Friday, July 19, 2019


Minnesota city reinstates Pledge of Allegiance after overwhelming protests

A Minnesota city council that voted last month to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings reversed that decision Monday night after protests began to take a toll on city staff, according to the Star Tribune.

Last month, St. Louis Park, Minnesota's city council voted to stop reciting the pledge at meetings in the name of diversity and inclusiveness.

After numerous protests at subsequent council meetings, the council unanimously voted to reinstate the pledge in order to move on to other issues and relieve pressure on city workers from protesters both in the city and nationally.

"There are many from outside of St. Louis Park who are abusing and harassing our city staff, making it very difficult for them to serve the residents and businesses in our city, which is the very reason our local government exists," councilman Thom Miller said Monday.

The council apparently believed initially that removing the Pledge of Allegiance from council meetings would allow "more diverse communities" to feel comfortable participating in local government. It's unclear why the pledge, which is a saying of unity, would make St. Louis Park residents uncomfortable.

SOURCE 




Sen. Cruz: DOJ ‘Should Be Investigating’ Google for ‘Fraud,’ ‘Breach of Contract’

Google isn’t just “abusing its monopoly powers,” it’s also potentially perpetrating “fraud” and “breach of contract,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Tuesday morning prior to his subcommittee’s hearing on Big Tech companies’ censorship of conservatives.

Appearing on Fox News, Cruz, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on The Constitution, compared Big Tech’s censorship practices to those of Big Brother in the novel, “1984”:

“You know, in George Orwell’s famous book, “1984,” the way Big Brother controlled its power, the way the state controlled its power, is it controlled information. So, we’re at war with Eurasia, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia. And, if that changes, the information simply disappears.

“We see, in the Big Tech media companies, that same, exact power.”

“Google is abusing its monopoly powers. We have antitrust laws to deal with that,” Cruz said, suggesting the company should be broken up and should have its immunity from liability revoked.

The third way to deal with Google’s censorship practices, Cruz said, is to investigate it for fraud and breach of contract:

“The Department of Justice can, and should, be investigating along the lines of fraud and or breach of contract.”

“When you sign up, say with a Facebook or Twitter, you assume that, if you follow someone, you’ll see their tweets, you’ll see their posts. Likewise, you assume if someone follows you, they’ll see what you tweet and what you post.

“That’s not, in fact, what's happening. What's happening is the social media sites are censoring, they're shadow banning. If they don't like what you're saying, they just hide what you're saying.

“That is, essentially, a fraud on the consumer, and they're deceiving the consumer, because they’ve got a political agenda.”

SOURCE  



Thursday, July 18, 2019


Jordan Peterson to launch free-speech website

Jordan Peterson is close to completing his own free-speech website to counter censorship.

Expected to launch next month, Thinkspot is inviting people to take part in beta testing. The beta website’s home page declares “ideas live here” and describes Thinkspot as “a collaborative community where individuals can explore and exchange ideas in a thoughtful and respectful manner. The platform is an intellectual playground for censorship-free discourse.”

Peterson is toying with ideas such as a minimum comment length of 50 words to force Thinkspot users to weigh their posts.

“I really got hooked on Twitter and it wasn’t good for me,” Peterson confesses in the interview.

“I don’t tweet so much now. I have two million Twitter subscribers and I felt morally obligated to stay on top of it, but I found the general milieu so toxic that it was not psychologically tolerable.”

That said, he is a supporter of social media in all its untrammelled temerity. His loathing of censorship is held at a deep and theoretical level, but he can take it to extremes.

Thinkspot was partly inspired when the subscription content service Patreon banned anti-feminist British YouTuber Carl Benjamin

After British Labour MP Jess Phillips said she had received rape threats in 2016, Benjamin tweeted: “I wouldn’t even rape you.”

Asked if Benjamin — an unsuccessful UK Independence Party candidate for the European Parliament in the May election — is an indefensible character, Peterson makes a half-hearted defence: remarks can be taken out of context; we all say things we regret.

His real worry, however, is that the main social media platforms are acting as censors and will prove untrustworthy ones. But when it comes to free speech and social media, he admits: “I could be wrong. It’s a tough problem to crack.”

SOURCE 






Twitter permanently silences Canadian free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd

One of Canada’s most outspoken free speech advocates, Lindsay Shepherd, has been permanently suspended from Twitter. The suspension comes after a jousting match with a notorious trans woman named JY who has been accused of predatory behaviour toward children and making frivolous human rights complaints.

The Post Millennial reached out to Shepherd who said, “I got suspended for two tweets (although they didn’t tell me exactly which tweets were the problem so I am giving my best guess): last night, JY tweeted that I have a loose vagina from pushing a 10 pound baby out, but he still has a “tight pussy” (in reality, JY still has male genitalia according to the proceedings of the current human rights tribunals he’s been testifying in; and in reality I had a C-section and a 6 pound 10 oz baby).”

“I replied that this is something a man who has no functional romantic relationships with women would say, but that, I guess that describes him pretty well. Then, Yaniv mocked a reproductive abnormality I have (a septate uterus), and so I replied saying ‘at least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man.’ I thought, ‘I can’t allow him to make these misogynistic remarks about me and not fight back.’ I deleted the comments I made this morning but found out was suspended in the afternoon.”

Shepherd, who is also a columnist for The Post Millennial, told us that she is concerned about her inability to respond to mistruths now that she is banned from the platform. “Well, I am most concerned about the lies that can now be spread that I cannot counteract via Twitter. For instance, I saw an account tweeted that I have ‘sock puppet’ accounts. No, I do not have any accounts other than @NewWorldHominin. But I can’t correct that misinformation anymore.”

Shepherd first came to the public’s attention as a young teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University. She stood up for free speech when her former professors subjected her to an extra-legal star chamber for the thought crime of showing a television clip featuring Dr. Jordan Peterson’s views on compelled speech.

Shepherd’s saga continued with a $3.6 million lawsuit against Laurier. The two professors who originally falsely accused and bullied Shepherd have launched a countersuit.

More recently, Shepherd testified in front of Parliament’s Justice Committee, claiming that, “Individuals who shouldn’t be caught up in online hate legislation will inevitably get caught up in it.”

SOURCE 


Wednesday, July 17, 2019



Facebook bans Saint Augustine quote as ‘hate speech’

A decision by Facebook to ban a peace-loving quote by St. Augustine of Hippo, a Catholic theologian and philosopher from the 5th century, has one Catholic writer scratching his head.

Noticing that two priest-friends had been censored by the social media giant for posting the saint’s pastoral advice, Massachusetts pro-lifer Dominic Bettinelli published the same words to his Facebook wall on Friday. Then he, too, got a warning that the post went against Facebook’s “Community Standards on hate speech.”

The quote Facebook deemed so offensive is as follows:

"Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin; our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon. But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others. They seek to criticize, not to correct. Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others."

The quote, Bettinelli explained in a spirited post on the “hate speech” accusation, is from a homily of the saint included in the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, also known as the Divine Office.  

“Hate speech?” Bettinelli asked. “It’s the opposite of hate speech. It’s calling for people to stop focusing on others’ sins and concentrate on their own. Augustine is just re-formulating Jesus’ own words from the Gospel: 'Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?' (Matthew 7:3).”

The author believed that the posting had been rejected by a computer algorithm. However, when he was offered the option of a human review, Bettinelli took it and discovered that even a human supervisor at Facebook deemed that the quote violated “Community Standards.”

Facebook invited Bettinelli to respond to its rejection of his appeal. He wrote the following:

"I still don’t understand why this is hate speech. It’s a quote from a Catholic saint who expresses the opposite of hate speech. He is essentially restating the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels to stop worrying about what the other guy is or isn’t doing and worry about your own flaws. Is Facebook saying that the Gospel is hate speech? But what’s worse is that I have no more understanding now of what is a violation of your community standards than I did before. I cannot for the life of me figure out why you label this hate speech."

Bettinelli is now concerned that Facebook users will end up in “Facebook jail”, i.e. not be able to post on Facebook, just for quoting the Bible or sharing a “word of encouragement from a saint.”

Bettinelli told LifeSiteNews that he may have found the crux of the problem.

“A friend posted just ‘men are hopeless creatures’ and that got banned, so that seems to be the relevant part that is hate speech,” he said.

SOURCE 

This is censorship by morons




Misleading claims of Islamophobia

The Muslim Council of Britain’s new report on the media is highly questionable.

What do the Daily Mail Australia, Joanna Lumley and the BBC’s Bodyguard drama have in common? Well, according to a new report by the Muslim Council of Britain, they have all misrepresented, generalised about or otherwise showed bias towards Muslims and / or Islam.

The MCB’s new Centre for Media Monitoring has analysed almost 11,000 articles, news clips and TV shows this quarter, and the prognosis doesn’t look good. Apparently, 59 per cent of the content assessed associated Muslims with negative behaviours, and one third misrepresented or generalised about Muslims. When you get beyond the summary pages, however, a different picture begins to appear.

I was expecting to see example after example of dangerous misinformation or clear-cut anti-Muslim bias. Such as when, in 2015, a Mail Online article by Katie Hopkins wrongly suggested that an east London family were extremists linked to al-Qaeda. Though the MCB wasn’t involved in that case, one of the organisation’s spokespeople, Miqdaad Versi, has been focusing on correcting stories about Muslims in recent years, and gaining a lot of coverage himself.

But in this report, such cases are largely conspicuous by their absence. The worst examples cited here amount to questionable sensationalism. One headline described a woman who converted to Islam to be with her toyboy as ‘brainwashed’, without making clear this was a quote from her jilted husband. Another headline misleadingly implied there was a problem of ‘Muslim-only pools’ in Sydney. Many more of the articles cited, however, are barely problematic at all.

Several examples amount to relatively minor errors. A Mail headline said a London mosque was linked to ‘terrorists’, when they were actually ‘terror suspects’. A Mirror headline said that during an Islamist knife attack in Melbourne, the attacker shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (eyewitnesses had claimed this, but police later disputed it). These are not wilful distortions to the end of pushing some dodgy agenda.

Many examples are, frankly, ridiculous. Joanna Lumley is criticised for saying, in an ITV travel show, that Kyrgyzstan has a ‘less strict Islamic feel’ than other Muslim countries she has visited. Bodyguard gets called out for suggesting women who wear the hijab are ‘oppressed or subservient’, seemingly because a character in the show, a would-be suicide bomber, fits that description.

At the back of the report, an academic who ‘contributed to the oversight’ of the project, has a short essay deconstructing a story in the Express about Ramadan advent calendars being sold in Morrisons. She says the article is ‘inoffensive’ and ‘could be described as an example of fair reporting’. But because it features in ‘a conservative newspaper that regularly features articles with negative representations of Muslims’, it nevertheless ‘feeds into an idea of Muslims as a cultural threat’.

There is no available archive of the stories assessed, and the BBC write-up of the report notes that it was ‘not open to academic scrutiny’. We can only really go on the examples cited in the report itself, and assume these were among the most shocking the authors had at hand. On that basis, we should be highly critical of the claims being made here.

Indeed, such claims could chill discussion and reporting of serious stories and issues. At one point, the report criticises a number of outlets for publishing a picture of Westminster Bridge attacker Khalid Masood in Mecca. The MCB says the photo ‘subconsciously links Muslim practice to terror and terrorism’. But Masood was, in his demented, muderous head, doing God’s work. His beliefs are not an irrelevant little detail, not least because Islamists have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorist murders in Britain in recent years.

Stories about Muslim anti-Semitism are another focus of the report. ‘A common theme amongst Jewish Publications is of the “anti-Semitic Muslim”’, says the MCB, quoting pieces from the Jewish Chronicle about cases of Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe. ‘However’, it goes on, ‘several reports show that anti-Semitic attacks have risen across Europe, not due to Muslims but due to a rise in far-right activity’.

For an organisation apparently so committed to accuracy, this line is pretty misleading. The implication is that Muslim anti-Semitism is a marginal concern. It isn’t. A 2018 EU survey asked people the most serious incident of anti-Semitic harassment they had experienced, and who it had been perpetrated by. Thirty per cent of respondents said it was ‘someone with an extremist Muslim view’, while 13 per cent said it was the work of ‘someone with a right-wing political view’.

No one should use such stats to smear all Muslims. But the MCB’s evident touchiness about any discussion of these issues ironically does precisely what it is accusing others of doing – that is, generalising about Muslims or lumping them in with extremists. The message you take away from this report is that criticising the actions of the latter can’t help but offend or otherwise impact on the former.

This can only chill discussion of regressive attitudes and practices, which is particularly bad news for ex-Muslim and reformist voices. Indeed, at one point in the report, a BBC video is singled out for giving a ‘one sided view on the hijab’. It is an interview with Shaparak Shajarizadeh, an Iranian woman who took part in the recent anti-hijab protests – one of the ‘Girls of Revolution Street’. She was arrested, interrogated and forced to flee for removing her headscarf. The MCB laments that the ‘counterbalancing view’ is not provided.

We should be vigilant against anti-Muslim bigotry, in our press or anywhere else. But that noble concern cannot come at the cost of chilling discussion about and reporting on Islam and Islamism. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press were built on the freedom to blaspheme and to criticise religion. And the MCB cannot claim to be campaigning for a truthful, accurate media while pushing its own dubious claims.

SOURCE 



Tuesday, July 16, 2019


Boris Johnson leads the condemnation of Scotland Yard's threat to PROSECUTE the Mail over Washington Files: Fury at commissioner Neil Basu's 'ill-advised' and 'stupid' infringement of the free press

Conservative leadership rivals Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are leading the condemnation against Scotland Yard after a senior officer threatened to prosecute the Mail on Sunday for publishing leaked cables written by British ambassador Sir Kim Darroch.

The leaked documents revealed how Sir Kim, the UK's man in Washington, called US president Donald Trump 'inept', 'insecure' and 'incompetent'.

The Metropolitan Police launched a criminal probe into the leak of the memo with Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu [a Hindu] saying publication could be a 'criminal matter'.

His comments triggered an extraordinary row over the freedom of the press this weekend, with Mr Johnson and Jeremy Hunt leading the condemnation. 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock called on the police to withdraw Mr Basu's statement while former Chancellor George Osborne branded the comments 'very stupid and ill-advised.'

Conservative leadership rival Jeremy Hunt joined Mr Johnson and said he would 'defend to the hilt the right of the press to publish those leaks if they receive them and judge them to be in the public interest'

Mr Johnson said prosecution 'would amount to an infringement on press freedom and have a chilling effect on public debate'.

Mr Hunt said that he would 'defend to the hilt the right of the press to publish those leaks if they receive them and judge them to be in the public interest'.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock goes further today by calling on the police to withdraw Mr Basu's statement. Writing in this newspaper, he says: 'The press must be free to publish what it believes to be in the public interest.

SOURCE 



Christian doctor lost his job after refusing to identify a six-foot-tall bearded man as ‘madam’, tribunal hears

A Christian doctor lost his job in a government department after he refused to refer to “a six-foot-tall bearded man” as ‘madam’, a tribunal heard.

Dr David Mackereth, 56, claims he was sacked as a disability benefits assessor by the Department of Work and Pensions over his religious beliefs.

The father-of-four alleges he was asked in a conversation with a line manager: “If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs’, would you do that?”

Dr Mackereth, an evangelist who now works as an emergency doctor in Shropshire, claims his contract was then terminated over his refusal to use transgendered pronouns.

He argues that he was dismissed “not because of any realistic concerns over the rights and sensitivities of transgender individuals, but because of my refusal to make an abstract ideological pledge”.

The doctor is now suing the government at an employment tribunal for discrimination on the grounds of his religious belief.

A hearing in Birmingham was told how Dr Mackereth believes transgenderism is a “delusional belief” and an ideology “which I disbelieve and detest”.

SOURCE 


Monday, July 15, 2019


Our Free Speech Crisis

Walter E. Williams   

The First Amendment to our Constitution was proposed by the 1788 Virginia Ratification Convention during its narrow 89-to-79 vote to ratify the Constitution.

Virginia’s resolution held that the free exercise of religion, right to assembly, and free speech could not be canceled, abridged, or restrained. These Madisonian principles were eventually ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.

It wasn’t until 1919, in the case of Abrams v. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unambiguously prohibited any kind of censorship.

Today, there is growing contempt for free speech, most of which is found on the nation’s college and university campuses.

Guelzo cites the free speech vision of Princeton University professor Carolyn Rouse, who is chairperson of the department of anthropology.

Rouse shared her vision on speech during last year’s Constitution Day lecture. She called free speech a political illusion, a baseless ruse to enable people to “say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal or political repercussions.”

As an example, she says that a climate change skeptic has no right to make “claims about climate change, as if all the science discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant.”

Rouse is by no means unique in her contempt for our First Amendment rights.

Faculty leaders of the University of California consider certain statements racist microaggressions: “America is a melting pot”; “America is the land of opportunity”; “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”; and “There is only one race, the human race.” The latter statement is seen as denying the individual as a racial/cultural being.

Then there’s “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” That’s “racist” speech because it gives the impression that “people of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.”

Other seemingly innocuous statements deemed unacceptable are: “When I look at you, I don’t see color,” or “Affirmative action is racist.” Perhaps worst of all is, “Where are you from, or where were you born?”

We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?”

It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.

The test for one’s commitment to freedom of association is similar. Christian Americans have been hounded for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings.

For those who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair.

Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?

The true test of a person’s commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he finds acceptable. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

I am afraid that too many of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principles of liberty. Most people want liberty for themselves. I differ. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.

SOURCE 





Battle Lines Are Drawn, Skirmishes Fought and a War Is Being Waged on Speech in America Today

Two little words found in the Pledge of Allegiance seem to be coming under heavy enemy fire of late: not just “liberty and justice,” but the words “for all.” The Founders intended a nation designed to foster opposing points of view in these United States be they majority or minority views. In a culture where progressives parse out everyone and everything into an intersectional society occupied by separates which are not equal, perhaps it is time to acknowledge that battle lines are drawn, skirmishes are being fought, and a digital war is being waged in America today to limit and ultimately remove political speech from the public square.

The Road to Hell

As the Democratic Party careens down a minacious road to marginalize and regulate political speech, it is vital to recognize the conflict that is being played out in the body politic. Do we fully comprehend that we are traversing a highway to hell fraught with dangerous assaults to one of our most sacred and foundational constitutional liberties?

This road was initially carved out and paved when Congress passed laws designed to restrict campaign contributions. But the Supreme Court came along with a bulldozer and thwarted these efforts in a landmark decision known as Citizens United.  In this ruling, the majority maintained that corporations should be able to use political donations to voice their opinions. Looking back, this decision may represent a pyrrhic victory that signaled the beginning of a great and ugly crusade by the left to ratchet up the war on independent political speech.

Today, more than a dozen Democratic presidential primary candidates support overturning Citizens United. Several promote the concept of fully-funded government campaigns – no personal or corporate donations allowed.  Such a contrivance would have been anathema to those who wrote our founding documents.

The Battle of Gettysburg Looms

Having lost that skirmish, the left has moved into the digital information arena and have largely been gaining ground in their efforts to limit political speech. If you are not part of the progressive machine, you can expect to undergo some form of having your opinions and thoughts quarantined, throttled-back, shadow-banned, demonetized, or ultimately removed from the digital airspace. There are so many ways to shut up those with whom you don’t agree and such little time. With a dominant media largely sharing the political views of the Democratic Party, those with a conservative political outlook have had to scrap and wrestle against the insidious algorithms of media mega-platforms who aim to remove their voices from the national political dialogue.

This battle of digital liberty for all represents the Gettysburg in the fight for equality. That is, the bloodiest conflagration with the most casualties looms in the not-too-distant future. Few options are left for conservatives to beat back this insidious trend.

Should we continue to play what has thus far proven to be a losing game? Perhaps we need to establish new modes of digital platforms that will allow for freedom of expression? Could we be hopelessly too late to stage an assault against these mammoth cyberspace entities with new ones? Or do we lobby for government intervention a la the Standard Oil breakup of 1911?

As the political right tries to find its footing on this new and perilous battlefield, one wonders if those of us who often lobby against government intrusion are left with little option but to call in the National Guard. Liberty Nation’s Chief Political Correspondent, Graham J Noble, made this point when he wrote: “Liberty and equality go hand in hand – neither can exist without the other. A fundamental American value is the government’s solemn duty to protect and promote both ideals. As the 17th-century English philosopher John Locke said: ‘The [purpose] of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.’”

As citizens of a free society, we must recognize the most precious of rights — that of political speech — isn’t merely eroding but rather under vicious attack.  Indeed, we are engaged in a costly conflict and cannot wait to be rescued.

The time is now to rally the troops. For as the great World War II general George S. Patton once said, “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

SOURCE




Sunday, July 14, 2019



Trump to Lean on Social Media Giants to Curb Censorship

President Donald Trump, during a free-wheeling speech Thursday, said he would be bringing top social media executives to the White House to push them to stop censoring conservatives and try to ensure free speech for everyone’s opinion. 

“On behalf of the nation, it’s very important what you’re doing,” Trump said.

He praised them for going around the media “gatekeepers” and “getting the honest word out.”

Trump spoke in the East Room to digital media journalists, commentators, talk show hosts, and activists.

In calling for the giant social media platforms to be more transparent, Trump talked about how his own tweets seem to have been diminished by Twitter. “It goes up and then they take it down,” Trump said.

“It was like a rocket ship when I put out a beauty,” he said. “Remember when I said someone was spying on me? I turned out to be right.”

Trump referred to “stone cold crazy MSNBC,” speaking of the liberal cable network that has numerous programs critical of him. He also made familiar references to the “fake news.”

“I don’t think the mainstream media is free speech either,” Trump said. “To me, that’s dangerous speech.”

SOURCE 




Amazon bans reparative therapist's books

Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, has banned the books of the late reparative therapist, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, under pressure from homosexual activists.

Linda Nicolosi, the late psychologist's wife, told Virtueonline that Amazon had bowed to long term pressure from gay activists and Amazon agreed to stop offering Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's books for sale.

"If this ban stands, it will effectively amount to a stranglehold on the free flow of information for conservatives and people of traditional faith, because Amazon holds a virtual monopoly on book sales, the public will be unable to access information on the causes of homosexuality, and of any hope for change."

"Of course, this is what gay activists want --- to control the free flow of information. Their activism was never about tolerance-- it was about the marginalization and shaming of anyone with a different viewpoint."

Dr. Nicolosi's books--including a new book about to be published, "The Best of Joseph Nicolosi"--- will soon be available directly on his web site, www.josephnicolosi.com.

Conservative columnist Rod Dreher wrote and said while Nicolosi's books were now banned, you can still buy Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. He said the pro-Stalin works of Stalin apologist Grover Furr, an American academic who argues in books and in lectures that Stalin killed nobody and committed no crimes. (Between 7-10 million Ukrainians and other Soviet citizens died in the Stalin-engineered famine called the Holodomor alone). A history of Communism by the white supremacist David Duke and The SS Leadership Guide, translated from the original German, were still available from Amazon.

"You can buy a highly influential text by the Islamist radical Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, which calls on Muslims to wage relentless global jihad against non-Muslims and insufficiently radical Muslims, until the entire world is under radical Islamic rule."

Nicolosi has been described as "the father of conversion therapy" and was founder of the now-shuttered Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, as well as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). He authored 4 books on the causes and treatment of unwanted homosexuality, only one was about parenting, and several to guides directed to parents of LGBTQ youth, including "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality."

Again, you don't have to agree with the theories of Joseph Nicolosi to recognize that an important line has been crossed here. In the eyes of the world's largest bookseller, Joseph Nicolosi is more dangerous than Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Marx, because the Homintern says so

SOURCE 




Friday, July 12, 2019



Britons abandon Facebook as usage plummets by more than a third

The amount Brits are using Facebook has plunged by more than a third over the past 12 months, new research indicates, in sharp contrast to the company’s official statistics.

The number of online interactions made on Facebook’s mobile app in the UK plummeted by 38pc between June 2018 and June 2019, according to the analytics firm Mixpanel.

Interactions, which occur when users click on a web link or advert inside the Facebook app, declined in seven of the last 12 months, with an average monthly fall of 2.6pc. That paints a very different picture from Facebook’s own numbers, which report a slow but steady rise in monthly active users across Europe.

SOURCE 




Mark Zuckerberg Brags: We Didn't Allow Pro-Life Groups to Advertise Before Ireland's Abortion Vote

During this year's Aspen Ideas Festival, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that Facebook is increasingly trying to work with governments to determine what political speech it does and does not allow. Oh sorry, I mean: what kind of political ads it is willing to approve.

In the particular example Zuckerberg cited, in 2018, American pro-life groups wanted to run advertisements for Facebook users in Ireland. This is because the Irish were about to vote in a referendum on whether abortion should be legalized.

When Facebook saw the ad requests, the company contacted the Irish government asking whether this should or should not be allowed. "Their response at the time was, 'we don't currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.'"

In other words, Facebook could do as it pleased. There was no legal reason to disallow the ads. But what did Facebook do? You guessed it:

"We ended up not allowing the ads."

This is extremely disturbing, but it's very expected. Facebook's top managers have a long history of leftist activism, and it's clear from the company's policies that they're pushing their authoritarian leftist views on the company itself.

As abortion activist Lila Rose explains on Twitter, for example, "FB COO Sheryl Sandberg donated $2 million to Planned Parenthood."

Facebook has truly become a force for authoritarian progressivism -- and it's downright frightening.

SOURCE 

Thursday, July 11, 2019


Flag controversies flare on independence day

Conservatives were outraged when tennis shoe maker Nike pulled a patriotic shoe, featuring the Betsy Ross American flag, from a planned Independence Day promotion. The shift occurred because former pro-footballer Colin Kaepernink convinced the company the flag was offensive to blacks, because the Betsy Ross flag was designed while slavery was still intact in America.

The “politically correct” move by Nike has an obvious backlash, as millions of Americans are stunned that one downright ridiculous complaint from a former 3rd rate athlete could be taken seriously.

The Nike controversy was accompanied by other flag related issues – such as Facebook subsidiary Instagram’s removal of a flag photo because the subject, alternative media figure Kaitlyn Bennett, was wearing an Infowars Tshirt while standing in front of an American flag. The photo had been online for 6 months, and Instagram claimed it was removed to “keep Instagram a safe place for everyone.”

Simultaneously, anger surfaced over the Kaeperninck stupidity as desperate Democratic hopefuls sought to spin the story in their favor by saying they fully support Nike’s move.

Meanwhile, American Communists clashed with a couple of Patriots for burning the flag in Washington DC – even as reality TV figure Don Lemonis, who is the chairman of a major RV Retailer, is currently being fined $50 per day by Statesville NC officials for flying a flag they consider to be too large.

The defiant Lemonis says he’ll got to jail for old glory as it honors our military and veterans. Let’s see: People going to jail for flying the American flag, and a washed up sports figure offended by that same flag others have died for. In America?

SOURCE 




Charlie Daniels Blasts Decision to Cancel ‘Confederate Railroad’ Band

Country music legend Charlie Daniels criticized a decision to drop the scheduled appearance of the band Confederate Railroad at an Illinois fair because of alleged “racial sensitivity concerns,” stating that “political correctness” is “out of control” and is “giving in to fascism.”

“This political correctness thing is totally out of control,” tweeted Daniels on July 5.  “When a fair cancels the Confederate Railroad band because of their name it’s giving in to fascism, plain and simple and our freedom disappears piece by piece. Sick of it.”

The country rock band Confederate Railroad was scheduled to perform at the Du Quoin State Fair in Du Quoin, Ill., on Aug. 27. However, reportedly after blogger Rich Miller raised a question about the band’s name, the Illinois Department of Agriculture cancelled the band, reported Taste of Country.

“While every artist has a right to expression, we believe this decision is in the best interest of serving all of the people in our state,” said Du Quoin State Fair Manager Josh Gross.

The Pinckneyville Press reported that the decision "appears to reflect racial sensitivity concerns.”

Oak Ridge Boys singer Joe Bonsall tweeted, "I have played the @DuQuoinFair many times over the decades ... however, I must say that canceling @ConfederateRR JUST because their name is CONFEDERATE RAILROAD is a crock of crap!!! These are good men singing good songs... God please help us all ..."

SOURCE 



Wednesday, July 10, 2019



The Blonde in the Belly of the Beast is under heavy attack on YouTube

On 8th I put up a brilliant antifeminist video by Rebecca Hargraves of Seattle who goes by the screen name of The Blonde in the Belly of the Beast.

It looks like I was just in time as YouTube has now heavily censored her. You now get a warning when you try to log on and all images of her are suppressed.  Only the audio of what she says is given.  See below:






Will We Ban “Hate Speech”? Lessons from Europe and the Threat of Big Tech



The demand to outlaw so-called “hate speech” continues to grow in America. Too few citizens, however, understand the radical theory behind “hate speech” criminalization, how our nation will change should it be banned, and the tech world’s involvement in ushering in this future.

By turning to Europe, which actively criminalizes “hate speech,” we see that politicians, priests, political commentators, and private citizens have been censored, fined, arrested, investigated, and prosecuted for violating speech laws, which have had a devastating effect on the capacity of citizens to rule themselves.

In America, the tech world is working hard to ensure our nation looks more like Europe. Should “hate speech” be banned in America, the tech world will help bring forth this revolution. Please join us to discuss the different dimensions of this important debate.


Tuesday, July 09, 2019



Proud Boys’ Free-Speech Rally in Washington, D.C.?

Far-right groups including the Proud Boys and their allies rallied in downtown Washington, D.C., on Saturday, but were vastly outnumbered by counter-protesters

Many of the pro-Trump personalities who spoke to a few hundred people at the so-called “Demand Free Speech” rally at D.C’.s Freedom Plaza complained about social media bans that have cratered their careers and left them marginalized within the conservative movement. But that message was often overshadowed by threats of violence from the rally’s other speakers and a booming rival demonstration nearby.

Social media giants like Twitter and Facebook were name-checked often during the speeches, but some speakers veered off on tangents.

Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes took the stage in fake handcuffs meant to symbolize the effect of online censorship on his politics. He then attempted to wrench the handcuffs off himself to prove that he could overcome his social media bans—but could not manage it and had to be helped by someone else on stage. After the rally, McInnes claimed that was all part of his plan.

McInnes went on to praise the fighting prowess of the all-men’s Proud Boys group that he founded but claims to no longer lead. McInnes compared the Proud Boys to German soldiers fighting waves of Soviet troops in World War II.

“That’s how it feels to fight antifa,” McInnes said, referring to left-wing antifascist demonstrators participating in the counterprotest.

The event often seemed to be as much about reminding Trump supporters about the fading right-wing stars’ new endeavors as it was about making a coherent point about social media bans.

Anti-Muslim activist Laura Loomer, who has been kicked off of Twitter, Facebook, and even food delivery service Uber Eats, urged the dwindling audience to subscribe to her newsletter. McInnes, meanwhile, wore a shirt promoting his new video site. Milo Yiannopoulos, an anti-Muslim British activist, took the stage in a wig to perform an unflattering impression of Loomer, and used much of his speech to insult right-wing personalities who had bailed on the rally.

At the counterprotest across the street, hundreds of people listened to speakers critical of the right-wing rally and danced to go-go music.

The right-wing rally came a week after contentious dueling rallies in Portland, in which conservative journalist Andy Ngo was injured by antifa activists. The Portland events had ratcheted up tensions for the D.C. rally, and groups of Proud Boys in their yellow and black polo-shirt uniforms patrolled the event’s edges. But D.C. police mostly managed to keep the two sides apart. As of 3 p.m., an hour after the Proud Boys rally had ended, police said they had not made any arrests.

SOURCE 




'Proud black' mother slams school for forcing son, 14, to read literary classic To Kill A Mockingbird with teachers ignoring his plea to stop using 'n-word'

That novel is a famous ANTI-racist story

A black mother has hit out at her son's school after teachers allegedly refused to stop saying 'n****r' while reading 'To Kill A Mockingbird' in class.

The parent, who describes herself as a 'proud black woman', claims teachers are ignoring her 14-year-old son's pleas not to read the racial slur in lessons.

She said her son finds the word 'offensive' and 'upsetting', and she has been racially abused with it in the past year where she lives in Tuffley, Gloucestershire.

The mother said: 'My son is of colour and he has been upset by it. It is a word which is offensive to black people and in 2019 we should not be using that word. 'He has had to tell the teachers not to say it because he finds it offensive but the teachers keep saying it.'

The mother, whose son is a pupil at Holmleigh Park High School in Tuffley, added: 'The book has a negative depiction of black people.

'I'm worried it might have an impact and normalise that word for the children. I don't believe it should be being read without explanation. 'The word, the book makes him feel uncomfortable. There were two other pupils in the class of colour and when they heard the word they just looked at each other in shock.

'I feel that this will have a negative impact. It is not sensitive to the children that are of colour and have to sit there and take that word in.'

The book is currently being studied during 25-minute long daily reading time sessions at Holmleigh Park, a former academy which is undergoing changes.

The new leadership team has already insisted pupils uphold strict new uniform rules and sent dozens of them home or into detention within days of its official rebrand.

SOURCE 



Monday, July 08, 2019



UK: Black Christian student kicked off university course over gay marriage views wins court of appeal fight

A Christian student kicked off a university course over his views on gay marriage has celebrated his latest legal battle as “great news" for anyone who cares about free speech.

Felix Ngole, 41, said that he was expressing a traditional religious view when he was accused of posting derogatory comments about homosexuals and bisexuals on Facebook.

As a result of was thrown off the Sheffield University course where he was completing a postgraduate degree in social work. University bosses said Mr Ngole showed "no insight" and the decision to remove him from the course was fair.

They said he had been studying for a professional qualification and they had to consider his fitness to practise.

However the devout Christian, of Barnsley, south Yorkshire, said his rights to freedom of speech and thought, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, were breached when he was thrown out.

Deputy High Court Judge Rowena Collins Rice ruled against Mr Ngole following a trial in London in 2017, but today three Court of Appeal judges overturned that ruling and said that university bosses should reconsider.

Mr Ngole posted comments in 2015 when taking part in a debate on a Facebook page about Kim Davis, a state official in the US state of Kentucky, who refused to register same-sex marriages, judges heard

He had said Mrs Davis's position was based on the "Biblical view of same-sex marriage as a sin", said he was making a "genuine contribution" to an important public debate, and he was "entitled to express his religious views".

University bosses said that he had posted comments on a publicly accessible Facebook page which were "derogatory of gay men and bisexuals" and Judge Collins Rice ruled that university bosses acted within the law, however appeal judges said the university's disciplinary proceedings were flawed.

The three judges said that university bosses adopted an untenable position - thinking that any expression of disapproval of same-sex relations, however "mildly expressed", on a public social media platform was a breach of profession guidelines and that a university fitness to practise committee should stage another hearing and reconsider Mr Ngole's case.

SOURCE 





Nivea is being binned after allegations of homophobia by employees

Nivea has been around for a heck of a long time (over a century) so I think it will survive this little burst of hysteria.  Ladies tend to be pretty devoted to the gunk they put on their faces

Nivea has been spectacularly dumped by its own advertising agency and accused of homophobia after a company executive allegedly rejected an ad pitch saying, “We don’t do gay”.

The offensive remarks have prompted a boycott movement, with angry consumers posting videos and photos of themselves binning their Nivea products in an attempt to “cancel” the skincare brand.

Boycotting efforts began after the contents of a phone call, between Nivea executives and creatives from the New York-based ad agency, Foote, Cone & Belding (FCB), were leaked.

During the conference call, an FCB representative reportedly pitched a commercial in which two men would be filmed touching hands.

The pitch was flatly rejected, with an executive from the beauty brand allegedly saying: “We don’t do gay at Nivea.”

Among those looped in on the conference call was a gay advertising executive who had been behind the pitch.

FCB released a statement with its CEO Carter Murray explaining the decision to sever the century-long partnership came after “much reflection and discussion on our creative ambitions”.

The company executive’s remarks have caused a social media frenzy, as people around the world film and photograph themselves dumping their Nivea products in the bin.

SOURCE  



Sunday, July 07, 2019


Australian biscuit king, Arnott’s, cops it over ‘poor taste’ biscuit ad from 2005

Arnott’s is copping it over a “poor taste” biscuit ad that “size-shames” women, despite it being from 2005

A biscuit advertisement printed 13 years ago has come back to haunt Arnott’s after it appeared online this week and caused a fury.

The advertisement for the fruit-filled biscuit Snack Right Fruit Slice, takes up an entire page of a magazine that someone dug up, photographed, and posted on Facebook.

The advertisement — which is understood to have run in a New Idea magazine in New Zealand in 2005 — features two pairs of pale pink underwear, hanging from a clothesline, one small and one slightly larger.

The larger pair of frilly undies is captioned, “SNACK WRONG”, while the smaller sized undies are captioned, “SNACK RIGHT”.

Beneath the two pairs is a packet of Snack Right Fruit Slice with the slogan: “The healthier biscuit made with delicious fruit.”

The post on the Nope Sisters Facebook page slammed the food giant for “size shaming marketing” and said the company was attempting to humiliate women of different sizes into purchasing their product.

“This size shaming marketing for Arnott’s Biscuits Limited in a mag is ABSOLUTELY WRONG,” the post read. “How dare they try to sell high sugar biscuits in this disgraceful way.”

The post also accused Arnott’s of targeting women who wear “pink frilly undies as well, just to really ensure a MASSIVE marketing FAIL”.

“When will they get it? That any size is right for you, as long as you are healthy and happy.”

Nope Sisters called on people to boycott Arnott’s and not eat its products “ever again”.

But some attempted to keep a level head, reminding people the advertisement was more than a decade old and that dredging up old mistakes wasn’t productive.

An Arnott’s spokeswoman told news.com.au the old campaign was only run in New Zealand but its contents were “in poor taste and does not reflect Arnott’s brand values”.

“While this advertisement was printed in 2005, it should not have run in the first place and we apologise for any offence cause,” the spokeswoman said.

SOURCE 

They still make great biscuits.




Alitalia forced to withdraw ad after row over 'blackface' actor portraying Barack Obama



Italy’s national airline has been forced to pull an online advertisement which featured an actor blacked up to look like former US president Barack Obama, after accusations that it was racist.

Alitalia apologised for the advert, one of four launched under the hashtag #WhereIsWashington to publicise a new route between Rome and the American capital.

The offending ad featured an actor, believed to be Tunisian, wearing heavy make-up to resemble Mr Obama.

Three other ads from the same campaign depicted actors dressed as Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

Alitalia initially defended the Obama ad, saying the actor was not Caucasian so that accusations that he had worn “blackface” were unjustified.

But after further attacks on social media, the company announced that it was withdrawing the advertisement.

SOURCE 




Friday, July 05, 2019



Facebook Move Gives ACLU, 90 Left-Wing Groups ‘Power Over Every Post a Conservative Makes’

On Sunday, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg announced the company's latest efforts to institutionalize the demands of 90 left-wing organizations into the company's operations, including disturbing efforts geared toward the 2020 elections.

Media Research Center President (MRC) Brent Bozell issued the following statement Tuesday on behalf of The Free Speech Alliance, a coalition of more than 50 conservative organizations committed to combating online bias and censorship.

"Sheryl Sandberg just announced that she is allowing the ACLU and 90 left-wing organizations to dictate nearly every aspect of Facebook’s policies. This will let the left dominate the most powerful social media platform on the face of the earth. That raises significant legal and statutory issues that should worry both left and right.

“Facebook hasn’t released the names of these groups, but the crux of their plans is clear – the influence of everything Facebook does from hiring more liberals to control of all content. That goes so far as to include advertising, partnerships and control of the product itself. Now these left-wing groups have the power over every post a conservative makes. Facebook can’t be a free marketplace of ideas with the left controlling everything and the firm’s No. 2 overseeing and embracing all they are doing.

“The company getting in bed with these liberal organizations – especially in its efforts to prepare for the 2020 elections – should be deeply alarming to the conservative movement, Congress, potentially the FEC, and indeed all Americans. This was a big mistake on Facebook's part. We hope they will rethink the decisions they have made.”

SOURCE 




Obama Inauguration Photo Shows The Crass Idiocy Of Kaepernick’s Nike Betsy Ross Objection

It seems that those criticizing Nike for attempting to have a Betsy Ross flag on a pair of their shoes in celebration of Fourth of July forgot about former President Barack Obama using the same flags at his inauguration in 2013.

Nike stirred up controversy when they tried to have the earlier American flag, that displays 13 stars in a circle, on their Air Max 1 USA shoes but reportedly nixed the shoes after former National Football League player Colin Kaepernick called them offensive.

“Attention Nike: The flag Colin Kaepernick told you was unacceptable on your shoes was displayed rather prominently at Barack Obama’s inauguration,” the Washington Examiner’s Bryon York tweeted.



SOURCE 


Thursday, July 04, 2019


‘Anti American Kaepernick Strikes Again’: Nike Caves… Withdraws New Patriot Sneakers

Nike Inc. is yanking a U.S.A.-themed sneaker featuring an early American flag after former NFL star-turned-activist Colin Kaepernick told the company it shouldn’t sell a shoe with a symbol that he and others consider offensive, according to people familiar with the matter.

The sneaker giant created the Air Max 1 USA in celebration of the July Fourth holiday, and it was slated to go on sale this week. The heel of the shoe featured a U.S. flag with 13 white stars in a circle, a design created during the American Revolution and commonly referred to as the Betsy Ross flag.

After shipping the shoes to retailers, Nike asked for them to be returned without explaining why, the people said. The shoes aren’t available on Nike’s own apps and websites.

“Nike has chosen not to release the Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July as it featured the old version of the American flag,” a Nike spokeswoman said.

After images of the shoe were posted online, Mr. Kaepernick, a Nike endorser, reached out to company officials saying that he and others felt the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol because of its connection to an era of slavery, the people said. Some users on social media responded to posts about the shoe with similar concerns. Mr. Kaepernick declined to comment.

The design was created in the 1770s to represent the 13 original colonies, though there were many early versions of the America flag, according to the Smithsonian. In 1795, stars were added to reflect the addition of Vermont and Kentucky as states.

In 2016, the superintendent of a Michigan school district apologized after students waved the Betsy Ross flag at a high-school football game, saying that for some it is a symbol of white supremacy and nationalism, according to Mlive.com, a local news outlet. While the flag’s use isn’t widespread, the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said at the time that it has been appropriated by some extremist groups opposed to America’s increasing diversity.

SOURCE 




Cambridge University accused of racism for allowing non-black lecturer to say N-word in class

She was probably finding her course too hard

Cambridge University has been accused of racism for allowing a non-black lecturer to read aloud the N-word from a passage in class, as a PhD student quits in protest.

The 800-year-old institution was criticised by 26-year-old Indiana Seresin who said that as a white student, she had “benefited from the structural racism” of the university.

In a “withdrawal statement” that she published online, Ms Seresin explained that she felt she had an “imperative” to leave Cambridge where she had been working on a Government funded doctorate about contemporary American artists and writers.

She said she has witnessed an “accumulation” of racist incidents during her time at the university, and went on to describe an incident where an English lecturer “repeatedly read aloud the n-word during our class discussions”.

Ms Seresin said that a black friend had emailed the lecturer to explain that she did not feel comfortable hearing non-black lecturers saying this word aloud.

But she told how rather than receiving an apology, the friend was “patronisingly told that she did not understand the context in which the word was being used”.

Ms Seresin explains that the disagreement escalated and a group of students, including herself, had “multiple meetings” with the chair of the English faculty about it.

They were also invited to raise the issue at the Teaching Forum, where academics and students meet to exchange views. Ms Seresin and her peers found the experience of speaking in front of senior faculty members “intimidating”, adding that they felt as though they were on trial. 

“Many of those present seemed simply unable to comprehend the difference between a black writer reclaiming the n-word and a nonblack Cambridge lecturer or student saying it aloud in class,” she said.

“We also faced hostility regarding the idea that different rules applied to black and nonblack lecturers, even though beyond Cambridge this is a widely accepted principle and for obvious reasons does not constitute a double standard.”

SOURCE 


Wednesday, July 03, 2019


Google information suppression

In doing some research recently, I found that I could no longer quickly locate items on Google that were at the top of the first page in the past year or so. These topics, such as the Obama administration keeping children separate from adults, are almost impossible to locate now. Articles “debunking” Obama’s policies being similar to Trump’s are everywhere.

And when looking for a current news item, I got a litany of first-tier and second-tier news and commentary outlets, all on the left, such as CNN (frequently the first option on news) the New York Times, Slate, Salon, BBC, London Guardian and so on — page after page and some repeated several times, before getting to even one on the right, usually Fox News.

I’m a reasonably advanced searcher. I was using the concept of Boolean string searches before Google. So I understand at 30,000 feet how their algorithm works. And yet I cannot find items at all that I previously found quickly.

There’s a good reason for this and you probably know what it is: They have changed their algorithm to emphasize “trusted” sources, by which they mean left-wing sources that reflect Google’s leftwing worldview.

There was last week’s news from Veritas interviewing whistleblowers at Google and leaking documents showing that Google is intent on not letting another Trump ever happen again. We know they’ve been placing their thumbs the scales for awhile, but this is a whole new level.

If you search “google whistleblower” you get all the appropriate results. Today. But what will be the results in six months or a year? Will you get the Daily Wire, Newsmax, the Spectator? Will you find Dave Rubin’s take? Or will it be Slate and Salon and CNN spinning Veritas as acting illegally and using controversial methods? Methinks think the latter.

And I realized with sudden clarity that here sat before me what we all have been reading about, but in an entirely new light: This is the algorithmic version of the Memory Hole made infamous in George Orwell’s dystopian 1984 novel. This is the modern step in how you erase history and alter people’s opinions in real time. Eventually, many things will just never have happened.

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” George Orwell, 1984

Google employees become a little army of Winston Smiths coding away to fill up the memory hole.

They are not alone, of course. The social media giants of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram (owned by Facebook) Pinterest and Youtube (owned by Google) have all been squeezing out conservatives through shadow-banning, demonetizing, de-platforming and outright banning. It’s  not just whackadoodles like Alex Jones. When it gets to comedians like Steven Crowder who was actually trying to follow all of Youtube’s rules and the mainstream pro-life outfit Live Action, you know the digital noose is tightening.

Banks and credit card companies have begun closing the accounts of people based on those people’s opinion. It starts with the awful Proud Boys group and the neo-Nazi Stormfront site, but it never stops there.

Here’s my prediction on the final step, which may start before 2020 or after, but it sure feels as though it will eventually happen.

Once the noose has been tightened around conservatives, forcing them off social media and onto only their own websites, WordPress, Godaddy and other web hosting sites will eventually just start pulling the plug because of offensive this and offensive that.

And then they will have totally shut up conservative voices, and we will have a totalitarian leftist country.

In the end, as in 1984, liberals and progressives will also become the victims, because only the state will matter. They think that is what they want. They don’t.

SOURCE 




Recent leaked emails from Google show that labeling mainstream conservative media as Nazis is a premise upon which Google operates

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) interviews Derek Slater, Google Global Director of Information Policy:

Crenshaw: It’s not even a question, according to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it? Two of three of these people are Jewish, very religious Jews. And yet you think they are Nazis. It begs the question: what kind of education people at Google have so that they think that religious Jews are Nazis. Three of three of these people had family members killed in the Holocaust, Ben Shapiro is the number one target of the alt-right. And yet you people operate off the premise that he’s a Nazi. It’s pretty disturbing and it gets to the question, do you believe in hate speech? How do you define that or do you, can you give me a quick definition right now? Is it written down somewhere? Google, can you give me a definition of hate speech?

Slater:

Google Global Director of Information Policy: Yes. So hate speech again, as updated in our guidelines now extends to, uh, uh, superiority over protected groups to justify discrimination, violence, and so on based on, uh, a number of defining characteristics, whether that’s a race, sexual orientation, veteran status.

Crenshaw: Do you have an example of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager engaging in hate speech? Give one example off the top of your head.

Slater: So, congressman, we evaluate individual piece of content based on that content rather than based on the speaker.

Crenshaw: Okay, let’s, let’s get to the next question. Do you believe speech can be violence? All right, though there’s, there’s not, not can you incite violence; that is very clearly not protected, but can speech just be violence? Do you believe that speech that isn’t specifically calling for violence can be labeled violence and therefore harmful to people? Is that possible?

Slater: Congressman, I’m not sure I fully understand the distinction you’re drawing. Certainly, again, incitement to violence or things that aren’t urgent, dangerous behavior, those are things that would be against our policies.

Crenshaw: Here’s, here’s, here’s the thing. When you call somebody a Nazi or you can make the argument that you’re inciting violence and here’s how, as a country, we all agree that Nazis are bad. We actually invaded an entire continent to defeat the Nazis. It’s normal to say Hashtag punch a Nazi because there’s this common thread among this in this country that they’re bad and that they’re evil and that they should be destroyed.

So when you’re operating off of that premise and it’s frankly, it’s a, good premise to operate on, well, what you’re implying then is that it’s okay to use violence against them. When you label them — when one of the most powerful social media companies in the world labels people as Nazis, you could make the argument that’s inciting violence. What you’re doing is wholly irresponsible.

SOURCE 


Tuesday, July 02, 2019


NBA using 'Governor' in place of 'owner' title   

As NBA teams make some major moves over the offseason, a potentially less-noticeable change is already occurring throughout the league.

According to commissioner Adam Silver, the NBA is continuing to move away from the use of the term "owner" to describe those with controlling interest of teams in favor of the terms "Governor of the team" and "alternate Governor."

The change was made due to concerns that the term "owner" can be viewed as racially insensitive in a league where the vast majority of players are African-American and the majority of owners are Caucasian. While the league itself stopped using the term years ago, individual teams are now starting to follow suit; something Silver was asked about.

"I don't want to overreact to the term because, as I said earlier, people end up twisting themselves into knots avoiding the use of the word 'owner,'" Silver said, via TMZ Sports. "But we moved away from that term years ago with the league. We call our team owners 'Governors' of the team and 'alternate Governors. So I think it makes sense.

SOURCE 



End of the naughty step as nurseries say they no longer use the term due to 'negative connotations'

 It was once a popular way for nursery teachers to discipline misbehaving toddlers.  But the “naughty step” is becoming a thing of the past, with nurseries saying that they no longer use the term due to its “negative connotations”. 

The majority (60 per cent) of nurseries said they do not agree with having a “naughty step”, according to a poll of 1,000 owners, managers and staff conducted by the review sit daynurseries.co.uk. 

The survey found that 74 per cent rejected the use of the“naughty step” – where children are asked to sit in a particular place and reflect on their actions - as a method for controlling bad behaviour. 

Almost all (95 per cent) of nursery teachers said they are not even allowed to call a child “naughty” in their nursery.

Danielle Butler, a director at Tommies Childcare which runs nurseries in  Coventry, Derby, Kenilworth and Nuneaton, said they adopt a “holistic” approach to managing behaviour.

 “The term ‘naughty’ is one that has held negative connotations particularly in an Early Years context,” she said.

“There is the potential for children to be labelled with this term, without them being able to understand why their behaviour is unacceptable.”  

Ms Butler said that word “naughty” is not used her nursery, adding that she discourages any words “that label children’s behaviour in a negative way”. 

Matthew Byrne, director of Crafty Wizards pre-School in south-east London, said that they do not call children “naughty” on the basis that “it can negatively impact on how others see that child, from their peers to the adults around them”.

SOURCE 




Monday, July 01, 2019




Excluding to include. Welcome to opposite world

This week, Ravelry.com, one of the internet’s most popular gathering sites for crocheters and with a reported 8.5 million users, publicly smeared and ejected conservative members who support President Donald Trump—all in the name of protecting its preciously “inclusive” safe space.

Excluding to include. Welcome to opposite world. On Sunday (there’s no rest for vengeful social justice warriors), Ravelry’s founders announced:

"We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all other content"

The progressive operators at Ravelry declared that every right-winger on the fiber arts forum who supports our commander in chief is really just a KKK domestic terrorist wielding sharp needles instead of flaming crosses and nooses.

It doesn’t matter whether you support the White House because you are pro-borders, pro-life, pro-entrepreneur, pro-limited government, anti-collectivist, or anti-socialist.

“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy,” Ravelry management declared.

In case you weren’t clear on Ravelry equating all Trump support with virulent racism, the defamers decried: “Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.”

Ravelry accused the conservative crafters of a “culture of anger and “us versus them” stance.

Meanwhile, rabid leftists who promoted misogynist sweaters slamming Sarah Palin as “c—-” went unpunished. A forum titled “What Would You Do To Sarah Palin” inviting liberal members to post physical threats was allowed to thrive.

SOURCE 








University bans mention of how long Aborigines have been in Autralia

Science lecturers at the University of New South Wales have been told to stop telling students that Indigenous people's arrived in Australia 40,000 years ago.

In a letter sent to staff the lecturers were told that it is 'inappropriate' to teach dates and they should say Aboriginals have been here 'since the beginning of the Dreamings' because that is what indigenous people believe.

A set of classroom guidelines were circulated in the science faculty this month which alerted the scientists to the existing language advice, according to The Weekend Australian.

Aboriginal people are thought to have arrived in Australia via land bridges from the north about 50,000 years ago. 

It is generally accepted among scientists, however, that Indigenous people, like the rest of the world's human population, migrated from the African continent.

In 2018, a UNSW research centre in the science faculty said Indigenous Australians 'arrived soon after 50,000 years ago, effectively forever, given that modern human populations only moved out of ­Africa 50,000-55,000 years ago.'

The inclusivity language guidelines were approved by a working group involving dean Emma Johnston.

The guidelines say teaching a date for the arrival of Indigenous people 'tends to lend support to migration theories and anthropological assumptions.'

Many indigenous Australians see this sort of measurement as inappropriate the guidelines claim.

'The Aboriginal people I've worked with are enormously interested in the scientific evidence,' University of Wollongong ­archaeologist Richard Fullagar told the publication.

He did, however, also say that Aboriginal people he has worked with have sometimes told him that it is their cultural belief they have been here forever.

SOURCE  





30 June, 2019

Twitter says it will label tweets from Trump and other leaders that break its rules

New York (CNN Business)Twitter plans to place a disclaimer on future tweets from world leaders that break its rules but which Twitter decides are in the "public interest," the company said in a blog post Thursday.

This policy change could face its most prominent test in President Trump. Trump has repeatedly tested Twitter's community standards with his regular tirades on the platform and some of the president's tweets have run afoul of Twitter's rules.

Twitter (TWTR) has in the past allowed tweets from Trump and other world leaders to remain online, even though they broke the company's rules, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business, because it believes the tweets are in the public interest.

But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns about antitrust and privacy.

"This is not about perceived bias but about providing more clarity if our rules have been broken," a Twitter spokesperson told CNN Business.

Asked by CNN Business, Twitter would not provide examples of tweets that it had previously kept up as being in the public interest despite rule violations.

The new feature will make clear when Twitter makes that call in the future. "The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet," the disclaimer will read. "However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain available."

There are some exceptions, however. "[D]irect threats of violence or calls to commit violence against an individual" are "unlikely to be considered in the public interest," Twitter said in the blog post.

Twitter said a "cross-functional" team, including representatives from its trust and safety, legal, and public policy teams will decide if a tweet is in the public interest.

The company provided a list of criteria that would inform this decision, including "Whether preserving a Tweet will allow others to hold the government official, candidate for public office, or appointee accountable for their statements."

"When a Tweet has this notice placed on it, it will feature less prominently on Twitter," the company said, adding that such tweets will not appear in Twitter's algorithmically generated "Top Tweets," its live event pages, and some other features.

The new feature will apply to verified government officials, political candidates and people who are being considered for a government position and who have more than 100,000 followers, Twitter said.

SOURCE 




Sunday, June 30, 2019



Twitter says it will label tweets from Trump and other leaders that break its rules

New York (CNN Business)Twitter plans to place a disclaimer on future tweets from world leaders that break its rules but which Twitter decides are in the "public interest," the company said in a blog post Thursday.

This policy change could face its most prominent test in President Trump. Trump has repeatedly tested Twitter's community standards with his regular tirades on the platform and some of the president's tweets have run afoul of Twitter's rules.

Twitter (TWTR) has in the past allowed tweets from Trump and other world leaders to remain online, even though they broke the company's rules, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business, because it believes the tweets are in the public interest.

But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns about antitrust and privacy.

"This is not about perceived bias but about providing more clarity if our rules have been broken," a Twitter spokesperson told CNN Business.

Asked by CNN Business, Twitter would not provide examples of tweets that it had previously kept up as being in the public interest despite rule violations.

The new feature will make clear when Twitter makes that call in the future. "The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet," the disclaimer will read. "However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain available."

There are some exceptions, however. "[D]irect threats of violence or calls to commit violence against an individual" are "unlikely to be considered in the public interest," Twitter said in the blog post.

Twitter said a "cross-functional" team, including representatives from its trust and safety, legal, and public policy teams will decide if a tweet is in the public interest.

The company provided a list of criteria that would inform this decision, including "Whether preserving a Tweet will allow others to hold the government official, candidate for public office, or appointee accountable for their statements."

"When a Tweet has this notice placed on it, it will feature less prominently on Twitter," the company said, adding that such tweets will not appear in Twitter's algorithmically generated "Top Tweets," its live event pages, and some other features.

The new feature will apply to verified government officials, political candidates and people who are being considered for a government position and who have more than 100,000 followers, Twitter said.

SOURCE 






Reddit quarantines largest Trump subreddit r/The_Donald with over 750K followers

In the latest round of social media censorship, Reddit has quarantined the largest subreddit in favor of President Donald Trump, r/The_Donald, with over 750,000 followers, restricting access. The move comes amid a crackdown of conservative content on social media platforms, with users on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube being censored, suspended, banned and demonetized and Trump calling for a social media summit to address the censorship.

Since 2016, the r/The_Donald subreddit has grown significantly and is a highly trafficked go-to locale for Trump supporters online. It describes itself as “a never-ending rally dedicated to the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.”

In a message to the group by one of its moderators on June 26 announcing the quarantine and measures being taken to be reinstated, it stated, “we were quarantined without warning for some users that were upset about the Oregon Governor sending cops to round up Republican lawmakers to come back to vote on bills before their state chambers. None of these comments that violated Reddit’s rules and our Rule 1 [against advocating violence] were ever reported to us moderators to take action on. Those comments were reported on by an arm of the DNC and picked up by multiple news outlets.”

So, there were a few posts that advocated violence, but they were not reported to the group’s moderators, but to the media. Namely, Media Matters ran an article “A pro-Trump subreddit is full of calls for violence in support of Oregon Republicans.” Two days later, the subreddit was quarantined.

So, it’s a typical story for the internet. In a forum with hundreds of thousands of users, just like every comments section on a large website or Facebook or Twitter, some nasty, rotten comments get included. When something is reported to moderators, they remove it. But most people just ignore the offending comments and carry on civil discussions, but according to Reddit, they are now expected to wield omniscient control and report any posts that violate rules.

And if they don’t, it’s ban-land for r/The_Donald.

Never mind that the offending posts violated the subreddit’s own rules which they were enforcing manually. Anyone can understand that when you have 750,000 followers it’s hard to moderate each and every comment with just a couple dozen or so moderators and so I imagine stuff slips through the cracks all the time.

In any event, the group says it is pro-police, and stated, “we have been very pro law enforcement as long as I can remember, and that is early on in r/The_Donald’s history. We have many members that are law enforcement that come to our wonderful place and interact because they feel welcome here. Many are fans of President Trump and we are fans of them. They put their lives on the line daily for the safety of our communities. To have this as a reason for our quarantine is abhorrent on our users’ part and we will not stand for it.”

The post went on to denounce violence and urged followers to help report any calls for violence, as it has done in the past.

In a letter to the group’s moderators, Reddit acknowledged that the subreddit attempts to follow the rules by removing bad posts: “We recognize that you do remove posts that are reported, but we are troubled that violent content more often goes unreported…”

And so, Reddit suggests, “User reports and downvotes are an essential way that Reddit functions to moderate content.”

The moderators noted in its initial comment on the letter from Reddit, “It would seem they’ve set up an impossible standard as a reason to kill us before the 2020 election.”

But, the moderators have since promised to do what they could and are enlisting the entire group to help police content on the subreddit, stating, “We have a limited amount of moderators and do thousands of actions a day on things that are reported. Our mods work hard and work for free for the love of our President and this community. We cannot go into threads and read every single comment. That is where we need you to come in and help. If you see something that breaks the rules, report it and hit that deport button. The rest of Reddit and many on the left would like to see us gone. They won’t hit that report button. They will see it and send it to the media or admins. Don’t give them that satisfaction, report it to us and we will take care of it. We have documented cases where they actually will instigate it with alts that we catch and report those.”

The moderators also warned users that any violent content would now be summarily banned, “If you make a comment that breaks the violence rule, you will be banned just like a shill because after this warning, only shills will be doing it to try and get us banned.”

In response to the quarantine, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate, saying, “the Federal Trade Commission needs to open an investigation into anticompetitive actions by social media platforms. Given the appearance that the activities of various social media platforms are colluding against Republicans, conservatives and Trump supporters for political purposes along with the threat of deplatforming, this significantly harms conservative groups’ ability to monetize their organizations and to communicate with their voluntary followers. These platforms set themselves up as neutral arbiters designed to allow organizations to access to their followings they invested resources to develop. The arbitrary denial of service is a violation of the rights and underlying contract when users chose to invest resources into developing followers on these platforms.”

UPDATE: One bright side for the subreddit, since the quarantine was announced, they have acquired about another 10,000 followers as the so-called Streisand Effect attracts onlookers and supporters when something is hidden or censored. The current count as of this writing is 763,000 followers.

No word yet on whether r/The_Donald will be banned for all time, but if it is, watch for calls from conservatives and Republicans that social media Big Tech firms are biased against President Trump and his supporters and need to be regulated in order to protect the digital civil rights of users — and to protect our competitive representative political system. Stay tuned.

SOURCE 


Friday, June 28, 2019


Australia: Some Leftist bile over free speech


The angry Jacqueline Maley, complete with forced smile

Jacqueline Maley of the SMH exhibits the angry, abusive Leftist mind very clearly.  Below are some excerpts of what she wrote about Bettina Arndt.  It would be called hate speech if a conservative had written it. It reeks of hate.  A comment about it received from Bettina Arndt below:

"Signs of desperation from journalist Jacqueline Maley in her extremely nasty, personal attack on me last week in the Sydney Morning Herald. The feminists are clearly worried that I am winning a few rounds."

Maley starts out on an hilarious note.  She seems to think free speech was alive and well when the Riot Squad had to be called to enable Bettina's talk to go ahead.  She is clearly just a Leftist bigot determined to think that the coercive Left can do no wrong

And, most ironically,  after her explosion of bile directed at Bettina she ends advocating "civility, and the will, to listen to each other respectfully".   She clearly is in deep denial about her own behaviour.  Freud would find her mental defences fascinating



It is largely because of publicity around a talk Arndt gave at Sydney University last year that federal Education Minister Dan Tehan called a review into free speech in universities.

The Arndt talk was part of what she called her "Fake Rape Crisis Tour". She was invited by the university's Liberal Club. About 40 students, led by the women's group on campus, protested against the event. Police were called when some tried to block the entrance and disrupt the talk. They were unsuccessful - it went ahead. Arndt was free to spread her views.

Somewhat awkwardly, the independent review into campus free speech, conducted by former High Court chief justice Robert French, found that "claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses are not substantiated".

Not having got what they wanted - confirmation of a crisis they asserted existed - the usual voices in the conservative media, and Dan Tehan, have focused instead on French's recommendation that universities adopt a Model Code to promote free speech on campuses.

In the conclusions of his report, French mentions the idea of "intellectual rubbish", and notes, rather drily, that "there certainly is an abundance of it".

As French puts it: "The question may be asked whether a higher-education provider should be obliged to host any intellectual rubbish that wants to cross its threshold."

The answer is probably yes, as long as the content of the speech is not unlawful.

For my money, Arndt's views fall into that category. They are laughable, as Bolt demonstrated, but also dangerous because they promote misogynistic and incorrect claims about women.

But probably the best antidote to Bettina Arndt's ideas being promulgated is Bettina Arndt.

The more she speaks the more it becomes clear she is floating, weightless, in some sort of fact-free space-void, hoping for a Mark Latham or a Milo Yiannopolis to come and lend her some true notoriety of the kind that might help her sell a few books.

Perhaps Arndt could join with union boss John Setka for a speaking tour - the ultimate intellectual odd-couple, they seem to share some views on men's rights. Call it "Betts and Sets" and watch the tickets sell themselves.

As Sydney University Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence has pointed out, our entire culture is becoming more polarised and tribal in its views, and we are losing the civility, and the will, to listen to each other respectfully, or admit when we have it wrong.

SOURCE  






'He purposely misgendered Caitlyn Jenner!' Brody Jenner faces a furious backlash after calling his transgender father 'he' TWICE

A man must not refer to his father as "he"?

Brody Jenner has been slammed by people online after he misgendered his father, Caitlyn Jenner, twice in the debut episode of The Hills: New Beginnings.

During the premiere for the MTV reboot, Brody — who is the son of Caitlyn and Linda Thompson — was seen at a dinner with cast member Frankie Delgado when his wife, who also named Kaitlynn, was brought up in conversation.

The show then cut to an interview with the 35-year-old reality star where he opened up about his father transitioning from a man to a woman and chose the same name as Brody's wife.

'My dad, he also became a woman — don't wanna forget about that one!' Brody said. 'I had been dating Kaitlynn Carter for four and a half years, and my dad came out and said that he wanted to be called Caitlyn. Two Caitlyns....'

Viewers caught onto the hint Brody was giving about his dad and the choice of name.

But more people had an issue with Brody using 'he' twice in the statement instead of 'she' to describe his father.

'Brody Jenner remains a pile of trash + seems to really enjoy purposely misgendering Caitlyn Jenner,' one viewer wrote on Twitter after watching the interview.

When Caitlyn, 69, first announced she was transitioning to a woman in 2015, she was very understanding with her six children when it came to using pronouns.

Both Kendall and Kylie Jenner will refer to Caitlyn as a 'she' out of respect for her transition, but they still also call her 'dad' after seeking permission from their father to do so.

Brody, on the other hand, appeared to be having more difficulties with use of pronouns, despite it being four years since Caitlyn announced she was transgender.

SOURCE 


Thursday, June 27, 2019


Google Censors Video Exposing Google

Google-owned video platform YouTube took down a video from Project Veritas showing a senior employee at the company appearing to admit that the company plans to interfere in the next presidential election to stop Donald Trump.

The video, which is still available on the Project Veritas website featured undercover footage of a top Google employee, Jen Gennai, stating that the company shouldn’t be broken up because only they can prevent the “next Trump situation.”

Via the video:

Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.

This corroborates other leaks from Google. Earlier this year, former Google software engineer Mike Wacker published emails appearing to show that a manager at the tech giant told one of their subordinates that the company had to stop “fake news” and “hate speech” because “that’s how Trump won.”

James O’Keefe urged viewers to download the video and repost it to ensure it could not easily be censored.

And last year, Breitbart News published confidential footage from inside Google showing the company’s head of global affairs, Kent Walker, stating his intention to make the populist-nationalist movement represented by Donald Trump a “blip” or “hiccup” in history.

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe reported on Twitter earlier today that the journalistic outlet received a privacy complaint on its YouTube videos. “Privacy” is the same excuse used by the tech giant for taking down a video about one of Veritas’ earlier stories, about anti-Christian bias at image platform Pinterest.

SOURCE