Tag: wrongthink

Too On Brand: School Purges 1984, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, and Others to Promote ‘Diversity’

You really can’t make things like this up. 

Seriously. Liberals may want to purge libraries of “wrongthink,” but you would expect that anybody with an IQ above room temperature could have figured out that tossing out more than half your books in a school library, including 1984 and Animal Farm, would be a bad look. 

But no. Not in Canada, apparently. And certainly not at the Thames Valley School District in London, Ontario. Out of a High School library of 18,000 books, 10,000 were “deselected” and tossed into the trash because they didn’t fit the vision of having an “inclusive” library. Presumably, that explains why they tossed out books by J.K. Rowling, which I assume were quite popular with the kids; she engages in wrongthink about gender, and needs to be purged. 

A London, Ontario, secondary school binned more than 10,000 library books between January and March this year under the Thames Valley District School Board’s “inclusive libraries revitalization project,” eliminating more than half of the school’s 18,000-book collection.

H.B. Beal’s library once held one of the largest collections in the board. Today, fewer than 8,300 books remain. The estimated value of the discarded materials exceeds $180,000.

Education Minister Paul Calandra moved quickly to halt further library culls while the ministry investigates the Beal revitalization project. A spokesperson for the ministry confirmed last week that “the minister has directed that all current and future library collection reviews be paused, pending further evaluation.”

According to board documentation, the project aims “to revitalize the collections of Thames Valley schools to ensure they are culturally responsive, reflect our diverse student population, and contain accurate and up-to-date information.” The project adds that it will focus on “deselecting texts with harmful images, messaging, slurs, and racial epithets to facilitate the safety and well-being of all students.”

Some of the books “deselected” blow your mind, not because it would surprise you that radical leftists would want to hide them, but because it makes their goals of purging the library of any ideological diversity so blatant. They literally purged books about…book banning. 

Keep reading

UK Government Video Game Teaches Teens Questioning Mass Immigration Could Make Them Terror Suspects

Britain’s globalist—and increasingly authoritarian—state has found a new way to ‘fight extremism’: teach teenagers that asking the ‘wrong questions’ about mass immigration could make them terrorists.

According to newly surfaced materials, a government-funded video game now warns schoolchildren that doubting the positive effects of unrelenting  mass migration will land them in the crosshairs of counter-terrorism authorities.

The program, called Pathways, is marketed as an “educational” interactive experience for students aged 11 to 18. In practice, however, it functions as a digital loyalty test, funded in part by the Home Office’s Prevent program, Britain’s controversial anti-extremism scheme.

The game goes something like this. Players are placed in the role of a white teenage character named Charlie, newly enrolled in college and navigating modern Britain’s ideological minefield. Every decision—what videos to watch, what opinions to express, even whether to research immigration statistics—is tracked by an in-game extremism meter.

The premise is simple and utterly unmistakable: curiosity is dangerous, skepticism is suspect, and deviation from approved liberal-globalist, views carries severe consequences. Choose the wrong dialogue option, and Charlie is flagged for “extreme right-wing ideology,” a category that now appears to include asking basic questions about national identity.

Even the character’s gender is carefully flattened. Regardless of whether players select a male or female avatar, Charlie is referred to exclusively as “they,” a telling detail in a game obsessed with left-liberal ideological conformity.

Early scenarios in the game set the tone. Charlie struggles academically and is outperformed by an Afro-British classmate, after which players are nudged toward ‘correct’ emotional responses while being warned against drawing conclusions about immigration or competition.

At several points, the game introduces online posts claiming the government prioritizes migrants over British veterans for housing. Players are encouraged to scroll past these claims silently. Engaging, questioning, or researching them triggers ominous warnings.

Attempting to “learn more” is portrayed as especially risky. The game depicts Charlie being overwhelmed by statistics, reports, and protest information. Instead of being framed as civic engagement, the game clearly suggests it’s a slippery slope into ideological contamination.

Keep reading

EU official plotted to ‘organise resistance’ against Hungary’s Orban, files show

As the EU has sought to prolong the Ukraine proxy war, expropriate frozen Russian assets, and enlarge the bloc at any cost, Viktor Orban’s Hungary opposed it at every turn. Now, with his support teetering, leaked documents reveal a major EU official plotted a long-term covert campaign to oust him.

A senior EU official has been secretly seeking to remove Hungarian President Viktor Orban since at least 2019, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The files show in January 2019, the International Coordinator for the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, Marton Benedek, authored a “project proposal” aimed at “developing a permanent coordination forum to organise resistance against the Orban regime.” In addition to his role at the European border control agency, Benedek currently heads Brussels’ “cooperation” with Libya.

Read Benedek’s anti-Orban project proposal here.

The impetus for Benedek’s plot was “an unprecedented set of anti-regime demonstrations in Hungary and among expat Hungarians” over controversial proposed legislation allowing businesses to compel employees to work overtime, and delay payment of their wages for an extended period. Thousands took to the streets before and after its implementation.

According to Benedek, outrage over what he referred to as “the slave law” had “compelled a small group of some 30 political, trade union and civic leaders to coordinate their activities, agree on a set of minimum objectives and funding principles, and jointly plan future action.” This had given birth to “an ad hoc coordination forum… which could develop, over time, into an incipient political coordinating body that could credibly challenge” Orban’s rule.

Keep reading

Germany’s “Transparency Act” Lets Regulators Search Media Offices and Platforms Without Warrants

The German government has discovered a clever way to expand its surveillance powers: call it “transparency.” The federal cabinet has approved a bill that would let state agents enter media offices and digital platforms without needing a judge’s permission.

The official justification, ensuring honesty in political advertising, sounds harmless enough until you read the fine print and realize it’s about as transparent as a brick wall.

The “Political Advertising Transparency Act” is described as an effort to align with new EU rules on political ad disclosure.

What it actually does is grant the Bundesnetzagentur, a telecom regulator, search powers usually reserved for criminal investigators.

If the agency suspects a company has failed to file the right paperwork, it could send its people to “inspect” offices without a court order, provided they claim there’s an “imminent danger.”

“Imminent danger” is one of those magic bureaucratic phrases that can mean anything from “credible bomb threat” to “somebody forgot to upload a PDF.”

Once that phrase appears in law, the limits become a matter of interpretation.

Legal experts have warned that the law tramples Germany’s Basic Law, which guarantees the inviolability of the home. For journalists, the stakes are higher.

Confidential sources, ongoing investigations, and protected data could all be exposed to inspection because a regulator feels “concerned” about compliance.

In plain language: this opens the door to state intrusion under the banner of good governance.

Keep reading

Mary Moriarty threatens prosecutions over ‘hateful’ messages to Somali community

Amid national attention on fraud in Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty has warned that people who send “hateful” messages to the Somali community could face prosecution.

Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that a Somali national who pleaded guilty in two separate sexual assault cases avoided prison under a plea deal negotiated by Moriarty’s office.

Last year, Abdimahat Mohamed received a three-year prison sentence that was stayed and served no time in prison after pleading guilty in two separate sexual assault cases — one involving the rape of a 15-year-old girl in 2017 and another involving an adult woman in 2024.

In both cases, the most serious criminal sexual conduct charges were dropped. Moriarty’s office defended the plea deal after national attention followed, saying it had lost key witnesses and that the case was “substantially weakened.”

According to a later FBI affidavit tied to federal kidnapping charges, Moriarty’s office also agreed not to charge Mohamed for a third sexual assault from 2018 as part of the plea agreement.

Now, Moriarty has issued a public statement warning that her office is receiving “a large number of reports” of members of the Somali community being sent “hateful, threatening, and disturbing messages.”

The statement blamed “far-right propagandists” for “demonizing an entire group of people” and urged the public to report such messages to law enforcement so cases could be reviewed for prosecution.

Moriarty’s statement included contact information for advocacy organizations and pledged the office would “do everything in our power to keep each other safe.”

Keep reading

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