On the same day streaming platform Twitch suspended Donald Trump’s account for violating their hateful conduct policy, social networking site Reddit has shut down its largest group supportive of the president.
Banned for hate speech by Twitch and Reddit.
The subreddit ‘The_Donald’ was the most popular community devoted to supporters of the president and included more than 790,000 users, who often used the space to post political memes and videos. Reddit executives have accused the group of targeting and harassing individuals and consistently breaking its conduct rules. …
Twitch flagged and removed multiple pieces of content from the president as hateful -– some of which is incredibly old, including a rebroadcast of Trump’s kickoff rally, in which he infamously claimed that many illegal immigrants are the “worst” Mexico has to offer, like rapists. …
Reddit also banned multiple other accounts for violating their policies, though some have accused the company of using a mass ban to cover up a bias against the Trump community. “Reddit’s ban [of] a bunch of mostly irrelevant subreddits … is just cover to ban r/The_Donald, which was the largest pro-MAGA community on the Internet,” tweeted YouTuber and Human Events Managing Editor Ian Miles Cheong. …
Twitch sold to Amazon in 2014, making it a subsidiary of a company owned by Jeff Bezos, a frequent critic of Trump who has clashed with the president multiple times on Twitter [and who owns the Washington Post].
Will Twitter ban Trump before November 3? You know they want to. Probably already penciled in for some day in October.
He also rejected the accusation that he advocated violence, saying he has always “advanced the non-aggression principle”. His account had nearly 1 million subscribers. …
The idea that large groups of people can differ statistically is now forbidden:
The company issued updated rules barring “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”
Except of course when the differences are just too obvious to deny, such as that some groups have more melanin on average than others. (The dividing line between “obvious” and “forbidden” is blurry at present, because it is in motion.)
Or are YouTube saying that only group-differences speech that justifies discrimination is banned? In which case the harm is in the discrimination, not the speech about group differences. The PC mob cannot have it both ways. They now suppress truth and decry color-blind behavior, which is exactly the wrong way around on both counts. The PC crew now insist you treat people differently based on the color of their skin, which is a long-standing and traditional perversion of the left (for example).
I just checked on YouTube, and “White Men Can’t Jump” is still there. (But “Black Men Can’t Think” has been removed. Just kidding, no one would be mean or fearless enough to make a movie like that!)
A massive number of major corporations are falling in line and will boycott Facebook in July by not advertising at the social media web site giant for at least the month.
The alleged Facebook “crime” is that it has not censored enough “hate” posts. In other words, Facebook has allowed too much freedom of speech as far as the Mao crowd is concerned.
Zuckerberg is the new Robespierre, falling afoul of the mob for not being left enough. Q: Where can I get off the purity spiral? A: You can’t comrade, you can’t.
Corporate America is either in line with the thinking of the Mao crowd or fears them.
More than 150 companies have decided to stop advertising spending on Facebook for the month, including Verizon, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Honda, Lending Club, Ben and Jerry’s and The North Face. The full list of boycotters is updated here. …
The advance of the radical leftists continues to accelerate.
It is very difficult to judge how much staying-power this anti-capitalist movement has but it has to be taken extremely seriously. They for sure are not playing.
For example, they are now threatening Target because the retailer calls the police on blacks who shoplift.
Michael Shellenberger was, a long time ago, very Green. Among other things, he was named a Time magazine Heroes of the Environment (2008), winner of the 2008 Green Book Award. In 2015, Shellenberger joined with 18 other self-described ecomodernists to coauthor An Ecomodernist Manifesto. He’s been shifting through a transition over the years from extreme Green, to pragmatic Green (pro nuclear in 2004, see his TEDX in 2017) and now to a pro-civilization, pro power, anti-alarmist. But seemingly not as far as to become a climate science skeptic?
At first he didn’t speak because he was embarrassed. Then he was afraid:
“…mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declinedby an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
How’s he going to feel when we point out the error in the climate models? It was all a technical mistake, made decades ago and buried under huge near-impenetrable computer models?
The homeowner told KMOV4 he came out armed because the protesters allegedly burst through a historic gate on the way to his property.
He said, “A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives.”
CBS News reported that the protesters were merely “passing by” …
However, there’s some context missing from many headlines:
“Where in your article does it say the passed through a PRIVATE PROPERTY gate, marked with NO TRESPASSING signs?
“A white couple” who the hell cares what color they are? They were defending their property from an angry mob of 500 people.
The media of course are delighted that they have found rich, white Trump supporters apparently behaving badly. Not so fast…
Even two years ago, hypersonic weapons were barely an item of discussion among the US national security establishment. Today these weapons are all the rage. What accounts for that sudden emergence of US interest in this category of weapons…?
The existing generation of slow missiles are too vulnerable to air defenses:
The triggering reason is most likely the failure of US, French, and British stand-off weapons used against Syria, specifically against targets covered by modern air defenses. Russian and even Soviet-era surface-to-air gun and missile systems racked up an impressive tally of successful interceptions of Tomahawk cruise missiles that still represent the most important component of the US stand-off weapon arsenal. Even the supposedly stealthy cruise missiles like France’s SCALP-EG, Great Britain’s Storm Shadow, and the US JASSM-ER proved to have low survivability against modern defenses. Israel’s equivalent munitions were not an exception to that rule, as they too had to rely on saturation attacks or, more likely, striking targets that were outside the integrated air defense bubble. …
You either go stealth or fast. The West gambled on stealth, but increasingly it looks like hypersonic — the way the Russians went — is a better bet.
Whereas the US military establishment embraced stealth as a “silver bullet” technological solution to all manner of tactical and even strategic problems, Russia’s approach was more measured. While the studies that have led to this conclusion probably will remain classified for a long period of time, the Russian military came to the reasonable conclusion that since avoiding detection cannot be guaranteed, the best way to deal with missile defenses is to decrease exposure time by making the missiles ever-faster.
This trend was already evident during the Cold War, when NATO settled for subsonic anti-ship missiles such as the Exocet, Harpoon, Penguin, Otomat, and ultimately the Tomahawk which had both anti-ship and land-attack applications, which relied on stealth of sorts in the form of flying at extremely low altitudes. USSR, on the other hand, already by the late 1960s was making a major investment in highly supersonic air-, surface- and submarine-launched missiles. By 1980s, Soviet weapons were increasingly employing air-breathing ramjet propulsion which pushed their speeds ever-closer to the hypersonic realm. …
The US recently started down the hypersonic route as well:
Not even the rapid deterioration of Russia-NATO relations in 2014 and later years led to visibly greater interest in these weapons. The Trump Administration’s two rounds of cruise missile strikes against Syria, however, appear to have had that effect. As a result, every service of the US military is interested in the development of at least one weapon system that would provide it with hypervelocity strike capabilities.
Henry Kaufman was a former senior partner of Salomon Brothers and, during the early part of the 1980s, the bond market reacted to every word he said.
He was such an influential Wall Street analyst that when David Stockman was head of the Office of Management during the early part of the Reagan administration, he visited Kaufman in New York City to try and convince him there was a Reagan plan to bring the U.S. budget under control.
Kaufman didn’t buy it. …
Kaufman’s considered opinion today:
American capitalism is rapidly disappearing. Its demise has been under way for some time and the economic devastation wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic is the latest blow to our political economy. …
[C]apitalism is being rapidly replaced by statism — a form of political economy in which the state exercises substantial centralised control over social and economic affairs. …
Historically, the Fed has been viewed as somewhat independent from immediate political interests. But the central bank’s response to the onset of the pandemic-related recession shows that its quasi-independence is quickly evaporating, contributing to the emerging statism….
It is buying not only government bonds but also corporate bonds — including low-quality issues, mortgage obligations, municipal bonds and exchange traded funds. …
With the federal government and the Fed firmly joined at the hip, the transformation of capitalism into statism is gaining momentum, perhaps irreversibly. This is a great departure not only from the vision of the US founders but also, I suspect, it is not the kind of economic system most Americans living today want to leave for future generations.
Modern monetary theory is displacing capitalism. Government spending is on steroids, employed to fix every political woe, and government “debts” are never going to be repaid.
By the way, MMT isn’t modern, and is so simplistic it barely rates as a theory.
MMT is a threadbare excuse for theft from the private sector by government. If a government prints more dollars, existing dollars become correspondingly devalued. The sum of all dollars tends to have about the same value from one year to the next, because the amount of goods and services for sale doesn’t change quickly. So when the government prints new dollars, they are stealing purchasing power from the holders of existing dollars. People in the private sector have to work for their dollars, so the government is really stealing your productive power — MMT is a hidden tax.
Even less visible to the casual gaze, the worst effect of MMT is the mal-investment it engenders. By corrupting the information inherent in interest rates and prices, and making money too cheap, MMT causes relatively more investment to be lavished on things that require more capital (money). Thus, MMT causes society to waste its money instead of spending it optimally.
The Narrative is pushed less by printing fake news or by completely censoring true news than by the power of the prestige press to pick out ideologically convenient items from the vast surfeit of events and declare them the news about which we are all supposed to have a “conversation.”
Did, say, a Catholic schoolboy “smirk” at a “tribal elder”?
Now, that’s national news!
In contrast, in the wake of the vaunted Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, did four Teens of Color in St. Louis, shouting “Kill the white people,” hammer a white man to death?
Why are you interested in a local police blotter detail?
And if there is a lot of news for powerful interests to pick and choose amongst, there’s even more history.
Which anniversaries are treated as late-breaking news and which are seen as mere dusty arcana is another exercise in Narrative supremacy?
Consider an example of a dog that has barely been allowed to bark: A number of milestones in Christendom’s heroic struggle to stamp out Islamic slave raiding, such as Thomas Jefferson dispatching the U.S. Marines to “the shores of Tripoli” in 1804 and the Royal Navy freeing 3,000 European slaves from Algiers in 1816, have passed quietly in this century with only minimal 200th-anniversary media commemorations.
“If there is a lot of news for powerful interests to pick and choose amongst, there’s even more history.”
Calling attention to the West’s long, ultimately successful struggle against Muslim slaving is not encouraged because it might be conducive to Islamophobia, which, as the word explains, is bad. On the other hand, obsessing over white American slaving is good, because if it were at all bad then there would exist a word for it ending in “-phobia.” But there doesn’t, so how can you even mention it?
Of course, the NY Times’ trope that America’s “true founding” was the arrival of blacks in 1619 contradicts another fashionable bit of hype: that America is a Nation of Immigrants instituted by the huddled masses of wretched refuse on Ellis Island.
As we’ve all been instructed in recent decades, immigrants should be “at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are,” much more important than all those boring settlers, founding fathers, frontiersmen, and cowboys, even if, technically speaking, they might have arrived earlier.
But do the descendants of Ellis Island immigrants possess bragging rights over the descendants of slaves?
And do blacks who aren’t the descendants of slaves, such as President Obama, also get Intersectional bonus points from the 1619 Story Line even though their ancestors sold African-Americans into slavery?
None of these conundrums are useful for the fraught unity of the Democratic Party in 2020; so don’t expect them to be brought up terribly often. It’s much more politically profitable for the Coalition of the Fringes to merely lambaste core Americans for the sins of their forefathers.
It’s not what they say that is wrong, so much as what they leave out and won’t tell you.
Keep this up long enough, and people — catching on to the general theme — believe the very opposite of what is true.
The goal of the modern propagandists is to get you to believe something that isn’t true, without ever saying anything that is technically false. No, who us??! We never said that.
When you think of the Republican Party, what comes to mind? If you’re like many Americans, you may associate the GOP with racism, sexism, and general inequality.
It’s a commonly pushed narrative by left-leaning media and academia, but as former Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science Carol Swain explains, the Republican Party was actually responsible for nearly every advancement for minorities and women in U.S. history — and remains the champion of equality to this day.
Rolling back the MSM propaganda, right up to the present.
The only region in the world that has proactively tried to incorporate western culture in its societies is East Asia — Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. China, which was a grotesquely oppressed, poor, Third World country not too far in the past, notwithstanding its many struggles today, has furiously tried to copy the West.
Western culture, which developed organically over at least the two and half millennia, starting from Greco-Roman philosophers, is not easy to duplicate.
This culture requires thrift, honesty, hard work, liberty, individuality, dispassionate reason, objective justice, loyalty, honor, stoicism, a desire to rise above oneself, and many other factors that perhaps cannot be seen or isolated but must be absorbed subliminally in all their complex interactions. These are reflected in social, religious, and political structures of the West — the three independent branches of government, the rule of law, compassion for others, charity, family system, etc.
The West and East Asia, including China, comprise a mere 2.5 billion people.
“The Rest,” the Third World, comprises 5 billion out of 7.5 billion people on the planet. The cultural factors underpinning the West sound like clichés until one who gives up political correctness for the truth starts to see that the Third World, despite its several centuries of interactions with the West, simply fails to understand them.
The Third World is blind to what makes the West a civilization. It is as if the Third World cannot rise above animal instincts — craving for food, power over others, sex, and for the material.
Over several centuries of western colonization and missionary activities, an attempt was made to infuse Western cultural factors into the Third World. It was only a marginal success. Since the third world countries achieved political independence, without constant Western involvement, all has been lost. Christianity became voodoo, and the political system became a tool for tribalism and tyranny.
The Third World is tempted by only the physical products of Western society. They are pleasure-centric. When they look at the West, all they see is entertainment, an easy-going lifestyle, freedom from responsibility, liberal governments, free health-care, consumerism, social welfare, and good salaries. They either want to be economic migrants to the West or copy the Western lifestyle, without an iota of an understanding that they must have wealth-generating capabilities first and that there is something at the foundations of Western culture.
There is a virtual absence of reading habits in the Third World. If they end up reading Ayn Rand, all they see in it is a drama. They fail to see a non-collectivist philosophy embedded in it. If they watch movies like the Matrix, all they see is a sci-fi movie. They fail to see any suggestion that they might be getting indoctrinated by their leaders.
What they see as the culture of the West from their narrow worldview is primarily the culture of its lower-class and the entertainment industry. …
Ease of travel made the situation worse by enabling the emigration of the best people from the Third World.
Since the departure of European colonizers, the Third World has been culturally and institutionally regressing to its pre-European dark ages. None of these societies are sane, stable, or sustainable by themselves. It is the fear of America that keeps their tyrants behaving better than they otherwise would and their nations from falling into forever wars between their tribal units.
Despite this cultural and institutional regression, the free-gift of Western technology and the green revolution, and peace imparted by America still enabled economic growth, which alas has allowed more cultural problems to accumulate before Malthusian equilibrium kicks in again. …
Western civilization is based on rationality.
Tools for development and growth in the West have failed in the Third World, and often had the opposite effects. The question is, why is it that the Third World has failed to absorb and even notice the cultural qualities of the West? What went wrong? Why did the Third World fail to maintain the benefits offered?
The fundamental problem of the Third World is that the concept of reason is conspicuous by its absence. Without “reason,” intellectual and financial capital is not accumulated. The operating system in their minds is tribalism, superstition, magical thinking, and irrationality. This operating system makes them impervious to absorbing Western intellectual capital.
Without the rationality, civilization is not possible. Irrational societies must vacillate between dogma, hedonism, and savagery, never stumbling on another dimension, rationality.
Whatever you do, don’t mention IQ. That really sets off the politically correct mob.
I have watched the universities of the Western world devour themselves in a myriad of fatal errors over the last two decades … It is a failing of human reason, with all its limitations, ego, and pretensions, to serve as Cassandra … The self-righteous pleasure of “I told you so,” is, however, of little comfort …
Persecuting a technical genius — because in one published sentence he noted the obvious drawback to diversity:
Dr. Tomas Hudlicky of Brock [University in Canada] submitted an essay memorializing and updating a piece written thirty years ago [for chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie]. … The good doctor holds a prestigious Canada Research Chair … Hudlicky’s research productivity is admirable and rare. …
Twitter seems to exist primarily for the purpose of generating mobs — composed primarily of individuals who are hungry for blood and desiring to bask in the joys of reasonably risk-free reputation destruction, revenge and self-righteousness.
Furthermore, as far as Twitter mobs go, those who complained about the Angewandte Chemie publication were by no means numerous, constituting perhaps less than a dozen. No matter: once the complaints emerged, the editor of the journal in charge of Hudlicky’s work — Dr. Neville Compton — removed the paper from the journal’s website, and offered an abject apology for daring to have published it. Furthermore, he reported the “suspension” of two of the journal’s editors and cast aspersions on Hudlicky’s ethics, stating that his essay did not properly reflect fairness, trustworthiness and social awareness, while implying that the now-pilloried author and his peer reviewers and editors were discriminatory, unjust and inequitable in practice.
What were Hudlicky’s sins? … Here are the sentences constituting his wrong-think, which I have paraphrased slightly for length.
“In the last two decades many groups have been designated with ‘preferential status’ (despite substantive increases in the recruitment of women and minorities). Preferential treatment of one group leads inexorably to disadvantages for another. Each candidate should have an equal opportunity to secure a position, regardless of personal identification/categorization. Hiring practices that aim at equality of outcome is counter-productive if it results in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates. Such practice has also led to the emergence of mandatory ‘training workshops’ on gender equity, inclusion, diversity, and discrimination.” …
The Twitter trolls who objected to this opinion nonetheless reacted as if Hudlicky had said that efforts to “diversify” hiring and student selection were definitively harmful, and this is simply untrue. …
That is the sum total of Hudlicky’s academic crimes. He has faced severe retaliation on no less than six separate fronts for his hypothetically unforgivable thoughts — the two we have already discussed, and four more, including, third, the cancellation of an entire issue of the journal Synthesis (published by Thieme), which was to be dedicated to his 70th birthday and for which invitations had already been sent to more than forty prominent scientists; fourth, the elimination of any mention of his work in yet another journal, Highlights in Chemistry; fifth, a statement by a European chemical society (not as yet made public) hypothetically critiquing his ongoing collaborations with researchers from that continent; and sixth, his transformation into whipping boy by his own faithless professional colleagues at the administrative level at Brock University.
After two more examples, Dr Peterson concludes:
The increasingly successful politicization of … the STEM fields comprise the next frontier for occupation by the politically correct.
Qualified and expert researchers in such fields are already in great danger of being pushed aside by activists of the proper opinion.
The rest of us will pay in the longer run, when we no longer have the will or the capacity to make use of the rare talents that make people highly competent and productive as scientists, technological innovators, engineers or mathematicians.
Wake up, STEM denizens: your famous immunity to political concerns will not protect you against what is headed your way fast over the next five or so years.
The comrades, triumphant, will be like a boot stomping on our faces forever.
The universities are the centers of the new repression and irrationality. Defund them, or we’ll be back with the third world in two generations.
Twelve months ago, Drew Pavlou organised a sit-in attended by just 20 people to protest China’s anti-democracy activities in Hong Kong and its persecution of the Uighur minority, as well as to highlight concerns about The University of Queensland’s ties with Beijing.
Since then, he’s copped death threats and near daily abuse, earned the fury of the Chinese Government, and been expelled as a student by a “kangaroo court”.
This is the extraordinary tale of how a 20-year-old student from Brisbane’s eastern suburbs woke the angry Chinese dragon, and went to war with one of Australia’s most regarded unis. …
The heavy brutal hand of China turns up at the University of Queensland:
So inexperienced at protesting was Mr Pavlou that he was half-an-hour late to his own demonstration, having forgotten to organise a loudspeaker.
“I was running around trying to find a printer to print some flyers, I was trying to get a loudspeaker — it was pretty haphazard. And it was small. There were 15 or 20 of us.” …
They sat down on a walkway and began chanting — typical uni demonstration fare, like “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Xi Jinping has got to go” and variations of it.
“We didn’t really notice at first that we’d been surrounded on all sides,” Mr Pavlou said.
An estimated crowd of 200 pro-CCP activists had descended on the St Lucia campus to counter his small rally.
Things quickly turned ugly, he said.
Further video showing how violence began at UQ! Several Australian and international media outlets are running a contradicting narrative that Hong Kong and anti-CCP students were overwhelmingly the aggressor #uqprotestpic.twitter.com/uvuKVwhnqW
“There were two or three people with face masks and sunglasses, trying to disguise their faces, with earpieces in, who all approached me from different angles. They seemed to be co-ordinating the group.
“One ripped the megaphone from my hand. I got up to confront him and got punched in the ribs and thrown to the ground. I got up again and got punched again in the side of the mouth.
“As I was being attacked, this crowd started playing the Chinese national anthem. We were surrounded on all sides and it became this stand-off.
“This guy came up behind me and punched me in the back of the head, threw me to the ground and grabbed my poster and tore it up.
“Other Hong Kong students were punched and choke-slammed. A security guard tried to step in and he was bitten.” …
What China did next:
Among Mr Pavlou’s rag-tag group of protesters that day were two students from mainland China.
Within hours, one had images of his passport and citizenship documents, along with his residential address in Brisbane, shared on the Chinese social media platform WeChat.
“Another guy who was with us, his parents (in mainland China) got a visit from state security officials who told them to make their son stop protesting,” Mr Pavlou said.
“Within hours, the Chinese government had identified people at a protest in Brisbane and mobilised police thousands of kilometres away. It was really scary.” …
Global Times, the English language mouthpiece of the Communist Party, wrote a scathing article about his protest.
Mr Pavlou was named, alongside a photograph, and described as a “separatist” – a crime on par with murder in China, punishable by death.
“To be called a separatist by Chinese state-controlled media was kind of an invitation for people to go open season on me,” he said.
“I had all of these abusive messages and death threats flooding in.”
Every one of the 20-odd people who had taken part in Mr Pavlou’s protest was identified and received threats and abuse, he said. …
“There were threats against me and my family, someone said they’d rape my mother in front of me and then kill us… it was vile stuff.” …
And things just escalated from there. Read it all. They picked on the wrong guy when they bullied Drew Pavlou.
The university administration weighed in on China’s side, in no uncertain terms. Disagreeing with leftists or China’s communist government is so not allowed at the University of Queensland. What an awful university.
Drew Pavlou outside the Supreme Court after filing proceedings against UQ, Vice-Chancellor Peter Hoj and Chancellor Peter Varghese. Pic Annette Dew, Source:News Corp Australia
The ferals of Seattle have done us a favour. So have Australia’s rule-flouting, anti-social-distancing protesters and their comrades, the history-hating statue vandals.
The chaos and inanity seen across liberal democracies these past weeks are the best thing that could happen to Western civilisation. Those of us who have long argued the need to nurture and protect our culture can never again be scoffed at as alarmists.
The connoisseurs of cancel culture have demonstrated how intellectual integrity is under constant threat. Public institutions that should strengthen our society — think of the universities and the ABC — have outed themselves as enemies of the people.
Tucker Versus Woke Mickey, by Paul Gottfried. In lieu of yet another incisive Tucker video, here’s some interesting commentary on the waves he’s generating.
T-Mobile and ABC, owned by Disney Company, will stop advertising on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show in view of his scandalous comments on the Black Lives Matter movement. …
For those of us who may wonder why the TV channel [Fox] that is supposed to be conservative so rarely is, funding may be part of the answer. …No patron by contrast is likely to abandon Fox after listening to a host, like Chris Wallace, or a guest, like former National Review editor Jonah Goldberg, deplore white racism and lambast Donald Trump.
Tucker is different. He has turned off leftist sponsors despite arduous efforts at neutralizing opposition. This man of the populist right reminds listeners almost ritualistically that he believes in Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society (assuming that King consistently believed that), and he fills his program with black and gay guests, some of whom he goes out of his way to flatter. Tucker also cautiously avoids bringing on his show any guest who could be linked however distantly to the Old Right. The exception was immigration hawk and conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, whom he no longer has on his program.
But apparently these precautions were not enough. It was inevitable that Tucker would eventually say something in his daring monologues that would offend Fox’s leftist benefactors. And he has taken enough chances to have made that fateful indiscretion inevitable.