Archive for the ‘humanitas’ Category

More ‘Asian’ Grooming Gang Abusers Sentenced in Oxford, England

February 15, 2020

groomingPicture: Oxford Mail

Three more members of Asian grooming and ausers have been sentenced for multiple rapes, indecent assaults, pimping and drug dealing offences in Oxford, the ~University city that has been the site of some of the worst examples of systematic grooming and abouse of young, often vulnerable, British girls by Muslim men of predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds.

41-year-old Naim Khan ( 24/8/1978), 44-year-old Mohammed Nazir (20/3/1975), and 42-year-old Raheem Ahmed (22/2/1977) had all been convicted of the sex related crimes and held on remand awaiting sentencing, according to a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announcement. Their offences included:

  • Seven counts of rape (two counts were multiple incidents covering at least 12 occasions); four counts of indecent assault (two counts were multiple incidents covering at least 15 occasions); one count of procuring a man to rape the victim; two counts of procuring men to indecently assault the victim; one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 12 occasions (Victim 1)
    one count of indecent assault (Victim 2)
  • Six counts of rape (four counts were multiple incidents covering at least 14 occasions); five counts of indecent assault (all counts were multiple incidents covering at least 27 occasions); one count of procuring a man to rape the victim; three counts of procuring men to indecently assault the victim (one count was a multiple incident covering at least three occasions); one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 10 occasions (Victim 1)
  • Two counts of indecent assault, and one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 10 occasions (Victim 1)

A fourth gang member, 42-year-old Afzal Mohammed of Randolph Street, Oxford, was acquitted of one count of rape.

The convicted trio have been “jailed for a total of 49 years”, with Khan, Nazir, and Ahmed receiving terms of 24 years, 20 years, and five years — but this may be misleading. Criminals handed multiple sentences are generally told they will serve them concurrently — i.e. all at the same time, rendering all but the longest effectively meaningless. So in spite of the public outcry over previous cases in Oxford and elsewhere around the country, most notoriously in Rotherham and Rochdale, the authorities are still intent on giving the kid – glove treatment to criminals of migrant backgrounds.

They are also usually eligible for automatic early release on licence halfway through non-“life” terms, or else at the two-thirds point with Parole Board approval if handed special “extended” sentences.

While the CPS did not spell out the full details of the Oxford gang’s sentencing immediately clear in their announcement, probably to avoid triggering the kind of outcry that has previously resulted from black and Asian rapists being given much lighter sentences than a European man convicted of multiple rapes of migrant women could expect to receive. A prime example of uch discriminatory treatment of convicted offenders was the case for Telford rape gang ringleader Mubarek Ali, who became eligible for release on licence — which he received — less than five years into a supposed 22-year sentence.

A particularly nasty aspect of the abuse carried out by the Oxford gangs was the sadistic nature of the abuse and the casual disregard for the humanity of their victims. In Britain and other civilised cultures we would not tolerate animals being treated so badly yet the far – left scumbags who control our politicised police forces and judiciary are dertermined that we be forced to accept it from foreigners who have been welcomed into our nations.

“The abuse to which [the victims] were subjected to by these men was horrendous and sadistic,” said Principal Investigator Mark Glover in comments reported by the Oxford Mail.

“They have had to live with the actions of these predatory offenders for the majority of their livthey have all been impacted in different ways,” he added.

“They will never be able to forget what happened to them all those years ago.”

Senior prosecutor Clare Tucker said the “depraved” groomers had “told the teenagers [their abuse] was normal in relationships between men and women and threatened the victims if they resisted or complained.”

One of the victims, who told the jury Naim Khan “began to pimp her out to other Asian males, made her sexually available to other men in return for payment”, revealed the consequences of her abuse in an impact statement: “My life has been destroyed. I cannot form loving or lasting relationships with men. I have not been able to care for my children as a mother should be able to.”

She says she did not report the abuse she suffered for some time, at first because of threats by the abusers, and then because she “felt disgusted by what those men did to me” when she was aged between 14 and 15 — “I just didn’t want it to come out and for anyone to know.”

Such cases have become an all to familar story in Britain since the story of the Rotherham case broke in 2012. The Abuse gangs had already been operating for years and worried parent and citizens who were aware of what whas happ[ening and tried to report it to police or social care authorities were dismissed as racilaly prejudiced cranks. It has since emerged that the order to soft pedal on investigations into the gangs came from the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions who at the was Kier Starmer, who is currently a contender for leadership of the Labour Party.

Back to contents table

Who Would Want To Destroy The World? More People Than You Might Think

October 27, 2019

As well as megalomaniac tyrants woth access to weapons of mass destruction, mad scientists busy genetically modifying viruses and bacteria in order to weaponise the air we breathe and the water we drink, the corporate greed that drives companies to fill our food and environment with toxic shite in their quest for bigger profits, we have social justice warriors calling for the genocide of ethnic Europeans (having completely failed to notice that they, themselves, are mostly of European extraction, and eco – warriors claiming that the only way ro “save the planet” is through the extinction of humanity. Obviously these somewhat less than bright sparks have never heard that old riddle that goes, 2if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it does it make a sound. Here’s one p-o-v on that, which suggests that vibrations in the air as would be caused by a tree hitting the ground cannot be called a sound unless they collide with the eardrum of a creature that knows what a sound is.

So who wants to destry humanity and do they have a supportable argument?

Who Wants To Destroy The World

More people than you might expect — and new technologies might give them the power to do it

Authored by Phil Torres, Originally published at Medium.com

Photo: NurPhoto/Getty

FFor most of human history, the question of who would want to destroy the world didn’t much matter. The reason, of course, was that that no individual or group of humans could demolish civilization or cause our extinction. Our ancestors just didn’t have the tools: no amount of spears, arrows, swords, or catapults would have enabled them — even the most bloodthirsty and misanthropic — to have inflicted harm in every corner of the world.

This changed with the invention of the atomic bomb. While scholars often identify 1945 as the year that human self-annihilation became possible, a more accurate date is 1948 or 1949, since this is when the United States stockpiled enough nuclear weapons (about 100) to have initiated a hemisphere-spanning “nuclear winter.” (See this work in progress for why I’m focusing on 100 nuclear weapons as a threshold.) A nuclear winter occurs when soot from burning cities significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface for a period of months or years, thereby causing temperatures to plummet and famines to ensue. Quite unsettlingly, it wasn’t until the 1980s — decades after we had enough nukes to blot out the sun — that the nuclear winter phenomenon was first identified, although lingering questions remain even today.

Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and might be more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

The U.S. monopoly on world-ending power didn’t last long: by 1953, the Soviet Union had likewise expanded to 100 weapons. Now there were two nations on Earth that could obliterate civilization. But again, this didn’t last very long. The United Kingdom joined the club of potential world-enders around 1962, China around 1971, and France around 1973, with Israel, Pakistan, and India becoming members of this club in the 2010s. Hence, in less than a century, the world went from containing zero actors capable of unilaterally destroying the world to eight.

This is a scary situation. Unfortunately, it’s getting worse — much worse. The reason is that states are no longer the only players in the game. Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and they might be a lot more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

My own research suggests that the percentage of people who would push a doomsday button, if it were placed within finger’s reach, is fairly small, but the absolute number is unacceptably high. Even a quick Google search seems to affirm this. Consider the following answers, taken from different online sources, to the question of whether one would destroy the world if one could (quoting typos and all):

“Yes. It is obvious that we gain nothing from living and there is a huge amount of human suffering that I find quite unjustifiable. The complete annihilation of the human race would be the greatest act of compassion ever.” Reddit.com

“Yes, we suck as a human race.” Reddit.com

“Yes. Because you all are assholes. And this is not a joke I would love to push something that ends humanity. I always thought about it and now there is the question about that topic and I am happy to say I want you all dead everyone single one of you fuckers. Please give me the chance to wipe out humanity.” Reddit.com

“My view is that Mankind is a plague… I vote to destroy mankind and let nature start over.” Debate.org

“The human animal is the only evil animal in the animal kingdom. We destroy everything… I email the president weekly and beg him to push the button and stop the madness already.” Debate.org

“In the short time we’ve been on this planet, humans have already destroyed so much. We destroy ecosystems, and kill off entire species of animals… The world would be better off without humans as a whole.” Debate.org

Of course, saying something definitely isn’t the same as doing it. Even so, can we be fully certain that not a single person in the world would attempt to follow through on his or her annihilatory fantasies? One way to approach this question is to look for historical examples of groups or people who both expressed a desire to kill everyone and committed some terrible act or acts of violence. The combination of these two phenomena implies that such people would be willing to act on their omnicidal (meaning killing everyone) impulses and willingly, perhaps even eagerly, push a doomsday button. So are there such examples?

Unfortunately, yes. Lots of them. And they seem to fall into a handful of basic categories.

Eric Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

Consider the disturbing case of Eric Harris, the psychopathic mastermind behind the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. His journal is full of all sorts of genuinely horrifying, ghoulish fantasies. On several occasions, he explicitly mentions his burning desire to extinguish humanity. At one point. he writes: “If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. Kill them all. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘KILL MANKIND’ no one should survive.”

Elsewhere, Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

When Harris and Dylan Klebold, his partner in crime, perpetrated their massacre in Columbine, they were equipped with garden-variety weapons. Dangerous to be sure, but hardly capable of “burning the world.” Can there be any doubt, though, that if Harris — who was relatively intelligent and liked math and science — had had access to some of the advanced technologies of tomorrow, he would have, when committing suicide, tried to go out with a much bigger bang?

The Columbine massacre had a huge influence on later rampage shooters, some of whom also dreamt of omnicide. For example, in 2007, an 18-year-old Finnish student named Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot several people at his school, which he also tried to burn down. Like Harris, he wrote about “a final solution” as “the death of the entire human race,” and described his massacre as “an operation against humanity with the purpose of killing as many people as possible.” Yet another rampage shooter from Finland, Matti Saari, wrote in his suicide note, “I hate the human race, I hate mankind, I hate the whole world, and I want to kill as many people as possible.”

Then, of course, there was Elliot Rodger, the incel psychopath who killed seven people and injured 14 in the 2014 Isla Vista killings. In a video shot one day before the rampage, he said in no uncertain terms: “I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species. If I had it in my power, I would stop at nothing to reduce every single one of you to mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. And rightfully so. You deserve to be annihilated. And I’ll give that to you.”

School shooters and other lone wolves have idiosyncratic motives, such as a misanthropic hatred of humanity, or a desire to retaliate against women for perceived romantic and sexual slights. Together, though, they comprise a relatively cohesive category of omnicidal actors, and a relatively unpredictable one at that.

Another type of omnicidal actor comes in the form of apocalyptic terrorists who believe that to save the world, it must first be destroyed. ISIS, arguably the largest and richest terrorist group in history, is a paradigm case. While some members of ISIS probably didn’t hold apocalyptic beliefs, the leadership most certainly did — and they made strategic decisions based on these beliefs. The man who essentially founded ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed that Islam’s version of Armageddon was about to unfold around the small Syrian town of Dabiq. Hence, the name of the group’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq. After the U.S. military killed al-Zarqawi in 2006, leadership of ISIS transferred to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, a fevered apocalypticist who insisted that the Islamic end-of-days messianic figure, the “Mahdi,” was about to appear in Iraq. Like al-Zarqawi, he based his strategy on his apocalyptic belief — and it backfired. He soon met his end at the hands of Western forces.

Both of these individuals really believed that the end was nigh, and that it was their duty to use violence — catastrophic violence, to be more specific — to bring about the apocalypse. ISIS members talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, releasing deadly pathogens, and building dirty bombs. I personally haven’t spoken to a single terrorism scholar who doesn’t think that ISIS would have gleefully pushed a “destroy-the-world” button, especially if Western forces were marching toward Dabiq.

But ISIS is far from the only apocalyptic group. Famously, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to trigger Armageddon by releasing sarin in the Tokyo subway in 1995. Here in the U.S., more than a dozen hate groups subscribe to Christian Identity, an apocalyptic worldview that endorses the use of catastrophic violence as a means of triggering a “race war” that will initiate the end of the world. And one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, the Taiping Rebellion, involved an apocalyptic movement called the “Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.” This was led by a man named Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the brother of Jesus Christ, “commissioned by the Lord of Heaven to slay the devil-demons (Manchus) whose rule had brought ruin to China.”

A final type of omnicidal actor lingers within the outermost fringe of radical environmentalist, anarcho-primitivist, and Neo-Luddite ideologies. Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, provides an example par excellence. Beginning in 1978, Kaczynski perpetrated numerous domestic terrorist attacks, killing three people and injuring 23 others. A former UC Berkeley mathematics professor and Harvard alumnus, Kaczynski didn’t wish for humanity to go extinct. Rather, he wanted to trigger a global revolution against industrial society, with the ultimate goal of causing its collapse. Kaczynski ultimately didn’t care whether his revolution would cause people to die, since in his utilitarian calculus the ends would justify the means. As Kaczynski wrote in 1995: “This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.”

In contrast, other actors in this category have explicitly embraced pro-extinction convictions. For example, the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), an ecoterrorist group, holds as their mission “the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.” In advocating this, they argue that “if any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances.”

How might they accomplish their omnicidal aims? GLF contends that bioengineering is “the specific technology for doing the job right of annihilating humanity — and it’s something that could be done by just one person with the necessary expertise and access to the necessary equipment.” They continue: “…genetically engineered viruses… have the advantage of attacking only the target species. To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters).”

Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

This parallels an anonymous article in the Earth First! Journal, published in 1989, meaning that this idea has been around for a while: “Contributions are urgently solicited for scientific research on a species specific virus that will eliminate Homo shiticus from the planet. Only an absolutely species specific virus should be set loose. Otherwise it will be just another technological fix. Remember, Equal Rights for All Other Species.”

While the most radical fringe of the environmentalist movement has avoided the limelight in recent years, some experts, such as the terrorism scholar Frances Flannery, expect a resurgence as climate and biodiversity crises worsen. This poses an obvious danger in a world replete with bullets and bombs; but it poses an existential threat in a world of cheap and easy gene editing. Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

Are there any solutions to the problems posed by virus-toting omnicidal maniacs? One hard-to-avoid — and completely terrifying — answer is mass surveillance. This could take the form of what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham called a “panopticon,” whereby the state (perhaps run by computer programs designed specifically to govern — a form of government called “algocracy”) monitors every action of its citizens. The obvious danger is that this could collapse into tyrannical totalitarianism, which itself constitutes an existential risk.

Another possibility involves what the science fiction writer, David Brin, dubs the “transparent society.” This would make surveillance egalitarian, so to speak: everyone would be able to see what everyone else is doing all the time, thereby enabling those watched to watch the watchers. Brin doesn’t argue that this is an ideal situation, only that it’s a better situation than one in which the state has all the power. Perhaps a total loss of privacy is the cost of existential security.

Alternatively, I have previously claimed that, in order to reduce the risks posed by malicious agents like those mentioned above, society should prioritize mitigating climate change and ecological destruction. Both phenomena are threat multipliers and threat intensifiers, which means that they’ll introduce new problems while making old problems even worse. Better environmental policies would lower the threat posed by ecoterrorists, whose fundamental complaint — “Humans are stupidly destroying the biosphere” — is scientifically accurate. Such policies would also decrease the number and severity of natural disasters, which could fertilize apocalyptic fervor among religious extremists. As the terrorism scholar Mark Juergensmeyer has remarked, “radical times will breed radical religion,” a hypothesis apparently supported by the rise of ISIS during the Syrian civil war.

Moving forward, people who care about human survival need to think hard not just about the various technologies that will become available, but about the types of actors who might try to use these technologies for catastrophic ill. The future of the human race could quite literally depend on it.

OneZero

 

The road to ruin

July 13, 2019

This is, I believe, an important piece and should be read by all who value liberty and free speech. The argument relates to the organised attack by Social Justice Warriors on any content posted online that does not conform to their world view and to the cowardice and political bias of platform providers who tamely cave in to the bullying of that noisy minority and remove content expressing truly diverse points of view.

The Road To Ruin was orininally posted by Aragmar on Minds.com on 29 May, 2019

The Road To Ruin

Many of you might not agree with what I am about to say, but I have to say it once and for all. There are some people who calmly stand by and continue buying Politically Correct(TM) content created by hardcore SJW ideologues while accidentally mentioning “Why/How is this happening to my favorite IP?” There is the vain hope deep inside, that some of those polished turds that you buy might still “be as good as it once was”, while new, original content creators, who go out of their way to actually stand up against this degeneracy are barely scraping by. Do you see anything wrong in this picture?

No, it isn’t the SJW’s who are ruining your hobbies and favorite game/movie franchises, or at least not entirely their fault – it is you, who continuously spend your hard earned cash and feed those intellectual parasites. There are plenty of people who complain about our horrendous current state of affairs concerning the entertainment industry. Films, books, comics, and games are constantly under attack, by an unrelenting mob of angry and underachieving people, who hate themselves, others and want to destroy everything that is even remotely fun, making all of us equally miserable.

Let us examine this “hypothetical” situation:

– A person surfs the web, notices new author/s who had created something original, be it a game, book or a comic and it is plain as daylight that this new creation goes against the PC religion. The person then admires that new creation, maybe even comments on how brave the author/s were to stand up against the status quo… and then casually walks by. A week, or month passes and the new polished turd comes out of the bowels of Hollywood/EA etc. The person starts protesting as loudly as they possibly can, but the damage is done and none of the SJW cultists care about them complaining about it. They did their job – another day, another franchise “corrected”. Onwards they go bravely in search of more words to be triggered by, offended, claim higher victim status all the while snorting pixie dust and chasing unicorns.

The person suddenly remembers, oh wait, there was something very similar and maybe even better than this shit I spend my money on. They scour the net for days, yet to no avail – that new and original content that they had passed by is nowhere to be found. Weeks later they luckily found a copy and hungrily devour it, instantly realizing that despite its somewhat lackluster wrapping, it is a good product. Best of all – there is not a shred of the dreaded PC religion in it! Quickly they feverishly continue searching, asking friends and others for the next chapter/book or part of the game, only to find out there won’t be one. Never… The author/s were either pushed out of the platform, silenced, censored or bullied out of existence, yet had they received some support, any support, things might have been different. The person laments for a while the tragic loss, of what could’ve been perhaps an alternative to their long-lost, destroyed by the SJW cultists favorite IP. Probably vows to change their ways and support the next new original content that they stumble upon, realizing that those author/s who are willing to fight the uphill battle against the establishment are few. Fewer even are the individuals, who actually manage to pull their scarce resources, and against all odds actually, put a product out.

And now let me ask you a question – do you know such a person? If yes, please, for the love of all that is geeky, nerdy and FUN, do not be like that person!

The more of us who vote with their wallets, the more will that massive, angry mob of fun-hating SJW cultists will lose their backing. Next time when you stumble upon something new and exciting book, game or comic – Share it! Share, with as many people you can, and if not buy one for yourself giving the creator/s the life-sustaining support that they desperately need, others might. Remember, the cancer of Political Correctness(TM) and its ideologues the SJW cultists are only strong because of OUR inaction, or actions.

And if you, continue backing products/creators who are known to be heavily influenced or outright sullied by their incessant push for mass indoctrination – don’t cream afterwards “They are destroying my beloved franchise!”

RELATED POSTS:
The inevitable outcome of politically correct thinking in politics

Thousands March to Save the Internet from EU Censorship Regulations

Leaked Documents Reveal Facebook’s Biased, Convoluted Censorship Policies

Is Google Becoming Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth?

Project Veritas Releases Email Leaked By Google Mole Approving Censorship Of Conservative Writers

Facebook Steps Up Censorship, Bans Populist News Sites

Digital Gangsters

The End Of The Social Justice Warriors

March 7, 2019
After the discrediting of the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), whose failing was that their interest in promoting ‘fairness and equality’ only extended to groups they thought of as victimised minorities and so was really nothing more than the virtue signalling of a self – righteous group, we now have the anti – SJW movement.
This is one of the topics I and my colleagues would like to cover if only we had time to opine on all things worthy of comment. For now I’ll share for readers of this blog, a question I saw on Quora, along with a very good answer, and an even better reponse, adding further criticism of liberal hypocrisy to that answer …

Nothing Can Stop Google. DuckDuckGo Is Trying Anyway.

January 16, 2019

Extract from: Nothing Can Stop Google, Duck Duck Go Is Trying Anyway on Medium.com

The excerpt is longer than ‘fair use’ normally permits, but if it helps people to understand there are alternatives out there to the increasingly evil search service provided by Google, the author will not mind too much.

All photos: Monique Jaques

2019 may finally be the year for ‘The Search Engine That Doesn’t Track You’

In late November, hotel conglomerate Marriott International disclosed that the personal information of some 500 million customers — including home addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers — had been exposed as part of a data breach affecting its Starwood Hotels and Resorts network. One day earlier, the venerable breakfast chain Dunkin’ (née Donuts) announced that its rewards program had been compromised. Only two weeks before that, it was revealed that a major two-factor authentication provider had exposed millions of temporary account passwords and reset links for Google, Amazon, HQ Trivia, Yahoo, and Microsoft users.

These were just the icing on the cake for a year of compromised data: Adidas, Orbitz, Macy’s, Under Armour, Sears, Forever 21, Whole Foods, Ticketfly, Delta, Panera Bread, and Best Buy, just to name a few, were all affected by security breaches.

Meanwhile, there’s a growing sense that the tech giants have finally turned on their users. Amazon dominates so many facets of the online shopping experience that legislators mayhave to rewrite antitrust law to rein them in. Google has been playing fast and loose with its “Don’t Be Evil” mantra by almost launching a censored search engine for the Chinese government while simultaneously developing killer A.I. for Pentagon drones. And we now know that Facebook collected people’s personal data without their consent, let companies such as Spotify and Netflix look at users’ private messages, fueled fake news and Donald Trump, and was used to facilitate a genocide in Myanmar.

The backlash against these companies dominated our national discourse in 2018. The European Union is cracking down on anticompetitive practices at Amazon and Google. Both Facebook and Twitter have had their turns in the congressional hot seat, facing questions from slightly confused but definitely irate lawmakers about how the two companies choose what information to show us and what they do with our data when we’re not looking. Worries over privacy have led everyone from the New York Times to Brian Acton, the disgruntled co-founder of Facebook-owned WhatsApp, to call for a Facebook exodus. And judging by Facebook’s stagnating rate of user growth, people seem to be listening.

For Gabriel Weinberg, the founder and CEO of privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo, our growing tech skepticism recalls the early 1900s, when Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle revealed the previously unexamined horrors of the meatpacking industry. “Industries have historically gone through periods of almost ignorant bliss, and then people start to expose how the sausage is being made,” he says.

Gabriel Weinberg, DuckDuckGo CEO and Founder

This, in a nutshell, is DuckDuckGo’s proposition: “The big tech companies are taking advantage of you by selling your data. We won’t.” In effect, it’s an anti-sales sales pitch. DuckDuckGo is perhaps the most prominent in a number of small but rapidly growing firms attempting to make it big — or at least sustainable — by putting their customers’ privacy and security first. And unlike the previous generation of privacy products, such as Tor or SecureDrop, these services are easy to use and intuitive, and their user bases aren’t exclusively composed of political activists, security researchers, and paranoiacs. The same day Weinberg and I spoke, DuckDuckGo’s search engine returned results for 33,626,258 queries — a new daily record for the company. Weinberg estimates that since 2014, DuckDuckGo’s traffic has been increasing at a rate of “about 50 percent a year,” a claim backed up by the company’s publicly available traffic data.

Just before DuckDuckGo’s entrance sits a welcome mat that reads, “COME BACK WITH A WARRANT.”

<!–

“You can run a profitable company — which we are — without [using] a surveillance business model,” Weinberg says. If he’s right, DuckDuckGo stands to capitalize handsomely off our collective backlash against the giants of the web economy …

READ ALL >>>

2019 may finally be the year for ‘The Search Engine That Doesn’t Track You’

All photos: Monique Jaques

In late November, hotel conglomerate Marriott International disclosed that the personal information of some 500 million customers — including home addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers — had been exposed as part of a data breach affecting its Starwood Hotels and Resorts network. One day earlier, the venerable breakfast chain Dunkin’ (née Donuts) announced that its rewards program had been compromised. Only two weeks before that, it was revealed that a major two-factor authentication provider had exposed millions of temporary account passwords and reset links for Google, Amazon, HQ Trivia, Yahoo, and Microsoft users.

These were just the icing on the cake for a year of compromised data: Adidas, Orbitz, Macy’s, Under Armour, Sears, Forever 21, Whole Foods, Ticketfly, Delta, Panera Bread, and Best Buy, just to name a few, were all affected by security breaches.

Meanwhile, there’s a growing sense that the tech giants have finally turned on their users. Amazon dominates so many facets of the online shopping experience that legislators mayhave to rewrite antitrust law to rein them in. Google has been playing fast and loose with its “Don’t Be Evil” mantra by almost launching a censored search engine for the Chinese government while simultaneously developing killer A.I. for Pentagon drones. And we now know that Facebook collected people’s personal data without their consent, let companies such as Spotify and Netflix look at users’ private messages, fueled fake news and Donald Trump, and was used to facilitate a genocide in Myanmar.

The backlash against these companies dominated our national discourse in 2018. The European Union is cracking down on anticompetitive practices at Amazon and Google. Both Facebook and Twitter have had their turns in the congressional hot seat, facing questions from slightly confused but definitely irate lawmakers about how the two companies choose what information to show us and what they do with our data when we’re not looking. Worries over privacy have led everyone from the New York Times to Brian Acton, the disgruntled co-founder of Facebook-owned WhatsApp, to call for a Facebook exodus. And judging by Facebook’s stagnating rate of user growth, people seem to be listening.

For Gabriel Weinberg, the founder and CEO of privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo, our growing tech skepticism recalls the early 1900s, when Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle revealed the previously unexamined horrors of the meatpacking industry. “Industries have historically gone through periods of almost ignorant bliss, and then people start to expose how the sausage is being made,” he says.

Gabriel Weinberg, DuckDuckGo CEO and Founder

This, in a nutshell, is DuckDuckGo’s proposition: “The big tech companies are taking advantage of you by selling your data. We won’t.” In effect, it’s an anti-sales sales pitch. DuckDuckGo is perhaps the most prominent in a number of small but rapidly growing firms attempting to make it big — or at least sustainable — by putting their customers’ privacy and security first. And unlike the previous generation of privacy products, such as Tor or SecureDrop, these services are easy to use and intuitive, and their user bases aren’t exclusively composed of political activists, security researchers, and paranoiacs. The same day Weinberg and I spoke, DuckDuckGo’s search engine returned results for 33,626,258 queries — a new daily record for the company. Weinberg estimates that since 2014, DuckDuckGo’s traffic has been increasing at a rate of “about 50 percent a year,” a claim backed up by the company’s publicly available traffic data.

Just before DuckDuckGo’s entrance sits a welcome mat that reads, “COME BACK WITH A WARRANT.”

“You can run a profitable company — which we are — without [using] a surveillance business model,” Weinberg says. If he’s right, DuckDuckGo stands to capitalize handsomely off our collective backlash against the giants of the web economy and establish a prominent brand in the coming era of data privacy. If he’s wrong, his company looks more like a last dying gasp before surveillance capitalism finally takes over the world.


DuckDuckGo is based just east of nowhere. Not in the Bay Area, or New York, or Weinberg’s hometown of Atlanta, or in Boston, where he and his wife met while attending MIT. Instead, DuckDuckGo headquarters is set along a side street just off the main drag of Paoli, Pennsylvania, in a building that looks like a cross between a Pennsylvania Dutch house and a modest Catholic church, on the second floor above a laser eye surgery center. Stained-glass windows look out onto the street, and a small statue of an angel hangs precariously off the roof. On the second floor, a door leading out to a balcony is framed by a pair of friendly looking cartoon ducks, one of which wears an eye patch. Just before DuckDuckGo’s entrance sits a welcome mat that reads “COME BACK WITH A WARRANT.”

“People don’t generally show up at our doorstep, but I hope that at some point it’ll be useful,” Weinberg tells me, sitting on a couch a few feet from an Aqua Teen Hunger Force mural that takes up a quarter of a wall. At 39, he is energetic, affable, and generally much more at ease with himself than the stereotypical tech CEO. The office around us looks like it was furnished by the set designer of Ready Player One: a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy print in the entryway, Japanese-style panels depicting the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the bathroom, and a vintage-looking RoboCop pinball machine in the break room. There’s even a Lego model of the DeLorean from Back to the Future on his desk. The furniture, Weinberg tells me, is mostly from Ikea. The lamp in the communal area is a hand-me-down from his mom.

Weinberg learned basic programming on an Atari while he was still in elementary school. Before hitting puberty, he’d built an early internet bulletin board. “It didn’t really have a purpose” in the beginning, Weinberg says. The one feature that made his bulletin board unique, he says, was that he hosted anonymous AMA-style question panels with his father, an infectious disease doctor with substantial experience treating AIDS patients. This was during the early 1990s, when the stigma surrounding HIV and AIDS remained so great that doctors were known to deny treatment to those suffering from it. Weinberg says that the free—and private—medical advice made the board a valuable resource for the small number of people who found it. It was an early instance of Weinberg’s interest in facilitating access to information, as well as a cogent example of the power of online privacy: “The ability to access informational resources anonymously actually opens up that access significantly,” he told me over email.

After graduating from MIT in 2001, Weinberg launched a slew of businesses, none of which are particularly memorable. First there was an educational software program called Learnection. (“Terrible name… the idea was good, but 15 years too early,” he says.) Then he co-founded an early social networking company called Opobox, taking on no employees and writing all the code himself. “Facebook just kind of obliterated it,” Weinberg says, though he was able to sell the network to the parent company of Classmates.com for roughly $10 million in cash in 2006.

It was around that time when Weinberg began working on what would become DuckDuckGo. Google had yet to achieve total hegemony over the internet search field, and Weinberg felt that he could create a browser plugin that might help eliminate the scourge of spammy search results in other search engines.

Weinberg bought a billboard in San Francisco that proudly proclaimed, “Google tracks you. We don’t.” The stunt paid off in spades, doubling DuckDuckGo’s daily search traffic.

To build an algorithm that weeded out bad search results, he first had to do it by hand. “I took a large sample of different pages and hand-marked them as ‘spam’ or ‘not spam.’” The process of scraping the web, Weinberg says, inadvertently earned him a visit from the FBI. “Once they realized I was just crawling the web, they just went away,” he says. He also experimented with creating a proto-Quora service that allowed anyone to pose a question and have it answered by someone else, as well as a free alternative to Meetup.com. Eventually, he combined facets of all three efforts into a full-on search engine.

When Weinberg first launched DuckDuckGo in 2008 — the name is a wink to the children’s game of skipping over the wrong options to get to the right one — he differentiated his search engine by offering instant answers to basic questions (essentially an early open-source version of Google’s Answer Box), spam filtering, and highly customizable search results based on user preferences. “Those [were] things that early adopters kind of appreciated,” he says.

At the time, Weinberg says, consumer privacy was not a central concern. In 2009, when he made the decision to stop collecting personal search data, it was more a matter of practicality than a principled decision about civil liberties. Instead of storing troves of data on every user and targeting those users individually, DuckDuckGo would simply sell ads against search keywords. Most of DuckDuckGo’s revenue, he explains, is still generated this way. The system doesn’t capitalize on targeted ads, but, Weinberg says, “I think there’s a choice between squeezing out every ounce of profit and making ethical decisions that aren’t at the expense of society.”

Until 2011, Weinberg was DuckDuckGo’s sole full-time employee. That year, he pushed to expand the company. He bought a billboard in Google’s backyard of San Francisco that proudly proclaimed, “Google tracks you. We don’t.” (That defiant gesture and others like it were later parodied on HBO’s Silicon Valley.) The stunt paid off in spades, doubling DuckDuckGo’s daily search traffic. Weinberg began courting VC investors, eventually selling a minority stake in the company to Union Square Ventures, the firm that has also backed SoundCloud, Coinbase, Kickstarter, and Stripe. That fall, he hired his first full-time employee, and DuckDuckGo moved out of Weinberg’s house and into the strangest-looking office in all of Paoli, Pennsylvania.

Then, in 2013, digital privacy became front-page news. That year, NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked a series of documents to the Guardian and the Washington Post revealing the existence of the NSA’s PRISM program, which granted the agency unfettered access to the personal data of millions of Americans through a secret back door into the servers of Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, and other major internet firms. Though Google denied any knowledge of the program, the reputational damage had been done. DuckDuckGo rode a wave of press coverage, enjoying placement in stories that offered data privacy solutions to millions of newly freaked-out people worried that the government was spying on them.

“All of a sudden we were part of this international story,” Weinberg says. The next year, DuckDuckGo turned a profit. Shortly thereafter, Weinberg finally started paying himself a salary.


Today, DuckDuckGo employs 55 people, most of whom work remotely from around the world. (On the day I visited, there were maybe five employees in the Paoli office, plus one dog.) This year, the company went through its second funding round of VC funding, accepting a $10 million investment from Canadian firm OMERS. Weinberg insists that both OMERS and Union Square Ventures are “deeply interested in privacy and restoring power to the non-monopoly providers.” Later, via email, Weinberg declined to share DuckDuckGo’s exact revenue, beyond the fact that its 2018 gross revenue exceeded $25 million, a figure the company has chosen to disclose in order to stress that it is subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act. Weinberg feels that the company’s main challenge these days is improving brand recognition.

“I don’t think there’s many trustworthy entities on the internet, just straight-up,” he says. “Ads follow people around. Most people have gotten multiple data breaches. Most people know somebody who’s had some kind of identity theft issue. The percentage of people who’ve had those events happen to them has just grown and grown.”

The recent investment from OMERS has helped cover the cost of DuckDuckGo’s new app, launched in January 2018. The app, a lightweight mobile web browser for iOS and Android that’s also available as a Chrome plugin, is built around the DuckDuckGo search engine. It gives each site you visit a letter grade based on its privacy practices and has an option to let you know which web trackers — usually ones from Google, Facebook, or Comscore — it blocked from monitoring your browsing activity. After you’ve finished surfing, you can press a little flame icon and an oddly satisfying animated fire engulfs your screen, indicating that you’ve deleted your tabs and cleared your search history.

The rest of the recent investment, Weinberg says, has been spent on “trying to explain to people in the world that [DuckDuckGo] exists.” He continues, “That’s our main issue — the vast majority of people don’t realize there’s a simple solution to reduce their [online] footprint.” To that end, DuckDuckGo maintains an in-house consumer advocacy blog called Spread Privacy, offering helpful tips on how to protect yourself online as well as commentary and analysis on the state of online surveillance. Its most recent initiative was a study on how filter bubbles — the term for how a site like Google uses our data to show us what it thinks we want — can shape the political news we consume.

Brand recognition is a challenge for a lot of startups offering privacy-focused digital services. After all, the competition includes some of the biggest and most prominent companies in the world: Google, Apple, Facebook. And in some ways, this is an entire new sector of the market. “Privacy has traditionally not been a product; it’s been more like a set of best practices,” says David Temkin, chief product officer for the Brave web browser. “Imagine turning that set of best practices into a product. That’s kind of where we’re going.”

Like DuckDuckGo — whose search engine Brave incorporates into its private browsing mode — Brave doesn’t collect user data and blocks ads and web trackers by default. In 2018, Brave’s user base exploded from 1 million to 5.5 million, and the company reached a deal with HTC to be the default browser on the manufacturer’s upcoming Exodus smartphone.

Google knows that I’m in Durham, North Carolina. As far as DuckDuckGo is concerned, I may as well be on the moon

Temkin, who first moved out to the Bay Area in the early ’90s to work at Apple, says that the past two decades of consolidation under Google/Facebook/Netflix/Apple/Amazon have radically upended the notion of the internet as a safe haven for the individual. “It’s swung back to a very centralized model,” he says. “The digital advertising landscape has turned into a surveillance ecosystem. The way to optimize the value of advertising is through better targeting and better data collection. And, well, water goes downhill.”

In companies such as Brave and DuckDuckGo, Temkin sees a return to the more conscientious attitude behind early personal computing. “I think to an ordinary user, [privacy] is starting to sound like something they do need to care about,” he says.

But to succeed, these companies will have to make privacy as accessible and simple as possible. “Privacy’s not gonna win if it’s a specialist tool that requires an expert to wield,” Temkin says. “What we’re doing is trying to package [those practices] in a way that’s empathetic and respectful to the user but doesn’t impose the requirement for knowledge or the regular ongoing annoyance that might go with maintaining privacy on your own.”


In November, I decided to switch my personal search querying to DuckDuckGo in order to see whether it was a feasible solution to my online surveillance woes. Physically making the switch is relatively seamless. The search engine is already an optional default in browsers such as Safari, Microsoft Edge, and Firefox, as well as more niche browsers such as Brave and Tor, the latter of which made DuckDuckGo its default search in 2016.

Actually using the service, though, can be slightly disorienting. I use Google on a daily basis for one simple reason: It’s easy. When I need to find something online, it knows what to look for. To boot, it gives me free email, which is connected to the free word processor that my editor and I are using to work on this article together in real time. It knows me. It’s only when I consider the implications of handing over a digital record of my life to a massive company that the sense of free-floating dread about digital surveillance kicks in. Otherwise, it’s great. And that’s the exact hurdle DuckDuckGo is trying to convince people to clear.

Using DuckDuckGo can feel like relearning to walk after you’ve spent a decade flying. On Google, a search for, say, “vape shop” yields a map of vape shops in my area. On DuckDuckGo, that same search returns a list of online vaporizer retailers. The difference, of course, is the data: Google knows that I’m in Durham, North Carolina. As far as DuckDuckGo is concerned, I may as well be on the moon.

That’s not to say using DuckDuckGo is all bad. For one, it can feel mildly revelatory knowing that you’re seeing the same search results that anyone else would. It restores a sense of objectivity to the internet at a time when being online can feel like stepping into The Truman Show — a world created to serve and revolve around you. And I was able to look up stuff I wanted to know about — how to open a vacuum-sealed mattress I’d bought off the internet, the origin of the martingale dog collar, the latest insane thing Donald Trump did — all without the possibility of my search history coming back to haunt me in the form of ads for bedding, dog leashes, or anti-Trump knickknacks. Without personalized results, DuckDuckGo just needs to know what most people are looking for when they type in search terms and serve against that. And most of the time, we fit the profile of most people.

When I asked Weinberg if he wanted to displace Google as the top search engine in all the land, he demurred. “I mean, I wouldn’t be opposed to it,” he says, “but it’s really not our intention, and I don’t expect that to happen.” Instead, he’d like to see DuckDuckGo as a “second option” to Google for people who are interested in maintaining their online anonymity. “Even if you don’t have anything to hide, it doesn’t mean you want people to profit off your information or be manipulated or biased against as a result [of that information],” he says.

Even though DuckDuckGo may serve a different market and never even challenge Google head-on, the search giant remains its largest hurdle in the long term. For more than a decade, Google has been synonymous with search. And that association is hard, if not impossible, to break.

In the meantime, the two companies are on frosty terms. In 2010, Google obtained the domain duck.com as part of a larger business deal in a company formerly known as Duck Co. For years, the domain would redirect to Google’s search page, despite seeming like something you’d type into your browser while trying to get to DuckDuckGo. After DuckDuckGo petitioned for ownership for nearly a decade, Google finally handed over the domain in December. The acquisition was a minor branding coup for DuckDuckGo — and a potential hedge against accusations of antitrust for Google.

That doesn’t mean relations between the two companies have improved. As the Goliath in the room, Google could attempt to undercut DuckDuckGo’s entire business proposition. Over the past few years, even mainstream players have attempted to assuage our privacy anxieties by offering VPNs (Verizon), hosting “privacy pop-ups” (Facebook), and using their billions to fight against state surveillance in court (Microsoft). With some tweaks, Google could essentially copy DuckDuckGo wholesale and create its own privacy-focused search engine with many of the same protections DuckDuckGo has built its business on. As to whether people would actually believe that Google, a company that muscled its way into becoming an integral part of the online infrastructure by selling people’s data, could suddenly transform into a guardian of that data remains to be seen.

When it comes to the internet, trust is something easily lost and difficult to regain. In a sense, every time a giant of the internet surveillance economy is revealed to have sold out its customers in some innovatively horrifying way, the ensuing chaos almost serves as free advertising for DuckDuckGo. “The world keeps going in a bad direction, and it makes people think, ‘Hey, I would like to escape some of the bad stuff on the internet and go to a safer place,’” Weinberg says. “And that’s where we see ourselves.”

–>

Stalin was as bad as Hitler – so why do the hard Left still defend his ideas?

November 30, 2018

I’ve asked this question many times, when I have seen leftists denying that Hitler and his Nazis were socialists. I even had an exchange with someone who (verifiably,) claimed to be a university professor, who told me I was an idiot for trying to pretend there were similarities between Hitler’s regime and Stalin’s. “Stalin was a communist, Hitler was a fascist, he informed me from the lofty heights of his ivory tower.

“But fascism is not a political philosophy, I pointed out, it is an authoritarian system of government in which ‘the state’ is supreme, and no sane person would argue that the soviet state was not supreme in all matters.

Then I stuck the boot in. “If you are saying the Nazis were not authoritarian, pleasse cite academic history texts which support you case. And also address these points: Hitler persecuted Jews, Stalin persecuted Jews; Hitler persecuted gypsies, Stalin persecuted gypsies; Hitler executed mentally and physically disabled people, Stalin executed mentally and physically disabled people; Hitler executed political opponents, Stalin executed political opponents … and I continued at some length.

his reply was a rather pathetic assertion that Stalin had done all those things in the name of socialism which justified the actions, while Hitler’s motivation was fascism which is evil.

I pointed out that to my mind and the minds of most people I know, killing or torturing human being because you do not like their skin colour, religion, political position, race or the fact that they do not conform to the norms of society can never be justified. I didn’t hear from him again.

It’s good to see now that people are starting to take the same approach to demouncing the hypocrisy of the left.

Book Review:
The Kremlin Letters (ed David Reynolds & Vladimir Pechatnov)
reviewed by Simon Heffer for The Daily Telegraph

    extract:

One gets a fair insight into the relationship between Winston Churchill and “Uncle Joe” Stalin, the mass murderer with whom he found himself in alliance against Hitler, from this remark the British prime minister made to George VI’s private secretary in February 1944: “If my shirt were taken off now, it would be seen that my belly is sore from crawling to that man. I do it for the good of the country, and for no other reason.”

It is lucky that Churchill had a sense of humour, or he might have found it impossible to cope with the ironies of the situation in which he found himself after the Wehrmacht made its ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. A quarter of a century earlier, when he was secretary of state for war in Lloyd George’s coalition government, he had sought to “strangle at birth” the Bolshevik state. Now, in the existentialist crisis of the Second World War, he was forced to address Stalin not just as an ally, but as his “friend”. He had to send the dictator warm wishes on his birthday, and congratulations on the anniversary of the foundation of the Red Army.

Yet, as his “crawling” remark shows, he was under no illusions. Even had Churchill survived in power after July 1945, the relationship was never going to last, once Russia had resumed its savage, anti-democratic destiny. When the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa, Churchill remarked that “if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”.

Read all >>>

Freedom Of Thought And Information: Quotes.

March 22, 2017

If the ruling elites want to establish global control they need to be able to control all information the general population have access to. The idea of controlling information in order to limit the ability to think and develop ideas served Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and many other dictators well but was completely exposed by George Orwell in the novel ‘1984’.

In recent decades the technique for controlling thoughts and ideas has been more subtle, but that has not prevented many commentators higlighting what is going on.

“If those in charge of our society – politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television – can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.” — Howard Zinn, historian and author

“The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity” – much less dissent. Gore Vidal

“Understand that all battles are waged on an unconscious level before they are begun on the conscious one, and this battle is no different. The power structure wishes us to believe that the only options available are those which they present to us, we know this is simply not true.” – Teresa Stover

“People in the West need to understand that if the news they receive bears on the interests of the US military/security complex, the news is scripted by the CIA. The CIA serves its interests, not the interests of the American people or the interests of peace.” – Paul Craig Roberts

In the years the USA could claim with some credibility to be the only global superpower, the elites managed to gain control of print and broadcast media throughout the developed world. Unfortunately the technology developed as a tool to to enhance the ability of the elite to control information while maintaining the illusion of freedom, The Internet, backfired on them. The General public forever despised by intellectuals and derided by the elite and the media proved to be a lot more intelligent and adaptable than ‘the controllers’ suspected.

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

How Trump Has Rewritten The Rules – Tim Montgomerie

January 22, 2017

Tim Montgomerie is a British journalis and blogger best known outside the news industry and politics for founding the Conservative Home blog. In spire of what some people may choose to believe, this blog is not run by conservatives (we’re not Labour supporters either) but we want to share an excellent article from Mr. Montgomerie which puts the Trump phenemenon in perspective vis – a – vis globalism and the rampant authoritarianism of the ‘left’.

How Trump has rewritten the political rules

By

Tim Montgomerie spent much of the past year in the United States covering one of the most extraordinary presidential elections in history. This is the second in a three-part series, summarising what he learned. (The first part can be found here.)

The weaknesses of the mainstream American media have reached a critical, democracy-endangering stage

The mainstream media plays a vital role in democracy. It educates the public about what politicians are doing (and not doing). And almost as importantly, it educates politicians about what is happening in the country they seek to serve, and what they might be missing.

But for year after year, in this age of hugely disruptive internet-based competition, the mainstream media – especially what online insurgents call the “dead tree press” – has been in a fight for its economic survival. Newsrooms have shrunk as reporters have been fired to cut costs, and it’s often the higher-paid and more experienced reporters who get dropped first. Some of the best journalism has become hidden behind paywalls.

At the same time, the tendency of media organisations based in New York and Los Angeles – both bastions of liberal leftism – to employ like-minded people has accelerated. Hard data about the ideological composition of newsrooms is difficult to come by, but research during the recent campaign by the Center for Public Integrity found that 96 per cent of political donations by journalists were to the Clinton campaign.

The executive editor of The New York Times recently admitted that “we don’t get religion”. Not getting religion in one of the most religious nations on earth is not a minor journalistic failing. And what about not getting people with guns, or people who work in coalmining, or veterans who’ve served in the military?

Some newsrooms have been so busy recruiting more women and ethnic minorities – very correctly – that they have forgotten other forms of diversity which ensure that groupthink doesn’t compromise editorial decisions. The result is the equivalent, if we were to put it into a British context, of an editorial conference full of Remainers: they can try their best to reflect the views of the rest of the nation, but it won’t be easy or complete. On top of which, such journalists often choose to think the worst of people they don’t naturally agree with, or even mix with. This is one reason why wanting your country to govern itself – the dominant motivation of Leavers in the UK – is regularly and disproportionately portrayed as racist or xenophobic.

These two key trends, of tough revenue models and ideologically monochrome newsrooms, have reached a point in America (and the London-based media may not be so very far behind) where the press can’t afford to do its work of reporting the nation – a nation which it doesn’t even know half of as well as it should.

An environment is created where large numbers of voters stop trusting the media and choose instead to read fringe alternatives: the Age of Breitbart.

 ‘Liar, liar, liar’ turns into ‘Yawn, yawn, yawn’

One of my favourite moments during the confirmation hearings now taking place on Capitol Hill (and I know I shouldn’t laugh) was when Rex Tillerson, the ex-Exxon chief, friend of Vlad-the-Bad and nominee for Secretary of State, was asked by one Senator about lobbying against sanctions on Russia by the company he ran until very recently.

Tillerson, wearing a face as straight as a pipeline, replied by saying that he had not been aware of any lobbying. Er, said Senator Corker, the foreign affairs committee chairman, I remember you lobbying me at the time. Read more >>>

RELATED POSTS:
Obama‘s Legacy
Deep State In Trouble
How Elites exempt themselves from ideologically driven agendas
Racist professor calls for white genocide
The President Who Was Not Present
US Democrats Can Protest All They Want, here’s Why They lost

America Is Lost: Rigged election, Rigged Media, Rigged Candidate says Assange

The Unreported Scandals Of The Obama Administration

Obama’s Farewell – The World Breathes A Sigh Of Relief

Obama and The End Of Utopia

While We Have Been Distracted By Trump Hysteria, Obama Has Been Easing The West Towards War With Russia

Europe Rejects Obama Doctrine – US Exceptionalism Is Not Acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

Germany’s Der Spiegel Say Political Correctness Has backfired On America

January 6, 2017

from Der Spiegel International

It’s a Friday afternoon in Oberlin, Ohio, around one month before the country heads to the polls to elect Donald Trump as its next president. The final classes and lectures of the week have just ended, and a young woman comes walking by in bare feet with a hula hoop gyrating around her waist while others are performing what seems to be a rhythmic dance to the African music that’s playing. Two black students are rapping.

It’s the kind of scene that could easily play out on a beach full of backpack tourists, but this is unfolding at one of the country’s most expensive universities.

Many female students here have dyed their hair green or blue, they have piercings and their fashion sense seems inspired by “Girls” creator and millennial star Lena Dunham, who, of course, also studied here.

In such a setting, it seems almost inconceivable that this country could go on to elect Donald Trump as its president only a few weeks later. Yet pro-Trump country is just a few miles away. Oberlin is located in Ohio, one of the swing states that made Trump’s election possible. Drive five miles down College Road toward town, and you start seeing blue “Trump Pence 2016” signs on people’s lawns.

Places like Oberlin are the breeding grounds of the leftist elite Trump’s people spoke so disparagingly of during the election campaign.

Only a few months earlier, a handful of students claimed they had been traumatized after someone used chalk to scrawl “Trump 2016” on the walls of buildings and on sidewalks at Oberlin and at other liberal universities. It triggered protests on some campuses, with students demanding “safe space” where they would be spared from hearing or seeing the name of this “fascist, racist candidate.”

In the months prior to the election, “safe spaces” had been one of the most widely discussed terms at Oberlin. The concept has its roots in feminism and describes a physically and intellectually sheltered space that protects one from potentially insulting, injurious or traumatizing ideas or comments — a place, in short, that protects one from the world. When conservative philosopher and feminism critic Christina Hoff Sommers was scheduled to give a speech at Oberlin last year, some students did not approve and claimed that Sommer’s views on feminism represented “microaggressions.”

When Sommers appeared anyway, leading some Oberlin students to create a “safe space” during the speech where, as one professor reported, “New Age music” was played to calm their nerves and ease their trauma. They could also “get massages and console themselves with stuffed animals.”

Read more >>>

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

America Is Lost: Rigged election, Rigged Media, Rigged Candidate says Assange

October 21, 2016

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of Julian Assange’s death were greatly exaggerated. After his web feed was cut by staff at the Ecuadorian Embassy earlier this week Assange’s usual stream of tweets, leaks and posts was stilled. The web, being the web, went mad with conspiracy theories but Wikileaks themselves did not comment on the wilder speculation.

Well Julian is back on Hilary’s case, and this time it’s more personal than ever.

After consistently leaking damaging internal information from both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign on an almost daily basis for months, much of which provides evidence of criminal behavior sufficient to trigger a police investigation were anybody but a member of the Washington ‘liberal’ (née neocon) elite the chief suspect, but seemingly has no impact on the Mrs Clinton’s ratings in the polls, Julian Assange has concluded that “There is no US election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary,
rigged media and rigged ‘pied piper’ candidate drive consolidation.

Another way of looking at it is that Mrs. Clinton’s continued involvement in the election race shows that to her supporters the fact that Hillary Clinton has a vagina (allegedly) is more important that evidence of her many crimes ranging from high treason to cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination, this blog can’t understand why the candidate’s genitals should be a factor in the election. After all, in every election from 1988, Americans have voted to put a cunt in The White House.

It is difficult to disagree with Assange’s assessment (or ours for that matter).  That an establishment candidate, the ultimate Washington insider, running for The Democratic Party which claims it supports poor people and minorities, can still be in the race after an extended FBI investigation into a security scandal involving handling classified material on an unsecured private network that concluded multiple federal laws were clearly and intentionally broken by Mrs Clinton and her staff,  and clear evidence that the decision not to prosecute was influenced by the intervention of President Barack Hussein Obama in what amounted to a gross abuse of power, is astounding. Equally astounding is that evidence of  collusion between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary has not warranted an investigation.  Throw in evidence from WikiLeaks clearly linking the DNC to criminal efforts to incite violence at rallies, electoral fraud during the Democratic Party primaries, contravention of electoral rules in accepting donations from foreign governments, blatant media collusion, etc, etc, and it actually becomes clear that The Obama Administration and the Democratic party (heavily influenced by the Clinton’s have introduced levels of corruption normally found in third world failed states into the political system of the USA.

And, while no amount of corruption or scandal seems to sway an American electorate that is intent upon throwing the country off a cliff, Assange has promised a “surprise” for Tim Kaine and the Democrats’ “persecuted christian woman”, Donna Brazile who assumed the role of chair of the Democratic National Committee (as a thanks for helping Hillary stab Bernie Sanders in the back?) after her predecessor was made the patsy for Hillary’s email treason.Let’s hope that finally wakes up mainstream media to tell the truth about the election being rigged in favour of the Wall Street / Corporate / Military – Industrial complex candidate.

The real irony is that Hillary Clinton represents all of that which the ‘liberals’ of the ‘progressive left’ claim they hate most, yet still they support her because her vagina blinds them to the (not fit for purpose) quality of her character, just as eight years ago the colour of Obama’s skin blinded mostly the same people to the fact that he was a plant who in office would be a neocon puppet.

 

RELATED POSTS:

FBI Drops Hints They Are Ready to INDICT Hillary Clinton
Sources close to the FBI investigation into Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s offences relating to national security when she was Secretary of State say the Feds are ready to indict the frontrunner in the nomination process on charges relating to classified information.

The Video That Ought To spell The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
The case is human beings are easily manipulated and a propaganda campaign consisting of a toxic mix of lies and scaremongering has frightened the weak of will, the apologies for human beings who rather than face life as a great adventure instead desire instead to cringe behind the apron of Nanny State.

The Business of War: Defense Sales Keep Economies Of Manufacturing Nations Afloat
Tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced due to ‘humanitarian’ interventions by the developed nations (led by the USA, France and the UKm the FUKUS axis) in the domestic politics of third world nation. Usually the interventions support rebel groups who if they came to power would be far more oppressive and brutal regime than the one they replaced.

War Is Good, The Obama Worshipping Guardian Says
Alas that all went down the pan in 2008 when the USA elected its first (and probably last) black president. Like American liberals, the hacks at The Guardian could not see past the colour of Obama’s skin and before Obama had even been sworn into office they were declaring him not just the greatest president ever but the greatest human being ever

New Hampshire Primary:Sanders and Trump Victory For Vox Populi
Today in New Hampshire where both US political parties have a proper ‘primary’ election as opposed to a caucus a system that apparently chooses candidates by tossing coins, drawing lots, cutting cards or maybe in extreme cases, making the candidates have a fight, it was a different …

New Poll Shows Clinton, Sanders Tied As Hillary’s Lead Crumbles
A new opinion poll from Quinnnipac University shows Hillary Clinton’s lead in the contest to become the Democratic Party Presidential nomineee has almost completely evaporated. From a lead of around thirty points in early December, the numbers are now 44% Clinton, 42% Sanders, which is such a narrow gap the only two contenders left in the race are in a statistical tie.

At Both Ends Of The Political Spectrum Americans Agree The Government Is FUBAR
For the Democrats there is, on the left a socialist, selling a political philosophy that has peviously been anatemas to American voters, yet generating the most enthusiasm of any of the other candidates. On the other end of the spectrum, Republican voters are gravitating, nay stampeding, toward Donald Trump. The only serious rival to Trump is Ted Cruz although it is early days yet and we can expect a compromise candidate to emerge

The Video That Ought To spell The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
The case is human beings are easily manipulated and a propaganda campaign consisting of a toxic mix of lies and scaremongering has frightened the weak of will, the apologies for human beings who rather than face life as a great adventure instead desire instead to cringe behind the apron of Nanny State.

The Business of War: Defense Sales Keep Economies Of Manufacturing Nations Afloat
Tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced due to ‘humanitarian’ interventions by the developed nations (led by the USA, France and the UKm the FUKUS axis) in the domestic politics of third world nation. Usually the interventions support rebel groups who if they came to power would be far more oppressive and brutal regime than the one they replaced.

War Is Good, The Obama Worshipping Guardian Says
Alas that all went down the pan in 2008 when the USA elected its first (and probably last) black president. Like American liberals, the hacks at The Guardian could not see past the colour of Obama’s skin and before Obama had even been sworn into office they were declaring him not just the greatest president ever but the greatest human being ever

At Both Ends Of The Political Spectrum Americans Agree The Government Is FUBAR
For the Democrats there is, on the left a socialist, selling a political philosophy that has peviously been anatemas to American voters, yet generating the most enthusiasm of any of the other candidates. On the other end of the spectrum, Republican voters are gravitating, nay stampeding, toward Donald Trump. The only serious rival to Trump is Ted Cruz although it is early days yet and we can expect a compromise candidate to emerge

Trump, Sanders: The Anti-Globalists
While most candidates for the US Presidency are political hacks guaranteed to follow the party line, the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump reflects how angry American voters are with the ruling elite, and how dangerous a situation the USA is in

Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
We’ve been chronicling the downfall of Hillary Clinton, from her seemingly unassailable position as the anointed successor to Barack Obama, whose path to first the Democratic Party nomination and then the Presidency itself had been carefully planned and all obstacles removed. The fixers and deal makers had reckoned without two factors however, Bernie Sanders and Mrs. Clinton’s poor image with voters, a result of her spoiled little rich girl arrogance and the incompetence she showed in office as Secretary of State.

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator