US dollar soars to end at day’s high of NT$32.456

TAIPEI — The U.S. dollar rose against the New Taiwan dollar Wednesday, gaining NT$0.385 to close at the day’s high of NT$32.465, after China’s central bank further cut the yuan’s reference rate, sending regional currencies into another tailspin, dealers said.

Massive selling by foreign institutional investors on the local equity market added downward pressure on the New Taiwan dollar to push the the U.S. dollar even higher, they said.

The greenback opened at NT$32.130, and moved between NT$31.970 and NT$32.465 before the close. Turnover totaled US$1.825 billion during the trading session.

The U.S. dollar opened higher against the New Taiwan dollar on follow-through buying from a session earlier, and momentum accelerated as traders rushed to sell the local currency after the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) cut the yuan’s reference rate sharply for the second day in a row, dealers said.

The Chinese central bank set the yuan’s reference rate 1.62 percent lower on Wednesday than on Tuesday, when the reference figure was slashed 1.86 percent.

The deep cuts signaled China’s intentions to use a cheaper currency to boost its exports at a time when its economy has showed signs of a slowdown, dealers said.

The weakness of the yuan led to selling in other regional currencies and set off a currency depreciation competition.

Among the falling regional units, the South Korean won’s steep losses against the greenback prompted traders here to dump more of their New Taiwan dollar holdings, dealers said.

A falling New Taiwan dollar has led foreign investors to move their funds out of the country, reducing demand for the local currency.

According to the Taiwan Stock Exchange, foreign institutional investors sold a net NT$8.79 billion (US$271 million) in shares on the exchange Wednesday, sending the weighted index down 1.31 percent at the close.

Ohio woman says truck is burned after she gets racist letter: ‘We don’t want you here black b—-‘

An Ohio woman is in fear of her life after she received a racist and threatening letter, and her truck was mysteriously torched.

Nicole Rhodes, 40, said she had been taunted by bigots in her Youngstown, Ohio, neighborhood for about three weeks, when she first saw a menacing note taped on her beauty salon.

“We don’t want you here black b—-,” it read. “Don’t get burnt up in there.”

Then on Monday, she watched in shock as her 2006 Ford pickup truck was engulfed in flames on the same property.

“This can’t be real. This just can’t be real,” Rhodes told the Daily News on Wednesday. “It just cannot be this serious. Black skin just can’t be this serious. Black skin just can’t make you go destroying property.”

Rhodes has owned the building for about three years, but she’s in the process of selling it and moving her business, Dynasty Salon, she said.

The emotional mother of four said she didn’t take the letter seriously at first until her truck was set on fire.

“I thought it was nothing. My neighbors are prejudiced,” she said. “I’m used to people hating me — but now it’s because of my skin. It’s the same kind of hatred.”

Following an investigation, Youngstown Fire Department Investigator Alvin Ware said someone had purposefully torched the vehicle, WKBN-27 reported.

“There’s something going on,” he told the local news station.

There have been no arrests or leads in the case yet.

Rhodes has put up 16 surveillance cameras on the property and been distancing herself from the community, she said.

“It has to be that serious,” she said.

The ‘Self-Abnegation of … Gender Identity’

“I’m proud of being trans and queer and I wouldn’t have it any other way,”Emily Sommer concludes her decidedly weird column at the feminist blog, which is chock full of the trendy jargon of feminist “gender theory”:

I consider my perspective as a trans woman versus hers as a cis woman. I explain, abstractly, how self-abnegation of one’s gender identity may lead to vulnerability, that the ethos of transmisogyny leached into me like a virus and even when I learned to value myself I was left with the small, irrational fear that a mere verbal attack could blink me out of existence. . . .
Gendering is a common courtesy. Did you know that you’re more likely to be gendered while involved in a transaction? Gendering gives a sales associate a statistical edge. Or perhaps, it’s that our terms of respect (ma’am; sir, miss) are tied to the gender binary.
The sensation of negating your identity, your very existence, for decades until the dissonance, the dysphoria, from self-abnegation becomes so great that you choose to live authentically in a sort of limbo, for a time, and then having a stranger see plainly, validate plainly, who you are is surreal. . . .
The word “navigate” is commonly used to describe how we manage personal and professional relationships to find a place for ourselves in the world. . . . Navigation is often the belief in one’s self despite media narratives meant to erase any and all challenge to traditional gender.
Media stories of transgender women focus on a range of demeaning tropes meant to label us caricatures of femininity; label us as mentally ill and otherwise erase us from the conversation. . . . A common example is the notion gender identity is a mental disorder. It’s not. Gender Identity Disorder (GID) was removed from the DSM V that was published in 2013 (homosexuality was removed in 1973). GID was replaced with Gender Dysphoria, which means it’s sort of rough when our gender identities are abased for decades. . . . What media sources often fail to portray is self-possession, a sense of agency and outspoken critiques of the status quo. . . .

You can read the whole thing if those excerpts are not enough to fill your daily quota of crazy feminism. What we perceive in “transfeminism” is how, like all other feminism, it is an attempt to tell us what we are permitted to think by tell us what we are allowed to say. The feminist must always lecture us about our alleged bigotry.

We are inferior. We are ignorant and backward and in need of feminist lectures to enlighten us about how we contribute to oppression simply by failing to speak the Officially Approved Language. Of course, the feminist lexicon is continually updated to reflect the latest theories — “Gender Identity Disorder” being replaced by “Gender Dysphoria” — so that we can be condemned as a haters if we use a term that was accepted as scientific fact until two years ago.

Feminism is a shell game, a three-card monte hustle, and the question we must ask is, “Who appointed these people to be society’s Arbiters of Moral Truth?” By what authority do these people presume to tell us what we are allowed to say? You can call Emily Sommer a “transfeminist,” or you can call him a ridiculous sissy. Feminists will say that the more accurate description is offensive simply because it is true: Facts are hate!

Today’s cult Bainbridge’s First African Baptist Church, Georgia

This is what American Christianity looks like


A 92-year-old woman is no longer allowed to worship at the church where she was a member for more than 50 years because she was not tithing.

Josephine King said that was the reason she was kicked out of Bainbridge’s First African Baptist Church.

Her family members said they hope the situation will bring change to churches across the nation.

“Josephine King is no longer considered a member of the First African Baptist Church of Bainbridge, Georgia,” read Gerald Simmons, as he skimmed over the letter addressed to his aunt.

The letter, signed by Senior Pastor Derrick Mike, stated that Ms. King “has shown non-support” towards the church in the areas of “constant and consistent financial and physical participation.”

“She was stunned. She was disappointed. She was shocked,” said Simmons.

He said Ms. King was considered sick and a shut-in for several months, which was the reason for her lack of attendance.

He also said his aunt had gone above and beyond in the past to financially support the church.

“You shouldn’t chase the individuals down,” said Simmons. “You shouldn’t do that. If that’s the case, you’re money hungry.”

Simmons also noted that his aunt isn’t the first person to receive a letter of removal for not tithing, and hopes her story will shed some light on the policy.

“You have to have money to make these churches run, but it’s not about money,” Simmons said. “It’s about God. You have to put God first.”

Several requests for comment from the church were made, but no responses by officials or other members were given.

Copyright 2015 WALB.  All rights reserved.

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga

Published on Jul 24, 2015

This 5 minute video reveals the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga – like all “Islamic Society of” organizations – is a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organization and, therefore, supports jihadi operations like the killing of 4 Marines and 1 sailor on July 16, 2015.


The US v HLF (Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development) (Dallas, 2008) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history. The evidence revealed the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are controlled by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood. The list of Hamas/MB groups includes the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Islamic Centers, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), American Muslims for Palestine, EMERGE, US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), and many others.

Feminism’s Attack on ‘Institutionalized, Normative Heterosexuality’

If you’ve read my book Sex Trouble, you understand how I focus on the gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse (what feminists say when seeking support from the general public) and feminism’s esoteric doctrine (the beliefs shared among intellectuals and activists who lead and control the movement). Like other movements of the radical Left, feminism preaches one thing to outsiders while teaching something else to insiders, and this deception is both deliberate and necessary. Feminists must conceal the truth about their agenda, because if taxpayers knew the ideology that is being propagated in our universities, this would cause such a political uproar that legislators would zero out the budgets of Women’s Studies programs and eliminate funding for much of the “research” done by academic feminists. Please read this very carefully:

Over the last decade and more . . . feminists have been analysing how normative heterosexuality affects the lives of heterosexuals (see Wilkinson and Kitzinger, 1993; Richardson, 1996; Jackson, 1999; Ingraham, 1996, 1999). In so doing they have drawn on earlier feminists, such as Charlotte Bunch (1975), Adrienne Rich (1980) and Monique Wittig (1992), who related heterosexuality to the perpetuation of gendered divisions of labour and male appropriation of women’s productive and reproductive capacities. Indeed, Rich’s concept of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ could be seen as a forerunner of ‘heteronormativity’ and I would like to preserve an often neglected legacy of the former concept: that institutionalized, normative heterosexuality regulates those kept within its boundaries as well as marginalizing and sanctioning those outside them. The term ‘heteronormativity’ has not always captured this double-sided social regulation. Feminists have a vested interest in what goes on within heterosexual relations because we are concerned with the ways in which heterosexuality depends upon and guarantees gender division. . . . [T]he analysis of heteronormativity needs to be rethought in terms of what is subject to regulation on both sides of the normatively prescribed boundaries of heterosexuality: both sexuality and gender. With this in mind, this article re-examines the intersections between gender, sexuality in general and heterosexuality in particular. How these terms are defined is clearly consequential for any analysis of linkages between them. There is no consensus on the question of definition, in large part because gender, sexuality and heterosexuality are approached from a variety of perspectives focusing on different dimensions of the social. . . . Sexuality, gender and heterosexuality intersect in variable ways within and between different dimensions of the social — and these intersections are also, of course, subject to historical change along with cultural and contextual variability.

That is from a 2006 article in the journal Feminist Theory by University of York Professor Stevi Jackson. It is one of 77 citations that Google Scholar shows for The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power, a 1998 book by Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson. The authors are not “fringe” figures within academic feminism. Professor Holland (London South Bank University) and Professor Ramazanoglu (Goldsmiths College, University of London) co-authored the 2002 textbook Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices, while Professor Thomson (Director of the University of Sussex Centre for Innovation and Research in Childhood and Youth) is author of the 2009 textbook Unfolding Lives: Youth, Gender and ChangeThe influential academic authors of The Male in the Head describe their work as a “detailed investigation of the social construction of sexuality” in which they “develop a feminist theory which shows the power of heterosexuality as masculine” — a theory that is certainly not new. Let’s recite a few examples of feminist theory.

“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Charlotte Bunch and Nancy Myron (1975)

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“Since sex is something men do to women . . . men dominate and control women. . . .
“In other words, heterosexuality is the foundation of the social structure of male dominance, and successfully attacking it could bring down the whole house. . . .
“The need for a unified feminist theory of sexuality is clear. If one concludes, as many feminists have, that heterosexuality is the primary and most powerful mechanism of social control, then understanding its meaning in all forms is imperative if male dominance is ever to be overcome.”
S.P. Schacht and Patricia H. Atchison, “Heterosexual Instrumentalism: Past and Future Directions,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Feminism’s anti-male ideology necessarily becomes an anti-heterosexualideology. When I describe feminism as a war against human nature, I’m not exaggerating. The final chapter of The Male in the Head — as I’ve shown, a widely-cited book by respected academic feminists — is entitled, “Unnatural Heterosexuality,” and these eminent British professors advocate resistance to heterosexuality:

Men are routinely accessing male power over women, whether or not they . . . intend to exercise such power, but they are also constrained by the construction of adult heterosexuality as masculinity. We argue that sexually young people are all in the same boat, in that heterosexuality is masculinity only thinly disguised but . . . that resistance is possible and heterosexuality could be otherwise. . . .
Resisting heterosexuality is not only a question of how young people choose their sexual partners; resistance includes a critical exploration and disruption of desire, embodiment and gender. Although very few of the young people in our studies identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, such identities, while not freeing them from the gender relations of heterosexuality, can afford them a degree of freedom in the invention and negotiation of their sexual relationships.
Some young people are clearly resisting the pressures of heterosexuality and searching for other ways of being sexual. . . .
While young people’s resistance to heterosexuality can be socially constructed in varying ways . . . the potential for young people to have a subversive or transformative effect on sexual relationships appears to be limited. Analysis of the strategies of resistance . . . became important in our understanding of the location of male power in heterosexuality.

These claims are based on research that was funded by British taxpayers under the pretext of AIDS prevention (!!!) and let me ask the reader to imagine what kind “research” is produced when feminist professors get taxpayer money to study rape, domestic violence, prostitution or any other subject pertaining to sex (or “gender”) for which they may be able to obtain a government grant. When researchers begin with an ideological bias against men (as all feminists do), we can expect them to find the shadow of sinister “male power” wherever they look. This routinely results in research calculated to influence policy (including policy affecting school curricula) in ways that “have a subversive or transformative effect,” as the professors say, so as to undermine “male power” and “the gender relations of heterosexuality.”

When I quote what feminists actually write in their books and journal articles, most people — including people who call themselves “feminists” — are astonished. What is revealed by these quotes is not merely feminism’s implacable hostility toward “institutionalized, normative heterosexuality” (i.e., what most of us think of as human nature), but also the yawning gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse and its esoteric doctrine. Academic feminists have succeeded in concealing their work from external scrutiny in large measure because critics of feminism have failed to understand the importance of what is being taught in university departments of Women Studies. Even though the total number of students in these programs (about 90,000 annually in the United States) is a small fraction of overall undergraduate enrollment, they have a large influence within the feminist movement. Furthermore, because Women’s Studies is an “interdisciplinary” program, the ideology promulgated by these professors has an influence throughout the curriculum in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

While the adherents of feminism benefit from taxpayer subsidies and grants from major philanthropic foundations, what resources are available to those who oppose this radical ideology? You.

Yes, that’s right: You, my readers, have made possible the months of research that have enabled me to bring to light the inner workings of theFeminist-Industrial Complex. The fact that readers are astonished by what I’ve found — e.g., Women’s Studies textbooks that quite literally promote witchcraft — is a clue to how far behind we are in doing the work that needs to be done to defend our culture from feminism, a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.