As the political coup against President Donald Trump continues, I was recently reminded of a 1964 film entitled Seven Days in May starring Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner. Paradoxically, the screenplay was written by Rod Serling, the same guy who created and narrated The Twilight Zone.
Coincidence? But I digress.
Serling’s screenplay was, in fact, based upon the novel of the same name that was written by the authors Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II. Published during the first year of John F. Kennedy’s presidency, the book was actually read by JFK who not only shared it with those in his circle, but also encouraged the production of the film. Unfortunately, however, President Kennedy never lived to see the movie play on the big screen.
The story of Seven Days In May describes a coup d’etat against a sitting president who desired peace with the Russians. Those behind the conspiracy believed the Russians could not be trusted and therefore took matters into their own hands by way of a scheme dubbed ECOMCON (Emergency Communications Control). The strategy was to assume command over America’s telephone, communications, radio, and television networks in an attempt to forestall the president’s plan from being implemented by Congress.
There are some who will say: ‘It can never happen here’. But this is the story of how it could happen in seven days of intrigue, of blackmail, of terror; an eternity of suspense. This is the astounding story of a military plot to overthrow the government of the United States; which, if successful, will change the fate of every American.
Does life imitate art? You decide.
May 1, 2018
– On May Day, special counsel Robert Mueller’s questions for Trump became the lead story across all media platforms. The questions, which could have been leaked either by the special counsel’s office or someone from Trump’s team, revealed an emphasis on obstruction of justice over Russian collusion.
– In response to outright censorship initiatives imposed by Twitter, Facebook, Google, and YouTube: Sixty-three conservative leaders issued a joint statement demanding fairer social media policies.
May 2, 2018
– Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign consultant who lost his house to legal fees because the Democrats lost the 2016 election – damned them all to hellfor their “witch hunt” congressional Russia probe.
– In response to having lost his attorney-client privilege, President Donald Trump acknowledged that he did, in fact, reimburse his attorney for hush money paid to a porn star. This, after he previously denied any knowledge of the matter just 28 days before.
May 4, 2018
– After weeks of stalling and stonewalling by the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI, redactions were lifted on two pages of the Russia report. Therein, it was revealed that both former FBI directors, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, believed that Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, never lied in his statements to the FBI. Therefore, the unredacted revelations also proved that Comey lied to Fox News’, Brett Baier, in an interview the week before.
– Another judge denied Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies, and 13 Russian citizens, for Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. Presidential Election win.
– It was revealed that former Secretary of State, John Kerry, never actually stepped down from that position as he continued to conduct secret diplomacy on behalf of the shadow state; even to the point of attempting to salvage the Iran deal he helped craft.
– The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) released a report revealing a sharp increase of U.S. call records. The 534 million records of phone calls and text messages of Americans in 2017 were triple of what was gathered in 2016.
– It was revealed FBI Director, Christopher Wray, had informed the Senate Judiciary Committee the FBI would NOT be investigating the illegal text communications that anti-trump FBI co-conspirators, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, sent to each other on their personal devices. This resulted in an angry response, with even more questions and demands, from Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA).
May 7, 2018
– President Donald Trump said he was he “fighting back” against the Russia probe and warned the “13 angry democrats” on the special counsel’s team regarding their “conflicts of interest”.
– While “fighting for the democracy” and “for America”, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters shouted “damn this president” at a unionized workers rally in Los Angeles.
Obviously, there is a war going on in the highest offices of the land. What moves, and countermoves, will be made next?
Could the elite bankers drop the stock market by 50% and, thus, create a blue wave in the midterm elections? Will Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, and the mysterious prosecutor, U.S. attorney John Huber, conveniently die in a plane crash as did the fictional presidential aide, Paul Girard, in the film Seven Days in May? Or, at the very least, will these men find allegorical bloody horseheads in their beds?
In the Seven Days in May film, the president withstood the coup, he emerged victorious, and the movie ended with a display of the U.S. Constitution.
Could Trump also prevail in making America great again?
Or will the global elite powerbrokers, and their deep state minions, succeed in burning down the United States so their New World Order can rise, like a phoenix, from the ashes?
Most terrorist propaganda is currently flagged and removed from Facebook via A.I. but hate speech is much trickier, CEO Zuckerberg maintains
(INTELLIHUB) — Facebook will deploy artificial intelligence (A.I.) to flag, and remove hate speech from the platform within the next 5-10 years, CEO Mark Zuckerberg told members of Congress Wednesday.
The social media mogul said hate speech is the hardest for A.I. to weed out.
“Some problems lend themselves more easily to AI solutions than others,” Zuckerberg told Commerce Committee John Thune (R-SD). “Hate speech is one of the hardest, because determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. You need to understand what is a slur and whether something is hateful, not just in English, but a majority of people on Facebook use it in languages that are different across the world.”
Zuckerberg maintains that most terrorist propaganda (i.e. ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda content) is currently removed from the social media platform before any humans feasts their eyes on it.
I have been commenting on social justice propaganda for quite some time; long before it was fashionable to do so, and long before there was an organized movement of support to defend commentators who dared to question the insane dictates of the cult of political correctness. In my article ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness’, published in early 2014, I outlined the basic philosophical underpinnings of political correctness and what these beliefs tend to lead to. At the time, the future for champions of individual liberty and reason appeared rather bleak. Today, I am happy to say the backlash against “third-wave feminism” and cultural Marxism has expanded beyond anything I could have dreamed.
I do not want to diminish or underestimate the threat still posed to personal freedom by the adherents of the social justice cult, but at this stage I think it is safe to say that political correctness is effectively a dead movement walking.
Recent statistics without bias are hard to come by. That said, the latest available numbers show that people who agree with “gender equality” are many, but those who identify as “feminist” are slim. In the U.S. this constitutes 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 that identify as feminist depending on which polls you look at, while in the U.K. feminists make up only 7 percent of the population.
According to the CDC, abortion rates from 2008-2014 fell to historic lows post Roe v Wade. Abortion being a primary platform and leverage issue for social justice warriors, I take it as a good sign that even in a time of severe economic instability people are backing away from abortion as an acceptable option.
Just as a general observation, social justice has not been a reliable driver for political success, considering the abject failure of the Clinton Campaign in 2016, which clung tightly to SJW ideologies throughout the election cycle.
And finally, social justice has also not been selling so great in the marketplace. This is most evident in the entertainment world, where movies created by producers with open social justice agendas continually fail to bring in expected box office numbers.
For example, the feminist-produced and-directed Ghostbusters reboot ended with a dismal showing compared to many other blockbuster movies of with the same production costs, ending its run with an estimated $70 million loss.
Feminist action films perpetuating the fantasy of physical parity between the sexes, like the movie Atomic Blonde, though receiving accolades from mainstream critics (like all social justice films do), have had embarrassing showings in theaters.
And finally, perhaps the biggest sign of a sea change against social justice in pop culture, even massive brand names like Star Wars are suffering when social justice propaganda is injected into the franchise. The latest installment, The Last Jedi, with its obvious and heavy-handed social justice messages, had one of the worst second week showings of all the Star Wars movies (adjusted for inflation) and only generated a little over half of the revenues brought in by The Force Awakens. Not to mention the highly critical audience reviews and the complete bomb the movie suffered in the Chinese market, which was supposed to help elevate revenues that were expected to be much higher.
So, what has spurred this societal rush for the exits when it comes to cultural Marxist ideals? There are many reasons why Americans in particular cannot stand these people. Here are just a few…
Deliberate Deconstructionism Of Root Mythologies
One of the core tenets of cultural Marxism is the destruction of a society’s vital mythologies and symbols. In other words, the very psychological archetypes that make up the collective unconscious are targeted.
This is one of the reasons why SJWs are so obsessed with the entertainment industry. Much of the art and stories that inspire us in modern times are found in film and television. Identity politics has been the premier staple of Hollywood the past decade, so much so that it is no longer even hidden. In fact, despite the reality that the SJW ideology has been proven to be a money loser, production companies are STILL pushing the issue, choosing political messages over profits. Parables are often more powerful than real events and present a tempting tool for mass mind control.
Social Justice deconstructionism is often mistaken as an unintended “business blunder,” but the truth is that these companies are absolutely aware of what they are doing. Cultural Marxists want to dismantle social and biological norms, moral principles and beloved heroes because they hope to create internal chaos within a nation. Once this occurs, they desire to then instill their ownideology on the confused and fearful populace.
Unmitigated Self-Indulgence
Social Justice is also rooted in the notion that self-indulgence and gluttony on every level should be celebrated as healthy and “progressive.” Sexuality is a purely recreational affair without consequence or physical and psychological responsibility. Not only this, but it should be pursued in as many forms as possible, and if a person sees something wrong with this or has a natural inclination to avoid these behaviors, then they are “homophobic,” “transphobic,” racist, fascist, etc.
Obesity is defended as “beautiful” and “wholesome” through the “body positivity movement,” even though it has been proven in every notable study to result in incessant health problems including diabetes, heart disease, birth defects, cancer and clinical depression.
And, perhaps the worst indulgence of all; the psychological indulgence of intellectual isolation is encouraged. “Safe spaces” are enforced as a means to protect the social justice cult from challenging ideas and people. Willful ignorance is applauded as ideological strength and an act of loyalty to the collective. All intellectual opponents are treated as monstrous criminals rather than merely informed adversaries with a different point of view.
The Attempted Erasure Of Masculinity
In my article ‘Will Manliness Make A Comeback In 2018‘ I outlined why masculinity in particular has been so often targeted by SJWs. In fact, masculinity represents an element of unpredictability to a society that is important to individual liberty but dangerous to the establishment. Femininity tends to lend itself far more to collectivism and, by extension, the desire to rely on an outside force like the government as a provider and for security when a masculine presence is not available.
When masculinity is repressed in a society and matriarchy is entrenched, such systems are historically doomed to failure and collapse. Superior production, invention, organization and security are a staple of a masculine foundation within a culture. The war on men is yet another product of cultural Marxist deconstructionism.
By extension, the assertion that masculinity is evil within men is often followed by the assertion that masculine displays by women are empowering and good. In this way, true femininity is also under attack, as women that enjoy and naturally gravitate towards biologically feminine roles are admonished by feminists as being “slaves of the patriarchy” or “breeders” that hold back the social justice movement.
Life Is About Emotional Validation
Validation without merit and demanded empathy without discrimination are time bombs within any culture. Social justice thrives on these disturbing ideals.
It is important to point out that these mindsets are often an extension of narcissism. Narcissists make up about 10% of any given population at any given point in history, which is interesting because latent sociopaths and psychopaths (as well as full blown sociopaths and psychopaths) also make up approximately 10% of any given population. SJWs are liable to display both narcissistic and sociopathic qualities, desiring constant emotional validation from all the people around them while also holding morally relativistic stances on most issues.
This does not mean that SJWs do not appear empathetic. Quite the opposite. Most narcissists and sociopaths are highly adept at hiding their aberrant character flaws behind causes, platitudes and virtue signaling. They have to believe that the things they do and the ideals they seek to enforce are grounded in moral soil, even though the consequences of these ideals are usually destructive. When confronted with reality, that they are the villains rather than the heroes they imagine themselves to be, they can become erratic and violent.
SJWs have effectively turned sociopathy and narcissism into a civil rights movement.
Identity Politics
SJWs see group identity as the defining factor in a person’s personal worth, as well as the worth inherent in their ideas and claims. Now to be fair, SJWs are not the only group guilty of this idiocy. The so-called “Alt-Right,” which is actually a tiny contingent of pretenders that claim to be “conservative,” is rampant with people that think skin color is somehow immediately reflective of mindset. While SJWs see all white people as inherently dangerous, the Alt-Right sees all non-white people as inherently dangerous. This of course ignores all cultural factors and individual factors for the sake of lazy broad brush politics and absurd non-solutions. These groups are basically two sides of the same coin.
That said, it is true that SJWs are the most aggressive and vicious of the two sides so far.
SJWs adore identity politics because they see victimhood as a currency. Victim group status can be used within a socialist/collectivist system to purchase entitlements from the state, which is the only god-figure that these people know or love. The more oppressed you are on the list of victim groups, the more stuff you can get from government, as long as that government is also collectivist in nature.
This helps to explain the sudden explosion in the trans-person fad over the past few years. White people in particular are extremely disadvantaged within the identity politics ladder of oppression, UNLESSthey identify as transgender. This allows them a quick route to victim status and social entitlements, swiftly surpassing other ethnic groups.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty – Trial By The Mob
Whenever I see SJWs in action I am always reminded of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, in which a man is prosecuted for a crime that is never explained to him and sentenced without understanding how or why. As his trial commences, he makes a rousing speech appealing to logic and reason but is laughed at by the hordes and the courts as if what he is asking for is ridiculous.
This is the social justice standard — to attack all opponents as inherently criminal. To label them racist, misogynistic, homophobic or privileged from birth by virtue of their skin color or gender. This argument even extends to “implicit bias” which they claim makes all white people specifically racist and advantaged without them even being consciously aware of it. They also accuse all men of being innately sexist and violent.
This allows SJWs to make indictments without evidence, for how can anyone ever prove or measure such a thing as “implicit bias” and show that they DON’T suffer from it. Proving a negative (a virtual impossibility) becomes the task the accused must perform to purify themselves before the court of social justice. It’s simpler for many to apologize for whatever they are accused of and sublimate in the hopes of redemption.
What many SJWs don’t seem to realize is that by using broad and abstract ideas such as “hate speech” as a means to attack and criminalize their opponents as guilty until proven innocent, they also open the door for governments to do the same using similar justifications.
A recent and horrifying example is the Spanish government’s implementation of “hate speech laws” against eight teachers that are vocal proponents of the Catalan separatist movement! What do Catalan issues have to do with hate speech? It doesn’t matter. As we critics of social justice have been warning for years, literally anything can be labeled “hate speech” without due process, and one day this might even come back to bite cultural Marxists on the ass.
A saying comes to mind which was popularized by Michael Savage, but stated first as far as I can tell in Ecclesiastes 9:10:
Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.
In other words, hell is a place without reason, and SJWs are seeking to construct hell on Earth.
Are Social Justice Warriors Actually Aliens From Another Planet?
This would help explain a lot, and I wish it were that easy. SJWs act like they cannot fathom humanity and despise the dictates of human nature. They display elements of moral relativism and lack critical thought. They seem to operate on a completely different set of intellectual and emotional rules. That which has sustained human society for thousands of years and hundreds of generations is not of any value to them. They almost seem to be studying how to dissect humanity rather than participate in humanity.
Unfortunately, these people are indeed entirely human, which is a depressing fact to say the least. They are what Carl Jung describes in his book The Undiscovered Self as an expression of the “collective shadow.” That 10% (and sometimes greater) of a nation that embraces sociopathic tendencies and organizes in the worst of economic and cultural conditions.
Luckily, this “invasion” is being squelched in the U.S., at least in the past couple of years. Before long, the term SJW may be a distant memory of a time that history will consider a brutal hallucination, rife with a mob based mental illness that almost consumed the world.
***
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
With global tensions spiking, thousands of Americans are moving their IRA or 401(k) into an IRA backed by physical gold. Now, thanks to a little-known IRS Tax Law, you can too. Learn how with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals how physical precious metals can protect your savings, and how to open a Gold IRA. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
Social media giant Twitter has begun their censorship in the form of a purge. Focusing on right-leaning accounts, Twitter has begun suspending well-known conservative users from their site.
Twitter began enforcing their new censorship rules to combat “hateful and abusive content” (aka, anything not leftist in nature according to conservatives) Monday and a number of well-known far-right organizations and users were suspended. The changes to the policy were announced last month and broadened Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy” to permanently suspend any account—covering usernames, profile bios, and display names—that displays “violent threats, multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear or reduces someone to less than human.”
According to Fox News, this will presumably include countless accounts bearing Nazi flags, swastikas, and similar symbols, but it certainly won’t stop there. Conservatives fear they will be shut down simply for disagreeing with the communist rhetoric Twitter allows.
Today I have received more abusive tweets and threatening messages than any other day in the past month. Congratulations on the new "policy". #TwitterPurge
— Craig R. Brittain for US Senate (R-AZ 2018) (@SenatorBrittain) December 18, 2017
So far, the mainstream media is calling this “purge” one of only the extremist hate groups. However, anyone with at least a few functioning brain cells understands that once censorship begins it will continue an in all likelihood, disproportionately affect those who disagree with the standard vein of mainstream opinion.
Among the accounts suspended Monday are those of white nationalist Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance group, and British far-right activists Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding, along with the American Nazi Party. Later in the day, Twitter suspended an account belonging to the New Black Panther Party, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a “virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization” that encourages violence against whites and Jews. In all fairness, Twitter has maintained their reputation by purging some left-wing hate groups from the social media platform too.
As a private company, Twitter has the legal and constitutional right to block any speech it wants, since the First Amendment only applies to the government’s control of speech. Ironically though, for years, Twitter billed itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party,” exerting little control over its legions of anonymous users.
Christine Brim speaking at the American Freedom Alliance Conference: “Crushing Free Speech – How the Left Silences Dissent and How We Can Fight Back”.
Christine Brim has worked in project management, risk assessment, business continuity planning, market research and media production for high-tech start-ups, U.S. government clients and Fortune 500 companies, especially in the IT and aerospace industries. She has published in the areas of policy, communications and logistics. She received her MBA from George Mason University and is certified in knowledge engineering. Previously she served at the Center for Security Policy as a vice president and chief operating officer. She is president of the Center for Policy Communications.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
In the report, placing the word "refugees" in quotation marks, as well as "unaccompanied children," is supposedly an expression of "hate". (Many, if not most, migrants classified as "unaccompanied children" have turned out to be grown men).
Government agencies are going out of their way to protect the "integrity" of possible jihadists out of concern for a "democratic society" -- the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy -- and are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the "integrity" of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up?
Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children. Far from countering "hate", Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.
The Swedish government is now officially questioning free speech. A government agency has declared so-called Swedish "new media" -- news outlets that refuse to subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxies of the mainstream media -- a possible threat to democracy. In a government report, tellingly called "The White Hatred" written by Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (Total Defense Research Institute), a government agency under the Swedish Ministry of Defense, Swedish new media such as Samhällsnytt (formerly known as Avpixlat), Nyheter Idag and Nya Tider are lumped together with neo-Nazi media such as Nordfront.
"Hate" is defined broadly to include violent extremism, "hateful expressions", jokes, internet trolling and even the use of certain quotation marks. For instance, in the report, placing the word "refugees" in quotation marks, as well as "unaccompanied children," is supposedly an expression of "hate". (Many, if not most, migrants classified as "unaccompanied children" have turned out to be grown men).
"One might find," according to the report"s conclusion, "that pluralism of information sources... is a positive addition in a democratic society where freedom of speech is an important foundation", but "the new media... stretch the limits of free speech," which "threatens other democratic values". The report further alleges that society risks becoming tolerant of the intolerant. That is rather rich coming from the authorities of a European country that has accepted Islamic intolerance to an astounding degree. There is even a proposal from a government minister to reintegrate returning ISIS fighters, who might still wish to destroy the tolerant society that houses them.
The report is part of a series commissioned by the Swedish government to conduct quantitative mapping and analyses of violent extremist propaganda spread in Sweden by the internet and social media. The survey is supposed to include violent extremist environments in Sweden: right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism and Islamic extremism.
A previous report, "The Digital Caliphate," supposedly looks at Islamic extremism, but is rendered useless in a Swedish context by explicitly refusing to engage with concrete ISIS propaganda in Sweden for "ethical" reasons:
"It is not in itself illegal to sympathize with violent ideologies. Our work is not about mapping the views of private people, as that would be incompatible with an open democratic society. Our analyses have therefore been limited to protect the integrity of private persons. No data has been collected from pages protected by passwords, closed Facebook pages or other types of Facebook pages or social media where the user has sought to keep the material within a closed group. All the material comes from open sources... this means that the material analyzed is limited as a large part of ISIS propaganda happens in closed channels..."
Government agencies in charge of national security, in other words, are going out of their way to protect the "integrity" of possible jihadists out of concerns for a "democratic society" -- the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy. Meanwhile, these agencies are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the "integrity" of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up? Furthermore, this desire to protect the privacy of potential jihadists means that the most vital part of the work -- mapping the extent of Islamist violent propaganda in Sweden -- is still left undone.
Sweden"s government agencies in charge of national security are going out of their way to protect the "integrity" of jihadists -- people like Mikael Skråmo, a Swedish convert to Islam and jihadist who went to fight for ISIS in Syria, and urged Muslims in Sweden to bomb their workplaces.
At the same time, the Swedish establishment has its own private vigilante mob acting as the thought police. A 76,000-member closed Facebook group, called "Jagärhär" ("I am here"), is a private initiative founded by journalist Mina Dennert to attack opinions on social media with which its members disagree. "She noticed that there were people around us who had been frightened into believing all these images painted by "alternative media" of people of foreign backgrounds as violent criminals... " explains Dennert"s husband, one of the group"s administrators, who works for Swedish state television. The network has already won four prizes for its "work" in Sweden, including a prize from the Swedish group "Equalisters" ("Rättviseförmedlingen"), which awarded the network their annual prize, naming it the group that had done the most for equality in 2016. Dennert was also awarded the Anna Lindh Prize.
The methods of "Jagärhär" vary. One tactic is to send mass complaints against a Facebook profile, causing it to be removed by the social media giant. This verdict by mob rule is what happened to the Swedish-Czech author Katerina Janouch, whose profile was shut down several times by Facebook -- the apparent result of publishing, among other things, a satirical guide to political correctness. The network, which is one year old, is believed to be closely associated with Sweden"s national public television and the Social Democratic party.
Mina Dennert, also with close connections to the Swedish government, had her network apply for half a million Swedish kroner (nearly $60,000) government grant to support its work, which involved shutting down dissent on social media. Her network, however, recently withdrew its application after its dubious "work" had been revealed by none other than the new media in Sweden. The Jagärhär network has apparently inspired similar projects in other countries, such as #IchBinHier in Germany.
Meanwhile, Islamic extremists in Sweden continue their work. In Malmö, Group 194 -- a Swedish-Muslim group that glorifies terrorism and actively sympathizes with the Arab terrorist group Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) -- participated in one of the DFLP"s activities in Malmö in 2016. At the meeting, in which Swedish socialists apparently also participated, the participants reportedly celebrated the Ma"alot massacre, an Arab terrorist attack on an Israeli school in 1974 in which 115 hostages (including 105 children) were taken and 25 were murdered. The group, it seems, also routinely carries posters of Arab terrorists when it marches in the streets of Malmö on International Workers" Day. Group 194"s entire work is focused on virulent anti-Israeli activism, as evidenced by its Facebook page. Sweden clearly has no problem with allowing hate speech from DFLP terrorists in Malmö.
This Swedish-Muslim group, bizarrely, is part of an initiative to make Malmö safe (Trygg Malmö or "Safe Malmö"). As part of this work, it is responsible for patrolling Rosengård -- one of the most problematic no-go zones in Malmö -- at night. The group was awarded SEK 10,000 (about $1,000) recently by the Malmö municipality -- together with the other groups in Trygg Malmö -- for its work in Rosengård. Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children.
Originally, a Swedish administrative court, in a recent decision, ruled that there was no basis for denying the Muslim organization Young Muslims of Sweden (SUM) its state subsidy. Young Muslims of Sweden, which is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, had been denied state subsidies by the Swedish Ministry of Youth and Civil Affairs, as Young Muslims of Sweden and its member organizations "have been identified as an environment" where some individuals do not respect the ideas of democracy. The Swedish court did not think that there was sufficient evidence for taking away the state subsidy, so Young Muslims of Sweden may soon find its activities funded by taxpayers once more.
Far from countering "hate", Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.
In perhaps the most intrusive move of social media platforms" efforts signal as much virtue as possible and appease their potentially-regulating government overlords, Twitter has announced that it is cracking down on what it defines at hate-speech and not just by looking at its own site.
In what amounts to a major shift in Twitter policy, Mashable"s Kerry Flynn reports that the company announced on Friday that it will be monitoring user"s behavior "on and off the platform" and will suspend a user"s account if they affiliate with violent organizations, according to an update to Twitter"s Help Center on Friday.
Abusive Behavior
We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.
Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether:
the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people;
the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.
Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism.
You also may not affiliate with organizations that - whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform - use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.
Abuse: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Hateful imagery and display names: You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category.
Furthermore, Twitter says it will control the stream of information more broadly...
At times, we may prevent certain content from trending.
As Kerry Flynn notes, these changes comes amid aggressive moves by Twitter to curb abuse and harassment on the site after more than a decade of essentially letting the abusers operate freely.
Over the last week, Twitter has taken action against the accounts of white supremacists. Twitter permanently banned Tim "Treadstone" Gionet, a prominent alt-right troll more widely known as Baked Alaska, earlier this week. It also removed the verification badges of Jason Kessler, one of the organizers of the racist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and of alt-right activist Richard Spencer.
Twitter"s decision to monitor users off site sparked concern from free speech advocates such as Andrew Torba, founder of social network Gab.
"This is a scary precedent to set," he wrote in an email to Mashable.
"Rules like this will only force dissidents and those who are speaking truth to power to silence themselves or risk being silenced by Twitter."
Twitter"s new rules will not be enforced until December 18th...
We’ve updated our rules around abuse and hateful conduct as well as violence and physical harm. These changes will be enforced starting December 18. Read our updated rules here: https://t.co/NGVT3qGFvg
And of course, "if you"re doing nothing wrong, then why would this be an issue for you" will be instant reposte of those defending yet more intrusion within America"s surveillance state.
Are the days of the free and open Internet numbered? The Internet is certainly used for all sorts of horrible things, but it has also allowed ordinary people to communicate on a mass scale that would have been unimaginable decades ago. In the old days, if you wanted to reach large audiences of people with your information you always had to go through corporate gatekeepers. But today, anyone with an Internet connection can literally broadcast whatever they want to say to the whole world. Personally, my wife and I have always been amazed at how many people we are able to touch all over the planet from our little home in the mountains. Over the past seven years our websites have been viewed more than 100 million times, and we receive emails about our work from people all over the globe.
Unfortunately, major changes may soon be coming to the Internet. The election of Donald Trump really angered the elite, and they are blaming the power of the Internet for his victory. They insist that something must be done “for the good of democracy”.
As lawmakers grapple with the revelations regarding Russia’s manipulation of social media during the 2016 election, many are shocked to learn the outsized role that the major tech companies play in so many aspects of our lives. Not only do they guide what we see, read, and buy on a regular basis, but their dominance – specifically in the market of information – now requires that we consider their role in the integrity of our democracy.
Last week’s hearings demonstrated that these companies may not be up to the challenge that they’ve created for themselves. In some instances, it seems that they’ve failed to take commonsense precautions to prevent the spread of propaganda, misinformation, and hate speech.
Those are very ominous words.
So precisely what would constitute “propaganda”, “misinformation” or “hate speech”?
When you start regulating speech, you cross a very dangerous line. There is a reason why our founders guaranteed us freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, because if we don’t have the freedom to say what we want then what do we really have left?
During the presidential election, there was a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton’s health. The mainstream media insisted that she was just fine, and they accused those of us in the alternative media that were questioning her health of engaging in “propaganda” and “misinformation”. Well, it turns out that we now know that Clinton’s health was so bad that Donna Brazile was actually considering replacing her as the nominee, and so it was actually the mainstream media that was putting out “propaganda” and “misinformation”.
Any effort to institute some sort of “truth police” would take us significantly down the road to totalitarianism, but apparently that is what Franken wants. In fact, he is openly suggesting that it is time for government regulators to step in…
Instead of simply trusting the big tech companies to police how their services are being used and abused, Franken suggested that regulators need to step in. Lawmakers should take a closer look at the influence technology plays in the everyday lives of Americans by conducting “vigorous oversight in the form of investigations and hearings to fully understand current practices and the potential for harm,” the Minnesota senator said.
“I’m hopeful that recent events will encourage regulators, as well as a broader contingent of my colleagues — on both sides of the aisle — to give this issue the attention it deserves,” he said.
So once government regulators begin regulating speech on the Internet, where will it end?
Will everything that we do on the Internet have to be evaluated for “truthiness” before it is allowed to be posted?
And who decides what the “truth” actually is?
I am a big believer in the marketplace of ideas. I have always been convinced that if everyone is allowed to openly share what they believe that the truth will win in the end.
Of course the elite are scared of the free exchange of ideas, because that gives the people way too much control over their own destiny. Prior to the Internet age, they were always in control of the flow of information in our society, but now things have changed dramatically.
They desperately want to get control of the Internet, because they want things to go back to the way that they used to be. But we can’t allow that to happen, and so we must greatly resist any attempts to regulate speech on the Internet.
(TechCrunch) A new law has come into force in Germany aimed at regulating social media platforms to ensure they remove hate speech within set periods of receiving complaints — within 24 hours in straightforward cases or within seven days where evaluation of content is more difficult.
The name of the law translates to ‘Enforcement on Social Networks’. It’s also referred to as NetzDG, an abbreviation of its full German name.
Fines of up to €50 million can be applied under the law if social media platforms fail to comply, though as Spiegal Online reports there is a transition period for companies to gear up for compliance — which will end on January 1, 2018. However the Ministry in charge has started inspections this month.
Social platform giants such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were couched as the initial targets for the law, but Spiegal Online suggests the government is looking to apply the law more widely — including to content on networks such as Reddit, Tumblr, Flickr, Vimeo, VK and Gab.
The usage bar for complying with the takedown timeframes is being set at a service having more than two million registered users in Germany.
While Spiegal Online reports that the German government is intending to have 50 people assigned to the task of implementing and policing the law.
It also says all social media platforms, regardless of size, must provide a contact person in Germany for user complaints or requests for information from investigators. Recent queries will need to be answered within 48 hours or risk penalties, it adds.
One obvious question here is how any fines could be applied across international borders if a social media firm has no bricks-and-mortar presence in Germany, though.
A new survey published by The Brookings Institution finds that about one-in-five undergraduate students approve of using violence to shut down controversial speakers.
A majority of undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities also agreed with a hypothetical protest in which a group “opposed to the speaker disrupts the speech by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker.”
According to the survey, 51 percent of students agreed that such a demonstration would be acceptable, while 49 percent disagreed. Not surprisingly, the response to the hypothetical scenario was also largely partisan, with 62 percent of Democrats approving of the protest, compared to just 39 percent of Republicans .
“I find the numbers in the above table to be highly concerning, because they show that a very significant fraction of students, across all categories, believe it is acceptable to silence (by shouting) a speaker they find offensive,” wrote John Villasenor, the author of the survey and a Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow.
The study further found that 19 percent of responders said that they approved of using violence “to prevent the speaker from speaking.” An 81 percent majority, on the other hand, did not approve of the violent approach.
“A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive,” Villasenor wrote.
While 39 percent of responders indicated that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, 44 percent said that it is not protected by the document. Another 16 percent remained undecided.
In one survey question, the students were also asked if they prefered a learning environment where certain views are prohibited versus an open learning environment “where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints.”
According to the study, 53 percent of responders said that they prefer the former while only 47 percent chose the latter.
“The survey results establish with data what has been clear anecdotally to anyone who has been observing campus dynamics in recent years: Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses,” Villasenor wrote.
“In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like ‘we fully support the First Amendment, but…’),” he asserted that “freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations.”
Villasenor surveyed a pool of 1,500 undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities between August 17 - 31. The margin of error is between 2-6 percent.
Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws.
One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.”
This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.
The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas?
No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?
The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”
This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government.
The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles outfree speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”
This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime.
I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.
Although he has apologized for his actions, according to Scotland resident Mark Meechan, he set about to “p—s off” his girlfriend, and says that he’s no racist.
Now Meechan is on trial for hate crime charges—facing a year in prison.
“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is,” Meecham said. “And so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi.”
The video shows the dog appearing to raise its paw in a Nazi salute when Hitler is heard proclaiming “Seig Heil,” as the dog watches footage of a rally during the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin.
Meecham can be heard on the footage asking the dog: “Buddha, do you want to gas the Jews?” and“Who’s a good wee Nazi?”
But, does this activity actually raise to the level of a hate crime?
Advertisment
Scottish prosecutors say it does.
The “M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi” video, posted in April 2016, which has been viewed over 3 million times, shows the dog becoming agitated every time it hears the word “Jews.”
While some people clearly see the video as satire, others believe that it was anti-Semitic.
In an interview with Alex Jones, Meecham said that shortly after posting the video he received a visit from police to his North Lanarkshire, Scotland residence. Officers informed him that the video promoted violence against Jews, and placed him under arrest.
Meecham is now on trial for violating the Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes the use of public telecommunications to send messages that discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs
READ MORE:Infuriating Video Exposes Cops Who Think the 1st and 2nd Amendments are Crimes
Critics of the video claim that it crosses the line from satire, to promoting violence against Jews—with some claiming that any comedy using anything Hilter, or Nazi related, normalizes Nazism.
Scottish prosecutors allege that by posting a video on YouTube that was “anti-Semitic in nature,” the material communicated would cause fear and alarm, and stir up religious based hatred, according to the Telegraph.
He also faces an alternative charge of posting a video on social media and YouTube that was grossly offensive because it was “anti-Semitic and racist in nature,” according to The Washington Post.
The prosecutors say the act was aggravated by religious prejudice, a claim Meechan disputes.
“I feel in the long run I didn’t do anything wrong,”he told Jones of InfoWars. “It was clearly satire. It was clearly a joke. I wasn’t setting out to cause any offense to any people. If anything I was wanting people to laugh and just obviously, it was taken the wrong way.”
Meecham says that if he is found guilty, he faces a year in prison.
Cases like this reveal exactly why the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment is so crucial.
While some speech may be extreme and repulsive, the prohibition on certain ideas, even the most repugnant, being put into the public marketplace of ideas is a fast track to totalitarian governmental control—essentially legitimizing the “thought police.”
Similar “hate crime” laws are common across much of Europe.
READ MORE:Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube Sign Pledge to Suppress Speech and Promote "Counter Narratives"
Dubbed the neo-Nazi grandma, Ursula Haverbeck—who is well known for her extremist right-wing views—was convicted in a German court of violating hate speech laws.
According to German state-run broadcaster, Deutsche Welle:
A court in Detmold on Friday sentenced Ursula Haverbeck to eight months in jail on charges of sedition. The presiding judge ruled out the possibility of parole and said that Haverbeck had a lack of “any kind of respect” and that she had made more offensive comments in the courtroom.
Haverbeck is expected to appeal against the sentencing. In Germany, anyone who publicly denies, endorses or plays down the extermination of Jews during Adolf Hitler’s regime can be sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail.
Haverbeck was found guilty of writing a letter to Detmold’s mayor, Rainer Heller, saying it was “clearly recognizable” that Auschwitz was nothing more than a labor camp. She wrote her message at the time when the Detmold court was trying Reinhold Hanning, a former guard who served at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
In Germany, Volksverhetzung, or in English “incitement of the masses,” “instigation of the people,” is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, according to WikiPedia.
In the U.S., incitement of violence is criminal, but “assaults against human dignity of others by insulting, malicious maligning, or defaming segments of the population” are considered an exercise of free speech, and are protected under the First Amendment.
READ MORE:REVEALED: World"s Largest News Agency Worked with Hitler to Feed Americans Nazi Propaganda
Even the most crude or hurtful speech must be protected to safeguard against unwarranted exercise of governmental power in the form of the widespread censoring of thoughts and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of—in the name of “keeping people safe.”
Unless inciting violence, the right of the people to share ideas—no matter how repugnant—is not something that governmental authorities should have the ability to censor as it is seemingly the most basic of all natural rights.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Hall in Friends of Voltaire
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act!”-George Orwell
What a last couple of weeks it has been, America!
The Communists are doing their best to stir up domestic insurrection from Charlottesville to the tearing down of national statutes.
Our neutered, stand-by president posted the following on Twitter:
“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statutes and monuments.”
“…Can’t change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson- who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish.”
…the beauty is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!”
Wow, the former plant and foreign criminal Barack Hussein Obama is being pointed to as the responsible party for the present turmoil while the current president acts as if he is not the Commander and Chief.
All the while, the media is keeping you diverted from the statue of KKK member Robert Byrd and friend of Hillary Clinton which stands in the halls of Congress, and Vladimir Lenin’s statute in Seattle, Washington.
They are telling on themselves America.
And to think that these people are busy at work calling you law-abiding American citizens everything in the book from haters to right wing extremists to racists, which is a word create by Leon Trotsky under the murderous regime of Joseph Stalin to brow beat those who stood against their lawlessness (Revelation 12:10).
All the while, they are accusing you of what they are guilty of!
Just ask propaganda minister under Adolph Hitler, Joseph Goebbels.
“Accuse the other side of which you are guilty.”
Let me tell you from firsthand experience as to how this works from engaging in thousands of speaking events: High school assemblies, colleges, tea parties, radio, television etc.
They are attempting to demonize (Luke 23:1) anyone that tells the truth, which exposes them for who they are (John 15:22).
What Americans are not paying attention to is that the fact that they are now dealing with what the school system in this country has raised up! (Luke 7:35)
In speaking to high school assemblies across the country, I would take the time to show them their history while teaching them the Constitution of the United States.
I was kicked out of a high school for exposing the murder of the innocent (Proverbs 6:17), namely, the abortion industries trail of blood money.
I was kicked out of a high school for simply bringing the message to Florida’s immoral and indoctrinated school system.
All the while, they were rewarding me “evil for good, and hatred for my love” (Psalm 109:5).
Jesus said, “These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:12-13).
And boy, oh boy, do they hate! Since when did hate ever tell the truth? Love does that.
Remember Cain and Abel?
“Therefore we are not to be as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” -1 John 3:12-13
We have been commanded to love our brethren…
“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” -Leviticus 19:7
Remember what 2 Chronicles 19:10 says?
“And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the LORD, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass.”
Why do they hate the Christians?
Jesus said, “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” (John 7:7)
We know that God is love (1 John 4:8).
And we know that love rejoiceth not in iniquity, which is lawlessness (1 John 3:4; 1 Corinthians 13:6).
In Romans 12:9, it tells us to,
“Let love be without dissimulation (a hiding under a false appearance). Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”
And why?
Because love works no ill (Romans 13:10), and it owes our brothers and sisters the truth which makes men free (John 8:32).
You see, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
Nor are we to,
“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10)
So, when they speak out against God’s truth, know then and there that you are dealing with those who do not understand love.
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” -Revelation 12:17
Ending on a positive, while the media is doing its best to demonize American Christian patriots, what is it the students in the high schools got out of my message?
This is why the enemy within is attacking. Because the truth, like a lion, will not only defend itself (Matthew 16:17-19), but it will also take to the enemy’s territory to dispossess (Exodus 23).
Then again, who is asking for permission from the devil to obey The Lord? (Isaiah 56)
