I infiltrated ISIS — here’s how I was instructed to carry out a terrorist attack, and other assorted Islamist shit.

From Business Insider, 2017. My comments, as usual, are in italics.

How does ISIS recruit its attackers in Germany? What are the last instructions before the terrorists strike and kill as many innocent people as possible? For months, BILD reporter Björn Stritzel pretended to be an Islamist willing to carry out an attack (always in consultation with the security authorities).

My mobile phone vibrates just before midnight. For some months, nobody had been in touch with me. Now it’s the German “brother” again. He wants to remind me of my duty. My duty to engage in a murderous attack. “I hope you are in best Iman,” he writes in the typical jihadist jargon. “We had some internet trouble, so we were unable to contact you for a while.”

 

The German again pushes me to strike soon. Every day that passes without an attack is dangerous, he says, because the “kuffar police” – the police of the “disbelievers” – could foil my plan. “Just grab a knife and slay your neighbour – they don’t expect that!”

Eventually, another German-speaking ISIS terrorist contacts me. He says he knows from the German “brother” that I want to carry out an attack and wants to help me.

There is evidence that this is a familiar and infamous jihadist: the Austrian Mohamed Mahmoud aka Abu Usama al-Gharib. Mahmoud was imprisoned from 2007 to 2011 because of his propaganda activities for al-Qaida. After his release, he went to Germany, where he managed the jihadist group Millatu Ibrahim, together with the German Denis Cuspert. The group was the decisive organiser of the clashes in Solingen. In 2012, the Minister of the Interior banned Millatu Ibrahim. The core circle surrounding Cuspert and Mahmoud first moved to Egypt and Libya before joining ISIS in Syria. Mahmoud’s most infamous appearance took place in the ancient ruined city of Palmyra in the summer of 2015. The first entirely German-language ISIS video shows Mahmoud and the jihadist Yamin Abou-Zand from Bonn shoot two prisoners. Mahmoud called for attacks in Germany even back then. One year later, he believed he had found a “brother” who was willing to carry out an attack.

Images distributed by Islamic State militants on social media in August 2015 purported to show the purposeful destruction of an ancient temple in Palmyra with explosives. Reuters What Mahmoud does not know: he already had an argument with this pretend-brother. I had written an article about him over a year ago. Mahmoud then invited me to come to Syria – where he was waiting in order to cut my head off. Now he urges me to finally strike against the disbelievers. I tell him that my attempts at building a bomb have failed. However, D. – the name which Mahmoud is probably hiding behind – has advice: “We are happy to help. Look, akhi, give up building a bomb, that is too dangerous, and a small mistake will ruin everything. It is better if you hire a car, or if you take one from somewhere and drive into a crowd.”

In order to buy time, I explain that I do not have a driver’s licence. The instructor of Riaz Ahmadzai – the ISIS attacker from Würzburg – also wanted to talk him into a car attack. But Ahmadzai had no driver’s licence. So what? What’s the penalty for driving without a license after you have deliberately run down pedestrians?? In the end, he used an axe and injured five people on a regional train. When I ask again whether he could help me build a bomb, D. – aka Mahmoud – becomes angry: “Look, the brother who did the attack in Ansbach only killed himself and no kuffar.”

Mohammed Daleel, who blew himself up in Ansbach, was repeatedly publicly celebrated by ISIS as a “martyr” and “soldier of the Islamic state”. In truth, however, the terror group’s instructors seem to regard the attack of the “noble knight” as a failed operation, because no “kuffar” were killed. However, ISIS would never publicly admit that, because it would damage the reputation of their “martyr”.

So D. tries to convince me of a different idea. “Today, a video will be released, inshallah, that will show you how to do various things. The video will explain to you in detail how to handle a knife.” A few hours later, the official ISIS media department publishes a video from Raqqa. The video is among the most brutal things that the terror organisation has ever published.”

As if this isn’t enough Islamist shit to last your lifetime, here is another item.

Palestinian Authority now uses half of all foreign aid to reward terror.

Your tax dollars at work: The Palestinian Authority is now using half of its foreign aid to reward terrorism. The new PA budget boosts support to terrorists in prison by 13 percent and aid for the families of those killed “in the struggle against Zion” 4 percent, reports the Institute for Contemporary Affairs.

The total, $344 million, equals 49.6 percent of all foreign aid to the PA. In other words, cash from Uncle Sam, Europe and even Israel is subsidizing “welfare for terrorists.” The PA sends a salary to each Palestinian imprisoned for an attack on Israelis, hitting over $3,000 a month after 30 years. Other stipends go to families of “martyrs” killed in the act. That’s $344 million for 2017 that’s not going to build roads or hospitals.

Knowing that you or your family will be taken care of is a clear incentive to kill. That’s why President Trump is threatening to end US aid if the PA doesn’t quit it.

Okay, I give in. Where do I sign up for Islamist life insurance? (see next post) Where do I get this license to kill and maim anyone with whom I disagree? I am sick and tired of seeing money wasted on the sick, the old, the crippled, the children and anything other than guns, bombs, acid, and food, the last strictly for Shaheeds and their families. 

Why would a revered, brilliant author, who lived at the highest human level for intelligence and consciousness, off himself?

NY Times, Sept. 14, 2008. “David Foster Wallace, whose prodigiously observant, exuberantly plotted, grammatically and etymologically challenging, philosophically probing and culturally hyper-contemporary novels, stories and essays made him an heir to modern virtuosos like Thomas Pynchon and Don DeLillo, an experimental contemporary of William T. Vollmann, Mark Leyner and Nicholson Baker and a clear influence on younger tour-de-force stylists like Dave Eggers and Jonathan Safran Foer, died on Friday at his home in Claremont, Calif. He was 46.

“A spokeswoman for the Claremont police said Mr. Wallace’s wife, Karen Green, returned home to find that her husband had hanged himself. Mr. Wallace’s father, James Donald Wallace, said in an interview on Sunday that his son had been severely depressed for a number of months.

“A versatile writer of seemingly bottomless energy, Mr. Wallace was a maximalist, exhibiting in his work a huge, even manic curiosity — about the physical world, about the much larger universe of human feelings and about the complexity of living in America at the end of the 20th century. He wrote long books, complete with reflective and often hilariously self-conscious footnotes, and he wrote long sentences, with the playfulness of a master punctuater and the inventiveness of a genius grammarian. Critics often noted that he was not only an experimenter and a showoff, but also a God-fearing moralist with a fierce honesty in confronting the existence of contradiction.

“David Foster Wallace can do practically anything if he puts his mind to it,” Michiko Kakutani, chief book critic of The New York Times, who was not a consistent praiser of Mr. Wallace’s work, wrote in 2006. “He can do sad, funny, silly, heartbreaking and absurd with equal ease; he can even do them all at once.”

Read his incredible commencement address at Kenyon College in 2005. This is water Note that the NYT calls him a “God-fearing moralist….” Whatever god he feared, or believed in, was not enough to give his life enough meaning that he would prefer to keep it, rather than take it. What a lesson! He said in his speech, and I paraphrase, “we have no choice but to worship–it is hard-wired–but only the choice what to worship.” I might add, our choice is between only 2 options: WE CAN WORSHIP THE CREATOR, or creations. The former leads to eternal life with THE CREATOR, the latter to ultimate futility and an eternal something with….well DFW found out. I hope you do not.

 

Transgender dysphoria military ban hysteria. Get the f * *k over it!!!

I Was Once Transgender. Why I Think Trump Made the Right Decision for the Military. By Walt Heyer, July 26, 2017. From The Daily Signal.

I think he made the right decision — and as someone who lived as trans-female for several years, I should know. When I discovered Congress voted earlier this month to not block funding for transgender-related hormone therapies and sex change surgeries, I wondered if they considered how devastating this will be to the fitness, readiness, and morale of our combat ready troops.

In July, the House of Representatives voted down Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have banned the military from funding such treatments. Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.

Perhaps they have forgotten that our military was forged to be the world’s strongest fighting force, not a government-funded, politically correct, medical sex change clinic for people with gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria, the common diagnosis for one who feels at odds with his or her birth gender, develops from prolonged anxiety and depression. People are not born that way. The “proof” for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is having strongly held feelings — but feelings can and often do change over time.

The military is expected to prepare its members in warfare: to kill, destroy, and break our enemies. The most important factors in preparing a strong military are not hormone therapy, surgical sex changes, or politically correct education. We need psychologically fit, emotionally sound, highly trained troops to protect our nation from its enemies.

While countless homeless vets are currently sleeping under cardboard boxes, or waiting for life-saving care from the Veterans Affairs (VA), we learn that transgender military recruits now qualify for preferential coverage for sex change procedures that are scientifically unproven extremely costly.

I myself was fully sex-reassigned from male to female, and eventually came to accept my birth gender. I have over 70 years of first-hand life experience, eight years of living as a woman, 20 years of researching the topic, and 12 years of helping others who, like me, found that transitioning and reassignment surgery failed to be proper treatment and want to restore their lives to their birth gender.

Costly, but Not Effective

Transitioning can be expensive — up to $130,000 per person for numerous body-mutilating and cosmetic procedures over many months (or years) to fashion the body to appear as the opposite sex. Yet, no matter how skilled the surgeon, or how much money is spent, it is biologically impossible to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. The change is only cosmetic.

The medical community continues to recommend this radical “treatment” in the absence of scientific evidence that people are better off in the long run. This population attempts suicide at a rate of 40 percent. Even after the full surgical change, they attempt to end their lives, or tragically succeed. Over 60 percent of this diverse population suffer from co-existing mental disorders. Consider Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), a former Army soldier who was so psychologically and emotionally unbalanced that he stole confidential documents from the military and forwarded them to WikiLeaks.

The Military Is a Fighting Force, Not a Gender Clinic

The military should not provide sex change surgery.  Through my website, sexchangeregret.com, I hear from people who experienced first-hand how damaging and unnecessary reassignment surgeries were. For them, the sex change failed to resolve the emotional and psychological disorders that drove the desire to change gender. Many write after living the transgender life for years. They write to ask for advice on how to reverse the original surgical change and restore their lives to the original birth gender like I did, a process called detransition.

Some service members will come to regret having undergone the surgery and will want to detransition. Where will the military be then? Will the military pay for the sex change reversal procedure, too? Failed “sex change surgeries” are not uncommon and will drive up the cost to care for the military transgender population above the projected $3-4 billion 10-year cost.

Beyond the financial cost, there’s the question of the service member’s military readiness during their transition or detransition, as the process often comes with a great deal of anxiety and emotional instability. I know of many who have struggled to adapt to the new gender role for years after reassignment surgery.

In my view, as a former trans-female who works every day with regretters, allowing the military to pay for sex change surgeries will make a mockery of the U.S. military. Advocates are relentless in their pursuit of making others, via the government and insurance companies, cover the cost of sex change procedures. If the military had been forced to pay, the advocates would have used this as leverage to press every other entity — both government and commercial — to pay for sex change surgeries as well.

As a person who lived the transgender life for eight years, I can attest that assisting, affirming, or paying for hormone therapies and genital mutilation surgeries would not have strengthened our military. They would only have brought adverse long-term consequences, both for individuals and for our armed forces as a whole.

WHY SHOULD 99% OF THE POPULATION HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE 1% (in the case of transgender) WHO WALLOW IN CONFUSION? LET THE 1% DEAL WITH IT. EVERYONE HAS HURT FEELINGS ABOUT SOMETHING! THE REST OF US DEAL.

Trump’s Transgender Tweets Resonate with Americans. National Review Editor’s note: This piece is reprinted from Acculturated with permission.

The breakdown of American social norms is advancing at a lightning pace. Just five years ago if you were told a woman doesn’t necessarily have a vagina, and may instead have a penis, you might have called that insanity. Today, you’re a hateful bigot if you don’t subscribe to this kind of thinking. Not only are adults being told this, but children are also being taught it in schools. Parents are receiving guidance from Planned Parenthood and other liberal bastions on how to talk to preschoolers about transgenderism and masturbation. Yes, you read that right: preschoolers. Filling the head of your three-year-old child who thought he was a dinosaur last week with confusing messages about sex and gender? What could possibly go wrong.

Why did Trump choose the transgender issue? It is the best example in American culture of an issue about which the elites feel one way but a great number of Americans feel differently. One of the best representations of just how out of touch elites are from Americans on this issue can be found at your local Target. Last year, Target’s corporate leadership decided to institute what it considered a feel-good policy, and perhaps gain some inclusivity points among liberal activists, by declaring that customers could use the bathroom of the sex with which they “identified” rather than the one that corresponds to their anatomy. Amazingly out of touch with their own customer base, Target has faced a devastating backlash. Target was shocked by the reaction, but would not have been had its corporate leadership and marketing team actually been in touch with how the American people feel about their families going to the bathroom in a stall right next to someone of the opposite sex.

While many on the left and in the media (but I repeat myself) are outraged about Trump’s latest tweets, which are merely meant to stoke the fire of the culture wars, what they don’t seem to understand is that they are buying President Trump his reelection. As usual, conservatives are being told by those wishing to drastically alter the fabric of our society, “Why do you care about transgender issues if you’re not affected?” For those who have concerns and objections about ignoring chromosomes and anatomy in favor of feelings, we know, in the words of Erick Erickson, we will be made to care.
The morning of President Trump’s announcement I tweeted as much, and watched my mentions column explode. The same folks who have opposed President Trump on the basis of misogyny and women’s rights spent the day calling me a “raging c***” and other epithets. But it didn’t stop there. It never does. There are consequences for straying from the approved groupthink. My friends, my employers, and even my husband received tweets and e-mails about my remarks. I received notifications that my LinkedIn profile was being viewed. The message from the masses is clear: If you’re not with us, we will actively try to destroy your life, your work, and even your marriage. Again, the same folks accusing Donald Trump of misogyny were tweeting my husband to rein in his woman. This is feminism in 2017. Men can encroach on every single female space, even La Leche League meetings, and if women object, our husbands receive a full report of our misdeeds.

With the gay-marriage debate there were many on the right who took a “live and let live” philosophy. But we learned it’s not enough for gay marriage to be legalized; activists on the left also were out to punish anyone who wasn’t totally on board. Religious Americans not interested in participating in gay weddings, including bakers and photographers, had their livelihoods destroyed. Americans aren’t going to make that mistake again. The transgender lobby is out to drastically alter our society and will lob accusations of bigotry at anyone who shows even the slightest hesitation to endorse their cause. The same life-destroying tactics the Left used against those who didn’t want to participate in gay weddings will next be used on those who won’t pretend that a man can become a woman on nothing more than a whim. Donald Trump knows this, and knows that Americans are reaching the limit of what they’re willing to accept. The hysteria regarding his tweets only solidifies his support, despite hopes from the Left that accusations of bigotry will erode it.

The West, when men were men and men were men and men were men….and the women were glad of it.

I hope you recognize the title as a line from The Three Stooges, in which Curly gets stuck on “when men were men…” and Moe has to slap him to change the record. All in italics and blue ink are my comments and questions.

Planned Parenthood weighs in:

“There’s a lot more to being male, female, or any gender than the sex assigned at birth. Your biological or assigned sex does not always tell your complete story. It’s common for people to confuse sex, gender, and gender identity.  But they’re actually all different things.

  • Sex is a label — male or female — that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate.
  • Gender is much more complex: It’s a social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts. Each culture has standards about the way that people should behave based on their gender. This is also generally male or female. But instead of being about body parts, it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.
  • Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It’s a feeling that begins very early in life.
  • Assigned sex is a label that you’re given at birth based on medical factors, including your hormones, chromosomes, and genitals. Most people are assigned male or female, and this is what’s put on their birth certificates.
  • Some people call the sex we’re assigned at birth “biological sex.” But this term doesn’t fully capture the complex biological, anatomical, and chromosomal variations that can occur. Having only two options (biological male or biological female) might not describe what’s going on inside a person’s body.
  • Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision for someone else. The assignment of a biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify.

“The factors that determine our assigned sex begin as early as fertilization.

  • Each sperm has either an X or a Y chromosome in it. All eggs have an X chromosome.
  • When sperm fertilizes an egg, its X or Y chromosome combines with the X chromosome of the egg.
  • A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically female.
  • A person with XY chromosomes usually has male sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically male.

 “It’s easy to confuse sex and gender. Just remember that biological or assigned sex is about biology, anatomy, and chromosomes. Gender is society’s set of expectations, standards, and characteristics about how men and women are supposed to act. Since when? According to whom?

“Your gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express those feelings.  Clothing, appearance, and behaviors can all be ways to express your gender identity. Most people feel that they’re either male or female.  Some people feel like a masculine female, or a feminine male. Some people feel neither male nor female. These people may choose labels such as “genderqueer,” “gender variant,” or “gender fluid.”  Your feelings about your gender identity begin as early as age 2 or 3.” What, and whom, influences how a little child feels about anything? Who says that a 2 or 3 year old feels or thinks about their gender identity at all?

“Some people’s assigned sex and gender identity are pretty much the same, or in line with each other. These people are called cisgender.” So now we need a special term to denote someone who is congruent with their own sex? According to what authority? Where did that term come from? You mean “normal” isn’t good enough? Normal would mean that people who are confused about their sex are abnormal. Well, aren’t they?

 “Other people feel that their assigned sex is of the other gender from their gender identity (i.e., assigned sex is female, but gender identity is male). These people are called transgender or trans. Not all transgender people share the same exact identity.” Then how many identities are there? Does the word “exact” even mean anything in this context?

THIS ENTIRE “CONTROVERSY” COMES DOWN TO ONE THING, WHICH IS RAMPANT NOW IN WESTERN NATIONS: FEELINGS TRUMP EVERYTHING. THEREFORE BIOLOGY, MEDICAL PRACTICES, EDUCATION, LOGIC, REASON, MODESTY, PRIVACY MUST ALL BE MODIFIED TO ASSUAGE FEELINGS. OF WHOM? WHY EVERYONE, OF COURSE? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO ENABLE EVERYONE TO FEEL GOOD AND NO ONE TO HAVE HURT FEELINGS? IT ISN’T. THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM. I HAVE A RADICAL SOLUTION: GET OVER YOUR DAMN FEELINGS!!! 

WHY SHOULD 99% OF THE POPULATION HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE 1% (in the case of transgender) WHO WALLOW IN CONFUSION? LET THE 1% DEAL WITH IT. EVERYONE HAS HURT FEELINGS ABOUT SOMETHING! THE REST OF US DEAL.

There has never been more rape on our screens, but it’s now illegal to show a woman doing all the housework.

Juliet Samuel, in The Telegraph, 20 July 2017. There is something strange going on in the world of modern gender norms. Consider this: Britain’s advertising authority has just decided that it is demeaning and unhealthy for us to be exposed to gender stereotyping in adverts. In the same week, nearly 3 million Britons tuned in to watch the premiere of the new Game of Thrones season, a show in which about half of the main female characters have been raped.

Adverts which encourage gender stereotypes like women cleaning up after their family, or men failing to do housework, face being banned under strict new watchdog rules. Following a year-long inquiry the Advertising Standards Authority(ASA) has developed a set of tougher standards on adverts which portray “potentially harmful” gender stereotypes.  From next year the new rules, which will now be finalised by the Committee of Advertising Practice, will be used to ban inappropriate adverts. The ASA found there was evidence to support stronger rules on the basis that harmful stereotypes “can restrict the choices, aspirations and opportunities of children, young people and adults”.

The new standards will not ban all stereotypes, such as women cleaning or men doing DIY jobs. But adverts that depict scenarios such as a woman having sole responsibility for cleaning up her family’s mess or a man trying and failing to do simple parental or household tasks are likely to be banned, it said. The ASA’s report also said campaigns suggesting a specific activity is inappropriate for boys because it is stereotypically associated with girls, and vice versa, could be banned.

A poster for Protein World, a slimming product aimed at women, caused a stir last year after an advert stated “Are you beach body ready?” and featured an image of a toned and athletic woman wearing a bikini. Another potentially problematic advert is KFC’s recent TV advert which featured two men sitting in a restaurant discussing the televisions they had purchased. The first character stated: “I just bought a 56″ plasma” to which the second responded “Awww, adorable.  I just bought the 90. Because I’m a man.”  The first character then stated “It’s ultra-HD” with the second responding “Did it come free with your scented candles?”  After a third character sat down with the product being featured, the first character stated more aggressively “You know those candles help with my anxiety…  You’re a monster”.

The majority of complainants objected that the ad was offensive because it implied that it was acceptable to make fun of a mental health problem, with some claiming it was irresponsible because it equated anxiety with a lack of masculinity and helped perpetuate the damaging view that men shouldn’t admit to mental health concerns.

ASA chief executive Guy Parker said: “Portrayals which reinforce outdated and stereotypical views on gender roles in society can play their part in driving unfair outcomes for people.”While advertising is only one of many factors that contribute to unequal gender outcomes, tougher advertising standards can play an important role in tackling inequalities and improving outcomes for individuals, the economy and society as a whole.”

So far, BBC Two’s hysterical historical romp Versailles has been most notable for its lustrous hair, rampant sex, cross dressing, palace building and endless court gossip – all rendered opaque by plodding direction and a wooden script. You may never be a Queen, but with this…” gasped Mme De Clermont, grabbing her semi-clad daughter by her most intimate part, “…with this, you may live like one.”

As so often in this genre of bone-headed historical bonkbusters, founded by The Tudors and aped in numerous TV series since, the splendour of the costumes and settings is in direct proportion to the grubbiness of the fantasies they purvey. In that respect at least Versailles is certainly outstripping its predecessors and, miraculously, even making then seem marginally less offensive by comparison.

Not to worry, Harvard leads the way with a solution to rape and gender role-playing.

From The Weekly Standard: It looks like the finale for the final clubs. A Harvard faculty committee released a report last week recommending that all fraternities, sororities, and similarly “exclusionary” single-sex social organizations be phased out by the spring of 2022. The committee determined that it would not be enough for these organizations to go co-ed; the campus must be rid of them completely. Harvard withdrew official recognition of final clubs decades ago, but last year the administration went further, declaring that their members would not be able to hold leadership positions on campus or receive the recommendations required for some postgraduate fellowships and scholarships, including the Rhodes Scholarship.

The absurdity of the recommendation to eliminate them was not lost on outside observers: How can Harvard, of all places, tell students not to join exclusive institutions? But many faculty—not to mention students and alumni—say such a policy would also be an unnecessary breach of students’ freedom. As psychology professor Steven Pinker wrote recently, “A university is an institution with circumscribed responsibilities which engages in a contract with its students. Its main responsibility is to provide them with an education. It is not an arbiter over their lives, 24/7.” As the folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education point out, Harvard is clearly violating promises of freedom of association it’s made to its students over the years.

In the spring of 2016, the school released a report regarding sexual assault on campus, which concluded that the all-male clubs deserved a disproportionate share of the blame. According to Harvard’s survey, 47 percent of female college seniors “participating in the Final Clubs”—that is, attending male final club events or belonging to female final clubs—reported “experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact since entering college.” The same was true of only 31 percent of all seniors. The report concluded that “a Harvard College woman is half again more likely to experience sexual assault if she is involved with a Club than the average female Harvard College Senior.” The clubs are bastions of “sexual entitlement,” troubling areas of potential alcohol abuse and sexual assault, and a “vestige of gender inequity” on campus.

So what happened? Why didn’t the committee simply force the final clubs to go co-ed and call it a day? Well, the committee’s report includes testimony from students who say that unpopular kids feel bad when they are not chosen for these clubs and poorer kids feel bad because they don’t have tuxedos to wear to final club events and can’t afford the expectations that come with membership. In other words, simply making the clubs co-ed wasn’t checking enough privilege. “Our main reservation about the stated goal of the policy was whether the focus on ending gender segregation and discrimination is too narrow,” the report reads. “If all of these organizations adopted gender-neutral membership in a timely fashion, there would remain a myriad of practices of these organizations that go against the educational mission and principles espoused by Harvard University.”

But doing away with the clubs won’t solve any of the problems faculty and administration set out to address. Not only will Harvard always be an exclusive institution, there will always be gradations within it. There will always be students who skip the cafeteria lines and spend their weekends trying out trendy new restaurants in Cambridge and Boston. During vacations, some will ski in Europe and sun themselves on Maui. Some will even find places to wear their tuxedos. Harvard can offer free tuition and subsidize summer internships, but it is presumably not going to guarantee that everyone has a summer place on Nantucket.

As for the original issue of curbing sexual assault, the university has been misguided from the beginning. The survey the university conducted, which again was the impetus for changing the final club policy, was badly written and poorly analyzed. The questions themselves were deeply confusing. “Since you have been a student at Harvard University has a student or someone employed by or otherwise associated with Harvard .  .  . continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said no?” If you answered yes to that question, you were counted as a victim of sexual assault.

Though there is almost no mention of it earlier in the report, there is a table at the end titled “Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Involvement of Substances and Tactic.” In almost two-thirds of cases involving physical force, the victim was voluntarily drinking alcohol; in another 4 percent of cases, the victim was voluntarily using drugs. In these cases, 69 percent of the offenders were drinking and 5 percent were using drugs. From the similarity of these numbers, you might think that the victims and offenders were drinking or doing drugs together before they engaged in sexual activity. This gets to the heart of the problem on Harvard’s campus and many others these days: The drinking culture has gone off the rails. Students are not exercising good judgment regarding sexual encounters because many of them are too drunk to do so.

While overall alcohol use among young adults has not changed much since the 1970s, there has been a shift on the extreme end of the spectrum. According to a 2013 report in JAMA Pediatrics on high school seniors, “On occasion, 10.5% consumed 10 to 14 drinks, and 5.6% consumed 15 drinks or more.” In every recent account of life on campus, men and especially women describe “pre-gaming,” that is, getting tipsy before they even leave their dorm rooms. For women, this is often so that they can shed their inhibitions and behave like men (also known as “empowerment”).

It would be nice to think that getting rid of some off-campus locations for drunken sex would solve these issues, but the truth is that it will not even make a dent. Like most colleges, Harvard is not serious about fixing its drinking problem, let alone its message that young women have achieved equality when they act like men. Declaring that you are going to take on the campus rape crisis sounds much sexier. College administrators don’t want to seem like old fogies trying to curb something as frivolous as a few extra beers. And heaven forbid they consider the problems of co-ed dormitories and bathrooms.

And now from Doug Wilson, the difficult truth: 

The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men, and in our day this was a goal that has largely been achieved. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture.

Rape anyone?

Oh no, just when the Manifest Nonsense Idiocy of the Year Awards were announced, so much more nonsense has spewed from the sewer of ultra-liberalism that we now need another award.

If there’s one thing a blogger like me never runs out of, it’s manifest nonsense to write about. My only complaint is that the actual facts and pronouncements of the PC idiots are so funny and absurd on their own, that my scintillating sardonic commentary is superfluous! But is a blogger supposed to write, rather than cut and paste articles, even if he couldn’t possibly be as entertaining as the folly in the articles? Yes, except in the case of these 2 late entries, either of which would have garnered more votes than all the award winners, save the poop councilman.

Mott and Cockayne. From The Weekly Standard, Charlotte Allen: Two college geography professors are urging their colleagues not to cite geography research done only by straight white men. Relying on the scholarly efforts of pale males who mate with females perpetuates “white heteromasculinism,” say geographers Carrie Mott of Rutgers University and Daniel Cockayne at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. If “white heteromasculinism” sounds bad, well, that’s because it is.

According to Mott and Cockayne, it’s a “system of oppression” that ignores the scholarly contributions of women and people of color in order to benefit those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”

Mott and Cockayne have published their joint plea in Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, an online journal devoted to—what else?—“feminist geography.” The two argue that citation—the practice of using footnotes and similar rubrics to credit the ideas and research of other scholars—isn’t so much a safeguard against plagiarism as a “problematic technology that contributes to the reproduction of the white heteromasculinity of geographical thought and scholarship,” according to the abstract for their paper.

You might be wondering what geography, which most people associate with map-making and which is supposed to focus on the physical shape of the earth and its human populations, has to do with feminism. But like the rest of the social sciences, the field of geography is now saturated with fashionable leftist ideology and its impenetrable jargon. Course offerings in college geography departments these days consist of bizarre pendulum swings between technical skills and social-justice indoctrination on “climate change,” “capitalism,” and “sustainable agriculture.”

Mott’s geographic specialty is “how resistance movements mobilize to fight against state-sponsored violence and marginalization.” Cockayne, an “economic geographer,” says his research “is influenced by social theory, including feminist theory, Marx’s writing, political theory, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and queer and affect theory . . . Additionally, Daniel also investigates the relationship between queer theory and software studies, and is engaged in feminist critiques of knowledge production in geography.”

Beth McDonough, in MRC Newsbusters, Dan Gainor:

It’s eight months since election day and six since President Trump took office. And the left is still writing stories about how they can’t cope with the results. It’s like a good chunk of the nation has PTSD or just sore-loser disease. The latest comes to us from the nutters at Bustle. That website pretends to be mainstream, only it’s not. It’s certifiable alt-left nonsense. The site uses all sorts of hip slang so it pretend be something other than an ad vehicle. Look for terms like “turnt,” “BFF,” “sassy AF” and more. It’s also obsessed with The Bachelor. Oddly, one article was headlined: “How A Grown-Ass Woman Handles The ‘Slow Fade’ In Dating.” Nothing makes a site look like it’s not for a grown-ass woman than using that term.

But I digress. Let’s get back to the angry liberal unable to cope. Author Beth McDonough told readers about her idyllic life and how President Donald Trump wrecked it all. “I came out as bisexual just over two years ago when I fell in love with the woman who is now my wife. My conservative, Christian family from small town West Virginia were nothing but open, loving, and supportive.” So far, so good. Then the most awful thing happened — the election. Our political neophyte who had never even voted before turned into (turnt?) the family member determined to annoy everyone. “I became terrified, and I got vocal about it. I attended rallies, I sent articles to my parents, I pleaded on social media for everyone who loves and supports me to please put their taxes and guns aside and stand up for human rights.”

Election day came. The libpocalypse. “I woke up in a stupor of shock. We lost. How could we have lost? The future was supposed to be bright and fair, not dark and hate-filled.” Then came the betrayal! “One November 9th I saw an Instagram post from my cousin of he and his wife on a plane, celebrating the victory of President Donald Trump. He wasn’t just happy, he was gloating, captioning the photo with hashtags like #Killary and #Hillaryforprison, exclaiming his excitement for Trump to make America great again.” Even more, an “ultra conservative, Christian cousin” of her wife to be didn’t approve of her gay wedding. Horrors. Or as the French would say, “Zut, alors!” (Who said I’m not multi-cultural?)

Naturally, she did what any newly woke, radical, alt-lefty, bisexual would do. She attacked her family. On the internet. “I wrote about the destructive election results, how I wasn’t going to stay quiet about my discontent, and the dismay and sympathy I felt over my family, who all had to sit across from one another for dinner on Thanksgiving so soon after this historical event.”

Her family was displeased and called her a “bigot.” One told her that if she, “couldn’t respect other people’s right to have their own opinions, then neither he nor his brother and their wives would be attending” her wedding. She summed it up patting herself on the back, celebrating, the “seeds of love, tolerance, and acceptance that I’m planting in the family I’ve chosen to grow.”

I should continue my habit of making sarcastic comments in italics, but even I have nothing to add to these late entries.

 

Presenting the Manifest Nonsense Idiocy of the Year Awards!!

I read online a lot, and every time something interests me I save it in a folder. One of my folders–now the bulgiest–is called “pc idiocy”. It is time to clean it out. Here are the award candidates, taken from various publications. My comments in italics.

Candidate #1, London. From Martin Daubney, Heat Street: Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement to make: London is becoming a global laughing stock. Both intellectually and literally, Londoners are dying under the weight of a virulent dose of political correctness. Political correctness is the Ebola virus of reason.

Last week, Transport for London pointlessly buckled to LGBT activists and banned the quintessentially British (and universally polite) phrase, “ladies and gentlemen” from its station announcements. Its replacement – “good afternoon, everyone” – is deemed more “inclusive” and “gender neutral,” although even that might offend those with multiple personality disorders. That’s okay, London no longer has ladies and gentlemen.

 In a city that has recently undergone three terrorist attacks, this might seem like a curious use of resource for its Mayor, Sadiq Khan.  But this is 2017, and who’d be surprised if TfL went the whole hog and integrated Xe pronouns into its announcements, or renamed ‘sexist’ Tube stations such as Cockfosters and Shepherd’s Bush? (They could re-name Seven Sisters station Seven Persons). On Friday, this rot spread, when academics at King’s College London decided to swap portraits of its founders for a “wall of diversity,” after Professor Patrick Leman, the Institute’s dean of education, claimed “busts of white, bearded men” were “intimidating” and “alienating” to BME students. Was it the beards or the paucity of melanin that was intimidating?

 

We could discount these two hen-brained incidents as yet more “political correctness gone mad”. But they are indicative of a London that perpetually looks down the wrong end of the telescope for micro grievances, yet lacks the guts to tackle very real problems that are staring us in the face. This obsession with political correctness is not only turning London into a laughing stock, it’s actively killing Londoners.

The clearest example is the British Police’s Stop And Search scheme. Designed to allow police to frisk suspects for concealed weapons, it has long been hated by critics as “racist,” who correctly point out that 65% of searches are on black men, who are six times more likely to be searched. Sensing an opportunity to appeal to minority communities, in 2015, while running for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan vowed to “do everything in my power to cut stop and search”.

In the year to the end of March 2016, there were 387,448 stop and search procedures conducted by police in England and Wales, a fall of 28% on the previous 12 months. In that same period, London’s Metropolitan Police announced that gun crime in London had soared 42% and knife crime 24%. Recorded crime was up across virtually every category, with a total 4.5% increase to nearly 774,737 offences. Who’d have thought a 28% drop in searches might result in a 24% boom in knife crime? Clearly not London’s Mayor. In one school in his city, 3/4 of ten-year-olds said they knew somebody who carried a knife.

So who is carrying and using all these knives? British police don’t like to publish crime by race or ethnicity. But when data has been obtained under Freedom Of Information Acts, it’s shown that in the City Of London, 36% of knife crime is perpetrated by black people, who only make up around 13% of London’s 8.6 million populace. Furthermore, 24% of stabbing victims are black men.

You could conclude it’s reasonable to stop and search those most likely to be knife criminals. Surely, if black lives truly mattered to London’s Mayor, he would ramp up Stop And Search to help stop black men being disproportionately killed or jailed. Instead, in April – at the end of a week that saw eight fatal stabbings in the Capital, two less than a mile from my home – Khan trumpeted his new £1.7m “online hate crime hub”. Some wondered: does London’s Mayor seriously prioritise cutting nasty tweets over fatal stabbings? Someone fatally stabbed isn’t going to tweet a complaint, let alone a nasty one. 

Similarly, Khan has rejected Prevent, the British government’s only anti-terror strategy, as “toxic” adding “it’s seen by some communities as spying and snooping”. In the wake of the London Bridge terrorist attack that left eight ordinary Londoners murdered in the streets by ISIS jihadists, Khan took every opportunity to remind us Islamophobic “hate crimes” –that included tweets – had increased fivefold. I’ve lived in London for 23 years. Not only has its skyscape and its human landscape changed forever. So has its mindscape. Today, we live in a city where racist statues, Islamophobic tweets and public transport announcements are deemed more pressing issues than tackling terrorism, knife crime or London’s latest malaise, acid attacks. In case you aren’t up on the news, young men (mostly) ride around on motor scooters in order to throw acid on women (mostly) for some unfathomable reason. When any pretense to good order breaks down, it tends to break all the way down.

Candidate #2, P.E.T.A. From IFL science: The laws of the jungle are often brutal, but so it seems are those of copyright. For years a wildlife photographer has been dragged through the courts in America over whether or not he owns the copyright to a photograph of a monkey, who supposedly took the image itself.

Now, the case is being taken to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who claim to be representing the monkey, and the poor photographer is basically bankrupt. While judges have previously ruled that the monkey cannot own the copyright, PETA has appealed against these decisions. The battle for ownership of the photo began years ago, when the now infamous portrait of a black Sulawesi crested macaque was posted on Wikipedia without a license. The photographer, David Slater, objected stating that they were stealing his picture, only for Wikipedia to counter that it was, in fact, the monkey’s own work.

After that, PETA decided to take up the case and represent the monkey after Slater used the image in a book of his wildlife photographs, suing both Slater himself and the publishers for breaching copyright laws. PETA sought a court order to administer any proceeds earned by the image on behalf of the monkey, and use it for the conservation of the species, despite having no previous interactions or demonstrable interest in them.

And so started the long, drawn out, distressing, and mostly downright ludicrous legal battle over who owns the “monkey selfie” image. PETA argues that the monkey that took the photo of itself by pressing the button knew what it was doing and so has artistic ownership of the photo. Slater, on the other hand, says that he spent three days in the forest gaining the monkeys’ trust, and setting the cameras up that eventually resulted in the selfie taking place, and that it would not have occurred without his input.

The point is, PETA doesn’t appear to actually care whether or not the monkey is the original author of the photograph. The animal rights organization has jumped on the case and is using it to further its own agenda, mainly in attempting to set a precedent that an animal can own property, and can be treated as a human in the eyes of the law. They argue: “If this lawsuit succeeds, it will be the first time that a non-human animal is declared the owner of property, rather than being declared a piece of property himself or herself.” But the two are not mutually exclusive. The macaque was not under threat of being or becoming property, and giving it the right to own property does not change its situation. It has, however, resulted in bankrupting and ruining a man who was trying to make a living as a wildlife photographer by highlighting the plight of the endangered macaque. So what, humans are just greedy primates who invented reading and then used that skill to oppress other species

Candidate #3, Seattle City Councilman Larry Gossett. From National Review, Katherine Timpf: A councilman in Seattle is reportedly opposed to hosing sidewalks that reek of excrement near a local courthouse because he fears that it might be racially insensitive.

The area surrounding King County Superior Court includes a homeless shelter and other social-services organizations and has become an “unsanitary and potentially frightening” scene — one “that reeks of urine and excrement” — according to an article in the Seattle Times. Desperate for help with the disgusting environment, two of the court’s judges have asked the city to please power-wash the poop-covered sidewalks. That seems like a pretty reasonable request, but apparently, one councilman is worried that doing so might be a form of microaggression.

According to the Times, Councilmember Larry Gossett said he didn’t like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists.”

Anyone over the age of three knows that if you see poop somewhere, it’s supposed to be cleaned up. What’s more, most little kids could probably also tell you that said clean-up is supposed to involve water. In fact, before this, I would have told you that this is probably the least controversial opinion in human history. But social-justice alarmism can do a great job of turning the clearly uncontroversial into an outrage, and often at the expense of basic logic and practicality. It’s not that all social-justice activism is bad, of course. It’s great to be nice, and it’s great to be sensitive, but an obsession with social justice and political correctness can make people’s brains start to malfunction — and I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a better example of that than this. My comments would be completely superfluous here.

Candidate #4, Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS). From The NY Post, Jeff Blehar:

When Radiohead, by general consensus the most culturally important rock group in the world, announced that it would be extending the concert tour for its widely acclaimed 2016 album “A Moon Shaped Pool” into 2017, the biggest surprise of all was the final show on the schedule: Tel Aviv. On Wednesday the band will play in Israel for the first time in 17 years. It’s also the first time since the 2005 emergence of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, created by Western pro-Palestinian activists as a means of punishing Israel through academic and cultural boycotts not only of the country but of Israeli artists and academics who perform or speak abroad.

Rock stars garner far more media attention than academics, of course, so trying to prevent bands from playing in Israel is a key component of isolating Israel not just politically but culturally. To see Israeli fans rejected by their heroes. Thus it was a major public scandal to Western activists (particularly in Europe) to find out that Radiohead wasn’t on board with it.

Radiohead’s history with Israel is surprisingly longstanding and deep, on both a professional and personal level. It was the country where the band scored its first hit single (“Creep,” which took off there after flopping in its initial release everywhere else across the world). It has been the site of many of the band’s most memorable concerts, and lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood even met his wife (Israeli artist Sharon Katan) there, back during their first visit in 1993.

And yet, while the members of the band had never expressed a public opinion one way or another on the BDS movement, the default assumption was that, as politically active leftists and titans of the modern music scene, Radiohead would naturally be supportive of it. So when it was discovered that The Most Important Band In The World didn’t subscribe to BDS’s political program, yawps of outrage arose from BDS activists and soon turned to intense lobbying (both public and private) to force them to “reconsider.”

Celebrity BDS’ers — including Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth, former South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu and Pink Floyd’s unutterably condescending Roger Waters— signed a public petition/“open letter” to Radiohead insisting the band cancel the Israel show and uphold the BDS cultural boycott, or else the band’s previous commitments to social justice would be considered “mere rhetoric.” Moore accused the band of being complicit in “state-sponsored fascism.” Musician Robert Wyatt smugly denounced the band as acting as “fragrant camouflage for [Israel’s] relentlessly accelerating ethnic cleansing campaign.” Celebrity BDS’ers? Shouldn’t that be BS’ers? “State sponsored fascism”? Really? Whom, the state of Radiohead?

Thom Yorke, Radiohead’s normally publicity-shy frontman, responded to all of this in a bracingly direct interview with Rolling Stone: “There’s an awful lot of people who don’t agree with the BDS movement, including us. I don’t agree with the cultural ban at all.” He continued, getting to the heart of the issue: “I would never dream of telling [people] where to work or what to do or think . . . It’s deeply disrespectful to assume that we’re either being misinformed or that we’re so retarded we can’t make these decisions ourselves. I thought it was patronizing in the extreme.”

Candidate #5, Harvard. From The Daily Signal: For the second time in less than two years, Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana is expanding paternalistic restrictions and sanctions on the student body based on whom they choose to be friends with. In an email to the student body on July 12, the dean reported that the “USGSO Committee”—which handles policy on “unrecognized single-gender social organizations,” and which the dean co-chairs—released preliminary recommendations to be reviewed by the faculty and then approved by Harvard University’s president, Drew Faust.

These recommendations outline a new policy that exceeds the bounds of a prior, already overreaching policy, which will remain in place unless Faust approves the new policy. The first policy, begun in 2016, targeted all-male and all-female organizations, including fraternities, sororities, and final clubs, all of which are off-campus, self-funded, and unrecognized by the university.

 It stated that starting with the class of 2021 (this fall’s freshmen), members of those organizations will be barred from receiving prestigious scholarships (like the Rhodes Scholarship), athletic team captaincies, and leadership positions in recognized student organizations. In response, some clubs, like the traditionally all-male Spee Club and the traditionally all-female Seneca, decided to transition to being co-ed.

The new policy goes even further. Claiming that its initial goal of ending gender segregation and discrimination was “too narrow,” the committee’s new policy extends its sanctions to any “private, exclusionary social organizations that are exclusively or predominantly made up of Harvard students, whether they have any local or national affiliation,” single-gender or otherwise, so that the clubs that attempted to adhere to the first policy cannot escape sanction.

Perhaps even more distressingly, it recommends that students who choose to join these clubs will face suspension and expulsion from the college. The faculty committee is seeking to model this policy on those adopted by Williams College and Bowdoin College, including a policy that requires students to pledge that they will abide by the school’s “Social Code,” a code that prohibits joining, pledging, rushing, or even attending events sponsored by the prohibited groups.

The groupthink mentality of the importance of “diversity and inclusion” is apparent throughout the committee’s report. As it continually emphasizes the importance of making all Harvard students feel “included,” it then asserts, in bold letters: “It is important to note that no one has suggested doing nothing.”

This is simply untrue. Numerous students have suggested allowing students to retain their rights to freedom of association, and professors like Harry Lewis have publicly condemned the administration’s intervention in students’ private lives.

In addition, a student referendum on the policy, referenced in the committee’s report, showed that nearly double as many students voted to repeal the sanctions as voted in support.

While it lists several clubs that the policy is intended to apply to today, it also applies the policy broadly to any similar organizations that are made up primarily of Harvard students, and which are private, exclusionary, and social in nature.

The logic of this policy could be more far-reaching than even the administration realizes.

Could a group of friends at Harvard fall subject to this policy if they exclude others from a private party they host? What about a private game night? Does this group of friends need a formal name in order to be subject?

By targeting such a broad swath of “exclusionary” actions, the administration of Harvard College has resorted to treating adult students like some elementary schools have treated first graders, requiring that everyone in the class be invited to each child’s birthday party.

It is paternalistic, hypocritical, and frankly insulting that administrators have imposed this policy. As one of the most exclusive universities in the world, Harvard has claimed to select only those with the brightest futures and best judgment for admission.

If this is so, then the administration should allow students to make their own choices of outside affiliations, rather than becoming a nanny state intent on scrutinizing the details of students’ social lives.

For these reasons, it is imperative that Faust reject the faculty’s new policy and reconsider the existing policy regarding students’ outside affiliations. Freedom of association is paramount to American society and basic liberty, and Harvard is mistaken in abandoning it. Isn’t Harvard supposed to be elite, with only the best and brightest getting in? This is how they treat the elite? Alumni, you should be ashamed. At the end of fiscal year 2014, Harvard’s private endowment–contributions + investment returns was $36,429,256,000!!!

ANNOUNCING THE WINNER, ENVELOPE PLEASE……..WE HAVE A 5 WAY TIE, BECAUSE EVERYONE MUST WIN!