Category Archives: new world order

Belief in hierarchy is psychopathic, claims leftist

Posted on by

Anti-traditionalist propaganda from Paul Rosenberg at Salon.com:

A few weeks ago, I came across a reference to an unpublished conference paper, with the intriguing title, “ Does endorsement of hierarchy make you evil? SDO and psychopathy.”

So I contacted the lead author, Marc Wilson, a New Zealand psychologist at Victoria University of Wellington, to ask him about his research.

First, a bit of background. Psychopathy — once thought to be an all-or-nothing condition — is now understood in a dimensional fashion (more or less) and is measured by instruments such as  The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. While our understanding of psychopathy first developed largely from studying criminal populations, Hare himself has said, “I always said that if I wasn’t studying psychopaths in prison, I’d do it at the stock exchange,” so it’s fairly straightforward to measure and compare psychopathic tendencies and SDO. And that’s just what Wilson has done.

“The research shows that SDO and psychopathy have a reciprocal causal relationship over time — as people become more social dominant, they become more psychopathic, and vice versa,” Wilson told me. “This is based on longitudinal research that shows that, for example, increased SDO (or psychopathy) at time 1 predicts greater psychopathy (or SDO) at time 2. I’ve done this for both convenience samples (university students) and thousands of general population.”

University students get tested a lot — as Wilson indicated, they’re quite convenient. But sooner or later it’s bound to raise questions of just how well the results hold up in a larger population. So it’s significant that he’s already taken that step, and found confirmation as well.

“When SDO was originally proposed, it was argued that group dominance (as measured by SDO) is not the same thing as individual level dominance, and indeed that’s what the original research appeared to show,” he explained. “More recently there have been a few studies that have suggested SDO and psychopathy are related, and I’ve collected a lot of data now that leads me to believe they’re flip sides of the same coin — interpersonal dominance (psychopathy) on one side and group dominance (SDO) on the other.”

This is just what one might informally conclude from listening to the Donald Sterling tape. His personal abusiveness and unwarranted accusations against V. Stiviano is on one side of the coin; flip it over, and his contempt for black people is on the other. Jerk on one side, racist on the other.

[Lila:  Never mind that Stiviano was a gold-digging exhibitionist.

Never mind that she’s  made racist comments herself.

Never mind that she either pre-texted or unlawfully surveilled someone in their house.

Never mind that that is a form of moral and mental rape several orders of magnitude worse than saying rude things in your own home for your own private audience.]

“Therefore, it makes sense that environments that promote social hierarchies will also be fertile breeding grounds for individual dominance, and vice versa,” he continued. Digging down a bit into specifics was quite illuminating.

“By ‘environments’ I can imagine a few that are good candidates — financial markets for example,” Wilson said. “Indeed, some of my other work shows that people who work in commerce focused on hierarchy-enhancing wealth consolidation also tend to be more social dominant (an old finding) but also more psychopathic — indeed, people who study commerce at university are not only more psychopathic than people in other fields of study but less psychopathic commerce students are more likely to switch majors to more hierarchy-attenuating disciplines, while more psychopathic arts students (for example) are more likely to switch to commerce degrees.”

Lila:  This is the state of moral and logical confusion in public debate in the West, which, unfortunately, sets the tone for the whole world.

Take Belle Knox, the current feminist icon.

She is barely adult, has a history of body image problems and serious self-cutting; is a  porn addict who was raped and admits that she enjoys being locked up in dog-houses.

She chooses to be routinely spit on, hit in the face, verbally abused, and gang-raped in the derriere, all on camera.

But, of course, there’s no “evil hierarchy” in any of that, nor “dominance,” nor “subordination”; no psychiatric problem there.

No,  that”s  all feminist empowerment and an honest day’s work, all the way.

And you dare not so much as roll your eyes  at her.

On the other hand, if  a young man, a conservative, signs up for a degree in commerce and enjoys the rough-and-tumble of  the business world, watch out – you have Hitler or Mao on your hands.  Call the FBI… the shrinks… the NY Times…. Get Paul Rosenberg on the case.

In Rosenberg’s tendentious, dishonest, simple-minded essay, good, decent ideas with which any conservative could agree – the dignity of manual work and the value of every individual – putrefy and turn into so much slime to fling against political opponents, albeit so clumsily, the effort says more about him than about them.

 

 

Feds gun-grabbing across America

Posted on by

International gun-grabbing signed into place:

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday the United States will sign on to a U.N. treaty on arms control, over the objections of many in Congress who say the global document would clamp down on America’s Second Amendment.

The U.S. “welcomes” the next step in treaty ratification, Mr. Kerry said in a statement reported by Fox News and issued the same day the United Nations held a formal signing ceremony on New York.

 

Meanwhile, on the domestic gun-grabbing front:

* Obama’s new Surgeon-General, Vivek Murthy, is a relatively young, British-born gun-control enthusiast,  rather than the established and distinguished senior professional usually chosen.

*A senior staff officer (Lt. Colonel Robert Bates) took to the pages of Esquire magazine to announce his six-point program to confiscate guns from gun-owners, including in his provisions a 400% tax on ammunition and confiscation at death (except for 3 specified types).

*New legal precedents are being set across the nation that enable the police to label people as “suspicious” or even a “domestic terrorist,”  and use that to unilaterally invade their homes, without warrant, and confiscate fire-arms and property.

From Freedom Outpost:

Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.

Has the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?”

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/fed-court-ruling-cops-can-kick-in-your-door-confiscate-guns-without-warrant-or-charges/#j3xdWL1V19k8Z6Xu.99

Rothschild ties to Western & Russian oligarchy

Posted on by

An extremely thorough article by Willam Jasper at the New American confirms what I’ve said about Putin, that he is simply another tool of the NWO, an instrument of “convergence”:

“One of the important ventures that Soros and Pinchuk are financing is the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center (CMC), a collaboration of Ukrainian public relations corporations and journalists that is headquartered in Kiev’s Hotel Ukraine. Ostensibly, it was created to counter the propaganda onslaught of Putin’s Russian media cartel. Much of the “independent news” we receive from Ukraine is produced by the CMC and stamped with the Pinchuk/Soros-approved brand of propaganda. That includes cheering on or papering over the fact that the “new” government in Kiev is simply the latest rotation of musical chairs, and it has ended with Pinchuk’s fellow oligarchs (virtually all of which are “former” communists) and their parliamentary blocs and political parties occupying the most important chairs (as we reported here).

Pinchuk is a member of the Board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and sits on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution, both of which Soros has long been associated with. Another very important Soros-Pinchuk tie is their mutual connection to the famous (or infamous, as you prefer) Rothschild banking dynasty. 

In 2011, George C. Karlweis, adviser to Baron Edmond de Rothschild and his Banque Privee, revealed that it was Rothschild who provided Soros with the startup money — and, undoubtedly much (illegal) insider trading intelligence — for Soros’ fabulously successful Quantum Fund. 

The full extent of Pinchuk’s connections to the Rothschild’s global private empire would require a similar revelation from an insider. That could be Jean-Pierre Saltiel, who sits on the board of Pinchuk’s Yalta European Strategy, as well as the oligarch’s global steel and metallurgy conglomerate, Interpipe, Inc. He is also a longtime adviser to the Rothschilds and the past president of Rothschild Conseil International, one of the fabled family’s major bank holding companies. Interestingly (but not so surprising), Rothschild agent Saltiel also sits on the board of PIK Group, Russia’s largest residential real estate developer, founded by Russian oligarchs Yuri Zhukov and Kirill Pisarev (and still run by Pisarev).

Like Soros and the Rothschilds, Ukrainian oligarch Pinchuk works with and partners with a number of Russian oligarchs. And his YES summits regularly feature Putin-allied Russian oligarchs, as well as Putin-appointed Russian politicians and apparatchiks. Alfa Bank, Russia’s largest private bank, for example, is a YES sponsor. And Alfa Bank chairman, Mikhail Fridman, a Putin ally and one of Russia’s richest billionaires, sits on the CFR’s International Advisory Board and provided the funds to create the CFR’s “Russia and Russian-American Relations Lecture” program. Similarly, Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest oligarch, a former Putin-Yanukovych supporter and ally, is now a member of the new government. He is also, along with Fridman and Soros, a YES sponsor and a business partner with Russian, EU and U.S. Insiders. What these and dozens of other similar examples indicate is that there is much more to all of the Sturm und Drang over the Ukraine-Russia-EU “crisis” than meets the eye.

Soros gave a strong clue as to what the scripted outcome of the scenario would likely be. His solution would see Russia as a “partner,” and Angela Merkel (the “former” Communist from East Germany who now runs the unified Germany) would be the broker.

“Germany should take the lead,” Soros said, in his February 26 Project Syndicate column cited above. “Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President Vladimir Putin to ensure that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance.”

Putin as Prod for “Convergence”

Merkel appears to be doing just the opposite, threatening Putin with sanctions, including freezing of Russian bank accounts and restrictions on travel in the EU, unless Putin “deescalates” the situation and comes to the bargaining table. But, in reality, she is “reaching out” to Putin, and he, after providing what is deemed an appropriate level of drama, will likely come to the table and deescalate. Contrary to Russia’s current bellicose posturing, it is in the Kremlin’s interests to offload Ukraine onto the taxpayers of the EU and the United States, and it fits perfectly with their long-term strategy of “convergence” with the EU and the United States.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, arguably the most important KGB defector to escape to the West, exposed the top-secret Soviet convergence strategy in his books New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. (See here, here, and here.) Mikhail Gorbachev was making oblique reference to the ongoing reality of the convergence process when he described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” As in the transmutation described in Orwell’s Animal Farm, when it became almost impossible to tell the pigs from the men, it is now becoming all but impossible to detect any substantive differences between the ruling elites of Russia, China, the EU, and the United States. And, as the EU and the United States adopt more socialist policies and police-state measures, there is less and less distinction between our societies and the one ruled over by Putin and his Kremlin cronies.”

Mark Ames: Ties between Soros, Snowden, Greenwald, Ukrainian Nazis

Posted on by

Mark Ames separates himself from the pack of craven journalists to point out that George Soros is aiding the Ukrainian neo-Nazi coup and he’s also behind Snowden’s treasure-trove of NSA secrets:

Some­how, the same bil­lion­aire who co-financed the “coup” in Ukraine with USAID, also has exclu­sive access to the NSA secrets—and very few in the inde­pen­dent media dare voice a skep­ti­cal word about it.

Lila: Actually, Mr. Ames, there are at least a few of us who have been skeptical of Snowden from the start and have pointed out the tell-tale connections between Julian Assange, Laura Poitras, Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, George Soros and the world of “hacktivism” and  IP-socialism….. with few giving us credit for it.

I have questioned the Snowden story since June 2013 and Assange since 2009. Search this blog.

In the larger sense, this is a prob­lem of 21st cen­tury Amer­i­can inequal­ity, of life in a billionaire-dominated era.

Lila: Well go get a job and write on the side, beholden to no one.

It is a prob­lem we all have to con­tend with—PandoDaily’s 18-plus investors include a gag­gle of Sil­i­con Val­ley bil­lion­aires like Marc Andreessen (who serves on the board of eBay, chaired by Pierre Omid­yar) and Peter Thiel (whose pol­i­tics I’ve inves­ti­gated, and described as repug­nant.) But what is more imme­di­ately alarm­ing is what makes Omid­yar dif­fer­ent. Unlike other bil­lion­aires, Omid­yar has gar­nered noth­ing but uncrit­i­cal, fawn­ing press cov­er­age, par­tic­u­larly from those he has hired. By acquir­ing a “dream team” of what remains of inde­pen­dent media — Green­wald, Jeremy Scahill, Wheeler, my for­mer part­ner Matt Taibbi — not to men­tion press “crit­ics” like Jay Rosen — he buys both silence and fawn­ing press.

Lila: That tells you what Taibbi and the rest were all about…..which is what I said from the start. Check out my comments about Taibbi, plagiarism and revisionism.

.Both are incred­i­bly use­ful: Silence, an absence of jour­nal­is­tic curios­ity about Omidyar’s activ­i­ties over­seas and at home, has been pur­chased for the price of what­ever his cur­rent all-star indie cast cur­rently costs him. As an added bonus, that same invest­ment buys silence from expo­nen­tially larger num­bers of des­per­ately under­paid inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ists hop­ing to some­day be on his pay­roll, and the under­funded media watch­dogs that sur­vive on Omid­yar Net­work grants. And it also buys laugh­able fluff from the likes of Scahill who also boasted to the Daily Beast of his boss’ close involve­ment in the day to day run­ning of First Look. “[Omid­yar] strikes me as always sort of polit­i­cal, but I think that the NSA story and the expand­ing wars put pol­i­tics for him into a much more promi­nent place in his exis­tence. This is not a side project that he is doing. Pierre writes more on our inter­nal mes­sag­ing than any­one else. And he is not micro­manag­ing. This guy has a vision. And his vision is to con­front what he sees as an assault on the pri­vacy of Americans.”

Electronic Police States – Top Twenty Five

Posted on by

Cryptohippie, which seems to support Wikileaks and Assange, came out with its third and last global ranking for “electronic police-states” a few years ago.

I find Cryptohippie itself a bit “interesting.” Why did it issue only three rankings and why did the rankings stop in 2010?

There might be some innocuous reason for it, but these days it pays to subject everything to close scrutiny.

If the powers-that-be wanted to “warn” the population via a respected NGO, it would not be a “threat” but a public service, right?

In any case, Cryptohippie divides the world into black, red, orange, yellow, and green zones, in descending order of control.

Black indicates total control and only North Korea fell into that territory in 2010 .

The red zone (advanced police states) included the US, UK, Russia, China, and Europe.

India, Australia, and Canada fell into the orange zone (fast developing police states).

The yellow zone (laggards) included parts of Europe and Mexico. The green zone (relatively free but some control) included Brazil and parts of Europe and Asia.

India came in at 26 in 2010.

1. North Korea

2. China

3. Belarus

4. Russia

5. USA

6. UK

7. France

8. Israel

9. Singapore

10. Germany

11. Ireland

12. Malaysia

13. Netherlands

14. Italy

15. S. Korea

16. Australia

17. Belgium

18. Spain

19. Austria

20. Ukraine

21.Greece

22. Switzerland

23. Japan

24. Norway

25. Canada

 

Who killed Kennedy? The Truly Unspeakable…

Posted on by

A brilliant summation of the Kennedy assassination accounts, which shows that both sides of alternative research on the subject – those who finger the CIA, on one hand, and those who finger Johnson, on the other – overlook the crucial evidence showing that Johnson was beholden to the Zionists:

“Johnson’s sympathy for the Jews, whatever its origin, does not constitute evidence of his collusion with Israeli elements in Kennedy’s assassination.

Yet it is an established fact that Johnson had been the Zionists’ choice of Democratic candidate in the primaries. And that was not new. His campaign for a Senate seat in 1948 was masterminded by Abraham Feinberg, the financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[7]

It is also on record, thanks to Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, 1965), that it was in fact Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, and his most influential columnist Joseph Alsop, both friends and supporters of Johnson, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, as soon as it became clear that Kennedy would beat Johnson at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.

Schlesinger doesn’t reveal the arguments that convinced Kennedy during his private conversation with Graham and Alsop, and rather censors himself by stating that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for an accomplished historian, which can be explained within Schlesinger’s refusal to come to grips with Kennedy’s Middle East policy and his battle with Zionism throughout his 872 pages.

Alan Hart has convincingly filled in the blanks in Schlesinger’s account: both Graham and Alsop were strongly pro-Israel as well as pro-Johnson, and both could exert huge influence on public opinion. So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.”[8]

Why would the Zionists want Johnson as Vice-President, rather than Senate Majority Leader, a much more efficient position to block anti-Israel legislation? It can only be because they saw the vice-presidency as a step to the presidency. And the sooner, the better, because the Zionists hated Kennedy as much as they loved Johnson.

They hated him because of his father’s alleged support for the Nazis: “there is a question about whether the father did not inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his son John’s”, had wondered publicly Menachem Begin’s party Herut on September 9, 1960.

Mentioning some of Kennedy’s advisers, Herut further asked: “How can the future of Israel be entrusted to these men who might come to power thanks to Jewish votes, strange and paradoxical as this may seem?” The Zionists also feared Kennedy for his pro-Palestinian stances: “his personal feeling of deep sympathy for the Palestinian refugees was a matter of record,” writes Alan Hart.

In 1956, on his way back from a trip to Southeast Asia, he had visited a number of refugee camps, and on his return, had expressed on television his deep sympathy for the “displaced” Palestinian people. In February 1958, he told a Jewish group that the refugee problem “must be resolved through negotiations, resettlement and outside international assistance.”[9]

The question that concerns us here is not: Was Johnson a Zionist mole, besides being a psychopath? The question is: Did Johnson collude with Israeli elements to have Kennedy assassinated? A clue can be found in Ruby’s own words regarding his role in the Dallas coup. Questioned by the Warren Commission, Ruby insisted to be taken to Washington, since, he said, “I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President.” “If you don’t take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.”

Ruby did not detail this “tragic thing,” but made it clear that it had to do with the fate of the Jewish people: “there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don’t take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don’t suffer because of what I have done.” He feared that his act would be used “to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith,” but added that “maybe something can be saved […], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.”[xciv]

Ruby seems to have wanted to send a message to Johnson, through the Commission members, a message containing a warning that he may spill the beans about Israel’s involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor.

That impression gets reinforced when we compare the respect he shows Johnson, referred to as “our President, who believes in righteousness and justice,” to the accusation he would make in 1967 against that same Johnson, whom he would now call “a Nazi in the worst order” in a handwritten letter.[xcv]

Ruby’s violent resentment suggests a sense of betrayal; perhaps Ruby was hoping that Johnson would get him out of jail, just like, in 1952, Johnson had managed to keep Mac Wallace away from prison despite being found guilty of first degree murder (normally a sure ticket for the death row in Texas).[xcvi]

Im17-Kilgallen

Ruby’s statement to the Warren Commission was leaked to journalist Dorothy Kilgallen and published in the New York Journal American, August 18-20, 1964. Kilgallen also interviewed Jack Ruby and boasted afterwards of being about to “break the real story” and publish “the biggest scoop of the century” in a book titled Murder One. The book was never published: She was found dead by an overdose of barbiturate and alcohol on November 8th, 1965. Her last published line said about the Kennedy assassination: “That story isn’t going to die as long as there’s a real reporter alive, and there are a lot of them alive.”[xcvii]

Slandering Christianity: The “flat earth” lie

Posted on by

Veritas.ucsb.org debunks the secular lie that the Medieval period was a dark age in which Christians believed the earth was flat:

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat–especially medieval Christians.

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat…….

A few–at least two and at most five–early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge?…………

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history………..

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin’s The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library.”

And why did these historians spread propaganda against Christianity?

It was in order to shore up the arguments of Darwinists  (with whom Darwin himself would have disagreed) against Christians.

It was to make Christians look stupid and opposed to science.

It was to falsely equate a non-existent “Christian” belief in a flat earth with anti- Darwinism so as to shame educated Christians into subscribing to the dogma of evolution, without fully grasping the import of what they were doing.

It was subversion of religion by stealth.

 

Pro-life advocacy is “torture,” claims feminist NGO

Posted on by

The American Center for Law and Justice reports that women’s rights NGO’s are trying to claim that the pro-life position falls under the rubric of torture:

To be clear, the effort by the Center for Reproductive Rights clearly and explicitly targets the church’s rights to free speech and religious liberty. Here’s an excerpt from its recommendations to the Committee:

QUOTE

Note that the Holy See has negatively interfered with states’ attempts to develop legislation on abortion that would have served to better protect women from torture or ill-treatment. Note that the Holy See’s actions are a violation of Articles 1, 2, and 16 of the Convention against Torture and that the rights of freedom of speech and of religion extend only so far as they do not undermine women’s reproductive rights, including the right to be free from torture or ill-treatment. “(Emphasis added.)

END QUOTE

This is an astonishing statement, one that clearly targets the Catholic Church’s pro-life advocacy, equating it with state-sanctioned “torture or ill-treatment” of women and girls. By equating advocacy with torture, the Committee could begin an international legal process that would cause the U.N. to review statements or actions by pro-life public officials as “torture” within the meaning of the Convention. Radical pro-abortion groups would file amicus briefs citing new international legal standards equating pro-life advocacy with torture, thus claiming such advocacy is beyond the protection of the First Amendment.”

 

Official dissent: Teaching the serfs how to obey

Posted on by

Oh Tarzie at the Rancid Honey-Trap, points out what still isn’t clear to many people:

People don’t get on the major media unless  their “dissent” is useful to the powers-that-be.

If  they really threatened the power-structure, they wouldn’t be anywhere on the networks.

A cone of silence would descend. They would suddenly find themselves in some fringe area of the net, ignored by the right people and overlooked by the rest.

Read what happened when liberal commentator Chris Hayes timidly criticized the overuse of the word, “hero.” He correctly noted that it  encouraged  jingoism and militarism…and then he swiftly recanted:

Let me spell it out: Someone in some high place finds Hayes useful. If and when he’s no longer useful, he’ll be purged. There was a very public reminder to this effect in May when, on a Memorial Day program, Hayes expressed ambivalence about the word “hero”, because it is “so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.”

Even though Hayes offered this tepid remark in a segment rich with militarist schmaltz, right wing pundits and veterans groups pounced. The next day, Hayes issued a revolting apology which went above and beyond the normal requirements of atonement, complete with the far right-wing suggestion that civilians can’t really speak with authority on military matters……”

Lila:

Hayes’ apology was completely uncalled for, for two reasons:

One. The military is intended, constitutionally, to be under the civilian command.
Two. Civilians have often been more militaristic than the military.

So why did Hayes grovel?

Tarzie explains:

“Public capitulation rituals of this kind aren’t just a part of heat vampire liberalism; they are, in fact, its very essence. This is basically what DeBoer’s Marx/Daschle formulation describes: a clear eyed, even radical, assessment of all that’s wrong in the world coexisting with acquiescence in oligarch-approved methods for putting things right, no matter how often and resoundingly these methods fail.

So constituted, heat vampire liberals act as role models for the rest of us, reconciling things that aren’t logically reconcilable, successfully wrestling themselves into compliance with status quo fundamentals while bemoaning the particulars.”

That’s why it’s imperative to call out “official dissenters.”
I know it looks churlish: Aren’t there much worthier targets than Mr. Hayes, who makes so many apt criticisms of  war and the police-state?

No, no, a thousand times no.

There’s no hope at all of real public outrage so long as  “domesticated outrage” flourishes without embarrassment.
Hayes and Greenwald and Snowden and Assange and the rest   aren’t simply co-opted. They are actively “instructing” the rest of us in compliance. They are conscious conduits for the “second-level” brain-washing that faces anyone who extricates himself from  the”first-level” brainwashing of the masses.

Humanitarian killer: Abortionist Douglas Karpen

Posted on by

Credit: Life Dynamics

An example of the explicit, real racism practiced by the left’s humanitarians and “feminists,” a racism that is never criticized in the major media.

Here, it’s analyzed by Judie Brown at CNSNews.com in a piece written on June 28, 2013:

“Abortionist Douglas Karpen, who operates two abortion facilities in Houston, Texas, is currently under criminal investigation. His practice of twisting “babies’ heads off” their bodies in order to ensure that a late-term abortion results in death for the baby was discussed in exclusive live interviews with three of his former employees. And the fireworks began.”

These letters were co-signed by 20 Texas lawmakers.”

What were the fire-works about?

They were set off when African-American pro-life activists asked why it was that Douglas Karpen, a white man, was allowed to keep his clinic open while being investigated for homicide, while the clinics of Kermit Gosnell and James Pendergraft, both black men, were instantly raided and shut down.

The question should be asked, because racism is already a large part of the abortion industry, which was founded on the eugenicist hopes of self-identified racists, like Margaret Sanger.

Abortion Inc. also targets poorer women in the US, usually Hispanic and black,  and it causes the deaths of more than three times the number of black babies as white.

Yet Gosnell’s trial, although pushed off the front pages, has had at least some attention from alternative sites, whereas Karpen, whose crimes are even worse, appears to have slipped under the radar:

She described how some babies would emerge too soon and would be alive, moving, and breathing. She also told of how Karpen would sometimes deliver the babies feet first with the toes wiggling until he stabbed them with a surgical implement. At the moment the toes would suddenly splay out before going limp. Sometimes he would kill the babies by ‘twisting the head off the neck,’ according to Edge……

…‘Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out,’ she explained. ‘He would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize. And I’m talking about the whole floor dirty. I’m talking about me drenched in blood.’

Karpen also injured the mothers recklessly:

Rodriguez also accused the abortionist of showing disregard for the safety of his patients. She indicated that he would sometimes insert the instruments through the woman’s stomach if it was the easiest way to kill the baby.

Edge also claimed that she routinely observed Karpen ‘hurting patients on the table’ and not telling victims of botched abortions that he had lacerated their cervix or uterus.”

Yet, in December last year  a grand jury refused to indict Douglas Karpen:

Operation Rescue alleged that Karpen was murdering babies in in a similar way as convicted Pennsylvania abortion Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder for intentionally killing babies born alive during late-term abortions.”

Documents show that Karpen had a lengthy history of using high-pressure sales tactics on under-age minority girls to get them to undergo  dangerous late-term abortions, tripling his medical fee in one case, and threatening them to stop them telling their parents.