the daily stirrer

Currency War - The Non Shooting Proxy War That Could Prove More Lethal Than Bullets

It has been clear for some years now that the USA, backed by its main NATO and EU military allies the UK and France (the FUKUS axis has been trying to provoke Russian into firing the shot that will be heard around the world and recognised as the startiung signal for World War Three.
Ironically after the way the US has spent sixty years branding Russia the agressor, the Kremlin leadership has shown restraint and, backed by it's allies China and Iran, has chosen to fight an economic war. There will be less blood but possibly more hardship and death as the poor nations suffer most.
edited by Ian R Thorpe

Contact us:

Is Free Speech Being Murdered By The Media And Politically correct Left Wing Activism


Merkel Isolated As Europe Splits Over Refugee Crisis
With the UK Prime Minister David Cameron still desperately trying to convince his 'revised terms' of British membership of the EU are a really good deal, when in fact they will change nothing, our attention should shift to developments elsewhere in Europe.

The Right To Tell Politicians To Eff Off In An Age Of Self Appointed Censors, and Compliant Media Our right of free speech is increasingly under attack from control freak politicians, politically correct left wing activists and the dark forces of corporatism.

In Private Meeting, Top Facebook Exec Threatened News Outlets That Do Not Coperate With Censorship Policy
UC Berkeley On Notice — Justice Is Not Playing Around On Free Speech
Jordan Peterson and the Stupidity Of The Left
USA: Tear Gas, Guns and Riot Squads: The Police State’s Answer to Free Speech Free Speech Is Under Attack And Journalism Is Dead
MSNBC Anchor: "Our Job" Is To "Control Exactly What People Think" US Attorney General Loretta Lynch And The Government War On Free Speech
Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?
The Global Warming Scam Is A Weapon In The War On Free Speech
Ignorance Is Strength: European Parliament Ready To clamp Down On Free Speech
Matt Drudge warns new copyright laws will kill free speech on the internet
BBC Compares Free Speech Advocate To Islamic Hate Preachers
Matt Drudge warns new copyright laws will kill free speech on the internetMatt Drudge warns new copyright laws will kill free speech on the internet
Seinfeld: Comedians Tell Me ‘Don’t Go Near Colleges — They’re So PC’
Anti-Islamist Talk Cancelled at Trinity College Over Fear of ‘Antagonising’ Muslim Students
The Sad Story Of The Queer Fascist And His Gay Cake
Seven Shoddy Excuses Lefties Use to Justify Islamic Extremism And The Curtailment Of Free Speech
Left Wing Prejudices Are Hindering Our Response to Islamic Extremism
The Innate Racism Of British People Is A Politically Correct Myth
The Authoritarian Left is Sending Women Back to the 19th Century
Free Speech is Dead in Britain - As I Learned on a BBC Debate Programme Called 'Free Speech'
Leftists Try to Silence Singer Myleene Klass after She Criticises Labour Pa
The Zombiefication Of America
U N (United Nazis) Plans To Criminalise Free Speech Citing Human Rights As Justification
EU Launches Fund for Thinly Veiled Propaganda Project
Judge Denies Obama's Attempt To Block Transfer Of Internet Oversight To UN Maher: ‘Liberals Hate Bullying,’ ‘But They’re Not Opposed to Using It’
The Self Righteous Minority That Threaten Free Speech

In Private Meeting, Top Facebook Exec Threatened News Outlets That Do Not Coperate With Censorship Policy

facebook loaded gun

During a meeting held behind closed doors last week, top Facebook executive Campbell Brown, acording to several people who were present, warned news publishers that refusal to cooperate with the tech behemoth's efforts to "revitalize journalism" (i.e. ensure nothing that does not concur with the leftist politics of CEO Mark Zuckerberg,) will leave media outlets dying "like in a hospice."

Initially reported by The Australian under a headline which read "Work With Facebook or Die: Zuckerberg," the story prompted outraged responses which saw vthe social media giant insisting the comments were taken out of context, even though five individuals who attended the four-hour meeting agreed on what Brown had said. And to be honest, the words 'dying like in a hospice' leave little room for misinterpretation.

"Mark doesn't care about publishers but is giving me a lot of leeway and concessions to make these changes," Brown reportedly said, referring to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. "We will help you revitalize journalism... in a few years the reverse looks like I'll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice."

As The Guardian reported on Monday, Facebook, a company with a long track record for being economical with the truth, is "vehemently" denying the veracity of the comments as reported by The Australian, referring to its own transcript of the meeting. Facebook, however, has so far refused to release its transcript and tape record of the gathering. Enough said.

Brown's warning about the dire prospects for news outlets that don't get on board with a future in which corporate giants like Facebook are the arbiters of what is and isn't trustworthy news comes as progressives are finally understanding that for all his left wing posturing Zuckerberg is far from liberal and are raising alarms that Facebook's entrance into the world of journalism poses a major threat to non-corporate and non - conformist news publishers.

As Common Dreams confirmed in July, independents' fears were somewhat justified when Facebook revealed its first slate of 'government propaganda approved' news segments as part of its Facebook Watch initiative.

While Facebook claims its initiative is part of an effort to combat "misinformation," its first series of segments were dominated by such corporate outlets as Fox News and CNN.

In response to Brown's reporting that Zuckerberg "doesn't care about publishers," Judd Legum, who writes the Popular Information newsletter, argued, "Anyone who does care about news needs to understand Facebook as a fundamental threat."

"In addition to disputed quote, there are also Facebook's actions, which are fully consistent with the quote," Legum added.

"We desperately need to develop alternative delivery mechanisms to Facebook."

As with certain corporations involved in internet search and advertising, computer operating systems and online retailing, all run as Facebook is, by members of the Silicon Valley Cunt's Club, Facebook and Zuckerberg want it all and see no ethical reason why they shouldn't use any means availabe to get it all.

Facebook admits to nearly as many fake or clone accounts as the U.S. population
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg likes to brag about the number of people who use his social media site. In fact it is clear as he talks big numbers about how many users the site boasts, that he thinks the world loves him for creating this technological wonder. He's wrong of course.

Lay Off Cambridge Analytica, Facebook Are The Evil Doers

Information Technology firm Cambridge Analytica are being attacked by the hysterical mainstream media mob for their alleged role in the alleged collusion between The Kremlin and Donald Trump to steal the US Presidency in 2016, and similar abuse of private date to influence the result of the Brexit vote. It should be Facebook under attack, Cambridge Analytica only took advantage of a deal Facebook offers on the open market ...

Trump blocks Sale Of US Tech Company To China

President Trump has reportedly blocked the attempted acquisitions of a US technology company by a Chinese firm. while his opponents accuse him of breaking election promises and betraying votes, although they offer little evidence to support their claims, the increasingly tough policy against China's acquisition of US companies continues, despite the firing of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who supported Trmp's "economic nationalism."

Trump blocks Sale Of US Tech Company To China

Fan Bois Mad For Apple's New "FaceID" But Is It A Powerful New Mass Surveillance Tool

On Tuesday, Apple revealed their newest phone. The new line was anticipated by Apple users and is another cult favorite. But many are rightly skeptical of the “FaceID” feature.
FaceID, is a tool that would use facial recognition to identify individuals and unlock their phones for use. Unsurprisingly, this has generated some major anxiety about mass spying and privacy concerns. Retailers already have a desire for facial recognition technology.

Welcome to the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Technological Deceit
Pretty soon, computer wizardry and artificial intelligence will allow video footage to be created that is practically indiscernible from the real deal. Add holographic technology, and soon a person apparently be speaking live on screen and you’d never know it was fake. The ethical ramifications of AI and technology are simply mind-boggling.

WikiLeaks have today released documents from the Vault 7 cache, a group of leaked information which contains details on the CIA Angelfire spyware tool which was developed to facilitate loading and execution of implants targeting computers using Microsoft Windows operating systems.

Electrosensitivity - the Wi - Fi disease.
So you thought people who wear tinfoil hats are crazy conspiracy theorists? Not so fast there, some of them might actually be onto something.While these people are not tinfoil hat wearers either literally or in a metaphorical sense, the measures they take to avoid exposure to electromagnetic radiation (radio - activity) can seem rather paranoid until you know more about them.

Google: Benefactor Of Mankind Or Evil Empire (or buch of idiotic nerds who got lucky?)
They way Google has come to dominate the internet just as the internet has come to dominate our lives can't all be down to good luck and careful planning can it? As this page develops you will see how sinister forces guided Google to their current position.

Shock, Horror! Millennials Safe Space Violated As Facebook Algo Accident Exposes Them To Diverse Ideas Late last month (August 2016,) the Zuckerbugger's zoons put an algorithm in charge of the Facebook “trending” feature, to select the most popular topics, articles and keywords on the web in a narrow timeframe and with due respect for the 'safe space' of millenials who can be traumatised if they encounter microaggrrrrressions in the form of controversial ideas or unorthodox opinions ...

Government Paid Trolls Are Using 'Psychology-Based Influence Techniques' in Social Media
Have you ever come across someone on the Internet that you suspected was a paid government troll? Well, there is a very good chance that you were not imagining things. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now have solid proof that paid government trolls are using “psychology-based influence techniques” on social media websites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Zuckerberg reveals Facebook Working On Apps 'Smarter Than Humans'
In an online Question and Answer session this week Facebook supremo and founding megalomaniacal sociopath Mark Zuckerberg announced that his company is engaged in building AI systems "that are better than humans at our primary senses."

Facebook begins Europe-wide censorship campaign against free speech.
Facebook Inc (FB.O) has commenced the Europe-wide censoring of posts and comments the ruling elite do not like, thus making good the promise given to Hausfrau – Volksfuhrer Merkel by the social media and data theft site’s founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Philanthropic" Mark Zuckerberg Will Place Facebook Shares In A For-Profit LLC
Sorry to seem the The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, but somebody has to blow the whistle on the latest self serving stunt of the self server in chief, Mark Zuckerbugger but the great act of philanthropy with which the Inyaface Datatheft Book chief celebrated the birth of his child is, like everything else billionaire philanthropists do, not quite as straightforward as it has been presented in mainstream media.

How Google Destroyed the Internet
The idea of the internet was that it would be a communications tool that freed information by making all public domain documents, libraries and archives accessible for everyone. Unfortunately the corporate monopoly men of Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook and political control freaks had other ideas. They also understood the technolgy while the hippies and liberals ignored professionals warnings that internet systems would become a perfect toool of censorship.

Corporate plundering of the UK purse has to stop – Facebook pays zero tax again
Our finance expert looks at the latest tax avoidance scandal and wonders why the governments financial agencies are always to eager to go after small time tax and benefit fraud and yet year after year turn a blind eye to the blatant criminality of global corporations in their tax evasion techniques.

Has Zuckerbugger Been Messing With Your Mind?
It has been revealed that Facebook has been collaborating with the US government and creepier fringes of the academic community in carrying out experiments to manipulate users emotions. "Facebook users have reacted angrily to a "creepy" experiment carried out by the social network and two American universities to manipulate their emotions."

Facebook boss Zukerberg Wants To Own The Internet
Facebook's latest acquisition Whatsapp cost $19bn, that's $40 per user. Whatsapp charge their users $1 per year. That means it will take Facebook 40 years to recover their outlay. And people are buying shares in this company? Insane.

Facebook Are Nazis - We Told You So
All the Greenteeth Labyrinth pages have consistently warned that the most successful internet companies, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter etc. are led by people with authoritarian, even fascistic tendencies and a world domination complex which manifests itself as a desire to establish a monopoly position in their field. Facebbk are at the forfront of this fascist cartel.

Facebook's Stockmarket Launch Fizzles Out
Facebook's much hyped stock market launch fell flat. We examine the folly of trying to pass off a social networking fad as a real, monrey making business.

Google's New Privacy Policy: 'All Your Base Belong Us'.Google has defended its decision to change the way it handles users' personal data as its new policy comes into force today. The internet search giant will now be able to use information about what people are entering into its search engine to target adverts according to users' interests under the changes. Google Evil Empire In New Privacy ViolationOnce again the neo-Nazi nerds at Google are in trouble for playing fast and loose with our privacy. Google have bypassed browser privacy setting to track our movements on the web, the bettrer to target us with ads for poxy shite no sane person would buy. What is it these arseholes find difficult to understand about the idea that in the real world or cyberspace same rules apply ...
Facebooks Latest Violation Of Users PrivacyThe Daily Stirrer looks at Facebooks latest embarrassing climbdown after initially denying a new data mining scheme covertly violates users privacy ...
Google's Schmidt Tells US Senators "We're Not MocrosoftGoogle executive chairman Eric Schmidt, giving his testimony to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that focuses on antitrust began by recalling a ghost of the committee's past: Microsoft. Schmidt never actually mentioned its arch enemy but it is clear ...
Facebook Privacy Piracy
Is Facebook's Crisis A Tipping Point For Privacy?
The Facebook Of Dead Names
The Internet Of Things

UC Berkeley On Notice — Justice Is Not Playing Around On Free Speech

The US Department of Justice (DOJ)on Thursday issued a statement of interest in a campus free speech lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley. "The Department of Justice will not stand by while universities which receive public funds violate students’ constitutional rights," said Rachel Brand, the DOJ’s Associate Attorney General, in the accompanying press release.

Young America Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans claim that the university employs a double standard with regard to free speech and particularly high-profile college speakers, according to a press release obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The plaintiffs claim that Berkeley’s "high-profile speaker policy" enabled the university's student bodies to arbitrarily prevent speakers whose views do not conform to the 'progressive' agenda from taking the platform, and cause the cancellation of conservative events by imposing restrictive security conditions, and only offering inconvenient venues.

While statement of interest does not suggest the Trump administration is taking an official stance on the merits of the case, it does mean that the department will monitor the situation to ensure left wing groups are not suppressing their opponents' right to free speech.

“The allegations made by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are unfounded,” Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof told online news ite The Daily Caller. "Berkeley does not discriminate against speakers invited by student organizations based upon viewpoint. The campus is committed to ensuring that student groups may hold events with speakers of their choosing, and it has expended significant resources to allow events to go forward without compromising the safety or security of the campus." Well he would say that, wouldbn't he?

Brand, in a in a Thursday Fox News op-ed. did not agree.

"A new policy at Berkeley, for example, imposes a curfew, security measures, and location restrictions for events that administrators decide are likely to ‘interfere' with other campus functions or activities," Brand wrote. "It doesn’t require much creativity to turn this policy into a heckler’s veto. If you disagree with a speaker about to visit campus, simply declare his views offensive and threaten to riot, and the speaker will be sidelined."

Which is exactly how the left have been denying their opponents a platform in Britain, Europe, Australia and Canada as well as the USA for several years now.

Jordan Peterson and the Stupidity Of The Left

We have never been slow to lampoon the politically correct, universdity dumbed down 'special snowflakes', or the professors in politicising everything who spoon feed them a constant stream of idiotic lwft wing bullshit. but when we read a story about a professor who is challenging the bollocks and defending free speech and individiual freedom, we were delighted to have a chance to show the higher education system is not entirely in the hands of cultural Marxists.

University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson recently decided he had had enough of what he saw as a campus culture where "social justice warrior, left-wing radical political activists" ran rampant and nobody dared voice opinions that were not approved by the college's Politically Correct Thought Police.

In September 2016 he released a video lecture series taking aim at political correctness.He zeroed in on Canadian human rights legislation that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Dr Peterson was especially frustrated with being asked to use alternative pronouns as requested by trans students or staff, like the singular 'they' or 'ze' and 'zir', used by some as alternatives to 'she' or 'he'.

In his opposition, he set off a political and cultural firestorm that shows no signs of abating.

At a free speech rally mid-October, he was drowned out by a white noise machine. Pushing and shoving broke out in the crowd. He says the lock on his office door has been glued shut on several occasions. At the same time, the University of Toronto said it had received complaints of threats against trans people on campus.

Peterson's employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested.

They also said they have received complaints from students and faculty that his comments are "unacceptable, emotionally disturbing and painful" and have urged him to stop repeating them. The university is also trying to organise a "civil and respectful" debate, which would include Dr Peterson, to discuss gender provisions in federal and provincial human rights legislation.

Either way, Dr Peterson is not backing down. See a by conservative journalist Ben Shapiro defending his position below.

USA: Tear Gas, Guns and Riot Squads: The Police State’s Answer to Free Speech

Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America. It’s all a lie. There can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Spy - in - the - Sky Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons used with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

This is not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.

Recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation reared its ugly head in the college town of Charlottesville, Va., where protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.

To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.

The police state does not discriminate.

As a USA Today article notes, “People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”

A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.

You want to turn a peaceful protest into a riot?

Bring in the militarized police with their guns and black uniforms and warzone tactics and “comply or die” mindset. Ratchet up the tension across the board. Take what should be a healthy exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turn it into a lesson in authoritarianism.

Frankly, any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.

All that stuff in the First Amendment sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are other, far better models to follow.

For instance, back in 2011, the St. Louis police opted to employ a passive response to Occupy St. Louis activists. First, police gave the protesters nearly 36 hours’ notice to clear the area, as opposed to the 20 to 60 minutes’ notice other cities gave. Then, as journalist Brad Hicks reports, when the police finally showed up:

They didn’t show up in riot gear and helmets, they showed up in shirt sleeves with their faces showing. They not only didn’t show up with SWAT gear, they showed up with no unusual weapons at all, and what weapons they had all securely holstered. They politely woke everybody up. They politely helped everybody who was willing to remove their property from the park to do so. They then asked, out of the 75 to 100 people down there, how many people were volunteering for being-arrested duty? Given 33 hours to think about it, and 10 hours to sweat it over, only 27 volunteered … and were escorted away by a handful of cops. The rest were advised to please continue to protest, over there on the sidewalk … and what happened next was the most absolutely brilliant piece of crowd control policing I have heard of in my entire lifetime. All of the cops who weren’t busy transporting and processing the voluntary arrestees lined up, blocking the stairs down into the plaza. They stood shoulder to shoulder. They kept calm and silent. They positioned the weapons on their belts out of sight. They crossed their hands low in front of them, in exactly the least provocative posture known to man. And they peacefully, silently, respectfully occupied the plaza, using exactly the same non-violent resistance techniques that the protesters themselves had been trained in.

As Forbes concluded, “This is a more humane, less costly, and ultimately more productive way to handle a protest. This is great proof that police can do it the old fashioned way – using their brains and common sense instead of tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray – and have better results.”

It can be done.

Police will not voluntarily give up their gadgets and war toys and combat tactics, however. Their training and inclination towards authoritarianism has become too ingrained.

What has happened to the news. At one time the news press referred to itself as 'the fourth estate', a reference to the three estates of the nation, the government, The Monarchy and the church The news and commpent journals assigned to themselves the task of objectively and impartilly holding the others to account by investigating the background to events and reporting the facts. No more it seems.

There are no journalists now, neither the reporters in the feild, a job my Dad did for years, following tips from stringers and leads from rumour and gossip, digging into the background of stories, finding out the who, what, where, when, why and reporting it without embellishment, nor are there the independent commentators, the columnists and freelancers whose task was to analyse news stories in the wider context, join the dots and ensure an alternative to propaganda was presented to the government; today news organisations are simply broadcasting or pritning whatever they are given by the anonymous "sources" of government and corporate piblic relations departments. They show no curiosity, no suspicion,. simply swallowing everything they are spoon fed, too credulous to be real journalist they simply provide sensational titbits for a cusomer base with an ever shortening attention span. These are really end times for the MSM unless things change and soon.

True journalists about as relevant in this world of political and corporate control freakery as cordwainer (a worker in Cordovan leather), a higgler (a travelling buyer and seller of dairy products) a pargeter (an ornamental plasterer) or a fletcher (maker of arrows) These skills, trades, professions and hundreds more have been exterminated ... along with the need for truth in media. Since 9-11, all over the world there has been a concerted and determined effort to target and remove all those who would stay true to the principles of the reorter's craft. Just think for a moment of the enormous effort expended by governments and mainstream media to suppress discission of the all too obvious flaws in the official narrative surrounding that event. Or, over several decades, to silence those who dared to question the rispible official account of the assassination of president Kennedy. And, to raise up in its place, a raft of imitators who style themselves reporters, but need have no accountability, nor take the trouble to ever leave their computer screens to go and "follow" a story, their job being to simply rephrase official press releases, tailoring their hackneyed accounts to the prejudices of the intended audiences.

What most people are unaware of is that this faux-journalism is a direct consequence of the centralisation of power on the seat of government (Washington, London, Brussels, Paris etc.) and of wealth (control rather than ownership of) in the hands of global corporations and financial institutions. When leaders and academics start to talk of the need for a world government, they cannot be thinking of the interests of ordinary people who work hard for a living. At the time of writing The European Union is failing simply because it tried to merge the interests of Siciluan almond growers and Greek sheep farmers with those of Urianium miners in Kiruna, northern Sweden or the indusrtial workers of Germany. Realists would have seen the sheer impossibility of creating a one size fits all economy and culture to serve these vastly different groups.

The ideologically diven elitists arrogantly assumed that by controlling everything they could impose their cultural Marxist vision on the world, and have controlled mainstream media because news organisations were controlled by the corporate and financial elite. But the public saw through the managed news outpuut they werre being offered and turned elsewhere. Now it falls to new media, alt_media, to challenge the special interest groups controlling all communication channels and oppose the control freaks. It can be, and has been, argued however that alt_media represents just more special interests with even less accountability.

"There is no longer any attempt to maintain the illusion that makes events capable of adopting the force of news reporting that provides an accurate reflection of reality. Only the medium can make an event - whatever the contents, whether they are conformist or subversive. AND - There are no more media in the literal sense of the word - that is, of a mediating power between one reality and another, between one state of the real and another."

The role of news media then has changed from 'mediating' between events and the reader, to acting as a narcotic, medicating the reader against reality with trivia, celebrity gossip, and concocted storylines customised to appeal to the target audience in order that the central authority can control the narratives and thus shape opinion.

"The Deep State, The Shadow Government, call it what you will, has usurped the role of "the media" in informing the public and "speaking truth to power" to borrow a phrase from anorganisation that has abandoned the principle. Likewise the state has re-defined the terms "democracy" and "free speech" to serve it's own ends, and is now picking off the social media tools which had formerly belonged to the user community as a network of contributors, thus relegating "the media" to the role of a harem eunuch, a jongleur, an entertainer.

All of this has been meekly accepted by a web addicted audience which has forsaken critical thinking skills to a cabal of experts and gurus determined to put the lie to that old adage - 'you can't fool all of the people, all of the time. What a lot of people do not understand about web techology is its ability to make doing just that very easy.

During a lively discussion with Joe Scarborough, centered on fears that President Trump is "trying to undermine the media," MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski let slip the unspoken truth that mainstream media sees its "job" as to "actually control exactly what people think."

SCARBOROUGH: "Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, 'Yeah you guys are going crazy. He's doing -- what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'"

BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job."

As another panellist points out, the comment failed to raise any eyebrows from her co-panelists. Instead, her co-host, Joe Scarborough, said that Trump's media antagonism puts him on par with Mussolini and Lenin...

Back to Contents table
Michael Meacher, outspoken doubter of the 911 official story, dies suddenly in as yet unexplained circumstances

Kid's Company Financial Scandal Shows Politicians Are Too Naive For The Real World
The financial scandal that emerged after the collapse of Kid's Company, the 'charity' founded by Camila Batmanghelidjh and supported by in turn, Labour, Coalition and Conservative Governments is a perfect illustration of corruption in the public sector and the folly of outsourcing government responsibility to self - interested privateers.

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Ian at Minds ] ... [ The Origninal Boggart Blog]

Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?

After Brexit European Union Moves To Abolish Free Speech!

A report in New Europe reveals that in Leeuwarden, Netherlands "about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home." In other words, the government of Netherlands, a nation that has paraded its liberalism, is engaging in state censorship, which raises the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?

At the time of writing Geert Wilders, leader of the anti - EU, anti - immigration Freedom Party in The Netherlands Parliament is on trial for 'hate speech'because of some innocuous remarks he mad about the country not needing any more Moroccan immigrants.

In the town of Sliedrecht, the Thought Police arrived at Mark Jongeneel's office to tell him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? One tweet said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!"

In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children.

Some might say it is an over - reaction to dub the EU a putative fascist superstate, but while European citizens are increasingly at risk of arrest for "hate speech" and "xenophobic remarks" (both terms for which there is no legal definition, the law does not apply equally to all Europeans, the ruling elites it sems can say what they like about whom they dislike. German EU Commissioner Günther Oettinger recently called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"). European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker immediately promoted Oettinger to be in charge of the EU budget.

It is not an isolated case. While EU leaders routinely slag off in the most xenophobic terms anybody who opposes their cultural Marxist, globalist agenda, citizens, are arrested and prosecutedfor exercising their right to free speech. Anybody can be a target it seems, except for Muslims, blacks and gays.

We have said before that in Europe and throughout the developed world We The People are at war, and our common enemy is not Russia, China, Iran, Islamic fundamentalism or nationalistic extremism. It is our own governments, the ruling elites, politicians, academics, the professions, the super rich, media luvvies and that army of 'experts' that has spring up, ready to pontificate on anything everything. Evidence is mounting that expressing any opinion, no matter how reasonable, that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your local Thought Police. Has the European Union effectively become a police state in a desperate but doomed bit to stop disintegration? It would seem so and our FREE ebook on the subject shows that turning the proud old nations of Europe into a bureaucratic dictatorship.

Several European governments including Germany and Sweden have made clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European Union 'open doors' immmigration policies will be treated as a criminal offence. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.

RELATED POSTS: USA Trumps Brexit: Next Quitaly or Eirexit?
Polish Leader Kaczynski Says European Union Must Change Or Disband
Juncker Faces Court Challenge Over ‘Illegal’ Ban on Early Brexit Negotiations
EU Parliament and Commission in Standoff Over Fines, Sovereignty
European Union The Prison Of Peoples - France's Le Pen Calls For European 'Spring'
French Prime Minister says: “Europe Is Falling Apart”
Well We Have Been Warning You: European SUPERSTATE plan unveiled: EU nations ‘to be merged into one’ post-Brexit
Will TTIP Make Europe A Colony Of The USA?
Europe Will Be Diverse By Order Of The EUroNazis
“The European Project Was Always Bound To Fail” – Europe Abandons The Union
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [ It's Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?

The anti - establishment, anti - globalisation mood that manifested itself in the Brexit vote is sweeping across Europe, the cosy government - corporate cartel is desperately trying to control the narrative, but against the combined strength of millions of new media commentators all challenging the official; narrative, the dar forces of globalism are on the back foot. With the warnings of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy in mind, concerning the dark forces at work in American society, the 'shadow government', this post examines the threat to freedom posed by a hillary Clinton prediency.
Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?

The Global Warming Scam Is A Weapon In The War On Free Speech

An article in The Washington Times looks at the latest move to silence those who question the motives of the climate change lobby and the pseudo science behind the scam. I, and many of my friends, all believers in freedom of speech and expression, have frequently been callede 'climate deniers' and worse for exposing the statistical frauds behind climate change scaremongering.

Nobody denies there is a climate of course, and nobody denies that it changes. Sometimes a sunny day changes to cold and cloudy, sometimes the sun hardly warms our lands for wekas as rain, snow and hail pummel us. The wind blows strongly on Tuesday, uprooting treees and overturning high sided goods vehicles but on Wednesday, hardly a cats paw ripples the surface of the lake. Mark Twain, who was very wise and did not need mathematical models to help him understand that some things lie beyond the meddling of man, observed that "everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it."

The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands thinks he has found the way to silence, once and for all, the debate over global warming, or climate change, or whatever the 'progressive liberals' and other authoritarian neo fascists are calling the scam this week. Claude Walker, the Obama of the Caribbean who leads the assault on not just free speech but freedom of thought in the idyllic Caribbean microstate presented a subpoena this week to compel the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank skeptical of the climate scam, to turn over all its documents relating to the Institute’s research.

His 14-page subpoena demands the Institute’s documents, communications, emails, op-eds, speeches, advertisements, letters to the editor, research, reports, studies and memoranda of any kind — including drafts — that refer to climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon tax, climate science and the like that in any way are related to Exxon Mobil or the "products sold by, activities carried out by ExxonMobil that directly or indirectly impact climate change."

Mr. Walker reveals the real intent of his lawsuit with a demand for a list of donors to the Institute, the better to pressure them with threats of legal harassment. "We’ve been targeted for our opinions," says Kent Lassman, the new president and CEO of the Institute. Mr. Walker, in fact, is merely acting as the front man for 20 states who have joined forces to prosecute organizations that have exposed the doomsday wailing and gnashing of teeth that is the stock in trade of the global-warming industry.

"Not everyone believes that the planet is warming," Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, wrote recently in USA Today, "and not everyone who thinks [the planet] is warming agrees on how much; not everyone who thinks that it is warming even believes that laws or regulation can make a difference. Yet the goal of these state attorneys general seems to be to treat disagreement as something more or less criminal."

In fact the ultimate goal of the ruling elites has little to do with global warming or climate change. The goal is clearly to demonstrate that the government has the power to punish dissent, silence criticism, shut down objections and disagreement, and even prosecute those who have politically incorrect thoughts. You must let government make all your decisions for you, because we have PhD qualifications in Philosophy, Politics and Economics while you the masses are stupid and cannot understand complex issues. Government must be unimpeded in doing whatever it wants to do to youir life.

"[This subpoena] is designed not only to silence us," says Myron Ebell, an official of the Institute, "but it is also designed to defund us. These [are] efforts to defund us and other free-market groups that have politically incorrect views on climate and some other major issues. We’ve been dealing with this for a long time, but I think we have now reached another level. When you get an attorney general involved, it’s no longer just a debate in the public base that tries to shut us up, but it’s using the full force of the state to do so."

So there you have it, the climate change scare is really, as my friends and I have always said, about power and control and little to do with saving the planet. This last bit is probably fortunate as not of the predictions of catastrophe in recent years (ice cap melt, rishing sea levels, 50 million refugees, no more snow, mass extinction, the destruction of coral reefs and widespread famile because of crop failure have actually happened so it's a good thing world leaders only managed to agree that 'something must be done' without actually having a clue what. Because any money spent would have been wasted and any actions such as the proposed but in practical terms impossible geoengineering projects might well have resulted in far worse humancatatstrophes than the very worst predicitions of the climate scientists mathematical models of the climate could produce.


The Right To Tell Politicians To Eff Off In An Age Of Self Appointed Censors, and Compliant Media Our right of free speech is increasingly under attack from control freak politicians, politically correct left wing activists and the dark forces of corporatism.

Facebook begins Europe-wide censorship campaign against free speech.
Facebook Inc (FB.O) has commenced the Europe-wide censoring of posts and comments the ruling elite do not like, thus making good the promise given to Hausfrau – Volksfuhrer Merkel by the social media and data theft site’s founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Google, Facebook and Twitter Yield to German Govt Demand to Censor Anti-Migrant ‘Hate Speech’ (aka Free Speech)
Over the past couple of days we, and many other New Media outlets reported the horrific incident in Cologne, Germany at New Year, in which a crowd on male, recently arrived immigrants, all of Arab or North African appearance according to witnesses carried out a mass attack on German women who were simply trying to use the railway station.

Sharia Law in Germany: Christian activist Heidi Mund charged with “agitation against the people”
Germany is sliding towards fascism as Hausfrau - Volksfuhrer Merkel outlaws free speech for Christians. All criticism of Islam and discussion of Muslim crimes is hate speech it seems, but the ranting of Islamic hate preachers as they call on Muslims to kill all infidels is acceptable rhetoric.

Academics Warn Politically Correct Universities ‘Are Killing Free Speech’
Free speech is under attack from politicians and minority rights activists, but when universities start censoring ideas, society is in trouble. So what is going on when speakers who have challenged the politically correct consensus are denied a platform to speak on unrelated topics.

Democracy Murdered In France
I'm hearing very disturbing news from the French regional elections, predicting that the Front National, comfortable winners in last week's first round of regional elections, hasve been routed in all regions. For that to happen, and to happen through a massive increase in turnout, suggests electoral fraud on a hughe scale. Or has France joined Britain in adopting the Islamic version of democracy, which is one man one vote, one Imam one thousand votes.

The Self Righteous Minority That Threaten Free Speech
In the past five decades the freedoms cherished in universities in democratic societies has increasingly come under attack from those who style themselves 'The Left'. This of itself is bizarre because left wing thinking ought to be about freedom of the individual, self determination and personal development. People died for the right to speak freely, just as they did for the right of every citizen to vote in democratic elections. So where did it all start to go wrong?

Internet being ghettoized by government an corporate media, Matt Druge warns
The very foundation of the free Internet is under severe threat from copyright laws that could ban independent media outlets, according to Matt Drudge. "I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said [Matt] Drudge, warning web users that they were being pushed "pawn-like" into the cyber "ghettos" of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Free Speech And The 'Black Lives Matter' Book Burners
The news that students and administrators at a Connecticut, USA, university are ‘boycotting’ the Wesleyan Argus student newspaper for publishing an op-ed that was mildly critical of some aspects of the anti-police-brutality group Black Lives Matter (BLM). Their petition reads: ‘This boycott includes recycling the Argus and demanding [its] funds… be revoked.’

Controlled Media Blacks out German Mass Opposition to Nonwhite Invasion
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... Daily Stirrer ...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

Ignorance Is Strength: European Parliament Ready To clamp Down On Free Speech

by Ian R Thorpe,

"War is peace,
freedom is slavery,
ignorance is strength"

So wrote George Orwell in his dystopian (but eerily prophetic) novel '1984'. Intelegtuals have puzzled over the meaning of these slogans of 'The English Socialist Party' (INGSOC) for decades (find an answer but not THE ANSWER here).

Needless to say the actual meaning is multi layered, but when we recall that under the Big Brother regime of the novel, social control is maintained through technological surveillance and through the powers granted to The Thought Police, then the latest news to leak out of the European Parliament takes on a far more sinister aspect that one would immediately assume.

We have reported the President of the European Parliament (Gauleiter Martin Schulz) has often publicly expressed his contempt for democracy and said public opinion is irrelevant and voters are too ignorant to understand the issues they are voting on the fact that the EU has three Presidents, Schulz, Jean - Claude Drunkard, President of the EU Commission (the executive branch) and Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, the committee of national leaders and senior bureaucrats, should tell you everything you need to know about the nature of this bureaucratic dictatorship.

The EU is blatantly pro American, supportive of moves towards global totalitatrian government and opposed to democracy, except for the kind of democratic assembly that merely rubber stamps bureaucrats decisions. Moreover, the EU has well documented designs towards extending 'Europe' into the middle east and north Africa, which makes an insane kind of sense of Hausfrau - Volksfuhrer Merkel's determination to flood Europe with illegal immigrants from those regions.

So what of the EU's latest threat to the right of free speech and free expression?

The European Parliament Subcommittee on Security and Defense is openly Russophobic in accusing Russia of waging an information war, MEP Javier Couso warns.

According to Couso, a recent subcommittee discussion on 'Russian propaganda' and the 'threat posed by Russia' was attended by two NATO officials, one of them being an employee of United States dominated Stratcom – the alliance's Strategic Communications Center.

"We were presented with a report which claimed that Russia and Russian media are lying to the Europeans and seeking to mislead them," Couso told the media. "I disagreed because we, the European citizens, were being told what we should or shouldn't watch." This of course accords with what Boggart Abroad has reported previously about western propaganda demonising Russia to swing public opinion in support of a war President Obama desperately needs.

Cuoso also leaked information that there’s already at least one team tasked with opposing 'Russian propaganda' by using a website and freelance employees to debunk ‘disinformation.’

"They intend to create Russian-language media outlets in order to oppose this 'propaganda', along with European media which would openly denounce journalists working for certain media agencies – for example, RT and Sputnik were mentioned by name – and accuse them of spreading disinformation," the MEP added.

Couso surmised that the goal of Washington and NATO’s appears to be preventing the EU from maintaining friendly relations with Russia.

"The thing is, NATO has made a strategic decision not only to encircle Russia, but to exclude it from Europe’s collective security system. Therefore, all of NATO’s actions – and, unfortunately, those of the EU countries which support the alliance – are aimed at preventing us from enjoying good relations with Russia, all for the US’ benefit," Couso concluded.

Earlier this month, the European External Action Service (EEAS) announced the creation of its Russian-language news website. According to the EEAS, the site will present visitors with a wide assortment of publications on the anti-Russian sanctions, life in Ukraine, and EU efforts in the Middle East, along with the so called 'Disinformation Reviews' compiled by a "mythbusting network" comprised of "over 300 experts, journalists, officials, NGOs and Think Tanks in over 30 countries." As we said, pure propaganda presenting the European and American point of view. Russia of course uses Russia Today and Sputnik to present its point of view. Btween the two we have to use our common sense filters to decide for ourselves what is somewhere near the truth.

Here to help you is an amusing and informative Dummies Guide To The Syrian Conflict, which shows how nothing in international relations is straightforward. Which is why you should follow sites like Boggart Abroad, always sceptical and anti - establishment and always willing to remind you that in the geopolitical gunfight at the OK Corral, none of the contenders is wearing a white hat.

"Back to contents" Return to contents table
Evidence Points To Another Snowden At The NSA Last week, following the news that The Clinton Foundation, the computer networks of Hillary Clinton's election campaign and the US Democratic Party and also the servers operated by 'philanthropic' organisation Open Society Foundation - really a front for meddling by the billionaire left wing activist George Soros in international politics, had been hacked, we learned of a previously unknown hacker collective, "The Shadow Brokers". These hackers claimed they had hacked hacking tools from the NSA's own special-ops entity, the "Equation Group", and released these into the public domain. French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism Europeans want us British to lead them out of Europe. Don't be fooled by project fear, the European Union (aka the Euronazi Federal Superstate) is falling apart. There will not be chaos if we leave, there will be chaos if we stay. Why Should Obama Be Given A Platform From Which To Lecture Britian Although it seems Sidi Barack Hussein Obama, the wannabe God - Emperor of the world and President Of The Entire Universe and everything Else Besides is still planning to visit Britain in late April to tell us all of HIS vision for Britain's future as a province of the US State of Greater Germany with Europe, British voters are distincylt undwerwhelmed by the prospect Migrants Mass At Greek Border Waiting To Cross Into Europe An estimated 6,500 undocumented travellers were assembled at the Idomeni camp on Greece’s northern border with Macedonia on Saturday according to news feeds, after four Balkan countries announced a daily cap on migrant arrivals. The log jam began after Macedonia began refusing entry to Afghans and imposed stricter document controls on Syrians and Iraqis, slowing the passage of migrants and refugees to a trickle. EU HoldsBack New Regulation For Fear Of Strengthening Brexit Case The unelected leaders of the EU in Brussels are smothering discussion of new pan – European laws that would impact the United Kingdom and all other member states, increasing the amount of money they have to contribute to the EU budget and transferring yet more sovereignty to Brussels ... New German Government Smartphone Spyware Will Monitor Citizens’ Calls, Typing AND See Through Their Camera Lenses The German Interior Ministry has revealed a new “Bundestrojaner” or government trojan horse software that will enable security agencies to track the smartphone activities of anyone who downloads it. We understand Chancellor Merkel's government has also adopted an “off the shelf” tool from a company which is said to help authoritarian regimes track their citizens ... Will Merkel’s Migrant Disaster Drive Germany’s AfD Into Power? £1 Billion Migrant Bill:Remain Campaign Rattled As Welfare Spending Soars European Dictator Schulz Dutch academics apoligise for west's lies about Russia Ukraine: The world should prepare for war Germans Cheer As Refugee Center Burns

Loretta Lynch And The Government War On Free Speech

During her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that she asked the FBI to examine whether the federal government should take legal action against so-called climate change deniers. Attorney General Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change.

These climate change censors claim that the argument over climate change is settled and the deniers’ success in blocking congressional action is harming the public. Therefore, the government must disregard the First Amendment and silence anyone who dares question the reigning climate change dogma. This argument ignores the many reputable scientists who have questioned the magnitude, effects, and role of human action in causing climate change.

If successful, the climate change censors could set a precedent that could silence numerous other views. For example, many people believe the argument over whether we should audit, and then end, the Federal Reserve is settled. Therefore, the deniers of Austrian economics are harming the public by making it more difficult for Congress to restore a free-market monetary policy. So why shouldn’t the government silence Paul Krugman?

The climate change censorship movement is part of a larger effort to silence political speech. Other recent examples include the IRS’s harassment of tea party groups as well as that agency’s (fortunately thwarted) attempt to impose new rules on advocacy organizations that would have limited their ability to criticize a politician’s record in the months before an election.

The IRS and many state legislators and officials are also trying to force public policy groups to hand over the names of their donors. This type of disclosure can make individuals fearful that, if they support a pro-liberty group, they will face retaliation from the government.

Efforts to silence government critics may have increased in recent years; however, the sad fact is the US Government has a long and shameful history of censoring speech. It is not surprising that war and national security have served as convenient excuses to limit political speech. So-called liberal presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both supported wartime crackdowns on free speech.

Today, many neoconservatives are using the war on terror to justify crackdowns on free speech, increased surveillance of unpopular religious groups like Muslims, and increased government control of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Some critics of US foreign policy have even been forbidden to enter the country.

Many opponents of government restrictions on the First Amendment and other rights of Muslims support government actions targeting so-called “right-wing extremists.” These fair-weather civil liberties defenders are the mirror image of conservatives who support restricting the free speech rights of Muslims in the name of national security, yet clam to oppose authoritarian government. Defending speech we do not agree with is necessary to effectively protect the speech we support.

A government that believes it can run our lives, run the economy, and run the world will inevitably come to believe it can, and should, have the power to silence its critics. Eliminating the welfare-warfare state is the key to protecting our free speech, and other liberties, from an authoritarian government.

eThreat to free speech
Free press threatened by politically correct authoritarianism
Free sppech under attack from liberal governments
The ethical borders of free speech
French government clamps down on free speech
German government considers banning free speech to protect failed immigration policy
Free speech being murdered
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... Daily Stirrer ...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

the daily stirrer
BBC Compares Free Speech Advocate To Islamic Hate Preachers

The BBC (Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation) has been moving from impartial news reporting towards the role of government Propaganda department for some time. In the latest demonstration of its commitment to the destruction of British society and the suppression of dissent and diversity of opinion came last week when it broadcast a programme that labels free speech advocate Anne Marie Waters a “radical extremist”, comparing her defences of free speech and individual liberty to the Islamic hate preacher Haitham al Haddad who campaigns on a "death to the infidel" platform. The BBC documentary implied that British libertarianism and fundamentalist Islamic extremism are two sides of the same coin.

Ms. Waters’s media profile increased recently when it was reported that she was planning to host a ‘Draw Mohammed’ cartoon competition in London.

The BBC series, titled “Radicals,” is currently being broadcast on the rabidly left wing Victoria Derbyshire show on the BBC News channel. The previous two episodes have featured a Neo-Nazi radicals and an ISIS recruiter respectively.

The episode in question causing the anti - British traitors at the BBC problems is entitled “I’ve been silenced for my views.” The fact that Anne Marie Waters has built a career campaigning against radicalism and extremist views is not mentioned in the programme, though they do mention that she is the director of the Shariah Watch organisation that campaigns against sharia law in the United Kingdom. Clearly the BBC to not regard the preservation of British liberal values anywhere near as important as protecting one of their sacred cows by suppressing any criticism of Islam.

The BBC has edited the programme in such a way that Ms. Waters’s quotes appear to mirror Haddad’s. Both say they not radicals.

Haitham al Haddad is a British “scholar” of Palestinian origin, who has called Jews “apes and pigs,” praised Osama bin Laden, written articles arguing gays are a “scourge” and “criminal,” and given his support to female genital mutilation (FGM) as “proper.” He once spoke regularly in British universities and schools, but has recently had the majority of his events canceled.

A great supporter of the British tradition of tolerance and freedom of opinion is our Haitham.

Marie runs, which was one of several organisations planning to put on the “Draw Mohammad” competition in London that was recently cancelled. The security services believed the event would be attacked, leading to a “very real possibility that people could be hurt or killed – before, during, and after the event.”

“The two people I’ve met feel they’ve been silenced, censored and misunderstood,” the presenter tells us, “they’ve both had events repeatedly called off; they’ve both been accused of preaching hate.”

Back to Contents table
Michael Meacher, outspoken doubter of the 911 official story, dies suddenly in as yet unexplained circumstances

Kid's Company Financial Scandal Shows Politicians Are Too Naive For The Real World
The financial scandal that emerged after the collapse of Kid's Company, the 'charity' founded by Camila Batmanghelidjh and supported by in turn, Labour, Coalition and Conservative Governments is a perfect illustration of corruption in the public sector and the folly of outsourcing government responsibility to self - interested privateers.

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Ian at Minds ] ... [ The Origninal Boggart Blog]

Matt Drudge warns new copyright laws will kill free speech on the internet

Academics Warn Politically Correct Universities ‘Are Killing Free Speech’

university students become censors

A lot of (well deserved) criticism has been levelled at university administrations and student organisations recently for turning campuses into politically correct "safe spaces" where the frail of spirit may never be shocked or brutalised by a harsh word or a controversial idea. British universities are denying the "intellectual challenge of debating conflicting views" in their eagerness to conform to some kind of ersatz consensus, a group of leading academics have warned.

Geneticist and controversial proponent of militant atheism, Professor Richard Dawkins recently said students who cannot handle hearing anti-transgender views to "leave, go home, hug your teddy and suck your thumb until ready for university," however it seems the dark forces of politically correct thought policing, which prefer ‘safe spaces’ (i.e. like Kindergarten) over genuine academic debate and intellectual freedom hold sway.

A group of academics including professors from the universities of Buckingham, Canterbury, Derby, Kent, Liverpool and Sheffield has written an open letter to the Daily Telegraph to warn that politically correct student power in universities is seeing freedom of speech "being curtailed as never before."

They do not blame the universities or their students entirely, the authors of the letter point out that "the Government’s anti-terrorism legislation, known as Prevent, imposes restrictions on who can and cannot speak on campus and forces academics to police students and each other." Government sympathies with Islamic extremism and 'rights' groups that lobby for minorities to be granted privileged status 'in the name of equality' escape criticism although the use of terms like homophobia and islamophobic have become the standard approach for suppressing the expression of certain perfectly reasonable points of view.

The professors' main target is student-driven censorship regimes under which "the list of speakers banned from unions by students is growing, and even banned artefacts: from pop songs to sombreros." Somewhat hypocritically, student organisations refused to condemn Asian extremist Bahar Mustafa, whose job as Student Union Diversity Officer came under threat when, following a number of ant - white, anti - free speech controversies, she tweeted "All white men should be killed." Mustafa defended herself against accusations of racism by saying, "I can't be racist, I'm an ethnic minority woman." We cannot say if she is racist or not, but she is certainly not intelligent enough to be getting a university education at taxpayers' expense, or to be employed in a responsible job in the higher education sector.

And what does that say about the brainwashed idiots who supported her?

The crux of their argument is that the rise in tuition fees has meant universities changed their attitude towards students, now seeing them instead as “customers”. Universities therefore feel a growing pressure to give their customers what they want such that "in turn, many of the most vocal students feel they have a right to demand protection from images, words and ideas that offend them." And that only encourages pathetic, immature little middle class attention seekers to dream up all sorts of stupid reasons to be offended by everyday things.

The letter writers comment on the idiotic idea of 'safe spaces' to reinforce their case, explaining:

A small but vocal minority of student activists is arguing that universities need to be turned into 'safe spaces'. This represents an attempt to immunise academic life from the intellectual challenge of debating conflicting views. Unfortunately the authors do not see an appetite for defending free speech among their academic colleagues, with only very few willing to challenge 'censorship from students'. Calling for more anti-censorship academics to join their ranks and 'take a much stronger stance against all forms of censorship', they add:

"It is important that more do, because a culture that restricts the free exchange of ideas leaves people afraid to express their views in case they may be misinterpreted. This risks destroying the very fabric of democracy.

An open and democratic society requires people to have the courage to argue against ideas they disagree with or even find offensive. At the moment there is a real risk that students are not given opportunities to engage in such debate."

One of the letter’s signatories who is not herself an academic, the secular human rights activist Maryam Namazie, has herself been banned from speaking at universities, and even threatened by students when she has been able to address them.

But let's not get carried away, "academics" are just as guilty of political correctness, as the students are, and it is they who are fomenting the idea of killing free speech. The students are basically thick, immature, brainwashed idiots who have to think what they are told to think because they are not equipped to think for themselves so it's hardly surprising that they emulate their professors, one critic in an Internet thread commented. Good knockabout comedy of course, but let's move from reportage to analysis.

Politically correct ideology has often been compared to fascism. Here's something Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega wrote in an essay in they on the rise of fascism through the 1920s and 30s .

"Under Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the "reason of unreason." Here I see the most palpable manifestation of the new mentality of the masses, due to their having decided to rule society without the capacity for doing so. In their political conduct the structure of the new mentality is revealed in the rawest, most convincing manner. The average man finds himself with "ideas" in his head, but he lacks the faculty of ideation. He has no conception even of the rare atmosphere in which ideals live. He wishes to have opinions, but is unwilling to accept the conditions and presuppositions that underlie all opinion. Hence his ideas are in effect nothing more than appetites in words.

"To have an idea means believing one is in possession of the reasons for having it, and consequently means believing that there is such a thing as reason, a world of intelligible truths. To have ideas, to form opinions, is identical with appealing to such an authority, submitting oneself to it, accepting its code and its decisions, and therefore believing that the highest form of intercommunication is the dialogue in which the reasons for our ideas are discussed. But the mass-man would feel himself lost if he accepted discussion, and instinctively repudiates the obligation of accepting that supreme authority lying outside himself. Hence the "new thing" in Europe is "to have done with discussions," and detestation is expressed for all forms of intercommunication, which imply acceptance of objective standards, ranging from conversation to Parliament, and taking in science. This means that there is a renunciation of the common life of barbarism. All the normal processes are suppressed in order to arrive directly at the imposition of what is desired. The hermeticism of the soul which, as we have seen before, urges the mass to intervene in the whole of public life."

Substitute "academics and students" for "elites", and it is scarily similar.

Today's battle between liberty and authoritarianism seems to have turned Ortega's analysis on its head. The threat to the rights and freedoms of people uncivilized societies appears now to come not from jackbooted thus who follow a demagogue, but from the elites who govern without any commitment to civilization itself and the students who would become part of that elite. From enabling the recent shootings in Paris, and allowing the looting of the Baghdad Museum in Iraq, to permitting the destruction of Palmyra in Syria, Western elites have apparently abandoned the civilizing mission which once both defined the West and provided the "soft power" necessary to maintain world peace.

Current campus "uprisings" at Cambridge, London, Bristol and Warwick amongst many, have seen bans imposed on even established left wing and liberal speakers who had gone against the politically correct view on subjects such as Islamic extremism, same sex marriage and transgender rights. In the USA, recent student outcries at Ivy League universities Yale and Columbia, and at the University of Missouri and many other less illustrious colleges are among the latest to be conquered by left wing barbarism. Uncivilized, and indeed Fascist, attitudes are obvious to the most casual observer.

In this lies the heart of the current problem, by for if Western elites, a absolutely corrupted by their absolute power, are in revolt against civilized values such as free speech, then civilization cannot stand unless the power elites are overthrown. The legitimacy of government depends upon the values as well as the character of those who govern. Such things justify status. The other factor on which the legitimacy of government depends is the consent of the masses.

Back to Contents table

France Moves to Make ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Illegal by Government Decree
I have little time for people who yell 'conspiracy theory'. These emotionally crippled, intellectually retarded, conformity addicted, delusional, left leaning, low - information sucklers of Nanny State's bitter pap might fancy themselves the voices of reason but in reality they never think anything through. Education and Muliculturalism
Universities just degree factories
Graduate: The real value of a degree?

Students censored – An Academic Community In A Crisis Of Collectivism.
Education Is Out, Indoctrination Is In.
Left elite's determination to dum down now bars bright pupils from University

We told you so, University Degrees Are Worthless
Universities Should Not Be Asked To Repair Society
Captive Minds And Cowardly Intellectuals
Equal Rights Campaigners Not Christians Are Imposing Their Belief On Others
A Liberal's Dilemmas
The Philosophy of Anarchy
Nanny Orwell
The Partisan Politics Of Failure
Philo and Sophia - philosophy menu Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Ian at Minds ] ... [ The Origninal Boggart Blog]

Matt Drudge warns new copyright laws will kill free speech on the internet

"It's Over For Me" Matt Drudge Warns Public "You're A Pawn In The 'Ghetto-isation'" Of The Web

Love him or hate him, Matt Drudge was a pioneer of the internet and alternative news, so when he says freedom of speech on the internet is threatened by new laws and international trade agreements that threaten the internet freedom of independent and alternative news sites, we should take the warning seriously. Here's what Drudge had to say about new, corporate friendly, individualism hostile laws being pushed by the Neo - Con Obama administration:

The very foundation of the free Internet is under severe threat from copyright laws that could ban independent media outlets, according to Matt Drudge. "I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge, warning web users that they were being pushed "pawn-like" into the cyber "ghettos" of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

It has to be said Drudge is being a bit of a drama queen here. Free speech is threatened for people who use Google or Bing or log on via servers sited in the USA, European Union or other undemocratic "democracies" but you can bet Russia, China and Iran will defent our online freedom even as they deny such freedom to their own citizens.

During an interview on the Alex Jones Show, Drudge claimed that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being pushed through by lawmakes around the world"

"I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.
"To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited,” he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating an independent website could be outlawed.
"That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, adding that web users were being pushed into the cyber “ghettos” of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
"This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!”

Drudge warned that social media giants like Twitter and Facebook swallow up content and make sure few people see it. Corporate money is strangling the organic growth of independent Internet news platforms on the web. Automated news aggregators like Google News were among the main culprits.

“Google News – hello anybody? The idiots reading that crap think there is actually a human there – there is no human there – you are being programmed to being automated even up to your news….a same corporate glaze over everything,” said Drudge.
To me, not a famous blogger because I never tried very hard after a career in the computer business burned be out in 1997 before I was fifty but I get plenty of traffic, the solution is simple. Stop letting Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft think for you, Artificial Intelligence is bollocks, mchines can't think, all they casn do it match strings of binary digits. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and most of the others collaborate with the US government and the corporate giants pushing for a global totalitarian government. Avoid them, there are plenty of other search engines. Firefox is a fine browser though how true its claims about protecting your privacy are, I could not say but there are other good browswers out there that do not mask controversial or dissentious information. Why let yourself be confined within what the Obama administration and fascist corporations like Facebook define as the Internet as a result of this “corporate makeover” of the web. Did you know that what the avergage user, browsing with Google or Bing can see is about 4% of what is actually available online?

Back to Contents table

France's FN Win Regional Elections First Round. Now The Cheating Starts
We want to avoid the usual hyperbole on this story, but victory for France’s Front National in the first round of regional elections on Sunday (6 December, 2015), in which the anti EU party led by Marine Le Pen lead the vote in six of France's thirteen regions, will shake up the political landscape not only in France but throughout Europe and possibly further afield.

The Importance Of Free Speech and access to information
Lauryn Hill's Real Crime? She Repeated A "Conspiracy Theory"
Chronicle of Decay (dystopian poem)
The threat to free speech
The importance of free speech in a democracy
Is free speech being abolished by politically correct lawmakers
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Ian at Minds ] ... [ The Origninal Boggart Blog]

Seinfeld: Comedians Tell Me ‘Don’t Go Near Colleges — They’re So PC’

via News Feeds, 6 June, 2015

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld speaking on ESPNU and ESPN Radio’s “The Herd with Colin Cowherd” on Thursday (5 June) referred to how other comedians have warned him to not take his comedy act to college campuses because they are so politically correct now.

According to Seinfeld, people do not even know what they are talking about when they throw out terms such as “racist” or “sexist” and this has made its way into colleges, making them too politically correct to do comedy. The same could be said of course for social media, (aka idiot media?) where people who identify themselves as on the political left hurl accusations of racism and homophobia without the least understanding of what the terms mean.

“I don’t play colleges but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges, they’re so PC.’ My daughter’s 14. My wife says to her, ‘Well, you know, in the next couple of years, I think maybe you’re going to want to hang around the city more on the weekends so you can see boys.’ You know, my daughter says, ‘That’s sexist.’ They just want to use these words. ‘That’s racist. That’s sexist. That’s prejudice.’ They don’t even know what they’re talking about.”

Chris Rock echoed a similar sentiment last year, saying colleges are "too conservative." He meant authoritarian of course but it wouldn't do for a black comedian to accuse 'liberals' of authoritarianism.

Back to Contents table

Why Are Governments Scared Of Truth? France Begins Crackdown on Conspiracy Theories
We reported several weeks ago that the French government was planning a clampdown on conspiray theories by shutting down certain dissident websites. Since then we have learned the French government have shown they are prepared to go even further in attacking citizens right of free speech

Why Are Governments Scared Of Truth? France Begins Crackdown on Conspiracy Theories
We reported several weeks ago that the French government was planning a clampdown on conspiray theories by shutting down certain dissident websites. Since then we have learned the French government have shown they are prepared to go even further in attacking citizens right of free speech

The Right To Tell Politicians To Eff Off In An Age Of Self Appointed Censors, and Compliant Media
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”? George Orwell.
Free speech is the foundation of democracy. If we lose free speech we have lost everything because, to put it simply, we can no longer ask the questions that hold ruling elites to account

The Great Gay Cake Scandal
As tensions rise between the USA and its rivals Russia and China, taking the world to the brink of global conflict, as the economic crisis drags on, reducing more nations to economic basket case status, as extremists rampage through the middle east and Africa and threaten to turn their attention to Europe next, it seems our British champions of love, pece and tolerance can find nothing more important to occupy them than persecutiong a christian bakery that refused to bake a gay cake.

Patrick Stewart Supports Gay Cake Bakery
Human Rights Fascism
Human Richts Activism restricting liberty
human Rights Omnibus
Gay Marriage Law Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ]

the daily stirrer

Anti-Islamist Talk Cancelled at Trinity College Over Fear of Antagonising Muslim Students

Iranian human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie who describes Islam as a "totalitarian global threat" has been prevented from speaking at Trinity College, Dublin (TCD). Refusal to observe a set of constraints and limitations not imposed on other speakers, including advocated of Sharia introducing law in the UK and campaigners for a separate Islamic state within Britain, was the reason given.

Ms. Namazie, who is often threatened with physical violence for speaking out against fundamentalist Islam, was scheduled to speak to the university’s Society for International Affairs (SOFIA). Her talk was to be titled: Apostasy and the Rise of Islamism.

SOFIA is trying to dissociate itself from the cancellation, claiming Ms Namazie cancelled the engagement following a 'miscommunication' about the limitations placed on speakers. Aoife McLoughlin-Ngo, chair of SOFIA used a blatant lie to justify this attack on free speech, saying none of SOFIA’s events are open to non members. Unfortunastely McLoughlin-Ngo had promoted the event on Facebook a few days earlier with this message: 'Hey guys, there are 2 event pages – the page I’m linking is open to people outside of SOFIA Members page.'

Ms Namazie insists the college blocked her appearance in order to appease Muslim students who may have been be offended by things she planned to say.

"I’ve just been informed that college security (why security?) has claimed that the event would show the college is “one-sided” and would be “antagonising” to “Muslim students” she wrote on her blog on last Friday. “They threatened to cancel my talk [unless the conditions are met]."

"I, however, will not be submitting to any conditions, particularly since such conditions are not usually placed on other speakers.

"I intend to speak on Monday as initially planned without any restrictions and conditions and ask that TCD give me immediate assurances that I will be able to do so.”

Trinity College declined to give the assurances and the speech was cancelled. To put the bias of SOFIA and the college authorities in perspective, last month, February 2015, Kamal El Mekki was allowed speak at the university in an event at the invitation of the TCD Muslim Students Association and the Irish branch of the al-Maghrib Institute, an organisation for promoting Salafist Islam in universities around the world.

One must wonder what kind of neo - fascist fuckwits are running universities in the west, when Maryam Namazie is gagged by the university authorities in an EU and predominantly Roman Catholic nation such as Ireland, yet El Mekki who has in the past advocated the death penalty for apostates and stoning of adulterers is allowed to speak. When the Committee was shown a video of El Mekki explaining his views, Ms Namazie says they responded that they "could not see why there can even be a discussion about cancelling the event" and that his video was simply "explanatory and not advocatory".

Weasel words from a bunch of sewer rat academics? We could not possibly comment but this might give you a clue as to what kind of hypocritical, self righteous, white - hating racist scum are eating our tax money.

His (El Mekki's) event was allowed to go ahead without the restrictions that the university sought to impose on me," said Ms Namazie in an interview with Independent Ireland. "It is unsettling because these people are given free access to a campus, while those who oppose violence and speak out against the violation of rights of non-Muslims and Muslims alike have restrictions placed on them.

“If you criticise the Islamist movement, which is a far right political movement, you are seen as attacking ordinary Muslims – and this is not the case. Muslims are not a homogenous group. If you criticise the English Defence League, you’re not attacking the English.

"It is no surprise why we see so many young people turn to ISIS when no discussion is allowed to take place without concerns that Islamists might be offended."

She has vowed to speak at the university and has said on her blog that she is currently in discussion with a number of other societies on how this might be achieved.

Back to Contents table

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ]

Electoral Reform in Britain - Is It Time for True Proportional Representation?

The Sad Story Of The Queer Fascist And His Gay Cake

by Arthur Foxake, 29 March, 2015

A Christian baker who refused a bake a cake in support of same sex marriage gave an impassioned defence of his faith, his human rights and the principles of liberal democracy in court last week. Here's a picture of the cake that was ordered, think for a moment if it is offensive and later I will tell you why it is. sesame-street-gay-cake

The Daily Express reported that Daniel McArthur, of Asher’s Bakery in Northern Ireland, told Belfast County Court that to put such a message on the cake would go against his deeply-held religious beliefs. Giving evidence in the second day of a court hearing, he said: “The reason for the decision was that, as Christians, we could not put that message on a cake. Gay marriage is clearly in contradiction of the Bible.

“Our Christian faith is of utmost importance to us. It is how we run our lives, it is how we live our lives, it is how we bring up our families.

“Before God, this is something we couldn’t make.”

The bakery charged with an offence against gay rights by Northern Ireland’s Equality Commission after to take an order for the cake pictured from gay activist Gareth Lee. He had wanted the cake decorated with Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm-in-arm under the text “Support Gay Marriage.”

Now here we hit the first problem. The cake does not appear to be a wedding cake, it makes no mention of two people getting married so it appears Lee in ordering the cake was trying to impose his political opinions on Asher's bakery, which is a violation of about a million human rights. Next, it associates two characters from the under fives TV show Sesame Street. Two muppets in other words.

Now for years the turd burglar lobby (yes, if they want to claim the right to offend me, I have the richt to offend them,)told us they are not paedophiles. And most of us were happy to accept that, I never knew a homosexual male who was remotely interested in children, most seemed to regard them as repulsive little snot factories. So why was it so important a few years ago for the gay rights screechers in the USA to bully the makers of Sesame Street to declare these characters "gay"? Muppets are neither gay nor straight, Muppets are soft toys.

Still the gay rights screechers did us a service by outing themselves as liars and revealing they had a very unhealthy interest in sexualising pre - school children. Sick creeps.

But back to Belfast. Lee, who is member of campaign group Queer Space, claimed the refusal led to him feeling like a "lesser person". The cake was later made elsewhere. A lesser person? This piece of sewer slime is a drama queen as well as a wjining little creep. Let me spell out the position for Mr. Lee.

My wife and I have a significant wedding anniversary coming up. Now if our son (conceived naturally and living in a permanent relationship with the mother of his naturally conceived children) was to go to Asher's and ask them to bake a Silver Wedding cake they are prefectly within their rights to say no. no need to gove a reason whether it is that theyre fully booked up, they're bored with baking Silver Wedding cakes or simply that they don'lt like the look of the person ordering it. They have the right to say no.

So how can there be any justice in forcing the bakers to accet orders for cakes bearing offensive messages supporting paedophila for bullying little tic turds like Lee?

Mr McArthur, who runs the bakery with his parents, said his family did not seek legal advice before refusing to make the cake.

"We were not doing it in defiance of the law,” he said. “I think it is quite obvious that we do not know a lot of the ins and outs of the law. We knew the decision in our conscience as Christians was one that we had to make. That’s why I said to mum ‘regardless, as Christians we are bound by what we believe. This is what we are bound to do’."

His mother, Karen McArthur, said that she initially took the order even though she knew that it could not be fulfilled because she "did not want to embarrass [Lee] or have a confrontation in the bakery."

"The problem was with the message on the cake because, as a Christian, I do not support gay marriage," she said.

Speaking for the McArthurs, barrister David Scoffield told the court that the bakery had not discriminated against Lee as a person and “neither knew nor cared about” his sexuality.

As this publication has often said, everybody has rights, not just minoroties. I suggest Lee chose Asher's bakery because he knew the cake he was going to order and the message it bore would cause offence. The lash laugh will be on Lee however, because in the streets and estates of our towns and cities there is a terrible backlash brewing by people who feel they are being marginalised by the left and the privileged minorities politically correct thinking has created.

'Gay cake' bakery discriminated against client over sexual orientation, court told

The Evangelical Christian owners of a bakery that refused to make a gay-themed cake discriminated against a client on grounds of his sexual orientation, Northern Ireland’s high court has heard.

bert and ernie - gays sexualising childhood?
The most disturbing thing about this case perhaps is the creepy insistence of the gay rights lobby that a couple of muppets from a TV show for pre school children are being designated as gay.

In the case of individual rights versus gay rights reported in the post above, a private bakery is being sued by a customer for refusing his order from a celebration cake supporting the cause of gay - or same sex - marriage. The evangelical Christian owners of the bakery, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, declined the request because they say, by asking for a cake which bore the slogan, "Support Gay Marriage" it required them to go against their religious convictions.

A lawyer for LGBT activist Gareth Lee, who is suing the bakery, Ashers, said that “but for the word gay this order would have been fulfilled”. Robin Allen QC also told Belfast high court on Monday: “This case is direct discrimination.”

David Scoffield QC, acting for the bakery, said if Lee’s argument was right, a Muslim printer could not turn down a contract to print leaflets about the prophet Muhammad, an atheist could not turn down an order saying God made the world and a Roman Catholic printer could not decline making leaflets calling for the legalisation of abortion on demand.

Judge says case is not straightforward, reserving judgment in third day of trial at Northern Ireland high court.

Andrew Muir, Northern Ireland's first openly gay mayor, backed the legal action against the bakery, saying businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve. The Alliance party member said the Bert and Ernie cake was for an event he was hosting in the constituency in May and was ordered to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia on 17 May.

"Businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve," Muir said, adding that he would be supportive of legal action against the bakery.

So the bigotry and fascistic bullying tactics favoured by the gay lobby in Nothern Ireland (as elsewhere) becomes very clear. This cake was nothing to do with the wedding of a same sex couple and everything to do with gay Naziism. All businesses should be able to pick and choose whom they serve. Would the limp wristed bully boy Muir be equally keen to force a socialist caterer to lay on food for a Conservative Party function we wonder? Gay politics is left wing politics and left wing politics, in spite of all the empty rhetoric about equality, is always about imposing the will of a minority on the majority.

"For Northern Ireland to prosper and overcome our divisions we need a new society where businesses are willing to cater for all, regardless of religious views, political opinion, disability, race, age, sexual orientation, marital status, gender and other backgrounds.

"I was pleased that another bakery, in Bangor, was able to step in and produce this cake for the event I hosted as mayor of North Down. We were able to ensure that this event went ahead, despite the actions of Ashers Bakery, and enjoyed a great afternoon celebrating the vibrant diversity Northern Ireland enjoys."

Gavin Boyd of the gay rights organisation the Rainbow Project, said the firm "cannot have their cake and eat it" in relation to equality legislation in Northern Ireland. "The law on this matter is clear. Companies may not pick and choose the laws that apply to them and they cannot pick the sexual orientation of their customers," Boyd said. So another unelected supporter of the tyrannical turd burglar party takes the line, "We will tell businesses who they can and can't do business with."

As far as this publication can see it is a very straightforward case. The point at issue is do we live in a society in which all are equal and free to choose our own course of action, or one in which some groups are more equal than other, to paraphrase George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ]

Seven Shoddy Excuses Lefties Use to Justify Islamic Extremism And The Curtailment Of Free Speech

As the shockwave of revulsion at the attack by Islamic extremists on the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo recedes, while France and the publishing industry mourns the twlve journalists and cartoonists left dead by the terrorists bullets, the cowardly, cringing left have gone on the attack against free speech, press freedom and European cultural values.

But as usual our spineless leaders are calling on us, the people of the western democracies, to show tolerance and restraint, while the politically correct left are playing their usual treasonous role of apologists for the people who want to roam our nations randomly killing, maiming and assaulting innocent citizens in the name of a god who has no place in our culture.

And of course they are calling for further curtailment of our civil rights, primarily the right to free speech. There are limits on free speech they cry. Yes there are and they are clearly defined. And the prohibition of citicism of a religion is not among them. Here are some of the stupid excuses for banning free speech the lefties come up with.


1. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.”

This hackneyed faux-truism is the Expecto Patronum of squishy liberal apologists. That is, when the going gets tough and they’re forced to do that difficult thing – defending free speech – they reach desperately for this magical formula, rather as Harry Potter does when faced with the Dementors. Once the phrase has been uttered, they seem to think, the argument has been made for them and the nasty, scary problem will go away – as no doubt the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable did when he used it in the most recent edition of BBC Question Time.

But the analogy just doesn’t work for at least three good reasons.

First, if the theatre wasn’t on fire, as seems to be implicit, why would anyone want to say it was? You just wouldn’t. Not unless you were mentally ill. So really, to observe that “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” is a bit like saying “you can’t put your willy in a pit-bull’s mouth”. Trivially true. But so what?

Second, any legal restrictions there may be on shouting fire in crowded theatres which aren’t on fire have to do with protection of life and property rights. You might cause a stampede which could lead to fatalities; at best you would damage the theatre’s box office. These laws, therefore, are an expression of common consent. Not so the prescriptions on blasphemy which terrorists like the Charlie Hebdo murderers would like to impose on us. In order for them to become so, we would have all to agree that the precepts of Sharia law are something we should all obey, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Currently we don’t, though it seems to be the case that people who wheel out the “crowded theatre” aphorism think that we should.

Third, as Mark Steyn argues, the theatre is on fire.

2. “Offensive”

I see that in a Daily Guardiangraph leader today the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are described as “offensive.” Was this adjective really necessary? It seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming. But last time I checked “offensiveness” in the West was not a capital crime. Indeed, freedom to cause offense is surely one of the defining qualities of a mature, socially liberal culture. It’s how we explore the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, by testing ideas – good and bad ones alike – in the crucible of debate. If people are wrong, we are free to tell them so – and explain why they are wrong. If we simply decide that some things cannot be said simply because they are “offensive” this enables aggrieved minorities to close down any argument they dislike without its ever being aired in public. This is not freedom of speech, but the opposite.

3. “Provocative.”

The first time I heard this justification was – bizarrely – from an old university friend of mine in the aftermath of the brutal 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh. Sure it was jolly sad and upsetting, she argued, but frankly the guy was an outrageous provocateur who deliberately courted controversy so we should hardly be surprised that he came to a sticky end.

Wow! I never met Theo Van Gogh but I’m pretty sure that, had I asked him, he would have said that being shot in the street was not part of his life plan. Nor was it for the Charlie Hebdo team. They did what they did not, I suspect, because they wanted to but because they felt they had to. Why? Because of precisely the kind of cultural surrender they would have recognised in my university friend’s response to Theo Van Gogh’s death.

4. “Islamophobia”

It’s a nonsense term, of course, because phobias are traditionally a fear of something irrational. But it’s also a classic example of something the progressives are forever enjoining us not to do: victim-blaming. Those millions who gathered in Paris and elsewhere yesterday at the Charlie Hebdo vigils: do we imagine that any one of them wants anything other than to live in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbours? It’s really about time that lefty apologists like Owen Jones stopped responding to every new Islamist atrocity as if it were otherwise.

5. “Anders Breivik”

If Anders Breivik had never existed the left would have had to invent him. He is the (allegedly) right-wing bogeyman they can wheel out at every turn – as Vince Cable did on BBC Question Time – to ‘prove’ that modern terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. The correct response when they try to play this game is: “OK. Apart from Anders Breivik, name two more. Even one more….” (Note incidentally how Owen Jones goes for the double here: Islamophobia and Breivik)

6. “The spectre of the Far Right.”

Another favourite cliche of progressive apologists, as witness most BBC reports on the killings in Paris. Yes, all right, so it seems that most of the evidence – well, all the evidence, actually – points to the murders being the work of fanatical Islamist cells. But it never does any harm, if you’re a liberal, to spread the blame a bit by suggesting that Marine Le Pen and her resurgent Front National (aka “the spectre of the Far Right”) may have played their part in “stoking tensions…”

Oh and one more thing to be noted about “spectres”: being insubstantial, they lack the ability to kill people.

Actually, two more things: Owen Jones again. He’s gone for the treble! (“The favourite target of the Far Right in Europe is…Muslims”). Go on, my son! Back of the net!)

7. “Editorial foolishness”

This is quite similar to point 3, but let’s give a special paragraph of shame to the senior Financial Times editor Tony Barber for that disgraceful apologia for terrorist violence he published the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.

What Barber (and his craven ilk) don’t seem to realise is that are many, many of us out here who could produce any number of such niggling criticisms of Charlie Hebdo and who, too, secretly rather wish they’d never gone and published those bloody cartoons. But that’s really not the point. They did it to establish a principle. We may not agree with how they did it and few, if any, of us would have done it ourselves. But the principle for which they were fighting ought to be sacrosanct. Either you have free speech or you don’t. Any one trying to argue otherwise has no business being a journalist.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

Left Wing Prejudices Are Hindering Our Response to Islamic Extremism

Following recent events in Paris, huge crowds joined a rally in the French capital to…do what exactly? To pledge their support for free speech? To show solidarity with the Jewish people? Or simply to express their horror at such depravity? Are they calling for change, beyond an end to the killing? If so, how many of their cosy assumptions are they willing to sacrifice to put things right?

The murdered journalists and illustrators of Charlie Hebdo were not conventional victims, in the sense of being members of a designated identity group. Nor were they friends of the modern Left, in that they scorned liberal poseurs with a penchant for censorship. They could be rude and puerile, but they understood that the right to free speech trumps the ‘right’ not to be offended.

Freedom is a tricky concept for a people accustomed to thinking of it as a bully’s charter and trading it for the empty promise of security. In an age of clicktivism and Big Government, doing the right thing is not a question of exercising your autonomy; it’s about big, dumb public gestures that we can applaud or decry to register our moral worth.

In such a climate, freedom doesn’t count for much, because it’s irrelevant to conspicuous acts of compassion that everyone can get behind. Nowadays, there’s little kudos to be won from defending the right to disparage others, but there’s plenty to be had from calling for the disparagers to be silenced. The good guys are no longer those who defend your right to speak your mind, but those who want to stop you calling a spade a spade – even if it’s being used to bash your head in.

For the time being, the hashtag activists are behind the champions of free speech, but if you’re looking for long-term commitment, don’t hold your breath. After all, these are many of the same bozos who were tweeting their support for Gaza a few months back, so it’s hard to take their sudden concern for the Jews and liberty-lovers of Paris too seriously. As soon as they are asked to choose between freedom and their cherished worldview, they’ll revert to playing George to the racist mob’s dragon.

Contrary to what they may think, freedom is not a racket that lets the strong exploit the weak; it’s what enables people to learn the practices instrumental to a tolerable way of life. Without being at liberty to determine what works and what doesn’t, to thrash out ideas and discover new ways of doing things, we would be at the mercy of zealots. Which is increasingly the case today.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

The Innate Racism Of British People Is A Politically Correct Myth

Free Speech In An Age Of Offence Taking

We truly live in interesting times: the less real vicious or violent racism there is in the UK, the more we are deafened by the screeching of left wing, gay, lesbial, elitist voices demanding new laws, restrictions and penalties to deal wuth the "growing problem" of British racism.

Since economic socialism became an indefensible political philosophybecause of the way that every time a socialist government was elected because of their promise to redistribute wealth and thuse advance the cause of equality, the result of their efforts was that the rich became richer and the poor became poorer and more excluded, the emotionally needy elements of the bourgeois, always by nature hypocrites, have become more desperate in their efforts to be seen to care about those less fortunate than themselves.

The condition of being 'less fortunte' exists only in the fervid minds of the bourgeois left however. The onl money rich, the aristocracy and gentry, to whom the bourgeois look for arroval, see them only as fawning, sycophantic, pathetic suck-ups while the poor, to whom they look for gratitude, despise their patronising snobbery.


Hired by the council to make an anti-racist video in an Essex school a few years ago, Adrian Hart was struck by ‘the contrast between the exuberant playground of children and the “racism awareness” drama workshops they were about to attend’.

Out there in the playground, black and white primary-school pupils were unselfconsciously messing around together like primary-school pupils do. Meanwhile, inside the classroom, what sounds like the Essex equivalent of the Legs Akimbo school drama group (from League of Gentlemen) were preparing to teach these same children how to be more wary of one another and ‘Watch out for Racism!’. That contrast, says Hart, made him ask himself: ‘What the hell were we doing there?’ It’s a good question, which he sets out to answer in his short and punchy new book, That’s Racist: How the Regulation of Speech and Thought Divides Us All.

Hart draws on his own experience of campaigning against racist attacks in 1980s Britain – ‘a truly racist place to be’, where the authorities led the race war on immigrant and ethnic communities – to show how far normal people’s attitudes to race have changed for the better over the past 30 years. Today, by contrast, we are faced with an army of state-backed crusaders hunting ‘fantasy racism… the racism of the past’ among the masses.

Driven by the conviction that there must be a hidden epidemic of racial prejudice beneath the surface of society, the authorities are now intent upon ‘slaying the menace of zombie racism’ by pursuing a policy of zero tolerance towards any word or deed that might possibly be construed as unintentionally tinted with racism, from the classroom to the football stadium. The result, says Hart, has been to create and exacerbate divisions in society, and to foster a culture that ‘stifles our ability to speak, act and even think freely’.

Hart focuses on the powerful influence of the Macpherson report of 1999, into the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence by a gang of white youths in south London. With Sir William Macpherson of Cluny effectively reading from a script written by a gang of anti-racism experts, his report went way beyond the botched police investigation into that crime and became the ‘launchpad for a new kind of official orthodoxy, which is every bit as divisive as traditional racism’.

Macpherson’s report asserted that Britain was awash with both ‘institutional racism’ and ‘unwitting racism’. There might appear to be a contradiction between those concepts, but not in the weird world of official anti-racism. Here, institutional racism was not about powerful institutions in society, but about individuals within them. As Hart has it, ‘Transposed on to society as a whole, institutional racism is, according to Macpherson, what happens when the mass of people (that’s you and me, the masses) go to work for organisations’. Especially as the masses are all infected with ‘unwitting’ racism, whether we know it or not. In line with this, the Macpherson report created the legal definition of a racist incident as anything that the victim or any other person believes to be racist. That subjective definition has become a licence for racialising British society over the past 15 years.

Hart shows how the elite (who are of course immune to the unwitting racism that the rest of us carry around) have pursued ‘zombie racism’ post-Macpherson, using zero tolerance policies to police language on the automatic assumption that the hidden problem of racism is getting worse.

Which is why monitors and drama groups end up in Essex schools lecturing children to watch out for racism that is not there, while teachers are obliged to tick boxes and record thousands of ordinary playground moments as racial incidents, pursuing a government policy based on ‘the assumption that children are conditioned, from birth, by the persistent racism of their parents’ generation’. And why we have witnessed a crusade against the ‘spectre’ of ‘hidden’ racism in football, based on the assumption that those ugly people who play and watch the beautiful game need to be re-educated.

The result of this new ‘racial correctness’, says Hart, has been to pigeonhole black and ethnic-minority people as perennial victims, and to demonise white people (especially the working-class ones) as unwitting but unreconstructed racists. Little wonder that official anti-racism has helped to exacerbate divisions rather than overcome them.

In a striking illustration of how far things have gone, Hart notes the tendency of some observers to imply some sort of parallel between the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the trial of former England captain John Terry for allegedly calling Anton Ferdinand a ‘fucking black cunt’. One journalist wrote of Lawrence’s mother, the now-ennobled Doreen, sitting in court ‘to see if another race-related crime had been committed’. Hart observes that ‘the comparison with the Lawrence murder, implicit in such genteel misinterpretations of the working-class experience of football, was that the gap between offensive language and murder was not that great’.

We end up, Hart concludes, in a multicultural mess where there is less racism yet heightened racial and ethnic sensitivities and a hardening separation between ‘diverse’ cultural identities. Where the cry ‘That’s racist!’, directed at anything anybody finds unpleasant, is an immediate and unquestionable call for censorship. Hart experienced this himself five years ago when his Manifesto Club report, The Myth of Racist Kids, was condemned for daring to question the orthodoxy by those for whom any such challenge is a case of ‘racism denial’. Ultimately, says Hart, ‘the biggest casualty in this process is the capacity to debate’.

In the end ‘That’s racist!’, along with such fashionable ripostes as ‘Check your privilege!’, is another way of repeating the dominant cultural prejudice that You Can’t Say That. Fortunately, there are still those like Adrian Hart who can, and will.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

The Authoritarian Left is Sending Women Back to the 19th Century

Universities are the marketplace of ideas, or at least they were until the authoritarian left gained the grotesque amount of power it now holds on campuses today, where you can be "No Platformed" for supporting UKIP, for taking the wrong line on transgender women (over ten years ago and despite having apologised profusely several times) and for, well, disagreeing with the far left on any social issue they decide might "cause mental harm".

On Tuesday, a debate between Brendan O'Neill and Tim Stanley, set to take place at Christ Church College, Oxford, was cancelled. The debate was entitled, "This House Believes Britain's Abortion Culture Hurts Us All", and was organised by anti-abortion student society Oxford Students for Life.

The first thing the feminists took umbrage with was, of course, the fact that two "cis" (meaning not transgender) men were the speakers, and that because they are not in a position to get pregnant they have no right to talk about the subject of abortion.

To take this to its logical conclusion, Western atheists have no right to speak about the Israel/Palestine debate because it has nothing to do with them, and god forbid Owen Jones starts talking about "taxing the super-rich" again. Owen Jones isn't one of the "super-rich" so how dare he have an opinion on what should be done with their money.

The New Statesman wrote an entire article purely about how inappropriate it supposedly is to have two men (white men, no less, as the piece reminds us twice) debating abortion.

The other problem here seems to have been that it's a pro-life organisation hosting the debate, which led many commentators to argue that the debate would be skewed in favour of Tim Stanley (what, and Brendan O'Neill agree to 'throw' the match, recanting everything he believes in? Is this plausible?).

An article cropped up in October, written by a Cambridge fresher who objected to the mere presence of Cambridge Students for Life at a Freshers' Fair. With no evil men having a debate about abortion, one might think there would be nothing to decry, here, especially as there were no graphic signs and none of the often objected-to scare tactics were present.

In the comments directly below her article, the author says that signs saying, "Science has proved that life begins at conception," have "undertones" of "Mommy you killed me." So basically, Cambridge Students for Life should cease to exist, not because they're doing anything outrageous but merely because she feels threatened by imagined undertones of people who have a different opinion.

I imagine the girls at the stall wearing "Social justice begins in the womb" T-shirts probably rankled, too. There's nothing left wingers hate more than to see others use the term in unapproved-by-the-Left ways.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

Free Speech is Dead in Britain - As I Learned on a BBC Debate Programme Called 'Free Speech'

Is it just my imagination or was there a widely publicised report a few weeks ago by a professor called Alexis Jay describing in clinical detail how at least 1400 mostly underage girls were groomed, drugged and raped over a period of years in the northern town of Rotherham by gangs of men from predominately Kashmiri-Pakistani Muslim backgrounds?

The reason I ask is that earlier this week, I was publicly called a liar, an Islamophobe and a racist for mentioning this fact on a BBC TV debate programme called - laughably - Free Speech. "Boo! Hiss!" went the studio audience. "Not true" went the silly girl panelist sitting to my left. "List one contemporary problem facing Britain that's NOT the fault of Muslims? Are there any in your mind?" said someone on Twitter with evidently strong and somewhat unnerving radical Islamist sympathies.

It's normally at this point in the proceedings that the moderator comes to your rescue. I know Jonathan or David Dimbleby would have done. Grumble though I do on occasion about the leftist bias of their respective programmes Any Questions and Question Time, the fact remains that the Dimblebys are bright, scrupulous, supremely well-informed professionals. No way would they allow it to go unchallenged if one of their panelists said something that was perfectly true only to have the rest of the panel and (almost) the entire audience to shout him down as a racist, Islamophobic liar.

But the same, unfortunately, could not be said for the moderators on this particular programme, which was evidently designed as a kind of looser, more youthful version of Question Time, aimed at the 16 to 34-year old demographic. They pointed the mics willy nilly at panelists and members of the audience with little regard to the sense - or nonsense - of what was being said.

Certainly, there was no evidence of any presiding intelligence shaping the show or the direction and balance of the debate. For all the difference the Blue-Peter-level moderation made, we could have been talking about Miley Cyrus's twerking moves or Kim Kardashian's bum, rather than about highly contentious, very serious and potentially dangerous issues like so-called "rape culture" and the radicalisation of young British Muslims.

Afterwards various viewers who had been appalled as I was by this car crash of debate asked why I'd volunteered for it. "Why go on James? It's like stepping into the cretins' den," said one. Other comments from sympathisers included: "I had to turn it off,"; "You must have the patience of a saint after last night's "Free Speech"," It's not a debate, more a left-wing hate-session against anyone daring not to conform"; "Have watched you on the BBC last night. I have to say that even growing up in communist Poland I have rarely seen such a shameless set up and left wing propaganda show. I admire your courage really."

And the answer is: definitely not for the money. (£150 in case you wondered). No, the reason you do these things is partly in the naive hope that this time it will be different - that for once you'll find a BBC debate programme where your function isn't to play the token right-wing nutcase for the torture-porn delight of an audience of rabid lefties. And also because someone has to put the alternative viewpoint across, otherwise all you're going to get is a bunch of people spouting the usually right-on, progressive cant and just agreeing with one another. If no one does this, then the enemy will have won.

So that's why I did it but, God, I almost wish I hadn't - not least because the vision it gave me of Britain's future was so utterly, incredibly dispiriting. The thing that particularly depressed me was the general quality of this young audience's and panel's insights into the problem of fundamentalist Islam in Britain. I got the impression that most of them didn't read a newspaper at all - but that if they did it was only ever the Guardian. And that they'd all bought into the notion that if anyone was to blame for terrorism, radicalism and separatism, it certainly wasn't Britain's innocent, much-put-upon Muslim "community."

I sat, amazed, as first my panelists than the audience members trotted out the same fatuous leftist dhimmi cliches. Apparently the two main reasons so many Muslims in Britain are becoming radicalised are 1. "foreign policy" and 2. "Islamophobia." The only person who even remotely attempted to challenge this line was the one other sensible person on the panel, a Conservative MP called Rehman Chisti, whose father was an Imam and who was the first member of his poor, immigrant family to go to university. Everyone else, though, was totally on board with this nonsense.

A bearded Islamist in a Sharia sweatshirt was reverentially applauded as he spoke up about how his fellow British Muslims were moved to fight because they all were part of the "Ummah" and couldn't bear to see their brothers and sisters in religion being raped and killed in Syria and Iraq.

Since clearly no one else was going to, I had to point out that much of this killing and rape is Muslim on Muslim action - Sunni v Shia. But I might as well not have bothered for it seemed to sail over everyone's woefully ill-informed heads. And anyway, as the Islamist solemnly informed me, the Sunni v Shia conflict was also the West's fault. "Foreign policy" he said - an insight which the entire audience applauded. (But not as uproariously as they applauded when anyone had a go at the murderous, evil, baby-eating Israelis).

There was but one glimmer of hope in this otherwise ugly, disgraceful affair. Quite out of the blue, a young white woman at the back of the audience raised her hand and attracted the attention of one of the moderators, Rick Edwards. She said she lived in Bradford, that she herself had friends who had been raped by these Muslim gangs and that the police had not taken their complaints seriously for fear of being accused of racism.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

Leftists Try to Silence Myleene Klass after She Criticises Ed Miliband

A petition has been started to get Myleene Klass fired from her role at Littlewoods after she humiliated Ed Miliband on ITV's political programme 'The Agenda'.And the half-Austrian, half-Filipino musician and model has also been told by a Labour candidate that she should leave the country.

The petition, started by Elaine Buchan from Manchester, calls on Littlewoods to "part company with Myleene Klass following her deeply insensitive and ignorant comments in response to Ed Miliband's proposal of the so-called "Mansion-Tax" on the ITV show Agenda on the 17th of November."

Ms Buchan tries to justify her attacks on Ms Klass by saying that people who shop at Littlewood's are poor and "cannot afford to buy upfront".

She tries to hide her attempts to get Ms Klass fired from her job for holding different political opinions to herself by saying that as a representative of the brand "Myleene Klass has demonstrated unacceptable conduct and spoken unacceptably publicly in such appalling economic times."

It goes on:

"We the British public call upon you to make you position regarding the words of Myleene Klass clear and end your business relationship with her as the face of your brand."

It even attacks Ms Klass for not going off on a tangent by talking about the 'bedroom tax' when she was debating with the Labour leader, complaining:

"Miss Klass made no reference to the considerable number of suicides because of this social issue and no reference to the unprecedented number of British people now reliant upon food banks in these desperately bleak financial times."

Former pop star Klass divided social media when she 'went full Paxman' on Ed Miliband, accusing him of ''pointing at things and taxing them" and saying that £2million home in London did not mean someone lived in a mansion.

So far, only 3,502 people have signed the petition, with some people calling it 'idiotic' and others mocking it by saying they will start a petition to get Peter Andre sacked as the face of Iceland.

But a Labour candidate has gone even further and said that Myleene Klaus and Sol Campbell, neither of whom were born to British parents, should leave the country.

Ms Sherriff, the candidate for Dewsbury and Mirfield, who calls herself a 'feminist' on twitter wrote:

'If multi millionaire Myleene Klass doesn't like mansion tax perhaps she should emigrate with Sol Campbell and Griff Rhys Jones! Toodle Pip!'

The tweet has since been taken down after the Labour party was forced to defend itself against accusations of hypocrisy and racism by tweeting: "Don't you understand the difference between deport and emigrate?"

The party had been trying to make much of a comment by UKIP candidate Mark Reckless where he said that EU migrants might not be allowed to stay in the UK once Britain had left the EU. This was later clarified by leader Nigel Farage who said that even if the EU tried to kick out British citizens living abroad, the UK would not reciprocate.

Sherriff has since deleted the post and has declined to make a comment.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

The Zombiefication Of America

Let's be blunt about it, the politicians who now lead us, people who stayed far longer in full time education than is healthy, and emerged with PhD qualifications in joke subjects like PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics,) Political Science, Social Sciences or Journalism are not qualified to lead us. They might have heads crammed full of theory about the supposed realities of middle and working class life, but they are totally lacking the life experience that would have taught them theory and rewality are a universe apart.

What is more they do not like being made aware of their shortcomings. Thus we are seeing the creation of a new academic and political elite that is in almost every way a copy of the old religious and aristocratic elite. Detached, out of touch and abslutely brutal in repressing the lower orders.

Read all The Zombiefication Of America at Zero Hedge

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

Who Runs America? US Federal Trade Commission Takes Orders From Google
Barak Obama runs America surely, you might well be thinking. We would argue that no US President since Eisenhower has truly run the USA. But the latest revelation of how cosy the Obama Administration has become with corporate business, to the extent that government departments are taking instruction from Google will shock even the most cynical Americans

U N (United Nazis) Plans To Criminalise Free Speech Citing human Rights As Justification

Under the guise of advancing what the United Nations refers to as “human rights,” the dictator-dominated global body is waging a full-blown assault on free-speech rights by pressuring governments to criminalize so-called “hate speech.” Indeed, working alongside radical government-funded activist groups and anti-liberty politicians around the world, the UN and other totalitarian-minded forces have now reached the point where they openly claim that what they call “international law” actually requires governments to ban speech and organizations they disapprove of. Critics, though, are fighting back in an effort to protect freedom of speech — among the most fundamental of all real rights.

While Americans’ God-given right to speak freely is firmly enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, the UN and its hordes of “human rights” bureaucrats are currently terrorizing and bullying the people of Japan — among others — in an effort to drastically curtail speech rights. Pointing to a tiny group of anti-Korean activists holding demonstrations in Japan, politicians and self-styled promoters of “human rights” have also joined the UN in its Soviet-inspired crusade to ban free expression. The Japanese Constitution, however, like the American one, includes strong protections for freedom of speech. Still, that has not stopped the UN from seeking to impose its radical speech restrictions on Japan anyway.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

EU Launches Fund for Thinly Veiled Propaganda Project

British taxpayers have been signed up to paying £18million into an EU propaganda programme by MEPs from across the Continent, with only a tiny percentage earmarked for Eurocrat-approved programmes here in the UK.
The ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme is designed to rewrite Europe’s history to counter the rising scepticism across Europe which saw last year’s May elections return scores of MEPs who want full withdrawal or a big return of powers to their own national governments.
Top of the agenda is a ‘peace project’ called ‘European Remembrance’ which is designed to ‘contribute to citizens’ understanding of the EU, its history and diversity as well as ‘raise awareness of remembrance, the common history and values of the EU and the EU’s aim.’
The EU has often tried to claim that it is the reason for peace in Europe is because of the political bloc which has continued to spread Eastwards after initially drawing France and Germany into a coal and steel union to unite key resources needed for warfare. At times it has even had the audacity to say that the First and Second World Wars were ‘European Civil Wars’.
In the previous parliamentary term, national governments signed up to an EU External Action Service which is designed to usurp the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well as British Embassies abroad.
And there already exists a military organisation who wear the gold ring of stars on sleeves of their uniforms and at the beginning of each Parliamentary year march around the front of the main Strasbourg building for a flag raising ceremony.
UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall said the “anger” at the project and its costs was “totally justified”.
“This ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme which will gobble up our £18m over the next six years gave us just £300,000 last year and meanwhile sent generous grants to pro-European groups in other member states.

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

Ignorance Is Strength: European Parliament Read to clamp Down On Free Speech
The EU is blatantly pro American, supportive of moves towards global government and opposed to democracy, except for the kind of democratic assembly that merely rubber stamps bureaucrats' decisions. Moreover, the EU has well documented designs towards extending 'Europe' into the middle east and north Africa, which makes an insane kind of sense of Hausfrau - Volksfuhrer Merkel's determination to flood Europe with illegal immigrants from those regions.

Euronazi Leaders Admit The Voters Are Irrelevant.
European leaders threw threats and warnings at each other at a meeting held on Saturday (24 October) as thousands of undocumented travellers continued to stream across borders into the Balkans. Saturday's meeting was in preparation for European Union talks aimed at deciding on a course of action to tackle the crisis (Source: Reuters)...

Judge Denies Attempt To Block Obama's Transfer Of Internet Oversight To UN

As reported last week, in a last ditch effort to block Obama's plan to allow the US Commerce Department to hand over oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), or the "Internet's address book" to a multi-stakeholder community - which includes the technical community, businesses, civil society and foreign governments - 4 state attorneys general from Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court alleging that the transition, in the absence of congressional approval, amounts to an illegal forfeiture of U.S. government property. The lawsuit also expressed concern that the reorganized ICANN would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Nevada Attorney General Paul Laxalt filed a lawsuit on Wednesday night to stop the White House's proposed transition of ICANN functions. A primary function of ICANN is done by its Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) department, which coordinates the internet's domain name and IP address system. 

However, as of midnight last night, the transfer is officially complete after Obama-appointed US District Judge George Hanks ruled on Friday afternoon that the transfer of internet domain systems oversight to an international governing body can move forward, overruling the opposition from several state attorneys general and lawmakers.

As a result, the transfer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) from the U.S. to an international entity representing 162 countries will proceed on Saturday as planned. As WND reported, it was the late Phyllis Schlafly who, earlier this year, characterized Obama’s plan as “like telling the fox to guard the chicken coop,” trusting the likes of Cuba, Venezuela and China to ensure the continued freedom of the Web. The transfer of oversight to an obscure non-profit called the Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, set for Saturday, “could be the most dangerous use yet of Obama’s now-famous pen,” the conservative icon said at the time. The states’ lawsuit against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Department of Commerce and others sought a halt to the transfer.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Galveston, Texas, the lawsuit argued the U.S. funded the foundations of the Internet and for decades has been managing it appropriately, including through contracts such as the NTIA’s agreement with ICANN to perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

The complaint cited constitutional concerns and security risks of potentially losing the .mil and .gov domains for the military and government, respectively. Republican lawmakers Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), John Thune (S.D.) and others had previously pushed to include language delaying the transition in the continuing resolution to fund the government, but were unsuccessful. Presidential nominee Donald Trump also backed the effort to keep control of the organization in U.S. hands. As WND adds, the lawsuit wasn’t the only opposition that has arisen in the fourth quarter. A coalition of 77 national security, cybersecurity and industry leaders wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just days ago asking for intervention.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter said.

“Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. In light of the looming deadline, we feel compelled to urge you to impress upon President Obama that the contract between NTIA and ICANN cannot be safely terminated at this point.”

The signers included former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney Jr., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), former Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, former Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency Vice Adm. Robert Monroe (Ret.) and former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy, among others.

They warned: “In the absence of U.S. government involvement in IANA, it seems possible that, over time, foreign powers – including potentially or actually hostile ones – will be able to influence the IANA process. Even coercing the delay in approving IP addresses could impact military capabilities. From a broader view, given the well-documented ambition of these actors to restrict freedom of expression and/or entrepreneurial activity on the Internet, such a transfer of authority to ICANN could have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for untold numbers of people worldwide.” Just a few days earlier, GOP senators, including Chuck Grassley, Ted Crux, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr and Ron Johnson, released a statement opposing the giveaway.

“It is profoundly disappointing that the Obama administration has decided to press on with its plan to relinquish United States oversight of crucial Internet functions, even though Congress has not given its approval. For years, there has been a bipartisan understanding that the ICANN transition is premature and that critical questions remain unanswered about the influence of authoritarian regimes in Internet governance, the protection of free speech, the effect on national security, and impacts on consumers, just to name a few,” they said.

“Without adequate answers to these questions, it would be irresponsible to allow the transition to occur in 15 days simply because of an artificial deadline set by the Obama administration.

“In fact, Democrats at both the state and national level have echoed many of these concerns. For example, former President Bill Clinton has warned that ‘[a] lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower[ing] their people.’

“The issue of Internet freedom should unite us Americans – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. Partisanship and political gamesmanship have no place when it comes to the Internet, basic principles of freedom, and the right of individuals in our great nation and across the globe to speak online free from censorship.” In the lawsuit, the states warned that .gov addresses are at risk.

Maher: ‘Liberals Hate Bullying,’ ‘But They’re Not Opposed to Using It’

HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher criticized protesters against his commencement speech, and defended Rush Limbaugh in a monologue denouncing anti-free speech leftists on Friday.

“Now that it’s been a month since I gave the commencement address at Berkeley, someone has to check in with the people who tried to have my speech cancelled and make sure they made it through OK. Also, since they were protesting me for once saying that Islam is the only religion that acts like the mafia (and will) kill you if you say the wrong thing or draw the wrong picture, and then two jihadists gunned down 12 people in Paris for saying the wrong thing and drawing the wrong picture, you have to tell me, where do I go to protest you?” he stated.

Maher then praised the pro-free speech marches in Paris, but added “unfortunately not everyone got the memo. Like the pope, and his American vigilante, Bill Donohue. Bill’s the head of the Catholic League, and as such, he’s called me an anti-Catholic bigot so many times it’s now my ringtone.” And “last week Mr. Donohue wrote that it was too bad that Charlie Hebdo’s publisher ‘didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death,’ which is like saying the rape victim didn’t understand that her clothes were too provocative.”

He then turned his criticism to Glenn Greenwald, arguing “Glenn Greenwald says anti-Muslim speech, like the cartoons in Charlie, are ‘a vital driver’ in bombing and occupying Muslim countries and killing the innocent. Really? Newspaper cartoons did all that? Wait till they get to the horoscopes and the crossword. It reminds me of one of the protest signs I saw up at Berkeley last month, it said ‘Islamophobia kills.’ Does it? The phobia kills? Or maybe more it’s the AK-47s, and the beheadings, and the planes into buildings.”

Maher concluded, “I thought we hated bullying now. When it happens in high school these days, people go nuts. When I was a kid, adults just shrugged and went, ‘eh, kids are a**holes, what are you going to do?’ Yeah, liberals hate bullying all right, but they’re not opposed to using it. When they casually throw out words like ‘bigot’ and ‘racist,’ it does cow people into avoiding this debate. And if you’re doing that, you don’t get to wear the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ button, the button you should wear says, ‘Je Suis Part of the Problem.’ And that goes for everybody.

This may surprise you, but I am not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. However, if you’re one of the people with a website devoted to making him go away, you are part of the problem. And ironically, you’re not even a proper liberal, because you don’t get free speech, you’re just a baby who can’t stand to live in a world where you hear things that upset you.” He also blasted anti-hate speech laws in Europe and declared that “opinions shouldn’t be illegal. Everyone can always come up with a reason why the thing that bugs you should get a waiver. But free speech only works if there are no waivers…including for religion.” And “I like it that jokes can hurt.”

Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Flickr ]

CREATIVE COMMONS: attrib, no comm, no dervs.
KEYWORDS: news, opinion, dailystirrer,

If you liked this, please give it a boost

Bookmark and Share
Close Window and return to previous URL



Follow Greenteeth on TWITTER...Boggart Abroad ... Daily Stirrer home ... Greenteeth Bites ... Boggart Blog ... Greenteeth Labyrinth ... Author ... Wikinut - Ian R Thorpe ... Gather ... Bubblews ... Authorsden ... Scribd ... Ian Thorpe at Facebook ... Delicious Greenteeth ... Boggart Network News ... Boggart Network News