Catherine Zeta-Jones To Play Colombian Drug Lord In ‘The Godmother

Catherine Zeta-Jones, nominated for a Golden Globe for her turn as the ruthless wife of a drug lord in 2000’s Traffic, has landed an even juicier role in the true story crime biopic The Godmother. In a new film directed by Norwegian helmer Eva Sørhaug (90 Minutes, Cold Lunch) Zeta-Jones will play real life kingpin Griselda Blanco, the first and only woman to rise to the higher echelons of Colombia’s Medellin drug cartel.

 

Catherine Zeta-Jones To Play Colombian Drug Lord In ‘The Godmother’

 

 

 

The Latino community in the U.S.A along with contacts in Mexico and Colombia already made and showing a series based on this Colombian female drug lord. Latinos don’t need racist Hollywood to tell their stories.  They have their own movie and tv industries

http://tv.univision.com/unimas/la-viuda-negra/

http://tv.univision.com/unimas/la-viuda-negra/article/2014-02-22/camilo-wilson-es-cejas-en-la-viuda-negra

 

how will i watch La Vuida Negra with English subtitles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simone de Beauvoir: A Nazi, a pedophile, and a misogynist

Simone de Beauvoir: A Nazi, a pedophile, and a misogynist

As the non-feminist sector of the society gets increasingly more vocal, the sector of the society that is not yet aware of the toxic nature of this ideology reacts with a set of arguments that merely reveal that the factual reality is not yet entirely known to the public.

A while ago, a group of coffee-shop feminists were trying to convince me that feminism is not as bad as I say it is and that if I just read more about feminism, I would eventually understand. As an example to support this thesis, the aforementioned feminists recommended that I read the writings of Simone de Beauvoir, the French Marxist-feminist known for her book The Second Sex. Of course, those feminists were unable to fathom that someone had taken their ideology seriously enough to read its literature and then rationally end up utterly rejecting it. As with any other cult, such a thing is inconceivable for the true believers of the sect.

In the headline of this post, a series of allegations were made toward the eminent feminist and it’s only fair for us to prove them—which is exactly what we’re going to do in the following lines.

Between 1943 and 1944, as France was under Nazi occupation, Simone de Beauvoir worked as a sound director for Radio Vichy.1 Radio Vichy was the state’s radio station in the so-called zone libre (free zone) of France, following the capitulation of the French Republic in front of Nazi Germany in 1940. We say the so-called because the Vichy regime, although theoretically neutral from a military standpoint, was in fact an active collaborator of the Nazi regime,2 and today it is an acknowledged fact by all parties involved that the institution of Radio Vichy was the de facto mouthpiece for Nazi propaganda on the airwaves in France.

De Beauvoir apologists might say that she was forced by circumstances to work there, just like many individuals now claim to have been forced to collaborate with the Securitate during the Communist regime. But de Beauvoir’s manuscripts written in that period, which were revealed afterwards, tell a different story.

Even feminist authors, such as Dr. Ingrid Galster, who have dedicated years of their lives studying Simone de Beauvoir had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that the attitude manifested by de Beauvoir as a sound director in the Nazi propaganda machine was at the very least one of subtle collaborationism,3 and the way through which she ended up working there was not following a coercion—but a perfectly conscious choice. De Beauvoir was already a member of the public workers’ union and could have chosen to work in a city hall, for instance. But she had to choose to work somewhere else other than teaching because her career in teaching was done—even though she already had the qualifications and the prestige necessary for teaching, given that she had been the second most performing doctoral student in her generation, lagging only behind her lifetime lover, Jean-Paul Sartre.4

The reason for which she could no longer teach is exactly related to pedophilia and Jean-Paul Sartre. In 1943, Simone de Beauvoir was fired for behavior leading to the corruption of a minor.5

Once again, the apologists of de Beauvoir might rush to say that the 1943 moment was a singular incident or, as it was told to me once, an incident outright invented by the Nazi persecution who couldn’t stand her once they realized she was a Marxist empowered independent woman. But nothing could be further from the truth.

De Beauvoir’s sexual interest for children is a theme spreading throughout her life. She was amongst the first philosophers who tried to unite the genre that had begun in the 1930s (and that lasted until 1980s in Western Europe) of female pedagogical pedophilia.6 She attempted this unification with her essay “Brigitte Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome,” published for the first time in Esquire magazine in 1959 and then republished multiple times until the mid-1970s. In that essay, de Beauvoir glorifies Brigitte Bardot for her childish physical aspect, which retains the perfect innocence inherent in the myth of childhood, and then paints her as a Houdini for girls who will release and empower them out of the chains in which they had been subjugated.7, 8

The 1959 essay was just the beginning. In 1977, de Beauvoir, alongside most of the Marxist French intelligentsia, signed a petition demanding nothing more and nothing less than the legalization of pedophilia and the immediate release of three individuals who were due to serve long jail sentences for sexually exploiting several boys and girls aged 11 to 14. The petition signed amongst others by de Beauvoir and Sartre was published in Le Monde and was saying, among other things, the following:9

Such a long time in remand to investigate a simple `vice’ affair, where the children have not been victims of the slightest violence, but have to the contrary testified before the examining magistrates that they consented — although the law at present denies them their right to consent — such a long time in remand we do consider scandalous in itself. Today they risk to be sentenced to a long prison term either for having had sexual relations with minors, boys as well as girls, or for having encouraged and taken photographs of their sexual plays. We believe that there is an incongruity between the designation as a `crime’ which serves to legitimize such a severity, and the facts themselves; even more so between the antiquated law and the reality of every day life in a society which tends to know about the sexuality of children and adolescents[…]

So, in de Beauvoir’s opinion, 11-year-old children in late 1970s France tended to be sexual beings. Since puberty was not installing and is not installing even today at that age for the overwhelming majority of children, we consider apt to name de Beauvoir’s advocacy as nothing short than a plea for pedophilia, regardless of which definition of the word one chooses.

 

Simone de Beauvoir: A Nazi, a pedophile, and a misogynist

 

 

Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” is US-backed Sedition

http://journal-neo.org/2014/10/01/hong-kong-s-occupy-central-is-us-backed-sedition/

 

 

The goal of the US in Hong Kong is clear – to turn the island into an epicenter of foreign-funded subversion with which to infect China’s mainland more directly.

Protesters of the “Occupy Central” movement in Hong Kong shout familiar slogans and adopt familiar tactics seen across the globe as part of the United States’ immense political destabilization and regime change enterprise. Identifying the leaders, following the money, and examining Western coverage of these events reveal with certainty that yet again, Washington and Wall Street are busy at work to make China’s island of Hong Kong as difficult to govern for Beijing as possible.

Naming Names: Who is Behind “Occupy Central?” 

Several names are repeatedly mentioned amid coverage of what is being called “Occupy Central,” the latest in a long line of US-engineered color revolutions, and part of America’s vast, ambitious global geopolitical reordering which started in earnest in 2011 under the guise of the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Benny Tai, a lecturer of law at the University of Hong Kong, is cited by various sources across the Western media as the primary organizer – however there are many “co-organizers” mentioned alongside him. The South China Morning Post in an article titled, “Occupy Central is on: Benny Tai rides wave of student protest to launch movement (1),” mentions most of them (emphasis added):

Political heavyweights including Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, former head of the Catholic diocese Cardinal Jospeh Zen Zi-kiun and Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming addressed the crowd.

The Post also mentions (emphasis added):

Jimmy Lai Chi-Ying, the embattled boss of Next Media who is under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption over donations to pan-democrat politicians, said he arrived immediately after a call from Martin Lee Chu-ming.

Benny Tai regularly attends US State Department, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary the National Democratic Institute (NDI) funded and/or organized forums. Just this month, he spoke at a Design Democracy Hong Kong (NDI-fundedconference on political reform. He is also active at the University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) – also funded by NDICCPL’s 2013-2014 annual report lists Benny Tai as attending at least 3 of the center’s functions, as well as heading one of the center’s projects.

Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai, and Joseph Zen are all confirmed as both leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement and collaborators with the US State Department. Martin Lee, founding chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong, would even travel to the United States this year to conspire directly with NED as well as with politicians in Washington. Earlier this year, Lee would even take to the stage of NED’s event “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters.” Joining him at the NED-organized event was Anson Chan, another prominent figure currently supporting the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong’s streets.

Media mogul Jimmy Lai was reported to have met with Neo-Con and former president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz in June 2014. China Daily would report in an article titled, “Office opposes foreign interference in HK,” that:

A special edition of Eastweek showed Lai, owner of Next Media and Apple Daily, meeting Paul Wolfowitz, a former US deputy secretary of defense in George W. Bush’s administration. The pair met on Lai’s private yacht for five hours in late May. 

Wolfowitz, who was also president of the World Bank between 2005 and 2007, is well-known in the US for his neo-conservative views and belief in a unilateral foreign policy. Wolfowitz also held the post of under secretary of defense between 1989 and 1993. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Lai would also seek Wolfowitz’ help in securing various business deals in Myanmar. The South China Morning Post in their article, “Jimmy Lai paid Paul Wolfowitz US$75,000 for help in Myanmar,” reported that:

Leaked documents show Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying paid former US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz US$75,000 for his help with projects in Myanmar. 

According to a July 22, 2013, remittance notice by the Shanghai Commercial and Savings Bank, Wolfowitz received the money from Lai as “compensation for services in regards to Myanmar”.

 

Lai’s liasons with notorious Neo-Con Wolfowitz should be no surprise – as NED, the principle director of Washington’s vast portfolio of political agitators worldwide is rife with Neo-Cons who intermingle both on NED’s board of directors, as well as in various other corporate-financier funded think tanks. NED itself is merely a front, couching geopolitical and corporate-financier interests behind the cover of “promoting freedom” and “democracy” around the world.

There is also “student leader” Joshua Wong, who was arrested amid the protests. Wong has had his career tracked by the NDI’s “NDItech” project since as early as 2012. In a post titled, “In Hong Kong, Does “Change Begin with a Single Step”?,” NDI reports:

Scholarism founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung, 15, has become an icon of the movement, and his skillful interactions with media have been memorialized and disseminated on Youtube. Through this page, Hong Kong youth have coalesced around common messages and images – for example, equating MNE with “brainwashing” and echoing themes reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement.

Wong’s work serves to challenge attempts by Beijing to reestablish Chinese institutions on the island, preserving Western-style (and co-opted) institutions including the education system.

The aforementioned Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee is also entwined with the US NED, regularly attending forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI. In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by “SynergyNet,” also funded by NDI. In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women’s Centre “International Women’s Day” event. The Hong Kong Council of Women (HKCW) itself is also annually funded by the NDI. Just this year, should would also find herself associated with CCPL, presenting at one of its functions beside “Occupy Central” leader Benny Tai himself.

In addition to SynergyNet, CCPL, and HKCW, there are several other US-funded NGOs supporting, legitimizing, and justifying “Occupy Central,” or hosting those leading it. Among them is the US NED-funded “Hong Kong Transition Project” which claims it is “tracking the transition of Hong Kong people from subjects to citizens.” In name and mission statement alone, the goal of the US in Hong Kong is clear – to turn Hong Kong into an epicenter of foreign-funded subversion with which to infect China’s mainland with more directly.

The Transition Project was tasked with legitimizing Occupy Central’s “pro-democracy referendum” conducted earlier this year – which then served as justification for increasing unrest on Hong Kong’s streets. Guardian in a June 2014 article titled, “Hong Kong’s unofficial pro-democracy referendum irks Beijing,” would report:

About 730,000 Hong Kong residents – equivalent to a fifth of the registered electorate – have voted in an unofficial “referendum” that has infuriated Beijing and prompting a flurry of vitriolic editorials, preparatory police exercises and cyber-attacks.

Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP), the pro-democracy movement that organised the poll, hopes to pressure Beijing into allowing Hong Kong’s 7.2 million residents to choose their own leader by 2017. If Beijing refuses, OCLP says, the movement will mobilise at least 10,000 people next month to block the main roads in Central, a forest of skyscrapers housing businesses and government offices on Hong Kong island’s northern shore.

The Transition Project links with other US-funded organizations, including the Hong Kong-based “think tank” Civic Exchange. Funded by Exxon, the US State Department’s NDI, the British Council, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Morgan Stanley, Citi Group, the British Consulate itself, and many others, its claim of being “Hong Kong’s independent public policy think tank” is scandalous.

 

The Agenda: What Does “Occupy Central” Really Want? 

US NDI openly states on its own page dedicated to its political meddling in Hong Kong that:

In 2005, NDI initiated a six-month young political leaders program focused on training a group of rising party and political group members in political communications skills. In 2006, NDI launched a District Council campaign school for candidates and campaign managers in the lead-up to the 2007 elections.

NDI has also worked to bring political parties, government leaders and civil society actors together in public forums to discuss political party development, the role of parties in Hong Kong and political reform. In 2012, for example, a conference by Hong Kong think tank SynergyNet supported by NDI featured panelists from parties across the ideological spectrum and explored how adopting a system of coalition government might lead to a more responsive legislative process.

 

Indeed, the very organizations, forums, and political parties the “Occupy Central” movement is associated with and led by are the creation of foreign interests – specifically the US State Department through NDI. Since “democracy” is “self-rule,” and every step of “Occupy Central” has seen involvement by foreign interests, “democracy” is surely not the protest’s true agenda.

Instead, it is “soft” recolonization by Washington, Wall Street, and London. If “Occupy Central” is successful and Beijing ever foolishly agrees to allowing the leaders of this foreign-orchestrated charade to run for office, what will be running Hong Kong will not be the people, but rather foreign interests through a collection of overt proxies who shamelessly sustain themselves on US cash, political backing, and support across the West’s vast media resources.

The West’s Long War With China 

“Occupy Central” is just one of many ongoing gambits the US is running against Beijing. A visit to the US NED site reveals not one, but four pages dedicated to meddling in China’s internal politics. NED’s activities are divided among China in general, TibetXinjiang – referred to as “East Turkistan” as it is called by violent separatists the US backs – and Hong Kong. All of NED’s funding goes to politically subversive groups aligned to and dependent on the West, while being hostile toward Beijing. They range from “monitoring” and “media” organizations, to political parties as well as fronts for violent extremists.  And as impressive as this network of political subversion is, it itself is still but a single part of a greater geopolitical agenda to encircle, contain, and eventually collapse the political order of Beijing and replace it with one favorable to Wall Street and Washington.

As early as the Vietnam War, with the so-called “Pentagon Papers” released in 1969, it was revealed that the conflict was simply one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China. While the US would ultimately lose the Vietnam War and any chance of using the Vietnamese as a proxy force against Beijing, the long war against Beijing would continue elsewhere.

This containment strategy would be updated and detailed in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral” where it outlines China’s efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea as well as means by which the US can maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western foreign policy fail to entice China into participating in the “international system” as responsible stakeholders, an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.

This includes funding, arming, and backing terrorists and proxy regimes from Africa, across the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and even within China’s territory itself. Documented support of these movements not only include Xinjiang separatists, but also militants and separatists in Baluchistan, Pakistan where the West seeks to disrupt a newly christened Chinese port and pipeline, as well as the machete wielding supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar’s Rakhine state – yet another site the Chinese hope to establish a logistical hub.

Meddling in Thailand and stoking confrontation between China and an adversarial front including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan are also components of this spanning containment policy.

Whatever grievances those among “Occupy Central’s” mobs may have, they have forfeited both their legitimacy and credibility, not to mention any chance of actually achieving progress. Indeed, as the US-engineered “Arab Spring” has illustrated, nothing good will come of serving insidious foreign interests under the guise of “promoting democracy.” The goal of “Occupy Central” is to make Hong Kong ungovernable at any cost, especially at the cost of the people living there – not because that is the goal of the witless though well-intentioned participants being misled by Washington’s troupe of seditious proxies, but because that is the goal of those funding and ultimately directing the movement from abroad.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

Defining Islam not RCMP’s job

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/03/defining-islam-not-rcmps-job-2

That whole concept of separation of church and state seems to confuse a lot of people.

Perhaps one of the worst recent examples of this can be found in the United Against Terrorism handbook released in Winnipeg on Monday.

“Canada is a secular country,” notes the handbook, published by the Islamic Social Services Association and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. So far so good. “The separation of church and state has been tested from time to time through laws that may curtail certain religious practice such as the restrictions on religious clothing [that] recently were proposed in Quebec.”

Er, that is indeed true… Although it’s interesting that they use that example. Most liberty-minded individuals would agree the state has no place telling free citizens how to dress.

But that’s an example of the state crossing the line and delving into the church. What about when the church is the offending party?

A recent example of this is the desire to introduce some version of sharia law into the Canadian legal system. There was a failed campaign for this in Ontario in 2004 and while there is scant opinion data available, a 2011 study by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute found that 62% of Muslims living in the Ottawa region desired to live under some form of sharia.

Now most of the media seem to have been so happy to report on a story of Canadian Muslims standing up against terror that they didn’t bother to take a look at ISSA’s other positions. Dig a letter deeper, please.

Because while it’s always nice to hear about community groups fighting radicalization, it’s not like this is a group embracing left-leaning liberal values either.

On the section of their website introducing Islam, they explain it’s “forbidden for Muslim men and women who are not related to each other to be alone together.”

And: “(Sharia) does not recognize marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man and strictly forbids such a union unless the man freely converts to Islam.”

And: “Islam sets the husband as the leader of the family.” (Patriarchy, anyone?)

And also, “Islam treats adultery as a crime and wants the punishment to serve as a deterrent.” That’s interesting because while adultery is frowned upon in Canada – at least in some circles – it’s not a crime.

And it’s one thing to discourage sex before marriage but this is a different story: “Premarital and extramarital sexual relations are forbidden and are a grave sin. Punishments are harsh” – Yikes! Although here’s the good news – “but subject to conditions of proof, that are almost impossible to satisfy. For example for fornication and adultery there must be four reliable eyewitnesses who can testify that they witnessed the actual act of intercourse.”

In other words, the only adultery that can be proven under sharia law is public sex or group sex. OK…

Presenting these views that are incompatible with Western law and values is not an attempt to suggest ISSA is insincere in opposing terror.

It’s simply to remind us that we don’t want Canadian institutions rushing to ally themselves with any Muslim group simply because they’re against al-Qaida and ISIS. There could be other views they hold that, while nowhere near as extreme, aren’t things Canadian institutions can get behind.

This brings us to the RCMP. At the Monday press conference, the RCMP was credited as a co-author on the document. But by Tuesday they clarified and explained they’d simply contributed to one section explaining how the RCMP helps communities rout out radicalization of youth.

Their press release explained that “After a final review of the handbook, the RCMP could not support the adversarial tone set by elements of the booklet and therefore directed RCMP Manitoba not to proceed with this initiative.”

While they didn’t make it clear what adversarial language they were referring to, the handbook actually instructed law enforcement on what language to use, how to fulfill certain policing duties and to read up on Muslim culture. In other words, it’s rather adversarial to how our law agencies do their jobs.

But ISSA and the NCCM included this in a response: “The handbook does take an adversarial stance against violent extremists and those who seek to recruit and radicalize Canadian youth towards criminal violence.” As if to suggest the RCMP’s problem was that it was too adversarial with extremists, rather than being too adversarial with law enforcement!

The British have a phrase for this: cheeky buggers.

This whole snafu, and the hidden in plain sight revelations about ISSA’s views, teach one major lesson:

By all means, stand in allegiance with citizens who oppose criminal behaviour. But this handbook does more than just oppose terror. It argues what is and isn’t permitted by the Qur’an, citing various passages. It’s arguing theology. And it’s not the place of the RCMP or the government to get behind one interpretation of a religion over another.

No arm of the law should be touching that with a 10-foot pole. It’s curious that a group claiming to support separation of church and state seems to have a fondness for sharia and also wants to lobby law enforcement on matters of scripture.

Scratch that. It’s not curious. It’s troubling. It suggests they don’t actually understand the whole separation thing at all.

tax dollars at work: Eastern Kentucky University to offer degree in Professional Victimhood

http://campusreform.org/?ID=5942

 

Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) will become the first school in Kentucky to offer a Social Justice Studies (SJS) degree emphasizing the “struggles for social justice.”

Students enrolled in the Social Justice Studies program will be educated in a variety of topics such as American Studies, anthropology, cultural and political geography, sociology, and political economy, and will gain an “understanding of justice and injustice and strategies by which problems can be overcome.”

 

“The interdisciplinary program will critically examine the cultural, economic and political dynamics of societal conflict and struggles for social justice among and between various groups and institutions,” according to a press release from EKU.

The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education voted to formalize the major in September, claiming that “such programs are necessary to educate students in enhancing the social, cultural and environmental health of the state.”

The degree, offered through EKU’s School of Justice Studies and College of Justice and Safety, will prepare students for careers including but not limited to activism, alternative media, community organizing, conflict resolution, and environmental advocacy, and political campaigns.

EKU is a public university in Richmond, Kentucky.