ADAM COLEMAN: Beware of Karens for Kamala
The problem with identity politics isn’t just that it makes victims out of people who don’t feel victimized, but it often propels narcissists into the position of saviors of society.
With the excitement surrounding Kamala Harris being the presumptive Democratic nominee after Biden’s re-election resignation, identity-obsessed leftists are seizing the opportunity to make this election be about themselves in the most public of displays.
Witness a recent and deservedly infamous Zoom call, dubbed “White Women for Kamala Harris,” organized by Shannon Watts. And as you might be able to tell from the name, the participants on this call — who were joined by notable women like the singer Pink and soccer star Megan Rapinoe along with tens of thousands of regular voters — were not exactly the model of mainstream American thought.
“How do we use our platform and our privilege to do the same thing Black women and men had done on their calls? I had written a piece called ‘White Women Have 100 Days to Help Save the World’ and it was being shared a ton,” Sharron Watts stated in an interview with “The Cut.”
Watts continued, “Brittany Packnett Cunningham said, ‘Your whiteness will not save you from what the patriarchy has in store for you.’ I think more and more white women are starting to realize that.”
During the call, a social media influencer, Arielle Fodor said, “As white women, we need to use our privilege to make positive changes. If you find yourself talking over or speaking for BIPOC individuals or God forbid correcting them: just take a beat. And instead, we can put our listening ears on. Use the privilege you have to push for systemic change.”
Notice anything about these quotes? Here, I’ll help you: none of them have anything to do with what Kamala Harris will actually do for the country. Because, for the people talking, helping America obviously isn’t the point. Rather, their entire motivation is less about putting the most qualified, deserving candidate into office than it is about their ability to tote their membership in a “historical” movement based entirely on identity. Seen this way, Kamala is merely a pawn; a fashion accessory they can brandish to the world to show what good people they are for being brave enough to choose someone who doesn’t look like the typical presidential candidate.
The organizers claim they were “answering the call” to save America, but the call was coming from inside the house. Even Watts’ article title is a narcissistic admission of wanting white women to count the days until they can supposedly save the world.
I’m not just speculating here. As a black man, I know all too well that affluent progressive white women often believe they hold a unique privilege over someone like me. That they insist on using this supposed inherited elevated ranking to “uplift” people like me is simple condescension. Last I checked, we didn’t ask for their help, but to them, that doesn’t matter. To them, we’re always victims and they need to save us, regardless of circumstance.
To borrow a term from the post-modernists, this kind of thinking is nothing but race essentialism, and it plagues the Democratic party. Forget their talk of “empathy.” The actual reason for this is obvious to anyone with a pulse: Democrats have transformed the fact that statistically, certain demographics vote Democrat more often than others into an expectation that those groups will always vote Democrat simply because of their immutable characteristics. Why else do you think President Biden said any black person voting for Trump “ain’t black” in 2020? He’s not alone. I’ve lost count of the number of affluent leftist white women who portray themselves as racially tolerant and supportive of all “BIPOC individuals,” only to viciously call my blackness into question if I decide to withhold my vote from their chosen candidate. Because at bottom, none of this is about empathy: it’s about using black leftists as convenient puppets for the selfish policies favored by these obvious Karens.
And the worst part of all? This strategy might be working. Say what you like about the Karens for Kamala, but they helped raise millions of dollars in a matter of hours for the Harris campaign, a fundraising success so drastic that it has already inspired other identitarian copycat calls, as well as renewed enthusiasm for identity-based political collectivism. Taken to its logical conclusion, as I fear it will be, this would portend a complete regression into overt political separation based on immutable characteristics, pitting faction against faction for attention and ridding ourselves of what we have in common as Americans. And no, contrary to what the Left wants to pretend, this will not advantage black people. Rather, it will favor whichever demographic can generate the most money for a political campaign or party. That demographic will then garner the most attention, to the point that they are allowed to speak for and overshadow the interests of everyone else.
So beware of the Karens for Kamala. They might be raising a bunch of money for the candidate you like right now, but what happens when their financial class advantage takes over the Democratic party? They’ll be able to sway the political discussion heavily away from traditional working-class concerns (including, it must be said, among working-class blacks) like the economy and immigration toward abortion and the patriarchy. What happens when one or both parties is taken over by such niche concerns? In that moment, politics will become the purview of the genuinely privileged, who will choose our presidents on the basis of small, vanity concerns, while the rest of us wait hopelessly for them to help.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
The Primitive Superstition of our Age
The mid 2000s saw a new intellectual movement emerge on the scene under the name of “New Atheism.” Representatives of the movement saw themselves as champions of the scientific method, of evidence-based reasoned analysis of the facts against the mystical, primitive superstitions of organized religion and all the societal, political and cultural harm it allegedly produces. While they were going on about their business, an intellectual movement that is more primitive, mystical, superstitious, dangerous, harmful and despicable than the most denunciatory descriptions of religion made by the most fervent atheist has steadily solidified its near-monopolistic position in western culture and society. A specter is haunting the west—the specter of group egalitarianism.
Knowing the enemy
Only a very brief formulation of the group egalitarian doctrine and its ideological implications can be done in this article. The idea that every individual human is equal in all abilities and traits is too self-evidently ridiculous to earnestly believe, so what the group egalitarians do is simply push the issue back one layer—believing instead that each group of humans is actually equal. These two beliefs are in reality identical; one necessitates the other. If individual human beings are unequal, then the groups consisting of those human beings are also unequal—and vice versa. Group egalitarianism isn’t any less ridiculous or self-evidently wrong than individual egalitarianism, but the slight process of abstraction necessary to form the concepts of different groups is seemingly all that is necessary to cloud and obfuscate this fact in the mind of the modern progressive.
Now comes the central issue: if all groups are equal, how come there are wide varieties in outcomes in every conceivable area of social activity between every conceivable group of human beings? For progressives, the explanation lies in their theories of social power dynamics. These theories divide societies into oppressors and the oppressed. The determining factor for which category any given group falls into is its degree of societal dominance and influence. Groups that are identified as broadly holding said dominance and influence in a society are designated as the Oppressor Group, while the rest constitute the ranks of the oppressed (or the “marginalized”).
What does this oppression consist of and what are its origins according to the progressives? Simply put, it consists of allegedly repressive and domineering social norms and attitudes, along with outright legal discrimination and state sanctioned violence. The origin of these horrible atrocities?—the Designated Oppressor Groups created them, of course. It’s all their work. After all, they’re the only ones who are able to create and perpetuate norms, customs and laws anyways; everyone else is far too powerless and marginalized for such a task.
The “repressive cultural and social norms and attitudes” progressives decry are not just the outright open racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia etc. which one can easily point to and identify. For them, it’s much more complicated. What they’re battling against is any social norm and attitude which differentiates a group A from a group B when informing one’s value judgments. Since progressives view all groups as intrinsically interchangeable, and only made different via environmental factors; for them it follows that any and all norms and dispositions which rely on viewing them as different are inherently arbitrary—and very frequently harmful, oppressive, and prejudiced towards the marginalized groups.
These norms are so woven into everyday society that those who perpetuate them don’t even know of their “implicit bias” and prejudice against marginalized groups (if members of marginalized groups perpetuate them themselves, they’re said to have “internalized prejudice” against their own group). The allegedly gargantuan negative effects that the norms and legal precedents of the dominant society have on the marginalized (from “microaggressions” to “systemic discrimination”) are what stands in the way of them being on par with the success of the Oppressor Groups. The task of the progressive is to uncover and bring attention to these attitudes, behaviors, mechanisms and institutions. Most of them seem innocuous and trivial to your average person, but not to the progressive. They have the social awareness necessary to allow them to identify these “oppressive forces” and the harm which they claim springs from them (this is what being “woke” refers to—an awareness of what progressives deem as “social injustice”).
What if a member of an Oppressor Group points to a norm or law which he claims negatively affects him as a member of that group? Progressives deny any possibility of such an instance. According to them, the Oppressor Groups created the very thing he’s complaining about in the first place; so to assert that it could possibly affect them negatively is nonsense (one of the seemingly infinite non-sequiturs contained within any group egalitarian worldview). In fact, the very act of making such a complaint is met by mockery and derision by the progressives via the laughably ironic accusation of “wanting to be oppressed really badly.”
Any of these “repressive norms and laws,” then, can only negatively affect the marginalized according to the progressive—and they’ll use all the clever rhetorical tricks at their disposal to argue for this claim. So, for example, if a man is being mocked or criticized for acting feminine, that’s an example of a “misogynistic implication that acting feminine is bad.” Conversely, if a woman is being mocked or criticized for acting masculine, that’s an example of “misogynists telling a woman how she can and can’t act.” Almost anything can be interpreted as racist, sexist, ableist, classist, heteronormative etc. if you make the case sound convincing enough to at least someone; this is how you end up with classics such as “The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking.”
What of blatant resentment or prejudice by members of the marginalized toward one or more of the Oppressor Groups (which would be a predictable result of hammering into them the idea that such groups are inherently culturally biased and prejudiced against them and are to blame for their shortcomings)? The more radical progressives will tell you this doesn’t constitute racism or sexism or classism or what have you because the marginalized do not have the “systemic power” to engage in those behaviors, while the softer progressives will agree to describe it in those terms but say that it ultimately doesn’t matter much because hatred of the oppressors by the marginalized isn’t “socially impactful.” To sum up, behaviors and attitudes from the Oppressor Groups which are seen as completely innocuous by the bulk of society constitute horrible repressive “implicit biases and prejudices” that need to be identified, psychologized and eliminated for the cause of social justice; but open hatred by the marginalized can safely be handwaved as irrelevant.
The theory of “intersectionality” ties this whole project together, claiming that the intersection and overlap between one’s (either marginalized or oppressive) social identities determine where one is on the Oppression Olympics totem pole. The more marginalized identities you have, the more qualified you are to speak on the topic of “social justice” due to your “lived experience” (what in the world is a non-lived experience?) of enduring discrimination. What can you do if you’re a member of one or more Oppressor Group and are a supporter (in their terms, an “ally”) of social justice? “Decenter” yourself and let the marginalized take the lead while you spread the message in the background. Can one overcome their marginalized status through their own effort? No, that’s “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” nonsense; the issue is systemic in nature.
Anti-meritocracy envy
The complete intellectual bankruptcy of this whole doctrine should be clear. To view differences in outcomes between groups as inherent evidence of domination and oppression of the less successful group by the more successful is an error; those differences can and do happen naturally and organically (this is not to deny the historical and present existence of oppression and domination). To view different social norms and stereotypes associated with different groups as inherently arbitrary, harmful and created by the more successful to subjugate the rest is an error (this is not to say that all social norms and stereotypes are automatically useful and accurate).
Despite their pretenses about “compassion for the marginalized,” what these false starting points followed with ridiculous non-sequiturs, psychologizing and wishful thinking betray in their believer is a deep sense of envy. At the fundamental level, these doctrines identify success with oppression; an anti-meritocratic doctrine through and through. It’s difficult to describe the evil contained within a worldview which blames the successful for the shortcomings of the less successful. Ayn Rand identified the phenomenon as “hatred of the good for being the good”—hatred caused not by someone’s vices, but hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.
Envy is a potentially very dangerous emotion; it played a large part in the genocide of the Tutsi (which dominated Rwandan society despite being only 14% of the population) by the Hutu. Don’t be fooled by the prestige of the academics propagating the group egalitarian doctrine—it is the primitive superstition of our age.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
The Political Takeover of the Texas Electricity Market
In June, the Texas Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit claiming that the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) had broken the law when it set the wholesale price of electricity at $9,000 per megawatt hour for about 80 hours during the Texas blackouts that occurred during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021.
The PUCT’s commissioners had dictated the price of electricity because they believed that market-driven “energy prices across the system…as low as approximately $1,200” did not “accurately reflect the scarcity conditions in the market.” Their decision drove the total cost of electricity for those three days to as high as $38 billion, more than Texans had paid for electricity over the previous 12 months.
The Supreme Court never sought to understand why the Texas Legislature in 1999 determined, “that the public interest in competitive electric markets requires that…electric services and their prices should be determined by customer choices and the normal forces of competition.” Instead, the justices simply posited that, “The Commission has the expertise to manage the electric utility industry; the courts do not.” They did not question whether the PUCT actually could or should manage the almost $50 billion a year Texas electricity market. Their focus was to “ensure that the courts will stay in their lane” by not interfering with regulators.
In his Foundations of the Market-Price System, Milton Shapiro wrote, “[T]hroughout history only two principles have guided the formation of prices in the market place: the free-market principle and the interventionist principle of the ‘political means.’” The political has become the favored means of determining prices in America, even in “conservative” states like Texas.
In the aftermath of the Uri blackouts, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick backed the political means when he proposed a government “managed capacity market where additional plants are built to provide emergency backup power.” His rationale for the political takeover of the Texas electricity market was that “prices … used as an incentive for investors to build plants … served Texas well for many years, but [that model] failed during the winter storm.” Since then, Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas Legislature, the Texas electric industry, and many Texas voters have also hopped on the interventionist bandwagon.
In 2022, the PUCT created the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS), which artificially increased the price of electricity by $12 billion in 2023. Then last year the Texas Legislature created, and Texas voters approved, the Texas Energy Fund using $5 billion of taxpayer money. Since then, Abbott and Patrick announced on July 1 they “will seek to expand the program to $10 billion to build more new plants as soon as possible.”
Texas politicians have decided that the political means of determining electricity prices benefit them more than the free market would. They have also convinced many Texas voters that this switch benefits them as well.
The Economic Superiority of Market Prices
Even though most Texas politicians (including Supreme Court justices) are happy with the state’s takeover of the electric grid, the people who elected them should not be. Market prices are superior to government prices when it comes to serving consumers’ interests.
Why is this the case?
Shapiro points us to the answer: “The primary purpose of production is consumption. Man engages in production primarily or ultimately only for the purpose of producing the consumers’ goods he wants, including the capital goods with which to produce the consumers’ goods.” There is no one better to determine the price of capital and consumer goods than those who are producing and consuming them in order to satisfy their needs. It is not going to turn out well when politicians and regulators intervene to set or manipulate prices. This is a commonsense conclusion, but Gary North explains that there are also economic reasons for this:
“Prices are crucial for setting priorities. Without prices, we fly blind. We do not know what things cost. We do not know what people have recently bid in order to buy or rent scarce resources. In a world governed by scarcity, prices are tools of understanding and therefore tools of action. Prices are the most important sources of information that lead to the coordination of competing economic plans of action.”
The information conveyed by prices is most beneficial to market participants when it is fully transmitted to the right people. Friedrich Hayek further describes why this is important:
If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place, it would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them. We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which, after integrating all knowledge, issues its orders. … It is in this connection that what I have called the ‘economic calculus’ proper helps us, at least by analogy, to see how this problem can be solved, and in fact is being solved, by the price system.
While a central board cannot solve the economic problem, coordination is still needed. This is the role of entrepreneurs, one that is overlooked or disdained by central planners. According to Frank Shostak, entrepreneurs use price information to bring efficiency—and profit—to the market: “For an entrepreneur to make profits, he must correctly anticipate consumer preferences, the future prices of products and the future prices of the factors of production. Entrepreneurs who excel in their forecasting of future prices make profits, and those that misjudge future prices will suffer losses.”
As regulators manipulate prices, the resulting diminishment of the information contained in prices reduces the efficiency of the market. Entrepreneurs will be much more likely to misjudge future prices if they lose some of the information transmitted through market prices. And consumers, in this case Texans that use and pay for electricity, will be worse off.
Ultimately, price regulation makes us worse off because it interferes with our efforts to economize. Market participants economize because it is how we produce a steady stream of income out of scarce means. Jeffrey Herbener explains this: “For any given end we choose to pursue we always choose the combination of means that we assess as having less value for a given end that we attain as opposed to other combinations of means that have higher value or higher costs.” Societal income and profit are diminished as regulators interfere with the economizing of market participants.
The Ethical Superiority of Markets
The higher cost of electricity relative to its benefits when the government is regulating prices demonstrates that market participants and society overall are better off when prices are set through the market. Austrians don’t need proof to know this is true, yet confirmation of this abounds in the Texas electricity market.
Texas once had the most competitive electricity market in the world. That changed in 2019 when PUCT commissioners gave in to a years-long campaign by thermal generators to artificially increase prices. At the time, prices were artificially depressed because of renewable energy subsidies. But rather than take steps to protect market pricing by directly addressing renewable subsidies, the PUCT—with the Texas Legislature’s support—increased subsidies for thermal generators by artificially increasing prices by 4.3 billion. Texas consumers have been paying more for electricity ever since.
In the five years prior to 2019, federal, state, and local governments increased the cost of electricity in Texas by an average of $3 billion annually. Since then, the average increased cost has been $14 billion. These higher costs take the form of tax credits, subsidized transmission, and manipulation of market prices.
Electricity prices confirm the cost of these measures to Texas businesses and consumers. Wholesale electricity prices averaged $31.18 per megawatt hour from 2014-18. Since then, prices have averaged $76.14. Retail prices show the same trend, though increases lag in the wholesale market. The average price for residential customers was 11.3 cents per kilowatt hour from 2014-18. For the last five years, prices have averaged 12.72 cents. The latest data show March prices at 14.92 cents. At least Texas politicians have not yet imposed California electricity prices (32.47 cents) on their constituents.
Conclusion
Texas politicians have taken over the electricity market because they believe their interests are better served this way. Perhaps this is because they think being labeled anti-green by renewable energy advocates harms their reelection chances more than high electricity prices. Or perhaps they really believe they can solve Texas’ reliability problems better than market participants can. Whatever their reasons, the unwillingness of Texas politicians to “stay in their lane” by serving their constituents is pushing Texans toward California-style energy poverty.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Reconciliation And Healing In Christ
Theological Insights
1. Forgiveness as a Reflection of Christ’s Forgiveness:
– The call to forgive others as the Lord has forgiven us is rooted in the recognition of the immense grace we have received through Jesus Christ. This theme is central in the teachings of many theologians.
– Martin Luther, in his writings, often emphasized the necessity of recognizing our own need for God’s forgiveness as a foundation for extending forgiveness to others. Luther’s understanding of grace highlighted that forgiving others is an outflow of the grace we have freely received【10†source】.
2. Patience and Forbearance:
– Thomas Aquinas, in his “Summa Theologica,” discusses the virtues of patience and charity. He explains that patience involves enduring hardships and offenses without becoming angry or resentful, and it is closely related to the virtue of charity (love)【11†source】.
– Bearing with one another involves a deep sense of empathy and understanding, recognizing that everyone has flaws and that we are all in need of grace.
Practical Application
Living out the principles of Colossians 3:13 involves practical steps that foster a spirit of forgiveness and patience within our communities:
1. Practice Empathy:
– Try to understand the perspectives and struggles of others. This empathy can help you bear with one another’s weaknesses and imperfections.
2. Cultivate a Forgiving Heart:
– Regularly remind yourself of the forgiveness you have received from God. Let this reminder inspire you to forgive others, even when it is difficult.
3. Communicate Openly:
– Address conflicts and grievances with a spirit of humility and love. Open and honest communication can prevent misunderstandings and promote reconciliation.
4. Pray for Strength and Patience:
– Ask God to give you the strength to bear with others and the grace to forgive. Prayer can help you maintain a forgiving and patient attitude.
Conclusion
Colossians 3:13 calls believers to a higher standard of relational conduct, one that mirrors the forgiveness and patience exemplified by Christ. By bearing with one another and forgiving each other, we demonstrate the transformative power of God’s grace in our lives and contribute to a loving and unified Christian community. Let this verse guide your interactions, encouraging you to extend the same grace and patience to others that you have received from the Lord.
Our YouTube Channel
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
STEPHEN DAVIS: Camping World retailer refuses to remove American flag from property after being ordered by CA county to do so
Camping World, a major RV retailer, is standing firm after being ordered by a Northern California county to remove a large American flag from its property.
The Camping World dealership in San Joaquin County flies a massive American flag, just like its 250 other locations across the U.S. However, in April, the county ordered the dealership to take down the flag, citing safety concerns and the lack of proper permits.
“Camping World’s flagpole was installed with neither a building permit nor planning approval, therefore they are in conversation with the code enforcement division,” the county claimed in a statement to Fox40.
Despite concerns about the flag’s proximity to a highway and potential hazards, Camping World CEO Marcus Lemonis instructed the location to reinstall the flag last week.
“If we felt like we were putting people in danger or causing any issues with air traffic, which would absolutely not be OK, then I wouldn’t do it,” Lemonis said.
Lemonis emphasized that the flagpole is securely anchored and poses no safety risk. He also stated that if the issue had involved any other flag, he would have no problem taking it down until a permit was obtained. However, because it is the American flag, he feels a strong obligation to keep it flying.
“It’s symbolism about how we feel about this country. We have a lot of veterans who work for us, and a lot of veterans who shop with us,” Lemonis explained. “I happen to be an immigrant. I was given the blessing of being able to enter this country and become a citizen, and I’m grateful for it. It’s been part of my life since I was a little child down in Miami, Florida, where we had the largest flag pole in Miami at our car dealership.”
The county noted that the flagpole exceeded the maximum height allowed without a permit but later clarified that they never explicitly ordered Camping World to remove the flag. After the story gained public attention, the county stated they would issue a permit following a review.
This piece first appeared at TPUSA.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
UK man faces jail time for ‘instigating’ riots, supporting protests in X posts after school girls killed
A judge in the United Kingdom has put another online journalist in jail for three years over a post that was found to encourage people to riot. The UK is actively charging citizens for sharing posts that are deemed to be “inciting racial hatred” while mass migration protests persist.
Carer Wayne O’Rourke, 35, who had more than 90,000 followers on X and was earning about $1,900 USD from it every month, posted in support of local protests against the Labour government’s immigration policies, the Daily Mail reported. On July 29, O’Rourke posted about the deaths of three children at Taylor Swift dance class in Southport and said it was a terrorist attack instigated by a Muslim.
The poster was incorrect about the man’s origin. The murderer was the son of Rwandan immigrants but born in the UK. In another post that reached 1.7 million viewers, he asked, “People of Southport where the f**k are you, get out on the street.” O’Rourke also posted pictures of a mosque in Liverpool and a burning car in Sunderland, to which he decided to add, “Sunderland, go on lads.”
Referring to Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who critics call “Two-Tier Kier” because of his alleged duplicitous justice policies, O’Rourke wrote, “Starmer has basically said it us against them. Hold the line.” Other examples of his supposedly seditious posts include the observations that ‘Numbers are important’ and his exhortation to “give them hell lads.”
O’Rourke’s X profile showed a picture of a bulldog wearing a Union Jack jacket: a depiction of patriotism that was well known to Britons who considered the bulldog a symbol of their nation. The judge found O’Rourke guilty of promulgating “racial hatred” with his posts.
Court officer Lucia Harrington accused the social media reporter of being “caught up in the media frenzy” and urged him to “reeducate himself,” according to the Daily Mail. Judge Catarina Sjolin Knight told O’Rourke: ‘You were not caught up in what others were doing; you were instigating it.’
She added that the riots had had “the flames fanned by keyboard warriors like you.” Another “keyboard warrior,” a 53-yar-old woman, received a 15 month sentence for urging followers to “blow the mosque up.” Another man went to jail for posting “grossly offensive” emojis on Facebook.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
UK teachers told to refer male students suspected of ‘extreme misogyny’ to counter-terrorism authorities
The UK government is set to classify “extreme misogyny” as a form of terrorism, as part of an effort to address the so-called growing radicalization of young men online.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has ordered a review of the country’s counter-terrorism strategy to tackle what she describes as significant gaps in the government’s current approach to extremism. The review will consider violence against women alongside other forms of extremism, such as Islamist and far-right terrorism.
Due to the proposed changes, teachers and other professionals could be legally required to report students they suspect of engaging in “extreme misogyny” to Prevent, the government’s counter-terrorism program. Currently, educators, healthcare workers, and other officials are obligated to refer individuals they believe may be at risk of radicalization. Once referred, the individual is assessed by local authorities and police to determine if “they need to be deradicalized,” according to a report by The Telegraph.
“For too long, Governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, said Cooper. “We’ve seen the number of young people radicalized online grow. Hateful incitement of all kinds fractures and frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy.”
The Home Office currently lists several categories of extremism, including Islamist, extreme right-wing, animal rights, environmental, and Northern Ireland-related extremism. The term “incel,” short for involuntarily celibate, is also included, as the UK defines individuals under this category as men who may develop violent tendencies towards women due to perceived rejection. However, Cooper and other officials believe this is insufficient and that further measures are needed.
This review follows a recent statement by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, who called for violence against women to be treated as a national security threat. The findings of Cooper’s review are expected later this year and will form the basis for a new counter-extremism strategy set to launch next year.
“Action against extremism has been badly hollowed out in recent years, just when it should have been needed most,” Cooper claimed. “That’s why I have directed the Home Office to conduct a rapid analytical sprint on extremism, to map and monitor extremist trends, to understand the evidence about what works to disrupt and divert people away from extremist views, and to identify any gaps in existing policy which need to be addressed to crack down on those pushing harmful and hateful beliefs and violence.”
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
JACK POSOBIEC: ‘Get in the fight’ and chase ballots
Human Events host Jack Posobiec recently dismissed concerns about Kamala Harris’ rising popularity since becoming the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. Posobiec declared that the “Kamala Harris honeymoon is over,” pointing to a series of polls that show a much tighter race in this upcoming election than people believe.
Since President Joe Biden announced that he would no longer be running for re-election, Harris has had a large amount of momentum both in the media and the polls. However, the dramatic boost in her polling numbers may have been temporary, as she is now neck-and-neck with Trump in several swing states and polls.
Posobiec highlighted a new Emerson College poll from Pennsylvania from Friday, showing Trump holding a two-point lead over Harris in the state. Posobiec reminded listeners that “Pennsylvania is key,” emphasizing that the state will be critical in determining the outcome of the upcoming election.
The Economist’s election forecast currently shows Harris with 272 electoral votes and Trump with 266, just shy of the 270 needed for victory, indicating a very close race. Posobiec also cited an RNG Research national poll showing Trump at 46 percent and Harris at 45 percent.
“We have a knife fight. This race is on a razor’s edge,” Posobiec remarked. Given the tight competition, he urged those supporting Trump to “do the work,” particularly in battleground states, by getting involved with right-wing groups focused on increasing voter turnout.
“You need to get in the fight and commit yourself to action,” Posobiec advised.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Deepening Your Relationship with God
The Role Of Worship In Deepening Our Relationship With God
Verse:”God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”-John4 :24
Our YouTube Channel
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
BREAKING: Elon Musk announces closure of X local operations in Brazil after leftist judge threatens arrest of legal rep
Elon Musk announced the closure of X operations in Brazil on Saturday, saying that Brazil’s Alexandre de Moraes was threatening the arrest of X’s legal representation and was requiring the social media company to break international law
Musk posted, “Due to demands by ‘Justice’ Alexandre in Brazil that would require us to break (in secret) Brazilian, Argentinian, American and international law, X has no choice but to close our local operations in Brazil. He is an utter disgrace to justice.”
The Global Government Affairs page of X stated that on Friday, “Alexandre de Moraes threatened our legal representative in Brazil with arrest if we do not comply with his censorship orders. He did so in a secret order, which we share here to expose his actions.”
“Despite our numerous appeals to the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform, Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process. As a result, to protect the safety of our staff, we have made the decision to close our operation in Brazil, effective immediately,” the statement added.
This is a breaking story. Please refresh for updates.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers: