Armed FARC: Colombia Peace Only Possible with ‘Humanist Government’
teleSUR | August 31, 2019
The “new guerrilla” movement led by former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, People’s Army (FARC-EP) Ivan Marquez announced to the public Saturday it is willing to engage in “dialogue” with a “coalition.”
An open letter signed “from the mountains of insurgent Colombia” by former high-ranking FARC commanders who are referring to themselves as the “New Power”, reiterates that the state’s failing to follow through with the 2016 Havana Peace Accords is what led the minority faction to return to arms. According to the ‘New Power’ that announced its rearmament Aug. 29 via a 32-minute Youtube video, the group took up weapons again because, “the history of betrayals suffered leaves no alternative.”
The former FARC commanders and soldiers in the split faction of around 30 people that “only an open process and an alternative humanist government can pave the way towards a scenario of coexistence in which the interests of the people and true development prioritized” for Colombia.
On Thursday morning a video was published by a minority of senior leaders of the former FARC announcing their split from the main organization and to rearm. Among those in the video was Jesus Santrich, a key FARC leader who has been missing since mid-July and Ivan Marquez, a once-senior commander who was integral in negotiating the peace accord, announcing a “new stage of armed struggle.”
In the ‘New Power’ letter, the authors recognize all those who participated in the peace accord that was negotiated over several years. “They became the moral fire of the cause of reconciliation.” They are “the great coalition of social justice and democracy that promotes a new dialogue to achieve true, final, stable and lasting peace,” the communique reads.
“Hopefully, total peace is achieved involving all armed actors that forges a New Alternative Government that saves the country from this general crisis,” say the dissident leaders who send a message to the Communist Party, the Patriotic Union and other nearby political factions: “As revolutionaries, sooner or later we will meet along the way.”
Marquez, Santrich and the other signatories say there are “men and women of this country, who believe that another Colombia is possible who have struggled and continue to fight with patience and intelligence for peace.” Among those on that list are Congressmen Ivan Cepeda, Alvaro Leyva, Roy Barreras, Gustavo Petro, Angela Maria Robledo and Angelica Lozano, among others.
The guerillas thank all social movements and guarantor countries that part in crafting the peace agreement and denounce the “Dominant Power Block—the oligarch class that sows wars to be freed by others.”
Also on Saturday, Colombia’s military announced it had killed, in total, 12 former FARC in a rural area in the southern department of Caqueta, near the border with Ecuador. Colombian Army General Nicacio Martínez said Saturday that the number of FARC dissidents who died in a large military operation rose to 12, three more than was first announced Friday following the Aug. 30 operation ordered by President Ivan Duque.
It’s still unclear how, or if, the Caqueta faction is related to the ‘New Power’ under Marquez.
The main ex-FARC constituency officially condemned the move on Thursday. In a tweet on their official account, they say unequivocally that “more than 90% of former guerrillas remain committed to the peace process.” The group did later that day say it was breaking with the Comprehensive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition (SIVJRNR), the institutions that form the basis of the Havana Peace Accords, which includes the Special Judicial Court, or JEP, set up to help the over eight million people affected by the 50-year civil conflict.
Facebook Targets Lee Camp & Jimmy Dore For Censorship
The Jimmy Dore Show | August 31, 2019
Become a Premium Member: http://bit.ly/JDPremium & https://www.patreon.com/jimmydore
Schedule of Live Shows: http://bit.ly/2gRqoyL
Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes: http://bit.ly/tjdshow
See also:
YouTube Bans James Allsup And Tons Of Other Right-Wingers In Latest Censorship Purge
By Chris Menahan – InformationLiberation – August 26, 2019
Adam Schiff’s New Law Expands Definition of ‘Domestic Terrorism’, Promotes FBI Entrapment
21st Century Wire | August 31, 2019
Recently, the US House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced a bill which intends to criminalize various new acts under the ever-expanding banner of domestic terrorism. Undoubtedly, this is an attempt by the government to broaden the definition of ‘domestic terrorism’ in order to make interpretation more arbitrary, and thus qualify more offenses for terrorism prosecutions.
Schiff’s new law will give the US Attorney General new powers which would potentially charge any threat of violence or damage to property that “creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury” – as an act of domestic terrorism.
Potentially, this might could also include the use of heated political rhetoric during a “planning meeting” (a conversation in person, or in an internet chat room), or even breaking a window during a protest. In theory, the Federal government could them pursue sentences up to 30-years in prison.
Predictably, mainstream partisan pundits are cheering this authoritarian move by Schiff, as they believe that this legislation will give the state more power to crack down on what they perceive as their political enemies, namely ‘white supremacists’ and ‘white nationalists. It’s important to point out that this same reactionary, flawed logic was used by Neconservatives in the wake of 9/11 in order to target and ‘deal with’ the supposed ‘Muslim threat’ by rushing through Patriot Act I and II during the Bush Administration.
Writing for The Hill, Michael German offers a few real-life scenarios, explaining, “If you think this possibility is absurd, keep in mind that in 2012 the Justice Department put two political activists in jail for months for refusing to testify before a grand jury about colleagues who may have participated in a Seattle May Day protest in which a federal courthouse window was broken,” adding that, “In 2017, the Justice Department charged more than 200 protesters at an anti-Trump rally with felony charges for allegedly conspiring to riot because someone broke windows and lit a limousine on fire while they were in the general vicinity. Prosecutors used selectively edited undercover recordings of protest planning meetings in which a speaker threatened to turn the inauguration into a “giant clusterf—” as evidence of a broad conspiracy.”
“The prosecutions failed in these cases, which may partly explain why the Justice Department and FBI have been seeking to expand their domestic terrorism powers. If they were intent on using these new powers to target far-right militants, they could have simply amended current Justice Department policies that de-prioritize the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes,” said German.
Schiff federal power-grab is a bi-partisan effort – because both the Republican and Democratic wings of the Establishment will want to use such broad powers in order to marginalize their perceived political opponents, or worse – use the FBI to fabricate terror plots in order to create and maintain an ongoing crisis through which it can reinforce convenient political and state-power narratives and also justify increasing departmental expenditures.
In short, this breed of new legislation will only give the FBI increased license to continue and expand upon its highly shady practice of using handlers and informants to entrap and arrest unsuspecting dupes, and further boast to the press about the impressive number of “terror busts” it has referred to prosecution.
All the while, short-sighted partisan lawmakers remain oblivious to the long-term consequences of such a reactionary policy.
Google’s Power to Shift Elections—Zachary Vorhies, Greg Coppola and Dr. Robert Epstein
American Thought Leaders – The Epoch Times – August 23, 2019
According to Google whistleblower Zachary Vorhies, how is Google suppressing certain viewpoints, promoting others, and altering public perception?
Is there evidence of active intent on the part of Google staff or executives?
And in the eyes of Dr. Robert Epstein, what are the broader implications of Google bias—whether intentional or unintentional—for America and beyond?
This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
In this special episode, we sit down with Google whistleblower Zachary Vorhies, a former senior Google engineer, who recently leaked nearly 1000 pages of documents that he says suggest Google has been secretly acting as a publisher, selectively boosting or demoting content, while publicly claiming to be a neutral platform.
We sent Google some questions regarding each specific allegation that Vorhies made in our interview. Google has not responded to our requests for comments.
We also spoke to another Google whistleblower Greg Coppola, who has also called out big tech bias, and Dr. Robert Epstein, a leading expert on Google search engine bias, to get their take on the leaked documents and Vorhies’ allegations against Google.
Liberals use RCMP in attempt to silence critics of their foreign policy
By Yves Engler · August 30, 2019
On Tuesday two RCMP agents came to my house. Two large men in suits asked for me and when my partner said I wasn’t there they asked who she was.
Why didn’t they email or call me to talk or set up a meeting? If they have my address, the RCMP certainly has my email, Facebook, Skype or phone number. My partner asked for their badges, took their photo and asked them to leave the stairway they had entered.
They returned the next day. Not wanting to interact, my partner ignored them. They rang the doorbell multiple times over many minutes. After she saw people at the restaurant across the street wondering what was going on – from the ground you can see into the front of our place – she poked her head down the stairway where they caught her eye. They asked why I didn’t call even though they didn’t leave a number.
The visits are a transparent effort to intimidate me from directly challenging the government’s pro-corporate and pro-empire international policies.
The day before their first visit to my house two RCMP officers physically removed me from a press conference when I asked Transportation Minister Marc Garneau about Canadian arm sales to Saudi Arabia. When I sat down at an event that was already underway an officer took the seat next to me. When I began to ask a question at the end of the press conference he used the cover of private property to try to block me. On this video one can see the RCMP agent asking the building security twice if I’m welcome in the space. Deferring to police, the security guard tells him I’m not welcome. The RCMP agent, who doesn’t have the right to remove me from the room without a directive, then uses the authority derived from a representative of the building to physically eject me and threaten arrest.
Last Wednesday lawyer Dimitri Lascaris and I were blocked from a talk by the prime minister at the Bonaventure Hotel in a similar way. In my case an RCMP agent called out my name as I entered the hotel and then accompanied me in the elevator, through a long lobby and down an escalator to ‘introduce’ me to hotel security. The representative of the hotel then said I wasn’t welcome, which gave the officer the legal authority to ask me to leave. Lascaris details the incident in “The RCMP’s Speech Police Block Yves Engler and Me From Attending A Speech By Justin Trudeau.”
After starting to write this story, I was targeted by the RCMP for removal from a press conference by Justice Minister David Lametti. On Thursday, a Concordia University security guard, who I walked past to enter the room, came up to me 15 minutes later and asked for my press credentials. There were two dozen people in the room who didn’t have press credentials and the release for the event said nothing about needing them. The RCMP agent admitted that he asked Concordia security to approach me. He also said he was only there for the physical — not political — protection of the minister, but refused my suggestion that he and the Concordia security agents sit next/in front of me to ensure the minister’s physical safety.
(Here is the question I planned to ask the Justice Minister: “Minister Lametti you have an important decision to make in the coming days about whether you believe in international law and consumer rights. As you know the Federal Court recently ruled against your government’s decision to allow wines produced on illegal settlements in the West Bank to be labeled as ‘Products of Israel’. While anti-Palestinian groups are pressuring your government to appeal the decision, the NDP and Greens want you to stop wasting taxpayer money on this anti-Palestinian agenda. Will you commit to accepting the court’s sensible ruling that respects consumers, international law and Palestinian rights?”)
Over the past six months Lascaris, I and other members of Solidarité Québec-Haiti and Mouvement Québécois pour la Paix have interrupted a dozen speeches/press conferences by Liberal ministers/prime minister to question their anti-Palestinian positions, efforts to topple Venezuela’s government, support for a corrupt, repressive and illegitimate Haitian president, etc. We are open about our actions and intentions, as you can read in this commentary. We film the interruptions and post them online. (If any illegal act were committed the RCMP could easily find all they need to charge me on my Facebook page!) The interruptions usually last no more than a couple of minutes. No politician has been stopped from speaking, let alone threatened or touched.
Did the RCMP receive a directive from a minister to put a stop to our challenging their policies? The federal election is on the horizon and government officials will increasingly be in public. The Trudeau government is playing up its ‘progressive’ credentials, but the interventions highlight how on one international policy after another the Liberals have sided with corporations and empire.
From the government’s perspective, having their PR announcements disrupted is a headache, but that’s democracy. The right to protest, to question, to challenge policies outweighs politicians’ comfort.
YouTube Bans Infowars Relaunch – Days After Promising To Allow ‘Controversial’ Content
By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – 08/30/2019
On Tuesday, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced that the platform would invite “offensive” content back onto the site – writing in an open letter to YouTube creators “Without an open system, diverse and authentic voices have trouble breaking through.”
“I believe preserving an open platform is more important than ever,” she added.
In response, Infowars relaunched its ‘War Room’ YouTube channel – which boasted 2.4 million followers before being terminated in August 2018 for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.”
The first new video uploaded to the new War Room channel featured host Owen Shroyer celebrating Wojcicki’s announcement, and was titled “Breaking! YouTube CEO says ‘Alex Jones’ and ‘Infowars Ban Is Over.’”
Wojcicki didn’t mention Infowars in her letter, but this is how Shroyer apparently interpreted it. Since going live, War Room has uploaded 13 videos covering topics typical to Infowars, like “liberal racism,” the end of “globalism,” and how Lizzo’s performance at the VMAs was “disgusting.” –VICE
That didn’t last long
Shortly after VICE published their article noting that Shroyer’s video had been up for 17 hours, YouTube deleted Infowars’ War Room channel – again.
Remember how @SusanWojcicki stated #YouTube was an open platform the other day?
Yeah turns out she was gaslighting us… once again.@MarkDice you were spot on. https://t.co/zewI48h0Vr
— Zach Vorhies (@Perpetualmaniac) August 29, 2019
“We’re committed to preserving openness and balancing it with our responsibility to protect our community,” said YouTube spokeswoman Ivy Choi. “This means taking action against channels that continue to violate our policies.”
Infowars and its founder Alex Jones suffered coordinated bans across several platforms last year, including Facebook and Apple’s iTunes, after online activists Sleeping Giants lobbied tech companies to cut all ties with Jones and his network.
Okay… what is happening here?@iTunes @apple, are you really choosing to host Infowars on your platform after Alex Jones’ harassment of Sandy Hook parents and Vegas shooting victims and threats to the Special Counsel? How does this not break your Terms Of Service? https://t.co/Bfhwf6NXYN
— Sleeping Giants (@slpng_giants) July 30, 2018
So much for “preserving an open platform” so that “diverse and authentic voices” can break through.
YouTube ‘borderline content’ crackdown hits UK shores, creators demand justice
RT | August 28, 2019
YouTube is cracking down on “borderline content” that doesn’t quite break its rules, expanding an algorithm-tweak that prevents controversial material from gaining a US audience to the rest of the English-speaking world.
A recommendations tweak that cut the referral views of content that “brushes right up against our policy line” in half in the US over the past six months is being rolled out across the UK, Ireland, South Africa, and “other English-language markets,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in a quarterly letter to creators on Tuesday, patting herself on the back for what she claimed was the company’s tolerance for non-mainstream views.
“A commitment to openness is not easy,” Wojcicki wrote, likely provoking a few spit-takes from readers. “It sometimes means leaving up content that is outside the mainstream, controversial or even offensive.” But diversity of opinion “makes us a stronger and more informed society, even if we disagree with some of those views,” she continued – begging the question of why YouTube feels compelled to de-platform so many outside-the-mainstream commentators even as its CEO has admitted in the past that “news or news commentary [is] a very small percentage of the number of views we have.”
“Reducing the spread of borderline content” was one of “four Rs” Wojcicki claimed formed the company’s framework for dealing with creators, accompanied by “remove content that violates our policy,” “raise up authoritative voices,” and “reward trusted, eligible creators.”
Creators were up in arms about the rising tide of censorship, which took out a number of popular channels without warning. Many speculated about the platform’s future, even calling for Wojcicki’s resignation.
“Youtube’s final form will be mainstream TV,” one user lamented. “YouTube was primarily built by edgy content. That’s what made it great,” another agreed. “We prefer diversity and free speech on YouTube, not racism and censorship,” said another.
Many insisted the crackdown was part of the company’s admitted efforts to control the 2020 US election (even, apparently, in the UK).
Even some who disagreed with the “borderline” content creators opposed banning them. “These people will become martyrs,” one user warned, suggesting those who disagree with “extremists” should “debate them, make them look stupid,” but not censor.
Others breathed a sigh of relief. “It’s about time society starts to protect itself against the (far) right. The slide into violence and extremism is having rl consequences,” one person tweeted.
The truth about YouTube’s intent does occasionally flash though the corporate jargon. “We keep tightening and tightening the policies,” Wojcicki told the Guardian in an interview earlier this month, noting that “with every policy we make, there is content that will become borderline, or will find ways to skirt around those policies.” That content becomes the target of new policies, and the cycle begins anew.
And “borderline content” – like “sowing discord,” the excuse used to de-platform hundreds of channels earlier this month for their opposition to the Hong Kong protests – has no official definition, allowing moderators to delete any channel they want without having to produce proof any rule has been violated.
Kashmir’s New Status: Why the West Turns a Blind Eye to Democracy Deficit in India
By Brian Cloughley | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 27, 2019
On August 23 the New York Times reported that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs “won’t say why foreign journalists continue to be blocked from setting foot in Kashmir” but managed to obtain a compelling first-hand account of one of the thousands of arrests by the authorities. In this instance “Asifa Mubeen was woken up by the sound of barking dogs as policemen began pouring into her yard. Her husband, Mubeen Shah, a wealthy Kashmiri merchant, stepped out onto their bedroom balcony in the night air. The police shouted that he was under arrest. When he asked to see a warrant, his wife said, the police told him there wouldn’t be one. ‘This is different,’ they said. ‘We have orders.’ It was the start of one of the biggest mass arrests of civilian leaders in decades carried out by India, a close American partner that bills itself as one of the world’s leading democracies…”
The appalling situation in Indian-administered Kashmir has been created by Prime Minister Narendra Modi who announced on August 5 that he was annulling Article 370 of India’s Constitution, which since 1949 has given the territory (called a State by India) virtual self-government. It had its own Constitution and the most important thing was that the special status of the region allowed it to adhere to the ancient law prohibiting outsiders from buying land. The central government could not overrule the law — but with Modi’s repeal of Article 370 there is now direct rule by Delhi.
This means that the people of the territory have no say whatever in their own governance. It has also meant, thus far, the arrest and detention of some 4,000 people under the Public Safety Act which allows the authorities to jail anyone for up to two years without charge. That isn’t exactly democratic — and it is intriguing to think about how Donald Trump would regard such a law, were he aware of it.
Deficiency of democracy doesn’t stop there, because the Armed Forces Special Powers Act “grants the armed forces the power to shoot to kill in law enforcement situations, to arrest without warrant, and to detain people without time limits. The law forbids prosecution of soldiers without approval from the central government, which is rarely granted, giving them effective immunity for serious human rights abuses.”
The Public Safety and Special Powers Acts are in full swing in Indian-administered Kashmir, and the population is in effect under military occupation authorised by Modi’s ultra-right wing government in Delhi. It is, to all intents, occupied territory whose inhabitants have no say whatever in their own governance. (There were supposed to be elections this year, but with the invalidation of Article 370 these can no longer take place. It has all been carefully thought through.)
And the leaders of the US and Britain, these usually eloquent supporters of freedom for the peoples of the world, have made no critical statements about the mass arrests or cancellation of elections or total closure of means of communication, and they ignore the fact that India’s Constitution “explicitly declares that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)].”
The New York Times managed to ascertain that in Kashmir, the thousands of detainees “have not been able to communicate with their families or meet with lawyers. Their whereabouts remain unknown. Most were taken in the middle of the night, witnesses said.” This smacks of dictatorship, for it is undeniable that detention and incarceration without trial is totalitarian rather than democratic.
It is barely credible that “Among the people who were rounded up were Mian Qayoom, president of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association; Mohammed Yasin Khan, chairman of the Kashmir Economic Alliance; Raja Muzaffar Bhat, an anticorruption crusader; Fayaz Ahmed Mir, a tractor driver and Arabic scholar; and Mehbooba Mufti, the first woman elected as Kashmir’s chief minister. Shah Faesal, another politician, was arrested at New Delhi’s international airport, bags checked, boarding pass in hand, heading for a fellowship at Harvard. Several prominent state politicians have also been put under house arrest; they told Indian news outlets they had been ordered not to engage in any ‘political activity’.”
But there hasn’t been a peep of protest from Britain’s Boris Johnson, he who showed solidarity with the protestors in Hong Kong by declaring “I do support them and I will happily speak up for them and back them every inch of the way.”
There hasn’t been a squeak of remonstrance from Washington, either, where Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, announced that the rule of President Maduro “is undemocratic to the core” and Trump committed his country to “stand with… all Venezuelans who seek to restore democracy and the rule of law.”
If Johnson and Trump are so supportive of democracy, why do they not protest about mass arrests and detentions and cancellation of democratic elections in Indian-administered Kashmir? Why do they not take Modi to task for his excesses? It was recorded on August 23 that in Indian-administered Kashmir, “Data obtained by Reuters showed 152 people reported to Srinagar’s Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences and Shri Maharaj Hari Singh with injuries from pellet shots and tear gas fire between Aug 5 and Aug 21.” It is regrettable that Trump and Johnson ignored the fact that on August 22 “UN human rights experts today called on the Government of India to end the crackdown on freedom of expression, access to information and peaceful protests imposed in Indian-Administered Kashmir this month.” It was also stated by the UN experts, headed by Special Rapporteur David Kaye, that “The shutdown of the internet and telecommunication networks, without justification from the Government, are inconsistent with the fundamental norms of necessity and proportionality. The blackout is a form of collective punishment of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, without even a pretext of a precipitating offence.”
The absence of any criticism by Trump and Johnson of the military rule excesses in Indian-administered Kashmir will encourage Modi and his far-right nationalist administration to extend their racist grip throughout India. Since Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in 2014 there has been a most marked increase in officially-endorsed communal violence, mainly against Muslims but also involving other minority groups. These outbreaks of Hindu-supremacy barbarity are sponsored largely by a militant organisation called the Bajrang Dal which as noted in the New Yorker “has either been banned or has lurked at the margins of Indian society. But [since 2014] the militant group has been legitimized and grown exponentially more powerful. In the past seven years, according to Factchecker, an organization that tracks hate crimes, there have been a hundred and sixty-eight attacks by Hindu extremists, in the name of protecting cows, against Muslims and other religious minorities.”
Indian democracy is under grave threat from racist Hindu supremacists, and the New York Times rightly considers it disquieting that Modi “seems intent on digging in, and he has the Indian public firmly behind him. Many Indians see Kashmir as an integral part of India, and this move has stirred up jingoist feelings. Indian news channels have referred to the detainees being flown out of Kashmir as ‘Pakistani terrorists’ or ‘separatist leaders,’ toeing the government line.”
The most appalling thing is that Modi’s India appears intent on eradicating Muslims and that the vast majority of Hindus are right behind him. In order for him to succeed, there has to be destruction of democracy — and that’s exactly what is happening.
New Jersey Event Canceled After Threats From Anti-Free Speech Groups
By Jonathon Turley | August 22, 2019
We have been discussing the rising attacks on free speech across the country, including students and faculty who support the silencing of speakers who hold opposing views. What is most concerning is that these attacks are working. The latest example can be found in New Jersey where the Broadway Theater in Pitman cancelled an event because anti-free speech organizations and individuals threatened protests and some even threatened to burn down the theater. Among the speakers was journalist Andy Ngo, who suffered a brain hemorrhage after being beaten by Antifa supporters at an event in Oregon. My concern is not with planned protests but the coordinated effort to have the event cancelled to prevent others from hearing opposing views.
The one-day conference was set to discuss “combating racism, violence, and authoritarianism.” Sponsored by Minds.com, there were 20 speakers planning to discuss a variety of issues. They included speakers who had once support but later became disillusioned with some leftist groups. This included im Tim Pool, who calls himself a “disaffected liberal” and Josephine Mathias, who has opposed sexual orientation as not equal to race or ethnicity. Mathias was the only black speaker in the line up. It also included Lauren Chen, a conservative blogger.
It also included British YouTuber Carl Benjamin, who has been accused of sexist comments about rape, and Mark Meechan, a Scottish YouTuber who became a global figure when he taught a dog to give Nazi salutes (which he insisted was a joke with his girlfriend’s pug). He was convicted of a hate crime after the court deemed his motivation immaterial to the fact that it was offensive under hate speech laws. I have previously written critically of these laws in France, Germany, England and other countries.
Daryle L. Jenkins, executive director of One People’s Project, an activist group based in New Brunswick, N.J., called the lineup of speakers “the worst of the worst.” Holding such an event, he said, “is like picking a fight.” The statement was classic for the rising anti-free-speech movement. Allowing opposing views to be heard is now considered a provocation. Most of us would support Jenkins’ right to protest outside and contest the views of these people. However, the pressure was to get the theater to cancel the event so others could not hear the opposing views.
No Hate NJ, a coalition of organizations, insisted that the “hateful” event could not be held. In a statement right out of the Antifa handbook, the group said “The event is advertised as a ‘discussion,’ but it’s really just an echo chamber for far-right rhetoric that will bring hateful and violent people to Pitman.” In other words, no such discussion could be allowed between these speakers.
I know nothing about any of speakers beyond Meechan, but their specific views are immaterial if you truly believe in free speech. What Antifa wanted to do (and succeeded in doing) was to prevent opposing views from being heard.
I have previously discussed how Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus. The movement threatens both academic freedom and free speech — a threat that is growing due to the failure of administrators and faculty to remain true to core academic principles. Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.
It only took a couple days for the campaign, No Hate NJ, to intimidate the theater owners. The venue’s Twitter account was also hacked. There was also a threat to burn the theater to the ground.
Once you declare opposing views to be a provocation and an attack, it is easy to mobilize to silence people on the other side. dam Sheridan of Cooper River Indivisible declared “We don’t want South Jersey being used as a platform for these far-right extremists. For us this is about community self-defense.” See? It is that easy. It is not censorship or intimidation. It is self-defense.
Once again, this is about the campaign to cancel the event and not to protest the event.
New Jersey cops turn citizens’ phones into surveillance devices – for their own good, of course
RT | August 27, 2019
A New Jersey police department has unveiled technology that allows 911 operators to stream video from callers’ smartphones. Sounds like a good idea, at first – but where does the surveillance stop?
Gloucester Township police’s new 911eye emergency dispatch system lets emergency service operators see video live streamed from a caller’s phone, giving first responders an idea of what they’re getting into before anyone is sent to the scene. For now, the caller has to activate the livestream with a link sent by the 911 dispatcher, which allows operators to operate the phone’s camera and microphone. But this is the first step down a very slippery slope.
911eye, developed by Capita Secure Solutions and Services in conjunction with West Midlands Fire Service in the UK, represents a step toward a frankly terrifying surveillance infrastructure that can turn any internet-capable device into a remote-activated surveillance tool. West Midlands Police were the first to embrace “pre-crime” technology in the UK, developing the National Data Analytics Solution to sniff out potential offenders and divert them with ostensibly therapeutic “interventions.”
If the fact that it was developed by the people behind the real-life version of Minority Report isn’t enough of a reason to give 911eye a wide berth, take a look at Carbyne911, one of its competitors. Funded by deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein through former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, Carbyne911 markets itself as the solution to mass shootings. The program – founded by current and former Israeli intelligence personnel, which isn’t at all worrisome given that country spies on the US so extensively it scares Congress – lets emergency dispatchers commandeer the camera and microphone of any internet-capable device within a certain range of the person who made the call.
Investors include Peter Thiel, whose company Palantir has been described as “using war on terror tools to track American citizens,” and its advisory board includes Patriot Act co-author Michael Chertoff, the former Department of Homeland Security chief. At least two US counties have reportedly adopted Carbyne911, despite obvious privacy issues (and the fact that while most of its employees and personnel have military-intelligence connections, few have a background in emergency services).
Of course, bad actors don’t need an “emergency services” app to turn your phone into a spying device. Israeli spyware manufacturer NSO Group’s Pegasus software has been wielded against human rights campaigners, journalists, and even politicians by governments including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to Amnesty International, which has sued the company for allowing its software to be weaponized against peaceful activists.
And how does Pegasus work? The hacker sends the target a link, and as soon as they click on it, the hacker can use the target’s smartphone camera and microphone as surveillance devices. Which sounds an awful lot like 911eye’s business model – but you can trust them. They’re the police, and they’re here to help.
Scottish nationalist leader awarded more than £512,000 after winning court case
Press TV – August 24, 2019
Alex Salmond’s legal victory against the government has been widely seen as yet another victory by Scottish nationalists against an establishment hell-bent on stopping them.
Scotland’s former First Minister had been accused of “inappropriate conduct” during the time he led the Scottish government.
The Scottish government has reportedly paid Salmond more than £512,000 to cover his legal costs after he successfully contested charges of sexual misconduct in court.
Although the case against him effectively collapsed in January, the government has now formally admitted defeat by awarding Salmond the large sum on an “agent and client” basis.
This is a punitive award used by the courts to recognize the fact that the losing party to litigation has caused the other party “unnecessary expenses”.
The Scottish parliament (Holyrood) has reportedly set up an enquiry to look into the huge expenses incurred investigating Salmond and the subsequent pay out after he won his court case.
The official enquiry was set up in the wake of reports that the Scottish government had spent nearly £750,000 (excluding internal costs) trying to defend its flawed legal case against Salmond.
This massive sum, combined with the substantial payment to Salmond, has raised questions about the nature of the enquiry into Salmond’s alleged “misconduct” and whether the case was politically motivated.
The former British diplomat, and supporter of Scottish independence, Craig Murray, alludes to this possibility in his latest post on his popular and respected blog.
For their part, the Scottish Conservative Party has seen fit to go on the political offensive, possibly with a view to deflect potential revelations that they had had a hand in forcing through a botched legal case against Salmond.
Donald Cameron, a Scottish Conservative member of Holyrood, has said it is “outrageous” that so much money had been spent on the case.
Salmond, who was the leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) for over 20 years, still faces a separate trial centred on 14 alleged offences, including two of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault and one of breach of the peace.
But in view of the former First Minister’s latest legal victory, it is fair to ask whether the separate charges against him could also be “flawed” and possibly politically motivated.
The legal and criminal cases against Salmond have raised suspicions in the Scottish nationalist community that the British establishment is trying to arrest the momentum toward Scottish independence, by any means necessary, including “flawed” legal procedures.
Salmond is widely seen as the most effective proponent of Scottish independence, as demonstrated by his two highly successful stints as leader of the SNP, first from 1990 to 2000 and then from 2004 to 2014.
Featured Video
Houthis Don’t Have to Conquer Saudi Arabia to Make It Pay
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Newly Released FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks
By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | May 17, 2019
NEW YORK — For nearly two decades, one of the most overlooked and little known arrests made in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks was that of the so-called “High Fivers,” or the “Dancing Israelis.” However, new information released by the FBI on May 7 has brought fresh scrutiny to the possibility that the “Dancing Israelis,” at least two of whom were known Mossad operatives, had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Syria May Send Troops to Saudi Arabia Amid War with Ansar Allah
- UK whines about losing billions to ‘Putin tax’
- Baghaei to Rubio: Distorted narratives cannot erase US record of broken commitments
- Houthis Don’t Have to Conquer Saudi Arabia to Make It Pay
- MOE: Nearly 22,000 Students and Education Workers Killed
- Guterres in Islamabad: Genocide, cowardice, and the cage of Imran Khan
- Johnson, Marandi say Yemen holds upper hand over Saudi Arabia
- False flags won’t save aggressors, Iran FM spokesman says
- The Makkah Pact Enters Into Force: The End of American Dominance or Its New Form?
- NATO’s top generals gather in Kiev
- If Americans Knew
- Report claimed Mark Levin used by Israeli government to influence Trump
- Over 2,000 Gazans have died awaiting medical evacuation amid Israel’s continued siege
- How a U.S. Diplomat Suppressed and Altered Reports Critical of Israel
- 5 Palestinians Die from Israeli Strikes in Gaza as Relentless Attacks Continue
- Report: Ceasefire Slows Killing but Leaves Devastation Intact
- Country Music Singer Zach Bryan Breaks Attendance Record at Robert Kraft’s Gillette Stadium While Wearing ‘Free Palestine’ Shirt for Second Night in a Row
- Three years of death and devastation: Israel’s war on Gaza in pictures
- Why Hamas believed the status quo was more dangerous than its 7 October gamble
- Debunking Israel’s latest list of ‘terrorist’ journalists in Gaza
- In Gaza, focus is on survival, “every step is a struggle” – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
