Chapter 7: The Enemy Within

One of the greatest threats to Western society comes not from external forces but from the enemy within – groups and individuals dedicated to the same goal as the Soviets – weakening the fabric of society in preparation for its overthrow and replacement with a Marxist system.

The huge Soviet effort spawned many groups and individuals with the same goals, who have taken over where the Soviets left off after the collapse of the Soviet system.

Ostensibly, no longer financed and controlled by the Soviets, these groups have taken on a life of their own, now financed and controlled in many cases by a new set of wealthy individuals and groups. In some cases, they even use the same front groups and personnel employed by the Soviets.

However, with the rise of a resurgent Russia under Vladimir Putin, there are signs that Russian influence is increasing within the front groups. Many of the communist leaders in Soviet Union times are still in power in modern Russia.

And President Putin is still basically a communist.

In a speech at a meeting with members of the All-Russia People’s Front in Stavropol, Russia on January 25, 2016, Putin said, “You know that I, like millions of Soviet citizens, over 20 million, was a member of the Communist Party of the USSR and not only was I a member of the party but I worked for almost 20 years for an organization called the Committee for State Security,” referring to the KGB.

“I was not, as you know, a party member by necessity,” he said. “I liked Communist and socialist ideas very much and I like them still.”[1]

In his quest for power and geopolitical influence, Putin has simply traded Marxism-Leninism for Gramscianism. (derived from Antonio Gramsci – “the long march through the culture” – Chapter 6).

The Communist Party of the United States did not disappear with the disintegration of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991. Rather, the Party adapted with a new revolutionary warfare doctrine to carry out the “workers struggle” against capitalism.

In 2002, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) had an estimated 20,000 registered members and groups in 28 of the 50 U.S. states. The Party is actively infiltrating the Democratic Party. In January 2015, the then new national chair of the Communist Party USA, John Bachtell, admitted that his party “utilizes” the Democratic Party “to advance its agenda.”[2]

The wealth and power of the various foundations, groups, and individuals funding left-wing causes are gargantuan. The U.S. group, DiscoverTheNetworks, currently identifies and profiles more than 125 major foundations (mostly U.S.-based) whose political and philanthropic orientations are generally leftist, and whose combined assets exceed $100 billion.[3]

These groups and individuals are probably best described as neo-Marxists, although I prefer the title of termites. Termites quietly eat away at the structure of a building, unbeknown to its occupants, until one day the structural integrity of the building is destroyed, and it collapses in on itself.

This chapter will explore the activities of some of the key termites.

Shadowy billionaire George Soros is one of the most politically powerful individuals on earth. Since the mid-1980s in particular, he has used his immense influence to help reconfigure the political landscapes of several countries around the world – in some cases, playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government for years, even decades.

A strong case can be made for the claim that Soros today affects American politics and culture more profoundly than any other living person.

Much of Soros’s influence derives from his $13 billion personal fortune. An equally significant source of Soros’s power, however, is his passionate messianic zeal. Soros views himself as a missionary with something of a divine mandate to transform the world and its institutions into something better – as he sees it.

It is instructive to examine the mindset of Soros to perhaps get a better idea of his motives.

George Soros was born to Tivadar and Erzebat Schwartz, non-practicing Jews, in Budapest, Hungary, on August 12, 1930. In 1936, Tivadar changed his family surname to Soros.

George Soros “I admit that I have always harboured an exaggerated view of self-importance – to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein.”[4]

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, Tivadar decided to split up his family so as to minimize the chance that all its members would be killed together. For each of them – his wife and two sons – he purchased forged papers identifying them as Christians, paid government officials to conceal his family’s Jewish heritage from the German and Hungarian fascists, and bribed Gentile families to take them into their homes. As for George in particular, his father paid a Hungarian government official named Baumbach to claim George as his Christian godson, “Sandor Kiss,” and to let the boy live with him in Budapest. One of Baumbach’s duties was to deliver deportation notices to Hungary’s Jews, confiscate their property and turn it over to Germany.[5] Young George Soros sometimes accompanied the official on his rounds.

Many years later, in December 1998, a CBS interviewer would ask Soros whether he had ever felt any guilt about his association with Baumbach during that period. Soros replied: “… I was only a spectator … I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”[6]

Soros today recalls the German occupation of Hungary as “probably the happiest year of my life.” “For me,” he elaborates, “it was a very positive experience.” He adds:

It’s a strange thing because you see incredible suffering around you and the fact you are in considerable danger yourself. But you’re fourteen years old, and you don’t believe that it can actually touch you. You have a belief in yourself. You have a belief in your father. It’s a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.[7]

Very few people would describe the suffering and human tragedy during the Nazi occupation of Hungary as the happiest year of their lives.

Over the years, Soros has given voice to this sense of grandiosity many times and in a variety of different ways. In his 1987 book The Alchemy of Finance, for instance, he wrote: “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance – to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein.”[8]

In November 2000, Soros announced that he had conceived a master plan for saving the world. The announcement came in a brief epilogue to his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism. However, Soros said he could not divulge the plan. It must remain secret for a time. To reveal it, he implied, would be like advertising his intentions on the eve of a major stock market play, where showing his hand might queer the deal.

Expanding on this theme in his 1991 book, Underwriting Democracy, Soros said: “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood,” fantasies which “I wanted to indulge… to the extent that I could afford.”[9]

In a June 1993 interview with UK daily, The Independent, Soros, who is an atheist, said he saw himself as “some kind of god, the creator of everything.”[10] In an interview later, he portrayed himself as someone who shared numerous attributes with “God in the Old Testament” – “You know, like invisible. I was pretty invisible. Benevolent. I was pretty benevolent. All-seeing. I tried to be all-seeing.”[11] Soros told his biographer, Michael Kaufman, that his “goal” was nothing less ambitious than “to become the conscience of the world,” by using his charitable foundations to bankroll organizations and causes that he deems worthwhile.

In 1993 Soros established the flagship of the Soros foundation network – the New York City-based Open Society Institute (OSI). Today Soros’s Open Society Foundations are active in more than 70 countries around the world.

Soros’s tentacles reach into Australia

The Australian left-wing activist group, GetUp, claims it is “an independent grass-roots community advocacy organization.”

GetUp’s founders, David Madden and Jeremy Heimans, are heavily involved in a number of similar U.S. and global left-wing activist groups, each of which is tied to George Soros.

GetUp was inspired by, and modeled on, similar U.S. groups, such as MoveOn.org and Win Back Respect. Madden and Heimans were co-founders of Win Back Respect. According to public records published on CampaignDonations.com, when they were drawing expenses from the group in 2004, the major donor that year, with a contribution of $150,000, was George Soros.

Madden and Heimans are also involved with another Soros-financed left-wing activist group, MoveOn.org. Public records reveal that between January 2003 and December 2004, Soros contributed $2,500,999 to MoveOn.org.

Madden and Heimans are also co-founders of the global activist group, Avaaz.org, an organization that Canadian Minister John Baird labeled in 2008 as, a “shadowy foreign organization tied to billionaire activist George Soros.”[12]

It is clear that GetUp follows the Soros model in Australia. It is set up as a “non-partisan” activist group to harvest contributions that are exempt from Australia’s political donations laws. The corporate entity, Getup Limited does not appear on the Australian Electoral Commission’s list of “associated entities,” even though it claims on its website that is legally obliged to disclose donations over $11,200 to the AEC.

The group utilizes the funds together with the energy of its well-meaning activist members to target the conservative parties with stunts and advertising campaigns whilst pushing left-wing agendas including: global-warming scaremongering, the carbon tax, same-sex marriage and the release of illegal refugees from detention.[13]

Soros’s U.S. activities

Soros, however, is chiefly devoted to injecting capital into American groups and causes.

In his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros uses the communists’ techniques of obfuscating real meaning by using lofty terms to attract idealists and the naïve. Soros explains that the “open society,” which he seeks to advance by means of philanthropy, “stands for freedom, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, social justice, and social responsibility as a universal idea.”[14]

An indication of what Soros really meant by his lofty words was his appointment of Aryeh Neier to serve as president not only of the OSI but of the entire Soros Foundation Network.

In 1960 Neier had created Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which became the largest and most important radical group of the 1960s. SDS aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and undermine the nation’s war efforts in Vietnam.

Following his stint with SDS, Neier spent 15 years working for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – including eight years as its national executive director. After that, he spent 12 years as executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), an organization he founded in 1978.

Both the ACLU and HRW have long promoted one of the central contentions of Soros’s Open Society Institute: the notion that America is institutionally an oppressive nation and a habitual violator of human rights both at home and abroad – indeed, the very antithesis of the type of “open society” Soros reveres.

The advisory board of the ACLU once included Weather Underground terrorist Bernadine Dohrn. The Weather Underground Organization (WUO) put out a magazine, Osawatomie, of which a 1975 issue carried an article by Dohrn titled “Our Class Struggle,” wherein she clearly articulated her support for communism:

We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to siege power and build socialism. […] We must further the study of Marxism-Leninism within the WUO. The struggle for Marxism-Leninism is the most significant development in our recent history. […] We discovered thru [sic.] our own experiences what revolutionaries all over the world have found – that Marxism-Leninism is the science of revolution, the revolutionary ideology of the working class, our guide to the struggle […][15]

Through the OSI, Soros has dispensed more than US$5 billion; all spent funding a multitude of groups espousing leftist and Marxist causes.[16]

Organizations funded by Soros

The following are just some of the organizations funded by, or receiving donations from, George Soros.

Organizations that call for massive social change, and for the recruitment and training of activist leaders to help foment that change:

• The Center for Community Change is “dedicated to finding the [progressive] stars of tomorrow and preparing them to lead.”
• The Gamaliel Foundation teaches social change “techniques and methodologies.”
• The Ruckus Society promotes “nonviolent direct action against unjust institutions and policies.”
• The American Institute for Social Justice aims to “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on social-welfare programs.
• The Institute for America’s Future “regularly convenes and educates progressive leaders, organizations, candidates, opinion makers, and activists.”
• People for the American Way, founded by television producer Norman Lear to oppose the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right,” seeks “to cultivate new generations of leaders and activists” who will promote “progressive values.”
• Democracy for America operates an academy that has taught more than 10,000 recruits nationwide how to “focus, network, and train grassroots activists in the skills and strategies to take back our country.”
• The Midwest Academy trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, confrontation, and intimidation. Author Stanley Kurtz has described this academy as a “crypto-socialist organization” that was “arguably the most influential force in community organizing from the seventies through the nineties.”

Organizations that disparage capitalism while promoting a dramatic expansion of social-welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes:

• The Center for Economic and Policy Research asserts, “the welfare state has softened the impact” of “the worst excesses and irrationalities of a market system” and its “injustices.”
• The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advocates greater tax expenditures on such assistance programs as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, and low-income housing initiatives.
• The Economic Policy Institute believes that “government must play an active role in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity, and improving the well-being of all Americans.”

Think tanks that promote leftist policies:

• The Institute for Policy Studies has long supported communist and anti-American causes around the world. It seeks to provide a corrective to the “unrestrained greed” of “markets and individualism.”
• The New America Foundation tries to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy policy, and global governance.
• The Urban Institute favors socialized medicine, the expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.

Organizations that promote radical environmentalism:

Groups in this category typically oppose mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing enterprises, development and construction in wilderness areas, the use of coal, the use of pesticides, and oil and gas exploration in “environmentally sensitive” locations. Moreover, they claim that human industrial activity leads to excessive carbon-dioxide emissions, which, in turn, cause a potentially cataclysmic phenomenon called “global warming.” Examples of such Soros donees include Earthjustice, Green For All, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance for Climate Protection, Friends of the Earth and the Earth Island Institute.

Another major recipient of Soros’s money is the Tides Foundation, which receives cash from all manner of donors – individuals, groups and other foundations – and then funnels it to designated left-wing recipients. Having given more than $400 million to “progressive non-profit organizations” since 2000, the Tides Foundation is a heavy backer of environmental organizations, though its philanthropy extends into many other areas.

Organizations that promote modern-day feminism’s core tenet – that America is a fundamentally sexist society, where discrimination and violence against women have reached epidemic proportions:

• The Feminist Majority Foundation “focus[es] on advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists….”
• The Ms. Foundation for Women laments that although “women are more than half the [U.S.] population… they don’t have equal opportunity, voice or power.”
• The National Partnership for Women and Families asserts that “women today are still paid only $0.77 to a man’s dollar” – an assertion that is grossly misleading and substantively untrue.

The OSI is not the only vehicle by which George Soros works to reshape America’s political landscape. Indeed, Soros was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or “Shadow Party,” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of labor unions, non-profit activist groups and think tanks, whose agendas are ideologically left-wing, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research and media manipulation.

Soros, together with Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes, created seven new groups, which became the basis of the “Shadow Party”:

• America Coming Together
• America Votes
• Center for American Progress
• Joint Victory Campaign 2004
• Media Fund
• org
• Thunder Road Group

In some cases, Soros has taken over the funding of what were once Soviet front groups.

The Institute for Policy Studies

One such Soviet-inspired front group is the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Founded in Washington in 1963, by Jewish millionaires, Samuel Rubin and Philip Stern, by 1981 it had a budget of more than $1 million. It is unknown how much Soviet money was involved, but it was founded, in part, with seed money from the Samuel Rubin Foundation and the Stern Fund. Samuel Rubin, who established the foundation that bore his name, was a dedicated socialist and a Communist Party USA member.[17]

The IPS board of trustees selected as the inaugural co-directors of IPS, Richard J. Barnet (a State Department lawyer) and Marcus Raskin (an assistant to McGeorge Bundy, President John F. Kennedy’s National Security Adviser).

An FBI “Memorandum,” dated May 4, 1970, classifies Richard Barnet as a “communist.” The FBI memo says that the IPS “think factory helped train extremists who incite violence in U.S. cities, and whose educational research serves as a cover for intrigue and political agitation… Barnet is a close associate of Markus G. Raskin and Arthur I. Waskow.”[18]

In his book, Target America, written in 1981 at the height of the Cold War, author James Tyson describes the IPS thus:

It is the center of a large web of project groups and related institutes, which have consistently followed a far left line, including unilateral disarmament of the U.S., withdrawal of support for American allies abroad, and attacks on free enterprise and democratic institutions at home.[19]

Paul Dickson in his 1971 book, Think Tanks, wrote:

The IPS is attempting to lay the groundwork for the new society that will replace the present collapsing one. It has not only dedicated itself to ushering in the new society by inquiry and experimentation but is also doing what it can to hasten the demise of the present one.[20]

Even though the IPS is now financed by Soros and others, there is an indication of continuity from the time of Soviet funding – inaugural IPS co-director, Marcus Raskin, was as recently as April 2016 listed as  both  a member of the board of trustees and as a “Distinguished Fellow Director.”[21]

Raskin died in December 2017 at age 83.

Another connection between Soviet front groups and Soros is Morton Halperin, director of the Open Society Policy Center, established by Soros. In 1975 Halperin became director of the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), a spinoff of the IPS. CNSS is also aligned with the National Lawyers Guild (another Soviet front group.) Many CNSS staff were derived from these two organizations. IPS director Robert Borosage helped Halperin run CNSS.

The Ford Foundation

One of the largest and most dangerous concentrations of unchecked power in the United States is the Ford Foundation, an organization with annual discretionary spending power running into the hundreds of millions. It is spending power, moreover, for the political left, including organizations with cultural Marxist goals.

How did the biggest foundation in the world get into the business of academic revolution? Why was Ford pushing so hard for the deconstruction of American higher education?

The foundation was established January 15, 1936, in Michigan by Edsel Ford (president of the Ford Motor Company and son of Henry Ford) and two other executives “to receive and administer funds for scientific, educational and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare.” During its early years, the foundation operated in Michigan under the leadership of Ford family members and their associates and supported the Henry Ford Hospital, the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, among other organizations.

After the deaths of Edsel Ford in 1943 and his father (Henry Ford) four years later, Henry Ford II (Edsel’s son and Henry’s grandson) assumed leadership of the Foundation’s board of trustees. Over the next 33 years, Henry Ford II would serve the Foundation variously as president, as chairman, and as a member of the board of trustees. Upon taking the helm of the trustees’ board, Mr. Ford promptly appointed the Gaither Study Committee, headed by California attorney H. Rowan Gaither, to draft a long-term plan for the institution’s future. In its final report (published in 1950), the Committee recommended that the Ford Foundation should focus its philanthropy on groups and causes that:

• “Promise significant contributions to world peace and the establishment of a world order of law and justice”;
• “secure greater allegiance to the basic principles of freedom and democracy in the solution of the insistent problems of an ever-changing society”;
• “advance the economic well-being of people everywhere and improve economic institutions for the better realization of democratic goals”;
• “strengthen, expand and improve educational facilities and methods to enable individuals to realize more fully their intellectual, civic and spiritual potential; to promote greater equality of educational opportunity, and to conserve and increase knowledge and enrich our culture”; and
• “increase knowledge of factors that influence or determine human conduct, and extend such knowledge for the maximum benefit of individuals and society.”

These flowery words are really Marxist propaganda dressed up to bamboozle authorities and entice the gullible. For example, “promise significant contributions to world peace and the establishment of a world order of law and justice,” sounds very much like the current elites’ proposal for a world government under the auspices of the United Nations.

Just as its influence was increasing rapidly, the Ford Foundation turned away from the conservative views of the Ford family. In 1951, it began to receive millions of dollars in dividends from the massive endowment of stock that had been bequeathed to it by Henry and Edsel Ford, transforming the Foundation, almost overnight, into the country’s largest and most influential philanthropy organization.

To oversee its newly lavish budget and move beyond its regional role, the Foundation turned to Paul Hoffman, a corporate executive and a liberal (in the American sense) Republican. Hoffman was appointed as the Foundation’s president in 1951 and immediately launched its political realignment.

These geographic changes heralded a shift in the nature and political direction of the Foundation’s charitable giving – changes which would reach new heights in 1966 when McGeorge Bundy began his 13-year stint as the Ford Foundation’s president. Under Bundy, the Ford Foundation launched a new style of politicized giving and became a radical force in American life.

The politicized grants continued, as the Ford Foundation, particularly during the Nixon years, came to see itself as a government-in-exile, an engine for social transformation. Bundy transformed the Foundation into a leading sponsor of left-wing causes such as the expansion of the welfare state, nuclear disarmament, environmental advocacy, and the creation of “civil rights” interest groups that emphasized ethnic identity and ethnic power, or “multiculturalism,” over integration and assimilation into the American culture. Ford gave as much as $300 million per year throughout the 1960s to support such causes.

Ford’s “march to the left” would ultimately provoke a bitter falling out between, on the one hand, the Foundation’s staff and trustees, and on the other, Edsel Ford’s son Henry Ford II, the last member of the Ford family to serve on the Foundation’s board. In 1976 a disillusioned Henry Ford II terminated his 34-year tenure with a protest against the leftward course of his family’s Foundation. In a stinging letter of resignation, Mr. Ford excoriated the trustees for using the Foundation’s funds to support left-wing causes while abandoning the commitment to free enterprise that had made possible the profits from which the Foundation was created. He said that the Foundation “exists and thrives on the fruits of our economic system.”[22]

From its founding in 1936 through 1991 Ford had doled out more than $7 billion to over 9,000 organizations and 100,000 individuals across America and overseas. Its 2014 tax return runs to 1,450 pages, with assets listed at $11.9 billion.[23] Its staff of 574 are spread across offices in New York, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Chile, Peru, Bangladesh, Beijing, New Delhi, Jakarta, Bangkok, Manila, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Cairo, Zimbabwe, and Kenya.

In 2014 it doled out $569 million in grants, including $203 million for “democracy, rights and justice” and $165 million for “education, creativity, and free expression.”[24]

Donations included $300,000 to the Center for Economic and Policy Research and $1 million to the International Center for Islam in Indonesia.[25]

Some other interesting donations from the 2014 report are listed in Table 1:

 

Table 1 – A sample of Ford Foundation donations for the 2013-2014 year[26]

Recipient of Donation	Purpose	Amount
The Regents of the University of California Los Angeles	For the Williams Institute to develop and launch a user friendly website that makes its research on lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people and issues accessible to broader and more diverse audiences	$125,000
Neo Philanthropy Inc.	For the social transformation project to promote coordination among social justice leaders and organizations	$150,000
Gay Straight Alliance Network	For the Racial and Economic Justice Project to strengthen and expand efforts to address school safety and improve educational outcomes for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender youth of color	$125,000
Creating Resources for Empowerment and Action Inc.	For the 2013 and 2014 Sexuality Gender and Rights Institutes to help global south practitioners and policy makers link the latest scholarship to policy legal and program studies	$150,000
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc.	Core support for the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights project to create an America free from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and for work on marriage fairness	$250,000
Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues Inc.	General support to mobilize philanthropic resources that enhance the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and queer communities and for capacity building assistance to the new president	$275,000
Amnesty International Limited	For the global transition program to increase AI’s impact on human rights and bring it closer to those whose rights are violated by decentralizing its international secretariat and creating regional hubs	$100,000
Advancement Project	General support to advance a broad national racial justice movement core support for the power and democracy program and to advance the rights of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender students of color	$700,000
Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith	For the Center on Extremism to gather. analyze and disseminate information related to anti-immigrant groups nationwide and develop strategies for addressing anti-immigrant activities	$500,00
Western States Center Inc.	For training and fellowships to build the leadership and collaborative capacity of lesbian, gay bisexual transgender and allied leaders working to advance LGBT rights	$150,000

If you are wondering why same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian rights suddenly became pressing social problems, pushing more important crises off the front pages, you need look no further than Table 1 above. Ford has handed out millions of dollars to a plethora of activist groups promoting these social engineering activities.

Ford does make donations to produce genuine social good, such as financing micro banks to assist people in third world countries to start small businesses. However, such donations are dwarfed by the hundreds of millions of dollars poured annually into activist groups promoting its cultural Marxism agenda.

For example, Ford used its financial clout to help spread the virus of political correctness across American campuses and ultimately to the rest of the Western world.

“The Foundation is a creature of capitalism,” Henry Ford II said when he resigned in disgust from the foundation that bears his family name, in 1977, adding that it was hard to discern any trace of capitalism “in anything the foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions particularly the universities that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation’s grant program.”

In talking to Henry II, former Treasury Secretary William Simon noted that by the late 1960s Ford was “engaged in a radical assault on traditional culture, under the rubric of the ‘public interest’ and ‘systematic social change’.” Simon asked Henry Ford II how such a thing could have happened. “I tried for 30 years to change it from within to no avail”, said Ford.[27]

Not only did the Ford Foundation’s executives not heed Henry Ford II’s warning that its social investments were undermining the very system that underwrote its philanthropy, but they also moved aggressively to create a network of progressive groups which would use their non-profit tax status to promote radical agendas.

The ultimate target of all this energetic social transformation, however, is America’s educational system, particularly its system of higher education. By the early 1980s, Ford’s activist staff saw that the university would be the battleground for an apocalyptic effort to force multiculturalism into the intellectual life of America.

And this became one of the Foundation’s chief ends.

The Ford Foundation realized that with their enormous financial clout and their appearance of being above politics, foundations were the institutions best positioned to change the campus climate. It was essentially a matter of using lucrative grants to bribe administrators into making the desired changes.

In September 12, 1990, media release, Ford Foundation president Franklin Thomas explained the Foundation’s intention to “broaden cultural and intellectual diversity in American higher education.”

The program’s goal is “to ensure that college curricula and teaching keep pace with the rapid demographic and cultural changes under way in American society.”[28]

Ford creates the open-borders lobby

The concept of “open borders” has long been a leading agenda item for the political and ideological left. Since the 1960s, a vast network – including hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of grassroots activists, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from left-wing foundations – has waged a sustained campaign to open America’s borders to a mass migration from the Third World. Though these groups talk in terms of “human rights,” the rights they demand are not the restrictions on government enshrined in the American Bill of Rights, but the claims on society for “equity” and “welfare” and special treatment for designated groups that are the familiar menu of the left, and would, if enacted, amount to a revolution in America’s existing social order – which is precisely their intent.

The Ford Foundation, which has assets of more than US$11 billion, has focused on immigrants and refugees as a priority since the 1950s. The two groups that have figured most prominently in the Foundation’s strategy to create a large, active, pro-open borders movement are the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Virtually all the funding for MALDEF in its first three decades has come from the Ford Foundation, which has shaped its leadership and its agendas. Far from being the grassroots organization it pretends to be, it is more like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ford Foundation.[29]

In 1999, the Foundation gave the ACLU the largest grant it had ever received – $7 million.[30]

The “open borders” movement emerged from the radicalism of the 1960s and matured in the fight over amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1980s. It gained a certain mainstream status in the 1990s as the “globalization” and “multilateralism” fads of the decade encouraged talk of a “world without borders” and the decline (even the demise) of the nation-state. At the center of the movement was the Ford Foundation. In the radical perspective, America is an oppressor nation, which significantly downgrades the value of American culture and the preservation of American borders. The Ford Foundation has focused on immigrants and refugees as a priority since the 1950s.

As part of the Ford Foundation’s response to 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the radical Center for Constitutional Rights was given $150,000 in 2002, “for racial justice litigation, advocacy, and educational outreach activities related to the detention and racial profiling of Arab Americans and Muslims following the World Trade Center attack.”[31] The CCR was a prominent force at the UN’s “Anti-Racism” conference in Durban, which demanded reparations for slavery from America and Britain – but not Sudan or any Arab state involved in the slave trade – and which was boycotted by the United States for its anti-American agenda.

Ford creates the multiculturalism movement in the U.S.

The multicultural idea first invaded American politics through the universities, when a succession of Ford Foundation grants in the late 1960s and 1970s helped establish the politicized fields of Black Studies and Women’s Studies, with others to follow. These pseudo-disciplines celebrated ethnic, racial and gender separatism, fostering group identities over a core American identity. Their common theme was the race-gender-class oppression of designated groups by American capitalism. See Chapter 5 for more information on this topic.

Ford helps create “women’s studies”

Women’s Studies (aka Feminist Studies) was born as an academic discipline in the mid-1970s. Such programs invariably echo the theme that women, by and large, are the oppressed victims of Western culture’s inequities, inequities that are most closely tied to capitalism.

The Feminine Mystique, a bestseller written by Jewish communist Betty Friedan, is the generally accepted platform that launched the modern feminist movement.

In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist, and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the publication of The Feminist Mystique exploded onto the scene.[32]

Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement.[33]

Today in the U.S., there are more than 800 Women’s Studies programs teaching thousands of courses in U.S. colleges and universities. Hundreds of schools offer a Bachelor of Arts degree in Women’s Studies, while close to 30 now offer a master’s degree and a handful have created a Ph.D. program. The first program was established at San Diego State University for the 1969-70 school year, and in 1970 there were approximately 100 Women’s Studies courses being offered at schools across the country. By 1971, more than 600 courses were being taught, and by 1978 there were 301 fully-fledged programs in operation. That number more than doubled to 621 programs by 1990.[34]

In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford Foundation president McGeorge Bundy with a request that the Foundation might involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the civil-rights movement. The result of those early discussions was a fully-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and to create a whole new field within academia known as “Women’s Studies.” In 1972, the Ford Foundation announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.” Over the next 20 years, the Ford Foundation, along with many other foundations, would funnel some $36 million to Women’s Studies programs from coast to coast.[35]

In the 1980s, under the direction of Ford Foundation president Franklin Thomas, all foundation grants included gender as a consideration, and program officers were instructed to examine each and every proposal for its gender component. This moved the funding of Women’s Studies and other feminist enterprises from a women-specific grant category into all funding categories. By 1985, the Foundation had established the Women’s Program Forum, a consortium of grant-makers and Foundation staffers tasked with keeping tabs on funding decisions being made worldwide in relation to women’s issues.

The creation of the Campus Diversity Initiative in 1990 took the Foundation in the direction of curriculum change. The grants given from this category were directed to sex-specific academic programs and departments, in addition to other identified victim-class groups. Of course, sex-specific really meant Women’s Studies, since no Ford Foundation executive considered white male students to be in need of anything other than sensitivity training.

The Ford Foundation actively seeks to transform curriculum to impose this feminist ideology onto all areas of study, including the hard sciences. Heather Mac Donald’s 1996 exposé of the Foundation outlines the profound impact it has had on what she calls “academic ghettoization.” Not only did the Foundation create African-American studies (first known as Black Studies) and Women’s Studies, but it also spearheaded a movement followed by all foundations called “curriculum transformation.” This movement seeks to inject race, gender, and sexual consciousness into every academic department and discipline. The concept is that every discipline, every administrative function and every pedagogy was designed by an oppressive patriarchy and must be reformed.[36]

In 2001, the Foundation gave the University of Maryland a $50,000 grant to host a conference on the development of doctoral programs in Women’s Studies.

Also during the early 2000s, Rutgers University received $300,000 for the support of women’s globalization human rights leadership, $100,000 for studying race and gender discrimination in major business publications, a $500,000 endowment for the university’s Institute for Women’s Leadership, $100,000 for Rutgers students involved with the UN Beijing Conference on Women, $320,000 for the Rutgers Center for the American Woman and Politics, and $346,000 for the Institute for Women’s Leadership to examine the faculty’s role in initiating and supporting programs to advance diversity in higher education policy and practice.

In 1993 Ford endowed the feminist group, Ms. Foundation for Women, with $4.5 million to hand out to women’s research projects.

By 2004, there were more than 800 university-based women’s research centers in the U.S.

The Foundation’s philanthropy has also been used to promote its feminist agendas abroad. In 1997, for instance, the International Center for Research on Women received a $1 million endowment from the Foundation for a five-year program to launch Women’s Studies initiatives in other countries. In addition, the Foundation has invested millions of dollars to establish Women’s Studies programs in China, Israel and several South American countries, thereby expanding the reach of liberal feminism and solidifying its grip on UN conferences that address women, children, health and population issues. Thanks to the Ford Foundation, by 2003 there were 400 women’s organizations and 55 Women’s Studies programs in Brazil alone.

Former Women’s Studies professor Daphne Patai underscored the compelling evidence that the battle to retake our universities must be fought and won. She wrote in her book Heterophobia, “My own observations of students in women’s studies classes have led me to believe that years of exposure to feminist-promoted scare tactics have succeeded in imbuing many young women with a foreboding sense of living under constant threat from predatory men.”[37]

Ford’s support of Islamic groups

Virtually from the moment Israel was created as an independent nation in 1948, the Ford Foundation gave money to a broad array of causes opposed to the Jewish state. Through its Cairo office, for instance, the Foundation disbursed more than $35 million in grants to 272 Arab and Palestinian organizations during the 2000-01 period alone – plus 62 additional grants (totaling more than $1.4 million) to Arab and Palestinian individuals. From the 1950s through 2003, the Foundation’s Beirut and Cairo offices awarded over $193 million to more than 350 Middle East organizations, almost all of which were Arab, Islamic or Palestinian.[38]

In their clamor to overthrow our democratic system and build a socialist replacement based on Marxism-Leninism, the fiery activists, idealists and power-seekers have overlooked one simple fact: all Marxist-Leninist revolutions to siege power have been followed by a brutal dictatorship. There has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat – just dictatorship by a strong, psychopathic leader. So the thousands of dedicated revolutionaries and supporters need to ask a couple of questions: Who will be the new dictator? Will he be like Stalin or maybe like Mao Zedong, or perhaps Pol Pot?

Nationalism and authoritarianism, reinforced by technology, have come together to exercise new forms of control and manipulation over human beings whose susceptibility to greed, prejudice, ignorance, domination, subservience, and fear was not, after all, swept away by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The International Criminal Court (ICC):
A case study of global governance in action

The ICC process began in 1994 with a draft document by a UN body, the International Law Commission, leading to the Rome Conference in June and July 1998, where details of the ICC were hammered out.

The coalition that built the ICC comprised two bodies:

• The Like-Minded Group led by Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Germany, and included, of course, 13 of the 15 EU members.
• A coalition of NGOs led by human rights groups Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights.

Funding for the NGOs came from the World Federalist Movement, the Ford and MacArthur foundations, the European Union and some governments in the Like-Minded Group.

On the night of July 18, 1998, a meeting was held in Rome as part of the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court. A vote was held and, despite vigorous opposition from the U.S., the vote was carried, thus establishing the International Criminal Court.

By 2002, 60 nations had ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a major victory for global governance forces.

The ICC is an autonomous supranational institution that claims legal authority over nation-states, even those that have not ratified the treaty. In a sign of the danger posed by global governance forces, Article 12 of the ICC treaty eliminates the need for ratification of the treaty by national governments, by providing the court with jurisdiction over the nationals of any state, regardless of whether or not it has signed the treaty.

So how well did the ICC go with its first case against the leader of a rogue state?

In July 2008, the ICC chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo indicted Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, and other officials for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” for their murderous actions against the population in the Darfur region of Sudan. The psychopathic Amar al-Bashir and his henchmen are responsible for the large-scale murder and rape in the Darfur region, which observers have characterized as genocide.

In March 2009, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber judges agreed to the prosecutor’s request for the issuance of an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir and two of his officials.

The global governance activists, including the EU, leading NGOs, and some Western governments, heralded the ICC’s arrest warrants for the Sudanese leaders as a historic victory for global law. Amnesty International called the announcements of the arrest warrants “an important signal, both for Darfur and the rest of the world.” Human Rights First said that when Bashir was brought to court, “a giant step will have been made toward justice.”[39]

And did Bashir front up to the ICC?

Not likely.

The Sudanese government reacted swiftly and savagely to the arrest warrants. “Within hours… [it] summarily expelled the biggest international aid agencies, sieged their assets, and closed down Sudanese human rights organizations at gunpoint”, reported Julie Flint and Alex de Waal in The Guardian. “As fuel to run the water pumps in Darfur’s massive displaced camps runs low and the worst meningitis epidemic in a decade spreads with lethal speed, the Sudan government will be responsible for the deaths and suffering that will result….” But they also noted that “it was the ICC prosecutor who set the match to the dry tinder that is Sudan.”[40]

In a report to the UN Security Council on April 14, 2009, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that the expulsion of the aid agencies put “well over one million people at life-threatening risk.”[41]

Maybe in the future the ICC will focus on softer targets, such as Western democracies.

It is quite conceivable that, as time goes on, laws will be passed requiring the ratifying parties to reduce their defense capabilities (in the interests of world peace, of course). However, totalitarian states such as Iran, China and Russia will continue to exercise robust defense capabilities, or, if they do sign up to the treaty, it may only be a ploy to wait until the democratic nations are sufficiently weakened, then withdraw.

Extreme left-wing groups – the enforcers

The huge effort of firstly the Soviets, then financial powerhouses like George Soros and the Ford Foundation, has spawned numerous radical left-wing groups, many of which can be classified as extremist.

While Soros and the Ford Foundation are circumspect about their ultimate goals, many extremist groups are quite open about their efforts to overthrow capitalism (and by extension our liberal, democratic system of parliamentary democracy, free enterprise, property rights and the rule of law), and replace it with a Marxist system.

Socialist Alternative (Australia)

From the Socialist Alternative’s statement of principles:

SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE is a revolutionary Marxist organization. We stand for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a world socialist system.

SOCIALISM CANNOT be won by reform of the current system or by taking over the existing state. Only the revolutionary overthrow of the existing order and the smashing of the capitalist state apparatus can defeat the capitalist class and permanently end its rule. A successful revolution will involve workers taking control of their workplaces, dismantling existing state institutions (parliaments, courts, the armed forces and police) and replacing them with an entirely new state based on genuinely democratic control by the working class.[42]

Socialist Alliance (Australia)

The About page states:

The Socialist Alliance stands for socialism – a democratic society run by and for working people, not the greedy, destructive capitalist elite that now rules.

We believe that in order to bring about such a society, we have to replace the institutions that protect and defend this ruling elite (such as parliament, government administration, police and the military) with institutions under the democratic control of ordinary people. In other words we need revolutionary change, brought about with the active participation of the majority of people.[43]

The Socialist Alliance is an Australian political party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). It is indeed strange that the AEC would register a political party that aims to overthrow Parliament and the Australian system of government administration, including the police and the military.

Both the Socialist Alternative and the Socialist Alliance are treading dangerously close to Australia’s sedition laws.

The Anti-Terrorism Act, Schedule 7, Section 80.2(1) states:

A person commits an offense if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence:

• The constitution; or
• The Government of the Commonwealth, a state or a Territory; or
• The lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.
  Penalty: Imprisonment for seven years.

Antifa Australia

Antifa supposedly stands for anti-fascism, which is quite ironic given that the group is overtly fascist in its actions to suppress dissent. Antifa appears to be a loose collection of anarchists, Marxists, and misfits dedicated to openly attacking any right-wing group. They revel in violent confrontations with conservative groups.

These are the masked thugs carrying red, black and white flags with the words “Antifaschistische Aktion,” the name of a German anti-fascist organization that reportedly took root in the German Communist Party in 1932, and was dissolved in 1933 by the Nazis, before resurfacing in the 1980s in Europe.

These three groups are representative of the hundreds of others operating around the Western world that are the enforcers of Marxist dogma and Islamic ideology. Their modus operandi goes like this:

• A group of people arrange a public meeting to discuss, say, the Islamization of their country.
• The enforcer groups gets wind of it, and rallies their troops via social media.
• The enforcer thugs carrying signs with “racist” slogans ambush and violently clash with the attendees of the meeting.
• The media then pick up that some good citizens are opposed to the nasty group conducting the meeting and brand the group and its members as “racists” or “far right.”

For too long these insidious organizations have flown under the media radar. It is time the media investigated them, revealed their traitorous aims and violent methods, and held them to account.

It is also time that the authorities paid more attention to them. If they are in breach of the law, then charge them.

Social justice warriors

A relatively recent phenomenon is that of social justice warriors (SJWs), who believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness, all combined into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor free speech while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the Internet activist arm of Western progressivism and operate as a vigilante group to ensure compliance with, and hegemony of, far left thought.

The true definition of an SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists, progressives, and cultural Marxists who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda and censor speech.

Those who proudly adopt the title express a mix of sensitivity to social issues coupled with an aggressive and almost militant outrage at any perceived injustice.

SJWs have been described as an army of self-appointed militants who see themselves as the guardians of correct thinking.

Often they are people with paper-thin skin who always find something to be offended about.

They specialize in race, gender, ethnic and pro-Islamic causes.

It is an essential aspect of the strategy of the modern left, as laid out decades ago by Saul Alinsky in his 1971 book, Rules for Radicals.[44] Essentially, you seek to destroy your opponents by isolating them, then swarming on them like a hive of angry bees.

The purpose is to leave the victim isolated and confused – and maybe unemployed. It is also ideal to extract from him some kind of humiliating apology (which of course will not be accepted).[45]

The feminists’ war on white males

Decades of a virulent anti-male narrative by radical feminists have resulted in negative stereotypes of males being embedded in our culture. If you are a white, heterosexual male who hasn’t succumbed to political correctness and therefore can still think for himself, you are probably sick of the put-down of men in TV commercials, sitcoms, and movies and the outright slandering of men by the domestic violence industry.

The world’s cultural dialogue is dominated by feminists complaining that men have all the power, yet the truth in most Western countries is that many of our laws, attitudes and social conventions make life tough for men, even going so far at times to demonize men.

How many times have you watched TV commercials and sitcoms depicting males as dim-witted, bumbling oafs outwitted by smug, all-knowing females?[46]

Or TV shows such as Criminal Minds that routinely depict males as violent, sadistic and depraved serial killers?

And what about SVU: Special Victims Unit, where the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male (and usually white)?

Many men are incensed at their treatment in the courts and in police proceedings.

Feminism has achieved much for women, but many moderate feminists are concerned at the current direction of the movement.

Feminism started out as a movement designed to redress the imbalance in opportunities and conditions for women but was hijacked by radical socialists employing Marxist techniques of class warfare to create division between men and women where none existed, with the man-hating, spiky-haired warriors of Lesbos gleefully jumped on the bandwagon.

Following years of highly organized campaigning and lobbying, the feminist movement, now largely controlled by a group of Marxist zealots, is creating an increasingly anti-male world. The aim of this radical group appears to be to turn males into a despised group of second-class citizens.

The feminist warriors are well on the way to achieving these aims. Women are being given priority treatment in government recruitment, in the courts (including in judicial appointments), and in education.

Sadly, many males have been badgered and brainwashed into joining their campaigns.

Government agencies just for women

Together these “feminazis” and their male lapdogs have lobbied governments to parachute their sisters into special government agencies designed to advance the cause of radical feminism at the expense of men. Male taxpayers are funding a plethora of government bureaucracies, such as Western Australia’s Office for Women’s Interests and the Sex Discrimination Commission. There are no agencies for men’s interests.

Below are some of the U.S. government agencies just for women, followed by their stated objectives (note the repetitive use of terms such as “sex/gender,” “gender disparity” and “equity”):

White House Council on Women and Girls

On March 11, 2009, the then President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, with the objective:

To ensure that each of the agencies in which they’re charged takes into account the needs of women and girls in the policies they draft, the programs they create, the legislation they support,” and that the true purpose of our government is “to ensure that in America, all things are still possible for all people.[47]

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The Office of Women’s Health (OWH)

Serves as a champion for women’s health both within and outside the agency. Works to correct gender disparities in drug, device, and biologics testing and regulation policy; monitors progress of priority women’s health initiatives; and partners with government and consumer groups, health advocates, professional organizations, and industry to promote women’s health.

National Institute of Health (NIH)

Office of Research on Women’s Health

Serves as a focal point for women’s health research at the NIH; promotes, stimulates, and supports efforts to improve women’s health through biomedical and behavioral research on the roles of sex and gender in health and disease; works in partnership with the NIH Institutes and Centers to ensure that women’s health research is part of the scientific framework at NIH and throughout the scientific community; advises the NIH Director and staff on matters relating to research on women’s health; strengthens and enhances research related to diseases, disorders, and conditions that affect women; ensures that research conducted and supported by NIH adequately addresses issues regarding women’s health; ensures that women are appropriately represented in biomedical and biobehavioral research studies supported by NIH; develops opportunities for and supports recruitment, retention, re-entry, and advancement of women in biomedical careers; and supports research on women’s health issues.

U.S. Department of Health

Office on Women’s Health

Provides leadership to promote health equity for women and girls through sex/gender-specific approaches. The strategy OWH uses to achieve its mission and vision is through the development of innovative programs, by educating health professionals, and motivating behavior change in consumers through the dissemination of health information.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office on Violence Against Women

Provides federal leadership to reduce violence against women, and to administer justice for and strengthen services to all victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This is accomplished by developing and supporting the capacity of state, local, tribal, and non-profit entities involved in responding to violence against women.

U.S. Department of Labor

Women’s Bureau

Serves as a public policy advocate for working women to improve their status, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.

Googling the same agencies, but substituting “men” for “women,” reveals there are no such agencies. However, a private group, The Men’s Health Network, reports that efforts are being made to sponsor a bill that will establish an Office of Men’s Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Let’s see how the radical feminists react to that.

The Men’s Health Network website states:

There is an ongoing, increasing and predominantly silent crisis in the health and well-being of American men. Due to a lack of awareness, poor health education, and a paucity of male-specific health programs, men’s health and well-being are deteriorating steadily. The deterioration of men’s health is best illustrated by the life-expectancy gap. In 1920, the life expectancy difference between men and women was one year but by 1990 that had increased to seven years with men having a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death.

Prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases yet receives only 5% of research funding. (Source NPCC).[48]

The feminist campaign has been so powerful that many compliant men stupidly assist the radical feminists. In the United States, despite legal rulings prohibiting gender discrimination in divorce courts, more than 80 percent of child custody awards go to mothers.[49] Similarly, in Australia, post-divorce child custody overwhelmingly favors mothers.[50]

The principle that everyone is equal before the law has become a travesty.

Discrimination and affirmative action laws protect state-designated minorities. Such laws provide a permanent position of victimhood, justifying bigotry against the PC hate target of choice: heterosexual men who lean to the political Right.

The only group of citizens wholly excluded from the attributes list that comprises minority status under law are heterosexual; able-bodied men classified as “white.” The racial classification “white” is attributed generally to people of Celtic, English or European descent. In academe, it is common to find statements about this group that would be classified as hate speech if applied to any other.

BBC Radio performer sacked for being “white and male”

A BBC radio performer and writer, Jon Holmes, part of the team behind the Now Show, a hit BBC Radio 4 program, says the reason he was axed from the show he appeared on for 18 years was because it was being recast with “more women and diversity.”

In a tweet announcing his dismissal, he said: “Sad to announce I’ve been axed from @BBCNowShow as ‘we want to recast with more women and diversity.’ Tsk. And I didn’t even punch a producer.”

He later added that some of those responsible for setting up the BBC’s diversity policies had got in touch to say that political correctness had “got out of hand.”

He had been a writer and performer on the show since the first broadcast in 1997.

In an article for the UK’s Mail on Sunday he wrote:

Should I, as a white man (through no fault of my own), be fired from my job because I am a white man?

But, after I tweeted the news, I was contacted privately (quietly and off the record, because people are terrified of saying the wrong thing) by many presenters, actors and even agents who are now being told, and I quote: ‘We love your client. He’s perfect for the role. But we’re not allowed to even invite him in for a meeting because we’ve been told to cast someone Asian.’

The BBC recently announced new diversity targets to ensure women make up half of the staff numbers by 2020.

The corporation is also aiming to increase staff with a black, Asian or other minority ethnic background to 15 percent, while lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender staff should make up eight percent of employees.[51]

Neo-Marxists use the minority politics of race and gender as the communists used class, by sowing envy and victimhood to create a revolutionary mass primed to attack a selected target.

Camille Paglia: a feminist defense of masculine virtues

“What you’re seeing is how a civilization commits suicide”, says Camille Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, in a 2013 interview with Bari Weiss of the Wall Street Journal. This self-described “notorious Amazon feminist” says the military is out of fashion, Americans undervalue manual labor, schools neuter male students, opinion-makers deny the biological differences between men and women, and sexiness is dead.[52]

When Ms. Paglia burst onto the national stage in 1990, with the publishing of Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson,[53] she immediately established herself as a feminist who was the scourge of the movement’s establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy.

“If civilization had been left in female hands,” she wrote, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

Ms. Paglia argues that the softening of modern American society begins as early as kindergarten. “Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It’s oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys”, she says, pointing to the most obvious example: the way many schools have cut recess. “They’re making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters.”

Things only get worse in higher education, she says. “This PC gender politics thing – the way gender is being taught in the universities – in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness.” The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything…. They understand the agenda.” In other words, they avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

“If we had to go to war,” she says, “it is the men that would save the nation.”[54]

A word from another feminist

Nobel Laureate author and feminist moderate, Doris Lessing, told an audience at the Edinburgh book festival in 2001 that she had become increasingly shocked at the “automatic rubbishing of men, which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed.” She said:

Great things have been achieved through feminism…. We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?

I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.

This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place, and no one says a thing.

It has become a kind of religion that you can’t criticize because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.[55]

The domestic violence industry demonizes men

It has been shocking to watch the attempts to reduce domestic violence, morph into a worldwide domestic violence industry determined to ignore evidence showing the complexities of violence in the home while avoiding prevention strategies that would tackle the real risk factors underpinning this vital social issue.

The whole thing is based on the erroneous notion that domestic violence is caused entirely by men, out of disrespect for women.

Key organizations all sing from the same songbook, regularly distorting statistics to present only one part of this complex story.

This type of omission is everywhere today, with most of our bureaucracies downplaying statistics that demonstrate the role of women in family violence, while highlighting evidence of male aggression.

The fact remains that almost a quarter (23.1 percent) of victims of intimate partner homicide are male – and we hardly ever hear about these deaths.

It is not serving our society well to downplay the fact that female violence can also be lethal, towards men and towards children. Women account for more than half of all murders of children (52 percent).

“If a woman turns up to a police station claiming her man has yelled at her, the chances are that she’ll end up with a police report and well on her way to obtaining an apprehended violence order, which puts her in a very powerful position”, says Augusto Zimmermann, a commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, who explains that AVOs can be used to force men to leave their homes and deny them contact with their children.

Often men are caught up in police proceedings and evicted from their homes by orders that are issued without any evidence of legal wrongdoing. “It is a frightening reality that here in Australia a perfectly innocent citizen stands to lose his home, his family, his reputation, as a result of unfounded allegations. This is happening to men every day (as a consequence) of domestic violence laws which fail to require the normal standards of proof and presumptions of innocence”, Dr. Zimmermann says, adding that he’s not talking about genuine cases of violent men who seriously abuse their wives and children but “law-abiding people who have lost their parental and property rights without the most basic requirements of the rule of law.”[56]

Given the shame and stigma associated with being a male victim of family violence, it is not surprising that men downplay these experiences in victim surveys such as Australia’s Personal Safety Survey.

The evidence of the complexities of domestic violence does exist,[57] but on an official level, no one is listening. The reason is simple, the deliberate distortion of this important social issue is all about feminists refusing to give up hard-won turf.

The truth about domestic violence statistics

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project

In the largest ever such research project, and in an effort to bring together, in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner, the existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable up-to-date research, the senior editor of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Abuse, recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the UK to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature related to family violence in March 2010.

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants across 20 universities and research institutions spent two years researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered.

Here is a brief summary of the findings:

Section One: Rates of Male and Female Victimization. The group studying information in this area analyzed 249 publications comprising over 1 million subjects. They found that, over their lifetimes, about 23% of women reported physical victimization versus 19.3% of men.

As to public policy, the authors stated the obvious:

This comprehensive review… documents the need for gender-inclusive responsiveness to this wide-ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes.

In other words, the roughly half of all DV victims who are men have nowhere to turn for help, and they need it.

Section Two: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration. The authors studying data in this area analyzed 111 separate data sets comprising about 250,000 subjects. They found that about 25% of those subjects reported perpetrating physical violence against a current partner or one in their last relationship. That represented 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men who perpetrated violence against an intimate partner. Subjects came from across the industrialized, English-speaking world.

The authors note that “gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings.” Of course, the domestic violence (DV) establishment will hasten to say that rates of domestic violence perpetration don’t deal with the severity of violence, only the incidence.

True, but the authors of the study anticipated that argument. They stated:

Findings should be used to support the development and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships but also recognized how participants’ treatment needs may differ.

That is, the difference in the severity of domestic violence should no longer be used by the DV establishment as an excuse to deny services to male victims or female perpetrators. Those interventions should be tailored to the needs of those victims and perpetrators.

Section Three: Rates of Bi-Directional and Uni-Directional IPV. In this area, 50 separate studies that recorded rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional violence were analyzed. Researchers found that, in the largest samples studied, among couples reporting domestic violence, 57.9% reported reciprocal or bi-directional violence with the remainder, 42.1%, reporting uni-directional violence. In the uni-directional group, women were over twice as likely (28.3%) to perpetrate violence when compared to men (13.8%).[58]

Feminists’ firm grip on former Australian Prime Minister’s testicles

Former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull must have had his eyes closed when the above report was published in November 2012, because his media release (below), on September 24, 2015, makes him look a proper goose and illustrates his captivity, orchestrated by the feminist-controlled domestic violence lobby. His office announced:

Women and children in Australia have the right to feel safe and live without fear of violence.

Yet, one in six Australian women has experienced violence from a current or former partner, and 63 women have been killed so far this year.

For Indigenous women the situation is even worse – they are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of family violence.

In recent weeks, we have seen yet again the devastating impact that domestic and family violence has on our community. The tragic and avoidable deaths of women and their children at the hands of current or former partners or family members highlight the need for urgent action.

We must elevate this issue to our national consciousness, and make it clear that domestic, family or sexual violence is unacceptable in any circumstances.

Today the Australian Government is announcing a $100 million package of measures to provide a safety net for women and children at high risk of experiencing violence. The package will improve frontline support and services, leverage innovative technologies to keep women safe, and provide education resources to help change community attitudes to violence and abuse.[59]

Announcing the policy, Turnbull said that domestic violence was a “cultural problem” that started with disrespect for women.

“Disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women, but all violence against women begins with disrespecting women,” Turnbull said.

“We as leaders of government must make it, and we will make it, a clear national objective of ours to ensure Australia is more respecting of women, women must be respected.”

“Disrespecting women is unacceptable, it is unacceptable at every level – at home, at the workplace, wherever.”[60]

Out of the $100 million of taxpayer funding for women, an amount of $2 million was set-aside for men. However, even that minuscule amount was just to fund MensLine so that men can “get help” if they feel like disrespecting women.

Taxpayer-funded indoctrination of children

Accompanying the Prime Minister at the media conference was the Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash. The minister

announced that a new program, called Respectful Relationships, would be “embedded in the Australian education curriculum and will be rolled out in schools across Australia, starting from kindergarten to Year 10.”[61]

Such a program is straight out of the Marxist-inspired social justice warriors (SJWs) handbook, as evidenced by the imminent rollout of the program in schools throughout the state of Victoria. Children from kindergarten up will be taught about “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women.[62]

While the program refers to “gender-based violence,” the overriding emphasis is on men being the perpetrators of violent acts. Proposed lessons will introduce students to the concept of “privilege,” which is described as “automatic, unearned benefits bestowed upon dominant groups” based on “gender, sexuality, race or socio-economic class.” “An awareness of the existence of male privilege is critical in understanding why there is a need for feminist perspectives, and education on gender at all,” the curriculum guide points out.

It also introduces students to the term “hegemonic masculinity,” which is defined as the dominant form of masculinity in society that “requires boys and men to be heterosexual, tough, athletic and emotionless, and encourages the control and dominance of men over women.”[63]

The affliction of Marxist terminology such as “male privilege” and “hegemonic masculinity,” once confined to American campuses, has now inveigled its way into Australian kindergartens. What next? Will the tots start demanding “safe spaces” where they can be free from the “hegemonic masculinity” of the five-year-old boys?

Surrounded by feminist advisers and advocates, Turnbull has fallen for the feminist line that men perpetrate all domestic violence. If he had taken the trouble to do his own research, Turnbull would have found that the $100 million of taxpayer funds will only enrich the feminist-dominated domestic violence industry.

Following such a massive misuse of taxpayer funds to demonize men, no self-respecting Australian male should ever again vote for Turnbull or his party.

Bombarded with negative images, feminist attacks on “male privilege,” and statistics about male prison rates and rape rates, boys are growing up feeling alienated, frustrated and even suicidal.

Before they succumb to the feminist-inspired propaganda, boys should consider the following:

• Most, if not all, of the great inventions and discoveries in history, including mathematics, the printing press, electricity, the steam engine and the aeroplane, were made by men.
• Many of the important inventions of the 20th century that transformed the Western world into the comfortable, orderly, civilized and affluent society that it is today were made by men. Think how life would be without electricity, running water, refrigeration, the automobile, the aeroplane, the jet engine or the transistor (the forerunner to the amazing array of 21st-century electronic, entertainment, and labor-saving products).
• More than 95 percent of the houses we live in are built by men who do the back-breaking work of pouring concrete and laying bricks. Men sweat in foundries, pit muscle and sinew against rock in mines, and risk death on 100-story building sites so that their wives and children can live in comfort. Men comprise 95 percent of all workplace fatalities and the vast majority of work-related injuries.
• The legal system that protects women’s safety and women’s rights was created by men.
• Men have won 95 percent of all Nobel Prizes ever awarded (when excluding organizations).
• Boys should ask their tormentors: why is it that women have created only a tiny fraction of world’s great music, great literature and great works of art?
• And in what are considered stereotypically female domains, why is it that mostly men make up the best chefs, the best dress-designers, and the best hairdressers?

As Camille Paglia says: “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”

“If we had to go to war, it is the men that would save the nation.”[64] (Historically, men comprise 99% of combat deaths).

 

[1]       Damien Sharkov, “Russia’s Putin: I’ve always liked communist and socialist ideas”, Newsweek (New York), January 25, 2016.
URL: www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-says-he-always-liked-communist-socialist-ideas-419289

[2]       John Bachtell, “A radical third party? I agree!”, People’s World (Communist Party USA, Chicago, Illinois), January 22, 2015.
URL: www.peoplesworld.org/article/a-radical-third-party-i-agree/

See also: Eric Owens, “Communist Party USA chairman vows cooperation with Democratic Party”, The Daily Caller (Washington, DC), January 29, 2015
URL: https://dailycaller.com/2015/01/29/communist-party-usa-chairman-vows-cooperation-with-democratic-party/

[3]       “Funders”, DiscoverTheNetworks.org (David Horowitz Freedom Center, Los Angeles), a guide to the political left.
URL: www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?type=funder

[4]       George Soros, The Alchemy of Finance: Reading the Mind of the Market (New York: J. Wiley, 1987; 1994 edition), p. 362.

[5]       Connie Bruck, “The world according to Soros”, The New Yorker, January 23, 1995.
URL: www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/01/23/the-world-according-to-soros

Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (New York: Doubleday, 2005), p. 157.

[6]       “Soros helped the Nazis during Holocaust”, partial transcript from an interview of George Soros done by Steve Kroft for CBS’s 60 Minutes program, December 20, 1998.
URL: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/george-soros-on-helping-the-nazis-during-the-holocaust

[7]       Glenn Beck, “Making of the puppet master”, Fox News, November 12, 2010: part three of a three-part series on George Soros.
URL: www.foxnews.com/story/2010/11/12/glenn-beck-making-puppet-master.html

Michael Lewis, “The speculator”, New Republic (New York), January 10, 1994.
URL: https://newrepublic.com/article/74330/the-speculator

[8]       George Soros, The Alchemy of Finance, op. cit., p. 362.

[9]       George Soros, Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging Free Enterprise and Democratic Reform Among the Soviets and in Eastern Europe (New York: Free Press, 1991), p. 3.

[10]     Gail Counsell, “The billionaire who built on chaos”, The Independent (UK), June 3, 1993.
URL: www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-billionaire-who-built-on-chaos-gail-counsell-charts-the-rise-of-a-speculator-who-considers-1489380.html

[11]     Beck, “Making of the puppet master”, op. cit.

[12]     Kady O’Malley, “Avaaz.ca vs. Baird: The shadowy foreign organization strikes back!”, Maclean’s (Toronto), October 6, 2008.
URL: www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/avaazca-vs-baird-the-shadowy-foreign-organization-strikes-back/

Kevin Libin, “The third party no one talks about”, National Post (Toronto), September 20, 2010.
URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about

[13]     Ken Schultz, “GetUp exposed: George Soros’ tentacles reach into Australia”, Australian News Commentary, April 4, 2013.
URL: http://australian-news.net/article/getup-exposed-george-soros-tentacles-reach-into-australia

[14]     George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (New York: Public Affairs, 2000), p. 120.

[15]     “Bernardine Dohrn”, DiscoverTheNetworks.org (David Horowitz Freedom Center, Los Angeles), a guide to the political left.
URL: www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2190

[16]     “Guide to the George Soros network”, DiscoverTheNetworks.org
URL: www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

[17]     “Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)”, DiscoverTheNetworks.org
URL: www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6991

[18]     Emerson Vermaat, “Obama’s preferred future spy chief Leon Panetta supported communist-linked anti-CIA think tank”, Militant Islam Monitor, January 9, 2009.
URL: www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3807

[19]     James L. Tyson, Target America: The Influence of Communist Propaganda on U.S. Media (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1981), p. 44.

[20]     Paul Dickson, Think Tanks (New York: Scribner, 1971) p. 276.

[21]     Staff and board of trustees, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Washington, DC.
URL: www.ips-dc.org/staff-and-board/

[22]     Will Coggin, “Charitable foundations have fallen far from the family tree”, The Daily Caller (Washington, DC), April 17, 2015.
URL: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/17/charitable-foundations-have-fallen-far-from-the-family-tree/

[23]     “Financials snapshot 2013”, Ford Foundation (New York), 2013.
URL: https://fordfoundcontent.blob.core.windows.net/media/1506/ford_financials_snapshot_2013.pdf

[24]     “Grant-making snapshot 2013”, Ford Foundation (New York), 2013.
URL: https://fordfoundcontent.blob.core.windows.net/media/1507/grant-making_snapshot_2013.pdf

[25]     Ibid., p. 534.

[26]     Ibid., pp. 547, 548, 594, 600, 603, 604.

[27]     Charles Sykes and K.L. Billingsley, “How the Ford Foundation created multiculturalism”, FrontPage Magazine, January 9, 2004.
URL: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14647

[28]     Ibid.

[29]     “Ford Foundation”, DiscoverTheNetworks.org
URL: www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5176

[30]     Ibid.

[31]     Originally named the Law Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was established in November 1966 for the purpose of advancing the cause of civil rights in Mississippi. Its co-founders were attorneys Morton Stavis, Ben Smith, William Kunstler and Arthur Kinoy (the latter of whom represented the executed Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the 1950s). All four of these founders were long-time supporters of communist causes and were well known for their pro-Castro politics. By “representing such paramilitary groups as the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Black Liberation Army”, write David Horowitz and Peter Collier in their 1989 book Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005), the four CCR founders “had attempted to justify terrorist acts and criminal violence by indicting America and its democratic allies as partners in a system of economic oppression and social injustice.” To advance its organizational objectives as a whole, CCR uses what it calls “innovative impact litigation” – not only to degrade America’s cultural and political traditions, but also to undermine the nation’s very legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

[32]     David Horowitz, “Betty Freidan’s secret Communist past”, Salon (San Francisco), January 18, 1999.
URL: www.salon.com/1999/01/18/nc_18horo/

Horowiz subsequently revised and modified this article on May 31, 2007, at:
URL: www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

[33]     Kimberly Schuld, “How the Ford Foundation created women’s studies”, FrontPage Magazine, February 20, 2004.
URL: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readarticle.aspx?artid=14085

[34]     Ibid.

[35]     Ibid.

[36]     Heather Mac Donald, “The billions of dollars that made things worse”, City Journal (Manhattan Institute, New York), Vol. 6, No. 4, Autumn 1996.
URL: www.city-journal.org/html/billions-dollars-made-things-worse-12159.html

[37]     Daphne Patai, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998).

[38]     “The Ford Foundation and Israel”, DiscoverTheNetworks.org
URL: www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5176

[39]     John Fonte, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others? (New York: Encounter Books, 2011), p. 272.

[40]     Julie Flint and Alex de Waal, “To put justice before peace spells disaster for Sudan”, The Guardian (UK), March 6, 2009.
URL: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/mar/06/sudan-war-crimes

[41]     Fonte, Sovereignty or Submission, op. cit., p. 272.

[42]     Socialist Alternative (Australia): Statement of principles.
URL: www.sa.org.au/node/3924

[43]     Socialist Alliance (Australia): About the Socialist Alliance.
URL: https://socialist-alliance.org/about

[44]     Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals [1971] (New York: Vintage Books, 1989).

[45]     Campbell Campbell-Jack, “Never apologise to a social justice warrior”, The Conservative Woman (UK), March 24, 2017.
URL: www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dr-campbell-campbell-jack-never-apologise-social-justice-warrior/

[46]     Daniel Lattier, “‘Boys are stupid; girls are awesome’ – most TV shows and movies today”, Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), October 24, 2016.
URL: www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/boys-are-stupid-girls-are-awesome-most-tv-shows-movies-today

[47]     The White House Council on Women and Girls (CWG).
URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cwg

[48]     The Men’s Health Network (Washington, DC): Office of Men’s Health: Resource Center.
URL: www.menshealthnetwork.org/omh_talkpoints.html

[49]     Stephen Baskerville, Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House Publishing, 2007), p. 35.

Timothy S. Grall, “Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2007”, (U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC), November 2009, p. 2.
URL: www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

[50]     John Hirst, ‘Kangaroo Court’: Family Law in Australia [Quarterly Essay] (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2005).

Patrick Parkinson, “How widespread are false allegations of abuse?”, News Weekly (Australia), June 25, 2011.
URL: www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4778

Augusto Zimmermann, “‘Without restraint’: the abuse of domestic violence orders”, News Weekly (Australia), March 14, 2015.
URL: www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56865

[51]     Chris Hastings and Jonathan Petre, “BBC sacked me for being a white man… even though I work in radio”, Daily Mail (UK), October 2, 2016.
URL: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3817609/BBC-sacked-white-man-Radio-4-comic-told-need-women-minorities.html

[52]     Bari Weiss, “Camille Paglia: a feminist defense of masculine virtues”, Wall Street Journal, December 28, 2013 [paywall-protected article].
URL: www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920

[53]     Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1990).

[54]     Weiss, “Camille Paglia”, op. cit.

[55]     Doris Lessing, quoted in Fiachra Gibbons, “Lay off men, Lessing tells feminists”, The Guardian (UK), August 14, 2001.
URL: www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001

[56]     Augusto Zimmermann, quoted in Bettina Arndt, “Domestic violence: data shows women are not the only victims”, The Australian, August 20, 2016 [paywall-protected article].
URL: www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/domestic-violence-data-shows-women-are-not-the-only-victims/news-story/2749c4517a57c33aca8bc2da9a40e2f9

See also: Augusto Zimmermann, “Denying female domestic violence”, Quadrant (Australia), Vol. 60, Nos. 7-8, July-August 2016.
URL: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2016/07-08/denial-female-domestic-violence/

[57]     Miranda Devine, “The brutal truth about domestic violence”, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), April 4, 2015.
URL: www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-the-brutal-truth-about-domestic-violence/news-story/6912df910701f0c249272fd9fecfa4eb

Melanie Phillips, “The scandal of women’s violence towards men”, The Times (UK), March 11, 2016 [paywall-protected article].
URL: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-scandal-of-womens-violence-towards-men-hcbggrqkz

Bettina Arndt, “Fiona Richardson’s story fails the gender test”, The Australian, March 30, 2016 [paywall-protected article].
URL: www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/fiona-richardsons-story-fails-the-gender-test/news-story/62b2a1cb2a0ce510ee8cdfae09c7ef60

[58]     “The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge (PASK) Project manuscripts and online data base: Overview of findings by the authors”, sponsored by the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Abuse (Springer Publishing Company, New York). From Partner Abuse issues: Vol. 3, No. 2, April 2012; Vol. 3, No. 3, July 2012; Vol. 3, No. 4, October 2012; and Vol. 4, No. 1, January2013.
URL: http://media.springerpub.com/media/springer-journals/OverviewofFindings.pdf

[59]     “Women’s safety package to stop the violence”, Prime Minister’s Press Office (Canberra), media release, September 24, 2015.
URL: www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/release-womens-safety-package-to-stoptheviolence

[60]     Prime Minister the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP speech, “Transcript of joint press conference: women’s safety package to stop the violence”, Prime Minister’s Press Office (Canberra), September 24, 2015.
URL: www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-09-24/transcript-joint-press-conference-womens-safety-package-stop-violence

[61]     Minister for Women, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash MP speech, “Transcript of joint press conference: women’s safety package”, op. cit.

[62]     Rebecca Urban, “Victorian male dominance program for kindy”, The Australian, October 17, 2016 [paywall-protected article].
URL: www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/victorian-male-dominance-program-for-kindy/news-story/ca83b9ee2b6131b74a85ad2c509dafd6

[63]     Rebecca Urban, “Lessons on ‘male privilege’ in $21.8m Victorian schools program”, The Australian, October 14, 2016.
URL: www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/lessons-on-male-privilege-in-218m-victorian-schools-program/news-story/acea77bcd12cd6c3885c97b2be9fca47

[64]     Quoted in Weiss, “Camille Paglia”, op. cit.