Heroes Of Cultural Marxism: Beyoncé 

While many people are helping to destroy the West, there are a few, the elite, who do the lion’s share of the destruction..

Beyoncé pretty much holds the “Queen of Cultural Marxism” title in my books.

It’s hard to image another woman with the cultural reach and influence that she has and make no mistake, she does not waste even a moment accidentally building up or preserving Western culture.

Like a category 5 tornado, Beyoncé is a force of Marxist destruction, captivating and corrupting any youth she comes across with the foulest mouth since that coke fiend from across the street.

And how telling that this is the woman that Barack Obama (one of the few cultural Marxist heroes who outrank Beyonce) praises mostly highly as a rolemodel for his daughters?!

Consider Matt Walsh’s unveiling of this hero of the cultural Marxist movement:

Over the weekend, pop singer Beyonce released a new album called “Lemonade” (because if life gives you lemons). For a piece of work hailed as “groundbreaking” and “brilliant,” it’s strange that the title is one of the most overused cliches in the history of cliches.

But this is the advantage of being a feminist sex icon in modern America. Everything you do and say will become the greatest thing anyone has ever done or said, that is until the next thing you do or say. Beyonce does not occupy this category alone, but due to her race and her dancing ability, she stands at the pinnacle of it.

Never mind that “Beyonce” is more a brand than a person. The lady herself is a person, but what’s presented to the world is a carefully constructed and marketed product. It’s a narrative, a story, a walking and talking fantasy novel for girls. I don’t know how much of the final manuscript is Beyonce’s brainchild and how much comes from the team of people around her, but rest assured that everything we see is manufactured. This, after all, is a woman who hired a “visual director” to follow her around and document and stylize her every move.

None of this is unique to her, of course. What I’m articulating is a familiar lament about all pop music today. It’s not art, it’s advertising. Like superhero films are designed just to hock action figures and sell tickets to the next superhero film, Beyonce’s albums are designed to hock her fashion line and sell downloads of her next album. Everything in pop culture is a franchise now, including pop singers. It’s all made for the purpose of perpetuating itself, like a virus. It certainly is not interested in expressing anything true or beautiful or good or difficult or joyous or painful. As the new iPhone is just the old iPhone with different commercials, so the new Beyonce song is just the old Beyonce song with an arguably different computer-generated beat.

But, as I said, I could lob that criticism at most of what we consume in this culture. So much of it is bland, superficial, repetitious, existing for its own sake. Devoured quickly, with little intellectual effort, leaving you still hungry and slightly nauseated. I find it therefore annoying and confusing when people speak of Beyonce’s alleged genius, but the unwarranted intellectualization of vapid, empty nonsense is not the most troubling aspect of all of the Beyonce adulation in this culture. The most troubling aspect is that her music is called ”empowering.”

I only found out about the album because social media was overrun on Saturday night with women declaring how “empowered” they feel by Beyonce’s latest offering. The media has crowned it the most empowering anthem to womanhood ever produced. The Daily Beast took it a step further, announcing that the “breathtaking” work of art calls us to “introspection, to speculation, and, most fiercely, to action.”

The album has been extolled as a “beautiful,” “stunning,” “powerful,” and “epic” masterpiece. The Pieta is a lump of Play-Doh in comparison. Beethoven’s 5th is mere flatulence when stacked against this album. Even God’s most awe-inspiring artistic achievements – Mount Everest, Victoria Falls, the universe itself – all melt away in the blinding light of ”Lemonade.” That’s the gist of the critical response.

One feminist website went so far as to chronicle 45 lyrics that, they promise, “you won’t be able to stop thinking about.”

Here are a few of the “unforgettable” lines they highlighted:

“Hold up, they don’t love you like I love you / Slow down, they don’t love you like I love you.”

“We built sand castles that washed away / I made you cry when I walked away.”

“Nothing else ever seems to hurt like the smile on your face / When it’s only in my memory.”

“I hop up out the bed and get my swag on / I look in the mirror, say, ‘What’s up?’ / What’s up, what’s up, what’s up.”

“Epic” and “stunning” seem to be a bit of a stretch here. I think I’d go more with banal and tiresome. Metaphors about oceans and sandcastles haven’t suddenly become brilliant again. And if I can’t stop thinking about “get my swag on,” it will only be because I’m trying desperately figure out why anyone can’t stop thinking about a meaningless slogan that’s been used in approximately every rap song since 2006.

At any rate, it would be merely absurd, not necessarily dangerous, for a woman to feel “empowered” by these rote pop song platitudes. Unfortunately, in Beyonce’s case, when her lyrics aren’t warmed-over and cliched, they’re vulgar, ugly, manipulative and destructive. Often they’re all five of these things at once. Granted, many pop songs are profane, mind numbing garbage, but considering Beyonce’s status as Pagan Goddess of Secular America, her garbage is all the more toxic. Especially when mixed with racial exploitation. Remember, this is the woman who gave us a militant homage to the Black Panthers at the Super Bowl.

I was particularly disturbed reading some messages and emails from a number of mothers who, after I criticized Beyonce on Twitter a few days ago, wrote to inform me that their daughters have become “better” and “more confident” people from listening to Beyonce. Beyonce is a role model, I’m told. The president shares this view, stating a while ago that Beyonce “could not be a better role model” for his girls.

Role model. Empowering. Brilliant. Genius. These are lofty titles for anyone to fit, so how close does Beyonce come? Leaving aside for the moment the racist undertones and the fact that she dresses like a wealthy stripper, let’s look at what she’s actually saying. Here are a few choice lyrics from the the same album the New York Times calls “a revelation of spirit:”

Who the f*** do you think I is?

You ain’t married to no average b***h boy

You can watch my fat ass twist boy

As I bounce to the next d*ck boy

And keep your money, I got my own

Get a bigger smile on my face, being alone

Bad motherf*****, God complex

Motivate your ass call me Malcom X

Yo operator, or innovator

F*** you hater, you can’t recreate her no

You’ll never recreate her no, hero
…And…
Going through your call list

I don’t wanna lose my pride, but I’ma f*** me up a b**ch

Know that I kept it sexy, and know I kept it fun
…And…
He trying to roll me up, I ain’t picking up

Headed to the club, I ain’t thinking ’bout you

Me and my ladies sip my D’USSÉ cup

I don’t give a f***, chucking my deuces up

Suck on my b*lls, pause, I had enough

I ain’t thinking ’bout you

I ain’t thinking ’bout


Middle fingers up, put them hands high

Wave it in his face, tell him, boy, bye

Tell him, boy, bye, middle fingers up

I ain’t thinking ’bout you
…And…
Y’all haters corny with that Illuminati mess

Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh

I’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’)

I’m so possessive so I rock his Roc necklaces…


Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like that

I did not come to play with you hoes, haha

I came to slay, b***h

I like cornbreads and collard greens, b***h

Oh, yes, you besta believe it

This is all quite incoherent, but I was able to discern 6 messages your daughter will hear loud and clear while listening to “Lemonade:”

Lesson 1: Use sex as a weapon to possess and to gain revenge.

Lesson 2: Find self-worth in your money and the expensive things you can buy.

Lesson 3: Speak with the grace and femininity of a drunken frat boy, saying things like “suck on my b*lls.”

Lesson 4: Never hesitate to f*** a b***h up.

Lesson 5: Express your empowerment with middle fingers.

Lesson 6: Eat corn bread and collard greens.

That last lesson is actually not bad culinary advice, but the others seem a bit hazardous. It truly boggles the mind that mothers (and fathers) would be enthusiastic about their daughters marinating their minds in this bile. I understand, in today’s culture, it’s exceedingly difficult to insulate children of a certain age from this kind of stuff, particularly if they go to public school (which is another argument for homeschooling). But the sad truth is that many parents don’t see any reason to even attempt to shield their daughters from music that encourages them to “bounce to the next d*ck.”

It should go entirely without saying, but apparently it must be said: bitterness, greed, envy, narcissism, sexual desperation and self-objectification do not empower. They diminish and demean. And they certainly don’t lead to happiness.

Besides, Beyonce’s “I don’t need no man” mantras are undermined by her own music, which often encourages women to degrade themselves for the sake of pleasing men. Here’s a lovely stanza from her last album:

Driver roll up the partition please

I don’t need you seeing Yoncé on her knees

Took 45 minutes to get all dressed up

We ain’t even gonna make it to this club

Now my mascara runnin’, red lipstick smudged

Oh he so horny, yeah he want to f***

He popped all my buttons and he ripped my blouse

He Monica Luwinski’d all on my gown

Whoa dere daddy, daddy didn’t bring a towel

Really, the grossest thing about that verse is that she refers to herself in the third person. But it’s perhaps an even greater concern that she released a song all about being covered in a guy’s bodily fluids. And this is the kind of thing that, based on my interactions, many mothers want their daughters to hear and take to heart. The president of the United States said himself that the woman who sings about performing oral sex on a dude in a limo “could not be a better role model.”

The truth is, Beyonce’s music, like a lot of pop music, is weird, aggressive, sullen, whorish, egomaniacal, vaguely satanic and deeply stupid. I feel no remorse in saying that, because that’s precisely how it’s intended. If her producers read this I’m sure they’d respond, “Yes, exactly, thanks for noticing.” Her music and her whole image and much of the pop industry are craftily designed to rip your soul out and stuff the vacant cavity with a loud jumble of sex, violence and materialism.

There are many forces in society who share this goal, but few can be quite as effective as pop singers. Once a culture abandons god, celebrities like Beyonce step into the void. They are revered with a religious fervor because every culture must revere something with a religious fervor. The Christians have Christ, ancient pagans had Apollo, the modern pagans have Beyonce and her fellow deities in Hollywood and the recording industry.

And the real danger is that this deification and worship is not an accident. Modern pop artists specifically call for it. Beyonce celebrates herself in every insufferable song and invites the listener to do the same. “Invite” is probably too generous a word. She demands that her fans literally “bow down, b***hes” and tremble before her. These days, feminists would spontaneously combust if you quoted Ephesians 5, but if a rich pop singer calls them “b***hes” and tells them to get on their knees in worship, they eagerly submit. The sadomasochism of pop music is probably one of its most bizarre elements.

And once the listener bows, as she’s been instructed, whatever Beyonce says – even if it’s shallow and hackneyed and idiotic – will not only be celebrated as a work of uncompromising brilliance, but as an infallible moral insight. “I can wear this/do this/say this because Beyonce did.” This is the thought process of young girls and grown women alike. This is what spiritually poisonous music can do to a person. Indeed, music is and has always been a powerful art form, but in a country where the pews are empty, it becomes a religion.

So, no, your daughter is not just having fun and gaining ”confidence” when she listens to Beyonce. She is worshiping at an altar. She is adopting an ideology. She is learning things.

The question is whether she’s learning the right things.

(Hint: she’s not.)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/beyonce-is-destroying-your-daughter-not-empowering-her/

Progressives Claim That “Christians Are Obsessed With Sex” But Progressives Really Are Obsessed With Sexualizing Very Young Children And Having Access To Them In Schools So They Can Teach Them To Experiment Sexually

The is a quote that is often attributed to Joseph Stalin. Before I quote it, I want to explain that it is a controversial quote and that many people get hung up on its apparent mis-attribution to Stalin. This offended response is a nice smokescreen for ignoring what the quote actually says and, no surprises, there’s a good reason for that: the quote, no matter its source, is a hard-hitting truth that exposes the Marxist-Progressive agenda.

Here it is:

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

All of this was at one point accurate – the American population was zealously patriotic and largely moral specifically because of their strong Christian heritage and faith.

Three guesses as to what problems America has today?!

Firstly, Christianity is scorned as a curse in favour of false gods, ideologies, and idols.

Secondly, Christian morality has been usurped with relativity and amorality.

Finally, patriotism has been replaced by a self-loathing of all that America once stood for and a welcome embrace of the Communist ideologies that America once fought so hard.

One more thing that is heartily accepted in America and her Western allies these days: teaching young children to become sexually active and experiment with twisted LGBTIQ-endorsed perversity.

Who needs life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Now, how on earth did a culture known as “Christendom” change so quickly and so completely?

Was it an accident? A mistake?

Of course not – a lot of people worked very hard to completely alter America and disconnect the nation from its history.

The same is true in most Western nations and Australia is no exception.

It began early in the century but found its voice with the sexual revolution in the 1960’s. Paraded as “liberation”, it was in fact anarchy that has lead us down the road of faultless divorce, abortion-on-demand, a plague of STD’s epitomised by HIV AIDS, normalising homosexuality, and now the sexualisation of children no older than toddlers.

Consider the following article by Jennifer Oriel:  

There are few forms of predation that offend our common morality more than child sexual abuse. During the 1970s, paedophile groups capitalising on the sexual liberation movement sought to redefine their exploitation of youth as an expression of children’s sexual rights, self-determination and autonomy. Groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association claimed children were sexual beings and sought to repeal age of consent laws to liberate their sexuality. They were welcomed by fringe elements of the neo-Marxist minorities movement that advocated sexual libertarian ideology under Queer and “sex positive” politics. Today, the discourse on children’s sexual rights and the belief they are sexual beings are invoked to justify school programs that sexualise youth at ever younger ages.

The Andrews’ Labor left government in Victoria invokes neo-Marxist rhetoric to defend questionable school programs that encourage the sexualisation of children. The Safe Schools Coalition (SSC) and Building Respectful Relationships programs were introduced using minority politics as the rationale. In each case, a state-designated minority group and political cause are aligned in a program of social change that uses youth as change agents. Program designers create a health case for government funding without causal evidence to validate a relationship between program activities and core objectives. The Safe Schools program was created for the minority group LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex) for the cause of anti-bullying with the stated objective to improve health outcomes.

The program encourages young people to become change agents for the cause of sexual ­diversity. When the program was criticised by conservative Senator Cory Bernardi, Labor leader Bill Shorten accused him of homophobia. After community outrage following revelations that program co-founder Roz Ward designed Safe Schools as part of a Marxist social change strategy, the liberal coalition withdrew commonwealth funding beyond 2017. Despite the Marxist objective of the Safe Schools program, or perhaps because of it, Daniel Andrews continues to defend it. His education minister James Merlino vilified politicians concerned about the hard Left’s indoctrination of children, calling them “bigots”. 

Unfortunately, the SSC debacle is not isolated. It has transpired that the Andrews government has produced another school program that sexualises children. As with the SSC program, Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) began with a state-designated minority group, women, aligned with the important cause of domestic violence prevention. The case for government funding was again framed as a health imperative, namely, the prevention of violence against women. And once again, the program was introduced in schools without causal evidence linking its exercises to the stated objective. Like Safe Schools, the BRR program promotes a radical agenda divorced from its stated program objective. It promotes the sexualisation of children by inculcating techniques and beliefs centred on the premise that children are sexual.

In the program instructors are encouraged to sexualise children, and children to sexualise themselves and their peers. They are asked to view highly sexualised personal ads and write their own, discuss transgenderism and anal sex. Program authors acknowledge that one exercise may cause “disassociation” in children. Sexualising and inducing a dissociative state in children are methods of paedophilic predation. They are not methods of domestic violence prevention. It is increasingly common to find the sexualisation of very young children promoted as part of sex education in schools. In 2009, the United Nations produced International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. The first iteration met with controversy after conservatives revealed it sexualised prepubescent children by promoting masturbation.

NGOs have joined the UN in a push for radical sexual programs aimed at youth under the auspices of sexual diversity and sexual health. The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) claims that “the taboo on youth sexuality is one of the key forces driving the AIDS epidemic”. In fact, the premature sexualisation of youth, especially the exploitation of girls for prostitution, have been key drivers of HIV transmission in Southeast Asia and Africa for ­decades. Despite the fact, the IPPF asserts repeatedly that “young people are sexual beings” and criticises the Catholic Church for imposing barriers on young people, denying “pleasurable and positive aspects of sex”. Its solution is comprehensive sexuality education, which it describes as perhaps “the single most important gift that parents can offer to their children”.

The Netherlands government promotes comprehensive sexuality education in what some call the Dutch model. Under the Dutch model, schoolchildren begin sexual programs at four years of age. Modules for young children include “what feels nice” and “does bare make you blush?” Lessons marketed under the “Spring Fever” package include “being naked”, a module that explores nudity, undressing and being in the bath. It is unclear why any adult would solicit an account of how a child undresses or why the Dutch state would mandate such discussion in schools. CSE advocates defend their programs with studies that indicate efficacy, but mainly in comparison to abstinence programs.

There is a more moderate middle path that provides children requisite knowledge in biology, safety from violence and mutual respect without encouraging their sexualisation in activities that resemble grooming. The sexualisation of childhood by governments and NGOs should be a source of broad community concern. The state has no business interfering in childhood by conditioning children’s sexual responses. As a whole, parents remain the best arbiters of their children’s morality and guardians of their development. Australian children are ranked 14th in literacy and 19th in mathematics according to OECD reports. Governments should take remedial classes in teaching kids the basics of reading, writing and arithmetical instead of indulging messianic pretensions to parenting by proxy.

Even if Stalin never said it, I am saying it and I am saying that the Marxists clearly took its advice and have successfully weakened America and the West, perhaps fatally.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/14/ben-carson-cites-stalin-gets-quote-wrong.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/protect-kids-from-marxist-sexualisation-programs/news-story/2d4f796c2c53c26c22320df709719f7a

Good News: Target Beginning To Pay For Promoting Insane Transgender Toilet Policy

When you want to do something stupid, you will pay a price.

Here’s to hoping Target keep on paying and change their foolish policies back to ones that actually protect employees and customers instead of encouraging perverts, molesters, and rapists to access women and children.

Read it and smile:

After more than 1.1 million people pledged to boycott Target, celebrities and corporations alike are having second thoughts about crossing Americans on such a consensus issue. The decision by the retail giant is not only sparking massive backlash, but it’s helping the country get a real picture of the controversy in North Carolina. It’s also shown liberals that without the big media’s cover, twisting the facts of the law, they’re all by themselves. There’s even more evidence of that this week, as more singers are keeping their concert dates in North Carolina than canceling them. Even more telling, not one business has threatened to leave the state after seeing what happened to the retail giant — which has taken a $2.5 billion hit since letting grown men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. After executives announced the change, shares dropped 6 percent in just 10 days.

And the rest of the market is taking note. Rockers Cyndi Lauper and Mumford and Sons refused to cancel their stop in the Tar Heel State, and instead promised to donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations. This is what happens when you stand up to bullies! They leave. And the same thing would have eventually happened in Indiana, Georgia, and South Dakota if those governors would have had the courage to stand up for religious freedom. Most country stars, meanwhile, never abandoned fans in the first place. One of the biggest names on the scene, Florida Georgia Line, never hesitated. “We love North Carolina and our fans there, so we’re gonna play. We are going to be there for sure. For sure.” Scott McCreery, Cam, and Chris Land didn’t blink either. “I think there are bigger things in the world to be thinking about,” Chris Jansen told reporters. “So I think you can kind of get where I lean on that subject, right? You have to perform for the fans.”

For Target, the bad news keeps piling up. Employees are going public with their concerns — not just about the company’s agenda, but about their job security. If the financial losses keep up, “I’m worried that it will cost jobs. I’m wondering if they care about families or they care about families of team members that lose their jobs,” one said. Even more problematic, the clash is dragging down Target’s image. The negative feedback is already damaging the company’s brand, Forbes warns. “The number of people who said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they needed something from a department store dropped from 42% to 38%, as measured by the YouGov BrandIndex.” And that’s just in a week and a half!

Making matters worse, a woman’s video chasing a stalker out of the underwear section of a Florida Target store is going viral. As most Americans know, these incidents are only going to increase, as shoppers find more men in restrooms and changing rooms. Of course, as AFA’s Tim Wildmon points out in USA Today, “There is a simple solution to this controversy for Target. Gender-specific facilities (men’s bathrooms/fitting rooms, women’s bathrooms/fitting rooms) would be maintained, and a single-occupancy, unisex option would be provided for the transgendered community.” Clearly, Target is more interested in making a political point. And now they’re paying for it.

Who knows how many innocent victims will also pay? That’s the sobering question Kaeley Triller asks in a compelling piece for The Federalist. She’s a rape survivor who says her “heart starts to race” just reading about these reports. “They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters… Do these companies know,” she asks, that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected? Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?”

As a mom, she says, what about her rights? “What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of ouremotional and physical rights?” All too often, they take a backseat to the radical ideology of the Left. Read why in Peter Sprigg’s new piece for the Tulsa World.

http://barbwire.com/2016/05/06/stock-awe-shoppers-dump-shares-target-blitz/

Leftist Governments Will Force Their Way Into Your Family And They Will Target Your Children To Do It

Here is the terrifying totalitarian future that Scotland is cooking up for families.

WHAT IS IT?

The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to appoint a ‘Named Person’ for every child in Scotland.

This is a state official tasked with looking after a child’s “wellbeing”, that is, their “happiness”. This state guardian will be put in place regardless of whether or not children or parents wish to have one and regardless of whether there is any need for state intervention.

Confusingly, there are already Named Person pilot schemes in operation across Scotland, but the legislation does not actually come into force until August 2016.

WHAT WILL A ‘NAMED PERSON’ DO?

Named Persons are given some of the duties of parents. A Government-funded leaflet said this includes having to check if children get a say in how their room is decorated and what they watch on TV.

A Named Person will have the power to speak to a child, including about very personal issues, and provide information or advice – all without requiring parental consent.

TEN REASONS WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM

  1. It undermines parents and permits the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.
  2. The Government keeps saying there’s no need for families to use the Named Person but this is disingenuous. The scheme is compulsory. Every child will have a Named Person by law. They will have power to access confidential data on the family, and to talk to a child without their parents agreeing with what they say.
  3. It’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children with the resources available. The Scottish Government is stretching those resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.
  4. Appointing a Named Person with legal responsibilities for every child will divert resources away from vulnerable children. Time spent filling in forms for dozens of children at no risk is time that could be better spent on those children in need of help.
  5. One piece of Government guidance says a Named Person has “responsibility for overall monitoring of the child’s wellbeing and outcomes”. This is the role of a parent.
  6. Because of the pressure on them, Named Persons will be forced to act defensively, reporting trivial or irrelevant family issues to social services. This creates more work for social workers who will have to needlessly follow up these families, cheating vulnerable children of the resources that they need.
  7. The Named Person is legally responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of every child. Official guidance says “wellbeing is another word for happiness”. How can the state monitor the happiness of every child?
  8. Teachers are busy enough without becoming a Named Person responsible for monitoring hundreds of children and handling the large amounts of confidential data sent to them by all the other agencies involved in the child’s life.
  9. These plans could result in children having their privacy invaded over personal issues and could lead to them shunning helplines and advisory services.
  10. The current law says social services can intervene where a child is at risk of significant harm. But Named Persons can intervene merely where there are concerns about a child’s “wellbeing” or “happiness”.

Consider the following commentary for further insight into just how terrifyingly bad this actually is:

http://no2np.org/named-person/

Michael Brown: An Open Letter To Bruce Springsteen 

Pretty much every public toilet, bathroom, and restroom in history has provided men and women with seperate privacy (yes, there are always exceptions).

Everyone else is wrong though and the moral crusaders of the transgender fascist movement are out to ensure you bow to their will.

Bruce Springsteen, rockstar, is leading the charge against North Carolina, a state that had the audacity to continue to differentiate between men and women, by cancelling his planned concert there because they won’t change said law.

Michael Brown offers an open letter that challenges Springsteen and band to actually think about the topic a bit:

Dear Bruce,

As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”

You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.”

Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)

So, please allow me to ask you some questions.

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?

If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

And one final question.

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?

Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

https://stream.org/open-letter-bruce-springsteen-band/

Dear ABC, Crowdfunded Illustrated Homosexual Fairytails Are Not Headline News But The Dangers Of The Homosexual Lifestyle Sure Are

If I successfully Crowdfunded a fifth leg for my dog, it would no more be “news” than this joke.

What would be news however is an LGBT Aesop-styled fable about the massively increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the LGBT community. Or drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide.

I mean, if your are going to try and pawn homosexuality and other abnormal, dangerous and destructive desires and disorders onto the general public, at least be honest about what is under the hood.

I’m loath to post any of this propoganda masquerading as “news” but there is one important comment which sums up the key problem here:

“The conflict does not arise from a coming out story or someone struggling with their sexuality or a disapproving parent. In this utopian kingdom, sexuality isn’t questioned,” he said.

Ah utopia! Y’know, the key underlying promise of Marxism/Humanism/Atheism.

Otherwise know as a “lie”.

So these authors are under the insane delusion that total sexual anarchy is actually the gateway to utopia – a place where nobody asks any questions or, at least, the wrong type of questions. Just like in Communist countries! 

The threat of the gulag seems to have that effect on questioning types.

With that disturbing lie exposed, let’s consider a very contrary reality to this delusional LGBT fantasy: the massively increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide in the LGBT community are all equally high in all the homosexual-friendly cities of the world including San Francisco, Rio De Janiro and Sydney. 

The LGBT lobby are so eager to represent homosexuals as victims that they will overplay their hand and confess the reality that homosexuals still turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide even when they are embraced, supported, and celebrated.

Regardless of location, consider the following cited article by Matt Slick that clearly identifies homosexuals as victims but most importantly, victims of their own dangerous lifestyle choices and sexual practises:

Okay, so now that we have something to work with, let’s take a look at homosexuality and see if it is beneficial or harmful to society. Let’s start with disease and see what the statistics teach us.

Disease

2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: “Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009).” (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

“A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.” (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: “Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently.” (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don’t know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Financial Impact

$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: “Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed.” (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

$1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: “June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia–HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion.” (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society’s financial stability.

Mental Health

How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.

” . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark–the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality–both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.” (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)

73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals’ problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker).” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Sexual Molestation

Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage–29 percent–of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772″ (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).

Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another ‘sexual orientation’ see http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517). Society needs to protect its children–not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.

Sexual Promiscuity

Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. “There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216, McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253, Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subject to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society, and their behavior, which is a manifestation of their “orientation,” is extremely dangerous. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/promised-land-long-overdue-lgbti-fairytale-comes-to-life/7320074
https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

STD Awareness Month: Because Catching Sexual Diseases Is Actually Heroism And Not The Expected Consequence Of Dangerous And Immoral Choices

If it is dangerous or immoral, you will find the Left defending it under its “perpetual victim” status or outright forcing it down your throat.

Abortion is one good example: murdering your own child is “freedom”. Disagree and you are a partriarchal, mysoginistic sexist. 

Homosexuality is another: take “pride” in your perverse sexual practise, especially when you parade it on a float in front of children. Disagree and you are an intolerant, bigoted religious fundamentalist who is obsessed with controlling other people’s sexuality.

But these two abominations are simply the sad and sorry extension of bad old sexual promiscuity: absolutely zero sexual restraint is “freedom”. Disagree and you are a racist, bigoted, Islamophobic, mysoginistic, intolerant…whatever.

Currently, reported cases of STD’s are off the charts in the West, especially amongst youth, which isn’t so strange in that the sexual revolutionaries have been working for near a century to encourage young people into dangerous and immoral sexual choices.

First they represented them as victims. Sure, they lived dangerously and paid the price for it in their own bodies but victim narratives sound way better when you shift all the blame away to…well anyone will do.

But victim status only gets you an audience and a means to power – then you need to reach for it. That’s why you need to turn it into a positive. Something to be honoured and shared…which is sort of how this problem got started in the first place.

Were you aware that April is “STD Awareness Month”?
Neither was I.

STD, of course, stands for “Sexually Transmitted Disease” – also known as venereal disease or STI (“Sexually Transmitted Infection”).

Seems to me that with the virally disproportionate spread of STDs among practitioners of sodomy, it would make more sense to “raise awareness” about the natural consequences of sexual promiscuity during June, which President Obama regularly dubs “LGBT Pride Month.”

Nonetheless, and speaking of pride and promiscuity, you oughta head on over to Twitter and check out the left’s latest do-nothing hashtag: #ShoutYourStatus (meaning, sexual disease). You can thank me later.

While there, you will be treated to a stupefying spread of disbelief-suspension, rationalization and justification relative to how, and why, people contract these nasty bedroom bugs in the first place.

#ShoutYourStatus is evidently the similarly twisted sister of Planned Parenthood’s profligate #ShoutYourAbortion campaign. Therein, mostly “progressive” feminists joined together to brag on social media of having their own sons and daughters dismembered alive, and then parted out for profit, or tossed in the back-alley dumpster like so much trash – all so they could avoid paying the piper and keep on truckin’ loosey-goosey.

And now, like abortion, to these same “social justice” warriors, infecting themselves and others with herpes, AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis and the like, isn’t just OK. It’s a personal accomplishment.

What I am now doing, that is, speaking bluntly and truthfully about things of which our leftist friends prefer to deny, is labeled “slut shaming” by these self-deluded proponents of Consequence-Free-Sex™ (something that does not exist).

prudishKeep in mind that I would never use the word “slut” to describe one of God’s priceless feminine creatures. It has, instead, become en vogue among our younger feminist set, to loudly and proudly acknowledge themselves as such in order to “destigmatize” the slang term’s referent sexual promiscuity, along with said behavior’s entirely foreseeable outcome (i.e., any or all form of a wide variety of potential crotch cooties).

Political correctness is an STD.

For instance, feminist blogger Ella Dawson (@brosandprose), “shouted her status” by tweeting: “I’m not interested in playing identity politics. I’m a slut, and I have herpes. I am still a person who deserves respect.”

To Ms. Dawson, I would respond that no one “deserves” respect. Each one of us deserves, based upon our own merit, nothing short of eternal damnation. Respect is something earned, and eternal salvation, something freely given. As a daughter of God, created in His own image and likeness, she does, however, deserve to be treated respectfully – and with love and kindness.

And truth.

Still, I wonder if Ms. Dawson has considered that the first aspect of her admission, “I’m a slut,” may at least be tangentially related to the second: “I have herpes.”

Alas, it appears no. As evidenced by a subsequent tweet, the causal connection between actions and consequences yet eludes our young friend’s tenuous grasp: “A few weeks ago, I told a cute guy at a bar that I had herpes. Then I slept with him. Hehehehe.”

Yikes, I wonder if Mr. Cute Guy knows that, much like John Kasich, herpes never goes away.

Anyhow, Ms. Dawson happily tweeted on: “An STD is not a reflection of your character or a consequence of poor choices. It’s an inevitability.”

Right.

Well, I guess it is inevitable to the same extent that when one gapes directly down the barrel of a loaded Glock .45 and pulls the trigger, one inevitably divests one’s cranium of a significant share of its hitherto undisturbed gray matter.

Speaking of disturbed gray matter (and diminished quantities thereof), Ella Dawson is not alone in adopting this false, morally relative, actions-without-consequences view of the world.

This mindset is progressivism personified.

Next up? #ShoutYoureNotTetheredToReality.

I decided to weigh in. “STIs are the natural consequence of sin,” I tweeted. “God’s perfect abstinence until man-wife marriage plan prevents 100% of STIs.”

“Dr. P,” with the Twitter handle, @Cataracthealer (evidently an actual M.D.), quickly rejoined, “Many people don’t want to be married, but also don’t want to be celibate.”

To which I responded, “Correct. Which is disobedience to God (aka, sin). ‘The wages of sin is death.’ Hence, herpes, AIDS, etc.”

Obama CelebratesHe then asked, legitimately, I might add, “How about the non-sinners who get the diseases from the sinners? For Example: Ryan White or faithful wife of whoring hubby, etc.?”

Putting aside for a moment that there is no such thing as a “non-sinner,” I nonetheless replied, “Indeed, horrible situations each, wherein one party is victimized by the sins of another. Yet sin remains the root cause.”

Indeed, I would be remiss if I did not concede that, while a significant minority such instances may represent, there are times when, via drug transfusion or due to a wayward spouse, innocent people can, and do, become infected with STDs through no fault of their own.

Still, the vast majority of infections occur as the natural outcome of bad choices – of sin.

Choices like those made by “BadGrrrlMeat” (@lachristagreco), who, like Ms. Dawson, boasted of having contracted herpes. She responded to my original tweet with, “Sinning is the best. I’m a proud sinner!”

Which immediately reminded me of Philippians 3:10: “Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.”

Oh, how the Word of God is Truth.

“Don’t get me wrong,” I closed. “I’m not judging. I’m a sinner as bad as any other. Yet truth is truth. Truth, who is Christ, saved me.”

And I pray that Truth might save “ELD” (@eld3393), who asked the Twittersphere, “I kicked off #STIAwarenessMonth by sharing my herpes+ story w/ 7th grade human sexuality classes. How are you celebrating?”

Celebrating herpes? Seventh graders?

#ShoutYourStatus, world!

The world celebrates sin.

The world needs saving.

Safe Schools Coalition Founders: “Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity. “

So when the founders of the “Safe Schools” anti-bullying program admit that it’s not about bullying and instead all about homosexual and transgender indoctrination, will anybody be willing to face this revelation?

Or is it ears closed as usual?

Are you really okay with Marxists indoctrinating your children into pervere and promiscuous sexual practises with crazy reality-denying philosophy to boot?

The two people on stage, in the video, are Roz Ward, Coordinator of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, and Joel Radcliffe, Project Officer of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria.

CLIP 1

Roz Ward:

We’re going to talk about visibility. And it’s one of the challenges, I think, of working – and we work deliberately and specifically around sexual diversity and gender diversity. Not all forms of diversity. We’re talking about sexual diversity and gender diversity. And both of those things are not necessarily visible. You can’t look around the room and be like “You’re sexually diverse. You’re gender diverse. Whatever.” It’s not the same as saying “Oh. There’s a lot of people from different cultural backgrounds. I can see them in here.”

Not all cultural diversity is visible but there are, ya know, there are those triggers to make you think “Are we doing stuff to make those students from different cultural backgrounds feel included?” There’s not the same triggers around sexual diversity. People can be invisible and there are schools where they say…still…we don’t necessarily work with them but we hear the stories of “But we don’t really have any gay students in our school.” Because they’re not necessarily visible, right? So we’ve gotta think about really explicit, visible cues that are very clearly about gender and sexual diversity. So we think very specific posters work really well, very specific messages from school leadership, very specific things written in your school newsletter, that Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity. About same-sex attractive. About being transgender. About being lesbian, gay, bisexual – say the words – transgender, intersex. Not just “Be nice to everyone. Everyone’s great.”

CLIP 2

Roz Ward

…positive parents have driven that change in schools, and out of 132 schools, we have had one complaint from a parent about being part of Safe Schools Coalition. One complaint. And that’s not what the schools thought was going to happen. All of the school leadership, or a lot of school leadership said “What can we do when a parent complains?” We give them some advice and then they’ll come and we’ll be like “Did anyone complain?” and they’re like “No. It’s great actually. Somebody called us and said congratulations for joining.” And it’s way more likely to be that we find, than people complaining.

If, and when, and sometimes, in that case when the parent did complain – we have complaints sometimes directly from parents who are not [inaudible] in what we’re doing. When people do complain, then school leadership can very calmly and graciously say “You know what? We’re doing it anyway. Tough luck.” Basically. In a nice way. “What can you do? This is a program that’s about supporting safe and inclusive schools. We’re going to celebrate IDAHO day, and we’re going to do it with our junior campus, and so, ya know, it’s unfortunate that you don’t agree with that. We’re going to do it again next year, and if you really, strongly disagree and you want to take your kid out of school that day, that’s their loss, really.”

Joel Radcliffe:

It’s important to know that it does come up a lot. People say “What about the parents?” a lot. Schools give parents…Parents have a lot…seem to have a lot of power over schools. Parents don’t have the power to shut this down. There’s an insignificant minority that might have an issue with it. None of them really ever say anything. I know one person that does. The Principal knows how to deal with that person. They know what the message is. They know why they’re doing this work and why it’s so important. That’s part of the school culture. That’s part of the school community. You’re either a part of it or you’re not really, at the end of the day. And no one’s taken their kid out of school…

http://www.acl.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Safe-Schools-not-about-bullying-transcript-2.doc

The Problem Of The West: Socialist Policy, Low Birth Rates And Growing Muslim Immigration

Daniel Greenfield sums up a lot of the problems in the West right here:

Daniel Greenfield: There’s an old Hemingway quote about going bankrupt. How did you go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly. Here in the United States, we’ve had a front row seat to gradual bankruptcy. What does that mean? Under Obama, good policies have been replaced by bad policies. Good money has been replaced by bad money. Debt has been piled up in every state of the union. We have the same speech. The state of the union is strong. We’re investing trillions of dollars in Muslim, green energy self-esteem. Of course, that’s not an investment because an investment is when you get money back. It’s just spending, but that’s how you go bankrupt. And at the end of the day, the bill comes due and suddenly it’s, “Where did all the money go?” “How did we suddenly go bankrupt?”

Now demographic bankruptcy is also a very real thing. Economic bankruptcy is when you have no more money. You wake up one morning. There’s no more money. Demographic bankruptcy is when you wake up one morning. There are no kids, and this is a very real problem. You’ve heard China is abandoning its one-child policy. It’s now going to be a two-child policy. Germany though has a one-child policy of its own. The German birthrate is 1.3. That’s a one-child policy. That’s a 1.3-child policy. There’s a slight problem here because if you’ve got a birthrate of 1.3, and you’ve got socialism, who is going to pay for all of this? The entire system is based on the idea that the next generation is going to pay in, and the next generation is going to pay in, and this whole thing can keep running along indefinitely, but the Europeans aren’t having kids. I grew up in Europe myself for sometime, and it wasn’t unusual. I was one of the few kids running around. There are a lot of elderly people. There were some middle aged people. There were not that many young people, and it’s actually getting worse these days.

So if you look at Germany, Germany is a very bad case scenario, but there are even countries that have lower birth rates. Now this is a problem because in the normal birth rate, you’re supposed to have a pyramid. The younger workers at the bottom. Then it gets narrower. There are the middle age, and then there are the elderly. In Europe, the pyramid is upside down. You have the elderly at the very top. You have a small wedge of people who are middle aged, and you have a shrinking wedge of people who are young, which means they are going demographically bankrupt. Now Europe has been going demographically bankrupt for awhile now because of its falling birth rates, so the socialists who run it have come up with an absolutely amazing plan, which socialist plans can’t possibly fail. They’re going to solve this demographic bankruptcy and this resulting economic bankruptcy when there’s nobody to do the work or pay the bills or even write the welfare checks by bringing in millions and millions of Muslims to fill in the gap. So you’re going to have people from high birth rate countries come in, and they’re going to be at the very bottom of the pyramid.

They’re going to do the work, so Hans and Fritz will retire. They can retire at 55 or whatever. He’ll get his pension, and that’ll be fine, and Mohammed will come in, and he’ll work hard, and he will have a lot of kids, and the whole socialist system will keep working great. There’s just one, tiny, little, minor problem with it, and I’m not talking about the terrorism, the Sharia, the no-go zones, the attacks on Jews, or all the other fun stuff. There’s just one other minor problem, which is that the people coming in don’t actually work. Muslim unemployment rates, yeah. I mean you can count on socialists to bring in more people who don’t work to a country where the problem is that too many people already aren’t working.

But Muslim unemployment rates in Europe, it’s not unusual to see unemployment rates in the 20 and 30 percentile range. Among youth, you see unemployment rates in the 50 and 60 percent range, and that’s not because, as the excuses go, they’re disaffected. They’re not given work. They’re not given opportunities. They don’t want to work, and why should they want to work? Because there’s a basic cultural difference between Europe, between the West, and Islam, the Muslim world. Europe, the West, we’re a work ethic culture. We believe in working. We believe in coming home and saying okay, honey, what did you do? I worked 8 hours a day. That’s great. The Muslim world, it does not work like that because the Muslim world is a slave culture. We’re in the south now. We’re in Charleston. We’re supposed to feel very bad about slavery, which is a 19th century thing in America. In the Muslim world, it’s a 20th century thing.

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery, I believe, in 1962. 1962. The JFK administration came to the Saudis, and they said maybe you should give human rights to women, and let people vote and get rid of the slaves. Back then we had a little more leverage with the Saudis than we do now, so the Saudis grumbled and said all right. All right. Fine. We’ll get rid of the slaves. That was 1962. That was a great moment in Muslim human rights. The Muslim world has never really abolished slavery especially in the Middle East except because of European pressure. The English forced the Egyptians, for example, to get rid of slavery. The Saudis still have slavery, by the way. They just made it an even worse form of slavery. The original form of slavery, the slave owners would at least take care of the kids. They would take care of the old people. It was still evil, but it was slightly less evil. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris moved on to this kind of concentration camp slavery where you take workers at the peak of their lives. You take young workers. You burn everything out of them. In some cases, you downright kill them. Then you dump them back to the country where they come from with some pocket change. This is concentration camp slavery.

It’s what the Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, that’s what they’re built on. They have huge work forces. All these nice skyscrapers, you see all these paradises for the rich, they are built by slave labor. They are built by thousands of people just dying in the heat building this thing. They are built by this, and it’s like Sparta except we supply the military, and we supply the wealth, and they just sit around on their asses all day and own the slaves. That’s the Saudi — that’s all these societies. These are societies where the idea at the top is not to work. You do not work. You see all these leaders who are fat, who are ridiculously fat. They look like they have trouble walking across the room. The Saudi royals, Qatar, that’s because they don’t walk across the room. They sit on their asses all day, and they have these servants from Africa usually fanning them with palm leaves or whatever, and they’re not going to fan themselves with palm leaves because that’s what slaves are for. That’s how a slave culture works. Even the people who aren’t at the top believe that work is something you’re punished with. It’s not something you want to do, and socialists, by the way, believe the same thing. Work isn’t a good thing. It’s something you have to be forced to do.

This is a slave culture, and in the slave culture when people come into a country where it has generous socialism, that has generous welfare policies, they’re coming there not to work. In fact, you have the whole idea that these people are refugees. They are not refugees. They are not coming across the border from Syria, making it across the border into Germany, and saying, “Thank God, we’re in Germany now. We can be safe from the civil war.” That’s not how it is. They’re crossing into Jordan. They’re crossing into Turkey. In Turkey, there’s no war. There’s no war in Jordan. They stop being refugees the moment they leave Jordan or Turkey, and when they head to Europe, they’re no longer refugees. They are economic migrants. It is very important to remember that. There is no war in Turkey. There is no war in Jordan. They are not refugees once they leave Jordan or Turkey.

Now why are they going to Germany, for example? Why? What’s so great about Germany? Now I interviewed some of these guys, and they say you know what’s great about Germany? Hitler. We like Hitler. Germany is bringing in people to accord with tolerance and European values, and what these people admire most about Germany is Hitler. They may not have heard that he died awhile back, so they may be a little unclear about the details, but what’s so great about Germany? What’s so great about Sweden? Why are they all headed there? Welfare. It’s a great welfare state. You have a German teacher asking her students in class what they wanted to be when they grew up. Susie, what do you want to do when you grow up? I want to be an ecological engineer. Hans, what do you want to be when you grow up? I want to fly hot air balloons. Mohammed, what do want to be when you grow up? I want to be on Hartz IV. Hartz IV is Germany’s welfare. “Hartz” means “heart.” It’s because it’s very caring to give people free stuff, so they want to be on Hartz IV.

Germany has very generous welfare policies. So does Sweden. They don’t want to go to a lot of these countries. You have interviews with these refugees who are in Slovenia. They’ve never heard of Slovenia before. They’re not interested in Slovenia. They don’t want to live in Slovenia. Slovenia doesn’t have great, free stuff. They want to go to Germany for all the free stuff they can get, so Europe is dealing with its demographic bankruptcy by bringing in more people who don’t want to work, by bringing in more people who are going to take more out of the government than they’re going to pay into it. So the socialists have actually managed to take a crisis that they are responsible for and made it even worse. Now how did demographic bankruptcy happen in the first place? How did you get to a 1.3 child rate? That’s a ridiculous number. It’s not China. Nobody was forcing women to have abortions. Nobody was marching in at gunpoint forcing them to have abortions.

This was Germany. They voluntary did this to themselves, and it’s not just Germany. It’s across Europe. Why did this happen? This happened because they decided that their future wasn’t their children. There are two reasons that people have children. One’s slightly cynical. Children take care of you in your old age. The second one is that you care about children. Children are the future. Europe, of course, has no future because it doesn’t have children right now, so the first part, Muslims have high birth rates. They have very high birth rates, so when you have Muslims coming in to Sweden, you have Somalis, for example, coming into Sweden, they have a birth rate that’s three or four times higher than the Swedish population. Syrians are coming to Germany. Germany, as I said, has a birth rate of 1.3. Syrians have a birth rate twice that. Afghans, who are the second biggest group, forget about the Syrians. The Afghan refugee boom is now becoming very huge. It’s a country of 30 million. A quarter of them polled have said that they want to leave Afghanistan.

One hundred thousand are expected to try to get into Europe this year.

But their birth rate is much higher because this is an investment program. This is a retirement program. Their kids take care of them in their old age. In Europe, your kids don’t take care of you in your old age. The government takes care of you in your old age. Under socialism, you have a cradle to grave state. The problem is that Europe now has a lot more graves than it has cradles. It has a whole lot of people, who are elderly. It doesn’t have a lot of cradles. It doesn’t have a lot of kids. The Muslims are supposed to solve this problem, but, of course, their retirement plan is have a lot of kids, charge them for the government. It’s not a great plan because, again, you’re not producing any more workers.

Now the second idea was that in Europe the things you would care about were not your children. They would be progressive policies. People weren’t living to see — I want to see my kids get married. I want to live to see my grandkids get married. Hell, it’s I want to live to see the European Union. I want to live to see diversity, and they’re living to see it now. I want to see light rail. In the UK, they’re talking about it’s important to have no more than one child because of global warming. You can’t have too many children because of global warming. So global warming, leftist policies matter to them more than their kids. That’s why they have no kids. They have faced demographic bankruptcy because they faced economic bankruptcy, because they face ideological bankruptcy.

Now we’re not immune to this stuff. We’re going slower than Europe, but we’re also going gradually, politically bankrupt. We’re going economically bankrupt, and we’re going demographically bankrupt. The Muslim population in the United States has increased 67 percent since September 11. It’s a great way to commemorate September 11. Sixty-seven percent increase. The Muslim population in the United States is younger. Their birth rate is higher just like in Europe. In the UK, you can look at the sea at the bottom level. When you hear that Mohammed is the most popular name in the UK for children or the most popular name for children in Oslo — so Oslo is 10 percent Muslim, but it’s Muslim at the bottom where it matters, where the children are. And England and Wales it’s 4 percent Muslim, but if you look at the children under 4, 9 percent are Muslim, and that is the future.

We think economic bankruptcy, the numbers sometimes sneak up on you because we don’t pay attention to the numbers that matter. When it comes to demographic bankruptcy, the numbers that matter are under 30, under 20, under 10, under 4. The median age in Germany is 46. The median Muslim age in Germany is 34. They are a much younger population. They’re having more kids which means they define the future. Now this is important for us to realize because this immigration thing is not just a problem of borders. It’s a problem of values. It’s important for us to have the children. It’s important for us to raise the children that are going to be the future because if we fail to do that, if we do what the Europeans do then we turn it over. At some point we’re going to be facing an economic crisis, and we’re going to do what the Germans did, which is say we can bail ourselves out with 5,000, 10,000 Muslims. Germany expects 1.5 million Muslims, according to a leaked government document, but with family reunification that can be up to 7.3 million people, and that’s just one country.

They’re promising that this is going to solve our demographic problems. This is going to be the future, but what they’ve really done is said that our future, socialism, matters more to us than our country. It matters more to us than our people. It matters more to us than our children. We can’t allow our United States to go that route. We can’t allow refugee resettlement to fill our cities, to fill our towns with people who are supposed to be our future, who we are told are going to do the work that we don’t want to do. Socialism is the underlying problem here. The migration we’re seeing is caused by socialism. It’s caused by left-wing policies, and now the left wing as it always does manages to make a crisis that they caused even worse. The United States is now going to be facing the same crisis. We saw that again with Obama recently. We’re going to be seeing more and more of it as time goes by. If we don’t recover the birth rate, if we don’t fundamentally change the demographics, we’re going to go the way of Europe.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261007/muslim-migration-europe-eurabia-come-true-frontpagemagcom

Intollerant Homosexual Lobbyists Vandalise And Destroy Cory Bernardi’s Office Over “Safe Schools” Program

Mud slinging, name-calling and Ad hominem’s are a Leftist institution.

Indeed, I’m not sure you can truly be a “Progressive” Marxist unless you are willing to lower yourself to the point of tarnishing the reputations of your ideological enemies.

As a Leftist, your ideas are bankrupt and entirely unsupportable because of the relative nature of your foundational naturalistic atheist worldview and so if you have no real option in winning arguments, what are you left with?

Personal abuse and violence!

You accuse, you abuse, you vandalise, you violently force, you riot, you slander, and you avoid actually arguing the merits of your convictions at all costs (because if people knew your Marxists goals and your insane utopian idealism, they would be horrified).

This is the case with the indoctrination of Australian school-aged children into homosexuality, transgender, and premature sexuality through the laughably titled “Safe Schools” program, a program marketed as being about “anti-bullying”.

What teaching children to bind their breasts or penis has to do with bullying is anyone’s guess? 

Bill Muehlenberg’s piece Seven Things You Must Know About The Safe Schools Program discusses this sickly perverted, government-funded and promoted program in detail and is a must read for all parents.

But back to the vandalism and abuse of Leftists who are, in this most recent instance of hilarious hippo crush, have harassed the office staff of Cory Bernardi and throw in vandalism to boot.

What was Bernardi’s offence?

Well, he dared to highlight the content of the “Safe Schools” program, namely a course designed to fully indoctrinate and confuse children into homosexuality and transgender theory, even primary school-aged children.

Here’s the report:

Two dozen students have trashed Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi’s Adelaide office, protesting against his stance on the Safe Schools Program.

The students, who stormed his office chanting and scrawling slogans on both the exterior and interior walls of the office, also overthrew furniture and threw papers onto the floor.

In a tweet, Senator Bernardi said the protesters “threatened his staff”.

He said it was unfortunate he was not in Adelaide to “assist his amazing team”.

“Gutless actions like this will never stop me speaking the truth,” Mr Bernardi tweeted.

Police said a man had been reported for marking graffiti on a road sign.

They said they would review CCTV footage and witness statements, and further charges may occur.

Senator Simon Birmingham also slammed the protesters, calling them hypocrites.

“I have seen some of the pictures from Adelaide and for people who say they are standing up for tolerance and for understanding to then think that destruction of public property, that violence of that manner is appropriate, is deplorable, is hypocritical,” he said.

“I would have hoped we would see much better, indeed from all sides.”

The program, according to the website, offers resources and support to equip staff and students with “skills, practical ideas and greater confidence” to create a safe and inclusive environment for same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students, staff and families.

Coalition MPs indicated earlier this week they would push for an inquiry into the anti-bullying program.

Senator Bernardi said some of the material in the program was “age inappropriate” and would “horrify parents”.

He claimed the “innocuous-sounding” Safe Schools program actually provided links to sadomasochism sites and encouraged 12 and 13-year-old children to experiment sexually.

Praise be to Jesus that a review of Safe Schools is underway.

Perhaps it might even become a program that actually makes schools safer.

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/17/seven-things-you-must-know-about-the-safe-schools-program/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/safe-schools-protesters-trash-cory-bernardi’s-adelaide-office/7258388
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/safe-schools-program-to-be-modified-only-used-in-high-schools/7258826