‘RIP, 1st Amendment’: New York City Mayor intervenes to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos university talk

‘RIP, 1st Amendment’: New York City Mayor intervenes to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos university talk

“FOOLISH FORM OF TOLERANCE”: BELGIAN ‘CHRISTMAS MARKET’ CHANGES NAME TO ‘WINTER MARKET’

"Foolish Form of Tolerance": Belgian 'Christmas Market' Changes Name to 'Winter Market'

Some claim change was made so as not to offend Muslims

 | Infowars.com – OCTOBER 30, 2018

Organizers of a Christmas market in the Belgian city of Bruges have changed its name to ‘Winter Market’, with some claiming the switch was made so as not to offend Muslims.

According to a report by HLN, instead of Christmas-themed lighting, the market will be lit up with “winter lighting”.

Senator Pol Van Den Driessche of the country’s opposition party called the change “unbelievable and incomprehensible.”

“From now on we can no longer speak of the ‘Christmas market’ in Bruges, but of the ‘winter market’,” he added. “This is not only a ridiculous decision, it also goes against our individuality. Bruges has a very beautiful and old tradition in terms of Christmas. Whether you are religious or not, it is part of our culture. I do not want to give in to this foolish form of ‘tolerance’.”

Some respondents to the article asserted that the change was made to avoid offending Muslims.

“Do we still live in Belgium?” asked one. “Our norms and values are eroding, our culture is disappearing and our feasts need other names. And we must respect their Ramadan and Sugar Feast.”

However, organizer Pieter Vanderyse said the change was made merely to make the market appear more “neutral,” adding that other Belgian cities had changed their ‘Christmas Markets’ to ‘Winter Markets’.

This is not the first time that the Christian foundation of Christmas has been hidden in order to avoid offending Muslims.

In December 2016, the Austrian embassy changed the name of its “Christmas delicacies” to “Winter delicacies” out of consideration for the feelings of Muslims.

Earlier this month, a school in Chesterfield County, Virginia banned Christmas carols containing word “Jesus” in fear they may be offensive to ‘diverse students’.

Last year in Germany, a school was forced to re-locate its annual Christmas party after a single complaint from a Muslim student.

A Christmas tree in the Italian city of Bolzano was also removed from the town hall after fears that it could “hurt the feelings” of or “offend” Muslims.

Last year, a Christmas movie set to be screened in the French city of Langon, where Muslims are allowed to pray on the streets, was banned, because it was “too Christian”.

Web Host Blacklists LifeSite News After Left-Wing Harassment

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 27: An anti-abortion advocate rallies outside of the Supreme Court during the March for Life, January 27, 2017 in Washington, DC. This year marks the 44th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. (Photo …

By Charlie Nash

LifeSite, a Christian pro-life news outlet, was allegedly blacklisted by its web host and given just 12 hours to find another host the website, or risk being offline.

“LifeSite just received an email at 8:30 p.m. EST from our web-hosting company alerting us that they will be taking our website down within 12 hours, if not sooner,” claimed LifeSite in a statement, Saturday. “We received absolutely no forewarning whatsoever about this decision.”

“Our web developer is scrambling right now to set up a possibly-needed temporary solution to keep the website live. However, we’re going to have to go through the ordeal and expense of moving server companies,” the news outlet continued. “We also intend to fight these attacks, which will carry significant legal costs.”

In an update made following the original statement, LifeSite added, “Our web developer was up all night implementing temporary measures to keep our site online even if our current web-hosting company followed through on its threat to shut down our services. We are extremely grateful for his hard work on a Saturday night. However, this is only a temporary solution. We are currently looking for a web-hosting company that will not cave to threats of this kind.”

On its website, LifeSite describes itself as a “non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family,” launched by the pro-life Campaign Life Coalition in 1997, which “emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality.”

LifeSite was not the only website blacklisted by its web host this week, with free speech social network Gab losing its web host Joyent late on Saturday and being given until just Monday morning to migrate to another host.

On Saturday, Gab claimed the blacklisting could leave the social network offline for weeks, and as of writing, Gab is currently offline.

“As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online,” declared the social network in a statement. “Thank you and remember to speak freely.”

‘Free speech’ social platform Gab goes offline after fatal Pittsburgh shooting

Offline: Gab is taking time off the internet, under immense pressure following the Pittsburgh attack.

By Johnny Lieu

Gab has gone offline.

The self-described “free speech social media platform” is taking time off the internet, after landing under the spotlight when the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect was revealed to be a poster and user on the site.

Gab posted a message on its homepage, announcing that the site will be “inaccessible for a period of time” as it works “around the clock” to transition a new hosting provider.

The platform has been banned by PayPal, and fellow online payment service Stripe is looking to cut off the site. Gab’s new hosting service, Joyent, reportedly will suspend the site from 9 a.m. ET on Monday, Oct. 29.

Capture

Gab’s domain registrar, GoDaddy, has also asked for the platform to take its business elsewhere.

“We have informed Gab.com that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service,” GoDaddy told Mashable in a statement.

“In response to complaints received over the weekend, GoDaddy investigated and discovered numerous instances of content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence against people.”

Publishing platform Medium has also recently suspended Gab’s account, under which the social site had made a statement stating that it “unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence.” This statement has now been made unavailable.

Mashable has reached out to Medium for comment.

Capture

 

FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP OF ALTERNATIVE MEDIA “JUST THE BEGINNING,” WARNS TOP NEOCON INSIDER

Facebook Censorship Of Alternative Media "Just The Beginning," Warns Top Neocon Insider

“We are just starting to push back.”

Max Blumenthal and Jeb Sprague | GrayZoneProject.com – OCTOBER 29, 2018

At a Berlin security conference, hardline neocon Jamie Fly appeared to claim some credit for the recent coordinated purge of alternative media…

This October, Facebook and Twitter deleted the accounts of hundreds of users, including many alternative media outlets maintained by American users. Among those wiped out in the coordinated purge were popular sites that scrutinized police brutality and U.S. interventionism, like The Free Thought Project, Anti-Media, and Cop Block, along with the pages of journalists like Rachel Blevins.

Facebook claimed that these pages had “broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” However, sites like The Free Thought Project were verified by Facebook and widely recognized as legitimate sources of news and opinion. John Vibes, an independent reporter who contributed to Free Thought, accused Facebook of “favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices.”

In comments published here for the first time, a neoconservative Washington insider has apparently claimed a degree of credit for the recent purge — and promised more takedowns in the near future.

“Russia, China, and other foreign states take advantage of our open political system,” remarked Jamie Fly, a senior fellow and director of the Asia program at the influential think tank the German Marshall Fund, which is funded by the U.S. government and NATO.

“They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning.”

Fly went on to complain that “all you need is an email” to set up a Facebook or Twitter account, lamenting the sites’ accessibility to members of the general public. He predicted a long struggle on a global scale to fix the situation, and pointed out that to do so would require constant vigilance.

Fly made these stunning comments to Jeb Sprague, who is a visiting faculty member in sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara and co-author of this article. The two spoke during a lunch break at a conference on Asian security organized by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, Germany.

In the tweet below, Fly is the third person from the left who appears seated at the table.

Capture

The remarks by Fly — “we are just starting to push back” — seemed to confirm the worst fears of the alternative online media community. If he was to be believed, the latest purge was motivated by politics, not spam prevention, and was driven by powerful interests hostile to dissident views, particularly where American state violence is concerned.

JAMIE FLY, RISE OF A NEOCON CADRE

Jamie Fly is an influential foreign policy hardliner who has spent the last year lobbying for the censorship of “fringe views” on social media.Over the years, he has advocated for a military assault on Iran, a regime change war on Syria, and hiking military spending to unprecedented levels. He is the embodiment of a neoconservative cadre.

Like so many second-generation neocons, Fly entered government by burrowing into mid-level positions in George W. Bush’s National Security Council and Department of Defense.

In 2009, he was appointed director of the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a rebranded version of Bill Kristol’s Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. The latter outfit was an umbrella group of neoconservative activists that first made the case for an invasion of Iraq as part of a wider project of regime change in countries that resisted Washington’s sphere of influence.

By 2011, Fly was advancing the next phase in PNAC’s blueprint by clamoring for military strikes on Iran. “More diplomacy is not an adequate response,” he argued. A year later, Fly urged the US to “expand its list of targets beyond the [Iranian] nuclear program to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials.”

Fly soon found his way into the senate office of Marco Rubio, a neoconservative pet project, assuming a role as his top foreign policy advisor. Amongst other interventionist initiatives, Rubio has taken the lead in promoting harsh economic sanctions targeting Venezuela, even advocating for a U.S. military assault on the country. When Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign floundered amid a mass revolt of the Republican Party’s middle American base against the party establishment, Fly was forced to cast about for new opportunities.

He found them in the paranoid atmosphere of Russiagate that formed soon after Donald Trump’s shock election victory.

PROPORNOT SPARKS THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA PANIC

A journalistic insider’s account of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Shattered, revealed that “in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss. Her top advisers were summoned the following day, according to the book, “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up … Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Less than three weeks after Clinton’s defeat, the Washington Post’s Craig Timberg published a dubiously sourced report headlined, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news.’”The article hyped up a McCarthyite effort by a shadowy, anonymously run organization called PropOrNot to blacklist some 200 American media outlets as Russian “online propaganda.”

The alternative media outfits on the PropOrNot blacklist included some of those recently purged by Facebook and Twitter, such as The Free Thought Project and Anti-Media. Among the criteria PropOrNot identified as signs of Russian propaganda were “Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone” and “Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad.” PropOrNot called for “formal investigations by the U.S. government” into the outlets it had blacklisted.

According to Craig Timberg, the Washington Post correspondent who uncritically promoted the media suppression initiative, Propornot was established by “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Timberg quoted a figure associated with the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, Andrew Weisburd, and cited a report he wrote with his colleague, Clint Watts, on Russian meddling.

Timberg’s piece on PropOrNot was promoted widely by former top Clinton staffers and celebrated by ex-Obama White House aide Dan Pfeiffer as “the biggest story in the world.” But after a wave of stinging criticism, including in the pages of the New Yorker, the article was amended with an editor’s note stating, “The [Washington] Post… does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

PropOrNot had been seemingly exposed as a McCarthyite sham, but the concept behind it — exposing online American media outlets as vehicles for Kremlin “active measures” — continued to flourish.

THE BIRTH OF THE RUSSIAN BOT TRACKER — WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT MONEY

By August, a new, and seemingly related initiative appeared out of the blue, this time with backing from a bipartisan coalition of Democratic foreign policy hands and neocon Never Trumpers in Washington. Called the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), the outfit aimed to expose how supposed Russian Twitter bots were infecting American political discourse with divisive narratives. It featured a daily “Hamilton 68” online dashboard that highlighted the supposed bot activity with easily digestible charts. Conveniently, the site avoided naming any of the digital Kremlin influence accounts it claimed to be tracking.

The initiative was immediately endorsed by John Podestathe founder of the Democratic Party think tank the Center for American Progress, and former chief of staff of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the Atlantic’s chief Russiagate correspondent, promoted the bot tracker as “a very cool tool.”

Unlike PropOrNot, the ASD was sponsored by one of the most respected think tanks in Washington, the German Marshall Fund, which had been founded in 1972 to nurture the special relationship between the US and what was then West Germany.

The German Marshall Fund is substantially funded by Western governments, and largely reflects their foreign-policy interests. Its top two financial sponsors, at more than $1 million per year each, are the U.S. government’s soft-power arm the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the German Foreign Office (known in German as the Auswärtiges Amt). The U.S. State Department also provides more than half a million dollars per year, as do the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and the foreign affairs ministries of Sweden and Norway. It likewise receives at least a quarter of a million dollars per year from NATO.

The US government and NATO are top donors to the German Marshall Fund

Though the German Marshall Fund did not name the donors that specifically sponsored its Alliance for Securing Democracy initiative, it hosts a who’s who of bipartisan national-security hardliners on the ASD’s advisory council, providing the endeavor with the patina of credibility. They range from neocon movement icon Bill Kristol to former Clinton foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan and ex-CIA director Michael Morell.

Jamie Fly, a German Marshall Fund fellow and Asia specialist, emerged as one of the most prolific promoters of the new Russian bot tracker in the media. Together with Laura Rosenberger, a former foreign policy aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Fly appeared in a series of interviews and co-authored several op-eds emphasizing the need for a massive social media crackdown.

During a March 2018 interview on C-Span, Fly complained that “Russian accounts” were “trying to promote certain messages, amplify certain content, raise fringe views, pit Americans against each other, and we need to deal with this ongoing problem and find ways through the government, through tech companies, through broader society to tackle this issue.”

Yet few of the sites on PropOrNot’s blacklist, and none of the alternative sites that were erased in the recent Facebook purge that Fly and his colleagues take apparent credit for, were Russian accounts. Perhaps the only infraction they could have been accused of was publishing views that Fly and his cohorts saw as “fringe.”

What’s more, the ASD has been forced to admit that the mass of Twitter accounts it initially identified as “Russian bots” were not necessarily bots — and may not have been Russian either.

“I’M NOT CONVINCED ON THIS BOT THING”

A November 2017 investigation by Max Blumenthal, a co-author of this article, found that the ASD’s Hamilton 68 dashboard was the creation of “a collection of cranks, counterterror retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus.”

These figures included the same George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security fellows — Andrew Weisburd and Clint Watts — that were cited as experts in the Washington Post’s article promoting PropOrNot.

Weisburd, who has been described as one of the brains behind the Hamilton 68 dashboard, once maintained a one-man, anti-Palestinian web monitoring initiative that specialized in doxxing left-wing activists, Muslims and anyone he considered “anti-American.” More recently, he has taken to Twitter to spout off murderous and homophobic fantasies about Glenn Greenwald, the editor of the Intercept — a publication the ASD flagged without explanation as a vehicle for Russian influence operations.

Watts, for his part, has testified before Congress on several occasions to call on the government to “quell information rebellions” with censorious measures including “nutritional labels” for online media. He has received fawning publicity from corporate media and been rewarded with a contributor role for NBC on the basis of his supposed expertise in ferreting out Russian disinformation.

Clint Watts has urged Congress to “quell information rebellions”

However, under questioning during a public event by Grayzone contributor Ilias Stathatos, Watts admitted that substantial parts of his testimony were false, and refused to provide evidence to support some of his most colorful claims about malicious Russian bot activity.

In a separate interview with Buzzfeed, Watts appeared to completely disown the Hamilton 68 bot tracker as a legitimate tool. “I’m not convinced on this bot thing,” Watts confessed. He even called the narrative that he helped manufacture “overdone,” and admitted that the accounts Hamilton 68 tracked were not necessarily directed by Russian intelligence actors.

“We don’t even think they’re all commanded in Russia — at all. We think some of them are legitimately passionate people that are just really into promoting Russia,” Watts conceded.

But these stunning admissions did little to slow the momentum of the coming purge.

ENTER THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL

In his conversation with Sprague, the German Marshall Fund’s Fly stated that he was working with the Atlantic Council in the campaign to purge alternative media from social media platforms like Facebook.

The Atlantic Council is another Washington-based think tank that serves as a gathering point for neoconservatives and liberal interventionists pushing military aggression around the globe. It is funded by NATO and repressive, US-allied governments including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Turkey, as well as by Ukrainian oligarchs like Victor Pynchuk.

This May, Facebook announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) to “identify, expose, and explain disinformation during elections around the world.”

The Atlantic Council’s DFRLab is notorious for its zealous conflation of legitimate online dissent with illicit Russian activity, embracing the same tactics as PropOrNot and the ASD.

Ben Nimmo, a DFRLab fellow who has built his reputation on flushing out online Kremlin influence networks, embarked on an embarrassing witch hunt this year that saw him misidentify several living, breathing individuals as Russian bots or Kremlin “influence accounts.” Nimmo’s victims included Mariam Susli, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert pianist Valentina Lisitsa, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.

In an interview with Sky News, Shilling delivered a memorable tirade against his accusers.

“I have no Kremlin contacts whatsoever; I do not know any Russians, I have no contact with the Russian government or anything to do with them,” he exclaimed.

“I am an ordinary British citizen who happens to do research on the current neocon wars which are going on in Syria at this very moment.”

With the latest Facebook and Twitter purges, ordinary citizens like Shilling are being targeted in the open, and without apology. The mass deletions of alternative media accounts illustrate how national security hardliners from the German Marshall Fund and Atlantic Council (and whoever was behind PropOrNot) have instrumentalized the manufactured panic around Russian interference to generate public support for a wider campaign of media censorship.

In his conversation in Berlin with Sprague, Fly noted with apparent approval that, “Trump is now pointing to Chinese interference in the 2018 election.” As the mantra of foreign interference expands to a new adversarial power, the clampdown on voices of dissent in online media is almost certain to intensify.

As Fly promised, “This is just the beginning.”

Swedish musical star on niqab and burka: Stone Age ideas that don’t belong here

By Emma H.

When singer Tommy Körberg visited the latest episode of the podcast “Fördomspodden”, he revealed his attitude to garments like niqab and burka.

“Those stone Age ideas they can keep for themselves,” he said. In the podcast, guests get to respond to prejudice about themselves.

In the latest episode, Tommy was confronted with the claim that he “purely aesthetically” thinks the Ku Klux Klan “has something”.

He disagreed. Anyone who covers their face shouldn’t be here. One should show one’s face, he said. The host asked if this also applied to religious purposes.

“Yes, above all. We shouldn’t have it here anyway,” the singer responded.

“We should show who we are. This applies to anyone who comes here,” he continued.

“So people can’t bring their religion to Sweden, in your opinion?” the host asked.

“They can bring their religion, but one should follow local customs too. To sit in school and cover your face, no no,” replied Tommy.

When Aftonbladet got hold of the singer, he elaborated his thoughts.

“Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a purely patriarchal act – how men have treated women. Those Stone Age ideas they can keep for themselves, and not bring here.”

“Are you thinking about the burka and niqab, that have been discussed in for example Denmark?”

“You should not cover your face. What is this stupidity? Just remove it,” he concluded.

53% of US undergrads afraid to disagree with outspoken professors on political, social issues — poll

53% of US undergrads afraid to disagree with outspoken professors on political, social issues — poll

Students are pictured on the campus of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. © Reuters / Harrison McClary

US college campuses have traditionally been known as havens of free speech among students, but now professors are increasingly sharing their opinions — and many undergraduates are afraid to disagree with them, a new survey found.

Some 800 full-time undergraduate students at private and public four-year universities took part in the survey earlier this month that was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale University’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program.

More than half of those students (52 percent) said that their professors or course instructors express their own unrelated social or political beliefs “often” in class, according to the poll results that are due to be released next week, but were seenin advance by The Wall Street Journal found.

But unlike their professors, the young people find it more difficult to speak up. The survey found that 53 percent of the students polled often feel “intimidated” in sharing their ideas, opinions, or beliefs if they differ from their professor’s. That’s an increase of four percentage points from three years ago.

The students were also asked about hate speech on campuses, with 33 percent believing that physical violence can be justified to stop a person from making hateful or racially charged comments. That number represents a slight increase from last year, when 30 percent of students said the same.

Meanwhile, when asked about the First Amendment, which protects free speech in America, 17 percent of students said they would stand behind a rewrite of it, as they consider it “outdated.”

While the poll doesn’t specify which direction each professor’s personal opinions lean, a survey conducted earlier this month by a politics professor at Sarah Lawrence College provides insight on the political affiliations of student affairs administrators in the US. A whopping 71 percent identified as liberal or very liberal, while only six percent identified as conservative to some degree.

“To students who are in their first semester at school, I urge you not to accept unthinkingly what your campus administrators are telling you. Their ideological imbalance, coupled with their agenda-setting power, threatens the free and open exchange of ideas, which is precisely what we need to protect in higher education in these politically polarized times,” the study’s author, Samuel J. Abrams, warned in a column in The New York Times.

READ MORE: US Liberals cozy up to Antifa, America’s anti-free speech ‘Taliban’

Freedom of speech on America’s college campuses has, according to many conservatives, long been under threat. The University of California at Berkeley has constantly found itself at the heart of the controversy.

The Berkeley campus, historically and currently known for its liberal students and staff, was at the center of clashes and arrests last year as protesters and counter-protesters came out in full force to make their voices heard over a talk by the former editor of conservative online news site Breitbart.

Berkeley also came under fire for canceling a planned speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter last year, with some students even filing a lawsuit over the matter.

The behavior of the university, which is ironically the home of the Free Speech Movement, even evoked a response from US President Donald Trump, who threatened to pull its federal funding if it didn’t change its tune.

Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 4.27.37 PM

But Berkeley isn’t the only campus to make headlines for its treatment of conservative speakers. Texas Southern University in Houston canceled a commencement address by Republican Senator John Cornyn last year, after a petition was filed against his appearance by students.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑