Aaron Russo was an American entertainment businessman, film producer and director, and political activist. He was best known for producing such movies as Trading Places, Wise Guys, and The Rose. More importantly, later in life he became a staunch libertarian, and created a number of political documentaries including Mad as Hell and America: Freedom to Fascism. On 14 February 2004 (his 61st birthday), Mr Russo gave his full endorsement to the Free State Project, an agreement among 20,000 participants to move to New Hampshire for "Liberty in Our Lifetime."
In January of 2004, Mr Russo declared his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, initially as an independent but then as a Libertarian. At the Libertarian National Convention in May of that year, he lost the nomination on the third ballot. Click here to watch his speeches and other appearances at the convention on C-SPAN.
In 2007, Aaron Russo created the political grassroots organization, Restore the Republic, to fulfill the political ambitions laid out in America: Freedom to Fascism. Shortly before his death from bladder cancer, later that year, he gave an in-depth interview to Alex Jones, to "try and get the word out to the public about what's happening to America -– and give them an opportunity to try to change things."
This short video (10:40) is a montage of clips from the interview, in which Mr Russo shares some amazing insider knowledge given to him by a member of the Rockefeller family who told him -- prior to 9/11 -- of plans to stage terror attacks and start an unwinnable "war on terror", invade foreign nations, and kickstart a high-tech police state control grid that would track the populations' every move with implantable RFID microchips. You will hear him talk about the Council on Foreign Relations, globalization, the plan for a world currency, and even women's lib -- all part of a plot by (((certain people))) to enslave us to the New World Order.
A vote of thanks -- while we can still vote! -- to Agent 6 for putting us on the track to this must-see item.
Further viewing: Click here to see Reflections And Warnings - An Interview With Aaron Russo, the full film (1:35:45) of the interview PLUS behind the scenes footage, an exclusive interview with Mr Russo about his life, and radio interviews from the Alex Jones Show.
Showing posts with label women's lib. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's lib. Show all posts
Monday, November 13, 2017
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Sex crimes in the military and police: Walt has the solution
Interesting to watch the chiefs of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard testifying about the sex crimes scandals in front of a Senate committee yesterday. They were flanked by countless underlings, all in dress uniform. Why, there was more salad in that room yesterday than on the buffet at the Willard.
The military chiefs were shocked, shocked to learn of the 10s of 1000s of cases of sexual harrassment and assault -- meaning everything from ass-grabbing to violent rape -- reported every year. Not to mention an equal or higher number which are not reported for fear of retribution or at least diminution of mililtary career prospects.
They were more shocked to hear that the rate of conviction in cases brought before military tribunals is substantially lower than for similar prosecutions in civil courts. Worse yet, many commanders, for reasons known only to them, set aside convictions, leaving the guilty horndogs with not even a reprimand on their records.
If these were war crimes -- like the slaughter of innocent villagers in Afghanistan -- exonerating the perps would be Standard Operating Procedure, because war is hell. But we're talking about incidents at home in the USA, not in theaters of war. And we're talking about crimes committed by soldiers, sailors and airmen against female soldiers, sailors and, errr, well, you know what I mean.
Such criminal behaviour is not confined to the US military. It's the same in police forces too. Nor is the abuse and humiliation of women to be found only in America, where notions of "gender equality" are strongest. North of the border, the famous (or infamous) Royal Canadian Mounted Police are on the sharp end of a class action lawsuit alleging serious and persistent harrassment and abuse of female Mounties.
In all the testimony as to the reasons for these crimes and what should be done to the perps, one basic point has been overlooked. It falls to Walt to point out that the incidence of heterosexual rape and other sex crimes in the military was just about nil until the 1970s. That's because until the feminists started nagging for gender equality, there were virtually no women in regular units of the police and armed forces. Security and law enforcement was a man's world!
But, the bra-burners and wimmin's libbers insisted, whatever a man can do, a woman can do too! (Walt can think of one exception but that's a topic for another day.) Not only can do, but ought to do. Including combat duty in the war zones of Baghdad or Trenton NJ.
Some old-fashioned types (like Walt) said that if you put a few even moderately attractive women in the same barracks or shelter half with men who haven't had the "comforts of home" in months (and who are bullies by nature anyway, otherwise why would they be in uniform), there's bound to be sexual tension and sexual trouble. And that's exactly what happened.
So the solution is simple. If women want to be in the armed forces, put them in segregated units, as was done before. Keep them away from the men!
Then the guys can go back to having sex with each other, if they're desperate enough. It was good enough for the Royal Navy, which in the old days was said to "run on rum and buggery". And in today's PC world, no-one's going to make a fuss about homosexual rape.
Footnote: The soldiers in the picture are Israelis. They have been disciplined for posting this photo on Facebook. Walt supposes that if US wimmin soldiers looked like this (instead of like Ellen DeGeneres) the problem would be even worse!
The military chiefs were shocked, shocked to learn of the 10s of 1000s of cases of sexual harrassment and assault -- meaning everything from ass-grabbing to violent rape -- reported every year. Not to mention an equal or higher number which are not reported for fear of retribution or at least diminution of mililtary career prospects.
They were more shocked to hear that the rate of conviction in cases brought before military tribunals is substantially lower than for similar prosecutions in civil courts. Worse yet, many commanders, for reasons known only to them, set aside convictions, leaving the guilty horndogs with not even a reprimand on their records.
If these were war crimes -- like the slaughter of innocent villagers in Afghanistan -- exonerating the perps would be Standard Operating Procedure, because war is hell. But we're talking about incidents at home in the USA, not in theaters of war. And we're talking about crimes committed by soldiers, sailors and airmen against female soldiers, sailors and, errr, well, you know what I mean.
Such criminal behaviour is not confined to the US military. It's the same in police forces too. Nor is the abuse and humiliation of women to be found only in America, where notions of "gender equality" are strongest. North of the border, the famous (or infamous) Royal Canadian Mounted Police are on the sharp end of a class action lawsuit alleging serious and persistent harrassment and abuse of female Mounties.
In all the testimony as to the reasons for these crimes and what should be done to the perps, one basic point has been overlooked. It falls to Walt to point out that the incidence of heterosexual rape and other sex crimes in the military was just about nil until the 1970s. That's because until the feminists started nagging for gender equality, there were virtually no women in regular units of the police and armed forces. Security and law enforcement was a man's world!
But, the bra-burners and wimmin's libbers insisted, whatever a man can do, a woman can do too! (Walt can think of one exception but that's a topic for another day.) Not only can do, but ought to do. Including combat duty in the war zones of Baghdad or Trenton NJ.
So the solution is simple. If women want to be in the armed forces, put them in segregated units, as was done before. Keep them away from the men!
Then the guys can go back to having sex with each other, if they're desperate enough. It was good enough for the Royal Navy, which in the old days was said to "run on rum and buggery". And in today's PC world, no-one's going to make a fuss about homosexual rape.
Footnote: The soldiers in the picture are Israelis. They have been disciplined for posting this photo on Facebook. Walt supposes that if US wimmin soldiers looked like this (instead of like Ellen DeGeneres) the problem would be even worse!
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Same-sex "marriage" fine for some, not for Africa and Asia?
What can you say about a country that earlier this week had a grand total of $217 in its national bank? You can say that it's poor. You can say that its government is a kleptocracy. You can say that it must be in Africa. All those things are true of Comrade Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, last on the list of members of the Disunited Nations, and last on just about every other list you can think of.
Comrade Bob, however, doesn't care about how his country looks in the eyes of the rest of the world. He will go his own way, and the West and the rest be damned. And many of his subjects agree with him.
One thing "Bob's-your-uncle" is adamant about is the immorality of homosexuality. He goes way beyond the stance of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is nominally a member. The Church calls homosexuality "objectively disordered" but asks that gays be treated with understanding and compassion, and given pastoral help not to change their sexual orientation but to live with it in conformity to God's commandments.
Where that becomes difficult is in matters like same-sex "marriage". The Church, along with every other religion in the world, has always maintained that marriage is a solemn and sanctified bond between a man and a woman. It has been so since Adam and Eve. Until lately, that is.
Now we have the wimmin's libbers and gay activists clamouring for "equal rights", by which they mean licence to do whatever they damn well please, no matter what God or mere mortals may think, and no matter what damage is done to the fabric of society. Christianity is now so weak, and the LGBT agenda -- see WWW passim -- is being pushed so hard and so successfully that same-sex "marriage" is now legal in large parts of the so-called Christian world. (A better term would be "post-Christian West".)
The rest of the world -- Asia, the Middle East and Africa -- is different, and intends to remain so. You don't see people agitating for same-sex "marriage" in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Uganda or... wait for it... Zimbabwe.
In fact, Zimbabwe proposes to make same-sex "marriage" illegal! Its leaders -- not just Bob but leaders of the opposition -- have approved the draft of a new constitution, to be tabled in the Zimbabwean Parliament on February 8th.
According to an article in NewsDay, Section 4.78 of the draft, on marriage rights, prohibits forced marriages, marriages of people under the age of 18 and between people of the same sex.
One of the co-chairthingies of the drafting committee called the clause a clear statement that Zimbabwe does not condone homosexuality. Said Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana, "This is the first time we have this clause in our constitution.... There will be other legal instruments to enforce it, such as the Sexual Offences Act. It's clear sexual relationships between people of the same sex are prohibited."
Mugabe has long been a fierce critic of homosexuality. He has often criticised it as unAfrican and branded gays and lesbians as "worse than pigs and dogs". He has also said, as the Church says, that same-sex relationships are ungodly -- not according to God's law or natural law.
Douglas Mwonzora, the other co-chair, said homosexuality was a criminal offence in Zimbabwe, as it is in many other Asian and African countries. "The constitution cannot prescribe a crime, but the issue of homosexuality can be covered under the criminal law of sodomy," Mwonzora said. "Same-sex marriages are prohibited and homosexuality is a crime under the country's criminal laws."
What should Western "gay rights" campaigners and same-sex "marriage" advocates make of third-world opposition to their agenda? Are the countries where marriage is still just for men and women backward and uncivilized?
Once upon a time the Christian nations sent missionaries to places like Zimbabwe to preach the gospel which says that homosexual acts are evil. (See St. Paul's epistle to the Romans.) Should we now send missionaries to say that those who came a century ago were wrong, and that what was once regarded as evil is now to be not just tolerated but encouraged? Don't be surprised...
Comrade Bob, however, doesn't care about how his country looks in the eyes of the rest of the world. He will go his own way, and the West and the rest be damned. And many of his subjects agree with him.
One thing "Bob's-your-uncle" is adamant about is the immorality of homosexuality. He goes way beyond the stance of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is nominally a member. The Church calls homosexuality "objectively disordered" but asks that gays be treated with understanding and compassion, and given pastoral help not to change their sexual orientation but to live with it in conformity to God's commandments.
Where that becomes difficult is in matters like same-sex "marriage". The Church, along with every other religion in the world, has always maintained that marriage is a solemn and sanctified bond between a man and a woman. It has been so since Adam and Eve. Until lately, that is.
Now we have the wimmin's libbers and gay activists clamouring for "equal rights", by which they mean licence to do whatever they damn well please, no matter what God or mere mortals may think, and no matter what damage is done to the fabric of society. Christianity is now so weak, and the LGBT agenda -- see WWW passim -- is being pushed so hard and so successfully that same-sex "marriage" is now legal in large parts of the so-called Christian world. (A better term would be "post-Christian West".)
The rest of the world -- Asia, the Middle East and Africa -- is different, and intends to remain so. You don't see people agitating for same-sex "marriage" in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Uganda or... wait for it... Zimbabwe.
In fact, Zimbabwe proposes to make same-sex "marriage" illegal! Its leaders -- not just Bob but leaders of the opposition -- have approved the draft of a new constitution, to be tabled in the Zimbabwean Parliament on February 8th.
According to an article in NewsDay, Section 4.78 of the draft, on marriage rights, prohibits forced marriages, marriages of people under the age of 18 and between people of the same sex.
One of the co-chairthingies of the drafting committee called the clause a clear statement that Zimbabwe does not condone homosexuality. Said Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana, "This is the first time we have this clause in our constitution.... There will be other legal instruments to enforce it, such as the Sexual Offences Act. It's clear sexual relationships between people of the same sex are prohibited."
Mugabe has long been a fierce critic of homosexuality. He has often criticised it as unAfrican and branded gays and lesbians as "worse than pigs and dogs". He has also said, as the Church says, that same-sex relationships are ungodly -- not according to God's law or natural law.
Douglas Mwonzora, the other co-chair, said homosexuality was a criminal offence in Zimbabwe, as it is in many other Asian and African countries. "The constitution cannot prescribe a crime, but the issue of homosexuality can be covered under the criminal law of sodomy," Mwonzora said. "Same-sex marriages are prohibited and homosexuality is a crime under the country's criminal laws."
What should Western "gay rights" campaigners and same-sex "marriage" advocates make of third-world opposition to their agenda? Are the countries where marriage is still just for men and women backward and uncivilized?
Once upon a time the Christian nations sent missionaries to places like Zimbabwe to preach the gospel which says that homosexual acts are evil. (See St. Paul's epistle to the Romans.) Should we now send missionaries to say that those who came a century ago were wrong, and that what was once regarded as evil is now to be not just tolerated but encouraged? Don't be surprised...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Sex-selective abortion: there oughta be a law!
Yesterday, in "Mainstream media suddenly discover sex-selective abortion is wrong", Walt gave you links to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's very good investigative journalism piece on the use in Canada of "entertainment ultrasounds". Women of the Indo-Canadian and other Asian communities get tested as early as 14 weeks into their pregnancies so, if the fetus is female, they can kill it.
Am I speaking too plainly here? Monte Sonnenberg, a columnist for the QMI Agency, doesn't think so. Here, in its entirety, is his piece headed "Gender-specific abortion should be against the law", published earlier this week
The Harper government's willingness to address the defects of multiculturalism is one of its strong suits. This government is the first in decades to stand up for core Canadian values in the face of foreign customs that are at variance with them. At last, a cohesive Canada where integration is the rule--not the exception --enjoys priority.
Unfortunately, the vigilance we have come to expect from this government tends to focus on a common theme: the mistreatment of women. This government has spoken out against honour killings and oppressive dress codes that marginalize women. It also enforces laws against female genital mutilation. One of the compelling mandates that keeps Canada in Afghanistan is the horrid treatment of women there at the hands of primitive, barbaric men.
Now Ottawa faces a new challenge. Thanks to ultrasound technology, the medical profession today can tell the gender of unborn children early in a pregnancy. Responsible clinics refuse to divulge test results before the 20-week mark, which normally marks the closure of the window for elective abortions.
However, old ways die hard. Evidence is emerging that many ultrasound clinics are only too happy to release these results far in advance of the 20-week threshold. These clinics cater to new Canadians who hail from countries where the birth of a boy is cause for celebration while girls are often regarded as a burden. There have been reports of expectant mothers coerced into abortions on the basis of these test results. This is offensive and has to stop.
The feminist lobby has neutralized itself on this issue due to its all-in support for abortion on demand. Those who traditionally speak for women fear opening a floodgate if they speak up for unborn girls.
Someone needs to step into the breach. Only the federal government will do, for the situation calls for Criminal Code amendments to prohibit aiding and abetting gender-specific abortions. Something of the kind is urgently needed. No one likes to interfere with the internal workings of a family. But Canadians will not tolerate callous practices and attitudes that have given rise to ludicrous gender imbalances in some of the world's most populous nations.
Well said, Monte! If you agree with Monte (and Walt), write to your MP (if you're Canadian), and be sure to send a copy to Stephen Woodworth, Conservative MP for Kitchener Centre, who is fighting courageously to get the abortion issue back on the House of Commons order paper. The mailing address for all MPs is: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 -- and you don't need a stamp!
Further reading from Walt's previous posts: "In what way is Canada like India?", "Prime Minister calls abortion 'murder'"
Am I speaking too plainly here? Monte Sonnenberg, a columnist for the QMI Agency, doesn't think so. Here, in its entirety, is his piece headed "Gender-specific abortion should be against the law", published earlier this week
The Harper government's willingness to address the defects of multiculturalism is one of its strong suits. This government is the first in decades to stand up for core Canadian values in the face of foreign customs that are at variance with them. At last, a cohesive Canada where integration is the rule--not the exception --enjoys priority.
Unfortunately, the vigilance we have come to expect from this government tends to focus on a common theme: the mistreatment of women. This government has spoken out against honour killings and oppressive dress codes that marginalize women. It also enforces laws against female genital mutilation. One of the compelling mandates that keeps Canada in Afghanistan is the horrid treatment of women there at the hands of primitive, barbaric men.
Now Ottawa faces a new challenge. Thanks to ultrasound technology, the medical profession today can tell the gender of unborn children early in a pregnancy. Responsible clinics refuse to divulge test results before the 20-week mark, which normally marks the closure of the window for elective abortions.
However, old ways die hard. Evidence is emerging that many ultrasound clinics are only too happy to release these results far in advance of the 20-week threshold. These clinics cater to new Canadians who hail from countries where the birth of a boy is cause for celebration while girls are often regarded as a burden. There have been reports of expectant mothers coerced into abortions on the basis of these test results. This is offensive and has to stop.
The feminist lobby has neutralized itself on this issue due to its all-in support for abortion on demand. Those who traditionally speak for women fear opening a floodgate if they speak up for unborn girls.
Someone needs to step into the breach. Only the federal government will do, for the situation calls for Criminal Code amendments to prohibit aiding and abetting gender-specific abortions. Something of the kind is urgently needed. No one likes to interfere with the internal workings of a family. But Canadians will not tolerate callous practices and attitudes that have given rise to ludicrous gender imbalances in some of the world's most populous nations.
Well said, Monte! If you agree with Monte (and Walt), write to your MP (if you're Canadian), and be sure to send a copy to Stephen Woodworth, Conservative MP for Kitchener Centre, who is fighting courageously to get the abortion issue back on the House of Commons order paper. The mailing address for all MPs is: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 -- and you don't need a stamp!
Further reading from Walt's previous posts: "In what way is Canada like India?", "Prime Minister calls abortion 'murder'"
Monday, September 19, 2011
What happened to the Native Sons of Canada?
Agent 3 wrote that he was surprised that the Native Sons of Canada hadn't weighed in on current issues of multiculturalism, "Islamicization" (pace Steve Harper), Muslim prayers in the "public" schools, etc, ad nauseam. Since Walt wasn't familiar with that group, he checked it out on Google, and came up with this:
This organization...was incorporated in 1922. Its aims were to foster Canadian national spirit, the creation of a Canadian nationality, the adoption of a distinctly Canadian flag, and the abolition of such shackles on Canadian autonomy as appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It also urged the employment of Canadians by Canadians, and opposed Oriental immigration. It was, in fact, a nativist movement, somewhat less compromising than the "Canada First" movement of the seventies.... During recent years, with the partial achievement of some of its objects, its importance has somewhat declined.
Agent 3 says he (being almost as ancient as Walt) can remember the Native Sons campaigning hard on the flag and national anthem issues in the 60s. When the Liberal government of the day gave Canada the now-famous maple leaf flag, and gave official status to O Canada, over the objections of the Tories, the IODE, and the Orange Lodge, the Native Sons' work seemed to be done. And yes, it seemed that they faded into obscurity.
But there's more to the story. The Native Sons of Canada were, like Amos 'n' Andy in the USA, among the first victims of political correctness. Think about it...
The First Nations (formerly known as Indians) didn't like the appellation "native", saying that they, the aboriginal people, were the only true natives of Canada.
The wimmin didn't like "Sons" because that term is misogynistic, sexist and exclusionary.
Immigrants objected to "Sons of Canada" because it represented the policy of the Native Sons that only those born in Canada could become members. Someone born in London, England could be just as much of a Canadian nationalist as someone born in London, Ontario, they said.
And of course there was the predictable ranting, in the era of civil rights, that the Native Sons were anti-Semitic, anti-Negro (as African-Canadians were then called), and anti-French. (There was already an organization for the pure-laine canadiens. That would be the Société Jacques-Cartier, otherwise known as La Patente.)
Since the hippy-dippy 60s, it is politically incorrect to be anti-anything. We're supposed to be pro-everything, eh. Strength in diversity, multiculturalism is the future, and all that bullshit.
These days, supporting (publicly at least) the ideals of the Native Sons of Canada makes about as much sense in Canada as supporting the ideals of the White Citizens Council in the USA. So such organizations no longer exist. They have been silenced. But, as the Jesuits say, just because you've silenced a man doesn't mean you've converted him.
This organization...was incorporated in 1922. Its aims were to foster Canadian national spirit, the creation of a Canadian nationality, the adoption of a distinctly Canadian flag, and the abolition of such shackles on Canadian autonomy as appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It also urged the employment of Canadians by Canadians, and opposed Oriental immigration. It was, in fact, a nativist movement, somewhat less compromising than the "Canada First" movement of the seventies.... During recent years, with the partial achievement of some of its objects, its importance has somewhat declined.
Agent 3 says he (being almost as ancient as Walt) can remember the Native Sons campaigning hard on the flag and national anthem issues in the 60s. When the Liberal government of the day gave Canada the now-famous maple leaf flag, and gave official status to O Canada, over the objections of the Tories, the IODE, and the Orange Lodge, the Native Sons' work seemed to be done. And yes, it seemed that they faded into obscurity.
But there's more to the story. The Native Sons of Canada were, like Amos 'n' Andy in the USA, among the first victims of political correctness. Think about it...
The First Nations (formerly known as Indians) didn't like the appellation "native", saying that they, the aboriginal people, were the only true natives of Canada.
The wimmin didn't like "Sons" because that term is misogynistic, sexist and exclusionary.
Immigrants objected to "Sons of Canada" because it represented the policy of the Native Sons that only those born in Canada could become members. Someone born in London, England could be just as much of a Canadian nationalist as someone born in London, Ontario, they said.
And of course there was the predictable ranting, in the era of civil rights, that the Native Sons were anti-Semitic, anti-Negro (as African-Canadians were then called), and anti-French. (There was already an organization for the pure-laine canadiens. That would be the Société Jacques-Cartier, otherwise known as La Patente.)
Since the hippy-dippy 60s, it is politically incorrect to be anti-anything. We're supposed to be pro-everything, eh. Strength in diversity, multiculturalism is the future, and all that bullshit.
These days, supporting (publicly at least) the ideals of the Native Sons of Canada makes about as much sense in Canada as supporting the ideals of the White Citizens Council in the USA. So such organizations no longer exist. They have been silenced. But, as the Jesuits say, just because you've silenced a man doesn't mean you've converted him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)