The Darkening Condition of Modern Life is Caused by Manipulation Through Consumer Technology

Let’s face it, social media was designed by military and intelligence agencies to occupy our attention, control our thoughts and record our every move.

The people who invented our favorite mobile technologies, smart phones and tablets, wouldn’t let their own children use them. Why?

Because it’s poison, that’s why.

As the data shows, we’re increasingly less happy and more divided in our lives as this government and tech manipulation ramps up.

It’s time to reconsider our use of these technologies and their control and manipulation over our lives. If not by getting rid of them completely, then strictly managing our use of them while closely monitoring their effects on us.

Reclaim Your Mind Terence McKenna

Tom Petty was Right

CLUSTERFUCK NATION – BLOG April 29, 2019

How to account for Americans being the most anxious, fearful, and stressed-out people among the supposedly advanced nations? Do we not live in the world’s greatest democratic utopia where dreams come true?

What if the dreaming part is actually driving us insane? What if we have engineered a society in which fantasy has so grotesquely over-run reality that coping with daily life is nearly impossible. What if an existence mediated by pixel screens large and small presents a virtual world more compelling than the real world and turns out to be a kind of contagious avoidance behavior — until reality is so fugitive that we can barely discern its colors and outlines beyond the screens?

You end up in a virtual world of advertising and agit-prop where manipulation is the primary driver of human activity. That is, a world where the idea of personal liberty (including any act of free thought) becomes a philosophical sick joke, whether you believe in the possibility of free will or not. You get a land full of college kids trained to think that coercion of others is the highest-and-best use of their time on earth — and that it represents “inclusion.” You get a news industry that makes its own reality, churning out narratives (i.e. constructed psychodramas) to excite numbed minds. You get politics that play out like a Deputy Dawg cartoon. You get a corporate tyranny of racketeering that herds spellbound citizens like so many sheep into chutes for shearing, not only of their money, but their autonomy, dignity, and finally their will to live.

Can a people recover from such an excursion into unreality? The USA’s sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, including the burdens of empire, onerous global debt, population overshoot, fracturing globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change — things that hurt to think about.

Read More: https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/tom-petty-was-right/

Fragmented

Are societies becoming hopelessly fragmented to the point that democracies are no longer functional as compromise solutions become impossible? Is technology tearing us apart? What are the consequences?

Big questions and probably deserving intense study and I find these questions on my mind a lot these days. Look, as much as it all seems like an old hat now the internet and social media is still new, but it has already dramatically changed the way we interact and process information and it may well be changing cultures in a big way and not necessarily for the better.

Think of all the kids today that don’t even know what a world without internet looks like. Heck I see 3 years olds glued to screens in cars, at fast food joints and every kid is running around with a smart phone. Their brains are perceiving reality quite differently than perhaps people just 20 years ago. I don’t know what it’s like to grow up being bombarded with constant content at such an early age. But we all are now.

Read More: https://northmantrader.com/2019/04/24/fragmented/

THE WORLD IS SADDER AND ANGRIER THAN EVER

Mac Slavo April 29th, 2019

In this day and age when most people have everything they could possibly need and then some, the world is sadder and angrier than ever before. The standard of living around the globe has never been higher, but neither has the discontentment.

According to a major analysis of global well-being, the world really is getting more miserable. Human beings worldwide are sadder, angrier and more fearful than they have ever been before.  Something just isn’t right on Earth. In Gallup’s annual Global State of Emotions report, all three emotions (sadness, anger, and fear) rose to record levels in 2018, for the second consecutive year.

Read More: https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-world-is-sadder-and-angrier-than-ever_04292019

The Erosion of Everyday Life

Charles Hugh Smith

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2019

Working hard and doing what you’re told is no longer yielding the promised American Dream of security, agency and liberty.
Volume One of Fernand Braudel’s oft-recommended (by me) trilogy Civilization & Capitalism, 15th to 18th Century is titled The Structures of Everyday Life. The book describes how life slowly became better and freer as the roots of modern capitalism and liberty spread in western Europe, slowly destabilizing and obsoleting the sclerotic tyrannies of feudalism.
Today I want to discuss the erosion of everyday life as a manifestation of the endgame of the current version of state capitalism, more precisely neofeudal state-cartel financialization, which combines financial predation of the home (core) economy and global exploitation of the Periphery (a.k.a. neocolonialism.)
Unlike the era Braudel describes, our era is characterized by the decline of liberty and the distortion of capitalism to serve the few at the expense of the many.
The over-used analogy of the boiled frog remains apt in understanding the erosion of everyday life: everyday life has become increasingly more difficult, more stressful, less rewarding financially, more deranging and less free for the past two generations. This erosion has gathered momentum in the 21st century as the status quo has ramped up its dysfunctional dynamics to keep the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, power and liberty in place.
Consider the costs and capital flows of planned obsolescence. The consumer, who once was implicitly assured decades of reliable service from an American-made appliance, now gets an appliance that rarely lasts more than a decade, regardless of the brand or origin.
In the relentless drive for higher profits, every component is outsourced to the lowest cost supplier. I can assure you nobody checks the electronic components for durability; the circuit boards that operate your dryer, washer, refrigerator, etc. are checked to make sure they function coming out of the factory (though even this step is slipshod), but that’s it.
Since I’ve replaced defective boards in appliances, I can report that 1) the labor component of the repair is insanely expensive (which is why I did it myself, of course) 2) the boards are insanely expensive–$150 for what I estimate is $10 of commodity chips embedded in a $5 board, to more than $300, depending on the age and brand and 3) replacing the board is no guarantee the new board will last more than a few years, being made of the cheapest components in the lowest-quality factories.
This is the only profitable model of late-stage state-cartel corporate capitalism: force the consumer to upgrade their perfectly functional mobile phone, tablet, etc., every few years, or engineer the appliance/device to fail in a few years.
The favored corporate exploitation/predation mechanism is the long-term maintenance plan: since consumer, distributor (Best Buy et al.) and manufacturer all know the product has been engineered to fail in a few years, consumers are blackmailed into buying incredibly costly long-term maintenance plans, which work for the blackmailers because:
1) many consumers will lose the paperwork or get confused by the claims process and give up
2) other consumers will just decide to buy a new product, having been conned by “new features” or the ease of buying new rather than being on hold for hours trying to get Corporate America to do anything remotely beneficial to customers and
3) if the consumer is especially obdurate and grinds through all the barriers Corporate America sets up to wear them down and gets a repair person to actually show up, the corporation pays its actual cost for the replacement part–$15–not the $150 the consumer is charged should they fail to buy the long-term maintenance plan.

 

Renaming History to Virtue Signal to Identity Dictators

In Kansas City, MO the city’s first boulevard, (The Paseo) named by it’s original architect, has been renamed thanks to the lobbying efforts of certain identitarian interest groups.

Since the boulevard was suddenly renamed a citizen’s group has gathered signatures to try to reverse the unilateral decision of the council.

It’s amazing to me that they want to rename the city’s first boulevard in particular.

Why does it have to be one of the few streets with an original and interesting name? (named after the Paseo De La Reforma, an iconic road in Mexico City.)

Why not any other street in the city with a number or generic name? Why not a numbered street that crosses racial boundaries in the city (running east to west.)

It reminds me of socialist countries that renamed every road and every monument, in every city, to the same names: Lenin, Marx, Revolution, October etc.

Funny that social justice is acting  the same way as the communists, trying to erase previous history.

As you can see from the following Washington Post article, if anyone questions the erasing history, they will be painted in negative racial terms.

I should not have to point out that this is how the Communists acted during their rule. Anyone who questioned their decisions or unilateral authority was called a traitor, or “counter-revolutionary.” The same is happening today when basic discussion is met with accusations of racism. 

 

socialism social justice MLK blvd martin luther king jr

Group seeks to reverse naming of Kansas City street for King

When the City Council voted in January to name a 10-mile boulevard that runs north and south through mostly minority neighborhoods after the civil rights icon, Kansas City seemed to finally shed its distinction as one of the largest cities in the U.S. without a street named for King. That vote capped a contentious effort led by black pastors and officials of the local chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

But within weeks of the vote, a grassroots group began collecting signatures asking that the question of renaming of the boulevard known as The Paseo be placed on the ballot this year. They want to change the boulevard’s name back to The Paseo. The Save the Paseo group on Friday turned in petitions with 2,857 signatures — far more than the 1,700 needed.
……
The Paseo, the city’s first boulevard, was completed in 1899 and includes inviting sections with grassy medians, fountains and impressive mansions from Kansas City’s early years.
……
The boulevard was planned by influential German landscape architect George Kessler, who named it after Paseo De La Reforma, an iconic road in Mexico City. Historians say it and several other Kansas City boulevards, designed with wide expanses and green areas, became the backbone of the city and shaped its transportation routes and growth. They say that connection to the city’s history would disappear if the Paseo name is removed.

Read More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/naming-kansas-city-street-for-martin-luther-king-is-divisive/2019/04/26/756f9b26-684c-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html

UBI (Universal Basic Income) Creates a Government-Dependent Nonworking Class Ponzi Scheme

its not socialism its democratic socialism

Just like taxing high earners, or the “Wealth Tax,” failed in France a few years ago, a test of “Universal Basic Income” has just been discontinued in Finland.

The result of free money?
No one tries to get a job.

Why? Because these are socialist programs of wealth redistribution to cripple the working class and force more and more people into welfare (government) dependency.

Finland to end basic income trial after two years

23 Apr 2018

Read More:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years

Finland’s basic-income trial did not much affect work incentives

Some UBI supporters may be disappointed that the scheme did not increase time worked. Unlike other benefits, which are withdrawn as claimants find work and so tend to discourage them from accepting a job offer, the basic income creates no such disincentive, because it is paid even after claimants take up work. But most proponents do not see employment as UBI’s primary goal. They will be cheered by the fact that the participants reported being happier.

Read More: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/02/14/finlands-basic-income-trial-did-not-much-affect-work-incentives

The Universal Basic Income Is An Idea Whose Time Has Not Come

By   20, 2017

From almost the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have alternatively celebrated and feared the effects of machinery on their economies and cultures. The current iteration of this fearful joy tells us that automation will make too many people unemployable and, in its darkest mood, that artificial intelligence will undertake a war to eradicate humanity.

As Nikhil Reddy of the Huffington Post puts it, “The melancholy truth is that this is a certainty – these machines will come to do our work better than we can – so we must maintain a plenary focus on protecting the financial and occupational interest of those whose jobs are up for grabs. The solution – receiving troves of support from the likes of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Richard Branson – is universal basic income.”

The concept of universal basic income (UBI) is that the federal government would guarantee that everyone receives a minimum income regardless of circumstance to offset the horrible effects of automation and AI which represent the successful advance of technology. Under this theory, the culprit, technological success, will put people out of work and irrevocably reverse the course of business in a market economy, as we know it, if the United States does not implement UBI.

Read More: https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20/universal-basic-income-idea-whose-time-not-come/

A History of Socialism in an Old PBS Documentary: Doubt They Would Play This Nowadays

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 1: The Rise)

2005 – In the first hour we meet Robert Owen, the 19th century industrialist who coined the term “socialism” and tried to create a utopian world in the middle of rural Indiana. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels forge a manifesto and declare a prophecy. The idea splits. One man tries to marry socialism to democracy, while another starts a revolution.

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 2: Revolutions)

From the rice fields of Mao’s China to the rise of British Labour and from the birth of the Israeli kibbutz to African independence, a new generation of leaders brings to life radically diverse visions as socialism comes to power around the globe.

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 3: The Collapse)

In the East, Communism falls – while social democracy is reinvented in the West. What shape will socialism take in the twenty-first century? Find out on the conclusion of Heaven On Earth.

 

Toxic Femininity Unleashed onto Society by 3rd/4th Wave Feminist Dogma of Hatred and Division

some women are not decorations

Feminism Is A Disease – And Masculinity Is The Cure

Brandon Smith 25 January 2019
…As I’ve noted in past articles on the psychology not only of globalists, but the useful idiots on the political left they like to exploit, these kinds of people often exhibit many of the traits of narcissistic sociopaths. It has been my observation that narcissistic sociopaths tend to come to the aid of other narcissistic sociopaths when they are facing discovery or prosecution.  They are not as isolated from each other as many assume.  They do in fact “organize”, and act to help each other as long as there is mutual benefit.  If one vampire is hunted down by the villagers with their pitchforks, they know that ALL vampires might eventually be hunted down.

There is nothing particularly special about The Atlantic’s analysis of men; it merely regurgitates all the typical feminist misconceptions and fallacies, but more subtly and in a way that might appear “rational” to the unschooled.

I do ask readers to study the article, because it is a perfect all around example of the kind of advanced propaganda men are facing: The dangerous mixture of pseudoscience and cultism.  It presents itself as scientific while lacking any scientific foundation.  It presents itself as fair while being ideologically biased in the extreme.  It acts as if it wants to “help” men while treating men as if we are suffering from a mental illness called “traditional masculinity”.

The fact is, feminism itself is so disjointed from observable reality that nearly every viewpoint the floundering movement adopts is the exact opposite of the truth. Often this is by design – these people are not interested in being scientifically or morally correct in an argument, they only want to “win” the argument by any means necessary. Leftist Gatekeeper Saul Alinsky’s method of debate and revolution has always been about removing all morals and principles when pushing an ideology. The goal is to slander your opponent in the manner most effective, even if the slander is entirely fraudulent, while avoiding the facts at all costs if the facts are not in your favor.

That said, I also think that social justice warriors have so immersed themselves in cultism and zealotry they have truly lost sight of the real world and concrete evidence. In many cases they may not even understand that the lies they promote are actually repelling the public rather than indoctrinating them.  This works to our advantage; their delusions are our gain, for now.  But delusions can be powerful, and they can sometimes take on a life of their own.  What if one day soon the lies about men and masculinity become so entrenched that our society is enraptured by the anti-man religion?

Well, we can already see some of the damage done today.  So, what are these lies about masculinity? Why not start with the Atlantic article’s suggestive title and manipulative content…

Read More: http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3639-feminism-is-a-disease-and-masculinty-is-the-cure

New Study: The Gender Pay Gap is a False Narrative

Feminism in 2019 is about beating everyone in the head with false grievances over stereotypes and platitudes, while casually accepting ideologies of hatred based on gender and race, murder of humans based on their status as a “person,” and the general transformation of the sacred female into masculine, screeching, blood-lusting, harpy hobgoblins…

feminism is social pseudo science

So what’s the real cause of the gender wage gap?

Federico Anzil
January 10, 2019

…In this article, we found that one of the main sources of the gender pay gap is the fact that, on average, women and men devote a different number of hours to their jobs, specially after marriage and parenthood.

The literature on gender pay gap is very extensive. Different papers focus on diverse causes to explain it. Two of the most mentioned reasons are gender discrimination and motherhood and gender roles.

Gender discrimination against women occurs if a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same job.

If we consider that the quantity of hours devoted to a job determines whether we consider a job to be the same as another, the data doesn’t support the idea of gender discrimination at the aggregate level.

The hourly pay rate for married women is lower than for married men on average, but a probable explanation is because the job market pays less per hour if the number of hours worked decreases, and married women tend to work less. The same pattern can be seen in almost every occupation.

Also, men tend to devote more time to work, thus acquire more experience as years pass by, and the job market pays more if the worker has more experience.

This doesn’t mean that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. Our analysis just shows that, at the aggregate level, most of the gap is not explained by gender discrimination.

Regarding the second aspect of the pay gap, societal ideas of gender roles influence the behavior of women and men. Also, biological factors related to parenthood do play a role in the creation of differences in preferences. Namely, women get pregnant and women breastfeed. These differences between sexes could be a plausible explanation of why women tend to spend more time at home versus their couples, especially after marriage and parenthood6.

To conclude and to recap, we can say that, according to our analysis, job market forces and gender preferences in relation to marital status and parenthood could explain almost all of the pay gap. Most of the gap is not the result of gender discrimination….

Read More: https://visme.co/blog/wage-gap/

The Old New Deal Introduced the Fascist American Government The New “Green New Deal” will Seal the Deal

Let’s face the fact that the FDR’s New Deal was nothing but a power and money grab by the government that had nothing to do with recovering from the Great Depression. 

Let’s also fact the fact that the science behind man-made climate change is  weaponized, politicized science that is paid for and promoted by billionaires who run foundations, corporations and control most governments. 

The “New Green Deal” won’t just be paid for by the richest Americans, prices would dramatically go up for all Americans. 

This is just another targeted weapon of mass economic destruction aimed at the middle classes. 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez it is more important to be morally right than facutally correct

Flaws With a “Green New Deal,” Part 1 of 2

BY ROBERT P. MURPHY

DECEMBER 20, 2018

There’s a growing buzz around a “Green New Deal,” spearheaded by newly-elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although the details are in flux, currently the draft text calls for the creation of a 15-member “Select Committee for a Green New Deal” that would “have authority to develop a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan” to make the U.S. economy “greenhouse gas emissions neutral.” As if that weren’t ambitious enough, the Select Committee’s detailed national plan would also have the goal “to promote economic and environmental justice and equality.” The draft specifically mentions spending $1 trillion over ten years, in addition to extensive taxes and regulations to steer the economy and society as the 15 committee members see fit. (To be clear, the draft text currently calls for the creation of the select committee, which in turn is then tasked with drafting legislation forming the “Green New Deal” itself.)

In this two-part series I will strongly critique both the spirit and substance of a proposed “Green New Deal.” In the second article, I will focus on the specific proposals in the draft legislation. But in this first piece I will give the historical context and explain why the very notion of a Green New Deal is misguided, because it relies on faulty history and bad economics.

Read More: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/flaws-with-a-green-new-deal-part-1-of-2/

Cultural Marxism or Social Justice?

every socialist is a disguised dictator

Thomas Sowell Explains The Economics Of Discrimination

At 88 years old, Thomas Sowell continues to demonstrate why he’s one of the most formidable intellects of the age. In Discrimination and Disparities, released earlier this year, Sowell rebuts common misconceptions regarding socioeconomic differences among individuals, groups, and nations, and demonstrates that disparities are often explained by economics.

For instance, emotionally loaded phrases like “systemic racism” and “exploitation” are frequently used to explain differences between blacks and whites, rich and poor, and even individual nations. But a better understanding of economics refutes these notions.

Sowell begins by noting there are different types of discrimination. Discrimination I he defines as “an ability to discern differences in the qualities of people and things, and choosing accordingly”—in other words, “making fact-based distinctions.” Discrimination II he defines as “treating people negatively, based on arbitrary assumptions or aversions concerning individuals of a particular race or sex, for example”—in other words, what most people mean today when they talk of “discrimination.”

Ideally, Discrimination I—judging each person individually—would be universally practiced. Rarely, however, is the ideal “found among human beings in the real world, even among people who espouse that ideal.” He gives an example:

If you are walking at night down a lonely street, and see up ahead a shadowy figure in an alley, do you judge that person as an individual or do you cross the street and pass on the other side? The shadowy figure in the alley could turn out to be a kindly neighbor, out walking his dog. But, when making such decisions, a mistake on your part could be costly, up to and including costing you your life.

In short, cost is the relevant factor when determining a course of action. The cost of Discrimination I—judging the person as an individual—may be prohibitively high in some cases, as when you approach a shadowy figure in a dark alley. But that does not mean that choosing to cross the street to avoid that shadowy figure is automatically Discrimination II—arbitrarily expressing antipathy toward a group.

As Sowell explains, in the case of crossing the street,

This is still Discrimination I, basing decisions on empirical evidence. But the distinction between the ideal version of Discrimination I—judging each individual as individual—and making decisions based on empirical evidence about the group to which the individual belongs is a consequential difference. We can call the ideal version (basing decisions on evidence about individuals) Discrimination Ia, and the less than ideal version (basing individual decision on group evidence) Discrimination Ib. But both are different from unsubstantiated notions or animosities.

Not All Discrimination Is Equal

In other words, discrimination based on factual generalizations (Discrimination Ib) is not the same as discrimination based on personal aversions to race, sex, etc. (Discrimination II). Indeed, evidence-based generalizations are used routinely, including by employers whose cost of judging everyone individually may be prohibitively expensive:

To take an extreme example of Discrimination Ib, for the sake of illustration, if 40 percent of the people in Group X are alcoholics and 1 percent of the people in Group Y are alcoholics, an employer may well prefer to hire only people from Group Y for work where an alcoholic would be not only ineffective but dangerous. This would mean that a majority of people in Group X—60 percent in this case—would be denied employment, even though they are not alcoholics. What matters, crucially, to the employer is the cost of determining which individual is or is not an alcoholic, when job applicants all show up sober on the day when they are seeking employment.

Critically, cost is not limited to employers:

[Cost] also matters to the customers who buy the employer’s products and to society as a whole. If alcoholics produce a higher proportion of products that turn out to be defective, that is a cost to customers … To the extent that alcoholics are not only less competent but dangerous, the costs of those dangers are paid by either fellow employees who fact those dangers on the job or by customers who buy dangerously defective products, or both.

Consider, says Sowell, a real-world example. A disproportionate number of young, black job applicants have criminal records, meaning that employers may turn them down at a higher rate, even if they have zero animosity toward them (Discrimination 1b).

Although this is less ideal than discerning each person individually (Discrimination Ia), higher rates of rejection cannot automatically be assumed to be “systemic racism” (Discrimination II), when discernment is based not on personal antipathy but on empirical generalization, even though that generalization does not apply to every individual within the group. In fact, employers who run background checks on all employees regardless of race hire more black males than do other companies. Sowell explains:

Where the nature of the work made criminal background checks worth the cost for all employees, it was no longer necessary to use group information to assess whether individual young black job applicants had a criminal background. This made young black job applicants without a criminal background more employable than before.

Moreover, understanding the economics is more than merely an academic exercise, when our understanding can make the difference between policies that hurt and help real people. Indeed, background checks have increased opportunity for black job seekers, yet many elites—including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have tried to prohibit employers from conducting background checks by suing in the name of “racial discrimination.” If they acquainted themselves with the facts, however, they may realize the folly of their actions and emotionally charged rhetoric.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/07/thomas-sowell-explains-the-economics-of-discrimination/

The Left’s Intersectional Identity Politics Are Racist, Sexist, Anti-American Lies

  28, 2018

The language of intersectionality – speaking of racial, gender, or sexual identity as though those categories represent the most important aspects of a person – is taking over, not just on university campuses and in the legacy media, but also in Fortune 500 board rooms and across social media. Twitter even made its dedication to the academic theory official in its most recent rules update (the one that apparently got The Federalist’s hilarious Jesse Kelly the axe), which implies that abusive behavior on the platform is more consequential, and therefore more deserving of censure, when directed towards those with more intersectional oppressed class notches on their identity belts.

Having finally made it into the Oxford English Dictionary just three years ago, intersectionality is now the go-to explanation for everything from vote totals in the midterm elections to why some people are more interested in astrological superstitions than others.

But viewing human action as reducible to a series of checked boxes strips us of our individuality and rationality, and, oddly for a movement that claims that personal experience dictates worldview, even of how our unique life experiences (rather than those of a large group) have influenced our thinking. Intersectionality is aptly-named, for it reduces each of us to a plotted point on a series of identity axes, a collection of reactions to impersonal forces between large collectives. Not only is this lens for analyzing complex and whole human beings incredibly boring, it often produces one-dimensional, or even outright false assessments of motivations and actions.

Witness the rage on the left against what they see as a bloc of white women voting against the sisterhood by supporting Republicans in 2016 and 2018. A Vogue article after the midterm elections lamented white women’s failure to fall in line. Columnist Michelle Ruiz wrote, “White women voters are establishing themselves as maddeningly, confusingly … unsisterly.”

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/28/lefts-intersectional-identity-politics-racist-sexist-anti-american-lies/

Twitter’s Trans-Activist Decree

On November 15, I woke up to find my Twitter account locked, on account of what the company described as “hateful conduct.” In order to regain access, I was made to delete two tweets from October. Fair enough, you might think. Concern about the tone of discourse on social media has been widespread for years. Certainly, many have argued that Twitter officials should be doing more to discourage the vitriol and violent threats that have become commonplace on their platform.

In this case, however, the notion that my commentary could be construed as “hateful” baffled me. One tweet read, simply, “Men aren’t women,” and the other asked “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” That last question is one I’ve asked countless times, including in public speeches, and I have yet to get a persuasive answer. I ask these questions not to spread hate—because I do not hate trans-identified individuals—but rather to make sense of arguments made by activists within that community. Instead of answering such questions, however, these same activists insist that the act of simply asking them is evidence of hatred.

The statement that “Men aren’t women” would have been seen as banal—indeed, tautological—just a few years ago. Today, it’s considered heresy—akin to terrorist speech that seeks to “deny the humanity” of trans-identified people who very much wish they could change sex, but cannot. These heretics are smeared as “TERF”—a pejorative term that stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist—and blacklisted. On many Twitter threads, the term is more or less synonymous with “Nazi.” Earlier this year, Tyler Coates, an editor at the apparently respectable Esquire magazine, tweeted out “FUCK TERFs!” and promptly got retweeted more than a thousand times.

In many progressive corners of academic and online life, it now is taken as cant that anyone who rejects transgender ideology—which is based on the theory that a mystical “gender identity” exists within us, akin to a soul—may be targeted with the most juvenile and vicious attacks. “Punch TERFs and Nazis” has become a common Twitter tagline, as is the demand that “TERFs” be “sent to the gulag.” (This latter suggestion was earnestly defended in a thread authored by students who run the official Twitter account of the LGBTQ+ Society at a British university. The authors went on to say that the gulag model would, in fact, comprise “a compassionate, non-violent course of action” to deal with “TERFs” and “anti-trans bigots” who must be “re-educat[ed].”)

In other cases, attacks on “TERFs” take the form of taunts that one might hear in middle school. Last August, for instance, The Cut­ published a lengthy investigation into “TERF bangs.” The author, Amanda Arnold, claimed to be interested in how “short, chunky bangs” came to be wrongly associated with “TERFs”; but of course, the whole thing was a thinly veiled attempt to provoke catty disparagement of women who don’t toe the party line on gender mysticism. And while The Cut may be considered a vacuous fashion blog, it is a vacuous fashion blog run under the auspices of New York magazine.

The reason why engagement with the most militant trans activists is fruitless, and yields only a slew of empty mantras and false stereotypes, is that one cannot argue with religious faith. At the core of transgender ideology is the idea that the old mind/body problem that has bedeviled philosophers for centuries has been definitively solved by gender-studies specialists—and that a female mind can exist within a male body and vice versa. Moreover, we are informed that these mystical phenomena are invisible in all respects, except to the extent that they are experienced from within—which means the only reliable indicator of supposed bona fide transgenderism is the self-declaration of trans-identified individuals (many of whom seem to have made these stunning discoveries as part of a sudden social trend).

In March, the San Francisco Public Library hosted an art exhibitfeaturing the work of Scout Tran, founder of the Degenderettes, a trans activist group that has taken to showing up at LGBT and women’s events with baseball bats and mock-bloody t-shirts festooned with the words “I punch TERFs.” This is considered very edgy and progressive in the avant-garde scene. One trans exhibit included a display of these gore-themed shirts alongside baseball bats and axes, painted pink and blue. In case there was any doubt that these are intended to be viewed as weapons brandished in the prosecution of a culture war, some of the bats were wrapped in barbed wire—presumably as a threatened means to turn a regular old woman-beating into a maiming, or even a murder.

While it might comfort some to view these threats as performative or theoretical, that isn’t always the case. On May 29, a lesbian named Taelor Furry was beat up outside the Grey Fox Pub, a gay bar in St. Louis, Mo. Her attackers were queer-identified women who had accused Furry of being a “TERF.”

In April, a trans-identified biological male who goes by the name “Tara Wolf” was convicted of assault after beating 60-year-old Maria MacLauchlan, who had gathered with other women at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park to discuss mooted gender-identity legislation. Prior to the gathering, this champion of progressive ideals had posted on Facebook, asking where the event would be taking place, as the assailant wanted to “fuck some TERFs up.”

Read More: https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/

Facebook Education Program Protested by Students and Parents

Ever notice how poor public schools let all of these corporate-sponsored devices into the classroom, while quality schools don’t allow devices to replace teaching and learning. Does anyone believe that corporations have any interest in actually educating kids and not just selling devices, advertising and making the next generation witless consumers? 

Brooklyn students hold walkout in protest of Facebook-designed online program

Brooklyn teens are protesting their high school’s adoption of an online program spawned by Facebook, saying it forces them to stare at computers for hours and “teach ourselves.”

Nearly 100 students walked out of classes at the Secondary School for Journalism in Park Slope last week in revolt against “Summit Learning,” a web-based curriculum designed by Facebook engineers, and bankrolled by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

“It’s annoying to just sit there staring at one screen for so long,” said freshman Mitchel Storman, 14, who spends close to five hours a day on Summit classes in algebra, biology, English, world history, and physics. “You have to teach yourself.”

Summit stresses “personalized learning” and “self-direction.” Students work at their own pace. Teachers “facilitate.” Each kid is supposed to get 10 to 15 minutes of one-on-one “mentoring” each week.

Read More: https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/brooklyn-students-hold-walkout-in-protest-of-facebook-designed-online-program/

An excerpt of the email the students sent to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Diane Tavenner, CEO of Summit Public Schools…

…”Unfortunately we didn’t have a good experience using the program, which requires hours of classroom time sitting in front of computers. Not all students would receive computers, the assignments are boring, and it’s too easy to pass and even cheat on the assessments. Students feel as if they are not learning anything and that the program isn’t preparing them for the Regents exams they need to pass to graduate. Most importantly, the entire program eliminates much of the human interaction, teacher support, and discussion and debate with our peers that we need in order to improve our critical thinking.

Unlike the claims made in your promotional materials, we students find that we are learning very little to nothing. It’s severely damaged our education, and that’s why we walked out in protest. See the New York Post article from November 11 for more details: “Brooklyn students hold walkout in protest of Facebook-designed online program.”

Another issue that raises flags to us is all our personal information the Summit program collects without our knowledge or consent. We were never informed about this by Summit or anyone at our school, but recently learned that Summit is collecting our names, student ID numbers, email addresses, our attendance, disability, suspension and expulsion records, our race, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status, our date of birth, teacher observations of our behavior, our grade promotion or retention status, our test scores and grades, our college admissions, our homework, and our extracurricular activities. Summit also says on its website that they plan to track us after graduation through college and beyond. Summit collects too much of our personal information, and discloses this to 19 other corporations.”

Read More: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-11-15-dear-mr-zuckerberg-students-take-summit-learning-protests-directly-to-facebook-chief