The conservative news media One AmericaNews (OAN) is pushing back against two Democrat Representatives who wrote letters pressuring large American TV carriers over their coverage. The network is alleging the representatives are trying to get them deplatformed.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a reportedly notorious progressive donation mill, has issued a detailed explanation as to why the group is easing up on anti-LGBT, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic black separatist groups on its detailed hate map.
Despite all the hate that black separatists openly preach.
We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.
In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties.
Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state.
An organization called Coalition for a Safer Web founded and presently overseen by former US ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsberg, sued Apple in federal court on January 17 for allowing access to the increasingly popular Telegram app on its platforms.
Coalition for a Safer Web and Greenberg contend that Telegram “is being used by hate groups and extremists to attack the Capitol.”
Filed on Sunday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit from Ambassador Marc Ginsberg and the Coalition for a Safer Web charges Apple with allowing Telegram to be available in the App Store. This “despite Apple’s knowledge that Telegram is being used to intimidate, threaten, and coerce members of the public.”
Billed as a “non-partisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization” to force the removal of extremist and terrorist content from social media platforms, the Coalition claims Apple is failing to follow its own policies and guidelines regarding app content in relation to Telegram. In doing so, Apple allows Telegram’s more malicious users to continue their activities.
Ginsberg was educated abroad and has been involved in US politics since the early 1970s, when he became a legislative aide to Senator Edward Kennedy. In 1994 he was named US Ambassador to Morocco by President Bill Clinton.
Ginsberg is a foreign affairs contributor to several major news outlets and has ties to the US intelligence community, in addition to the Rand Corporation, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Brookings Institution. He is chief executive officer of One Voice Movement Foundation, an international NGO advocating for a “two state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Ginsberg presently serves as president of Coalition for a Safer Web, which is headquartered in Washington DC.
Ginsberg is no stranger to waging anti-free speech campaigns against social media outlets for allegedly “aiding and abetting” terrorists, arguing how the content of such platforms contributes to “online radicalization.” In 2016, Ginsberg told CNBC,
“Google/YouTube is complicit in aiding and abetting terror because it has failed to voluntarily do what is necessary to remove the most egregious calls for murdering Americans by homegrown lone wolves.”
Now, in addition to targeting “homegrown” terrorists” and “lone wolves,” Ginsberg has set his sites on “seditionist neo-Nazi[s] fleeing Parler” for Telegram, Gab, and other “web-based roach hostels,” according to a January 14 Tweet.
Ginsberg and his organization’s lawsuit comes within one week of the Anti-Defamation League sending a letter to the US Department of Justice demanding an investigation off Gab.com, the Christian-led online alternative to Twitter.
The Microsoft Corporation has revised its Services Agreement with users effective October 1, 2020. The tech giant states it will now target users for alleged copyright infringement, “terrorist or violent extremist content” and “communicating hate speech.” In order to enforce the new policy Microsoft states it will shutdown violators a la Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and even circumvent users’ email and related communications on its platform.
In 1994 independent researcher Laird Wilcox published Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America, an especially prescient and helpful study on “racist and anti-semitic hoaxes” that today more than ever deserves the concerted attention of citizens and civic leaders alike.
At present the US divide over race and gender-based issues is being exacerbated by certain well-financed groups with much broader political objectives. The grievances are used as rationale to justify a variety of activities that just a few months ago would have seemed a bit beyond-the-pale–wide-scale looting and vandalism, civil insurrection, and the abrupt termination of people’s livelihoods simply because of an errant social media post or email.
Wilcox’s fundamental argument is that race and ethnic-based hoaxes are typically employed by extremist groups to project victim status that in turn furthers a certain political project. “There are three main reasons,” according to Wilcox.
The first has to do with the personal payoff for victimization, i.e., attention, sympathy, a sense of importance, feeding persecution fantasies, and material payoffs. The second has to do with advancing a political or social agenda, as in the case of hoaxes intending to create support for regulations or legislation, or to help create a climate sympathetic to specific interest groups. The third has to do with insurance fraud, with the racial or anti-Semitic element almost an afterthought. Most hoaxes are combinations of the first two types [emphases added].
If “social activists” can be contracted to commit arson and vault bricks through store windows, as news reports of recent rioting suggest, there’s nothing preventing them from also being hired to spray bigoted, “white supremacist” graffiti in public spaces.
Most importantly, not only do hoaxes create an environment where entire political agendas, legislative programs, and even history itself are predicated on lies and falsehood, they also create the basis for “boy cries wolf” scenarios, where true hate crimes and their victims are dismissed out-of-hand or not treated with the seriousness they in fact deserve.
The following is an excerpt from Crying Wolf‘s initial pages. The entire book is available at the link below.
Forewordto 1994 Edition
This book grew out of a research project I began in 1988 when the issue of racist and anti-Semitic hoaxes first came to my attention in a serious way. I had learned in talking with a former associate in the civil rights movement of the 1960s that a cross-burning I had always assumed was done by white racists was, in fact, done by civil rights workers. This aroused my curiosity, and more extensive probing convinced me that it may not be an uncommon occurrence.
I quickly discovered that there were almost no sources of information on the subject of racist and anti-Semitic hoaxes. Rightwing groups, whom one might suspect would keep tabs on this, were rendered almost useless by their conspiratorial approach to the subject. The various black and Jewish groups were reluctant to discuss the issue. It was evidently a subject that had to be researched from scratch.
In 1989 I established the “Hoaxer Project” to bring together information on the subject. I managed to collect a number of newspaper clippings and in 1990 published a small report entitled The Hoaxer Project Report. Altogether some 5,500 copies of that report were circulated. A few readers began sending me clippings of hoaxes that actually made the newspapers as well as their own accounts of incidents they knew or suspected were hoaxes.
In time this added up to some 300 documented incidents from which the cases described in this book were drawn. I did not have the resources of a clipping service or a large network of “monitors” to assist me. If I had, this compilation might be many times as large.
Obviously, hoaxers are people who have exercised pretty bad judgment. Their acts may have been hurtful to others and they have usually violated various laws. Nevertheless I think it’s important to avoid the concept of “good guys” and “bad guys” when considering this issue. What we seem to have instead are those who are simply responding to an opportunity.
Whenever an abstract ideal acquires the moral urgency that racial equality or opposition to “bigotry” has today, it’s only a matter of time until we find individuals for whom the noble end justifies the questionable means. The militant, moralizing fanatic — quick to compromise important principles in order to enjoy the flush of righteousness — is the stumbling block which any reasonable resolution of racial/ethnic problems must overcome.
Further, in my experience, this uncompromising behavior is often a way of
compensating for a hidden inner ambivalence. The social psychologist Harold D.
Lasswell has written that “dogma is a defensive reaction in the mind of the
theorist, but doubt of which he is unaware.”
This unconscious ambivalence appears to explain the willingness of many
so-called “anti-racists” to justify and practice a kind of reverse racism or
“counter-bigotry.” This manifests itself in the “good” discrimination of
affirmative action and race-preferential policies, as well as in rationalizing
prejudicial and stereotyping statements about white people.
Twenty years ago one couldn’t have said this, but today discrimination in
schools, housing, jobs and government is minimal. Institutional racism is
virtually gone. In its place, a series of preferential policies are firmly
In recent years “anti-racists” have proclaimed that virtually every behavior and institution in our society is covertly racist. Anti-racism has become a small industry in the United States. Entire career fields are built around defining and combatting “racism” in one form or another. As individual problems are solved and offensive behaviors disappear, the definition of racism is broadened again and again to include more and more behaviors, hence we have the problem of “increasing” bigotry and intolerance. I suspect the last thing many professional anti-racists want is a truly race-neutral society. They have developed a vested interest in the continuation of the problem, a kind of “co-dependency” relationship, if you will.
It’s no great surprise that a bright, socially-conscious individual would
realize quite on his or her own that there’s nothing like some racist graffiti
or some other “hate crime” to invigorate the militants, and what the hell, it’s
for a good cause – right? Americans are not known for their ability to defer
gratification for long. Hence, the racist or anti-Semitic hoax. It’s as easy as
Consider a college campus boiling with racial and gender sensitivity, with
courses in victimization, organizations for victims, a constant barrage of
victimization propaganda — but no immediate and palpable victims. “Anti-racist”
vigilantes with no racists (or misogynists and homophobes) to hang had better
get busy and make some, and as we see, they often do.
What I see happening with hoaxes is a kind of “market” process: the frequency of
hoaxes increases with their utility in accomplishing desired ends. When the
“market” or payoff for victimization goes up, the temptation to create
victimization where none exists is very strong and the temptation of exaggerate
minor cases of alleged victimization is even stronger.
Conversely, as the number of hoaxes increases (assuming they are reported) a
greater skepticism toward unproven and marginal victimization claims will
probably increase as well, and hoaxes will become less effective. It’s pretty
much a matter of supply and demand.
Concerning the text, it’s important to realize that in some cases there may have
been further developments in some of the incidents I have covered. If a
particular case is important to you, I advise that you attempt to determine its
current status. Also, for the most part I relied on journalistic accounts for my information. While I believe that these are generally reliable, one has to be
realistic and concede that they are hardly infallible. I have footnoted as many
sources as I could find. It is up to the readers to judge their reliability.
Finally, this publication is a continuing project. It is anticipated that future
editions will appear. I would like to recruit you to help overcome the
disadvantage I have in compiling information on hoaxes. If you see newspaper
coverage or other information about a hoax in your community, please send it to
This week Angela Merkel, a German-Polish Marxist who has served as the Federal Republic of Germany’s chancellor since 2005, warned against the “propagation of hate”, cautioning those who may tend to speak their minds, that freedom of speech is not “for free.'”
Echoing the rhetoric of a public relations campaign underway throughout the West against “hate speech,” Merkels’ comments came in an address to the German Parliament on November 27.
Merkel came under fire in 2016 for agreeing with Turkish President Erdoğan to prosecute a German comedian for publicly reciting a poem satirizing Recep Erdoğan in a performance that sought to illustrate the limits of free speech in Germany.
Editor’s Note: A major US research university has refused to terminate a tenured professor’s employment for exercising his constitutionally-protected right to free speech. The university’s ostensible respect for the First Amendment elicited positive reactions from “students, academics and lawyers, many of whom praised the provost for publicly excoriating the professor’s opinions while respecting one of the nation’s basic freedoms,” the New York Times observes.
There is notably no mention by the “newspaper of record” of the TracyvFAU First Amendment case where in 2015 a Florida public university successfully sidestepped the First Amendment by firing a tenured academic for questioning his university administration’s efforts to censor his similarly protected speech.
Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs New York Times (November 22, 2019)
A provost at Indiana University has earned praise for harshly condemning a professor’s views while respecting the First Amendment.
The provost did not mince her words about the opinions of a professor on her campus. His views were racist, sexist and homophobic, she wrote in a statement this week. They were “vile and stupid,” she said, and “more consistent with someone who lived in the 18th century than the 21st.”
But the provost, Lauren Robel of Indiana University Bloomington, was equally clear on another point: The First Amendment prohibited the university from firing the professor, Eric Rasmusen, for expressing those views. “That is not a close call,” wrote Professor Robel, who also teaches at the law school.
Conflicts over academic freedom and private speech have long been mainstays of college campuses. There was the case of Steven Salaita, the professor whose job offer was revoked by the University of Illinois in 2014 over his criticism of Israel. And John McAdams, the professor who was reinstated by a Wisconsin court last year after Marquette University suspended him for criticizing a graduate student on his personal blog.
Establishment left-wing and establishment conservative billionaires are teaming up to censor the Internet. It looks like elitists on both sides of the political aisle are trying to make sure you only get the information they want you to have.
Organizations established by left-winger George Soros and neo-conservative Charles Koch have been working together on a key priority of globalist neoliberals and neoconservatives: censorship of the Internet, according to Breitbart News. Censorship is necessary for tyranny so it makes sense that those who need the government to enslave humanity would be working together to achieve the means to an end.
Last year, the Charles Koch Institute pledged its support for the “After Charlottesville Project,” an initiative organized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) aimed at combating “online extremism.”
Sponsors of the initiative include Comcast, NBC Universal, the Kresge Foundation, and the George Soros Charitable Foundation.
The former group, Hope not Hate, has a reputation for far-left extremism. Liberal anti-extremism campaigner Maajid Nawaz accused them of “book burning” after it announced a campaign to get allegedly “racist” books banned by major retailers. It was also forced to retract a smear against a Jewish pro-Israel activist last year.-Breitbart News
The Charles Koch Institute, once seen as a conservative nemesis of the left, has now aligned itself with this group of left-wing, pro-censorship, anti-Trump agitators. When it comes to censoring the Internet, both the progressive and “conservative” establishment appear to be converging on a common position.
The Charles Koch Institute now also appears committed to advancing Internet censorship and aligning with totalitarianism and slavery over freedom and libertarian principles. Koch is now for “content moderation,” as they call it. Sarah Ruger, the Institute’s director of “free expression initiatives” has praised Airbnb for canceling the reservations of far-right activists, and has called for “online hate” to be treated like a “virus.” As always, there’s an elephant in the room — what counts as “online hate?” Is it questioning the official narrative? Is it condemning authoritarians who harm others? Is it siding with morality even though it contradicts the existence of government? What exactly is “online hate” and who gets to decide if you’re hateful?
Editor’s Note: Comcast NBCUniversal will not release a violent feature-length “satire” The Hunt, wherein wealthy liberal elites pursue and murder white working class (and presumably Donald Trump-supporting) Christian conservatives for sport.
The decision to pull the film comes in the wake of last week’s Dayton and El Paso mass shooting events, in addition to a barrage of criticism leveled at Hollywood by President Donald Trump on Friday.
“The movie coming out is made in order … to inflame and cause chaos,” Trump asserted on Twitter. “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!”
The Hunt creator Jason Blum’s gore-filled, politically-themed repertoire includes The Purge film and television franchise. The Hunt is written by Damon Lindelof, the co-writer of The Leftovers television series and a well known figure in Democratic Party circles whose oeuvre has highlighted what he deems the persistent problem of “white supremacy.”
Trump calls ‘liberal Hollywood ‘racist at the highest level’ as a satirical film that depicts liberal elites hunting ‘deplorables’ for sport is set for release
(August 9, 2019)
President Donald Trump went after Hollywood on Friday, calling the industry “racist” and “really terrible.”
Later in the day, Trump doubled down, calling “liberal Hollywood” racist “at the highest level” and “with great Anger and Hate!”
“The movie coming out is made in order … to inflame and cause chaos,” he wrote on Twitter. “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!”
Trump was likely referring to “The Hunt,” a satirical film from Universal Studios about liberal elites hunting “deplorables” from the rural US for sport.
Universal Studios pulled TV and digital ads for the film after two mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, roiled the country last weekend.
“Hollywood — I don’t call them elites, I think elites are people they go after in many cases — Hollywood is really terrible,” the president said, speaking with reporters on the White House lawn as he prepared to depart for his golf club in New Jersey.
“You talk about racism, Hollywood is racist,” he added. “What they’re doing with the kind of movies they’re putting out is actually very dangerous for our country. What Hollywood is doing is a tremendous disservice to our country.”
In Wake of El Paso, Dayton Agency to “US-Based Domestic Violent Extremists, Perpetrators of Hate Crimes”
In the aftermath of the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be looking to social media more and more in what it claims is a drive to prevent mass shootings before they occur.
“Authorities are looking at social media channels like 8chan in an effort to stop future mass shootings,” CBS News reports.
They said many attackers are inspired online with message boards and social media giving attackers the platform they seek.
“The attack in El Paso, Texas, underscores the continued threat posed by domestic violent extremists and perpetrators of hate crimes,” the FBI states in an August 4 press release, requesting the
American public to report to law enforcement any suspicious activity that is observed either in person or online.
“Many shooters spend almost two years planning their attack … Usually it’s a desire for some omnipotent control, even if its just momentary,” FBI agent Andres Simmons tells CBS News. “And there’s also a degree of desire for infamy and notoriety.”
The FBI’s announcement comes less than one week after Yahoo News reported on a Phoenix FBI Field Office Memo stating that those circulating “anti-government, identity-based and fringe political conspiracy theories” online are worthy of intensified law enforcement scrutiny because they “very likely motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal, sometimes violent activity.”
President Trump on Sunday declared that “hate has no place in our country” after a pair of back-to-back mass shootings over the weekend rocked the nation.
“Hate has no place in our country, and we’re going to take care of it,” Trump told reporters at Morristown Airport before departing for the White House after spending the weekend at his New Jersey golf resort.
Trump’s three-minute remarks were the first the first time he spoke publicly about the deadly shootings. He ignored shouted questions about whether the El Paso shooter’s anti-immigrant manifesto shared similarities with his rhetoric and said the shootings are part of “a mental illness problem.”
The president said his White House has “done much more than most administrations” when it comes to addressing gun violence but conceded that “perhaps more has to be done.”
He said he would deliver a lengthier statement at 10 a.m. Monday. He did not answer further questions about the shooting roughly an hour later upon arriving at the White House.
A March 2016 interview with James Tracy conducted on the popular alternative news outlet SGT Report was stricken from YouTube last week, presumably in the wake of the major video platform’s most recent campaign to rid itself of “hate speech.”
According to YouTube’s new policy, “hate speech” now effectively includes virtually any discussion or insinuation calling into question the veracity of complex public events, including mass casualty events.
“Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube,” the exhibition giant declared on June 5th. “We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes,” which now includes,
“Victims of a major violent event and their kin.”
Yet as SGT Report‘s host Sean points out in a recent commentary addressing the censorship, the 2016 interview wasn’t even about the Sandy Hook shooting event. Rather, the discussion centered on the anti-free speech actions taken by Tracy’s former academic employer, Florida Atlantic University, in retaliation against Tracy for his controversial online speech.
As Sean notes, “We merely discussed the First Amendment and the high cost of free speech as it pertains to discussing, investigating, and/or questioning any event at all. “Evidently now,” he adds,
if you don’t fall in line with the mainstream media version of events and parrot the official story, you will be targeted as an unhinged conspiracy theorist who spews hate speech.
In April 2016 Tracy filed a federal civil rights suit against Florida Atlantic and its chief administrators who carried out his firing. That suit is now before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
YouTube’s censorship of the interview is in lockstep with the overall news blackout of TracyvFAU by national media, the same media that focused so intently on Tracy’s personal blogging in 2013, then celebrated the academic’s termination three years later.
Editor’s Note: Andrew Carrington Hitchcock discusses Professor James Tracy’s 2015 termination from Florida Atlantic University and the TracyvFAU lawsuit with Tracy and trial lawyer Louis Leo IV in two separate interviews, available via the links below.
Carrington Hitchcock is a UK-based historian and host of The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show. Leo is the lead attorney in the 2016 civil rights lawsuit against the university presently before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
(January 12, 2019)
In today’s show originally broadcast on January 12 2019, EuroFolkRadio’s Andrew Carrington Hitchcock interviews Dr. James F. Tracy, for a show entitled, “What Happened To James Tracy Could Happen To You…”