Tag: Hate Speech

YOU TOO Could be Silenced Like Jayda Fransen


John R. Houk

© May 2, 2019

Ok, I realize I am entering the realm of Jayda Fransen fanboy, but her email update from May 1st is quote annoying. Living America one becomes quite accustomed to the Liberties and Freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. In Fransen’s case, she never would have become found guilty for exposing Islam, let alone even prosecuted. Fransen would have been protected by the Free Speech Rights of the First Amendment.

 

The UK’s Public Order Act 1986 came into existence with good intentions to battle racism and give protection to persecuted minorities. UNFORTUNATELY the UK Act has turned into a state weapon to force the public acceptance of Left-Wing Multiculturalist ideology. EVEN if the forced acceptance means abandoning the UK’s Western and Judeo-Christian heritage.

 

THAT MEANS a person standing for Biblical principles can actually convicted for promoting hate as defined by Multiculturalism (An Australian’s insight AND Conservapedia). THAT MEANS people who recognize Islamic principles run contrary to and EVEN disparages Jews and Christians, can be arrested, tried in court, fined, jailed and silenced ALL IN THE NAME OF Multiculturalist ideology forcing people to look away from Islam’s harmful history and future supremacist intentions in regard to non-Muslims ALL ACCORDING to Islamic revered writings in the Quran, Hadith and Sira – not to mention ages of Islamic commentary to those revered writings that stretch to this present time.

 

I have a huge suspicion I would be arrested for hate speech in the UK for sharing the prevalence codified hate and violence existent in Islam. So, when I read an email like what I received from Jayda Fransen, I BECOME UPSET. And you should be displeased as well.

 

JRH 5/2/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

WANTED AGAIN John

 

Jayda Fransen logo

 

Sent by Jayda Fransen

Sent May 1, 2019 1:02 PM

Sent via JaydaFransen.Online

 

Dear John,

 

As you know, I am currently on Bail in Northern Ireland waiting to be sentenced for ‘Hate Speech’ this Friday, 3rd May 2019.

 

One of my Bail Conditions states that I must live and sleep at my home address in Northern Ireland.

 

After I was found guilty of ‘Hate Speech’ at Laganside Court in Belfast on 29th March 2019, I contacted the Courts in England who have been Summoning me to attend.

 

I notified Bromley Magistrates Court in writing on 11th April 2019 that – due to my Bail Conditions – I could not attend a Court in London.

 

Fransen Summons for Breach of Post-Sentence Supervision

 

It would be impossible for me to adhere to my Bail Conditions of remaining in Northern Ireland and to appear at a Court in England.

 

I was confident that the Court would understand my position and agree to adjourn the Hearing.

 

I was wrong.

 

Instead, at the start of this week, Bromley Magistrates Court issued two Warrants for my arrest one to an address in England and one to my home address in Northern Ireland.

 

Jayda Fransen wanted 2-places at once 5-1-19 email

 

I am now therefore WANTED once again and facing imminent arrest.

 

This time, my crime is not being able to be in two places at once!

 

I am convinced that this is just a blatant continuation of State pressure to try and push me to breaking point.

 

There is simply no other explanation for such an irrational decision.

 

In less than 48 hours I will learn my fate at a Court in Belfast.

 

I could be spending the remainder of 2019 in a prison cell, just as I spent the majority of 2018.

 

If I manage to make it to Court this Friday without being arrested in my home tonight or tomorrow, I could be walking into a complete set up.

 

The Court will be crawling with Police so I am un likely to leave the building without handcuffs cutting into my wrists.

 

The only way for people to know what is happening to me is by signing up for my updates, just like you have John.

 

Please forward this email to all of your closest contacts and ask them to sign up to my updates by clicking this button:

 

SIGN UP FOR [FRANSEN] UPDATES

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Jayda Fransen

_____________________

YOU TOO Could be Silenced Like Jayda Fransen

John R. Houk

© May 2, 2019

______________________

WANTED AGAIN John

 

Jayda Fransen – My Story

 

Censorship Imperils Liberty


Justin Smith has become a voice that many Conservatives listen to attentively, I know that I do. The American Left and Globalist Left for that matter, have become so rabid in their Liberty erasing utopian fantasies they are openly becoming violent against Conservatives. After you read this essay from Justin you might just get stirred up to defend your Liberty and nation. You will learn that ongoing Internet censorship is reaching far beyond your keyboard or mobile phone. The dark evil specter of global Communism is turning classic science fiction warnings of Big Brother into modern reality.

JRH 4/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Censorship Imperils Liberty  

Truth’s Dark Death

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/7/2019 8:34 PM

 

America cannot allow lies to push truth to a dark death.

 

Disturbing postmodern relativistic, postcolonial and social justice theories, tripe and nonsense that looks for victims under every rock has been advocated over the past four decades; and we must unequivocally reject this nonsense, in favor of the honest to God truth, since we already see destabilizing hyperreality, fallacy, propaganda, political correctness and outright Gestapo tactics used to erase our American heritage, our traditions, and our culture, in nothing less than a despicable attack on our freedom and liberty. Too many are too willing to use every deception and even any flagitious means to usher in the Democratic Party vision of an authoritarian Marxist Socialist state for America and eradicate our republic.

 

Truth is in short supply everywhere one looks today, whether one speaks of Great Britain, China or even America. The communists and globalists, the proponents of a “New World Order” are on the rise, and they are targeting and controlling the people of the world through the internet, an array of high-handed arbitrary laws and even through tyrannical hate-speech “laws” that are not anything resembling legitimate law, since by their very nature they violate a person’s human and God-given Right to speak freely on anything that crosses his mind.

 

Great Britain and most of the European Union implement hate-speech laws against their own citizens, that are modeled after United Nations Resolution 16/18 and criminalize any criticism against Islam. This is the very resolution that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conspired together to attempt to get passed in the United States Senate back on December 26th 2012 in New York City, despite its clear antithetical position to the First Amendment.

 

[Blog Editor: I ran out of time trying to locate info for the date 12/26/12 pertaining to the OIC, Crooked Hillary & the Senate trying to criminalize criticism of Islam. BUT there are plenty of references to Crooked Hillary working with OIC to get the USA on board for such criminalization. Here are three references among many:

 

 

 

 

In May of last year, the patriotic leaders of Britain First, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, were arrested for distributing leaflets warning of the existential threat of Islam to all countries, during a rape trial at the Canterbury Crown Court, that culminated in the convictions of four Muslim men. Golding and Fransen were charged with religiously-aggravated harassment and convicted in the Folkestone Magistrates’ Court. Golding was sentenced to four and a half months in prison, and Fransen received an even more egregious sentence of nine months. And all of this came from voicing factual evidence and truths concerning Islam and their honest and true convictions on the matter.

 

Judge Justin Barron, an obvious illiberal communist activist judge similar to many here in the U.S. courts, had a hard bias against them. What should be free speech is frowned upon in the United Kingdom, as Barron declared that Golding and Fransen had a “joint intention to use the facts of the case for their own political ends“. And so? No matter was it to him that their statements were true.

 

In Communist China, the situation is even worse. The Great Firewall of China has for many long years blocked access to any information regarding the millions of victims of the mass-murdering dictatorship. Even the pro-censorship American tech giants, some similar to Apple who have largely agreed to Beijing’s censorship demands, have been mostly blocked from China. And as though it wished to prove its hostility to internet freedom and free speech, the UN placed an actual Chinese Communist agent, who claims censorship is in the eye of the beholder, as the head of the UN International Telecommunications Union; and, as surreal as it is, this is the agency slated for assuming the role of the world internet regulator and censor.

 

The world watches a program straight from Big Brother emerging from its infancy. By 2020, the system will become the Social Credit System (SCS), and it will be owned and operated entirely by the Chinese Communist State. The SCS will monitor purchases, hobbies, lifestyle and even who one socializes with on any regular basis. It will note how many children one has, how well one does one’s job and all the items necessary to be a model citizen, just as it will watch those who drink too much or speak ill of the government or its leaders. It will watch every citizen, and one’s credit score will be based on how well one aligns their thoughts and actions with the Chinese Communist Party line.

 

Four years ago, a Zhong Pei, a sixteen year old student, tried to board a train and was refused a ticket. She was also refused enrollment in her classes at her university, because she had committed the heinous crime of being her father’s daughter, and the daughter of a man who had died in an automobile accident that had killed two other people. This was enough for the Chinese government to blacklist her as “dishonest”.

 

Think about it. China’s system started with similar business models found in Alibaba and Tencent.

 

In the United States the databases, digital surveillance, national credit score system, systems of reward and punishment, government-knows-best attitude, electronic purchasing data and ubiquitous social media networks already exist. America has Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon that all monitor what you read, see, say, search and buy.  One’s android or iPhone already tracks everyone who uses such devices hundreds of times daily. And that information is already being used for complete censorship in America.

 

The threat of internet censorship at the national and global level is real, especially since Obama surrendered control over key internet infrastructure to globalist “stakeholders” unimpeded by the United States’ Constitutional First Amendment protecting Free Speech; and, with the United Nations actively campaigning for censorship worldwide, Internet Freedom has never been in more grave peril. If the Orwellian trend continues, it will only be a matter of a few years before the world-wide internet web, even in America, famous and admired around the world for Her absolutist free speech protections and rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, will be facing full-blown and outright censorship at the hands of a rogue alliance of governments, dictators, international institutions, and their Big Business cronies.

 

For decades now, America has suffered Her Marxist and multicultural FOOLS and all the debilitating thought processes that accompany them. They deny objective Truth, in their advocacy of relativism, that views ethics and morals as relative to the individual and his culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil — no such thing as Right and Wrong. Facts no longer exist for these Communist FOOLS, only feelings and interpretations and the crime of offending someone. Heaven forbid anyone is offended in today’s politically correct world.

 

Through cultural relativism our children in America are taught to hate our past use of slavery and its inherent racist code, but they are not allowed to learn about or criticize contemporary racism and slavery in Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia and even the dark recesses of some of America’s own neighborhoods in New York and Dearborn, Michigan and New Mexico and elsewhere. They are taught we must accept a multicultural society where diversity is thought to be a virtue, even as it erodes the very fabric of our society and births massive segments of anti-American populations as viewed in modern day Minneapolis and the hundreds of thousands of Somalian Muslims who ’til this very day give more allegiance to Islam and ISIS than they do America — even as it moves the nation towards a rebuilding of the land of Babble, with multiple codes of law, including Sharia Law and the harshest codes on earth, creating an immoral plane that forbids contrary behaviors to anything the government decrees legal, whether it is polygamy, homosexual unions, transgender fluidity and gender equality. At every turn, all the good and decent morals and virtues and principles that made America so EXCEPTIONAL will be ridiculed, defamed, trashed and ultimately abrogated and destroyed. [Blog Editor: A great academic critique of cultural relativism: Critiquing Cultural Relativism; By Jaret Kanarek; The Intellectual Standard, PDF Volume 2 | Issue 2 – Article 1; 2013]

 

Each day something seems to offend someone in America because it is deemed “racist” or “culturally insensitive”. And this is enough to move to have the offender removed from the public square, to be banished for an indeterminate period, sometimes forever.

 

These erroneous societal movements are only serving the further destruction of the nation, just as demanded by the agendas of the communists, socialists, Muslims, globalists and proponents of the New World Order. Allowing the fallacies of social justice theory that reveal a world of oppressors and victims only ensures America’s demise. Males are shown as oppressors and females are victims; whites are oppressors and people of color are victims; heterosexuals [h]ate oppressors and homosexuals and transgendered are victims; Christians are oppressors and Muslims are victims. Teaching our sons and daughters this BULLS**T simply ensures the nation descends into its own particular brand of HELL designed and facilitated by the enemies from within, the enemies of America and the enemies of Liberty.

 

Recently, Mark Twain’s ‘Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ has been marked as too controversial to be read in America’s schools, due to the use of racial slurs by the book’s bad guys, which delivered properly would serve as a good lesson against racism. But educators want us to raise a nation of wimps, so we must avoid “(causing) students to feel upset” at all costs.

 

‘Mary Poppins’ and ‘The Lion King’ are both apparently too racist to place before any student. The New York Times accuses Mary Poppins of “shamelessly flirting” with blackface because she has soot on her face, while dancing in the 1964 movie adaption of the book. The Lion King is demeaned as “racist” because Africa is supposedly “depicted as one big animal reserve” and no human characters are shown.

 

Even the once esteemed University of Notre Dame has jumped on the Communist politically correct bandwagon, as it seeks to further the Democratic Party Communist agenda and attack our American Heritage for America’s sins of the past, just one more move to coddle overly-sensitive students. As the university covered its murals of Christopher Columbus, due to his alleged “atrocities against the native people” and his discovery of America that “sparked centuries of transatlantic colonization”, Notre Dame president John Jenkins said that the murals were “demeaning” to the “indigenous peoples.” Outraged students called this a decision to “coddle (Notre Dame’s) students by shielding them from a painting of an important figure in world history.”

 

According to the New Communist, the Western World and the principles of freedom and liberty it birthed, especially America’s society, are societies filled with evil and responsible for all the evil in the wider world. British imperialism is blamed for the specific foibles and problems associated with what are in fact indigenous cultural norms, such as the South Asian caste system and the African tribal system. So too, the corruption and backwardness found in former colonies of European powers and America are blamed on Western imperialism. No matter the great acts of sacrifice the American people have committed to save entire sections of the world, our nation remains the focus of anti-imperialism and a target of people and groups who at this very moment seek Her destruction.

 

The New Communists present America’s sins as something unique to the United States of America. They conveniently ignore contemporary empires, such as the Arab Islamic Empire that conquered all of the Middle East, North Africa, southern Europe, Persia, Central Asia and northern India, occupying them minimally for hundreds of years — occupying the Middle East and North Africa for 1400 years and still to this day. The New Communists also conveniently ignore the ethnic cleansing committed by the Han Chinese under the Communists, when they invaded Inner Mongolia to the north, Chinese Turkestan to the west and Tibet to the south.

 

Today, even more surreal and astounding, the United Nations is even demanding censorship in America. Following the violence in Charlottesville, the UN released a torrential flood of press releases, statements, warnings and condemnations that demanded action from the U.S. government against “hate speech”, even though “hate speech” is founded on a bogus Marxist narrative utilized by the apparatchiks and the Cheka of the mass-murdering hate regime enslaving the Soviet Union to ban speech they did not like. Aside from this, the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any government restrictions on speech, hateful or otherwise; however, if one needs any more evidence of the existential threat looming over the entire Free World and the stark danger at hand, take a quick look at Europe, where pastors are literally thrown in jail for defending their testimony as a Christian and spreading the Gospel and the “crime” of offending any nearby Muslim and where politicians are arrested for quoting Winston Churchill’s assessment of Islam, and the facts are sufficient to firmly and convincingly drive the point home.

 

[Three Examples:

 

 

 

 

All good and decent American Patriots — conservatives, Christians, libertarians and all others who love freedom and liberty — must realize that the Orwellian nightmare enforced by private hands is just as harmful to human freedom as if the dystopia was enforced by the hands of Soviet-style commissars. The results are the same. Freedom of expression is being sacrificed to the God of political correctness. In a world where digital lynch mobs can ruin people’s entire lives — harming their reputations, as was done to Alex Jones and his ‘InfoWars‘ network and later to Roger Stone, making it impossible to feed their families and potentially subjecting them to retaliatory violence, as seen in the attacks on Trump supporters wearing “MAGA” caps —  for merely expressing an honest opinion amounts to an extremely dark age for liberty.

 

Life sure isn’t going to get any easier for any of Us, not if the red, radical Democratic Party Communist rat bastards have their way about it, as they continue with their politically correct pushes, their internet controls, their postmodern relativism and their multiculturalism that attacks the truth of any issue on any given day, and all of this is done in the name of equality, freedom and social justice; in truth, it is a propagandists’ movement focused on ending freedom and liberty in Our Beloved America, the exact opposite of the things they purport to support.

 

Big Brother is now moving to become judge, jury and executioner, and this does not bode well for the average person in America, or anywhere else in the world, except for the small handful of global oligarchs and so-called “elites”. All Americans must stand together in order to defeat this ever burgeoning Orwellian surveillance Deep State, before all of our Liberty and our God-given Rights are lost and suppressed forever.

 

Fight for the Freedom of All. Fight for Our God-Given Rights. Fight for LIBERTY.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Britain Criminalizes Truth – Ask Jayda Fransen


By John  R. Houk

© March 31, 2019

 

While I was surfing around my Social Media connections I ran into a post on the soon to be dead G+ related to British Counterjihad activist Jayda Fransen. On G+ someone had shared a Youtube video of Ms. Fransen for support because she was found guilty of violating the UK’s Hate Speech laws. When I clicked to watch, a message informs you the video is unavailable on G+ but can be viewed at Youtube.

 

Ok, no problem. I clicked to go to Youtube. I get there and a content warning is plastered on the video telling you to be aware of offensive content and making sure you know that before you proceed. ALSO Youtube disabled the like, share and embed access.

 

TALK ABOUT CENSORSHIP!

I watched that roughly 9½ minute video. There is NO visual nudity, blood and gore. There is NO description of nudity, blood and gore. There is NO graphic profanity or even PG rated profanity. Now this is a lady reputed for her raw language a la fellow persecuted Counterjihadist Tommy Robinson. Jayda Fransen has the same raw language reputation. BUT NO SUCH RAW LANGUAGE IS IN HER PLEA FOR SUPPORT VIDEO censored by Youtube.

 

I’m not sure how I pulled it off due Youtube restrictions on downloading video, but I managed to do so. Since Ms. Fransen asks to share her video, I’m going to upload it to Facebook. But keep in mind I have had my share Facebook Jail and Censorship. Even if the upload is successful, Facebook may pull an unjust Youtube and restrict or remove the video under the lie it violates Facebook Community Standards.

VIDEO: Jayda Fransen – Enemy of the State

Youtube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcWl8Gj3Ac0

Facebook Video Link:

 

You should be aware the British Press treats Counterjihadists as Far Right Extremist purveyors of hate. Certainly many if not most of the British Counterjihadists have a raw language issue and a past history riot provocations that both Left and Right-Wing Extremists are guilty. (Interestingly, one rarely if ever read negative reviews of Leftist provocateurs in the European Press.)

 

Below is a Press-friendly profile of Jayda Fransen – Cuz it’s her website:

 

Jayda Fransen – My Story

 

Jayda was born in South East London in 1986.

 

Jayda practised and studied law for many years before founding a recruitment consultancy.

 

Jayda has been involved in the counter jihad struggle for many years before joining Britain First.

 

In 2014, Jayda was elected Deputy Leader of Britain First.

 

Jayda has stood in elections to Parliament and the Greater London Assembly.

 

Jayda also served as Britain First press officer and has taken part in numerous high profile TV documentaries.

 

Jayda is a devout Christian from a Catholic background.

 

Jayda has risked her life on many occasions confronting dangerous Islamists and terrorists, such as hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

 

For many years Jayda has endured police persecution and harassment at the hands of the establishment.

 

Jayda was sent to prison in March 2018 for ‘harassing’ a migrant paedophile rape gang in Ramsgate.

 

And here are some not so friendly British Press on Ms. Fransen’s Hate Speech violations and court experience. These actions – keep in mind – in America would be laughed at as crimes because have the First Amendment:

 

‘A former deputy leader of far-right group Britain First has been convicted of stirring up hatred during a speech about Islam in Belfast.

 

Jayda Fransen, 33, was found guilty over a speech at a rally in August 2017.

 

She was also convicted for separate comments at a peace wall in the city.

 

…

 

The judge, when convicting Fransen, of Moat Avenue in Donaghadee, County Down, described her words as “a general, vehement attack against a religious group”.

 

…

 

The court heard that Fransen told those gathered at the rally that there was no moderate version of Islam and that: “These people are baying for our blood.”

 

She added: “Islam says every single one of you wonderful people here today deserves to be killed.”

 

Those attending the rally were then told it was time for the world to come together against “the one common enemy”.

 

The judge told the court: “I’m satisfied these words were intended to stir up hatred and arouse fear.”

 

He also found her guilty over a separate, filmed incident at a Belfast peace wall in December 2017.

 

‘Menacing in nature’

 

On that occasion, the court heard that Fransen declared the “Islamification” of Britain will lead to similar walls to separate the two sides.

 

She claimed the country was “descending into civil war” and said it was time to “rise up against the biggest threat against the entire world”.

 

Confirming a conviction for that episode, the judge said: “I’m satisfied the words were menacing in nature.”’ (Jayda Fransen: Ex-Britain First deputy leader convicted over hate speech; BBC; 3/29/19)

 

AND HERE:

 

‘A former deputy leader of far-right group Britain First has been convicted of stirring up hatred during a speech about Islam in Belfast at a rally in August 2017, according to media reports.

 

Jayda Fransen, 33, was also convicted for separate comments filmed at a peace wall in the city, the BBC reported.

 

…

 

The group gained international notoriety in 2017 after US President Donald Trump was condemned by the UK prime minister’s office for retweeting anti-Muslim videos posted on Fransen’s Twitter account, MEE reported. A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said at the time: “British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right, which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents – decency, tolerance and respect. It is wrong for the president to have done this.”’

 

I have to wonder how many Brits “overwhelmingly” agree with PM Theresa May?

 

Story continues…

 

‘‘The judge described Fransen’s speech as “a general, vehement attack against a religious group” and told Fransen to return to Belfast Magistrates’ Court for sentencing in May.

 

…

 

The court heard that Fransen told those gathered at the rally that there was no moderate version of Islam and that “These people are baying for our blood,” the BBC reported.

 

She added: “Islam says every single one of you wonderful people here today deserves to be killed.”

 

Those attending the rally were then told it was time for the world to come together against “the one common enemy,” the BBC said.

 

The judge told the court: “I’m satisfied these words were intended to stir up hatred and arouse fear.”’ (Ex-Britain First deputy leader Jayda Fransen convicted of hate speech: Reports; By MEE staff; Middle East Eye; 3/30/19 21:14 UTC – Updated 3/31/18 1:20 UTC)

 

The British Judge is vehemently outraged with Jayda Fransen for telling the truth about Islam according to the theopolitical religion’s own revered writings. ERGO, she is being punished by the force of law … for telling the truth!

 

JRH 3/31/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

 

YouTube Censors Anti-Jihadist News Source – Vlad TepesBlog


If you follow Counterjihad writers or blogs you probably are aware of the Vlad Tepes blog. (As an aside named for Vlad the Impaler who became the model for the Dracula legends but historically brutally resisted the brutality of Muslim Ottomans [Turkey] conquest and Islamization of Europe. What made Vlad notorious is he distributed brutality for Muslim brutality.)

 

Vlad the Impaler – historical portrait

 

The Vlad Tepes blog tends to focus on the actions of Islam (often reported as radical Islam) in Europe, but the blog occasionally takes a look elsewhere. Since the major Social Media platforms have been running Anti-Conservative/Anti-Counterjihad campaigns, the Vlad Tepes blog has become one of their targets by censoring Free Speech.

 

Counterjihadist Paul Sutliff has posted about Youtube censorship of the Vlad Tepes blog with screenshot examples and BitTube links to evaluate for yourself if the Vlad Tepes blog deserves censorship.

 

JRH 3/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

YouTube Censors Anti-Jihadist News Source – Vlad TepesBlog

 

By Paul Sutliff

March 19, 2019

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Youtube vs VladTepesBlog

 

In the beginning of February a coordinated reporting campaign against the YouTube channel of Vlad TepesBlog began. Simple examination of the filed complaints reveals the idiocy of the reporting. Vlad TepesBlog shared a few of the hundreds of their videos that were suddenly reported within a week.  The vast majority of what was on Vlad TepesBlog’s YouTube channel were news reports from foreign countries subtitled into English. Below are two examples of YouTube’s response to the reporting sent to Vlad TepesBlog.

 

Youtube to VladTepes

 

View here judge for yourself if this deserves an Adult Rating: https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmSmFBVZ8TkkLxj3EoWm1bF96P1e1tGEojpWstC8kzYpSA&channel=251530

 

Youtube to VladTepes 2

 

View here judge for yourself if this deserves an Adult Rating: https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmSomHDJakfvxdqeuvGoE4CQA9JAcraeydVYNKt9TnosaK&channel=251530

 

Is Google Politicizing viewership and subscriber numbers?

Vlad TepesBlog’s YouTube Channel had over 30,000 subscribers.  Their videos were not monetized as the goal was to get the truth out and not have it be thought that income would sway what was shared. One of Vlad Tepes Blog’s subscribers wrote to them that they were under attack by Google, because his subscription count was not increasing and appeared frozen. It became a talking point for months when the number was approximately 24,xxx for a few weeks. It then shot up to 30,000 within 6 weeks. Having posted several hundred videos Vlad TepesBlog had other concerns that YouTube was adjusting the viewership statistics.

 

Tested

Vlad TepesBlog works with Gates of Vienna sometimes. In this case he embedded his videos on the Gates of Vienna with YouTube videos averaging a daily viewership at YouTube of between 600 to 1600 views per day. Sometimes they might get as high as 3,000 to 4,000. This encouraged further curiosity at statistical manipulation by YouTube/Google. So Vlad TepesBlog did some work with Freezoxee.com a place he had ZERO subscribers, unlike YouTube where he had accumulated 30,000+. So the only people who saw the video were people who saw the social media ties to the site.

 

There were 15,000 to 30,000 views which over a several days. Vlad TepesBlog states that this count far exceeded the amount of viewers YouTube was reporting for the hundreds of videos on his channel over the same period time.

 

The frozen subscription count plus the low viewership counts made Vlad wonder if they are concerned about his actual influence. Influence? Yes! When a channel gets a lot of attention YouTube promotes it in various ways. Even individual videos get promoted due to high viewership. So was the attempt purposeful to limit their influence hence stopping videos from going viral?

 

Congressional leadership prior to the Democratic takeover of the House was pursuing a look into flagrant First amendment violations of these Social Media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for directly limiting the influence of persons who are Conservative and/or Anti-Jihadists.

 

Sadly, the mass reporting of VladTepesBlog and the forced closure of its channel show a huge flaw in the security measures of YouTube, and other Social Media platforms. That being the evident lack of

 

Due Process.

Due Process is what protects a person from false accusations and usually ferrets outs liars in a timely fashion. YouTube accepted complaints that videos with no violence or sexual themes should now be labeled and require age verification to view adult content. This implies that your daily news feed according to YouTube should be labeled Adult Content. This means no comments can be seen or written.

 

The worst problem here is that NO HUMAN CONTACT is possible! You can only appeal a decision with a form response that may or may not be read by a human.

 

Important Questions for YouTube

Are bots all that reviews complaints? Are there security measures in place to address mass reporting?  What is the process of review for an actual complaint before a label of Adult Content is applied? What happens if a reviewer shows bias or incompetence when reviewing content?

 

YouTube Does NOT CONSISTENTLY close Hate Channels

Social Media giants seem set on controlling messages to their platform. YouTube has been caught hosting content that promotes Anti-Semitism under the guise that it is Islamic. The Middle East Media Research Institute has caught several videos on YouTube and noted the names of the persons and the organizations posting Anti-Semitic content under these circumstances. Persons with platforms that have been exposed by MEMRI include Zafar Bangash, who leads the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT). ICIT has a YouTube Channel called the ICIT Digital Library.

 

Youtube ICIT Digital Library screenshot

 

Perhaps YouTube thinks this is acceptable because this channel only has 4,562 subscribers?

 

MEMRI also exposed Sheikh Omar Baloch. His promotion of Islamic Relief should be enough of a concern to remove his YouTube Channel. The Middle East Forum’s extensive expose of Islamic Relief’s connections to known terror entities and persons is more than enough to post a flagged warning of adult content! But as you can see Sheikh Omar Baloch’s channel still exists.

 

Youtube Shiekh Omar Baloch screenshot

 

There are far too many examples of this non-censorship of channels sponsored by persons connected to Anti-Semitism and Jihadi terrorism.

 

You have to ask how Google aka YouTube finds reason to justify keeping content that is connected to Anti-Semitism and terrorism, AND how are news feeds subtitled into English deemed offensive at all!

 

Yet YouTube claims it catches most of the hate and terror videos. It hosted Islamic State videos that the government had to request be taken down! Yet their own content reviewers seem to target persons who have influence and are sharing actual News coverage simply because the content reveals unpopular truths?

 

This past December YouTube made the news after closing 1.67 million channels and all of the 50.2 million videos associated with them. According to Reuters, YouTube claimed, “Nearly 80 percent of the channel takedowns [were] related to spam uploads. About 13 percent concerned nudity, and 4.5 percent child safety.”

 

Final Thoughts

Are we to believe news is now to be counted in the same category as spam, nudity, and child safety issues? But Anti-Semitic speech is protected if it is Muslim?

 

Let’s not forget the monetary value of good will. It doesn’t matter that Vlad TepesBlog was not asking for income. What matters was his influence grew because he was respected. That respect earned him a high subscription rate and a total viewership of all 1600+ videos in the millions. Vlad TepesBlog considers the action of closing their channel a fraud. The work portrayed was not porn, it was not a safety concern, it did not violate community standards, so the shutdown of his channel was an act of fraud.

 

While a formal apology and restoration of all the work of Vlad TepesBlog would be considered a good business strategy for YouTube, versus a lawsuit for alleging that news which was subtitled needed an Adult content rating.

 

Vlad TepesBlog now posts their work at http://Bit.Tube. They ask that you sign up and subscribe to their Channel here. Vlad TepesBlog continues to not ask for any monetary assistance. They only want you to have the truth and subscribing to their work helps them to get the word out!

____________________

Minor Editing by John R. Houk (via spellcheck)

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad homepage

 

Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff on Blog Talk Radio/Global Patriot Radio

 

Paul Sutliff: BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, and a Graduate Certificate in Intelligence Analysis from Henley-Putnam School of Strategic Security at North American University.

 

To request me as a speaker go to http://paulsutliff.com

 

Banning Alex Jones?


Justified Only If…

 

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2018

 

Alex Jones is literally being censored on every digital media format I can think of.

 

I have to be clear. I am not a supporter or big fan of Mr. Jones. Many of his Conspiracy Theories propagated from his soapbox are just plain outlandish and crazy.

 

The massive digital censorship Jones is accused of is hate-speech. Frankly, as outlandish and offensive Jones can be I am not surprised the hate-speech accusations are levelled against him.

 

I do have a couple of problems with the censorship.

 

ONE: The same media platforms censoring Jones allow Muslims to spew Jew-Hatred and promote physical harm to Jews and other non-Muslims. However, when a non-Muslim points out Islamic tenets and Muslim history demonstrate violent hatred for all things non-Muslim specifying Jews, Christians and polytheists. Militant homosexuals overtly express hatred toward Biblical Values Christians yet will censor Biblical Values Christians for supporting the Bible’s labelling the homosexual practice a sin against God’s Word. In essence this is censorship hypocrisy.

 

TWO: The same media platforms rarely if ever censor Left-Wing calls for violence against Conservatives yet they will censor Conservatives refuting a violent Leftist agenda. For example Maxine Walters advocating Leftists to disrupt reputed Conservative meetings and Conservatives living their private lives at open-to-the-public venues. Astonishingly to date, Conservative individuals have refused to respond with self-defense violence for Leftist provocation. I’m a disabled dude and I don’t know if I would exhibit such self-restraint to respond with action if someone shouting directly in front of my face.

 

I hate defending Alex Jones because I am convinced he has used actual hate-speech; however look at some of phrases the digital media platforms label as hate-speech worthy of censorship via banning:

 

The resident Jew, Leftist Jews, Jewish Mafia (Alex Jones Accused Of Anti-Semitism, Sexual Harassment; By Aiden Pink; Forward.com; 3/1/18)

 

The same article on Forward.com also illustrates actual forms of hate-speech via sexual harassment which is unacceptable but demonstrated on Alex Jones programs.

 

I don’t know what Alex Jones other than the vague accusation of the kind of speech the digital platforms call hatred or inciting violence:

 

“… the stated reason for the ban on his content is not defamation but “hate speech” against Muslims, transgender people, and other groups.” (Booting Alex Jones from social media wasn’t wrong, but it could be dangerous; By Cathy Young; USA Today; 8/8/18 9:03 a.m. ET)

 

If the hate-speech was critical of a belief system corresponding to Islam or the LGBTQ agenda, then said hate-speech violation is an absurd accusation. If Jones said something dimwitted such as maybe, “hunt down the camel jockeys and give them a tasted of their own medicine” or “rope the fudge-packer and drag the shem down the road”. Those kinds of phrases are indeed inciting violence and is a good reason for censuring and/or banning.

 

Here is the Joseph Farah email (which is also a bit of a fundraiser) that inspired my thoughts.

 

JRH 8/8/18

Please Support NCCR

*********************

First, they came for Alex Jones …

The pretense and subtlety are over, ‘Digital Cartel’ now overtly attacking ‘offensive’ voices

 

By Joseph Farah

Sent 8/8/2018 4:01 AM

Sent from WND

 

I’ve been warning everyone who would listen about the greatest threat to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in America today.

It’s not government.

Instead, the overt attack on America’s First Amendment comes from the corporate behemoth internet gatekeepers who are in ideological lockstep with each other – from Google to YouTube to Facebook to Twitter to Apple to Amazon.

This week, YouTube and Facebook followed Apple’s lead in banishing Alex Jones, the iconic, high-energy voice that rails against globalism and the Deep State daily on radio, podcasts and his own Infowars TV show. He was an easy target and a predictable one – a controversial figure, without doubt, and a high-profile one with a sizable following.

Not everyone wants to defend Alex Jones – certainly not everything he says.

Yet, the First Amendment wasn’t crafted by America’s founding geniuses to protect tepid, non-controversial speech. It was crafted to protect just this kind of fiery dialogue – the kind that offends some people, some sensibilities. Alex Jones is a good choice to start the censorship juggernaut rolling if you think like the Southern Poverty Law Center. And one thing Apple, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon all have in common is their love of, reverence for, and partnerships with this extremist band of smear merchants who never met anyone right of center that they didn’t label a “hater,” a “fascist,” a “Nazi” or a “racist” – including, of course, the current president of the United States.

So, first the Digital Cartel came for Alex Jones.

Who will be next? I don’t know, but I don’t plan to find myself in the position in which Martin Niemöller found himself in Nazi Germany. He’s most famous for this prescient quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

I’m going to defend Alex Jones’ right to say what he wants – even if I sometimes, or even often, find myself in disagreement with him. And I’m going to condemn this cabal of bloated mega-corporations imposing their ideology on America’s most vital public square – the digital media.

Maybe you say, “Well, Farah, don’t these corporations have the absolute right to approve and disapprove of the viewpoints they carry – just like you do?” The answer may be surprising: No, they don’t. None of these conglomerates are publishers, content producers, part of the “press.” They are more akin to “utilities” – like the telephone companies of old, or the electricity producers who have a public obligation to be fair and neutral in offering the services they provide to all, without regard to race, religion and ideology. They don’t have to like Alex Jones. They don’t have to listen to Alex Jones. But if they are going to hold these privileged positions of making lots of money by distributing all manner of content, data and information to the public, they dare not think of themselves as ideological gatekeepers against “offensive” political speech. And they better not designate the disgraced partisan hacks of the SPLC as their content cops, which is precisely what they have done – all of them!

I know I sound like a broken record on this theme, but I’m going to keep pounding on it until the public catches on to the threat these trillion-dollar monopolies pose to America’s precious institutions of free speech, the free press and freedom of religion. We need congressional hearings. We need action in Washington. We need President Trump to recognize who the biggest purveyors of fake news really are. It’s not just CNN and the Huffington Post. It’s their distribution arms – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon – the Digital Cartel.

It’s time to throw down the gauntlet, draw a marker in the sand, file class-action lawsuits, summon our leaders to action.

Are we going to let this cabal render the First Amendment null and void?

I’ve been telling you how they have attacked WND relentlessly and ruthlessly through its politically and religiously discriminatory algorithms. I’ve told you how they have been coming after the independent media, especially since the 2016 election that so disappointed all of them.

Do you really want to talk about supposed Russian interference in our free society when this powerful monolithic cartel is setting the rules of debate for Americans out in plain sight – openly censoring voices they don’t like while systematically elevating those they do like? What a sick joke!

As for me, I will defend the voices of dissent, and even controversy, as long as I have a soapbox upon which to stand. I know they are coming after me and the world’s first independent online news company, which I founded 21 years ago. Once again, I ask you to stand with me, or else find yourself living in a country you won’t long recognize. No privacy. No freedom.

Please support us, or risk finding yourself living in a very different and scary version of America soon.

Help us to raise a much-needed additional $100,000 through August – our biggest crisis period yet, as we battle for survival against the cartel. We’re already nearly 20 percent of the way there, thanks to many of you. You may not be able to give $1,000 or even $100. But everyone who understands the stakes can contribute $10 or even $3.

 

You can also support WND’s groundbreaking new book, “The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament,” with your tax-deductible contributions in any amount to the fabulous missions organization, Gospel for All Nations, which has adopted the project to help spread the truth of the Good News around the world. This book, coming out in hardcover in September, is an important part of WND’s recovery, rebirth and revitalization plan for later this year. Your help with book-printing and marketing expenses will help immensely to weather this storm – not to mention help us distribute this compelling and redemptive “breakthrough Bible book.”

___________________

Banning Alex Jones?

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2018

__________________

First, they came for Alex Jones …

 

WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006

Copyright 1997-2018 WND.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

The La Reconquista?


Intro to J.O. Smith’s ‘The La Reconquista?’

Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

© June 28, 2018

 

About a week ago I posted the title, “Isn’t the Key Word ‘ILLEGAL’ in Illegal Immigration?” That is the stark truth that No-Borders Democrats would have you believe is irrelevant. If crossing the border without U.S. permission is illegal, then it is a CRIME. If illegal criminal adopts bring their children or another’s children uninvited across the U.S. border illegally, those children may not be criminal by virtue of being too young to be accountable. HOWEVER, those children need to be detained until their idiot parents are deported or granted some kind of refugee status.

 

And speaking of deportation, the legal system determining deportation or refugee status needs to be streamed to days instead of months or years.

 

Justin Smith writes about how illegal immigration will change the nature of American heritage (which the Dems continuously advocate). As the Hispanic people become on pare to the heritage Americans still honoring the off-shooting from the Mother Culture of the British Monarchy, the Hispanic Culture that influenced the Latin Americas will come into a Multicultural confrontation.

 

I guess confrontation is no big deal to the idiocy of diversity-thinking Dems. The opposite of diversity is E PLURIBUS UNUM – Out of many, ONE.

 

JRH 6/28/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

The La Reconquista?

Rid America of Illegal Aliens 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/27/2018 11:39 PM

 

Illegal immigration is immoral, and President Trump, like any good, decent and patriotic American, has rightfully stated that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally should be marched straight back across the border, once it is determined they have crossed illegally, bypassing port of entry stations where they could have registered for either asylum or legal immigration status. He should have also added that these people are not conservatives or just like regular Americans, and as such, before we see one more American dead by the hands of an illegal alien, we must do all within our power to ensure that the border is secured and all illegal aliens deported, along with any children verified to be their own, in order to save our Republic from an ultimate destruction.

 

President Trump stated on Wednesday, June 20th, 2018, “If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people”, which makes it double troubling that he would follow this on the same day with an executive order that caves to the leftist false narrative surrounding illegal alien families and allows them to stay together, which adds more costs to the U.S. tax-payer. Now America must find or build new facilities capable of meeting this new demand.

 

People ask many conservatives “Don’t You care about the children?” Yes! Most, if not all do. We care enough to allow them to be detained together long enough to see them deported. It is not child abuse to send them back to Mexico or wherever they originated, with their parents, who had every chance to first apply for legal immigration.

 

We should ask the Democrats, “What about the children of low-income American workers who experience lower wages due to illegal aliens working for cash and off the books?” And, what about the children of legal immigrants who have been waiting patiently in line for years, for their opportunity to come to America? What about other migrants attempting to escape violence, who have properly asked for asylum but are seemingly punished for following the rules, like Chaldean and Assyrian Christians?

 

Most truly conservative Americans could care less that these people are largely Hispanic coming across the southern border. What concerns conservatives most is the real differences in ideologies, between them and these illegal aliens. And they are right to  be concerned. Anybody who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Founding principles had better be getting plenty damned worried and acting to stop these invaders.

At no point in U.S. history has the majority, or even a significant portion, of our Hispanic population voted Republican in any national election, with the trend becoming increasingly Democrat. In 1960, the Hispanic population in America was approximately six million and it has now reached about 60 million; and it is projected to reach 110 by 2048 on its current trajectory. This puts the Hispanic population on track to being one of the most influential in future elections.

A Cato survey from 2017 reveals seventy-two percent of Hispanics agreed with the phrase “hate speech is an act of violence,” and sixty-two percent agree that “people who don’t respect others don’t deserve the right to free speech.” The majority of Hispanics have no real understanding of the concept of “free speech”. How will that change the face of America once Hispanics become a majority in America? They also believe that gun control in society is more important than protecting the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. And only nineteen percent favored a smaller government with fewer services over a big government option.

While the Heritage Foundation and writers like Israel Ortega contend that Hispanics, for the most part, hold values consistent with conservative principles, nothing could be further from the truth, and the GOP, in this sense, is misguided in ever believing that this demographic will be anything more than a boon for gun control, the welfare state and more big government bills, projects and spending. Americans should also consider that within just a few short decades our first two amendments could be in real danger of being repealed by a demographic that largely aligns itself with the illiberal, anti-Constitution and anti-American segments of our country.

Later in the day of June 20th, President Trump appeared at a rally in Duluth, Minnesota, where he told the crowd: “Democrats don’t care about the impact of uncontrolled migration on your communities. Democrats put illegal immigrants before they put American citizens.”

 

Where is the outrage over Ms. Laura Wilkerson’s son, Josh, being brutally tortured to death and set afire by an illegal alien MS-13 gang member? Where is the outrage over Christy Sue Pina, daughter of Juan and a U.S. citizen, being kidnapped, strangled, stabbed and raped and left dead in an artichoke field, by an illegal alien? And the list is long and grows more horrific as the numerous stories were told to the President at the White House on June 22nd.

 

The President noted during his June 22nd meeting with these ‘Angel Families’, that “in Texas alone within the last seven years, more than a quarter million criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses”. He added, “I always hear that, ‘Oh, no, the population is safer than the people that live in the country’. … It’s not true.”

 

Our leaders must regain the strength and the political will to uphold the rule of law, the same strength that Andrew Jackson had to run the Spanish out of Florida and Sam Houston had in winning the day for Texas against Santa Anna’s army, if our nation is going to succeed in halting it’s decline, into nothing more than the “polyglot boardinghouse” for the world that Theodore Roosevelt warned against. They must not force this generation to bear witness to our great American Southwest being reconquered through a deliberate policy of the Mexican regime, that seeks to aid the La Reconquista movement and the detachment of our lands ethnically, linguistically and culturally. A firm and vigorously enforced plan to rid America of illegal aliens and secure our borders must soon be pursued, since tens of millions more potential illegal aliens are poised at the Southern border ready to end the legacy of Jackson and Houston and a host of American patriots, an American legacy, our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All sourced links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

Intro to ‘Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction’


wilders-make-netherlands-great-again

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted on December 11, 2016

 

Geert Wilders was convicted of Hate Speech on December 9. This is the Hate Speech Wilders was convicted for according to Reuters:

 

The charges against Wilders stem from a 2014 campaign rally, when he led a group of supporters to chant they wanted “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Moroccans in the Netherlands. A smiling Wilders concluded: “we’re going to take care of that.”

 

WHAT?! In America, this would be considered reprehensible to prosecute ANYONE for publicly taking a stand to limit a counter-culture religious affiliation.

 

Why would Wilders and other Netherlands first Dutch be so concerned to limit further Moroccan immigrants to enter their nation? Check out these numbers from 2014:

 

At the forefront is the extremely high percentage of involvement of many Dutch Moroccans in criminal activities.

 

65% of all Moroccan male youths between 12-23 years of age have been detained by police at least once. One third of this group has been detained five or more times. Moroccan criminals are convicted four times more than Dutch suspects.

 

To illustrate the problem, … a Moroccan street gang that terrorizes the neighborhood and asks pedestrians to pay a toll in order to pass. Its local rap group boasts about its defiance of, and supremacy over, the law — an event all too common in the author’s town of Delft.

 

Dutch Moroccan street thugs also frequently gang up on isolated girls to rob, harass or hurt them — assaults that are mostly not caught on film and only very rarely reported in English language media, but can, for instance, be seen here (2:40) [Blog Editor: The video is in Dutch so English speakers have to pay attention to see the Dutch gal being harassed by Muslim street thugs]. A detail worth emphasizing is that they always attack non-Muslim girls.

 

…

 

14% (p.67) of all working age Dutch Moroccans live off welfare and have their housing and healthcare heavily subsidized by Dutch taxpayers. Child support checks, payments for special needs children, and survivor benefits are also being paid to adults and children who have a Dutch passport or whose parents have a Dutch passport, even after they have gone back to Morocco and now live there…. READ ENTIRETY (The Moroccans That Infuriate the Dutch; By Timon Dias; Gatestone Institute; 4/23/14 4:00 am)

 

Geert Wilders remarks of working on fewer Moroccans was not racist but based on the Domestic Tranquility. In America the Domestic Tranquility is encoded in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Bold emphasis mine]

 

Interestingly a poll reported in Yahoo News and picked up by MagaFeed.com shows Geert Wilders’ poll numbers have risen substantially since a three judge panel convicted him. Poll numbers are very important in a Parliamentary system of government.

geert-wilders-rises-in-dutch-polls-after-conviction

Dutch MP Geert Wilders will not be stopped! Since his hate speech conviction earlier this week, polls have shown he continues to rise in popularity.

 

Failing Yahoo reports:

 

The party of populist anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders has risen strongly in the polls since the lawmaker was tried and convicted of discrimination, according to a survey published Sunday.

If legislative elections due next March were held this week, Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) would pick up 36 out of 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, making it the biggest single political group, it found.

Before the trial began on October 31, the PVV was credited with 27 seats.

… READ THE REST (Dutch Geert Wilders Rises In Polls After Conviction; MagaFeed.com; 12/11/16)

 

With all this Leftist Multicultural injustice, Geert Wilders has delivered some English version thoughts proclaiming he will never be silent.

 

JRH 12/11/16 (Hat Tip: Todd Candidate Brophy of Facebook Concerned Conservative)

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction

 

By Geert Wilders

December 9, 2016 7:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

Dear friends, I still cannot believe it, but I have just been convicted. Because I asked a question about Moroccans. While the day before yesterday, scores of Moroccan asylum-seekers terrorized buses in Emmen and did not even had to pay a fine, a politician who asks a question about fewer Moroccans is sentenced.

 

The Netherlands have become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and liberty are stronger than you. And so am I.

 

geert-wilders-i-will-never-be-silent

You can count on it. I will never be silent

 

I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me. And you are wrong, too. Moroccans are not a race, and people who criticize Moroccans are not racists. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. This sentence proves that you judges are completely out of touch.

 

And I have also a message for Prime Minister Rutte and the rest of the multicultural elite: You will not succeed in silencing me and defeating the PVV. Support for the Party for Freedom is stronger than ever, and keeps growing every day. The Dutch want their country back and cherish their freedom. It will not be possible to put the genie of positive change back in the bottle.

 

And to people at home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished.

 

Millions of Dutch are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger.

 

But I will keep fighting for you, and I tell all of you: thank you so much. Thank you so much for all your support. It is really overwhelming; I am immensely grateful to you. Thanks to your massive and heartfelt support, I know that I am not alone. That you back me, and are with me, and unwaveringly stand for freedom of expression.

 

Today, I was convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count on it: I will never be silent.

 

And this conviction only makes me stronger. This is a shameful sentence, which, of course, I will appeal. But I can tell you, I am now more vigorous than ever. And I know: together, we aim for victory.

 

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, we are strong enough to change the Netherlands.

 

To allow our children to grow up in a country they can be proud of.
In a Netherlands where we are allowed to say again what we think.
Where everybody can safely walk the streets again.
Where we are in charge of our own country again.

 

And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.

 

VIDEO: Reaction Geert Wilders to conviction

 

Posted by PVVpers

Published on Dec 9, 2016

 

____________

Intro to ‘Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction’

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted on December 11, 2016

____________

Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction

 

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

 

Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

 

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not receive prior written consent before cross posting. I will honor any request or demand by the Gatestone Institute to remove that portion of this post.]

 

Geert Wilders: Free Speech & Western Civ. Champion


wilders-on-trump-trade-immigration

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted November 26, 2016

 

Illegal immigration and the acceptance of unvetted political refugees practicing an intolerant Islam that hates everything about American Liberty the U.S. Constitution makes the rule of law, is one of the factors Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

 

Much of Trump’s campaigning was condemned by the American Left as bigoted racism. Fortunately, American voters by a majority of States (Thank God for the Electoral College giving parity to less populated States) saw through the un-American propaganda of the Left. Geert Wilders of the Netherlands has professed much of what Donald Trump campaigned for long before Trump and is getting prosecuted for hate speech.

 

Below are two Gatestone Institute articles about this unjust hate speech prosecution persecution of Geert Wilders. The first dated November 17 is by Mr. Wilders and the second is more about the Dutch prosecution by Robbie Travers dated November 24.

 

JRH 11/26/18

Please Support NCCR

******************

Reaction of Geert Wilders to Penal Demand of Public Prosecutor

 

By Geert Wilders

November 17, 2016 at 10:30 am

Gatestone Institute

 

I just heard the penal sentence demanded by the Public Prosecutor: a penalty of 5,000 euros.

 

Speaking about one of the biggest problems of our country – the problem with Moroccans – is now punishable, according to the elite. And, hence, we are slowly but surely losing our freedom of speech. Even asking a question is no longer allowed. Even though millions of people agree. And Moroccans have suddenly become a race. So if you say something about Moroccans, you are now a racist. Nobody understands that. It is utter madness. Only meant to shut you and me up.

 

geert-wilders-prosecuted-for-speaking-truth

Millions of Dutch [& probably Europeans] agree with Wilders, yet opinion is a crime

 

While in other countries the people send the elite home, here they want to silence an opposition leader. The Netherlands is running the risk of becoming a dictatorship. It looks like Turkey. The differences between the Netherlands and Turkey are getting smaller. The opposition is silenced.

 

I was elected by nearly a million people. That number will be even higher on March 15th next year. And it is my duty to talk about the problems, even when the politically-correct elite led by Prime Minister Rutte prefers not to mention them. Because looking away and remaining silent is not an option.

 

I have to say it like it is.

 

What is the use of political cowards who no longer dare to speak the truth? Who are silent about the problems in our country? Who pander to the government? Who cowardly look the other way?

 
Nothing at all! Putting one’s head in the sand is cowardliness.

 

And if you must keep quiet about problems, because simply asking a question has become punishable, the problems will only grow bigger. Then, the Netherlands will become a dictatorship of fearful and cowardly politicians.

 

I will never accept that. I will continue to fight for a free and safe Netherlands. That is why Islamic terrorists have been trying to kill me for 12 years. Today, these terrorists rejoice. Wilders is going to be punished. The Public Prosecutor has made himself their ally today.

 

But I will not allow anyone to shut me up!

 
No terrorist will be able to silence me!

 
No prosecutor in a black gown or cowardly prime minister will get me on my knees!

 
I shall therefore not care about their penal demand at all. They can do whatever they want. It will only make me stronger. I will only get more motivated.

 

And you can support me with this. By continuing to fight with me for the preservation of freedom of expression. For the maintenance of a safe and free Netherlands. Our country.

 

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

 

Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

+++

Wilders’s Trial: “Unnecessarily Offensive”

 

By Robbie Travers

November 24, 2016 at 4:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Geert Wilders is now on trial for having national security views that the prosecution have deemed unacceptable to air in public.

 

  • To suggest that Dutch citizens, whose safety Wilders was elected to protect — it is his job; it is why he was elected — should not publicly given his best advice, would to countermanding his official duty.

 

  • Is it racist to note these problems? Statistical data are usually not racist; they simply express the factual reality of a situation.

 

  • The freedom to speak and to question without fear of retribution is fundamentally what separates democratic governments from totalitarian ones. Sunshiny, politically correct views do not need protecting. The reason for free speech is to protect the less-than-enchanting views.

 

  • It is fundamental for the health of our society that Wilders and others be able to speak and be heard freely. To protect us and to protect the humanist values of freedom brought to us by Erasmus and the Enlightenment, it is crucial that the Dutch court grant Wilders a full acquittal.

 

As his trial continues in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, if found culpable, faces a fine for his comments, purportedly “racist“, on Moroccans.

 

The prosecution alleges that his comments unfairly “targeted a specific race, which is considered a crime.”

 

Never mind that Moroccans are not a race or even a religion; they are citizens of a country — apparently, making comments on trends that are prominent within minorities, or advice on how to keep a country secure, is now criminal. Statements might sometimes be unpleasant to hear, but to express these views should not be “criminal.”

 

Look at the comments of the lead prosecutor, Wouter Bos, who said, “Freedom of expression is not absolute, it is paired with obligations and responsibilities.” This is worrying. To suggest that an individual should have the obligation not to “uncessarily [sic] offend,” is to make every individual responsible for the thoughts of every other, theoretical individual who might be offended by one’s words — or even, as we see now all too often, just claim to be offended for malicious purposes.

 

Bos added that Wilders has “the responsibility not to set groups of people against each other.” Is this really what Wilders was trying to do? The opposite would seem to be true: Wilders was not calling for racial tension; in his view, he is seeking to alleviate it, his solution being less immigration from Morocco. So far, objectively, immigrants from Morocco seem to have had a significant effect on the increase in crime syndicates, drugs- and human-trafficking, and a notably lopsided change in the composition of the prison population in the Netherlands.

 

Is it racist to note these problems? Statistical data are usually not racist; they simply express the factual reality of a situation.

 

With this in mind, perhaps then the struggle Wilders faces could be better described as: Geert Wilders is now on trial for having national security views that the prosecution have deemed unacceptable to air in public.

 

dutch-mp-geert-wilders-censorhip

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is now on trial for having national security views that the prosecution have deemed unacceptable to air in public. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

 

The latest development in this process is that the prosecution have demanded that Wilders be punished with a €5,000 fine, in order for him to atone for his alleged transgression against Moroccans.

 

To suggest that Dutch citizens, whose safety Wilders was elected to protect — it is his job; it is why he was elected — should not publicly be given his best advice, would to countermand his official duty. If, heaven forbid, there were to be adverse circumstances in the Netherlands, as seen all too often in France, Denmark, Germany and Belgium, and Wilders had failed to warn his countrymen, why could he not, conversely, risk being charged with reckless endangerment?

 

Saying that the Netherlands should have fewer Moroccans is apparently considered “unnecessarily offensive.”

 

Perhaps the problem for the long-term survival of Europe is that in modern politics, too many individuals are seeking to base legislation on protecting people from being offended, instead of basing legislation on what is best for the national and cultural security of a country. While no-one might wish others to be offended, sometimes offending others is necessary, even a duty.

 

When Wilders criticises Islam and its associated practices and legal codes, no doubt he offends many conservative Muslims. Does this mean his criticism should not have been expressed? (No.)

 

When Wilders criticises the European Union, he no doubt offends Eurocrats in Brussels. Does this mean his criticism should not have been expressed? (No.)

 

So when Wilders criticises immigration from Moroccan and suggests there should be less of it, he may well have offended Moroccans. Does this mean his criticism shouldn’t have been expressed? (No.)

 

Sometimes, causing offence and allowing individuals critically to engage with a viewpoint with which they disagree is a crucial part of our dialogue as a society. Individuals sometimes need to be presented with uncomfortable truths.

 

Whether one agrees with Wilders’s view or not, it should be comforting that an individual is allowed to question fundamental building blocks for the future health of our Western values and communal well-being.

 

The freedom to speak and to question without fear of retribution is, in fact, fundamentally what separates democratic governments from totalitarian ones.

 

If one wants individuals to be able to counter views they perceive to be “racist” or in some other way prejudiced, they first need to be able to hear them to counter them.

 

In condemning Wilders, we are not only robbing Wilders of his right to free expression, we are also robbing individuals of a right to listen to him.

 

In a democratic society, individuals should have the right to hear Wilders, and then, based on his arguments, to draw their own conclusions. Too many countries, based on originally well-intended laws that repress free speech, have already fallen into the trap of “the truth is no defense.”

 

Is the implication, then, that half-truths, distortions and lies are an acceptable defense? In closing the door to “truth” in Europe and Canada, our fragile Western democracies are opening the door to authoritarian governance. Farewell, democracy.

 

There are other reasons why all Dutch citizens or other individuals should be terrified of this.

 

For Wilders, as a Member of Parliament, the demand of the prosecutors in this case for a fine of €5,000 may not — on the surface — destroy his life. But this fine would not include the crushing court costs Wilders has had to incur, even if he is acquitted. What happens when ordinary members of the Dutch public are summoned before a court — possibly for even greater penalties and with greater court costs — for expressing views that prosecutors claim are “unnecessarily offensive”?

 

Wilders, as a private citizen with possibly a moderate income, has had to go up against the virtually unlimited exchequer of the entire Dutch government. People’s resources are not inexhaustible. This is the nightmare that great protectors of freedom such as Franz Kafka or George Orwell have written about.

 

What happens if Geert Wilders, who is a politician, is only among the first of those who might be prosecuted for speaking out? Other individuals who might also want “fewer Moroccans” may not be able to afford endless court costs and a fine of €5,000 — or whatever the judgement might be on December 9. Are we really asking the citizens of the Netherlands, and much the free world, as we have already seen too often — to go through life weighing whether expressing a view will come with a crippling economic cost?

 

Surely if there is a conviction this will be only the beginning. Will anyone ever feel free again to express opinions that might be found — by someone, anyone, who knows — “unnecessarily offensive”? Probably not.

 

What, by the way, does “necessarily offensive” consist of? Will lawyers become rich as person after person is hauled into court to decide, case by case, how necessary is “necessary”?

 

Is this really what the free world wants: societies that claim to protect the rights of the individual but then instead prosecute them? Sunshiny, politically correct views do not need protecting. The reason for freedom of speech is to protect the less-than-enchanting views. Without any contrarians, how would society have developed?

 

If this court rules against Wilders, will every politician thereafter who makes a statement that someone deems “unnecessarily offensive” be summoned before a court? At the other end of the political spectrum, three Dutch Labour Party politicians were noted to have insulted Moroccans far more corrosively than Wilders ever did — even likening them to dirt and excrement. Those Labour politicians were never prosecuted. Gee, could this be a double standard we are seeing? Wilders’s judges refused to dismiss his trial on the grounds that it was, as Wilders maintained, politically motivated; but what looks suspiciously like a selective prosecution seems to bear him out. Will the Dutch prosecutors, in fairness, proceed to try these even-more-insulting politicians from the political left?

 

Repeated trials and appeals only lead, as in a totalitarian government, to no-one being able to afford maintaining his freedom by due process.

 

That thought leads to the major politically incorrect elephant in this room:

 

Is it possible that there are people who are exploiting the West’s open but expensive legal process precisely to shut down freedom of speech and political views they find inconvenient for themselves? Is that the whole secret point behind the prosecution: to smother speech and smother thought?

 

European nations seem to be rapidly approaching a path of political censorship, to prevent views being expressed that their leaders deem unacceptable. The result? These views only grow in prominence. Across Europe, as Brexit, Wilders, Le Pen, and other “politically incorrect” tributaries that leaders are trying to restrict, are surging in popularity.

 

Ideas cannot be killed by stopping individuals from hearing them; people only seem to want to hear more about what they sense is being hidden from them.

 

You do not have to like Geert Wilders or even agree with him; it is, however, fundamental for the health of our civilization that he and others be able to speak and be heard freely.

 

To protect us and to protect the humanist values of freedom brought to us by Erasmus and the Enlightenment, it is crucial that the Dutch court grant Wilders a full acquittal.

 

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

___________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

l and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and … READ THE REST

 

The Big BUT System – plus good news about Tommy Robinson


muslim-no-kill-infidel-april-fool

 

What’s the Big BUT System? It’s the blocking of negative information about the reality of Islam with a BUT.

The above quote from Elsa Schieder is precisely the central path that Multicultural Leftists use to shut down any truth-telling about the dangers of Islam and its theopolitical ideology inherent in Islam’s Quran, Hadith and Sira!

 

All the topics Elsa write’s down below relate to how the evils of Islam have affected private citizens in Canada and the UK who are merely speaking obvious truths or Western citizens being displeased with Islamic terrorism.

 

JRH 10/5/16

Please Support NCCR

**************

The Big BUT System – plus good news about Tommy Robinson

 

Sent by Elsa Schieder

Sent Oct 2, 2016 at 2:41 AM

Sent from World Truth Summit

 

I’m writing to you because I’d like to introduce you to the Big BUT System. Plus, I have information on 2 current Canadian cases showing the threats to freedom of speech. And there’s good news about Tommy Robinson.

What’s the Big BUT System? It’s the blocking of negative information about the reality of Islam with a BUT.

I started by writing The Quick and Easy Guide to Understanding Islam: http://westindanger.com/ed/guide-to-understanding-islam.html

 

However, it soon became apparent that the majority of people respond to everything negative about Islam with a BUT.

– BUT there’s good and bad in all religions.

– BUT that’s hate speech.

– BUT that’s Islamophobia.

– BUT it’s all a matter of interpretation.

– BUT I know a nice Muslim.

In other words, negative information about Islam usually doesn’t sink in. It’s BUTted away.

 

The plan was to create a guide to answering the BUTs, one at a time.

 

I soon saw that something strange was going on. It was like the thorns around Sleeping Beauty’s castle. Those BUTs had a purpose: to keep people asleep to Islam. And like those thorns, there was something “magic” about the BUTs – it was as if a spell had been cast. Who had done that? How? And even more important, how to undo it?

So, now:

– the Big BUT System:

– the most likely reasons why it exists;

– what we can do;

– the BUTs, one at a time – where we repeatedly come to evidence that the Big BUT System isn’t natural, but manufactured;

– and finally, the next big questions:

– whodunit?

– how is the system kept in place?

– and how do we end it?

Here are the first reader responses:

This is amazing. I love it. It contains everything I’d need, I think, when communicating the truth about Islam, which is all I do!!! It really is brilliant. I’m sure no one else has done this.
Jan Ferguson, London, England

Quite an achievement. I think you found your niche. Instead of describing Islam you are giving people content to use when arguing. This is what matters.
Jean-Claude Lamontagne, Rouen, France

Very well done, no buts about it. 🙂
 Bill Warner of Political Islam, Nashville, USA

The Big BUT System:
http://westindanger.com/ed/big-but-system.html

 

Until October 10, a special offer. 2 for 1.   .99
Along with the Big BUT System, you will get the Quick and Easy Guide to Understanding Islam.
bk-jkts-quick-easy-guide-islam-the-big-but-system

 

As we know, the allegation that something is “hate speech” is not used just to keep people from facing negative truths about Islam. “Hate speech” is a criminal offense in many countries. Here are 2 current Canadian cases. 

In the province of Ontario, Eric Brazau has been sentenced to 18 months in jail for insulting Islam – for what was planned as a piece of street theatre (performed in the subway). (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

Another incident resulted in Eric’s being charged, not just with hate crime, but incitement to genocide. Exactly what did he do?

The hate crime consists of the fact that, on the night he demonstrated against the Bataclan murders in Paris, he allegedly said “Muslims killed people in Paris”. It seems he should have said “ISIS killed people in Paris”, or “Misunderstanders of Islam killed people in Paris”, or “People with a warped interpretation of Islam killed people in Paris”… If he is convicted on all charges he faces up to 10 years in a penitentiary.

Eric has been charged with incitement to genocide. The Attorney General had to agree to this charge and it is the first time such a charge has been made in Canada. The Crown has stated that she wants to send Eric to the penitentiary, i.e. more than two years in jail. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

Also in Canada, this time in the province of Quebec, Djemila Benhabib is on trial for accurately reporting information, in an interview, about an Islamic school – information from the school’s own website and a promotional pamphlet sent out by the school. The charge? Slander. (And yes, according to a reliable friend, if you hurt someone’s reputation by telling the truth, that falls under the definition of slander!)

Quebec: Muslims take author to court for revealing truth about Islamic school

Author Djemila Benhabib, on trial for slander for comments made about a Muslim private school, testified Wednesday that the religious instruction offered at the school has no place in Quebec.

 

Benhabib said alarm bells went off when she read the Qur’anic passages children attending the Muslim School of Montreal were made to memorize. The passages, which she called “an offence to human dignity,” spoke of the beautiful virgins awaiting male believers in the afterlife, while non-believers endured “scorching fire and scalding water.” . . .

The school is seeking $95,000 in damages. The president of the school’s board of directors testified earlier Benhabib’s interview had caused a decrease in enrollment and created a state of panic as teachers and students feared repercussions for being likened to terrorists. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

And what’s been happening with Tommy Robinson? In June he had a charge against him for holding up a F**K ISIS banner at a football match. A couple of months later, he was ordered to leave a Cambridge pub where he, 2 friends, and their 7 children were watching a football match on TV.

 

tommy-robinson-about-isis-sign-family-booted-from-pub

 

And now, good news. On September 19, Tommy sent out a short jubilant tweet after his court appearance relating to his holding up a F**K ISIS banner: 

Judge “evidence is vague & cagey & not genuine” case dismissed (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

 

Here’s more detail:

The police had sought to argue that an English flag held up by PEGIDA UK leader Robinson with the words “Fuck ISIS” printed on it amounted to incitement of hatred against Muslims.

Attending Luton Magistrates Court today with her client, Mr. Robinson’s lawyer Alison Gurden argued that attempts to impose the order amounted to an attempt to breach his right to freedom of speech and assembly.

According to Mr. Robinson, the judge agreed, dismissing the police’s case against him as vague, cagey, and not genuine. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

 

Huffington Post also carried the story. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)
As for the recent incident at a Cambridge pub, the police have now claimed that Tommy was not the only target:

Cambridgeshire Police deny targeting Mr. Robinson during the incident in Cambridge, claiming in a statement that 18 Luton football club supporters were asked to leave the city to prevent violent clashes between fans.

However, when asked by Breitbart London whether there was any proof that the other 17 existed, and which they were willing to release, they replied that there was not. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

An appeal has been made, asking witnesses to the incident, plus the other 17 people allegedly charged, to come forward.

Here is Tommy’s response to the Cambridge incident, in an interview with Jamie Glazov:

 

YOU WILL NOT TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM
http://jamieglazov.com/2016/08/30/tommy-robinson-moment-you-will-not-take-away-my-freedom/

 

In the interview Tommy stresses how vital it is that now he has excellent legal representation, made possible by his many generous supporters.

And once again he thanks the many people who have made donations.

The video ends with another thank you – from Jamie Glazov to Valerie Price of ACT for Canada, for funding the interview.

I want to end with something else. A quote from Shimon Perez, a prime minister of Israel, from a tribute to him:

 

The Jews’ greatest contribution to history is dissatisfaction! We’re a nation born to be discontented. Whatever exists we believe can be changed for the better. –Shimon Peres (1923-2016)

One part of the quote resonates with me: Whatever exists we believe can be changed for the better.

But are we (Jewish or not) born to be discontented?

For me, the belief that we can change something for the better often comes from something other than discontent – just from the sense that something can be improved, and from an idea about how things might be improved (like by putting yogurt on pancakes – a delicious addition to already delicious pancakes). It’s just fun to improve something.

I do see the quest to improve things as a fundamental Western quest.

This quest (whether or not linked with discontent) is utterly contrary to Islamic doctrine, which holds that no improvement is possible, that Islamics are to follow Islamic doctrine from the time of the death of Mohammed, and adhere, for example, to what is known as his last will and testament, Surah 9, which calls upon Islamics to kill the infidels (meaning everyone who is not an Islamic) wherever we are found.

Give me ceaseless discontent and the urge to change things for the better any day!

Even better, give me just the conviction that we can change things for the better.

That means, among many other things, to make visible and undo the Big BUT System, so that Islam becomes utterly visible. In this case, I agree that a basis of the urge to improve things is linked with discontent. Many of us feel discontent (or even more negative feelings) when faced with some of the truths about Islam.

And now, as always, all the best to all who care and dare,

Elsa

October 2, 2016
PS. Why are some links only available online?
http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html
Because emails with many different links are less likely to get into your inbox.

PPS. For lots more, come to:
http://ElsasEmporium.com
and
http://ElsasBlog.com
_____________________

ELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH: MY JOURNEY INTO ISLAM

 

It could be about, how I came to find the wonder of Islam.

 

The words that come into my mind: The Heart of Darkness, the title of a novel by Joseph Conrad.

 

What I mean is that I found so many things I did not expect, so many things I could not admire. I would have loved to find a religion of peace. I did not. I feel as if I slowly stepped into a cave, slowly found lights, and had to recoil from what I found.

 

In one corner, the corpses of 600-900 dead Jews, murdered by Mohammed. The story isn’t one I found in early versions of his story that I came across. But it’s right there, hinted at in the Qu’ran, and spelled out in detail in the Sira and Hadiths (very revered Islamic religious texts). The story is right there.

 

But I didn’t find the story until late in my exploration, when I already had a good idea of what kinds of things I’d be coming across.

 

The early explorations were much more tentative.

 

After all, I was told Islam was a religion of peace. But something did not make sense.

 

It was a bit like being a detective – Nancy Drew, say – young and innocent and very Western. Why was there this feeling of danger when I was … READ THE REST

 

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech


Voltaire on Free Speech & Rulers

Intro to ‘European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech’

Edited by John R. Houk

May 3, 2016

 

I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by the Gatestone Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered another Gatestone Institute article by Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim refugees and immigrants.

 

The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:

 

 

 

 

  • Microsoft: Bill Gates and Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft, but then Steve Ballmer became the shot caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a decent synopsis of their influence:

 

… Microsoft are almost expected to have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers, operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological world. (How Microsoft Uses Social Media [CASE STUDY]; By CASEY FLEISCHMANN; LinkHumans.com)

 

Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:

 

After the company’s IPO in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down, primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock in Google. (Google; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)

 

Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:

 

Silicon Valley – and Wall Street – have a new king. Alphabet, the company formerly known as Google, looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …

 

…

 

Commercially, when we say Alphabet, we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search, maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on the industries of the future but for today, it’s Google that pays the bills. (How Alphabet became the biggest company in the world; By Alex Hern; The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)

 

Wikipedia on Alphabet Inc.:

 

Alphabet Inc. (commonly known as Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as Google) is an American multinational conglomerate created in 2015 as the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by Google.[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based in Mountain View, California and headed by Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with Page serving as CEO and Brin as President.[10] The reorganization of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.[11] Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include Google, Calico, GV, Google Capital, X, and Google Fiber. Some of the subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while Sundar Pichai took his position as CEO of Google.[5][6] Shares of Google’s stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google’s former ticker symbols of “GOOG” and “GOOGL”.

 

The establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.[6][12] (Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)

 

In the 21st century, money is power. People this is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western culture in Europe and America.

 

JRH 6/3/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

 

By Soeren Kern

June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

 

  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

 

  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

 

  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

 

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

 

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

 

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

 

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

 

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

 

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

 

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

 

“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

 

“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

 

“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

 

  • “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.

 

  • “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

  • “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

 

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

 

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

 

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:

 

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”

 

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

 

“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”

 

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

 

“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

 

“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

 

“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”

 

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:

 

“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

 

“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”

 

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”

 

Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

 

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

 

In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”

 

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:

 

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

 

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

 

“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”

 

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

 

“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

 

“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”

 

Facebook Censorship & Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

 

_______________________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

Blog Editor: If GI asks me to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a link you had better GI permission.

 

%d bloggers like this: