The Hidden Face of Hypocrisy: Randi Harper

When I first heard the name Randi Harper, I had only heard stories of her harassment towards others. I personally looked through her twitter and from what I gathered the harassment claims didn’t make sense. She seemed to be promoting helping combat the harassment she and others had received; she has a patreon page set up where she is currently receiving $2600.00 a month to fight against harassment. Looking further I questioned how it was possible that so many individuals had professed cases of harassment from Harper. When I inquired through twitter about the validity of the harassment claims, many brought forward their own personal experiences with Harper and it revealed a shocking reality. The images included are verified using archives and personal accounts. With this information you are welcome to form your own conclusion.

more at

The evidence shows that Cage is a pro-terrorist group

5:22PM BST 21 Jul 2014

Last week, Peter Oborne penned a love letter to “independent advocacy organisation” Cage (formerly Cage Prisoners). Oborne spoke out because, earlier this year, after Cage’s outreach director Moazzam Begg was arrested in relation to Syria-linked offences, Cage had their bank accounts closed and their assets frozen. An investigation has been launched by the Charity Commission into some of Cage’s donors. Oborne calls this investigation “alien to the way we do things in Britain”. Yet if he believes it is the investigations into Cage – rather than Cage’s actions – that are “alien to the way we do things in Britain”, then we would argue he has a radically different definition of Britishness to most British people.

Oborne gushes that Cage had “done more than any other [group] to stand up for alleged terrorists”. However, what he does not seem to realise is that Cage does not just “stand up for alleged terrorists”. It also stands up for actual, convicted terrorists.

For example, Cage is animated about the case of Aafia Siddiqui, jailed for 86 years in the US for attempting to murder US officials in Afghanistan and assaulting those who tried to stop her. Siddiqui hadwide-ranging links to al-Qaeda and was married to a key plotter behind the 9/11 attacks. At the beginning of her trial she said that jurors should be “subject to genetic testing” to see if they were Zionist or Israeli. She is no terror suspect – her guilt was proved in a court of law. Yet Cage’s profile on Siddiqui – which misses literally all this out – says it has “dedicated itself” to freeing her.

Others that Cage support include Djamel Beghal, who, following allegations of a plot to blow up the US embassy in Paris, was jailed in France in 2005 for “belonging to a criminal association in relation to preparing an act of terrorism”; and Nizar Trabelsi, convicted in Belgiumas part of an al-Qaeda plot to carry out a suicide attack against a military base there holding US soldiers.

Cage has also given sympathetic hearings (to say the least) to Abu Hamza who has been convicted in the UK of offences which include soliciting to murder and inciting racial hatred and has now also been convicted in the US on 11 terrorism charges. When Babar Ahmad pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in a US court late last year, Begg was quick to pronounce that we had to be “careful” of seeing this blatant admission of guilt “as an admission of guilt”.


Oborne is slightly less supportive of Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula cleric who Cage had invited to speak on multiple occasions. Yet even this is couched in weasel language by saying Cage have always denied Awlaki was a “key member” of AQAP. This is nonsense for any number of reasons, not least the fact that thedocuments gained from Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound showed AQAP emir Nasir al-Wuhayshi was willing to concede leadership of the group to Awlaki; and that Awlaki played a key role in AQAP attacksagainst the West, especially in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s underwear bomb plot of 2009. There is plenty of other evidence out there showing that Awlaki was a key part of AQAP.

Oborne says that unless the entire organisation can be prosecuted, Cage should “be left alone”. But in any case, if everyone had taken that attitude then, among other things, terrorists like Awlaki would certainly have spoken at Cage’s events. It was only because some of us raised protests at the time that he was stopped from doing so. We wonder whether, next time a young Brit tries to bring down an aeroplane from the sky or blow up a commuter train because Awlaki or some other Cage hero told them so, Oborne will continue to maintain that it was a good thing that Cage’s interpretation of “British values” was upheld.

All the evidence shows that Cage is a pro-terrorist group, not a human rights group as Oborne appears to think. Its history of support for terrorists should have closed the argument on them some time ago. We can only suppose that Peter Oborne’s advocacy of the group is based on an ignorance of the relevant facts.



Why men are avoiding college by Helen Smith

If women were fleeing the nation’s universities and colleges, we would have a national uproar, but men are now fleeing in large numbers and society barely notices. Numbers tell the story. Men have been falling behind women for decades. By 2009 National Center for Education statistics for degree-granting institutions listed 11.658 million women enrolled and 8.769 million men.  Many predict that women will soon account for 60 percent of our college grads. Public colleges like North Carolina at Chapel Hill and private ones like NYU have almost reached the 60 percent mark already. The University of Vermont in Burlington has so many women that the women jokingly call their college town Girlington. Diane Ravitch, the noted historian of education and a former assistant secretary of education asks: When will it be fair? When women are 60 percent or 75 percent of college enrollments? Perhaps it will be fair when there are no men at all.”

Among minorities, the male-female balance is even more skewed. When economist Andrew Sum and his colleagues at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University looked at gender disparities in the Boston Public Schools, they found that for the class of 2008, among blacks there were 188 females for every 100 males attending a four-year college or university. Among Hispanics the ratio was 233 female for every 100 males. The facts are incontrovertible: young women from low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Los Angeles or Washington, D.C., do much better than the young men from those same neighborhoods. There are now dozens of studies with titles like “The Vanishing Latino Male in Higher Education” and “African-American Males in Education: Endangered or Ignored?”

Males Fading Away

So where are all the men?  Media accounts are short on insight and often just insult males, calling them lazy and dumb. Maybe we would be better off if the media and elites weren’t so openly pleased that women are outpacing men in college. The college strike didn’t happen overnight. It started years ago when the war against boys began after the feminist era. Initially, feminism was presented as being about equal rights between the sexes. Now it is often about revenge and special privileges for women and girls. Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The War Against Boys, argues that feminists and their sycophants have worked hard to turn the educational system into one that favors girls at the expense of boys. Boys are now seen as “defective girls” in need of a major overhaul. Sommers says, “Gender experts at Harvard, Wellesley, and Tufts, and in the major women’s organizations, believe that boys and men in our society will remain sexist (and potentially dangerous) unless socialized away from conventional maleness. . . . The belief that boys are being wrongly ‘masculinized’ is inspiring a movement to ‘construct boyhood’ in ways that will render boys less competitive, more emotionally expressive, more nurturing–more, in short, like girls.”

Girls Have an Advantage

Boys are more at risk than girls in the U.S. educational system. A MetLife study stated, “Girls appear to have an advantage over boys in terms of their future plans, teacher’s expectations, everyday experiences at school and interactions in the classroom.”  Boys are less engaged in school, and less engagement means less success in the classroom; in fact, engagement with school is probably the single most important factor of academic success. Boys are more likely than girls to come to school without supplies and without doing their homework. Why aren’t boys more engaged in school? According to Sommers, “schools today tend to be run by women for girls. Classrooms can be hostile environments for boys. They like action, competition and adventure stories. Those are not in favor. Games like tag and dodgeball are out; tug of war has become tug of peace, and male heroes have been replaced by Girl Power.”  Boys receive lower marks from female teachers, according to research done for the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance.


Portuguese Canadians a community that is not obsessed with college and school

when schools and colleges becoming hostile to men and natural sexuality a community is thriving without their bullshit.  schools and colleges don’t put food on the table.


The average household income of a Portuguese resident of Mississauga, a Toronto suburb, is $80,210, slightly higher than the city average. In Little Portugal, it’s just under $60,000—not lavish, but usually enough to live comfortably, to own a car, to take yearly trips back to Europe.

Even in poorer Little Portugal, 66.4 percent of Portuguese own their homes. That’s also higher than the city average. (For Portuguese in Mississauga, it’s a staggering 88.5 percent.)

– See more at:


and the college/university snobs are sad