Comment: No, it isn't sensationalist right-wing propaganda - it's simply the truth.
It seems LGBTQ folks are happy to ram their ideology down everyone's throats - including young children. Yet, they are not so keen on seeing the inherent hypocrisy that defines such actions.
If it wasn't bizzare enough already, it seems it's A-okay for a pederast/paedophile dressed as a drag-queen to take the role of story-teller....
HOUSTON, Texas, March 19, 2019 (LifeSiteNews)
– A pro-family activist group has uncovered the truth about the
pedophile past of a drag queen who reads to young children at a public
library’s “Drag Queen Storytime.”
Thirty-two-year-old Albert Garza is a registered sex offender
who was convicted of assaulting an eight-year-old boy in 2008, yet that
has not hindered him from dressing in garish women’s clothing, calling
himself “Tatiana Mala Nina,” and performing in front of kids.
When the story broke, one news site suggested an alternative name for “Drag Queen Storytime,” with a headline that blared, “Pederast Story Hour in Houston.”
When the Freed-Montrose Public Library failed to respond to inquiries by Houston MassResistance,
the activist group – which had been protesting the program – conducted
its own investigation into the background of the drag queens as well as
the way in which “Drag Queen Storytime” is conducted. They ended up
compiling a detailed 163-page report,
replete with disturbing photos, documenting “the lurid activities of
some of these ‘Drag Queens’ who read to children, and how the library
blatantly disregarded its own rules.”
There is a common misconception among newer activists in the liberty movement that the idea of the “false left/right paradigm” means that there is no political spectrum; that the entire notion of left vs right is a fabrication. This is not exactly the case.
When we talk about false paradigms in regards to politics (or
geopolitics), what we are actually referring to is the elitist class,
otherwise known as globalists, and the fact that they have no left or
right political orientation. They do not care about Democrats or Republicans, they have no loyalty to either party. Their loyalty is to their own agenda, and they will exploit BOTH sides to get what they want whenever possible.
Beyond the globalists, average people do indeed fall on a
political spectrum that could be broken down and simplified to a set of
basic ideals or ideologies. On the left side of the spectrum we
find the collectivists and socialists, who believe that society (the
group) is vastly more important than the individual and that the actions
of individuals must be strictly monitored and governed to prevent
negative effects on the group.
The core argument of the leftists is:
“We are all a part of society and must act in harmony
with society so that the system continues to function. The needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few...”
On the right side of the spectrum we find the individualists, sovereignty activists and true conservatives.
People who, in varying degrees, believe that society should be
restricted from dictating the life of the individual and that group
participation should be voluntary. Where leftists seek to centralize,
people on the right seek to decentralize. The argument of the conservative is:
“Without the individual the group does not exist. The group is an
abstraction created in the mind. When groups do form they should only
exist to serve and protect the inherent rights of individuals, not be
used as a mechanism of control by weak people who are afraid to function
on their own...”
The UK’s decision to extradite WikiLeaks co-founder Julian
Assange to the US should be taken as a warning to all liberals who still
have any faith in ‘American liberal democracy,’ says cultural
philosopher Slavoj Zizek.
The Slovenian sociologist
told RT that signing of the extradition order is just one of two recent
events that really worry him. The other “ominous” event was the
Ecuadorian government’s invitation to US authorities to take possession
of Assange’s property from its London embassy when he was taken to
prison, including book manuscripts, computers and other personal
possessions.
“The nightmare is that the accuser was directly
invited to take possession of all these documents. This breaks even the
elementary the norms of legality,” Zizek explained.
“The message is, ‘Yes, we will be brutal beyond measure.’” Zizek drew particular attention to the sheer brutality of the
coordinated effort against the whistleblower after he exposed the US
government and military’s gross misdeeds.
“It’s always an
ominous signal when measures against a threatened individual are done in
such a directly brutal way that this very brutality means something,” he said.
Zizek also railed against so-called liberals back across the pond in the UK arguing that
“those in the UK who are most fervent advocates of Assange’s
extradition, are not conservatives but more centrist Blairite wing of
the Labour Party.”
A judge on Friday rejected Google's motions to throw out a lawsuit
brought by fired engineer James Damore accusing the internet company of
discrimination against conservatives, men and white people.
The ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Brian Walsh means the case, which Damore exited late last year in favor of arbitration, can move forward into the discovery phase.
"This ruling is a significant step forward for all California workers,
and sends notice to Silicon Valley that discrimination of any kind will
not be escape legal scrutiny," lead plaintiffs' attorney Harmeet Dhillon
said in a statement.
Google fired Damore in 2017 after an internal memo he wrote came to light.
In the memo, Damore criticized the company's push for gender and racial
diversity in its workforce, and suggested that the scarcity of women in
tech could be explained by biological differences. Damore sued Google
in January 2018 but opted to go into arbitration last October. He is
still in arbitration talks with the company, a spokesman for the Dhillon
Law Group said Friday.
Google did not immediately return a request for comment.
Damore's firing thrust Google into the nation's political wars, made him a hero among conservatives and inspired a planned far-right employee protest that didn't happen. Since then, accusations that Google and other tech companies are biased against conservatives have grown.
Four other men had joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, but only two remain, the law firm's spokesman said.
The court denied three different Google motions to dismiss the
lawsuit. Now the plaintiffs can request access to internal Google
documents to try to support their allegations, which also
include some people being "denied employment because of their actual and
perceived conservative political activities and affiliations, and their
status as actual or perceived Asian or Caucasian male job applicants,"
according to the lawsuit.
According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, Google's left-wing bias has been exposed.
Researchers from Northwestern University have used an algorithm to study Google search results - and found an overwhelming left-leaning bias towards news outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, which the search giant repeatedly promoted in November, 2017 according to the Daily Mail.
Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google's Top Stories box during November, 2017, 62% were from outlets considered to be left-leaning. CNN constituted 10% of the news promoted, while the New York Times and Washington Post came in at 6.5% and 5.6% respectively.
Fox News, on the other hand, accounted for just 3% of promoted stories.
Nearly all (86 percent) of the stories came from just 20 sources and of them, 62 percent were considered to be left-leaning.
The research sheds new light on the unprecedented power the search engine has in influencing the external traffic to news sites, a hot topic in the worlds of media and politics given Facebook's recently reduced output. For example, the researchers found that CNN got a 24 percent bump in traffic as a result of having its stories featured in the 'Top Stories' box.
The most featured sources, in order, were CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, BBC, USA Today, LA Times, The Guardian, Politico, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, NBC News, CNBC, Reuters, Huffington Post, The Verge, Al Jazeera, The Hill and People. -Daily Mail
In one example, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was written about in at least 38 sources, however 75% of those promoted by Google came from The New York Times and CNN, according to the study.
What's more, Google promoted newer articles which were just a few hours old over older ones.
Even adversaries of the US president should admit that he is the
only one who has stood up to the disturbing anti-free speech proposal
concocted by illiberal globalist world leaders and compliant tech
companies.
Ironically, by becoming
the sole leader of a major Western power to reject the ‘Christchurch
Call’ – the cross-border plan to restrict “terrorist and extremist” content online – Donald Trump has consolidated support for the document, sparing it deserved scrutiny.
After
all, who doesn’t want to stop violence being spread through social
media, particularly in the wake of the double mosque shooting in New
Zealand in March? Well – judging by the commentary in mainstream media
outlets – only that exceptionalist US president, and that band of white
supremacists on whom he is relying to win in 2020.
But I would urge those of all political persuasions to study the text
of the document, presented by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
and Emmanuel Macron in Paris this week, and endorsed by every major US
online giant – Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Twitter.
Are
these really the powers you want to give away to officials and Silicon
Valley execs? Or should we at least ask some clarifying questions first?
Orwell’s bingo
Here are some notable and representative excerpts:
We,
the governments commit to counter the drivers of terrorism and violent
extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our
societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist
ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help
counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the
fight against inequality.
This is the first
bullet point, and we are already onto loaded political terminology rife
with assumptions. Why must societies become more “inclusive” – a byword for multiculturalism – to stop terrorism? Why is the “fight against inequality”
– a predominantly leftist agenda – a pre-condition for preventing it?
Osama bin Laden wasn’t a pauper, and neither was gym trainer Brenton
Tarrant for that matter.
More important are the treacherously vague definitions that almost invite abuse. Who decides what is a “distorted narrative”? How do you “build media literacy” – is it, as always, by using NewsGuard to tell people not to click on RT.com instead of the New York Times? What is even “violent extremist ideology”?
Support for mass murder in mosques is. But what about those who want
mosques shut down because they believe Islam is a scourge on Western
society? Or those who ride out in militias to protect the US-Mexican
border from illegal migrants? Are they advocating a “violent extremist ideology”?
How about Black Lives Matter – they often engage in violence, and
demand radical social change? Antifa? The Venezuelan opposition, who
plan to overthrow their elected president and want the army to defect?
Blocking payments to individuals or groups by financial service firms impedes freedom of speech in a free society, journalist Ben Swann has told RT, following reports that MasterCard is allegedly on course to censor the far-right.
The New York-based firm is reportedly being forced by left-leaning liberal activists to set up an internal “human rights committee” that would monitor payments to “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”
“The problem is that everyone has their own views and, in a free society, the idea of a free society is that you are free to have your belief systems, as long as you’re not harming anyone else physically,” Swann told RT America. “But your belief system belongs to you and you have the right be wrong. White supremacists have the right to be wrong.”
MasterCard is not the only holder of purse-strings that is mulling the selective banning of individuals from their services and funds. Patreon and PayPal have previously barred individuals from receiving payments using their platforms, due to their extreme views.
But unlike crowdfunding platforms, being cut off from one of the leading American multinational financial services corporations will, most likely, have a much greater impact on the financial stability of an individual or a group, especially after the US Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly blessed MasterCard’s undertaking. By doing this, Swann believes the government granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”
U.S.-A coalition of groups and organizations has come together to officially redefine hate speech as "speech we don't like."
The coalition included several dictionaries, the SPLC, the majority of
colleges and universities in the nation, several Big Tech companies like
Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, and the Democratic Party.
Representatives from each of these groups came together at Harvard
University to vote on and ratify the proposal officially changing the
definition of "hate speech" to "speech we don't like."
"A lot of people are getting the wrong idea about hate speech," a
representative from Instagram said. "They believe hate speech actually
has to be hateful to qualify. So I think we need to clarify terms here.
For instance, we just deleted a post that a lot of progressives did not
like. It wasn't hateful or anything, but they did not like it."
The Instagram rep then displayed this slide of the post they had deleted:
"See, we said it was hate speech, but this confused people because it
wasn't actually hateful. So I move that we immediately change the
definition of hate speech to 'speech you do not like.'"
After the motion passed, dictionaries quickly updated their definitions to read:
Hate speech - (noun) - speech you do not like or speech that offends you in any way // That guy said he disagrees with me. What awful hate speech!
At publishing time, the coalition had clarified that this definition does not apply to conservatives.
Read more
Watts Up With That? Summary: William Lind takes a sharp and accurate look at the politics of
climate change. In modern America, always look beneath the glossy
surface of narratives in the news.
A March 15 article by Larry Kummer at the Fabius Maximus website discusses how global warming advocates have misused a worst-case scenario to generate panic. Titled “About the corruption of climate science”,
Kummer’s article details how politicians are misrepresenting climate
projections, especially one called RCP 8.5. That their goal is to create
fear should not surprise us: from the government’s perspective, fear is
a growth industry.
Russell Kirk called conservatism “Politics Of Prudence" and prudence suggests we should pay some attention to climate change,
or, to be more precise, increasing volatility in weather. That is
something we can observe happening. Conservatives’ belief in stewardship
means we owe it to future generations to hand them a planet in at least
as good condition as we received from our forefathers. Reducing our own
consumption, including of fossil fuels, is desirable.
But the Left seeks far more. In fact, its goal is nothing less than
total control of every aspect of human life, which we call
“totalitarianism”, justified by fear of climate change. Since everything
a person does, including breathing, affects the climate, if climate
change is a huge threat, someone needs to control everything. That
“someone” should obviously be whoever is most concerned about the
climate, i.e., the extreme environmentalists and the larger coalition of
which they are part, the culturally Marxist Left. Read more
Perhaps this is an overly broad generalization, but I
feel there is an almost universal feeling among the public that there is
something intrinsically annoying about academia. The source of this
annoyance is up for debate, but I believe it stems from the image
academics project versus the reality of their personal character and
intent. Your average university approved academic will say that some
people find them distasteful because they are “so smart”, and this makes
others envious. I would say it’s the opposite – the average academic is
actually quite ignorant, but brandishes a false image of being a
genius. This is why I often refer to them as “academic idiots”.
Fake intelligence and faux wisdom are like sandpaper to people’s
exposed nerves, and the average person is not as dumb as academics think
they are.
At the top of the fraudulent academic totem pole are what I would
call the “academic philosophers”; the gatekeepers, the people who
pontificate regularly on the meaning of life and society while living
the most charmed life one can imagine. These are people who in most
cases come from upper class backgrounds. They have been provided for
every waking moment of their existence. They have had every door opened
for them by someone else on the path to success, and have experienced
little to no struggle or suffering in the whole of their time on this
Earth. And yet, they somehow deem themselves expertly qualified to
comment on the human condition.
It should come as no surprise that the ideas these academics develop
tend to deny concrete reality. They seek to pursue agendas that are
fanciful at best and would be ultimately destructive if ever applied in
the real world.
I find this to be common with many philosophers, not just today but
throughout history. The venerated Plato was such a person; the youngest
son of wealthy aristocratic parents who was required to do very little
in early life but ponder. The trials surrounding his friend Socrates
aside, Plato never abandoned the notion of elitist rule over society. Plato’s Republic is
a shrine to the elitist model, imagining a world governed essentially
by academics – People born with superior intellectual abilities and who
were destined to rule over the rest of us as benevolent demigods.
It’s a funny coincidence that supposedly objective elitist academics
always come to the conclusion that THEY are the best equipped people to
manage society.
The academic cabal is not entirely naive, however. They have realized
over time that their sales pitch of an intellectual priest class and
Utopian pyramid schemes are not very effective, and they have opted to
switch narratives. The new narrative is one of inevitability; the
inevitability of socialism, the inevitability of globalism and the
inevitability of algorithmic automation.
The Western world considers itself a bastion of free thought – a
marketplace of ideas. But some scholars who questioned prevailing
liberal groupthink have quickly discovered that academic inquiry has
tightly-controlled limits.
There are more Democrat
than Republican supporters among scientists of almost every academic
field in the US, voter registration studies have shown.
In fields such as social studies and sociology, conservatives can be
outnumbered a dozen or more to one. With such an overwhelming advantage
in numbers, one might think that dissenting viewpoints in these fields
would not pose a meaningful threat to prevailing orthodoxies.
Unfortunately, a number of high-profile cases reveal that scholars and
thinkers – some who do not even identify as conservative – risk their
careers when they challenge the liberal majority.
Lisa Littman and 'rapid onset gender dysphoria'
Lisa Littman,
assistant professor at the Brown University School of Public Health,
found herself the target of liberal rage after her research challenged a
sacred tenant of LGBTQ dogma. She published a paper which supported the
thesis that some young adults who identify as transgender but
previously showed no symptoms of gender dysphoria may have been
influenced to "transition" by social media, friends and their environment.
It was in a class called Representations of Minorities in Documentary Film, the
last elective I needed to receive my BA at Concordia University in
Montreal, that I first realized something was very wrong. The class had
just watched Sound and Fury,
a 2000 Oscar-nominated documentary about deaf culture. The film follows
a 6-year-old deaf girl named Heather and her family (several members of
whom also are deaf) as they go back and forth on the issue of cochlear
implants, a then-new technology that allows some deaf people to hear.
Heather wants cochlear implants so
she can talk to people and hear lions. Her mother, too, opts for the
implants. But when she discovers the implant will not be as effective
for her, she changes her mind, and, without consulting her daughter,
decrees that neither of them will be undergoing the procedure.
After the film ended, our professor
asked students for their thoughts. When called on, I said that parents
should try to make their children’s lives easier. If I remember my words
correctly, I added: “They shouldn’t hold their children back from
something that will help them grow.”
“You just feel that way because
you’re white, cisgendered, abled, and privileged,” came the snarl from
somewhere below. I looked down a few aisles to the front of the dark
screening room. I saw the back of a mostly shaved head, with a lock of
hair tied on top. I had never seen the back of this head before. And I
never saw the front of it either, because the responder didn’t bother to
look at me.
You don’t know me, I thought. What gives you the right to comment on who I am? My inner monologue started racing in my privileged Cape Breton accent. Ya, I’m right some privileged, b’y. I was abandoned by my mother, y’arse! I
never knew my father. I grew up under a staircase, like Harry Potter.
My hand shot up so I could respond. The professor ignored it. I kept it
up and locked eyes with him, agitated. He looked away. The last few
minutes of the class rolled on, with others talking about things I can’t
even remember. The attack on my identity just hung there over the
space, unchallenged, floating, settling into the upholstery of the
chairs. Then the class was dismissed.
I walked out of the screening room
feeling kind of shell-shocked. What was I to take from this? What were
the other students to take from this? That the attack on my character
warranted no rebuttal? That my race, my gender, and my sexual identity
had all disqualified me from participating? The lesson seemed clear. My
status as a mother of two young girls—unimportant. My opinions—unwanted.
I learned the lesson so well that I did not again participate in that
class for the rest of the semester.
My experience in that undergraduate
film class was just a taste, an appetizer if you will, for the
full-fledged graduate feast I was to consume at Concordia once my
undergrad was finished.
Comment: I remember thinking at the time that there was something very fishy about the timing of this and the theatrical nature of the event. Something didn't sit right at all. This article shows us why.
-------------------------
Pierre Lescaudron Sott.net In these depressing times marked by lies, fear and nihilism, I would like to brighten your mood by sharing a heart warming story. A real life event that is better than a fairy tale and should restore your faith in humanity and our burgeoning postmodern society. A Modern Fairy Tale What happened? In a nutshell, a heroic individual saved a 4 year old boy from a deadly fall.
Gassama climbing up to save the boy
On Saturday, May 26th 2018, at 8:00 p.m. in Paris 18th district, the boy was left alone by his white French father who was busy playing Pokemon Go. The boy went to the balcony and fell from the 6th floor over the handrail. During the fall, the vigorous young boy managed somehow to grab the 4th floor handrail as he hurtled toward the ground. Hanging there precariously, death seemed just a few moments away. Fortunately, Mamoudou Gassama, a migrant from Mali was in the right place at the right time. He saw the distressed boy and swiftly climbed 4 floors of the building exterior, pulled up the boy over the handrail and safely dropped him on the balcony while the crowd cheered and clapped. Here is the video made by an eyewitness:
From the Aspen Ideas Festival, recorded Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Jordan
Peterson, author of the best-selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to
Chaos, may be one of the most famous intellectuals in North America
today. He also may be among the most misunderstood. His fans say that
he’s saved their lives, and detractors say that he’s the gateway drug to
the alt-right. Who is this psychologist-philosopher whom so many of us
had never heard of two years ago, and what does he really believe?
Featuring Jordan Peterson in conversation with Bari Weiss. Hosted in the
St. Regis Hotel Ballroom, Aspen, Colorado.
While Trump hoped
the release of the long-awaited Inspector General report on June 14th
would exonerate him and lead to real investigations into real criminals,
it instead revealed a tepidness that led some commentators to the conclusion
that the Inspector General is 'not merely afraid' of the FBI, but that
he 'isn't sure that Trump is going to win the war' political insiders
are waging against him. The latest family separation crisis along the border is part and parcel of that war.It was no doubt timed to steal headlines from the release of the IG report.
Since its release the media, Democrats and Progressive groups have
dominated those headlines and taken the war against the Trump
Administration to an entirely new level.
Psychological Warfare
Since Donald Trump's election numerous 'Antifa' groups have been
established with the primary goal of 'fighting fascism in America'.
They're infamous for attacking protesters, stalking people they call 'fascist,' vandalism, shutting down annual events, and for generally being gangs of brown shirts.
In his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning author Jonah Goldberg defines fascism in the following way:
Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society
should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen
by the state. "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State," is
how Mussolini defined it.
As Goldberg argues, while the Left claims to be in a war against right-wing fascists, the
reality is that Nazism and fascism, along with the other revolutionary
pathological movements of the 20th century, originated on the Left.
Why? Because those on the Left are the first to abandon tradition,
resort to mob violence, and demand state interference in private lives
in order to remake society on the basis of some delusional utopia. We
see it in the Feminist drive to redistribute wealth from men to women,
the gender-pronoun debacle that legislates the spoken word, and the
steady creep of the state into men and women's private sex lives. And we
see it most nakedly today in the rise of Antifa.
A 2017 poll found that most Democrats (71%) agreed with their logic -
that Trump's campaign contained 'fascist undertones' and that he was
racist. By repeating 'Trump is racist' and 'Trump is Hitler' as their
mantra, the entire Democratic Party has become re-aligned with the
Antifa movement, and has embraced its peculiar 'logic'. That 'logic' is
as follows:
Trump is Hitler
Therefore, he will do what Hitler did
He must be stopped before that happens
Anything that furthers that end is not only morally right, it is morally necessary
That is their logic but, lacking evidence, it survives primarily on
emotionally fueled propaganda and paramoralisms supplied by the MSM.
With the family separation issue on the border, the media had the
'hook-up' so many of these addicts wanted as an excuse to rage across
the nation.
Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort “student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required to attend a new diversity training.
MSU announced Wednesday that it is rolling out two new diversity trainings this fall, saying it is "expected" that faculty supervisors will "make this training required for student leaders."
Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort
“student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required
to attend a new diversity training.
MSU announced
Wednesday that two new 90-minute workshops on social justice and
diversity are being implemented for “student leaders" this fall, noting
that staff/faculty supervisors are expected to “make this training
required.” While the announcement does not provide a
comprehensive definition of what constitutes a student leader, it does
state that "examples of student leaders/workers include: Student Athlete
Advisory Committee, Office Assistants, Resident Assistants, Student
Orientation Counselors, etc." The
announcement itself does not explicitly state that the workshops will
be mandatory, saying only that “we encourage faculty and staff to send
their student leaders and student workers to both training sessions.”
A supplementary document
provided within the announcement, however, states that staff and
faculty supervisors are "expected" to "make this training required for
student leaders and stress the importance," as well as “encourage
student interaction during the trainings” and "require students to
complete pre- and post-training surveys."
"See, we said it was hate speech, but this confused people because it
wasn't actually hateful. So I move that we immediately change the
definition of hate speech to 'speech you do not like.'"
" and prudence suggests we should pay some attention to climate change,
or, to be more precise, increasing volatility in weather. That is
something we can observe happening. Conservatives’ belief in stewardship
means we owe it to future generations to hand them a planet in at least
as good condition as we received from our forefathers. Reducing our own
consumption, including of fossil fuels, is desirable.
