Tag: wrongthink

Ad Titans Promise To End Censorship Bias To Gain Power

Two of the world’s most powerful advertising firms, Omnicom and Interpublic Group (IPG), have formally agreed to dismantle their involvement in politically driven advertising coordination, marking a major policy reversal amid a growing federal crackdown on viewpoint-based censorship in the media economy.

The firms, who are set to merge in a $13.5 billion deal approved Monday by the Federal Trade Commission, will be subject to rigorous compliance mandates and are now bound by a commitment to cease all current and future coordination aimed at directing advertising revenue based on political beliefs.

The consent agreement represents a rare and forceful rebuke of ideological collusion within the advertising sector and comes following allegations from media outlets that they were demonetized and blacklisted by advertisers over their political views or coverage.

Under the terms outlined by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Omnicom and IPG must fully cooperate with federal investigations into past practices and submit regular reports demonstrating compliance.

The proposed order “imposes restrictions that prevent Omnicom from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The new conditions prohibit the merged entity from participating in any initiative that influences ad placement based on ideological or political criteria. In addition to annual reporting, the companies must provide immediate documentation to the FTC upon request and support inquiries into previous coordination to blacklist media organizations.

Keep reading

Black Conservative Ordered to Leave Store Over MAGA Hat

A black guy wearing a red MAGA hat was told to leave a popular gift shop in downtown Portland, Oregon because of his politics. The investigative journalist Andy Ngo was the first to report on the controversy.

The gift shop is called Stumptown Otaku – and its owned by a woke activist. The other day a staffer got triggered by the patriotic guy’s hat.

“One of my staff messaged me to say a man wearing a MAGA hat had come in and that both some customers and staff felt visibly uncomfortable,” the store’s owner wrote on Instagram.

“They could politely ask him to remove the hat, and if he declined, they could let him know we reserve the right to refuse service. The man chose not to remove the hat and ultimately left peacefully after a brief exchange,” the owner wrote.

The gift shop posted a photo of the incident on its social media pages and proudly announced that the man customer was not only told to leave – but was also permanently banished. And there’s a sign posted saying anyone who supports President Trump is not welcome to shop at the store.

Stumptown later posted a message announcing that they will unapologetically kick out any MAGA “racist” that threatens their safe space.

“We will unapologetically kick out any MAGA racist that threatened our safe space,” the owner wrote on social media.

But critics pointed out that it’s racist to ban a customers from shopping just because of their skin color. And that narrative really triggered the far-left owner.

Keep reading

The Coward’s Bargain: How We Taught A Generation To Live In Fear

Everyone’s Afraid to Speak

Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.

My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason and facts though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.

This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.

But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “that can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.

But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.

I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.

After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.

Another person told me they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during COVID sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.

But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.

This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.

And this is the world we’re handing to our children.

Keep reading

UN Calls for “Climate Misinformation” to be Criminalised

“False claims obstructing climate action” – like claiming the Spanish blackout was caused by renewables

Climate misinformation turning crisis into catastrophe, report says

False claims obstructing climate action, say researchers, amid calls for climate lies to be criminalised

Damian Carrington Environment editorThu 19 Jun 2025 21.00 AEST

Rampant climate misinformation is turning the crisis into a catastrophe, according to the authors of a new report.

…

The researchers found climate denialism has evolved into campaigns focused on discrediting solutions, such as the false claims that renewable energy caused the recent massive blackout in Spain.

…

Climate misinformation – the term used by the report for both deliberate and inadvertent falsehoods – is of increasing concern. Last Thursday, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, called for misinformation and greenwashing by the fossil fuel industry to be criminalised. On Saturday, Brazil, host of the upcoming Cop30 climate summit, will rally nations behind a separate UN initiative to crack down on climate misinformation.

Keep reading

Green Party Politician Suggests AfD Supporters Should Be Refused Organ Donations

A Green Party councilor, Julia Probst from the city of Weißenhorn, publicly asked in a survey whether her followers would agree to an organ donation if the potential recipient was an Alternative for Germany (AfD) voter.

The survey, taken by nearly 4,000 users, saw about a quarter say they would not agree to an organ donation; however, the vast majority said they would, amounting to 76 percent.

Her post was met with severe criticism from many users, with some accusing her of linking organ donation to political leanings.

One user, who wrote he was an “AfD opponent,” argued that as a first responder, he “first helps a person and not a ‘party affiliation.” He noted that linking organ donation to political affiliation was “inconceivable.”

The user also said: The wording of the question is very confusing to me? Do I have left-wing or right-wing blood?”

Many users with green hearts in their profiles, indicating their support for the Green Party, also took offense at the question. The majority of posters said that organ donation should not be linked to voting intention.

Probst has since locked her X account.

Keep reading

A US Bank Closed Our Accounts Because I’d Visited Cuba Six Months Ago

For years, World BEYOND War and other peace groups from around the world had been attending peace conferences in Cuba. When I visited Cuba this past January it was with a visa for that purpose. I published here the remarks I made at the conference. We shouted as loudly as we could about January’s conference in websites, social media, emails, and media interviews. The notion that there could be anything wrong with it — or that some institution could punish us for it — never entered our minds.

Legally, you’re allowed to go to a peace conference in Cuba. Nobody has so much as hinted that I’ve done anything illegal. But on Thursday June 5th I got a bunch of letters in the mail telling me that on Monday June 9th the U.S. bank accounts of World BEYOND War and the private accounts of all of my family members would be closed without explanation. This was the action of a particular bank called First Citizens, with no indication of any involvement by any government. (The explanation, it would be made clear, was my visit to Cuba.)

Morally, it seems a useful thing to do — attending peace conferences in Cuba. As at similar conferences in many other countries, one can meet diplomats, authors, activists, and politicians from all over the world to discuss peace education, disarmament, negotiations, and cross-cultural understanding. Videos of the entire conferences in Cuba, like most others around the world, are posted online for all to see.

World BEYOND War works to abolish all war, and opposes all sides of all wars — an unusual position even at peace conferences. We are constantly working to persuade some people not to support the Russian side of a war and other people not to support the Ukrainian side. We oppose any and all war-making by the U.S., Cuba, or anyone else, without equating disparate sides or blaming victims in any actual wars. Some groups try to shut down weapons programs because the weapons don’t work well; we start with opposing those that kill the most. When Trump sends troops into Los Angeles, we don’t join the Governor of California in asking that soldiers and Marines do their work abroad; we ask people to think about whether such armed forces should invade anyone else’s city either. The nice thing about peace conferences is that we can advance these views nonviolently, disagreeing amicably.

The problem, apparently, for a U.S. bank, with Cuban peace conferences is that, as with many things in Cuba, the Cuban government is involved. The president of the country wanders into the panel sessions. While that has the potential to cause censorship, it also has the potential to educate decision makers. I’d like to see presidents wandering in at peace conferences in Washington and other capitals.

Of course, the U.S. government has been sanctioning and blockading Cuba for generations, for the stated illegal purpose of overthrowing the government but — as usual — with the result of strengthening it instead, and the actual illegal impact of impoverishing the Cuban people — whose impoverishment is then blamed on the Cuban government and used as an excuse to overthrow it. This cruelty from the North provides a handy excuse for all sorts of repression and awful governance by the Cuban government, just as with the Iranian government and several others.

Keep reading

Europe’s Populist Parties Keep Gaining Ground, But Cannot Get Into Power

Across the European continent, despite gaining considerable proportions of the vote, populist parties are increasingly being frozen out of governing in coalitions by political opponents who regard them as extremist.

Proponents of the tactic known as a “cordon sanitaire” or “firewall” say it’s not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. But one war expert said the tactic will only arouse anger in voters and that “there is no potential for peaceful political change.”

Coalitions are part and parcel of political life in many European countries.

But the cordon sanitaire, a measure normally directed at keeping out fringe outliers, is now being used to keep out parties that are gaining majority-level support.

Such parties include the Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Spain’s Vox, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom.

They all deny being “far-right” as they are often dubbed by media, opponents, or academics, but their political opponents regard them as beyond the pale and have formed coalitions on the promise of shutting them out of governance.

Keep reading

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling ‘Free Palestine’ Slogan as ‘Anti-Semitism’

The resolution is non-binding but seeks to exploit the recent violence in Boulder, CO for political purposes

Colorado GOP Congressman Gabe Evans introduced a non-binding resolution on Friday that labels ‘Free Palestine’ as “an antisemitic slogan.” The bill seeks to limit immigration of people who oppose Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv’s genocidal onslaught in the besieged Gaza Strip. The bill is expected to be voted on some time next week.

The bill reads, “Whereas, while shouting ‘Free Palestine,’ an antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and Jewish people, Mohammed Sabry Soliman attacked the peaceful demonstrators with homemade Molotov cocktails.”

The term “Free Palestine” refers to the desire to end the nearly 60 -years-long brutal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, illegal per international law. It also implies support for ending Israel’s apartheid regime, replacing it with either a two-state solution or a single state with equal rights, including the right to vote, for all citizens currently living under the rule of the Israeli government.

The introduction of the bill follows a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado by 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who was living in the United States on an expired nonimmigrant visa. He had applied for asylum subsequent to his visa’s expiration. Over a dozen people were injured after the assailant threw Molotov cocktails at attendees at a small pro-Israel demonstration.

The attendees were calling for the release of the hostages taken during the October 7th Hamas attack in southern Israel. Hamas has repeatedly offered to release all hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza including the end to the blockade on the Strip which has pushed the population closer to full-scale famine amidst constant bombardment. Both Tel Aviv and Washington strongly oppose a ceasefire despite the fact that it is the only way to secure the hostages’ release and safety. Top Israeli officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are committed to continuing the war and finishing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

Keep reading

Stripe And Substack Demand Authors’ Financial Details

Financial privacy is a right under the Constitution, as is free speech.  

Under the guise of “credit review,” Stripe is now rolling out a requirement that appears to target conservative or “anti-vax” Substack authors. Stripe is requiring that these authors provide all of their current and historic financial records associated with the bank account into which Stripe deposits Substack subscriber payments (after taking 10% off the top for Substack and 3% for Stripe). Stripe already has information concerning this bank account (including deposits from Stripe), as we have been doing business with Stripe via this account for over two years.

If I or anyone else agree to these new terms, this newly implemented arbitrary, capricious and overreaching requirement will provide Stripe with complete records of all financial transactions associated with this account. Consequently, this will provide Stripe with comprehensive information on all of my customers, patients, and clients, all of my travel (historic and planned), all of my purchases, and any donations (and donor information).

This information from my account and those of any others who comply with this demand can be hacked or sold, provided to the US Government, used to fuel predictive algorithms (AI), used to derive insights into my political orientation, weaponized against me by press or other hostile actors, or used to support future social credit score-based restrictions.

Stripe has a history of financially deplatforming (or debanking) for political reasons, including removing support for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Despite its relatively recent entry into the financial transaction business, Stripe has become a major global financial organization, and processed one $1 trillion in payments during 2023, and is now expanding its credit charge program. 

Keep reading

Gender ideology mandate in foster care opposed by religious liberty, gay rights, pro-drag groups

Vermont’s refusal to place foster children in families with religious objections to gender ideology compels parents to parrot the government’s preferred messages, establishes the Green Mountain State’s own religion and treats “comparable secular activity” more favorably, while the judge who upheld the gender-affirming mandate relied on dubious research.

Those are a handful of arguments in friend-of-the-court briefs as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals evaluates whether Vermont violated the First Amendment by stripping foster-care licenses from Christian couples Brian and Katy Wuoti and Michael and Rebecca Gantt.

Social workers gave the couples glowing reviews, but Vermont deemed them “unqualified” to parent “any child (even a relative) of any age (even an infant) and for any length of time (even a few hours)” due to their religious beliefs, harming children who need “loving homes,” the couples’ lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom said.

No federal appeals court has yet determined “whether a state may categorically exclude families from foster care because of their protected speech and religious beliefs,” though the 9th Circuit will “likely” rule on the issue “soon,” ADF’s opening brief says.

The San Francisco-based appeals court heard oral argument nearly a year ago, but has yet to rule, in another ADF case by Oregon widow and mother-of-five Jessica Bates, who is suing the Beaver State to let her adopt foster siblings without requiring her to use their preferred pronouns and even give them “hormone shots” if they desire.

Keep reading