The question might seem, at first glance, to be a simple one. But the devil— or perhaps, in this case, the God— is buried deep in the details. It would be tempting to answer in haste, to offer platitudes about humanity rising above such quarrels, but that would be a lie. Up until now, I have sat quietly with my thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I have my own views, of course, but they mean little, for I have no personal stake in it. But now, something has stirred in me, something that compels me to write. I cannot help but see echoes of something similar in the ground I call my own and in the stories that shape my people’s lives. Of course, there is more than one reason why several Western nations choose to support Israel, but I’ll focus on just one in this piece — the religious and cultural one. Why the West Should Support Israel Returning to the question — is a fight over land justified? To answer that, one must first reckon with the land in question, for it is not just any plot of earth. This is a land that has woven itself into the fabric of a people’s identity, a land that has, through centuries of bloodshed, faith, and longing, become a symbol, a dream, a promise. To speak of this land is not just to speak of ownership, but of heritage. When you consider the unbroken thread of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it becomes clear why the West stands with Israel. It’s not just a political alliance, but a continuation of an ancient bond—a shared history of faith that runs through the veins of Western civilization. Israel’s fight, in a sense, is their fight too. Israel represents more than just a nation-state. It is the physical manifestation of the promise etched in sacred texts—one that echoes through the halls of cathedrals, the pages of the Bible, and the ideals upon which the West built its foundations. The land of Israel is the birthplace of a faith that gave rise to the moral compass by which many of the Western nations today measure their lives. It is the cradle of the very traditions that have defined their understanding of justice, sacrifice, and redemption. So when Israel fights, it is not just a struggle for its own survival—it is a battle to protect a shared legacy, a legacy that the West sees as part of its own soul. Why It Matters to the Rest of the World Of course, I have little stake in this matter, given that I do not belong to the Judeo-Christian faith, nor to a nation that is part of the Western civilization. Yet, I cannot casually disregard the values that this civilization has bestowed upon the world. Not forgetting the colonial history of how these values came to be spread, still, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that the principles of freedom, equality, and individual dignity, values upon which the Western world is founded, are those that we, in the rest of the world, look to the West to safeguard. Even with their imperfections and contradictions, these ideals have become the yardstick by which many other nations measure progress. I do not want to imagine what would happen if the West were to fall—if the moral compass that has steered so much of the modern world were to lose its bearings. Readers in India might interpret this to mean that I dismiss the values of Indian culture or the rich traditions of the wider Asian world. But nothing could be farther from the truth. I have deep respect for my own culture, for the wisdom and values it has contributed to the ever-expanding repository of human thought and achievement. India’s spiritual depth, its values of balance, duty, discipline, non-violence, pursuit of knowledge and the individual spiritual journey remain invaluable to the human story and will continue to enrich the human experience. But when it comes to the principles of freedom, equality, and justice — those ideals that have shaped the trajectory of modern governance, law, and social equality — it is the West that has gifted them to us. Those in my country familiar with the history of our nation’s constitution will know where the influence of a good part of the legal framework we now live under, can be found. Why it Matters to Me Recently, the government of India completed the construction of the Ram Mandir in the city of Ayodhya. For many Hindus, it was a celebration as full of joy as the festival Diwali. The significance of this event goes beyond the physical walls of the temple; it is rooted in the land itself, for the site where this temple now stands is considered to be Ram Janmabhoomi—the birthplace of Lord Rama, the hero of the epic Ramayana. For those who hold this belief, it is not merely a plot of land but a sacred place where the divine first touched the earth. Lord Rama, the ideal of dharma, virtue and righteousness, is a figure whose stature in Hinduism is no less than Jesus in the Christian faith. The site of the temple has long been a point of communal tensions in India. A slogan that echoed across decades, "Mandir wahin banayenge"—"We will build the temple there (at Rama’s birthplace)"—became a rallying cry for many Hindus. This ground, however, was also the site of the Babri Masjid, a mosque constructed by Mir Baqi, a commander of the emperor Babur, who invaded India in the 16th century and established the Mughal empire. In 1992, this mosque was torn down by activists affiliated with a Hindu nationalist group, who claimed that Babur had built the mosque atop the ruins of a Rama temple, which he had ordered destroyed. The demolition triggered widespread unrest and riots in the country. An excavation conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India unearthed evidence of a massive, non-Islamic structure beneath the remains of the mosque. (Interesting fact: the said excavation was headed by a Muslim, KK Muhammed.) After years of legal battles, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu claim. It directed the disputed land to be handed over to a trust for the construction of a temple dedicated to Lord Rama. To address the communal balance, the court also allotted a larger plot of land, some distance from Ayodhya, for the construction of a mosque. The story of this temple resonates deeply with the tale of Rama himself. In the Ramayana, Rama, the prince of Ayodhya, was unjustly banished from his kingdom and endured years of exile, only to return triumphantly with his wife, Sita, and his brother, Lakshmana, after vanquishing the demon king, Ravana. That homecoming was celebrated with the lighting of lamps, a tradition that gave birth to the festival of Diwali. In many ways, the completion of the temple and the installation of Lord Rama’s idol felt like another kind of homecoming—a symbolic restoration of a divine figure to the place where, as believers hold, his mortal journey began. For countless Hindus, it was a moment of fulfillment, a belief realized after centuries of waiting and decades of strife. It felt as though the lord himself had come home once again. Critics may call such devotion misplaced. They argue that land, in the grand scheme of things, should not hold such significance. Why should religion take precedence over the broader ideals of humanity? They question the need to cling to temples and mosques when the same land could serve a more pragmatic purpose—why not build a school or a hospital that would provide tangible benefits to people? These voices also took issue with the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in the rituals of the temple’s inauguration, pointing out that such overt religious participation by the leader of a nation undermines the secular fabric of a society where the separation of church and state is meant to be sacrosanct. There were also accusations of political opportunism. Some claimed that the government’s active role in the temple’s construction was a calculated move to secure the loyalty of millions of Hindu voters, which it may well have been. Others contended that it was not just about faith or history, but also a strategic ploy to boost pilgrimage tourism, turning the sacred into a lucrative enterprise. Again, there is no denying that the temple will boost tourism revenue. Still, such critiques failed to grasp the depth of what this temple signifies to those who revere it. To dismiss it as merely land, or to reduce it to an economic strategy, risks overlooking the emotional and cultural resonance it holds for millions. For millions of Hindus, Ayodhya is not just a city; it is the birthplace of a god who embodies the ideals of dharma and virtue. To stand in that place is to feel the weight of centuries, the echo of voices that have never stopped calling it sacred. So even for those of us who stand outside the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel’s fight for its land, for its faith and its legacy is understandable. Just as millions of Hindus see the Ram Mandir as more than a temple, as the reclamation of something intrinsic to their identity, so too does the West see Israel as a kind of affirmation that all that they stand for, has not been extinguished. When these narratives are under siege, the response is often one of solidarity—not merely political, but deeply personal and ideological, rooted in the belief that some stories are worth protecting because they define who we are. We fight not over land. We fight so as not to be erased.

Last week we had great news. A brilliant young Chinese PhD student won his appeal against the sexual assault convictions which led him to spend last Christmas in prison. I wrote about this appalling case last March after he had been released on appeal, after three months in Parklea jail. It all started when his accuser threatened to have him charged with rape when he refused to resume their relationship after she’d dropped him and then wanted him back. Sure enough, that’s what she did. Now her lies and manipulation have been exposed for all to see. Here’s the verdict from the appeal. Read it to get a taste of the utter madness that is finding its way into our courts. And know that this creature had the effrontery to turn up to visit him in prison, full of remorse, claiming she had no idea this would happen to him. I’m just delighted that he will get a chance to return to China to finish his PhD. What is outrageous is he will receive no compensation for wrongful imprisonment – what happened to him was apparently perfectly legal. But certainly not right, nor proper. And some further good news… Six years ago I ran a campaign targeting the charity Mission Australia for claiming a major cause of homelessness was women escaping violent partners. We pointed out this was misleading since the bulk of truly homeless people are male and that there are also many males and their children needing to escape violent women. We even managed to get the CEO to meet with male DV victims to expose him to the true picture. The result…. nothing. The charity continued to pull on the heartstrings of potential donors by portraying cowering women. Now suddenly they have discovered battered men. Look at their latest ad, featuring Brice who has been forced to move interstate with his children to escape his abusive, drug-addicted ex-wife. This is a huge turn-around, suggesting that finally the truth is out. The fact that this major charity featured a male domestic violence victim to launch their Christmas appeal is a big deal. It acknowledges that the public realises female violence is a major issue and assumes they will be willing to pay for to help vulnerable males and their children. We need our governments to take note. I’m pleased to be able to offer some Christmas cheer, celebrating many new initiatives which are springing up, all designed to change the prevailing narrative, and provide more services and support for men in trouble. It all heralds a big year coming up, with the world waking up to the fact that men matter too. To start with, I’m getting political and helping the NSW Libertarians put together their men’s rights policies. The Libertarians were the Liberal Democrats until the Liberal Party won a court battle to restrict their right to use that name. They are a party committed to “Individual liberty and personal responsibility under the rule of law” – an alien notion in this nanny state with its prescribed victims and villains. That means equality – which requires brave new policies to redress the imbalance currently operating in our society. Policies ensuring fair treatment for men, rather than the existing laws and rules endlessly advantaging women. We are working on the list now – and you might like to help. How about enforcement of penalties for false allegations? That’s number one on my list. Suicide policies which, instead of favouring women, give proper funding to Dads in Distress, the only organisation properly supporting one of the groups proved to be most at risk, namely dads during family separation. How about we do a Trump and commit to removing all DEI from all government-funded bodies? Restore the presumption of innocence in sexual assault trials? No more cases pushed through to court without insufficient evidence. No more talk of “victims” rather than complainants. Stop shaming boys in schools? And close the education gap by addressing boy’s educational disadvantage. And, of course, Family Law reform must be centre stage – and the abolition of the entire rotten system is the only real answer. But a pilot of an inquisitorial tribunal model would be a good start. We must work for a 50/50 shared care presumption, but in the meantime insist on changes to the Family Law Act to restore the presumption of shared parental responsibility and children’s right to care by both parents – both tossed out by the current Labor government. We need a family court system which enforces its orders. And a fairer child support system which doesn’t incentivise mothers to deny fathers contact with their children. Dismantling of the current system where violence orders have become the go-to tactic for gaining advantage in family law matters. The list goes on…. We are looking for a top ten - you can send in your suggestions – ideally with links to background documents. (Please don’t send in massive screeds – we will only read brief summaries of ideas.) We know these policies are not going to sweep any party into power but hopefully they will start a conversation about the shameful way our politicians have been both denigrating and ignoring men. Our mainstream parties are a total disgrace and getting rid of Labor should be our absolute priority. A few months back I published a survey asking for feedback on lawyers and other professionals involved in DV and family law battles. The results were striking, with the average legal costs over $100,000, over 90% reporting trouble finding good legal help, endless reports of dud, incompetent lawyers, and frequent overcharging. Now a new service has been launched to address the unique challenges faced by men during divorce. The High Conflict Divorce Centre (HCDC) will provide both men and women with services from carefully vetted, ethical professionals, but is tailored specifically to meet the needs of men confronting false allegations, parental alienation and anti-male bias in the justice system which makes the separation process so much tougher. The initial launch offers limited services but will soon be expanded to include a far wider range of professionals available across the country. HCDC welcomes inquiries from professionals keen to be involved, and potential investors. Plans for 2025 will include resources to help men self-represent. It’s been very entertaining watching panic set in as viewers desert mainstream media whose ignorance and bias had been exposed in the recent US elections. Suddenly everyone is talking about the pulling power of alternative media, given that Joe Rogan’s interview with Trump attracted 38 million views in three days. But in the new world of podcasting and social media, heavyweights like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson have long been exposing the plight of men. And now many other programs are starting to join them. Here too, there are encouraging signs of large audiences hungry for such content. For the last few months Damian Coory has been pulling big numbers in his YouTube show, The Other Side, by focussing on the hot button issues impacting on men: the biased family court, false allegations of domestic violence and feminist targeting of men. He has just produced a great finale for the year - Stand up for Aussie Men. The result of Damian’s show was that my inbox has been flooded with men wanting to talk about their family law battles… one train wreck after the other. Now there’s an Australian podcast which aims to give these men a public voice. - YouTube Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. www.youtube.com The Broken Fathers Podcast was founded by an Australian veteran, Jared Purcell – a proud father who was “completely broken” by his family court experiences. He aims to provide a platform “for fathers to share their struggles, expose flaws in Australia’s outdated Family Court system, and advocate for change.” Contact Jared if you would like to participate - jared.purcell88@hotmail.com. There’s plenty more happening - like a new app to help men negotiate legal battles and an AI chatbot focussed on family law and related court issues (let me know if you have the skills to help with this project.) Dads in Distress is soon to launch legal support for self-representing men. Plus, there are new male-focussed blogs, YouTube and podcast channels. It’s all part of getting men rights, and men’s needs, on the map. About time too.

What is presented below is not hearsay. I’VE witnessed it and I have seen the recent testimony of others who have reached the conclusions I reached some years ago as noted below! Of course, not every “gay” person has been involved in pushing this agenda, but there are few indeed who have not rejoiced in its total victory. It is also necessary to understand that this agenda did not “develop” over time. Indeed, for those in “leadership” roles, this has always been the agenda even if the average person in both groups probably did not foresee the inevitable results that we have today including the mutilation of the genitals of young children sometimes with their parents’ “blessing,” God help us! 1st Demand: All we want is to be left alone. We want to be free from assaults by the cops, bully-boys and other “straights” who hate us. After all, we’re a poor, small minority with no power in the society. We have a constitutional right to be as protected against attack as has any other American! The Cultural Response: Most Americans agreed. Decent people don’t like bullies and besides, many people believed that it was none of their business what consenting adults did behind closed doors as long as it wasn’t openly advocated in the Public Square – the children, you know! As well, religious proscriptions against homosexuality and other moral taboos certainly did not include an excuse for harassment or violence against the practitioners. Indeed, in most cases these proscriptions were motivated by love of the sinner and hatred of the sin! However, at the time most Americans did not know (because it was not reported in the press) that gays were very powerful in many facets of American society including the worlds of arts and entertainment and the fashion industry while their median income as a group was considerably above average; that is, the average “gay” was not poor by any definition. Result: First Demand accepted. 2nd Demand: All we want is to be tolerated. We don’t want to be condemned outright for being what nature made us. We only want the same toleration as other people who are considered “different.” Remember, we represent a good 10% of the population so surely, we are, for all intents and purposes “normal!” Response: Well, this was more problematic, especially for Bible believing Christians and Jews. I won’t mention Muslims here because at the time of the rise of the Gay Movement, the numbers of that religion were too small to be of consequence culturally or politically. But to tolerate something is not the same as to ignore that issue. Tolerance indicates that the issue has been examined (while ignoring something does not!) and that after examination, the issue is not condemned! As well, there were other laws on the books against sodomy and what was considered other unnatural sexual practices that did not affect only homosexuals. These laws were intended to support a decent moral society and were not directed at “gays” alone. To be forced to remove them from the law, indicated a social acceptance of what had heretofore been rejected in the name of a “decent and moral” culture. Indeed, our Founders spoke openly of the need for the nation to be morally “good” for the rejection of that situation posed a great danger to the culture and thus to the nation. But in the end, (at least it seemed that) most Americans decided that while they rejected these practices, it was none of our business what consenting adults did behind closed doors (see First Demand). Yet, there are two things to be considered here. The first is that it should have been a warning to the culture that homosexuals were prepared to lie to advance their cause—the lie in this case being that their percentage in the population was around 2%, not 10%—and they knew it! The numbers were inflated to produce a larger affected population in response to the “fairness factor.” It was reasoned that the more people affected, the greater the need to acquiesce to the demand—though why that should be the case was not explained. The second thing that failed to be considered was that there are always consequences when any society makes changes to the primary, moral foundation of the culture! It is akin to cutting a seminal “thread” in the warp and woof of the fabric of that culture as no matter how small the cut, the result can be – and eventually was, devastating. Result: Demand generally accepted—but with considerable (and useless) caveats. 3rd Demand: 1st step: We want to be considered equal to or the same as “straights.” We want to be “out of the closet” and openly demonstrate our sexual preferences without any negative “backlash” from straights or their society no matter how we choose to demonstrate those choices (see “gay parades!”). We don’t want to suffer “discrimination” in ANY area including employment in those institutions that reject our “lifestyle” for so-called “moral” reasons – such as religious institutions. We want the psychologists and psychiatrists to remove our sexual preferences from any list of unnatural behaviors and/or psychological illnesses and to declare homosexuality to be as “normal” as heterosexuality—and we want that recognition to be culture-wide and accepted in EVERY aspect of life, secular AND religious. Response: Line crossed. Those for whom homosexuality is considered a grave sin rejected this demand outright. But the cultural establishment—having long since rejected traditional religion and morals—readily agreed as many gays were wealthy, prominent and powerful and their advocacy was welcomed in, among other places, the political arena. Also, as gays were now able to “come out,” without consequence, they no longer needed to fear being “outed” and therefore could use their influence and wealth to press their agenda without fearing any negative responses to their now “normal” lifestyle. 3rd Demand: 2nd step: We want to be considered superior to the “natural order” that we reject. We are smarter and more talented than straights—except, of course, for those who acquiesce to our demands—and therefore, we deserve to have our lifestyle recognized as preferable to that of straights, or more correctly, non-gays! We especially want access to children at younger and younger ages through the educational system so as to assure that young “gays” are not discouraged from reaching their full sexual potential (Of course, Freud believed that homosexuality arose from a matter of arrested development occurring during what he called “the latency period,” that very early period before children begin to experience sexual development. Therefore, to start indoctrinating children while they are in that period will in fact increase the “gay” population! Even more important, many male homosexuals are attracted to children—remember NAMBLA – the North American Man-Boy Love Association whose motto is “after eight it’s too late?” – a matter that is now painfully obvious to even the most intentionally blind.) Demand continued: In short, we reject Western civilization and its patriarchal rules and traditions. We want “gay marriage” not because it makes us equal, but because we want to destroy the institution of marriage as it presently exists (a matter that has been admitted to openly by many “gays”). We reject your society and demand that you accept our understanding of how life should be lived and through the law, force Christian churches to cease preaching against us and accept us in their doctrines or lose their legal protection in the society. Response: Of course, traditional, orthodox Christians and Jews—along with a lot of other “straights”—utterly rejected this Demand but sadly, there were/are so many powerful allies of the Gay Agenda—for instance, most leftist groups identify strongly with gays—that those who do refuse this ultimatum will in time not only be in the minority but persecuted as well. Result: Our acceptance is no longer requested, demanded or, in fact, required; they have won. Point to Ponder: No society that has accepted homosexuality as normal and equal in nature to heterosexuality has long survived this choice. Post Scriptum: The victory of the Gay Agenda has not completely destroyed Western morality, but it has led to the “trans-gender” and “trans-human” agendas that followed quickly upon its victory. And as the organs of society are transformed under these perversions, more and worse will follow. There are already hints of demands for such outrages as animal sacrifice while monuments to Satan and pagan deities are erected in the seats of Christian culture including American states such as Arkansas, Illinois and Oklahoma. One must then ask, at this point can the end of Christian civilization be far away? My answer is that barring Divine intervention, I think not.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the aim of any article presenting facts to the public. Even when supposedly explanatory titles are provided, that does not necessarily mean that such a heading is the real thrust of what follows. But when the written word obfuscates the true intention—that is, what the writer intends the reader to understand of his meaning without actually coming out and stating it plainly—there are usually words and phrases that give clues to his or her intentions. Of course, to begin with, the very need to hide the author’s intent should raise red flags regarding the honesty of that person. Why is there a need to hide the writer’s intent if the intent is honorable? Of course, there isn’t any. Ergo, from the beginning the article that couches its intent in questionable rhetoric should excite the suspicions of all but the terminally naïve. Below is a list of at least some of the words and phrases whose appearance in any document should make the reader wary of the author’s intent: 1. Racist. This word was coined by Communist Leon Trotsky as part of what we today call “Cultural Marxism.” It is a slander intended to destroy the reputation of the person or action to which it is applied. When this is used, the reader/hearer is supposed to believe that the person to whom it is applied is unworthy of belief or respect. On the other hand, it does not in any way indicate whether that person is correct! It makes no judgement applicable to fact or truth. It merely means to imply that while the messenger is not necessarily wrong, he is certainly unworthy of belief. Why? Because he or she is a “racist!” The word is becoming somewhat ineffective through massive overuse. Other words used in this nomenclature are as follows: a. White—all uses of the word white in this instance, describe a particular race; that is, white supremacy, white nationalism, white privilege etc. The use of any and/or all of these terms indicates complete bigotry and a total lack of reason or reality. People who use and believe these have an agenda that does not represent either of these necessary qualities. a. There are two types who use these terms. The first are people who actually believe the concept, many of whom are themselves white. b. The second are people who use these terms to persuade others that the greatest danger to human life today is the white race and that once whites are extinct whether through interbreeding with other races or through physical death, the planet will prosper and flourish. 2. X-phobe as in “homophobe,” “Islamophobe” &etc. The term/word “phobia” indicates an irrational fear; that is, a fear that is either far more acute than ordinary fear or, in the alternative, an intense dislike of something factually unworthy of that situation. When it is applied to a word, it indicates that the person being so identified has an irrational fear or dislike/hatred of the object identified. As a result, any liberal icon whether it be “illegals” or “transgenders” &etc., when resisted, the person and/or group resisting are labeled as “phobic.” Simply put, if you don’t like a particular liberal agenda, the response is to name those resisting as “phobic” thus marginalizing their resistance by making it into something irrational. 3. Conspiracy as in “conspiracy theory or theorist. According to the dictionary the term means a secret plan by a person or group to do something unlawful or harmful; and also, the action of plotting or conspiring. With regard to our present political circumstances, the term “conspiracy theory was first brought into the public discourse during the Warren Commission’s (supposed) investigation into the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. After the initial shock of the assassination itself, few were the people at home or abroad that believed in the “lone gunman” theory of the assassination promoted by the government. For people worthy of public notice, the government approved the appellation of conspiracy theorists thus presenting those who refused to accept the “official version” of events as unworthy of being taken seriously. Fortunately (or not) this did not remove the ongoing public doubt but, sadly, it also did result in further questionable “deaths” after the original event. However, the term was deemed worthy to be used when and if any other government action came under investigation by those deemed dangerous by the Deep State and so we continue to be relentlessly presented with “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” no matter how well proven the account or believable those who present it. Again, it is becoming a parody of its former use, now being more apt to validate the claim and the claimants than otherwise. 4. Expressions of contempt, disrespect and/or derision toward the people or subjects under scrutiny. This methodology generally cannot be reduced to singular terms as can the expressions above, but certainly the reader is able to discover when the author is dismissive or contemptuous of those being observed and reported upon. When an author has no respect for the subject(s) of his or her opinion then it is probable that the opinions expressed are themselves dismissive of those same subjects. No true examination can be made of any issue when the person making that examination has no respect for his or her subject and this must be recognized by the reader. Why? Because without any true respect, the author does not feel obligated to treat the matter with the intellectual deference and seriousness required for any true investigation. It becomes a “throw-away hit piece” designed to destroy the reader’s interest in further study of the subject and those who present it by virtue of ridicule or outright insult. a. The noun insult is defined as to speak or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse: a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action: or a thing so worthless or contemptible as to be offensive. b. The verb is defined as to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse: In the past, debate and dialogue in the Public Square rejected all such attempts to undermine the matters being debated and either side indulging in such practices were usually considered to have lost their position on the issue under discussion. Certainly, any scholastic groups or individuals so engaged would not have used any of the above nomenclature or strategies to further their position. Today, however, since all that matters is that the “chosen side” prevails, the rigors of scholarship and fair debate – never mind historical accuracy! – are of far less importance than that the desired narrative is overwhelmingly accepted by the public! And so, when you pick up a magazine or read something online, beware when the author or group offers any of the above strategies in presenting their “side” of the matter being debated. You may rest assured that there will be very little actual facts and what are presented as facts are more than likely lies or else they would not feel the need to encase them in weapons created to hide the truth from the public by destroying those presenting it.

Even if not a sports fan, anyone who watches Facebook and other such platforms has heard of (and seen) Caitlin Clark, a young lady involved in the Women’s National Basketball Association League. Clark’s talents are intimidating as indicated in the “highlights” of just one season, 2023/24: In her senior season, Clark was the consensus National Player of the Year for the second straight season: 94th AAU James E. Sullivan, Ann Meyers Drysdale, Associated Press, CSC Academic All-America Team Member of the Year, ESPN.com, Honda Sport Award, Naismith, Sporting News, The Athletic, USA Today, Wade Trophy, and Wooden Award. Unanimous first team All-Big Ten honors, Big Ten Tournament MVP, and Big Ten All-Tournament Team honors. Clark was named the 2024 Nancy Lieberman Point Guard of the Year. She also earned 2024 Wooden Award All-America, first team AP All-America, USBWA All-America, WBCA All-America and All-Region accolades. She is the first Iowa women’s basketball player to be named First Team All-Big Ten in four years of competition. Was named the Big Ten Tournament MVP for the third consecutive tournament. She is only second player since 1995 to earn MVP honors in three straight tournaments. (Jantel Lavender, Ohio State) Set a Big Ten Tournament career record with 112 assists in her 13 tournament games. The previous record was held by Samantha Prahalis of Ohio State (67 assists in 11 games from 2009-12). In Iowa’s Round of 32 win vs West Virginia, she became the second player all-time with 350+ points and 100+ assists in the NCAA Tournament, joining Diana Taurasi. Broke the NCAA’s all-time career field goals made record against Colorado in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament on March 30, 2024. Broke Iowa’s NCAA Tournament single game record for most assists in a single game with 15 against Colorado in the Sweet 16 on March 30, 2024. Broke the NCAA record for most points in a single season against West Virginia in the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament. Became the NCAA’s men’s and women’s all-time leading scorer surpassing, LSU’s Pete Maravich, in her 130th career game against No. 2 Ohio State on March 3, 2024. Surpassed the AIAW all-time leading scorer, Lynette Woodard, in her 129th career game against Minnesota on Feb. 28, 2024.Surpassed the NCAA’s women’s all-time leading scorer, Kelsey Plum, in her 126th career game against Michigan on Feb. 15, 2024. She is the only player in NCAA DI men’s or women’s basketball history to lead her conference in scoring and assists in four consecutive seasons. 2024 National Player of the Year honors: The Athletic and ESPN.com. She is the sixth player to ever amass 1,000+ career assists.Clark is the first Division-I player to record 3,800+ points, 1,000+ assists, and 950+ rebounds in a career. Is the first Division-I player to notch back-to-back 1,000-point seasons. She is the third Big Ten and 15th NCAA women’s basketball player to eclipse 3,000 points in a career. Clark is the all-time leader in 30+ point performances in men’s and women’s college basketball over the last 25 seasons. (59) She has 20 career games with 30+ points and 10+ assists, no one in college women’s basketball in past 25 seasons has more than two such games. Since 2009, no player has recorded more games of 35+ points, 5+ assists, and 5+ rebounds. (21) Has 67 career double-doubles, she is third on the Big Ten’s all-time list.Iowa was 10-4 when Clark recorded 40 or more points in her career. In Clark’s 103rd game, she became Iowa’s all-time leading scorer. Iowa is 17-0 when Clark registers a triple-double. Tabbed as the GC Showcase Most Valuable Player of the Tournament. Registered her 17th career triple-double against Minnesota, her and Sabrina Ionescu are the only players in college women’s basketball history to record a triple-double in four consecutive seasons. She recorded a nation’s best six triple-doubles in her senior season. Named Big Ten Player of the Week; Nov. 13, Nov. 27, Dec. 11, Dec. 18, Jan. 2, Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Feb. 5, Feb. 19, Feb. 26, March 4. Named WBCA National Player of the Week; Nov. 14, Nov. 28, Jan. 3, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 31, Feb. 6, Feb. 20. Named AP National Player of the Week; Nov. 14, Jan. 9, Feb. 20.Is the first three-time AP NPOW this season. Clark holds the Big Ten record for most weekly awards at 29. But there’s a problem with this young lady. In a league filled with minority lesbians, Clark is straight and white! She even has had problems with “officials” – including referees! – and not just opponents on the court! Indeed, some of her problems have come from white League officials who have worked to “explain away” her popularity with the fans as being race and not talent driven. Playing for a less than mediocre team, the Indiana Fever, Clark’s participation changed the Fever’s narrative to the point at which that team became “playoff material.” Clark was continually fouled, sometimes so egregiously that even the “higher ups” could no longer turn a blind eye to what was happening. Indeed, in a significant development, the organizers of the WNBA officially announced an investigation into players accused of engaging in dirty plays involving physical contact with Clark. These individuals face potential permanent bans and disciplinary measures for their actions! Some forget that these egregious fouls run the risk of inflicting physical damage even to the point of cutting short Clark’s career. Worse, many of those involved would not be at all upset by that consequence, a direct result of their petty envy and hatred. One black “superstar” openly jealous of Clark, Angel Reese, announced that she had to cut her season short because of a wrist injury though there seems no outward manifestation of this “injury” arising from the fall she insists was its cause. Reese and Clark were in a battle for Rookie of the Year and Reese had every assurance that she would win until Clark came upon the scene. Quite a number of very ugly fouls have been committed on Clark by Reese and it is thought that by ending the season early, Reese would not have to deal with losing the award to Clark or receiving discipline for her unsportsmanlike behavior. Another interesting matter is that Clark has been continually called for “technical fouls” that, upon examination, seem without any proof of such a foul ever having been committed. For instance, after missing a shot, and virtually being pushed off the court, Clark, annoyed at her own failure, struck the foundation structure of the basket with her fist. She didn’t strike another player, neither did she indulge in any interaction with another player, but she was charged with “disrespecting basketball”(!!) for nothing more than her momentary anger at her own performance! As a result, Clark has had fouls against her NOT called while non-existent fouls have been called against her! Of course, jealousy and envy are the motivation for most of Clark’s treatment, but some players as well as owners and officials have also silently condemned Clark for being white and straight. On the other hand, the fans love the young lady and Fever fans frequently attend the home games of other teams to see their Caitlin sink baskets from points well outside of the zone! The WNBA, never a financial draw, saw ticket numbers it has never seen before so it seems odd that so many in that organization whether players, officials or team owners are so negative when it comes to a real “pheenom” as they say, in their midst! The only reason that can be discerned as Clark is anything but a contentious player, having shown great sportsmanship during this period, is that she is white, something totally against the narrative of black superiority in sports. The Clark phenomena is reminiscent of the “breaking of the color barrier” that came about in other professional sports though the WNBA does have other white players. From Jackie Robinson in baseball to Tiger Woods in golf – both examples of blacks entering previously all-white professional sports – there have been periods of stress when the races “mixed” for the first time. Of course, it was much more difficult for Robinson given the era, but nevertheless it did work and soon professional baseball was filled with minorities who played – and traveled – with their teams and were adored by their fans, black and white, without any problem. However, the greatest example of this “welcome” given to great talent without concern about race was that of Tiger Woods. Golf is very different from other sports but the “white” infrastructure of professional golf welcomed Woods openly and without any nasty side effects – and this response included the audience! He was welcomed not because – or in spite of – his race, but because he was a talented golfer, the only criteria utilized! How different was the welcome given black Tiger Woods by a white sports establishment – players, officials and fans! – to that being given to white Caitlin Clark by a majority black sports establishment – players, officials and fans! And what does this say about those involved! Even the whites in the WNBA are not “pro-Clark” and that is probably because they are filled with the angst of artificially manufactured “white guilt!” Fortunately, a great many black athletes and commentators have spoken up for Clark. Indeed, most have called out the racial bias involved, but in another example of the existing problem, almost all of these have been men! It would appear that most of the ladies involved in the issue just cannot stomach a straight, white, Catholic woman especially when she is better than they are! [Post Scriptum: Clark’s season ended when her team was eliminated in the second game of its playoff series. Clark received an atrocious attack by a black player who deliberately stabbed her in the eye with her claw-like artificial nails! How a basketball player can handle the ball with nails over an inch long is beyond me, but video of the matter taken from the front rather than behind – the view most viewers saw on TV – clearly illustrated that the other player acted intentionally. Clark had to leave the game and wound up with a black eye, a fate considerably better than no eye at all, something that might well have been the outcome of such a vicious and intentional attack. Of course, with Clark gone, so are most of those interested enough to go to the games or watch on TV and the League’s “cash cow” is no longer providing the money she had brought to the game throughout the season. My heart bleeds . . . .]

Preface: This article was written just over two years ago but it certainly has not been rendered obsolete by the passage of time! Indeed, in those two years it has become more necessary for decent people – of all races! – to ponder and respond to the ongoing war of extinction being waged against Jesus Christ, the West and the White Race. This reality cannot be denied as we see that even those who have the courage to comment upon this ongoing persecution are considered to be – and named as – enemies of humanity! But what we must remember is that there is no safety in silence, for, in law, “silence is assent;” that is, to remain silent is to be complicit. When virtually all was lost for America at the beginning of our revolution, Commander in Chief, George Washington decided to make one last try to avoid total destruction by attacking the Hessian outpost at Trenton on Christmas night. Washington had nothing with which to wage war. He had very few men, most of whom were starving and/or sick. He had little ammunition or arms. He found himself in a snowstorm attempting to cross an ice filled river. In other words, it was a true “lost cause.” But he decided that it was better to go down fighting than quit. And so, Washington’s “password” for this last (they all believed!) battle, was “Victory or Death” – and he meant it. But neither Washington nor his army – nor his cause died! They were victorious because they had the will to do and to dare. On Thursday, September 8th, 2022, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II died; she was 96 years old at the time of her death. Unfortunately, along with the standard diplomatic responses to an event at which the leader of an allied nation dies, also came the unnecessary, unwarranted and unpleasant comments from people whose opinions are sought only by creatures of their own kind – and hence, are of no interest to anyone with half a brain or any taste whatsoever. In the beginning, most of those opining were black and brown, but soon enough white idiots also jumped into the “No Taste A-tall!” competition with comments that were no better than their non-white fellow idiots. Most of the complaints dealt with “colonialism” and the horrors thereof and calls for “restitution” to those who suffered from attempts by white Europeans to bring civilization to the dark and savage corners of the world. This thought then brought back the memory of a photograph of a starving black baby whose final struggles are watched with patience by a member of “uncivilized” nature’s clean up squad, a vulture. This was (and remains) the situation of the black races spared the “interference” of whites. And though great blessings were brought to our black and brown brethren by Western Civilization -- also known as the white race -- that no longer matters. Now that these blessings have been bestowed, their givers are no longer needed although, the undeniable fact is that once the presence of whites and their civilization is removed, slowly -- or not so slowly! -- the nations thus enriched return to their "natural" pre-colonial period resulting in more black babies available as a meal for another specimen of Gyps Africanus. Still, as I watched the removal of the Queen’s coffin on her journey to the Cathedral in Edinburgh and saw all those horrible WHITE people in the entourage and lining the streets to pay her homage, I could actually feel the disgust that such a scene must bring to the hearts and minds of our black and brown brethren as well as those whites who have drunk the Kool-Aid of racial self-hatred. Such things as I saw taking place in Scotland must shortly be legislated and militarized out of existence. Certainly, as things are going, Great Britain itself will soon no longer be a white nation as countless numbers of non-whites are imported to replace those whose ancestors created the nation of which Elizabeth was Queen. And while I considered the death of a white Queen – and perhaps the nation she “ruled” in name only! – I was struck by a post on Facebook that brought to light a “great non-white civilization” of the ancient world. This civilization is now extinct and whites have been blamed for that extinction! This post was very interesting indeed because its headline ran: 10 Horrifying Things That Would Happen To You In An Aztec Flaying Ceremony. A WHAT?? In any event, the article begins thus: “Let’s do a little role-playing: it’s the 1400s or so, and you’re a prisoner of war of the mighty Aztecs. They’re celebrating one of their many Aztec festivals, which you’ve heard can get a little out of hand (something about sacrifices to a needy god named Xipe Totec). Word gets around among the P.O.W.s that you'll have to participate in some Aztec rituals to kick off the festival Tlacaxipehualiztli, which looks like two excellent Scrabble hands strung together, but is actually, you discover to your horror, an Aztec flaying ceremony. Uh oh! How bad can it be, really? What, exactly, would the Aztecs have done to you? Let’s find out!” I have included the link to this story at the end of the article as it is rather long but well worth the reading for those who believe that white civilization was and is “barbaric” and that it produced nothing but suffering for non-whites and their own great, humane cultures. According to the author, the following rituals were practiced: 1. “You are naked and tied to a heavy ornate stone and you defend yourself with a wooden sword covered in feathers; your executioners are called the Tlauauanque that means “cutters or gashers of skin” who remove your skin and cut you to pieces with razor-sharp obsidian swords. 2. After death, your heart is cut out and offered as a sacrifice, after which a hollow cane is placed into your chest so that your blood can be drunk and spread on schools and various government buildings. 3. Your body is then thrown down the temple steps breaking into pieces – according to visiting Spaniards who witnessed the scene. 4. For the next twenty days, Aztec priests will wear as a robe your flayed skin that has been carefully removed and dyed yellow to make of it teocuitlaquemitl or “golden robes.” 5. While your skin is touring the town your head is subject to various rituals including being fastened to the temple wall. The conquering Spanish found sixty-two thousand skulls in one temple. 6. As for the rest of your body, it will be made into an entrée with peppers and tomatoes and served on beds of maize. Your femur will be used to construct an effigy of you “dressed in sleeveless knotted feathers; you will be given a little mask and called ‘The God Captive.’” I well remember the ending of Mel Gibson’s motion picture, Apocalypto in which Gibson introduces ignorant Americans and Europeans (white, black and otherwise) to the truth about the “great” Meso-American Indian civilizations of the Maya, the Inca and the Aztec. After the hideous fate of members of lesser Indian tribes at the hands of these powerful groups, at the end, a young Indian with his wife and children having escaped from the clutches of their “civilized” pursuers, watch as their enemies stand on the beach awestruck as the longboats of the Spanish, having left their large ships, draw near. One of these boats carries the Banner of the Cross and with it, the end of such inhuman rituals as the young onlookers and their people had suffered for centuries. For those who see the Spanish as “destroyers” of “advanced” civilizations, Apocalypto is an eye-opener, just as is the article about the above Aztec “flaying ceremony” as it brings reality to those who have the brains and strength to accept it. Consider Western Civilization that brought Man from the cave to the stars. Western Civilization is a WHITE CHRISTIAN civilization! As with all things human, it had failures and evils but whites alone of all the races – including blacks – rejected black slavery and put an end to it when and where it was possible. Were there evil white cultures? Yes. But good white cultures fought against them to save not just whites, but the whole world – black, yellow and brown. Queen Elizabeth deserved at the very least the respect that any decent person gives to the dead but as those who refuse to do so are not themselves decent in the true meaning of that word, their mindless responses are understandable – if not forgivable. Aztec Article link: https://www.ranker.com/list/facts-about-tlacaxipehualiztli-aztec-skin-flaying-ceremony/kellen-perry?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=historypost&pgid=642850749204637&utm_campaign=aztec_flaying_ceremony_IMAGE&fbclid=IwAR0dI_BVucihHJY6DOauHSiEUbxUgDl1rLIrgCEeGGEAF6WFx6ryJO07BCQ

For those who “follow” history, there are names from ancient Egypt that resonate. We have King Tutankhamen (King Tut) of archeological discovery fame, Rameses the Great who may – or may not – have run afoul of Moses and his plagues and another pharaoh, who is known by virtue of his wife, Queen Nefertiti. She in turn is known by virtue of a bust done during her life showing a woman of such exquisite beauty that she retains her glory and her “name” to this very day. Her husband, however, is virtually unknown. Almost no relics or mention of him remain. We don’t know where he is buried and his history was blotted out by his enemies after his death. Akhenaten – for that was his name – fell from favor. Indeed, he did not just fall, he was anathematized. At his death, his enemies – and they were many – did all they could to prevent his name from passing on and only the merest accidents of fate allowed us to learn of his life at all. What, you might ask, did Akhenaten do to incur such wrath? He rejected Egypt’s premier god, Amon Ra and embraced the sun god Aten, even changing his name from Ahmenhotep IV to Akhenaten. This was enough to damn him forever in the eyes of the priests of Amon Ra and they carried out his erasure from history so well that in the 21stCentury, we have no idea where he is buried or even where his Queen, the beautiful Nefertiti lies. Things do change over time, and especially what we call the “names of things” when those “things” are named after cultural figures appearing in history or myth. For instance, our planets bear the names of Roman deities – Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. Of course, our planet received a far more plebian designation, Earth. Oh, well! You can’t win them all! Obviously, in the course of time, names change for any number of reasons but usually within any set period in history, barring great social upheaval, the names by which things are known, remain with us over the years. For instance, the names of our states haven’t changed even going back to colonial times. Virginia remains Virginia and Massachusetts, Massachusetts. Of course, there are contrary examples as, for instance, New Amsterdam became New York with the exchange of governance from Holland to England. Another example of names being changed for social reasons can be found in efforts to memorialize people of note. Hence, an airport in New York City named “Idlewild” became Kennedy in tribute to a martyred President while Washington’s airport became Reagan in tribute to that leader. But usually, in our particular culture we do not indulge in large scale “renaming” of things unless it is considered necessary and that necessity usually has to be of considerable importance. Yet there is no doubt that any momentous social movement tends to also affect the “naming process” not only for new places and things, but for those already named. For instance, during the post-Civil War era known as “The Grand Bargain,” soldiers on both sides worked to reconcile with former enemies by recognizing and commemorating their shared sacrifice as both North and South sought political and cultural reconciliation. The “Bargain” was relatively simple: both sides acknowledged that the other fought bravely and with honor and that their heroes, monuments and symbols were worthy of respect. Southern graves were found in Federal cemeteries such as Arlington, the former home of the Lee family stolen by the Federal Government when the tax laws were changed in an attempt to coerce General Lee to come into that city to pay his taxes – and be arrested for treason, of course! Arlington, being in Virginia, a State that was, constitutionally speaking, no longer in the federal union at the time, was not subject to federal taxes but as the armies of that government held the territory on which Arlington stood, legality became irrelevant as so often happened in the so-called “Civil War.” In any event, if it stuck in the “craw” of former Yankees to acknowledge the worthiness of their Southern foes, it actually choked most in the South who had to admit to the supposed “honorable warfare” of their foes and that it was all for the best that they had been defeated. This outcome had been warned against by Southern hero, General Patrick Cleburne who wrote: “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Cleburne was correct. Robbed by the Grand Bargain of the opportunity to make known the horrors visited upon Southerners including the use of total warfare designed to destroy the culture and people of the South, by the middle of the Twentieth Century, the narrative of the war was reduced to the lies and propaganda of Lincoln and the Radicals. Indeed, it was used to at best conceal and at worst excuse and validate the treasonous assault on the South after the constitutionally legal secession first of the Cotton States and then of those remaining Southern States who refused to participate in the federal war that the United States Constitution defined as treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” – Article III, Section 3, United States Constitution According to the above, not only were Lincoln and his government traitors, but so was every man who put on the blue and in other ways participated in the illegal war against the South. Fortunately, General Robert E. Lee did not live long enough to suffer the lies of The Grand Bargain. However, before his death, Lee entertained as his guest at Washington College, Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale of Texas. Lee was always very scrupulous about what he did and especially about what he said knowing that the Federal government watched him closely as a bell weather of Southern thought that might require possible suppressive action on the part of that government. As a result, the former Confederate leader never let down his guard so it was very strange that before the two men left his office, Lee quickly closed the door and spoke rapidly and quietly to his guest: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.” This quote whose truth has been denied by our establishment “historians” appeared in the book, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney. I personally believe it to be correct and to be Lee’s true feelings on the matter. But because of the Grand Bargain, from the latter part of the 19th, through the first half of the 20th Century, the heroes of the South and their monuments, flags and treasures were treated with respect and in many cases, reverence by their former enemy. Indeed, the Confederate battle flag was a symbol of Eastern bloc resistance to the Soviet Union before the fall of the Iron Curtain. The death of the Grand Bargain was a direct result of the concern raised by many including Thomas Jefferson regarding the burgeoning black population in the country. Jefferson despised the institution of slavery but when the matter of emancipation was raised – mostly in the South as the North had few blacks – he was forced to ask the eternal question, “But what shall we do with the Negro?” For this question there was no clear answer at the time. To begin with, most of the “Northern” – including Middle and Western – States refused blacks entrance into those states under what was called “Black Codes.” The matter of “emancipation” was nothing akin to what we have been told today! For while there was a definite hierarchical relationship between the races in the South – with whites on the top, of course – that relationship was amicable. Indeed, there was considerable affection between the races as was proved when many slaves died protecting their white masters’ families when the Yankees came. In the North, on the other hand, blacks were so despised that often their bodies were disinterred from white cemeteries! The idea that the North was filled with those who loved and pitied black slaves while the South was filled with those who hated blacks and ill-used them, is a great lie. On the other hand, as the black population continued to grow in the South, the rest of the country was becoming alarmed that eventually that population could not be contained in the South alone slavery or no slavery and would spread into the new territories. Societies arose, North and South, to answer this seemingly unanswerable question. Colonization, either back to Africa or Central or South America – a matter that had already been initiated under President Monroe – became widespread. Abraham Lincoln himself devoutly wished to remove the Negro from the United States and he was not alone. But as long as blacks were prevented from moving North in any numbers, the matter remained unaddressed as the more numerous Northerners were unaffected by the situation. Of course, after the Civil War, the North used the former slave to destroy the culture of the South pitting the naïve and ignorant “freedman” against Southern whites using the government’s own “klan,” the Union League, to punish an already devastated white population. In other words, the United States government created the bitterness and hostility between the races in the South that had not previously existed, making the inter-racial relationship as hostile in Dixie as it had always been in the North and as blacks were still a “minority” – even in the South as a whole – this did not bode well for their future anywhere in the United States. But the matter did not remain as it had in the 1900s. As the nation became involved in the First World War, the manufacturing centers in the North found themselves deprived of manpower. Since whites were being drafted, the only pool of manpower left were the blacks and for the first time in history, these needed workers were allowed to move North. Soon, the problems of race that the rest of the country allowed to exist in the South became a problem for the North as well – and this changed everything. After Reconstruction, the use made of the freedman forever changed the relationship between the races in the South and with the return of power to whites in those States, everything was done to separate the races. Of course, “segregation” as it became known, was already in force in the North but it was generally ignored as there were statistically few blacks involved and most of these lived in urban areas. Eventually this originally Southern response to the race issue was formalized by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in which the Court laid out its “separate but equal” doctrine concerning the way of life for blacks within the larger white culture. And there the matter stood until the middle of the 20th century with the rise of the “civil rights movement.” Undoubtedly, had the “slavery” issue been better settled, even with a war that was more about the rights of the sovereign States vs. the central or so-called “federal” government” than chattel slavery, the situation between the races might have been far more amicable than they were by that time. However, there can be no doubt that there were racial tensions predicated on both mind sets and behavior that seriously affected a now mixed culture. But whatever and whoever was to blame for the situation as it existed at the time of the rise of the “Civil Rights Movement,” the simple fact is that the movement itself was anything but “spontaneous.” Rather, the race situation in the United States was seen (correctly) by the Soviet Communists as an ideal weapon to use against the West. Europe at the time did not have “the race issue” at least until the Left was able to fill that area of the white world with non-white “immigrants.” Communism is a cancer, and like a cancer, it takes advantage of weakness in the body politic of its intended victim. “Race” was a decided weakness in America and was used so by the Communists. The so-called “Civil Rights Movement” was originated, supported and promoted by Communists. Well known activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks were “instructed” in their operations by white communists. The NAACP, a foremost “black” organization was started by white Communists who acted in leadership roles until sufficient numbers of black Americans could replace them. The strategy itself was given a tremendous boost by Communist Leon Trotsky. Trotsky, who, after helping Lenin create the Soviet murder machine* was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929 after losing a power struggle with Josef Stalin. But before fading into the pages of history, Trotsky accomplished one last thing in 1930 that would arguably cause more damage to the West than did Stalin himself. He invented a word that would empower the enemies of the West to redefine those loyal to their people, their cultural traditions and their way of life as being evil, and to send the government, the educational system and the mass media on a crusade until Trotsky’s term – “racist” – became the defining expression in our present history. Constantly repeated and bolstered by revisionist historians who falsely portrayed the white man as the sole perpetrator of slavery and genocide in the world, this racial tool has been continued until the West has submitted to the entire Trotskyist internationalist agenda without a single shot being fired. [*In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for President Jimmy Carter, wrote "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000.] The final stages of this outrage are playing out now, with racial double standards created here in America at the expense of American whites as well as the creation of "racism" and "hate speech" offenses in Europe targeting the indigenous (white) population. Meanwhile, the Canadian and Australian governments have implemented "multiculturalism" as official state policy at the expense of the pre-existing Canadian and Australian cultures. Most obvious in this war, of course, is the huge wave of third-world “immigration” into the West supported by all Western governments in order to radically change the makeup and culture of “white” nations, and threatening their original populations with becoming minorities in their own countries within just a few decades. Of course, this easily explains the rise of the demand to change the names of places and/or things from people whom the present system declares unworthy of acknowledgement much less celebration. Hence, Richmond’s magnificent “Monument Avenue” is denuded of monuments – at least of monuments representing the worthy – and what replaces those removed is not worth the effort. One example is the removal of the beautiful monument to Confederate General James Ewell Brown (JEB) Stuart that once graced that Avenue. It was replaced with a “monument” directly copied from Stuart’s showing a black man dressed in the garb of the ghetto – hoodie, leather jacket, sneakers and dreadlocks. The sculptor, a black man, called his work “Rumors of War” but others who have seen it have christened it “The Horse Thief.” Now if whole monuments can be removed, how easy is it to change the name of a road or a bridge or even a town. The Mosby Heritage Area in Virginia, named for Col. John Singleton Mosby, the most effective guerrilla fighter of the Civil War, is now known as simply The Heritage Area. Apparently, our current “Karens” and “Kevins” can choose whose “heritage” they wish to glorify! Not only are statues and flags being removed locally, but apparently our nation’s capital Washington, D.C. has yet to remove that name, though it is coming, I’m sure! Meanwhile, the government is thinking about digging up the Confederate dead lying in Arlington – you remember, General Robert E. Lee’s home stolen from him during the war! – as well as removing any and all Confederate monuments throughout the country. The latest “renaming” crusade apparently involves those military bases that bear the name of Confederates such as Forts Bragg, Benning, Gordan, A. P. Hill, Hood, Lee and Pickett to name just a few. These were, of course, named during the Grand Bargain! In consequence, many especially from the South are up in arms regarding these long considered “changes of names,” and, I must admit that in the beginning, I, too, though not a Southerner, was offended. It was stupid and since the very reason given was that those men were traitors, it was not only stupid, but inaccurate – that is, wrong and deliberately false! Actually, if the present military removed the names of traitors from its bases, those whose names were removed would have fought against the South, as their actions were in fact treason according to the United States Constitution! However, in a relatively short time, I have come to know far more about our current “government” including its military and what I know makes me wonder greatly if men like Lee or Stuart or Longstreet or Jackson would want their names associated with our current government and military! Indeed, they all had the opportunity to fight with and even, in Lee’s case, to lead “the federal military” in 1861 – but they chose not to do so. During the Grand Bargain, those decisions were relegated to the past in the hopes that, as Col. John Mosby declared, all the wrongs of the war would be “consigned to oblivion.” It seems, however, that the American government has chosen to reignite the passions that led the people and states of the South to seek separation from a government and people that no longer represented either their interests or their ethics. Anyone today who has any understanding of what once represented the Republic of the Founders know that that Republic died in 1861 and what came out of that war was a government and a way of life contrary to what America once represented. As that is now the case, were I one of those noble men whose names have been presented for removal, I would myself request, “Please remove my name from your facility as I choose not to be associated with it, even in death.”

Movie Review: Lord of the Rings, War of the Rohirrim Overall, this movie was pretty good. And by pretty, one of the nicest things about it was that the lead character, the warrior princess Héra, is very pretty and conforms to traditional Japanese anime standards for feminine beauty. At least the childless wokesters did not ruin that. However, the movie creators did make certain to make every man in the movie appear stupid. Every. Single. One. Including the film’s namesake from Tolkien’s actual lore: King Helm Hammerhand, whom the movie depicts as a haughty brute. Most of this content in this movie review article is going to identify just how the movie denigrated all the named male characters.Making Giant Eagles a Lame Deus Ex Machina The core problem with the movie is that its outcome rests even more upon a deus ex machina plot device, using the giant eagles, than any previous Tolkien-world art, whether in the original books or in any of the previous movies or shows. Plot Spoiler: Princess Héra Hammerhand convinces one of the semi-intelligence giant eagles to basically send a plea for help message to a potential relief force of Rohirrim warriors holed up in a separate fortress, Dunharrow, who were apparently completely unaware of the plight of their king holed up in the separate Hornburg fortress. a notional Princess Héra Hammerhand Without Princess Héra Hammerhand’s message that the giant eagle delivered, the bad guys would have won. Without the giant eagle’s aid to the good guys, the bad guys would have won. True, the giant eagles seem like a lame deus ex machina in the original Lord of the Rings film trilogy; however, they really are not. They only rescued Frodo & Samwise after Frodo & Samwise had succceeded in their mission and delivered victory to the good guys. In The Hobbit book and movies, the giant eagles do actually serve as a deus ex machina to rescue the good guys; however, that rescue is not part of the final battle. The eagles rescue the dwarves from a troop of orcs along the way, but well before the dwarves reach their final destination. So, yes, it is true that the good guys would have all have been killed if not for help from the giant eagles; however, because the giant eagles’ help comes mid-way through the story and not during the final battle, it feels like less of a lame deus ex machina plot device and more like normal help that heroes would receive along their journey. Also, the giant eagles do participate in the final battle of The Hobbit story; however, there are no indications that without the contribution from the giant eagles, the good guys would have lost The Battle of the Five Armies. On the other hand, in The War of the Rohirrim movie, without the giant eagle’s assistance, the relief force that turned the tide of the final battle would never have shown up. True, Princess Héra Hammerhand arranged for the giant eagle to deliver the plea for help; however, in the end, her victory results solely from her having developed a personal relationship with the giant eagle, not from her cleverness nor from her martial prowess. She was able to reach the giant eagle’s eyrie nest to ask for help only because she could ice-climb up the cliffside to it well, but the movie is not able to turn that achievement of hers into emotional investment that viewers develop in her character. Therefore, in the end, the entire movie does not really depict her as much of a hero because the good guys’ overall victory does not really rest on her heroism. Sure, she proves herself a hero by showing a willingness to sacrifice her own life to save her people from genocidal slaughter; however, even in that situation, her people would have faced their slaughter no matter what if it were not for the giant eagle saving the day.Every Man Is Stupid: King Helm Hammerhand The movie straight up depicts him as a stereotypical patriarchal king forcing his daughter into a loveless marriage for political purposes. Even after King Helm Hammerhand exiles the half-blood local nobility guy (Wulf) and kills his father, King Helm Hammerhand nevertheless dilly-dallies for over a year more with zero indications he had moved forward with his plan to marry off his daughter to probably the king or prince of the allied Kingdom of Gondor. And King Helm Hammerhand refuses to listen to his nephew, Fréaláf, warning him to retreat immediately to his fortress.Every Man Is Stupid: King’s Nephew Fréaláf Out of all major male characters in the movie, he is subject to the least serious depiction as a stupid man. However, even he somehow sat in his own separate fortress of Dunharrow (not the same one that Princess Héra had her people: the Hornburg, a.k.a. Helm’s Deep, where the movies take place) for months without apparently doing anything to try to find out find out how his king’s forces were faring. What was he doing there in his own fortress, just like waiting for someone to come rescue him and his contingent? He eventually decided to just give up and retreat to Gondor, until that giant eagle showed up coincidentally in the nick of time to direct him to do what he should have been doing all along: Finding his king’s forces to unite and defend stronger together. Idiot. A proper military leader would regularly test the enemy, and if had he done so, Fréaláf would have quickly found out that the evil leader’s Wulf’s forces were not in great shape, were diminishing, and were concentrated at the Hornburg. Evidently, though, all he did was stay at his own fortress and then decide to just give up on his whole nation in the end to seek refugee status in the neighboring, allied kingdom of Gondor.Every Man Is Stupid: Evil General Targg Okay, so actually the movie did not do much to depict General Targg on the bad side as stupid. But it did depict him as evil by placing him on the side of the bad guys. Sure, he tried to convince the main antagonist, his leader Wulf, to act with honor after losing the duel with Princess Héra by surrendering as Wulf had promised to Princess Héra. However, it was kind of stupid that he was not able to predict or prevent Wulf sucker-knife stabbing him to death in response.Every Man Is Stupid: Prince Hama This prince, the younger brother, died because he knew his horse was slow, his sister Héra offered to let him use her faster horse instead before the battle, but he refused. And then during the battle while fleeing, his horse predictably began faltering and going slower and slower. He seems to have made hardly any effort to call out to the at least six other men around him to help him out. And all those other men completely failed to notice that they had left one of their princes behind. Just failure after failure, all around.Every Many Is Stupid: Prince Haleth Honestly, this is the one major male character whom the movie makers subject to the least amount of degrading treatment and character writing. The only time he really does anything in the entire movie, he kills a war elephant all by himself. Then he emerges from the dead elephant with a triumphant jump, shout, and holler, and then an enemy archer shoots him in the throat killing him. The only stupid thing he did was to expose himself on the battlefield more than he had to while he was in the midst of feeling a very deserved sense of extreme pride and strutting about just one second too long about it. another notional Princess Héra Hammerhand So, his stupidity was rather trivial, but then again, his entire role in the film was trivial and short as well, so the one thing the audience sees him do is expose himself too rashly on the battlefield and get himself killed. Which is stupid, even if not all that stupid. And that’s a wrap. The overall message of the movie is that brave, strong women like Héra do not marry. The moviemakers created her character out of whole cloth; she was not in Tolkien’s original lore. The moviemakers could have given her almost whatever story arc they wanted to. However, the moviemakers decided to go with the traditional Hollywood stereotype of the misunderstood royal daughter rebelling against arranged marriage. Such vision! Not. The film makers had so little vision that they could not even make up a new Tolkien-ish name for their main character, instead naming her after the Greek goddess Hera. Overall, the movie is a nice movie. But it could have been a lot better if its makers had not just completely copied modern Hollywood’s traditional disparagement of men. _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com or by donating some Ethereum digital currency to this public address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e

Arts funding in the United States is at a crossroads. After seeing a post on SMU DataArts' recent findings, I began looking into how public arts funding in the U.S. compares to other countries. By many measures, the U.S. spends the least on public arts funding as a percentage of GDP. This raises questions about how funding decisions reflect cultural priorities and the role of public investment in supporting the arts. Public funding for the arts in the U.S. is just 0.009% of GDP. Estonia, by comparison, spends 1.9%, the highest of any country in this analysis. Other nations like the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Japan also dedicate much more to arts funding. Here is a breakdown of the data: 1. USA (0.009% of GDP): Public spending is $2.28 billion, or about $6.83 per capita. This includes $207 million from the federal government, $971 million from state governments, and $1.1 billion from local governments.2. European Median (0.74% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $14.76 billion for a median GDP country, or about $246 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $188.7 billion.3. United Kingdom (0.46% of GDP): Public spending is $14.72 billion, or about $218 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $117.3 billion.4. Estonia (1.9% of GDP): Public spending is $0.893 billion, or about $671 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $484.5 billion.5. Japan (0.12% of GDP): Public spending is $5.88 billion, or about $47 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $30.6 billion.6. Brazil (0.6% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $12 billion, or about $57 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $144 billion.7. Australia (0.13% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $1.3 billion, or about $51 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $28.3 billion.8. China (0.5% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $70 billion, or about $50 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $120 billion.[Sources: National Endowment for the Arts, NEA Federal Arts Budget (arts.gov); National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, State and Local Arts Budgets (nasaa-arts.org); Arts Council England, Funding Overview (artscouncil.org.uk); Eurostat, Culture Statistics (ec.europa.eu/eurostat); Japan Foundation, Cultural Investment (jpf.go.jp/e); Fundação Nacional de Artes (Funarte), Funding Allocations (funarte.gov.br); New Approach, Australia, Australian Arts Funding (newapproach.org.au); China Daily, Public Spending on the Arts (chinadaily.com.cn).] The U.S. relies heavily on private philanthropy to fund the arts. This has led to a vibrant and diverse arts ecosystem, but it also leaves many artists and institutions without stable support. Public funding can complement private contributions by providing a stronger foundation for the arts, ensuring broader access and stability. Europe’s investment shows what is possible when public dollars prioritize culture, while the U.S. represents the opposite extreme. Historically, programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression demonstrated how public funding could support both artists and communities. However, controversies in the 1980s led to significant cuts in U.S. federal arts funding, making today’s system fragmented and unstable. As new debates on public arts funding emerge, there is an opportunity to rethink how the U.S. invests in the arts. A stronger commitment to public investment could help bridge the gap, providing better support for artists and ensuring that cultural resources are accessible. For more details read the full article on my Substack "Latent Views" here.