domestic abuse at home and suffered from racist bullying at school. He started to watch violent propaganda online and to show an interest in fighting for Daesh. But he was given the mentoring and support that he needed to stop him from going down that wrong path. Now his mum says, and I quote, 'he's no longer on the path to radicalisation and all he wants to be is a car salesman.'"

Unwittingly, by recounting this tale, Javid showed just why the deradicalization programs he is defending do not work. He reduced the radicalization of a Muslim teenager to domestic abuse, racist bullying at school and online violent propaganda. He said nothing about the boy's family's religious faith, radical Islam or the narrative of hate and intolerance founded on a "radical" interpretation of the Quran and Sunna to which the boy may well have been exposed at home, at the mosque and over the internet. Instead, Javid provided a politically correct narrative to back up his assertion that Prevent is not only a success, but part of the "new counter-terrorism strategy" he was unveiling.

Javid then devoted a whole section of his speech to his fellow Muslims in Britain:

"After any [terrorist] attack, a lot of well-meaning people will line up to say it has nothing to do with Islam. That the perpetrators are not true Muslims. I understand this reaction. I know they are not true Muslims. But there's no avoiding the fact that these people they self-identify as Muslims.

"Let me be very clear. Muslims are in no way responsible for the acts of a tiny minority who twist their faith. And I know that there is no such thing as a single, homogenous Muslim community. Muslims live and thrive in all walks of British life and society.

"Globally, Muslims are by far the biggest victims of Islamist terrorism. And Muslims are fighting and dying on the frontline of the battle against terrorism every day.

"It would be absurd to say that the actions of a tiny handful in any way represent a peaceful, wonderful religion shared by a billion people worldwide.

"That's exactly why, although we all share the responsibility for tackling terrorism, there's a unique role for Muslims to play in countering this threat.

"British Muslims up and down the country are leading the fight against Islamist extremists by throwing them out of their mosques and by countering poison online and on the streets. It is incredibly powerful when a young Muslim man turns their back on the preachers of hate, and say: 'Your bigotry and bloodlust have no place in the modern world.'

"I want to say to all those who stand up against all forms of extremism that this government stands with you..."

The trouble with Javid's tribute to those Muslims who "stand up against all forms of extremism" is that bigotry and bloodlust are not merely figments of Islamist extremists' minds that lead to their violent conduct. They stem from an authentic interpretation of Quranic verses and hadiths, which -- according to Londonistan author Melanie Phillips -- "although millions of Muslims don't subscribe to it, currently dominates the Islamic world." Sadly, worldwide, Muslims, too, are often victims of Muslim violence.

For deradicalization programs -- and counter-terrorism initiatives -- to work, they must first defy political correctness, tackle the root causes of Islamist extremism and address all related sensitive issues, including those which appear in Islamic texts. British Muslims should not only participate in this endeavor, but be on the front lines, monitoring early signs of radicalization and ceasing to show sympathy for or to rationalize violence.


Australia's absurd Human rights commission strikes again. Orders Suncorp Bank to compensate paedophile after it refused to hire him because of his criminal record - but the bank refuses to pay

The Commission has only advisory power.  It has to go to court to enforce anything.  It would lose this one

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) ordered Suncorp to compensate a registered sex offender but the bank refused to pay.

Despite the AHRC ruling a man was 'discriminated against due to his criminal record' the bank insisted the man's convictions for possessing child pornography justified the decision not to hire him.

The man, known as BE, had applied to be an insurance claims consultant at Suncorp in 2015.

While AHRC president Rosalind Croucher conceded BE did not fully disclose his criminal record, she still ordered the company to pay him a total of $2,500.

Prof Croucher said in a statement, 'Notwithstanding the very serious nature of Mr BE's convictions, I find that Suncorp's decision to deny Mr BE the opportunity to access employment with Suncorp constituted an exclusion which impaired Mr BE's equality of opportunity.

'I accept that having a conditional offer of employment ­extended to him, and then ­rescinded on the basis of a criminal record that does not adequately relate to the ­inherent requirements of the role has caused ... distress'.

BE reportedly answered 'No' to a question in his online application that asked if he had been convicted of an offence.  

BE's criminal record dates back to 2008, which included convictions of 'use of a carriage service to access child pornography material' and 'possession of child pornography'.

BE was sentenced to a year in jail and was suspended for two years.

Suncorp was also told to re-educate its staff, revise its policies, and review its conduct after the incident.

'We have carefully considered your findings and recommendations,'Suncorp responded in a December 2015 statement.  'In particular, we note your finding that Mr [BE] was discriminated against on the basis of his criminal record.

'We respectfully maintain that Mr [BE]'s criminal record is of a serious nature and impacts on his ability to perform the inherent requirements of the Work@Home Consultant role. 'For this reason, Suncorp declines to pay any compensation to Mr [BE].

'Notwithstanding the above, Suncorp has developed comprehensive recruitment procedures and provides on-going training to employees, including in relation to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity.

'These procedures and training assist with ensuring we can fairly assess whether a prospective employee with a criminal record can perform the inherent requirements of a particular role, on a case by case basis.'



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

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

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


4 July, 2018

Germany caves: To lock up new illegals until it can send them back

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have settled a row over immigration that threatened to topple her fragile governing coalition after talks with her rebellious interior minister led him to drop his threat to resign.

Emerging after five hours of talks, Horst Seehofer, leader of Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU), told reporters he would remain in his post after a deal with Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) that he said would stem illegal immigration.

"After intensive discussions between the CDU and CSU we have reached an agreement on how we can in future prevent illegal immigration on the border between Germany and Austria," he told reporters on leaving the CDU's Berlin headquarters.

Under the deal, outlined by the CDU's General Secretary Annagret Kramp-Karrenbauer, migrants who have already applied for asylum in other European Union countries will be held in transit centres on the border while Germany negotiates bilateral deals for their return.

The row had stretched a 70-year-old alliance between the two parties to the breaking point. Merkel said a "really good compromise" on immigration had been reached.

It meant that Seehofer was able to hail tighter immigration controls, while Merkel was able to say that Germany adhered to EU rules and was committed to the principles of freedom movement within the bloc. It comes as EU leaders reached a deal on the continent's approach to the migrant crisis last week.

Seehofer was the premier of Bavaria when his state became the main gateway into Germany for migrants in 2015. He wanted Germany to block migrants at the border if they have no papers or have already registered in another European country.

Merkel's CDU relies on the CSU to maintain power through a coalition, which also includes the centre-left Social Democrats.

The CSU faces a strong challenge from the far-right Alternative for Germany in October's regional election.


Study Reveals What Women Are 'Hard-Wired' To Find Attractive. Feminists Are Going To HATE It

Turns out, women are hard-wired to be much more attracted to male protectors who espouse so-called "benevolent sexism" than men who treat them as equals. And the best part: this is true even for hardcore feminists, scientists found.

According to a new study from University of Kent and Iowa State University scientists, which was published on Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, women overwhelmingly preferred chivalrous men who viewed women as needing protecting. Researchers Pelin Gul and Tom Kupfer classify this apparently "patronizing" behavior as "benevolent sexism" (BS), or well-meaning sexism. The researchers suggest that women are hard-wired to overlook the "harmful consequences" of BS, "because BS mates are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit)," reads the study's abstract. Gul and Kupfer chalk this up to natural selection, a symptom of which women have yet to shake.

As noted by The Daily Mail, the research was collected from five study groups full of women, with the largest group comprising of 233 women, and the smallest with 104. The females were asked to view scenarios of interactions from men, which "included men who were kind but in what is considered a sexist way, and men who treated the women as equals and didn't offer any special treatment." They were then asked to rate the men's "warmth and attractiveness, and how willing they thought they would be to provide for, protect or commit to them." They also divulged their own degree of their feminist leanings, outlining how "patronizing" or "undermining" they found the behavior.

"Women find benevolent sexist [BS] men attractive, not because they are ignorant of the harmful effects, but despite being aware of them," the scientists found. "This suggests that the desirable aspects of BS attitudes and behaviors are sufficient to overcome the perceived negative effects."

"Our proposal is that women approve of BS attitudes and behaviors because they are taken as cues that a man is willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed," the duo added.

And it gets even worse for feminists who promote sameness instead of equality for the sexes: they desire "sexist" men, too!

"Evidence shows that many women – even those who desire [equal] relationships – want a man to be chivalrous, by, for example, paying for dates and opening doors for them," wrote the researchers. "Furthermore, the finding that high feminist women, and not only low feminist women, rated a [sexist] potential romantic partner as more attractive despite being more aware of the detrimental effects, suggests that the attraction may be a mate preference for women in general, and not just for women who endorse traditional gender roles."

Uh-oh, looks like we have a whole gender full of "internalized misogynists." Or maybe it's just biology; and men and women value different things and generally play different roles because — gasp — they are different.


The federal government continues to use your money to promote the homosexual agenda

The most heavily favored and pandered “marginalized” group in U.S., the homosexual community, just finished celebrating their designated “pride” month. And as if Americans were still unaware of their minority status, the federal government did its utmost to ensure the ubiquitous presence of the rainbow. Following Barack Obama’s evolution on same-sex marriage, along with this repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” federal agencies have made a concerted effort to celebrate LGBT Pride Month ever since. And since Donald Trump’s election, how have the agencies responded?

First, Trump clearly broke with his predecessor’s practice and did not issue a Pride Month proclamation. This year, the Pentagon also passed on offering any proclamation. But there were several agencies that did celebrate, including Veterans Affairs, which put on a drag show; the CIA with new Director Gina Haspel recognizing Major General Tammy Smith as the highest-ranking openly homosexual general in U.S. history; NASA joined in San Fransisco’s LGBT Pride Parade; and the National Park Service (NPS) celebrated the month with photos of employees on its website marching in Pride parades and brandishing rainbow flags.

As for the NPS, it’s already anticipating next year: “June is Pride Month, and while Stonewall National Monument shares the unforgettable story of the 1969 riots year-round, this year kicks off a special countdown to World Pride in 2019. This annual event, which will be hosted by New York City in 2019, is the largest global Pride celebration. It will mark the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising and its pivotal role as the birthplace of the modern lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer civil rights movement.”

That’s just a brief look at how American tax dollars are being spent to promote an agenda of immorality, and to normalize and celebrate pathological gender dysphoria.


Feminists are to blame for women freezing their eggs: Inability to find males who will commit to a relationship is the most common reason for procedure, rather than career, finds study

The viciousness of feminist-inspired divorce laws sends men running from committment

Single women are freezing their eggs due them being unable to find men who will commit to a relationship, rather than to focus on their careers, new research suggests.

Delaying motherhood to focus on work is the least common reason women undergo the procedure, a Yale University study found today.

Most women who freeze their eggs are single, divorced or in broken relationships and wish to keep their options open, the research adds.

Some even freeze their eggs because they would rather be single mothers, the study found.

The researchers claim the reason for egg freezing 'mostly revolves around women's lack of stable partnerships with men committed to marriage and parenting'.

Around 76,000 egg-freezing procedures are expected to take place in the US this year. Since 2010, at least 471 babies have been born from frozen eggs in the UK.

The researchers analysed 150 women who chose to freeze their eggs from four IVF clinics in the US and three in Israel.

The women were interviewed about their reasons to undergo the procedure.

Some 85 percent of the participants were single, with the remainder being in new or uncertain relationships, polygamous couples, or with men who do not want children.

More mothers are waiting until later in life to have children, but pregnancy after 50 is still quite rare.

A woman's fertility begins to decline in her early 30s. After age 35, her number of viable eggs starts to fall more quickly.

Women are born with a set amount of follicles - between one and two million - or immature eggs.

These develop at different rates. Some follicles never release an fully-fledged egg, but each month the ovaries release one egg to wait for fertilization in the uterus.

Most women only ovulate around 450 eggs over the course of their lives, so by their late 40s, most have run out and start to head toward menopause. 

Menopause begins around age 51 for the average woman, at which point pregnancy becomes impossible.

However, even as fertility is declining among American women (and men) overall, one group is having a few more babies than they did in the past: older women.

The birthrate among women between 45 and 49 - the oldest group that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks - went up by 0.1 percent between 2016 and 2017.

In 2013, an estimated 677 American women over 50 gave birth, marking a 370 percent increase over the 144 such births in 1977.

So far, an Indian woman believed to be in her 70s who had a baby boy in 2016 is thought to be the oldest to give birth, though a 66-year-old holds the official record.

Celebrities too, have made headlines for having in their later years, including Janet Jackson who had her son, Eissa Al Mana, at age 50. 

A growing number of women choose to freeze their eggs - which decline in quality with age - while they are younger, use IVF, surrogates or donor eggs in order to have children at more advanced ages.

But pregnancy after peak fertility can come with risks. 

Older women are more likely to develop high blood pressure, preeclampsia, diabetes and heart problems, so most doctors screen them carefully if they are trying to conceive.

If women in this age group do get pregnant, doctors will continue to monitor them closely as a precaution, but they can certainly have healthy pregnancies, and a growing number are doing just that.

Women turn to egg freezing due to a lack of a 'stable partner'

Results further suggest women are more likely to freeze their eggs because their partners work abroad than to focus on their careers.

Speaking of the findings , study author Dr Marcia Inhorn said: 'Our study suggests that the lack of a stable partner is the primary motivation. Freezing eggs holds out hope for many.'

'Most women had already pursued and completed their educational and career goals but by their late 30s had been unable to find a lasting reproductive relationship with a stable partner. This is why they turned to egg freezing.'

'Their choices are to freeze their eggs, hope to find a partner or decide to become a single mother with donor sperm.'

Dr Inhorn adds doctors performing such procedures should be aware of the potential reasons behind women's decisions and offer appropriate support.

The findings were presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Barcelona.

This comes after research released last July by the same researchers found most women who freeze their eggs are doing so because they cannot find a similarly successful man.

The claim was made following reports that women are a third more likely to attend university than men in the UK.

These highly-educated women, who pay around £5,000 each for egg freezing, are described as the ‘leftover women’ amid a generation of ‘missing men’.

Their problem, according to the researchers, is they are unable to find similarly clever, driven men because fewer males are entering higher education. Dr Inhorn said: ‘There are not enough graduates for them. In simple terms, this is about an oversupply of educated women.

‘In China they call them “leftover women”. It sounds cold and callous but in demographic terms this is about missing men and leftover women.'



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

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

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


3 July, 2018

Why I favor the Equal Rights Amendment

Because it should KILL affirmative action for women stone dead. It reads:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

But equality between the sexes is denied if a more qualified male candidate for a job is passed over in favour of a less qualified woman.  Yet that is a continuous cry from the Left these days.  They want equal numbers of men and women in many jobs and try to set quotas which would achieve that.  But all that agitation would be pointless if men and women were equally qualified.  The whole feminist aim is to pass over a well qualified male in favour of a less qualified person with less between her legs.  You might call it genital determinism.

There is in fact a great deal of favoritism, both deliberate and narural in favour of women. Probably natural is the greater presence of women in the universities.  But that preponderance would seem to fly in the face of the ERA.  There are simply fewer men admitted and that would have to change -- presumably by easing the admission requirements for men.

The straightforward interpretation of the ERA that I have put forward, however, may not be adopted by the courts.  The courts twist the law to suit their ideology at will and you can be sure that courts would be anxious to avoid feminist rage.  The configuration of SCOTUS created by Trump, however, might very well adopt the literal interpretation that I have proposed.  That would be a great victory over feminist bigotry and bias.

The uncertainty about what courts would rule does however add to the many reasons given below about why an ERA is a bad idea

The idea that the Constitution doesn’t protect equal rights for women, or that the Founders didn’t include women in their views about individual rights, is completely wrong.

Unfortunately, some self-described members of the “Me Too” movement have embraced the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to “fix” the Constitution, including actress Alyssa Milano, who spoke at rallies to generate support in New York City and Washington, D.C.

Illinois recently became the 37th state to ratify this proposed constitutional amendment, which says, in part: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

The amendment has been a huge issue for the left for quite some time. In 2014, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called it her most favored addition to the Constitution.

“If I could choose an amendment to add to the Constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment,” Ginsburg said. “ … I would like my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion—that women and men are persons of equal stature—I’d like them to see that is a basic principle of our society.”

Ultimately, attempts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment are mostly symbolic for now.

Passage of a constitutional amendment requires 38 states to ratify it. This seemingly puts the Equal Rights Amendment one state away from passage—but most of the other states ratified the amendment in the 1970s, and five actually rescinded their vote (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota, and Kentucky).

When Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, it insisted that the amendment be ratified by the states by 1982, that is, within 10 years.

Only 35 states ratified the amendment by the deadline. It’s likely those states will have to re-ratify the amendment for it to pass.

The Equal Rights Amendment is likely a ways away from passing, but it’s worth noting the false premise it’s built on

Many on the left charge that the Constitution doesn’t protect equal rights for women. But that is simply incorrect, and it is misleading to portray the document as inherently sexist.

As historian Thomas G. West wrote in his book “Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America,” it’s incorrect to claim that the founding documents are inherently sexist.

“The word ‘men’ in the Declaration [of Independence] means mankind, human beings, male and female, or whatever color or race,” West wrote.

While the Founding Fathers certainly didn’t have modern views about the equality of men and women, that is not to say that they did not believe that women, too, qualified for the basic rights and dignities that the new country would be founded upon.

West noted that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, explained in his famed “Notes on the State of Virginia” that only a barbarous society would deny women their equal, God-given rights.

In recognizing these rights, Jefferson explained, however, we must recognize that men and women are different.

This created some problems for early proponents of an Equal Rights Amendment in the 1920s. Many women, especially those working in blue-collar industries, feared they would lose special protections designed for women and mothers working in industries requiring manual labor.

“Civilized men, in Jefferson’s view, do not abuse their superior natural strength. They treat women as free beings, not as slaves compelled to toil for their male masters,” West wote.

Civilization, Jefferson wrote, “first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves. Were we in equal barbarism, our females would be equal drudges.”

The Constitution, following this line of thinking, makes no distinction between men and women.

“Whenever the Constitution speaks of ‘privileges guaranteed to individuals,’ women are always included by clear implication,” West wrote. “Or are we to assume that the constitutional guarantee of ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus’ means that women (but not men) may be imprisoned but not charged with a specific crime? … Obviously not.”

From the time of the nation’s founding, women could give equal testimony in court, own property, and even vote in some states.

While the 19th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote nationally, many states allowed women to vote long before the law went into effect in 1920.

In fact, New Jersey allowed women to vote in the 1790s, in an era in which voting was restricted for some men, such as nonproperty holders. Many Western states in particular opened up voting to women in the 19th century.

Ultimately, the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment likely would cause more problems than it would solve, even for the people who have become proponents.

It would mean that women would have to be registered for the military draft, for one, and could eliminate laws that benefit women, such as alimony.

The late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who was instrumental in killing the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, wrote in 2007 that it would “[A]bolish the presumption that the husband should support his wife and take away Social Security benefits for wives and widows.”

“It would also give federal courts and the federal government enormous new powers to reinterpret every law that makes a distinction based on gender, such as those related to marriage, divorce and alimony,” Schlafly wrote.

The concerns of the Me Too movement have more to do with culture than anything else, and while the Equal Rights Amendment is unlikely to turn the Harvey Weinsteins of the world into angels, the goal of many of its advocates is to codify the most extreme elements of the sexual revolution into law.

Pro-life groups worry that the Equal Rights Amendment could be a method to add a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortion.

Some proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have argued that putting any limitations at all on abortion would be in violation of the amendment and a form of sex discrimination.

Certainly, adding abortion-neutral language to the proposed amendment has been met with fierce opposition in the past.

National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis, a conservative columnist, explained why the Equal Rights Amendment is both useless regarding the specific concerns of the Me Too movement and dangerous when it comes to the Constitution.

DeSanctis wrote:

If they get their way, it will no longer be the Department of Health and Human Services forcing employers to subsidize contraceptives and abortifacients; it will be the Equal Rights Amendment. When the giants of the abortion industry insist that Congress use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, they will come carrying a copy of Madison’s founding document. Every demand for complete sexual libertinism, facilitated by the state, will suddenly have behind it the imprimatur of the U.S. Constitution. That’s what they’re after.

Schlafly and a powerful contingent of social conservatives, led by traditionalist women, killed the Equal Rights Amendment even in the culturally heady days of the 1970s, and it should remain a dead issue.

The Constitution already protects equal natural rights for women. There’s no need to revise the document to include a weapon for left-wing social engineering on a national scale.


Black culture in action

A Michigan woman has been charged after she allegedly bit part of a Chinese restaurant owner's ear off because she wasn't happy with her order.

Jade Anderson, 24, was upset about her order at China 1 restaurant in Mount Clemens on Thursday night, reported the Macomb Daily, although it's unclear what she was angry about.

Due to a language barrier, the son of the owner and his wife, described by a witness to be around 10 or 11 years old, was translating Anderson's complaints.

According to the newspaper, Anderson allegedly pushed the son to the ground and threw her food to the floor.

After she began assaulting the wife, the owner stepped in to try and intervene.

Anderson then began assaulting the owner. As she was being pushed out the door, she allegedly bit the man's ear, partially detaching it.

A 911 call from the owner's son was released by WXYZ.  'There's a violent woman over here hitting my mom. She also hit me,' the owner's son is heard saying.

'Who is she?' the 911 dispatcher asks. 'I don't know. I'm scared. Can you please come? She's fighting us right now,' the son says.

Macomb County Sheriff deputies were called to the restaurant around 9.40pm. They found the owner with his ear partially bitten off and a woman with a large bump on her forehead.

Anderson was arrested by authorities and booked on charges of assault with intent to maim charge.

She is being held at the Macomb County Jail in lieu of a $20,00 bail and is due in court on July 11.

The Macomb County Sheriff's Office said that the owner was taken to a hospital and treated for his injuries while the wife was treated at the scene. The son was not injured, deputies said.

The Macomb Daily reported that the China 1 property is owned by Byung Kim and Young Kim of Troy, according to Mount Clemens tax records.

The newspaper also reported that incorporation records from the state of Michigan show that the president of the China 1 location is Liang Wu.

Deputies said Anderson left a small child at home unsupervised when she went to the restaurant. The deputies said the child has been turned over to a 'responsible adult'.

On Friday afternoon, a sign at the restaurant read that it was closed 'because of some reasons', reported WXYZ.


UN to Trump: Accept Muslim Refugees and Illegal Aliens or Else

President Trump has released his updated travel ban and it looks to be legally bulletproof.

The State of Hawaii has filed a lawsuit against the revised Middle Eastern refugee ban, but it’s unlikely to be successful. In 2015, Hawaii resettled just FIVE refugees and none of them were from the six countries on the ban list. Hard to prove that Hawaii was negatively affected by the order…

Now, the DOJ is filing motions to dismiss the dozens of lawsuits against the old order. But lo and behold, a new challenger has emerged. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is meeting behind closed doors to debate whether to go after the United States for violating international law.

That’s right. There are bureaucrats in the UN considering suing the United States and forcing us to accept refugees and illegal aliens..

And the biggest slap in the face is that this whole lawsuit is being financed with our tax dollars!

Enough of this nonsense. Send your urgent FaxBlast to Congress and DEMAND they pass Ted Cruz’s legislation to defund the UN once and for all!

Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, declared that President Trump’s policies are “in breach of international law, if undertaken without due process guarantees, including individual assessment.”


College student sues woman for $6million claiming her false rape accusation at a frat party has destroyed his life

A college student is suing a woman for $6million because he says her unsubstantiated claims that he raped her after a drunken frat party have 'destroyed' his life.

Catherine Reddington, 22, has claimed repeatedly via social media that Alex Goldman raped her following a party in April last year at Syracuse University's Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity in upstate New York.

She informed police and the university of the rape accusations in the days after the party and has taken to social media several times in the past month to reveal the details of her alleged assault.

Goldman, also 22, was expelled from Syracuse University after the claims surfaced and more recently was fired from his summer internship with an engineering firm when his accuser informed them of the allegations.

He was never arrested or charged over the incident.

'During the early hours of April 23, 2017 I was raped and sodomized. I woke up in Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity in Alex Goldman's bed confused, bloody, bruised, with ripped clothing and splinter,' Reddington wrote on Facebook on June 4.

'Alex Goldman is a rapist.'

A police investigation into the allegations found no evidence that Reddington had been raped or even had a sexual encounter with Goldman that night.

The investigation, which involved a medical exam and rape kit within 26 hours of the alleged incident, found Reddington had no internal cuts or abrasions in her vagina and that there was no traces of Goldman's DNA.

Both Reddington and Goldman said at the time that they had no memory of the night before.

Goldman filed a defamation lawsuit against Reddington last week claiming that his former classmate is waging a campaign to 'destroy and wreak havoc' on his life and get him expelled from his new school.

'In the past few weeks, in particular, (Reddington) has made numerous posts on social media platforms Facebook and Linkedln falsely accusing Mr Goldman of sexual assault and stating that he is a 'rapist',' the lawsuit states.

'These posts by (Reddington) included a picture of Mr Goldman and 'tagged' Mr Goldman's employer and the university where Mr Goldman attends college. These vicious accusations were knowingly false and intentionally made. These social media posts have been viewed and 'liked' by thousands of people.'

In her Facebook posts, Reddington has often tagged the New Jersey Institute of Technology - the school Goldman now attends.

She also left a review on NJIT's Facebook page that reads: 'A school that accepts recently expelled rapists, despite it being marked on their transcript...'

Reddington contacted Goldman's employer, Bohler Engineering, over social media to inform them of the allegations. She then posted what appeared to be an exchange with Bohler in which they informed her that Goldman had been fired.

Goldman is now seeking $6million in damages from the defamation lawsuit claiming he has suffered emotional, mental and economic harm because of Reddington's allegations.



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

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

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


2 July, 2018

Australia is a Feminist's despair

Below is the first part of a familiar rant from an unhappy lady.  Her ethnography is correct.  Australians really are like that. 

I would be regarded s a deep-dyed villain in her book.  On family BBQs, my ex-wife sometimes gets me my meal, then usually gets me my dessert and then asks me later on if I would like a cup of tea.  I rarely get up.

So why does she do that?  It's to a small degree because we are a pretty traditional family but the real reason is simply that she is a very kind person.  She knows that I am rather clumsy and get involved in conversations with the men present so she simply looks after me. I noted the same in Scotland when I was there. I asked one of the Scotsmen at a BBQ why they did not fetch their own meal from the BBQ.  He said: "My wife knows what I take"

There are many kind women in Australia who willingly do most of the housework. They have various expectations of their men and if those expectations are fulfilled they are happy to do their bit.  The writer below seems not to know that.

The basic truth that she misses is that all relationships are different and the mix of expectations will differ too.  As she herself acknowledes, the pattern I am familiar with is the norm.  She wants to change the norm.  That is rigid and dogmatic on her part.  She should respect differences and stop trying to impose her preferred relationship pattern on others. 

In fact, she has the unshakeable conviction about the rightness of her values that one so often sees on the Left  -- a conviction that in Communist regimes regularly leads to mass murder.  How much better for all of us it would be if the values of the carpenter of Nazareth were our guide

AT A party a few weeks ago, I witnessed a blood-boiling example of inequality. Through the entire three courses of dinner — for which the women had put together salads and baked desserts, organised decorations and gifts for the birthday boy — the majority of men remained glued to their seats as we milled among them, collecting plates, serving food and effectively waited on them, hand and foot.

It was a clear example at the huge gulf between the sexes in Aussie culture.

While there’s plenty of talk about Australian men increasing their housework effort, and being ahead in their contribution of men in other countries, it’s clear women are still picking up far too much of the slack. While I am fortunate to be in the minority of women with a husband more anal than I am about germs, women continue to do up to two-thirds more housework than men, according to data from the 2016 Census. I should also point out that while neither of us cares that much about housework, both of us are aware of the fine line between pretending not to care and hoarding empty wine bottles and “Pods” packets under the bed.

In his article, “Dirty Secret: Why Is There Still A Housework Gender Gap”, Oliver Burkeman sums up the problem rather succinctly when he says: “The ‘housework gap’ largely stopped narrowing in the 1980s. Men, it seems, conceded that they should be doing more than before — but then, having half-heartedly vacuumed the living room and passed a dampened cloth over the dining table, concluded that it was time for a nice sit-down.”

I can believe it.



"...women continue to do up to two-thirds more housework than men"

 I doubt that statement is true, certainly not if we include house, garden and vehicle maintenance. I suspect she is one of those one-eyed, egocentric, ungrateful and perpetually irritable women. She says herself that her blood boils when she sees women bringing men their meals. Yuck...what a noxious creature she must be. Anyone with both eyes open can see that generally men do all of nearly all of the more physical and technical things around the house and property, the operating, repairing, maintaining and servicing of machinery such as motor vehicles, lawn mowers, chainsaws, and other equipment, repairing fences, gates, sharpening equipment, the building and renovating of things, all the dangerous work that involves plumbing, electricity, crawling inside and on the roof, cleaning and repairing roof guttering,... etc, etc, but she is blind to all that. And she is probably also blind to the fact that most men work

Europe's migration fiasco: Brussels plan to build EU migrant centre descends into farce as leaders queue to say 'not in my back yard'

A Brussels plan to build EU migrant detention centres descended into farce last night as European leaders lined up to refuse to host them.

The proposal was billed as an attempt to alleviate pressure on frontline Mediterranean countries, where the vast majority of migrants arrive.

But French president Emmanuel Macron said he would not host one of the ‘controlled centres’ and Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz mocked the prospect of one being built in his country.

EU leaders want to build migrant centres in north Africa to prevent them attempting to risk their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean

The detention centre proposal was part of a strategy agreed by EU leaders on Thursday night with the aim of ending a brewing immigration row. But key aspects of the plan unravelled within hours of being agreed.

EU diplomats last night poured scorn on the migration deal. One said: ‘It has kept everybody happy, but parts of it are an obvious fudge.’

Another said: ‘This is a bit of paper that will never become reality. It is a mess and will discredit the EU because it is unworkable and everyone knows it is unworkable.’

None the less, the deal appeared to have brought Angela Merkel’s political career back from the brink of collapse. The embattled German chancellor heralded the agreement as an ‘important step’ after it was thrashed out over a marathon dinner in Brussels that ran into the early hours of yesterday morning.

But the proposal to build migrant detention centres across the EU where asylum requests would be fast-tracked sparked a war of words between the leaders. Mr Macron said the secure centres would be reserved for Mediterranean countries at the forefront of key migrant routes, such as Malta, Italy, Spain and Greece.

‘France is not a country of first arrival,’ he said. ‘Some want to push us to that and I refused it.’

But Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte rejected Mr Macron’s suggestion that the asylum centres would be hosted in countries such as Italy. He said: ‘Macron was tired. I deny what he said.’

Asked if he would host a migrant centre in Austria, Mr Kurz said: ‘Of course not... we are not a first arrivals country, unless people jump from parachutes.’

The centres will only be opened if EU member states agree to them and governments can refuse to host asylum seekers deemed in need of protection. The opt-outs are a concession to hardline member states such as Hungary and Poland.

The plan was signed off by leaders after heated discussions stirred up by Mr Conte, who threatened to scrap any agreement that failed to meet his demands.

After nine hours of talks on migration finished at 3am yesterday morning, he waved a copy of the agreement in the air and said: ‘Today Italy is no longer alone. We are satisfied.’ He said he had bullied other EU leaders a ‘little bit’.

But Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, whose country has seen an increase in migrants, said the agreement could have gone ‘much further’.

The EU agreement backs the controversial creation of asylum centres in North African countries, which would see migrants who are rescued in the Mediterranean returned to a ‘disembarkation’ area to have their asylum claims assessed.

But in their joint conclusions from the meeting, the EU leaders acknowledged that the camps could create an unwanted ‘pull factor’ by attracting asylum seekers who could apply there.

The deal was welcomed by the CSU, sister party to Mrs Merkel’s CDU, which has threatened to close Germany’s borders in a move that she opposes. [The CSU represents the Southern States (Laender) so controls the borders leading into Germany.  The Southern states have considerable autonomy so could conceivably close their borders to immigrants -- leaving Merkel high and dry]


Real faked news


The poor old BBC is taking a beating again for having “faked” a scene in a documentary. Apparently, a treehouse built by Korowai people high up in a forest in Papua New Guinea, which featured in an episode of Human Planet in 2011, was just a stunt.

The charming buck-naked indigenous ­chappies built it purely for the ­cameras and had no plans whatsoever to live in it, despite the ­voiceover from John Hurt (so inherently trustworthy) declaring they were building “a new house 35m up. For the Korowai, the higher the house, the greater the prestige.”

Photographs of the huge, jerry-built shed teetering at the top of a preposterously flimsy tree look ridiculous. It is hard to imagine a child of six or seven believing it was someone’s actual home, let alone fully grown television viewers or producers.

But viewers are gullible and producers have a thankless, not especially well-paid, job to do. That’s how factual television works: underfunded, overworked functionaries slog their nuts off to put stuff on screens that millions of people who aren’t really paying attention will believe is real. Nobody involved pretends it’s the literal truth, as long as it can squeeze through the guidelines, which are quite vague and ­always open to interpretation.

I know. I have been presenting factual television for 15 years for the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, Sky and some international channels, and while I have never made anything that was an outright lie — nobody wants to do that — I’ve never made anything entirely true either.

Yes, in the dozens of time-travelling shows I’ve made, the house was stripped back to the way it might have looked in our chosen era … in the rooms we were filming in. Yes, Sue Perkins and I, or the guinea-pig family, wore period clothes … when the cameras were rolling. Yes, we/they lived on the diet of that time … for the meals that we filmed.

But nobody was going back in time, duh. People were being put through a series of ­scenarios built around ­received historical cliche that were designed to make you go: “Ooh, I ­remember that!” And you did. In your millions. And you loved it. And everyone got paid. And in the evening we all put our jeans back on and ­dialled in pizza.

Or take the travel shows I’ve done which, like all travel shows, build towards a climactic event involving all the people I have made friends with during my trip, in a big weepy last couple of minutes. More often than not, this big climactic event — a party, a fireworks display, a musical performance — happens pretty much the day I arrive in the country. So I am ushered straight off the plane into a room full of ­strangers, told which ones are going to become my “friends” during the course of filming and I go up to them and hug them and say things like, “How’s it going, man?” and “It’s been great ­getting to know you and your beautiful home/lovely family/vibrant political movement”, and they stare back, stupefied, at this lunatic English stranger pretending to know them.

Then during the course of the week I do meet them properly and bond with them and all that guff, and then back home in Britain they flip it all around in the edit, put the party at the end (when I’ve often weirdly lost the sun tan I had picked up during the week) and Bob’s your uncle: “Giles has been on a journey.”

Is that a lie? Is that wrong? Is that “Fake views!” as the newspapers screeched about the treehouse scandal, before going on to remind us of that time when Frozen Planet passed off some shots of polar bear cubs in a zoo with fake snow as wild footage?

It’s hard to say. No doubt the Korowai began building their “very high traditional treehouse” but it was only a metre off the ground and the film crew was a bit worried that this was going to be pretty dull and not at all worth the tens of thousands of dollars being spent on flights and kit hire and personnel and they just said: “Can’t you nudge it up the tree a bit? Just for us?”

Nobody would ever find out and then there’d be a much better chance of Barry in his front room shouting to Ethel in the kitchen: “Come and look at this, love, these primitive monkey people are building a treehouse in the sky!”

Or maybe it was the Korowai pulling the wool over the crew’s eyes for larks.

I made a film in Alabama once about an old-fashioned hog farmer who slept with his herd and lived on squirrel meat. For the final scene, he stewed some squirrel meat for me and we went through the whole recipe and I said how delicious and squirrelly it was. And then after we cut, the guy fell about laughing and revealed that what he had fed me was in fact a fricassee of pig’s testicles. It turned out he was angry about being pigeonholed as a rodent-eating redneck and thought he’d get his revenge on us by giving “that there Jew boy a mouthful of hog nuts!”

Well, it was too late to unfilm the whole show so we made our pact of silence and out it went into a million homes.

Which is why I think it is very possible that the Korowai just wanted to play a trick on Old Whitey, who couldn’t possibly be dumb enough to believe that they all live 30m up in the air, like something out of Gulliver’s Travels.


India riding high in space

The Indian Space Research Organisation launched its most powerful rocket to date on the southern island of Sriharikota on June 5

India has joined an international race to explore the dark side of the moon, seeking to launch a lunar mining expedition for nuclear fuel.

The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) has announced that it will send an unmanned mission later this year to explore the south face of the moon, for signs of water and helium-3.

The latter, if properly harnessed, could change energy consumption on Earth for the next 250 years, scientists say. Helium-3 is in limited supply on Earth but is believed to be abundant on the moon, Bloomberg India reported.

“The countries which have the capacity to bring that source from the moon to Earth will dictate the process,’’ Dr Kailasavadivoo Sivan, the chairman of Isro, said. “I don’t want to be just a part of them, I want to lead them.’’

India is not the only country interested in the moon’s dark side: Russia, China, the US and Japan are also keen to explore there, along with the privateers Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson.

Landing a rover on the moon is one phase in a long-term plan for Isro that includes launching a space station and, one day, a human crew on Earth’s lunar satellite.

“We are ready and waiting,’’ said Dr Sivan, who joined the organisation in 1982. “We’ve equipped ourselves to take on this particular programme.’’

China is the only country to land anything on the moon this century with its Chang’e 3 mission in 2013. In the US, Nasa has a $19 billion (£14.4bn) budget this year with the aim of launching another lunar rover within five years.

Isro’s estimated budget is a fraction of Nasa’s – about $1.7bn – but exploring the heavens on a shoestring has been the hallmark of India’s space missions since the early 1960s.

The mission to the moon this year will not be India’s first. The Chandrayaan-1, launched in October 2008, discovered molecules of water on the moon’s surface.

The Chandrayaan-2 includes a rectangular rover, a six-wheeled vehicle powered by solar energy, which will collect information for at least 14 days

Meanwhile, Isro has announced that it will help train astronauts from smaller countries. “India has taken the initiative to train scientists of countries like UAE and African nations that lack the technical knowhow and capability to build a satellite”, said Mr Sivan said at the UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, in Vienna.



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

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

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


1 July, 2018

A Japanese teacher exposes the deep dysfunction of American black culture

It's pretty plain below: As an  outsider he can see clearly the absurdities that the Left have produced.

He seems genuinely uncomprehending of why many blacks are like that.  His incomprehension is not surprising given the huge efforts that have been put into covering up the root cause of all the dysfunction.

Like so much else it boils down to IQ.  IQ doesn't explain everything but it explains far more than most people realize.  And the fact is that American blacks have a very low average IQ.  There are of course some very smart blacks but they are rare -- much rarer than very smart whites.  To put a number on it: For roughly a century we have known that on almost any IQ test, blacks on average score about one standard deviation below the white average -- where only four standard deviations make up almost all of the range.

And IQ is a strong predictor of academic and employment success.  You cannot go far either in the education system or in employment with a low IQ.  In school most blacks simply CANNOT do the work set for them beyond a certain low point.  This "gap" in educational achievement is exceedingly well known and is exactly what the IQ tests predict.  Educators have for many years turned themselves inside out trying to erase that gap but nothing works -- as you would expect of something that is genetically hardwired in the person. One could in fact dispense with all talk of IQ and simply talk about "unteachability" with very little loss. 

And the unteachability is so serious that many blacks "graduate" High School barely able to read and write.  I contrast that with a "love note" that a little Chinese girl aged about six wrote to her teacher (A teacher I know) at the end of Grade 1.  It said: "I luv my techa". It's not perfect English but to write at that level and at that age is remarkable.  The Chinese of course have high average IQs -- about half a standard deviation above the white average.  So once again IQ tests are a good predictor.  The Chinese girl had very high teachability.  The student body at Harvard would be almost entirely Chinese if the racist Harvard leadership did not conspire to keep most of them out.

And from black unteachability all else flows.  Poor educational achievement will exclude blacks from almost all good jobs and most positions of homor and respect in society. Some blacks who sing and dance well or run fast will achieve wealth and respect but that accounts for very few.

And blacks can see the differential between themselves and whites perfectly clearly.  It is too obvious to miss. They see it every time they turn on the TV.  And they mostly hate it. It makes them angry.  But it is all too human to blame others for one's own failings and they do exactly that. They need to think that somehow "Whitey" or "racism" is responsible for their place at the bottom of most heaps. So anger is never far beneath their surface and can well up readily towards anybody they are near  -- black or white. So even though most homicides in America are black on black, it is also true that homocides inflicted on whites are mostly inflicted by blacks -- as our Japanese friend documents.

And as our Japanese commenter also pointed out, that is certainly a good reason for whites to be very wary of blacks.

And the poor teachbility has another dire effect:  Black theft of various kinds -- mugging, home invasions etc.  Because they can rarely earn much money by working, they steal it or attempt to do so.  And because many Americans are armed that can and sometimes does lead to violent confrontions in which one or more people die. See my blog GUN WATCH

So, one way or another, black dysfunction traces back to black IQ.  Blacks of course are not all the same and some find a place in white society that they are comfortable with.  It has been estimated, however, that about a third of all black males will spend some time in prison.  So the siutation described here is a mass phenomenon, even if it is not universal.


Nobita, the author of the video above usually broadcasts as "Find Your Love in Japan". Find Your Love In Japan is a Youtube channel. He makes videos similar to That Japanese Man Yuta where he interviews Japanese men, women and foreigners on the street on current popular subjects. In Nobita's videos, he mainly focuses on topics such as "How to find love in Japan" and Japanese people's opinions on relationships with people inside and outside of their culture. In his private life, he is a language teacher in Tokyo.

The Netherlands Approves Burqa Ban

"People's faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others." — Geert Wilders, Party for Freedom (PVV).

Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents "a fair balance" between "the freedom to dress as one wishes" and "the general interest of communication and security." She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women "to have access to a wider social life" because if they do not cover the face "they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market."

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.

The Dutch Senate has approved a law that bans the wearing of "face-covering clothing" in public buildings, including hospitals, schools and government offices, as well as on public transportation.

Although the ban does not extend to public streets, the law authorizes police to ask individuals to remove face-covering clothing to establish their identity.

Those found flouting the ban — which includes Islamic veils and robes such as burqas (which cover the entire face) and niqabs (which cover the entire face except for the eyes), as well as balaclavas and full-face helmets — will be subject to a fine of 410 euros ($475).

The new law, previously adopted by the Dutch House of Representatives in November 2016, was approved on June 26 by 44 to 31 votes in the 75-seat Senate.

In a statement, the government, which has not yet said when the law will enter into effect, explained its purpose:

"In a free country like the Netherlands, everyone has the freedom and space to behave and dress as he or she desires. Sometimes, limits can and must be imposed on that freedom. In the case of face-covering clothing, this applies in particular if mutual communication is impeded or safety is jeopardized.

"Mutual communication whereby people can look each other in the face is so important that uniform rules have now been laid down by law. This makes it clear to everyone what is and is not allowed in those situations."

A Muslim activist group called "Stay away from my Niqab!" said the ban is unconstitutional. In an open letter sent to Dutch lawmakers, the group, which has more than 5,000 followers on Facebook, asked:

"Why is it not realized that this law leads to people being isolated from society? This ban leads to women who wear face-covering clothing, who like to participate in society, no longer to be able to do this effectively because they now have a restriction on education, license applications, travel with public transport, visiting a doctor and much more....

"Is the constitution no longer applicable to women with face-covering clothing? What about the right that everyone is free to dress how he/she wants, regardless of race, gender, religion or belief?

"What about Article 6 of the Constitution which sets out freedom of religion and belief? Is there a problem in which everyone does not have the right freely to confess their religion or belief, individually or in community with others?"

The group's spokeswoman, Karima Rahmani, added:

"We feel that we are being wronged with a repressive measure, which is why we trying to make our voices heard. It is getting harder and harder to be on the street with a niqab. I myself have been threatened with death, and other women have even been physically attacked.

"There is a lot of talk about me, but no one comes to me to ask: 'Why do you actually wear that niqab?' It is part of my religion and I want to be free to make that choice. It is a spiritual experience that I personally experience."

The Council of State, an independent advisor to the government on legislation, said that the ban was unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional. In a November 2015 report, it said that the Dutch Cabinet had been guided too much by "subjective feelings of insecurity" that "do not justify a ban." It added:

"The Council of State points out that the bill primarily seems to have been motivated by objections to wearing Islamic face-covering clothing.... Insofar as face-covering clothing (for example a burqa) is worn to express a religious clothing prescription, this falls under the constitutionally-protected freedom of religion. The ban proposed by the government does not, according to the Council of State, justify restricting the right to freedom of religion."

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), however, twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.

In July 2017, for example, the ECHR upheld a Belgian ban on wearing the burqa in public spaces. It said that the government had been responding "to a practice that it considered to be incompatible, in Belgian society, with social communication and more generally the establishment of human relations, which were indispensable for life in society...essential to ensure the functioning of a democratic society." In July 2014, the ECHR upheld France's burqa ban, accepting the French government's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together."

The Dutch government has repeatedly insisted that the ban is not about restricting religion but about promoting communication and public safety. It has described the new law as "religion neutral" because it is not limited just to the burka and niqab, but also includes the balaclava and full-face helmet.

Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents "a fair balance" between "the freedom to dress as one wishes" and "the general interest of communication and security." She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women "to have access to a wider social life" because if they do not cover the face "they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market."

A complete ban was originally proposed in December 2005 by Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, who argued that burqas and niqabs are barriers to the integration of women in the Netherlands: "We must ban the burqa. People's faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others."

The Netherlands is the sixth European country to approve a burqa ban, after France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria and Denmark. Bavaria in Germany, Catalonia in Spain, Lombardy in Italy and Ticino in Switzerland also have imposed regional burqa bans, while Norway has tabled a law to ban burqas in public schools. Latvia has proposed a burqa ban, but it has not yet been enacted.


Italy's interior minister wants a register of gypsies

Petty crime is the lifestyle of many Gypsies.  That does make them a problem

Rome: Italy's hard-line interior minister, who recently sparked a multinational showdown by refusing entry to a Mediterranean Sea rescue boat packed with 630 migrants, is now taking aim at Italy's minority Roma community.

Matteo Salvini told a Lombardy television station on Monday that he wants to conduct a census or "registry" of Roma, also known as Gypsies, in Italy. Salvini, the leader of Italy's right-wing League party, insisted later the project's purpose wasn't to identify individual Roma.

"I've asked the ministry to prepare a dossier on the Roma question in Italy," he told TeleLombardia, adding that the current situation of Roma was "chaos" several years after a crackdown.

Italy has a sizeable Roma community that includes people originally from Romania and the former Yugoslavia. Authorities periodically clear out the squatter camps where many live on the outskirts of big cities.

Salvini's remarks sparked immediate denunciation from centre-left politicians, who warned that Italy had a "terrible" history with its Fascist-era census of Jews.

"You can work for security and respect for rules without becoming fascist," tweeted Democratic legislator Ettore Rosato. "The announced census of Roma is vulgar and demagogical."

Salvini stressed in a follow-up statement that he had no intention of taking digital fingerprints or making index cards of individual Roma. He said he wants a study of the overall situation.

"We are aiming primarily to care for the children who aren't allowed to go to school regularly because they prefer to introduce them to a life of crime. We also want to check how millions of euro that come from European funds are spent," he said in a statement.

Salvini was asked about the Roma by TV interviewers and callers complaining about migrants, crime and the recent arrests of a band of Roma women arrested for pickpocketing at Milan's central train station.

The minister said he wanted to "redo what was once called a census, making a registry" of Roma to know who they are and where they live.

He later wrote on Facebook that he wanted also to help "those poor children who are brought up in these camps surrounded by theft and illegality".

His comments made headlines in a country still reeling from the weeklong standoff he started by refusing entry to the Aquarius, a rescue ship carrying 630 migrants who were picked up in waters off Libya. A convoy of three boats landed with the passengers Sunday in Valencia, Spain.

Salvini, whose League party scored huge gains in March 4 elections on its xenophobic platform, has vowed mass expulsions of migrants. He said of the Roma who have Italian citizenship: "We have to keep them".

Salvini said he plans to meet this week with Pope Francis, who has dedicated much of his pontificate to urging countries to welcome and integrate migrants.


Discrimination Law Isn't Supposed to 'Punish the Wicked'

A 7-2 win at the Supreme Court is a big deal. But some advocates of religious freedom minimized the importance of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, saying it was a narrow ruling that applies only to the manifest hostility to religion the commission showed in adjudicating Jack Phillips’s case. Religious liberty opponents have claimed the decision is an open door to invidious discrimination, including racism. Both views are wrong.

The hostility to Mr. Phillips and his beliefs isn’t unusual. The rhetoric Justice Anthony Kennedy condemned — and cited as examples of constitutionally impermissible animus — is often heard from antagonists who attempt to ruin religious believers. Comparisons to racism and Nazism such as the Colorado commission made are standard for left-liberal culture warriors.

In 2016 the chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission wrote — in an official report — that “‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”

The following year Rolling Stone magazine published a friendly profile of Tim Gill, “the Megadonor Behind the LGBTQ Rights Movement.” Mr. Gill is bankrolling the effort to pass new antidiscrimination laws that treat “sexual orientation and gender identity” as a protected class like race. He revealed why gay rights activists oppose religious liberty claims with such vehemence: “We’re going to punish the wicked.” The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s extreme and open bias is consistent with a campaign to punish heretics. But antidiscrimination policy is supposed to be a shield. It has been transformed into a sword, used to coerce people into affirming a sexual orthodoxy.

Consider Philadelphia, whose local government recently announced it would no longer work with Catholic Social Services on foster care. That effectively closes Catholic foster care in the city, because the government has ultimate responsibility for children in need. If the government won’t work with a foster agency, that agency can’t help children.

Why did Philadelphia do this? Not because the Catholics do a bad job: the city ranked Catholic Social Services as the second-best foster care agency of the 28 it worked with. The sole reason is that the Catholic agency doesn’t place children with same-sex couples.

Catholic Social Services has never received a complaint from a same-sex couple wanting to foster a child. Same-sex couples could foster or adopt a child from another agency. Yet Philadelphia officials were willing to shut down a good agency that causes no harm merely to send a message that its religious beliefs are intolerable — precisely what the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop said the government may not do.

Catholic agencies decline to place children with same-sex couples not for reasons of sexual orientation but because, as Pope Francis has said, “Children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother.” The issue isn’t whether gay people can love or care for children — of course they can — but in the church’s view, the two best dads in the world cannot make up for a missing mom, and vice versa.

If those playing down the importance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling are wrong, those overstating it are also off base. “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane claimed that “it’s a shorter walk than we think, particularly today, from ‘I won’t bake them a cake because they’re gay’ to ‘I won’t seat him here because he’s black.’” This wildly mischaracterizes Mr. Phillips’s position. The Masterpiece proprietor serves all customers, regardless of sexual orientation, but he can’t in good conscience communicate all messages or celebrate all events. He is motivated by his Christian belief that marriage unites husband and wife, not his customer’s identity.

This disagreement about the definition of marriage occurs among people of good faith motivated by honorable theological and philosophical premises, as Justice Kennedy recognized in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 same-sex-marriage decision. And as he wrote in Masterpiece, "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.“

That is why states should be careful not to abuse antidiscrimination policy in a way that amounts to an enforcement of an orthodoxy regarding questions about sex on which reasonable people can disagree.

Monday’s ruling won’t open the floodgates to invidious discrimination as critics imagine. But neither should we gainsay its wider applicability. The Supreme Court has said clearly that the government may not punish people because of their religious beliefs. Any generally applicable, neutral law must serve the common good, not punish those whom people in power deem to be "wicked.”



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

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

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



HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray

(Isaiah 62:1)

A 19th century Democrat political poster below:

Leftist tolerance


JFK knew Leftist dogmatism

-- Geert Wilders

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

Bible references on homosexuality: Jude 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Leviticus 18:32; Leviticus 20:13

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans

Index page for this site


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium.
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues


Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Selected reading



Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Van Hiel
Pyszczynski et al.

Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:

OR: (After 2015)