By Geoffrey A. Fowler | The Washington Post Columnist
You open your browser to look at the web. Do you know who is looking back at you?
Over a recent week of web surfing, I peered under the hood of Google Chrome and found it brought along a few thousand friends. Shopping, news and even government sites quietly tagged my browser to let ad and data companies ride shotgun while I clicked around the web.
This was made possible by the web’s biggest snoop of all: Google. Seen from the inside, its Chrome browser looks a lot like surveillance software.
The Weathermen – In Pursuit of Truth Presents
A fascinating look at the prominent figures in the Weather Underground from the 1960’s to the present.
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”.
You cannot move for stories about how bad YouTube is.
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