Category Archives: Transhuman News

It seems counter-intuitive to claim that the re-election of the free-speech champion, the notorious politically incorrect jackhammer, Donald Trump, would pave the way to greater censorship rather than greener pastures.

Let me be clear: Im saying if a Democrat wins in 2020, the first wave of censorship would have proven to be not only an effective political strategy, but it would achieve what Project Veritas has exposed as Silicon Valleys desire to change the way people think. The digital book burners, modern-day tyrants, and behavioral re-educators, could take pause, needing only to tweak the successful model to be re-deployed in future elections, and set on autopilot.

What happens when the king senses his power is fading, and control is slipping from his grasp? Typically, they double-down on the very behavior that makes him the tyrant in the first place. If the past is prologue, then the re-election of Donald Trump will be the breaking point in 2020. The first wave of censorship would be deemed a failure, requiring retaliation and a second wave of expurgation. Unfortunately, what is even more chilling is that the political excommunication will worsen, and Donald Trump will do nothing about it.

According to a recent press pool report, the president applauded the so-called MAGA club. For 144 days, we set a record stock market. It means 401Ks, it means jobs. Four trillion-dollar companies: Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft. You have MAGA. The trillion-dollar club. Perhaps, he may be more concerned with the flattering numbers of financial success rather than the staggering numbers of banned or demonetized patriots: Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Steven Crowder, Laura Loomer, and the list is literally endless.

Within minutes at the Social Media Summit, intended to highlight big tech censorship and biases, the president began to compliment the stock market and skyrocketing 401(k)s. Great, slow hand clap.Unfortunately, Trumps showmanship on censorship wont repair the harm done to those banned online, many of which depended on their conservative activism for a living, and ultimately assisted the president in his electoral success.

Is it financial success if the next 50+ years are consumed by technological oppression? None of the major players banned were in attendance even though they are widely credited for the presidents election. Why, are they too controversial? Would it detract from the summits purpose? On the contrary, it would have reinforced its objective. But, we as conservatives have allowed the left to designate what is considered fringe within our own party; meanwhile, the radical left runs rampant with no guardrails or moderators, only having drunken cheerleaders on the sidelines.

The left has lost the battle through the judicial system, and they have been unable to materialize hate speech as a legal definition. Consequently, leftist technology companies are embracing the concept of hate speech by creating community guidelines and banishing violators from their platforms.

Recently reported byThe Post Millennial, Censored.TV, founded by Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes, has been banned on Facebook and Instagram and it is literally impossible to send links to his channel through private communication or DMs. The leftist behavioral re-educators not only want to control what you post in public and in private, they seek to control how you think about issues through conditioning and intimidation.

According toStatista, 59 percent of the earths population is plugged into the world wide web, approximately 4.54 billion people. More than ever these social media platforms and applications are an essential component in our social environment and establishing itself as the modern public square. Ignoring the phenomena of digital gulags would hinder controversial, provocative, and inquisitive thinkers from ever reaching an audience, and without radicals, we wouldnt have Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., or the other Martin Luther.

Out of fear of violating conservative orthodoxy and the idolization of free-market absolutism, we are afraid to take meaningful steps in reigning in the political targeting and digital assassination exhibited by those who control information. YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, is the second largest search engine, and many of the conservative firebrands have been de-platformed and deprived of access to a market that many leftist radicals continue to reach and enjoy.

If the right doesnt take action on censorship in fear of advancing the tentacles of big government, then the Trump phenomenon will fade; meanwhile, the burgeoning tentacles of big tech will strangle conservatism into a slow death, and there are only so many missteps one can make before the fall becomes fatal. Behold America, a new tyranny is amongst us. A citizen-tyranny where fellow Americans report you not to the government, but to a soy-pounding drone tech employee, sifting through content and complaints made for your improper and impure thoughts (posts).

How would the great architects of Western civilization see todays frenzy of censorship? We have inherited the worlds greatest tradition and we are squandering it to pathological political knuckle-draggers. Aristotle famously said, Man is by nature a political animal with the gift of contemplation and the power of morality. It is indisputable that those who have been targeted for censorship are not the hate-mongers theyve been falsely accused of being. The real hatemongers are hiding in plain sight, like David Duke, Richard Spencer and radical Islamic terrorists. Strangely, they all have been graced with the privilege of maintaining Twitter along with other various social media accounts. Perhaps, it serves the lefts purpose to raise certain individuals to prominence while degrading true conservatives into obscurity.

Aristotle would have probably agreed, to deny a man his political voice, is to deny him his humanity.

See the original post here:
Couple in car runs two Trump-supporting boys off the road - The Post Millennial

A culture of self-censorship and fear of backlash from funders, colleagues and the public is convincing arts and cultural workers to stay silent on important issues, according to new research from ArtsProfessional.

APs Freedom of Expression survey has uncovered pressures on arts workers ability to speak out ranging from the fear of harassment and humiliation to more overt measures like non-disclosure agreements. More than 500 artists and arts workers contributed some 60,000 words on questions about their experiences navigating controversy and coercion.

The research indicates the openness, risk and rebellion that many believe characterises the sector is being eroded. While about 90% of respondents agreed that the arts and cultural sector has a responsibility to use its unique talents to speak out about things that matter, regardless of the potential consequences, more than 80% thought that workers in the arts and cultural sector who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised.

READ MORE:

While much of the sectors censorship is self-imposed, one in six respondents said they had been offered a financial settlement in exchange for their silence on circumstances an organisation wanted to keep private.ArtsProfessional Editor Amanda Parker said the research reveals a deep division between public perception and the reality of working in the arts and cultural sector.

Our survey shines a damning light on the coercion, bullying, intimidation and intolerance that is active among a community that thinks of itself as liberal, open minded and equitable.

We are very aware that this research doesnt reflect all views, but its a sad and timely indication of the suppressed hurt and anger felt by many, despite the loud and growing conversations about collaboration and inclusiveness.

The sector is biting its tongue for fear of biting the hand that feeds, the survey shows.

Nearly 70% of respondents said they would not criticise a funder for fear of jeopardising future investment and 40% said they had been subject to pressure from funders for speaking out.

There was a sense that funders are immune from scrutiny, with respondents citing times they kept quiet about waste and cronyism, among other issues. One described the relationships with funders as being like a parent and child: Its hard to challenge or open up a dialogue with them even if there are genuine concerns.

Criticising a funders decision to award or turn down a grant or their continued support of elitist organisations would be a problem for many. Responses on this issue largely fell into two camps: those who felt the sector was only paying lip service to diversity and those who thought it attracted too much attention but neither group felt able to speak their minds.

Pressure to keep quiet was most likely to come from colleagues, according to two-thirds of respondents. However, the survey also revealed examples of retribution from organisations against arts workers who spoke their minds, from marginalisation and isolation to lost commissions, cancelled contracts and being screamed, shouted at [and] bullied by my ex-boss.

Some workplaces censor their employees online activity while others actively gag them: One in six respondents said they had been offered money if they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

One person said they had been offered money to keep quiet about corrupt practices in arts funding at the EU level; a whistleblower who told top management about mostly male bosses bullying their female subordinates was paid off and invited to leave the organisation. Another respondent accepted a redundancy package when the redundancy wasn't wholly legal; and one person reported a gagging order regarding a colleagues sexual harassment case and a boards illegal processes.

The research indicates the arts and cultural sector is intolerant of viewpoints outside of the dominant norms. Anything that might be considered politically incorrect to the liberal-leaning sector including expressing support or sympathy for Brexit, the Conservatives or other right-wing political parties was felt to be risky territory.

Religion, gender and sexuality were also considered a minefield and no-go areas for many: Anything to do with gender issues, especially trans issues, will get a lot of flak for either not being on message enough, or being off message, or too on message, one person said.

More than three-quarters of respondents said workers who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised. One person commented that people working in the sector are nowhere near as open as they pretend to be, there is a lot of hiding and backstabbing.

Only 40% of respondents agreed that personal views and opinions are met with respect by others working in the arts & cultural sector, and 42% said they feel free to speak publicly whether in person or online about their personal views on issues affecting the arts sector.

One person commented that it wouldnt be advisable to point out that the arts tend to do well under the Tories.

The dangers of this culture of self-censorship was summarised by another respondent:

Our arts, culture, and indeed education sectors are supposed to be fearlessly free-thinking and open to a wide range of challenging views. However, they are now dominated by a monolithic politically correct class (mostly of privileged white middle class people, by the way), who impose their intolerant views across those sectors.

This is driving people who disagree away, risks increasing support for the very things this culturally dominant class professes to stand against, and is slowly destroying our society and culture from the inside.

This culture of censorship is also affecting artistic expression and programming decisions. While four in five respondents agreed that organisations that wont risk controversy wont deliver the most exciting creative work, they also recognised the pressure on organisations. Only a third felt their boards were being unduly cautious about potentially controversial work.

But 45% had been pressurised, intimidated, ostracised, coerced, trolled, harassed or bullied, either in person or on digital media over their artistic and creative activities. Of that group, 44% had changed their product, programming or plans due to this pressure.

Negative public reaction can shut down free speech there is a culture of inviting and then overreacting to complaints when in fact they represent a tiny proportion of views, one person commented and cause artists to self-censor, the survey shows. Artists fear damaging their reputations or those of their organisations.

One person explained it as a matter of picking battles.

I sometimes have to weigh whether what I really need to say requires the element that will turn others away. If it is important to me, I will stick to my plan, but sometimes, it is not the most important thing and I choose to tame my ideas. I have felt like a traitor to my own self-expression, but I have to ask if anyone needs to hear from me at all.

Read theFreedom of Expression report, including over 1,000 comments and personal testimonies relating to freedom of expression in the arts and cultural sector.

Next week AP will launch an anonymous platform where you will be able to:

We won't share your identity anywhere.

See the rest here:
EXCLUSIVE: 'Culture of censorship' as arts workers fear backlash - ArtsProfessional

Britains National Health Service (NHS) has been a vocal and active advocate for trans affirmative medical care. Their latest foray into making sure male-bodied trans persons feel comfortable is to allow them access to medical care on womens hospital wards. If a female patient has a problem with it, she will be removed.

Women patients who complain about having a biological male in the next bed risk being kicked off the ward under new NHS transgender guidelines. Medical staff will be expected to deal with those who object to trans patients on single-sex wards as if the complainant is a racist or homophobe, the guidance states. Rather than relocate the trans patient, such as to a single room, it will be the person who makes the complaint who will be moved, according to the policy.

Womens groups complained about this change but were rebuffed. In fact, if a woman complains at being roomed with a male-bodied person, hospital staff is instructed to protect the trans person from the woman. The duty of care extends to protect patients from harassment and should the woman continue to make demands about the removal of the transgender patient and be vocal in the ward it would be appropriate to remind her of this Ultimately it may be the complainant who is required to be removed.

The NHS argument uses racism as a means to bolster the argument, claiming that If a white woman complained to a nurse about sharing a ward with a black patient or a heterosexual male complained about being in a ward with a gay man, we would expect our staff to act in a manner that deals with the expressed behaviour immediately. Of course, these are completely different things. Race has no bearing on gender, as both sexes exist within every race on earth. The same goes for sexual orientation, the fact of who a person is attracted to has nothing to do with their anatomy.

Under the guise of medical care, the NHS has encouraged hormone treatment, breast binding, and packing in minors. Before removing via surgery or chemical childrens reproductive capability, they may pay for the freezing of eggs and sperm, so that after the children undergo sterilization they will have access post-transition. At least one mother was threatened with the removal of her child by child services after she balked when NHS referred her 14-year-old daughter for gender reassignment hormones.

Grade school children are asked if they are comfortable in their own gender, while the NHS refers to children as young as 4 to gender reassignment doctors for assessment. There was even an NHS doctor who was fired for stating that gender is not assigned at birth, but is an innate condition. Women have pushed back against both the placing of male-bodied trans persons into womens prisons and refuges. One woman was appalled to receive care from a trans nurse when a female nurse was requested.

Over and over, womens spaces are being opened to male-bodied trans persons, children are being encouraged to assess their own bodies for correctness, young people are given life-altering drugs and surgeries before their brains are finished forming, and women are told to put up or shut up. Its bad enough to house men in womens prisons, or in battered womens shelters, both of which see women at their most vulnerable. But allowing men into womens hospital wards seems barbaric and cruel.

Anyone with a brain can agree that, despite gendery feelings, the difference between those with male bodies and those with female bodies are their bodies. Every time I write this it seems more and more absurd to say that men and women have different bodies or to try and justify just how bodies are relevant to medical care. But men and women have different bodies, the differences in those bodies are even more apparent when both take off their dresses and stand naked before medical professionals. The kind of medical care that men and women receive is different precisely because their bodies are different.

Rape victims should not arrive for hospital care only to be roomed with a male-bodied person. Male bodied persons need different care for their reproductive systems because they have different reproductive systems. Its frankly insane that we have to keep saying this. Male bodied persons do not need gynecologists, no matter how much silicone theyve been fitted with.

Gynecological patients should not have to undergo vaginal exams with a male-bodied person in the bed next to them, or be fitted with a catheter, or worry about their hospital gowns slipping, or showing too much skin when they carry themselves to the bathroom or fear intimate conversations about their anatomy being overheard.

This continued push against women having private spaces has so much to with mens needs being put first. In medical circles, it has come to light that the understood symptoms for heart attack were male-centric, and that there have been biases against womens pain. Women are less likely to be given CPR, to be properly treated for dementia, and often have their concerns overlooked. Now, even in womens hospital wards, women will have a harder time getting noticed, having their concerns heard, or even finding privacy.

Trans advocacy that puts men in womens spaces reflects the demand that women submit to mens wishes, desires, and delusions. The NHS should recognize this as the gaslighting it is, and give women back their medical autonomy. Medical services should be more aware of womens needs, not less. When women speak up for themselves, they should be heard, not silenced, shuttled off to some locale where they will get even worse medical care than that which they already access.

Most women who are housed with males on a womens hospital ward will not speak up, they will instead suck it up, for fear that their lives will be put at even more risk. Its up to the NHS, legislators, and womens groups to stand for womens rights, and not throw them under the proverbial gurney.

Read this article:
Scotland to become the first country to provide free sanitary products to women - The Post Millennial