Conservatives Plan MASSIVE ‘End Domestic Terrorism’ Rally Against Portland Antifa

A large rally is being planned to push back against Antifa in Portland, Oregon.

The Proud Boys and conservatives are planning a large “End Domestic Terrorism” rally to push back against Portland Antifa following a weekend of violence that saw journalist Andy Ngo brutally beaten and attacked with milkshakes, and an elderly man’s skull fractured after being attacked with a metal bar.

Enrique Tarrio, Chairman of the Proud Boys and co-organizer of the D.C. “Demand Free Speech” rally that has been threatened with acid attacks from Antifa, is planning a large rally to push back against what he considers “domestic terrorism” on behalf of the far left organization responsible for brutally beating Ngo last weekend.

“We’re planning this massive rally with the calm, peaceful intention to push back against the violence from Antifa,” Tarrio told Big League Politics. “The Portland Mayor and police need to understand that conservatives are peaceful people who just want to our First Amendment protected.”

“It’s good that the Portland police want to do their job,” added Tarrio. “So long as they do their job, the Proud Boys will have a peaceful rally, and there will be multiple Antifa arrests.”

Tarrio says he hopes at least 1,000 conservatives will attend the event. He plans to bring in guest speakers from around the country, and says he is in preliminary talks with many prominent conservative figures to bring them to the event.

Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland has attempted to protect Antifa from blame by refusing to mention them by name in his public remarks regarding the protest, and the Portland Police Association has attempted to levy equal blame on both the Proud Boys and Antifa in the wake of the violent weekend:

Video and a march route provided to Big League Politics by Proud Boys Elder Joshua Hall reveals that the Proud Boys were at least a 30 minute walk away from the location where Ngo was attacked over the weekend, contradicting claims from the Portland Police Association that the organization was somehow implicated in the violence.

The official statement, posted to the Association’s Facebook Page, exclaimed that “It’s time for our Mayor to do two things: tell both ANTIFA and Proud Boys that our City will not accept violence in our City and remove the handcuffs from our officers and let them stop the violence through strong and swift enforcement action.”

It appears the Portland Police Association did, however, attempt to levy the majority of the blame against Antifa. The statement read, “If this violence had been directed at Antifa, there would have been an immediate call for an independent, outside investigation.”

This also comes as a petition for President Donald Trump to name Antifa a domestic terrorist organization has garnered over 20,000 signatures in only 24 hours.

Big League Politics reported:

A petition to name Antifa a domestic terrorist organization is gaining momentum as the fallout from last weekend’s violence continues to be exposed on social media.

The petition, “Demand President Trump label Antifa a domestic terrorist organization” is growing quickly in the days following the unprecedented violence in Portland, Oregon that saw journalist Andy Ngo brutally beaten and attacked with quick cement milkshakes and an elderly man’s skull fractured during an attack with a metal pipe.

After 24 hours, the petition reached 20,000 signatures, and currently sits at just under 25,000.

The rally is planned for August 17 in downtown Portland, Oregon. Tarrio says he expects to be denied a permit by the city of Portland, and is going to closely follow the letter and spirit of the law to hold the rally despite this.

The “End Domestic Terrorism” rally has been announced on Telegram and other alternative social media websites.

July 2, 2019 0

DAVID KNIGHT SHOW: REPARATIONS OR RECRIMINATIONS? DEMS PUSH TRIBAL WARFARE

Left-wing identity politics are center stage as Congress debates reparations

By David Knight

On this Thursday broadcast, David Knight covers the latest news including Wednesday’s reparations hearings in Congress and much more.

Don’t forget to share this highly censored link to continue fighting for free speech as the tech elite ramp up their anti-First Amendment agenda.

June 21, 2019 0

ANTITRUST LAWS AND BIG TECH – THIS IS HOW WE SAVE THE 1ST AMENDMENT

By Greg Reese

A look at the history of U.S. Antitrust Law and how it applies to Big Tech.

Infowars reporter Greg Reese explains how Trump can stop the tech giants from destroying free speech.

June 3, 2019 0

‘Christchurch Call’ is a blueprint for more online censorship — and Zuckerberg is a big fan

By Danielle Ryan

There is nothing inherently wrong with the new ‘Christchurch Call’ to curb violent and terrorist content online. No one in their right mind wants mass shootings live-streamed online — but it’s what comes next that should worry us.

Drawn up in the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque massacre, which was streamed live online, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ is billed as a “roadmap for action” and calls for the “immediate and permanent” removal of “terrorist and violent extremist content” from social media platforms. It has been signed by 18 governments and eight tech companies.

On the face of it, that sounds fine. It’s difficult to argue against removing terrorist content from the platforms so many of us use on a daily basis. The trouble is, Ardern has already admitted that the pledge is simply a “starting point” — and if you were expecting this to be the moment at which social media companies finally began to push back a little bit, sorry to disappoint you, but they’re all in on it together.

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burning

Endorsing censorship

Lord of social media, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is afflicted with an obvious and ever-worsening God complex, offered a full-throated endorsement of online censorship a few days ago, saying “…the question of what speech should be acceptable and what is harmful needs to be defined by regulation, by thoughtful governments.”

That’s right, Zuck thinks “thoughtful governments” should be deciding what is “acceptable” for us to say online. There’s no ambiguity there. It’s a simple, straight-forward endorsement of the idea that governments should be allowed to regulate our speech. If that doesn’t worry you, then maybe you’re the kind of person who reads dystopian novels and cheers for the wrong side.

Zuckerberg’s comment isn’t exactly out of the blue. Facebook is already under fire for censoring political speech from both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. The company has banned a slew of right-wing commentators and conservative agitators from its platform and taken worrying steps against leftist and anti-war activists around the world.

Just the beginning

So, if social media companies aren’t going to fight back on our behalf (and they clearly are not), who will? The obvious answer is “journalists” — but they don’t appear to be in too much of a rush to halt this creeping censorship either. Some of them appear to be advocating more censorship, rather than less.

ALSO ON RT.COMNo kissing gays or conservative hunters: Overcautious Facebook blocks political ads in SwedenIn an interview with Le Monde on Monday, Ardern was asked why she decided to focus “uniquely on violent terrorist content, and not more broadly on hate speech, which also contributes to the drift in social media?”

Ardern replied that focusing on terrorist content was just the “point of departure” on which everyone could agree. So this is a journey we are on. We’ve departed at ‘terrorism is bad’ — but where will we end? Ardern said she was wary that going any further right now would “open the way for debate” on potential risks to freedom of expression. But in a joint press conference on Wednesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, she said her hope was that working together, governments and tech companies could “eliminate ideologies of hate.”

That would be lovely — and if only the word were so simple, we could just eliminate all the meanies from the internet and live in an online utopia. Unfortunately, this is completely unrealistic, and when you start talking about eliminating certain ideologies, that’s where things get sketchy. Particularly if we’re going to delegate the task of deciding what is and is not “harmful” (as Zuckerberg said) to “thoughtful governments.”

‘Hate speech’ or ‘free speech’?

Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis is set to sign a bill that would make it a “hate crime” to “demonize” or“delegitimize” Israel. The bill purports to be about “anti-Semitism” but it’s really just a vehicle to censor and even criminalize political speech. You see, that’s the kind of thing that “thoughtful” politicians get up to if left to their own devices. Then again, the Florida bill probably isn’t something that would ring alarm bells at Facebook HQ, either. Zuckerberg already happily complies with orders from the Israeli government to delete Palestinian activist accounts.

As for the US government, it has refused to sign Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ citing first amendment rights — but declining to sign a vague and non-binding agreement doesn’t mean much. Capitol Hill is still swarming with politicians just dying to enforce more restrictions on free speech.

ALSO ON RT.COMFrance wants more govt regulation of Facebook and Zuckerberg calls it ‘model’ approachDemocratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted in the aftermath of last year’s Infowars ban that the very “survival of [US] democracy” depends on Facebook’s willingness to “take down” more websites that “tear our country apart.” Sure, why don’t they just get rid of any content that could conceivably be categorized as divisive? Sounds like a foolproof plan.

A US government intelligence report last year highlighted a former RT show hosted by Abby Martin as an example of content that sowed “radical discontent” in society for critically covering controversial issues like US regime change wars, fracking, capitalism and police brutality. Be careful out there, you never know what could be defined as “radical” content next.

As journalist Igor Ogorodnev wrote in a recent oped, the aftermath of an atrocity “is a honeypot for short-sighted do-gooders buzzing about looking to do something, but also opportunist politicians to realize their long-harbored ambitions.”

Trying to distract us

Social media is what the public uses to organize en masse in the 21st century.

Is it any wonder that Macron, facing months of Yellow Vest protests against his government, is helping lead the charge toward more online censorship?

A French government report recently called for the eradication of content that damages “social cohesion” and warned that“false information,”“unfounded rumors” and “individuals pursuing political or financial objectives” can have an impact on “the social order.” But who decides what constitutes “false information” and “unfounded rumors”? Is Macron’s government “thoughtful” enough for Zuckerberg?

ALSO ON RT.COMWhite House posts call for social media censorship stories, triggering hope & cynicismOf course, it’s much easier for governments to pass the blame for social discontent onto companies like Facebook, while arguing that censorship is the only solution. If they didn’t do that, they’d have to admit that what really drives mass discontent are the neoliberal policies that have had a detrimental effect on basic standards of living, wiped out people’s life savings and ravaged the planet.

But maybe that’s all something Ardern and Macron can work on some other day — that is, if we’re allowed to talk about it.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

May 16, 2019 0

THERE IS NO FUTURE FOR DISSIDENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

May 10, 2019 0

Facebook co-founder says it’s ‘time to break up’ the social media giant in scathing op-ed

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has called for the break-up of the social media behemoth and lamented the “staggering” and “unchecked” power of CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a lengthy and searing oped.

Hughes co-founded Facebook with Zuckerberg in a Harvard dorm room in 2004 and watched “in awe” as the company grew over the last 15 years — but said he now feels a “sense of anger and responsibility” about how all-powerful and out-of-control the social media giant has become.

Lashing out at the company, Hughes wrote in a piece published by the New York Times that Zuckerberg’s power and influence goes “far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government.”

“There is no precedent for [Zuckerberg’s] ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.”

Hughes berates Facebook over “sloppy privacy practices,” “violent rhetoric and fake news,” and the “unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention.” It’s not that Zuckerberg is a bad person, he writes, but “he’s human” and his focus on growth “led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks.”

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burningHughes also bemoans the fact that the powerful CEO controls three core communications platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) and says that lack of competition, market or government regulation is a major problem. If a competitor crops up, Zuckerberg can simply choose to shut it down “by acquiring, blocking or copying it” in the manner it did with the Instagram and WhatsApp mergers.

The lack of competition means that “every time Facebook messes up, we repeat an exhausting pattern: first outrage, then disappointment and, finally, resignation.”

“Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered.”

Hughes also worries that Zuckerberg has “surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.” He believes that neither Facebook’s offer to appoint a “privacy czar” or the expected Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine of $5 billion will be enough to rein in the company.

The answer and solution lies in more government regulation and subsequent market competition, Hughes says. But Facebook isn’t afraid of just “a few more rules,” so the action needs to be more dramatic, he suggests.

“The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.”

That will involve separating Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram into three individual companies and banning future acquisitions “for several years.”

The FTC should never have permitted these mergers, but it’s “not too late to act.” There is “precedent for correcting bad decisions,” he says, pointing to 2009 when Whole Foods settled antitrust complaints by selling off the Wild Oats brand and stores it had acquired years earlier.

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burningHe notes that time is of the essence, however, as Facebook has been working quickly to integrate the three platforms, precisely in order to make splitting them up more difficult.

“Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American. It is time to break up Facebook.”

Hughes also suggests the creation of a new government agency specifically to empower Congress to regulate tech companies and protect user privacy.

He says the agency should “create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media” while noting that the idea might seem “un-American” at first. The standards therefore should be “subject to the review of the courts” and would be similar to already accepted rules on speech like not shouting “fire” in a theater, provoking violence or making false statements to manipulate stock prices.

Ultimately, he says, an aggressive case taken now against Facebook would persuade other behemoths like Google and Amazon to “think twice” about stifling competition out of fear that “they could be next.”

May 9, 2019 0