Talking head decrees that white children should be indoctrinated to feel guilt about their skin color.
By Steve Watson – 6/4/2020
CNN gave airtime to an ‘anti-racist activist’ who suggested that white children should not be allowed to have an ‘innocent’ childhood, but rather be made to feel guilty about their ‘white privilege’ at an early age.
CNN host Poppy Harlow cited a letter sent to her from a school directing white parents how to teach their kids about their ‘white privilege’, and asked Tim Wise“When should parents do this with their kids and how?”
Wise responded that it should be at as young an age as possible, and that white kids need to be repeatedly told they are over privileged in order to sufficiently indoctrinate them.
Leftists have found a way around taking responsibility for their own racism; they just disguise themselves as “anti-racist activists,” and the media rushes to promote their bigoted statements and ideologies. On CNN Newsroom this morning, one such activist, author Tim Wise, told the friendly CNN panel that to be a proper “anti-racist” ally, white parents need to take away their child’s innocence by teaching them about their white privilege and police brutality, at a young age.
CNN Analyst Angela Rye told a Republican strategist on air this week that ‘the greatest terrorist threat’ in the US are white men who think like he does.
GOP campaign strategist Patrick Griffin argued that the so called “Squad” of Democrats, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has “hijacked” the Democratic Party.
“It’s so interesting that you use the term — the only two Muslim women in Congress, the term you chose to use, sir, is ‘hijacking,’” Rye, the former Congressional Black Caucus executive director, ridiculously responded.
“It has nothing to do with whether they’re Muslim or not,” Griffin hit back, “Nothing to do with that… They’ve hijacked from their own principles.”
“That’s a real interesting word choice, and you understand why,”Rye continued, insisting that Griffin used the term to connect the Democrats to terrorists.
“You can talk over me all you want to but the bottom line is the greatest terrorist threat in this country is white men, white men who think like you. That is the greatest terrorist threat in this country.” Rye blurted.
Griffin described Rye’s remarks as “silly rhetoric.”
“No, it’s not!” Rye responded.
“You know what’s silly? The fact that you’re on here knowing how dangerous times are right now defending this nonsense.”she added.
“If you call Trump followers racist en masse, they simply coalesce around each other.”
By Steve Watson – AUGUST 16, 2019
Former FBI official turned MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi, who sees Hitler in everything Trump does, stated on a live broadcast this week that Trump supporters are a lot like terrorists rallying around a figurehead.
The former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the FBI, was discussing racism (shocker) with MSNBC host Chris Jansing, when the pair suggested that it would be a good idea for Democrats to keep accusing Trump supporters of being racist.
And Figliuzzi responded:
That was enough to get the attention of Fox News analyst Dan Bongino, who said “I can’t believe this guy is still allowed on the air.”
“MSNBC is willing to put complete lunatics on the air who will say absolutely anything at any time, as long as it makes Trump look bad,” he added.
Federal authorities have used RICO many times to prosecute white prison gangs, but what got the members of organizations such as the Aryan Brotherhood locked up under the statute was not the racism they believed but the acts they committed: crimes including drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping and money laundering.
In the case of mass shootings by those who believe in white supremacy, such as the young white man who allegedly killed 22 people at a Walmart store in El Paso last weekend, prosecutors don’t need RICO to make a criminal case.
But if they wanted to use RICO to hold accountable the collective ideology that radicalized the shooter, they would need to prove that there was an organized enterprise involved with that ideology, that there was a traceable criminal conspiracy to commit violence and that there was a leader or leaders who instructed others to cause harm.
Without that, the collective ideology is not a conspiracy but hate speech. And in the United States, hate speech is not criminal. It’s a right protected by the First Amendment.
C’mon now, where’s your can-do attitude?
This is more like it:
But according to retired law professor G. Robert Blakey, who wrote the RICO statute and is considered the nation’s foremost authority on it, federal authorities should be using RICO to more rigorously investigate white extremist groups without violating free speech protections.
It wouldn’t be easy, he said, but there’s “no excuse” not to try.
Well said. The Bill of Rights is no reason not to start locking people up for their political beliefs!
‘The Hunt’ is about elite liberals paying to hunt rural, conservative Americans in a safari park.
By Richard Moorhead
An upcoming Universal Pictures movie is receiving scrutiny from its own publisher for its graphic depiction of political violence against conservative Americans.
The Hunt is about elite liberals kidnapping conservatives and paying to hunt them in a safari-style theme park in Europe. Watch the trailer here:
It is worth nothing that the movie’s trailer doesn’t exactly imply the film’s premise encouragesviolence against Trump supporters. The liberals paying to kill conservatives are depicted in a clearly villainous fashion, sipping champagne on private planes as their explain their desire to terrorize rural country bumpkins, who see they as less than human beings.
The conservative ‘prey’ in the movie speak with exaggerated southern accents and other stereotypes commonly utilized by the political left to tar right-leaning Americans. Some of them speak of being proud gun owners.
Betty Gilpin stars as a heroine who seeks to rally the other kidnapped “conservatives” in order to escape the twisted theme park.
The release of such a politically contentious movie is being debated at Universal Pictures, the film’s publisher. After the wake of the politically-charged violence seen at Dayton and El Paso, Texas, Universal is said to be reconsidering its promotional strategy for the movie. ESPN already refused to air an ad for ‘The Hunt’ earlier this summer.
‘The Hunt’ is still slated for release on September 27th, but it’s probably possible it will get delayed or even cancelled as this point. The latter possibility is less likely, as the film’s $18 million budget has already been spent.
It’s unclear what kind of reception the film will receive from the broader public. It’s already been a contentious project in Hollywood, where media elites are presumably less than thrilled to see liberal globalists depicted as callous murderers.
After an investigation occurred, it was quickly determined that the so-called noose was actually a practice fishing knot, commonly referred to a “Uni Knot,” that an employee was tying during a break from their job. These types of knots are typically used following surgery for traction. The knot was discovered the next day by a different worker of the hospital, which spurred the latest hate hoax.
UM Medical School Dean Marschall Runge did not wait for the investigation to take place in order to jump to conclusions in emails sent to faculty. He sent the campus into a frenzy with a race-baiting hate hoax that would bring a smile to Jussie Smollett’s face.
“Yesterday, in one of our hospitals, a noose — a symbol of hate and discrimination — was found at the work station of two of our employees,” he wrote.
“We have taken immediate action to have this investigated as both an act of discrimination and a criminal act of ethnic intimidation. This act of hate violates all of the values that we hold dear and will not be tolerated,” he added.
Now that it has been shown that he helped perpetrate a pack of lies, Runge refuses to show any humility or take any responsibility for his irresponsible, divisive rhetoric.
“Our community came together to support each other, reaffirmed our stance against hate, and began having open dialogues about this incident and ways to make our community more inclusive,” Runge said in a follow-up email.
“We continue to stand strong as we make it clear to all that this organization — its leaders, faculty, staff and learners — fiercely values and defends equality, inclusiveness, respect and dignity for all, and the elimination of discrimination and intimidation in all forms,” he added.
The UM police have said publicly that they do not consider the tying of this knot to be a hate crime. However, they continue to pay lip service to the culture of witch hunting that is so pervasive on their campus dominated by leftist demagogues.
“We all share the responsibility of creating a safe and secure environment free from violent or threatening behavior,” DPSS Executive Director Eddie L. Washington said. “Any crime designed to infringe upon these rights will be taken very seriously by the university and DPSS.”
The modern Left, on their Orwellian quest to expose imaginary racists for wrong-think, will never take responsibility for the hysteria they have inflicted on society. An individual cannot even tie a knot without looking over his shoulder as liberals bring the U.S. closer to idiocracy with each passing day.
What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s election and the “yellow vests” protests in France?
What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?
Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.
What are the popular gripes against them?
One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.
Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, offshored and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad).
Three, unelected bureaucrats multiplied and vastly increased their power over private citizens. The targeted middle classes lacked the resources to fight back against the royal armies of tenured regulators, planners, auditors, inspectors and adjusters who could not be fired and were never accountable.
Four, the new global media reached billions and indoctrinated rather than reported.
Five, academia, rather than focusing on education, became politicized as a shrill agent of cultural transformation — while charging more for less learning.
Six, utopian social planning increased housing, energy, and transportation costs.
One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees, or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.
In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.
Green policies were aimed at raising fees on, and restricting the use of, carbon-based fuels. But proposed green belt-tightening among the hoi polloi was not matched by cutbacks in their second and third homes, overseas vacations, luxury cars, private jets and high-tech appurtenances.
In education, government directives and academic hectoring about admissions quotas and ideological indoctrination likewise targeted the middle classes but not the elite. The micromanagers of Western public schools and universities often preferred private academies and rigorous traditional training for their own children.
Elites relied on old-boy networks to get their own kids into colleges. Diversity administrators multiplied at universities while indebted students borrowed more money to pay for them.
In matters of immigration, the story was much the same. Western elites encouraged the migration of indigent, unskilled and often poorly educated foreign nationals who would ensure that government social programs — and the power of the elites themselves — grew.
The champions of open borders made sure that such influxes did not materially affect their own neighborhoods, schools and privileged way of life.
Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist or nativist middle classes. Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools and safety from sudden, massive and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia into their communities.
As for trade, few still believe in “free” trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn’t elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights and patents?
The middle classes became nauseated by elites’ constant trashing of their culture, history and traditions, including the tearing down of statues, the Trotskyizing of past heroes, the renaming of public buildings and streets and, for some, the tired and empty whining about “white privilege.”
If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?
How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system — benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?
In the next few years, expect more grass-roots demands for the restoration of the value of citizenship. There will be fewer middle-class apologies for patriotism and nationalism. The non-elite will become angrier about illegal immigration, demanding a return to the idea of measured, meritocratic, diverse and legal immigration.
Because elites have no answers to popular furor, the anger directed at them will only increase until they give up — or finally succeed in their grand agenda of a nondemocratic, all-powerful Orwellian state.
Twitter has revamped its rules, cutting them into tweet-sized morsels in the name of a “healthier public conversation.” Just as opaque and patronizing as before, they’re now even more likely to get you banned. Move over, YouTube!
Twitter has presented its users with a reformulated “easier to understand” set of rules, moving most of the text off the main page for a pleasing aesthetic experience and upping the chance users will never read the detailed policies. The byzantine and often self-contradictory conduct code is chock full of pitfalls, and users are quickly finding out the range of bannable offenses has swollen to rival YouTube’s and Facebook’s.
Twitter’s new “healthy conversation” policies are helping to ensure that no-one will ever again be offended by wrong opinions or bad words. pic.twitter.com/SfYGrJbhkZ
“Private Information,” “Sensitive Media” and “Terrorism & Violent Extremism”are the subsections advertised on the new rules page as having received a makeover, but reading through them is likely to leave the user even more confused than before. “We also prohibit the glorification of violence,”the tweet-sized takeaway under “violence and extremism” reads, but if you click through to the actual policy page, it turns out “violent acts by state actors” get a pass.
Her-cu-les, Her-cu-les! You don’t want to be on the receiving end of this gunship, aka the Angel of Death. pic.twitter.com/r5sN6c7g4I
Non-state actors – including Vox blogger Carlos Maza, whose complaints have been blamed for triggering Wednesday’s mass deplatforming on YouTube – have also gotten away with what could fall under “glorification of violence,”as some were quick to point out, noting their accounts had not only survived but thrived during the latest “purge.”
Another user raised the question of why Twitter would ask for government-issued identification in the course of a suspension appeal, and where that information might end up – considering how fellow tech giant Google hands over the personal data of tens of thousands of users yearly at the government’s request.
Twitter’s notoriously-vague hate speech rules have not been clarified – if anything, they’ve grown even more complex. There’s a “hateful conduct” policy and an “abuse/harassment” policy, the latter of which includes “hoping that someone experiences physical harm,” handing even more ammunition to the opponents of ‘thought police’.
Still want to get somebody banned but can’t find a rationale under the new and improved hate speech/harassment rules? Twitter has thoughtfully included a catch-all, menacingly vague prohibition against “platform manipulation” that echoes the “coordinated inauthentic behavior” reason Facebook gave for deplatforming hundreds of politically-active accounts before the 2018 US midterm elections.
“You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter.”
The page warns users against tweeting too much, following too many people, “aggressively adding users to lists,” trying to make accounts “appear more popular or active than they are,” and tweeting with “excessive, unrelated hashtags”– among dozens more no-nos. But “hobby/artistic bots”are apparently OK – a ready-made loophole for the likes of New Knowledge, the American Democrat-linked “experts”who ran an army of fake “Russian bots.”
The new rules don’t explain the “unusual behavior”that has apparently become grounds for banning, and many users took the opportunity to lash out at the platform for its censorship.
Parody accounts are supposedly still allowed, though someone apparently forgot to tell whoever deplatformed the latest AOC parody account on Tuesday.
The new, improved Twitter rules dropped less than 24 hours after the #VoxAdpocalypse left hundreds of YouTubers demonetized or even deleted for so-called “supremacist content”– a vague term which in practice seems to have translated to “conservative political speech,” since most white supremacist content had already been removed from the platform in earlier purges and “supremacist”content of any other kind appears to have been largely left alone.
YouTube has updated its hate speech policies and will now ban videos “with supremacist content,” as well clips promoting certain conspiracy theories.
The company, a subsidiary of Google, announced the clampdown on “hateful content” in a blog post on Wednesday. The company had already restricted commenting and sharing features on similar videos in 2017, but the new ban goes one step further.
“Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” read the blog post.
YouTube’s insistence that it will ban all forms of “supremacist” videos stands in contrast to a similar policy change at Facebook, which decided to exclusively ban “white nationalist” and “white supremacist” content, seemingly ignoring similar content from, for example, Black separatist or radical Zionism movements.
Nevertheless, YouTube presented “videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology” as an example that would break its new rules.
In addition to these changes, YouTube said it will reduce the spread of content that does not outright violate its policies, but “comes right up to the line.”
The company said that this “borderline” content, including flat-earth conspiracy videos and phony science videos, will be dropped from viewers’ recommendations and replaced with videos “from authoritative sources,” a move that will surely rankle free-speech advocates and those who already accuse the site of bias.
“Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place,”the post continued. YouTube was one of several tech giants that booted Infowars’ Alex Jones from their sites last August, much to the dismay of conservatives and free-speech activists.
Jones had previously suggested that the schoolchildren shot dead in the 2012 Sandy Hook tragedy were “crisis actors”hired to further the gun-control agenda.
Within minutes of the new rules being announced, conservative commentators, journalists, and even black metal musicians reported their videos banned or demonetized by YouTube.