Black girl beats up white girl on viral video

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Lila

A 13-year-old black girl beat up a 10-year-old white girl riding a scooter on a Cleveland side-walk on June 14.

It was an apparently unprovoked assault during which the attacker called the victim, Danielle Fair, a racial slur,”cracker,” according to an on-looker.

The whole incident was caught on cell-phone camera and posted on Youtube, where it’s gone viral.

The police are treating the attack as a possible hate crime.

I want to be a bit cautious, though, because I notice a few things that are odd:

1. On camera, the black girl waits for the younger girl to come riding along. It is a planned, unprovoked assault on a stranger.

2. The cell-phone camera was rolling before the assault. Either someone knew in advance what was going to happen, or there is more going on here than meets the eye.

3. The victim told the media (WOIO) that she felt “bullied.”

That language sounds rather stilted to me, from a ten-year-old.

The “anti-bullying” campaign is in full swing globally, promoted to the hilt by the power-elite, as a way to get young people fully involved in snitching on their peers, elders, and family members.

Check out the Bully Police page.

The anti-bullying campaign is driven by the militant gay lobby.

Recall that even in the Trayvon Martin case, the black teen who was killed was demonized as a thug and anti-gay.

How better to get white Christians to embrace the militantly anti-Christian anti-bullying campaign than to tie it to white racial fears of blacks?

In 2011, there were rumors about a an intel/government program of inciting racial strife.

The assumption and fear was that the intelligence agencies might create spurious “white- on-black” hate-crimes. (See here).

But there’s no reason why they might not incite people the other way around too.

[I am not suggesting that these crimes are spurious. I am saying they might well be organized and incited.]

The intelligence agencies have a long history of provoking race riots.

There have been a spate of attacks that fall under the rubric of the “knock-out” game, in which black youths are said to deliberately target white victims for no reason.

This might actually be the case, but from what I have seen of some of the cases so far, including the beating up of Matthew Owens, there is very much more going on.

In the Owens case, there was a three -year feud between the neighborhood black teens and Owens, in which Owens had previously brandished knives at them. He also had an extensive criminal record.

This does not excuse the attack, but it does mean that we need to look carefully to see if an attack really fits a “black-on-white race-war” narrative or whether, for whatever reason, the media is fanning the flames of racial hatred (as in this depiction of slavery) on both sides, black and white.

If the forces behind “managed revolution” can pay impoverished Ukrainian girls to use their naked bodies as weapons in a culture war abroad, why wouldn’t they pay impoverished ghetto youth to use their fists in a race war at home?

The Guardian Stages Surveillance Theater

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Lila

Image Credit: Saving the republic

The Guardian is running a piece by Trevor Timm, of the Greenwald-Poitras-Snowden- associated Freedom of the Press foundation. (H/T to Scott Lazarowitz, LRC)

It’s about Stingray, a technology that lets the government locate and track you via cell-phone tower signals.

Timm is correct to point out the privacy implications of the NSA’s meta-data collection, which has filtered down to local police departments.

Meta-data is data about communications that doesn’t include the actual content.

It’s the date, the address (from and to), the length of time, the location.

Very rich, if collected continuously.

All very well, but, as even Timm does admit in the Guardian, this technology has been around for a couple of years.

Yet, last year, in a piece at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Timm wrote:

A few months ago, EFF warned of a secretive new surveillance tool, commonly referred to as a “Stingray,” being used by the FBI in cases around the country.”

Secretive and new? Really?

The Louisville Law Review says the Feds used the Stingray from 2006 on.

[The Stingray is really a brand that refers to a family of technologies, says the Review.]

Local police departments were using the Stingray as early as 2007 (seven years ago).

“Oakland’s Targeted Enforcement Task Force made 21 ”Electronic Surveillance [StingRay] arrests” in 2007, 19 in 2008, and 19 in 2009 for charges including robbery, kidnapping, attempted murder and homicide. Further records show employees receiving up to 40 hours in training on the technology.”

This was discussed in the major media, at least as far back as 2011.

At the cyber- security blog, Schneier on Security, a commenter in January 2013, called the Stingray “very old technology.”

And the Stingray is now old and very expensive technology, I’d actually be more woried by the likes of pocket picocells that hackers cobble together from COTS equipment for less than 200USD. “

A spy technology for under 200 bucks?

I’d be more worried by picocells too.

So, why isn’t the Guardian?

Or the EFF?

Or the Freedom of the Press Foundation?

Dipped sheep, little green men, and rabbit-holes

Posted on June 15, 2014 by Lila

Image Credit: Shelly’s Blog (archive)

Sheep-dipping:

“U.S. intelligence term for camouflaging or disguising the true identity of equipment or individuals, especially for the use of military equipment or services–including personnel–in clandestine intelligence activities, generally under the direction of a nonmilitary sponsor.“

Steven Hager describes the suspected murder of journalist, Dorothy Kilgallen:

“[Dorothy Kilgallen] mostly covered show business, but loved investigating deep politics and organized crime as well. When a doctor in Illinois was railroaded into prison for the vicious murder of his pregnant wife, Kilgallen began a crusade to get him released. She became the most famous and influential journalist in America and developed such a regal style that she could upstage a Monarch’s coronation with jeweled tiaras and elaborate outfits.

It was likely after a cocktail party with a British intelligence agent that she rushed out her first front-page scoop regarding the existence of UFO’s.”

[Lila: I disbelieve in UFO’s and have never seen one, but for those who are interested, here is a good read that I cannot vouch for in any way, which gives you a taste of what’s involved:

Mark Pilkington: “Wikileaks vs. UFO Disinformation”

“British scientists are convinced these strange aerial objects are not optical illusions or Soviet inventions, but are flying saucers which originate on another planet,” she wrote, in a front-page story. “The source of my information is a British official of Cabinet rank who prefers to remain unidentified. ‘We believe, on the basis of our inquiry thus far, that the saucers were staffed by small men—probably under four feet tall. It’s frightening, but there is no denying the flying saucers come from another planet.’”

Now what are we to make of this? Obviously Kilgallen was used to plant a rabbit hole of immense proportions, one that would soon explode and reverberate across the world: the aliens have landed! The purpose of seeding such disinfo into the press using an unwitting dupe like Kilgallen is obvious and bears all the markings of a Tavistock mind control experiment to see how far the alien rabbit hole could be stretched. Sheep-dipping her as a conspiracy kook was the easiest way to undermine her investigations into deep politics. Anyone asking prying questions is easily diverted with a tale of alien space ships, or “we never walked on the moon,” or those clouds in the sky?—those are chemicals and not just water vapor, or any of the rest of the rabbit holes disinfo agents like David Icke and Alex Jones are constantly inventing.

[More reading here: “The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations,” John Coleman]

But Kilgallen quickly abandoned the UFO story as she was a serious journalist and when zero proof appeared of little green men or a space ship, she moved onto other investigations……. You see, four years earlier, Kilgallen had broken the story of the CIA and mob working together on a hit team for Castro, so it wasn’t much of a stretch to suspect that same team might have been redirected at JFK.

When she returned to New York after her Texas investigation, she told her friends she was going to blow the case wide open and began working on a book, one she probably expected to win another Pulitzer.

The reason Ruby had a conversation with Kilgallen (and no other person) was because he knew how significant she was. And he was also aware of her immense knowledge of organized crime, the CIA, and their connections with a nest of anti-Castro Cubans in Florida. He probably told her everything he knew……..

The FBI wanted to know where Kilgallen got the transcript

[Lila: a copy of the 102 page interview with Ruby from the Warren Commission report]

and started a whole bunch of surveillance and harassment, although I’m sure Angleton had been closely listening to all Kilgallen’s phone calls as well as reading her mail, after that private jail-house conversation with Ruby.

Most likely, she’d been under intense surveillance the entire year.

Kilgallen was in close communication with Mark Lane at the time, who’d captured the center of energy on the investigation by posing as an honest researcher.

Too bad Kilgallen didn’t know about Lane’s background in military intelligence.

Even more suspicious was the sudden arrival of young Ron Pataky, the handsome ladies man who had been cruising Hollywood, stalking the rising ingenues. He was half her age but completely infatuated with her, and quickly became her closest confidant while pumping her endlessly for the latest breaks in the JFK case. He’d later claim the relationship was “platonic.”

On November 8th, 1965, Kilgallen was discovered by her hairdresser. She was lying in bed as if she had fallen asleep reading a book, although she couldn’t read without glasses, it’s a book she finished days ago, and the book is turned the wrong way around. She is fully made up, even wearing false eyelashes, and also wearing some ridiculous outfit, not her usual worn out pajamas. Even more suspicious, she’s not even in her own bed, but one on a lower floor, a room she seldom visited.

The hairdresser knows something is amiss with this picture, and calls the in-house staff, so they can notify the police. He immediately exited through the front door, where he was stunned to find a police car with two officers parked directly in front of the house, as if waiting for a call to come in, as if they knew a dead body was already inside and wanted to be the first at the scene…..”

The NY Times’ Propaganda Campaign over Ukraine

Posted on June 13, 2014 by Lila

Walter Uhler, an independent scholar, has written an exhaustive analysis of the New York Times’ mendacity in its Ukraine coverage.

Here is a short excerpt from Part II:

In contrast to the incompetent or dishonest on-the-spot reporting by the Times, the “White Book,” gathered evidence months after the events and found that “among the participants of the Euromaidan” were “large and permanent groups of militants, numbering several thousand people, who organized the attacks…”

These groups had “military and official body armor…helmets, shields, knee and elbow pads, masks, respirators, [and] gas masks.” They had fire arms and cold arms, radio communication equipment and stun grenades. They dismantled stones, to be thrown at police, from bridges and pavements. And they manufactured Molotov cocktails and other explosive devices. (White Book, p. 37)

Unfortunately, the “White Book” fails to specify precisely when such weapons were used. I suspect that the most deadly weapons were not introduced until mid-January 2014.

These groups were “constantly present,” unlike most of the protesters, and were most active in initiating violence. According to the “White Book,” on December 1 some “protesters” attempted “to break through the Interior Ministry troops and police officer cordon on Bankovaya street in Kiev,” in order to assault the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. (Imagine an attempt to assault our White House.)

In addition, “supporters of Pravyi Sektor entrenched themselves on the fifth floor of the House of Trade Unions. Party activists in AUU Svoboda actually took control of the Kiev City State Administration building.” (p. 9-10)

The see-no-evil Times did not even mention Right Sector (Pravyi Sektor) until 1 February 2014 and paid no serious attention to the group until 16 February. Imagine that! The Times was self-righteously pontificating about events at Maidan – from late November to mid-February — without having a clue about Right Sector violence. In fact, the incompetent or dishonest Times would not take the threat posed by Right Sector seriously, until it began to menace the very provisional government (the coup regime) that it had just brought to power.

As early as 3 December 2013, John Allen Gay (writing in The National Interest) complained that “Western coverage of the protests has ignored or downplayed the role of the crypto-fascist All-Ukrainian Union party, ‘Svoboda.’” “Svoboda’s leaders have associated themselves with the protest’s most radical action, the occupation and barricading of the Kyiv City Hall.” On December 8, a group of extremists, led by Svoboda, demolished the Lenin statue on Shevchenko Boulevard.

Yet, it wasn’t until 16 December 2013, when the Times finally got around to Svoboda. In an article titled “Unease as an Opposition Party Stands Out in Ukraine’s Protest,” Andrew E. Kramer noted that Svoboda “traces its roots to the Ukrainian partisan army of World War II, which was loosely allied with Nazi Germany.” Until 2004 it was known as the Social-Nationalist Party – a word flip away from the National socialism of the Nazis — and that same year its leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, was expelled by the Ukrainian Parliament, due to his speech that extolled “World War II-era partisans bravely fighting Germans, Russians, Jews and ‘other scum.’”

Mr. Kramer noted that “unabashed neo-Nazis still populate its ranks” and that its black and red banner, which was viewed to be a racist symbol and thus banned at soccer matches by FIFA, is ubiquitous at Independence Square.

Having been bussed into Kiev for weeks, “the activists make up much of the street muscle on the square.” “As the protests have unfolded, the party’s role has grown.”

Although Svoboda took full control of City Hall in mid-December, Mr. Kramer reported that “Western diplomats say they respect Mr. Tyagnibok for keeping control of the unruly nationalist wing on the streets.” Indeed, minimizing the role played by right-wing violence fit neatly with the theme that a popular (and thus legitimate) revolution was occurring at Maidan, not an ugly coup spearheaded by nasty people. The theme of popular revolution allowed Western writers, pundits and politicians to overlook who, precisely, was throwing those Molotov cocktails at police and buildings.

But, if incompetence or dishonesty explains why the Times failed to highlight these particular “bad guys,” what explains the similarly egregious failure by Russia’s reporters? Let’s be clear: What the “White Book” reported after the fact was not what the Russian press was reporting on the spot.

The Russian press took its cue from President Putin. For example, on December 4, Russia Direct quoted Mr. Putin’s assertion that “the anti-government protests in Ukraine were organized and planned by the West as an attempt to overthrow the country’s legitimate government.”

Read the rest of Part II here:

“The New York Times Disinformation Campaign over Ukraine: Part II: The Propaganda War over Ukraine

(Dissident Voice, June 12, 2o14)

Read Part I here:

The Propaganda War Over Ukraine: The New York Times versus Russia’s White Book: Part One

(Dissident Voice, May 9, 2014)

“Mobs” Ist Edition was 2007, not 2009

Posted on June 13, 2014 by Lila

I just saw this on Amazon, in a Google search of
“Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets” (Bonner & Rajiva, Wiley, 2007)

Product Details

Paperback: 424 pages
Publisher: Wiley; 1 edition (September 8, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0470474807
ISBN-13: 978-0470474808
Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.6 x 1.2 inches
Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (103 customer reviews)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #804,133 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

The 2007 publication date is what ought to be in the catalog, because that is when the first edition, the hardcover, came out.

There are six English language editions, besides foreign-language versions:

1. Hard-cover, 1st edition, August 31, 2007

2. Unknown binding, 2007 (Not sure what this is)

3. Audible book, October 30, 2007

4. Pre–loaded digital audio, Sept. 1 2008

5. Kindle, May 18, 2009

6. Paper-back, September 8, 2009

By 2009, there were already five editions.

Yet the sixth version of “Mobs” is listed as the first edition.

And then this first edition is dated at 2009, not 2007.

Technical glitch? Careless mistake?

Or does someone want to revise the date of publication?

Inquiring minds want to know…..

FEMEN: The empire’s booby-trap

Posted on June 8, 2014 by Lila

Update 2 (June 9, 2014):

OK. I just found the first documented direct link to Soros and the Open Society:

The Australian academic who directed the film about FEMEN in 2013, Sophie Pinkham, works for George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Update 1:

I began this post simply to comment on Femen’s attacks on churches in recent months.

Then I found that, although CIA-backing of Femen is assumed by many bloggers, the links I came across didn’t show exactly how Soros or the CIA was tied into the outfit.

I will be updating the post with that information, as I find it.

ORIGINAL POST

The Times of Israel’s blog has a convincing criticism of one of the most visible Weapons of Mass Distraction – the annoyingly uncivilized radical “feminist” group, FEMEN, which allies itself with neo-Nazis in the Ukraine, openly spews (real) bigotry toward Muslims and Christians and engages in breast-baring pranks, ostensibly in the service of suffering womanhood but actually in the service of the Anglo-Zionist empire.

“In support of [Amina] Tyler, the Kiev-based feminist group FEMEN declared April 4th the International Topless Jihad Day, which consisted in white young women protesting topless against Islamist regimes at the entrance of mosques and Tunisian embassies around the globe. Because Muslim women do not have a voice of their own. They are all mute. Because Muslim women are inherently oppressed. Aha. And because the only way to liberate them all is by enforcing Western ideals upon their communities. Of course.…….

Another brilliant idea of FEMEN activists was to burn a Salafist flag in front of the Grande Mosquée de Paris. Three topless FEMEN activists started frolicking around the burning flag offending nearby worshippers. As if Parisian Muslims were responsible for the state of women rights in Islamic regimes. As if ALL Muslims were Salafists. FEMEN, congratulations for your amazing work towards perpetuating the stereotype of the Muslim community as monolithic rather than diverse. Hurrah………

In contrast to Tylor and her fellow FEMEN colleagues, who employ nudity as a tool of protest, talented Egyptian cartoonist Doaa Eladl employed her intellect to highlight issues such as underage marriage and sexual attacks against female demonstrators during the revolution. In late December, she was accused of blasphemy following the publication of one of her pieces in the Al-Masry Al-Youm. Unfortunately, her case did not receive as much attention as Tyler’s physical assets. Clearly, the media is not into pencils and brains as it is into nipples.“

Lila:

The world gives any woman plenty of choices.

But the dialectic promoted in the Western media – a propaganda tool of centralizing money-power – herds these innumerable real choices of real women into two or three pre-determined avenues that let those powers reap economic and political rewards in the swiftest possible way.

As for taking away attention from real activists, that is the point of such plastic activism, whether it is from the ubiquitous Julian Assange or from Edward Snowden or anyone else.

The point is to keep even politically discerning people fixated on mouth-pieces set up by the Central Controllers, so that real resistance is rendered impotent.

Notice that FEMEN’s lewd attacks and sacrilege are directed against mosques and mullahs and also against Catholic bishops and cathedrals:

Life-site News.com reports that in April 2014, Femen activists attacked the Archbishop of Madrid, chanting that “abortion is sacred.”

Notice that this attack roughly corresponds to Easter season, the time of resurrection, rebirth, and fertility.

According to another report, “Top-less activists attack Brussels archbishop again,” it was again at Easter, in April 2013, that the Catholic Archbishop of the Brussels Cathedral, a staunch traditionalist on abortion and homosexuality, was attacked by half-naked “activists,” cursing him and dousing him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary.

The Femen “sextremists” mocked Christianity, altering “agnus dei” (Lamb of God or Jesus Christ) into “anus dei” (anus god), both denigrating Jesus Christ and deifying homosexuality.

Another FEMEN “activist” posed in front of the Cathedral, a black cross over her bare breasts, simulating Jesus on the cross.

Ironically, it turns out that the master-mind behind all this oestrogen run amok is a rather unreconstructed male, Viktor Svyatskiy, who gets a kick out of pretty girls stripping for him.

And, worse, spends his time deriding and humiliating his charges, who, some argue suffer from Stockholm syndrome:

“It’s his movement and he handpicked the girls,” she told The Independent. “He handpicked the prettiest girls because the prettiest girls sell more papers.”

He’s “quite horrible with the girls,” Green adds. “He would scream at them and call them bitches.” One scene in the film has Svyatski displaying utter contempt for his activists. “These girls are weak,” he says. “They don’t have the strength of character… They show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”

There you have the left’s conflicted logic:

Denounce traditional families as hotbeds of patriarchal oppression, because a male is considered the head of the house-hold…..but fawn on a thug who uses, abuses and humiliates vulnerable young women publicly for purposes they’re too naive to suspect, let alone figure out.

The bottom line is that a pimp is paying a few prostitutes (one activist really is a professional prostitute) good money (2-3 times the average monthly wage in Ukraine) to spew out propaganda about female liberation.

This is the old Chicks Up- front strategy of the 1960s left.

Put attractive young women, preferably half-naked, out in front of any protest movement. That attracts attention to your message and distracts from the other fellow’s.

FEMEN members themselves have seen through this game.

Amina Sboui (Tyler), the Tunisian activist mentioned in the beginning of the this post, later denounced the group for being anti-Muslim.

She said its funding sources were mysterious and suspected they might be from Israel.

A mother of one of the Ukrainian activists, Alexandra Shevchenko, regrets letting her daughter go to Kiev to study economics:

“I work in the city center and when walking to work each morning I have to listen to many people reprimanding me what they think of my daughter’s behavior,” said Lyudmyla Shevchenko, Aleksandra’s mother. “I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. I can’t live worrying about her all the time. I and her dad tried to persuade her not to do [take off her clothes] anymore. But when she’s in Kyiv she does not listen to us. Femen leaders brainwashed girls like her.”

Actually, except for murder, FEMEN’s modus operandi sounds startlingly like the Charles Manson gang in the 1960s:

A charismatic sociopath picks followers from among young, impressionable women and brow-beats them into promoting his political agenda….which involves promoting social strife…with the CIA not far behind.

But how exactly does FEMEN connect to the CIA, Israel, and/or the Anglo-Zionist enterprise? It’s still not clear to me.

FEMEN – ORIGINS

First, the Victor Sviyatskiy connection.

Sviyatskiy quickly took over FEMEN from Anna Shevchenko Hutsol.

Hutsol is the activist who originally set FEMEN up, it is reported, to protest sex-trafficking in the Ukraine in 2008.

Later, Inna (Anna?) Shevchenko spread her wings and became a resident of France.

(Lila: I might be confusing Alexandra Shevchenko with Inna. I’ll check and get back to this later today.)

An image of her is now the new Marianne image, the official symbol of France, on postage stamps.

Anna/Inna claims she left for France to avoid the patriarchal set-up in Ukraine, but it’s more accurate to say that she fled there, after she sawed down a Catholic cross and drew the attention of the local police.

Apropos.org.uk points out how characteristic of FEMEN such bigoted attacks are:

In a banner headline, from which we have removed foul language, Femen proclaims “Don’t Rape [us] with Your Crucifixes” , stating that, ‘For two thousand years, the supposed sacrifice of the body of Christ has been used as a tool to control women, our sexuality, our bodies, our freedom.’ This referred to their protest against The March for Life in which white crosses are carried to represent aborted children. According to Femen, ‘ Your white crosses are symbols of hate, control and fear – we will not be your sacrifice.’ As if to emphasise the Satanic nature of their protest the Femen activists who attacked Cardinal Rouco Varela in Madrid had inverted crosses painted on their backs.”

And Pravda (in Ukraine) documents that Inna’s flight had nothing to do with patriarchal oppression and everything to do with the cops:

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2013/08/31/6997008/

(Google translation, with my edits)

Femen activists fled Ukraine
Saturday, August 31, 2013, 12:00

Femen activists left Ukraine on Friday after having been brought in for questioning.According to the press service, 30 August, Femen activist Yana Zhdanov, Anna and Alexander Shevchenko Hutsol were summoned for questioning by the investigator. This means that the activists will be transferred from the status of “suspect ” to the status of ” charged “.“Fearing for their lives and freedom activists escaped from Ukraine to Europe to continue Femen activities,” so ran the statement from the activists.“

FEMEN – FINANCING

The financing of the group has been as mysterious as its origin, with conflicting reports.

Three names recur in the reports:

HELMUT GEIER

One of FEMEN’s early donors is said to be a German, Helmut Joseph Geier, alias, DJ Hell.

DJ Hell is a disc jockey and exponent of the musical trend known as electroclash.

He popularized it in the 1980s and 1990s in his home town, Munich.

JED SUNDEN

Another figure behind FEMEN is Jed Sunden, a native of Brooklyn, New York.

In 1995 Sunden founded the Kiev Post, the first English language paper in the area.

Sunden is the owner of KP Media, which publishes the Post.

This article in the Kiev Post in April 2010 says that Sunden was one of the first to support FEMEN, which it describes as having a five-member board of directors (the names are here):

“I confirm that I do give money to Femen,” Sunden said. “I will not state the amount. After meeting with Anna Hutsol, I was impressed with her ideas and have been a supporter. I believe Anna is a young, independent voice in Ukraine. While I do not agree with all of her positions, I believe it is important to give her, and groups like hers, support.”

BEATE SCHOBER

A third figure mentioned as a backer is a Bavarian business-woman, Beate Schober.

An interview with Schober ran in the Kiev Post in Feb 2006.

It describes her as a senior managers at Austrian Airlines and a successful relocation entrepreneur, catering to major companies.

A Berliner Zeitung article in January 2009 states that Schober had been living in Kiev for twelve years, operating her relocation business.

She was very sympathetic to the sex tourism issue raised by the activists and hosted them on her web portal.

The article also says that fellow Bavarian and German musical entrepreneur, DJ Hell, heard of FEMEN and became interested in publicizing them.

The Swiss Sonntag Zeitung (October 2013) also reported on the funding of the group.

It mentioned that Beate Schober first supported FEMEN, but later concluded that the group was not really interested in women’s emancipation at all.

The SZ piece mentions that 40 percent of the group’s income comes from the sale of T-shirts with their images.

Friends are also mentioned as a source of funds, but no details are given.

DJ Hell is once again mentioned as a backer, but, again, there are no specific figures.

The top four FEMEN activists are reported to get some 700 euros a month ($1000 in other accounts), which is a large sum in Ukraine.

The outfit in Paris reportedly takes $2500/mth to run.

In Kiev, FEMEN ran out of a popular cafe named after Cupid, the child of Venus (the goddess of sexuality and beauty) and Mars (the god of war).

It provided free Internet access to FEMEN’s members.

The Sonntag Zeitung piece also adds interesting details about the origin of the group.

FEMEN began at a meeting between Sviyatskiy and Anna Hutsol on a park bench in Khmeinitsky in Western Ukraine in the mid-2000’s.

The two were watching married couples at the registry when they came up with the idea.

In the only recorded interview with him, Swiatskiy says Hutsol and he had already decided on FEMEN’s media strategy by that time.

In 2009, Sophie Pinkham, an American academic who was conducting research into Ukrainian feminism, interviewed the FEMEN chief Anna Hutsol.

She found that the “volunteer” Victor Sviyatskiy was doing most of the answering.

He was extraordinarily passionate about his mission to promote feminism and spoke eloquently about the “eroticism of the social” and his ambition to create an activist group as “cheerful” as Greenpeace.

Despite this, he remains a shadowy figure, with no foot-print on the Internet.

The non-existent Net footprint certainly suggests an intelligence operation of some kind, but that is only speculation, so far.

In the fall of 2013, a documentary debuted at the Venice film festival- Ukraine Is Not a Brothel.

It was directed by Australian film-maker Kitty Green, who outed Sviyatskiy as the master-mind behind FEMEN.

To sum up:

An American female academic calls attention to the group in 2009, only a year after its official founding.
Around the same time an American newspaper publisher and libertarian promotes and funds the group. He stops funding FEMEN only in 2011, because it is offending too many people.
Two Germans from the same town in Germany back the group. One is a multi-millionaire corporate senior manager now in the tourism business, who has a clientele that includes the World Health Organization. The other is a famous disc jockey. The business-woman later says she thinks they are not really feminists.
France quickly makes one of the lead activists its national heroine and gives her residence on the spot, to save her from the investigations of the Ukrainian police.
The founder and master-mind of the group is a mysterious abusive male, who admires the ultra-left environmental group, Greenpeace, and is an expert on media strategy.
Everyone denies this man’s involvement and he has no trail on the net.
An Australian film-maker publicizes the group in 2013 and “outs” its mysterious founder, although print accounts of his involvement in FEMEN long precede her outing.

Belief in hierarchy is psychopathic, claims leftist

Posted on June 7, 2014 by Lila

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.

Cognitive dissonance in some libertarian circles

Posted on June 4, 2014 by Lila

Negligent burning of baby in public sector:

NAZI POLICE STATE

Dear God

[Source: Will Grigg, Pro Libertate, republished at LRC blog]

Note: Grigg is pro-life. No criticism of his excellent piece is intended.

Intentional baby-killing in private sector:

A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE

Cell phone photos taken of late-term abortions at the abortion clinic of Dr. Douglas Karpen (Houston, Texas).

Criminal charges against Dr. Karpen were dismissed in December 2013, but under pressure from pro-life groups and accumulating testimony from former employees, investigation of the clinic has been re-opened.

Knoxious Hypocrisy

Posted on June 1, 2014 by Lila

You can do whatever you want sexually, on camera, for money, and thrust it crudely and incessantly into the public eye….you can even enact rape, violence, humiliation, and sadism toward other human beings and call it a job.

But don’t you dare voice your opinions about such things freely in Mistress Belle Knox’s America.

On Ms. Knox’s Twitter feed, she “nudges” the serfs not to use the English language in ways that offend Her Royal Twitterness:

If you suspect, as I do, that Knox is an intelligence-created mind-control operation… here’s some evidence:

1. She’s regurgitating, word-for-word, the CIA’s whole gender agenda on her Twitter feed – Part of that is to eliminate any words that arise from real human experience and feeling and substitute for them politically correct language.

2. She’s staging “conflict” with Pakistan’s Twitter, an obvious piece of theater intended to reinforce the meme that Islam’s traditional sexual values are anathema to the West.

Rothschild ties to Western & Russian oligarchy