The Guardian apologizes for saying Sputnik posted ‘fake’ Notre Dame PHOTO vilifying Muslims

Comment: Hoisted by their own petard. This shows how the Guardian is feverishly looking for racism that isn't there and reveals how ideologially possessed they really are. 

----------------------------

RT

The Guardian has issued a mealy-mouthed apology for accusing Russian news agency Sputnik of doctoring images in the immediate aftermath of the Notre Dame fire to perpetuate an anti-Muslim narrative online – four months later.

“In an episode of Fake or for real? published on 19 April, we suggested that a photo that went viral during the Notre Dame fire had been doctored,” the Guardian wrote in an Instagram story Monday. Instagram stories only have a shelf-life of 24 hours, but thankfully screenshots of the story exist.

“We have been contacted by the copyright owner of the photo, Sputnik France, and accept that it had not been doctored; we apologise for suggesting otherwise.”

The four-months late apology refers to the Guardian’s coverage of a photo from Sputnik France’s Facebook live coverage of the April 15 Notre Dame fire. 

The Guardian’s ‘Fake or for Real’ Instagram series suggested the photo was altered to depict ‘Muslims’ celebrating the fire at the world-famous cathedral. 

This particular angle appeared in various locations online, there was just one problem: Sputnik did not make any reference or speculation as to the men's background or religious beliefs. 

Sputnik France even released the full metadata relating to the image, allowing any and all ‘fact-checkers’ to see for themselves. 

This photo has been shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook in the past 24 hours. It shows "Muslims laughing" walking away from #NotreDame. But the image is doctored. https://t.co/FYzZPhGdsz pic.twitter.com/M5Dr9Nio91

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) April 16, 2019

At the time, the ‘fact-checking’ community went into overdrive, including bastion of virtue, Politifact, which was forced to issue a multi-tiered retraction over the course of several weeks.

 Read more

Paul Joseph Watson - MADWORLD

Paul Joseph Watson

Journey further into the nightmare of modernity. 

SUBSCRIBE STAR: https://www.subscribestar.com/paul-jo... 

SUMMIT NEWS: http://summit.news/newsletter 

https://paypal.me/donatepjw

Drag Queen Storytime: Convicted pedophile, dressed as a woman, reads to kids at public library

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....

---------------------

Doug Mainwaring
Lifesite News

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.”

Read more

Smith: An Examination Of The Leftist Cult And Their Religion

Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com

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...” 

Read more

Fighting back: Google discrimination case first brought by James Damore allowed to proceed

Levi Sumagaysay
The Mercury News

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. 

Read more

Taylor Swift just proved feminism's harm on millennials

Suzanne Venker
Washington Examiner

Taylor Swift just proved my point. My last post was about feminism's harmful influence on millennials; and less than 24 hours later, a friend sent me this USA Today article that highlights an interview Taylor Swift gave on a promotional tour in which a German reporter asks Swift if she has children or family on her mind since she turns 30 this year.

A quick caveat: I feel compelled to write that this question shouldn't be asked of any woman, as it's no one's business but hers. However, such probing questions by the media are inevitable at that level of fame. Swift is entitled to dodge the question, which she did. But her reason for not answering it speaks volumes: "I really do not think men are asked that question when they turn 30, so I'm not going to answer that now."

Here's a newsflash for Swift and other young women who didn't get the memo: No one asks men that same question because men don't have a biological clock. Women do.

I know you've grown up believing since the day you were born that men and women are, or should be, sexual equals and should thus be treated as identical beings. But sexual equality is a bogus mission (which you will see in time if you ever do have children, for it is then that sex differences become glaringly obvious) because it's inextricably tethered to a progressive political movement that has no basis in reality.

After my last post, I got an lot of email. One was was from a man who chastised me for suggesting millennial women have been bamboozled by feminism. I can't think of any greater proof that women have, in fact, been bamboozled by feminism than this latest comment by Swift.

Women of her generation - and mine, quite frankly (I'm a Generation Xer) - were taught that America is an oppressive patriarchy and that men and marriage (and children) hold women back from being their true selves. But a technological revolution, along with social media, upped the ante for millennials, who were raised to be entitled and self-involved. (The title of Swift's new single, "Me!", makes this abundantly clear.) They were also told that uncommitted sex can be harmless fun, that marriage is optional even if you want kids, and that divorce is inevitable for many women because men are Neanderthals.

To wit, over Memorial Day weekend, my husband loved the guacamole someone brought to the party and suggested I get the recipe and make it - at which point his 34-year-old niece (whom I love dearly) said, "You can make it yourself, you know, Bill." That's exactly what I mean when I said we've underestimated feminism's influence on young women. Such knee-jerk assumptions about marital roles loom large. They see sexual inequality everywhere, even where none exists. 

Read more

‘Creepy tech oligarchs want to dictate your opinions’

spiked-online.com

Paul Joseph Watson on being banned from Facebook.

Paul Joseph Watson’s sardonic YouTube monologues against social-justice warriors, mass immigration and modern art have racked up millions of views and have even caught the attention of President Donald Trump. Last week, Facebook designated Watson a ‘dangerous individual’ and banned him permanently, alongside others on the right. spiked caught up with this ‘dangerous individual’ to find out more about social-media censorship. 

spiked: How did you find out you had been banned from Facebook?

Paul Joseph Watson: I received no notification whatsoever from Facebook. Facebook did not even send me a stock email to tell me my page had been deleted. I found out about it by media reports. I was on Twitter trawling through my feed. I saw CNN: ‘Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer and Milo Yiannopoulos have been banned.’ I thought, ‘Oh, really?’. I checked my Facebook and my Instagram and they were still up. They were still active for about half an hour after the first media reports came out. So immediately that tells you that they had given the story to the media, to get their justification out ahead of time, so that they could own the narrative.

They gave the story to the same media outlets like CNN, where their journalist Oliver Darcy has spent the past 18 months lobbying the social-media firms to ban CNN’s competition. People like Darcy have been abusing their platform and acting as activists rather than journalists, going to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and saying repeatedly, ‘Oh, doesn’t this post violate your policy? Doesn’t this violate your policy?’. 

It’s not just Darcy. There is also the likes of Jared Holt at Right Wing Watch and Will Sommers at the Daily Beast, who have been very successful in silencing a great percentage of the online people who were instrumental in getting Trump elected. This has never been about ‘bullying’, ‘harassment’ or ‘hate’, whatever those mean; it’s about them fomenting this political purge ahead of the 2020 elections. 

Read more

Noah Carl Releases 'Devastating Point-by-Point Rebuttal of The Charges Levelled Against Him'

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation

Social scientist Noah Carl, who was sacked last week by the University of Cambridge and stripped of his fellowship for conducting research deemed "problematic," on Tuesday released a "devastating point-by-point rebuttal ... of the charged levelled against him by the radical left."

Birkbeck University professor Eric Kaufmann shared Carl's rebuttal on Twitter, writing: "A devastating point-by-point rebuttal by Noah Carl of the charges levelled against him by the radical left, whose smear campaign is strong on religious fervour and guilt-by-association, but weak on logic and evidence."  

 As to his firing, Carl said he'll "address that question in due course" but for moment he's "still receiving legal advice."

Here's some highlights from Carl's extensive statement:

Last December, 586 academics signed an open letter accusing you of “racist pseudoscience”. That many academics can’t all be wrong, can they?

Given that the open letter demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the relevant science, it would seem that 586 academics can indeed all be wrong. For example, as Jeff McMahan pointed out in his comments for the first Quillette Editorial:

One passage in the open letter demands that the various institutions cited "issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other." This seems to imply that it is illegitimate to seek to explain any one of the four characteristics by reference to any one of the others, and thus that no aspect of intelligence can be explained by an individual's genes. I would not trust the competence of anyone who endorses a claim that has that implication to judge the work of a candidate for a research fellowship.

And Professor McMahan is absolutely correct: the signatories of the open letter were calling for St Edmund's College to "issue a public statement dissociating themselves" from research backed by overwhelming scientific evidence. In fact, the contribution of genes to variation in human intelligence has been widely accepted by psychologists since at least 1996, when the report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' was published by the American Psychological Association (APA). This report, co-authored by Professor Ulric Neisser and his colleagues in the aftermath of The Bell Curve debate, concluded that "a sizable part of the variation in intelligence test scores is associated with genetic differences among individuals". Evidence for a genetic contribution to variation in human intelligence has only strengthened since the publication of the APA report.

Read more

‘Political correctness gone mad’: Lord Admiral slams maritime museum for gender-neutral ships

Comment: First steps to soft totalitarianism...

---------------------- 

RT

 

The de-gendering of ships by a maritime museum is “political correctness gone mad,” a retired senior British Royal Navy officer has said. He warned conceding to pressure groups is a “very dangerous road” to go down. 

 

Admiral Lord Alan West was responding to the Scottish Maritime Museum’s decision to introduce a “gender neutral interpretation” of ships, following a spate of vandalism targeting the words ‘she’ and ‘her’ on one of their signs.

Lord West, the former head of the Royal Navy, phoned BBC Radio 4’s Today show, to argue that boats have been referred to as ‘she’ for centuries, and scraping that tradition would be “absolutely stupid.”

It’s stark staring bonkers and political correctness gone mad… an insult to a generation of sailors, the ships are seen almost as a mother to preserve us from the dangers of the sea and also from the violence of the enemy.

David Mann, director of the maritime museum, in Irvine, Scotland, claims they have been forced into making the changes, saying offended vandals have targeted their “very expensive” signs for a second year in a row.

The museum will now phase in the use of new gender neutral signs, having recognized the changes in society around gender neutral interpretation, despite previously having followed the universally-adopted maritime tradition of referring to vessels as female.

Read more

Candace Owens Flips The Script At Dem Hearing On White Nationalism: The 'Goal' Here Is to Scare Minorities Into Supporting Censorship

Information Liberation

Conservative activist Candace Owens derailed Jerry Nadler's House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Hate Crimes and White Nationalism" by calling it out as a farce to scare minorities into supporting censorship and the Democratic Party.

Rush transcript via Real Clear Politics:

CANDACE OWENS, TURNING POINT USA: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Collins thank you for having me here today. I received word on my way in that many of the journalist were confused as to why I was invited and none of them knew that I am myself was a victim of a hate crime when I was in high school. That is something that very few people know about me because the media and the journalists on the left are not interested in telling the truth about me because I don't fit the stereotype of what they like to see in black people. I am a Democrat. I support the President of the United States and I advocate for things that are actually affecting the black community.

I am honored to be here today in front of you all because the person sitting behind me is my 75-year-old grandfather. I have always considered myself to be my grandfather's child and I mean to say that my sense of humor, my passion and my work ethic all comes from the man that is sitting behind me.

My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like racism and white nationalism held real meaning under the Democratic Party's Jim Crow laws. My grandfather's first job was given to him at the age of five years old and his job was to lay tobacco out to dry in an addict in the South. My grandfather has picked cotton and he has also had experiences with the Democrat terrorist organization of that time, the Ku Klux Klan. They would regularly visit his home and they would shoot bullets into it. They had an issue with his father, my great-grandfather.

During my formative years I have the privilege of growing up in my grandfather's home. It is going to shock the committee but not once, not in a single breath of a conversation did my grandfather and tell me that I could not do something because of my skin color. Not once did my grandfather hold a gripe against the white man. I was simply never taught to view myself as a victim because of my heritage. I--I learned about faith in God, family and hard work. Those were the only lessons of my childhood.

There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.

Here are some things we never hear. 75 percent of the black boys in California don't meet state reading standards. In inner cities like Baltimore within five high schools and one middle school not a single student was found to be proficient in math or reading in 2016. The singlehood--these single motherhood rate in the black community which is at 23 percent in the 1960s when my grandfather was coming out is at a staggering 74 percent today. I am guessing there will be no committee hearings about that. There are more black babies born--there are more black babies aborted than born alive in cities like New York and you have Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo lighting of buildings to celebrate late-term abortions. I could go on and on. My point is that white nationalist--white nationalism does not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did. Let me be clear the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control. It is a preview of a Democrat 20/20 election strategy the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy. They blame Facebook. They blame Google. They blame Twitter. Really, they blame the birth of social media which has disrupted their monopoly on minds. They called this hearing because they believe that if it wasn't for social media voices like mine would never exist, that my movement Blexit which is inspiring lack of Americans to lead--to leave the Democrat party would have never come about and they certainly believe that Donald Trump would not be in office today.

Looking on the next thing to focus on now that the Russian collusion hoax has fallen apart. What they won't tell you about the statistics and the rise of white nationalism is that they have simply change the data set points by widening the definition of hate crimes and upping the number of reporting agencies that are able to report on them. What I mean to say is that they are manipulating statistics.

Read more

Thought crime science: Case studies in becoming an enemy of liberal orthodoxy

RT

 

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.

Read more

United Airlines Implements Policy Allowing Customers To Identify As ‘Non-Binary’

dailycaller.com

 

United Airlines announced in a Friday press release that it will be the first U.S. airline to allow customers to identify themselves with a non-binary gender.

“United Airlines today announced it has become the first U.S. airline to offer non-binary gender options throughout all booking channels in addition to providing the option to select the title ‘Mx.’ during booking and in a MileagePlus customer profile,” the release began. “Customers now have the ability to identify themselves as M(male), F(female), U(undisclosed) or X(unspecified), corresponding with what is indicated on their passports or identification.” 

(RELATED: Catholic Journalist Gets Visit From Police After ‘Misgendering’ A Trans Person)

The company tweeted out the announcement with the slogan “Fly how you identify.”

Fly how you identify. Our new non-binary gender options are now available.

— United Airlines (@united) March 22, 2019

The statement goes on to explain that United Airlines teamed up with Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and The Trevor Project to compile initiatives by which employees will be trained about “preferred pronouns and the persistence of gender norms, LGBT competency in the workplace and other steps to make United an inclusive space for both customers and employees.”

Read More

No imaginary transgression is too small for the mob of virtue-signalling SJWs on Instagram

Kathrine Jebsen Moore
Quillette

"Knitting is just so white. Let's hope it gets better." I overheard this puzzling remark in my local yarn store in Edinburgh, Scotland, last week. The store is in the affluent area of Marchmont, just outside the city centre. Its Edwardian and Victorian tenement flats, adjacent to huge green spaces, are popular with students and families alike. Two customers were chatting to the store owner: "It's about time we had the conversation," one of them offered. Her companion nodded in solemn agreement.

Knitting, which helps lower the blood pressure and keep the mind busy, has enjoyed an upsurge in popularity in recent years. The Internet has allowed for the proliferation of new platforms from which to buy yarn and patterns, and has helped connect artisans and hobbyists worldwide. Usually, it's a calming and creative pastime focussed on aesthetics rather than politics. However, a short browse through the knitting posts on Instagram steered me in the direction of the source of the exchange I had overhead and the "conversation" it had produced.

On January 7, Karen Templer, a knitting designer and owner of the online store Fringe Association, published an innocuous blog post on her website entitled "2019: My Year of Colour," in which she enthused about her forthcoming trip to India. To most observers, Templer's post will read like a guileless account of her hopes and aspirations for her upcoming travels:

I've wanted to go to India for as long as I can remember. I've a lifelong obsession with the literature and history of the continent. Photos of India fill me with longing like no other place. One of my closest friends [when I was 12] and her family had offered back then that if I ever wanted to go with them on one of their trips, I could. To a suburban midwestern teenager with a severe anxiety disorder, that was like being offered a seat on a flight to Mars. ... Then about six weeks ago, the opportunity presented itself-a chance to go with a friend who's been. ... I said yes. And I felt like the top of my head was going to fly off, I was so indescribably excited. Within 48 hours, three of those friends of mine who are so much better travelers than me-but who are all equally humbled at the idea of actually going to India-also said yes. There has hardly been a single day since that I haven't said in disbelief, either in my head or out loud, I'm going to India.

And what on earth could be wrong with any of that? Rather a lot, it turns out. After a series of encouraging posts from well-wishers, the comment thread took an aggressively inquisitorial turn. Templer's previous posts had typically garnered between three and 30 comments, but "My Year of Color" has 197 at the time of writing.

One of the first people to attack Templer was a user named Alex J. Klein who wrote:

Karen, I'd ask you to re-read what you wrote and think about how your words feed into a colonial/imperialist mindset toward India and other non-Western countries. Multiple times you compare the idea of going to India to the idea of going to another planet-how do you think a person from India would feel to hear that? 

Read more

Hooked on Feeling

Meghan Daum
Medium.com

 Jussie Smollett’s story is horrifying. It’s also unleashed a torrent of “groupfeel.”

A few weeks ago, someone made an observation on Twitter that struck me as exceptionally wise (this happens every once in a super blood moon). The observation had to do with the concept of “overfeeling”:

“You’re over-feeling this” needs to be a thing we can say as easily as we suggest “overthinking” it. Yet, we talk about “Groupthink” when “Groupfeel” is the new wave transforming our public sphere.

The tweeter was mathematician and economist Eric Weinstein, who frequently has things to say about the collapse of intellectually honest conversation. And while “groupfeel,” depending on how you define it, could describe the kind of emotional stirring-up and fearmongering that Donald Trump has been trafficking in for decades (from the Central Park Five to his current hysteria about immigrants), the occasion for this tweet, as far as I could tell, was mostly ambient. Weinstein was registering frustration at the way public discourse increasingly eschews actual logic for a sort of culturally agreed upon standard of emotional logic.

It’s possible, too, that he was referring to the saga of the Covington video, a viral, Rashomon-evoking document that, from certain angles and when viewed for certain durations, appeared to show a “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing white male Catholic high school student smirking at a Native American elder during protest marches in Washington, D.C., on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

After an avalanche of online outrage about the student’s white privilege, toxic masculinity, and whatever else people wanted to project onto the situation, it became evident there was more going on. The kids, it turned out, had gotten caught up in some verbal sparring with a fringier-than-fringe group of anti-everythingists (or just about) known as the Black Hebrew Israelites. The Native elder was apparently trying to intervene between the two groups by banging a drum in the face of the teenager. (Maybe not the best method for de-escalating a tense situation, but who knows until you try?)

After an avalanche of online outrage, it became evident that there was more going on.

Read more

BBC staffing guidelines say one in six on-screen roles 'must be gay, lesbian, trans, or disabled' by 2020

Comment: This report is from 2016. 

As we approach 2020 any cursory glance at drama from Les Miserables to Silent Witness and every other drama has come under the jackboot of the diversity police - regardless of historical realism and intrinsic merit. 

---------------------------

Daily Mail
via Sott.net 

One in six of all on-screen BBC roles must go to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender or disabled people by 2020, the corporation's new diversity targets state.

In a bid to deter criticism that it has been failing to reflect its audience, the BBC has pledged that LGBT and disabled people will each make up eight per cent of all on-air and on-screen roles.

The new targets follow a heated debate in the House of Commons led by David Lammy MP on the issue of the broadcaster's diversity.

Fifty per cent of all on-screen and broadcasting roles will go to women, who already make up 48.5 per cent of the BBC's total workforce.

However, the BBC will still be able to commission shows where the main roles are more likely to be male-dominated.

Radio 2, which has a particularly male-dominated line-up of broadcasters, including DJs and presenters Chris Evans, Simon Mayo, Jeremy Vine and Bob Harris, faces an overhaul.

Last year, a review by the BBC Trust, the corporation's watchdog, found that six stations - including Radio 2 - raised concerns that they were failing ethnic minority audiences.

Radio 2 was highlighted as having particular difficulties in attracting non-white listeners.

It was said to reach an average of only 12 percent of BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) adults each week, compared to 35 percent for all adults.

Read more

Delegitimizing the white male

Paul Craig Roberts
paulcraigroberts.org

We know that the white male has been delegitimized. Women's studies, black studies, Latino studies, and Identity Politics have been demonizing, and teaching hatered of, white males since the 1980s. But where did these hate-filled special interest groups get their power? The answer is that effete white males handed it to them.

It was white male university administrators who created the anti-white male propaganda degrees called women's studies and black studies. It is the white males in the Democratic Party who endorse Identity Politics, an ideology that puts responsibility for all the evil in the world on white males.

The latest white male collapse is that of the president of Notre Dame University. Catholics, themselves formerly a marginalized people in the United States and Great Britain, are guilty, according to Rev. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, of displaying in Notre Dame's main building a wall mural painted by Luis Gregori in 1880. In the Identity Politics that now rules even Catholic universities, the 1880 painting is viewed in the 21st century as depicting native Americans in stereotypical submissive poses before white European explorers.

I would bet that most Americans would not read the painting in this way. But in American everything is determined by the few.

Notre Dame's president has decided that the solution to this "offense" is for the university to cover the mural.

Apparently the only intelligent person present at Notre Dame university is a law student, Grant Strobl, who said that "if we adopt the standard of judging previous generations by current standards, we may reach a point where there are no longer accomplishments to celebrate."

This is a good point, but I would go farther. Luis Gregori's painting was not intended to depict the submission of native Americans to the white man. Here we have another case of real history replaced by fake history with the connivance of the president of Notre Dame University.

Think about this for a moment. Is Luis Gregori's painting the only painting, the only piece of art that can be construed, or misconstrued, as giving offense? 

Read more

SJW Therapist | We The Internet TV

Join the We The Internet TV team on Patreon!  

https://www.patreon.com/wetheinternettv 

 Louis has been feeling sad, but since he's a straight white cis man, he shouldn't be. Because they don't have problems, right? Have no fear: the Social Justice Warrior therapist is on the case. Sexism, racism, and violence lurk under Louis's meek façade (probably). And only the SJW Therapist can help him. If Louis could just admit his privilege, he would realize how insensitive his depression and thoughts of suicide really are. How PC are your psychological issues? Let us know in the comment section! And don't forget to like the video, share it with your friends, and subscribe to our channel! And click the bell to turn on notifications from us, so you don't miss any of our new videos. Follow us on social media for more videos, memes and other political comedy that makes fun of everyone! 

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Written by Dan Banas and Greg Burke Directed and Edited by Greg Burke

Things we wont say about race that are true

Mario

Trevor Phillips confronts some uncomfortable truths about racial stereotypes, as he asks if attempts to improve equality have led to serious unwanted negative consequences.

Australian Universities ban sarcasm as 'form of violence'

Dan Lyman
News Wars

Government launches probe into campus censorship

Australian universities have begun banning sarcasm by deeming it a "form of violence," according to a watchdog group.

Gideon Rozner, director of policy at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a think tank "dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom," praised the Australian government's announcement that it is launching a probe into the suppression of free speech on campuses across the country. Rozner explained to Sky News Australia the findings of a recent study conducted by IPA, which rated more than 80 percent of Australian universities as "hostile to free speech," while only one school earned a "green" rating for being supportive of free expression. "At Federation University, 'bullying' in their code is 'hurting somebody's feelings,'" Rozner said, citing examples found in select university's conduct codes. "At La Trobe, bullying includes 'unintentional offense or emotional injury' - because as Dennis Miller says, we've raised a generation of emotional hemophiliacs."

"Here's the kicker: several Australian universities ban 'sarcasm' because it's a form of violence."

Read more

Let’s Discard The ‘Right’ To Be Insulted By Free Speech

Richard Enos

Collective Evolution 

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” As a child, this well-worn phrase was the perfect antidote to whatever insulting name-calling I had to endure from other children. Those times I did remember to use it, it seemed to give me back some strength and made me feel good. For all of us, the perspective behind this phrase can turn an ‘insult’ into what it truly is: mere words, a string of vocal utterances without innate meaning or power, unless the recipient were to interpret them as such by taking them personally.

The very phrase ‘She insulted me,’ is at best a relative and not an absolute truth. More accurate would be the phrase ‘She said something and I took it personally,’ because these two things are always required for someone to be insulted. It is not a matter of whether or not she intended to demean, offend, or humiliate me; if indeed she did, though, the truth about it is simply that ‘She said this with an intention to insult me.’ In the end, this never proves the insult to be true; it just proves that she is a person who tries to insult others.

If personal frailty makes us take offending statements personally–and many of us still fall into that category, at least some of the time–the experience always provides an opportunity for us to come to grips with how we feel about ourselves, and continue to do the personal work required that renders us invulnerable to insult. From this more powerful place, we can then deal with those who would insult or demean us in a much more effective manner.

Understand that I am not advocating that we individually or collectively suffer in silence when hateful and prejudicial speech is directed at us; I am suggesting that if we have allowed ourselves to be emotionally impacted by such speech, and have given these words power over us, we are unlikely to be able to deal with the situation in an effective manner.

[...]

Read more