Fact Checkers Demand YouTube Censor Competitors Because No One Is Watching Their Content

Fact Checkers Demand YouTube Censor Competitors Because No One Is Watching Their Content

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

‘Fact checkers’ are demanding that YouTube censor more videos for “misinformation,” with one of the reasons being that no one is watching their content.

Well, this is awkward.

The censorship demand was made during the GlobalFact 9, a fact-checking conference organized by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

“As an international network of fact-checking organizations, we monitor how lies spread online — and every day, we see that YouTube is one of the major conduits of online disinformation and misinformation worldwide. This is a significant concern among our global fact-checking community,” the IFCN previously wrote in a letter to YouTube.

During the conference itself, Angie Drobnic Holan, editor-in-chief of PolitiFact, complained that fact checker groups are struggling because no one is interested in watching their content.

“YouTube does not seem to raise accurate, credible information in its algorithms. We have had a lot of experience with YouTube making videos of fact-checking content. It doesn’t seem to do very well, Holan.

“I think most news organizations are extremely frustrated with your platform,” she added.

In other words, no one cares about boring, hyper-partisan content put out by dubious ‘fact checker’ groups, therefore their more successful competition must be censored!

YouTube’s Brandon Feldman responded by assuring the group it was doing more to elevate “authoritative sources.”

On YouTube, this manifests itself in the form of content from mainstream news networks and regime institutions appearing at the top of search results, with dissenting narratives buried deep down the list, if they appear at all.

But apparently, not even this is enough.

As we previously highlighted, the co-founder of one of the world’s leading ‘fact checker’ organizations, which presents itself as a supreme authority on which sources of information can be trusted, labeled the now completely confirmed genuine Hunter Biden laptop story a “hoax”.

The Wuhan lab leak, a theory now accepted by the head of the World Health Organization, was also once shadow banned as a result of it being declared a “conspiracy theory” by fact checkers.

Whenever stories emerge that are hugely damaging to the regime and the military-industrial complex, fact checkers are weaponized to bury them by falsely labeling such stories ‘misleading’ or hoaxes even if they are completely authentic.

This then serves to justify their censorship by social media algorithms and the targeted banning and deplatforming of anyone who tries to amplify them.

Fact checkers aren’t impartial, independent outlets, they are merely hyper-partisan information attack dogs working on behalf of the regime.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 05:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/kh6DCFo Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Preach It!


A young preacher

Georgia Gwinnett College has agreed to pay $800,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by two students who were barred from talking to other students about their Christian faith or passing out literature in common areas of campus. Officials told Chike Uzuebunam he could speak only in two free speech zones that had to be reserved in advance and were only open a few hours a week. Joseph Bradford, another student who wished to preach on campus, later joined Uzuebunam in the suit against the college.

The post Brickbat: Preach It! appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/WVej4HJ
via IFTTT

NATO To Drastically Increase High-Readiness Forces By 650%

NATO To Drastically Increase High-Readiness Forces By 650%

Going into this week’s NATO summit in Madrid, set to run Tuesday through Thursday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has announced what surely be taken by Moscow has another huge escalation on the military front. 

Stoltenberg announced at a Monday press briefing that NATO is drastically beefing up its high-readiness forces to “well over 300,000.” This would be up from current levels of 40,000 total, or a whopping 650% boost. The large increase is expected to be taken up and approved at this week’s summit, at a moment there’s been urgent calls in the alliance for beefing up NATO bases in Eastern Europe and the Baltics aimed at deterring further Russian aggression.

NATO file image, via Time

“We will enhance our battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance up to brigade-levels,” Stoltenberg said. He explained allies “will transform the NATO Response Force and increase the number of our high-readiness forces to well over 300,000.”

It’s expected that vastly more Western troop numbers will be appointed particularly for tiny Lithuania, which is at the moment playing an outsized role in the EU/NATO standoff with Russia, given the economic ‘blockade’ against Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad.

The NATO chief detailed further, according to Politico:

The model will include “more pre-positioned equipment, and stockpiles of military supplies,” as well as “more forward-deployed capabilities, like air defence” and “strengthened command and control,” Stoltenberg said. 

The new defense plans will involve “forces pre-assigned to defend specific allies” which “will exercise together with home defence forces” and “become familiar with local terrain, facilities, and our new pre-positioned stocks, so that they can respond smoothly and swiftly to any emergency,” according to the NATO chief. 

In previewing the NATO summit in Madrid, Stoltenberg stressed that alliance members will present a united front in stating “that Russia poses a direct threat to our security, to our values, to the rules-based international order.”

However, Turkey – which has the second largest military in the alliance – has so far been refusing to play ball on Sweden and Finland’s applications for accession, for which there’s been a flurry of diplomatic activity this week.

Another main theme at the summit, and point of less contention, will be continuing to ratchet up military weapons and supplies to Kiev, at a moment it’s become clear that Ukraine’s army is far outgunned by superior Russian forces in the contested Donbas region.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 04:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/d7X0OxP Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Preach It!


A young preacher

Georgia Gwinnett College has agreed to pay $800,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by two students who were barred from talking to other students about their Christian faith or passing out literature in common areas of campus. Officials told Chike Uzuebunam he could speak only in two free speech zones that had to be reserved in advance and were only open a few hours a week. Joseph Bradford, another student who wished to preach on campus, later joined Uzuebunam in the suit against the college.

The post Brickbat: Preach It! appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/WVej4HJ
via IFTTT

France Sees Nuclear Energy Output Plummet At The Worst Possible Moment

France Sees Nuclear Energy Output Plummet At The Worst Possible Moment

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

  • France, the European Union’s leader in nuclear energy, is seeing a massive decline in output.

  • Though it has been relatively unfazed by the bloc’s ongoing energy crisis, declining nuclear production could pose a significant problem in the coming months.

  • The collapse of French nuclear power generation and Putin’s retaliatory cutback on energy exports to Europe could be disastrous for the continent.

France has long been one of the world’s greatest champions of nuclear energy. France leads the European Union in nuclear production, with the most productive reactors in the bloc, and relies on nuclear power for a larger share of its energy mix than any other country in the world. It makes sense that France should lead the charge for nuclear energy development as they have long been the global poster child for safe and reliable nuclear energy – until now.

A recent flurry of unexpected issues at the Électricité de France (EDF), the state nuclear power operator representing the largest nuclear fleet in Europe, has caused French nuclear energy output to tumble to its lowest levels in 30 years. Around half of the EDF’s massive nuclear fleet has been taken offline, delivering a massive blow to the EU’s energy independence and security in the midst of a worldwide energy crisis.

France has become increasingly reliant on nuclear power in recent years. French President Emmanuel Macron has given nuclear energy an even bigger boost in his time in office. Indeed, in February, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he announced a  €52 billion plan to revitalize the country’s “nuclear adventure.” He has also fought for the inclusion of the emissions-free power source as a “green investment” in the nomenclature of the European Union as the continent moves toward establishing its green energy budget for the coming years.

The European Union had hoped that France’s considerable nuclear power capacity would be key in allowing the bloc to move away from Russian energy as the West tries to shore up its energy independence and increase sanctions on the Kremlin in response to the Russian war in Ukraine. As recently as March of this year, the Council on Foreign Relations posited that nuclear power could be the answer to ending the continent’s crippling reliance on Russian energy. But now it might be the very thing that makes such a divorce impossible. 

Until now, France has been relatively sheltered from the energy crisis squeezing its neighbors. But now the nuclear-reliant nation suddenly finds itself in the same boat as other energy-strapped European nations thanks to a “series of maintenance issues including corrosion at some of France’s ageing reactors, troubles at state-controlled energy group EDF and a years-long absence of significant new nuclear investment,” according to reporting from the Financial Times. The issues of corrosion, which are currently to blame for 12 of France’s 56 offline reactors, could take years to fix. Meanwhile, inflation is soaring and French electric bills have hit record highs. 

“Instead of pumping vast amounts of electricity to Britain, Italy and other European countries pivoting from Russian oil,” writes The New York Times,

“France faces the unsettling prospect of initiating rolling blackouts this winter and having to import power.”

The incredibly bad timing of the EDF’s crisis is compounded with Putin’s recent slashing of natural gas exports to the EU, which have pushed countries such as Germany, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands to a bitter and reluctant return to coal.”

The contemporaneous collapse of French nuclear power generation capacity and Putin’s retaliatory cutback on energy exports to Europe spell out disaster and tragedy for the continent’s – and the world’s – decarbonization efforts. And even if France can get its nuclear fleet back up and running relatively quickly (a highly unlikely feat), it’s unlikely that the EU will be able to continue its planned coal phase-out, as the International Energy Agency warns that Russia may soon be cutting off its flow of natural gas to Europe entirely. While other countries including Romania will be bulking up their own nuclear energy capacity in the coming months and years, it looks like we’re on track for a banner year for coal and a devastating step back for global emissions targets.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/HrTd7sC Tyler Durden

“Suitcases Full Of Drug Money”: Credit Suisse Found Criminally Guilty in Money-Laundering Case Tied to Cocaine Ring

“Suitcases Full Of Drug Money”: Credit Suisse Found Criminally Guilty in Money-Laundering Case Tied to Cocaine Ring

Another day, another dismal development for the 2nd largest (but most damned) Swiss bank.

On Monday, Credit Suisse Group was convicted of failing to prevent money laundering by a Bulgarian cocaine trafficker, in the first ever criminal conviction of a major Swiss bank in the country’s history. The verdict, in which a former relationship manager at the bank was also convicted on money laundering charges, was handed down by Switzerland’s top criminal court on Monday afternoon.

The former employee, who prosecutors said regularly accepted suitcases of cash from one of the ring members that went beyond allowed limits, was given a 20-month suspended sentence. A person from another bank and two members of the crime ring were also found guilty of money-laundering charges. 

There was a silver lining, as the penalty was purely token: Credit Suisse will be fined two million Swiss francs ($2.1 million) over “certain historical organizational inadequacies”,  or about how much the cocaine trafficker spent on hookers in one trip to Switzerland to deposit his drug money with Credit Suisse.

Money aside, the decision is another blow to the tarnished reputation of Credit Suisse, which had argued the crimes date to an era when compliance standards were less stringent. It has been struggling with a series of scandals that have sent its shares to near-record lows, and may face a second criminal indictment in an unrelated case later this year.

As Bloomberg notes, the case was criticized by Credit Suisse for having been brought so many years after the events in question. The bank expressed its “astonishment” in late 2020 when Swiss prosecutors publicly charged it with money laundering offenses, given the alleged crimes took place between 2004 and 2008.

The court said Credit Suisse made it possible for the crime ring to launder money through the bank between July 2007 and December 2008 by failing to adequately monitor its accounts and make sure the business complied with anti-money-laundering rules. The crime ring allegedly recruited a Bulgarian wrestler and others in his orbit for operations transporting drugs and laundering money.

Credit Suisse said in a pre-trial statement that it “unreservedly rejects as meritless all allegations in this legacy matter raised against it and is convinced that its former employee is innocent.” It also said previously that outside lawyers and consultants had reviewed its systems against money laundering and found its organizational setup was “correct and appropriate” in the period being probed.

Prosecutors initially charged the bank with deficiencies between 2004 and 2008 but had to narrow the time frame because too much time had passed. Under Swiss law, local prosecutors can press criminal charges against banks if they believe those institutions didn’t do enough to screen clients and their cash for obvious ties to illicit activity. The former Credit Suisse manager, a woman who can only be named as E. under Swiss reporting restrictions, accepted deposits of used bank notes that regularly exceeded 500,000 euros ($528,650) at a time, according to the 515-page indictment.

Cash deposits were very common given the parlous state of Bulgaria’s banks at the time, she said in testimony. Her lawyer also said she wasn’t sufficiently trained by the bank, and will appeal.

The conviction hits Credit Suisse as it tries to turn a corner on financial losses and other scandals, including more than $5 billion in losses related to the collapse of family office Archegos Capital Management. 

Credit Suisse said it would appeal the decision. It noted that the alleged offenses date to more than 14 years ago. It had said it was astonished to be charged when prosecutors brought the case in December 2020. The bank on Monday said it is continually testing its anti-money-laundering framework and has been strengthening it over time. 

On Tuesday, Credit Suisse will update investors on plans to cut costs this year to help offset falling revenue in some divisions. It previously said it expects to post its third consecutive quarterly loss for the three months ending June 30.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 02:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xgHAuEi Tyler Durden

Almost All 5,000 Gang Members In Sweden Are Either 1st- Or 2nd-Generation Migrants

Almost All 5,000 Gang Members In Sweden Are Either 1st- Or 2nd-Generation Migrants

By Denes Albert of Remix News

The urban crime gangs dominating Swedish cities are almost exclusively made up of immigrants, according to Amir Rostami, a leading criminologist and professor who based his findings on police data.

In Sweden, the number of gang-related crimes is increasing every year, and as a result of mass and uncontrolled immigration, the authorities are losing control over more and more areas where migrant gangs are taking power.

“It is not enough for many immigrants to come to Sweden from a less developed country and enjoy the benefits. They want excitement and want to get rich quickly,” says criminologist Rostami.

Rostami has divided these gang members into two categories. Disorganized criminals are mostly made up of slightly younger members between 20 and 25 years old who have poorer impulse control, less education, and are primarily dealing with weapons and drugs. Then, there are the slightly more mature, rational, and better educated members who are involved in more extensive criminal networks; some of these members are even accountants, people with degrees, and former military personnel. This group is responsible for a huge share of crimes in Sweden, suspected of committing 40,000 criminal acts every year. These criminal networks not only compete with each other, but also work together.  

Rostami sees himself as an example of someone who chose another life. He was born in Iran, came to Sweden with his family as an immigrant, and grew up in the Frölunda district of Gothenburg, which is now considered to be a “sensitive area” where large immigrant populations live. He said his upbringing was fraught with the risk factors of becoming a criminal, but instead of taking the path of crime, he chose to study, according to the Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.

Regarding migrant gangs, the criminologist highlighted that the business is passed down within the family. He said that fathers and other relatives teach young males in the family to commit crimes. Rostami argues that it is an almost insurmountable task for society to bring these individuals into a crime-free way of life and requires far more resources than are available or can be reasonably allocated to the task.

Police estimate that the number of people active in gang crimes in the so-called “sensitive areas” exceeds 5,000, of whom almost a 1,000 live in Gothenburg. According to Swedish police, almost all registered criminals have an immigrant background.

It is estimated that in about 15 years, each immigrant criminal will cost taxpayers an average of 25 million króna (€2.35 million) over the migrant’s lifetime. This represents a total financial burden of SEK 125 billion króna (€11.7 billion) for society. A shortfall in taxes paid to society, to which these people would have contributed if they had chosen an honest life over crime, must also be factored in.

According to Rostami and police records, all of the country’s convicted gang leaders are first- or second-generation migrants. Twelve of them are still serving their prison sentences, and one of them is on the run and hiding.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/MGvS32c Tyler Durden

Justice Thomas and Loving v. Virginia

Justice Thomas is married to a white woman. And the couple lives in Virginia. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, the law of the Commonwealth criminalized interracial marriage. In the wake of Dobbs, critics have tried to hoist Justice Thomas on his own petard: Oh yeah, you would overrule Obergefell, but what about Loving? Indeed, Justice McDonald of the Connecticut Supreme Court, who is in a same-sex marriage, got in on the fun with some wordplay:

“Mr. Justice Thomas had much to say today about my loving marriage. Oddly he didn’t have much to say about his ‘Loving’ marriage.”

This argument was predictable, and flawed.

First, Justice Thomas already addressed the status of Loving in his Obergefell dissent. And he expressly distinguished Loving from Obergefell.

Petitioners’ misconception of liberty carries over into their discussion of our precedents identifying a right to marry, not one of which has expanded the concept of “liberty” beyond the concept of negative liberty. Those precedents all involved absolute prohibitions on private actions associated with marriage. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), for example, involved a couple who was criminally prosecutedfor marrying in the District of Columbia and cohabiting in Virginia, id., at 2–3. [FN5] They were each sentenced to a year of imprisonment, suspended for a term of 25 years on the condition that they not reenter the Commonwealth together during that time. Id., at 3. [FN6]

[FN5] The suggestion of petitioners and their amici that antimiscegenation laws are akin to laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman is both offensive and inaccurate. “America’s earliest laws against interracial sex and marriage were spawned by slavery.” P. Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America 19 (2009). For instance, Maryland’s 1664 law prohibiting marriages between ” ‘freeborne English women’ ” and ” ‘Negro Sla[v]es’ ” was passed as part of the very act that authorized lifelong slavery in the colony. Id., at 19–20. Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws likewise were passed in a 1691 resolution entitled “An act for suppressing outlying Slaves.” Act of Apr. 1691, Ch. XVI, 3 Va. Stat. 86 (W. Hening ed. 1823) (reprint 1969) (italics deleted). “It was not until the Civil War threw the future of slavery into doubt that lawyers, legislators, and judges began to develop the elaborate justifications that signified the emergence of miscegenation law and made restrictions on interracial marriage the foundation of post-Civil War white supremacy.” Pascoe, supra, at 27–28. Laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman do not share this sordid history. The traditional definition of marriage has prevailed in every society that has recognized marriage throughout history. Brief for Scholars of History and Related Disciplines as Amici Curiae 1. It arose not out of a desire to shore up an invidious institution like slavery, but out of a desire “to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by both the mothers and the fathers who brought them into this world.” Id., at 8. And it has existed in civilizations containing all manner of views on homosexuality. See Brief for Ryan T. Anderson as Amicus Curiae 11–12 (explaining that several famous ancient Greeks wrote approvingly of the traditional definition of marriage, though same-sex sexual relations were common in Greece at the time).

[FN6] The prohibition extended so far as to forbid even religious ceremonies, thus raising a serious question under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, as at least one amicus brief at the time pointed out. Brief for John J. Russell et al. as Amici Curiae in Loving v. Virginia, O.T. 1966, No. 395, pp. 12–16.

I hope that distinction will suffice. And I trust Justice McDonald can read the Obergefell dissent to learn Justice Thomas’s views on Loving.

Second, Loving was premised on both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Even if you reject substantive due process, you could still find that Loving reached the correct result on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. After all, the law literally treats people differently on the basis of their race. Two white people can get married, but a white person and a black person cannot. Even the most conservative jurists would deem such a law unconstitutional.

Third, there is an insinuation lurking in the background of the claim: Justice Thomas did not talk about Loving because doing so would undermine his own marriage. Or, stated differently, Justice Thomas cannot be neutral on the topic of interracial marriage, so he simply ignored the case; thus he is a hypocrite. This charge is perhaps the most pernicious. And it is not new. During the Prop 8 litigation, there was an effort to disqualify Judge Vaughn Walker because he was a gay man who was in a long-term relationship with another man. The defenders of Prop 8 claimed that Judge Walker could not possibly handle the case objectively because he stood to benefit personally from a ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Ultimately, Walker did not recuse. And he based his decision on a long line of cases involving black judges, who likewise refused to recuse in racial discrimination cases. I like to think that Judge Walker, like Justice Thomas, could objectively assess cases that could affect their personal relationships.

The post Justice Thomas and <i>Loving v. Virginia</i> appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/whFpKj5
via IFTTT

Justice Thomas and Loving v. Virginia

Justice Thomas is married to a white woman. And the couple lives in Virginia. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, the law of the Commonwealth criminalized interracial marriage. In the wake of Dobbs, critics have tried to hoist Justice Thomas on his own petard: Oh yeah, you would overrule Obergefell, but what about Loving? Indeed, Justice McDonald of the Connecticut Supreme Court, who is in a same-sex marriage, got in on the fun with some wordplay:

“Mr. Justice Thomas had much to say today about my loving marriage. Oddly he didn’t have much to say about his ‘Loving’ marriage.”

This argument was predictable, and flawed.

First, Justice Thomas already addressed the status of Loving in his Obergefell dissent. And he expressly distinguished Loving from Obergefell.

Petitioners’ misconception of liberty carries over into their discussion of our precedents identifying a right to marry, not one of which has expanded the concept of “liberty” beyond the concept of negative liberty. Those precedents all involved absolute prohibitions on private actions associated with marriage. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), for example, involved a couple who was criminally prosecutedfor marrying in the District of Columbia and cohabiting in Virginia, id., at 2–3. [FN5] They were each sentenced to a year of imprisonment, suspended for a term of 25 years on the condition that they not reenter the Commonwealth together during that time. Id., at 3. [FN6]

[FN5] The suggestion of petitioners and their amici that antimiscegenation laws are akin to laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman is both offensive and inaccurate. “America’s earliest laws against interracial sex and marriage were spawned by slavery.” P. Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America 19 (2009). For instance, Maryland’s 1664 law prohibiting marriages between ” ‘freeborne English women’ ” and ” ‘Negro Sla[v]es’ ” was passed as part of the very act that authorized lifelong slavery in the colony. Id., at 19–20. Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws likewise were passed in a 1691 resolution entitled “An act for suppressing outlying Slaves.” Act of Apr. 1691, Ch. XVI, 3 Va. Stat. 86 (W. Hening ed. 1823) (reprint 1969) (italics deleted). “It was not until the Civil War threw the future of slavery into doubt that lawyers, legislators, and judges began to develop the elaborate justifications that signified the emergence of miscegenation law and made restrictions on interracial marriage the foundation of post-Civil War white supremacy.” Pascoe, supra, at 27–28. Laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman do not share this sordid history. The traditional definition of marriage has prevailed in every society that has recognized marriage throughout history. Brief for Scholars of History and Related Disciplines as Amici Curiae 1. It arose not out of a desire to shore up an invidious institution like slavery, but out of a desire “to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by both the mothers and the fathers who brought them into this world.” Id., at 8. And it has existed in civilizations containing all manner of views on homosexuality. See Brief for Ryan T. Anderson as Amicus Curiae 11–12 (explaining that several famous ancient Greeks wrote approvingly of the traditional definition of marriage, though same-sex sexual relations were common in Greece at the time).

[FN6] The prohibition extended so far as to forbid even religious ceremonies, thus raising a serious question under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, as at least one amicus brief at the time pointed out. Brief for John J. Russell et al. as Amici Curiae in Loving v. Virginia, O.T. 1966, No. 395, pp. 12–16.

I hope that distinction will suffice. And I trust Justice McDonald can read the Obergefell dissent to learn Justice Thomas’s views on Loving.

Second, Loving was premised on both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Even if you reject substantive due process, you could still find that Loving reached the correct result on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. After all, the law literally treats people differently on the basis of their race. Two white people can get married, but a white person and a black person cannot. Even the most conservative jurists would deem such a law unconstitutional.

Third, there is an insinuation lurking in the background of the claim: Justice Thomas did not talk about Loving because doing so would undermine his own marriage. Or, stated differently, Justice Thomas cannot be neutral on the topic of interracial marriage, so he simply ignored the case; thus he is a hypocrite. This charge is perhaps the most pernicious. And it is not new. During the Prop 8 litigation, there was an effort to disqualify Judge Vaughn Walker because he was a gay man who was in a long-term relationship with another man. The defenders of Prop 8 claimed that Judge Walker could not possibly handle the case objectively because he stood to benefit personally from a ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Ultimately, Walker did not recuse. And he based his decision on a long line of cases involving black judges, who likewise refused to recuse in racial discrimination cases. I like to think that Judge Walker, like Justice Thomas, could objectively assess cases that could affect their personal relationships.

The post Justice Thomas and <i>Loving v. Virginia</i> appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/whFpKj5
via IFTTT

Newspeak In The 21st Century: How To Become A Model Citizen In The New Era Of Domestic Warfare

Newspeak In The 21st Century: How To Become A Model Citizen In The New Era Of Domestic Warfare

Authored by Cnythia Chung via ‘Through A Glass Darkly’ Substack,

Disagreement has become an extremely sensitive issue lately; it was once thought that debate was an essential component to a strong and healthy democracy, however, we are now told that it is extremely dangerous, in fact, it may soon be categorised as a form of domestic terrorism. [This article was originally published January 27, 2021.]

As early as mid-Nov 2020, Biden was already discussing the need to pass further laws against domestic terrorism. This is interesting since under the 2001 Patriot Act (which was meant to be a temporary enforcement in reaction to 9/11, however, is still in place 19 years later), domestic terrorism is already defined as;

“activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”

So, the question begs, what else needs to be added to the Patriot Act, which was recognised at the time of its enforcement as something that should only be temporary since it was understood that it infringed upon civil liberties? Come to think of it, why is the Patriot Act still in place, which allows for the indefinite continuation of human rights violations such as warrantless wiretapping; illegal torture, kidnapping, and detention; mass surveillance; government secrecy; Real ID; no-fly list; political spying; abuse of material witness statutes; and attacks on academic freedom?

As Glenn Greenwald wrote in his formidable paper The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming, “what needs to be criminalized that is not already a crime?”, keeping in mind that as of June 2020, the United States has the highest prisoner rate in the world, followed by El Salvador, Turkmenistan, Thailand and Palau.

Well, the answer is apparently simple and as always for our own good. We have come to a point in time where the enemy is not some radicalized ideology, it is not some foreign despot, it is not even the threat of war (whether it be economic, cyber or nuclear), but rather it is ourselves. We, the people, are the new enemies of the State.

You may protest “Not I! I am a model citizen! I pay my taxes on time, I am never late or call in sick for work, I make sure to be up-to-date with the newest ‘woke’ revelations and I don’t engage with anything outside of the mainstream matrix during my free-time.”

People such as yourself think, that when the Biden Administration is calling for tougher laws against domestic terrorism, that it is obviously meant for the ‘other guy,’ those uneducated bigots who are screaming at the top of their lungs “Treason!” and inciting what we are told to be forms of ‘insurrection,’ all in the name of the archaic ideas of ‘patriotism’ and the ‘U.S. Constitution.’

You, unlike so many others, have no problem recognising that the U.S. Constitution is actually part of the problem, that by the standards used today, the U.S. Constitution is itself responsible for ‘inciting violence’ and thus guilty of domestic terrorism, and thus needs to be revoked.

But you see… that’s just not good enough.

Though you are well on your way to becoming a model citizen in the 21st century, you still have a little ways to go. It is for this reason that a guide to 21st century Newspeak has been recently released to make sure that well-intentioned citizens like yourself are fully informed of what is required of you in terms of appropriate behaviour, as well as appropriate thoughts, and though this will take a little more time, appropriate instincts.

21st Century Newspeak

The first alteration that will need to take place is freedom of thought. It has been shown through peer-review studies that individual thoughts are susceptible to forming erroneous beliefs and can lead to dangerous behaviours such as refusal to integrate into a community standard.

Once an individual refuses to integrate into its designated community, it is only a matter of time before this individual shows opposition and even antagonism towards said community. Thus failure to integrate is one of the first signs that an individual is on the path to becoming a domestic terrorist.

Because the individual mind is flawed, it can no longer be trusted to be the standard of its own judgement of what is right and wrong. It is for this reason that we are introducing groupthink. This concept is not new, however, the difference is from now on the individual’s environment will only be allowed to reciprocate the values of groupthink, and all other thoughts outside of groupthink are to be banned and punishable under the new laws.

Even if thoughts outside of groupthink appear as harmless to the collective, they are not, for any thought that is not groupthink threatens to lead to a different outcome than that intended by groupthink and thus is a threat to the security of the collective.

In order to ensure commitment to groupthink, it will be mandatory that every individual engage in at least 2 minutes of Hate every hour throughout the day, every day. This can be achieved either by watching 2 minutes of Hate news, or by engaging in a public 2 minutes of Hate with a colleague, a friend or family member via social media.

It is imperative that an individual watch the 15 minute morning and evening “What to Hate” news provided by the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue), in order to be the most up-to-date with what are the ongoing and new subjects of Hate, and what were previous subjects of Hate which are no longer deemed to be subjects of Hate.

It is most important that an individual never refer to a former subject of Hate as such. Any present subject of Hate must be seen as having always been a subject of Hate and any former subject of Hate must be seen as having never been a subject of Hate.

This may appear as an impossible task, but we assure you it is entirely possible with the use of doublethink, which many of you have already been practising. Doublethink requires that one be both conscious and unconscious of the fact that they are telling deliberate lies while genuinely believing them; to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies. This makes up a part of our new Party slogan: FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

Those who excel the most in doublethink will receive the highest stations within our newly organised community, as safe-guards against the renegade, the domestic terrorist.

Another alteration that will need to occur is how we think and refer to the past and the future. With the newly enforced groupthink, the present is what groupthink dictates it to be, which is subject to change, however, must be regarded as having always been.

The past is what the present dictates it to be, if it were not, it could challenge the basis for the present. Thus to preserve the present, the past must serve the present, only justifying why we Hate what we presently Hate and why we Love what we presently Love and can do nothing to contradict these Party lines. There will be permitted no records of an alternative past, there will be no way to prove that the past was ever different from what the present dictates it to be, the only threat to this narrative is the record of the individual mind, and once this ceases to be there will only be the Minitrue record as the recorder of past Truth.

In effect, the model citizen will perceive the past as dead and the future as unimaginable. The future is unimaginable because it is impossible to think of an alternative to the present, in fact, the mere act of thinking of an alternative to the present is considered a challenge to the status quo of the present, and thus is a challenge to groupthink, and thus is a form of domestic terrorism, which we will call from now on thoughtcrime.

Thoughtcrime is essentially any thought pertaining to memory, judgement of right and wrong, thoughts of an alternative reality, and self-reflection, which are now all deemed forms of thoughtcrime. If an individual is to engage in any of these sorts of thoughts, it is only a matter of time before they will come into conflict with groupthink and the Party line, thus private thoughts are banned and punished under the new laws.

It may seem an impossible task at first not to engage in private thoughts, but again, we assure you it is entirely possible using crimestopCrimestop is the practice of not grasping analogies, failing to perceive logical errors, misunderstanding the simplest arguments, of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop is essentially, protective stupidity.

It is imperative that one practice crimestop during any interaction with another individual, however, it is also imperative that one practice crimestop within their own inner-dialogue, such that even from your own conscience you will be protected from committing a thoughtcrime.

Newspeak will also help dissuade from thoughtcrimeNewspeak is to be the new acceptable vocabulary, anything that references words outside of the most-up-to-date edition of the Newspeak dictionary will be considered Oldspeak and something to be construed as counter to groupthink. It is understood that by reducing the vocabulary to revolve around a few words such as good; which for example can be used as plusgood, doubleplusgood, ungood etc, it will serve to narrow the range of thought an individual is capable of, and thus reduce the capability of committing a thoughtcrime. How wonderful! That in the future we will be unable to commit crime for we will be incapable of its thought! This makes up another part of our new Party slogan: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

In terms of the new laws, in effect, nothing will change. Unacceptable behaviours and thoughts will not be designated as illegal per se; one reason for this is because we do not plan on having any public trials. Anyone who is in violation of conduct will simply be removed either temporarily into a “re-education facility” or will be vaporised. Any subject that has been vaporised will be removed from the collective memory records and can never be referred to as having ever existed.

The reason why no public trials will be held from now on is because, as we have seen, dissent is infectious. Thus, holding public trials risk further encouragement towards dissent. It is for this reason that dissenters must be removed swiftly and quietly in the middle of the night. Such disappearances will occur relatively regularly and will eventually become the new normal, however, it will not be traumatic for the collective. The subject will simply cease to exist as if it were all just a dream, the structure of our daily routine unaffected.

In order to ensure utmost compliance, the collective will be employing the use of children spies, this has already been occurring abroad, and proves to be very effective.

Purges and vaporizations will be a necessary part of the government mechanics and will become the new normal. We have already discussed the necessity for vaporizations, as for the necessity of purges, it is because the community will be built so as to remain in stasis, however, this can only be accomplished through artificial means, for it is not natural that a thing remain the same but rather that it either improves or deteriorates.

However, in order for the Party to maintain absolute control, there can be no change to the present except for that chosen by the Party, thus any change is a challenge to the Party. In order to facilitate an artificial environment of no change, resources must artificially be kept low, and purges need to occur so that this environment of scarcity is tightly controlled and maintained.

In order for us to achieve this, our economy will have to go through stagnation, we will need to decrease the amount of land used for cultivation, we will no longer add capital equipment needed for industrial growth and great blocks of the population will be prevented from working and will be kept half alive by State charity. The wheels of industry cannot be allowed to turn so as to increase the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed, and in practice the only way of achieving this is by continuous warfare.

War will continue under the Old Cold War doctrine. War will always be present, and yet will never be seen by the majority of our citizens, the reason for this being that war will not be about a real threat to security nor about real conquests but rather will be about maintaining the present status quo by exhausting the surplus of consumable goods, while also helping to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs.

However, real war will be purely an internal affair, the war waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, with the object of the war as to keep the structure of society intact and unchanging.

A peace that is truly permanent under this new ideology is no different than an invisible permanent war. For peace in our new era will equate to stability through no change. This makes up our first Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

Conclusion

All of these means are necessary if we are to realise that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism, and that oligarchy is the only means to achieving peace, freedom and strength for the collective.

However, we are still very far from this ideal and there is much that threatens its becoming, namely, the masses, or what we call the proles. So long as the masses believe that they are entitled to freedom of thought, our endeavours cannot succeed.

The individual must voluntarily relinquish this. It cannot be taken from them no matter the degree of control and no matter the threat of physical harm. An individual’s mind is theirs and cannot be taken, instead, the individual must be led to believe that it is in their best interest to relinquish their mind.

Let us do our best then to convince the individual that they are no longer fit to use their mind and let us pray that we are successful, for if we fail, our entire system of control fails with it.

“You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity…Reality exists only in the human mind, nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.”

– O’Brien in George Orwell’s “1984”

*  *  *

Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and a writer at Strategic Culture Foundation, consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page

Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/27/2022 – 23:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/kG5rhvY Tyler Durden