Our Facebook page has again been suspended.

This time for 7 days.

Here’s the notice:

You can’t post or comment for 7 days

This is because you previously posted something that didn’t follow our Community Standards.

This post goes against our standards on hate speech, so only people who manage The Atheist Conservative can see it.

The Atheist Conservative

Yesterday at 8:21 AM · 

Anjuli Pandavar writes cogently and incisively: ‘I am an atheist. I think religion erodes our innate sense of ethics, and that faith can diminish our humanity. But I also accept that belief is a central component of the way many people’s heads work. The problem before us right now is Islam and I do not care if someone leaves Islam to become a Bible-basher or a Hari-Krishna chanter or an atheist. All I care about right now is that as many Muslims as possible leave Islam, that we support the victims of Islam, wherever they are in the world, and that we roll back jihad, by whatever means necessary. Muslims are already raping our daughters and we are already complicit in their deeds. The situation is dire. We are helpless in face of the jihad onslaught because we have abandoned ourselves. …

 

The entire post is quoted.

This in America! In defiance of the Second Amendment.

And yes, we do hate. We hate enslavement, torture, murder. So we hate the appalling doctrines of Islam that not only allow but command enslavement, torture and murder.   

And for that, Facebook hates us.

Of all ideas, those of religions most need to be critically examined, since they claim to be the truth and people’s lives are made to depend on their conforming to them.

*

This is what Facebook has done to Paul Joseph Watson:

https://summit.news/2019/07/10/facebook-put-a-fatwa-on-pjw

Anjuli Pandavar is a British atheist who was raised a Muslim in South Africa.

She was recently shut out of (misnamed!) Free Thought Blogs because, they say:

We have  been receiving complaints [about Anjuli Pandavar] from readers and other bloggers for months — and recent posts [by her] praising Fox News and blaming black Americans for racism were the final straw. … We are skeptics and critics of dogma and authoritarianism, and in addition, we recognize that the nonexistence of deities entails a greater commitment to human values, and in particular, an appreciation of human diversity and equality.”

Pompous nonsense! And dogmatic. And wrong. There is absolutely nothing about atheism that requires one to “appreciate” Lefty dogma about “diversity” and “equity”.

They go on:

We are for feminism, against racism [except when it is against Whites], for diversity, against inequity.

It’s a general sentiment, but if you can’t meet any of it, you don’t belong here. We’ve been agonizing over rejecting Anjuli Pandavar all summer long, and the consensus of the active members of the FtB community was that her continued presence was a betrayal of our principles.

You’ve gotta feel sorry for them. They went through agonies before kicking out a black woman for calling anti-White racism what it is.

Anjuli Pandavar writes cogently and incisively at Jihad Watch:

Thursday was 4 July 2019, the 832^nd anniversary of the Battle of Hattin, arguably the most symbolic, if not the most fateful, of Christian follies, when the stage was set for the Kingdom of Jerusalem to lose the very city that gave it its proud name, and for jihad to subdue Christian mediaeval backwardness under the yoke of Islamic pre-medieval backwardness. The Crusaders had taken the Cross and by virtue of that fact alone, most believed themselves invincible. Considerations of practicalities such as water, terrain or supply lines, or indeed, Salah ad-Din’s battle plans, were secondary at best, blasphemous at worst. The Crusaders had God, but they lost. It was inconceivable to them that Salah ad-Din, too, had God, and by virtue of that fact alone, the Muslims, too, believed themselves invincible. Relying on God in war is truly a gamble in which the odds are even.

Eight hundred and thirty-two years later, the unholy trinity of the Occident is secular: the god of political correctness; the god of multiculturalism; the god of diversity. Different gods purportedly wielded against the same jihad, except this time straining to subdue modern Judeo-Christian enlightenment under the same Islamic pre-mediaeval backwardness with which it confronted the Crusaders. On this year’s 4 July, we find ourselves in the midst of transition from the jihad of incessant victimhood, incessant taking of offence and incessant demands for special treatment, to the jihad of violent attacks and brutal enforcement of Shari’a by any Muslim, whether obviously “fighting in the way of Allah” or not. The voices that have been warning of this for so long now face more than just shrill denunciations for the blasphemies of “racism”, “fascism”, “intolerance” and “Islamophobia”, and for the heresy of being “far-right”. In chilling enactment of George Orwell’s 1984, they are being erased, and all levels of society are complicit in their erasure. Exactly how bad things have to get before such voices are taken seriously remains to be seen.

Gut-feel and all evidence of what jihad has managed to get away with in the West so far, strongly suggest that these voices of warning and truth will never be listened to. It seems that some of what were once Western societies will be defending Islam even as all manifestations of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and all other religions are destroyed, even as all democracy and all freedoms are obliterated, even as slavery is reinstated … , even as young white girls are shipped off en mass for sale in the Islamic heartlands, even as those who refuse dhimmitude and those who have left Islam are rounded up and publicly beheaded or crucified, even as married women see their husbands murdered before their eyes and are themselves dragged off to be raped, as per Muhammad’s excellent example, they will still be insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, is just like any other religion, and that Muslims are victims who have to be protected from “Islamophobia”.

And what of the God that the Enlightenment had relegated to a personal choice? I disagree with my Christian friends that we find ourselves in this worsening madness because “we have abandoned God”, and must return to him if we are to save ourselves from jihad. We owe our freedom, our equality and our democracy to our ousting God from his throne and lodging him instead in the hearts of those who will have him. God as free choice is the greatest achievement of the Enlightenment and one of the foundation stones of individual autonomy. Christian ideologues … seem not to realise that they argue directly against individual freedom when they seek to re-elevate God to a cosmic imperative. … Do not the perpetrators of jihad account for their own people’s troubles in exactly the same terms as Christian ideologues do? The ummah languishes in backwardness and misery in the face of infidel prowess, according to Qutb, Al-Banna, Maududi, Al-Qaradawi and others, precisely because Muslims have abandoned Islam and must return to it. Inter-religious squabbles over who has God and who hasn’t have always been the one-sided blindness on which religious exceptionalism, not to say arrogance, floundered. That way lies tragedy. … This is not the time for Christians to be stoking turf wars with atheists.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am an atheist … Not only that, I think religion erodes our innate sense of ethics, and that faith can diminish our humanity. But I also accept that belief is a central component of the way many people’s heads work. That, in and of itself, does not make them bad people. My head, though, does not work in that way. I could not function if there were something that I had to accept without question. The problem before us right now is Islam and I do not care if someone leaves Islam to become a Bible-basher or a Hari-Krishna chanter or an atheist. All I care about right now is that as many Muslims as possible leave Islam, that we support the victims of Islam, wherever they are in the world, and that we roll back jihad, by whatever means necessary. Muslims are already raping our daughters and we are already complicit in their deeds. The situation is dire.

We are helpless in face of the jihad onslaught because we have abandoned ourselves. We are no longer the human beings that the Enlightenment created.

We are not even the human beings who vowed to go on to the end, to fight in France, to fight on the seas and oceans, to fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, to defend our island, whatever the cost may be, to fight on the beaches, to fight on the landing grounds, to fight in the fields and in the streets, to fight in the hills; to never surrender. Where are those heroic people now? If they are still with us, it is perhaps the greatest tragedy that they will live to see that they have died for nothing.

We became complicit when we substituted political correctness and identity politics for our common human decency and respect for human life and human freedoms, as if what wasn’t broke needed fixing. We drank from the poisoned chalice of “groups” and “communities” having rights that supersede the rights of individuals and entitlements to protection over the protection of individuals. Britain’s Muslim rape gang crisis stems not solely from Islamic sanction of such behaviour and jihad insistence on it, but from those Muslims who would be inclined to rape finding themselves in the enabling environment created by multicultural Britain. It is both dishonest and dishonourable to refer to Muslim rape gangs as either “Asian” or “grooming gangs”. They are distinguished not by being “Asian” or even “Pakistani”. They are Muslim, and they rape because they are Muslim (anyone with a fully-functioning capacity for language will immediately recognise that this in no way implies anything about Muslims not involved in gang rape). … In 80s and 90s Britain, there was widespread fear of social workers who seized children from parents at the slightest sign of anything that could indicate child abuse. Now social workers aid and abet paedophilia. Then, the residents of entire council estates physically drove paedophiles from their houses. Now, they won’t touch them. Is that because the white paedophile rings of the 80s and 90s did not have a 1.6 billion-strong religion behind them? Is it because then, “racism” still meant “racism,” and those who knew they weren’t racist had no fear of those who would call them that?

It has been a small step from identity politics to so-called “oppressed and oppressor groups”, to “all whites are racist”, to the denial of Muslim women’s oppression, to infidels taking offence at critique of Islam, to our own schools indoctrinating our own children to favour an ideology intent on enslaving them, and of course, to denial of the Muslim rape gang crisis.

In London, the setting of 1984, on 4 July 2019, a trial opened in the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, otherwise known as “the Old Bailey”. It was no ordinary trail, but one in which the British state, by means foul and fouler, once more attempted to turn an innocent man into a criminal, after having failed several times before. A farce played out behind a noble injunction carved in stone over the heads of all who enter upon that august place: Defend the Children of the Poor and Punish the Wrongdoers. The man on trial was Tommy Robinson, and he was on trial for doing exactly that: defending the children of the poor and attempting to have the wrongdoers punished. Robinson, in his own naivete, still believes that the British state observes the rule of law, and fails to understand why mainstream journalists are happy to see the state abuse him. The wrongdoers, as it turned out, were not only the gangs of Muslim men who raped tens or hundreds of thousands of poor infidel girls up and down the land, but the many and varied arms of the state itself, who not only failed to punish the wrongdoers, but went out of their way to protect them and continue to protect them. The Ministry of Truth has shown that just because something is written in stone, doesn’t mean it’s true forever. Right before sending this essay off for publication, I learnt that Tommy Robinson had been “found guilty”. 

And now, in the ultimate ignominy, the pinnacle of our civilisational accomplishment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is to be subjugated to the strictures of Shari’a, a barbaric seventh-century affront to humanity and decency, with the full support of many who would themselves be destroyed by such a folly. For folly it is to believe that self-righteous appeasement of Muslim powers can win over to coexistence and mutual respect adherents of an ideology that holds at its core the certainty of its own supremacy and a sacred, unshakeable hatred of all others, others whom it must, by divine order, kill, convert or subdue, and that employs the vilest and most deceitful of means to attain its end … This coup is taking place at the United Nations complex in New York, where, in the now non-existent shadow of the now non-existent twin towers, those who survived jihad’s greatest-ever single carnage to date and those who came after, do their best to celebrate The 4^th of July. On this day, 243 years ago, they declared their land the protector of the freedom and equality of all human beings, and that from that day forth, no god shall meddle in their affairs.

Doing jihad’s dirty work for it has become an infidel virtue. … By the time the future Antifa Youth gets around to reporting on, denouncing and killing their own parents, there’ll be no one left to listen to the warning voices, for a Dark Age will once again be upon us. All the social, moral and ethical gains so hard-won over the centuries will be abolished overnight, reducing civilisation to that of brutal seventh-century Arabia, a foretaste of which is the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al-Qaida, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and a spectacularly long list of others. It is most telling that, once brought into extensive contact with Western society and culture, especially at the height of colonialism, the Muslim middle classes, for whom the benefits were not only obvious but also accessible, adopted Western values and habits with some enthusiasm, there being no question in their minds about which was the superior culture. Many tried to do so without jettisoning Islam. Today they still recognise this, but must pretend not to, under pressure both from jihad, that insists that Islam is superior, and from the Western handmaidens of jihad, who insist that all cultures are good.

This article was written by our associate in the UK, Chauncey Tinker. It was first published at The Participator, of which he is Founder and Editor-inChief. The original article displays the video footage we link to, and some other material that we are omitting. We suggest our readers visit The Participator to see it all, and to discover an excellent website in sympathy with our own opinion. Inevitably we have some differences of view, as America and Britain has each its own demographic conditions, the population of America having long been a mixture of ethnicities while the British were a homogeneous nation until quite recently. What we share are conservative principles. 

A conservative youth movement called Turning Point has emerged in the US, as I’m sure many readers are already aware. It isn’t a political party as such it is just a movement that argues for conservative politics and conservative values. The two individuals leading this movement in the US are Charlie Kirk the founder (who is white) and Candace Owens (who is black).

There is a short video clip of Candace in action in this tweet, where she is discussing the subject of reparations for the slave trade, which she rejects:

When people ask me about reparations, the first thing I do is laugh at the exhaustive stupidity and desperation of the Democrats.

… She [points out] that more than half of the world might have some claim for reparations if slavery in all bygone eras was taken into account, and she gives the examples of the Ottoman and Roman empires. Ms Owens has performed very well in media appearances in general in my opinion, there are a growing number of such clips from interviews. She also recently appeared at a congressional hearing where again she put those questioning her to shame.

On the subject of immigration the group generally seems to be pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration. In this video (45 mins long approx) Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens join an audience for a debate in the UK (incidentally there is also a UK branch of Turning Point). Note that one of the UK speakers on the panel at this event condemned identity politics on the right and said that (at 28:40):

Tommy Robinson is someone who promotes identity politics on the right.

The UK representatives on the panel seemed to agree that Tommy Robinson should not be allowed to participate in the Turning Point movement, although none of them explained exactly what it was about Tommy’s activities that they objected to.

Charlie Kirk did speak out against the arrest of Tommy Robinson, and there was general agreement in the debate on the importance of freedom of speech. One member of the audience was critical of the UK branch of Turning Point for aligning too closely with the Conservative Party, which he rightly pointed out has an abysmal track record on freedom of speech.

The left wing media have predictably tried to smear the movement, we have seen ridiculous headlines in the UK including words such as “sinister” and “far-right”. At the above mentioned debate there are posters behind the panel listing the values the movement espouses:

• • Free Markets
  • Limited Government
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Do Unto Others

Surely these are only sinister values from the point of view of a rabid Marxist?

From the Independent:

Turning Point UK: Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tory MPs support new branch of ‘sinister’ right-wing US group

From the Guardian:

Tory MPs back youth group with apparent links to US far right

From the sub-title it becomes clear that one of the main concerns motivating this media opposition is the fact that some members have expressed “anti-Islam views”. Yes, that’s right, the problem is that some members shockingly oppose a violent, supremacist, patriarchal, misogynistic belief system called Islam.

The UK’s For Britain party has expressed support according to the above Guardian article (we’re supposed to be shocked by this information).

Another youth movement that emerged in recent years of course is Generation Identity, which seems to have faded from the spotlight somewhat lately, no doubt partly thanks to the state persecution the group has experienced in Austria. Members of the group were also refused entry to the UK last year.

A lot of people on the left seem to feel the same degree of antagonism towards both Turning Point and Generation Identity, even though Turning Point are an avowedly anti-racist organization, and say they oppose identity politics, whereas the Generation Identity group is very much focused on race. Of course you only have to oppose uncontrolled mass immigration these days, as both movements do, to be labelled as “far-right” etc. by the left. …

I strongly disagree with the Western policy of cherry picking only the best people from impoverished countries. This is for one thing helping to ensure those countries are perpetually failing, leading to an endless stream of “economic” migrants heading for the West. Some of the brightest and most articulate immigrants are also entering politics in the West, making it harder and harder for any party to advocate for serious border controls, as peer pressure mounts against anti-immigration views. The UK now even has a Muslim of Pakistani origin running the UK Home Office, the department in charge of immigration enforcement! I think the whole world needs to start thinking about the long term consequences of mass immigration and we need to face up to the turmoil that it is causing. We should be aiming for sustainability, not constantly destabilising both first and third world countries alike.

Generation Identity by contrast want to return Western countries to being racially predominately white European, and I fear this is also an objective that is fraught with problems. The demographic makeup of the West has already changed, not just with recent immigration but many people of many different ethnicities have already been here for several generations. There are also growing numbers of mixed race people in the West, although the percentage seems to be relatively small (around 1% in the UK apparently as far as I can determine from media reports).

I searched but could not find any mention of the huge issue of low Western birth rates in speeches by Turning Point members. For Generation Identity of course this is a major concern. …

I find myself somewhat caught in the middle between the two movements. I fear that a movement that focuses on race will likely create division not just between racial groups but also among conservatives. However, having observed growing anti-white racism in the UK … I feel we really need to call a complete halt to immigration. …

Unless we can put a stop to the trend towards anti-White racism I fear the West is going to become increasingly divided, and the risk of tensions spilling into violence grows with every passing day. Consequently I take the view that Western countries must build secure defences to keep migrants out, at least until other racial groups in the world also abandon their in-group preference (so far it seems only white Western nations have been inclined to do that).

Even leaving the questions of anti-white racism and in-group preference aside, the economic advantages of moving to the West are going to continue to act as a powerful magnet for continuing mass immigration until white Europeans become a minority everywhere in the West, and even eventually disappear altogether. Can you really claim that you are not racist yourself, that you like diversity, if you are happy to see white people disappear from the face of the earth?

While I think the emergence of the Turning Point movement is a positive development, and I hope they convert many young people to conservative ideals, I fear some of the most difficult subjects are being glossed over in the debates mentioned above. Above all we must talk about the disastrously low fertility rates in developed nations, failure to do so will I believe have catastrophic consequences not just for the West but for the whole world. 

… is so politically correct …

Did you know that conservatives, which is to say the far-Right, are spreading false and malicious accounts of violent action by Antifa, the movement that won the Second World War against the fascist axis powers?

Here’a a notable example.

Michelle Malkin wrote at Townhall:

 I will not be in much of a celebratory mood this coming Independence Day.

Our borders have collapsed. Our educational system is a wreck. And our constitutionally protected freedoms of assembly, speech and the press are under siege in the streets and across the internet. The ability of patriots to warn, expose and combat the threats to our national sovereignty is eroding daily.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, my fellow Americans, but this is no time for a parade.

In Portland, my young journalist friend Andy Ngo was hospitalized over the weekend after a brutal assault at the hands of Antifa thugs who rule the streets and run the city. Ngo has been smeared as a “provocateur” and a “propagandist” for exposing the bloody violence and anarchy of far-left “resisters”. He has been doxxed and physically threatened by anti-Trump, open borders radicals menacing him online. On Saturday afternoon, armed only with his smartphone, hand-held GoPro, bodycam and reporter’s backpack, Ngo braved a mob of black-masked agitators purportedly marching against “hate”.

They – the “mob” – are also against masks and violence. What? Do try to keep up! Hate is against hate, mask-wearing is against mask-wearing, the use of violence is to prevent the use of violence. (Don’t bring “logic” up. Logic is racist.)

As they passed the county courthouse and sheriff’s office, the anarchists taunted Ngo by name and hurled cups with unknown substances at him. One violent attacker dressed like a ninja, donning black gloves with reinforced knuckles, punched Ngo in the eyes. Another black-cloaked punk kicked Ngo in the groin multiple times as others pelted him with liquids, sprays and eggs. During the melee, as police stood by, his electronic equipment was stolen. He sustained brain bleeding and wounds to his head, face and neck.

Ngo was not alone. Two Oregonians who had come to support conservative speakers at a downtown rally nearby were set upon by black-masked vigilantes. Adam Kelly was hit in the head with fists, nunchucks, a metal Hydro Flask and a crowbar. Two massive gashes on his skull required more than 25 staples. John Blum was also overrun by people in black masks, who aimed bear spray or mace at him when he, Kelly and two others tried to come to the aid of others being assaulted by Antifa. The elderly Blum had carried a baton to defend himself, but was blinded and incapacitated while being hit, punched and dragged across the street with blood pouring down his face.

Antifa’s apologists in the liberal press scoffed at the savagery, mocking Ngo as a “f—ing snowflake” and downplaying the gang ambushes harmless “milkshaking”.

They have been falsely accused of putting quick-drying cement into their peaceful milkshake weapons. Who can believe that? As if warriors against fascism would stoop to do such a thing!

In total, medics treated eight people, including three police officers. “Three community members received treatment at area hospitals after they were assaulted with weapons. Two officers were pepper sprayed during the incident and were treated. Another officer was punched in the arm by a demonstrator and sustained a non-life-threatening injury. Another officer sustained a non-life-threatening head injury from a projectile,” the city blandly reported.

See? “Non-life threatening”.

Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, a notorious social justice grandstander, spent Monday railing not against the barbarians who’ve hijacked the public square in his town, but against Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, who called out Wheeler’s history of stand-down orders. Portland Police Association president Daryl Turner amplified the critique, pleading with the City to “remove the handcuffs from our officers and let them stop the violence through strong and swift enforcement action.” Those handcuffs have endangered Portland’s citizens in multiple ways. Wheeler has declared Portland a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, and himself a guardian against all foreign criminals evading deportation. In February, the city withdrew the police force from the Joint Terrorism Task Force’s partnership between the feds and local law enforcement – turning the Pacific Northwest metropolis into a safe space for jihad.

Will there be a federal investigation? Concerned citizens who can’t afford to wait have taken matters into their own hands. After just three days, more than 5,700 individuals have contributed a whopping $178,000 to a GoFundMe campaign I spearheaded to help with Andy Ngo’s security, medical and work costs. A separate fundraiser for Adam Kelly raised more than $11,000. On another front, internet sleuths are analyzing video to try and identify Antifa assailants – crowdsourcing the job Portland officials have failed to do.

No, there won’t be a federal investigation. The Antifa people are concerned citizens acting to keep the peace. They have the right to assemble under the first amendment. If they were violent at all it was only in self-defense, because people like Ngo, Blum, and Kelly are inherently violent by being against the anti-violence of Antifa. (Don’t start, you bourgeois moralists. We already warned you once against bringing up “logic”. Don’t make us do it again.)

At the same time as they propagate lies about Antifa violence, conservative journalists – protected by almost all the mainstream and social media – are outrageously claiming that white supremacists are not the major threat to the peace and security of diverse, inclusive, LGBTQWERTY undocumented citizens.

In doing so, they actually defend the American Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

Don’t believe us? Here, for instance, is David Catron writing at The American Spectator:

The Democrats face a unique obstacle in their bid to win back the White House in 2020. To win, they need to garner over 90 percent of the black vote, which requires considerable dissatisfaction in that community with its current plight. However, as President Trump said during his SOTU address, African-American unemployment stands at its lowest rate ever. The resultant increase in prosperity will make it more difficult for the Democrats to stir unrest. Thus, they need to create a new source of concern among blacks, and have hit upon the fiction of metastasizing white supremacy and violence against minorities.

Predictably, the media has enthusiastically abetted this strategy. Indeed, it is why they were so willing to run with the preposterous Jussie Smollett story and a long list of equally absurd hate crime hoaxes perpetrated since Donald Trump became President. It is why we are increasingly subjected to editorials in the major “news” publications claiming that killings perpetrated by “right-wing extremists” are on the rise and that this alleged increase coincides with the Trump era. A useful example is a New York Times op-ed titled, The Grave Threats of White Supremacy and Far-Right Extremism:

Killings committed by individuals and groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly. Seventy-one percent of the 387 “extremist related fatalities in the United States” from 2008 to 2017 were committed by members of far-right and white-supremacist groups, according the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. Islamic extremists were responsible for 26 percent.

The first thing anyone familiar with cause-of-death statistics will notice about this passage is that the total is infinitesimal. The 71 percent figure the author, Thomas T. Cullen, attributes to “far-right and white-extremist groups” averages 28 per year. Every death is tragic, but this is less than half the annual fatality rate associated with bee and wasp stings. To suggest that this constitutes a “grave threat” to the republic is ridiculous. The author also fails to note that the 71 percent figure attributed to “far right” groups was derived by arbitrarily including every fatality that was not explicitly linked to Islamist or Leftwing groups.

This is no inadvertent error. The source of Cullen’s data explicitly states, “Total deaths include both ideologically and non-ideologically motivated killings.” That is, some of the fatalities that Cullen attributes to “far-right and white-extremist groups” were committed by people with no ideological ax to grind at all. He commits another telling sin of omission by belaboring attacks by alleged white supremacists while studiously ignoring several horrific Islamist mass murders. But by far the worst feature of Cullen’s op-ed is his “solution”. He praises the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but laments certain inconveniences:

The hate crime law has its limitations. First, it requires proof that an individual acted because of a specific proscribed animus enumerated in the statute. That means investigators must uncover concrete evidence.

This character is the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, but he evidently dislikes the hassle of providing genuine evidence that a hate crime has been committed. His recommendation to the states is even worse:

States can authorize localities to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on demonstrations that will likely result in widespread violence and other criminal activity, like the rally in Charlottesville.

Evidently Cullen is unaware that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to freedom of assembly. And it applies to every American, including the kind of creep who joins the KKK. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) understands that neither the states nor the federal government are permitted to interfere with this provision of the First Amendment. In fact, the ACLU supported Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler in court after city (of Charlottesville) officials tried to revoke his protest permit. For those who can’t see why, the ACLU provides this explanation:

The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain groups — particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; we defend their right to free expression and free assembly.… Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone.

Returning to the rise in white supremacist murders that has allegedly occurred under Trump, the actual data is telling. As to domestic terrorist attacks, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) shows that 14 percent were committed by white supremacy groups in 2016 and that this percentage rose to 53 percent in 2017. But this was due to the ratio of overall deaths versus attacks. During 2016, 49 of 71 fatalities occurred during one Islamist attack. Consequently, the percentage of deaths associated with other attacks was driven down. The fatality rate in 2017 was far lower, so White supremacist attacks (18 of 34) rose to 53 percent.

With regard to hate crimes in general, the FBI reported that they increased by 17 percent from 2016 to 2017. That rise was an artifact of the increased number of agencies reporting. More telling is the ethnicity of the offenders: 25.7 percent were Hispanic; 25.0 percent were non-Hispanic white; 21.33 percent were black; 19.1 percent were unknown; 8.87 percent were mixed race. In other words, there is apparently no “white privilege” when it comes to hate crime. If one checks political bias at the door, this looks like a bunch of violent thugs attacking one another, not for racial reasons, but because that’s what violent thugs do.

The evidence of pervasive white supremacist violence is pretty thin, if you allow for the number of random crazies that appear in any particular ethnic community. You won’t get the Democrats to admit this, of course. They need the black vote, so they will do and say just about anything. Thus, they claim that a guy from Queens and the GOP — the party that ended slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation — has revived the Democrat traditions of white supremacy and lynching. They seem to believe that this strategy will bring back the black voters who failed to show in 2016. This is even dumber than the Green New Deal.

“No ‘white privilege’ when it comes to hate crime”!? “The evidence of pervasive white supremacist violence is pretty thin”!?

Who do these conservative nuts think they’re fooling?

Our wish for this and every Fourth of July –

May all our American readers, commenters, contributors, associates, critics, visitors and passers-by have a happy Independence Day!

Step by step, Facebook is becoming a medium for the communication of Leftism only.

Its existing policy of censoring conservative opinion is to be ever more strictly implemented, to the point – we foresee – of total suppression.

It has now put itself under the orders of “90 left-wing organizations”.

Brent Bozell writes at Media Research Center (MRC):

On Sunday [June 30, 2019], Facebook Chief Operations Officer Sheryl Sandberg announced the company’s latest efforts to institutionalize the demands of 90 left-wing organizations into the company’s operations, including disturbing efforts geared toward the 2020 elections.

Brent Bozell is making this widely known on behalf of a coalition of conservative organizations.

Media Research Center President (MRC) Brent Bozell issued the following statement Tuesday on behalf of The Free Speech Alliance, a coalition of more than 50 conservative organizations committed to combating online bias and censorship: 

Sheryl Sandberg just announced that she is allowing the ACLU and 90 left-wing organizations to dictate nearly every aspect of Facebook’s policies. This will let the left dominate the most powerful social media platform on the face of the earth. That raises significant legal and statutory issues that should worry both left and right.

Facebook hasn’t released the names of these groups, but the crux of their plans is clear – the influence of everything Facebook does from hiring more liberals to control of all content. That goes so far as to include advertising, partnerships and control of the product itself.

Now these left-wing groups have the power over every post a conservative makes. Facebook can’t be a free marketplace of ideas with the left controlling everything and the firm’s No. 2 [Sheryl Sandberg] overseeing and embracing all they are doing.

The company getting in bed with these liberal organizations – especially in its efforts to prepare for the 2020 elections – should be deeply alarming to the conservative movement, Congress, potentially the FEC, and indeed all Americans.

This was a big mistake on Facebook’s part. We hope they will rethink the decisions they have made.

They won’t.

Corinne Weaver, also at MRC, writes more about the decision:

Facebook released an update of its so-called “civil rights” audit June 30. The results did not bode well for conservatives, as the company committed to work with left-wing groups in every facet of its business.

The audit announced a “Civil Rights Task Force”, led by COO Sheryl Sandberg, which will rely on third-party “civil rights expertise” to make decisions. The task force will address all key departments of the business from content and partnerships to human resources. It will exist to “ensure civil rights concerns raised by outside groups are escalated promptly to decision-makers so that they can be considered and acted on quickly”.

[The audit] called for even more censorship than Facebook already has … hate speech to be censored even more, as well as “hateful ideologies”.

Humor will be removed as a protected category. [“Any humor that could be construed as an attack should be removed.”] …

Scrupulous human scrutiny is needed:

“Under-enforcement of hate speech policies” … [has meant] that only 65 percent of posts removed for hate speech were removed automatically, as opposed to being subject to human review.

Conservative opinion as such is classed as “hate speech”. All of it must go.

By this means the Facebook honchos expect to get the Left into power – forever.

Why persons who have made billions in this sweet land of capitalism want to hand it over to socialists, who will turn it into a vast permanent refugee camp, remains an impenetrable mystery.

Our Facebook page is still “suspended” although the declared three days of our punishment – for “violating” its “community standards” by posting a link to a documentary on the spread of sharia in Britain – are over.

This is the notice we have tried and failed to place today on Facebook:

We exist to criticize religion, including the religion of Leftism – one of the two worst. The other “worst”, equally appalling, is Islam.

If we are to be suspended for criticizing Islam – and soon it will probably be for criticizing the Left – we have these choices:

(1) We can become self-censoring to try and avoid suspension. In other words, cave to Facebook’s tyranny, accept limits to our freedom of expression. This would be to concede a victory to Facebook, and to frustrate the purpose for which we exist. So obviously we will not do it.

(2) We can abandon using Facebook immediately. This too would be giving in to Facebook’s bigotry. So we won’t do that either.

(3) Carry on as usual, risking frequent suspension. The Facebook algorithm that censors us is probably programmed to effect a policy of “X strikes and you’re out” – meaning the end of our page.

We were warned three months ago by one-who-knows (not a Facebook employee) that we probably have about three months to go before we will be censored out of existence. That censorship has started. Four days ago we were abruptly suspended for three days for “violating” Facebook’s “community standards”. Beware the word “community” in all political contexts. It implies that the Group is always more important than the Individual, and that is the notion at the heart of all collectivist ideologies.

One of our highly valued supportive commenters informed our readers on our behalf (since we could not write a thing or even “like” a comment) that we were being suspended. If our page were to be abruptly terminated, no notice to our readers would be possible of course. And this could happen, because we are choosing the third way we have listed: to carry on as usual, risking suspension and elimination. There would be no sense in doing anything else. It is what we are for.

So we are posting this to warn our readers that we might disappear from time to time or even permanently. If we are abolished, it will be entirely against our will. We’ll be very sorry indeed to lose our much appreciated supporters, constructive critics, like-thinkers and followers who help to make our page a valuable intellectual resource that pays the price that must be paid for freedom – eternal vigilance.

As we say in our Articles of Reason on our website – which will survive, and to which we hope our Facebook readers will turn if we lose this page:

Many a belief can survive persecution but not critical examination.

That is why they fear us and try to silence us.

3 hours later: Our “suspension” is over. We can post again.

We expect that next time we will be shut out for longer.

We’ve been informed by Facebook that we cannot post anything on our FB page “for three days”, because we have”violated” their “policies” by posting something – the video immediately below along with the same comment – that “goes against” their “Community Standards”.

Parts of Britain already belong to Islam. No action is being taken by the government to preserve the British nation. The United Kingdom is going the way of the Kingdom of Sweden.

https://youtu.be/vXpkOwJkTcQ