Check out this new software tool the government is sponsoring to use friends and family members to “correct” social media posts

Have you ever been on social media and had a weird moment of déjà vu? You post something, and then fifty people come back at you with identical talking points.

Maybe they’re all brainwashed mainstream media consumers, or maybe it’s just bots.

But thanks to a government-sponsored Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust app being developed by the Hacks/Hackers team and the University of Washington, soon we’ll get the best of both worlds where everyone will be able to respond to social media posts just like a brainwashed bot.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded a grant to the group to develop the app to fight “misinformation.”

The app will allow you to enter the social media post of a suspected conservative or free-speech advocate, and then the app will tell you why they’re wrong and how to appropriately respond.

Keep reading

Macron wants more Twitter censorship to stop people saying “crazy things” about vaccines, pandemics, and war

French President Emmanuel Macron criticized Twitter’s owner Elon Musk for relaxing content censorship policies on the platform, arguing that content on Twitter needs more regulation. Macron made the comments in an appearance on ABC News ahead of his visit to The White House.

Macron said that democracies are under “very strong pressure” from forces like social media where users can say “crazy things about a vaccine, a pandemic, the war.”

This week, Musk said he would relax content moderation policies surrounding topics like the coronavirus.

Good Morning America and ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos said, “He’s making it worse, isn’t he?”

“I think this is a big issue,” Macron responded. “I think it deserves to be largely engaged. What I push very much for, want, is exactly the opposite – more regulation.”

Macron further argued that speech in a democracy has to be “based on respect and political order.”

Keep reading

Cancel Culture’s War On History, Heritage, & The Freedom To Think For Yourself

“All the time – such is the tragi-comedy of our situation – we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible… In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

– C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

There will come a time in the not-so-distant future when the very act of thinking for ourselves is not just outlawed but unthinkable.

We are being shunted down the road to that dystopian future right now, propelled along by politically correct forces that, while they may have started out with the best of intentions, have fallen prey to the authoritarian siren song of the Nanny State, which has promised to save the populace from evils that only a select few are wise enough to recognize as such.

As a result, we are being infantilized ad nauseum, dictated to incessantly, and forcefully insulated from “dangerous” sights and sounds and ideas that we are supposedly too fragile, too vulnerable, too susceptible, or too ignorant to be exposed to without protection from the so-called elite.

Keep reading

Holocaust denier arrested in Scottish fishing village two years after fleeing French authorities

A Holocaust denier who fled France after he was convicted under anti-Nazi laws has been arrested in a Scottish fishing village.

Vincent Reynouard, 53, was arrested in Anstruther, Fife, on Thursday after a two-year search.

He had been working as a private tutor while living under a false identity in the UK, according to French media reports.

Holocaust denial has been a criminal offence in France since 1990, and Reynouard has been convicted on numerous occasions.

He was given a four-month jail term in November 2020 and a further six-month sentence in January 2021.

Keep reading

The left’s newest stealth attack on free speech

America’s two most important rights are free speech and the right to bear arms. Without the first, no people are free; and without the second, there is no first. Totalitarians always go after both; that is, they silence and disarm them. For decades, the left has been open in its war on the Second Amendment. They’ve struggled more with the war on speech, but they may finally have come up with a new approach that will sneak around constitutional muster.

When it comes to speech that incites violence or is otherwise imminently threatening, the law has always been clear: The threat must be very explicit and imminent for the speech to lose its First Amendment protections. At the most simplistic level, saying, “I wish so-and-so were dead” is not an actionable opinion. However, saying, “I’m going to kill so-and-so this week” or “You all need to kill so-and-so; I’ve got a plan” is criminally actionable speech. (The standard is more sensitive when speech is directed at the president, of course.)

This constitutional limitation on making (conservatives’) political speech criminally actionable has long vexed the left. They’ve trained their young acolytes that speech is violence (so much say that almost half of college students say “hate speech” should get the death penalty) but, so far, courts haven’t fallen for that gambit. Unless speech creates an imminent threat, it gets a pass.

Lately, though, the left has come up with a new concept that seeks to say that any speech that opposes leftist policies is actual and imminent “terrorism.” Or as leftist academia calls it, “stochastic terrorism.”

Keep reading

Ireland Considers Enacting A Bill Criminalizing The Possession Of Hateful Material

We recently discussed a troubling conviction in Great Britain of a man for his “toxic ideology.” Now Ireland appears ready to replicate that case a thousand fold. The proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 would criminalize the possession of material deemed hateful.

It is a full frontal assault on speech and associational rights. The law would allow for sweeping authoritarian measures in defining opposing viewpoints hateful. Ireland appears to be picking up the cudgel of speech criminalization from Britain, an abusive power once used against the Irish.

The law is a free speech nightmare.  Even before addressing the crime of possession of harmful material, the law would “provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The crime of condoning, denying or grossly trivailising” criminal conduct would make most autocrats blush. The lack of any meaningful definition invites arbitrary enforcement. The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”

What is so striking about the law is how utterly unapologetic it is in the use of criminal law to curtail not just free speech but free thought. It allows for the prosecution of citizens for “preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.” That could sweep deeply into not just political but literary expression.

The interest of the Irish in assuming such authoritarian measures is chilling given their own history under British rule, including violent crackdowns on nonviolent protests like “Bloody Sunday.”  Free speech is now in a free fall in Great Britain and Ireland appears eager to follow suit.

Keep reading

Deep State Operative Argues to Use Same Techniques Used Against Radical Islam to Take Down Conservative Americans

The Deep State is using disinformation (again) to push for attacks on Americans through illegal searches, intimidation, and arrests in an effort to legitimize what they already do now. 

Former Senior Intelligence Service officer at the CIA, Marc Polymeropoulos published a piece on Sunday calling for secret spying on Trump supporters, something that is already happening.  Just ask General Flynn or President Donald Trump.

FOX News reported this weekend:

Former Senior Intelligence Service officer at the CIA, Marc Polymeropoulos published a Sunday piece declaring that those techniques once used to fight radical Islam should be turned against the against the right-wing in America.

Polymeropoulos’ piece for NBC News Think warned that propagandists, whether Islamic terrorists or Republicans, should be subject to counterterrorism and counterradicalization techniques.

“I worked in counterterrorism operations for nearly my entire career at the CIA before retiring in 2019. The battle we engaged in with international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda wasn’t just with their legions of foot soldiers but with their highly effective propaganda arms as well,” he wrote. “The U.S. and our allies considered those propagandists fundamental cogs in a terror group’s machinery, and just as culpable as any other terrorist. So we held them accountable when innocent civilians were killed.”

Polymeropoulos suggested that the attack of Paul Pelosi was evidence that the American government needs to take a firmer approach to its own citizenry…

…While he mentioned multiple right-wing politicians, he claimed that Democrats and the American left have “nothing equivalent being done on the other side of the aisle” as far as promoting violence against their political opposition. “Democratic politicians and leaders may not like Trump, but they don’t call for violence against him, let alone his execution,” he claimed.


This story is shocking until you realize that Polymeropoulos was one of the 51 Deep State hacks who signed a letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

All of Us Are in Danger When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition

Anti-government speech has become a four-letter word.

In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.

Things are about to get even dicier for those who believe in fully exercising their right to political expression.

Indeed, the government’s seditious conspiracy charges against Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, and several of his associates for their alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol riots puts the entire concept of anti-government political expression on trial.

Enacted during the Civil War to prosecute secessionists, seditious conspiracy makes it a crime for two or more individuals to conspire to “‘overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force’ the U.S. government, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law.”

It’s a hard charge to prove, and the government’s track record hasn’t been the greatest.

It’s been almost a decade since the government tried to make a seditious conspiracy charge stick—against a small Christian militia accused of plotting to kill a police officer and attack attendees at his funeral in order to start a civil war—and it lost the case.

Keep reading

Chase Bank Cancels Nonprofit’s Bank Account: Religious Freedom Is Under Attack in Corporate America’

A former United States ambassador for religious freedom says Chase Bank abruptly closed an account associated with his nonpartisan, faith-based nonprofit organization with little explanation.

The National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), a 501(c)4 political action nonprofit, opened an account with Chase in April. 

According to Sam Brownback, the group’s chairman and the former U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom under the Trump administration, the bank decided to “end their relationship” with NCRF and close the account after only three weeks.

“We were surprised at being canceled by Chase,” Brownback wrote in an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner. When our executive director called to see if this was an error, he was informed that ‘a note in the file read that Chase employees were not permitted to provide any further clarifying information to the customer.’”

NCRF Executive Director Justin Murff reached out for more information but was told the decision was made at the “corporate” level and was “final and nonrevocable”.

“Why the cancellation? Why the secrecy and lack of transparency? Why was Chase hiding its reasons and intentions for closing the account of a client that seeks to serve the public good and defend religious freedom for every person in America,” Brownback questioned. 

The bank later stated the group had not provided requested documentation in a 60-day timeframe, but Brownback notes the account was only open for 20 days before it was closed. 

“To this day, the NCRF does not have a clear reason as to why our account was closed after only three weeks,” he said. “We certainly hadn’t made any transactions in that short amount of time that would have triggered any regulatory red flags.”

Murff was later told by a Chase employee identified as “Chi-Chi” that it might be possible to continue the business relationship if NCRF could provide more information about the nonprofit’s activities. 
 
Specifically, they wanted a donor list, a list of political candidates NCRF intended to support, and a full explanation of the criteria by which they would endorse and support those candidates. 

“It was entirely inappropriate to ask for this type of information. Does Chase ask every customer what politicians they support and why before deciding whether or not to accept them as a customer?” Brownback asked in his op-ed.

Keep reading

PayPal is still threatening to fine users $2,500 for promoting “intolerance that is discriminatory”

While PayPal has walked back its threat to fine users $2,500 for “misinformation,” the payments company is still reserving the right to fine users the same amount for other alleged transgressions.

In its current “Acceptable Use Policy,” which has been active for a year, PayPal states that: “Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s).”

And PayPal’s list of “prohibited activities,” which can trigger this $2,500 fine, include any activities that relate to transactions involving “intolerance that is discriminatory,” “the promotion of hate,” and “items that are considered obscene.”

Keep reading