Matt Tardio on X - "Yup. This is real. The University of Minnesota has launched a program to end the "Whiteness Pandemic". "We wanted to better understand the culture of Whiteness and support parents to challenge it" Link:"
Reii on X - "This is the racism against White people that much of the left insists does not exist. I’ve told many leftists that racism against White people is real, and I’m almost always told it “doesn’t count” because of history or power, yet those same people instantly recognize racism when the target is anyone else. They see no contradiction in celebrating the day White people become a minority while calling any White person who notices that trend a supremacist. They insist words can be violence, except when those words target White kids in a classroom and tell them their existence is the original sin. It’s crazy how every other group gets shielded from hate, yet when it’s against White people, suddenly the rules don’t apply."
Stu Smith on X - "🚨 From Smears to Plate-Throwing: Inside UVA Law’s DEI Mob vs. Professor Xiao Wang
Stick with this one—it’s worth the runtime. UVA law professor Xiao Wang explains what his own colleagues did to him after he argued Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services at the Supreme Court: Week after week, students came to his clinic saying that faculty or other students had harassed or chastised them — or had come into his office just to berate him. At a faculty lunch, a professor who opposed the case yells at him in public and throws a plate at him. Tenured faculty sent letters trying to “audit” his Supreme Court clinic after an open letter misrepresents his views. The law school convenes a panel on his case — staffed entirely by critics — and doesn’t invite the person who briefed and argued it. He says he reported the plate incident to the administration: “I’m not sure anything has happened.” And still, he refuses to play the victim. He describes his path from immigrant kid in rural Iowa to Supreme Court advocate — “short of playing for the Lakers, this is the American dream” — and warns that law schools are teaching students “to just judge and think later.” His verdict on his peers is even more damning: “Our job is just to teach the children, not be the children.”"
Failing state has surrendered to mob threats - "It hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge, but it will. At some point, a prominent journalist will be found out using artificial intelligence to compose an article. The article may well contain a “hallucination” — Silicon Valley’s word for made-up garbage — and the journalist will be fired. Now imagine that it wasn’t a journalist but a police intelligence officer compiling evidence to inform an official committee on a matter of public safety. Imagine the dossier contained multiple unexplained errors, including a passage flagged by AI detection tools, referring to an event that had never happened but was used to justify a controversial act. And imagine that, when questioned, the response by the senior officer in charge was: “There are always going to be improvements that can be made in any piece of work of this scale”. This scenario is not a hallucination. It actually happened. The officer was Mike O’Hara, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police. The decision was the one to ban all Israeli fans from attending a football match between Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Birmingham, in defiance of advice from Uefa and the government’s own adviser on antisemitism, Lord Mann. And the fact of this decision, made on the basis of alleged fabricated evidence, tells us something extremely disturbing about how power works in Britain. It’s worth going back to when the match was announced. Pro-Palestine activists in Birmingham, including the pro-Gaza independent MP Ayoub Khan, began a campaign to have it cancelled and keep Israelis out of the city. There were warnings about “the community” and “safety” (but whose safety and which community?). They didn’t want to argue explicitly that Israelis must be banned because Islamist gangs would attack them. So they flipped the script. They pointed to a Maccabi game in Amsterdam last year. They claimed Dutch police had said that hundreds of hardened Zionists went hunting for local Muslims amid an entire day of “running street battles”. The problem with this account was that it was directly contradicted by a meticulous 58-page review of events conducted by the inspectorate overseeing the Dutch police, which spoke to officers involved and drew on reports gathered on the ground. What actually happened, according to that review, is that about 50 Maccabi “ultras” (aspiring hooligans) out of 2,500 fans bit off more than they could chew with aggressive, racist behaviour and had to be contained by police, whereupon marauding gangs of Arab taxi drivers and boys on scooters laid siege to a bunch of other Israelis in a casino. The next night they began the infamous “Jew hunt” that culminated in an emergency evacuation of Maccabi fans from the country. In other words, in so far as there was any risk of trouble from the Israeli side, it could have been easily contained by a plan, commonly used for contentious matches and recommended by Mann, to bus the fans in and out. What’s odd is that the “evidence” compiled by West Midlands police, which was used to justify making the city an official no-go zone for Israelis, bears so little resemblance to the official Dutch account. It has more in common with the story told by local Islamists. As the Dutch police told The Sunday Times, the British force’s account was simply “not true”... he and his colleague admitted that their figure for the number of police deployed in Amsterdam, a number they had cited as fact, was in fact made up. Then O’Hara claimed that the decision to ban Israeli fans had been supported by Birmingham’s Jewish community. The next day, he retracted that claim. Still, they argued, you couldn’t fault them because their process had been “peer-reviewed” by fellow chief constables who make up a body called the UK Football Policing Unit. This is the same unit that they also stated had been intimately involved in gathering the evidence, suggesting a degree of incestuousness not normally associated with the term “peer review”. Asked to explain why the Dutch police had debunked their “evidence”, they suggested that this was all to do with political pressure in the Netherlands and that they knew the real truth because the Dutch had told them on a Zoom call, which unfortunately no one took any minutes of. As for the government, it was performing its usual trick of waiting until there was failure and then condemning it. The Home Office was naturally aware of the likely impending screw-up but, as the minister Sarah Jones explained: “We did not have a function in that process”. A functionary with no function: that aptly summarises the government. Of course, the non-football fans among us may well ask, who cares? It’s just a game. But this isn’t about the game. It’s about whose rights are curtailed in order to preserve the peace — those who threaten violence or those most likely to be its victims. After all, why are the police so uninterested in their errors? The most compelling theory, offered by Nick Timothy MP, is that this was about opting for an easy life, not bothering to find a way to balance the rights of both sides even when a plan for doing so was presented to them, because they feared taking on the local mob. This isn’t a one-off. It’s a pattern. If you want to know how the grooming gangs could get away with it, how they still are, why the issue of Palestine was allowed to take over so many city centres for so long, why we see parades of masked Islamist men praying in the road in Whitechapel or groups being permitted to chant about Gaza outside suburban Tube stations in Jewish London, the answer is the same. All too many arms of the British state operate under the influence of fear and corruption, beholden to local interest groups who use intimidation to take over the public square... people can see with their own eyes how power now works in the places where they live, who runs what, which groups must be kowtowed to and which can be ignored. If the government isn’t prepared to wield the force of the state to assert basic civic norms, then it can wave goodbye to legitimacy. In the eyes of a dangerous minority, it already has."
Right Angle News Network on X - "BREAKING - A 2022 clip of California governor candidate Katie Porter calling pedophilia an “identity” is going viral following her botched interview last night on CBS, where she lost her composure with journalist Julie Watts and nearly walked out."
Time to denounce conservatives for being obsessed with pedophilia
Muslim Council of Britain: Patrick Christys demands apology from Muslim Media Monitoring Centre for misquotes: 'Put my family at risk' - "Patrick Christys has claimed that the Centre For Muslim Media Monitoring "put a target on my back" by falsely attributing quotes to him. Patrick explained that CfMM had misrepresented his journalism by conflating his coverage of legitimate security threats with anti-Muslim rhetoric... He cited examples including "the Christmas market atrocities" and "reports from MI5 about Iranian sleeper cells" that were wrongly categorised. "They lumped it together and claimed, 'This is how many times Patrick has banged on about Muslims,' which isn't really true, is it?" Patrick explained. The organisation's complaints extended beyond terrorism coverage to include criticism of accurate reporting on grooming gangs. Policy Exchange revealed that CfMM published a report attacking GB News for "routine delegitimisation of Islam and Muslims," specifically referencing coverage of "so-called grooming gangs". The think tank noted this came despite "multiple court cases and official reports" establishing that grooming gangs were real, with evidence showing British Muslims, particularly British-Pakistanis, were overrepresented among offenders. CfMM also complained it was "misleading" to call British ISIS executioner Mohammed Emwazi, known as Jihadi John, a terrorist because he was never convicted. Concerns are mounting about CfMM's growing influence despite its flawed research methods, with major media organisations engaging with the group. BBC news content director Richard Burgess spoke at the media monitoring unit's meeting in Parliament last month, while The Guardian has cited CfMM's inaccurate research concerning GB News. Policy Exchange report authors Andrew Gilligan and Damon Perry warned that the organisation "should not be engaged with or taken at face value by journalists, regulators or anyone else." The Muslim Council of Britain created CfMM in 2018 to promote "fair, accurate and responsible reporting of Muslims and Islam" and "change the narrative" about them. GB News found evidence suggesting the group recently altered website language about its connection to the Muslim Council of Britain, which had opposed the UK Government's ban on 21 terror groups in 2001."
Meme - Soyjak: "You Can't Hold ALL Afghans Responsible for the Shooting in DC"
Soyjak: "You Can't Hold ALL Muslims Responsible for Islamist"
Soyjak: "All Whites Are Responsible For Slavery"
Meme - Rachel Gilmore: "Hi. I'm Rachel. My names first on the website the North American far-right is using to target people they say "celebrated" Charlie Kirk's death."
Jim Stanford: "These harassments and violent threats are another sign of creeping totalitarianism. I am so sorry you face this Rachel, and thank you for your courage."
Dave @bellatordave: "In reality she gets hate because she spent 4 years telling us her biggest fear was a journalist getting beat or worse for doing their job..... She was right it finally happened. There's always a part of the story the left doesn't know about."
Rachel Gilmore @atRachelGilmore: *laughing emoji*"
philip lewis @Phil_Lewis_: "Andy Ngo, a right-wing provocateur, lost his civil lawsuit relating to the beating he received after going undercover at a Portland protest"
Playing the victim as you attack others is classic left womg behavior
Bradford student suspended for flying thin blue line flag - "Bradford District High School (BDHS) student Carson Young says he was suspended from school last week after refusing to take down a thin blue line flag from his truck. The thin blue line symbol is a black and white Canadian flag with a solid blue line running through it, symbolizing the line officers walk daily between life and death. The symbol has become controversial over the past few years, more so in the United States, in light of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and talks of defunding police and redirecting funding to social services. Critics also argue the flag puts out an "us-versus-them" divisive mentality. But he says the reason for flying the flag has nothing to do with politics, and more a show of support for his family, who all work in policing. He has had the flag flying on his truck since he obtained his G2 driver's licence and truck in June 2021... Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Rob Keffer made a post on social media Tuesday afternoon acknowledging the planned protest and denouncing the use of the symbol. "While 'thin blue line' was originally a term supportive of police services, over the past several years it has been co-opted by extremists and is now viewed by some as a symbol of opposition to the racial justice movement," he wrote. "Regardless of the motivation for displaying the flag, we hope that this matter has become a learning opportunity for all involved," the mayor added. "Symbolism is a powerful tool. Over time, the thin blue line flag has taken on darker, negative connotations that have strayed considerably from its original message. "We need to be sensitive to the fact that symbols like the thin blue line are now hurtful to many within our community and have no place here.""
Bradford mayor removes social media post about 'hurtful' flag after backlash - "Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Rob Keffer has removed a social media post he made Monday evening, denouncing the use of the thin blue line symbol in the community after a local high school student was suspended last week for refusing to take down a flag with the emblem on it. Keffer's post received more than 100 comments, many accusing the mayor of not being supportive of local police... "My previous post has unfortunately become a lightning rod for further divisiveness, so after careful consideration I have decided to remove it." He added: "My intention is, as always, to promote understanding between people in our community, even if not always (in) agreement. As I said previously, this has been an educational experience for us all, including myself, and I hope that we can all work together to empathize with and accept one another without anger or hate.""
You're only allowed to support the left wing agenda. Supporting BLM for example is definitely not divisive
Meme - "Spanish moss is so pretty, I wish il didn't remind me of racism :/"
Meme - Common Sense Extremists: "This dude is from Bahrain. Bahrain had slavery up until 1937, nearly 80 years after the American civil war ended. And they only did so because the British pressured them do it. Third world people like him are literally mad that the west forced them to civilize"
Karim Wafa-Al Hussaini: "For Indigenous people, we feel this scene. We carry the ghosts our elders endured. Whether it's North America, South Africa, Palestine, or Australia, this moment haunts our souls. For you, it's just ships. But for us it's the last moment of freedom before history changed forever."
Creepy.org @creepydotorg: "Till this day I still don't understand this particular scene... *sailing ships*"
gen0m1cs on X - "This is absolutely batshit insane. Everybody already knows the 2020 paper accusing White doctors of spontaneous bias with a so-called 58% drop in mortality gap for black newborns under black physicians was bullshit — results zeroed out when controlling for very low birth weight. But they also cut a key data point, according to FOIA requests: “White newborns face 80 more deaths per 100,000 births with a Black physician than a White one, suggesting a 22% fatality drop from racial concordance” — because it “undermines the narrative.”"
It's only structural racism in the other direction
The Associated Press on X - "Armed men attacked a Catholic school in north-central Nigeria and abducted several schoolchildren and staff, an official says, days after 25 schoolgirls were abducted in a neighboring state."
Bonchie on X - ""Armed men...abducted several school children..." Islamists abducted 52 people. 52. But the AP has to sanitize the headline as much as possible because the perpetrators land somewhere on the intersectional hierarchy."
Author who warned of totalitarianism in West censored under online safety laws - "An author who has warned about the rise of totalitarianism in the West has been censored in the UK under controversial online safety legislation. A recent Substack article by the American conservative writer Rod Dreher, which linked a provocative Viennese art exhibition to Europe’s migration policies, could only be accessed in Britain by readers aged over 18... The writer, whose previous work includes Live Not by Lies, a critique of rising totalitarian traits in the West, said the incident was “exactly the sort of thing” he had warned about. “It’s a world in which both public and private actors censor speech for essentially therapeutic reasons: to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, especially of groups considered privileged by institutional elites. This, the theory goes, makes for ‘safety,’” he said. Substack told The Telegraph it had applied the age restriction not because of the article’s migration content, but because of an image containing nudity. It said the restriction was removed after the platform concluded the image, possibly an artwork depicting the Virgin Mary holding the dead body of Jesus Christ, had been incorrectly labelled as explicit. The company blamed the error on the difficulty of implementing the act. A spokesman said Substack understood such erroneous censorship “may be frustrating,” but the platform was “only implementing this process in response to regulatory measures in the UK”... But this is not the only time content on Mr Dreher’s blog has been censored. At least one comment on another of his articles has been blocked in the UK under the Online Safety Act."
The road to online Hell is paved with good intentions - "What if a rogue AI impersonated a child and had sex with another child — a real one this time — while both were dressed as animals in a virtual reality chat room? Would it be rape? Child sexual exploitation? Is there a bestiality element to consider? Who gets sued — the VR platform? The AI company? This was not a scenario I had given any thought to until I was sitting on a roundtable with some of the finest legal minds in the House of Lords, going over the umpteenth round of changes to the Online Safety Act (OSA). Since the release of its white paper in April 2019, the legislation — then in draft — had been overseen by eight Secretaries of State, three Prime Ministers, and two different sponsoring departments. Everyone involved wanted to leave their mark. The resulting 303-page Act, and the thousands of pages of codes of conduct that accompany it, is a quite remarkable piece of legislation. Remarkable because it sacrifices both freedom of expression as we know it, and Britain’s hopes of sustaining a world-leading tech industry to protect the innocence of a theoretical child in Tunbridge Wells. Yet the story of the OSA is interesting, and tragic, not just because of this law, shockingly bad though it is. It also shows, yet again, how very badly we are governed. Many ministers would tell you — with much elation — that the OSA was exciting because it was the first law of its kind. Countries across the world would be looking to us as a leading example! But it turns out that pioneering comprehensive regulation of the internet when you don’t actually really understand the internet is not exactly best practice. With nowhere to look to understand what worked — and, crucially, what didn’t work — campaigners and policy experts attempting to argue that certain elements of the Bill would have awful unintended consequences had few case studies to point to. So their warnings about the risks were simply not accepted. It was also terribly sad, but perhaps emblematic, that one of the first things we aimed to do independently post-Brexit was to add even more regulations to one of our fastest-growing sectors — particularly since the people making the rules barely understood what they were regulating... senior figures spent a significant length of time debating whether the internet was more like a town square, or a café where the owner decides what patrons can discuss. They had no coherent mental model for what the internet actually is, let alone how platforms function. In 2023, when the then Digital Secretary Nadine Dorries arrived at a meeting with Microsoft, she asked when they were going to “get rid of algorithms”. This ignorance was exploited by campaign groups, often founded in deep and legitimate grief. The Molly Rose Foundation, for example, was set up in 2017 following the tragic loss of Molly, a 14-year-old who died from self-harm after viewing harmful online content. The organisation initially focused on suicide-related content, which made sense. However, it is now lobbying on the automation of risk assessments, the data implications of US trade deals, and the economic case for a stronger OSA, having cemented its position as a group governments simply cannot go against. Indeed, where children were involved, many MPs and peers simply lost all perspective. Comments were routinely thrown around about it being worth tech companies going bust if one child was saved, even if many of the children being “saved” were totally hypothetical edge cases, such as victims of AI-impersonated children in virtual reality chat rooms. The legislation that emerged is, accordingly, staggeringly vague. Section 2’s definition of “content that is harmful to children” encompasses anything that presents a “material risk of the content having, or indirectly having, a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on a child of ordinary sensibilities”. This circular non-definition essentially asks platforms to divine what might upset some theoretical average child — a standard so subjective it makes consistent enforcement impossible. From the beginning, campaigners — such as the Centre for Policy Studies, where I work — warned that this would have unintended consequences. Faced with such vagueness, platforms would inevitably err on the side of caution, especially given fines which can reach £18 million or 10 per cent of global annual turnover, whichever is higher. Even more pernicious are the provisions on director liability: senior executives can face personal criminal sanctions, including prison sentences, for failures in their companies’ child protection systems. Why would any Silicon Valley executive risk establishing a UK presence when an algorithmic miscalculation could land them with a £13 billion penalty, or a spell in jail?... if a 12-year-old somewhere might find content about mental health, relationships or political topics distressing, the rational response is to remove it entirely rather than risk regulatory action. This hands enormous discretionary power to Ofcom, which must somehow translate Parliament’s woolly concepts into concrete rules. When legislation is this imprecise, the real law-making happens not in Parliament but in the offices of civil servants, quangos, and tech companies’ compliance departments. If we have any tech companies left. Many policy experts have recommended a clearer approach: create tough enforcement against content that is already illegal, while requiring any new speech restrictions to go through full parliamentary debate rather than being decided by regulators... if the government isn’t prepared to make certain speech criminal through a proper democratic process, it shouldn’t punish platforms for hosting it. Already, we are seeing the pernicious effects — as campaigners warned, much legitimate speech is already being suppressed as a result of the legislation. Yet this week’s furore over content blocking marks only the halfway point... Ofcom will be able to require companies to provide any information about their algorithms and access internal documents, data, technical infrastructure, and source codes. This is a government blighted by data leaks, demanding access to some of the most sensitive intellectual property in the world. The legislation was brought in under the Conservatives, but Labour has already signalled that this regulatory expansion will continue — indeed, its main complaint during the parliamentary stages of the Act was that it did not go far enough... The result is legislation so vague that it hands sweeping powers to regulators while creating punishments so severe they will drive companies away from Britain entirely. The road to the erosion of our tech sector and digital freedoms has been paved with good intentions — and unforgivable incompetence"
M. Nolan Gray 🥑 on X - "Reading bizarre NPIC position letters on common sense California legislation is kind of my full-time job, but I don't think I've ever seen one this strange. Enforcing DUI law is a form of "racialized wealth extraction"...?"
Armand Domalewski on X - "one thing I’ve seen the ACLU argue a lot is “we can’t enforce this law because it has a racially disparate impact” but that’s literally true of every law—they never address why by their logic we shouldn’t just cease to enforce laws"
Weekend Listening: From McDonalds Drive-Through to Star Harvard Professor - "Roland Fryer: People lost their minds. I had colleagues take me to the side and say, “Don’t publish this. You’ll ruin your career. I lived under police protection for about 30 or 40 days. I had a seven-day-old daughter at the time. I remember going to the grocery store to get diapers with an armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy.
I tell my undergraduates every year in the final lecture of my undergraduate classes: the key to Harvard is get a great education without letting this place change you. It’s really important. It can be corrupting...
[On sexual harassment allegations] I honestly thought that I was creating a space for people to do whatever they wanted. To let creativity reign. That means they could talk about what they wanted to talk about. They could do whatever they wanted to do. And at that time, it’s not in my personality to go over to two people who seem to be enjoying an inappropriate conversation and say, “I don’t think that’s appropriate for the office.” And so I didn’t shut those kinds of conversations down. I thought this was a good thing. I honestly did. And I participated in a lot of jokes. And people were laughing. So it was a huge surprise to me that after a labor dispute that someone would say that “these conversations really damaged me and caused me harm.”...
BW: One of the details in this story is that you were suspended by a woman who I had never heard of until recently. Her name is Claudine Gay. And she said this in a letter to the economics department at the time: “Professor Fryer exhibited a pattern of behavior that failed to meet the expectations of conduct within our community and was harmful to the well-being of its members. The totality of these behaviors is a clear violation of institutional norms and a betrayal of trust of the Harvard community.” So I guess I want to ask, do you believe in karma?
RF: I hear it’s a motherfucker.
BW: And also, does calling for the genocide of Jews constitute bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
RF: One thousand percent."
