Music of the week
Music of the week
TAIPEI, Taiwan — The Taiwan Stock Exchange hit the 10,000-point mark yesterday for the first time in 15 years, a breakthrough that the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC, 金管會) traced to foreign institutional buying.
The benchmark Taiex index exceeded the 10,000-point mark at 9:59 a.m. yesterday before closing up 0.6 percent at 9,973.12 on turnover of NT$130.16 billion.
At a meeting of the Legislative Yuan’s Finance Committee, Kuomintang (KMT) Legislator Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) remarked on the milestone and passed out candies to celebrate.
During interpellation at the meeting of the Finance Committee, FSC Chairman William Tseng (曾銘宗) was asked if the central government intervened in the stock market.
Tseng said the market had been boosted by individual investors but was mainly supported by strong foreign institutional buying.
The FSC and the Central Bank imposed a new restriction last week on foreign investors of Taiwanese corporate bonds and bank debentures, capping holdings at 30 percent of their Taiwanese securities, Tseng said.
TAIEX saw a 300-point advance last Thursday and Friday as overseas investors shifted NT$68.7 billion from bonds to stocks, he continued. The market closed at 9,913 points on Friday, in place to potentially break the 10,000-point mark the week after.
He said the FSC will continue to implement the “ascension plan” (揚升計畫), a package of measures aimed at making Taiwan investment more attractive for offshore funds.
“In my heart I have the stock market, but I do not have my heart set on a specific point-mark milestone,” Tseng said.
Room to Climb
Finance Minister Chang Sheng-ford (張盛和) was upbeat on the TAIEX surge, saying the msrket has more room to climb as it is currently not driven by impassioned retail investors.
“I have experienced that era in which (TAIEX) was above 30,000 points,” Chang told reporters on the sidelines at the Finance Committee.
“At that time, people had gone crazy. The vegetable sellers were buying stocks. The bus drivers at my son’s preschool — all of them had resigned from their jobs to buy stocks,” Chang said
The atmosphere this time is calmer, the Finance Minister said, adding that the difference boosts the likelihood of TAIEX continuing to rise.
“When all of the people are jumping in (the stock market), that means the market froth is about to dissipate,” he said.
this bitch like a typical femicunt is jealous of other women’s beauty, threatening her sexual market value
Lena Dunham isn’t the only victim of her sexual assault, and yet despite the fact that her unconscionable behavior resulted in an innocent family man being accused of her rape, the “Girls” creator is still being celebrated and honored as a sexual assault role model at events like this weekend’s Variety’s Power of Women New York Luncheon, and throughout the mainstream media.
Here are the facts:
The tip of the spear of Dunham’s massive public relations campaign around the release of her auto-biography, was the news that she had been raped by a campus Republican.
In the autobiography, which was labeled as non-fiction, Dunham described her rapist using seven completely unnecessary details that immediately identified him — to anyone with five spare minutes and access to Google — as a high-profile and outspoken Republican she attended Oberlin College with during the mid-2000s — a real human being who now has a family, a career, and a Facebook page.
Those matching details included the facts that her rapist…
After the man falsely tagged as her rapist told National Review he was innocent, and that he was under fire by the media and living in constant fear of his name being forever smeared, Lena Dunham did absolutely nothing to clear his name.
We know for a fact that Dunham and her publisher Random House stood silent for four long months as this innocent family man twisted in the wind under a false rape accusation. These greedy cowards stood silent (and made gobs of money off book sales) even though both knew what they had done to this man
It wasn’t until Breitbart News published a lengthy investigative report that cleared this innocent man (we called him “Barry One”) that Dunham and Random House finally admitted that the non-fiction autobiography’s details about her rapist were in fact fiction.
Gawker later learned that the man she originally accused of sexually assaulting her is a Democrat, not a Republican.
Finally, despite the fact that the statue of limitations for rape in Ohio is 20 years; despite the fact that Dunham herself claims this man hurt two other women; despite the fact the recidivism rate among sexual offenders is disturbingly high, Dunham still refuses to press charges against her rapist. According to Dunham herself, her attacker has already victimized three women. Why in God’s name isn’t she moving mountains to get this monster locked up?
As a rape victim you have a terrible, awful, traumatic responsibility to do everything in your power to get your attacker off the streets — if only to protect other women. It’s not fair, but it is the only right thing to do.
Whatever her original intent, Dunham falsely accused an innocent man of rape. She then stood by knowing her words had placed an innocent man in her crosshairs. She currently refuses to press charges against her rapist, leaving him free to rape others. Worst of all, by falsely identifying her rapist as a Republican, Dunham used the horror of sexual assault as a political gotcha game.
A terrible thing happened to Lena Dunham. But then she turned around and did terrible, greedy, and selfish things that victimized another.
Surely America and Variety can find a better face for this righteous cause than Ms. Dunham.
What is the connection between Schwyzer and Sarkeesian you ask? Let’s just take a look at this blog post from Schwyzer’s blog in mid-2012.
“If you like the look of this blog, thank Anita Sarkeesian, who designed it and helped me launch this made-over site last summer. Anita is far more than a web designer, however; she runs the indispensable Feminist Frequency, which provides intelligent, thoughtful progressive commentary on popular culture. But in the past month, Anita has been under relentless attack online[…] Both she and I have found ourselves at the center of controversy this year, albeit for different reasons. Yet the real difference is in how each of us has been treated by those who despise us most…” (Emphasis my own) His blog post here should shine a light on their professional connection
So, as a person labeled as a “shit-slinger,” I’d at least like to go down as a factual shit-slinger. Therefore, I’d like to bring up some prior associations in regards to Anita Sarkeesian. To those unaware of the other name next to Anita’s in the title, let me introduce you Jezebel’s own Hugo Schwyzer. Professor and ex-writer for Jezebel, Hugo Schwyzer is a name we’re not too familiar with nowadays. Well, that’s because Mr. Schwyzer had a little (large) fall from grace in the last year or so.
For those unaware, “Schwyzer became the subject of controversy when he admitted to sleeping with his female students, having sex with men and women, and ongoing problems with substance addiction including attempting to kill himself and his ex-girlfriend while under the influence of narcotics in 1998”. Ouch. Sleeping with students, silencing people of color (look up his involvement in the hashtag SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen), crashing into and injuring a young woman. man this guy sounds like a real class act. Indeed, hubris seems to be a common trait among those that claim moral authority over us. Whether it be televangelists or social justice bloggers, this seems to be a unifying trait among the morally just. Websites such as Feministe, Jezebel, and Pandagon, who once praised and openly associated with Schwyzer quickly distanced themselves from him. His writing was taken off ofScarleteen, a resource on teen sexual health, and he left Healthy is the New Skinny, an organization co-founded and directed by Schwyzer. Why am I talking about this now-nobody? This “shit-slinger” from the other side of the fence? Well, it is important to remember him as the divisive figure he was in feminism.
I’d like to take an excerpt from “Why do some feminist spaces tolerate male abusers?,” a post on the Globalcomment.com to give some context of the environment of Schwyzer’s position in the feminist community.
“What role, if any, should men with a history of abuse of women have in feminism? This question is at the heart of ongoing debates in the feminist blogosphere over Hugo Schwyzer, a professor of gender studies and male feminist personality. A close examination of Schwyzer’s record calls into serious question both his narrative of personal transformation and his current credibility as a feminist leader. This raises the question of why Schwyzer was allowed access to feminist leadership roles at all, much less for so long, but also points to broader, entrenched issues around male allies, racism and white privilege, and safe spaces for abuse survivors in the feminist movement.”
One part that spoke to me was this part though,
“The narrative of personal redemption that Schwyzer sells is one that’s uniquely available to him as white man. A man of color with years of illegal drug use and the attempted murder of a woman on his record would quite possibly be in jail, and certainly not as feted as Schwyzer is by certain white feminists.”
Please, feel free to read more, it is very enlightening. Though I don’t agree with many of the views espoused by the post, it’s an interesting read nonetheless. However, my point being is that he was quite a divisive figure within the feminist community.
Now, I’m well aware of the association fallacy, strawman, and ad hominem attacks, because we’ve had this flung at us for a couple of weeks now. We’ve been lumped together with harassers, misogynists, bigots, and right-wingers. Furthermore, we’ve been demeaned and outright shunned, compared to birthers, ISIS, the Klan etc. However, media and anti-GG crowd have proven that all is fair in war (though, they seem to have forgotten “love,” which is off limits when it involves one of their own). However, I’d like to ask Anita Sarkeesian, why would you work with and actively enable a self-confessed attempted-murderer and abuser of both people and authority? Not to merely associate with, but to actively improve the pulpit on which this man stood. Why would you work with this true shit-slinger, Hugo Schwyzer. Well, I’ll wager it’s because he had something to give you. A word that I have come to loathe in the past few years, those devilish two words we know as “signal boost.”
In addition to sleeping with his students – occasionally in his office on campus – as recently as 2011, Schwyzer was also exchanging sexts with a 27-year-old porn star. He also acknowledged that he used his class as an means to have sex with porn stars — tweeting that he had fantasized about having public sex with Deen in his classroom — and wrote that he was a hypocrite for writing an Atlantic article condemning age-disparate relationships while sleeping with a woman fourteen years his junior at the same time.
Once again feminists are getting their girdles in a bunch over an ad that features an attractive woman. Protein World recently released an ad featuring a scantily clad and attractive female as the poster child to promote their line of weight loss products in advance of summer. This is, of course, the time when most women, fat or fit, go to great measures to ensure their bodies are in top shape to don bikinis on beaches around the world.
Being the petulant children they are, they responded in their typical fit-throwing fashion…again, taking to social media to voice their feelings on this “injussstyyssss!!”…again.
Perhaps yesterday’s discussion of academic feminism — “The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Academia and the Means of Production” — was one of those “TL:DR” experiences for you. Certainly, when I stretch it out to 3,600 words, with lengthy quotations from Queer Theory scholars, I understand that many readers will skip out after a few paragraphs.
The reader’s irritated impatience (“What’s the point here?”) got an unexpectedly quick answer from the latest headlines:
A students’ union has been accused of racism and sexism afterbanning white people and men from an event to promote equality.
Those studying at Goldsmiths, University of London, were invited to the students’ union meeting to discuss ‘diversifying the curriculum’.
But they were shocked when an organiser told white people and men ‘not to come’ as it was only open to BME [black and minority ethnic] women.
The union eventually backed down after a backlash from students, one of whom described the exclusive policy as ‘patronising beyond belief’.
The event, held on Wednesday, was organised by welfare and diversity officer Bahar Mustafa, who said she hoped to persuade academics to broaden courses to include more material relating to minority groups.
The Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) provides a coordinating hub for feminist work at Goldsmiths. In addition to organising seminars and conferences, the CFR offers a symbolic and intellectual home for the MA in Gender, Media and Culture, co-convened by the Departments of Media & Communications and Sociology. . . .
By ‘feminist research’ we include any work that is informed by an active engagement with feminist intellectual debates, and any research that investigates questions of power, inequality and difference including race, class, disability as well as gender and sexuality. . . .
Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned, and Cultural Marxism is an idea whose influence pervades academia. When the primary object of intellectual endeavor is “research that investigates questions of power, inequality and difference,” you can be sure that no one will be permitted to express skepticism and dissent about this unmistakably political agenda. Once doubt and opposition have been excluded, so that only True Believers are permitted to participate in the discussion, the university is no longer engaged in education, but rather indoctrination. The employment of intellectual totalitarians like Sara Ahmed in positions of authority is a signifier — a sort of dye marker — advertising the University of London’s hostility to freedom of thought.
Is anyone therefore surprised to discover that “diversity officer” Bahar Mustafa is a crypto-fascist thug?
Translation: “Disagreement is hate!”
The Feminist-Industrial Complex is based in academia where it is protected by “anti-discrimination” policies that have the effect of prohibiting dissent from feminist ideology. Inside the campus cocoon, particularly within Women’s Studies programs, students and faculty alike never have to encounter articulate disagreement with the fanatical certainty of their belief system:
Whether they are speaking of “male supremacy” or “sexism,” whether the immediate object of their indignation is “rape culture,” “harassment” or the “objectification” of women in media, always the fundamental premise of the feminist argument is this systemic, historical and universal oppression of women. What we might call the Patriarchal Thesis is really an extraordinary assertion, requiring us to believe that there are no natural differences between men and women. Rather, everything we consider to be “natural” in terms of human traits and behavior — the masculinity of males and the femininity of females — is socially constructed by the gender binaryof the heterosexual matrix.
From her podium in Dye Lecture Hall, Christina Hoff Sommers, an author, former philosophy professor and self-proclaimed “freedom feminist,” attempted, amid protesters and dissenting audience members, to persuade Oberlin students that feminism has become too radicalized. She was invited to campus on Monday night by the Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians . . .
Before Sommers arrived at Dye Lecture Hall, protesters covered the venue with signs criticizing her beliefs and the event. One sign read “Support Survivors,” referring to survivors of sexualized violence. Another sign read “Rape Culture Hall of Fame” with the names of past and present members of OCRL listed below. . . .
Protesters and other students who opposed the event could not be reached for comment, but they described their opposition in a letter published in the Review last week.
“By bringing her to a college campus laden with trauma and sexualized violence and full of victims/survivors, OCRL is choosing to reinforce this climate of denial/ blame/shame that ultimately has real life consequences on the wellbeing of people who have experienced sexualized violence,” they wrote. “We could spend all of our time and energy explaining all of the ways she’s harmful. But why should we?”
What madness takes hold in the minds of overprivileged young people who expect to convince us that Oberlin College (annual tuition $48,682) is a “campus laden with trauma and sexualized violence”? Do they actuallybelieve this or, as we might instead suspect, has the Feminist-Industrial Complex fostered a climate in which it is forbidden to contradict these deliberate lies? Banishing opposition allows feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) to rage unchecked like a viral pandemic. Nick Mascari at Third Base Politics reported Sommers’ April 20 Oberlin lecture:
At the end, Sommers took questions. All but one were obviously hostile to her presence, and she took questions from an equal number of male and female attendees. A female student behind me exclaimed “Oh look! She called on a boy!” every single time she took a question from a male student, even though every one of the male questions she received was equally as hostile to her as the female questions.
After taking questions from three women in a row, she took the final question from a man. The student behind me again remarked “Oh look another question from a boy!”.
I politely asked her, “But weren’t the last three girls?”
She glared at me and said, “This is an event about FEMINISM!”
After her discussion with the male student was finished, the same student said to me, “It’s offensive that you said to me ‘Should she only call on pretty girls?’”
“That’s not what I said. I asked weren’t the last three questions from girls? You misunderstood, miss.”
She continued to accuse me. I didn’t bother to inform her that I was recording the speech and had our words on tape. It wouldn’t have mattered.
In 2015, “feminism” is a subject about which only women are allowed to speak. Feminism can never permit women to speak favorably of males, and the only thing males can contribute to feminism is silence.
Such is the totalitarian message of feminism, as it has been for more than four decades. “Women’s way of knowing” is rooted in what the 1969Redstockings Manifesto called women’s “personal experience, and our feelings about that experience,” which feminists insist is the only possible basis for analysis. There are no objective facts beyond women’s subjective feelings about their experiences, and therefore no feminist should listen to anything any man has to say about anything.
Universities now teach feminism as Science with a capital “S” and Truth with a capital “T.” No one can be allowed to deny Scientific Truth, which is whatever women say it is. Women have a monopoly on intelligence, knowledge and virtue because, feminists believe, everything men do is wrong and everything men say is false. (See “‘There Is No Spoon’: Radical Feminism and the Paranoid Matrix of Patriarchy.”)
These are the totalitarian conclusions to which feminism’s hateful logic leads, and nowhere is this more evident than at elite university campuses. Emma Sulkowicz became the most feminist at Columbia University (annual tuition $51,008) by accusing her former friend Paul Nungesser of rape. Once the facts were made public in Nungesser’s federal lawsuit against Columbia, however, it seemed otherwise: Sulkowicz is simply a spiteful liar motivated by a selfish desire for revenge. Nungesser didn’t want to date Sulkowicz, so she evidently plotted to get him expelled from Columbia. When that failed — every investigation cleared Nungesser of wrongdoing — Sulkowicz decided to make herself famous by ruining his reputation.
Sulkowicz spoke at an April 16 “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” event at Brown University, and quotes from her speech reveal her to be a young woman with some very strange ideas about truth:
“There does not exist a scientific way to prove non-consent. . . . When it comes to sexual violence, scientific proof is impossible. . . . If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers. . . . When a person claims that their theory is a science, they disqualify other types of knowledge. . . . Let’s change the question from ‘Did she consent that night?’ to ‘Did she have the power to consent that night?’ . . . This is not about physical strength. . . . This is about historical power. . . . Seeing is the origin of interpretation. Interpretation is the origin of knowing. . . . If truth is scientific, then art cannot access truth. But perhaps there is something beyond the truth. . . . When people assume I’m bringing the truth to light, they project their own idea of truth onto me. . . . When people engage in believing in me, they objectify me.”
There is no truth, there is only power — this is what feminism teaches. This is how feminism empowers liars. Unless we recover our concern for truth, unless we reject the hateful totalitarian ideology that can justify any lie if the lie serves the cause of “progress,” our society is utterly and irretrievably doomed. Deprived of our freedom to speak truth, we shall be enslaved by liars whose unscrupulous appetite for power is exceeded only by their cruelty and dishonesty.
“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.
Although the media has run with the narrative that “#GamerGate is about the harassment of women,” one look at who is pro- and anti-GamerGate reveals the truth.
Here are some truly vile people. Each of these claims are sourced. Click on the little blue text to learn more. (They are blue when I type the post but red on the screen. Whatever the case, “Trust but verify.” All of these claims are supported by the evidence.)
Jian Ghomeshi – Jian Ghomeshi is a former CBC radio host, Women’s Study major, and rapist. Although Ghomeshi hasn’t been convicted of rape, he has said before women do not lie about rape. It seems fitting to hold Mr. Ghomeshi to his words. Moreover, Ghomeshi’s case isn’t he-said-she-said. It’s more like he-said-8-shes-said, as 8 different women have come forward. (UPDATE: 15 women have come forward with accusations of rape and assault against anti-#GamerGate hero Ghomeshi.)
Arthur Chu – Arthur Chu either covered up a rape or refused to report one. In his words: “I have known nerdy male stalkers, and, yes, nerdy male rapists. I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was normal.”
Chris Kluwe – Chris Kluwe said he knew of “underage girls” in a “compromising situation” with football players. He has refused to help these underage girls find justice.
Randi Harper – Randi Harper falsely accused me of making a rape threat. False accusations are never OK, right? Ms. Harper also has a criminal record, having been in jail multiple times. Harper has also admitted to having a drug problem and once had a Twitter meltdown after taking too many benzos. (Harper appears to have deleted those incriminating Tweets.)
Zoe Quinn – Zoe Quinn committed perjury in her quest to obtain an unconstitutional restraining order. Quinn also attempted to get Mike Cernovich Swatted. Quinn also emotionally abused her boyfriend, although that doesn’t count because men cannot ever be the victim of domestic violence or emotional abuse.
Margaret Pless – Margaret Pless is an unpaid Daily Kos intern. She posted my name, address, and full “dox” on the Internet. She also filed and incited others to file false police reports with the LAPD.
Hugo Schwyzer – Hugo Schwyzer attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend. Trivia: Anita Sarkeesian built Hugo’s webpage.
Anil Dash – Anil Dash advocates doxing, that is, he supports posting the names and addresses of his ideological opponents online in an effort to intimidate and harass them. Anil Dash also sent an Internet hate mob, who ultimately made rape and death threats, to attack a girl who made a bad joke on Twitter.
If #GamerGate is about the harassment of women, why are the bad guys opposing #GamerGate? Could they be projecting their own desires onto #GamerGate?
President Ma Ying-jeou is set to deliver a speech on April 29, on the 22nd anniversary of the first meeting between the Kuomintang (KMT) government and communist China, in which he will reaffirm the “1992 Consensus.”
Ma’s speech seeks to commemorate the meeting commonly referred to as the Koo-Wang meeting. The meeting, conducted from April 27 to 29 in 1993, was also the first political meeting and negotiation between the KMT and mainland China since the ruling party first retreated to Taiwan.
The event was held between then-Straits Exchange Foundation (海峽交流基金會) Chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and former Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (海峽兩岸關係協會) President Wang Daohan (汪道涵). Due to the sensitivity of cross-strait relations back then, the meeting was held in Singapore thanks to the help of the late Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀).
According to the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC, 大陸委員會), to commemorate the meeting, which established a milestone in cross-straits relations, Ma will visit the MAC on April 29. Using the opportunity, the president will reportedly deliver an important speech that reaffirms the “1992 Consensus,” an agreement stating that both Taiwan and mainland China define China in their own ways while both still recognize that there is only one China.
Ma will reportedly stress the importance of the consensus, so that cross-strait relations can continue their steady development and create beneficial opportunities for the nation, and also aim for Taiwan to receive recognition both domestically and internationally. Ma will also address the progress of cross-strait relations over the past seven years of his administration.
Ma’s Speech Will Be Delivered before Chu-Xi Meeting
While certain individuals have questioned the intentions of Ma delivering a speech on the topic prior to the upcoming meeting between KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and China leader Xi Jinping (習近平), officials from the Taiwan Office of the President have stated that Chu has declared that he will conduct his talks based upon Taiwan’s definition of the “1992 Consensus.”
The officials said that Ma’ reaffirmation of the consensus will also show the nation the ruling party’s policies and intentions of peace. In contrast, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has yet to clarify the DPP’s policies regarding cross-straits relations, and should do so instead of displaying an unclear position, the officials said.
How horrible must your life be if you get irrationally offended every time someone doesn’t salute the flag to your liking during the Pledge of Allegiance?
In Miami, Assistant Chief Anita Najiy — the highest-ranking female cop in the city — kept her arms at her side during the ritual instead of putting a hand over her heart. Now, the head of the Miami police union is flipping out because ‘Murica.
Fraternal Order of Police President Javier Ortiz wants Najiy reprimanded for not saluting the flag or covering her heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
“Since she clearly has no respect for the flag or the United States, on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am requesting that Assistant Chief Najiy is removed as the commander of the MPD Honor Guard Detail,” Ortiz said in a letter Monday to Police Chief Rodolfo Llanes.
“If she isn’t loyal to the United States of America, what country is she loyal and shows allegiance to?” he asked.
As much as I’d like to say Najiv was protesting the Pledge, she was actually just following protocol:
Police Maj. Delrish Moss produced a section of the conduct code for U.S. military personnel, which he says supercedes police code. It reads: “When in uniform, indoors, stand at attention, remain silent, and face the flag.”
So she was following military rules… and that, in Ortiz’s eyes, makes her un-American. What he has against her, I don’t know, but even if she sat down during the Pledge, it wouldn’t make her any less patriotic. If you equate being a True American with participating in a mindless ritual, your priorities need adjustment.
Thankfully, it looks like no one is taking Ortiz seriously. After all, he’s the same guy who went to Ferguson, Missouri to show solidarity… with the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown.
Just months after five students at Montreal’s Collège de Maisonneuveleft Canada to join the Islamic State in Syria, a young couple, El Mahdi Jamali and Sabrine Djaermane, who attended the same school, were arrested last Tuesday for what police allege were plans to commit terrorist acts. Since the arrest, school officials have met with terrorism and extremism experts to help analyze if the school itself had been a breeding ground for extremists. Some locals familiar with the school have pointed fingers at Adil Charkaoui, an Islamic leader in Montreal who rents the school’s facilities for a weekend Muslim youth group, and was once probed by federal agents as a suspected al-Qaeda sleeper agent.
Just months after five students at Montreal’s Collège de Maisonneuve left Canada to join the Islamic State in Syria, a young couple, El Mahdi Jamali and Sabrine Djaermane, who attended the same school, were arrested last Tuesday for what police allege were plans to commit terrorist acts. Since the arrest, school officials have met with terrorism and extremism experts to help analyze if the school itself had been a breeding ground for extremists.
Some locals familiar with the school have pointed fingers at Adil Charkaoui, an Islamic leader in Montreal who rents the school’s facilities for a weekend Muslim youth group, and was once probed by federal agents as a suspected al-Qaeda sleeper agent.
When school officials learned that five Maisonneuve students traveled to Syria to join ISIS, they immediately encouraged faculty to take courses on identifying signs of radicalization in an effort to prevent other students from being radicalized. “It’s an attempt to give some meaning to what has happened. If we don’t have that it would be a total depression. It’s powerlessness,” said Brigitte Desjardins, a spokesperson for Maisonneuve.
According to the Toronto Star, school officials consulted with police and radicalization experts in order to find out if the school had a terrorist recruiter at work on campus or if school faculty could have foreshadowed the actions of the five students. “There were no signs at all,” Desjardins concluded.
Some locals still believe Charkaoui played a role in the students’ departure, after revelations that several of them had enrolled in Arabic-language and Islamic instruction courses which he operates. Maisonneuve initially suspended its rental contract with Charkaoui, but then allowed him to resume courses under the supervision of an Arab-language observer.
Collège Rosemont, another Montreal school at which Charkaouri operated youth kickboxing and karate courses, canceled its rental contract with him last week, because it found that links on Charkaouri’s Web site led to extremist material.
Of the five Maisonneuve students who left, two were girls — Shayma Senouci and Ouardia Kadem; and another two were their boyfriends, Desjardins revealed. Imad Rafai, one of the students, wanted to become a doctor. His social media profile revealed that he had been moved by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and admired the work of Doctors Without Borders, the humanitarian group working on the front lines against the Ebola outbreak. On 23 October 2014, Rafai shared on his social media profile, a story about Canadian Muslim leaders paying tribute to Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who was killed at the National War Memorial in Ottawa by homegrown terrorist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.
On social media, Jamali, who was arrested last week, frequently mentioned the plight of Muslims around the world. “Mali, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma … murders by the thousands and we don’t care,” he wrote on his Facebook page on 15 April 2013, referring to conflicts around the world where Muslims were dying in large numbers. “But Boston, Oh-la-la, a few injured. Get out of here you hypocrites.”
A number of Canadians who traveled to Syria to join ISIS appeared to have been searching for a cause, said Desjardins. “What we know of those who left is that they left to save the world. They didn’t leave to wage war. It was with good intentions,” she said.
On March 6, 2015, 18 year old Ben Moynihan, a UK native, was found guilty of the attempted murder of three women (after he attempted to stab a 20, 45, and 67-year-old with a kitchen knife) and sentenced to 21 years in prison. His reason for attacking them? He was a 17-year-old virgin who couldn’t get laid.
During the trial, various letters Moynihan had written came to light, each one laden with quips such as “when women won’t talk to you, it’s heartbreaking, why are they fussy with men nowadays,” and “I think every girl is a type of slut…they do not give boys like us a chance.”
Hell, even the profile photos are so similar it’s scary. Here you have two young men, divided by thousands of miles of land and sea, who have that same look of hopelessness, despair, and complete and total cluelessness common amongst the herbs and betas modern society’ is churning out by the truckloads.
Moynihan’s sentencing comes a little over a month or two after Wilkes McDermid, a London-based food blogger, jumped from a building to his death. McDermid, who was Asian, explained the reasons for his untimely demise thusly:
The reason for my death is simple. I have concluded that in the realm of dating and relationships the primary characteristics required for men are as follows: Height: above 5 ft. 10; Race: huge bias towards Caucasian and black; Wealth: or other manifestation of power.
Feminists would take that statement and say something like, “yeah, Moynihan and McDermid didn’t understand that this isn’t ancient times…in today’s world, nobody’s owed a woman just because they’re ‘nice’.” Feminist websites are already trying to declare Moynihan the poster-child of misogyny.
The average red-piller, on the other hand, would say, “yeah, it’s a shame that those guys just didn’t understand that in today’s world, without game, you’re just lost…they could’ve had soft harems in three different cities if they’d just lifted some weights and boned up on their asshole game.”
While I definitely reject the feminists’ spin on these tragedies, I only partly subscribe to my red-pill brethren’s interpretation of these events. I’ve noticed that while Roosh touched on McDermid’s death in his forum, very few people in the manosphere have talked about Moynihan. In a way, that’s a good thing, because if all we’re going to do is just shake our heads and say, “he should’ve learned game,” all we’ve successfully done is kick the can down the road.
We’ve all got the blood of kings coursing through our veins, gentlemen. That means we’ve got the wherewithal to delve deeper into this issue.
Hong Kong’s Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam on Saturday took part in a territory- wide bus-parade to publicize the proposal on universal suffrage of chief executive in 2017.
Apart from Lam, the other two members of the Task Force on Constitutional Development — Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam, as well as other politically appointed officials also participated in the parade.
Riding on a open-top double-decker bus on which slogans of ” 2017 Make it happen!” were hung, the officials waved to passers-by on the streets. Some members of the public gathered to welcome the bus, echoing the slogans.
The parade took place in the afternoon when the bus passed through Kennedy Town in Hong Kong Island, Lok Fu in Kowloon and Tai Po in the New Territories.
The Hong Kong government revealed on April 22 the constitutional reform package designed for the election of the next chief executive by “one person, one vote” universal suffrage in 2017.