Tag: wrongthink

SHOCK: German Leftist Rag TAZ Calls for MURDER to Stop AfD From Winning Free Elections

In a stunning display of radical left extremism, the influential German newspaper taz (Die Tageszeitung) has published a column that openly contemplates “forms of resistance – if necessary of a violent nature” against a potential AfD-led state government.

The piece, written by taz editor Jens Uthoff and published August 21, 2026 under the title “Antifaschismus und Militanz: Weckruf zur Wehrhaftigkeit” (“Antifascism and Militancy: A Wake-Up Call for Defensiveness”), comes as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) surges in polls ahead of the September 6 state election in Saxony-Anhalt.

Uthoff writes that executive power in a German state “could soon fall into the hands of the AfD.” Therefore, he declares, “it is imperative to deal with forms of resistance – if necessary of a violent nature.” He frames this as a defensive reaction to a supposed “right-radical coup attempt” rather than left-wing aggression, while carefully denying any “violence romanticism.”

Let’s be crystal clear: the AfD is currently polling between 40 and 43 percent in Saxony-Anhalt – far ahead of the establishment CDU. If voters hand the party a majority or a governing role in free, secret, and general elections, the left’s answer, according to this national newspaper, is to start discussing physical violence.

As the Ostdeutsche Allgemeine (and similar outlets) correctly noted the next day, this is not some fringe blogger ranting. This is a major left-wing editorial voice treating the possibility of citizens voting the “wrong” way as justification for contemplating violence against an elected government.

Keep reading

Democrats and CNN Lose it After Pete Hegseth Utters This So-Called ‘Transphobic Slur’ at the Iowa State Fair

War Secretary Pete Hegseth drove the left insane earlier this week after using a politically incorrect term to describe transgender individuals.

As Iowa Public Radio reported, Hegseth appeared at the Iowa State Fair on Wednesday to defend the Department of War’s $1.5 trillion budget request and to support Rep. Zach Nunn, who is facing a difficult re-election fight.

Hegseth later tried to fire up fairgoers with some colorful language referencing the department’s return to fighting bad guys rather than pushing DEI garbage.

“We’re restoring the warrior ethos inside our department because that matters,” Hegseth told fairgoers.

“At the Department of War, we do training — not trannies,” he added.

Upon hearing this remark, CNN’s Jake Tapper was disgusted.

“Calling transgender people trannies, that’s obviously a slur,” Tapper fumed. “Treat people with dignity.”

U.S Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) also flipped out, with both calling for Hegseth’s termination.

Keep reading

Pentagon Fires Stars and Stripes Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, and Reporter for “Insubordination”

The Pentagon moved Friday to fire three senior employees at the taxpayer-supported military newspaper Stars and Stripes, accusing them of “insubordination” amid an escalating battle over the publication’s direction.

Publisher Max Lederer, Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte were each served with separation notices and given five days to appeal, according to CBS News⁠.

The stunning shake-up comes as the Trump administration works to overhaul the military publication, drag it into the 21st century, and eliminate the “woke distractions” that have infected institutions across the federal government.

Slavin and Korte claimed they were targeted over interviews they gave to CBS News without authorization for a segment that aired in July.

Slavin told CBS that the Pentagon accused him of insubordination after he publicly declared that any effort to control the newspaper’s reporting would cross a “red line.”

“According to the notice, I am being fired for stating in a CBS interview that censorship of news for service members would constitute a red line,” Slavin said.

Keep reading

Argentina Gives Government New Power to Bar or Expel Foreigners Over “Hate” Messages and Attacks on National Symbols

Argentina’s President Javier Milei has signed a new decree expanding the country’s immigration restrictions to cover certain speech and conduct directed against Argentines.

Decree 681/2026, issued on July 29 and published in Argentina’s Official Gazette on July 30, amends the country’s Immigration Law. It creates new grounds for denying entry to foreigners and for canceling the residency of foreigners already in Argentina.

Under the decree, authorities may act against foreigners who have directed oral or written “hate messages” or incited violence against Argentines as a people, or against an individual Argentine because of that person’s nationality. The measure also covers foreigners who participate in acts described as an “outrage” against Argentina’s national symbols.

The government argues that the measure is justified by national sovereignty, public order, social cohesion and the protection of Argentine citizens. The decree says Argentina has experienced an increase in messages of hate and acts of hostility directed specifically at the Argentine people, their culture and national identity.

The key question: What counts as “hate”?

This is where the policy deserves careful scrutiny.

The decree does not say that every criticism of Argentina or its government can be punished. In fact, it specifically states that legitimate expressions of ideological disagreement and political, academic or civic criticism protected by the Constitution are not covered by the new provision.

That distinction matters.

A foreign national who threatens violence against Argentines because they are Argentine is in a fundamentally different category from someone who criticizes President Milei, mocks Argentine politicians, condemns Argentina’s immigration policy, disagrees with its foreign policy or expresses an unpopular opinion about the country.

A threat of violence is not the same thing as a political argument.

Incitement to violence is not the same thing as criticism of a president.

And an offensive political statement is not automatically a security threat.

Sovereignty is legitimate — but so is caution

Conservatives in the United States generally recognize that a sovereign nation has the right to control who enters and remains within its territory.

The United States itself gives the federal government broad authority over the admission of foreign nationals, particularly when national security or immigration law is involved.

Argentina is therefore not unusual in asserting that foreigners can be denied entry or removed under certain circumstances.

The difficult question is where immigration enforcement intersects with expression.

The Argentine decree itself attempts to draw that line by explicitly protecting legitimate political, ideological, academic and civic criticism.

But the practical application of the law will ultimately determine how meaningful that protection is.

Who decides what qualifies as “hate”?

The most important issue may not be the government’s stated objective of preventing violence.

Keep reading

‘Biology and science is offensive?’ Watch WNBA fans get ordered to conceal their XX-XY T-shirts

America’s well-known freedom speech, which actually protects even offensive language be, uhm, darned!

A security guard at a WNBA game between the Indiana Fever and the Atlanta Dream has imposed his own, and presumably the team’s, speech code on fans.

That is, that they are not allowed to have scientific facts emblazoned on their T-shirts. Cover up or begone, he orders.

It is in a report posted by Fox that the details appear:

The report explains Kasey Thomason and daughter Annie had tickets just two rows back from the court, and they chose to wear XX-XY Athletics T-shirt to support Sophie Cunningham “and the ongoing fight to keep women’s sports and spaces female.”

Through much of the action there was no difficulty.

Then overtime, and a security guard appeared. He ordered them to cover their shirts or leave.

The report explained the guard claimed that other “fan(s)” were offended so they could wear the Atlanta Dream “Wellness & Health Night” shirts or be taken out of the building by escort.

Kasey wondered, so “biology and science is offensive?”

Mother and daughter “reluctantly” agreed to put on the offered shirts so they didn’t miss the end of the game.

Then, the report pointed out, “the Thomasons are seen on the ESPN broadcast with the tan Dream shirts in hand. They can be seen talking to fans around them, who they said loved their shirts and showed support for them and Cunningham throughout the game.”

The report said the prohibited items at State Farm Arena include, “Clothing, garments or signs displaying explicit language, profanity or derogatory characterization towards any person(s).”

Fox reported, “If State Farm Arena and the Atlanta Dream were really trying to claim the shirts worn by the Thomasons were a ‘derogatory characterization’ or ‘indecent messages’ on clothing, that would be an arbitrary way of enforcing their rules, at best. Discrimination, at the worst. But the fact remains, the security guard didn’t claim any of these things from the prohibited items list or the Fan Code of Conduct. He just said the shirts were ‘offensive.'”

Kasey told Fox she assumes a “trans rights” promoter sitting at courtside had complained.

The Fox report said, “This whole situation is discriminatory, disgusting, and quite frankly, Orwellian. In no shape, manner, or form, is a shirt that displays four prominent letters, representing a biological truth that women have XX chromosomes and men have XY chromosomes, ‘offensive.'”

Keep reading

Freedom Convoy blacklist circulated to thousands of financial firms, records show

A federal blacklist containing personal information about Freedom Convoy supporters was circulated to potentially thousands of financial firms, according to new records uncovered by Blacklock’s Reporter.

Blacklock’s reports that regulators in Ontario distributed the information to between 1,000 and 2,000 brokerages and other firms, with no restrictions placed on further distribution.

The blacklist originated with the RCMP and included names, birth dates, telephone numbers and other personal information. Earlier parliamentary records showed it was distributed by unencrypted email to as many as 50 financial institutions, along with industry organizations and securities regulators.

The list was created after the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act in February 2022. Authorities froze $7.8 million held in 437 bank and credit union accounts and cryptocurrency wallets associated with Freedom Convoy supporters.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in January that the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was unlawful.

Finance officials have also acknowledged the names on the blacklist were not verified.

“There was no verification,” then-assistant deputy finance minister Isabelle Jacques testified in 2023. “We didn’t do any follow-up.”

The revelations contrast with comments from then-finance minister Chrystia Freeland, who said in 2022 the RCMP had provided financial institutions with information on protest leaders, organizers and people whose trucks participated in blockades.

Blacklock’s previously reported parliamentary records showing the blacklist also went to Canadian operations of foreign financial institutions, including Bank of China, State Bank of India, BNP Paribas, Citibank, Habib Bank, ICICI Bank, Mizuho Financial Group and Wells Fargo.

Keep reading

Former Police Officer Convicted of Sharing ‘Grossly Offensive’ Meme About Islam in Britain

A former British police officer has been convicted of posting offensive content on Facebook after he reposted an image mocking Islam, sparking accusations that blasphemy laws have returned to the United Kingdom.

A former British police officer has been convicted of posting offensive content on Facebook after he reposted an image mocking Islam, sparking accusations that blasphemy laws have returned to the United Kingdom.

Retired police officer Stephen Gray, 65, has been found guilty by the Newton Aycliffe magistrates’ court of breaching Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 over a post he reshared on Facebook, which was deemed to be “grossly offensive”.

According to The Telegraph, Gray was reported to the Durham Constabulary for two Facebook memes by a non-Muslim neighbour of his, whom Gray had previously been in a separate dispute with.

The first post reported to the police featured the title “time for mass deportations” next to a Middle Eastern man in his 20s or 30s with the words “Children in need”. It was captioned with: “12-year-old Mohammed recently arrived at Dover. Please donate to help him move from a three-star to a five-star hotel, which has a better halal menu, free Wi-Fi, and Sky and is nearer to a girls’ school”.

This post was not deemed by the court to violate the law, as it concerned a political issue that had been debated in Parliament.

The second meme depicted a picture of a man wearing a turban next to some bacon with the caption: “Fun facts about Bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!”

As the post was not considered to be a political message, but rather critical of a religion, it was found to be “grossly offensive” by the court. For this, Gray was found guilty of violating the Communications Act and was ordered to pay £1,000 in fines and court costs.

Gray said of the ruling: “I made a joke, an ironic joke, about Islam. That is all it was at the end of the day. A joke. I certainly never, not for one second, thought it would be deemed abusive.”

Keep reading

Clarence Thomas Reveals Certain Law Schools Won’t Host Him

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said certain law schools won’t host him because of his political beliefs.

Justice Thomas said Stanford Law School and others are “off limits” to him because of his conservative political values.

Clarence Thomas made the remarks this week during a conversation with host Peter Robinson at the Hoover Institute.

Stanford denied Thomas’ claim that the law school wouldn’t host him.

“We would be honored to host Justice Thomas at Stanford Law School,” a spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News. “The Stanford Constitutional Law Center, directed by Professor Michael McConnell, former Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, regularly hosts members of the judiciary on campus.”

“Our students and faculty would welcome the opportunity to hear from Justice Thomas and engage with his perspectives on the Court, the Constitution, and the law,” the spokesperson said.

Fox News reported:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently claimed that certain law schools and colleges were completely “off limits” for him and other conservatives to visit.

“You know, I have never been to Stanford Law School,” Thomas told Peter Robinson during an on-stage discussion hosted by the Hoover Institute.

He went on to say that current conservative thought leaders, like himself, are largely unwelcome from high education institutions like Stanford Law School.

“That’s the reality,” Thomas said. “That’s the world we’re in, because there’s certain places that are just presumptively off limits. This is the way it works. And that’s true. I mean, I’ve been to Yale Law School, but that’s the way it works. And to say it isn’t, is to lie.”

The comments from the high court justice came amid ongoing criticism from conservative pundits that college campuses have become intolerant to right-wing ideas and that students are being indoctrinated by liberal professors.

Thomas alleged that, if not for YouTube, the ideas and works of American economist Thomas Sowell, who profoundly shaped his political views, would be lost to the younger generation of students because some people’s views are “unpalatable” to the student body.

Keep reading

Exclusive: Palestine Action facing new rigged ‘terrorism’ trials

As the British state seeks to destroy Palestine Action, a new trial is underway in which a judge has threatened defendants with a ‘terrorism connection’ if they explain the motives behind their activism. 

It is one of three such trials in which the government has muzzled defendants, blinded jurors and banned local media coverage to guarantee convictions.

The Grayzone can exclusively reveal that hearings have been underway in the trial of the so-called Teledyne Three. These three defendants damaged the clean room of a UK factory which produces parts for the F-35 aircraft which Israel has used to carry out an array of crimes against civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip, and beyond. They are members of the direction action protest collective, Palestine Action, which the British state has designated as a “terrorist entity” in the face of international condemnation. 

The presiding judge in the Teledyne Three case, Driver, has imposed restrictions on the defense which threatens them with a “terrorism connection” if they attempt to explain the motives behind their actions.

The British media is currently forbidden from reporting on the trial or the draconian measures applied by the judge.   

The Teledyne Three case is one of three ongoing trials in which the British state is intensifying its assault on Palestine Action by muzzling defendants and blinding jurors. Stretching the definition of terrorism to the point of absurdity, and applying it as promiscuously as possible, forms the heart of the government’s strategy.

This February, the government’s relentless attempts to designate Palestine Action as a terrorism entity was found “unlawful”. However, the Home Office’s July 2025 designation of the protest group as a “terrorist entity” remains under final appeal. Meanwhile, separate ongoing court proceedings against PA actionists testify to a systematic campaign of dubious legal tactics to sentence defendants as terrorists, drastically increasing their penalties if found guilty.

As first revealed by The Grayzone, British authorities stacked the legal deck against a group of PA defendants known as the Filton Six. A judge imposed severe restrictions on what the defense could say, what the jury was allowed to hear, and which defenses the jurors were allowed to consider. The jury was not even able to know that the defendants could be sentenced as terrorists if found guilty of lesser criminal convictions. The entire case appeared engineered to guarantee convictions. 

In June, four were convicted, receiving jail sentences as “terrorists” of five to eight years.

Keep reading

The Policewoman Who Remembered Britain Was Still Britain

A Metropolitan Police officer stood on Whitechapel Road surrounded by men who wanted a Christian preacher stopped. One of them gave her his reason plainly: “This is Whitechapel. This is a Muslim area.”

Her answer shouldn’t have required courage.

“In this country, we have freedom of speech.”

From The Standard:

The video, filmed in Whitechapel, shows the officer defending a Christian preacher’s freedom of speech while being surrounded by a group of men.

The encounter, filmed in Whitechapel Road, has been widely shared on social media, and appears to have been shot last Monday, a day before the beginning of Ramadan.

In the footage, uploaded to YouTube channel Auditing Britain, a man holding a Bible can be heard preaching the Gospel just yards from the East London Mosque, one of the largest mosques in Western Europe, accommodating up to 7,000 worshippers for daily prayers.

The officer tells the group: “I understand that you guys don’t want to hear it, so I would just recommend that you walk away and don’t listen to him. He’s not in your home.”

A man wearing a facemask can be seen replying: “This is Whitechapel, this is a Muslim area.”

People are seen yelling at the preacher, with one bearded man shouting: “Talk about Jesus, don’t talk about Muhammad”, and another shouting “Your God is a Jew.”

One man accuses the preacher of “spreading hatred”, alleging that he was calling the Black Stone in the sacred Kaaba building in Mecca “a box”.

The preacher is also physically attacked by one man wearing a black duffel coat and mask, who shoves him in the back, causing him to stumble forward.

The officer continues to defend the preacher, explaining to the group: “In this country we have freedom of speech, the same way you guys have your freedom of speech.

“You guys don’t need to see eye-to-eye, and you don’t need to agree. You’re all more than welcome to stand here and have conversations with them, but they’re not being aggressive.”

She adds: “I understand that you guys don’t want to hear it, so I would recommend that you just move away and don’t listen to him.”

Keep reading