Abe unveils 3 new arrows for reviving economy



Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, fresh from a bruising battle over unpopular military legislation, announced Thursday a fresh outline with three new arrows for reviving the world’s third-largest economy, setting a GDP target of 600 trillion yen ($5 trillion).

Abe took office in late 2012 promising to end deflation and rev up growth through strong public spending, lavish monetary easing and sweeping reforms to help make the economy more productive and competitive. So far, those “three arrows” of his “Abenomics” plan have fallen short of their targets though share prices and corporate profits have soared.

“Tomorrow will definitely be better than today!” Abe declared in a news conference on national television. “From today Abenomics is entering a new stage. Japan will become a society in which all can participate actively.”

Abe recently was re-elected unopposed as head of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. He has promised to refocus on the economy after enacting security legislation enabling Japan’s military to participate in combat even when the country is not under direct attack.

Thousands of Japanese gathered for noisy street protests last weekend over the “collective self-defense” law, and Abe’s popularity ratings took a hit.

“He has to deliver the message that he is so committed to achieving the economic agenda, that is, to make people’s lives better,” said analyst Masamichi Adachi of JPMorgan in Tokyo.

Abe said he was determined to ensure that 50 years from now the Japanese population, which is 126 million and falling, is stable at 100 million.

He said his new “three arrows” would be a strong economy, support for child rearing and providing stronger social services to lighten the burden of child and elder care for struggling families. But with Japan also committed to reducing its massive public debt, it is unclear how he intends to achieve those goals.

Abe recently announced plans to accelerate reductions in corporate taxes. The central bank also is widely expected to add to its already unprecedented monetary easing by pumping more cash into the economy later this year.

Japan’s economy, estimated at $4.6 trillion in 2014, contracted at a 1.2 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. Economists have warned that China’s slowdown and market turmoil might weaken an expected recovery in coming months.

At Japan’s recent pace of growth, achieving Abe’s goal would be a stretch. Real GDP growth averaged 1.7 percent over the past five fiscal years, less than half the 3.5 percent pace needed to attain a GDP of 600 trillion yen by 2021.

The Japan Center for Economic Research, an independent think tank, is forecasting growth at 0.9 percent this year and 1.5 percent in 2016. A sales tax increase planned for April 2017 is expected to dent growth for that year.

Japanese officials admit in private that the country needs a “great leap” in productivity, which is hard to attain at a time when the labor force is shrinking due to the aging population.

The biggest hurdle to faster growth is the apparent reluctance of Japanese employers to raise wages, despite severe labor shortages in many industries.

With wages still barely rising, families have tended to save, and increases in demand from monetary stimulus have been weaker than expected.

Sex and State Power


Sex and State Power

For many years, physicists have tried to find a unified theory of everything. They have faith that somewhere out there, there is a theory that will explain the physical properties of all things, without any exceptions. I’m not sure that dream will be realized in the scientific arena, but I think I might have stumbled across a unified theory that underlies statist philosophies, whether they are socialist or theocratic: sex.

Before you get too excited, this article isn’t going to be about voluptuous women in slinky, abbreviated clothes, or scantily clad men with rippling pecs and washboard abs. Sorry. 
Instead, this article focuses on the sordid, depressing, government-controlled side of human sexuality. That is, it examines sex not from the viewpoint of any given individual’s particular desires, but from the viewpoint of a state intent upon gaining maximum control over that same individual.
Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body. 
Statist regimes, of course, cannot tolerate self-ownership, which is the natural enemy of government control over the individual. The easiest example one can find of a statist regime using sexuality to deny individuality and dominate its citizens is, of course, Islam. 
A wise friend of mine once opined that Islam’s entire quarrel with the West rests on its fear that Western values will undermine Islam’s control over its women and, with that, its control over the men who benefit from a system that subjugates one half of the population to the control of the other half. There’s a great deal of truth in that observation. 
Unlike most other conflicts, Islam’s quarrel with the West does not revolve around borders, water supplies, or economic control over assets. Instead, it focuses on culture — and the heart of the Islamic cultural difference with the West, at least in the Muslim mind, is Islam’s statist determination to erase a woman’s individuality through control over her sexuality.
In the Muslim world, women are viewed as temptresses, and men as feeble creatures incapable of resisting feminine wiles. The only way to control the anarchy that this perceived sexual imbalance creates is for the State — and remember that Islam and the State are indistinguishable from each other — to exert total dominion over the women within its reach. 
The best way to regulate women is to remove them entirely from view. Islam has traditionally relied upon harems to isolate women from view (and, not coincidentally, from the body politic). This practice is still used in Saudi Arabia, where women may not leave the home unless they are accompanied by a male family member. 
Should the imprisonment option be unavailable, however, wrapping the women in completely obscuring, shapeless mountains of cloth is an adequate substitute. Women so enveloped, aside from losing any individuality, are relatively dysfunctional and, therefore, are entirely dependent on men. 
Women who seek to express (or are suspected of or falsely accused of expressing) their sexuality free of statist constraints are subject to exceptional cruelty in the Muslim world. This cruelty often comes directly from the State. Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, an Iranian woman and mother of two, was due to be stoned to death for allegedly having an adulterous relationship. When an outcry arose, the Iranian government threw in a surprise murder conviction to justify making adultery a capital crime. Ashtiani is not alone: Twelve other women and three men await the same fate for having allegedly committed an act that, in Western culture, is not a crime against the State. 
Islam also sanctions private actions to control women’s sexuality in the form of so-called “honor killings.”  These”all in the family” murders are endemic wherever Muslims live, whether in the Middle East, Europe, England, or America
The Islamic state manipulates men sexually, too. On the one hand, it theoretically offers men the benefit of an enslaved female population. On the other hand, though, the isolation it imposes on women means that vast numbers of Muslim men are deprived of any access, normal or otherwise, to women.
This deprivation enables Islamic leadership to use the mere promise of sex to entice men into committing suicide on behalf of the state. Islam assures men that, if they engage in suicidal attacks against nonbelievers in order to advance Islam, their reward in the afterlife will be unlimited sex with the famous seventy virgins (or, maybe, they’ll enjoy sexual congress with seventy raisins, a much less titillating inducement to suicide).
What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery. 
The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:
Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)
The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.
Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure. 
Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:
For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)
Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.
Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least,pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.
While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda. 
Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.” 
Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.
Examples abound of supposedly anti-discriminatory programs that, instead of focusing on tolerance, work to direct a child’s sexual development away from the zone of privacy that is a hallmark of Western sexuality. Robin of Berkeley describes a group called “Gender Spectrum,” which has the ostensible goal of allowing “transgender, gender bending, [and] gender nonconforming” children and teens to hang with each other and share their experiences. She rightly sees this not as an effort to promote tolerance, but as a way to make it “cool to dabble in polyamory and gender nonconformism,” thereby “destroy[ing] the West by degrading traditional values.”
Only four years ago, California narrowly escaped a legislative effort to pass a bill that would have required all California textbooks, starting in first grade, to include materials focusing on famous homosexuals — with the focus not on the achievement that made them famous, but simply on the homosexuality itself. A parental outcry forced the legislature to retreat to something more in keeping with a free society, which is the requirement that children may not be exposed to material that is discriminatory to people based on their sexuality.
In Helena, Montana (Montana!), the school board is contemplating a K-12 sex ed program that repeatedly blurs the line between demanding tolerance, which should be an imperative in a free society, and advocating alternative sexuality, which is consistent with the Leftist agenda of separating sexuality from individuality. In Grade 2, children would be taught, appropriately, that “making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.” By Grade 3, however, the focus is on breaking down traditional familial norms, as children are taught that to “[u]nderstand media often presents an unrealistic image of what it means to be male or female, what it means to be in love & what parenthood & marriages are like.” And so it goes, with a proposed curriculum that veers wildly between respect and advocacy.
The relentless Leftist obsession with homosexuality and variations on traditional sexual gender roles is deeply embedded in the Obama administration. Last year, a vigilant blogger exposed the fact that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” as part of his leadership role in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), aggressively promoted child pornography in the classroom. GLSEN’s actions had nothing to do with creating a safe, non-discriminatory environment for young people with different sexual orientations and everything to do with using the government (i.e., public schools) to inculcate in children the notion that their bodies have no boundaries. A body with no boundaries, of course, is a body that can easily be decoupled from the individual’s control and then ceded to the state.
While the gay agenda, which is cloaked in civil rights language that makes it hard to challenge, is the leading edge of the state’s desire to control children’s sexuality, Leftists also use the schools to manipulate heterosexual behaviors so as to destroy a child’s physical boundaries. In England, parents were aghast to learn that a school was requiring its first-grade pupils to massage each other. In Iowa (Iowa!), one middle school has abandoned any pretense of traditional morality and, instead, is teaching its eighth-graders “how to perform female exams and to put a condom on a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ.” The body is a tool, and nothing more.
Freud was right when he speculated that sex, perhaps because it is the least easily satisfied human need, may also be the most powerful physical need driving human beings. Freud, however, viewed sexuality through the spectrum of a given individual’s desires. What the statists understand — and have always understood — is that our bodies are the first line in the battle between statism and individualism. If a person is allowed to develop a sense that his body is his own to control, he will never willingly yield to the demands of the state. Only by convincing its citizens that they have no personal autonomy, beginning with control over their own bodies, can a state completely subsume the individual to the bureaucracy. 
So if you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulderblades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.
Bookworm is the proprietor of Bookworm Room.

Sydney psychiatrist Alexander Anthony Sharah disqualified for inappropriate treatment of patients

HE told a patient being treated for depression that if she failed to follow Jesus she would end up in hell with her abusive ex-husband, told a grieving mother who had a stillborn baby to ask God for forgiveness, and compared lesbians to paedophiles.

Alexander Anthony Sharah, who practised in Merrylands in Western Sydney, has been barred by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal from registering as a medical practitioner for two years.

The Health Care Complaints Commission brought the case against the psychiatrist following a litany of complaints from former patients.

The overriding concern was Mr Sharah’s habit of bringing religion into the therapy room.

A 48-year-old woman, known as Patient B, said attending Mr Sharah’s practice was like, “walking into a church” and noted a cross on the wall and on his desk, and “a few statues of Mother Mary holding baby Jesus”.

The woman was being treated for depression and for assistance after being discharged from an alcohol detoxification program. She confided in Mr Sharah that she had been regularly sexually abused since she was 11 by a man who, at the time, was her mother’s boyfriend and to who she ultimately married when still a teenager.

During a discussion with Mr Sharah about her emotional state the woman told the tribunal he had told her, “there are always people worse off than you, you should get over it”.

In the judgement, handed down yesterday, it stated that the patient accused Mr Sharah of giving her inappropriate religious advice, “with words to the effect of, if she didn’t go to church and show Jesus that she loved him, she would end up in hell with her former husband and her sl*t of a mother”.

However, “if she prayed to Jesus she would end up in heaven one day with the practitioner playing football”, it read.


Canada: Life in prison for 2 Muslims who plotted to derail US-bound trains


TORONTO — Two men found guilty of terrorism charges after being accused of plotting to derail a passenger train were sentenced to life in prison Wednesday as a Toronto judge found neither of them had expressed remorse for their offences.

Raed Jaser and Chiheb Esseghaier were found guilty in March on a total of eight charges between them.

Justice Michael Code, the Toronto judge who presided over their trial earlier this year, found both men have not renounced their extremists beliefs, have not accepted responsibility for their offences and present questionable prospects for rehabilitation.

“I am satisfied that life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence,” he said, noting that the men would receive some credit for time already spent in custody. Both men aren’t eligible for parole until 2023.

Jaser shook his head, closed his eyes at one point and held his face in one hand after his sentence was delivered.

Esseghaier appeared nonchalant, crossing his arms and leaning back in the prisoner’s box as Code read out his 53-page sentencing decision.

“The life sentence doesn’t have any meaning for me,” the self-represented Esseghaier told Code after his sentence was delivered.

Crown lawyers had asked for life sentences for both men and expressed their satisfaction with Code’s decision.

“There was one message that was made loud and clear today,” said Crown prosecutor Croft Michaelson. “That message is if you commit terrorist offences in Canada, with the intention of causing indiscriminate killing, you’re going to pay a very heavy price.”

Jaser’s lawyer said he was disappointed with the outcome of the case and already had instructions to appeal both Jaser’s conviction and sentence.

“We do view it as excessive,” John Norris said of the sentence, adding that Jaser was “somewhat stunned” by Wednesday’s developments.

“He is a resilient man. He is trying to remain positive.”

Jaser’s lawyer had asked for a sentence of five and a half years and argued mitigating factors in his client’s case included entrapment, segregation during pre-trial custody and drug addiction. Code rejected those arguments in delivering his sentence.

“My overall impressions of Mr. Jaser are that he is intelligent, devious and untrustworthy,” said Code. “He has not yet accepted responsibility for the offences, not yet expressed remorse, not yet renounced his violent and racist beliefs.”

In Esseghaier’s case, a court-appointed lawyer who was ordered to assist the Tunisian national through the legal process had asked Code to postpone sentencing until it could be determined if Esseghaier could be hospitalized and treated for a mental illness.

Code refused and said there was “no causal link” between Esseghaier’s current mental state and his behaviour at the time of the offences.

“The evidence is overwhelming that he was not delusional or psychotic at the time of the offence,” Code said. “It is unprecedented to adjourn a sentencing hearing indefinitely to await treatment.”

Two psychiatrists who assessed Esseghaier’s mental state over the course of his sentencing hearing found that he likely suffers from a mental illness.

But the second psychiatrist found that Esseghaier was still fit to be sentenced for his crimes.

Esseghaier is deeply religious and has consistently maintained his desire to be judged under the Qur’an.

He has often gone on rambling rants in the courtroom and even prayed in the prisoner’s dock, but his mental state only became an issue in the case after the psychiatric assessments — which he vehemently disagreed with.

In one court session, Esseghaier even spat at lawyers and threw a cup of water across a courtroom after the second psychiatrist who assessed him testified that he likely suffers from schizophrenia.

Code said it was “unnecessary to arrive at any firm conclusions regarding Esseghaier’s alleged mental illness.” But he did find that Esseghaier was “completely remorseless.”

The lawyer who assisted Esseghaier said the way in which Code dealt with the evidence of mental illness in the case would be “an issue” if the matter proceeded to an appeal.

During their trial, court heard that an undercover FBI agent gained Jaser and Esseghaier’s trust and surreptitiously recorded their conversations, which made up the bulk of the evidence in the case.

The two were recorded speaking about alleged terror plots they would conduct in retaliation for Canada’s military actions in Muslim countries, including the derailment of a Via Rail train travelling between New York and Toronto.

Google Ideas invites online Harassers to talk about online Harrassment


It seems that staff at Google Ideas, the Internet giant’s New York-based think-tank, aren’t very good at googling.

If they were, they might have thought twice before inviting notorious online abuser Randi Harper to a discussion on preventing online abuse, given that entering Harper’s name into their own search engine raises more red flags than a team of bullfighters running through a NASCAR event.

In fairness to Google Ideas, Harper has made an effort to cultivate an image as an online harassment guru. But her project to combat online nastiness, the “Online Abuse Prevention Initiative,” is irreparably tarnished by the abusiveness of its founder.

It’s also not clear what, if anything, the name represents beyond a WordPress page on the internet. The organisation appears to have no staff and no funding and is not registered with the authorities. To all intents and purposes it simply does not exist.

As Breitbart has previously reported, Harper is well-known for sending relentless mobs of abusers after her critics. Roberto Rosario, a Puerto Rican software developer and diversity activist, says he has been“harassed on the web daily” ever since he dared to criticise one of Harper’s Twitter blocking tools, the Good Game Autoblocker.

An anonymous Reddit user claiming to support Harper even posted his family’s personal details on the internet, warning him to stop speaking out against Harper’s projects. Harper, the “anti-abuse activist,” did nothing to stop this. Data scientist Chris Von Csefalvay endured repeated intimidation, including death threats against his wife, after Harper demonised him on social media.

Harper never intervenes to stop the abuse of critics on her behalf and often joins in. Shepersonally led efforts to attack Vivek Wadhwa’s online reputation and frequently abuses her critics on social media, telling them to “get fucked” or “go die in a fire.” She also doxed a debt collector for the crime of doing his job.

Joining Harper is Zoe Quinn, a paragon of anti-harassment who bombarded The Fine Young Capitalists (TFYC,) a feminist games design project, with accusatory tweets for reasons that remain unclear. Soon after this incident, TFYC’s website was taken offline in an apparent DDoS attack. Quinn and her friends could be seen on Twitter joking about the DDoS as it happened.

Given that one of Google Ideas’ signature projects is a service to protect websites from DDoS attacks, the branding mismatch couldn’t be more delicious. Their selection of speakers is eerily similar to the UN’s equally-hilarious decision to invite Quinn to address them (read: a largely empty room) on “Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls.”

Another member of the “anti-harassment” discussion is Rose Eveleth, the Atlantic journalist who helped trigger the online public shaming of Rosetta Mission scientist Dr. Matt Taylor in 2014. The vitriolic campaign, started absurdly because of Taylor’s allegedly offensive shirt, eventually caused the scientist to break down in tears on live television. But it’s OK — he was being harassed for social justice. 

Google Ideas is a PR exercise, designed to make Google seem socially-conscious and engaged with the world’s problems. Visit its website and you’re quickly met with messages about how they’re going to defend free speech, help investigate corruption, and generally save the world. It’s a distraction from Google’s less utopian purpose, which is the harvesting of data and the sale of online ads.

And, of course, there’s always the possibility that this is Google’s way of throwing a bone to the social justice crowd, giving them a photo op so they don’t have to actually do anything. But the messages it sends about Google’s priorities aren’t good.

Google gave up “Don’t be evil” long ago. Might be time to replace it with: “Don’t pose for a photo op with blue-haired, Patreon-supported, habitually abusive hipster evil.” I know they say poachers make the best gamekeepers, but this is ridiculous.

Google supports Harrasment


On the 23rd of September, 2015, Google Ideas, a division of Google with the purpose of fighting oppression, announced that they had spent the day working with some prominent figures in the tech industry with the goal of ending online harassment.

A noble cause, but their choice of people to achieve this goal was highly questionable, as many of those involved have been active participants in online harassment campaigns recently.

Randi Lee Harper

Of the group, Harper is perhaps the most obvious perpetrator of online harassment. In the past she has threatened to publicly doxx the CEO of North Star Location, joined Sarah Nyberg (a self-confessed paedophile and distributor of child pornography) in bullying a woman until she deleted her twitter account, told an aspiring author and his friend to set themselves on fire and created a tool to publicly shame supports of the consumer-rights movement #GamerGate.

Zoë Quinn

If Eron Gjoni is to be believed, Zoe is an emotionally abusive, manipulative cheater. Even if Gjoni is not telling the truth, Quinn has admitted to participating in Helldump (a now-defunct forum dedicated to harassing and doxxing people) and attempted to shut down an event encouraging women to join the gaming industry.

Rose Eveleth

Rose Eveleth is best known for starting the #ShirtStorm controversy, a move that has been widely criticised by the majority of feminists (and humans in general) as petty and pointless.

does Justice for Women@justice4women in the U.K endorsed co-founder Julie Bindel who wants camps for men?

Julie Bindel the co-founder of Justice for women advocated putting men in concentration camps  and don’t recognize them as Human Beings with rights and dignity.  I tweeted Justice for Women@justice4women twice asking them if they supports Julie’s anti-male views on putting men in concentration camps. I was hoping that they would distance themselves from her and say that goes against their goals of support women’s rights. i haven’t heard a response from them.  so can I conclude that they support their co-founders wishes to dehumanize males and  place them in amps against their will.  unless proven I conclude that Justice for Women is an anti-male organization that dehumanize males. they refuse to condemned Julie Bindel and her anti-male actions while bitching about women’s rights. Any Woman supporting Justice for Women she be defriended and have all contacts cut off.