Keiser Report: Privacy is a Rare Moon Bear ( E1386)

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.

https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/459865-korea-tensions-private-data/

https://youtu.be/I2PnB7K7FpI

MEP Janice Atkinson: “Cultural Marxism has to be stopped and reversed”

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.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/06/mep-janice-atkinson-cultural-marxism-has-to-be-stopped-and-reversed/

YouTube’s Latest Purge

Video sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”

Kit Knightly

https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/05/youtubes-latest-purge/

 111

YouTube’s Latest PurgeVideo sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”

Kit Knightly

Image source: activistpost.com

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.

Reaping Divine Justice: South Africa’s White Farmers Brace for Race War Amidst Land Expropriation Debate

https://rtd.rt.com/films/reaping-divine-justice-south-africa-land-expropriation/

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.

No to Christchurch Call: Put aside your hate of Trump for a day – he may have just saved free speech

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

https://www.rt.com/news/459563-christchurch-call-trump-macron/

Cambridge Capitulates to the Mob and Fires a Young Scholar

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.

<snip>

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.

Cambridge Capitulates to the Mob and Fires a Young Scholar

China: Muslim ‘Re-Education’ Camps Needed to Prevent Another New Zealand Massacre

China: Muslim ‘Re-Education’ Camps Needed to Prevent Another New Zealand Massacre
Wednesday, April 10, 2019

by JOHN HAYWARD
BREITBART.COM
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.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/04/10/china-muslim-re-education-camps-needed-prevent-another-new-zealand-massacre/

Autopsy of a Dead Coup

amgreatness.com

Autopsy of a Dead Coup

Victor Davis Hanson 15-19 minutes


The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.

Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.

Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.

The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

McCarthy-McConnell Republicans betrayed Trump, killed the wall

GOPUSA StaffRalph Z. Hallow, Washington Times
POSTED ON 6:50 AM FEBRUARY 19, 2019 3

Forget the sunny-side propaganda put out by all sides on the Great Border Security Compromise Act of 2019.
It’s intentionally fatal flaw lets southern-border municipalities nix wall construction on their turf for any reason they choose.
These local jurisdictions tend to be as blue as this monstrosity of an act should make you feel if you value American sovereignty.
So whether President Trump redirects $8 billion, $80 billion or $1 trillion to wall construction, the product will be a 1,954-foot hallway with enough permanently opened doors to let in the world.
Forget about legal clearance or lines.
That makes the new law a defeat for everything that President Trump has been striving to achieve. And a defeat as well for everyone else who, like the president, cherishes American exceptionalism and the rule of law.
This unnatural disaster happened because the Kevin McCarthy-Mitch McConnell Republicans in Congress betrayed Mr. Trump and then left him with no choice but to sign the legislation on Friday or get blamed for another government shutdown.
It’s a win for Mr. Trump only in the honest disgust he hurled at the law’s border-protection provisions before he inked his name to the measure’s 1,700 pages, with all the genuineness of an American POW signing a war-criminal confession in North Vietnam.
Otherwise, it’s a colossal defeat for America’s security, self-governance and self-respect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com