The progressive, far-left-wing faction in US politics is aggressively pursuing so-called “deplatforming”: denying their opponents any outlet or medium or channel from or through which to make their views known. It’s more than censorship. It’s a blatant attempt to ensure that an entire viewpoint or perspective never reaches those who might be persuaded by it.
Fortunately, its ideological proponents make no secret of their motivation — and thereby expose their own intolerance. …
Donald Trump, first as candidate and now as president, is such a significant news story that responsible journalists must report on him. But this does not mean that he should be allowed to set the terms of the debate. [Agreed — but neither should anyone else.]
Research shows that repeatedly hearing assertions increases the likelihood of belief — even when the assertions are explicitly identified as false. Consequently, when journalists repeat Trump’s repeated lies, they are actually increasing the probability that people will believe them.
Even when journalistic responsibility requires reporting Trump’s views, this does not entail giving all of his spokespeople an audience. [So, you can say whatever you like, provided you do so in a howling wilderness where no other human being can hear you?]
There are many on the left who follow this specious reasoning. It’s at the root of campaigns to deny conservatives a platform on Twitter, Facebook, etc. — all while largely ignoring actively evil contributors like terrorists, pedophiles and others. It’s as much a lie as justifying violence against political opponents.
French President Emmanuel Macron has effectively declared that race does not exist, and pledged to rewrite the constitution to remove the word and reflect the values of liberty, equality and fraternity espoused after the 1789 revolution.
After the Second World War and the Nazi occupation the French government rewrote the constitution to enshrine in law the principle that citizens were “indivisible” and made it illegal to compile statistics about ethnicity. …
He is backing campaigners who say that since all humans are 99.9 per cent identical from a genetic point of view, the idea that humanity can be divided into different races is nonsense.
Imbecilic. Someone who isn’t perceptive enough to notice that there are races shouldn’t be running a cake stall, let alone a country.
Professional provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos has denied he incited today’s deadly shooting at a newspaper office which claimed the lives of at least five people.
A white male suspect has been taken into custody after the shooting at the Capital Gazette office in Annapolis, Maryland.
It has emerged that the former senior editor for Breitbart News had this week told two journalists that he “can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists”. …
Yiannopoulos … said in his Facebook post the death squad texts were a joke.
“I sent a troll about ‘vigilante death squads’ as a *private* response to a few hostile journalists who were asking me for comment, basically as a way of saying, ‘F**k off’. They then published it. Amazed they were pretending to take my joke as a ‘threat’, I reposted these stories on Instagram to mock them — and to make it clear that I wasn’t being serious.”
He said it was likely the shooter was left-wing.
“I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this shooter — just like the last one at YouTube — is another demented left-winger. Let’s hope it’s another transgender shooter, too, so the casualties are minimal.
“The Left celebrated the shooting of Scalise and regularly incites violence against Trump supporters.”
UPDATE: It’s not just Milo, but also Trump who caused the shooting:
A Twitter account matching Ramos’ name with a location of Laurel, Maryland, includes years of tweets railing against Capital Gazette and includes details of a years long legal dispute with the company.
According to an unreported 2015 opinion filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Ramos pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in July 2011. Five days later, an article about the case appeared in The Capital, one of Capital Gazette’s publications. The story detailed accusations by a woman who said Ramos harassed her online and off for months, calling her employer and trying to get her fired. The woman eventually went to the police and Ramos pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of harassment in 2011.
The Twitter account that matches Ramos’ name began tweeting about Capital Gazette several months after the conviction.
In July 2012, Ramos filed suit against Capital Gazette for defamation, according to the 2015 court filing. The complaint was just four paragraphs long, but Ramos filed a longer 22-page claim several months later.
In 2012, a judge dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that “there is absolutely not one piece of evidence, or an assertion by you that the statement [in the article] was false.”
“I think people who are the subject of newspaper articles, whoever they may be, feel that there is a requirement that they be placed in the best light, or they have an opportunity to have the story reported to their satisfaction, or have the opportunity to have however much input they believe is appropriate,” Judge Maureen M. Lamasney said when dismissing the case. “But that’s simply not true. There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false.”
Notice that he hasn’t tweeted anything for two years, than suddenly, earlier today, one last tweet. Somehow this mass shooting is revenge against the judge (Charles Moylan) who ruled against him. It has nothing to do with Trump or politics.
This guy is just some crazy guy obsessed with this newspaper doing him wrong. The photo on his twitter feed is not Ramos, it’s the reporter that he sued.
The political circus will move on fast now. Nothing of interest to either side, just a bit of fake news from the left now retracted.
Despite its worthy reputation as the birthplace of political correctness, the United States is relatively free of legislation that outlaws so-called hate speech. Unlike Australians, American citizens can speak without fear of being summoned before a government tribunal to answer accusations they have, whether intentionally or otherwise, caused offence. …
Now that is about to change. Last week The Wall Street Journal, having obtained a leaked ACLU document, revealed the organisation is revising its case selection guidelines. Traditionally it has defended free speech matters as a matter of principle rather than on their content. Yet it now endorses the view “that speech that denigrates [marginalised] groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.” …
Any guesses what this is code for? I’ll give you a clue: the document contains negative references to “ultra-right groups” but is silent on the malevolence and thuggery of left-wing extremists such as Antifa and other so-called anti-fascist groups.
If you are a white conservative or if you espouse ideals that favour the individual over the collective, chances are the ACLU will not represent you.
If however you don a black balaclava and menace, shout-down, and even assault those few conservatives brave enough to speak on campus these days, you can expect the ACLU to champion your right to protest. …
As any member of ACLU’s Australian counterparts could tell you, defending the free speech of those with whom you disagree is so last century. Hell, they even publicly fawn over those ridiculously well-paid officials who seek to regulate speech. Who could forget Gillian Triggs, the then president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, who last year appeared at a Greens-affiliated Bob Brown Foundation event and lamented the fact that people were free to say what they like around the kitchen table at home? Instead of denouncing those comments as the hallmark of a totalitarian state, Liberty Victoria bestowed its Voltaire Award on Triggs for “her courageous stand on people’s rights, especially free speech.”
Contrary to every single New York Times editorial and opinion piece on the president’s “Muslim ban,” this week, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
Or, as a Times op-ed put it back on Jan. 27, 2017: “(T)he order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin. …” — “Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal,” by David J. Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
For your immigration news, New York Times, maybe stop thinking you’re getting “both sides” by going to open borders activists at the International Refugee Assistance Project and, for the opposing view, open borders activists at the Cato Institute. …
The lunacy of open borders, Coulter-style:
What is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty and misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture? …
Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators. …
Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.
In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.
Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures.
Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. …
Feminists may see the world as the Boy team versus the Girl team, but in reality, it’s the Civilized team versus the Primitive team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in.
How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?
The infiltration of non-Muslim countries by Islam is one of the strategies Mohammed devised when creating his ideology. His initial approach was persuasion through infiltration and, if that failed, he then adopted a military strategy through conquest and total domination. This is still Islam’s approach today.
The financing of universities by Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for gaining critical leverage and massive influence has been endemic in the United States but also other Western countries, including Australia. This enables these oppressive Islamic regimes to strategically insert academics who become prominent and thus extremely influential in corrupting the minds of gullible students.
There is no Centre for Western Civilisation in Australian universities. However, there are plenty of centres dedicated to the promotion of Islamic states and societies.
Take a look for instance at the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia. Its director is Samina Yasmeen (BSc Punjab, MSc Quaid-i-Azam, MA ANU, PhD Tas), a self-described expert in ‘the role of Islam in world politics’. When the media reported violent protests in Sydney by radical Muslims attacking the police, she dared to create a moral equivalence between the violence of Muslims and the so-called ‘violence’ of YouTube videos that ‘inflame emotions across the Muslim world.’ These videos ‘violate the special place assigned to Prophet Mohammed. Any disrespect is felt as an intrusion into this sacred space’, she said. …
You cannot criticize our totalitarian ideology and death cult because we are also a “religion”:
The federal Labor Party apparently seeks to follow Professor Yasmeen’s advice. It wishes to do so by extending the reach of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to cover religion. …
One of the greatest ironies of anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds is that their chief beneficiaries are a small but vocal group of Islamic extremists, although it is not clear why such people should merit statutory protection from severe criticism: surely the contrary is required.
Most of the plastic waste comes from just a few countries, mostly in Asia and Africa.
25% is “leakage” from Asian waste management processes — the rest is waste that has never been collected, but is simply thrown into rivers.
But European countries ship inject huge quantities of waste into Asian waste management streams, ostensibly for recycling. As much as 20% — millions of tons every year — ends up in the oceans and will continue to do so.
Since the Chinese banned waste imports at the start of the year, shipments have been diverted to other Asian countries with even weaker environmental controls.
EU recycling is therefore a major contributor to marine waste and increasing recycling will therefore simply increase marine litter.
It is clear that the European contribution to marine waste is a result of our efforts to recycle. However, several countries have already shown that they can reduce this contribution to near zero, by simply incinerating waste.
Despite this success, the EU is trying to redouble recycling efforts and to close down the incineration route, mistakenly believing that this will reduce carbon emissions.
Mumbai has the become the largest Indian city to ban single-use plastics, with residents caught using plastic bags, cups or bottles to face penalties of up to 25,000 rupees (£276) and three months in jail from Monday.
Council inspectors in navy blue jackets have been posted across the city to catch businesses or residents still using plastic bags. …
Local media have reported complaints from vendors who say some inspectors are using confusion over the ban to extort money from businesses. …
Discontent about Mumbai’s ban was made worse on Monday by torrential rain, which Chaudhary said had soaked through the jute or cloth bags many people were using as an alternative to plastic.
The plastic problem:
About 6.3bn tonnes of plastic globally has been discarded into the environment since 1950, most of which will not break down for at least 450 years.
Half of the world’s plastic was created in the past 13 years and about half of that is thought to be for products used once and thrown away, such as bags, cups or straws.
Plastics are made of hydrocarbons, so they burn well. Incineration to generate electricity would seem like the appropriate way to deal with used plastic.
The Kremlin has masterminded an elaborate scheme to undermine American fossil-fuel production and distribution, concludes a report by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Released March 1, the report, “Russian Attempts to Influence U.S. Domestic Energy Markets by Exploiting Social Media,” reveals how Russia has teamed up with U.S. and European environmental groups to use such popular outlets as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to turn American public opinion against the domestic oil and natural gas industry.
With the United States having surpassed Russia as the world’s largest producer of natural gas, and now ranking as the world’s fastest-growing producer of oil, the Russians have reason to fear what is more than a little competition. Saying America’s soaring energy development “poses a direct threat to Russian energy interests,” the report explains:
“First, an abundance of American energy supply in the global energy marketplace stands to reduce Russian market share and thus revenues generated from oil and gas activities. Second, by providing supply alternatives to European countries dependent on Russian supply and infrastructure, American energy stands to disrupt the Kremlin’s ability to leverage energy consumption for geopolitical influence.”
The Democratic Party’s activists are picking candidates based on their racial, sexual, and cultural tribes instead of their ideology, the Washington Post admits.
In a June 26 New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, by appealing to voters’ “tribal identities of class, age, gender and ethnicity,” not their ideology, said the Post‘s article.
The article is headlined “The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate,” and it continues:
… Democratic voters are increasingly embracing diversity as a way to realize the change they seek in the country.
Given an option, Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates, often at the expense of the white male candidates who in past years typified the party’s offerings.
The “tribal trend,” said the Post, is driven by “the party’s growing dependence on female and minority voters,” and it has sidelined the expected ideological disputes between left and far-left candidates …
The paper notes the very different divides in the GOP, where rival candidates champion and compromise rival ideological viewpoints, largely independent of their personal stories, race, sex, origin or lineage … Unlike tribal Democrats who organize themselves into semi-fixed identity groups, the conservative GOP conserves the classical intellectual ideals built into the U.S. Constitution, and which aspires to help all people compromise on their voluntary political differences, regardless of color, sex, creed or tribe.
Noooo, say it isn’t so. What happened to the beautiful utopia free of racism and sexism that the left has been promoting for decades?
Diversity is just another name for prejudice against white males.
Like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore said: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
Prominent Democratic pollster Mark Penn said on Thursday that a vast majority of Americans don’t really support so-called sanctuary cities that shield immigrants in the country illegally from deportation.
Penn, who served as chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, revealed that 84 percent of Americans favor turning undocumented immigrants over to federal agents.
The latest trend in left virtue signalling. Immigration is THE issue at the moment, throughout the West.
These leftists really want no borders. What dd they think will happen? More left-voters, and bigger welfare budgets for them to administer!
Note also that you cannot signal virtue on an issue that everyone agrees upon. For example, promoting motherhood doesn’t set you apart from the crowd. Which is why trendy lefties are always seeking new but unpopular causes to champion — and if they win, its called “progress.”
So there is good news and bad news when it comes to the prevalence of extreme Mother Theresa-level poverty. It’s disappearing in much of the world, fortunately, but not in Africa. It’s not so much that Sub-Saharan Africa is getting poorer as it’s getting bigger.