Sunday, April 21, 2019




Women are more susceptible than men to falling under the control of cults

I don't pretend to have a full understanding of it but I have long noted that women, particularly older women, are very commonly "spiritual" -- to the point that by the time they are 50, they nearly all seem to believe in something weird -- aromatherapy, Reiki etc -- so they are an easy mark for con-men. 


"Little Pebble" was one in Australia until he went to jail for sexual offensiveness. 

And you just have to look at the congregation in mainstream churches -- mainly old ladies.  So the NXIVM group differs only in being more criminal than most

I actually see the "spirituality" as a form of schizophrenia, as it is a belief in things that are not there.  I have spoken at length with some of the women concerned and they say that they know they are part of something that is all around them and bigger than themselves and they feel they are in partial contact with it.  So there is definitely a delusion involved.  But why women lose reality contact so readily is the puzzle.  Its pervasiveness suggests that it has a function so is it some sort of safety valve for the big stresses that child bearing and rearing places on women?

As a psychologist, it is my job to understand human behaviour and I do understand a lot of it (or think I do) but female gullibility in the face of improbabilities is a challenge that really stretches me.  My best guess is that females have to be gullible to believe and rely on men.  The one thing I am sure of is that it is very deep-rooted and, as such, almost certainly genetically encoded



As more details spill from the NXIVM trial, we get an insight into the cult world: branding, sex slaves and physical constraint

NXIVM has described itself as “a company whose mission is to raise human awareness, foster an ethical humanitarian civilization, and celebrate what it means to be human.” Critics have alleged other definitions for the group; definitions such as “sex-cult” and “pyramid scheme.” Federal U.S. prosecutors, meanwhile, are focusing on NXIVM’s alleged criminal activity: racketeering, wire fraud, sex trafficking, and forced labour, for a start.

The group’s spiritual leader and founder, Keith Raniere, goes on trial later this month, a bonus charge of possession of child pornography having been recently added to his already extensive list of alleged crimes. It’s ugly and confounding. How do people get away with this stuff and who falls for it?

Part of the answer is well established, if not well explained: women are more susceptible than men to falling under the control of exploitative movements. Or they do so more often, anyway. Research suggests as many as 70 per cent of cult members in the world are women.

In the NXIVM scandals, most of the worst stories emerge from something called “DOS” — a sort of sorority within NXIVM in which women allegedly recruited other women for all manner of abuse, including having their bodies physically branded with Raniere’s initials and submitting unconditionally to Raniere’s sexual wishes.

There are many theories about why women are disproportionately represented in the population of cult followers, perhaps the most common being that women are conditioned and/or wired to believe there is something wrong with them. The urge to self-correct to find outside acceptance is human, but it’s also familiarly female: lose weight, be gracious, be grateful, be obedient. Win without hurting anyone’s feelings. Be better than who you are.

That theory may be simplistic given that it rests on broad generalizations — which are themselves based on thought patterns whose cultural, evolutionary and biological bases are tough to tease apart. (Women certainly have no monopoly on feeling inadequate.) But even if it’s only part of the story, women’s general tendency to make self-acceptance contingent on improvement and external praise must play its role.

Others say that more women join cults than men because women have a greater need for spiritual fulfilment. According to Pew Research Center, women are indeed generally more religious than men, with women across the globe being somewhat more likely to affiliate with a religious faith than men. Or maybe women join cults because it’s what they know given their long history of oppression. (This made me wonder if other historically oppressed groups, such as African Americans, are more susceptible to cults, but I didn’t find ready evidence one way or the other. I did find a weird story about ties between Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and Scientology. And I learned that most of the people who joined the Reverend Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple — most famous for guiding its members to mass suicide at their compound in Guyana via poisoned Flavour Aid — were African American. Women in Jonestown also outnumbered men, with black women making up close to half the population.)

What’s interesting, if not unique, about NXIVM is the strong role women appear to have played in attracting other women to the group and then keeping them in the group’s grips. Remember the disturbing branding of women’s flesh I mentioned earlier? This allegedly took place with several women holding down another woman on a table while a female doctor allegedly burned the restrained woman’s skin with a laser-like device. Raniere had a female cofounder, who is now accused of many of the same crimes perpetrated against women as he is. That woman’s daughter has admitted to keeping a female slave. One of the reasons NXIVM has been such a headline-grabber is that Smallville actress Allison Mack has pled guilty to two racketeering counts for her involvement in DOS, which included blackmailing women into compliance with Raniere’s demands.

So whatever part subservience may play in attracting women to cults, they are clearly also capable of the predatory instincts of male cult leaders like Raniere — even if often ultimately in service of the male leader himself. Anyone who watched Wild Wild Country, the Netflix documentary about Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, can attest that most of the aggressive acts taken in that movement (including brazen bioterrorism attacks) were initiated by Rajneesh’s personal assistant, a woman named Ma Anand Sheela.

The best we can hope for is that when the NXIVM trials are done, the worst exploiters and abusers are brought to justice, male and female. And that women reading about the NXIVM story may become less likely to listen to that voice — whether from inside their own head or from a charismatic guru — telling them how much better they could be. Because they will be able to see they are good enough as they are.

SOURCE  





    
Gender-Based Pricing? British Lawmaker Wants to Outlaw ‘Pink Tax’

Just because products look the same does not mean that the cost of puting them on the market is the same.  Women's products typically require a bigger marketing spend

Razors. Deodorant. Car insurance. These are just some of the products which are often cited as costing more for women than men, and British lawmakers are now considering legislation that would do away with this so-called “pink tax.”

A bill introduced in the House of Commons last month would extend consumer protection to prevent companies from charging more for “products and services that are substantially similar” but which are marketed differently for men and women.

“Products marketed at women are on average considerably more expensive than those marketed at men,” the bill’s author, Liberal Democrat lawmaker Christine Jardine, said in a statement.

“Often the only difference is the color [of the product concerned], yet this unfair price gap will have a significant financial impact on a woman over the course of her life,” she said.

In recent years, studies and newspaper investigations on both sides of the Atlantic have prompted calls for lawmakers to act against the ostensible practice of gender-based pricing differences.

In 2018, British tax firm RIFT found that women pay on average 6.3 percent more than men for a four-pack of disposable razors, and 10.6 percent more for deodorant sticks of identical size.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said last August it found that in five out of ten personal health care categories examined, “average retail prices paid were significantly higher for women’s products than for men’s.”

“In 2 categories – shaving gel and nondisposable razors – men’s versions sold at a significantly higher price.”

The GAO said it did not have enough information to determine if the differences were due to bias, or to other factors, such as advertising costs or product demand.

In January, the California Department of Insurance issued new rules stating that auto insurers may not charge drivers higher premiums based on their gender.

Jardine’s bill is not being supported by the Conservative government, whose view is that the government should not be setting prices for goods and services.

“Although I share concerns on this issue, prices in the U.K. are set by competition, not by the government,” Victoria Atkins, the Minister for Women, told the House of Commons. “As intelligent, questioning consumers, women should not be afraid to challenge retailers or manufacturers who are trying to rip us off and, where we are not satisfied, to vote with our purchasing decisions.”

Atkins said although the government would not be supporting the legislation, it welcomed “the focus [Jardine] is bringing to this important issue.”

Bills brought independently of the government traditionally have a difficult time becoming law in Britain. If not passed into law by the end of the current parliamentary year, which is projected to end this summer, the gender-pricing bill will die.

During an earlier House of Commons debate on the issue, several years ago, Scottish National Party MP John McNally said that before entering parliament he had worked as a hairdresser, barber and salon owner – an industry in which he said there were “"universally accepted gender pricing inequalities.”

He noted then that “a haircut for a man with short hair could cost 40 percent less than one for a woman with short hair.”

“There are some cases, particularly in my profession, of a legitimate business need for gender pricing,” he said. “But the fact is that society is not generally aware of gender pricing inequality, which is of great concern.”

Last week, McNally said he was currently campaigning for the mandatory registration of all hair salons, which would in part, “address inconsistencies within the gender pricing, where applicable.”

SOURCE  






The majority of American Jews have no spine

They are dead scared of being unpopular so Israel just embarrasses them

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN a.k.a. "Spengler"

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN April 13 that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to extend Israeli sovereignty to West Bank settlements wouldn’t hurt the administration’s forthcoming peace plan, a gesture of support to the Jewish State unthinkable under any previous administration. Following President Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights earlier this month, Pompeo’s declaration is a landmark victory for the Jewish State. It is also a victory for the small minority of American Jewish leaders who stood by President Trump, and joined hands with evangelical Christians and other conservatives to support the realignment of American policy with America’s closest and most reliable ally in the world. Zionist Organization of America's Morton Klein, whom I have the honor to call a friend, is the most outspoken advocate of this realignment among the leaders of major American Jewish organizations. Not surprisingly, he’s taking the most incoming.

We live in strange times, when supporting the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel makes you a pariah among the liberal majority of American Jews. An April 12 item in The Times of Israel reports that nine American Jewish organizations—including the Reform and Conservative movements—asked President Trump to stop PM Netanyahu from annexing West Bank settlements. Among other reasons, annexation “would create intense divisions” among American Jews, the statement said. The liberal Jewish organization got their answer the next day from Secretary Pompeo.

I was saddened to read Armin Rosen’s diatribe against Mort Klein April 10 in the Jewish webzine The Tablet, a publication to which I have contributed since its inception, and several of whose writers and editors I count as friends. It’s a kitchen-sink sort of attack, dredging up every complaint from every disgruntled employee that an organization might incur over decades, including a security guard’s suit for alleged back pay. And it even cites a salacious personal smear against Mort and his wife Rita, emailed to the publication from an anonymous account. Rosen, to be sure, quotes the Kleins’ refutation of the story, but they should not have been subjected to this sort of thing in the first place.

“The ZOA is squatting on a piece of the ideological spectrum that could be put to good use,” Rosen quotes an unnamed Republican activist. “On the far left, J Street has built a meaningful membership by paying attention beyond DC—building local chapters, college campus groups, and so on. Tragically, nobody is doing this on the responsible right. ZOA should have been—and not only because it historically had this foundation.” This is twaddle from a source too timid to go on record reciting a bromide. Just the opposite is true. Pro-Trump Jewish students on college campuses are hunkered down, persecuted by a faculty that is liberal by an 8:1 margin and administrators who are liberal by a 12:1 margin. J Street has the near-official support of most university administrations. Jewish conservatives on campus are subject to a reign of terror, and what they require is a courageous leader who can speak for them. That’s what Morton Klein has been doing, and that makes him the most effective leader of any of the major organizations.

Iran wants to destroy Israel. Hamas is Iran’s cat’s paw. Without the Israeli Army, Hamas would overthrow the feckless Palestine Authority in days, the way it kicked Mahmoud Abbas’ papier-mâché government out of Gaza in 2007 after Israel withdrew. Iran has brought 80,000 mercenaries into Syria in addition to its own Revolutionary Guard Corps, and emplaced 150,000 rockets with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Those are undisputed facts. Disputed, but nonetheless true, is that Hamas seeks to maximize casualties among the civilian population it controls in order to win the sympathy of the squeamish West. No combatant in history has ever behaved so cruelly to its own people.

President Trump has responded by withdrawing from the Iran deal, slapping sanctions on Iran, branding  the Revolutionary Guard a foreign terrorist organization, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank, and, most recently, endorsing de facto Netanyahu’s promise to extend Israeli sovereignty to West Bank settlements. In short, Trump refuses to play the insipid, hypocritical game that sapped the credibility resources of his predecessors. The sky has not fallen; on the contrary, Israel’s prospective adversaries in the region, including Russia, Egypt, and the Gulf States, accord Israel all the more respect for it. The regimes of the Middle East respect strength, not squeamishness, and America’s show of strength has restored respect to America and its allies. One doesn’t have to endorse everything the president does to recognize that he has done more for Israel’s security than any other American.

The problem, I wrote in Tablet nearly five years ago, is not the settlers, but the unsettlers. ISIS has been crushed as a unified military force but its militants lurk in the civillian population, ready to regroup. Iran has imported at least 80,000 militiamen into Syria as shock troops and settlers. Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets aimed at Israel from its northern border. Egypt is fighting a dirty war against Muslim Brotherhood terrorists. And Hamas, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, uses its base in Gaza to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. As al-Jazeera reported last year, “regional dynamics have pushed Hamas back into Iran’s embrace.” Hamas would seize control of the West Bank from Abbas in moments if not for the presence of the Israeli army. Under any foreseeable conditions, a Palestinian state in the West Bank would become a cesspool for jihadists attacking Israel in combination with the rocket jihads of Gaza as well as Hezbollah.

Everyone knows this, which means that the two-state solution is merely a Potemkin village left standing to assuage liberal sensibilities and the residual sense of grievance in the Arab world. Israelis are tired of the whole sick charade, which is why they voted Netanyahu back into office with a mandate to establish Israeli sovereign over territories that otherwise would be staging grounds for Iranian rocket attacks.

Suicide by cop, suicide by Israel: There is a reason that Black Lives Matter cohabits with Linda Sarsour and Rep. Ilhan Omar on the lunatic fringe of American politics. Michael Brown sadly chose suicide when he put his head down and charged at Officer Darren Wilson in 2014, and we listened to two years’ worth of lies about the incident before Wilson was exonerated. The cannon-fodder of Gaza whom Hamas herds to the Israeli border chooses suicide in a similar way. This is too horrible for liberal sensibilities to absorb. The fault must lie with the policeman defending his life, or the Israeli soldiers defending their border against terrorists who want to massacre civilians. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, like Hamas and ISIS, are fanatics who would rather die than live peacefully next to a Jewish State; at the very least, they would rather arrange the deaths of large numbers of their subject populations. Liberal Jews can afford to preen their moral feathers. Israelis have to live under the threat of rockets and know better.

Traditionally non-partisan organizations like the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee are less effective than they used to be, because the Democratic Party has made Israel a partisan issue. Most of the Democratic presidential hopefuls boycotted last month's AIPAC annual conference in Washington. As noted, the liberal Jewish denominations, as well as the venerable Anti-Defamation League, have turned on Israel. As Jews around the world prepare for the Passover feast that marks the birth of the Jewish people at the Exodus from Egypt, I can’t help recalling an ancient rabbinic commentary (Midrash) that claims that most Jews did not leave Egypt with Moses. They were too comfortable and too complacent to heed God’s call and venture into the wilderness. Gathered around the fleshpots, American Jews are abandoning the liberal denominations in droves and joining the ranks of the none-of-the-aboves.

SOURCE  






Is This Bank Chasing Away Conservatives?

I have been a Chase Bank customer for years. Who knows how much longer it’ll be? Will the company’s thought police come for me next? How about you? If you are a non-leftist who does business with the financial giant owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., you need to ask questions and get answers.

On Tuesday, investigative journalist James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team released a disturbing new video on the runaround that Chase officials gave Texas conservative entrepreneur Enrique Tarrio about his canceled account. Big business may very well be enabling America’s very own version of the Chinese social-credit system in which political dissent is flagged, shunned, punished, and eradicated.

First, some background:

Tarrio is a young, peaceful, Afro-Cuban freethinker and chairman of the Proud Boys organization. In February 2019, the Texas Trump supporter received a letter from Chase Bank informing him that “after careful consideration,” the financial institution could “no longer support” his banking account. The notice followed a hit piece against minorities who support the president by The Daily Beast, a reliable echo chamber for the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center smear machine.

Tarrio was subsequently kicked off Chase’s payment processor, which he used to sell patriotic and pro-Trump T-shirts. Next, he was deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Airbnb, FirstData, Square, Stripe, and PayPal before losing his bank accounts. When I asked on Twitter in February why we can’t have just one financial institution that doesn’t cave to social-justice warriors, the official Chase Twitter account tweeted me back:

“Hi Michelle, this article is inaccurate. We did not close his personal account. We do not close accounts based on political affiliation.”

NOW WATCH: 'Trump Is Reportedly Thinking about Replacing the Fed's Chairman with a New Conservative'

I pointed out that Chase’s letter clearly stated that the company had closed his account. “So if not for political reasons,” I asked, “why, ‘after careful consideration,’ did you close his account?” The social-media manager of Chase’s corporate Twitter account, previously so eager to spill the tea, replied: “For privacy reasons, we can’t say more.”

Thanks to Project Veritas, we now know more. Undercover audio and video exposed how:

One Chase employee blamed “clerical” issues for Tarrio’s account cancellation.

Another stated: “I see nothing that indicates any reason why the account should be closed. I don’t see any outstanding transactions or anything ridiculous.”

Another explained: “Chase is not involved with any like, you know, alt-right people or anything.” Those with “no moral character” are people that “the bank usually doesn’t get involved with in any business relationships, period.”

Several repeated a company line in Tarrio’s mysterious file: “Decision is not reversible.”

Others who received Chase shutdown notices so far in 2019: conservative Rebel Media contributor Martina Markota and U.S. Army combat vet and vocal Trump supporter Joe Biggs.

ere Markota’s and Biggs’s removals “clerical” errors or unfounded, or were they based on an ideological litmus test disguised as a “moral character” assessment?

More questions arise:

How exactly is J.P. Morgan Chase’s $500,000 donation last year to the SPLC left-wing operatives being put to use?

Why did the company embrace a known defamation racket whose stated mission is to “destroy” its political enemies on the right?

What comment does Chase have now that SPLC’s top leaders have been purged amid internal accusations of intolerance and discrimination within the walls of the notorious Poverty Palace?

Does Chase keep tabs on high-profile conservative customers’ political speech on social-media platforms?

Is Chase operating from the same playbook as Paypal, which is booting off conservatives in consultation with the SPLC? One of its most recent victims: Luke Rohlfing, a young reporter for BigLeaguePolitics.com, who had exposed how the payment processor was allowing Open Borders Inc. heavyweight Pueblo Sin Fronteras to raise money for illegal-immigrant caravans conspiring to break our immigration laws — even though Paypal’s own terms of service state clearly that users may not engage in any activities that “violate any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation.”

Tarrio warns of the speech-squelching pattern emerging across Silicon Valley and on Wall Street: “First we get silenced on social media, then Paypal, then I get debanked. It’s a very dangerous trend.”

As for Chase Bank, I sent all my questions to chief communications officer Patricia Wexler, who challenged the authenticity of one of the employees recorded by Veritas (O’Keefe showed proof of the Chase New York media relations number dialed and had audio of the employee identifying himself as a Chase rep) and ignored the substance of the report.

Evasion and denial are surefire ways to lose business. Is it Chase Bank or Chase Away Bank? Inquiring customers would like to know.

SOURCE  

*************************

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

***************************



Friday, April 19, 2019


European Churches: Vandalized, Defecated On, and Torched "Every Day"

In February, vandals desecrated and smashed crosses and statues at Saint-Alain Cathedral in Lavaur, France, and mangled the arms of a statue of a crucified Christ in a mocking manner. In addition, an altar cloth was burned. (Image source: Eutrope/Wikimedia Commons)

Countless churches throughout Western Europe are being vandalized, defecated on, and torched.

In France, two churches are desecrated every day on average. According to PI-News, a German news site, 1,063 attacks on Christian churches or symbols (crucifixes, icons, statues) were registered in France in 2018. This represents a 17% increase compared to the previous year (2017), when 878 attacks were registered— meaning that such attacks are only going from bad to worse.

Among some of the recent desecrations in France, the following took place in just February and March:

Vandals plundered Notre-Dame des Enfants Church in Nîmes and used human excrement to draw a cross there; consecrated bread was found thrown outside among garbage.

The Saint-Nicolas Church in Houilles was vandalized on three separate occasions in February; a 19th century statue of the Virgin Mary, regarded as "irreparable," was "completely pulverized," said a clergyman; and a hanging cross was thrown to the floor.

Vandals desecrated and smashed crosses and statues at Saint-Alain Cathedral in Lavaur, and mangled the arms of a statue of a crucified Christ in a mocking manner. In addition, an altar cloth was burned.

Arsonists torched the Church of St. Sulpice in Paris soon after midday mass on Sunday, March 17.

Similar reports are coming out of Germany. Four separate churches were vandalized and/or torched in March alone. "In this country," PI-News explained, "there is a creeping war against everything that symbolizes Christianity: attacks on mountain-summit crosses, on sacred statues by the wayside, on churches... and recently also on cemeteries."

Who is primarily behind these ongoing and increasing attacks on churches in Europe? The same German report offers a hint: "Crosses are broken, altars smashed, Bibles set on fire, baptismal fonts overturned, and the church doors smeared with Islamic expressions like 'Allahu Akbar.'"

Another German report from November 11, 2017 noted that in the Alps and Bavaria alone, around 200 churches were attacked and many crosses broken: "Police are currently dealing with church desecrations again and again. The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background." Elsewhere they are described as "young Islamists."

Sometimes, sadly, in European regions with large Muslim populations, there seems to be a concomitant rise in attacks on churches and Christian symbols. Before Christmas 2016, in the North Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany, where more than a million Muslims reside, some 50 public Christian statues (including those of Jesus) were beheaded and crucifixes broken.

In 2016, following the arrival in Germany of another million mostly Muslim migrants, a local newspaper reported that in the town of Dülmen, "'not a day goes by' without attacks on religious statues in the town of less than 50,000 people, and the immediate surrounding area."

In France it also seems that where the number of Muslim migrants increases, so do attacks on churches. A January 2017 study revealed that, "Islamist extremist attacks on Christians" in France rose by 38 percent, going from 273 attacks in 2015 to 376 in 2016; the majority occurred during Christmas season and "many of the attacks took place in churches and other places of worship."

As a typical example, in 2014, a Muslim man committed "major acts of vandalism" inside a historic Catholic church in Thonon-les-Bains. According to a report (with pictures) he "overturned and broke two altars, the candelabras and lecterns, destroyed statues, tore down a tabernacle, twisted a massive bronze cross, smashed in a sacristy door and even broke some stained-glass windows." He also "trampled on" the Eucharist.

For similar examples in other European countries, please see here, here, here, here, and here.

In virtually every instance of church attacks, authorities and media obfuscate the identity of the vandals. In those rare instances when the Muslim (or "migrant") identity of the destroyers is leaked, the perpetrators are then presented as suffering from mental health issues. As the recent PI-News report says:

"Hardly anyone writes and speaks about the increasing attacks on Christian symbols. There is an eloquent silence in both France and Germany about the scandal of the desecrations and the origin of the perpetrators.... Not a word, not even the slightest hint that could in anyway lead to the suspicion of migrants... It is not the perpetrators who are in danger of being ostracized, but those who dare to associate the desecration of Christian symbols with immigrant imports. They are accused of hatred, hate speech and racism."

SOURCE  







The real Roger Scruton scandal

Brendy says that it is the behaviour of the New Statesman that has been most disturbing.  The only surprise is that he expects honesty and integrity of a Leftist organ

The Roger Scruton scandal is indeed disturbing. Not because of what Roger Scruton said, but because of what the New Statesman did. In order to score a hit against a conservative philosopher cum Tory adviser who has always rubbed leftists up the wrong way, the New Statesman’s deputy editor dispensed with the ethics of journalism, wilfully distorted a quotation, and inferred racism where, to the best of our knowledge, none exists. Scruton’s comments were not particularly shocking, but the New Statesman’s behaviour was.

Scruton had been a housing adviser to the Conservative government. Yesterday he was sacked for his ‘unacceptable comments’ in the New Statesman interview, as the minister of housing put it. Reading the general media coverage of the scandal, and the New Statesman’s promotion of the interview online, you could be forgiven for thinking that these ‘unacceptable comments’ from Scruton included anti-Chinese racism and anti-Semitism. But they didn’t; it only looks that way because of the New Statesman’s unethical sleight of hand and virtual misquotation – usually a huge no-no in the world of respectable journalism.

All those who think Scruton expressed racial hatred against Chinese people and Jews really should read the interview. They might find that they have more questions for the New Statesman’s deputy editor, George Eaton, who conducted the interview, than they do for Scruton. Take the claims of anti-Chinese racism. In his Twitter-summary of Scruton’s comments, Mr Eaton has the philosopher saying the following: ‘Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.’ That would indeed be a racist thing to say, playing on the stereotype that all Chinese people look and behave the same. But that isn’t what Scruton said. He said: ‘They’re creating robots out of their own people… each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.’

So Scruton, it seems, was talking about the Chinese Communist Party and its expectation of conformism from the populace, not the Chinese people. By taking his comments out of context, Mr Eaton, quite wilfully it seems, turned criticism of a tyrannical government into a racist slur against a whole people. But it’s even worse than that. Mr Eaton did not only take the comments out of context – he also changed them, in a small but nonetheless important way. In his tweet, his use of a capital ‘E’ on ‘Each’ – in order to make the sentence ‘Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing’ look like a standalone comment – is, to all intents and purposes, a misquotation. In the actual interview article, the ‘each’ has a small ‘e’, and is preceded by ellipsis, because it was clearly part of a broader comment by Scruton on the authoritarian nature of contemporary China. A journalist has misrepresented the views of a public figure to make him seem racist – isn’t that more scandalous than Scruton’s strong-worded critique of what he views as Chinese conformism?

What about anti-Semitism? Again, Scruton says nothing in the interview that could be construed as anti-Jewish hatred, and yet the New Statesman infers that he did. Scruton made critical comments about the ‘Soros empire’ in Hungary. He was referring to George Soros, the Hungarian-American philanthropist who funds many so-called ‘progressive’ think-tanks and institutions. Soros is Jewish, and according to some liberal observers, this means any criticism of him is by definition anti-Semitic. This is a perverse idea. Is there a ‘Soros empire’ in Hungary? That’s certainly not a phrase I would use, but it is an indisputable fact that Soros funds various groups inside Hungary and across Europe. The depiction of all anti-Soros criticism as anti-Semitic is dodgy on two levels in particular. First, it demonises and seeks to silence all public discussion of a billionaire and his political interests. And secondly, it seriously harms the crucial struggle against resurgent anti-Semitism by weaponising accusations of anti-Semitism to the cynical end of silencing dissent on Soros and his political role – and this can only deepen the depressing cynicism that already exists towards the seriousness of anti-Semitism.

Let’s put it like this. If someone were to say that Ed Miliband is a wily, puppeteering political figure who uses his North London connections to do down ordinary people, that would clearly be anti-Semitic. But if someone said Mr Miliband was a piss-poor leader of the Labour Party who hasn’t got two ideas to rub together, that is not anti-Semitic. Do you see? Likewise, if a Hungarian hard-right agitator says Soros is a sinister, octopus-style figure puppeteering the Western world, that is anti-Semitic. But if someone – Scruton, say – says Soros funds various campaign groups that have a detrimental impact on conservative values, that is not anti-Semitic.

In order to fortify the smear that Scruton is anti-Semitic – despite the fact that he said nothing about Jews in the interview – Mr Eaton refers to an old speech Scruton made in which he seemed to suggest that Hungarian Jews are part of the ‘Soros empire’. Gross, right? Only, once again, his comments are taken out of context. He said, in the speech titled ‘The Need for Nations’, delivered in Hungary a few years ago, that ‘many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire’. Why did he make this claim? He said many of these Jewish intellectuals are ‘rightly suspicious of nationalism’, because of the anti-Semitic horrors of the 1930s and 40s, and they are also confronted with the ‘indigenous anti-Semitism [that] still plays a part in Hungarian society and politics’. These past and present experiences are an ‘obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty among ethnic Hungarians and Jews’, he said. So he was sympathising with the plight of Hungary’s Jews. Did Mr Eaton not have space to point this out?

Scruton’s other ‘unacceptable comments’ include saying that Hungarians in recent years have been ‘alarmed’ by ‘the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East’. This is indeed very worrying language. It is the one part of the interview that feels ugly. So why not challenge it? Why simply cite it as evidence for why Scruton is unfit for public life? For a public role that has precisely nothing to do with immigration or Islam?

Scruton also said that Islamophobia is a word ‘invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue’. What’s wrong with that? I would dispute that the Muslim Brotherhood invented the word. There are so many competing claims as to who invented it. And in the UK context, it was the Runnymede Trust that popularised it. But it strikes many of us as utterly uncontroversial to suggest that accusations of Islamophobia are used to close down discussion about Islam, Islamist extremism, social and cultural tensions, and so on. Because Scruton thinks Islamophobia is a phrase used to chill public debate, he deserves to be sacked? That’s crazy.

Here’s the truth of it: most of Scruton’s comments were not particularly alarming or surprising. He criticised China’s enforcement of conformism, repeated his concerns about George Soros’s growing influence, and called for a more open debate about issues relating to Islam. Demanding someone’s scalp because you disagree with their views is one of the most depressing features of our age. In the interview, Scruton was doing what Scruton has always done – provoke and challenge and irritate. It is the New Statesman that has changed. A once prestigious magazine now distorts and virtually misquotes as part of a transparent hit job against a philosopher whose views it doesn’t like. In this scandal, it is the dishonesty and anti-intellectualism of the New Statesman that should concern those who care for the state of public life.

SOURCE  






Pastors and children thrown in jail

The terrifying reality that persecuted Christians in India face  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
What should’ve been a time of fun, fellowship, and prayer at a Christian summer camp in India turned into the worst kind of nightmare.

A mob of Hindu extremists stormed the train before the kids—most of whom were no older than nine—could reach their destination. The mob yanked the Christians off the train—marching all 60 children and the pastors who were chaperoning them to the local police station.

The pastors and other adults were arrested and charged with kidnapping, cruelty, and forceful conversion.

The children were placed in juvenile facilities designed for young law breakers. The police called it “protective custody.”

It took three days, countless pleas by the kids’ parents, and intervention by ADF allies in India for the kids to be released.

The adults and pastors weren’t so lucky. They were jailed for 100 days without bail.

While they were eventually released, the charges against them remain. Their trial is expected to drag out for many more months.

If convicted, the pastors and other adults face prison sentences of up to seven years—all for merely organizing a Christian church camp.

John, this is no isolated incident. This is the reality that persecuted Christians in India face on a daily basis.

One of the adults who was jailed lost his job—his family’s only source of income. Another had been married only a month before he spent 100 days in prison for false charges.

When a father of one of the children testified in support of the pastors and adults in court, the police got upset. The father was quickly accused of a serious unsolved crime because of his testimony. His wife and three kids are now without support because of his imprisonment.

No job. No money. No father.

This is not justice. This targeted, religious persecution of Christians knows no mercy.

In America, we are used to legal battles playing out in court. But Christians in many Indian provinces face torture, violence, and oppression at the hands of their fellow countrymen. They are often brought to trial in the lower courts—prosecutions that would never be commenced if the rule of law was being honored. And all of this is aimed at destroying individuals, families, and livelihoods because they dare to follow Jesus Christ.

Christians in India need our prayers. But they also need a strong legal defense that stays in the fight for the long term.

That’s what ADF allies in India are working to do—and by God’s grace our allies have secured acquittals in every case litigated to conclusion.

We will continue to fight to secure justice for these men in India—and others like them. But we can’t do it alone.

Email from Alliance Defending Freedom






Is the recent Australian Budget really sexist?

Apparently, the women of Australia were short-changed by the federal budget last week — as it contained “no strategy or vision” for the advancement of Australian women.

Indeed, one article even claimed the budget process is clearly “failing” Australian women and lacks a ‘gender lens’ — and what Australia needs is a ‘women’s budget’.
But these assertions are ridiculous for two reasons.

First, women are stakeholders in the economy just as much as men. Women work hard, pay their taxes, run their own businesses, and invest in assets. Women are also consumers in the economy just like men: they are affected by house prices, power bills and transport congestion.

So it seems bizarre, if not downright condescending, to pretend that women don’t care — or have no reason to care — about a healthy economy, more efficient taxes, better infrastructure, or good fiscal management.

After all, millions of women will benefit significantly from the government’s tax cuts announced in the budget (if the tax cuts are ever legislated, that is) – including more than two million women who earn above the median income. Why do women’s advocates ignore or downplay this?

Secondly, using a ‘gender lens’ is a reductionist way to evaluate the Budget. We should be cognisant of the impact of government policies on women. But equally, that should apply to policies that are more likely to affect men, children, the elderly, disabled — or any other demographic group.

Regardless, public calls for the budget to focus more on women often prove to be a thinly disguised call for more government spending. This not only undermines the credibility of the idea but sits at direct odds with many Australian women who believe in responsible government.

And that relates to a further point: women are not a homogenous group when it comes to their views on policies. They are free-thinking individuals. Women have different values, political opinions and priorities, which will inform their opinions on the budget.

Clearly, the budget isn’t sexist. But suggesting that women should only care about a pre-defined set of ‘women’s issues’ certainly is.

SOURCE  

*************************

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

***************************

Thursday, April 18, 2019



Cher’s Moment Of Enlightenment: Los Angeles ‘Can’t Take Care of Its Own, How Can It Take Care of’ More Immigrants

She's getting conservative with age. About time

Pop icon Cher said Sunday that Los Angeles, California, “can’t take care of its own” residents, much less newly arrived illegal and legal immigrants.

Cher said she failed to understand how the city of Los Angeles in the sanctuary state of California could afford to admit and take care of any more immigrants when city officials have failed to care for homeless, veterans, and poverty-stricken Americans.
Breitbart Reports:

“I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More,” Cher said.

The post came after President Trump threatened to bus border crossers and illegal aliens into sanctuary cities and states, like California, if the country’s asylum laws were not changed. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that the White House is considering the plan.

In response, Democrat mayors across the country — like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf — have welcomed bringing illegal aliens and border crossers to their cities.

While left-wing mayors say they will continue to admit any and all illegal and legal immigrants, Los Angeles is home to the second largest homeless population in the country, second to only New York City. About 50,000 residents of Los Angeles are homeless and about 7.5 percent of California’s American Veteran population is homeless.

As the city remains crippled by homelessness and skyrocketing housing costs, Los Angeles metro area is also home to the second largest illegal alien population — with nearly a million illegal aliens living in the region, according to Pew Research Center.

Last year, economists at Deakin University found that immigration — both illegal and legal — drives up housing prices

SOURCE  





The Plague of Radical Feminism Descends upon the Nation

Despite its many falterings and regressions, the Judeo-Hellenic-Christian West over the long and tortuous course of its evolution has produced the most advanced civilization known to history. Characterized by the rule of law, scientific discovery, technological invention, educational opportunity for the masses, economic prosperity, individual autonomy and relative freedom from the harsh exactions of nature, it is now collapsing under the attack of forces rising from within its own existential frontiers.

Its internal assailants are myriad: domestic Marxism, “social justice,” global warming, Islam in its various avatars, anti-Semitism and hatred of Christianity, anti-white bigotry, educational decline, media malfeasance, and economic illiteracy leading to the willful accumulation of unpayable debt. But perhaps the most sinister and destructive of its homegrown adversaries is radical feminism, which seeks the ruin of motherhood and the breakdown of the relation between the sexes. It is a plague the Pharaoh was fortunately spared.

“Almost overnight,” writes Carrie Gress in The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity, “our once pro-life culture became pro-lifestyle, returning to an epicurean paganism that embraces everything that feels good.” How is it, she asks, that the women’s liberation movement “has demolished so decisively the moral and social structures of American society?” “There must be something more,” she answers, “than simple human vice behind the fact that millions of women have betrayed the most sacred and fundamental of relationships, that of mother and child,” leaving “husbands wondering what happened to their wives, fathers wondering what happened to their daughters, and children wondering what happened to their mothers.”

Never in history, she continues, “have mothers been so willing to kill their children”—3000 per day in the U.S. in an abortion frenzy of more than Herodian proportions. The biblical template of Mother and Son, subsumed in the sacred nexus of Mary and Jesus, has been shattered. Gress concludes that a demonic force—the anti-Mary—is at work, sundering women from their God-given roles as mothers and caregivers. Evil is neither a construct nor a concept; it is real, according to Gress, and the Prince of Darkness is among us.

Her central focus is Marian, the Catholic emphasis on hyperdulia (veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary) and the sacrament of motherhood. Gress sees the moral and social chasm between life and lifestyle in the feminist West as precisely an aspect of the conflict between good and evil. On the one side, there are the “marks of anti-Mary—rage, indignation, vulgarity, and pride”; on the other, the true female gifts of “wisdom, prudence [and the] ability to weave together the fabric of society,” associated with the Virgin.

We recall in this connection that the poetic kenning for “woman” in the Anglo-Saxon literature was “peace weaver” and the word “lady” derives from the Old English hläefdige, or “loaf, bread”—a metaphor for nourishment. The cognate word for the opposite gender is hläford, or “lord.” One provides sustenance, the other prepares it; one is, so to speak, the breadwinner, the other the bread baker. Men kill for the larder and women cook for the family. Custom and culture from time immemorial, with few exceptions, establish the distinction between distaff and spear—a distinction that is now being erased and overthrown. Feminism represents the very antithesis of both history and reality. Coventry Patmore’s famous, albeit somewhat treacly, poem about wifely devotion The Angel in the House was savaged by Virginia Woolf, a feminist and lesbian, who wrote in The Death of the Moth that “Killing the Angel in the House was part of the occupation of a woman writer.” This is, in effect, feminism’s default position.

Gress’ Catholic conviction about womanly nature may not persuade all readers. How is it, after all, that millions of women in the civilized West were so dramatically susceptible to the feminist message if they belonged to the caring and nurturing half of mankind? Not all women make good mothers—indeed, many do not. The Medea complex in its various forms is by no means anomalous—a bitter woman who has been wronged can kill her father, poison her lover’s wife and slaughter her children.

In today’s feminist world, however, a woman need not be wronged to create havoc; she has merely to nurse not a child but a grievance, whether legitimate or not, and act as she chooses to rectify what she conceives as a collective right. She can cut off her husband’s penis, with little punishment and full legal and societal support, can justify the killing of allegedly abusive male partners, can put out a contract on her husband, and can bankrupt her spouse and deprive him of child custody—all within the purview of the law.

Moreover, it is not only strident and embittered women responsible for the calamity we are witnessing, but the vast sodality of compliant men, aka beta males and “white knights,” who have surrendered their manhood and paved the way for the feminist takeover in government, in the media, in schools and universities, in the military, in corporate culture and in the legal system, at the expense of both their well-being and the nation’s political and economic vigor. Relying on both masculine chivalry and culturally induced guilt, feminists have conscripted their enemies into an army that would destroy them, attesting to the infusorial virulence of the feminist campaign. The spear has been duly blunted.

Further, one need not adopt a Catholic or Marian perspective to acknowledge the multifarious ways in which feminism is devastating the civic culture of the West. From a traditionally conservative point of view, the abandonment of the feminine for the feminist with its visceral hatred of the male, its penchant for aberrant sexuality, and its passionate advocacy for abortion carries out the Marxist agenda for the destruction of the family, the linchpin of civil society. It leads inexorably to social upheaval and cultural decay. It is no accident that many feminists are Marxists, whether professedly or as “social justice warriors.” Very few seem even remotely familiar with the virtues of kindness and charity, and very few seem capable, obviously, of celebrating the love between a man and a woman. They are, in the words of novelist Joris-Karl Huysmans, “Against Nature.” They are also, in the estimation of most people of traditional faith, against God.

And yet, despite countervailing instances and skeptical arguments, the traditional relation between mother and child, wife and husband, holds for the most part in the human imagination and the historical register and remains firmly in place as a biological imperative. Biology determines that men inseminate and women give birth, that in the normal course of events men hunt and women breast-feed, and that men remain potent far longer than women remain fertile. It is foolish to resist the hegemony of genetics. But there is more to it than that. There is something called love, a spiritual reality that cannot be refuted—except perhaps by those who have not experienced it.

The belief in the sacrificial divinity of love between the sexes is accepted literally by votaries like Gress, for whom the anti-Marian spirit unleashed by the Father of Lies has corrupted the human spirit as well as the culture of the West, with feminism clearly a demonic force eviscerating the vitals of romantic and sexual reciprocity—the modern expression of expulsion from the garden. The Devil is indefatigably at work and Moloch is back in business. The “woman clothed with the sun” whom we read of in the Book of Revelation is now quailing before the “great red dragon” that would devour her child. For my part, I recognize a powerful metaphor, and while I do not consider myself a believing member of any faith or communion, I cannot deny the human truth of love as an amalgam of caritas and eros between a man and a woman, the obligations it entails, and its bedrock necessity for human flourishing and social continuity.

I acknowledge Gress’ concern not merely with the social and economic aspects of marriage and the intact family, but with the mysterious and sacramental nature of love itself. One thinks of the ancient Jewish saying that from the loving union of a man and a woman an angel is born in heaven.

There are no prenups in the genuine marriage bond; the man trusts his wife, the woman honors her husband. It is a vow between a man and a woman that survives in the face of all the odds, threats, disruptions, frustrations and political forces ranged against it. Admittedly, such commitment is at a premium in today’s feminist climate of suspicion, cynicism and outright hate, but that does not alter the nature of love, only the difficulty of finding it.

The love of a man and a woman, blessed in the marital union, despite the rigors of life, the distractions of the commonplace and the tragic circumstances of existence, can be said to have something of the divine in it. In the words of poet William Blake, love “builds a Heaven in Hell’s despair.” Anyone who has experienced true love can attest to both its power and its necessity.

Of course, love can take many different forms, but it is the bond between a man and a woman solemnized in a viable marriage that is productive, ensuring posterity, preserving the social order, and in Augustinian terms rendering the City of Man, however imperfect, a simulacrum of the City of God. Harmony between the sexes is what guarantees a measure of happiness in a troubled world and fosters a sense of fulfillment that keeps life livable and culture vibrant.

In this respect, feminism is, as Gress writes, the promoter of “confusion, twisted thinking, decadence, sacrilege and viciousness descend[ing] ever deeper with every passing day.” An agent of anti-love, social disorder and, ultimately, of human misery, it will most likely run its course until the inevitable social and cultural collapse. Meanwhile, hope against hope, it must be fought with every resource at our disposal.

SOURCE  






Italian restaurants in Britain should only employ Italians in the kitchen, says chef Aldo Zilli

Italian restaurants in Britain should only employ Italian cooks, chef Aldo Zilli has said as critics say this would be discrimination.

The leading restaurateur has waded into the debate over Gordon Ramsay's "cultural appropriation" row, during which the celebrity chef was accused of disrespecting East Asian culture with his new restaurant, Lucky Cat.

Ramsay defended his new venture, saying that head chef Ben Orpwood has spent several months in south Asia studying the region’s cooking.

However, Mr Zilli has said that it is usually better for the chef to have been brought up in the country where the food is from.

"I'm involved in a restaurant chain that is called San Carlo and we employ just Italian chefs for example," he told Good Morning Britain.

"You grow up in Italy, you grow up with your parents, you grow up with those flavours and I don't think anyone else from outside that country is going to understand that food.

"If you want to serve what people in this country want to eat, that's up to you, but if you open an Italian restaurant it's got to be an Italian restaurant. If you go to China town no restaurants have an Italian chef, they all have Chinese chefs. If you go to Brick Lane, you have Indian chefs everywhere."

Employment Solicitor James Watkins from Slater and Gordon said that advertising for roles that only accepted Italians would be against the law.

He told The Telegraph: "That's direct discrimination, if the advert says they only want Italian people then that means that people who are of some other nationality are being treated less favourably on the basis they are on a different nationality."

However, there is a loophole. Mr Watkins explained: "Something that might discriminate against those with certain protected characteristics on its face can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

"So for example, it would be a legitimate aim for the Italian restaurant to want to serve authentic, traditional Italian food and proportionate to include this in a job advert. This sort of requirement is perfectly acceptable, even though it’s likely to attract more applications from Italian chefs, giving rise to a higher chance of an Italian being hired."

When approached by The Telegraph about his comments, Mr Zilli said that if he found a British chef who was good enough at cooking Italian food, he would be happy to hire them, and said he employs English staff across his five restaurants.

He added: "Anyone can apply for a job in our restaurants.

"It is usually better when someone is from the culture and they cook the food but in this country it is  hard to find people from the culture so we have to find other people. We train them up to cook the food. It is better to go to Italy first to learn the food. I have been in England 42 years so if I went to cook in an English restaurant and cook fish and chips that would be fine."

British chef Ben Tish, the culinary director at The Stafford London, who are soon to be opening Sicilian restaurant Norma, has rubbished Mr Zilli's comments.

He said: "The bonus of not being Italian is that you can generally have a different take on the food. Italians generally keep to what they know and what their mamma taught them. On the flip side, some of the best 'authentic' Italian food I've had has been by non-Italians! River Cafe anyone? Theo Randall? I think the point is that the argument doesn't stand up."

Italian chef Francesco Mazzei, proprietor of Sartoria, Fiume & Radici, said: "Anyone is welcome to cook Italian food but it must be treated with respect, especially if you’re serving traditional dishes like Bolognese, carbonara or cacio e pepe. There are some excellent Italian restaurants in London not owned by Italians, and we’ve recently seen a huge influx of pasta bars opening up which I think are doing good things. However do they serve authentic Italian food? Just as I wouldn’t dare mess with La Boheme or Tosca by Puccini, I don’t think the classics of Italian cookery should be messed with and served up with the same name."

 SOURCE  





Australia: Militant vegans are charged with trespassing and drug offences after they 'stormed an abattoir and a feedlot' on a national day of action

A group of militant vegans have been charged with trespassing and drug offences after they allegedly stormed an abattoir and a feedlot on a national day of action. 

A total of 11 animal rights campaigners have been accused of staging protests at the Yangan abattoir and a Millmerran feedlot in Queensland in March and early April.

The activists, who were arrested on Tuesday, are facing 18 charges.

Detective Superintendent Jon Wacker said the charges followed formal complaints from the owners of properties targeted by unauthorised protests.

'The Queensland Police Service respects the right of people to protest in a peaceful manner, however we have a duty to ensure the safety of protesters, farm workers and property owners,' he said.

'Unauthorised protests in and around farmlands and industrial areas create significant personal and workplace safety risks.'

'We will take enforcement action whenever necessary to ensure the safety of the community and to protect the rights of people to feel safe in their homes and at their place of work.'

The protests were part of a national campaign by vegans against the treatment of animals.

In March, about 150 activists stormed the Millmerran Lemontree Feedlot in March as a distressed farmer looked on. Lot feeder David McNamee later told Daily Mail Australia the vegans were threatening the safety of his livestock and family. 

About 20 animal activists allegedly chained themselves at the Yangan abattoir in early April. 

SOURCE  

*************************

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

***************************



Wednesday, April 17, 2019


Candace Owens: ‘White Nationalism’ Didn’t Do This Damage to Blacks, ‘Democrat Policies Did’

Candace Owens, 29, the spokesperson for the conservative group Turning Point USA, testified before Congress on Tuesday about hate crimes and white nationalism, where she stressed that “white nationalism” did not cause the major problems affecting blacks today but liberal progressivism and “Democrat policies did.”

The House Judiciary Committee held the hearing on Tuesday, the subject “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.” The committee is headed by Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Below is Candace Owens’ opening statement to the committee:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Collins thank you for having me here today. I received word on my way in that many of the journalists were confused as to why I was invited and none of them knew that I myself was a victim of a hate crime when I was in high school.

That is something that very few people know about me because the media and the journalists on the left are not interested in telling the truth about me because I don't fit the stereotype of what they like to see in black people.

I am a Democrat. I support the president of the United States and I advocate for things that are actually affecting the black community.

I am honored to be here today in front of you all because the person sitting behind me is my 75-year-old grandfather. I have always considered myself to be my grandfather's child and I mean to say that my sense of humor, my passion, and my work ethic all comes from the man that is sitting behind me.

My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like racism and white nationalism held real meaning under the Democratic Party's Jim Crow laws.

My grandfather's first job was given to him at the age of five years old and his job was to lay tobacco out to dry in an attic in the South. My grandfather has picked cotton and he has also had experiences with the Democrat terrorist organization of that time, the Ku Klux Klan. They would regularly visit his home and they would shoot bullets into it. They had an issue with his father, my great-grandfather.

During my formative years I had the privilege of growing up in my grandfather's home. It is going to shock the committee but not once, not in a single breath of a conversation did my grandfather tell me that I could not do something because of my skin color.

Not once did my grandfather hold a gripe against the white man. I was simply never taught to view myself as a victim because of my heritage. I learned about faith in God, family and hard work. Those were the only lessons of my childhood.

There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.

Here are some things we never hear. Seventy-five percent of the black boys in California don't meet state reading standards. In inner cities like Baltimore within five high schools and one middle school not a single student was found to be proficient in math or reading in 2016. The singlehood--the single motherhood rate in the black community, which is at 23 percent in the 1960s when my grandfather was coming out, is at a staggering 74 percent today. I am guessing there will be no committee hearings about that.

There are more black babies aborted than born alive in cities like New York and you have Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo lighting up buildings to celebrate late-term abortions. I could go on and on.

My point is that white nationalist--white nationalism did not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did.

Let me be clear: the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control. It is a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy -- the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy.

They blame Facebook. They blame Google. They blame Twitter. Really, they blame the birth of social media, which has disrupted their monopoly on old media. They called this hearing because they believe that if it wasn't for social media, voices like mine would never exist, then my movement Blexit which is inspiring black Americans to leave the Democrat Party, would have never come about and they certainly believe that Donald Trump would not be in office today.

The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions, ultimately to help them regain control of our country’s narrative, which they feel that they lost.

They feel that President Donald Trump should not have beat Hillary. If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa, a far left, violent white gang who determined one day in Philadelphia in August that I, a black woman, was not fit to sit in a restaurant.

They chased me out, they yelled race traitor to a group of black and Hispanic police officers who formed a line to protect me from their ongoing assaults. They threw water at me. They threw eggs at me. And the leftist media remain silent on it.

If they were serious about the rise of hate crimes they may perhaps examinine themselves and the hate they have drummed up in this country. Bottom line is that white supremacy, racism, national--white nationalism, words that once held real meaning have now become nothing more than election strategies.

Every four years the black communities are offered handouts and fear, handouts and fear, reparations and white nationalism. This is the Democrat preview.

Of course, society is not perfectible. We have heard testimony of that today. There are pockets of evil that exist and those things are horrible and they should be condemned. But I believe the legacy of the ancestry of black Americans is being insulted every single day.

I will not pretend to be a victim in this country. I know that that makes many people on the left uncomfortable. I want to talk about real issues in black America. I want to talk about real issues in this country, real concerns.

The biggest scandal--this is my last sentence--in American politics is that Democrats have been conning minorities into the belief that we are perpetual victims, all but ensuring our failure. Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democrat Party platform. They need blacks to hate whites, the rich to hate the poor. Soon enough it will be the tall hating the short.

In other remarks to the committee, Owens said, "My biography, which I submitted, you reduced it to one sentence, calling me just a 'conservative activist' -- and it wasn't what I said or what I submitted to your office last night. I just think that you opened with anti-black bias and I see it coming from the chairman today.”

SOURCE  






Democrat racism at work

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) asked seven of the nation’s leading bankers on Wednesday to confirm their race.

“As I look at the panel, and I'm grateful for your attendance, the--the eye would perceive that the seven of you have something in common. You appear to be white men. I may be mistaken,” Green said at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

“If one among you happens to be something other than a white male, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? Kindly let the record reflect that there are no hands in the air and that the panel is made up of white men,” Green continued.

“This is not a pejorative,” Green said. “You've all sermonized to a certain extent about diversity. If you believe that your likely successor will be a woman or a person of color, would you kindly extend a hand into the air?” [No hands raised.]

Then Green told the bank executives, “For fear that you may not hear me, just raise your hand now so that I'll know you're there. Raise your hand, please. All of you. Sir, apparently you don't hear me over on the end. Would you kindly extend a hand into the air if you can hear me?”

Green prodded all of them to raise their hands, which the bankers did -- reluctantly.

Green continued:

I know it's difficult to go on the record sometimes, but the record has to be made. All white men, and none of you, not one, appears to believe that your successor will be a female or a person of color.

Is it your bank likely to have a female or person of color within the next decade? Kindly extend a hand into the air -- two, three, four, five. All right, five. Without giving the commentary that I would dearly like to give, I'll move on.

You know, I'm sitting next to a reverend, and I've heard him say that he'd rather see a sermon then hear a sermon. Let us have an opportunity to see a sermon when you return.

Next question has to do with something near and dear to my heart. My ancestors were slaves. In 2005, is it true that J.P. Morgan released information directly indicating that it directly benefited from slavery? Would the representative from J.P. Morgan respond?

James Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JP Morgan, Chase & Co., said, “I do believe that in 2005 we made a report about potential transactions that involve slavery between J.P. Morgan or its heritage companies back in the 1800s.”

Green asked Dimon if his bank “accepted loans against slaves as collateral.”

“I believe that to be true, yes,” Dimon responded.

Green asked if any of the other banks have produced a study on whether they benefited from slavery. “If so, raise your hand, please. Let the record reflect that none have raised a hand, not one has raised a hand.”

Green then asked, “Do you believe that your bank benefited from slavery in some way in terms of its business practices? If so, raise your hand. (No hands raised.)

“If you do not believe that it benefited, raise your hand. Let the record reflect that all but Mr. Dimon raised a hand. Thank you.

When his time was up, Green told the seven bankers: “I do want you to know that we believe you can do better.”

Later, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) said she found the lack of diversity in banking boardrooms and corporate suites “unacceptable.”

She told the bankers to either hire someone, or give a current employee the title of “Director of the Office of Minority Inclusion in Banks.”

“Will you authorize this person to then have a meeting with me so I can do a follow-up, that we can be more than aspiration?” Beatty asked the bankers, most of whom agreed.

SOURCE  







Devout Catholic Farmers Barred From Farmer's Market In Michigan

Barred because they wouldn't host same-sex wedding

In 2016, a devoutly Catholic couple in East Lansing, Michigan, who are both military veterans and own their own organic farm, were kicked out of the local farmer’s market after they refused to host a same-sex wedding on their farm. In 2017, a court issued a preliminary order to permit Steve and Bridget Tennes, owners of Country Mill Farms, to return to the farmer’s market; on Friday, Steve Tennes will join the Alliance Defending Freedom in federal court to request a permanent order forcing the city of East Lansing to allow them to participate in the farmer’s market.

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch, former solicitor general of Michigan, asserted, “Courts have rightfully and repeatedly rejected this type of religious hostility, as recently as the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. That is why we are asking the district court to issue an order that permanently prevents East Lansing from unconstitutionally targeting Steve on the basis of his beliefs. The city’s response to Steve’s beliefs reeks of anti-religious discrimination.”

The sequence of events went like this: prior to 2016, the Tennes family, which employs a diversified group of people including some who are LGBT, had attended the farmer’s market for seven years. But in 2016, the couple was asked on Facebook if they would host a same-sex wedding. Tennes said on Facebook that he believed in biblical marriage between one man and one woman, precipitating the city's action. Yet the Tennes farm is 22 miles from East Lansing, outside the city’s boundaries and beyond its jurisdiction.

ADF noted that during a public debate, a city council member said Tennes’ Catholic beliefs were “ridiculous, horrible, [and] hateful things.” ADF added that the mayor of East Lansing criticized Tennes for translating his “Catholic view on marriage” into a business practice.

ADF pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Obergefell and again in Masterpiece that the government must respect the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

ADF also noted that only weeks prior to the city’s efforts to ban the Tennes family farm from the farmer’s market, the city publicly praised Country Mill Farms, posting, “We love The Country Mill!” on its farmer’s market Facebook page.

SOURCE  






Texas Non-Discrimination Bills Would Effectively 'Ban the Bible,' Faith Leaders Warn

On Wednesday, Texas Values Action warned Texans about eight different non-discrimination bills that would codify sexual orientation and gender identity in state law, effectively outlawing traditional Christian views on sexuality. Texas Values Action argued that these bills would effectively ban the Bible because they stigmatize Christian views based on clear Bible teaching.

"These 'Ban the Bible' bills at the Texas Legislature shock the conscience and must be stopped. Creating more government control and threatening Christians with jail time or fines does not create a tolerant society," Nicole Hudgens, senior policy analyst for Texas Values, said in a statement.

"Any inclusion of men in women’s private spaces is a gross violation of their privacy and safety. It is the job of every legislator to protect Texas women and we strongly oppose these 'Ban the Bible' bills," Ann Hettinger, Texas state director for Concerned Women for America's Legislative Action Committee, added.

The bills "allow the government to criminalize people of faith and effectively ban the Bible," Texas Values Action argued. "These bills highlight a growing national trend to punish people of faith by forcing them to celebrate LGBT viewpoints or values and reject their own sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage, human sexuality, and life."

LGBT activists claim that laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) are essential to protect an embattled minority, but these laws penalize dissent on sexual issues. Texas Values warned that such laws "create new government power and protections which ban the free expression of Biblical beliefs, especially its teaching on marriage and sexuality." Those who refuse to follow and celebrate LGBT identities "will face fines, possible jail time, or other criminal charges."

Texas Values pointed out eight different pieces of legislation that were filed between November 12, 2018, and January 23, 2019.

A trio of very similar bills — H.B. 244, H.B. 254, and S.B. 151 — would issue broad SOGI protections. The bills would amend the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the Labor Code, and the Property Code, to add three new protected classes involving "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "gender expression." Any violations of these laws would be a Class A misdemeanor and result in a $100 penalty per day.

These bill would also force people to "support" someone undergoing a gender transition, force businesses and owners who believe marriage is between one man and one woman to participate in and celebrate same-sex weddings (as in the case of Jack Phillips), force government contractors to endorse LGBT stances that may violate their consciences, force religious shelters, colleges, and universities to allow biological men in women's shelters or dorms, and force people to give biological men access to women's showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms, and vice versa.

Each of these provisions is made to sound inclusive — "welcoming transgender people," not "discriminating against gay people" — but they amount to enforcing an LGBT ideology that overrides the religious beliefs of citizens. Furthermore, there are many lesbians and radical feminists who oppose transgender identity and warn against the dangers of transgender activism.

Yet there are more bills where those three came from. H.B. 188 would amend the Property Code to add protected classes based on "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "gender expression," which would force homeless shelters, colleges, universities, and property owners to stop segregating shelters, dorms, showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms on the basis of sex.

H.B. 517 would allow the government to punish counselors, marriage and family therapists, or psychologists who work from a Christian perspective. If these mental health providers discourage homosexual behavior or transgender identity — even if at the request of the client — they would face disciplinary action. This bill would also force a therapist to disclose private counseling details in the name of opposing "conversion therapy."

H.B. 850 would make "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "gender expression" protected classes under the Labor Code, forcing Christian businesses to pay for same-sex benefits and forcing Christian business owners to allow biological men in women's private facilities.

S.B. 154 would force doctors to pledge their support for issuing new birth certificates and official documents based on gender identity, even if it violates the doctor's conscience and religious beliefs. The bill would also open up other legal issues regarding fraud, escaping criminal prosecution, disruption of records, proof of identity, and obtaining of licenses, passports, and Social Security numbers.

S.J.R. 9 would repeal the Texas Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman under the Texas Constitution, an amendment for which over 75 percent of Texans voted.

Last year, California very nearly outlawed anti-LGBT books on the basis that advertising stories of freedom from unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion constituted fraud. That law could have even banned the Bible, because the Bible promises the ability to overcome sin in Jesus Christ and defines same-sex sexual activity as sinful.

LGBT activists market these bills as "accepting," "progressive," and open-minded, but in reality they enshrine LGBT identity in law, rendering opposition to such identities illegal, even when it's based on Bible teaching and should be protected by the First Amendment's protection for religious freedom. In a way, these bills really do "Ban the Bible," and Texans should oppose them.

SOURCE  

*************************

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

***************************


Tuesday, April 16, 2019



Men Work, Women Complain

By Bettina Arndt

Pretty cheeky title for my new YouTube video today: Men Work, Women Complain. Of course, I am not suggesting women are a bunch of slackers. I’m just letting off steam about a topic that has driven me crazy for decades – the constant whining about the unfair burden of women’s second shift. How often do you see media stories talking about exhausted women carrying an unfair load of housework and childcare whilst lazy men benefit from their labours?

This is one of the favoured themes of modern feminism but like most of their complaints, it’s a load of hogwash. The true picture is very different. In Australia, the US and many European countries, research clearly shows that overall men and women contribute equally to households, if you add together paid plus unpaid work.

My little video gives you all the data to prove it. This is the first of what I plan as an occasional shorter video – a quickie for those of you who prefer things short and sweet.

Here’s the video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjd4opwZ-qI



Please help me promote it. I’d love more subscribers if you haven’t yet signed up. It really helps me get better promotion from YouTube where I am really up against it with constant bans on advertising and hiding of my videos. Telling the truth about feminist lies makes me very unpopular with the PC folk who run the site.

Email from bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au






Quebec Moves to Ban the Burka and Hijab for Government Employees

It has been 10 years since Quebec's Bouchard – Taylor Commission recommended that all public officials who embody the authority and the neutrality of the state and its institutions, such as judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and the president and vice-president of the National Assembly of Québec be prohibited from wearing any visible religious symbols such as the hijab, turbans, yarmulkes and the crucifix.

Four consecutive governments have attempted to implement a law on separation of church and state, but have failed. This time the likelihood of success is certain.

The fact is that while the Sikh turban, Jewish yarmulkes and the Catholic crucifix are definitely religious symbols, the hijab is not. Rather it is a political symbol that until the late 1970s was unheard of in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Somalia and Nigeria. It was the uniform of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world.

Let's hear from the world's most prominent exponent of the hijab, newly-elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Somalia-born hijabi Ilhan Omar. Speaking to Vogue, Ms. Omar said: "To me, the hijab means power, liberation, beauty, and resistance."

She admitted that "wearing her hijab allows her to be a walking billboard." For Ilhan Omar the hijab is an Islamist flag just as Che Guevara's beret was to wannabe revolutionaries or the KKK conehead is to White Supremacist ideology.

Closer to home, the charm offensive by Islamists trying to invoke White guilt and positioning themselves as 'victims' drew the support of most commentators. One self-declared feminist wrote in the Toronto Star: "Burqas offer Muslim newcomers a feeling of safety and comfort ... As for hijabs, despite their religious purpose, they're attractive as well as practical." As a Muslim immigrant to Canada, I almost threw up.

Such ridiculous observations from Western Feminists, including the New Zealand Prime Minister, whose obsession with wearing the hijab as a fashion statement has drawn sharp criticism from Muslims within Quebec.

Muslim activist Ferid Chikhi reacting to the Quebec hijab debate wrote: "Whether we like it or not, what is most disturbing in Quebec is what I call malignant entryism by Islamists who want to impose their ideology on the host society at all costs while refusing to respect its laws."

He and 23 other Quebec Muslims, including political scientist Djemila Benhabib, not only support the new CAQ bill for secularism in Quebec, they wrote to New Zealand's prime minister protesting what they called her "banalisation of the veiling of women and girls" calling her "consent to become a living advertisement for this symbol of political Islam ... unconscionable in the face of the Islamist agenda."

The province's most prominent Muslim politician, Moroccan-born Fatima Houda-Pepin, a former Deputy Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly has been at the forefront of the struggle against the hijab and burka for the better part of ten years.

In 2013 she said: "I refuse any drift toward cultural relativism under the guise of religion, to legitimize a symbol like the chador [Iranian Hijab], which is the ultimate expression of oppression of women, in addition to being the symbol of radical fundamentalism."

Fortunately for us Muslims who are fighting the blight of political Islamism that threatens to eliminate us all, Quebec is standing on our side even as the rest of Canada's intelligentsia, feminists, the Left and the trade union movement has abandoned us to the wolves.

From all of us victims of Islamism: Thank you Quebec. Vive le Québec!

SOURCE  






Italy’s highest court overturns decision that woman was too masculine to be raped

Italy’s highest court overturned a decision that a woman was too ‘‘masculine’’ to be raped, in a turn of events that activists hope will bring about a change in attitudes toward sexual violence and its victims in Italy.

Last month, protesters took to the streets outside the appeals court in Ancona, a city on Italy’s Adriatic Coast, after it was revealed why a panel of three female judges had acquitted two men accused of rape in 2017. The protesters took issue with the jurists’ reasoning: The judges reached their decision to acquit in part because they agreed with the defense’s argument that the victim looked too masculine for the men to have been attracted to her.

The woman reported that she was attacked in 2015. Doctors said her injuries were consistent with rape, and her lawyer’s claim that her drinks had been spiked at a bar after an evening class was seemingly supported by the fact that her blood showed a high level of benzodiazepines, a type of tranquilizer. The men were convicted in 2016.

But the appeals court in 2017 overturned that conviction, arguing that it was possible that the woman had ‘‘organized’’ the gathering in which she said she was drugged and raped.

The woman returned to her native Peru, but her lawyer, Cinzia Molinaro, who called the judges’ reasoning ‘‘disgusting,’’ filed an appeal.

On Tuesday, Italy’s Supreme Court overturned the acquittals, noting that the appearance of a rape victim is ‘‘wholly irrelevant’’ and a ‘‘nondecisive’’ factor in assessing a rape allegation.

SOURCE  






European and English-speaking migrants back immigration cuts and fear Australia is losing its identity

European and English-speaking migrants are more likely to back immigration cuts as they fear Australia is losing its cultural identity.

Migrants from these nations are less likely to support those born in other countries, with 58 per cent agreeing immigration should be cut, a survey by the Australian Population Research Institute has found.

However, two-thirds of Asian migrants favour an increase in migrant numbers and disagree with the idea that Australia's identity is disappearing.

Report authors Dr Bob Birrell and Dr Katharine Betts also found non-graduates are more likely to support the cuts compared to university graduates.

There were 67 per cent of graduates who supported an increase in immigration.

Dr Birrell and Dr Betts told the Herald Sun that second-generation migrants are more skeptical about immigration. 'These migrants have become an important part of a voter base worried about immigration,' they said.

However the survey also found that 58 per cent of Australian-born individuals agreed Australia was in danger of losing its identity and 47 per cent of voters supported 'a partial ban' on Muslim immigration.

SOURCE  

*************************

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

***************************