Many critics of the term argue that the demographic divisions (racial groups, whole religions) the term attempts to insulate from group criticism are arbitrarily or ideologically selected. For example, why aren’t lesser political groups (atheist organizations, for example) or smaller religious denominations (scientologists, for example) equally protected by the label and the stigma surrounding it? Thus, instead of protecting the powerless, the term seems to insulate from criticism those populations with sufficient numbers, power and prominence to command protection. After all, any number of randomly selected demographic categories could be deemed above group criticism or political opposition, yet few are. Why do certain groups seem to be so much more worthy of the term’s protections? In sum, the term appears to place arbitrary or ideology-laden restrictions on speech and activism, in defiance of the liberal democratic tradition, which asserts that all ideologies, movements, groups, and religions are fair game for philosophical critique and peaceful opposition.
The attack on free speech in the name of combating violence and “hate speech” continues to escalate: In Germany, MSM are trying to frame alternative media for the murder of CDU politician Walter Lübcke by a deranged far-right crazy.
Kassel regional government president Walter Lübcke, a member of Angela Merkel’s CDU, became a controversial figure in 2015 at the height of Merkel’s refugee influx, when he told a critic at a public debate, “If you don’t like the values of this country, you’re free to leave at any time.” The remark caused an uproar in patriotic German circles, Lübcke received a torrent of threats and online abuse which had since faded, however.
On June 2 of this year, Lübcke was found shot in the head in his yard. On June 15, suspect Stefan E. was arrested, who is active in far-right paramilitary group Combat 18 and was convicted of bombing a refugee home in 1993.
Mainstream media are now blaming alternative media in Germany for this crime. As Soros-funded “Hate Speech monitor” Amadeu Antonio Foundation and blog Volksverpetzer reported, a reader had posted the (publicly available) office address of Dr. Walter Lübcke in the comments section of leading German alternative news site Politically Incorrect in 2015.
In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max and Stacy discuss the ‘rare moon bear’ saved from extinction by the decades-old conflict and tensions between the two Koreas. They use this as an analogy for our privacy which has mostly become extinct, mostly thanks to our collective role in handing over our private data. Only the few who are not on social media may not yet have had their data incorporated into a snooping algorithm. In the second half, Max interviews cryptographer Harry Halpin about a Tor competitor he has designed, called Nym. They discuss ‘the dark web,’ privacy, and the problems with Tor.
RT’s Keiser Report discusses the report, using it as an analogy for our privacy. Stacy Herbert compares it with the human situation in a surveillance state, noting that there are still “some humans that live outside a CCTV camera, humans that don’t have a GPS monitor anywhere near them” because they might live somewhere in the middle of South or North Dakota. Max Keiser recalls his theory of the “economy’s insectualisation” where humans are becoming a colony of insects (bees or ants). That’s all enabled by the 5G surveillance state, he says.
How did a minority in Islam become so forceful and dominant in our politics, legislation and terrorism? So much so that legislation is being brought forward to curtail our criticism of it?
Are you, like me, a conservative but wonder where on earth they are? The book names and shames politicians who trade under the label ‘conservative’.
It lauds those who are fighting against the whole gender and transgender agenda.
It has chapters from a transvestite and a young man who thought he was trans and started the transition process, aided by the irresponsible state, until he realised he was just gay, to a man that became a woman. We hear their stories. None of them have been infected by liberal left wrong think.
The author tears into our education system, the EU, the UN, every politician and body that undermines the family, rule of law, our Western way of life, open borders, mass immigration that no one wanted or indeed, asked for. She condemns the attack on our free speech and imported third world practices and terrorism.
Cultural Marxism has to be stopped and reversed.
Video sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”
YouTube’s Latest PurgeVideo sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”
YouTube has just announced they have changed their “community standards” to combat “extremist content” on their platform. This is just the latest step in the war against free speech online.
This move comes as no surprise – the press have been laying the groundwork for this for weeks, even months.
Three weeks ago Buzzfeed reported that YouTube’s monetised chat was “pushing creators to more extreme content”, and just yesterday it was reported that YouTube’s recommend algorithm was “sexualising children”.
Given that, it comes as no surprise that the mainstream media are celebrating this latest “purge”.The Guardian reported:
YouTube bans videos promoting Nazi ideology
Whilst the Financial Times went with:
YouTube to ban supremacist videos
Both these headlines are wildly inaccurate, deliberately playing the racism/white supremacy angle in the hopes that people will clap along without reading anything else.
Colonialism and apartheid are long gone in South Africa, but racial disparities in income, jobs and, most importantly, land ownership remain a dividing issue. White people, who make up just 8.2 per cent of the population, own 72 per cent of all farms and agricultural holdings, while the black majority owns just four per cent of the land.
That stark imbalance is rooted in the Natives’ Land Act of 1913, which restricted black rights to land ownership and gave almost all the country’s real estate to the white minority. More than a century later, the African National Congress (ANC) that has ruled the country since the end of apartheid is now seeking to redress historical injustices through yet another attempt to redistribute land among black citizens.
This time though, the proposed land reforms include expropriation without compensation, and this has stoked fears among white South Africans. Radical activists feel empowered and ready to take land by force triggering a heated debate about whether the plan would really help heal South Africa’s unequal society.
An RTD crew attempts to gauge public sentiment by talking to farmers and activists among Afrikaners, the descendants of Dutch settlers. We visit the white-only town of Orania to find out how they feel about the racial divide, the prospect of land expropriation and an alleged wave of farm attacks. We also meet Simon Roche, a spokesman for the Suidlanders survivalist group, whose members believe that all-out race war is inevitable in the country.
On the other side, Zanele Lwana of the radical ‘Black First Land First’ (BLF) party, known for its anti-white rhetoric, vehemently defends redistribution to black South Africans, as a member of the ruling ANC party, Ronald Lamola, outlines how the planned seizures will be carried out in practice. Meanwhile, ordinary people share their hopes for a better life on the promised lands.
What is certain is that any filtering, reporting and pre-moderation technologies developed as a result of the Christchurch Call will be adopted with enthusiasm by genuinely repressive regimes, and likely deployed by the California giants themselves at the request of such governments, who will cite their own anti-extremism legislation.
By abstaining from the document, the US now has a chance not only of protecting its own population, but of sabotaging the entire Christchurch Call project. All the companies involved are still operating primarily under US jurisdiction, so they will be shielded from these initiatives. Indeed, if they decide to impose these measures over the will of American citizens, they leave themselves open to First Amendment-based government regulation, and what may eventually become costly lawsuits.
So, there remains one opportunity here is to drop the partisan politics, and rally behind the White House decision for the sake of free speech – if you believe in it. By not making it a Donald Trump versus the World issue, there is a chance to help not only Americans, but the cause of freedom around the globe.
By Igor Ogorodnev
We live at a time where academic freedom is under threat from ideologues and activists of all persuasions. The latest threat comes from St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, where administrators appear to have capitulated to a mob of activists (students and academics) who mounted a campaign to have a young scholar fired for “problematic” research. The back-story was covered by Quillette last December.
The norms of academia—which have been built up and preserved by institutions such as Cambridge for centuries—demand that academics engage with each other in a scholarly manner. That is, if one academic has a problem with the methods or conclusions of another’s research, he or she should address those concerns within journals, according to established procedures, which other scholars can then read and respond to, including the academic whose research is being challenged.
Today, due to the hyper-specialisation of academic fields, most academics will not be able to judge the quality of scholarship that is published in journals outside their field. That’s why when research is peer-reviewed it is done by experts in the specific field in which the research was carried out, not by a random selection of university professors. Just as a professor of English will not be able to judge a study conducted within chemical engineering, a chemical engineer will not be able to assess a scholarly essay on Shakespeare’s sonnets.
To judge the quality of Dr Noah Carl’s work authoritatively, one would have to be an expert in at least one of the following fields: psychology, intelligence research (a sub-field of psychology), and/or economics. The campaign against him began with an ‘open letter’ that was signed by hundreds of academics, but they did not have expertise in these areas. (For the most part, they had qualifications in fields like anthropology, gender studies and critical race studies). This is a clear departure from the established norms that, until recently, were adhered to in academic debates, a point made in an editorial about this affair by the executive team at the Heterodox Academy:
Communal inquiry and debate are at the heart of the academy. As researchers, we put our ideas into the crucible of open inquiry and rely on debate and discussion to refine understanding and advance solutions to complex problems. The practice of issuing open letters attacking scholars for their contributions undermines this important goal by evicting academics and their ideas from the arena—often on flimsy evidentiary grounds. More constructive responses can and should be employed.
The administrators at St Edmund’s College who determined that Dr Noah Carl should be fired did not have qualifications in these areas, either. The Master of St. Edmunds is a former banker, and the administrator who led the investigation that decided Dr Carl is guilty of “poor scholarship” is a veterinary scientist.
China: Muslim ‘Re-Education’ Camps Needed to Prevent Another New Zealand Massacre
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
by JOHN HAYWARD
10 Apr 2019
The Chinese government took its latest swing at justifying re-education camps for Muslims, and aggressive efforts to subdue all religious faith, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal published Tuesday.
China cited the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand to justify pervasive surveillance and gigantic detention centers for Muslims, arguing such methods are necessary to prevent violent friction between ethnic and religious groups.
The government of Muslim-heavy Xinjiang province claimed its heavy-handed methods were necessary to make Xinjiang safe for investment and commerce, which in turn offer the only long-term solution to unrest among the Uighur minority.
The latest technique Beijing is using to steamroller the Uighurs involves literal steamrollers: a “community redevelopment” project in the city of Urumqi that looks suspiciously like ethnic cleansing. The Chinese are razing the ancient city to the ground, wiping out hundreds of mosques, restaurants serving traditional food, and bookstores selling Uighur literature.
The parts of Urumqi not dismantled entirely are littered with cameras, biometric scanners, and police checkpoints, turning the city into a huge prison. When the WSJ asked about Urumqi, the Chinese essentially responded that residents should be thankful for all the money invested to modernize their city and improve its infrastructure.
The Asean Post warned on Tuesday that China has made great progress on eliminating Uighur culture and religion and is confident the international community will do nothing serious to prevent it from finishing the job.