9.13.2018

How America Became a Nation of Victims: Culture of Victimization & Personal Responsibility (1992)


(Link)
 
Published on Mar 10, 2014
 
Victim mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to think, speak and act as if that were the case - even in the absence of clear evidence. About the book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...

It depends on habitual thought processes and attribution.
Victim mentality is primarily learned, for example, from family members and situations during childhood. It contrasts with the psychologically better-researched traits of neuroticism and psychoticism, both of which have a stronger biological or genetic basis. Neuroticism may be defined as general emotional instability or a generally enhanced tendency to experience negative emotions. Psychoticism is characterized by hostility and aggression.

What victim mentality, neuroticism and psychoticism have in common is a relatively high frequency of negative emotional states such as anger, sadness and fear. But these three traits are also partially independent: for example a given individual may have a high degree of victim mentality and a low degree of neuroticism, in which case a clinical psychologist is unlikely to regard her or him as needing treatment. Conversely, a given individual may have a high degree of neuroticism and a low degree of victim mentality.

A victim mentality may manifest itself in a range of different behaviors or ways of thinking and talking:

Blaming others for a situation that one has created oneself or significantly contributed to. Failing or being unwilling to take responsibility for one's own actions or actions to which one has contributed or for taking action to ameliorate the situation.  Ascribing non-existent negative intentions to other people (similar to paranoia).

Believing that other people are generally or fundamentally luckier and happier ("Why me?").
Gaining short-term pleasure from feeling sorry for oneself or eliciting pity from others. Eliciting sympathy by telling exaggerated stories about bad deeds of other people (e.g. during gossip).
People with victim mentality may develop convincing and sophisticated arguments in support of such ideas, which they then use to convince themselves and others of their victim status.

People with victim mentality may also be generally:

negative, with a general tendency to focus on bad rather than good aspects of a situation. A glass that is half full is considered half empty. A person with a high standard of living complains about not having enough money. A healthy person complains of minor healthy problems that others would ignore (cf. hypochondria).

self-absorbed: unable or reluctant to consider a situation from the point of view of other people or to "walk a mile in their shoes".

defensive: In conversation, reading a non-existent negative intention into a neutral question and reacting with a corresponding accusation, hindering the collective solution of problems and instead creating unnecessary conflict.

categorizing: tending to divide people into "goodies" and "baddies" with no gray zone between them.
unadventurous: generally unwilling to take risks; exaggerating the importance or likelihood of possible negative outcomes.

exhibiting learned helplessness: underestimating one's ability or influence in a given situation; feeling powerless.

stubborn: tending to reject suggestions or constructive criticism from others who listen and care; unable or reluctant to implement the suggestions of others for one's own benefit.
self-abasing: Putting oneself down even further than others are supposedly doing.

A victim mentality may be reflected by linguistic markers or habits, such as pretending
not to be able to do something ("I can't..."),
not to have choices ("I must..."), or
not to know the answer to a question ("I don't know").

Victims of abuse and manipulation often get trapped into a self-image of victimization. The psychological profile of victimization includes a pervasive sense of helplessness, passivity, loss of control, pessimism, negative thinking, strong feelings of guilt, shame, self-blame and depression. This way of thinking can lead to hopelessness and despair.

Since victim mentality is primarily learned and not inborn, it is possible to change it. A change in attitude may be provoked by an extraordinary situation or crisis. Since rejecting suggestions is a general characteristic feature of victim mentality, a person with victim mentality will generally not respond positively to everyday attempts by another person to draw attention to the problem and its possible solution. For this reason, the condition may become chronic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_m...

8.27.2018

The Jacksonville Gamer Shooting Produces Instant Anti-Gun Narratives That Crumble Under Facts

From RedState

Posted at 12:10 pm on August 27, 2018 by Brad Slager



The rush to, yet again, politicize a tragedy, does not live up to the charges.

It is rather jarring – though no longer shocking – how quickly the agenda-rustlers can not only pivot on an issue but take an opposing stance, within the matter of days. Also precious is the way they manage to contradict themselves within the narrative of a single issue.

This past week we were faced with a pair of tragedies, murders that not only pierced the emotional nerve of the country but landed at the front of the political spectrum as well. First we learned of the discovery of the body of long-missing Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts. She was murdered at the hands of a migrant farm worker who is an undocumented resident alien/illegal immigrant.

This was followed by the shock of a shooting in Jacksonville at a video game competition staged at an area mall. A participant decided to reenter the restaurant staging the competition and shot numerous patrons. Along with numerous wounded victims three are reportedly dead, including the shooter, who reportedly took his own life.

Of course in these type of news scenarios we have become conditioned to the reflexive social outrage to immediately follow. In the Tibbetts case the battleground was established between those repeating the call to enforce immigration legislation and those declaring we not politicize the tragedy. Of course those on the left had to contort in order to make their case.

The need to steer from the immigrant issue, because that is President Trump’s signature issue, took many forms, but the common refrain was we could not impugn a wide swath of people with the actions of an individual. CNN fixture, Symone Sanders, took a tortuous route to deflect away from the issue. She attempted to state that the killing had nothing to do with immigration, and was instead a result of toxic masculinity.  

The obliviousness needed to spout this fractured theorem is possibly unable to be measured. For one, how exactly could the killer be said to be a product of our toxic culture when he was not even from this country?! When he was being initially charged with the murder his lawyer tried to claim this illegal resident was an “All American Boy”. It becomes a most laughable claim when that particular praise had to be translated to the killer in order for him to hear it. He was incapable of ever learning our language, yet we are told he somehow absorbed our culture’s hateful stance towards women. Sure.

Further invalidating herself Sanders was declaring it is wrong to “Characterize an entire community based off the actions of one person.” However she had absolutely no issue in stating that an entire gender can be blamed for the murder of a young Iowan co-ed.

Yes, the rush to politicize these deaths, from either side of the aisle, is distasteful. Unfortunately we are in that space as a society where a segment of citizens feels these are the proper times to soapbox their views. And when news broke of the shooting in Jacksonville broke so to did social media break out with pontificating, almost immediately. The difference was the roles were completely switched from the Tibbetts killing.

One other difference needs to be addressed. Following any shooting the reflexive call is for new laws, new restrictions, and new limits on our rights. That is maximizing leverage with a tragedy for a political gain. On the immigration outrage what you are hearing is the call for enforcement of current laws. While seemingly a minor distinction, it is actually a gulf between the two efforts.

Those from the side condemning the politicizing of deaths had no hesitation pronouncing the need for gun control, and some invoking the demonized National Rifle Association – which once again bore no connection whatsoever to the shooting event. Taken further many in the media are of course invoking Parkland, and the Pulse nightclub shooting, in their framing of this tragedy. Florida gun laws have been checked off, and the relevance to tomorrow’s primary votes is noted.

This is a bothersome practice, and I would desire to douse these hot takes with some inconvenient facts. To start, the shooting was done with a handgun, not a dreaded AR-style weapon. The mall where the shooting took place was a gun-free zone. Most important of all, the shooter was not a resident. Nothing, it seems, concerning this tragedy has any relevance to Florida legislation, yet the desire to make it relevant is blatant.

The shooter brought the gun down with him from his home in Baltimore. Maryland is a state with some of the tightest gun control laws, and the city of Baltimore has additional restrictions on owning guns. It becomes the kind of tangled web of facts that will diffuse a narrative quickly. The fallback of chalking this up to the violence of first-person shooter games cannot even be used; the tournament was for the Madden 2018 football video game.

Given Florida laws do not apply here, and the restrictive gun laws in Maryland/Baltimore did nothing to prevent this tragedy, this story is slated to evaporate rather quickly as a result. The knee-jerk reactionaries however get their echo chamber talking points into the news cycle with relative ease, nonetheless.

8.11.2018

What the Main Stream Media will not tell you

Training camp for child terrorists has chilling connection to top Democratic Party operative.

 
 

Siraj Ibn Wahhaj Jr., 40, of Clayton County, Georgia, was arrested along with his two sisters and two other adults last Friday in New Mexico on charges of felony child abuse for holding 11 starving children in an underground trailer hidden from view in a compound described as "overflowing" with weapons and ammunition.

But there is more to this story that is not appearing in the nightly news accounts we've all been following.

Nobody is talking about Wahhaj's well-connected father, Siraj Wahhaj Sr., a radical Brooklyn imam who is the spiritual adviser to Democratic Socialist and Bernie Sanders supporter Linda Sarsour.
The elder Wahhaj also has ties to the two most prominent U.S. Muslim organizations -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA -- and he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Sarsour, co-chair of the Women's March on Washington, has become the face of ISNA. She spoke at an ISNA conference in Chicago last summer in which she praised Wahhaj Sr. as her "favorite person" and called on U.S. Muslims to wage political jihad against the Trump administration. Since that time she has been working to elect far-left Democrats to public office such as Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez in New York, and Stacy Abrams in Georgia.

Siraj Wahhaj Jr., according to court documents, was training the malnourished kids to carry out school shootings. Essentially, it was a jihad training camp for child terrorists.

Clothed in rags and reduced to skeletons, the children were living with five adults at the compound in Taos County, a remote area of northern New Mexico. Police found the body of a toddler on the grounds which they believe to be that of Abdul-Ghani Wahhaj, the 3-year-old son of Wahhaj Jr. and grandson of Wahhaj Sr. According to court documents, Wahhaj Jr. also faces abduction charges for allegedly kidnapping his son from his mother's home in Georgia. While focused on the boys' military training, he neglected their basic needs while leaving them malnourished and living in horrific conditions described by police as "Third World."

But the media seems reticent to bring up this Muslim "extremist's" family's ties to Sarsour, a darling and rising star in the Democrat Party, as it tilts more to the extreme left to placate its base in the age of Trump. Nor are they posing the question: If Wahhaj Jr. holds "extremist" views, where did he get them from? Could it have been from his imam father?

Father schooled in Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia
The 40-year-old Wahhaj Jr. is the son of Siraj Wahhaj Sr., 68, a black Muslim convert who went on to become a well-known and politically-connected Saudi-trained imam. Wahhaj Sr. was an honored guest at the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House. He was the first Muslim to lead prayer at the U.S. House of Representatives in 1991. He once predicted in a widely available sermon that U.S. democracy would "crumble" and be conquered from within by Islam, and also said it is "our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran."

Wahhaj has called for death to all homosexuals and lesbians, citing Islamic law.
Wahhaj Sr., speaking at a fundraiser for the Benevolence International Foundation, said:
I pray Allah will bless us to raise an Army, and I'm serious about this. We were very close, recently. We had made intention to raise an army of 10,000 men in New York City. Muslim men to fight in the way of subhanahu wa ta'ala. And this is serious.
So this is the father of the guy who has a compound stocked with military-grade weapons and floor-to-ceiling ammunition in the remote New Mexico desert, where he was training young boys to fight in the way of Allah.

Wahhaj Jr. had lived near Atlanta in Clayton County and none of the information that led to his capture would have come to light were it not for the fact that one of his wives, Hakima Ramzi, filed a missing child report late last year regarding her 3-year-old son. Ramzi said her husband, Wahhaj Jr., took the boy to the park in Clayton County and never came back.

The local sheriff told New Mexico media his department had "suspicions" that Wahhaj and the boy were present at the compound in Taos, but they did not have enough evidence to get a warrant.
That didn't happen until last week, when someone inside the New Mexico compound got word to police that they were starving.

If Siraj Wahhaj Sr. is not already being investigated by the FBI for any possible knowledge of his son's criminal activities, we can only hope that such an investigation will be forthcoming.
It's not as if Wahhaj Sr. has a pristine reputation. He has already been linked in court documents to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and testified on behalf of the notorious "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted for masterminding the bombing.

Wahhaj Sr. also serves as the leading spiritual mentor to Sarsour, who last year called on Muslims to wage jihad against the Trump administration and exhorted them not to assimilate into U.S. society.
Sarsour last summer addressed the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA. She had glowing words for her "mentor," Siraj Wahhaj Sr., who was sitting in the audience:
And to my favorite person in this room, that’s mutual, is Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who has been a mentor, motivator, and encourager of mine. Someone who has taught me to speak truth to power, and not worry about the consequences. Someone who has taught me that we are on this earth to please Allah and only Allah, and that we are not here to please any man or woman on this earth. So I am grateful to you Imam Siraj, and you might think this is weird, but every once in a while, when I get into that deep dark place, Imam Siraj comes and talks to me. And he helps me to emerge out of those places, so I’m grateful to you Imam Siraj, and may Allah bless you and protect you for a long time for our community, because we need you now more than ever.
Wahhaj Sr. is known for his stridently anti-American views, a theme that Sarsour has parroted in her speeches, though the politicians who openly cavort with her are rarely called into question for associating with her.

"In time this so-called democracy will crumble and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam," Wahhaj Sr. said, according to a 2003 Wall Street Journal article.
Sarsour posted to her Facebook page (above) on March 5 a picture of herself with Siraj Wahhaj Sr. and CAIR leaders Dawud Walid and Nihad Awad, among others, at an anti-Trump protest rally in Washington, D.C. 

Sarsour was known as the de facto campaign manager for Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who finished second in the Democrat gubernatorial primary Tuesday, Aug. 7, in Michigan.

Sarsour has also endorsed the candidacy of Democrat primary winner Stacy Abrams for governor of Georgia, who had her picture made with Sarsour in January and tweeted "Proud to stand with activist organizer and @womensmarch national co-chair LSarsour."

Mideast scholar Daniel Pipes wrote in his book Militant Islam Reaches America that Wahhaj Sr. represents Muslims who both despise the United States and ultimately wish to transform it into a Muslim country."

Wahhaj Sr. grew up Jeffrey Kearse in a Baptist family. He converted to the Nation of Islam as a young man and later converted to orthodox Sunni Islam. In 1978, he attended a class in Naperville, Illinois, with 50 African-American Muslims consisting of 40 days of intense training on the Quran. He later traveled to Mecca for more training. He returned to the U.S. and started his own mosque in 1981 and has been, since the early 1990s, one of the most popular circuit-riding imams in the U.S., traveling around the country preaching hatred against America and Israel.
One of his more telling quotes, from a sermon, is as follows:
Islam is better than Democracy. Allah will cause his deen, Islam, to prevail over every kind of system. And you know what? It will happen.
Philip Haney, a retired Homeland Security investigator and author of the book "See Something, Say Nothing," said he wonders if the FBI has been tracking Wahhaj Jr. given the notorious activities of his father. And if there were, why didn't they raid the compound in New Mexico sooner?

Haney said he has been following the preaching career of Wahhaj Sr. closely for years.

"His father is definitely connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. ... This has been going on way too long when Siraj Wahhaj goes around the country preaching hatred and sharia law in our mosques," Haney said. "I've been tracking his career for some time and it's well past time that this information gets laid out on the table."

Haney said Wahhaj Sr. has known ties to the radical ADAMS Center mosque in northern Virginia, and Dar al Hijra mosque in Washington, D.C., as well as past affiliations with Anwar Al-Awlaki, and the "Blind Sheikh."

"Now that this has come out, it shows the American people were really smart not to nominate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed for governor of Michigan," he said. "Imagine if you had nominated this guy with all this new information coming out about CAIR and ISNA, the face of whom is his buddy Linda Sarsour."

Photo: Linda Sarsour, second from right, poses at an anti-Trump rally in Washington in March with Siraj Wahhaj Sr., far left.

7.05.2018

The Truth about Separating Kids

 From National Review

Rich Lowry — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 


 The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.

Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.

A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

In April, the New York Times reported:
Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.
According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”

If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.

4) Congress can fix this. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed. Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly.

The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on

4.13.2018

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



From Greg Swank12-04-2002

You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so. http://www.rense.com
 
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
 
Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .
 
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
 
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
 
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
 
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
 
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
 
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
 
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
 
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
 
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
 
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
 
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
 
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
 
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
 
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
 
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
 
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
 
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
 
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
 
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
 
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
 
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
 
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
 
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
 
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
 
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
 
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
 
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
 
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
 
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
 
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
 
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
 
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
 
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
 
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
 
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
 
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
 
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
 
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
 
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
 
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
 
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
 
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
 
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
 
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
 
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
 
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
 
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
 
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
 
Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.
 
It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them. Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter. You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point.
 
Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library.
 
Sources are listed below.
 
Microfilm: California State University at San Jose Clark Library, Government Floor Phone (408)924-2770 Microfilm Call Number: J 11.R5
 
Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12
 
 
1963- The Year That Changed America
 
By Greg Swank
Over the years, I have shared in debates and discussions regarding the current state of affairs in the U.S., and the changing social climate of this great nation. Since the "baby-boomer" generation, society and its culture have become noticeably different than the way it was 50 years ago. From the late 50's to the 70's a series of events took place contributing to the way we are currently living. However, like anything else, there has to be a starting point at which the wheels are put into motion. Sometimes it can be a single event, such as war, but more often, it is a series of events, some intentional, some planned, others unpredictable. There is always a pivotal point when things begin to change. I believe that time was 1963.
 
For my generation, some of the following will certainly stir old memories. If you born later, this may serve as a brief history lesson into the times your parents traveled through.
 
By 1963 television was the leading sources of entertainment. The public enjoyed a different type of programming back then. Lessons on life could be viewed weekly on "Leave it to Beaver" or "My Three Sons." There were hero's back then that never drew blood, "The Lone Ranger" and "The Adventures of Superman." Cartoon series evolved, such as, "The Flintstones" and "The Jetsons" without messages of empowering the children, using vulgarities or demeaning parental guidance. Family's could spend a weekend evening watching "Ed Sullivan," "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke." For those who enjoyed thrill and suspense, we were blessed with "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and the "Twilight Zone." 'My Favorite Martian," "Ozzie and Harriet," "Donna Reed" and "Sea Hunt" also kept viewers entertained weekly.
 
Movie theaters were not multiplex units with 15 screens, rather, one single, giant big screen with adequate sound and hard seats without springs. "Tom Jones" had won the Academy award for best picture. "How The West Was Won," "Cleopatra," "Lily of the Fields," "The Great Escape," "The Birds," and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" were all box office hits.
 
By years end, "The Beatles" had played for the British Royal Family and were laying the groundwork to conquer the U.S. the following year. Eric Clapton began his journey to fame with Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, Jim McCarty and their band, "The Yardbirds." Out on the west coast the surf was beginning to rock'n'roll with "The Beach Boys" and their first song to reach the top ten list, "Surfin' U.S.A."
 
"Joys of Jell-O" recipes for quivering florescent foodstuff hit the stores. U.S. Postal rates went up to five cents for the first ounce. AT&T introduced touch-tone telephones. The Yankees played in the World Series again; but lost to the Dodgers in four straight. The government and NASA began the Apollo program.
 
This is just a brief snapshot of some things that were going on back in 1963. Remember?
 
While some of these events played an important role in the direction of change that affect us today, many of them were lost to much greater, more political events, that I believe put everything into motion.
 
On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document.
 
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
 
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
 
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states.
 
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
 
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
 
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
 
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
 
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
 
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
 
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
 
27. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
 
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
 
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
 
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
 
You can see the entire list on this web page - http://www.truthtrek.net/politics/takeover.htm
 
Now, I am not saying that the U.S. is under some kind of Communist control, but what I do find frightening, is of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to pass. Remember this was in January 1963.
 
In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off with the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict.
 
By September of 1963 we had lost some very influential people, Pope John XXIII, Robert Frost, and country legend Patsy Cline, to name a few. In the early hours of November 22nd we learned of the quiet passing of C.S. Lewis and hours later we were brought to our knees when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.
 
So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States. Which brings me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this most provocative year.
 
On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.
 
While American's have endured great prosperity over the past 40 years we have also lost our moral compass and direction. In reviewing the research, data supports 1963 as a focal point, demonstrating a downward slope in our moral and social decline through 2001.
 
Certainly, one would have to agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963.

4.10.2018

Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems?


Amy Wax
University of Pennsylvania Law School


Amy Wax 

Amy L. Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she has received the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. She has a B.S. from Yale College, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She is a former assistant to the United States Solicitor General, and her most recent book is Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on December 12, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with plenty of lip service being paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them. 

The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on August 9 under the title, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society: 

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. 

We then discussed the “cultural script”—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s: 

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime. 

These norms defined a concept of adult responsibility that was, we wrote, “a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.” The fact that the “bourgeois culture” these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s, we argued, largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies. 

In what became perhaps the most controversial passage, we pointed out that cultures are not equal in terms of preparing people to be productive citizens in a modern technological society, and we gave some examples of cultures less suited to achieve this: 

The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. 

The reactions to this piece raise the question of how unorthodox opinions should be dealt with in academia—and in American society at large.

It is well documented that American universities today, more than ever before, are dominated by academics on the left end of the political spectrum. How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their “politically correct” views? The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong. This kind of civil discourse is obviously important at law schools like mine, because law schools are dedicated to teaching students how to think about and argue all sides of a question. But academic institutions in general should also be places where people are free to think and reason about important questions that affect our society and our way of life—something not possible in today’s atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy. 

What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling. Likewise we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years—and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.  

One might respond, of course, that unreasoned slurs and outright condemnations are also speech and must be defended. My recent experience has caused me to rethink this position. In debating others, we should have higher standards. Of course one has the right to hurl labels like “racist,” “sexist,” and “xenophobic” without good reason—but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Hurling such labels doesn’t enlighten, inform, edify, or educate. Indeed, it undermines these goals by discouraging or stifling dissent.

So what happened after our op-ed was published last August? A raft of letters, statements, and petitions from students and professors at my university and elsewhere condemned the piece as racist, white supremacist, hate speech, heteropatriarchial, xenophobic, etc. There were demands that I be removed from the classroom and from academic committees. None of these demands even purported to address our arguments in any serious or systematic way. 

A response published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, and signed by five of my Penn Law School colleagues, charged us with the sin of praising the 1950s—a decade when racial discrimination was openly practiced and opportunities for women were limited. I do not agree with the contention that because a past era is marked by benighted attitudes and practices—attitudes and practices we had acknowledged in our op-ed!—it has nothing to teach us. But at least this response attempted to make an argument. 

Not so an open letter published in the Daily Pennsylvanian and signed by 33 of my colleagues. This letter quoted random passages from the op-ed and from a subsequent interview I gave to the school newspaper, condemned both, and categorically rejected all of my views. It then invited students, in effect, to monitor me and to report any “stereotyping and bias” they might experience or perceive. This letter contained no argument, no substance, no reasoning, no explanation whatsoever as to how our op-ed was in error.

We hear a lot of talk about role models—people to be emulated, who set a positive example for students and others. In my view, the 33 professors who signed this letter are anti-role models. To students and citizens alike I say: don’t emulate them in condemning people for their views without providing a reasoned argument. Reject their example. Not only are they failing to teach you the practice of civil discourse—the sine qua non of liberal education and of democracy—they are sending the message that civil discourse is unnecessary. As Jonathan Haidt of NYU wrote on September 2 on his website Heterodox Academy: “Every open letter you sign to condemn a colleague for his or her words brings us closer to a world in which academic disagreements are resolved by social force and political power, not by argumentation and persuasion.”

It is gratifying to note that the reader comments on the open letter were overwhelmingly critical. The letter has “no counterevidence,” one reader wrote, “no rebuttal to [Wax’s] arguments, just an assertion that she’s wrong. . . . This is embarrassing.” Another wrote: “This letter is an exercise in self-righteous virtue-signaling that utterly fails to deal with the argument so cogently presented by Wax and Alexander. . . . Note to parents, if you want your daughter or son to learn to address an argument, do not send them to Penn Law.”

Shortly after the op-ed appeared, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen for a while and asked how his summer was going. He said he’d had a terrible summer, and in saying it he looked so serious I thought someone had died. He then explained that the reason his summer had been ruined was my op-ed, and he accused me of attacking and causing damage to the university, the students, and the faculty. One of my left-leaning friends at Yale Law School found this story funny—who would have guessed an op-ed could ruin someone’s summer? But beyond the absurdity, note the choice of words: “attack” and “damage” are words one uses with one’s enemies, not colleagues or fellow citizens. At the very least, they are not words that encourage the expression of unpopular ideas. They reflect a spirit hostile to such ideas—indeed, a spirit that might seek to punish the expression of such ideas. 

I had a similar conversation with a deputy dean. She had been unable to sign the open letter because of her official position, but she defended it as having been necessary. It needed to be written to get my attention, she told me, so that I would rethink what I had written and understand the hurt I had inflicted and the damage I had done, so that I wouldn’t do it again. The message was clear: cease the heresy.

Only half of my colleagues in the law school signed the open letter. One who didn’t sent me a thoughtful and lawyerly email explaining how and why she disagreed with particular points in the op-ed. We had an amicable email exchange, from which I learned a lot—some of her points stick with me—and we remain cordial colleagues. That is how things should work.

Of the 33 who signed the letter, only one came to talk to me about it—and I am grateful for that. About three minutes into our conversation, he admitted that he didn’t categorically reject everything in the op-ed. Bourgeois values aren’t really so bad, he conceded, nor are all cultures equally worthy. Given that those were the main points of the op-ed, I asked him why he had signed the letter. His answer was that he didn’t like my saying, in my interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, that the tendency of global migrants to flock to white European countries indicates the superiority of some cultures. This struck him as “code,” he said, for Nazism. 

Well, let me state for the record that I don’t endorse Nazism! 

Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable. 

As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, we can make words mean whatever we want them to mean. And who decides what is code for something else or what qualifies as a dog whistle? Those in power, of course—which in academia means the Left. 

My 33 colleagues might have believed they were protecting students from being injured by harmful opinions, but they were doing those students no favors. Students need the opposite of protection from diverse arguments and points of view. They need exposure to them. This exposure will teach them how to think. As John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” 

I have received more than 1,000 emails from around the country in the months since the op-ed was published—mostly supportive, some critical, and for the most part thoughtful and respectful. Many expressed the thought, “You said what we are thinking but are afraid to say”—a sad commentary on the state of civil discourse in our society. Many urged me not to back down, cower, or apologize. And I agree with them that dissenters apologize far too often.

Democracy thrives on talk and debate, and it is not for the faint of heart. I read things every day in the media and hear things every day at my job that I find exasperating and insulting, including falsehoods and half-truths about people who are my friends. Offense and upset go with the territory; they are part and parcel of an open society. We should be teaching our young people to get used to these things, but instead we are teaching them the opposite.

Disliking, avoiding, and shunning people who don’t share our politics is not good for our country. We live together, and we need to solve our problems together. It is also always possible that people we disagree with have something to offer, something to contribute, something to teach us. We ignore this at our peril. As Heather Mac Donald wrote in National Review on August 29: “What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong . . . and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth? If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable ‘hate speech,’ then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.” In other words, we are at risk of being led astray by received opinion.

The American way is to conduct free and open debate in a civil manner. We should return to doing that on our college campuses and in our society at large.

3.23.2018

What's your Style?

From Masculine Style

Rugged, Refined, and Rakish

One of the most common complaints I see about my site on online forums or other areas on the web is that what I advocate is too hipster. Oddly enough, these accusations will usually come from men (or their women) past their mid 30’s who are still content to wear a T-shirt, cargo shorts, and flip-flops. I get that someone who has taken no real concern for his style is going to see everyone who dresses with care as a hipster – even if the accusation couldn’t be further from the truth.

In my Danger and Play series I spoke on the differences in attitude between dressing with an element of danger and dressing with an element of play. These two can be mixed and matched to accomplish certain effects and the same man can wear both styles on different days to drastically change the physical impression he gives.

That being said, the distinctions between styles can still be taken a step further.

If you think about the apex, alpha male that most men aspire to be, there are a few different categories under which those men fall.

tumblr_mdsp1jpyen1r740w9o1_1280

The Rugged Man is one who is physically masculine. He bends nature to his will by means of his brute force and has a cave-man attitude that brooks no nonsense. There is nothing subtle about the rugged man and everything in his life exists for a specific, direct purpose. He is the adventurer, the mountain man, the gladiator, and the blue-collar worker.

tumblr_mbdb93Hjoc1rfns1co1_1280

The Refined Man is one who is financially and influentially masculine. He bends the world of men to his will by means of his connections, his money, and his political/social power. He is capable of mixing both direct and subtle elements to accomplish his ends and has so much clout that he very rarely has to adapt to situations going out of his control (because they never do). He is the titan of industry, the politician, the hedge fund manager, and the 1%.

tumblr_ln1j92c7Tt1qhccpao1_500

The Rake is a man who is socially masculine. He influences individual people to his will by means of his attitude, his charisma, and his disdain for following the rules of society and being beholden to another man. While he is capable of using direct elements to accomplish his goals, he lives largely in a subtle world and is always thinking two or three steps ahead of the people around him. He is constantly adapting to new situations and thrives in his ability to do so. He is the playboy, the rock star, the outlaw, and the vigilante.

Any individual man can embody any or all of these different types of the alpha male. Take Teddy Roosevelt as an example. The man was the epitome of a Rugged man. He was physically tough and imposing, even completing a speech after he’d been shot. At the same time, he was a refined man who knew how to dress in a way that met his station as president of the United States. He did not attend meetings or address the nation in his work clothes but did so in a well-fitting suit that fit the styles of the times.

Depending on what kind of man you are, you can build your wardrobe to better communicate it. There are elements of danger and play in all three of these men and the following posts in this series will break down each type of man and how to dress accordingly.

For the rest of the series see:

Rugged Man,

Refined Man,

Rakish Man

Conclusion

2.20.2018

A response to mass shooting in Florida.

(From Josh Ishiro Finney’s Blog)


The bodies aren’t even cold yet and already you are being blamed.



Yes you.

All of you.

The boys and young men who will grow up to become one half of America’s future.

Once again, due to society’s failure to raise you, to teach you, to properly guide you on your path to manhood, your mere existence is being held responsible for seventeen more deaths—this time in Florida, and once again, at a school. The headlines of the last few days say it all:

  “Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people, experts say”
  -USA TODAY

  “Michael Ian Black reacts to Florida shooting: Boys are broken”
  -New York Daily News

  “How Gun Violence And Toxic Masculinity Are Linked, In 8 Tweets”
  -The Huffington Post

  “Toxic white masculinity: The killer that haunts American life”
  -Salon

  “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
  -The Boston Globe

  “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
  -Harpers Bazaar

  “Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men”
  -Politico

In the handful of decades I’ve been alive, I’ve seen America shift from a culture of responsibility to one of blame. We don’t solve problems anymore. We cry, we pray for, we seek to find closure, and then finally, slaughter a sacrificial lamb for our sins. When I was young and Columbine happened, that lamb was Marilyn Manson and video games. Before that, it was D&D and Twisted Sister. These days, though, as body counts continue to rise and excuses continue to vanish, the lamb America has chosen to sacrifice is you. Rather than take responsibility for the seeds we’ve sown, the culture we built, and the disaster you’ve been left to inherit, we as a nation have chosen to lie to ourselves. To listen and believe those who claim that the answer is simple: “Boys are simply born bad.”

As an aging Gen Xer watching this tragedy unfold, I can’t help but look back at my youth and realize we were the dry run for this “crisis of masculinity” as the media likes to call it.

In my time I’ve watched as fathers were pushed out of the home, separated from their children, and their role in society debased and devalued. Like you, I was taught male behavior was bad behavior. That I was broken and needed to be fixed. Drugs, therapy, mass socialization were required to save me from my most innate instincts—



—the need compete.

—the drive to create.

—the urge to protect.

—the desire for female affection.

Like you, I was told these instincts were not only wrong, but dangerous. That due to my Original Sin of being born a boy, I was destined to mature into a lustful monster and an oppressor of women. All this was burned into me before I even reached college, where campus policy actually assumed all men to be rapists waiting to happen.

It isn’t hard to see how we got here, to an age when America is more than willing to sacrifice its boys. To quote Fight Club, “We’re a generation of men raised by women.” And the women who raised my generation had a saying: All men are pigs. But there’s another saying those same women were enamored with and that is: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

 
So here we are, coming close to fifty years of single mothers raising their boys as if they were animals. Two generations of young men raised to believe they’re broken, immoral, and dangerous. That their natural state, if left unchecked and un-medicated, is a sexual ticking time bomb of rape and abuse. Half a century of academia peddling a grim version of history that holds your gender personally responsible for all the wrongs ever to have happened in the world. And a press, that at this very moment, is blaming YOU for every school shooting to have ever occurred.

After all this, how could there not be a crisis of masculinity?

So to the boys and young men of America, believe me when I say it isn’t you who should be apologizing for the state of our world today. This mess was set in motion long before you were born.

You are not bad.

You are not broken.

You are not inherently evil or a sexual abuser in waiting.

You are boys who were robbed of your right to be men.

All your life you’ve been told to act, think, and behave like women. To suppress your passions, your pride, your need to compete and drive to achieve.
Now society is crumbling around us.

Feminizing boys didn’t make better men. It’s resulted in broken homes and shattered families and record suicide rates. It’s destroying any notion of a healthy partnership between men and women, and is pushing us ever closer to total collapse of gender relations.

Boys, we don’t need you to be like women, the world has plenty of women, already.

What the world needs now more than ever is for you to be men.

For you to grow-up, to grow strong, and do what men do.



For it is men’s strength and determination that tamed the wilderness, built civilization, and has kept the world fed despite all predictions we’d all die starving before the year 2000. It’s men’s curiosity that lead us to explore the oceans, to conquer space, and peer into the tiniest of microcosms of the human body. It was men who built the cities we inhabit, the luxuries we enjoy, the medicines that keep us alive. Men built the road, the plumbing, the electrical grid, the phone in your hand, the internet it’s connected to.

Men have always been innovators, explores, defenders, and leaders.

But most importantly, men have always been fathers.

So to the boys and young men of America, please read this and take every word to heart.

The world needs you.