Category Archives: Uncategorized

On Auschwitz Anniversary, Black Mass To Be Held At Harvard

Posted on by

TO BE CONTINUED – LINKS, NOTES, AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO BE ADDED

Update 6: At Alabama.com, there is a report that, although the Black Mass at Harvard was canceled, members of the Satanic Temple of New York, the sponsors, did meet at 10 PM at the Hong Kong Restaurant, near the campus, dressed mostly in black.

Update 5: Just this morning I found an email with an adl.org address, which argued that Devyani Khobragade’s lawyer Daniel Arshack had mishandled her case deliberately because he was Jewish.

Of course, since I followed the case closely, I know this isn’t true.

Arshack made the best of a case the DOJ was intent on pursuing and cleverly outwitted Bharara.  Bharara always had the option to reindict, whatever Arshak did or didn’t do.  It could be a genuine email and perhaps I am mistaken about Arshack.

But I think he did what it took.

So why the email? Probably to hint to  me that the post below might be construed as anti-Semitic. Well, I take such warnings seriously and I revised my writing to see if I had jumped to any unwarranted conclusions. I don’t think I did. So the piece stands….. and the email goes.

Update 4

A site devoted to ritual abuse documents Doug Mesner’s long-time involvement in harassing and defaming people involved in ritual abuse research and therapy, which has even led to actions for defamation.

Update 3 The Harvard club was not able to find another location and the Mass has been canceled.

Update 2

The Satanic Temple of New York claims to be a group that is not supernaturally oriented and uses Satan as a literary metaphor of rebellion against superstition and authority and not a genuine Satanic group, like that of Anton LaVey.

In the interview linked above, Doug Mesner  (aka Lucien Greaves, Douglas Misicko) the founder, explains that the purpose of his group is satirical, not religious.

He founded it to expose hysterical claims in the early 1990s that large numbers of children were being subjected to ritual sex-abuse by Satanists in the public-school system and to debunk the advocates of repressed memory syndrome who testified on their behalf in court.

In “Mobs, Messiahs and Markets,” (2007), following the lead of Counterpunch editor and noted propaganda analyst, Alexander Cockburn, I adopted the same position on the subject, only to find out later that, while it was true that there was mass panic in the 1980s and 1990s, much of it had been fomented to muddy the cases of real ritual child-abuse perpetrated by the intelligence agencies as part of covert mind-control related operations.

Alex Constantine, who researches mind-control and sex-abuse trauma, writes of Cockburn:

“Alex Cockburn’s skepticism toward ritual abuse was summed up in an editorial appearing in the February 8, 1990 Wall Street Journal, “The McMartin Case: Indict the Children, Jail the Parents.” The son of a British spy, and a loquacious defender of the Warren Commission, Cockburn has such strong feelings about the McMartin case that he once publicly maligned an editor of the L.A. Weekly for refusing to print a recommendation that “the tots bearing false witness in the McMartin preschool case be jailed for perjury.”

His primary source on the subject of child abuse, Debbie Nathan, is herself something of a false witness.

In ‘What McMartin Started: The Ritual Abuse Hoax” (Village Voice, June 12, 1990), Ms. Nathan moaned that “children at McMartin told of being molested in tunnels under the school. None were ever found, but until recently parents were still digging.” In fact, 30 days before Nathan’s article appeared, the tunnels were discovered beneath the preschool by scientists hired by the parents, confirming the testimony of the children. The project employed a team of archeologists from local universities, two geologists, a professional excavator, a carbon-dating specialist and a professional photographer to document the dig’s progress and findings. The longest tunnel was six feet beneath the preschool, running eastward 45 feet from the southwest wall, and ten feet along the north wall. The tunnel walls were held in place by support beams and a roof of plywood and tarpaper. A branch of the tunnel led to a nine-foot chamber (the “secret room” described by the children?). Another extended from the preschool to the triplex next door, surfacing beneath a roll-away bathtub. Forensic tests on thousands of objects found at the site – including two hundred animal bones – were conducted.”

In 2007, a senior libertarian activist informed me that Cockburn was himself affiliated with the left-wing of the CIA. I’d by then come to suspect some such thing, given the gate-keeping of Counterpunch on 9/11 research. I stopped writing for them around that time. Later, delving into “conspiracy research,” I came to the conclusion that ritual mind-control sex abuse was real, even if all the evidence for it swirling on the web was densely muddied with disinformation. [Just for balance, here is the conventional skeptical view, promoted by Chip Berlet and SPLC, of so-called satanic ritual abuse.]

In a similar way, the “Temple of Satan” and its staged school-yard affronts might provide cover for genuinely occult ritual practitioners. More later on this.

Update 1: The Black Mass has been moved off campus, under pressure from Catholic groups.

ORIGINAL POST ( incomplete, being written in real time):

Note: I am going to publish this piece as I write it so it is on the net, before the time of the Mass. That means, links and addictions, corrections and revisions, mistakes and rethinks, will all appear in real time. Bear with me and check back for the changes.

Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club is planning on holding a Black Satanic Mass, in parody of the Catholic church, this evening in conjunction with the New York-based Satanic Temple.

This is the website of the Satanic Temple.

It was embroiled only earlier this year in another controversy, when it applied for a permit to build a statue of Satan next to the Oklahoma State Capitol, where a monument to the Ten Commandments had been built in 2012..

The parody of communion is a favorite practice of Satanists in the tradition of Aleister Crowley, the notorious English occultist.

Crowley, like so many Western “occultists” simply studied yoga and Tantric Saivism from traditional practitioners in South India, (specifically in the Madurai Meenakshi temple, close to where my grandmother lived), then misused and perverted the texts to boost his own ego and suit his own ends. The general belief is that Crowley exaggerated his practices. This version of the story can be found at wiki:

Following a mountaintop sex magic ritual, Crowley also performed an invocation to the demon Choronzon involving blood sacrifice, considering the results to be a watershed in his magical career.[91] Returning to London in January 1910, Crowley found that Mathers was suing him for publishing Golden Dawn secrets in The Equinox; the court found in favour of Crowley. The case was widely reported on in the press, with Crowley gaining wider fame.[92] Crowley enjoyed this, and played up to the sensationalist stereotype of being a Satanist and advocate of human sacrifice, despite being neither.[93]

But I’m inclined to believe that this just a sanitizing of his history for public consumption. Whatever the truth, Crowley’s writings on magic dwelt a great deal on the need for blood sacrifice in Magic/

From Magic in Theory and Practice (Chapter 12):

“It is necessary for us to consider carefully the problems connected with the bloody sacrifice, for this question is indeed traditionally important in Magick. Nigh all ancient Magick revolves around this matter. In particular all the Osirian religions — the rites of the Dying God — refer to this. The slaying of Osiris and Adonis; the mutilation of Attis; the cults of Mexico and Peru; the story of Hercules or Melcarth; the legends of Dionysus and of Mithra, are all connected with this one idea. In the Hebrew religion we find the same thing inculcated. The first ethical lesson in the Bible is that the only sacrifice pleasing to the Lord is the sacrifice of blood; Abel, who made this, finding favour with the Lord, while Cain, who offered cabbages, was rather naturally considered a cheap sport. The idea recurs again and again. We have the sacrifice of the Passover, following on the story of Abraham’s being commanded to sacrifice his firstborn son, with the idea of the substitution of animal for human life. The annual ceremony of the two goats carries out this in perpetuity. And we see again the domination of this idea in the romance of Esther, where Haman and Mordecai are the two goats or gods; and ultimately in the presentation of the rite of Purim in Palestine, where Jesus and Barabbas happened to be the Goats in that particular year of which we hear so much, without agreement on the date.”

Another significant connection, for my purpose, is that between Crowley and pedophile practitioner and advocate, dean of the sexual revolution in America, Alfred Kinsey.

In “Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences,” Judith Reisman  has extensively documented Kinsey’s crimes, showing a link between pederasty (and pedophilia) and infanticide, as well as the consumption (cannibalism) of children.

This link is apparent to anyone who has studied the history of serial-killers. A disproportionate number of them were homosexuals who not only assaulted their victims, but ate their body parts.

I want to make it very clear that the statistical study of these ties is inadequate. Correlation is not causation, and many would even dispute correlation, given that the numbers of serial killers is not large enough to adequately study the proportion of homosexuals among them.

Nonetheless, the findings are significant:

“One hundred and three news stories involved the rape and/or murder of children: 90 involved the molestation and murder of a child or children, 11 stories involved only the abduction and rape of children, and two the rape and mutilation, but not the murder, of the children involved. Of the 90 news stories where the child was raped and murdered (0.47% of the unique child molestation stories), 40% involved homosexual molestation.”

What is ever more fascinating is that, other research shows that lack of children and abandonment by family members are significant enough to figure as predictors of serial-killing. Military service is also a factor in prediction for serial killers in the US. (This is in contrast to such widely-accepted predictors as childhood abuse, which turn out to be irrelevant).

 

Here is Reisman talking to the Catholic magazine, The Wanderer:

“Kinsey, Reisman further explained, was an adoring disciple of Britain’s “great beast,” Alastair Crowley, considered the “prophet of pedophilia” and a known satanist.

The Wanderer asked her if there was a link between satanism and pederasty, and she responded:

“Yes, certainly….

“There is a direct link between Kinsey and Crowley, as I showed in my book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences.

“Kinsey visited Crowley’s lair or ‘abbey’ in Sicily, as a pilgrim who goes to a religious place of holy worship. Crowley, we know was involved in ritualistic sacrifices of various kinds, including the ritualistic sexual abuse, and deaths, of children. Kinsey went to Crowley’s lair to adore Crowley’s images of people in copulatory positions.

“Kinsey’s promotion of children as sexual objects for adults to consume is of a piece with Crowley and the whole concept of satanic human sacrifice. Clearly, we sacrifice our children when we engage in sex with them. Those who do it, know it.

“Pedophilia, or more commonly, pederasty, is a form of human sacrifice. Anyone who assaults a child sexually knows they are not only killing that child’s soul, but some would say, from a psychotherapeutic perspective, they are turning that child into a dysfunctional, self-destructive individual, and they know the child-victim will also act out on other children, perhaps hundreds, the rest of his life, and so the human destruction is perpetuated.”

In this respect, recall that the self-styled Duke Porn star, Belle Knox (who, in my opinion, is a mind-control victim), said that she was being “consumed” by porn watchers who then hypocritically condemned her.  This was taken as an astute comment on the commodification of sex as a consumer item. But it was a double-entendre. She was hinting at and approving her consumption as a near-underage girl by a pedophilic culture

In case you think this is a wild reading of her words, consider that Mike Kulich, who made the porn contract offer to the Duke student, Thomas Bagley, runs a porn distribution company called Monarchy Distribution.

Monarch is the name given to an alleged mind-control program spun out of the better-known and better documented CIA program called MK Ultra.

So-called “conspiracy sites” claim that Satanism or some version thereof, is the religion practiced surreptitiously by the elites of what is called the New World Order, but I believe there is an alternative case to be made that events like the spurious Black Mass performance are orchestrated provocations directed at conservative Christians. They are intended to polarize debate in the country, demonize and misrepresent non-Christian traditions  (and make them the victims of the inevitable backlash), as well as distract from important foreign policy issues. They might also be intended to provoke anti-Semitism and religious conflict.

Be that as it may, the debate is inadequate without noticing the date of the controversy.

Today is May 12, which is the day in 1942 when the first train-load of Jews, some 1500 of them, arrived at Auschwitz, the worst of the Nazi camps where Jews (and many others) were exterminated during World War II.

Auschwitz, for the ruling elites, was the Holocaust (sacrifice) that enabled the Jews to acquire the Promised Land.

The number of Jews who died – still controversial  in some circles- is reckoned as 6 million, which has a sacred significance in Talmudic lore.

It was the number mentioned as the number of those “lost,” apparently long before the actual Nazi extermination.

The reason given by students of number symbolism is that the number six in the Talmudic prophecies pertains to Man (since man was created on the sixth day in the Book of Genesis), while the number ten represent the Kingdom of God realized on earth (Malkuth in the Sephiroth).

The 600,000 number multiplied by 10 became 6 million, according to this number symbolism.

Thus, one of the keys to contemporary secular eschatology, wherein the Jews and Israel become the salvation of the world,  lies in number symbolism and ancient Hebrew prophecy of the necessity of “losing six” (six million Jews) if the Jews are to return to Israel.

[I will research this angle some more, to make sure I have not been mislead by anti-Semitic propaganda or government-created disinformation.]

I believe that the Harvard Black Mass, as well as some other events in the last few days, are connected to this May 12 anniversary of Auschwitz.

First, very relevant to the Black Mass story is the abortion video published by abortion activist Emily Letts on Youtube last week, which I called out as a snuff movie as soon as I saw it.

The video was was replete with black-magic symbolism.

Let me point out some of it:

First. Moral inversion (Vampirism is good).

The perverse equation here is between giving birth to a child and murdering it. This is a typical moral inversion of the kind used in Satanism.

Notice that Ms. Letts was not equating birth and death, as religious texts often do when they teach that death to the physical world is birth in the spiritual world.

That  belief gives value to asceticism and self-restraint.

Instead,  Letts equated murder (the taking of another person’s life) with the increase of her own life, which is a form of vampirism.

Her words marked the abortion as ritual infanticide, intended to appease spirits or demonic powers.

Infanticide of this kind was typical of the worship of Molech or Baal in the Old Testament and it was forbidden to the Israelites.

Vampirism is exactly the opposite of the communion bread that Jesus offered to his disciples to give them eternal life.

Jesus’s sacrifice of his life – the definition of perfect love for others in Christianity  – is inverted into the Satanic ritual of taking life to increase one’s own.

The vampirism is especially evil because it is the perversion of the relationship between mother and child, the strongest of  human loves and one intended to reflect God’s love for each soul.

Second. Arrogation to herself of divinity. Letts portrays herself as a goddess.

The Letts video shows her humming and singing while contemplating her own ability to dispose of life and create it:

The non-graphic video focuses on her face and shows her breathing and humming through the procedure.”

(“Why I Filmed My Abortion,” Cosmopolitan, May 5, 2014)

Again, this is typical of Satanism. The capacity to give life is with God, not with Letts, who is only the vehicle.  In the Bible, Satan’s primary fault is wanting to usurp the position of God. Letts might well consider herself a goddess, but the reality is she is only a human being, pretending to be more, which is quite a different thing.

That this arrogation of the role of divinity was intentional is shown by the indifference displayed by the actress, which, if her purpose was to make her decision sympathetic, defeated her purpose. It back-fired by displaying the callousness and moral vacuity of the radical abortion position.

Now, if the sole intention of the video had been to remove the stigma of abortion, the video would surely have shown a more sympathetic figure, perhaps a woman who was sick, or had been raped.

Thus, I believe the motivation for the video was not what the sponsors of the video competition claimed.

I suggest that the idea all along was to promote a view of abortion as intentional, calculated killing, for the mother’s convenience. The objective was to efface the mother’s “sentimental” attachment to the child. That thesis is substantiated in an article in Salon, written earlier in the year by another abortion zealot.

Now, many people, including me, have felt something amiss in the whole narrative of the video. Some have suggested it was a hoax and Letts was not pregnant. I think the truth might be worse. I suggest that Letts deliberately got herself pregnant in order to kill the child to create the video.

I will explain why I think that in another post so as not to distract from the analysis of the symbolism here.

Third.  Preserving souvenirs of a killing.

Explaining why she made the video, Letts wrote a long piece at Cosmopolitan (Why I Filmed My Abortion), claiming that she was just as attached to her sonogram, as most people are to a child.  She made a rather bizarre claim that if her house were on fire, the first thing she would grab would be the sonogram. When I read this, I was immediately struck by the awkwardness of the story. It felt as if she had deliberately inserted this paragraph to follow some script. The “house on fire” symbolism is familiar to me from Buddhist texts, where the lusts of the body are said to feel like fire. Buddha asks us to flee the body, as a house on fire.  I first thought this was some kind of perverse reference to that. Perhaps it is.

But there is a more ready explanation. . In the worship of Molech, the children were thrown into the mouth of the idol so that they fell into the furnace below. The burnt bodies were the only souvenirs of what happened.

Could the “burning house” of the Cosmopolitan piece be a veiled reference to the charnel house of  Molech? And the sonogram, with its hieroglyphs, a veiled reference to the skeletal remains of the children.

 

Fourth. The invocation of sacrifice.

This interpretation gains weight when you notice another bizarre part of the Cosmopolitan piece – Letts’ insistence that women who kill their children, in spite of all the negative stories they hear about the ill-effects on their health or future fertility, as “sacrificing” these things, for the sake of killing the child:

“Yet women come into the clinic all the time terrified that they are going to be cut open, convinced that they won’t be able to have kids after the abortion. The misinformation is amazing, but think about it: They are still willing to sacrifice these things because they know that they can’t carry the child at this moment.”

Who talks about “sacrificing” when they are killing something, if not the practitioners of ritual sacrifice?

Of burnt offering? Burnt offering is exactly what the burning of children (House on fire) was in the worship of Moloch/Baal.

But “burnt offering” is exactly what the Holocaust means (It was at first called  Shoah (Catastrophe) by the Jews).

The genocide of 6 million Jews was the burned offering that enabled the Jews as a people to regain the land of Israel.

Yahoo & Google join ranks of Holocaust deniers

Posted on by

Liveaction reports that Yahoo and Google are joining forces with the abortionists to decry pro-Life ads, because they show up at the top of searches for abortion. However, it’s interesting that they aren’t opposed to the pro-abortion ads that show up when women search on the web for help with pregnancy:

“To call a pregnancy resource center misleading but not remove ads such as this one, which any woman who was scared and looking for help might call since it’s a top ad hit, is, at best, tunnel vision. More likely, however, it’s a bow to pressure from the squeakiest wheel, the abortion industry.

The tactics of the abortion industry have always been to lure women in with a promise of help, which ushering them toward the promise of death. Internet searches to this all the time. A search for “adoption pregnant help” on brings up Planned Parenthood on the first page of results.

Screen Shot 2014-05-08 at 10.28.45 PM

The ads are placed, search words targeted, all by those who know media and marketing. Now pro-abortion groups have decided to advance their cause of death by attacking those who promote life.”

Police-State Chronicles: Gay mafia forces Christians off TV

Posted on by

From Brutally honest:

The new tolerance… it’s spreading faster:

HGTV has canceled a pilot hosted by twin brothers with a history of preaching against homosexuality, abortion and divorce following backlash from fans.

“HGTV has decided not to move forward with the Benham Brothers’ series,” the network wrote on its Facebook page Wednesday.

Twins David and Jason Benham were scheduled to premiere “Flip It Forward” in October, which would have focused on a new deserving family every episode transforming a fixer-upper into their dream home.

But the devout Christian brothers have a history of supporting their church’s views against gay rights and reproductive choice. In 2012, the Benhams rallied in Charlotte, N.C. to support a constitutional amendment within the state to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The brothers have responded with this statement:

The first and last thought on our minds as we begin and end each day is; have we shined Christ’s light today? Our faith is the fundamental calling in our lives, and the centerpiece of who we are. As Christians we are called to love our fellow man. Anyone who suggests that we hate homosexuals or people of other faiths is either misinformed or lying.

Over the last decade, we’ve sold thousands of homes with the guiding principle of producing value and breathing life into each family that has crossed our path, and we do not, nor will we ever discriminate against people who do not share our views.

We were saddened to hear HGTV’s decision. With all of the grotesque things that can be seen and heard on television today you would think there would be room for two twin brothers who are faithful to our families, committed to biblical principles, and dedicated professionals. If our faith costs us a television show then so be it.

– David & Jason Benham

I used to say, after things like this, that it’s hard to believe it’s happening in this country.

I don’t say that anymore.

This sort of thing is becoming the norm.  A little faster than I originally thought.

Carry on.

My uplifting video about murdering a disabled man

Posted on by

A commenter at AngryWhiteDude gets it:

“I’m thinking of posting a video I made of me beating a disabled man to death!

I want to help assaulters everywhere release their guilt by showing how happy punching that guy made me!

It was almost as satisfying as defending another person’s life would be!

As I beat him, I hummed along with a smile on my face, it was so much fun, releasing all that pent up rage and putting him out of his misery!

After all, it IS better to be dead then disabled! I’m sure his wife, children, and grandchildren all thank me, and believe it would have been better for him to be aborted then to have to go through DECADES of life with a disability.

Every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is. I feel that there are just no positive assault stories on video for everyone to see. But mine is. I even took a picture of him before I killed him, it’s my MOST cherished possession! I’m hoping this will inspire assaulters everywhere to never show remorse! After all, it’s your body, and you can do whatever you want with it! No remorse, no repercussions, no restraint!”

Men obsolete? Science proves parthenogenesis…

Posted on by

So, now it seems that a virgin could indeed bear child, which all these years was taken as a sign of the insanity of religious belief. Perhaps what we call mythology is simply science ahead of its time:

Daily Mail:

“Fertility specialists have found a way for women to have babies without men.
It involves a cocktail of chemicals acting as an ‘artificial sperm’ to trick a human egg into forming an embryo.

The stunning discovery has alarmed medical ethics campaigners, who described it as turning nature on its head. Researchers say the groundbreaking technology could be used to help women whose husbands are infertile but who do not want to use donor sperm.

Any babies born from the process would be female and genetically identical to their mother.

The news also creates a legal minefield for UK authorities which govern fertility treatments, because British laws do not cover the creation of an embryo without sperm.  The discovery was made by researchers from the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics in Los Angeles.

They were investigating new ways of genetically modifying embryos to grow into brain nerve cells, in order to give transplants to patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Their experiments with mice triggered a form of asexual reproduction called parthenogenisis, which until now has happened only in creatures such as insects and frogs.

In normal human reproduction, an egg carrying 23 pairs of chromosomes, the building blocks of life, is fertilised by a sperm, which also carries 23 sets.

This crucial binding, creating 46 pairs of chromosomes, opens the way for cell division, the very beginning of human life.

But researchers Dr Jerry Hall and Dr Yan-Ling Feng managed to make eggs duplicate their own chromosomes to create the number needed to start cell division.

Several embryos were transferred to mouse ‘foster mothers’ where they developed successfully before being destroyed after 13 days.

Though the process has yet to be tested on human eggs, studies have already shown that they behave in a similar way to those of mice. The findings are due to be unveiled today at the annual meeting of the respected American Society of Reproductive Medicine in Florida.

They have been hailed as a new way of producing different kinds of cells for medical use.

Dr Michael Soules, president of the ASRM, said: ‘If this works with human eggs, there could be tremendous opportunities for clinical applications. I think everyone is going to find this work to be very exciting.’

But Dr Jacqueline Laing, expert in medical ethics from London’s Guild Hall University, said last night: ‘This is alarming. Just because scientists can do something, it does not mean that they should.

‘This process does not respect human life, in seeking either to procreate without the male or to use human eggs to turn them into some other part of the body for transplants.

‘It doesn’t respect reproduction and ordinary relations between men and women and the natural functions we have to protect human beings from arbitary creation. What are we expecting that any children born of this process will feel? If we go down this avenue, what else will be permissible?’

Paul Tully, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘Parthenogenisis is akin to cloning in a sense. It is the way lower orders of animals such as frogs and insects are able to reproduce.

‘It is entirely unknown for this to happen in humans and this is a very disturbing discovery. Apart from the ethical concerns of what was happening to these embryos without their consent, it could mean that, theoretically, it would be possible to eradicate men.’

He added: ‘What we are seeing here is the technological imperative – they are doing it just because they can. Is society going to curb this or are we going to see even more outlandish discoveries?

‘My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated ageing of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science.’
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which governs IVF research in Britain, said a new law on parthenogenic embryos may be needed.
A spokesman said: ‘The view would probably be that no research could be carried out without permission and it certainly would not be licensed for clinical use unless it was proven safe and there were no ethical concerns.’

Taken to its extreme, it could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role.“

Comment:

Yes, that last line comes with no irony alert at all.  As for creating laws to stop technology, good luck with that.

Irish pro-abort laws built on lies, like US pro-abort laws

Posted on by

Catholic Culture exposes the lies behind the media campaign to expand Ireland’s abortion laws, a replay of earlier fraudulent campaigns to institute legal abortion, campaigns against which the plaintiffs in the two landmark American cases later turned:

“In Ireland, as in the US, the legalization of abortion was accomplished by means of falsehoods. Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, was not raped, as she originally claimed. Sandra Cano, the named plaintiff in the companion Doe v. Bolton case, never even sought an abortion. Both women testify that they were manipulated by their lawyers. “Not only did I lie, but I was lied to,” McCorvey has stated.

In Ireland the event that triggered an avalanche of pro-abortion propaganda was the death of Savita Halappanavar. She died of septicemia, which her doctors did not detect in time. There is no record that she requested an abortion, let alone that doctors declined that request. If an abortion had been necessary in order to save her life, doctors could have performed it legally under existing Irish law. Nevertheless her death became the rallying-point for a massive campaign to end Ireland’s ban on abortion.

Writing in the Irish Independent, the perceptive David Quinn underlines the importance of this case:

A few days ago Justice Minister Alan Shatter perpetuated the myth. He said that Savita might well have been saved had the law been like the one they are about to pass.

But I would like to know what law would have caused Savita’s medical team to spot the signs of sepsis on time?For months Quinn and other pro-life voices in Ireland have been begging the media to publicize the facts of the Halappanavar case. To no avail. The myth—that she died because of restrictions on abortion—has prevailed, and strengthened support for the new law allowing abortion in cases when the mother’s life is in danger.

But, you might ask, didn’t Ireland’s laws already allow abortion if the mother’s life was in danger? Yes. There, too, the myth has prevailed over the facts. However the new law expands access to abortion by specifying that if a woman threatens suicide, her life is in danger. This policy invites abuse; it opens the way to legal abortion for any woman willing to claim that she is suicidal.

And by the way, if a woman really is suicidal, is there any evidence at all that abortion will be an appropriate medical intervention? Common sense suggests that the sudden and unnatural termination of a pregnancy—with the physical and psychological stress, the feelings of guilt and of separation, the disruption of bodily functions—would put additional burdens on a woman already in emotional distress. Many studies have shown a link between abortion and subsequent depression. True, proponents of abortion deny the validity of those studies. But here, without any supporting evidence, they make the far more ambitious claim that abortion is a cure for psychological problems!

As Ireland’s legislators moved toward the vote that would legalize abortion, journalists reported that the country’s Catholic bishops had threatened to excommunicate politicians who supported the bill. No such threat has been issued; that story, too, is simply false.

Still there were a few “excommunications” in this story line, as Quinn points out. Prime Minister Enda Kenny announced that he would not tolerate opposition to the abortion bill among his colleagues in the Fine Gael party. Lawmakers who opposed the bill were ousted from the party; a junior government minister, Lucinda Creighton, resigned her post to join the opposition.

So it was Kenny, not the Catholic bishops, who issued heavy-handed threats; it was Kenny who took reprisals against lawmakers who followed their consciences. Just a few years earlier, as a political candidate, Kenny had promised that his government would not legalize abortion in Ireland: one more in a long series of falsehoods.”

Why the left loves Twitter

Posted on by

James Delingpole distinguishes between being controversial because you have insight and truth on your side and being obnoxious because you’re more willing to call people foul names:

“But surely someone like James Delingpole, someone who writes so contentiously, ought to delight in a bit of Twitter argy-­bargy — no? It’s what lots of people assume. But the reason what I write is so provocative is not because I’ve set out to annoy as many people as possible. It’s provocative only because it fails to coincide with what Dr Johnson called ‘the Clamour of the Times’.

Which is to say that, as it says at the top of my Twitter account, I’m right about everything. My problem — shared with almost every other halfway decent libertarian/conservative commentator — is that most people are incapable of appreciating I’m right because their Weltanschauung has been so warped by the post-war, cultural Marxist consensus.

And with people like that there’s really no point arguing. Especially not in 140 characters, as I learned to my cost early on. Some minor comedian, a chap I’d never heard of before but who had accidentally become my Twitter friend, tweeted me to ask what it was that had first led me to doubt man-made global warming. This requires more than a sentence, but I did my best: ‘I guess I’ve always been quite good at sniffing out cant.’

Next thing I knew, what I thought had been a private reply had been incorporated into his stand-up set. It turned out that this comedian was an ardent believer in the AGW religion, as were his audience. So he worked up this routine where he imagined Newton basing his discoveries on his sense of smell. Sniffing, get it? Apparently it has them all in stitches every time.

Last week, I had more local difficulty over some new research from a Berkeley professor purportedly showing that the ‘sceptics’ are wrong and that the evidence for ‘global warming’ is stronger than ever. Actually it showed nothing of the kind. But again, there is not a plausible counterargument you can express in the space of 140 characters. That’s why anyone who goadingly tweeted me in the expectation that there was was rewarded with an instant block.

It’s not that I can’t fight my corner. I can and I very much enjoy doing so — but only on the terrain of my choosing. That terrain is usually an article or a blog where there is proper space to develop an argument, supported with evidence. Try to do the same on Twitter and all you achieve is to sound petulant, defensive, desperate: you can assert all you like but why should anyone believe what you’re saying is true?

This also, I think, goes some way towards explaining Twitter’s pronounced left-wing bias. As Rush Limbaugh and others have noted, the left doesn’t much like to engage in rational, fact-based arguments it knows it’s going to lose. That’s why it’s always so much more comfortable in the realm of the emotive slogan, the glib one-liner, the cheap shot, the ad hominem. Twitter is the ideal medium for all this, in a way that wordier parts of the internet just aren’t. The blog, for example, vastly favours the right because there’s so much more space for all that stuff that ­liberal-lefties so loathe and fear, such as logic and evidence and cross-references.”

The insanity of public debate in America

Posted on by

Consider the following,:

1. A woman has the absolute right to kill her baby until the moment it exits her uterus. She can also dismember it and torture it by burning it with saline fluid, plucking off its limbs, crushing its bones, or sucking its brains out.

These actions are guarded ferociously as her “right to privacy” by the entire intellectual establishment that silently blacks out or distorts descriptions of these killings. Some 50 million babies have been killed in the past few decades but this holocaust is left to private conscience only. Women or their doctors are not punished for it at all. In fact, they’re applauded and public funding is used to pay for it, even while that part of the public that doesn’t go along with abortion is demonized.

2. An eighty-year-old man makes a few untoward remarks to a girlfriend in the privacy of their bedroom. The tapes are recorded. and published. He is denounced as a disgusting racist with no right to his opinions and he is deprived of his property rights.

Leading “libertarian” activists  say nothing or defend the media’s position. They tell people they ought not to say anything in private they can’t say in public.  This is a thought-control much greater than that under Sharia law, which all these activists would denounce, correctly. None of them sees the contradiction.

No one thinks of simply ignoring and not linking the Sterling material. Instead, they all follow the media’s cue automatically, as though pulled by invisible strings. Then they call themselves “fiercely independent” and talk about “freedom,:” “free speech,” “free choice,” “self-ownership” and other flattering mythologies with a straight face.

Meanwhile, so-called “evil statists” are the only ones arguing that the the recordings are on their face illegal and should not be distributed in the public realm.

The parameters of debate in the much-vaunted “free press” are set by media barons who profit from cheap gossip and extortion (which lowers the cost of running a paper, since the public does the reporting for free or for small sums), pornographers, and paid operatives of the government posing as private actors.

No one considers this a gross conflict of interest. The media barons are presumed not to have political agendas and presumed not to manipulate in collusion.

Nor is this manipulation termed what it is – an extension of the state into the private sphere. It is all deemed “free market” unproblematically.

3. The same people attack anyone who criticizes a paid porn performer for her consciously public acts. They argue that she has a right to privacy even though she sold her porn pictures to a public company voluntarily.

I actually agree with that argument, but those who deny a Donald Sterling his privacy can surely have no justification for giving a Belle Knox hers.

With equal confusion, recording the private sexual behavior of Tyler Clementi (the gay Rutgers freshman who committed suicide)  is a vicious assault on his privacy and dignity (it is), but recording the speech of a Donald Sterling is a righteous act of public policing (it is not).

4. The same people who attack Donald Sterling’s private speech and hold it to an arbitrarily decided public standard also denounce theocracy (with its logically entailed blasphemy laws) as an insupportable and “medieval” intrusion into free speech and thought. And they declare themselves the embodiment of “reason” against the “irrationality” of the religious.

5. The same critics of Sterling who believe it is legitimate for him to lose his livelihood over private speech within his bedroom have a fit over the most minor constraint placed on their right to use speech in public to degrade, inflame, incite, defraud, mislead, or titillate. They even object to any constraint placed on their right to disseminate for commercial profit the vilest images, even where they would be accessible by minors.

They defend their right to view violent child pornography, even though that right supplies the demand that drives a global market of child abuse and murder and though the act of viewing itself has been deemed criminal.

But while the act of viewing child-porn is criminal, the act of dismembering a child is deemed “private” and protected.

The left also defends without any nuance or moderation the right to publish “art”  that inflames the public, even where major violence could result  as in the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, which, as it turns out, were a deliberate provocation from a neo-con flack.

Turn the lights on: legalize infanticide

Posted on by

Matt Walsh blog:

We are a nation in moral chaos. Why shouldn’t it look and feel like it? I think it should. I think it would be better if it did.

If I could go back to the slave days, I’d tell those hypocrites to repeal their laws against kidnapping and false imprisonment. I’d tell them to confront the fact that slavery IS false imprisonment — outlaw both or outlaw neither.

And that’s what I’m saying now to our own society of hypocrites; our culture of cowards; our nation of traitors who bat not an eye at the mass murder of the innocent. Either outlaw infanticide in all of its forms, or don’t outlaw it in any form.

This is how neo-liberal ideology survives. It has to erect all of these arbitrary guidelines, and distinctions without differences, and capricious rules and limits. It sets you on a path to Hell, but it takes you there slowly, and it sings you happy songs along the way. It plants the seeds of evil and self-worship into your heart, but it can not let the seeds blossom too quickly. Neo-liberals are only neo-liberals as long as they can hide from their own reflections.

It tells you that abortion is a wonderful expression of a woman’s “right to choose.” But killing newborns? That’s totally different! Or killing a pregnant woman? That’s clearly double homicide!

Let’s stop this madness. Turn the lights on. Neo-liberals, like mold, need darkness to thrive. So turn the lights on. You want legal infanticide? OK, have it your way.

And perhaps we shouldn’t stop there. If unborn humans are expendable, then newborn humans must be expendable; but if newborn humans are expendable, why shouldn’t older humans be seen expendable, too?”