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...”
Left-wing activists have recently been increasingly active in seeking
to limit opposing political viewpoints, in order to create a more
ubiquitous “groupthink.” One effort in accomplishing this has been to
propose the creation of a “Human Rights Committee” in order to monitor
the economic transactions of “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam
activists.”
This should not be surprising, as, throughout the
former Free World, collectivists are, increasingly, coming out of the
closet and seeking to eliminate any and all opposition to their cause.
And
this should not, in itself, be alarming, as it should be both
predictable and understandable that any politically driven group, be it
left-leaning or right-leaning, would seek to gain an advantage over its
opposite number.
What may be a real cause for alarm, however, is
that those whom they are trying to rope into their effort are banks and
corporations… and that they’re succeeding without a shot being fired.
It
might be hoped that those champions of industry and commerce would at
least put up a perfunctory fight, but clearly, this is not the case.
They’re not only caving in; they’re entirely on board.
As an
example, MasterCard is considering the selective restriction of
individuals from their services and funds. Those individuals would be
the ones that held unacceptable political views.
But they’re not the first in the queue to economically force people
to have “correct” views. PayPal and Patreon have barred selected
individuals from receiving payments through their services when those
individuals have been identified as holding “extreme views.” More
alarmingly, they’ve been supported in this decision by the US Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Journalist Ben Swann has commented that
this means that the US government has granted “big corporations the
ability to control what voices are heard.”
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.
What is political extremism? Professor of psychology Jordan Peterson points out that America knows what right-wing radicalism looks like: The doctrine of racial superiority is where conservatives have drawn the line. "What’s interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, 'No, you’re outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'" says Peterson. But where's that line for the Left? There is no universal marker of what extreme liberalism looks like, which is devastating to the ideology itself but also to political discourse as a whole. Fortunately, Peterson is happy to suggest such a marker: "The doctrine of equality of outcome. It seems to me that that’s where people who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say no. Equality of opportunity? [That's] not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…? It’s like: 'No, you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.'" Peterson argues that it's the ethical responsibility of left-leaning people to identify liberal extremism and distinguish themselves from it the same way conservatives distance themselves from the doctrine of racial superiority. Failing to recognize such extremism may be liberalism's fatal flaw.
Jordan Peterson is the author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
Read more at BigThink.com:
Zero Hedge In what looks like a validation of the growing public expressions of anger directed at members of the media, a new Axios poll found that nearly all (a staggering 92%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe that mainstream media organizations knowingly report false or misleading stories, at least occasionally. And while Democrats proved to be the most credulous group, a majority still doubt that US media organizations are 100% credible. All told, 72% of respondents said they believe mainstream media organizations to be knowingly misleading. Other studies from Gallup and Pew Research Center have drawn similar conclusions, with Democrats, unsurprisingly, revealed as the only group that still has any substantial level of trust in the media. Back in the 1970s, trust in media rose as high as 74% during the aftermath of Watergate.
The poll also found that 43% of Democrats say they utilize "Fact-Checking" resources like Snopes and FactCheck.org, while only 30% of Republicans and Independents do the same.
President Trump regularly lashes out at the "Fake News" media during his rallies and tweets. But most recently, it was Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin who took the media to task for sloppy reporting, rebutting a Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg scoop about the administration's plans to block investment by Chinese firms. According to Mnuchin, the story got important details about the administration's strategy wrong, including its focus on China. Mnuchin shared finalized details about the policy earlier this morning.
Comment: There is no doubt that these gangs are of ethnic extraction and all immigrants. That flies in the face of politically correct ideology, but facts are facts. What is worse, part of the reason such gangs were allowed to exist for so long is because police and some members of the communities were afraid of being branded "racist" if they were to speak up about these crimes.
The vast majority of immigrants and ethnic minorities are law-abiding and go about their business like anyone else. But questions have to be asked why these grooming gangs were so systematic and widespread and almost exclusively drawn from ethnic immigrants. Is this the result of unfettered immigration policies which encourage a far too rapid migration of people atop and increasingly fragile economic system? Or is it that such psychopathy rises to the surface because it is symptomatic of a culture that is in decline regardless of immigration policies? Obviously, this is a complex subject.
Nonetheless, the experiment that is "multiculturalism" hasn't worked, quite apart from these aberrations. You mix very different cultures together in a short space of time it is only logical that "cultural diversity" becomes a myth, replaced by misunderstanding, tension and resentment. It has nothing to do with racism but simple cultural logistics and the clash of basic values.
A group of men who abused teenage girls
in a vehicle they called the 's**gwagon' have been jailed for a total of
nearly 90 years.
The men - aged 36 to 48 - befriended vulnerable girls as young as 13 before plying them drink and drugs at 'parties' in Oxford.
The
eight men - branded 'predatory and cynical' by a judge - have now been
jailed for between seven and a half and fifteen years each.
Judge Peter Ross said the investigation into the gang had uncovered 'systematic and widespread grooming'.
Investigating officer DS Nicola Douglas branded the gang's crimes
'abhorrent', adding: 'None of the perpetrators have admitted their guilt
or shown any remorse.'
She praised the victims for coming
forward, saying: 'The impact of these offences on the victims, their
families and relationships cannot be underestimated.
'There are devastating consequences which last long after the offence is committed.
Princeton University offers a bi-weekly discussion group on "healthy masculinity" that aims to make men "tremendously vulnerable" in order to get them to "dismantle the institutional privilege that men enjoy."
According to Princeton's website, stereotypically masculine behaviors like "being the breadwinner" and "not showing weakness" are among the harmful aspects of the "guy code."
Princeton University officials are encouraging male students to join a bi-weekly discussion group that aims to make them “tremendously vulnerable.”
"We can’t dismantle the institutional privilege that men enjoy if we’re not willing to ask hard questions of ourselves about the privilege we’ve been granted in our own lives." Tweet This “We as men can unpack our own internalized ideas about what it means to be a man,” writes Carl Adair, the Princeton English professor who runs the blog for the MAVRIC Project, who also asserts that “We can’t dismantle the institutional privilege that men enjoy if we’re not willing to ask hard questions of ourselves about the privilege we’ve been granted in our own lives.”
“We’re asking ourselves to be tremendously vulnerable—which runs against the grain of everything men are taught,” he adds.
School officials said that the project has been active since 2013, but only within the past two years has it established an online presence. Now, in addition to the discussion group, the project maintains an active Facebook page, a reflection blog, and hosts invited speakers.
The Trump effect is tearing apart the largest social network. The Guardian is hot and bothered by Facebook's indirect "collusion" with the Trump campaign, as the UK based newspaper is calling for the FTC to break apart Zuckerberg's spy apparatus, in much the same way Microsoft was "ordered" to split apart in 2000...
Since news broke that a data analysis firm with ties to the Trump campaign harvested personal information from tens of millions of Facebook users, much of the speculation has focused on whether the Federal Trade Commission will fine the corporation for violating a 2011 deal to protect user privacy.
But the pressing nature of America's Facebook problem, especially the way the corporation's actions have endangered basic democratic institutions, means the FTC should go much further.
Rather than simply carve away some of Facebook's huge profits, the FTC should immediately move to restructure the corporation to ensure this now essential medium of communication really serves the political and economic interests of American citizens in the 21st century.
Oprah Winfrey, the American queen of TV talk shows, is reportedly set to run for the US presidency – and liberal Hollywood and media are ecstatic at the prospect.
"Oprah for president" has broken out like a delirium across social media after the TV star made an "electrifying" speech at the Hollywood Golden Globes ceremony last weekend in which she spoke eloquently in defense of women over sexual harassment and for racial minorities.
"A new day is on the horizon," declared the 63-year-old African-American Winfrey, who is one of the most recognized celebrities in America after decades hosting a top-rated talk show.
CNN and other liberal media outlets who hate Republican President Donald Trump with a vengeance, think that they have found their political savior in Oprah. She would be the "perfect anti-Trump candidate," reported CNN on breaking the news from "close friends" that Oprah is considering a run for the White House at the next election in 2020.
"Winfrey has deep pockets, an even deeper well of charisma, and instant name recognition, thanks to decades on The Oprah Winfrey Show," swooned a CNN comment.
On a superficial level, Oprah might seem the perfect ticket. She has millions of fans among ordinary Americans due to her years of hosting wildly popular TV shows and also from an award-winning acting career. She was nominated for an Oscar in 1985 for her performance in Steven Spielberg's film, The Color Purple. Oprah has the backing of legions of celebrities and media because of her undoubted charisma and humanitarian character. This week, Oscar-winning actress Meryl Streep was one of the first to hail her presidential ambitions. "She's got to do this," Streep emphatically told the Washington Post.
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
During WWII the USA "saved Europe" and acquired a moral right to "protect" other friends and allies
The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene
I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.
But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim "know thyself" as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany, Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?
It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars - defeated regimes don't get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.
You doubt that?
Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler's personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says "where I sit is where I stand". Well, may I ask - where are we sitting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?
You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don't speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the "mainstream" consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.
This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don't reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.
So how does the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?
Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own "mainstream". Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be double plus good thinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?
Some of you may remember my last article, 'post-imperialism, a template for a new social order' where I described a utopian society. It discussed ideas of community, values, the quest for truth and objective reality. The present article does almost the opposite, it describes the current state of our society and where it is probably heading. More specifically, I will focus on the emergence and predominance of 'organized' minorities, be they homosexuals, atheists, migrants, pagans, modern art enthusiasts, blacks, vegetarians, LGBT advocates, you name it.
The list is long and keeps getting longer, as if we had entered an age of the race for victim-hood. Most of those minorities consider themselves as 'Social justice warriors' or SJWs. I'll try to explain how SJWs ended up imposing their vision of the world on the majority and where this raging proselytism displayed by SJWs comes from.
Many terms have been used to describe the dystopian world in which we find ourselves: materialist, scientist, atheist, individualistic, rationalist, consumerist. They all are valid descriptions, although they only address one of the facets of our global society.
Recently some thinkers attempted to give a more extensive assessment of our society and described it as nihilistic, relativist, post-modern. What those three terms have in common is that they make the claim that there can be no objective truth, no objective meaning and no objective moral values.
But when you observe the vehement proselytism displayed by 'acting' minorities, it seems that they strongly believe they hold truth and they are very willing to fight for it. How can this be in a nihilistic/relativist/postmodern society, where there is no truth, no future and no goal?
Along with tracking the fundamental causes and origins of the fervor and proselytism displayed by 'dominant' minorities, I'll try to describe the current dynamics and show that they go way beyond 'nihilism'. That's why I use the term 'post-nihilism' to account for the society that emerges after the transitory 'nihilistic' phase. Read more
Professor Jordan Peterson set social justice activists on fire when he
started publishing his series on the dangers of political correctness.
After a protest against him last week, he held his own counter-protest
today.
On November 23, 1963, the day after John F. Kennedy's assassination, Fidel Castro gave a talk on Cuban radio and television.[1] He pulled together, as well as he could in the amount of time available to him, the evidence he had gathered from news media and other sources, and he reflected on this evidence.
The questions he posed were well chosen: they could serve as a template for those confronting complex acts of political violence. Were there contradictions and absurdities in the story being promoted in the U.S. media? Who benefitted from the assassination? Were intelligence agencies claiming to know more than they could legitimately know? Was there evidence of foreknowledge of the murder? What was the main ideological clash in powerful U.S. circles and how did Kennedy fit in? Was there a faction that had the capacity and willingness to carry out such an act? And so on. But beneath the questions lay a central, unspoken fact: Castro was able to imagine—as a real possibility and not as mere fantasy—that the story being promoted by the U.S. government and media was radically false. He was able to conceive of the possibility that the killing had not been carried out by a lone gunman on the left sympathetic to Cuba and the Soviet Union, but by powerful, ultra-right forces, including forces internal to the state, in the United States. Because his conceptual framework did not exclude this hypothesis he was able to examine the evidence that favored it. He was able to recognize the links between those wishing to overthrow the Cuban government and take more aggressive action toward the Soviet Union and those wishing to get Kennedy out of the way.
In the immediate wake of the assassination, and after the Warren Commission's report appeared in 1964, few among the elite left leadership in the U.S. shared Castro's imagination. Vincent Salandria, one of key researchers and dissidents, said: "I have experienced from the beginning that the left was most unreceptive to my conception of the assassination."[2]
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad challenged the official narrative at the “9/11 Revisited: Seeking the Truth” conference in Kuala Lumpur in 2012.
I.F. Stone, a pillar of the American left leadership, praised the Warren Commission and consigned critics who accused the Commission of a cover-up to "the booby hatch."[3] The contrast with Castro is sharp. Speaking well before the Warren Commission's emergence, Castro mocked the narrative it would later endorse. Several other prominent left intellectuals agreed with I. F. Stone, and declined to criticize the Warren Commission's report.[4]
Noam Chomsky, resisting serious efforts to get him to look at the evidence, said at various times that he knew little about the affair, had little interest in it, did not regard it as important, and found the idea of a "high-level conspiracy with policy significance" to be "implausible to a quite extraordinary degree."[5] He would later say almost exactly the same thing about the 9/11 attacks, finding the thesis that the U.S. administration was involved in the crime "close to inconceivable,"[6] and expressing his disinterest in the entire issue.
Not everyone on the American left accepted the FBI and Warren Commission reports uncritically. Dave Dellinger and Staughton Lynd, for example, encouraged dissident researchers.[7] In fact, several of the leading dissident investigators, such as Vincent Salandria, Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher, were themselves, at least by today's standards, on the left of the political spectrum. But they were not among the elite left leadership in the country and they were, to a great extent, unsupported by that leadership during the most crucial period.
The United States federal government in Washington is under attack today. Our nation's capital is presently under siege, not from military bombs or rockets fired by any foreign enemy but from powerful enemies within. With Obama-Hillary-Soros forces ostensibly maneuvering outside official government channels, against America's legitimately elected President Trump, and their loyalist foot soldiers - the neocons and intelligence community loyalists within the CIA/NSA/FBI still operating inside deep state, criminally conspiring with Mainstream Media, this sinister alliance is also organizing legions of clueless young leftist protesters to be at the ready for deployment in the streets to wreak havoc violently rioting as paid agitator insurgents. What we have here on our hands is an American Spring uprising, an insurgent regime change operation taking place right here in our own country currently bent on overthrowing America's existing "democratically elected" government.
Despite having written a number of articles critical of Trump policy as president and latest White House puppet, his presidency has been undermined, sabotaged and categorically rejected by his opponents at every turn. Trump rightfully called mainstream media fake news "an enemy of the American people." Tactics deployed by MSM and Trump's multiplicity of enemies are so blatantly illegal and highly unethical that as a fair-minded journalist seeking the truth, I feel compelled to address this demonization of Donald Trump perpetrated by the same crowd that's been demonizing Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for years. Understanding the why and the wherefore of this unprecedented full scale attack on a standing US president is key to recognizing the truly diabolical bigger picture unfolding at the behest of the planetary controllers.
The ruling elite's longtime agenda has been to destroy the United States and the West from within. In reaction to last year's growing anti-globalist movement, represented by the Brexit vote and "anti-establishment" Trump election, the elite is becoming desperately aggressive now, fighting for absolute domination and population control, insidiously whipping up unstable domestic conditions throughout the Western world, engineered to explode with racial, class, religious and politically charged civil war violence in both America and Europe. In the US this takes the form of mass deployment of a robotically dumbed down, highly manipulated yet well-organized political left, constituting the elite's WMD against Trump's reactionary militarized authoritarian federal forces, soon spilling blood and chaos as America's very own Spring uprising. The coming riots are aimed at causing the violent breakdown of civil society in both America and Europe, of course co-timed with the ongoing, incessant MSM propaganda machine, 24/7 delivering the false narrative of overly hostile, aggressive Russia, China and Iran intended to ignite World War III, simultaneous to the implosion of the house of cards global economy - the New World Disorder's perfect storm of cataclysmic events, mapped out long in advance to bring about its one world government tyranny.
So-called “Bias Response Teams” are creeping onto university campuses across the country. This was the conclusion of the first national survey of Bias Response Teams done by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
The report identified 232 public and private American colleges and universities that had bias response teams on their campuses in 2016, affecting around 2.8 million students.
BRTs encourage students to formally report on other students and faculty members whenever they perceive that someone’s speech is “biased,” which threatens free speech.
Most universities receive a variety of complaints from students, including students who encounter “offensive” yet legally protected speech, but rather than responding to these incidents fairly if there’s an actual threat, campuses with Bias Response Teams conduct an investigation and if the “respondent” is found “guilty”, invite them for a “hearing”.
Examples of Bias Response Teams exercising their power include a student humor publication at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) that lost its funding after making fun of “safe spaces” on campus. They got their funding pulled after people filed bias incident reports, one openly calling the university to “stop funding”.
