Samuel Francis, Chronicles, July 1994
“This condition, which in some of my columns I have called ‘anarcho-tyranny,’ is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites, the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection of public safety.”
Shoah.org, a site supporting the Palestinian cause, reprinted a piece I posted at Veterans Today in 2011, the deleted chapter from my first book.
It uses language and holds positions that I do not, although of course I endorse its support for the Palestinians and its exposes of extreme Zionism.
Unfortunately, someone has added several lines to the original piece, to make me endorse a certain interpretation of the events of 9-11, bolstered by the context of the site, Shoah.org.
It’s a delicate matter, because in a time of repression of serious dissent and forceful speech, I don’t want to distance myself to make myself “look good” at someone else’s expense.
But my positions are different and it’s just as wrong to allow distortions of my position to replicate themselves, whether intentionally or not.
I hadn’t seen the post before and just noticed it when I clicked on one of the images popping up on top of a Google search of my name.
I wrote to the editors to correct it and they seem to have, which was very nice of them.
I much appreciate the courtesy.
Here’s my comment, which they didn’t publish:
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2011/01/01/spy-machine-lie-machine-how-we-were-brainwashed-into-the-war-on-terror/comment-page-1/#comment-295186
Lila Rajiva says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 18, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Hi,
I notice that you have published a piece of mine and altered my writing, without my permission.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/31/spy-machine-lie-machine-how-we-were-brainwashed-into-the-war-on-terror/
I did not write these lines:
“I am posting them here at Veterans Today to be read in conjunction with Jonathan Azaziah’s “9-11: Israel’s Grand Deception.”
They have been inserted by someone at your site, perhaps accidentally, as you can see from the original link.
To clarify, I stopped posting at Veterans Today, because I did not agree with the writing of several of the people posting there, including some whom I consider war-criminals, as I have stated on my blog.
I also do not equate Kashmir as an issue with Palestine, nor am I in favor of general economic sanctions against Israel, as I have also repeatedly stated on my blog, since I am against general economic sanctions against any nation.
Targeted boycotts are a different matter.
I appreciate your sympathy for the Palestinians and criticisms of extreme Zionism, but I believe that you are unwittingly misrepresenting my position by adding those lines.
I would much appreciate a correction and removal of those lines.
Thank you very much.
Lila Rajiva
Professor Ivan van Sertima, They Came before Columbus, A review by Femi Akomolafe, 19 January 1995
“History, as taught in the Western and Western-dominated world, gives the impression that the first Africans to reach the Americas were brought as slaves, in shackles on slaves-ships. So total is the Euro-Americans onslaught on black people that all military, missionary, scholarship, academic forces are mobilized to paint the picture of the African as an eternal slave of the white man.……
….Happily, one by one, these edifices of distortions, constructed by white-supremacists posing as scholars, historians, anthropologists, even scientists, are being knocked down.
In his They Came Before Columbus, Professor Ivan Van Sertima of Rutgers University assembled an impressive array of evidence to challenge one of the most persistent of these historical distortions. His argument are so compelling that very many high-calibre scholars, who have maintained the prejudiced line of history, are bound to fall flat from their pedestal. The style of the book is very engaging, almost novel-like—this makes a very good reading.
The first evidence of a black presence in the America was given to Columbus by the Indians themselves: they gave concrete proof to the Spanish that they were trading with black people. “The Indians of this Espanola said there had come to Espanola a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they called gua-nin, of which he [Columbus] had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver and 8 of copper. The origin of the word guanin may be tracked down in the Mande languages of West Africa, through Mandigo, Kabunga, Toronka, Kankanka, Banbara, Mande and Vei. In Vei, we have the form of the word ka-ni which, transliterated into native phonetics, would give us gua-nin.” p.11. This was just one of the numerous instances, cited by Professor [van] Sertima, where the names, cultures and rituals of the Mandigos confluenced with those of the ancient Americans.
Thus we have the Bambara werewolf cult whose head is known as amantigi (heads of faith) appeared in Mexican rituals as amanteca. The ceremonies accompanying these rituals are too identical to have been independently evolved among peoples who have had no previous encounter. Talking devil is called Hore in Mandigo, and Haure in Carib. In the American language of Nahuatl a waistcloth is called maxtli, in Malinke it’s masiti. The female loincloth is nagua in Mexico, it is nagba in Mande.
Why would the Indians claimed to have traded with black people if they haven’t? Why would their faith and language have so much infusion of West African influence if these people haven’t had any contact? These might not be sufficient, in themselves, to justify the claims that Africans have been visiting the Americas in pre-Colombian times. But there are witnesses. In 1513 Vasco Nunez de Balboa, another Spanish usurper came upon a group of African war captives in an Indian settlement. He was told that the blacks lived nearby and were constantly waging wars. A priest, Fray Gregoria Garcia wrote an account of another encounter in a book that was silenced by the inquisition: “Here we found slaves of the lord – Negroes- who were the first our people saw in the Indies.” p.22. (It should be noted that in pre-European slavery, slaves are what we called ‘Prisoners of wars’ today. Thus, the Yorubas have the same name, ERU, for both slaves and POWs.)
Aside from these confirmed sightings, there are also an abundance archeological evidence of an Africa presence in pre-Colombian times. These were in the form of realistic portraitures of Negro-Africans in clay, gold, and stone unearthed in pre-Colombian strata in Central and South America.- pp.23-24. Moved by these overwhelming evidence, the Society of American Archeology at a conference in 1968, Professor [van] Sertima reported, concluded: “Surely there cannot now be any question but that there were visitors to the New World from the Old in historic or even prehistoric time before 1492.”
Then there is the oral history of the two peoples. The Griots—traditional historians and masters of orature—‘Oral Literature’ in Mali, have stories about their King, Abubakari the second, grandson of Sundiata, the founder of the Mali Empire (larger than the Holy Roman Empire), who set out on a great expedition of large boats in 1311. None of the boats returned to Mali, but curiously around this time evidence of contact between West Africans and Mexicans appear in strata in America in an overwhelming combination of artifacts and cultural parallels. A black-haired, black-bearded figure in white robes, one of the representations of Quetzalcoatl, modeled on a dark-skinned outsider, appears in paintings in the valley of Mexico… while the Aztecs begin to worship a Negroid figure mistaken for their god Tezcatlipoca because he had the right ceremonial color. Negroid skeletons are found in this time stratum in the Caribbean... ‘A notable tale is recorded in the Peruvian traditions … of how black men coming from the east had been able to penetrate the Andes Mountains.’ p.26
Credit for the diagram of the dialectical struggle: http://www.al-ruh.org/hegelian.html
Note: I will be adding links to show the connection of the evangelizing of India to a long-term state-sponsored plan to Christianize India in the interests of Zionism and the global one-world government.
In this effort, Christian lobbies, like homosexual lobbies, are the shock-troops of the global cartel (the New World Order), while their followers are dupes, set up to be the fall guys when there is the inevitable back-lash.
Gay “shock-troops” are one pincer leg of the culture-war; religious zealots make up the other leg.
I am not now talking of religious conservatives reacting to gay propaganda. I am talking about evangelicals who are actively engaged in political work.
Thus, in India, the Hindu right, reacting to the forced conversion of fellow Hindus, looks to someone like Narendra Modi as their savior, whereas Modi himself seems to be in the thrall of the same Zionist billionaire to whom the entire Republican party leadership is beholden.
QUOTE: “I would say that Sheldon (Adelson) has aligned himself with most Baptists in South Carolina.”
Thus the pincer analogy…..
ORIGINAL POST
On March 14, 2014, the BBC reported on the conclusion of the Orissa nun-rape trial:
“A court in India has found three people guilty in connection with the rape of a Catholic nun in Orissa state in 2008.
The nun was raped by a Hindu mob in Kandhamal district, days after riots between Hindus and Christian there.
Riots began after a Hindu religious leader was shot dead.
Although left-wing Maoist rebels in the state claimed responsibility for the killing, hard-line Hindu groups blamed the minority Christian community for the death.”
Comment:
No one would condone the heinous crime allegedly committed against the nun, but why gloss over the equally heinous and completely verified crime that provoked the rape of the nun?
[For the ambiguities and contradictions in the story of the raped nun, see reports here and here.]
Instead, the BBC reports blandly that a “Hindu religious leader was shot dead.”
Why doesn’t the BBC do the minimally ethical thing and report that last October, seven Christians were found guilty of murdering the Hindu swami they mention, specifically because he spoke out against forced conversions?
For the same reason that the leftist media in India described the murderers in its headline WITHOUT reference to their religion, although the body of their story showed that all seven were Christian and committed the murder because of their outrage at Hindu resistance to conversions:
“All of the convicts are Christians and they had committed the crime because according to them the swami was forcing Christians to convert to Hinduism, the lawyer said.”
Furthermore, why does the BBC depict the Maoists who took responsibility as simply “left-wing rebels,” while they depict right-wing Hindus with the somewhat derogatory term, “hard-line,” and the addition of a religious label?
One would suppose that MaoIsts – followers of Chairman Mao who killed some 45 million Chinese in the name of communism – would be better termed “hard-line” than a random mob of Hindus.
And Maoists who are Christians and allied with Christians are perforce “hard-line Christian groups,” aren’t they?
But no, this is the BBC, a known propaganda outlet of the West, so it must play semantic games.
Secondly, why not mention that Maoists are closely connected to the Christian churches and that many Christian leaders actively support them?
This has been admitted by Marxists themselves, long ago:
Prakash Karat in “Naxalism Today” (The Marxist, 1985) writes:
“The S N Singh minority faction in its document makes serious charges against Vaskar Nandy and company. “In our organisation also, Nandy’s close associates established contacts with a foreign voluntary agency and a native voluntary agency financed by Western monopoly capital, keeping it secret from the POC and the general secretary of the party, S N Singh. They established contact with Rural Aid Consortium of Tagore Society which is financed by West European countries and the USA and with one Danish Organisation on the Plea of providing relief to the people of Gobiballabpur in West Bengal and some areas in Bihar. Lakhs of rupees were received for digging tanks, constructing school building opening a sewing training center and distributing chickens and cattle to the needy. It also came to our notice that money was being received by some of our leaders from the Lutheran Church. When it came to light to the PCC members, an intense ideological struggle burst forth in the party on this issue.” (Our differences with Nandy-Rana group, PCC-CPI(ML), p. 29)
It goes on to state: “We thoroughly investigated (among the cadres and people) in Gobiballapur and Bhargora, where relief work was carried on through money from the “Tagore Society”, Rohtas Channpatia and Mushhari, where schools were built up by the Dabes, and party and doubted our bonafides … Several cadres have been exposed to these agencies.” It concludes with the damming indictment: “It does not require intelligence of a high order to find out why some of the former members of the PCC adopted particular policies on the question of caste, tribe, Assamese and non-Assamese.” Following a blind anti-Soviet line, Satyanarian Singh found out a few months before his death that the majority of his PCC members sided with Nandy and company in whitewashing its links with the imperialist funded voluntary agencies, most having been, corrupted with foreign money.”
At a website called Kandhamal Justice, Sandhya Jain, a Hindu activist, has argued credibly that the rape case was concocted as damage-control in the wake of the murder of a Hindu priest, who was targeted for his resistance to crass proselytizing by Baptist ministers.
Many of his converts were also Maoists, none of which is mentioned in the BBC’s slimy report.
Kandhamal Justice reports:
“It may be appropriate to put the anti-missionary violence in context. The Kandhamal violence broke out after the murder of Swami Lakshmananda, whose tireless efforts to uplift the tribal communities and protect their religion and culture against aggressive proselytisation infuriated the evangelists and Maoist goons (mostly converts). The Swami was severely injured in an attack on Christmas Eve 2007, and had then accused a Congress MP and World Vision chief for the attack. He alleged a nexus between Maoist terrorists and missionaries; which is why when Maoists claimed responsibility for the killings, public ire was directed at the missionaries. Certainly the murders had a purely religious motivation; Orissa has in recent years seen an influx of rich American Baptists, for soul-harvesting purposes.
[Lila: Indeed, there is a close connection between the Maoists and the church in India.]
Kandhamal Justice:
“Beginning on December 26, 1970, Swami Lakshmananda was attacked eight times before he was finally struck down by AK-47-wielding assailants in 2008, according to the fact-finding commission chaired by Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan, G.S. Gill. Soon after the multiple murders in the ashram, state police arrested World Vision employee Pradesh Kumar Das while escaping from the district. Later, two men, Vikram Digal and William Digal were arrested from the house of a local militant Christian, Lal Digal, at Nugaon; they admitted having joined a group of 28 assailants.
Then, in July 2009, a Maoist couple, Surendra Vekwara and Ruby, also allegedly involved in the killings, surrendered to the Orissa police. One does not know how the state government intends to prosecute the cases against these persons, especially as the sensational rape case is silently falling apart!
However, as I have previously argued, the murder of Swami Lakshmananda closely resembles the murder of Swami Shanti Kaliji Maharaj in Tripura in August 2000. The latter was also shot in his own ashram by gun-wielding goons after several dire warnings against his anti-conversion activities in the tribal belt were ignored. Swami Lakshmananda’s murder prompted Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy to insist that there was an urgent need for an anti-conversion legislation as aggressive proselytisation was hurting the social fabric.”
Swami Lakshmananda Saraswati had, just before his murder, demanded a national debate on conversions and an end to the foreign funding to NGOs. This is an urgent imperative.”
NOTE: None of the interpretations below tallies with the evidence of history and archaeology that points to Gog and Magog being historical types that portend future actors:
Gog in history was the king of Lydia in Asia Minor.
“The erroneous belief that Russia is Magog can be traced back to a small group of 18th and 19th century theologians who wrote long before the primary evidence from the ancient Assyrian records was discovered, translated and made available to the public. Instead, they based their assertions on secondary sources, historical works written over 500 years after the time of Ezekiel, and to make matters worse some of these sources had come to be purposefully altered. These altered references include statements attributed to the first century AD Jewish historian Josephus, and first century AD Roman historian Pliny.”
You wonder if these discredited interpretations that surface in popular newspapers have something to do with the intelligence agencies of different countries stirring up the masses to support violent confrontations…
Lydia was the home of the Etruscans who emigrated to Italy and came to dominate Roman culture. The last Roman king, before Rome became a republic, was Etruscan.
So, Gyges of Lydia (Gog of Magog) is best seen as a historical type of a future ruler of the world, in the style of Rome.
Therefore, it’s plausible to argue that Gog = One World Government, or the New World Order, which is the popular name on conspiracy and right-wing sites for the corporate and financial powers behind NATO and the European Union.
Gog is not Russia at all.
Update 2: Here is a more complex interpretation, which considers Ar Rum (Rome) to be the one-world government. That suggests that the current dialectics in play (West versus East, US versus Russia; Secular vs Orthodox) are working toward a more complex end.
Update 1: An Islamic interpretation of Gog and Magog. It doesn’t identify Russia with Gog and Magog, but identifies it with militant Zionism.
In this version, the subversion of the Ukraine was effected by Soros and Co. (corporate or economic annexation). Russia is instead identified with the defense of Christianity and with “Rum” (Rome) in the Quran.
Russia, in this version, is seen as the defender of orthodox Christianity, which is seen as the true heir to the church of Rome. The inference is that the Vatican, having succumbed to materialism, atheism, and statism, is now allied with the enemies of the true church.
“Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) prophesied that Muslims will make an alliance with Rum in Akhir al-Zam?n, and it appears to me that Tatar Muslims now have a historic role to play in the fulfillment of that prophesy.”
I suppose the Muslim allies of Gog must be Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei, and similar states.
ORIGINAL POST
From Haaretz.com, some Apocalyptic thinking:
“Of course, if Gog is Putin, then we all know who the natural candidate for the Antichrist is. But let’s put that aside for now. In any case, there is a nuclear confrontation (“I will start a fire in the land of Magog and along all the seacoasts where people live undisturbed, and everyone will know that I am the Lord) and then a massive seven-month cleanup and a mass burial, somewhere in Jordan, it seems.
If you’re a Christian, the fun is just beginning: An army of “200 million” men will come from the East, according the Book of Revelations, and there’s only one country that can raise such an army. Then, in quick succession but in a sequence that is disputed by scholars, the End Times really get going: Armageddon, Desolation, Tribulation, Rapture, Redemption, the Second Coming – the works.
Jews, by the way, make do with just the war of Gog and Magog, after which messianic days are here and “swords are beaten into ploughshares” etc. Nonetheless, Christians aren’t the only ones who are getting excited about the standoff in Eastern Europe. According to a report catching fire over the weekend in the haredi press in Israel, the Gaon Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch told his disciples this week that the times of the Messiah are upon us. And who is the source for his amazing analysis? None other than one of the top Jewish sages of all time, the Vilna Gaon himself, the Gra, “the genius of Vilnius”, the famously harsh critic of Hasidic Judaism.
According to said Shternbuch, he is privy to a closely guarded secret handed down from the 18th Century Vilna Gaon through generations of revered rabbis: “When you hear that the Russians have captured the city of Crimea, you should know that the times of the Messiah have started, that his steps are being heard. And when you hear that the Russians have reached the city of Constantinople (today’s Istanbul), you should put on your Shabbat clothes and don’t take them off, because it means that the Messiah is about to come any minute.”
I don’t know if Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan knows about Russian designs on Istanbul, but if I were you, I would take your Shabbat clothes to the cleaners, just in case.
Finally, from Moshiach.com: The husband tells the wife, “The Rabbi said that soon we will no longer suffer from the Cossacks, the Messiah is about to come and take us all to Israel.” The wife thinks for a while and says, “Tell the Messiah to leave us alone. Let him take the Cossacks to Israel!”
Examiner.com has the Zionist Christian version of the End Times. Putin is still Gog, trying to expand Magog, but in this version, the Messiah has some way to go.
More about the differences between Christianity, Reform Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism on the interpretation of this prophecy.
Here’s the relevant chapter – Chapter 38 in the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel.
I formally apologize – nay, grovel – before STEVE HORWITZ
for his incorrect, hasty, and shoddy perception that I was intentionally attributing a review of Paul Goodman, a libertarian, to him, with the explicit purpose of “insinuating” that he was a pedophile apologist, which he claims is “insane.”
Since his remark was extraordinarily rude for a person in his position, I deleted it.
Since it was accurate as to confusion of identity, I have taken the essence of it and placed it above.
He also said I was a “shoddy researcher.” Weep.
How will I endure?
Well, in this post, there was certainly a mistake, but not anything crucial.
The misattribution of the quote doesn’t in the slightest bit deter from the central argument.
To be honest, though, I’m nonplussed.
There is nothing immoral or wrong about writing about Goodman’s homosexuality or his pederasty, so why should anyone get so upset – incorrectly – to be associated with that writing, especially when it’s critical of Goodman?
If I suggested anyone was a pedophile apologist, it was Goodman….and I didn’t even really do that. I cited people who documented he was a pederast.
Meanwhile, I found Horwitz’s phrasing interesting.
It’s exactly the opposite of the phrasing Bob Wenzel used about me (“Careful researcher”) at EPJ just yesterday, for analyzing Tucker’s piece with the brutalist metaphor. Hmm….
I also note that I wrote this blog post almost five days ago, but that Mr. Horwitz only posted this today, after Bob’s comment.
Apart from Goodman, the only person I could be said to have questioned (in the faintest way) was Charles Burris at Mises, for citing Goodman…but I didn’t even do that.
As for Horowitz, the author, I insinuated nothing about him, except to say that he was a Tuckerian libertarian. Is that hate speech now?
I didn’t even actually identify the author Horowitz with the BLHer Steve Horwitz.
For all anyone knows, the author of the passage, Horowitz, who is a neo-functionalist, as Goodman was (look that up), might well be a Tuckerian libertarian, even if he doesn’t know it.
That was the point of my piece. Tucker’s term is typically leftist.
I actually wrote the author’s name correctly as STEVE HOROWITZ, when I originally read the piece. Then I came back to my incomplete draft, in between reading stuff on the BLH site ( trying to figure out if they were Tuckerians or not), and saw the name spelled HORWITZ in one part (accidentally).
That made me wonder, so I put down Tuckerian libertarian in the draft, thinking I would check back to find out if it was the BLHer of that name.
When I got back to the blog, I forgot that I’d set it aside to research and just published it, without checking, with the note still in brackets, as it was published.
Hasty, true. Over-worked, true. Too many fingers in too many pots, very true.
How to shoot down daily propaganda from all sides, with most people unwilling to get in the direct line of fire, without making a silly mistake?
But shoddy? Not really.
Insane, no more than Mr. Horwitz, and much less than this BLHer friend of his whose sock-puppet internet adventures as a female are described here.
In any case, Tuckerian libertarians (including the BLHers) would never consider homosexuality or pederasty (which is promoted with it) a negative.
So why would anyone be that upset because they were mistaken for an apologist for it, especially when the alleged apologia was NOT an apologia?
So one last time – the only thing I’m insinuating in this piece is that Tucker’s division is one-sided and that brutalism is found on both sides of the political and ideological divide, as Mr. Horwitz just proved.
We’re all human beings here.
So, I apologize for your hurt feelings, Mr. Horwitz, and I give my regards to you and to your friend, Mr. Tucker.
Tell him I’ve been waiting for his apology…..or the correction from his friends, for nearly two years now…
ORIGINAL POST
Charles Burris comments on left-libertarian Paul Goodman and his critique of compulsory education.
Pedagogy being an interest of mine, I began researching Goodman. I’d known only that he was an influential figure in the counter-culture and a prophetic social critic.
“Goodman is now mainly remembered as a notable political activist on the pacifist Left in the 1960s and early 70s. Politically he described himself as an anarchist, sexually as pederast (Rossman, 1976, pp.87-92), and professionally as a “man of letters”. Less widely known is his role as a co-founder of Gestalt Therapy.
Born in New York City, he freely roamed the streets and public libraries of the city as a child (and later developed, from this, the radical concept of “the educative city”). He taught at the University of Chicago while he was taking his Ph.D., but fell in love with a student and was dismissed. He fathered a family by two common-law wives, and his early years were characterized by menial and teaching jobs taken to enable him to continue as a writer and to support his children. ……
The freedom with which he revealed, in print and in public, his homosexual life and loves (notably in a late essay, “The Politics of Being Queer” (1969)), proved to be one of the many important cultural springboards for the emerging gay liberation movement of the early 1970s. However, his own views ran counter to the modern construction of homosexuality. It was his opinion that it was pathological not to be able to make love to someone of the opposite sex, but that it was equally pathological “not to be able to experience homosexual pleasure.” Likewise, it was his view that sexual relationships between men and boys were natural, normal and healthy, and that they could lay the foundation for continuing friendship even after the sexuality is outgrown (since “sex play does not last long between males, as a rule”).(ibid, p.88)In discussing his own sexual relationships with boys, he acknowledged that public opinion would condemn him, but countered that “what is really obscene is the way our society makes us feel shameful and like criminals for doing human things that we really need.” In diagnosing the problems of modern education, which even in his time was accused of killing the spirit of the youngsters and leaving them bereft of curiosity and creativity, he underlined that “a good pupil-teacher relationship inevitably has sexual overtones” and that acknowledgement and proper channeling of these tensions would lead to a better educational environment.”
A substantial portion of Goodman’s literary output was devoted to discussing his sexual proclivity in fictional form, thus, Martin, New York, 1933.
What’s even more interesting is that Goodman’s difficulty with the educational establishment was only partly due to its bureaucratic structure. It was mainly due to his habit of diddling, or trying to diddle, his young charges. Indeed, that was the subject of an autobiographical novel he wrote three years after one of his three firings. Steve Horowitz reviews Goodman’s book, “Parent’s Day,”
“DESPITE Paul Goodman’s accomplishments as a writer and social critic, he has been best remembered as an educator. Yet Goodman hadano great success as a teacher. He never could get along well with the bureaucracies of large institutions, and though he had many teaching
jobs, they rarely lasted more than a year. Goodman’s positions were not renewed, usually because of his homosexual activities.Goodman’s theories on education generally concerned children rather than college students. He was angry about the way the American school system functioned to reduce a child’s individuality. Goodman was especially interested in questions about adolescent sexuality and school structure. The “most pressing issue in most of our homes,” he wrote A.S. Neill of Summerhill fame back in the early 1950s, was “the witnessing or not-witnessing (and participation or censoring) of children in the first years of the sexual intercourse of the adults.” Goodman believed that educators needed to help students with their sexual development. Ideas like this earned Goodman a reputation as a dangerous crank during the 1940s and 1950s. Neill considered Goodman a theorist, rather than a pragmatist, when it came to education. But Goodman had taught at Manumit, a progressive school in upstate New York, back in 1943. Goodman was fired from this job, again because of his homosexual activities. Parents’ Day is the story of Goodman’s experience at Manumit. It is a work of autobiographical fiction, as Goodman exaggerates what happens as he struggles to gain perspective. The homosexual relationship between teacher and student is bluntly stated. Goodman wrote the book three years after the fact as part of his Reichian self-analysis. He tries to understand his behavior, rather than justify it. Parents’ Day could not find a publisher during the 1940s because of its explicit homo-erotic content.
A friend printed up an edition of five hundred in 1951. It received only one review and has been unavailable for many years. Black Sparrow Press, which has been reissuing much of Goodman’s self-published work, has recently made Parents’ Day available to a wide audience for the first time.
The book is often hilariously funny. The seriousness of the memories and ideas discussed does not dampen the narrator’s enthusiasm.
His predicament (Why am I living/how do I get laid?) is only exacerbated by this constant self-questioning. He never finds any satisfactory answers, but after a while, just asking the questions brings him relief.
It’s like that joke with which Woody Allen begins Annie Hall : two large middle-aged Jewish women are eating dinner at a popular
Catskill resort hotel. One woman says to the other, “The food here is awful.” To which the other responds: “Yes, and such small portions.”
[Lila: Not surprising that Horowitz would bring up Woody Allen, since Goodman made a cameo appearance in Annie Hall and Allen’s resume also includes pederasty and pedophilic abuse, which it would be brutalist, I suppose, to mention.
It might also be brutalist to point out that Goodman endlessly cruised the waterfront for young males, even while going through two common-law wives and had a reputation for being callous to people – not exactly a preferred trait in an educator. Indeed, he was a poster-child for arrested development (he was, after all, effectively fatherless):
“He would, as the composer Ned Rorem tells it in the film, make “passes at literally everybody. I mean everybody—men and women and people’s mothers and the president of the university.”
He once shocked guests by French-kissing his dog.
Nathan Abrams in The Triple Exthnics lists Goodman, along with Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, as the intellectual vanguard of the sexual revolution that normalized homosexuality and pornography in the US in a matter of a few decades:
“Goodman knows he cannot resolve his mixed feeling about his tenure at Manumit. He acted on his sincere desires, yet he hurt other people.
Still, Goodman isn’t sure if he would act any differently if the situation reoccurred. He is introspective, but non-judgmental.
What Goodman learned from teaching at Manumit, and his reflections while writing this book, form the basis of his thought on young adult education. In Parents’ Day, one can glimpse the human teacher inside the humanitarian educator with all his faults. As such, the book makes a powerful statement. Follow your impulses, Goodman says, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. That is the only moral choice one can make in this imperfect world.”
Here we see a core principle of the politically correct libertarians – every choice is equally good and none can be judged. The only wrong is to find anything wrong.
The only brutes, to paraphrase Jeffrey Tucker, are those who condemn brutality.
Yet, what could be more brutal than a grown man, with ample outlet for his sexual proclivities, abusing the trust of parents to violate their children and then indoctrinate them with beliefs in direct opposition to their own?
A man who teaches young children that every impulse must be followed? A man who was incapable of controlling his own impulses, and more importantly, incapable of regretting them.
“His private journals, Rosenberg wrote, were a chronicle of hunger for sex, recognition, community, and transcendence.”
A man who could not ever escape from his hungers and his own self.
“My own view, let me say, is that no sexual practices whatever, unless they are malicious or extremely guilt-ridden, do any harm to anybody, including children. Certainly far more harm is done by any attempts to repress, frighten, or denigrate.”
One of the trio (Marcuse and Reich were the other two) who sold the West on the gospel of sex.
A disappointed man, even in lust:
A historian trying to explain the emptiness of modern leftist thinking could do worse than start with Growing Up Absurd.
An arrogant men, obsessed with his own sexual prowess:
“Goodman was a hard guy to like. Acquaintances described him as arrogant, self-absorbed, and sexually unremitting. When he wasn’t coming on—to women and men (mostly men); old and young (mostly young); sailors, waiters, and college presidents—he was talking about it. “He was so goddamn proud of his prick,” Grace Paley notes, visibly unimpressed, in Lee’s film.”
If that is not brutalism, what is?
Goodman was, of course, much more than his sexual identity practices.
But clever theories and high-flown rhetoric aside, the liberty he practiced – and espoused- conforms to the Jeffrey Tucker vision of “humanitarian” liberty, wherein those with the loudest lobbies determine which exercise of liberty is brutal and which humanitarian.
I guess children aren’t part of the humanity that can pay good money to propagandists to put lipstick on libertarians pigs.
Mt Gox has gone bust.
Ahem.
We’ll take a quick bow (along with Gary North, Robert Wenzel, Bionic Mosquito, and several others).
We Bitcoin-deniers stood our ground in the face of relentless and shameless]pumping, supported by rent-a-libertarians, like the former chief editor of the Daily Reckoning, Joel Bowman and shameless other opportunists
[On rereading this, I think I want soften my tone, since the anti-BTC’s have been proved by events.[
See the two MBP posts below:
Bitcoin: My Comment at EPJ and Block’s Reversal
See also the following anonymous comments at EPJ in December and November 2013:
My comments are anonymous, because I was worried that the elites might attack people who criticized BTC, just as they trashed Assange critics all over the net:
Stick with Gary North, Wenzel.
Better the known devil than the unknown.
And talking about unknown devils, who is this Paul Rosenberg from Cryptohippie?
Who owns Cryptohippie?
Might they have connections to TOR, Wikileaks, Assange, and/or the Internet billionaires (Zuckerberg, Brin, Thiel, Omidyar)? If so, can DARPA be far behind?
How would we know since Bitcoin is so mysterious……
In fact, how would we know if Bernanke himself wasn’t moonlighting as an “anti-Fed” bit-coiner?
Answer is we wouldn’t.
Also, what reason could there be for the inventor of an invention of this magnitude (purportedly) to coyly refrain from taking any credit or recognition?
Another question, why does Julian Assange tout it?
These are the things which must be investigated before anyone other than fools and gamblers will go near this scheme.
Maybe they gain something personally from promoting Bitcoins? Credibility with the hacker-anarchist world, for instance. Maybe even money. How do you know?
It takes a big person to stick to his guns, even when peer pressure might suggest otherwise.
Comments at EPJ on December 12:
@anonymous
I don’t have time to refute step by step.
Just the obvious points.
You claim bitcoin allows you to transfer any amount of wealth anywhere in the world almost instantly and almost free.
Actually, you can already do that with an ACH transfer (upto 10K), wire transfer ($25 for any sum) cash (as much as you can stuff undetected into your suitcase or cash cards. You can also do hawala.
The limits in all these cases don’t arise from the medium, but from government restriction, which could be enforced much more thoroughly through BTC than by other means.
Second. Bitcoins aren’t “free.” They require not only a very good computer, but an excellent internet connection, encryption of a very high order not only for the connection but for the hard drive.. and considerable technical knowledge to thwart the net-savvy people who swarm around bitcoin users.
None of that is free or widely prevalent.
In most countries, you don’t even have good enough internet.
Plus, all of it can be snooped on and shut down.
That is just one objection out of dozens I could raise.
1. Nov. 25, 2013 comments at EPJ
Shame on anyone who is so credulous to believe this is the “free market” at work.
Shame on anyone who supports this kind of elaborate con played by the very cartels that anarchists are supposedly fighting.
Bitcoin is a Rothschild-backed intelligence-funded pump-and-dump. The purpose is to destabilize the dollar and provoke demand for a global single currency.
It is the global elite-backed “controlled opposition,” using spokesmen from the CIA-infiltrated/ hard-money or “libertarian” community. The ones pitching it will make money as the proles rush in.
It is easily tracked, easily gamed.
More so than the dollar or gold.
This massive swell of interest and pumping by all and sundry is a sure sign of intel involvement.
Or FRAUD.
@Philip, Anonymous, edward.
Intelligence and government are multi-layered, not unitary.
The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sometimes even the left hand doesn’t know. Just a finger or a nail knows.
Intelligence might take a while to understand the potential in something their scientists come up with. So it might take a year or two or more. Then they embrace it.
The MSM media is brain-washed one way – the obvious mainstream, Keynesian brainwashing.
The alternative media, including hard money people, are past the mainstream brainwashing, but they fall for the second-level brainwashing – they fall for Snowden, Assange, Hacktivism, Crypto-currency, Wikileaks, and all such black operations, meant to appeal to gullible, egoistic anti-govt types.
There are legions of agencies involved who profile dissent and come up with the red herrings that will be swallowed by the maximum number of fools and opportunists.
The economic dissenters trust their hard-money gurus, but that crowd is filled with two-bit cons who will fit their agenda to whatever the intelligence agencies tell them.
Please go back and look at when Bitcoin mania started and look at who has promoted it.
Be wise as serpents, my friends. Wenzel’s instincts are right. I hope he will not be dazzled by Mayer’s “expertise” and misled into supporting this con game.
As for sources. Do some research directly yourself and see what you find.
their ‘endgame’ …. .
@Phil McKreviss, EndtheFed,
There are a few libertarian (rightist and leftist) blogs where Assange and Snowden have been deconstructed thoroughly. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Let your fingers take a walk and you will see that they are both mouthpieces for the global elites.
Some reliable sources you could read: Cottrell, Rappaport, Creighton, Rajiva, Madison…off the top of my head.
China – China is a COMMUNIST country, my friends. Goldman Sachs has a big presence there.
End-game is control – maximum control over your assets, your money, your movements, your writing, your thoughts – so they can harvest it all for themselves.
The elites would be gods…and for that, they need for you to be less than men. They need for you to be little BITS of a machine.
Read everything critically, inwardly, not in this trusting fashion.
Rest assured, when something shows up on the internet, with this much fanfare, the elites approve.
Freedom is hard.
It will not come without sacrificing some time, effort and along the way, some favorite delusions and consolations too.
Biggest delusion is to believe that there is any quick simple remedy whereby you get to make a ton of money quicker and liberate “the world” too.
All that is Grimms Fairy Tales in a special edition for libertarians.
UPDATE
The whole purpose of the new Overseas card visa seems to be to extend citizenship easily and without a long residence requirement:
The Bill proposes the following changes:
There is no certainty regarding the time frame within which the Bill will be brought into force. Although the purpose of the amendment seems to be to correct the lacunae in the Act, it has, in a way, demoted the status of an OCI from being an overseas “citizen” to a mere cardholder. Although an OCI has never had full privileges of Indian citizenship, such as the right to vote, when the law was initially passed, OCI status was thought to be a first step toward dual citizenship. Further, by bringing the spouse and the minor child within the ambit of an OIC and by making registration for them compulsory, the whole purpose of easy and fast implementation of the OCI process is defeated.”
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Economic Times reports wide-spread anger among overseas Indians with foreign citizenship about the Government of India’s proposal (The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2011) to merge two categories of long-term Indian residence visas – the Persons of Indian Origin visa (PIO) and the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI).
Both categories of visa started out with the stated purpose that they would be life-time visas or very long-term visas that would grant benefits similar to citizenship of India to Indians who had become foreign citizens.
Some people even called the OCI a type of “dual citizenship.”
In practice, the two visas have been plagued by perception problems, red-tape, and confusion. For example, although it was billed as a life-time visa, the OCI actually requires holders above the age of 50 or under 20 to reapply when their passports come up for renewal.
Any change of address or occupation also has to be changed on the original document.
Apparently in an effort to smooth things out, the Prime Minister announced in 2011 that it would be merging the two.
In effect, the merger would bring the PIO (the 15 year visa) to parity with the OCI (which doesn’t need annual police registration, among other things). The merger would involve creating a new category of visa – the Overseas Indian Card.
However, that’s upset many OCI and PIO holders who fear that instead of stream-lining what already exists, the GOI is about to make new problems for existing OCI and PIO holders who would be obligated to go through a cumbersome application with expensive fees for a second time.
Despite the complaints, the bill has been approved by the Rajya Sabha and is now being considered by the lower house.
In the article linked, there was also this interesting insight into the politics behind the bill tucked away at the end:
“As the Bill was being discussed in the Upper House, the Opposition sought to embarrass the government by pointing out that no Cabinet minister was present in the House other than Ramachandran, who moved the Bill for consideration and passage.” (my emphasis)
The issue at the heart of the OCI/PIO/OIC complications is the contested nature of the state – is it territorial or not?
Is it a political contrivance or a cultural reality? Who gets to be a citizen and why?
While OCI’s cannot vote, even if the live in India, groups like the Overseas Friends of the BJP want non-resident Indians – citizens of India who don’t live in India – to be able to vote.
The larger question is whether a state is territorial or not.
That is the real source of the confusion in the smaller questions about visas.
Then, there’s also the issue of security.
The new Overseas Card wouldn’t be open to citizens of Pakistan, for instance.
In light of all this, it might be wise for those considering applying for the OCI or PIO to put off doing so until the new bill, currently pending before the Lok Sabha, is either scrapped or declared the law of the land.
The Lok Sabha session that ran from Feb 5 – Feb. 21 was the last one before elections and so far the bill has not passed.
No wonder, since the parliament faced some 39 important bills.
One that did pass was the division of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh (heavily influenced by Western corporate, religious, and political lobbies) into two, recreating the old state of Telegana.
Telengana’s rebirth has everything to do with the conundrums over the nature of the state and the state of the nation out of which the question of overseas citizenship arises.
For instance, just as it happened with the passage of the Citizenship Bill of 2011 in the Rajya Sabha, it happened with the creation of the 29th state in India:
“When Indian lawmakers voted to create a new state in the world’s largest democracy on Tuesday, they did so off camera and behind closed doors.
Just as the lower house of Parliament was about to decide whether to make Telangana a separate state from Andhra Pradesh – a move that has faced violent opposition even among members of Parliament in recent days — the live feed from inside the house went dead.
Lok Sabha Television, the only broadcaster allowed to air proceedings in the lower house, said the blackout during the voice vote was caused by a technical hitch.
The timing of the shutdown though led opponents of the new state to suspect something more sinister.
Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, leader of the southern state’s regional YSR Congress party, which has fought to maintain the status quo in Andhra Pradesh, said that the cut feed was an “example of how democracy can be killed in broad daylight.”
“It is a black day in the history of India,” Mr. Reddy added.
Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party in the lower house, who voted in favor of the bill, said in a tweet from her verified account that the blackout was a “tactical glitch.”
A Voice for Men overturns the feminist claim that acid-attacks are gender-based violence (a claim that I, unfortunately, once trusted):
“On another acid survivors website from Cambodia they have numbers from 1999 – 2013. There numbers show that 40% of the adult victims were adult males, 44.8% were adult females, 7.3% were male children under the age of 13 and 8% were females under the age of 13.
Despite about 40% of the acid attack victims being male acid survivors foundation true to feminist form states:
“Acid violence is a form of gender based violence that reflects and perpetuates the inequality of women in society.”
And helping that lie spread was boosted by COMBATING ACID VIOLENCE IN BANGLADESH, INDIA, AND CAMBODIA
This is subtitled as:
Report by the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell
Law School, the Committee on International Human Rights of the New
York City Bar Association, the Cornell Law School International Human
Rights Clinic, and the Virtue FoundationNotice the list of organizations who are helping promote this heinous lie that acid attacks is gender violence? All of them owe a duty of care to us, society to be honest but hey their feminists so that duty of care is tossed in the manure pile. Too bad their reports aren’t there too, where they belong.
Here is what these alleged groups wrote when describing acid attacks;“Acid violence is gender-based violence that reflects and perpetuates the
inequality of women in society and as such is prohibited by international lawI call BULLSHIT. There is a about a 10% difference between the sexes in acid attacks. That is not gender based violence. Even if we include the children the percentage of men only drops down to just over 35% that is still not gender based violence.
And what about the criminals inflicting incredible human suffering you ask. Well it is not just men who are tossing acid on women:
Woman throws acid on sister-in-law over land dispute
Just like every other feminist claim of gender-based violence this one too is a half truth. Omitting the male population from the awareness campaigns is the standard operating procedure of feminism.
To reference my compatriot, Robert St. Estephe again, please note: neither historically nor in modern times have acid attacks been something “men to do women.” It’s something people do to each other, in various times and places. If you doubt there’s anything weird or unusual about women using acid as a weapon, in addition to Robert’s other article (referenced above) see Three New York “Acid Queens” of 1901.
I’ve said it earlier in this article and I’ll say it again:
The feminist claim that acid attacks is gender violence is BULLSHIT.”
Comment
See
“Mystery of the sudden surge in acid attacks on men by women,” Kerry Mcqueeney Daily Mail, UK, May 10, 2012
“Acid attacks on men related to gang violence, say experts,” Ruth Evans, BBC, November 9, 2013
As Partners for Law in Development notes in a paper on the subject, acid-attack legislation needs to be framed gender-neutrally, so that the increasing number of male victims and female perpetrators will be included in its provisions.
The Marriage Law Amendment Bill of 2010 was passed by India’s upper house, Rajya Sabha, in July 2013, to the applause of many Indian feminists and the great dismay of men’s rights activists and pro-family groups who have been campaigning for a long while against the legal misandry it embodies.
It awaits action n the Indian lower house, or Lok Sabha.
The pending 2010 amendment affects both the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 (which governs Hindu marriages) and the Special Marriage Act of 1955 (which governs marriage between Hindu and non-Hindus).
In the Rajya Sabha, there was much talk about the “sanctity of Hindu marriage” during the passage of the bill, as though it were being passed to defend Indian culture against the onslaught of the cultural mores that have destroyed Western family units.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The bill actually seeks to introduce those mores into the nation through the concept of “no-fault” divorce, a concept that many blame for the rise in divorce rates in the West.
For greater detail about the ghastly provisions of the bill, read the blog, Rollback IrBM (Irretrievable Break-down of Marriage).
Men stand to lose not only half of their own property during marriage, but also property acquired before marriage, their inheritance, and gifts, even while women’s inheritance, prior acquisitions, gifts and income are retained by the women in full.
Meanwhile, until now, Hindus have had among the lowest rates of divorce in the world.
In 2011, the crude divorce rate (the rate of divorce per 1000 people was 1.1 in India. By contrast, it was 3.6 in the US, the third highest in the world, following Russia and Belarus.
These figures are not terribly enlightening, of course, because they do not tell us whether the population involved was of marriageable age…among many other problems.
Still, as a kind of rough index, they do tell us that marriage has been fairly stable in India.
So, what is the need to fix something that is at least relatively intact?
The answer lies in the politics of Western-style feminism and its onslaught on traditional Indian culture.
Legally enshrined misandry has had a history in India from the 1980s, when foreign funding and media agitation created laws that were ostensibly about protecting women but in practice ended by victimizing men.
Amit Deshpande writes at A Voice for Men:
“The first weapon feminists used, was a woman’s share in her paternal property, termed as “dowry”.
India saw an increased reportage of bride-burning and dowry harassment cases in media.”
Lila: Deshpande mentions “increased reportage.”
He also mentions elsewhere that there was Western funding for this. I need to go back and look at those old reports and see who was writing them and how accurate they were.
Were they manipulated like the propaganda (Kinsey’s sexology) that changed laws in the USA, to the great detriment of the American family?
Deshpande:
“The cry was made shrill enough to drown any sane voice, if ever there was any. An anti-dowry harassment law, Section 498a of the IPC was created in 1983 which is draconian and most misused. It gives a woman complete power to get anyone from her husband’s family arrested. Then came the Dowry death law –Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It considers any unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of marriage as dowry death – meaning it assumes the husband and his relatives as guilty for her death and they are put behind bars immediately. There have been many other anti-men laws that have come up regularly.
Misandry in India, overall, can be gauged with the high number of suicides of men and crime against men:
According to the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs – 62,433 married men and a total of 87,839 men committed suicide in 2011 — and this figure is increasing every year. The same bureau report shows that 92% of all crime happens against men and the society is still not even considering issues of men as a topic worth attention.”
Lila: Notice that the situation for upper and middle-class men in India is much worse than it is for the same men in the West, where the laws on harassment and divorce are at least gender-neutral in wording (if not in effect).
Moreover, in contrast to India, it has been documented –most recently in the landmark Lund University study in Sweden – that Swedish males who are unmarried have the highest rates of suicide, not married men.
Ever since Durkheim, studies of mental health have documented, more or less, that marriage offers both men and women protection from the anomie that often leads to suicide.
The fact that married men in India are committing suicide at more than three times the rate of single (unmarried) men and at more than twice the rate of married women should be a warning bell.
These statistics, if accurate, suggests that Indian middle and upper-class males are one of the world’s most unhappy demographics, far more likely to kill themselves than their female counterparts. It would suggest that married Indian men are the victims not the villains of marriage as it stands.
The new Marriage Amendment bill seems to be more of the same.
Media coverage of the debates have been misleading in not clarifying the crucial fact that the amendment bill of 2010 only targets Hindu marriages and is seen by many as a weapon deliberately aimed at Hindu families.
The law doesn’t target Christian or Muslim men.
“Army Against Dowry Law Misuse in India (AADMI) has demanded roll back of the alleged anti-family clauses in the upcoming bill which proposes to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act.
AADMI members, who also took out a protest march, said though the proposal is a welcome step, it has three controversial clauses which are totally anti-family and anti-husband.
It points out that in the bill wherever exercising the rights has been mentioned, the person who can do it has been mentioned as “wife” instead of “spouse” which clearly indicates that the bill denies to extend its cover to husband.
It is very clear that after marriage, a wife can get out of it at any point of time seeking divorce from her husband whereas no such legal provision has been given to a husband till date.
The bill says that along with allowing divorce, absolute rights will be given to the aggrieved wife on 50 per cent of husband’s marital property. However, it does not mention division of wife’s belongings and property at her maternal house, said the members.
Also, the Bill does not deal with matters like custody of the children, visitation rights etc. Union cabinet has approved this bill with some amendments and at present it is with the “Group of Ministers” for approval before being tabled in the parliament.
AADMI demands include withdrawal of controversial clause and to make the bill gender neutral.
Children must be given access to both biological parents in case of divorce or separation, government must first put an end to all false cases related to marital problems against men and the children should also have an equal share of the alimony amount given to the wife by the husband. They said while making amendments in the current laws, the government must also take into account a man’s financial responsibilities towards his parents and also the family liabilities should be deducted before sanctioning the alimony figure to the wife.”
Menrights.org sums up the most discriminatory aspect of the pending Act:
In most countries including Pakistan, domestic violence complaints can be filed by either partner. In India, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA 2005), domestic violence is considered to be solely perpetrated by married men (and their relatives) over the hapless wives!
In most countries, matrimonial property sharing at time of divorce results in equitable sharing of both assets and liabilities earned by both spouses during the marriage duration. However in India, the proposed bill aims to give property rights to women only at time of divorce. Even if a woman has more property than husband, the law will probably allow woman to lay claim over man’s property. The duration of marriage be it 1 day or 20 years is of no concern, and the property sharing is left to discretion of the courts.
Sexual harassment complaints can be filed by either sex in most countries. However in India, in the recently approved bill by cabinet about Sexual Harassment at Workplace bill, the proposal to include men as complainants has been completely ignored so far in spite of many representations made to government and lawmakers by men’s rights groups.
Divorce rights and obligations are gender neutral in most countries.
But in India, the proposed amendments will allow a wife to block husband’s divorce petition moved on grounds of “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” but a husband will not be allowed to do the same if wife moves a divorce petition on same grounds. Evidently, the government believes that all Indian wives are like Mother Teresas and all Indian husbands are devils incarnate!
Adultery is a crime which can be committed only by men and not by women under Indian Penal Code (IPC).
India has probably the dubious distinction of being the only large democratic country where in all above areas the existing or proposed laws give relief only to wives/women and exclude men completely from their ambit except treating them as providers or perpetrators! Is India moving towards 21st century or moving back to 16th century?
The law talks only about wives’ rights and has no mention of their responsibilities as wives. These amendments are in continuation of the trend evident in Hindu Marriage laws which seek to define only obligations of married men and only rights of married women.
The proposed amendments if accepted will reduce men to status of slavery in marriage. These so called attempts to achieve equality for women are nothing but attempts to create feminocracy in families and ultimately reduce men to second class citizens and create breakdown in society and a fatherless society.”
