Kelly McParland in the National Post:

“Another new law will enable Moscow to block sites without a court order. Russia’s biggest social media site is now under the control of people close to Mr. Putin, according to a report in Al Jazeera.

Another law signed on Monday makes it illegal to  “wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two”. Russians could face up to five years in jail for questioning the official version of  Nazi crimes and Moscow’s role in the war, possibly including any criticism of  Joseph Stalin, Moscow’s wartime leader, who has been blamed for ordering the deaths of  tens of millions of Russians during mass purges against enemies and opponents of Communism. It could also be illegal to repeat comparisons likening Russia’s current activities in Ukraine to Hitler’s seizure of European territory before the Second World War.”

More good news for the guy on the street and more bad news for the Gray Lady (The New York Times), already sinking like a stone, now that word’s got out (gee, how did that happen) that the “Lady” lies.…and lies...and lies.

Yes.  Not only is the Times losing its readership, it’s got a full measure of come-uppance for its recent (but not new) smear job of American libertarians, who, while I might disagree with them, are not racist (in whatever sense the Times meant), not pro-Slavery and not dealing in conspiracy theory.

Actually, conspiracy and conspiracy theories are the Time’s specialty, since it’s been a known mouth-piece for the CIA for decades.

But, in addition to the “truther” and “birther” smears against antiwar activists, and the Keynesian lies,  the Times is also a propagandist for the “inequality” meme (inequality as the problem to be remedied by taxation, rather that inequality as a symptom of excessive taxation and massive money-printing) and the “gender wage-gap”.

Turns out that while preaching communism to us serfs, the Times has been practicing both inequality and sexism within its own court.

It’s been paying its female executive editor, Jill Abramson, less than its male editor, Bill Keller and she’s crying sexism.

Rush Limbaugh (often right, when he’s not acting like a hawk for war):

“Is this not juicy?  Here you’ve got the Regime last week or two weeks ago on income inequality and this pay gap between men and women and here’s the house organ, the gospel, the Bible of liberalism, the most powerful employee outside ownership of the New York Times claims that she is a victim of pay discrimination. So the Times management got in gear real fast.  “No, no, no, no, no.  She was not paid significantly less than Keller.  Remember, Keller had been here a lot longer than she had been here, and that’s why Keller’s pension was bigger than hers was.  Keller had been here a long, long time.”  So they kind of swatted that away…..

…Anyway, so it’s sort of schadenfreude, isn’t it?  I mean, here are these people at the Times leading the charge on the bogus stories of inequality and pay inequity, men and women, and here is the executive editor of the Bible of the American left complaining that she was a victim of pay discrimination because she was a woman.  You can’t write this stuff.  Well, you can’t go work for Obama because he does the same thing. Obama pays women less than the New York Times does.  (interruption) Well, she was working for Obama when she was at the Times.  That’s the point.  Everybody at the Times is working for Obama. That’s the point.

So, anyway, the Times is dumping on her.  Now the story is that Little Pinch never liked her.  Pinch Sulzberger, Arthur Sulzberger III, his dad was called Punch, so they call him Pinch. He doesn’t like it, by the way.  I don’t know why Punch was the nickname for his dad, and I don’t know why Pinch, other than it’s not Punch, is his nickname.  But the story’s out there that they never got along, that there were always fights and management disagreements, and they’re making it sound like the only reason she got the gig was that she was a woman and they were trying to be politically correct.  They’re even putting versions of that out there.  (interruption)  Well, let me tell you something.  That’s not why I remembered Jill Abramson.  That’s all fine and dandy, and if you get some jollies out of this, which I admit I do, too, I mean, I wouldn’t be human……..

….Abramson used to work at the Wall Street Journal, so did Jane Mayer.  But let’s remember what they did.  They coauthored a smear book about Clarence Thomas.  It was called Strange Justice. They just set out to destroy Clarence Thomas in this book.  They tried to portray him as this oversexed, sexually harassing, incompetent, Uncle Tom, illegitimate African-American kind of guy. It was just vicious what these two did in their book on Clarence Thomas.

And that’s who Jill Abramson is to me.  Whether she was a bad manager, was bossy, underpaid, fine and dandy.  To me those are just distractions.  And I don’t know whether this is karma, you know, things coming back, whatever you call it, justice or what have you, but that book that they wrote was just hideous.  And I’ve never, ever forgotten that.”

Some fascinating quotes from Margaret Sanger:

“Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1

[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity.“

Comment:

As to that last statement, I agree with it. Quality is more important than quantity. However, the answer to that is education and standards, not sterilization/eugenicist programs imposed on people.

Included in the word “imposition” is the covert, coordinated manipulation of the population by advertising/propaganda to “voluntarily” sterilize or abort their children.

Catholic exchange.com:

“President Obama has awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to feminist icon Gloria Steinem. Steinem, in turn, said she hopes Obama’s action “honor[s] the work of Margaret Sanger,” liberalism’s iconic racial eugenicist.

It indeed has.

Margaret Sanger longed for a time when birth control would be (as she put it) “part of the regular welfare service of the government.” In this, she was inspired by Stalin’s Soviet Union—literally. In 1934, she undertook a hope-filled, fact-finding pilgrimage to Moscow. She was greatly impressed.

Upon her return, Sanger glowingly reported that “there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia. It is accepted … on the grounds of health and human right.” She said of America: “[W]e could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”

Sanger was prophetic. She was speaking of Barack Obama’s America, where birth control is deemed a “human right” and form of “health care” with no obstacles in its way. In fact, it’s even easier than Sanger could have imagined: Not only do contemporary progressives want no obstacles … they want all Americans to forcibly pay for birth control. If you disagree, you favor a “war on women.”

But there was more to Margaret Sanger’s vision. She wanted to advance what she called “race improvement.” She lamented America’s “race of degenerates.” This meant purging the landscape of its “human weeds.” This included a “Negro Project” especially close to Sanger’s heart.

Not surprisingly, among those most impressed with Sanger’s work was the KKK. The Klan invited the progressive heroine to one of their celebrations. She accepted. Margaret Sanger addressed her hooded brethren at a KKK rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey in 1926.

Today, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is America’s most prolific killer of black Americans.

And now, in 2013, America’s first black president honors Gloria Steinem with an award that Steinem says honors Margaret Sanger.

The Devil works in mysterious ways.”

Comment:

Gloria Steinem was, according to many sources, a CIA agent who co-opted the American antiwar movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Sanger was a theosophist, a student of the occultist, Madame Blavatsky, as were Annie Besant and many other leaders of the Indian independence movement. That is how Western socialism and feminism were implanted into the Indian resistance from the start.

Fox News on the gender-gap in murder:

“Consider this: On December 5, John Andrew Welden will be sentenced after pleading guilty in the murder of his unborn baby. Welden’s girlfriend, Remee Jo Lee, was six weeks pregnant when he gave her an abortion pill and told her it was antibiotics.

Welden was prosecuted for violating the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Believe it or not, federal legislation forbids the murder of an unborn baby—except in the 55 million instances when it doesn’t. And a father can be convicted of murdering his unborn child without the mother’s consent, but if a woman decides to end her pregnancy against the wishes of the father, that’s her right to choose.

Choose murder? Can’t follow all of the logic? Perhaps that’s because it’s illogical.”

Comment:

I was always pro-choice until I took a close look at the people doing the choosing and the ideology they professed.  Then I realized that

1. That pro-choice women were not advocating for abortion only in extremis. They were advocating for it at all time, for whatever reason.

2.  Pro-choice women had no compunction toward the fetus/baby  inside them. They regarded it as a kind of excrescence, disease, or aberration, which is manifestly irrational, since the fetus/baby is the logical end of intercourse.

3.  Pro-choice women were using abortion in place of contraception, showing gross negligence of ordinary care that would call for man-slaughter charges against them in any other area.

4. Pro-choice feminists were manifestly narcissistic and entitled in the way they discussed other issues, using sexuality as a weapon to manipulate or ridicule, when it suited them, and then using it as a shield, when their opponents retaliated in kind.

In other words, they argue for preferential treatment both in entitlements and in protections under the law.

Once I began to see this and started to read more about the history of the modern feminist movement, I came to the conclusion that its narrative about abortion was self-serving…… and my support of it was wrong and inconsistent with my views on aggressive war.

Today, I have come to believe that abortion is at the deepest level the civil and moral wrong that has been most damaging to society.

It is true that, as the libertarians argue, war strengthens the state through militarization and centralization. But what is missed in that analysis is the underlying psycho-social factors that enable acceptance of war and militarization.

Those factors are strengthened by the break-down of the family, at the heart of which lies the killing of the unborn.

A secular pro-life activist reports:

I recently stumbled across the testimony of Dr. Grant Clark. Dr. Clark performed abortions many years ago in California. In an interview with Oregon Right to Life, he described the two cases that convinced him to stop doing abortions.

One was a case where a woman remained pregnant after he had aborted her child and, several months later, gave birth to a healthy baby. (The woman had a rare condition in which she actually had two uteruses). She adopted the child out and sued the doctor for emotional distress and child-rearing costs (even though she didn’t keep the baby). Her greed and selfishness made him rethink his commitment to performing abortions.

The second case happened when he started doing late-term abortions. From the interview:

There were 2 cases that were significant in my life, and one of them was the beginning of acceptance of 2nd trimester abortions, which were accomplished by putting a needle into the uterus, draining off some fluid, to make sure that you were in the uterus, not the bladder or somewhere else with your needle, and injecting into the uterus a very strong salt solution, which would cause a: the baby to die, and contractions to begin, very shortly after the salt solution was in there, and the mother would then abort the baby.

Interviewer: She’d deliver a dead baby.

Doctor Clark: Deliver a dead baby. But in one case, she did not deliver a dead baby. It was a live baby that she delivered.

Interviewer: Do they not have their skin burned?

Doctor Clark: The skin was burned, it was hard to look at, and hard to realize that I killed a near-term baby. The dates that the mother had given me were wrong, and we had no real way of checking it at that time. Ultrasound and stuff has come in since then, so we can date a baby’s age fairly well, but not, not back then. And the baby was born alive and lived for an hour.

Interviewer: Was it a girl or a boy?

Doctor Clark: I don’t remember, and I didn’t want to remember.… But at that point I said, “No more 3rd or 2nd trimester abortions…”

[Lila: In India, a more obviously socialist country than the US,  2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are illegal.  The reason is that Indian socialism was always modified for the good by India’s strong religious  and cultural traditions, whereas in the US, religious opinion has been neutered by the control of the media by secular bigots.]

Interviewer: was the mother aware the baby was born alive?

Doctor Clark: Yes, she was, and it was just a bad scene all the way around. I mean what was I supposed to do, smother it? Strangle it?… It was just, what do I do, so I took the coward’s way out and did nothing, and the baby died. As it probably would have anyway.”

Lifenews.com describes the iron link between abortion and communism:

“In the Communist Manifesto, Marx several times wrote openly of the “abolition of the family” and of communism abolishing “eternal truths” and “all religion, and all morality.” “The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations,” Marx affirmed. “[I]ts development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.” Marx knew how shockingly revolutionary this was. He wrote: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”

Marx practiced what he preached. He was a terrible father who caused tremendous discord in his family. As the family nearly starved, and as Marx’s long-suffering wife neared the breaking point, Marx began an affair with the family’s young nursemaid, whom he impregnated. When the child was born, Marx refused to acknowledge its existence and his paternity.

Marx’s disciples, of course, happily followed in his footsteps.

The Bolsheviks, when they took over, immediately lifted the Russian Orthodox Church’s longstanding prohibition against divorce. They also expunged God from wedding ceremonies, establishing so-called “Red weddings” — that is, purely secular wedding ceremonies. In short order, divorce skyrocketed to proportions never before seen in Russia’s long history or anywhere in the world. Within just decades, Russians had divorce rates worse than the worst rates in recent American history. I recall the female character in John le Carré’s book, The Russia House, who remarked to her foreign love interest, “But everyone in Moscow is divorced!”

It was the perfect the communist plot, literally. They had sought to undo traditional notions of marriage and morality, and they succeeded wildly.

And it wasn’t just in Russia. This thinking was endemic to the communist movement worldwide. In America, Communist Party USA (CPUSA) members swapped wives and divorced easily and merrily. They lived very loosely in their sexual morality and marital relations, pursuing practices that would make even today’s culture blush. They boasted about it; it was a source of pride. Anyone who has studied American communism or been involved in the communist movement knows this.

To be sure, a 1930s CPUSA member wasn’t thinking about gay marriage, and the Russians certainly weren’t. Nonetheless, all of them consistently, consciously undermined the traditional understanding of marriage. It was one of their targets.

That brings me to abortion. The Bolsheviks advocated abortion. It was one of the first things they legalized. By the early 1920s, Bolshevik Russia had the most liberal abortion policies in the world. And what happened? Just like divorce, abortion exploded. In fact, the proliferation in abortions was so bad that it shocked even Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger during a trip to Russia in 1934. By the 1970s, when America was just getting around to legalizing abortion, the Soviet Union was averaging over 7 million abortions per year — dwarfing the very worst rates in America post-Roe v. Wade. The direct effect of this on the Russian population has been staggering.

For the record, Russia’s horrific abortion rates are common in communist countries, which to this day lead the world in abortions.”

UPDATE: Zacharias has since been implicated in a sex-scandal, whose details I don’t fully know. The whole thing seems like a set-up to me, but there are multiple allegations that he received massages for a painful back that involved a sexual component. I don’t know if he was framed or not, but so far his own organizations have distanced themselves from him.

Well-known evangelical Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias points out the gross hypocrisy of the abortion rights advocates:

“I said, “Can I ask you a question? On every university campus I visit, somebody stands up and says that God is an evil God to allow all this evil into our world. This person typically says, ‘A plane crashes: Thirty people die, and twenty people live. What kind of a God would arbitrarily choose some to live and some to die?’” I continued, “but when we play God and determine whether a child within a mother’s womb should live, we argue for that as a moral right. So when human beings are given the privilege of playing God, it’s called a moral right. When God plays God, we call it an immoral act. Can you justify this for me?” That was the end of the conversation.”

Race realist Jared Taylor,writing at American Thinker, says what I’ve often said here and at EPJ:

“There are powerful organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, that do their best to silence me. If I am on a television or radio program, they call the producer to explain that despite my reasonable tone I am a ‘hate-monger’ who must not be allowed on the air again. If they learn that I have been invited to give a talk, they call the organization that invited me and try to persuade it to cancel the talk.

“At first, I was astonished by this kind of thuggery. Americans claim to be devoted to free speech, but they are not. It is disgraceful that organizations whose purpose is not to refute their opponents but simply to squash and silence them have any credibility at all. And yet the media routinely cite these groups as if they were so blissfully wise that they can read my mind and tell you what I really think.

“People who immigrated from the Soviet Union were amazed to find that Americans are more afraid of the ‘diversity’ regime than Russians were of the Communists. And at least under the Soviets there was a clear enemy: the censors and the secret police. In America — the land of the free — every man is his own commissar.”

When they are not abruptly cancelled, Taylor’s appearances on campus have been disrupted.  When the organization tried to place ads in more than a dozen college newspapers saying simply “Is diversity a strength? We think not. For an alternate view: AmRen.com,” no paper would run the ad.  New Century Foundation holds an annual conference in April.  This year’s is the 25^th through 27^th, outside Nashville.  In 2010 and 2011 it was scrubbed at the last minute because of threats to the hotels hosting the events.  The website was taken down by hackers just last Sunday.

Though his first two books had received glowing reviews from the likes of the Wall Street Journal and sold well, two agents were unable to find a publisher for White Identity.  NCF published the book.  Taylor is not in bad company:  the foundation is the publisher of what is easily the best book on Affirmative Action in college, law and medical school admissions, The Affirmative Action Hoax by former Professor of Classics at University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, Steven Farron.  But Taylor’s book has not received the attention it would have if it had been released by a commercial press.

Even those who question the viability of White nationalism or disagree with it in principle, and who would argue that creed is more important than color and that they would rather spend an evening with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, etc. than with any White liberal, have to be troubled by the machinations of the P.C. regime.

The First Amendment was the first Amendment for a reason.  It will not be defended in federal courts until a Republican President is willing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution.  I’m told there are a few out there.

In the meantime, those who value free speech ought to think about doing what they can to retire the word “racist.”  A member of La Raza is not a racist; a European-American who questions preferential treatment for minorities is. The word is a slur, with all the sophistication and precision of “commie” or “Nazi.”  Today it says more about the intelligence of the accuser than the sins of the accused.”