Posts

Meet the Corporations Supporting the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Assault on Christians and Conservatives

D. James Kennedy Ministries has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) over the reckless and politically motivated use of the “hate group” tag.

Click here to see the corporate supporters of SPLC.

A spokesman for Kennedy Ministries said:

It’s completely disingenuous to tag D. James Kennedy Ministries as a hate group alongside the KKK and neo-Nazis. We desire all people, with no exceptions, to receive the love of Christ and his forgiveness and healing. We unequivocally condemn violence, and we hate no one.

It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as “hate groups” simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality. It’s nothing more than an attempt to bulldoze over those who disagree with them, and it has a chilling effect on the free exercise of religion in a nation built on that. We decided not to let their falsehoods stand.

SPLC’s so-called “hate map” has been linked to violent attacks against conservatives in the past. In 2012, a gunman wounded a Family Research Council (FRC) employee when he attempted to gain access to the organization’s Washington, D.C. headquarters. The suspect would later tell FBI investigators he targeted FRC because it was listed as an “anti-gay group” by SPLC and “planned to kill as many people as possible and then to smear [Chick-fil-A] sandwiches on their faces as a political statement.”

SPLC was also linked to the recent attack on the Republican Congressional baseball team practice when U.S. Representative Steve Scalise wounded by a gunman who was reported fan of SPLC’s Facebook page, in addition to other leftist groups.

Other conservative organizations labeled as “hate groups” by SPLC merely for their conservative principles and Judeo-Christian beliefs include Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, organizations opposing illegal immigration, and many more.

The Kennedy Ministries lawsuit is a serious matter because SPLC sits on top of a massive warchest–an endowment of over $300 million–to finance it’s legal battles and political attacks. The Washington Times reports SPLC’s rating was downgraded last year from a “C+” to an “F” for having an inordinate amount of reserve assets compared to annual operating costs. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection suggests “SPLC’s bad habit sensationalizing and politicizing ‘hate’ ” is designed “to generate even more money for its already bloated coffers.”

Unfortunately, ‘sensationalizing hate’ appears to work for liberal corporations eager to help fund SPLC’s agenda. Both Apple ($1 million) and JPMorgan Chase ($500,000) have pledged to massive donations of corporate dollars in recent days. Apple has also launched a platform to solicit donations to SPLC through it’s iTunes store. Incidentally, the Hollywood liberal icon George Clooney he would be donating $1 million through his foundation as well.

Apple and JPMorgan Chase aren’t the only companies supporting SPLC’s defamation and targeting of conservatives. We’ve compiled a list of sixteen other corporations that directly enable SPLC’s politically motivated attacks. Our SPLC resource page documents the financial relationships between companies like Charles Schwab, Kraft Heinz, Newman’s Own, Verizon, and more and this radical group whose misleading information has helped inspire true violence.

Click here to view 2ndVote’s SPLC resource page.

The lawsuit brought by Kennedy Ministries is a first step to defunding SPLC, but conservatives can support that goal every day through informed shopping decisions.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Being Labeled an ‘Extremist’ By the Southern Poverty Law Center

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the 2ndVote.com website.

Google’s Blacklist: Destroying careers because of different political beliefs

Ironically, in the beginning, Google’s slogan, their tagline, was “don’t be evil.” They quietly retired that slogan — leftists don’t believe in good or evil — and switched it up to, “Do the right thing.”  You can’t make this stuff up.

The motto, “don’t be evil.” was first suggested either by Google employee Paul Buchheit at a meeting about corporate values that took place in early 2000 or in 2001….Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he “wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out.” (here)

Orwellian, all of it.

For well over a decade, a handful of us have been warning of the dangerous consequences of the bias by the ever growing, ever powerful Google. Of course, we were called conspiracy theorists and tinfoil yada yadas. There is conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. Here’s the proof.

NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS ALLEGED TO BE MEMBERS OF GOOGLE’S MANAGEMENT TEAM HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BRAGGING ABOUT FORMING BLACKLISTS TO IMPACT THE CAREERS OF COLLEAGUES WITH DIFFERENT POLITICAL BELIEFS.

In a series of screenshots from 2015 onwards provided to Breitbart News by a verified Google employee, individuals described as left-wing Google management employees can be seen discussing the ways they punish their colleagues both inside and out of the company.

August 7, 2017, By Charlie Nash, Breitbart (thanks to Todd):

“While Google appears to be doing very little to quell the hostile voices that exists inside the company, I want those hostile voices to know: I will never, ever hire hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit of technically excellent or whatever,” declared former employee Adam Fletcher in a post on Google’s internal, staff-only Google+ network: “Internal Plus.” “I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

“You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google,” he continued. “You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.”

“One of the great things about Google’s internal communication mechanisms (G+, mailing lists, etc), is that, as a manager, I can easily go find out if I really want to work with you,” wrote another individual described on social media as a Google manager, Collin Winter. “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.”

In the comments, one Google employee can be seen asking, “Are such blacklists allowed at Google?” before another added, “I would talk to legal before assembling a list of people who are possibly creating a hostile workplace.”

“And now I know that if I ever sue Google for harassment I should demand to see all manager’s shit-lists to see if this was something management already knew and thus let happen (my tormentor could be on there and not dealt with). It would probably increase the settlement aware considerably,” he continued. “I would encourage anyone else getting mistreated at Google to do the same.”

This week, a Google employee’s ten-page document went viral, after he called for more ideological diversity at the company.

As reported by Breitbart Tech’s Allum Bokhari, “The Googler’s 10-page manifesto criticized the company for maintaining an atmosphere of political groupthink, in which employees with viewpoints that challenge leftist narratives are forced to keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their jobs. He also criticized Google for ignoring the latest research on gender differences and their interplay with the lack of women in STEM jobs.”

The employee’s manifesto quickly prompted extreme responses from left-wing users, including one SJW, Emily Gorcenski, who claimed she would “beat the sh*t out of him.”

Gorcenski frequently retweets and expresses support for It’s Going Down, an extremist far-left Antifa organization, who have previously doxed and harassed college students, and encouraged violence against Trump supporters.

Alon Altman, who according to social media posts is a senior software engineer at Google and who describeshimself as an “intersectional feminist” and uses “they/them/their” pronouns, was also seen in leaked screenshots urging Google management to fire employees who agreed with the anti-political correctness manifesto that was revealed this week.

In leaked screenshots, Altman added that should the employee behind the manifesto not be fired by the end of the month, he would hand in his resignation notice.

In another post, alleged Site Reliability Manager Paul Cowan warned to employees that “freedom of speech is the right to freely express an opinion. It is most assuredly not the right to express an opinion with freedom from the consequences.”

Cowan continued to reference a post from Google dissidents, who were discussing the blacklists being created by an “SJW cabal” at the company, before defending the concept of punishing anti-SJW employees.

“To be clear: this is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable,” he declared. “Quoting this as if it were some egregious abuse of power, or of your rights, is laughable… My life, happiness, and mental health, are worth too much to me to burn my precious happy-fu working with people I find contemptible, unpleasant, or even in some cases merely irritating.”

After being warned that keeping blacklists could result in him being reported to Human Resources, Cowan then bragged on Twitter that they were “threats I ignored, naturally, and which ironically grew the list substantially.”

In older posts, Kim Burchett, a now ex-Google employee and Antifa supporter, also discussed blacklists in a post on Internal Plus.

“I am considering creating a public-inside-google document of ‘people who make diversity difficult’,” claimed Burchett. “I am thinking of something like google doc that accepts comments, and which calls out those googlers who repeatedly made public statements that are unsupportive of diversity, with links to those statements so that readers can decide for themselves.”

On Burchett’s alleged Twitter account, she displays the Antifa logo as her profile picture, and follows numerous Antifa accounts, including It’s Going Down.

More from James Damore: GOOGLE’S IDEOLOGICAL ECHO CHAMBER

google-enemy-of-the-people[This is the full ten-page internal memo to fellow employees attacking Google’s politically correct monoculture, written by Google engineer James Damore – whose facts and assertions were proven excruciatingly correct by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who fired Damore last night (8/07) for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes.”

TTP encourages you to read it entire.  It outraged Google’s fascist Social Justice Warriors, to whom Pichai instantly succumbed.  The SJW Code of Conduct has three rules:  Always lie, always project, always double down.  All three are evidenced by Google’s firing Damore for brilliantly and courageously speaking truth to power.

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.

When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.

Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber.

Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2[2]p>

Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others.

In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silenceThis silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.

For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3[3]strong>

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.”

Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4[4]pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles, reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that.

For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5[5]li>
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6[6]li>

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7[7]hat can irreparably harm Google.

 Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8[8]nd sex differences).

Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9[9]/p>

Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men.

We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue affecting men, he’s labeled as a misogynist and whiner[1[10]/p>

Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[1[11]which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority.

My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

  • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

  • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

  • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I’m just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

 Notes:

[1[1]his document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2[2]f course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3[3]hroughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4[4]or heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5[5]tretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6[6]nstead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7[7]ommunism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8[8]ronically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9[9]es, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[1[10]The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[1[11]olitical correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

James Damore is from Indiana.  He was a FIDE chess champion as a child.  His specialty is computational biology, is completing his Systems Biology Ph.D. at Harvard, and has done numerous research projects at Harvard, Princeton, and MIT.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?

Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.

So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.

While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.

National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and “peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously observed years ago was run by “girly men.”

I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me, and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery. Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will try to kill.

Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.

Georgetown University professor Christine Fair

“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:

…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer — Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no attention from the mainstream media.

As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”

Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of civil discourse?

hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.

Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no reason to defend him.

Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a ‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”

But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence, from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far, almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same. None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.

In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident, Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared to even ask.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump’s temporary immigration ban

UK: Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says jihad mass murderer was “not a Muslim”

VIDEO: May Day Protesters in Philadelphia Chant ‘Kill Trump, Pence!’

Imagine if we chanted “Kill Obama!” Leftwingers would have opened fire on us.

How are these traitors not arrested en masse for treason?

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Kill Trump! Kill Pence!’ Chant at Philadelphia May Day Protest Ignored by Media

The Same People Who Organized Trump Inauguration Riots Are Helping With The Climate March

Antifa anarchists mug shots:

antifa anarchists mug shots

Retail Misogyny: Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Macy’s Drop Ivanka Trump’s Collections

Retailers are dying so what do they do?

They decide to insult 62,000,000 voters.

Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and Macy*s? No more business from me and no doubt millions of others will decide the same thing.

Idiots.

CLICK HERE to go to Amazon.com and make your Ivanka purchase.

ivanka nordstrom


Macy’s Pressured to Drop Ivanka Trump Brand [Business Insider] (thanks to Katherine P)

Last week, Nordstrom announced it would be dropping the Ivanka Trump brand from its stores starting in fall 2017, citing flagging sales. One day later, all traces of Ivanka Trump jewelry disappeared from the Neiman Marcus website, and the retailer said that it would be carrying the label only in a handful of stores based on consignment. Now, Macy’s is being pressured to follow suit. The department store’s social media feeds are flooded with comments from customers and #GrabYourWallet boycotters asking Macy’s to drop Ivanka Trump shoes and clothing. According to Business Insider‘s sources, pressure is coming from inside the company as well, with corporate employees reportedly feeling uneasy about marketing the Ivanka Trump brand following the election. Currently, almost all of the 74 products listed for sale are marked down.

More at Hollywood Reporter.

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ivanka Trump Brand Soars to #1 on Amazon Best Sellers List

Exclusive — Women Nationwide Cut Up Nordstrom’s Cards, Plan Boycotts After Political Decision to Drop Ivanka Trump Line – Breitbart

Macy’s Announces Store Closings for 2017

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?

Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:

Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”

ira-madison-iii1

Ira Madison III (left).

In the article “Ira Madison III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” by  from Heavy.com describes Madison’s background:

Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”

[ … ]

According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.

[ … ]

When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”

[ … ]

The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”

Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:

iramadison-tweet-sessions-granddaughter

Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?

ira-madison

Ira Madison III

After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:

It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …

Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.

As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.

That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.

White Drexel University professor wants ‘white genocide’ — you first!

On Christmas Day Drexel NOW in an article titled “Response to Professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s Tweet” stated:

Drexel became aware today of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s inflammatory tweet, which was posted on his personal Twitter account on Dec. 24, 2016. While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University.

The University is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail. 

Here is Ciccariello-Maher’s Tweet:

So what exactly is there to discuss?

ciccariello_maher

George Ciccariello-Maher. Photo: Drexel University.

White professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s biography states:

I am very excited to have joined the Drexel community after having taught political theory at U.C. Berkeley, San Quentin State Prison, and the Venezuelan School of Planning in Caracas. Everywhere that I have lived, from Caracas to Oakland, has impacted my approach to teaching, research, and how I understand the world more generally, and I expect Drexel and Philadelphia to do the same.

My research and teaching center on what could be called the “decolonial turn” in political thought, the moment of epistemic and political interrogation that emerges in response to colonialism and global social inequality.

Read more…

Ciccariello-Maher’s specialization includes, “Colonialism, social movements, political theory, Latin America, and race and racism.” He “contribute[s] journalistic writing to such publications as Counterpunch, MRZine, and Venezuela Analysis, ZNet, and Alternet among others, and I have written op-eds for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Fox News Latino. I appear regularly in media outlets ranging from community radio to NPR, from Al-Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, and Fox News.”

Perhaps Ciccariello-Maher should take the lead and be the first to commit “white genocide”? Or maybe he already has?!

RELATED ARTICLES:

White Communist Professor Advocates White Genocide

Racist White Professor Calls For “White Genocide,” Then Blames Everyone Else For Misinterpreting His Racist Tweets

An Open Letter to Florida’s Only Openly Gay Legislator

Dear Representative Richardson:

Fl politics.pngSince your election to the Florida House of Representatives in 2012 until now, I have always known your reputation as a legislator to be one of nothing but respect for the dignity of the institution, for the legislative process and for your fellow colleagues.  Even those who firmly disagree with you on matters of public policy speak highly of you, of your talents as a legislator and the unique perspective you bring to the process.

However, after the tragic and despicable acts of evil which took place right down the street from my offices in Orlando on June 12, I was shocked to learn of your repeated statements accusing your fellow legislators of creating an environment that gives rise to such horrible violence when they speak out against any LGBT bills as bad public policy in the Legislature.

After the local NPR affiliate interviewed you, WFSU issued this report:

Florida’s only openly gay legislator says Orlando’s mass shooting is an example of a deranged individual taking anti-gay political rhetoric to the, “next level.” Democratic Representative David Richardson of Miami Beach says attempts by religious conservatives to roll back recent gains in gay civil rights encourages extremists… “[P]eople who are prone to committing violent acts are emboldened by speeches that they hear from policy makers that want to roll back our advances.” 

When I respectfully confronted you on another NPR affiliate radio debate for linking vocal opposition to new LGBT laws with violent acts such as the ones that occurred in Orlando, you initially denied these statements– until I read your words back to you on the air.  Then, instead of retracting or apologizing for these irresponsible remarks, you doubled down and repeated the same very offensive and incorrect argument again.  In that interview you said,

“I absolutely do think that people are emboldened, by the comments of certain lawmakers whether they are reacting in a violent way…”

While I realize the matter of the Orlando shooting and the topic of creating new LGBT rights are still raw, emotional, and highly personal matters for members of the LGBT community, this in no way justifies these inflammatory remarks which do nothing to foster good will, understanding or collegiality among fellow members of the Legislature, much less the general public.  On the contrary, your comments breed divisiveness, sow discord and are an attempt to manipulate and silence robust debate among the other elected leaders of our Legislature on these important policy decisions.

Additionally, you have also stunningly stated:

“It doesn’t help when they go to Tallahassee and spew hatred and rhetoric that is harmful to our community. I really wish we could get to a place where everyone can get along and respect the rights of everybody.”

I personally know many of the members of the Legislature who are known to be the most vocal and the most actively opposed to these bad gay-rights bills.

I have been in some of their homes.

I know their families.

None of them, even in private or casual conversation, make comments that “spew hatred” toward the LGBT community.  On the contrary, these are truly some of the finest, most loving and charitable people you could ever know.  Do you have specific examples of Florida legislators “spewing hatred” when debating in opposition to the creation of new LGBT rights?

The primary push by gay-rights activists after the Orlando tragedy, as you know, is the so-called “Competitive Workforce Act” (CWA) which seeks to create a new legal protected class for sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.  These laws are being used all across the country as weapons to punish Christians who want to live out their constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion in public life without government interference.  Even more egregiously, this CWA bill would also allow fully biological men to freely use women’s locker rooms and showers in any facility declared a public accommodation like YMCA’s, camps, LA Fitness & health clubs and domestic violence shelters.  This is a gross invasion of privacy, safety and security for women.  The more serious problem created with the CWA has not so much to do with transgendered persons themselves, as it does with actual criminals (voyeurs, sex offenders and pedophiles) who are looking for excuses to go into women’s intimate spaces, which the latest version of this bill would unquestionably allow.

These are just a few of the many legitimate and compelling public policy and constitutional problems which compel legislators to speak out publicly and strongly oppose the CWA.  For you to argue that when any legislator speaks out in debate against this dangerous bill they are “spewing hatred,” “encouraging extremism” and “make people prone to violent acts” is simply beyond the pale of decency for a member of the legislative branch of government.

Rep. Richardson, this sir– is not your finest moment.

Is there a way to disagree on these policies and not be judged as hateful or contributing to creating an environment of terror?  If we cannot disagree in civility without being slimmed with such accusations, then our civil society has a real problem.

Unless you can provide real examples of such “hateful” behavior, rather than talking about it in generalities, you should stop making these assertions. It is not helpful to this important debate, it is manipulative and pollutes the work we are hopefully both committed to, namely building a better Florida, even in the midst of our disagreements.

You have correctly stated that, “it does not help when [people] go to Tallahassee and spew rhetoric that is harmful.”  If you really mean that, please start by reexamining and reconsidering your own harmful words directed to your own colleagues and do not confuse “robust debate” with “hateful rhetoric” just because you disagree.

John Stemberger

Published at FloridaPolitics.com

VIDEO: Hate Can Be a Virtue

Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?

I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.

I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.

I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.

I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.

I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.

I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.

As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.

Ненависть может быть добродетелью

Прогрессивные много говорят по поводу зла ненависти. Нам говорят, что если мы возражаем против шариата и джихада, то мы проявляем нетерпимость и ненависть. Однако, что насчет ненависти, которая вредит людям?

Я ненавижу избиение женщин, а шариат, Коран и Сунна его поддерживают.

Я нетерпим к надругательству над детьми, включая детские браки, но Сунна и шариат поддерживают их.

Я ненавижу убийства джихадистами христиан, иудеев, буддистов и вероотступников.

Я нетерпим к религиозным лидерам, таким, как Папа и Далай-лама, которые не осуждают джихадистские убийства своих групп.

Я ненавижу дуалистическую этику, в которой отсутствует целостность.

Я нетерпимо отношусь к закрытию лица, поскольку это исключает открытое общение.

Как общество, мы потеряли способность морального возмущения и неспособны проявить гнев по поводу исламского вреда невинным людям. Я ненавижу это.

RELATED ARTICLE: Orlando nightclub shooting timeline: Three hours of terror unfold

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.

VIDEO: The roots of the Islamic State and Islamic anti-Semitism

On Friday, April 29, 2016, I spoke in Grand Prairie, Alberta on the roots of the Islamic State and Islamic anti-Semitism.

Here is a report on my talk that had been intended for the local paper:

“Robert Spencer speaks in Grande Prairie,” by Kevin Hampson, Our Home and Native Land, May 3, 2016 (thanks to Michael):

I’m a reporter in Grande Prairie, Alberta. My editor, for whatever reason, didn’t want to run my story on Robert Spencer’s talk here (though they did run my advancer). I think it’s worth running, though, since there didn’t seem to be any coverage of what he actually said while here in Canada (see the CBC’s blatant hatchet job here).  I created this blog simply to publish the story I would have submitted (with minor changes befitting  a blog). I might eventually put up other stuff too. 

More than 100 people came to hear Robert Spencer speak about Islam during his stop in Grande Prairie on Friday.

The New York Times best-selling author has appeared on CTV, Fox News, BBC and other networks to discuss Islamic terrorism. His website, Jihad Watch, seeks to call public attention to the ideology motivating Islamic terrorism.

“The longer we misapprehend this problem, and the longer we keep our heads in the sand about it and deny what it’s really all about, the more we will not be able to deal with it adequately and the more lethal it will grow,” Spencer said.

In the years since 9/11, it has become taboo to discuss the ideology that Muslim terrorists themselves cite as their source of motivation, Spencer said. The refrain among Western political leaders is that Islam is a religion of peace, and self-proclaimed jihadists actually have nothing to do with it.

Spencer said this is dangerous, for an obvious reason: “You cannot defeat an enemy you don’t understand.”

The key point that the political and media class don’t want to admit, according to Spencer, is that Islamic terror attacks are inspired by a straightforward reading of the religion’s sacred texts, the Koran and the Hadiths.

Of particular concern is the Koran’s promise of Paradise for believers who “fight in God’s way; they kill and are killed.”

“This is why we see people strap bombs to themselves and go and blow themselves up in a crowd of infidels,” Spencer said. “Because they know that if they kill in the way of Allah, Paradise is promised to them.”

Spencer acknowledges plenty of Muslims aren’t even particularly religious, let alone fundamentalist. However, those who devoutly believe what the Koran tells them present a problem for secular societies even if they don’t resort to violence, he added. This is because Islam comes with a built-in political system, one which believers think is divine.

Spencer also points out that the Koran incites hatred against Jews and Christians, calling them “the most vile of created beings.” Muslims, in contrast, are “the best of people.”

This means some Muslims come to the West with a belief in the superiority of their own societal model and the inferiority of Western secular society, Spencer said. While they may not support terrorism, they do support curtailing basic liberties such as the freedom of speech.

Britain’s Channel 4 last month released the results of a survey in which 68% of British Muslims said they believed people who “insult Islam” should be arrested and prosecuted.

A member of Spencer’s audience on Friday suggested his talks contribute to “Islamophobia.” Spencer said this phrase is deliberately used to place Islam beyond criticism and make Westerners feel guilty for talking about Islamic terrorism.

“Islamophobia is a term that was actually conceived by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to manipulate and intimidate people into thinking that it’s wrong to oppose jihad terror,” he said.

Spencer was invited to speak by a local group called Concerned Canadians for Canadian Values….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A year after jihadis attacked AFDI free speech event, the war has just begun

Obama plans to cut time spent on screening Muslim migrants

Canada’s New Democratic Party Supports of Boycotting Israel

Last month, the Canadian House of Commons voted 229-51 for of a resolution calling upon the government to denounce the virulently anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanction) movement. The Conservative opposition to the Trudeau government introduced this anti-BDS resolution, and the ruling Liberal Party supported it. The New Democratic Party (NDP), however, voted against it, with some NDP members saying that they did so not because they supported BDS, but solely on free speech grounds.

An NDP MP, Charles Angus, suggested in a parliamentary session that the principle of free speech was at stake in supporting the anti-BDS motion. He said: “I note that last August the United Church of Canada, which represents two million Protestants, supported the divestment movement…This has nothing to do with my colleague’s claim that it is delegitimizing the State of Israel. This was a choice it made.”

Why would the United Church of Canada (UCC) make that choice? Solely on free speech grounds? Then why did it refer to Israel as “the thief,” “the occupier,” and “the aggressor” in their 26-page working group report on a bogus fact-finding mission to Israel? (Only three people constituted this “working group” that went on this “mission,” yet they presented themselves as a “working group” that represented the UCC. I have personally spoken to many pastors in the UCC who are against this and felt that the UCC had been were infiltrated by an agenda that was muscled into the church without their knowledge and against their will.)

NDP MP Angus went on to say: “My Conservative colleagues are asking Parliament to stand up in the House and condemn individuals in this country for their right to debate…We are being asked…to deny and condemn individual students for debating politics.”

On the other hand, Liberal foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion said: “The Liberals do not support this boycott movement, because we do not believe it is conducive to achieving peace in the Middle East.”

That’s much more realistic. BDS is an aggressive movement forced upon universities by Islamists on campuses globally and in Canada through the Muslim Student Association, which do indeed debate politics, as NDP MP Angus stated: the Muslim Student Association has direct ties to terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood. BDS is clearly a delegitimization of the state of Israel. Constitutionally, it can be disingenuously presented as needing to be protected under a right to free expression, but it is not ultimately about the freedom of expression. The BDS movement is about the branding of Israel wrongfully. Israel is a state that is threatened with obliteration while BDS and other anti-Israel propagandists accuse it unjustly of everything from apartheid to crimes against humanity.

In light of that fact, voting against the anti-BDS motion, as the NDP did, is not, in fact, a free speech or free expression issue. It is an anti-Israel/antisemitic issue which is disguised as an issue of the freedom of expression or the right to one’s own opinion. What other nation on the face of the earth faces threats to its existence in the face of ongoing attacks? None. Not even states that regularly carry out severe abuses against their own citizens and engage in the persecution of religious minorities. Only Israel.

The idea that the NDP actually opposes the BDS movement, while simply supporting the freedom of expression, is extremely dubious claim on other grounds as well. For example, during the debate on this resolution, NDP MP Hélène Laverdière asked whether by adopting the motion, she would be condemning the Ontario arm of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which endorsed BDS.

One CUPE local site features this anti-Israel propaganda: an article entitled, “Raid on the Gaza Flotilla Israel’s Attack on Us All.” This CUPE article asserts that “Israel is on a “collision course” with international standards of decency, solidarity, and respect for human rights.” How, pray tell, did the Canadian Union of Public Employees ever think it was part of its duties to get involved in Israel’s business?

For the record, on the CUPE  site it states: “CUPE is a founding partner of the NDP. We are proud to be New Democrats.”

Because we value the freedom of expression, BDS is able to flourish stop in our democracy, but the NDP’s opposition to the anti-BDS motion is motivated by an agenda that is far more ominous than a simple determination to defend the freedom of speech, given the NDP’s history and its partnership with CUPE.

Christine Williams is an award-winning broadcast journalist; advisor to Canada’s Office of Religious Freedoms; and Public Affairs/Media Consultant, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem–Canada.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslim wishes Christians happy Easter, is murdered by other Muslim in “religiously prejudiced” attack

Texas: Muslim Dairy Queen owner installs signs comparing Hindus to monkeys

Another Historical Monument Under Fire

“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Edmund Burke, British House of Commons.

The Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, Wes Bellamy, is leading the charge to request the City Council to order a statue of Robert E. Lee removed, as well as change the name of Lee Park where the statue rests.

Bellamy has planned a press conference, conveniently during normal working hours, for Tuesday, March 22 at 9:30 a.m. He hopes to gather community leaders together in order to pressure the City Council to take action on this critical issue.

Bellamy moved to Charlottesville from Atlanta, Georgia in 2009, and teaches computer science at Charlottesville High School and has aspirations of becoming the principal one day. So, it is surprising that someone who is dedicating their life to teaching our young people is desiring to remove statues that are reminders of where we came from and who we want to be in the future.

General Robert E. Lee,  a graduate of West Point, was a brilliant military officer, commanding General in the Confederate Army during the Civil War and a gentleman. He surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in 1865, thus ending the Civil War. The Civil War is integral to our history as a nation, and contrary to many people’s belief, was not all about slavery, but about States rights.

A few of Bellamy’s reasons for removing the statue are as follows:

  1. Robert E. Lee has no ties with Charlottesville.
  2.     Several current residents have stated that they believe the statue was used as a psychological tool to show dominance of the majority over the minority during this time period, (1924). Subsequently, a large portion of city residents have refused to step foot in Lee Park due to what they believe the statue and park represent.
  3. Governor McAuliffe’s veto announced Thursday, March 10th, of House Bill 587 that would have prevented localities from removing monuments of past historical significance,  McAuliffe said he supports historic preservation, but called the legislation a “sweeping override of local authority” that has ramifications for “interpretive signage to tell the story of some of our darkest moments during the Civil War.”

In addition to Bellamy’s desire to strip our history away, there is a young high school girl, Zyahna Bryant, who started an online petition to have the statue removed. One wonders if Mr. Bellamy has had an influence on Ms. Bryant’s thinking since she attends the same school where Bellamy teaches.

She apparently is also petitioning for a Black Student Union at her school. So, for someone who wants to erase the history of racism in our country, she chooses to be in involved in areas which are definitely racist towards anyone who isn’t born with the proper amount of pigment.

In her letter to the editor of a local newspaper she shared her thoughts which follows:

  1. When I think of Robert E. Lee I instantly think of someone fighting in favor of slavery. Thoughts of physical harm, cruelty, and disenfranchisement flood my mind. As a teenager in Charlottesville that identifies as black, I am offended every time I pass it. I am reminded over and over again of the pain of my ancestors and all of the fighting that they had to go through for us to be where we are now.
  2. Nevertheless, let’s not forget that Robert E. Lee fought for perpetual bondage of slaves and the bigotry of the South that kept most  black citizens as slaves and servants for the entirety of their lives. As a result, legislatures of the south chose to ignore and turn a blind eye to the injustices of African Americans from Jim crow and anti-black terrorism to integrated education.
  3. This past summer, “Black lives matter” was spray painted on the statue. This is just an example of the reactions and the emotions that are evoked because of its presence. Many people, including myself, feel very uncomfortable in the park and we don’t visit it. There are events that I don’t attend simply because they take place in that location.

What I would like to ask Mr. Bellamy and Ms. Bryant, is why stop at Lee Park and Robert E. Lee’s statue? Shouldn’t the city also look at demolishing the University of Virginia as well as his home of Monticello? Thomas Jefferson, after all, owned slaves. If  we are to follow the thinking of Bellamy and Bryant, then much would need to change around this city and others.

For example, Washington and Lee University should look into building a new campus and rename it’s school as well. I am sure it causes great emotional turmoil for those black students to attend classes there. Surely Washington D.C. would need to do some remodeling as well.

I think you get my point.

The Civil War happened and no amount of removing statues will change history. What is important though is to teach factual history to our young people growing up in an increasingly hostile world. No one can deny that blacks in our country have experienced horrible treatment, especially during slavery and the Jim Crow years, which Ms. Bryant mentions. But, does she know the history behind Jim Crow?

Democrats were entirely in control through the entire time of Jim Crow laws, and fought against having them squelched. Both in 1956 and 1964 the Republican Civil Rights Act was blocked by the Democrats. An article in The Blaze recounts the specific numbers that might surprise people who have been led to believe the Civil Rights Act was a Democrat idea. The article states,

“Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats.”

The KKK was a product of the Democrats as well, and used in order to keep political control. They would beat blacks until they promised not to vote Republican. This is very similar to how the Democrat party is using the Black Lives Matter organization today. See recent FB account of black police officer who attended Trump rally where BLM was protesting.

Lee-statue-defaced-063015-credit-Cville-police-489x400Black Lives Matter (BLM) uses intimidation, vandalism (case in point, the Robert E. Lee statue right), foul language, and harassment to threaten anyone who doesn’t agree with their cause. They trample others first amendment rights when they don’t mirror their own, as has been seen at the republican presidential  rallies.

If anyone truly wants to improve race relations in this country, it won’t be Black Lives Matter.  They only incites racism, and continually show contempt for those police officers that make it their job to protect the citizens. Anyone who joins a group of people who march down a street chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon,” when referencing our police officers has nothing in the way of fostering better race relations on their agenda.

At some point, as adults, we need to accept what was our past and not remain entrenched in battles that were fought, and won. I personally am weary of constantly hearing about racism. Martin Luther King expressed it best during his ‘I Have a Dream” speech when he stated,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

In the long run showing respect to one another and raising our children to do the same will go a lot farther than pulling down any statues. And those who are bothered by certain historical monuments would do well to be reminded of the struggles we have been through as a nation and draw pride from the fact we live in the country with the most freedom in the world.

Changing Minds

Two of the finest institutions of higher education in the United States, Columbia and Cornell, have been identified as leading the list of “most anti-Semitic,” as they continue to host Jew hatred events on campus.  By the time our students enter this new phase in their education, they have been well primed for the venomous climate, having been molded into frustrated, resentful, disrespectful, demanding, angry young adults, ill prepared for anything, unable to accept responsibility, and ripe to lash out at others. These young people have already been activated and prepared to join any group that uses “social justice” language, whether warranted or not.

The K-12 classes provide the first toxic element.  Education is being restructured according to a radical political ideology promoted by the White House, Bill and Melinda Gates, and other supporters of a federal takeover of education. The purpose is to produce workers for a Global Economy (aka Agenda 21).  The major players are Valerie Jarrett’s mother, Barbara Taylor Bowman, a member of the Muslim Sisterhood; native-born terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn Ayers (Weather Underground) who support a radical network to defeat America; and Secretary of Education (ret.) Arne Duncan, who promoted the Common Core Standards, with its drastic, untried curriculum overhaul that has lowered school standards to ensure that no child is left behind or excels at the expense of others. This is accompanied by the disturbing data mining that profiles the children (into adulthood) and their families. 

Classical literature, known to improve vocabulary and foster creative expression, thinking, speaking, and writing skills, has been jettisoned in favor of dry, uninspiring informational texts and Dystopian, sexualized, disheartening novels for children whose pre-frontal cortex is insufficiently developed to cope with the dark situations and mature content. The result is depression. Mary Calamia, licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist in Stony Brook, NY, has reported that children have come to hate school, cry, wet the bed, experience insomnia, and engage in self-mutilation – an increase of 200 to 300 percent more children with serious trauma than before the new curriculum’s introduction.

Math problems once solved in a few steps now require a convoluted system. Karen Lamoreaux, mother of three and member of Arkansas Against Common Core, presented a simple 4th grade division problem to the Board of Education that one could solve in two steps, but now requires 108 steps to completion.  In New York, principals have reported that some students are severely stressed and even vomit during testing.

History has become another endangered learning experience. A popular textbook is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States,” which focuses on “the exploitation of the majority by an elite minority,” designed to inspire a “quiet revolution.”  Historians heavily criticize the book’s concentration on slavery, racism, and colonialism while omitting America’s enormous achievements for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,. Students do not learn America’s founding documents – The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Ten Commandments.  A new vocabulary is in use to give new meaning to old ideas, including “framers” for “founders,” indicating a flexible and distorted view of our history and heritage, and a turn to global governance. 

True history has been replaced with a counterfeit version, introducing the second toxic element. History Alive, another oft-used textbook, contains multiple chapters on Islam (whitewashed of its 1400 years of ongoing bloodshed and conquest), without equal time for Judaism and Christianity. Such studies may also include unscheduled trips to mosques, simulating a hajj to Mecca, girls’ donning traditional Muslim clothing, learning Arabic calligraphy, memorizing the Five Pillars of Islam and the Shahada, the testimony required to become Muslim. And, as if these approaches were insufficient, political indoctrination is included, using the Palestinian narrative to vilify the State of Israel and world Jewry.

To whom do we owe this new development? America’s educational institutions receive significant donations to create Middle Eastern and political science study programs that ensure the installation of anti-American professors. The students are besieged by Islamic and leftist indoctrination that demonize Israel, Jewish and American history, and disallows opposing views. The hate agenda is presented as scholarly and the West is blamed for Islam’s self-imposed or invented ills. Scheduled anti-Israel events are designed to promote the narrative of Israeli colonialism, and to delegitimize and erode support for Israel by advocating a boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) effort.

The propaganda campaign is global, well-financed and well-organized but the biggest focus is college campuses, where Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Student Union use the rhetoric of social justice and human rights, historic Palestine, genocide, apartheid and oppression, to motivate the boycott movement and support the Islamic ideology of conquest. Jewish children are harassed and harmed. Our colleges are becoming breeding grounds for future jihadists who are turned against Israel and will one day soon turn against America.

The groups within the colleges are well-funded arms of the Muslim Brotherhood,  menacingly delivering their accusations and claims of apartheid, maltreatment of women, death to homosexuals, etc against the Jewish state, when, in fact, these are descriptive of the Muslim cultures. Islam allows homosexuality and pedophilia – sexual pleasure with pre-pubescent boys and infants, kidnapping for sexual slavery, polygamy, wife beating, stoning women, disfiguring their daughters with FGM and acid, chopping off hands and feet, death for apostasy, murder of Jewish and Christian civilians – and, quite recently, beheading a 15-year-old Iraqi boy for listening to pop music.  With the complicity of liberal instructors, a crisis is being nurtured for the purpose of acquiring power, diminishing freedom of speech, and promoting an increase of immigrating non-integrating Muslims who, throughhijra, will transform our Western countries. 

The situation has become so critical that schools are providing “safe spaces.” This is a concept not unlike “sacred space,” from Sharia, which Islam has established as an aggressive territorial system that holds all land on earth as given by Allah to Muhammad in perpetuity.  Kent State University invites students and community to a safe environment for ongoing interaction and conversation on diverse subjects.  The University of California Berkeley has adopted a policy requiring all “Caucasian” students to purchase mandatory Free Speech Insurance at $1,000 per semester “to cover the cost of therapy and rehabilitation of victims of unregulated, freely expressed Caucasian ideas.” Thus the schools encourage a mentality of victimization, anger and vengeance along with feelings of shame and White guilt.

This is social engineering, a force that is being cynically employed to restructure the soul of an entire generation of young people and render it vulnerable to the globalist one world order, in which none of the traditional values will have survived. With value and context stripped from books, a generation is being denied the aptitude to discern fact from fiction or right from wrong. Thus deprived of the ability to think critically, they are ripe for joining any number of hate groups on campus, the Occupy movements, Black Lives Matter, and those that favor a Palestinian state to the destruction of Israel. But, most significantly, they become easily malleable by and for the ruling class.

The pathway to the final destination goes by the Orwellian term, Agenda 21, the schema that indoctrinates to retrofit our children for future global citizenship, to overtake properties and communities, and to transform America with the enticing promise of social and economic development in a competitive (not free) marketplace. The all-powerful government will determine the equitable distribution of the fruits of all labor, meaning the successful countries will distribute its profits to third world countries until there is nothing left to share – except, perhaps, destitution and illness.  Only then will the elite bask in a society in which thinking has been obliterated and every spark of creativity trampled into the dust.

We are standing at a crucial time in history and working against the clock.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Have Universities Been Overtaken by Mob Rule?

RELATED VIDEO: Ann Corcoran on Refugee Resettlement

VIDEO: If you think Jew hatred ended with the Holocaust, think again!

auschwitz holocaustThe Jewish Federation of Sarasota/Manatee produced a video showing that Jew hatred is alive and well in Florida. The student senate at the University of South Florida voted to divest from the state of Israel for “humanitarian reasons.” Since that vote the student body president vetoed the resolution.

Hate groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Students For Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association, Jewish Voices For Peace and others are the NEW ANTI-SEMITES.  These groups have “crept” into University of South Florida Tampa campus in a major way.

One group is fighting to protect Jewish students on America’s campuses. The group is called the AMCHA Initiative. It is an on-line data base reporting anti-Semitic incidents occurring with rising frequency  on U.S. college campuses. The Initiative was created to protect Jewish students  and  staff on campuses. The 2015 AMCHA report cite more than 302 anti-Semitic incidents at 109 campuses in more than 28 states, among them are five colleges in Florida.

Click here to view the U.S. campus anti-Semitic tracker.

Those behind the resolution to divest from Israel failed to mention that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East or that the other Arab states are at best theocracies that deny basic human rights or are failed nations controlled by terrorist groups such as the Islamic State.

The video below tells the story of Jew hatred, which is alive and well in Florida and across the United States:

RELATED VIDEO: Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Benjamin Netanyahu Marks Holocaust Remembrance Day

Florida: Muslim convert pledges ‘allegiance to Allah’ planned Islamic State style execution

Canada’s PM Trudeau’s statement on the Holocaust doesn’t mention Jews

Iran’s Supreme Leader uploads Holocaust denial video on Holocaust Memorial Day

Benjamin Netanyahu Marks Holocaust Remembrance Day

Muslims fill German refugee camp with swastikas, anti-Semitic graffiti

Muslim refugee: “I want to blow myself up … I am against America”

“An Iraqi refugee who is facing charges that he tried to help the Islamic State group wanted to set off bombs at two Houston malls and was learning to make electronic transmitters that could be used to detonate explosive devices.” Solution: bring in more refugees! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.

Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, (left).

“Federal agent says Iraqi refugee wanted to bomb Texas malls,” by Juan A. Lozano, Associated Press, January 14, 2016:

HOUSTON — An Iraqi refugee who is facing charges that he tried to help the Islamic State group wanted to set off bombs at two Houston malls and was learning to make electronic transmitters that could be used to detonate explosive devices, a federal agent testified.

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, who came to Houston from Iraq in 2009, was indicted last week on three charges, including attempting to provide support to a designated terrorist organization. He pleaded not guilty to all three charges during a court appearance on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes denied granting Al Hardan a bond, ruling that there would be a serious risk that the Iraqi refugee would flee if released from federal custody.

Hughes made his decision after listening to testimony from Homeland Security Special Agent Herman Wittliff, who said that in addition to Al Hardan wanting to set off bombs at the two Houston malls, including the popular Galleria mall, the Iraqi man was also learning how to make electronic transmitters that could be used to detonate improvised explosive devices. Al Hardan wanted use cellphones — a collection of which were found in his apartment — to detonate the transmitters, Wittliff said.

“He wanted to build them (the transmitters) for ISIL,” Wittliff said.

“For what purpose?” asked prosecutor Ralph Imperato.

“So he could kill people,” Wittliff replied.

Al Hardan’s arrest prompted criticism of the Obama administration’s refugee policies from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has been a leader among Republican governors calling for a halt to resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas called for a retroactive review of all refugees who have come to the U.S.

Immigrant advocates say they have full confidence in the vetting process and that tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees have been successfully resettled in the U.S.

Al Hardan’s older brother, Saeed Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, has said his sibling has denied any wrongdoing and that neither his brother nor anybody in their family had ever expressed any support for the Islamic State.

Prosecutors allege Al Hardan was coordinating efforts with another Iraqi refugee living in California, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab. The two men communicated through Facebook messenger from April 2013 to October 2014 and talked about getting weapons training and eventually sneaking into Syria to fight alongside the terrorist group, Wittliff said.

The agent also testified Al Hardan received training on how to use an AK-47 assault rifle in November 2014 on a farm outside Houston from a confidential informant who was working with federal authorities.

During the hearing, Wittliff read aloud excerpts from a conversation that authorities had recorded between Al Hardan and his wife in October 2014. Prosecutors did not say how the recording was obtained.

“Once I get the passport I will leave America, I will leave. I will make a widow of you,” Al Hardan said to his wife, according to the excerpt read in court. “I will go to Syria. I am not wacko. I am not wacko. I am speaking the truth. I want to blow myself up. I want to blow myself up … I am against America.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Missoula, Montana! Beware! Refugees could soon be on the way

Hugh Fitzgerald: Goodbye to Al Jazeera America

Pakistan: Muslims murder 15 with jihad attack at polio vaccination center