It’s Christmastime, America, and you know what that means: It’s the season when public schools across the fruited plain are teeming with lessons about Kwanzaa and a handful of other holidays which aren’t Christmas.
As a public service, then, The Daily Caller is here to tell you the true — and truly bizarre — history of the violent, deranged and radical black nationalist who concocted the completely artificial holiday of Kwanzaa in 1966
The creator of Kwanzaa is Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga, a 75-year-old professor or Africana studies at California State University, Long Beach. His real name is Ronald Everett. He was born in rural Maryland, the fourteenth child of a sharecropping Baptist minister.
Karenga was convicted in 1971 for brutally torturing two naked women. The women were members of Karenga’s ultra-radical, paramilitary, black nationalist cult called the US Organization, according to a May 1971 Los Angeles Times story dug up by FrontPage Magazine.
“Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes,” the LA Times article reports.
Jones “testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis’ mouth and placed against Miss Davis’ face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said.”
Karenga tortured Jones and Davis with the help of three fellow US Organization members because Karenga believed that the torture victims were using magic crystals to poison him on behalf of his enemies.
“The victims said they were living at Karenga’s home when Karenga accused them of trying to kill him by placing ‘crystals’ in his food and water and in various areas of his house. When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in Miss Davis’ mouth and against her face,” the contemporaneous newspaper article says.
“Police were told that one of Miss Jones’ toes was placed in a small vise which then allegedly was tightened by one of the defendants. The following day Karenga allegedly told the women that ‘Vietnamese torture is nothing compared to what I know.’ Miss Tamayo reportedly put detergent in their mouths, Smith turned a water hose full force on their faces, and Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them.”
A psychiatrist who examined Karenga in 1971 concluded he was insane. A September 1971 sentencing hearing transcript shows that the unidentified psychiatrist believed that the founder of Kwanzaa was “both paranoid and schizophrenic.”
Judge Arthur L. Alarcon read from the psychiatrist’s report in court, according to FrontPage Magazine.
“Since his admission here he has been isolated and has been exhibiting bizarre behavior, such as staring at the wall, talking to imaginary persons, claiming that he was attacked by dive-bombers and that his attorney was in the next cell,” the psychiatrist’s report said, in part. “During part of the interview he would look around as if reacting to hallucination and when the examiner walked away for a moment he began a conversation with a blanket located on his bed.”
“This man now presents a picture which can be considered both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and elusions, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment,” the report said.
Karenga concocted Kwanzaa in 1966 as a secular, “nonreligious” pan-African holiday. At the time, he was a twentysomething graduate student living in Los Angeles.
The seven principles of Kwanzaa — perhaps your grade-school child has spouted them to you — are: unity, self-determination, collective work, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith in ourselves.
These seven Kwanzaa principles are exactly identical to the seven principles of the infamous Symbionese Liberation Army — the murderous, bank-robbing gang of revolutionary terrorists who kidnapped newspaper heiress Patty Hearst in 1974. A U.S. Congress document from the House Committee on Internal Security lists the Symbionese Liberation Army’s seven principles as: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative production, purpose, creativity and faith.
During a 1975 bank robbery, Symbionese Liberation Army members murdered bank customer Myrna Opsahl. The 42-year-old mother of four bled to death on the floor of the bank.
Members of Karenga’s US Organization murdered two Black Panthers in cold blood. The murders occurred in 1969 when the US Organization and the Black Panthers were fighting over which group would control the then-new Afro-American Studies Center at UCLA.
There was an acrimonious meeting. After the meeting, two members of the US Organization — brothers George P. Stiner and Larry Joseph Stiner — accosted two Black Panthers — John Jerome Huggins and Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter — and shot them to death. (The Panthers were also armed, and one of them apparently shot a Stiner brother in the shoulder.)
Karenga spent just four years in prison. He received a sentence of between one and 10 years for felonious assault and false imprisonment in 1971. A successful campaign of writing letters to state officials led to a grant of parole in 1975.
He received a Ph.D. in 1976 from United States International University. The school is now a for-profit institution called Alliant International University. (Karenga also received a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in 1994.)
The name change. At some point in the 1960s, Karenga decided he didn’t want to be Ron Everett any longer. Instead, he gave himself the name “Maulana,” which is Swahili for “master teacher.” Karenga means “keeper of tradition” in Swahili.
Due to the rise of prenatal screening tests, the number of babies born with Down syndrome in the Western world has begun to significantly diminish. And no one, as CBS News puts it, is “eradicating Down syndrome births” quite like the country of Iceland.
Now, the word “eradication” typically implies that an ailment is being cured or beaten by some technological advancement. Not so in this case. Nearly 100 percent of women who receive positive tests for Down syndrome in that small nation end up eradicatingtheir pregnancies. Iceland averages only one or two Down syndrome children per year, and this seems mostly a result of parents receiving inaccurate test results.
It’s just a matter of time until the rest of the world catches up. In the United States around 67 percent of women who find out their child will be born with Down syndrome opt to have an abortion. In the United Kingdom it’s around 90 percent. More and more women are taking these prenatal tests, and the tests are becoming increasingly accurate.
For now, however, Iceland has completed one of the most successful eugenics programs in the contemporary world. If you think that’s overstated, consider that eugenics — the word itself derived from Greek, meaning “well born” — is nothing more than an effort to control breeding to increase desirable heritable characteristics within a population. This can be done through “positive” selection, as in breeding the “right” kinds of people with each other, or in “negative” selection, which is stopping the wrong kinds of people from having children.
The latter was the hallmark of the progressive movement of the 1900s. It was the rationalization behind the coerced sterilization of thousands of mentally ill, poor, and minorities here in America. It is why real-life Nazis required doctors to register all newborns born with Down syndrome. And the first humans they gassed were children under three years old with “serious hereditary diseases” like Down syndrome.
Most often Down syndrome isn’t hereditary, of course, but for many these children are considered undesirable — really, they are considered “inconvenient” — although most are born with moderate cognitive or intellectual disabilities and many live full lives.
If Iceland’s policy “reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling,” as geneticist Kari Stefansson admits in a video, then what will it mean when we have the science to extrapolate on these tests and pinpoint other problematic traits in people? How about children with congenital heart defects or cleft palates or sickle-cell disease or autism? Eradicate?
One day a DNA test will be able to tell us virtually anything we want to know, including our tendencies. So here’s the best way to frame the ugliness of these eradication policies in terms more people might care about: “Iceland has made great strides in eradicating gay births” or “Iceland has made great strides in eradicating low-IQ births” or “Iceland has made great strides in eradicating births of those who lean towards obesity” or “Iceland has made great strides in eradicating births of mixed-race babies.” Feel free to insert the fact of humankind that gets you most upset.
How about, “Iceland has made great strides in eradicating female births”?
From what I could tell — admittedly, this is through social media; I see no polling on the issue — most people, many liberals included, reacted to Iceland’s selective eradication of Down syndrome children negatively. Polling from the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute has found that 77 percent believed abortion should be illegal if “the sole reason for seeking an abortion” was to have a boy or girl.
I don’t understand why. If your circumstance or inconvenience is a justifiable reason to eradicate a pregnancy — who wants to be “punished” with a baby, after all? — why wouldn’t a sex-selective abortion be okay? Does the act of abortion transform into something less moral if we feel differently about it? Does the act change because it targets a group of people that we feel are being victimized? What is the ethical difference between a sex-selective abortion and plain-old abortion of a girl?
One imagines that most women carrying babies with genetic disorders in Iceland did not opt to have abortions because they harbor hate or revulsion towards Down syndrome children. I assume they had other reasons, including the desire to give birth to a healthy child and avoid the complications that the alternative would pose.
A number of U.S. states have passed or want to pass laws that would ban abortions sought due to fetal genetic abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, or because of the race, sex, or ethnicity of a fetus. Such a U.S. House bill failed in 2012. Most Democrats involved claimed to be against sex-selective abortion, but not one gave a reason why. Probably because once you admit that these theoretical choices equate to real-life consequences, like eugenics, you are conceding that these are lives we’re talking about, not blobs. In America, such talk is still frowned upon.
Icelanders, apparently, are more honest:
Over at Landspitali University Hospital, Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who have a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality. They speak to her when deciding whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Olafsdottir tells women who are wrestling with the decision or feelings of guilt: ‘This is your life — you have the right to choose how your life will look like.’
Well, not everyone gets to choose what his or her life looks like. Certainly not those who are “eradicated” because they suffer from genetic disorders. Then again, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder,” Olafsdottir explains later. “We look at it as a thing that we ended.” A thing? Using an ambiguous noun is a cowardly way to avoid the set of moral questions that pop up when you have to define that “thing.” And science is making it increasingly difficult to circumvent that debate.
By: John Lee/
A male senior executive at a multi-national engineering firm in Singapore was falsely accused of sexual harassment by a female employee. The executive allegedly responded by pressuring her to quit and later sued her for damages related to the incident.
The executive won the civil suit, therefore the woman was liable for compensation and the man’s court fees. When the woman refused to pay the fees, she was held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court order connected to the payment and was subsequently jailed.
The story is the man’s firsthand account of his brush with an overzealous feminist employee and first appeared on the popular sub-reddit r/MGTOW. The executive, going by the username moonraiser, removed his original post for fear of repercussions but has since re-posted it in a follow-up post that elaborates on the story.
Moonraiser described the escalation of the conflict between himself and his subordinate as such:
“In Singapore we have many citizen who went overseas for their further studies and then came back to Singapore to work. Unfortunately many of them picked up extreme feminists view. This is more apparent from people who went to US colleges and infected by weird ideologies. From their social media platform you can usually tell the typical traits of a feminist or SJWs type people.”
“In the department i work in i have 2 such females under me. And they are feminists to say the least. Their social media shows all the typical SJWs ******** and they total embrace their feminism ideology, and they are not afraid to let people know they are proud feminist.
“All the troubles started when during a regular meeting where one of them tries to negotiate her salary with me by bringing out of all things, the gender pay gap.
“I explain to her that in this company we will pay you for what you are worth. Not because of your genitalia. We do not care about your sex, but what you can bring for the company.”
Some time later, the executive was informed that a complaint had been lodged against him and that he would have to meet with Human Resources to discuss it. Apparently, the executive’s comments about “genitalia” and “sex” were the basis for the sexual harassment complaint.
Curiously, the woman also complained that the executive had tried to touch her inappropriately even though he did not do so.
Fortunately for the executive, security footage caught their exchange on camera and contradicted the woman’s account of events. Human Resources promptly dismissed the complaint.
This was not enough for moonraiser who was incensed about falsely being accused of sexual harassment:
“Well HR is done but i am not. I am extremely pissed off with her so i started to mess with her work by making unrealistic demand. Her work eventually got sloppy due to all the stress im putting on her and she quit 4 months after the incident.
“After she quit i decided that I wasnt done yet and i lawyer-ed up and sue her for damages for the incident.
“Well to make long story short she lose, and she’s in jail due to no money.”
In his follow-up post, Moonraiser elaborated: “Basically she had the means to pay me, or pay me back slowly but she refuses and actually tries to “shift” her assets. I was able to prove that thus resulting in her jail term.”
Quite a story, if true, and I believe the man was in the wrong to pressure his employee to quit. However, even if this story is embellished or is completely fabricated, it still has an element of truth to it. It is an accurate depiction of the unhealthy state of gender relations these days.
Perhaps this man’s reaction was a tad overzealous, but consider that without that security footage this story may have gone the other way. The worst case scenario is that the executive may have lost his job and ended up in prison.
If you think that possibility is an exaggeration, then you are willfully ignorant of stories like that of Samuel Armstrong, Isaac Itiary, Mark Azariah and Liam Allan – four cases of alleged rape that collapsed in the same week due to lack of evidence. Their stories are all too common.
There’s a statistic floating out there on the internet that claims false rape accusations account for only 2% of rape accusations. This is a bogus claim, what are we supposed to believe, the feminist narrative or our lying eyes? I think sexual assault is abhorrent, but this #metoo thing is getting out of control.
Moonraiser’s story reflects the reality of the post #metoo era that men have to live in, the workplace has become a veritable minefield for us. Men no longer have any idea what women consider acceptable behaviour anymore. We’re secretly terrified that our behaviour will make us the target of a sexual harassment allegation.
This is a concept that women find hard to understand; how can good men not know what inappropriate behaviour looks like? Well, take this story for instance. The executive tries to explain to his subordinate that her genitalia is irrelevant to his evaluation of her work, but simply by him saying the word “genitalia” she imagines that she has been the victim of sexual harassment. His behaviour is admittedly unprofessional, but sexual harassment?
Imagine for a moment, if the executive had been explaining this to a male employee. Would he have felt harassed? Very likely not. The executive is simply treating his female employee the same way he would have treated any male employee, not thinking that his comments will be interpreted in a sexual manner.
The truth is that men and women think differently, we interpret behaviour differently and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, this aggressive approach to dealing with sexual impropriety at work and in schools often penalizes normal male behaviour and men are beginning to take note.
Instead of re-evaluating their own behaviour men are beginning to ask another question: should men and women be working together at all? Imagine that, the only way to protect women in the workplace is to separate them from the men.
Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer at Facebook, is worried that the #metoo backlash will deter companies from hiring women in the first place. It makes sense from the perspective of business owners, non-compliance with diversity quotas may be easier to manage than rampant allegations of sexual misconduct within their companies.
Way to go feminism, your relentless, scorched earth activism has launched the female sex so far across the social justice spectrum that it landed right back at oppression. But of course no feminist thinks this way, its the patriarchy’s fault, obviously. Its men with their toxic masculinity that’s the problem. The problem with phrases like toxic masculinity is that it demonizes masculinity itself, an inherent quality that all men have. It is quite literally demonizing men for being men. All these attitudes serve to do is engender even more animosity between the sexes.
Henry Kissinger famously said “Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” No one ever won the battle of the sexes because we eventually made peace with one another – we had to if we wanted to procreate.
Not today – today, gender relations are so confused that we’ve forgotten how to make peace. The consequence of this is that we move more and more toward a society in which not only does no one win the battle of the sexes, but everyone loses.
The future isn’t female, the future is segregated.