Thursday, November 30, 2017

Corus fires AM640 late-night host Gary Bell, citing complaints of anti-Semitic content

We need to know who filed this complaint.
 
Citing complaints of anti-Semitic content on a Nov. 11 episode, Corus Entertainment has fired veteran broadcaster Gary Bell, ending his weekly Saturday night radio show on AM640.

“I can confirm that Mr. Bell has been terminated from his employment with AM640 and Corus Entertainment,” said company spokesperson Rishma Govani.

“We sincerely apologize to our listeners and anyone else who was offended by Mr. Bell’s egregious comments. Corus Radio recognizes that our broadcast licences are a privilege. Therefore we are taking strong and immediate steps to ensure such an incident at is never repeated,” Govani added.

The show, entitled A View From Space, featured commentary from Bell, a.k.a. Spaceman, on conspiracy theories. The show ran from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. during the NHL season and from 8 p.m. to midnight in the off-season; a digital archive of episodes online stretches back to 2004.

Bell, who has appeared on radio in a variety of programs since the 1970s, could not be reached for comment. An online petition to restore his show had 85 signatures as of Wednesday morning.

Please share this.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Friday, November 24, 2017

Was Pope Benedict XVI Forced to Resign?


Veritas Vincit: The Truth Shall Prevail reported on October 20, 2017:
Almost five years since his momentous resignation from the papacy on February 11, 2013 for health reasons, the undeniable fact is that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI remains in the peak of health and in full control of his faculties.  He has also chosen to remain in the Vatican. He has also chosen to retain the title of “pope”, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
In his last general assembly on February 27, 2013, 2 weeks after announcing his intent to resign, Benedict XVI said that the petrine ministry is “always” and “forever”:
He who assumes the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and totally to everyone, to the whole Church. His life is, so to speak, totally deprived of the private sphere. […] The “always” is also a “forever”—there is no returning to private life. My decision to forgo the exercise of active ministry, does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences and so on. I do not abandon the cross, but remain in a new way near to the Crucified Lord.
And we have to ask: Why did Benedict XVI resign in the first place, if the petrine ministry “is forever”?  Was his resignation out of his own full volition and will? Was it valid in the first place?
New revelations have come to light which give us more information on the circumstances surrounding Benedict’s mysterious resignation.

Leaked Emails Show Political Plot to Oust Benedict

A group of Catholic leaders cite new evidence uncovered in emails released by WikiLeaks that the conservative Pope Benedict did not actually resign on his own initiative, but was pushed out of the Vatican by a coup that the group of researchers are calling the “Catholic Spring.”
The group of Catholic leaders includes Christopher A. Ferrara, President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant, David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired), Chris Jackson of Catholics4Trump.com, and Elizabeth Yore, Founder of YoreChildren.
Last January 20, 2017, the group wrote and published a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump, formally requesting him to to launch an official investigation into the activities of the billionaire liberal leftist George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and others) who they allege were involved in orchestrating the Catholic Spring that resulted in their goal of “regime change” in the Vatican.
The group included with the letter evidence from various sources to support their claim, including WikiLeaks emails.  WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organisation that publishes secret information, news leaks,  and classified media provided by anonymous sources. Its website, initiated in 2006 by Julian Assange, has a database of 10 million documents in 10 years since its launch.

Soros, Obama and Clinton Behind Benedict XVI Resignation?

The leaked emails show that Soros, Obama and Clinton used the United States’ diplomatic machinery, political muscle, and financial power to coerce, bribe and blackmail “regime change” in the Roman Catholic Church in order to replace Benedict XVI with Pope Francis – who has since become an unlikely mouthpiece for the international left, stunning Catholics around the world.
“We have reason to believe that a Vatican ‘regime change’ was engineered by the Obama administration,” say the petitioners, in their January 20 letter to President Trump.  “We were alarmed to discover,” their letter notes, “that, during the third year of the first term of the Obama administration your previous opponent, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other government officials with whom she associated proposed a Catholic ‘revolution’ in which the final demise of what was left of the Catholic Church in America would be realized.”

Leaked Emails

The Letter first directs attention to the notorious Soros-Clinton-Podesta e-mails disclosed last year (2016) by WikiLeaks, in which John Podesta and other progressives discussed regime change to remove what they described as the “middle ages dictatorship” in the Catholic Church. Podesta was the former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. He previously served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and Counselor to President Barack Obama.
Podesta revealed in a 2011 e-mail that he and other activists were working to effect a “Catholic Spring” revolution within the Catholic Church, an obvious reference to the disastrous “Arab Spring” coups organized that same year by the Obama-Clinton-Soros team that destabilized the Middle East and brought radical Islamist regimes and terrorist groups to power in the region. The Podesta e-mail is a response to another Soros-funded radical — Sandy Newman, founder of the “progressive” Voices for Progress. Newman had written to Podesta seeking advice on the best way to “plant the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church.
In his e-mail of February 10, 2011 to Podesta (as released by WikiLeaks), Newman writes:
There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight.
Newman admits that since he’s not a member of the Catholic Church and doesn’t understand its workings, he doesn’t “qualify to be involved.” But he still very much wants to see the “revolution” go forward. He writes:
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the  Catholic church…. Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about  how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or who would plant them. Just wondering …
John Podesta responded the following day, writing:
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United are two of the many Soros-funded “Catholic” activist groups that push the “progressive” agenda (abortion “rights,” homosexual “marriage,” LBGT K through12 “education,” women priests, etc.) inside the church.

Call for Investigation

In their letter to President Trump, the group of Catholics leaders write: “After this e-mail discussion, which was never intended to be made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the international left.  The Pontificate of Pope Francis has subsequently called into question its own legitimacy on a multitude of occasions.”
“We remain puzzled by the behavior of this ideologically charged Pope, whose mission seems to be one of advancing secular agendas of the left rather than guiding the Catholic Church in Her sacred mission,”they say, expressing the thoughts of millions of Catholics around the world stunned by Pope Francis’s left-wing ideology. “It is simply not the proper role of a Pope to be involved in politics to the point that he is considered to be the leader of the international left.”

International Monetary Transactions with the Vatican were Suspended Days Prior to Benedict XVI’s Resignation

Why were International monetary transactions with the Vatican suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI? Why were international monetary transactions with the Vatican subsequently resumed on February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence?
An investigative article by Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet alleges that Pope Benedict XVI was blackmailed into abdication by forces allied with SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which had a hand in the shutdown of ATM and bank card services at the Vatican in January of 2013.
According to Blondet:
There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church.
According to Blondet, Italian banking regulators pressured Deutsche Bank, which managed the Vatican’s ATM machines and credit card payment services, to cease their services to the Holy See. He cites the Financial Times, which reported:
Deutsche did what regulators had hoped it would. On January 1 2013, a peak holiday time, there were no ATMs functioning anywhere inside Vatican City. Lines of visitors to the Sistine Chapel were unable to enter unless they paid in cash. “The message sent was simple: if you want to participate in the modern world, you have to adopt modern rules,” says a senior banker at another correspondent bank.
On February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate, the Vatican suddenly reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions.

A Mafia Group of Cardinals Who Plotted Benedict XVI’s Demise

At the launch of his authorized biography last September 2015, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, archbishop emeritus of Brussels and one of Pope Francis’ closest advisors, confessed that he was part of a radical secret “mafia” reformist group of cardinals opposed to Benedict XVI.
He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of “St. Gallen”. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.
The cardinal is a notorious liberal, once writing a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups. The cardinal is also known for having once advised the king of Belgium to sign an abortion law in 1990, for telling a victim of clerical sex abuse to keep quiet, and for refusing to forbid pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools.

A Plot to Assassinate Pope Benedict XVI?

In a startling revelation that was extensively covered by news outlets worldwide, Cardinal Paolo Romeo, the archbishop of Palermo in Sicily claimed last November 2011 that Pope Benedict XVI would die within the next 12 months.
Cardinal Romeo reportedly made the startling prediction of the Pope’s death during a trip to China on November 2011. He seemed so sure of the fact that the people he spoke with, including Italian businessmen and Chinese representatives of the Catholic Church, were convinced that he was talking about an assassination attempt.
They were so alarmed by his remarks that they reported them back to the Vatican. The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec 30, 2011, and delivered to Pope Benedict XVI by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, a Colombian, in January.
Could it be that the Pope, not for fear of death, but for possible harm to the Church should the plot succceed, decided it was best to resign to remove the assassination threat and advance a peaceful succession?

Is the Papal Resignation Valid?

The Code of Canon Law (332:2) provides that: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”
In this sense, while it is true that the Pope “freely” declared to resign, the circumstances and evidence seem to indicate that to a greater or lesser extent, he was forced by pressure to resign on multiple fronts (assassination threat, suspension of Vatican finances, etc).
While the Pope made the decision to resign in accordance with the powers given to him under the Code of Canon Law, could it be that he made it under the duress of moral violence, which, according to No. 125 of the same Code, invalidates the final decision at the root and renders the act invalid ? It is like one who freely chooses to marry, but if there is hidden stress, fear or deception, the marriage is void for fault, although a clearly “free” commitment has been expressed publicly.
EDITOR'S COMMENT:  From January 1 to February 11, then, a total of 42 days, the Vatican may have lost $1.26 million in sales.  The Central Bank of Italy restored the credit card processing the day after Pope Benedict resigned.  Are the forces of the antichrist going to attempt to place on the Seat of Peter in the up coming Papal election?  Storm Heaven with prayers to save the Papacy!!!

Full article here
Please share this.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Must Watch: Hollywood Child Abuse Documentary “An Open Secret” Released Online


AN OPEN SECRET. Official PG-13 version. Copyright Esponda Productions LLC  #AnOpenSecret from Matt Valentinas on Vimeo.

An Open Secret is a documentary about the abuse of young boys at the hands of “important men” in Hollywood. It is now available online (for free) for a limited time. Make sure you watch this.
An Open Secret explains how high-powered Hollywood men groom children (and their parents) into trusting them and even moving in with them. The slow process, fueled by constant manipulation and the lure of the Hollywood lifestyle, tears out children from their parents and places them at the mercy of rich perverts.
Producer Gabe Hoffman made An Open Secret available online on Vimeo for a limited time “to commemorate serial predator Harvey Weinstein finally being exposed”. Hoffman stated:
“Harvey Weinstein, by the way, is not the only one who has used confidentiality settlements. That’s why more of Hollywood’s behavior hasn’t been exposed. This is the tip of the iceberg”
– Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood Sex Abuse Film ‘An Open Secret’ Released Online
The documentary got a limited theatrical release a few years ago but Hoffman is having major problems finding a distributor.
“We haven’t got any offers from major distributors yet because Hollywood doesn’t want to expose its dirty laundry, so we’ve been sitting on this for a while. Now, we want to celebrate the brave women who have exposed Harvey”
– Ibid.
The documentary features the disturbing accounts of ex-child actors who explain how the men who were supposed to “mentor” them ended up abusing them, in total impunity. The movie zooms in on DEN, a now-defunct entertainment company founded by high-profile investors, including congressman-turned movie producer Michael Huffington; film and music mogul David Geffen; and Bryan Singer, the director of two X-Men movies. The company hosted wild parties with drugs, alcohol and underage boys at the former residence of the founder, Marc Collins-Rector.
An Open Secret also explores the case of talent manager Marty Weiss, who pleaded no contest to lewd acts on a child and is heard in the film admitting molestation.

Watch the entire documentary online on Vimeo.

Please share this.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, November 18, 2017



There was no show last night because Corus Entertainment ( AM640 Toronto) received a complaint over anti-semitism on last weeks show. Free speech is going downhill fast in this country.

Listen to last weeks show and complain to the program manager.  http://www.corusent.com/contact-us/  

WE WANT GARY BELL BACK! He needs our support.


Please share this.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Flashback: Barbara Walters Shames Pedo Victim Corey Feldman On National TV For ‘Damaging An Entire Industry’


Six years ago, former child star Corey Feldman admitted that he and fellow child actor Corey Haim, who died in 2010 from Pneumonia, were sexually molested by adult males throughout Hollywood during their time in the limelight. Haim is said to have received far more brutal abuse – raped at age 11 by a producer, while Feldman was groomed and abused by a man employed by his father at the age of 15.

In a 2011 interview with ABC, Feldman said Pedophilia was the Number 1 problem for child stars, saying “I was surrounded by [pedophiles] when I was 14 years old. … Didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were and what they wanted … till I went, Oh, my God. They were everywhere.

And in a 2016 interview – days after actor Elijah Wood gave an interview in which he said “Hollywood has a Pedophilia Problem,” Feldman revealed that he was ‘molested and passed around by men in the industry. The former child actor has refused to name his abusers, citing legal reasons.

Martin Weiss (left)
Feldman has also written about Corey Haim’s time with Hollywood child-actor manager Martin Weiss, an agent primarily for children who appeared on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel – who enjoyed sleepovers and road trips with his clients. Weiss was arrested in 2011 and plead no contest to eight felony counts of molesting young actors – sentenced to a year in jail but released for time served.
 

Weiss raped a child actor 30 to 40 times until the age of 15, according to the police report. In an affidavit obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the victim told police that Weiss said what they were doing was ‘common practice in the entertainment industry.’

Weiss was caught when the 15 year old victim went to his apartment in November of 2011 and recorded a conversation in which Weiss admitted to the abuse.

Barbara’s Genuine Outrage – at Feldman…

In a 2013 interview on The View, Feldman told hosts Barbara Walters, Sherri Shepherd, Jenny McCarthy and Nick Offerman that “some of the richest, most powerful people” in Hollywood were pedophiles still operating in the industry:

Corey Feldman: There are people that were the people that did this to both me and Corey that are still working, they’re still out there, and they’re some of the richest, most powerful people in this business – and they do not want me saying what I’m saying right now.
Barbara Walters: Are you saying that they’re pedophiles?
Corey Feldman: Yes
Barbara Walters: And that they’re still in this business?
Corey Feldman: Yes
After telling host Sherri Shepherd that child acting is a “many feathered bird – be careful what you wish for. Don’t go into it with naievity,” Barbara Walters exclaimed “You’re damaging an entire industry!

Walters’ comment echoed her defense of Woody Allen, days after adopted daughter Dylan Farrow wrote an open letter to the New York Times, accusing Allen of sexually abusing her as a 7 year old child. Walters suggested Farrow had waited to come public to hurt Allen’s chances of winning an Oscar that year, adding “the fact that he likes younger women (in reference to Allen’s marriage to the adopted daughter of ex-wife Mia Farrow), that has nothing to do with.”

And when it came to Corey Feldman, Barbara Walters shamed a man on national TV who had the courage to stand up and tell the world about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Hollywood pedophiles – seemingly more concerned about her industry than a victim of its most vile and degenerate predators. The “richest, most powerful people” in the business.
Watch below:


Please share this.

Hugh Hefner, Playboy, Alfred Kinsey and Pornography




by Jonathon Van Maren

Hugh Hefner, America’s famous porn magnate, has died at the age of 91 at the Playboy Mansion. Throughout his life, he championed unfettered hedonism in every form: Abortion, the legalization of marijuana, the liberation of sex from love, and pornography were all causes he fought — with much success — to bring into the mainstream. Hefner himself was not single-handedly responsible for the massive social changes that rocked the Western world from the Sexual Revolution onwards, but he was easily the single most recognizable symbol of them all.

It began with Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist with an expertise in gall wasps, who switched to the study of sex and began a campaign to change social norms around sexual behavior. His two major works, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953 stunned everyday Americans as nothing else had. Kinsey claimed that children were sexual from birth and could experience sexual pleasure (the abuse of children was facilitated in order to construct this faulty theory), that nearly half of men had affairs, that 85 percent of men had sex before marriage, that a staggering 70 percent of men had used prostitutes, and that between 10 percent and 37 percent of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Kinsey, in other words, was telling the American public that the moral consensus they all believed in was a farce — nobody was living by it. There was no need for a sexual revolution, Kinsey said, only legal revolution — the sexual one had already taken place. Everybody was sleeping with everybody. The conspiracy of silence was now broken, and any laws that restricted any form of sexual behavior no longer made any sense. One young man, who had remained a virgin until his 1949 marriage to his childhood sweetheart, paid close attention. His name was Hugh Hefner, and he thought the opportunities presented by Alfred Kinsey’s assertions were enormous.

Kinsey, it was later discovered, was a fraud. He had falsified data, junked data that didn’t fit his own conclusions, lied about who he was interviewing — he classified cohabiting couples as married, for example, and prison inmates as ordinary members of the populace — and his conclusions were so far from the truth that even 50 years after the Sexual Revolution had transformed American society, men and women were still not as hedonistic as Kinsey claimed they were in the 1940s. Kinsey himself, it turned out, was a voracious hedonist, swapping spouses with his staff members, shooting illegal porn movies in his attic and sleeping with both male and female colleagues. Kinsey was Hugh Hefner’s hero.

In my 2016 book The Culture War, I explained how Kinsey’s junk “sexology” science jump-started Hefner’s career — and then the porn industry. From Chapter One:

It is impossible to underestimate the scale, speed and impact of the Sexual Revolution, set loose by the carefully orchestrated campaign Kinsey and his cohorts embarked on. There are many theories as to why a generation across the West — the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and beyond — decided to abandon the Judeo-Christian codes of sexual morality that had been the standard, to one extent or another, for well over a thousand years. It may have been the fact that a generation who had survived the Great Depression and fought World War II tried too hard to ensure that their children had everything, and literally spoiled them. It may have been the fact that official religion had not fared well through two world wars and its association with nationalism, and that Christianity was less and less a part of people’s personal lives. It could be that the Vietnam War, with the US government drafting young people who wanted no part in it and sending them off to fight in the jungles a world away, was the final straw in an already stirring rebellion against authority that galvanized the Left across the Anglosphere. In all probability, it was a combination of all of these and more. But whatever it was, it changed everything for everyone.

A young man named Hugh Hefner led the charge, launching Playboy in December 1953, the first step in mainstreaming pornography. He had been inspired by the work of Alfred Kinsey, writing later that, “If Kinsey had done the research, I was the pamphleteer, spreading the news of sexual liberation through a monthly magazine.” Hefner married in 1949, but the marriage did not last long as he began to live out the “liberation” he championed. He separated from his wife in 1956 — according to biographer Steven Watts, their marriage had been marked by Hefner’s hedonism: “wife-swapping (Hefner slept with his sister-in-law), bisexuality, orgies, homemade porn films and serial affairs … Hefner had a bedroom next to his office and had taken to wearing his pyjamas to meetings as the boundaries between work and pleasure broke down.” His divorce was finalized in 1959, and Hefner soon publicly advertised himself as the playboy embodied by his magazine.

In short order, Playboy faced even cruder competitors as Penthouse and Hustler emerged, abandoning the veneer of sophistication Hefner tried to maintain for Playboy and selling precisely what the customers were looking for: Raw, crude, and unattached sex. After all, everyone knew that no one bought Playboy for the articles — that was a joke that everyone was in on.

With the lid of Pandora’s Box irreparably twisted from its hinges, pornography began to seep in everywhere — and women disinterested in visual porn began to drive a market for new obscenities. Novels like 1972’s The Flame and the Flower and 1974’s Sweet Savage Love, sex-drenched novels with graphic rape descriptions, sold millions of copies, the precursors to the soon-to-be booming Harlequin “romance” industry and the 50 Shades of Grey craze. It’s hard to discern whether or not these books were so popular because of changing attitudes on sexuality, or if these novels were part of the cultural engine changing those attitudes in the first place. Whatever the case, polls soon highlighted the fact that while Kinsey may have had to lie in the early 50’s about American attitudes towards sex, Kinsey’s prophetic deceits were becoming a reality of American life.

With the invention and dissemination of the birth control pill aiding the process, sexual promiscuity exploded into North American life. In his brilliant history How We Got Here, subtitled The 70’s: The Decade That Brought You Modern Life — For Better or for Worse, author David Frum lays out just how swiftly views on sex were transformed:

“As late as 1972, when the National Opinion Research Center first began probing male and female sexual attitudes, a solid majority of American women condemned premarital sex as immoral … only 20 percent said that premarital sex was ‘not wrong at all’; almost twice as many men, 35 percent, did so …
Between 1970 and 1980, those lingering inhibitions flew straight out the window. Feminists like Germaine Greer championed promiscuity as a means to break women’s ‘doglike’ devotion to men, and the young women of the 1970s listened and obeyed. More than two-thirds of the women who turned 18 between the end of the Korean War and the Kennedy inauguration acknowledged sleeping with only one man as of their 30th birthday — their fiancĂ©e or husband, presumably …
Between 1972 and 1982, the proportion of American women who fully or conditionally endorsed premarital sex jumped by nearly 20 percentage points, to 58 percent, with fully 36 percent of women now espousing the ultra-permissive view that premarital sex was ‘not wrong at all.’ Tentatively at first, but with rising confidence, women were claiming unrestricted erotic freedom. Their parents sighed and shrugged their shoulders. In 1967, 85 percent of the parents of college-age young people condemned premarital sex as morally wrong; by 1979, only 37 percent of parents still held out against the trend of the times.”
Those numbers have not improved, and in our society today, the very idea that sex would be confined to a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is considered quaint and outdated, if not dangerous and “repressive.” Overt sexuality is virtually everywhere — as with all revolutions, the carpet-baggers and the profiteers were the first to show up. As corporations realized that “free love” was on the “free market,” they began to utilize sex as the most powerful tool in their arsenal.

It’s impossible not to read “The Playboy Philosophy,” which Hefner published in 25 different installments in his magazine beginning in 1962, and not see Hefner as two things: A libertine prophet, or a brilliant marketer who sensed that the times were changing and decided to cash in big. Hefner had grown up in a home of Nebraska Methodists, and this home left him feeling very “repressed,” as he later told interviewers. Hefner even claimed to be a descendent of the great Puritan leader William Bradford, who came to America on the Mayflower and served as the governor of Plymouth Colony for nearly half a century. In contrast to the life of that great man, once Hefner got rid of his first wife and children, he dispensed with everything that repressed him and anything that prevented him from living precisely as he wanted to. By his own estimates, he slept with over 1,000 women.

While Hefner shared some goals with the radical feminists who were emerging at the same time — legal abortion and sexual liberation, for example — they were also mortal enemies. Hefner’s empire showcased women as sex objects, and his Playboy Clubs came under especially heavy fire when Gloria Steinem, who would later achieve iconic status as a feminist leader, went undercover as a Playboy Bunny and wrote a scathing article describing the painfully tight uniforms designed to expose the bodies of the girls for the customers, the crudeness of the men who came to leer at the Bunnies, and the brutally long hours. Hefner hated her, and he saw feminism as a threat to the Playboy Philosophy.

That should come as no surprise. Hefner’s carefully cultivated image of a carefree bachelor living the high life disguises the ugliness and cruelty of his beliefs and his actions. Linda Lovelace, a woman forced into pornography by her abusive husband, revealed that Hefner was fascinated by bestiality and demanded to see her with a dog. His magazine ran columns by the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which seeks to mainstream pedophilia. Hefner himself was accused by girls of molestation and statutory rape, and his magazine presented rape victims as hysterical and unreliable — which was perhaps Hefner’s way of discrediting his own victims.

Despite the Playboy Philosophy, Hefner did get married twice after abandoning his first wife. He married Kimberly Conrad, the Playmate of the Year, in 1989, divorcing her in 2010. He told one journalist that the pleasures of marriage came mostly “from other women.” And in 2012, he married Crystal Harris, a girl who was a full 60 years younger than himself. Ms. Harris is now Hefner’s presumably beleaguered widow.

It is perhaps an irony that Hefner suffered the same adverse effects as millions of others who would become hooked on the product he helped bring into the mainstream. As I wrote in a column three years ago, Hugh Hefner actually became sexually dysfunctional, unable to perform without pornography even when he was with beautiful women:

In her emotionally mauling book Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, researcher Gail Dines writes how the infamous TV show “The Girls Next Door,” which started in 2005, “provides a sanitized version of life at the Playboy mansion, never showing the reality of the experiences for the young women who live and sleep with 83-year-old Hefner.”

Perhaps most revealingly, she points out how Izabella St James, one of Hefner’s ‘ex-girlfriends,’ has written that while Hefner would often have unprotected sex with multiple women, he could not reach sexual completion without using pornography and stimulating himself. 

Like a thirsty man guzzling salt water, Hefner had his choice of beautiful women to sleep with, but it did not satisfy him and it did not make him happy. The Sexual Revolution he helped to market for nearly a generation has spawned results that Hefner himself could not even have imagined: Porn-induced erectile dysfunction, which he was himself familiar with, the metastasizing of pornography from the Playboy centerfolds to the brutal gonzo porn that has now taken over the mainstream and created a violent new ideology of sex, and pandemic rates of sexually transmitted diseases that the Center for Disease Control believes will continue to rise if nothing is done.

Hefner sold the bodies of women for a living, and now female bodies have become a commodity, with sexual exploitation at an all-time high. In spite of the “liberation” he championed and defended, children and adults are less happy and more depressed than they were 50 years ago. It seems that many people have realized the hard way that when you live the Playboy Philosophy, somebody has to get hurt. Hefner could live the lifestyle, but he had to get rid of his first wife and leave his children to do so. He liberated himself from his own responsibilities, and persuaded millions of other men to do the same. All revolutions have collateral damage, and in all revolutions some civilians get hurt. But the catastrophe of Hefner’s Sexual Revolution will be felt for generations: Fifty million pre-born children aborted, marriages smashed or abandoned, millions of children growing up in broken homes, rates of porn addiction that have crippled a generation of men, and a hypersexualized society that uses the bodies of girls and women to sell nearly every product on the market. The destruction and the carnage are nearly unfathomable.

Hugh Hefner has died, and we do not rejoice in his death. But as the old man breathed his last in the decaying Playboy Mansion where he lived his life of selfishness and greed, we can only mourn for the millions of broken lives and countless victims he leaves in his wake.

original article
Please share this.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Will Petrus Romanus soon replace Pope Francis as the final pope?


In the 6-minute video shown below, author Tom Horn explains why Pope Francis might not be the one who fulfills St. Malachy’s 878-year-old prophecy, which foretold specific details of each of the final 112 Popes, concluding with Petrus Romanus, which means Peter the Roman, who will be serving as Pope when Rome is destroyed and God judges His people.
Malachy wrote the following prophecy about the 112th Pope.
“In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.” (see the complete post)
In 2011, Tom Horn accurately predicted the 2012 resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Pope. Pope Francis replaced him, taking office on March 13, 2013. Everyone agrees Pope Benedict XVI was the 111th Pope since Malachy’s prophecy. So, Pope Francis appears to be the 112th, the one who must fulfill the prophecy. However, Tom Horn believes Pope Francis is not the one.
“I believe Pope Francis was not canonically elected. I believe some hanky-panky went on in the conclave. In fact, I think that has something to do with why he picked St. Francis of Assisi as his namesake. His real name is Bergoglio, as you know, because Francis of Assisi prophesied about the final Pope and he said he will not be canonically elected. Now that means that he’s a placeholder for reasons that we can’t quite figure out, but I believe he’s either going to be removed from office or he’s going to step down like Benedict did, soon. And the guy that comes up to take his place is actually going to be the real Pope 112 by election, Petrus Romanus.
The people that actually… some of the Cardinals that voted for Pope Francis now want him to step down. They’ve published this. It’s in the news. They want him to step down and they want him to be replaced by the Secretary of State at the Vatican whose name literally means Petrus Romanus, Peter the Roman.”
The Vatican’s current Secretary of State, commonly known as the Cardinal Secretary of State, is Pietro Parolin, shown in the photo above with President Obama. Parolin seems to be a better fit for the title of Peter the Roman than Pope Francis for several reasons.
  • First, his real name is Pietro, which is Italian for Petrus (Latin) or Peter (English). I was unable to find the definition of Parolin.
  • Second, unlike Pope Francis, who is a native of Argentina, Parolin is a native of Italy, which makes him a better fit to be called Peter the Roman.
  • Third, Parolin is currently 62 years old, 18 years younger than Pope Francis which makes him more likely to live long enough to fulfill St. Malachy’s prophecy of being in office during the destruction of Rome. At age 80, it seems like a stretch for Pope Francis to live long enough to fulfill the prophecies.
If Tom Horn is correct about Pope Francis being replaced by Pietro Parolin, and if the final Pope is the second beast identified in Revelation 13, also known as the False Prophet, then it would appear Pope Francis has only been preparing the way for the one who comes after him, which fits two prophecies I posted two years ago. The first one is from Brian Carn:
“Pope Francis will have a health scare, but he will be fine. Pope Francis is being maligned, but he is not the one to worry about…it’s the next Pope that comes into office who will do very dark things. Be very prayerful about this.” (see the complete post)
The second one is from Pastor Benjamin Faircloth of Ignited Church in Lavonia, GA:
“Pope Francis will die and his successor will make way for the rising and appearance of the antichrist and his unholy spirit that shall increase and manifest throughout the earth. I do not know if this is a literal death or him resigning as Pope. I do know out of his own mouth he said he had 2-3 years left before he goes to the Father’s house.” (see the complete post)


Please share this.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

American Pravda, New York Times: Slanting the News and a Bizarre Comey Connection



Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT Video, Says the Times Slants Anti-Trump News to the Front Page, "Oh, we always do."

Claims to Be "Gatekeeper" for New York Times Videos: "My imprint is on every video we do."

Worked for Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Campaigns

Admits He Won't Be Objective, "That's why I'm here [at the NYT]."

NYT Ethical Handbook: "Journalists... must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times."

Says Former FBI Director James Comey Is His Godfather, "I should have recused myself"

Dudich's Family Members Deny Comey Claim

Continuation of American Pravda Series Which Began With CNN Videos

(NEW YORK) - Project Veritas has released a video of the New York Times video gatekeeper Nicholas Dudich, who was caught on hidden-camera boasting of his lack of journalistic ethics. Dudich, who serves as Audience Strategy Editor, displays a lack of integrity throughout the video, manages videos which go "on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram" for the Times.
While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's why I'm here."
Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."
Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:
"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...

"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."
When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."
As stated in the NYT Ethical Handbook, the goal of the New York Times is to "cover the news as impartially as possible." It continues in Section 62:
"Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times."
Before working at the Times, Dudich worked on the political campaigns of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:
"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do video... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."
He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."
Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn't going to change."
Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.
"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."
"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time."
"Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if they can keep me on."
According to the NYT Ethical Handbook, Section 107:
"Staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgements about them."
His father claims that the family does not know Comey. "Yeah, he's embellishing. I don't know why he would say that... Yeah, I don't know why... he's not James Comey's godson. I don't even know James Comey."
When told that his father said he doesn't know Comey, Dudich changes his story:
Dudich: "He's not my Godfather."

Undercover Journalist: "Then why did you say that?"

Dudich: "Eh, I don't know... It's a good story."
"The fact remains that Nick Dudich lies and he's a gatekeeper at the New York Times." says Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe, "And that fact should be worrisome to the bosses at the paper of record. Who else are they letting spread misinformation in their name?
This is a continuation of Project Veritas's American Pravda series, which began with a three-part expose on CNN in June.

To contribute by mail, please send your check to:
Project Veritas, 1214 W Boston Post Road No. 148, Mamaroneck, NY 10543.

If you'd like to contribute via PayPal please scroll down and select the PayPal button.

If you're having any issues making your contribution, or if you're interested in either a stock gift or an estate gift, please contact Adam Guillette at aguillette@projectveritas.com


https://breaking.projectveritas.com/NYTimes1.html
Please share this.

Monday, October 9, 2017

Guns In America

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments!!

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun." The democrats want it and need it to bring Socialism to America!


Please share this.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Jimmy Kimmel Targeted by Street Artist Sabo

"Sabo" created posters of Kimmel looking like a young Johnny Depp from the 1990 movie, 'Cry-Baby.'


It's inevitable that late-night comedians who have become increasingly partisan in the President Trump era would earn the ire of conservatives, one of whom took his complaint to the streets early Thursday morning. His target: Jimmy Kimmel.

The conservative, an artist who goes by the moniker, "Sabo," created posters of Kimmel looking like a young Johnny Depp from the 1990 movie, Cry-Baby.

"Jimmy Kimmel is a Cry-Baby," reads the text above an image of Kimmel, greasy hair slicked back, clad in a leather jacket. Sabo posted about a dozen of the posters in tough-to-reach places near Kimmel's home in West Hollywood near the famed Chateau Marmont Hotel. Others were posted near the Jimmy Kimmel Live! studio on Hollywood Boulevard.

Other posters show Kimmel wiping a tear from his face and advertise a faux show called The Jimmy Kimmel Estrogen Hour, which Sabo says he created as an homage, sort of, to the days when Kimmel co-hosted The Man Show with Adam Carolla.

The artwork showed up early Thursday morning largely on bus-stop benches, as would ads for a real TV show. Kimmel was unavailable for comment.

Sabo has been chastising liberal Hollywood for years with his street art. His website includes degrading images of Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jon Stewart, Gwyneth Paltrow and more.

"We allow Jimmy Kimmel into our homes because at one point we considered him to be entertaining," said Sabo. "Now he's nothing more than a talking head for the Democrat party."


Please share this.

Sunday, October 1, 2017

"They Won't Know What Hit Them" Shocking Undercover Footage Exposes Antifa's "Premeditated" Violence

As if the public needed any more evidence that violence is a central part of Antifa’s mission, conservative comedian Steve Crowder has published footage that he and his producer surreptitiously recorded after infiltrating a local Antifa cell and accompanying it to a protest at the University of Utah.

The shockingly candid footage offers a disturbing glimpse into the innerworkings of Antifa - a loosely organized band of far-left agitators - and the central tenant of violent resistance that encapsulates the group's philosophy. The footage primarily focuses on a transgender woman, the purported leader of a small cell of Antifa protesters, who can be heard telling Crowder's producer that she’s armed with a handgun, and that she expects reinforcements to arrive later with “two AKs”. The organizer can also be heard recommending that Crowder’s producer buy a small blade at a military surplus store and strap it to his ankle “just in case.”

What they show appears to confirm that the group protesters were planning to disrupt a speaking event hosted by conservative commentator and Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro, whom Antifa has accused of being a nazi despite the fact that he is Jewish. Shapiro's recent appearances at UC Berkeley and other university campuses drew protests, with demonstrators labeling him a “fascist.”

But perhaps the most surprising thing about the footage was the fact that mainstream media reporters AND police essentially told Crowder & Co. to get lost when they shared it with them.



In another shocking excerpt, the Antifa leader – whom Crowder didn’t name because he said he didn’t want to “dox” anybody, though he added that police have confirmed that they have been monitoring her – described a plan to lure right-wing demonstrators to a secluded area where, presumably, they would be attacked by Antifa.
“Plain clothes, hard tactics, I don’t think they’ll know what hit them. Because they’re not prepared for what we’re planning,” the organizer says at one point.
In the video, another unnamed Antifa member who goes by the pseudonym Clark can be heard explaining that the difference between Antifa and other activist groups is a “willingness to respond with violence.”

As we’ve reported time and time again, Antifa protesters have been inciting violence across the country since Trump’s upset victory in November, beginning with protests during Trump’s inauguration that quickly turned violent in destructive.

According to Fox 13 News in Salt Lake City, Crowder published the undercover video Thursday that purports to show far left-wing protesters distributing weapons ahead of the speech. Crowder’s production team presented the video to police moments after it was recorded.
Yet after evaluating the video, the police determined that there was no credible threat.
“Police looked at the video, evaluated other information available to them, and determined the individuals did not pose a credible threat that warranted action,” Nelson told Fox 13 News.
Similarly violent clashes instigated by members of the far-left group erupted on the campus of UC Berkeley in early February, where members of the group hurled Molotov cocktails and attacked “facists” and “nazis” who were attending a speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos, causing extensive property damage on campus.

While both the mainstream media and more mainstream leftists initially defended the group, public sentiment has soured on the group.

Several media organizations – including the LA Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal – have criticized the group’s violent tactics. A month ago, it was reported that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security classified Antifa as a "domestic terrorist" group in internal communications that described them as "primary instigators of violence at public rallies" going back to at least April 2016 when the reports were first published."

Please share this.

A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, September 30, 2017



TOPICS:
Please share this.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome


This guy draws an interesting comparison between feminism in ancient Rome and present day America, and how the rise of feminism portends a civilization’s collapse. The parallels are chilling. Yeah, it’s Reddit, waddaya want from me? You think you’re gonna get this kind of cutting edge analysis in the New York Beta Times?
Unfortunately, feminism and future is an oxymoron (or fortunately, depending on your point-of-view), as it seems to be unsustainable on the long run.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the Roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):
  • ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

  • ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

  • ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

  • ~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.

  • ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts “selling” parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the “Emperor has no clothes”, and overrun and pillage the Empire.

  • humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.
Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today’s commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a “moral breakdown” figuratively represented in the Bible as the “Tower of Babel” (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!
You might say Roman cultural elites experienced Robin Hanson’s switch from a farmer to a forager society. How’d that turn out for everyone?

Let’s examine the parallels more closely.

~5 century BC Rome = ~1700 – 1920 America. The family unit is essentially “father knows best”, and slutting around by women is considered the height of shameful behavior, (as is cadding about by men). Monogamy is held up as the ideal arrangement without exception. (The “Wild West” might be an exception to the general rule of the day, as whoring and hell-raising were widespread in the frontier.) Lessers look up to their betters as exemplars of moral rectitude.

~1 century BC Rome = ~1920 – 1970 America. America is rising to the height of her power, a hyperpower being born. An economic and military power heretofore unseen in all recorded history. While the world digs out from under the rubble of consecutive wars and Communist pogroms, we have a battalion of aircraft carriers, a largely homogeneous population, and cheap housing for everyone willing to put in an honest day’s work. But the poison pill has been swallowed; the suffrage movement achieves its main goal, and the dark shroud of the equalist era is about to descend. In academic halls and classrooms, lessers are pedestalized, while betters are denigrated.

~1-2 century AD Rome = 1970-2000 America. The scourge of single momhood, free and easy divorce, child support laws, majority female colleges, DADT repealed, gay marriage, game, etc etc ad infinitum. In short, the ultimate expression of anti-discrimination, anti-received wisdom, individualist ideology, (ironically buttressed by the groupthink of diversity mongers.) Lessers ignore their betters, who in turn renege on their traditional responsibility to act as examples for the lessers.

~3-4 century AD Rome = 2000-2010 America. (You’ll notice America’s progression through the stages of empire is much faster than was Rome’s. This is the blessing — or curse — of high tech mass communication.) The native stock of America, (specifically, the betters of that stock), have stopped having kids. Vice and corruption are on the rise. (See: Chicago, CRA, Goldman Sachs, neocon lies, Enron, Madoff… I could go on.) Economic and political instability are the order of the day. While America’s presidents aren’t being assassinated, our elections have been nailbiters since 2000, and partisanship is at a fevered pitch. A reborn religion called Islam threatens to co-opt the sympathies of Western societies’ rootless rejects and masculinized women. Except for the thinnest upper class slice, betters now ape the habits of their lessers.

~5 century Rome = present day America. America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet. Massive debt and financial chicanery is practically enshrined in law. The army is less and less filled with the demographic slice of American citizens that used to make up its ranks. Mercenaries (UN peacekeepers, bribed warlords, arm-twisted allies, recent unassimilated immigrants, and the desperate, poor and out of shape) now make up a larger part of the tip of the spear that projects American power. America is in the process of slow-motion selling off of the Southwest to appease the millions of peasant illegals it cavalierly allowed to invade and settle in the country.

The Fall of Rome = ? America.

America is having her Tower of Babel moment, and the elites applaud it when they aren’t dithering over tax code arcana or the cultural impact of snarky late night TV hosts. These parallels with Rome’s fall should make you feel queasy about the future of this nation. But you’ll quickly push aside those depressing thoughts and switch on for another lightning round of Call of Duty, figuring it’s not your problem. Until it is. Do you feel lucky, punk?


Please share this.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Stone-age Europeans 'were the first to set foot on North America'

Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, new archaeological evidence suggests. 

  

In a discovery that could rewrite the history of the Americas, archaeologists have found a number of stone tools dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, and bearing remarkable similarities to those made in Europe.

All of the ancient implements were discovered along the north-east coast of the USA.
The tools could reassert the long dismissed and discredited claim that Europeans in the form of Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first to discover the New World.
Previous discoveries of tools have only been dated back to 15,000 years ago and prompted many archaeologists and historians to question claims that stone-age man managed to migrate to North America.
But the striking resemblance in the way the primitive American tools were made to European ones dating from the same period now suggests a remarkable migration took place.

Adding to the weight of evidence is fresh analysis of stone knife unearthed in the US in 1971 that revealed it was made of French flint.

Professor Dennis Stanford from Washington's Smithsonian Institution, and Professor Bruce Bradley from Exeter University believe that the ancient Europeans travelled to North America across an Atlantic frozen over by the Ice Age.

During the height of the Ice Age, ice covered some three million square miles of the North Atlantic, providing a solid bridge between the two continents. Plentiful numbers of seal, penguins, seabirds and the now extinct great auk on the edge of the ice shelf could have provided the stone-age nomads with enough food to sustain them on their 1,500-mile walk.

"Across Atlantic Ice", a book by professors Stanford and Bradley presenting the case for the trans-Atlantic trek, has been published.
 
Please share this.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Caught On Tape: Reporter Assaulted Live On Air During Humanitarian Refugee Story

If you happen to be visiting Rome, Italy anytime soon (or pretty much any Western European country), then you may want to come prepared with pepper spray or other self defense tools, because as you’ll see in the video below, peaceful refugees looking to culturally enhance Europe aren’t always as friendly as you may think.
Italian television correspondent Francesca Parisella was doing a live broadcast about the plight of refugees at the central train station in Rome, when she and her camera crew were attacked by migrants who had sought shelter for the night.
Ms. Parisella was able to find safety with a Taxi driver who happened to be in the area, but the cameraman was not so lucky. According to reports, he was beaten and his camera destroyed:
Google Translated From Il Giornale Via Vlad Tepes:

Just as Nicola Porro connects at around 23.30, with his post at Rome Termini Station, to document the situation of the bivouacs that populate her at night, Francesca Parisella has the time to start the connection and then warn “we have been assaulted “. The room swings, it is understood that the journalist and operator are fleeing, and the voice of the chronicler rises up to become a real scream of fear. A few minutes later, studio studio explains that “Francesca is upset but she is okay, they have destroyed the camera and hacked the operator.” One like that of this evening It should not be a reportage in the war zone. “Thanks to a taxi driver, if not It would be much worse. ” A version confirmed by Parisella himself, on the phone, shortly afterwards: “We were away to tell what kind of hospitality we can give, are bothered and attacked. They rushed me and taken to my jacket,” the reporter said.

Watch:


Such scenes are now playing out regularly in once quiet, peaceful and crime free areas of Europe. While politicians and the mainstream media either downplays or completely ignores such reports, the fact is that the cultural enrichment being forecibly injected into Europe is leading to increased sexual attacks, violent assaults and large-scale terrorist attacks. In fact, it’s so scary for citizens of the countries accepting refugees that Germany actually sold out of pepper spray and Europeans have been scrambling to acquire self defense firearms.
While the common denominator is clearly the influx of immigrants from countries that are so culturally and religiously different from Europe that there is simply no way a peaceful assimilation is possible, anyone who dares mention the reality of the situation is branded a racist, a nationalist or a fear monger. In fact, in Germany, you can now be arrested and have your children taken from you by the government if you criticize refugees – that’s how bad it’s gotten.
One Angry Foreigner had enough and took to the airwaves to explain how mass migration has led to fear and crisis across Sweden:
t appears that all over the world, most notably in present-day Western Europe, immigrants from countries with completely different world views and legal perceptions are moving in and pushing their agendas on the natives, often with full support from their elected representatives and their media mouthpieces.

In an incredibly insightful opinion piece from an Angry Foreigner living in Sweden, we learn that it’s not just Americans who are fed up with the political correctness being forced upon the people by politicians, feminists, cultural groups, and immigrants themselves.

As you watch the video you’ll no doubt notice some key parallels between Europe and the United States. For all intents and purposes you could swap out the word “Swedes” for “Americans” and the points being made still ring true.
I have never come across a country where nationalism is one of the biggest taboos… to the point where it’s considered to be racism.

Because if you love your own country and your own culture the most then you don’t love other peoples’ as much and that’s not equal. That’s not progressive.

Nationalism is only ugly when Swedes express it.

When immigrants express a desire, a will to preserve their identity and their culture then it’s charming because, remember, they are the ones with the culture… not the Swedes.
Watch the full video:
 
Please share this.