Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Migrants pushed three 16-year-old Germans in front of train – mainstream media covered up the murders

Three young boys were pushed onto the rails at the Nürnberg S-train station Frankenstadion end of January. Two of them were ran over by the oncoming train and killed.

German mainstream media spoke deceitfully of “Germans”, in order to cloak a migration background. Furthermore drivel about “accident” and “tragedy” was put out there, and the three 16 year old’s “fell” onto the rails.

The Nürnberg News respectfully called the first offender that was arrested a “young man”.

The Süddeutsche newspaper suggested that a fight between the youths had just taken a “tragic end”. Three 16 year olds were “falling” on the rails and were “caught by the train and ran over and killed”.

Even the Bavarian Rundfunk was of the opinion that the three Germans “fell” on the tracks: “On Friday night, the two youths got into an argument with two other 17 year old youths at the Nürnberg S-train station Frankenstadion. All in all three 16 year old youths fell onto the train tracks during the argument.”

The next morning, BR Online described the double murder as an “accident”, by which “three men” after a fight “fell onto the train tracks”.

The Franken television channel even titled the murderous events as a “S-Train Disaster”. After a row the two victims “fell onto the train tracks” and were “killed by the nearing train”.

But on Monday morning BILD uncovered the bone hard truth: the murderers, who pushed the three German boys onto the rails, were a Turk and a Greek who were merely born in Germany.

The two victims, Luca and Frederic came from Heroldsberg. On Friday night they were visiting the Nürnberg dance club “Nightlife” and around midnight they wanted to ride home on the train.

At the train station, after meeting a third friend, they got into an argument with the migrants. According to the police, the fight started due to a ridiculously inane reason, which led to a highly aggressive reaction by the two offenders.

Surveillance footage proves that it was pure intent to push the three onto the rails, since the train had already been approaching the station at roughly 80 km/h.

Since that train usually does not stop at that station, it ran over Luca and Frederic at full speed. The boys didn’t stand a chance, and they were both killed instantly. Their friend could barely make it back out.


‘Toxic Masculinity’ is Misnamed

Feminists can be pretty toxic too

“Toxic masculinity” has become one of the latest rallying cries on the left, a new way to attack a favorite target, white men. All kinds of behavior is lumped in under this label. Men who rape women are labeled the same as men who play contact sports. Instead of specifically describing “toxic rapists” or similar, the phrase implies that all men are toxic.

But it’s not accurate. Not all men are toxic. Rapists, abusers, murderers, etc. are toxic. Children’s sports coaches, pastors and men who are caregivers are not. Gillette came out with a controversial ad last month condemning toxic masculinity. It featured men looking the other way as boys behaved badly. But what kind of men did it show? Not thugs and absentee fathers. As author Barbara McKay pointed out, these were neatly dressed, middle-class men barbecuing. These are fathers “deeply invested in family life.” But the ad made it look like even the best of regular, good guys enable toxic behavior by their gender.

The reality is there are plenty of evil women too. Why not “toxic femininity” then? Because feminists know that it will tarnish all women. I asked a lefty friend of mine why no one uses the phrase, and he says because it means the same thing as misogyny. Well if that’s true, and toxic masculinity means misandry, then why is it OK to use it to describe men?

An article in The New York Times paints a broad brush defining toxic masculinity. It describes it as tough-guy behavior, suppressing emotions or masking distress and maintaining an appearance of hardness. It makes no pretense to even include serious crimes.

But you can’t paint a broad brush of all men engaging in these behaviors. Some men really enjoy getting physical; whether as a boxer, police officer or engaged in manual labor. And the latter two are necessary jobs, we need tough, strong men in those positions.

There are plenty of men who don’t feel comfortable talking about their feelings and that’s just the way they are. Just like there are many women who don’t feel comfortable talking about their feelings. The problem is the left likes to paint everyone with a broad brush and fit them into group stereotypes. Why not treat men and women as individuals?

What’s wrong with men maintaining an appearance of hardness? Maybe it’s necessary for some men if they work in a field such as the military, in order to maintain control. Look at the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She represented the epitome of maintaining an appearance of hardness. Was it OK for her because she’s a woman?

The effort to label men as toxic seems to be contrived, in order to pit the sexes against each other. It’s part of a larger strategy by the left to keep women within the Democratic fold. Since more men than women are conservative, they’re an easy target. Portray them as toxic and conservatism looks toxic by association. Democrats look like the party that cares about protecting poor innocent women from all those dangerous men.

It’s difficult to refute accusations of toxic masculinity, because the Democrats will just point to real criminals, such as mass shooters. No one wants to be seen appearing to defend mass shooters. The Democrats portray toxic masculinity as a slippery slope, with shooting people just a step away from tough-guy behavior. It’s hard to prove a negative — how can any man prove that he’s not going to become a serial murderer or rapist?

The sad result of this is it’s taken away energy from focusing on the real criminals. Instead, every man is looked at suspiciously and required to do things like obtain written consent from a woman on college campus before dating her. Men are walking on pins and needles around women, afraid their toxic masculinity will be attacked as sexual harassment and result in discipline. It’s gotten so bad men are afraid to hold doors open for women. Feminist site The Lily says it’s an outdated gesture and men should stop doing it.

How did we go from men doing something nice for women to something lumped in with rapists and murderers? It’s time to start calling out the phrase toxic masculinity for what it is — a dishonest way to delegitimize half the population.


New York City Being Sued by Therapist Over Law Banning Faith-Based Counseling

Licensed psychotherapist Dr. Dovid Schwartz is suing the city of New York for infringing on his and his patients’ religious faith and freedom of speech by way of a new ordinance imposing limits on counseling services to LGBT patients that the city discredits.

Schwartz is a member of the Chabad Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish Community in Brooklyn.

The New York City Council’s “Counseling Censorship Law” restricts the counseling of an adult patient to change their same-sex attractions or discourage a person to choose the gender identity that doesn’t match his or her body.

More specifically, the ordinance penalizes the illegal exchange of such services with hefty fees.

Fines for the first violation start at $1,000, $5,000 for the second, and $10,000 for each following violation.

Conversely, therapists who counsel patients to embrace the gender identity opposite their physical body are not subject to such fines.

“Of course the state has authority to regulate medicine to ensure safety, but that’s not what this law is about,” said Ryan T. Anderson, The Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior research fellow in American principles and public policy.

“This law imposes an ideological ban because the state disagrees with the viewpoint of doctors like Dovid Schwartz. It’s not targeted at harmful practices, but at particular values.”

Schwartz v. City of New York, filed at the federal level on Jan. 23 by the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, involves Schwartz’s requests to be protected from paying the fees or censoring his conversations with LGBT patients, who are largely from his religious community and wish to abide by their orthodox faith.

“Nearly all of Dr. Schwartz’s patients share his faith, and they value his counsel about issues of sexuality and family in part because his perspective is grounded in their shared Jewish faith and respect for Torah teachings,” said Jeana Hallock, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Schwartz.

Schwartz says the only techniques he uses with his patients are simply listening and talking, but the law claims to forbid even that.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Roger Brooks commented on the matter, asserting Americans, whether secular or religious, deserve the right to have private conversations that are free from censorship laws imposed by the government.

“The city council’s regulation is unprecedented and threatens to stand between Dr. Schwartz’s patients and the lives they choose to pursue,” Brooks said.

“As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its 2018 NIFLA decision, ‘(T)he people lose when the government is the one dictating which ideas should prevail.’”


Jordan Peterson wimps out over toxic women

Bettina Arndt

Jordan Peterson is in Australia next week and I was thinking back to my long interview with him last year. At the time I considered taking him on about his reluctance to call out women’s bad behaviour  - which seems odd when he constantly tells men to pull themselves together. But since this was just after the Cathy Newman interview I realised that strategy was a really lousy idea.

When we did the interview I did make some pretty strong statements about women’s misbehaviour which in some areas seemed to make him a little braver. But he was still is very reluctant to sheet home women’s misdeeds.

I decided this week to put together a video about why men are so reluctant to criticise women – using my interviews with a number of prominent men to illustrate what’s going on here. I suggest that as an academic, Peterson is trained to avoid the wrath of the feminists who dominate his workplace.

Ditto Josh Zepps, who made a long podcast with me last year. Zepps is a great interviewer, happily exploring diverse ideas in his  wethepeople podcasts. But hs is a self-confessed “lefty”, works occasionally for the ABC and approached the interview with me clearly nervous of irritating his feminist friends. But I noticed I was able to embolden him by voicing strong criticisms of women’s duplicitous behaviour, which lead him to become positively brave by the end of the long interview.

Conservative men are equally reluctant to call out women’s bad behaviour but for different reasons. Here the problem is chivalry, old-fashioned adherence to the gynocentric ideal of women on a pedestal, whose virtue no gentleman would challenge. This form of benevolent sexism exploits men’s culturally-imposed desire to protect and show reverence for women. And that means they too wimp out when it comes to acknowledging that women can be very, very bad.

It proved a fascinating exercise pulling together my video showing how all this works. Here it is:

See also

Via email from Bettina --


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


No comments: