‘Humanity not mankind’: EU Parliament urges MEPs to adopt ‘gender-neutral’ language

‘Humanity not mankind’: EU Parliament urges MEPs to adopt ‘gender-neutral’ language

Faced with a fracturing union plagued by internal squabbles, EU Parliament has taken decisive action to solve the bloc’s numerous real-world problems, issuing a pamphlet which urges MEPs to ditch words coined with “man”.

Officials and members in the parliament have been sent guidebooks on using gender-neutral language in all of their official EU-related work and communications, the Telegraph reported on Thursday. Under the new guidelines, European lawmakers will be strongly encouraged to say “chair” instead of “chairman”“artificial” instead of “man-made”, and “humanity” instead of “mankind.”

“Gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language is more than a matter of political correctness”, the guidebook insists. “Language powerfully reflects and influences attitudes and perceptions.”

The decision has prompted reactions from the country where English originated, especially from those of its citizens who seem to support the UK leaving the bloc.

“Here it comes glad we are leaving,” one Brit on Twitter wrote.

Capture

“Thank f*** we’re leaving! What a load of old s****,” another quipped, using the gender-neutral word for “man-feces.”

Capture

Others have argued that the guidelines are an affront to the English language, and attempt to needlessly alter the roots and meaning behind certain words.

Capture

Some pointed that the words mean nothing if they are not supported by actions.

Capture

The guidelines first emerged in November but were geared more towards interpreters, who were advised to use gender-neutral terms when translating between languages.

The EU parliament is just the latest in a long line of Western institutions to strive for a completely inoffensive, neutral-everything world. Everything from Christmas songs to “anti-animal” language has been targeted by the PC police for hurting at least one person’s feelings on Twitter.

Blowback after Emannuel Macron’s wife snaps photo with ‘notorious homophobe’

Blowback after Emannuel Macron’s wife snaps photo with ‘notorious homophobe’

France’s First Lady has found herself in the crosshairs of LGBT activists after posing for a photo with a pariah businessman known for his homophobic outbursts.

While visiting a popular Paris Christmas market, Brigitte Macron reportedly met with the holiday fair’s organizer, Marcel Campion, and congratulated him for the “very beautiful” event. The resulting photo op – showing the pair standing in front of a life-sized nutcracker – may not have been the most politically prudent decision, however. Campion is currently facing legal trouble over homophobic remarks that he directed at city leaders. The tycoon was recorded ranting about how Paris was “governed by homos” after he was forbidden by the city to host his traditional Christmas market on Champs Elysees.

Capture

In the video that went viral in September, the businessman said: “I usually say ‘queers’, but I was told that I should not say that anymore. So I don’t say queers, I say homos.” He later clarified that he doesn’t have anything “against” gay people, but that the alleged homosexuals who, in his opinion, run Paris are “perverted.”

“Beautiful, the wife of the President of the Republic who displays herself with a notorious homophobe”, said Deputy Mayor of Paris Ian Brossat.

“So, Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France, ostensibly appears with Marcel Campion, who talks about homosexuals as ‘perverse’ ‘faggots’ who must be saved from AIDS, even though he is being sued for defamation and homophobic insults…. Shame on her!” added LGBT activist Maxime Cochard.

ALSO ON RT.COMGangster who posed with Macron in ‘middle finger’ pic was linked to cocaine gang leader – report

Capture

Her husband, president Emmanuel Macron, recently had a photo scandal of his own, when he posed for a widely mocked photo with a reported cocaine dealer and his middle finger-flipping cousin.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Finland to Start Imprisoning Illegal Migrants

By Ben Warren

See the source image

Finland has created a new law allowing the imprisonment of illegal migrants.

The law specifically targets migrants who enter the country after they were given an “entry ban,” according to the Finnish Ministry of Justice.

“The President of the Republic today adopted amendments to the law by which a new provision on violation of the ban on entry is added,” said the Ministry. “To date, violation of the prohibition has generally led to fines for foreigners offenses.”

“In the future, the punishment for breach of the ban shall be fines or imprisonment for a maximum of one year.”

Additionally, the law is effective at the start of 2019 and authorities expect it to discourage further illegal movement into the country.

This legal maneuver against the surge of migrants comes after Finland’s Immigration Service (Migri) admitted they couldn’t identify almost half of the migrants applying for asylum.

“People who are fleeing do not have the possibility of leaving with the required documents in their pockets,” said a Migri official. “Some of them come from countries that don’t even have passport systems.”

Correspondingly, it is unclear if the country has enough prison space to honor the new law as Migri is on record demanding more funding to construct additional facilities for migrants.

See the source image

SOUTHERN EUROPE Italian Minister tells NGO Italy doesn’t want migrants: “Our ports are closed!”

By   

Italy’s populist Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini announces that Italian ports are CLOSED.

The migrants were picked up from Libya intending to go to Malta but were turned away from Malta so the NGO Proactiva Open Arms requested to be allowed entry to Italy.

Salvini replied: “My answer is clear: Italian ports are closed!” Mr Salvini tweeted. “For the traffickers of human beings and for those who help them, the fun is over.”

This sparked anger in the human trafficking NGO who replied on twitter: “We continue with 311 people on board, without port and in need of supplies,” saying that they had rescued more than 300 migrants from three vessels in difficulty, including men, women, children and babies.

Committing the logical fallacy of appealing to emotions, they went on to say:

“If you could feel the cold in the images, it would be easier to understand the emergency. No port to disembark and Malta’s refusal to give us food. This isn’t Christmas.” An odd thing to say given the majority of the migrants are of the Islamic faith, thereby not celebrating Christmas anyway.

Tweeting further to Matteo, Open Arms’ founder Oscar Camps went onto say that “your rhetoric and your message will, like everything in this life, end. But you should know that in a few decades your descendants will be ashamed of what you do and say.”

Many countries are showing opposition to the economic migrants paying a high financial cost to be brought by human traffickers when real refugees can’t afford to and are left behind in their countries.

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

See the source image

By Robert Bridge

Once again, a reporter has been accused of writing fake stories – over a span of years – reinforcing the suspicion that we are living in a post-truth world where words, to paraphrase Kipling, “are the most powerful drug.”

This week, Der Spiegel, the German news weekly, was forced to admit that one of its former star reporters, the award-winning Claas Relotius“falsified his articles on a grand scale.”

Indeed, it seems the disgraced journalist was motivated more by fiction writers John le Carre and Tom Clancy than by any media heavyweights, like Andrew Breitbart and Walter Cronkite.

Relotius, who just this month took home Germany’s Reporterpreis (‘Reporter of the Year’) for his enthralling tale of a Syrian teenager, “made up stories and invented protagonists,” Der Spiegel admitted.

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

There is a temptation to rationalize Relotius’s multiple indiscretions, not to mention the failure of his fastidious employer to unearth them for so long, as an unavoidable part of the dog-eat-dog media jungle. After all, journalists are not robots – at least not yet – and we are all humans prone to poor judgment and mistakes, perhaps even highly unethical ones.

That explanation, however, falls short of explaining the internal forces battering away at the foundation of Western media, an institution built on the shifting sand of lies, disinformation and outright propaganda. And what is readily apparent to those outside of the Western media fortress is certainly even more apparent to those inside.

A good example is Russiagate. This elaborate myth, which has been peddled repeatedly and without an ounce of 100-percent real beef since the US election of 2016, goes like this: A group of Russian hackers, buying a few hundred social media memes for just rubles to the dollar, were able to do what all the Republican campaign strategists, and all the special interests groups, with all of their billions of dollars in their massive war chest, simply could not: keep Democratic voters at home on the couch come Election Day – a tactic now known as “voter suppression operations” – thereby handing the White House to Donald Trump on a silver platter. Or shall we say ‘a Putin platter’?

Capture

Don’t believe me? Here’s the opening line of a recent Washington Post article that should be rated ‘R’ for racist: “One difference between Russian and Republican efforts to quash the black vote: The Russians are more sophisticated, insidious and slick,” wailed Joe Davidson, who apparently watched too many Hollywood films where the Russkies play all of the villains. “Unlike the Republican sledgehammers used to suppress votes and thwart electorates’ decisions in various states, the Russians are sneaky, using social media come-ons that ostensibly had little to do with the 2016 vote.”

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel, despite being forced to come clean over the transgressions of Claas Relotius, will most likely never own up to its own factual shortcomings with regards to their dismal reporting on Russia.

For example, in an article published last year entitled ‘Putin’s work, Clinton’s contribution,’ the German weekly lamented that “A superpower intervenes in the election campaign of another superpower: The Russian cyber-attack in the US is a scandal.” Just like their fallen star reporter, Der Spiegel regurgitated fiction masquerading as news.

Capture

However, there is no need to limit ourselves to just media-generated Russian fairytales. The Western media has contrived other sensational stories, with its own cast of dubious characters, and with far greater consequences.

Consider the reporting in the Western media prior to the 2003 Iraq War, when most journalists were behaving as cheerleaders for military invasion as opposed to conscientious objectors, or at least objective observers. In fact, two reporters with the New York Times, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, arguably gave the Bush administration and a hardcore group of neocons inside Washington, which had been pushing for a war against Saddam Hussein for many years, the barest justification it required for military action.

Just six months before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, Gordon and Miller penned a front-page article in the Times that opened with this stunning claim: “Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.”

The article in America’s ‘paper of record’ then proceeded to build the case for military action against Iraq by quoting an assortment of anonymous senior administration officials, anonymous Iraqi defectors, and anonymous chemical weapons experts. In fact, much of the story was based on comments provided by one ‘Ahmed al-Shemri,’ a pseudonym for someone purported to have been connected to Hussein’s chemical-weapons program. The authors quoted the mystery man as saying: “All of Iraq is one large storage facility.”

Gordon and Miller also claimed their source had said that “he had been told that Iraq was still storing some 12,500 gallons of anthrax.” Several months later, just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq commenced, US Secretary of State Colin Powell invited the UN General Assembly to imagine what a “teaspoon of dry anthrax” could do if unleashed on the public.

Powell, who later said the testimony would be a permanent “blot” on his record, even shook a tiny faux sample of the deadly biological agent in the Assembly for maximum theatrical effect.

Shortly after the release of the Times piece, top Bush officials appeared on television and alluded to Miller’s story in support of military action. Meanwhile, UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq never found chemical weapons or the materials needed to build atomic weapons. In other words, the $1-trillion-dollar war against Iraq, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, was a completely senseless act of aggression against a sovereign state, which the US media helped perpetrate.

Aside from the question of whether readers really put much faith in these fantastic media stories, complete with pseudonymous characters and impossible to prove claims; there remains another question. Does the Western media itself believe its own stories?  The answer seems to be no, at least not always.

With regards to the Russiagate story, for example, an investigative journalism outfit, Project Veritas, caught a few Western journalists off-guard about their true feelings in relation to the claims against Russia, and their feelings in general about the state of the media.

“I love the news business, but I’m very cynical about it – and at the same time so are most of my colleagues, CNN Supervising Producer John Bonifield admitted, unaware he was being secretly filmed.

When pushed to explain why CNN was beating the anti-Russia drum on a daily basis, things became clearer: “Because it’s ratings,” Bonifield said. “Our ratings are incredible right now.”

In the same media sting operation, Van Jones, a prominent CNN political commentator who has pushed the anti-Russia position numerous times on-air, completely changed his tune when caught off-air and off-guard. “The Russia thing is just a big nothing burger,” he remarked.

This brings us back to the story of the fallen Der Spiegel journalist. It seems that a deep cynicism has taken hold in at least some parts of the Western media establishment. Journalists seem increasingly willing to produce extremely tenuous, fact-challenged stories, many of which are barely held together by a rickety composite of anonymous entities.

And why not? If their own media bosses are permitting gross fabrications on a number of major issues, not least of all related to Russia, and further afield in Syria, why should the journalists be forced to play by the rules?

Under such oppressive conditions, where the media appears to be merely the mouthpiece of the government’s position on a number of issues, those working inside this apparatus will eventually come around to the conclusion that truth is not the main priority. The main priority is hoodwinking the public into believing something even when the facts – or lack of them – point to other conclusions.

Thus, it is no surprise when we find Western reporters imitating the greatest fiction writers, because in reality that is what they have already become.

@Robert_Bridge

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS AGAINST WAR IN SYRIA BEFORE IT WAS FOR IT

See the source image

What a difference a year can make for The New York Times

By Joe Simonson

What a difference a year can make for The New York Times.

As President Donald Trump announced his decision Wednesday to withdraw the nation’s 2,000 troops from Syria, a bipartisan cadre of opinion-havers attacked him as recklessly abandoning allies in the region and jeopardizing America’s influence over foreign affairs.

One newspaper was particularly harsh: The Times.

Quickly after Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced his resignation (in part as a protest against Trump’s decision on Syria) Thursday, America’s paper of record quickly produced a scathing editorial, proclaimingJim Mattis Was Right.”

See the source image

“Who will protect America now?” The Times asked.

The editorial frets about how American troops leaving Syria “hampers morale” of “allied forces like the Kurds.” (RELATED: Trump Explains His Decision To Withdraw From Syria)

“It could also risk getting American soldiers killed or wounded for objectives their commanders had already abandoned,” writes The Times.

Yet almost a year ago, on Jan. 19, 2018, that same editorial board raked the president over the coals for even daring to continue America’s policy of military adventurism.

The Times expressed concern that more American troops beyond the 2,000 initially deployed could soon be sent overseas in a mission without any clear goals.

“Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking,” The Times said.

See the source image

While on Thursday The Times worried that leaving Syria could leave the Kurds vulnerable to Turkey, at the beginning of 2018, the paper also believed that the U.S. would be setting up a clash between the minority group and a NATO ally.

“Turkey, which views the Kurds as an enemy, has threatened a cross-border assault. All of this raises the grim possibility that American troops will clash with Turkey, a NATO ally,” The Times wrote last January.

Nowhere in Thursday’s editorial does The Times ever point to an alternative timeline for withdrawal for American forces in Syria. Such an omission is quite startling, considering last January the paper’s chief criticism of sending forces to the region was setting up just another forever-war in the Middle East.

One thing is clear from these two diametrically opposed editorials: The job of The Times isn’t to provide valid criticisms of Trump, but to simply oppose him at all costs.

Alyssa Milano mocks amputee veteran’s massive border wall crowdfunding, gets Twitter-flogged

Capture

Actress Alyssa Milano (L) / Brian Kolfage Jr. (R) © Reuters / Danny Moloshok /Mike Segar

Actress Alyssa Milano waded out of her depth as she slammed the border wall crowdfunding, implying the money should instead go to veterans. She was instantly reminded the campaign was started by a triple amputee vet.

The actress-turned-Democratic firebrand was left red-faced as after she took aim at the crowdfunding campaign to build a border wall between the US and Mexico, now at over $13mn. In a tweet on Thursday, Milano wrote: “Oh, yes! Let’s #GoFundTheWall while not taking care of our veterans. Cool. Cool. Cool.”

Capture

It was not long before the tweet ignited a firestorm on Twitter, as many noticed Milano hand’t done her homework, as the GoFundMe page was started by Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage, a Purple Heart recipient, who lost three limbs in a rocket attack in Iraq.

The campaign, with a designated goal of $1bn, started less than a week ago and has already shot up to be one of the five top GoFundMe campaigns ever.

Milano’s fellow Hollywood celebrity and outspoken conservative James Woods led the backlash against her, pointing out who started the fund.

Capture

Many actual veterans chimed in, tweeting at Milano that they have backed the crowdfunding campaign, while others accused her of preying on the cause she did not seem to care about before.

“Bring Vets up when it’s convenient for you. Any other day you could care less,” one Guser wrote.

Capture

People argued that building the wall and helping veterans are not incompatible tasks and can both be done at the same time.

Milano, one of the most prominent #MeToo movement stars, has been rallying behind virtually every anti-Trump and pro-Democratic cause, often using her Twitter with its 3.48 million followers to spew vitriol at Trump, calling him a “piece of sh*t” and “evil creature” for the treatment of caravan migrants at the US-Mexican border in November.

However, just like this time, back then Milano was accused of hypocrisy and poor research. She was reminded that border agents used the exact same means – pepper spray – to repel rock-throwing migrants at the border when Obama was in office.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Maddow’s latest crystal ball reading: Putin ‘ordered’ Trump to withdraw from Afghanistan

Capture

Rachel Maddow (R) and a US soldier in Afghanistan © AFP / Theo Wargo; Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow – a pioneer of Putin-ate-my-homework journalism – has predictably mused that Donald Trump is considering pulling troops out of Afghanistan on the orders of Russia’s president. The evidence speaks for itself.

In a segment on her critically-acclaimed show, “Watch Me Scream ‘Russia’ Until I Dislocate My Jaw”, Maddow made an adroit observation of seismic proportions: Reports that Donald Trump is mulling a partial withdrawal from Afghanistan emerged only hours after Vladimir Putin said that the US keeps promising to leave the country but never does! In layman’s terms: Putin ordered Trump to pull troops out of Afghanistan, during a live broadcast? It seems Maddow believes that she decrypted their top-secret communications channel.

Capture

Apparently she cannot fathom that there may be any non-Putin related motives for leaving Afghanistan after 17 years. But in August, the MSNBC host accused Trump of “flip-flopping” after announcing that more US troops would be deployed to Afghanistan.

Capture

Capture

So Rachel Maddow opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan – but anyone who wants to withdraw US forces from the country is a Putin stooge. A daunting pickle, indeed.

As Vox pointed out at the time, Trump “spent years railing against the war in Afghanistan and calling for a US withdrawal from the country.” Before moving into the White House, he made it clear to lawmakers that his administration would not send US troops to fight abroad unless “absolutely necessary.”

ALSO ON RT.COMPutin: ‘US right to leave Syria, but no signs of pullout – remember Afghanistan’

Maddow’s other celebrated Russiagate hits include having a stroke – live on television – after discovering that Russia shares a border with North Korea. She also famously revealed that Rex Tillerson was hand-picked by Putin to serve as Secretary of State – you know, the guy who allegedly called Trump a “f*cking moron”.

Imagine Maddow’s on-air meltdown if Trump really does withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

German minister who said “Happy Ramadan”, omits Merry Christmas on official Christmas card

’Frohe Weihnachten’, which is German for ‘Merry Christmas’, is the traditional greeting heard all throughout Germany.

Strangely, that was omitted from an official Christmas card from Annette Widmann-Mauz, Germany’s Minister for Migration, Refugees and Integration.

There was a photograph of the minister with several employees and included a Christmas tree in the background. However, otherwise it was a relatively un-festive card.

The card’s message, “No matter what you believe in, we wish you a contemplating time and a good start of the New Year,” was cause for criticism.

In Germany, Christmas is traditionally the largest holiday, so it seems amiss that Widmann-Mauz would omit Christmas from the official card.

Especially when she has congratulated other faiths on their holidays and didn’t miss wishing a happy Ramadan to those of the Muslim faith.

Capture

After much internet disapproval, including some saying there is nothing ‘Christian’ in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and that she is not right for her job, Annette’s office wrote on Twitter:

“Merry Christmas to all of you in Germany!”

Capture

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑