Dear Fox News: Has Russia left the planet?

Is there still a country called Russia?

I was once an avid viewer of Fox News. I still watch when my wife tunes in. A lot of my friends are in the same category with me, having once seen Fox as conservative and as fair and balanced. A long time ago, you presented the “other” side of the news and declared yourselves “fair and balanced.” Yet some of us saw you drift far from your base, like the GOP and most everything else.

I have a Masters in Russian and am a perpetual student of Russian, language, literature and current affairs. I follow Russian news in Russian and English. Years ago I noticed that whatever really big important events were happening in Russia were studiously ignored in the US press. Perhaps that is to be expected given the deplorable state of the msm. But Fox says it is different. Balanced and all that. Yet, ironically, I am now hearing more -balanced views on CNN, the channel that I was escaping from when I switched to Fox, back when you first went on the air. For example, I heard Christiane Amanpour remind her audience that France was not the only recipient of ISIS jihadism but that ISIS had also bombed a Russian airliner over the Sinai. I was almost overcome by emotion that a Western reporter would even mention that.

This is a sad state of affairs.

A few days ago I read in a foreign online site that Russia had doubled its air strikes, adding large bombers flying directly from Russia to Syria, and also making some pinpoint strikes with missiles from ships in the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. The report mentioned that 600 jihadis were killed and that the ISIS commanders were forced to bury the dead in latrines. No one had ever come anywhere near this close to defeating ISIS. It was earth shattering news. Yet these intensified raids received precious little coverage in the US but a few sites in Britain (such as express.co.uk , theglobalnews and an Irish site) managed to carry the story.

I tuned in to your fair and balanced station and found a “military expert” opining that only the US could defeat ISIS but that our president would not attack them with sufficient vigor to make a difference. I waited to hear your coverage of the above-cited story of the doubled Russian attacks but did not catch it. I then did a search with the terms:

fox news russian bombers syria

and found no reports at all on Fox about these latest air strikes or any mention of the fact that Russia had doubled its number of active bombers. I was only able to find a report that a Russian aircraft had buzzed the USS Ronald Reagan over a month ago. Your loyal listeners and readers no doubt think that the uses of Russian air force jets are limited to buzzing American ships.

Therefore I conclude that, in Fox’s world, Russia has ceased to exist. I am asking that you re-investigate that view and see if you cannot find some information indicating that Russia has not yet left planet earth.

Best Regards,

Don Hank

laiglesforum.com

Definition drift in the Snowden case

Most Americans still associate the idea of illegal informants or spies with people like the Rosenbergs, who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Indeed, articles on famous spies before about 1970 show that most high profile cases were working for the Soviets.

Thus, before the 70s, a spy was generally thought of as a person who shared secrets, often military, with a perceived enemy who could be expected to use those secrets to harm America, and the expected or potential harm was usually of a military nature.

Beginning with the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971, the unofficial definition of “espionage” and “spy” started to shift subliminally in the minds of Americans, along with the unofficial definition of “enemy,” in keeping with the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China. In the broadest terms, the shift could be described as being away from freedom and toward government tyranny.

Of the ten accused informants under this act, none were said to have spied for the Soviet Union, only one, Bradley Manning, allegedly leaked information that may have compromised the safety of American and allied military personnel and one, Jeffrey Sterling, allegedly leaked information about US planned sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, which could have perhaps enabled the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon somewhat earlier. These three could have arguably compromised our security.

The others, however, disclosed classified details, mostly to reporters, that in the Old America, We the people would have felt entitled to know.

More here:

 http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/definition-drift-in-the-ed-snowden-case

Did Paypal aid and abet child pornographers?

16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Revelation 13:15-17

Paypal has refused service to Christian activists who outspokenly defend traditional marriage or mention that the Apostle Paul opposed homosexual behavior. They are trying to make it appear that being a traditional Christian is something reprehensible or dirty:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=346825

In so doing, Paypal has accepted responsibility for the content of web sites and products paid for through its services. That could come back to bite the agency in the butt because if it admits that it screens clients’ site content, then how does it explain that it has cheerfully served child porn sites?

If this is true, Paypal may have been an accomplice to criminal activity that could land a few of their execs in the slammer.

Here is a report showing that Paypal has enabled people to buy child porn with its service:

http://politisite.com/2010/07/23/pentagon-workers-purchased-child-porn-via-paypal/

PENTAGON WORKERS PURCHASED CHILD PORN VIA PAYPAL

WASHINGTON – Federal investigators have identified several dozen Pentagon officials and contractors with high-level security clearances who allegedly purchased and downloaded child pornography, including an undisclosed number who used their government computers to obtain the illegal material according to investigative reports.

Further, if you do a search with the search terms

drug paraphernalia paypal

you will also find some offshore sites that allow customers to use Paypal to buy illegal drugs and paraphernalia.

Paypal has made a pretense of having halted this service, but there are offshore sellers claiming that you can still use Paypal to buy the paraphernalia and small amounts of drug. See for yourself:

420 Distributors Marijuana Pipes and Online Paraphernalia

www.420distributors.com/CachedSimilar– Block all www.420distributors.com results

You +1’d this publicly. Undo

Buy whatever you like to smoke and you’ll discover beautiful marijuana pipes. … Buy Marijuana Pipes and Online Paraphernalia … by secure credit cards, accepted by bank transfers, Paypal payments, cash/cheques and worldwide delivery.

Now the hypocrites are pretending to be worried that some customers might be tainted with the pernicious idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, pretending such a viewpoint is in itself dangerous, but they themselves have no qualms about drug dealers and child porn sellers using their services!

You can contact Paypal at

apacdd@paypal.com

or call them at: 1-402-935-2050 (USA)

Remind Paypal that they agreed not to discriminate against people for their views. Tell them to keep their word and stop the persecution of Christian ministries.

The fact is, if Paypal doesn’t knock off this dangerous game soon, there are Christian lawyers who will gladly seek to have Paypal executives arrested for promoting child porn. Even if they have stopped, those executives knew they were aiding and abetting criminals and can still be prosecuted for what they did.

Obviously, Paypal does not believe in the God of the Bible and thinks they are God. But God is used to dealing with people like that.

Please take the time to pray and thank God for allowing WorldNetDaily to report on this injustice. Pray that God will protect Julio and his family no matter what the enemies of God try to do to him.

 

Sign the petition to PayPal to protest against persecution of Pro-Family Christians:

http://profamilyfreedom.net/

Call PayPal at:
1-402-935-2050 (USA)
4:00 AM PST to 10:00 PM Pacific Time Monday through Friday
6:00 AM PST to 8:00 PM Pacific Time Saturday and Sunday

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

Pro-abort, pro-‘gay’ marriage Duke U prof threatens to sic cops on detractors

The following commentary titled “The technique of reverse labeling” reflects a situation that is so absurd as to be almost laughable – that is, if it weren’t for the harm that is being done to at least one persecuted Christian, our good friend Julio Severo, who is in hiding thanks to a Marxist government that criminalizes all public speech unfavorable to homosexuals.

First, please read Mr. de Carvalho’s commentary on this and then my email to the professor who wishes to harm Julio even more. I had originally hoped Professor Nicolelis would respond, but he has chosen to ignore my email.

Pastor Severo is a perfect example of how a Christian minister who wants to help homosexuals break away from their dangerous lifestyle (70% of AIDS cases are active male homosexuals) is persecuted by influential Leftists who want to make sure they never break away and remain trapped. The death of these unfortunate people seems to make no difference at all to the callous Brazilian Left, which also wholeheartedly supports the murder of the unborn.

The fact is, these same leftists who want to keep homosexuals trapped in their unwanted lifestyle are the real homophobes, despite the fact that they falsely label others that way.

Emails for Dr Nicolelis if you desire an explanation for his actions:

nicoleli@neuro.duke.edu

and colleagues (be polite):

http://www.neuro.duke.edu/faculty/nicolelis/personnel.html

Don Hank

The technique of reverse labeling

by Olavo de Carvalho

Miguel Nicolelis is a neuroscience teacher at Duke University (USA), founder of the Edmond & Lilly Safra Neuroscientific Institute (Macaíba, RN) and member of the Brazilian and French Academies of Sciences. Added to that notable curriculum was his recent appointment by Pope Benedict XVI to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Viomundo website, directed by journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha, now introduces him in a still more attractive light, claiming the scientist is a defenseless victim of a vast hate and fear mongering campaign waged by the eternally abominable “extreme right.”

Shocked and intimidated by the murderous virulence of the campaign, Prof. Nicolelis, in a tone of spurious sincerity distinguishing him as an unconditional follower of the free and democratic debate, warns against the dangers of ideological radicalization:

“Your political, ideological opponent starts to be seen as your enemy. And that enemy is subject to any kind of punishment, even death. I cannot imagine that those people spreading hate, revenge and violent messages can at the same time be Christians.”

But, after all, what did the murderous campaign consist of? It consisted of two things: Firstly, a ten-line story, published at the Rorate Coeli website on January 5 (see: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/pope-names-pro-abortion-and-pro-gay.html), stating that Prof. Nicolelis is a fervent defender of abortion and the gay agenda (and also, as of last year, of the candidacy of radical socialist Dilma Rousseff). His presence in an institution linked to the Catholic Church is therefore a little strange. Then, an article written by American journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, published on the website Last Days Watchman (see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/defender-of-for-abortion-and-homosexualist-police-appointed-to-vaticans-to) and later reproduced with or without additions and comments on a few Christian websites, among them the Brazilian version of Lifesitenews, Notícias Pró-Família, administered by Brazilian writer Julio Severo (I will speak about him later on). Hoffman, who is a Catholic, commented, “Pope Benedict XVI is a staunch defender of the right to life and of family values, and it is unlikely that he was aware of Nicolelis’ record when he made the appointment.”

Was there some threat, any hint of injurious plans? Prof. Nicolelis admits, “No, there was none.”

In view of these perfectly inoffensive expressions of disagreement, how did Prof. Nicolelis react? By debating with his opponents? No way. He himself describes his argumentative procedures:

“My laboratory staff contacted Duke University, warned about those websites and the university police have already begun to monitor the case. The security of my laboratory was reinforced… Nobody enters there without going through security procedures.”

And he cautions: at the first threatening sign in Brazil, he will call the Federal Police immediately.

Among the potential aggressors of Prof. Nicolelis denounced by the Viomundo website, one has already been put under control. Julio Severo, wanted by Brazilian authorities for the heinous crime of having stated and insisted that homosexuality is a sin and curable, is hidden abroad, moving from one country to another, living in extreme poverty with a wife and four small children. Journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha mentions that fact with evident contentment. The Fórum website, by columnist Luis Nassif (http://blogln.ning.com/forum/topics/homofobia-em-preto-e-branco), also celebrates it as a sign that Brazilian democracy is progressing.

The logical premises forming the basis of Prof. Nicolelis’ statements and the reports of the Viomundo and Forum websites could not be more evident:

1) Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2) An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under imminent attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

The brutally exaggerated reaction is expected to prompt the distinguished public to believe piously that the violent individuals are those who expressed opinions, not those who mobilized against them the armed forces of the repressive State system.

If the reader wanted a local illustration of what I have written previously on the technique of reverse labeling, this is it.

The constant and obsessive use of that technique is one of the most trivial manifestations of the general inversion of reality, characteristic of the revolutionary mentality.

Not by coincidence, but very significantly, Prof. Nicolelis had been railing some time ago against the “hysterical right.” Hysteria, by definition, is a hyperbolic reaction to some imaginary and false provocation. Therefore, when Prof. Nicolelis reacts hysterically, it is the others who are hysterical.

Translated by Julio Severo. Reviewed by Don Hank.

Portuguese version of this article: The technique of reverse labeling

Spanish version of this article:  La técnica de la rotulación inversa

Source: Diário do Comércio

Divulgation: Julio Severo in English

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

My email to Nicolelis:

Dear Dr. Nicolelis,

You have recently complained that groups of bloggers, whom you refer to as “ultra-right” have expressed concern that you, while serving as a member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, also are outspokenly pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage – positions diametrically  opposed to the Vatican’s positions.

It is not surprising that, given the Vatican’s approval of your membership (despite their disagreement with your views), this annoys you, as you have made clear. What surprises is that, in an interview with Viomundo you express fear that anyone who opposes your viewpoints on these issues is a potential threat to your safety or possibly your life.

I learned of this situation when I was asked to edit a translation by Olavo de Carvalho dedicated to your apparently intransigent viewpoint as expressed in that interview and elsewhere. I had intended to run the translation at my web site (Laigle’s Forum) but I then realized, I do not have a personal quarrel with you and it would perhaps be unfair to run this article before hearing your side of the story.

De Carvalho’s article says that, for you

1—Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2—An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

Obviously, Mr. de Carvalho is being ironic here. But he is conveying the impression, based largely on the aforementioned interview, that you are not in favor of a free debate on certain topics.

My question to you is:

Is an objective debate on homosexuality or abortion, for example, possible in your world or is Mr. de Carvalho correct in his ironic statement about your inflexibility in such areas? Such inflexibility would certainly seem incompatible with a questioning, scientific mind and with the image you otherwise project as a scientist dedicated to open and uninhibited inquiry. I therefore want to give you a chance to respond so that my readers can hear your side as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Don Hank

Editor, Laigle’s Forum

The border crisis and cognitive dissonance

The border crisis and cognitive dissonance

by Don Hank

The lack of response and negative response of many Americans to my recent article on the dangerous crisis at the US-Mexican border signals the existence of a sweeping epidemic of the mental disorder known as cognitive dissonance.

We often think of cognitive dissonance in terms of two different world views that one and the same person entertain. A well-known example is the compartmentalization practiced by some Christians who believe in Darwinism on a secular level and the Genesis version of creation on a religious level.

But in the case of the West, a much more serious and virulent form of cognitive dissonance frequently occurs in the minds of citizens whose “background noise” in the form of media reports and opinions, political activism, make us deny what our eyes and ears perceive. In other words, the victim is not only contending with 2 distinct and contradictory world views, which can cause neurosis. He or she is actually trapped (brain washed, we could call it) into believing something that his senses unerringly tell him is not true.

The most amazing example of this more radical form of cognitive dissonance that I have ever witnessed was when, in the midst of the “global warming” craze, a record late frost occurred in my area in PA and not only did the media not report it, but many of the locals with whom I spoke, even as the frost lay on the ground in full view, appeared visibly nervous and edgy when I mentioned that I had never seen frost this late in over 65 years living in the area. Of course, neither had they, but they couldn’t say so because they were supposed to devoutly believe in global warming — and not as the result of scientific study but as a result of fervent devotion of a mystical type not to be confused with brain activity. The belief would save humankind from extinction if only we believed fervently and acted upon our beliefs by accepting whatever remedies the government and the Self-Elect recommended. Praise Gaya!

The very same phenomenon is at work when people mention things like the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz by illegal aliens. Many absolutely can’t process this information and exhibit an evasive response when confronted with it. They literally dodge anyone who mentions it. Like Pavlov’s dogs, they have been conditioned. They dare not entertain such dissident thoughts, let alone discuss the issue with anyone. They not only feel guilty about having this information, because it contradicts the received wisdom that all Hispanics are victims and we evil rich Americans are their tormenters and are responsible for all ills that befall them. They also are deathly afraid that an activist could be lurking somewhere waiting to pounce on them for the indiscretion of stating a simple fact. None of these Hispanics who sin, so goes the narrative, can be held accountable for their actions. If they smuggle drugs, it is our fault because some Americans use drugs. If they rape someone it is because American women are racists who deny them love. If they join violent gangs it is because we xenophobic Anglos reject them and their language, forcing them to seek solace among their own kind.

I hope and pray I am wrong, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that cognitive dissonance is now an epidemic of such enormous proportions in our country that, if someday Hispanics swept through middle class neighborhoods burning, pillaging, raping, murdering and shouting racial slurs against whites and blacks alike, a sizeable proportion of the residents of these neighborhoods would actually feel guilty about being “rich” and white (no matter that the Hispanics hated the blacks as well) and would ask: Where have we gone wrong? What can we do to show them we are their friends?

If my suspicions about that are correct, this could be the end of the line.

Milan court sentences Google officials to prison for posting whistleblowing video

Milan court sentences Google officials to prison for whistle-blowing video

I have shown before that the internet is very much under attack in Europe, which now completely controls it. Censorship-happy Europe is the very worst place to be controlling your freedom of speech.

The world elites are stealing our freedom incrementally by stealth, just as they have been doing for the last century since the founding of the Marxist Fabian Society in England.

Now some Google officials have been sentenced to prison in Europe for allowing the posting of a video clip showing a boy with Down’s syndrome being abused by a group of students. It was hardly what anyone would call graphic or violent footage but it was a good excuse for censorship that could not be left to go to waste.

The group Vividown brought suit and the judge sentenced the Google officials to prison based on an alleged violation of the victim’s privacy. Nota bene: There is no mention of any trial against the perpetrators. Clearly, no one is portraying them in a bad light.

Anyone who expects to be able to use the Internet freely from here on out is not paying attention.

There are at least 2 reasons why the court (in Milan) accepted the suit and issued this incredibly draconian sentence, not on the perpetrators of the abuse but on those who dared to make it public:

1–The elites need to keep progressing toward total control of the Internet until they control it just as tightly as they do the “mainstream” press. Otherwise the masses may eventually break free and demand a say in the governments of their nations.

2–The only way illegal activity can continue unabated is by censoring the evidence — in this case, the video showing children harassing a handicapped boy. The real issue is the violation of the boy’s rights and in a common-sense traditional world, the courts and press would be focusing on the perpetrators and demanding they be punished.

But those days are gone. In the increasingly autocratic EU and in the individual governments of Europe, corruption abounds and officials are routinely getting away with misdemeanors and crimes. Those who take steps to expose them and bring them to justice are attacked in the media in subtle ways designed to make the unsuspecting public believe that telling the truth was somehow a criminal violation of their privacy rights. Thanks to distortions in the press, the issue becomes one of how whistleblowers violate people’s “rights” by telling the truth about perpetrators and abusers of human rights. Attention is diverted away from the perpetrators and toward those who exposed them. Readers are gently persuaded to accept the notion that committing crimes or violating human rights is of little consequence, but that exposing a perpetrator is a criminal violation of privacy.

Think about it. If this new policy of trying and punishing the ones who report crimes under color of “protecting the victim” and ignoring or downplaying the perpetrators is pursued to its logical end, anyone who reports on a crime in detail in the media, particularly by showing images of graphic crime scenes or battered victims, can be considered to have violated the rights of the victim and can be given jail time, thereby trivializing the actual crime itself and inevitably paving the way for increased criminality. At the very least, in a reversal of technological advances, the presentation of videotaped evidence against perpetrators of crimes and misdemeanors would not only be inadmissable (as is sometimes the case already), but in fact would be punishable in some cases by harsher penalties than the crimes it was attempting to expose!

The following site (also from Europe — UK in this case) provides an important hint as to why the elites think it is important to make the whistleblowers appear to be the bad guy in order to cover up for high-ranking perpetrators:

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/hollie-greig-scandal-talk-by-robert-green-1-of-5flv/153578043

So far, America has not fallen quite this far, thanks in large part to the Internet. But if the European elites can succeed in censoring the Internet throughout the world, it can easily happen here as well, even eventually becoming the norm. (In case you missed the news, control of the Internet was transferred from the US to Europe last year, and since then, the attacks on our freedom have been substantial).

Thus, in order to protect high-ranking evil doers and dictatorial policies, the Internet as we know it is being attacked like never before! They can’t afford to have you know the truth.

Europe has long been a dictatorship — where the people now have almost no say in any of the lawmaking process or choice of lawmakers or judges — but sadly, few Europeans realize it. Most are under the influence of the sensational media which keep them dazzled by images of glamorous stars and athletes, cats rescued by firemen, “global climate crisis” and the latest cinematic achievements.

We will see more and more of this censorship and down-dumbing as time goes on. The pretext is privacy, but the real issue is freedom of speech. The use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to censor is a new and creative one. Just wait. There will be thousands of such excuses and each one will seem “justified” to the uninitiated who fail to understand what is going on behind the scenes.

But legal censorship isn’t the only way to silence sites like this one. Recently, the far-left site Tecnorati condemned Laigle’s Forum as “neo-nazi” for the article “Enjoy the internet while you can.” Other than mention of an anonymous report, no reason was given for this, but my best guess is that I had mentioned in the article that the far-left Frankfurt School was founded by a group of Jewish German Marxists who came to the US in the early 30s to avoid the impending Holocaust. My use of the word “Jewish” is no-doubt deemed anti-Semitic by the hypersensitive tecno rats, and this pretext is no different from the use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to go after whistleblowers. Of course, if I hadn’t mentioned they were Jewish, the reader would have been left wondering why a group of Germans would be fleeing before the impending holocaust, so the use of the word was clearly not racist. Besides, I didn’t say anything negative about them, only that they were intent on destroying traditional American culture, and that’s a positive for the far left, so what’s the problem?

But the point is: for a group of Marxist activists desperate to censor, any excuse will do.

There is very little time left for the public to wake up in time to save what is left of the New Media from the wolves.

Enjoy it while you can. Or better yet, help save it by spreading the word.

Don Hank

European censorship

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/13/you-can-help-stop-world-dictatorship/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/16/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/