DPJ, Innovation Party to name new party Minshinto




A new opposition party to be launched March 27 through the merger of the Democratic Party of Japan and the Japan Innovation Party will be named Minshinto, or the Democratic Innovation Party, senior lawmakers of the two parties said Monday.

The DPJ and the Innovation Party, respectively the largest and third-largest opposition parties, made the decision during a meeting of DPJ leader Katsuya Okada, Innovation Party leader Yorihisa Matsuno and other lawmakers in preparation for the launch of the new party.

The two parties have agreed to join forces through integration in an attempt to more effectively challenge Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ruling coalition in a House of Councillors election this summer.

Altogether, about 150 lawmakers from both chambers of the Diet will join the new party, but it will still be far smaller than the coalition of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito party, which controls a majority of the 242-member upper house and more than two-thirds of the 475-member House of Representatives.

The DPJ and the Innovation Party decided on the new party’s name after taking into account the result of an opinion poll they conducted over the weekend.

A senior Innovation Party lawmaker told reporters that the “Democratic Innovation Party” is the English name of the new party.

In the poll conducted Saturday and Sunday, the two parties asked which name the public would prefer, Rikken Minshuto as proposed by the DPJ or Minshinto as recommended by the Innovation Party.

Rikken Minshuto is roughly translated as “constitutional democratic party.”

The two parties had earlier narrowed about 20,000 draft names they received from the public down to two.


Is Jack Montague a Rapist?



The senior captain of Yale University’s basketball team, Jack Montague was averaging 9.7 points per game before he left school last month for reasons that were not explained at the time. Yale Daily News reports:

Two days after signs calling on the Yale men’s basketball team to “stop supporting a rapist” first appeared on campus, a new set of posters expressing a similar message appeared Wednesday morning in the Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona lecture hall.
All of this week’s posters referred to the recent controversy surrounding the basketball team’s show of support for former captain Jack Montague ’16, who was withdrawn from the University on Feb. 10 for reasons the team and University have not specified.
At last Friday’s Yale–Harvard basketball game, the team came out for warmups wearing T-shirts which had Montague’s jersey number and nickname, “Gucci,” on the back and “Yale,” spelled backwards with inverted letters, on the front. Monday’s posters featured an image of the team wearing the shirts.
By 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, new posters were hung on two billboards just outside the lecture hall and placed on chairs inside the hall. A handwritten note chalked on the classroom’s blackboard read “Rape culture is standing by your teammate and silencing Yale’s victims of sexual assault.”

Who is “silencing” whom?

The Yale Women’s Center wrote a lengthy status on Facebook. Their claims have not been substantiated.
The post read: ‘In light of recent events, The Yale Women’s Center would like to express its sentiments on the Yale that we want to be a part of.
‘Our Yale is a place of respect and a home to all. It is a Yale in which students can feel comfortable and forge meaningful relationships on the basis of mutual understanding and consent.
‘We at the Women’s Center believe in this vision, and therefore have high expectations for the Yale administration to promote a culture of respect.
‘Bearing this in mind, we wish to comment on the current campus conversation in hopes that we can create an atmosphere of respect and understanding during this time of healing. We recognize that FERPA and Yale policy prohibit Yale from commenting on the exact nature of the incident.
‘Though the silence is deeply frustrating to us and surely to many of you, Yale’s actions speak much louder than its words. It appears that Yale has expelled a high-profile member of a sports team in the midst of a pivotal moment in the season on the basis of sexual violence.
‘While we can only speculate about these occurrences, we can comfortably say that, should all of this be true, this is progress.
‘It is progress both in the sense that a survivor felt that coming forward was a viable option for them and that they got the decisive outcome that they fought for.’

“Progress” = getting the basketball team captain expelled. The federal law FERPA (The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) means that Yale officials cannot discuss the reasons for Montague’s expulsion. In the absence of details, it would be useless to speculate what happened, except that somebody failed to warn Jack Montague:


Feminists have incited a climate of anti-male hatred on American college campuses. Jessica Valenti has declared that the feminist movement’s goal is to “redefine rape” to make it easier to expel male students, effectively criminalizing all heterosexual activity on campus. Too bad Jack Montague didn’t read my blog. In November, three months before the captain of the Yale basketball team was expelled and branded a perpetrator of “sexual violence,” I explained what feminist “progress” means:

The fate of “John Doe” at Brown University — banned from campus for making out with a girl he met at a party — illustrates the extreme danger male students face in an academic environment where feminists have ginned up a frantic hysteria of hatred. Because the number of actual rapes does not justify their claim that 1-in-5 college women are victims of sexual assault, officials are trying to make up for the “Rape Shortage” by inciting false accusations.
At Washington and Lee University, an official reportedly told female students that “regret equals rape.” At Ohio State University, you are guilty of sexual assault unless you and your partner agree why you are engaging in sexual activity. At Harvard University, there were six false rape accusations in 2014. The organizer of a “Summit on Sexual Assault” conference at Darmouth College suggested male students should be expelled as soon as they are accused.

Warn your sons, America: Never talk to a college girl.

Heterosexuality Is Now a Crime at Yale: The Persecution of Jack Montague



After the senior captain of Yale University’s basketball team was quietly expelled last month, I asked: “Is Jack Montague a Rapist?” And when the university refused to specify the nature of the “sexual misconduct” charge, I asked last week: “What Did Jack Montague Do?” The systematic denial of due-process rights in university disciplinary proceedings, demanded by feminists and required by federal policy (a consequence of the Obama administration’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter), has made it possible for any male student to be expelled if he has any romantic interaction with a female student. Feminists have incited a witch-hunt hysteria on American campuses, encouraging female students to accuse their boyfriends of sexual assault, under a system where the accusation alone is usually sufficient to expel any male student who engages (or evenattempts to engage) in heterosexual activity with a female student.

“Never talk to a college girl,” I have repeatedly warned since the onset of the phony “campus rape epidemic” two years ago. Feminists have incited so much irrational hatred of males on campus that no man smart enough to go to college would ever be stupid enough to talk to a college girl. Amid the current climate of sexual paranoia, it is impossible for male students to know whether any sexual encounter on campus will result in an accusation of “misconduct,” and it is equally impossible for them to prove their innocence if they are accused. More than 100 male students have sued their universities saying they were falsely accused of sexual assault and denied due process in campus disciplinary tribunals.

It appears that Jack Montague will be the next plaintiff:


Monday, Jack Montague’s lawyer, Max Stern, issued a statement, saying Montague planned to sue the university for allowing fellow students to slander him by labeling him a rapist. The statement acknowledges that Montague and the woman who filed the complaint, now a junior at Yale, had developed a relationship and had had sex on four occasions. It says, “On the fourth occasion, she joined him in bed, voluntarily removed all of her clothes, and they had sexual intercourse. Then they got up, left the room and went separate ways. Later that same night, she reached out to him to meet up, then returned to his room voluntarily, and spent the rest of the night in his bed with him.
“The sole dispute is as to the sexual intercourse in the fourth episode. She stated that she did not consent to it. He said that she did.
“A year later she reported the incident to a Title IX coordinator. A Title IX official — not her — filed a formal complaint with the University-Wide Committee.”
There were no witnesses to this fourth encounter between the two students, and the incident in question took place 15 months ago, in October 2014.


Read the whole thing. This kind of nightmare, where a boy is expelled because of a “sexual assault” accusation that he has no way of disproving, in the context of a relationship that ended more than a year earlier, demonstrates feminism’s hegemonic influence on our nation’s college and university campuses. The anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of radical feminism (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) has now become a matter of official policy, and every male student on campus is now a target of this totalitarian hate movement. Warn your sons, America.

American Corporations Only Support Gay Marriage When They Can Profit From It


We are always told that major corporations such as Facebook, Starbucks, and Apple are at the vanguard of supporting equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Yet they have a funny and very asymmetrical way of showing this commitment throughout the world. Starbucks in particular has become a for-profit behemoth wanting to act like a gay charity in the US, all while categorically ignoring the notion of gay marriage (or even gay rights) in countries as far afield as Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia.

It gets worse, though. These same sorts of companies were amongst the 379 filing pro-gay marriage friend-of-the-court briefs in the US Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges last year, which legalized gay marriage. Yet why did it take them so long to organize together for gay marriage in the United States? Why did they not vocally “come out” in support of it many years ago when only a fraction of Americans supported non-traditional marriage? “Human rights” should not depend on popularity, especially in places like America where violence against gays and their supporters has been infinitesimally small for decades. Consequently, the behavior of these corporations is more akin to flagrant opportunism than a deep-seated and real conviction about alleged human rights.

What we can draw from this situation is that major commercial concerns marketing to vast sections of the public will only declare their passion for gay marriage and similar policy proposals when it will not harm attempts at profit-making. This will also be done entirely selectively (i.e. “We support gay marriage and gay rights in America, but will say absolutely nothing about it in other countries we do business in.”) So this means a certain number of consumers have to support something first, regardless of what corporate leaders themselves think. Moreover, when a few companies begin to support gay marriage, hundreds of others follow, wanting to literally cash in on the trend-leadership of the first to do so.


Starbucks is one of many corporations that legitimizes the execution and maiming of gays by engaging in mutually beneficially partnerships with the governments of Saudi Arabia, the small Persian Gulf States and, more recently, Iran. When has it ever threatened to stop opening stores or even close current ones in protest at the treatment of LGBT people? In the meantime, Middle America has been excoriated by SJWs and corporations for their resistance to changing the traditional formulation of marriage. In no time in human history has the word “homophobia” been less applicable than it is today in the US, yet it is being used more than ever before.

The hypocrisy could not be starker. Run-of-the-mill Americans who peacefully disagree with gay marriage but have never engaged in any anti-gay violence are demeaned as bigots while CEOs and their senior colleagues treat the political leaders of a raft of oppressive regimes as necessary partners. Starbucks, Apple, and those of their ilk are more concerned with the Christian values of a plumber in Tennessee than the Middle Eastern Sheikh responsible for keeping local laws allowing the killing and beatings of gays.