Thanks to the excellent guidance of my advisor my defense went smoothly.
There were few questions asked which made me quite nervous. Maybe during the course of my presentation there were five or six different questions being asked, then another five or six afterwards. It didn’t take as long as I expected. Some other people supposedly have had long defense sessions, up to three hours. But I was in and out in under an hour and 20 minutes which made me pretty nervous
When they were done the committee adjourned to a separate room to discuss my thesis. I think it took them about an hour. The suspense was killing me! But after an hour I saw my advisor emerge from the conference room, with her beautiful, intelligent face beaming with pride. She addressed me as “Doctor” and I extended my arm to shake her hand and thank her for all she had done for me during these diffucult several months. Unexpectedly she pulled me in and warmly embraced me, as tears were streaming from both our faces in happiness.
I’m so relieved to have passed. I even enjoyed a celebratory dinner with my professor afterwards. Undoubtedly this is one of the greatest days in my life.
My thesis defense is in a little more than 5 hours. Basically my thesis is a comprehensive look at 21st century radical movements such as “paleo”-conservatism, men’s rights, the neo-confederate movement, anti-zionism & political islam, their inter relationship, and what steps can be made to deal with them. For instance, enacting stronger hate speech laws and empowering secondary agencies like the ADL and SPLC to track it. I also explore how each one threatens the discourse on, say gender or race issues, and then also dissect the movement ideologically. Altogether it comes to about 120 pages.
I’m a little bit nervous although my advisor says I’ll most likely pass. She has been enormously supportive of my work and I’m very grateful for that. So with any luck, in a couple of hours I’ll you can call me “Dr.” FeministConservative!
There seriously cannot be a better pro-Israel candidate than a Jewish-American who is from Israel himself.
Itamar Gelbman was born in New York 30 years ago and as a child moved with his parents to Herzliya, where he was raised. He studied business management and computer science at Tel Aviv University and served as an undercover reserve officer in the Tel Aviv Police District.
Gelbman is running in the May 29 Republican Primary in Texas’s Sixth Congressional District, which is outside Dallas. He will face off against incumbent Joe Barton, who was first elected in 1984 and has never won reelection with less than 60 percent of the vote, and challenger Joe Chow.
Gelbman said he believes American politicians need to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. He does not believe the US should involve itself in the settlement issue and he would work to block foreign aid to Islamic countries that act against Israel and the United States.
“I would defend Israel and be their voice in the House,” he said.
“Israel should be allowed to do whatever it needs to do. The Palestinians need to change their education system and accept Israel as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
Gelbman said he would work to make sure a law requiring the US to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem would be enforced.
He received national attention when Muslims in his district were offended by his campaign flyer in which vowed to “fight the Islamization of America.”
Asked for his views on Iran, he said he was “100% against the Iranian nuclear weapons program and 100% behind Israel’s right to defend itself.”
He said that if Iran’s nuclearization was prevented, it would make the entire world safer.
Sorry folks due to sexists, racists, and other assorted scum including Arab-scum defending hatemongers trying to spam my blog I’ve had to turn off comments for the time being. If you want to send me a comment you’ll have to contact me on facebook and I’ll post it up for you.
Sorry I haven’t updated in a while. I’ve been very busy as I’m getting ready to finish up my PhD. thesis. In a month or two with a little bit of luck I’ll have my PhD & the title of “Dr.” So that is taking priority right now, and I probably won’t update a lot until then.
Anyways I was discussing the so-called Palelstinians with a good friend of mine, Shaun (who I won’t identify by last name) and it occurred to us that the ‘palestinians’ are a very racist people. You see people often accuse the Jewish people of being racist, but the opposite is true.
The ‘palestinians’ want to destroy Israel just for being a Jewish state.
it should be obvious by now, that the whole reason the construct of a ‘palestinian’ race is there in the first place is because of anti-semitism & the quest for a palestinian nation itself, aka “Arab nationalism” is also based on a social construct. There is no such thing as an “Arab” race – much the same way there’s not a “white” race but it doesn’t stop the rest of so-called “Arabs” from using this racist idea to defame Israel.
Trying to get independence for palestine is all about creating a racist govt. They actualy believe that jews don’t deserve Israel because so that palestinians can be governed by the other palestinians. Of course racism & nationalism is leftist so it’s no surprise that they are like that. I mean they actually believe that there is some rule that says that “palestinians” can only govern other “palestinians” because of a supposed “palestinian-ness”.
There never was a self-proclaimed “Palestine” until 1948, with reaction to Israel’s rebirth. (the most hateful kind, usually) Notice how white nationalism started off only as a hateful reaction to the Civil Rights movement. Hate and antisemitism is what hateful people spew in response to social progress.
So in reality palestinian racial secessionism is no more valid than southern secessionism or white nationalism. it has never been about rights, certainly not about the Jewish people’s rights, and not about ideas like tolerance, its not about minority rights. the palestinians are certainly very anti-western, and are a male–dominated society which is common among regressive leftists. its about nationalism very much a leftist concept, and nationalism as we know it is not where one finds that much tolerance for those who are different.
This wouldn’t have been an issue if she wasn’t even in the US to begin with. These people need to get the out with their stone age values and stay in their own countries. Unlike Trayvon Martin who was an innocent victim, Shaima (if that’s even this “thing’s” real name) was not innocent. And before we start it’s very likely that it was her husband who killed her but the meida is covering it up. Of course if it is a honor killing we need to keep on rehashing the fact (however if the perp is black or hispanic I think the media needs to keep silent because racists will use it as an excuse to profile minorities) but fat chance getting that with our pro-Muslim, anti-Jewish/anti-Israel meida.
It’s a well known fact that up to 94% of women in battered women’s shelters come from muslim househoulds. Irrefutable, unmistakble, undeniable facts will always hurt people’s feelings but just remember the more they whine about “evidence” the more it proves that they’re desperate to deny the honest truth.
Old but still true:
Every now and than there are men who bandy about the term “radical feminism” as if it is somehow a magic wond that will silence women to make them shut up. Like all propaganda scare terminology accusing a woman of being a “radical feminist” is something which is meant to shut down debate and to force people to have views shoved down their throat without their consent.
Male chauvinists and men’s “rights” activists bandy about hate-terminology like “radical feminism” because that way they can pretend like they are the victims. Sound familiar? Just think about how the evil “palestinians” bomb Israel with missles every day but then claim to be the victims. This type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that men’s rights activists must have some sort of problem their worldview, and that it’s the same as radical terrorism. The very reality is that it is impossible for radical feminism to even exist, because the notion of feminism is a moderate one at heart:
The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
There is nothing “radical” about the idea. In fact, it is a moderate one. Here is the definition of “radical”:
rad·i·cal [rad-i-kuhl] Show IPA
thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
Feminism is by definition moderate, and cannot be “radical”. It is actually those who espouse the extremist positions of making women unequal again, or making them men’s properties who are the radicals. In other words the men’s “rights” activists are the radicals and the feminists are moderates.