Canada: State-funded CBC calls for the shaming of big families, says country should bring in more migrants instead

The publicly-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has published an opinion piece arguing Canadians who have big families should be shamed, and that the country should be importing migrants instead.

To clarify the reference to “shame,” Kristen Pyszczyk is referring to shaming girls from childhood who are “groomed for motherhood from a very early age.”

As if this were not bad enough, the kicker in her preposterous piece is her statement that “It’s not OK to have five kids without once considering adoption….when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out.” Since adoption is prohibited in Islam while “demographic jihad” is encouraged, Pyszczyk could not have been referring to Muslims, could she?

She also criticizes the restriction of immigration by “You-Know-Who” and assumes that a “steady supply of smart and talented immigrants” will make up the population.

Has Pyszczyk been reading the news lately about what is going on in Europe?

Recently, the propagandist Organization of Islamic Cooperation also advised that Europe continue with mass migration in order to pay its pensions. Never mind that out of the 1.2 million migrants who flooded into Germany in 2016, only “34,000 or 2.8% have found a job,” while only one-third of 1% found jobs in Sweden. In Britain, migrants were found to be “a net drain…on the order of between £115 and £160 billion.”

But while the OIC focuses its propaganda on pensions, for Pyszczyk, its all about the environment. Yet she fails to explain how migrants replacing Canadian birthrates will actually help the environment.

The fake news and commentary become better every day.

 

“State Broadcaster: People Who Have Big Families Should Be Publicly Shamed, Import Migrants Instead”, by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, January 15, 2018:

The publicly-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has published an opinion piece arguing Canadians who have big families should be shamed, and that the country should be importing migrants instead.

The crown corporation, which is roughly analogous to Britain’s BBC, ran the article in response to Fixer Upper stars Chip and Joanna Gaines’s announcement that they were expecting a fifth child.

Kristen Pyszczyk, a Toronto-based writer whose interests include “feminism, mental health, addiction, pop culture, and digital media”, claimed that having a child was not just a personal choice, but “a choice that affects everyone who inhabits our planet”.

She argued that the social media backlash the Gaineses have received represents “a conversation we need to have in order to challenge our uncritical acceptance of the life-fulfillment-through-procreation story.”

The main thrust of Pyszczyk’s piece is that Westerners should not be having children because they are bad for the environment.

“Population control is a fraught topic,” she admits, alluding vaguely to “nasty historical events” — but claims that it is “not an exaggeration to say that the survival of our species depends on it.”

She does not go so far as to suggest one- or two-child policies of the sort which have led to baby girls being aborted or left in the street to die in Communist China, but suggests that public vilification of the traditional family could do the trick just as well.

“Shame is a powerful tool for changing behaviour,” she notes, suggesting that girls who are “groomed for motherhood from a very early age” should be subjected to “arguments for alternatives”.

However, she appears to contradict all of her arguments about climate change and individual carbon footprints at the conclusion of her article, in which the potential impact of falling Canadian birthrates is breezily dismissed with an appeal to mass migration.

“Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out,” she concludes.

“And if the birth rate in Canada declines, so what? As [U.S. President Donald Trump] cuts off aid to not-for-profits that educate on abortion, restricts immigration and stops sending money to countries that need it, we will have a steady supply of smart and talented immigrants.”…..

Canada: State-funded CBC calls for the shaming of big families, says country should bring in more migrants instead

Why Leftists Hate Masculinity

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/why_leftists_hate_masculinity.html

An ongoing mantra of the left is that everyone is a victim, with a singular carve-out for white men.  A large group of the female population has embraced this chant.

While there may be a number of grievances put forth by this movement, there also comes a theme that is particularly dangerous: the feminist attack on masculinity.  This is derived not only from feminists; it comes from the left in general.

There has emerged a war on masculinity.  Why?  Because masculine men are harder to control under tyrannical socialism.  The modern beta male, on the other hand, craves socialism.  This is why the left has branded masculinity as toxic: it stands as a roadblock to their endgame.

Leftists blame, of all things, masculinity for the recent spate of sexual harassment scandals.  For eons, masculinity has been considered a natural and even required trait of being male, but it is now apparently the reason for deviancy.  Who knew?

The glaring problem with this argument is that the men who are typically being accused of such transgressions are anything but masculine.  Sexual harassment is bipartisan; both liberal and conservative men in positions of power seem to harass women with aplomb.  But where is this referenced masculinity?  Harvey Weinstein?  Al Franken?  Louis CK?  I posit that a consistent theme among most accused harassers is a complete lack of masculinity.  I would go so far as to suggest that the lack of masculinity is a contributing factor to this problem.

Most of these accused public figures are modern men – perhaps not quite beta males, but certainly closer to Obama’s now infamous Pajama Boy than they are to John Wayne.   Are men who display a lack of masculinity less likely to victimize women?  Obviously not.  But the left does not let reason or rationality interfere with an opportunity to degrade social decency or further its collectivist agenda.

The feminist hatred for masculinity is only another tool in the toolbox of communism.  Masculinity tends to make a man individualistic.  Individualistic men are capitalists, not communists.  They are men who cherish individual liberty, and they rely on themselves rather than on government.  Self-reliance is a four-letter word for leftists, and masculine men are generally self-reliant.  Beta males like Pajama Boy rely on government, and such modern men, devoid of any semblance of masculinity, are ideal for leftist indoctrination.

Were the frontiersmen communists or capitalists?  How about the cowboys?  How about the Navy SEALs or Army Rangers?  Sure, the press may find in the military a few Che Guevara t-shirt-wearing idiots and parade them all over the place, but I am willing to bet that the majority of SEAL Team 6 comprises masculine capitalists.

What games do young boys play?  They pretend to be cowboys.  They pretend to be soldiers.   They don’t pretend to be soviet textile workers slaving under Stalin’s system.  They don’t pretend to be entitled Millennial brats who congregate at Starbucks and talk about the wonders of socialism, either.  Most boys hit the ground embracing masculinity.  Some maintain it, but many have it berated out of them by the weak society they walk in or by their leftist parents.

Masculinity leads a man to seek to better himself in many regards, while collectivism thrives on mediocrity.  Collectivism in this country is sought by the lazy who don’t want to work but feel entitled to free handouts of all kinds.  Unfortunately, collectivism is also touted by many who are successful, such as middle-class suburbanites who feel guilty for what they have achieved through hard work while others have not been so fortunate.  Yet, when suggesting that the redistribution effort begins with their own 401(k)s, seldom will you find volunteers.  Collectivism is also cheered on by certain billionaire hypocrites who made their wealth through capitalism yet now tout the wonders of socialist systems.  The irony.

While these social groups appear quite different, there is a common trait among the men in all of them: no masculinity to be found.  Be it the lanky hipster in skinny jeans or the billionaire hypocrite, imposing is not one of their descriptions.  The billionaire may travel everywhere with a fleet of personal security, but he has no strength of body and apparently little strength of character.  Are there plenty of physically weak men who are capitalists?  Absolutely.  Capitalism is not dependent on machismo or charisma.  However, few alphas are socialist, and self-reliance is a collectivism-killer.  That is why the left finds masculinity toxic.

The denigration of masculinity is high on the leftist agenda.  The pushing of acceptance of the “transgender” movement is the latest machination in this crusade.  This fosters further blurring of male masculinity and female femininity, and the plight of a small group of people who wrestle with this issue has become a politically polarizing topic – a tool maximized by the left.  Masculinity is maligned as a trait of the bigot, not as a desirable trait among men, as it once was.  The goal is to foster an entirely androgynous society that makes no distinction between male and female.  This breeds a culture more easily shaped by the almighty state.

The left’s war on masculinity should come as no surprise.  The cultures in history that have resisted oppressive regimes in the past have celebrated masculinity rather than demeaned it.

There is an often quoted poem that sums up a society’s life cycle: “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.”  The abundance of weak men in our society is ushering in those hard times, and it is celebrated by the left every step of the way.

The eradication of masculinity from our society will ultimately result in the elimination of all resistance to tyranny.  Freedom-loving males know this, and women who believe in individual capability rather than dependence on the government also know it.  Remember: subjugation of all to a collectivist regime is the ultimate goal, and branding masculinity as toxic is one of many pieces in the game.

Road To One World Government: International court orders 16 countries to ignore their laws and allow gay ‘marriage’

January 16, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In what one expert called the “most bold exercise in judicial tyranny imaginable,” an international human rights court has ordered that 16 countries ignore their own laws and recognize same-sex “marriage” and transgenderism.

In one of these countries, Barbados, sodomy is illegal.

The ruling came from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which exists based on the American Convention of Human Rights. Twenty-five Latin and South American countries have ratified or adhered to the Convention, according to the Court’s website.

The Court heard the case because the Costa Rican government sought “relatively minor” advice, Gualberto Garcia Jones, executive director of International Human Rights Group, told LifeSiteNews.

“Costa Rican officials asked for clarification on what process [was] required to legally change the name of a gender confused person and the rights to property of homosexual partners under the Convention,” Jones explained. “Instead of answering the questions asked, the court attempted to issue a unilateral ruling that homosexual marriage with adoption rights is required by the American Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court “overreached its jurisdiction in an unprecedented manner,” Jones said, ignoring the Vienna Convention – the accepted rules of interpretation for international treaties – and instead delegating “to itself the authority to overrule national constitutions in order to implement its opinions.”

Gay Star News called it the “biggest marriage equality court order in history.”

Judge Vio Grossi partially dissented, writing, “Legislation recognizing same sex unions cannot be imposed upon member states through the judicial process, much less so through an advisory opinion, which is not binding even on the party requesting the opinion, and much less upon the other member states.”

There is “no source of international law that provides the necessary recognition of such [homosexual] rights,” Grossi wrote.

The Court also ignored “the text of the American Convention itself, whose only reference to marriage limits it to the union of one man and one woman,” said Jones.

The order “pretends to overturn the overwhelming majority of the internal legislation that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman through an advisory opinion,” he said. “This would be impossible even if the opinion of the court came after a litigated case in controversy, since the rulings of the court are only binding upon the litigating parties.”

“Therefore, to attempt to impose an advisory opinion as binding upon all countries that ratified the convention is the most bold exercise in judicial tyranny imaginable,” Jones warned.

The ruling even went as far as to say “polygamous families” are licit.

“The richness and diversity of the region is seen in the cases that are submitted to the court; through those cases the court has recognized diverse family makeups as protected, including polygamous families,” the majority ruling said on page 78, which Jones translated for LifeSiteNews.

Opposition to same-sex “marriage” that is “based on religious or philosophical convictions” shouldn’t be considered, the ruling said.

This “shows a visible prejudice against religious convictions and religious individuals,” said Jones.

The court disqualified “any principles which it arbitrarily determines to be religious ones without bothering to offer any legal precedent for such anti-religious prejudice.”

It also didn’t produce “any analysis that opposition to same-sex unions is in fact a theological position.”

Eleven countries “must pass trans rights laws” because of this ruling, Gay Star Newswrote. The Dominican Republic, Honduras, Barbados, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Suriname are the countries most affected by this ruling, because they neither recognize same-sex “marriage” or transgenderism.

Brazil and Colombia already recognize same-sex “marriage” and transgenderism. Parts of Mexico do as well.

Perú, Panamá, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Bolivia all have some pro-transgender laws but not same-sex “marriage.”

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/international-court-orders-latin-south-american-countries-to-ignore-their-l