Tag: wrongthink

The Legacy Media’s Long Knives Are Out for Nick Shirley

You knew this would happen. An independent journalist scoops the legacy media, and they go after him. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. Nick Shirley has made CNNCBSABCNBCNYT and all of the other leftist media look bad, and now they will try to make sure he pays.

Our own Eric Florack captured the essence of what Shirley accomplished just a few days ago: 

This is most likely the single biggest story ever covered by an independent journalist. In one video alone, Nick Shirley has exposed over $100 million in fraud. I suspect he’s merely scratched the surface on the story.
 
Keep in mind, this is right in the backyard of the big paper in Minneapolis, the Minnesota Star Tribune, a paper with far more in the way of resources to lean on than Mr. Shirley could ever hope to field. They can’t be bothered. Or perhaps they’re shielding us from something. As you can imagine (and I suspect some viewers can see) the video has had over 100 million views so far. You can imagine why. Nobody, including the Tribune, is covering the story well enough.

Eric is right. The legacy media couldn’t be bothered, that is, until Shirley’s discoveries spurred on more investigations in Minnesota and elsewhere, and a pattern has emerged. There is a ton of corruption in the Somali-American communities, and we’re paying for it, as PJ Media’s Victoria Taft revealed: 

In the state of Washington, one internet sleuth began going through the grants and found 539 Somali daycare centers. Some of these centers are in people’s homes. Many of these taxpayer-subsidized centers do not list an address.

So, how does the legacy media respond to all of this? Does it wake up and start covering the alleged fraud and corruption, or does it go after the journalistic whistleblower?   

Actually, those were just rhetorical questions. I know you know what they did. 

Here’s CNN confronting not the alleged scammers, but Shirley himself. 

Keep reading

U.K. opposition leaders demand human rights activist be stripped of citizenship for past tweets

Political opposition leaders in the United Kingdom have called for a human rights activist to be stripped of his citizenship over past social media posts allegedly containing violent and antisemitic language within days of the dual national returning to Britain after years in Egyptian prisons.

The leaders of the Conservative and Reform parties also demanded the deportation of Alaa Abd el-Fattah following the discovery of tweets from more than a decade ago in which he allegedly endorsed killing “Zionists’’ and police.

“The comments he made on social media about violence against Jews, white people and the police, amongst others, are disgusting and abhorrent,” Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch wrote Monday in the Daily Mail newspaper.

Abd el-Fattah on Monday apologized for the tweets while saying some had been taken out of context and misrepresented.

The activist has spent years in Egyptian prisons, most recently for allegedly spreading fake news about the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He returned to the U.K. on Friday after Egyptian authorities lifted a travel ban that had forced him to remain in the country since he was released in September.

But he immediately became embroiled in controversy after Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was “delighted” that Abd el-Fattah was back in the UK and had been reunited with his family.

That triggered the republication of messages on the social media platform Twitter, now X, that were described as antisemitic, homophobic and anti-British.

Abd el-Fattah expressed shock at the turn of events in a statement released Monday.

“I am shaken that, just as I am being reunited with my family for the first time in 12 years, several historic tweets of mine have been republished and used to question and attack my integrity and values, escalating to calls for the revocation of my citizenship,’’ he said.

The remarks were mostly expressions of a young man’s anger and frustrations in a time of regional crises such as the wars in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza and the rise of police brutality against young people in Egypt, Abd el-Fattah said.

“Looking at the tweets now – the ones that were not completely twisted out of their meaning – I do understand how shocking and hurtful they are, and for that I unequivocally apologise,’’ he said in the statement.

But that has not staunched the flow of anger from politicians.

Keep reading

UK says ‘committed’ to upholding free speech after US visa bans

The UK government said Wednesday it is “fully committed” to upholding free speech, after the US slapped visa bans on five prominent Europeans working in the tech sphere, including two Britons.

“While every country has the right to set its own visa rules, we support the laws and institutions which are working to keep the Internet free from the most harmful content,” a British government spokesperson said.

“The UK is fully committed to upholding the right to free speech,” the spokesperson added.

The US State Department announced sanctions Tuesday against Britons Imran Ahmed — of the anti-misinformation nonprofit the Center for Countering Digital Hate — and Clare Melford, who leads the UK-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

It also targeted former EU commissioner Thierry Breton and two others.

It accused them all of promoting “censorship crackdowns by foreign states — in each case targeting American speakers and American companies”.

It follows Washington ramping up its attacks on EU regulations after Brussels earlier this month fined Elon Musk’s X for violating rules on transparency in advertising and its methods for ensuring users were verified and actual people.

The US administration of President Donald Trump has also been highly critical of the UK over tech and free speech, attacking its Online Safety Act that seeks to impose content moderation requirements on major social media platforms.

In August, the State Department said Britain had “significant human rights issues”, including restrictions on free speech, and last week the White House suspended implementation of a multi-billion-dollar tech cooperation deal.

It emerged that this was due to opposition to the UK’s tech rules.

Keep reading

Bill Gates Thinks Anything He Disagrees with Is ‘Misinformation’ that Should Be Policed by AI

Billionaire tech tycoon Bill Gates has expressed concern about the impact of “misinformation” on future generations, claiming that AI should be used to police ideas he disagrees with online. The creepy Microsoft founder has a long history of taking radical positions on issues including climate alarmism that he’d like to stifle dissent against.

Fortune reports that in a recent interview, Bill Gates discussed what he sees as the growing problem of misinformation and its potential to negatively affect the lives of his children and future generations. Gates, who reinvented himself as a creepy advocate for climate alarmism and other leftist causes,, noted that the spread of false information online has become a significant concern for him and his family.

The billionaire’s comments came in light of a recent incident involving his daughter, Phoebe Gates, who claims she was subjected to online harassment. This experience led Gates to reflect on the broader implications of misinformation and its ability to cause harm to individuals and society as a whole.

“Seeing my daughter targeted by false claims and harassment online was a wake-up call,” Gates said. “It made me realize that the problem of misinformation is not just about the present, but it’s also about the future we’re leaving for our children.”

Gates argues that the spread of what he considers to be “misinformation” can have far-reaching consequences, from undermining public trust in institutions to hindering progress on critical issues such as public health and climate change. He noted that the proliferation of false information online has the potential to erode the foundations of democracy and create a more polarized and divided society.

“Misinformation is a complex problem that requires a multi-faceted approach,” Gates explained. “We need to invest in media literacy programs, support fact-checking organizations, and encourage responsible behavior from social media platforms. But we also need to foster a culture of critical thinking and healthy skepticism, so that people are better equipped to distinguish between credible information and false claims.”

Keep reading

Britain Has Officially Criminalized Journalism

The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.

And lo behold, here we are.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.

Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.

But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.

It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.

When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.

The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance — violence — against an occupying army.

But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.

Keep reading

Reginald D Hunter has summons for ‘antisemitic’ social media posts quashed as judge rules private prosecution was a bid to get comedian ‘cancelled’

A court summons issued against comedian Reginald D Hunter has been quashed by a court after a judge ruled it was an ‘abusive’ bid to get the comedian ‘cancelled’.

The American comic, who lives in the UK, was the subject of a private prosecution by Jewish group the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).

It had alleged that he had sent offensive communications to antisemitism campaigner Heidi Bachram three times in 2024, on August 24, September 10 and September 11 on the social platform X, formerly Twitter.

But a summons issued to Mr Hunter, 56, by the CAA was quashed at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by Judge Michael Snow following an application by the defence.

Judge Snow ruled that the CAA had been motivated by a desire to ‘have [Hunter] cancelled’ and that the prosecution was ‘abusive’, adding that the group was seeking to use the criminal justice system for ‘improper reasons’.

He criticised the Jewish organisation for a ‘wholly inadequate’ summary of Ms Bachram’s tweeting in its summary of its application when it came to disclosing her social media posts towards him.

This, he said, ‘misled’ him into believing that the comedian’s tweets were targeting her faith rather than responding to attempts to have him ‘cancelled’.

The private prosecution against Mr Hunter – known for his appearances on panel shows as well as a career of live stand-up – was brought without the involvement of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service.

Keep reading

Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”

Victoria is preparing to introduce some of the most far-reaching online censorship and surveillance powers ever proposed in an Australian state, following the Bondi Beach terror attack.

Premier Jacinta Allan’s new five-point plan, presented as a response to antisemitism, includes measures that would compel social media platforms to identify users accused of “hate speech” and make companies legally liable if they cannot.

Presented as a defense against hate, the plan’s mechanisms cut directly into long-standing principles of privacy and freedom of expression. It positions anonymity online as a form of protection for “cowards,” creating a precedent for government-mandated identity disclosure that could chill lawful speech and dissent.

During her announcement, Premier Allan said:

“That’s why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and their anonymous users to account – and we’ll commission a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.”

Under the proposal, if a user accused of “vilification” cannot be identified, the platform itself could be held responsible for damages. This effectively converts private platforms into instruments of state enforcement, obligating them to expose user data or face financial risk.

The Premier also announced plans to accelerate the introduction of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2024, which had been due to take effect in mid-2026. It will now be brought forward to April 2026.

The law allows individuals to sue others for public conduct, including online speech, that a “reasonable person” might find “hateful, contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing” toward someone with a protected attribute. These protected categories include religion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.

This framework gives the state and private citizens broad interpretive power to determine what speech is “hateful.” As many civil liberties experts note, such wording opens the door to legal action based on subjective offense rather than clear, objective harm.

Keep reading

Democratic Despotism: The American Left Moves From Censored To Compelled Speech

More than five years ago, I wrote in these pages of a growing trend on the left toward compelled speech – the forcing of citizens to repeat approved views and values. It is an all-too-familiar pattern. Once a faction assumes power, it will often first seek to censor opposing views and then compel the endorsement of approved views.

This week, some of those efforts faced setbacks and challenges in blue states like Washington and Illinois.

In Washington state, many have developed what seems a certain appetite for compelled speech. 

For example, Democrats recently pushed through legislation that would have compelled priests and other clerics to rat out congregants who confessed to certain criminal acts.

Despite objections from many of us that the law was flagrantly unconstitutional, the Democratic-controlled legislature and Democratic governor pushed it through.

The Catholic Church responded to the enactment by telling priests that any compliance would lead to their excommunication.

U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston enjoined the law, and the Trump Administration sued the state over its effort to turn priests into sacramental snitches. Only after losing in court did the state drop its efforts.

In the meantime, the University of Washington has been fighting to punish professors who refuse to conform to its own orthodox values. In 2022, Professor Stuart Reges triggered a firestorm when he refused to attach a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgement” statement to his course syllabi. Such statements are often accompanied by inclusive and tolerant language of fostering different viewpoints in an academic community. However, when Reges decided to write his own land acknowledgment, university administrators dropped any pretense of tolerance.

Reges was not willing to copy and paste onto his syllabus a statement in favor of the indigenous land claim of “the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations.” Instead, he wrote, “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property, the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

His reference to the labor theory is a nod to John Locke, who believed in natural rights, including the right to property created through one’s labor.

Keep reading

PT Deputy Reimont, from the Workers’ Party, presents bill to criminalize dissemination of redpill, MGTOW, and incel in networks due to alleged link with femicides in Brazil

Federal Deputy Reimont, from the Workers’ Party (PT) for Rio de Janeiro and president of the Chamber’s Human Rights Commission, presented on December 15, 2025, Bill 6419/2025, informally known as the «Anti-Redpill PL».

This initiative seeks to classify as a crime the incitement, promotion, financing, organization, or dissemination of organized «misogynistic» discourses, with explicit mention of subcultures such as «redpill», «incel», and «MGTOW».

The text proposes penalties of imprisonment from 3 to 5 years and a fine for promoting or disclosing such discourses, with an increase by half if carried out via the internet or social networks.

It also provides for up to 6 years in prison for joining or supporting misogynistic groups, and aggravating factors for crimes such as threats or violence motivated by these ideologies.

Reimont justifies the measure by alleging a link between these digital communities and the increase in femicides in Brazil, citing cases such as school attacks and gender violence statistics.

This project represents a dangerous authoritarian advance by the PT toward ideological censorship.

Instead of addressing real problems such as impunity in the judicial system or tougher penalties for violent criminals, the leftist government chooses to criminalize opinions and online debates that question dominant feminist narratives.

There is no conclusive evidence establishing direct causality between «redpill» content and femicides; correlations do not imply causation, and criminalizing dissident thoughts violates basic principles of freedom of expression protected by the Brazilian Constitution.

This proposal fits into a leftist pattern of narrative control, similar to previous attempts to regulate discourses on social networks. Instead of combating real crime, it persecutes young people and men who express social frustrations, stigmatizing them as a threat.

The real problem of violence against women requires effective public security policies and good education, not vague laws that open the door to interpretive abuses by the State.

The PL is in the initial processing phase in the Chamber of Deputies, without significant advances so far.

Keep reading

Georgetown Professor Sprints Away, Tries to Assault OMG Cameraman After He’s Caught on Hidden Camera Calling Black Conservatives “Coons” 

A Georgetown professor was caught on hidden camera calling black conservatives “coons” and saying he “works with stupid white people.”

Jonathan Franklin, a Georgetown professor, went on an undercover date with James O’Keefe, and when he realized he was talking to O’Keefe, he flipped out.

O’Keefe’s disguise? A pair of glasses.

Franklin called black podcast host Candace Owens a “sellout” and conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas “coons.”

“I work with stupid white people,” Franklin said.

Franklin actually trashed James O’Keefe while he was on the undercover date with O’Keefe.

“Well, the thing is, I actually am James O’Keefe,” James said as he removed his glasses.

After Franklin found out he was on a ‘date’ with James O’Keefe, he ran out of the restaurant.

When O’Keefe and his cameraman attempted to confront Franklin outside, he tried to assault the cameraman.

Keep reading