Majorityrights News > Category: That Question Again

And WHAT would we do without “The Super Bowl”?

Perfectly fitting entertainment that it is for a stadium full of White sheeple and a world wide audience of White sheeple - in attendance to one team of fast twitching blacks in ultra-actualized competition against another team of fast twitching blacks.

        ...speaking of the dark side of self actualization and its destabilizing effect on healthy social systems…

TMZ, Beyonce Pays Homage to Black Panthers During Super Bowl Performance, 8 Feb 2016:

Beyonce made a stirring political statement during the Super Bowl halftime show, in what appears to be a tribute to the Black Panthers, a ‘60s group that advocated violence to correct racial injustice.

The singer was flanked by backup dancers who wore berets, similar to the berets worn by the group. They also raised their fists, symbolic of the Black Power movement.

At one point the dancers posed with a sign that read “Justice 4 Mario Woods,” the man shot and killed by San Francisco cops.

The dancers on the field also formed an “X” on the field, which seemed symbolic of civil rights militant Malcolm X. Beyonce also had a strap on her chest in the form of an “X”.

                                     
                        Malcolm X: “The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said the black man will rule.”

Tina Knowles posed with the dancers, fists raised high.

It’s not only a symbol of the Panthers, it’s also a gesture used by Tommie Smith and John Carlos during the ‘68 Olympics.

       

                                         
                                          Dig the photo of Khalid Muhammad behind New Black Panther leaders

Jewish Chronicle, ‘Fraudsters convicted after conning investors out of almost £80 million’, 8 Feb 2016:

Three Jewish fraudsters who fleeced investors out of £79.5milion and blew the cash on ‘Bentleys, yachts and million pound houses’ are facing years behind bars.

Spencer Steinberg, 45, Jolan Saunders, 39 and Michael Strubel, 53 claimed they had won a contract to supply electricals to the Olympic Village ahead of the 2012 London games.

They said Saunders Electrical Wholesalers Limited (SEWL) also supplied goods such as including trouser presses and kettles to major hotel chains. But it was just a shabby high street electrical retailer in east London – a ‘one man and a van operation’.

Victims were persuaded to invest hundreds of thousands over a period of two months so SEWL could meet urgent orders, then paid seemingly sky-high returns. They were then asked if they would ‘roll over’ their investment for another two months.

The trio used bogus accounts to impress clients into parting with their cash. Two investors parted with £2m after being shown fake company invoices that showed they were supplying the Olympic Village. Others were fooled after Saunders started using doctored invoices from the Park Plaza chain of hotels that suggested they were a major supplier.

The trio were not investigated until the scandal of United States investor and notorious fraudster Bernie Madoff hit the headlines in 2008, jurors heard. Steinberg and Strubel were unanimously convicted of conspiracy to defraud after a five month trial at Southwark Crown Court.They had denied the charges. Saunders earlier admitted conspiracy to defraud and acting as a company director while disqualified. There were tears and shouts of “oh no” from the public gallery as the verdicts were given. Judge Michael Grieve granted Steinberg and Strubel bail ahead of sentence but warned: “I am sure you are fully aware of the fact that it is a very serious offence of which you have been convicted and the inevitable sentence is going to be a custodial sentence.”

Opening the case prosecutor Sarah Forshaw said the trio raked in £79.5 of investor cash and “lived the life of Riley”. She said: “The defendants persuaded people to part with their money on the promise they were going to invest it for them in a good, profitable business, then effectively pocked the money themselves. ‘It made them rich, rich at the expense of people they defrauded – you will hear about Bentleys, Ferraris, Porsches and Rolls Royces, you will hear about yachts and million pound houses. ‘You will also hear about how it was that these defendants, for a times, lived the life of Riley.” She continued: “When their victims found out what these men had done, there were tears and expressions of regret from both of these defendants.

“Probably some of these tears were genuine, they knew by then they were in real trouble, they’d been found out. “Many of the investors from whom they had stolen money had been friends, they had trusted them. “These defendants had rather hoped that the fraud would continue for longer so that their closest friends and even some of their family members would not lose out when the scheme imploded as it did.” She added: “Genuine or not, these expressions of regret were as convincing as the lies they had told in order to persuade people, some of them professional business people, to part with their money – these people are con men and they do it well.”

One balance sheet for SEWL for the year ending 2008 showed revenues of around £100,000, but the following year’s accounts, showed a 2008 end-of-year revenue figure of £43.3million. A purchasing order of £4.71 for light bulbs for the Grosvenor Hotel was doctored to show an order for £47,000. Jeremy Stone, an old school friend of Saunders’ at the prestigious Chigwell School in east London, told how he lost £17 million in the scam. Saunders offered him the chance to invest in SEWL “out of the blue”, saying he needed to borrow £256,400 over 30 days to meet an urgent order. Mr Stone said: “My thought was that small business were struggling for investment, and it was somewhere [private] investors could step in and that could be a very profitable arrangement.”

He added that the first request had not been for a very large amount of money, and he also wanted to support a friend he had lost touch with over the previous few years.

Mr Stone brought in his father Martin, an accountant and management consultant, to carry out all the due diligence and to manage the family’s investment in SEWL. Over the next few years, SEWL apparently seemed so lucrative, Mr Stone employed his father and his sister on salaries of £200,000 and £80,000 respectively to manage the family’s relationship with the company. He invited 14 other business associates to join him in investing in the company. Mr Stone said they were sent hundreds of forged bank statements, invoices and other company documents to keep them on board. He was taking a summer holiday in the summer of 2010 when he received a call from his sister saying she had received a NatWest bank statement for SEWL showing assets of £5 million, with a recent in payment of £5,085,000. But instead of showing a bottom line of in excess of £10 million, the bank statement read £00.00.

It was only then that the Stone family began to realise the company was not legitimate and launched their own investigations. They eventually went to the High Court to ask for a freezing order on the assets of Saunders, Steinberg and their business associates. Mr Stone told the court he ploughed £27 million into the scheme and had £10 million handed back in “returns”. Neither his family nor any of their co-investors have been able to recoup any of the outstanding money.

The trio ran the Ponzi scheme for four years between 2006 and 2010 until they were investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. Steinberg and Strubel claimed they had no reason to suspect the business was anything but legitimate. When the Bernie Madoff scandal broke in 2008, one investor told Steinberg he was “spooked” by the seemingly sky high returns he was getting from SEWL. Steinberg said he was not concerned because Madoff’s business was “a city company”. ‘It was a completely different business to Saunders. I didn’t think SEWL was a Ponzi scheme,’ he said.

Steinberg of Lodge End Radlett, Hertfordshire and Strubel of Princes Park, New Southgate, north London, were both convicted of conspiracy to defraud.

Saunders, of Almonds Avenue, Buckhurst Hill, Essex, admitted the same charge.

A sentencing date is expected to be fixed next week.

       
          But what would we have done without thaaat light show….

TNO, ‘African Rioting Tears through Melbourne’, 27 Dec. 2015:

by TNO Staff — in Australia ·

“Hundreds” of African invaders engaged in a widespread orgy of violence over the Christmas weekend in Melbourne, the capital and most populous city in the Australian state of Victoria.

According to local media reports—all of which deliberately failed to report on the race of the rioters—the incidents took place outside a train station in Melbourne’s southeast and outside a Carlton nightclub on Queensberry Street, North Melbourne.

In addition, a further brawl took place later at a police station when groups of the arrested Africans went on a rampage, attacking each other and wounding two policemen in the process.

The violence outside the Kananook Railway Station in Seaford took place on Sunday, December 27, with two large gangs of Africans—estimated at around 200 in total—battled it out with knives, baseball bats, stones, and at least one samurai sword and a machete.

One of the Africans was stabbed several times and admitted to the hospital with what was described as “life-threatening” wounds.

None of the controlled media coverage dared point out the race of the rioters, with only the News.com.au website making a slight reference to their origin by reporting that the fight was believed to have started in the car park of the nearby Frankston Basketball Centre during the “South Sudanese Australian Summer Slam” basketball competition.

However, CCTV and photographs of the fighting showed clearly that the perpetrators were Africans, despite the controlled media’s efforts to ignore that reality.

Police arrested 12 Africans, aged between 19 and 32, and detained them for questioning.

However, not long after the Africans were placed in a communal cell at Frankston Police Station, at least two of them started fighting with one another again, forcing a second police intervention which also saw two officers slightly wounded.

The second incident involved at least 250 Africans outside a Carlton nightclub on Queensberry Street about 5:30 a.m. on Sunday, local media reported. A police car was damaged and a woman suffered minor injuries.

Officers were forced to use pepper spray to control the crowd, and four men and a woman were arrested and will be issued with penalty notices for riotous behavior.

Once again, the controlled media coverage refused to mention the race of the rioters, although their efforts at censorship were also once again undone by the video and still photography footage of the event.

According to the Australian Census Bureau, there are some 19,370 Sudanese-born Africans in Australia. Of that number some 5,911 live in Melbourne. Sudanese are by far the single largest black immigrant group in Australia.

If nearly 500 Sudanese were rioting over Christmas in these two incidents, this means that at least 10 percent of Melbourne’s Sudanese took part in the street violence in the space of one day.

It does not matter where they are and barely even matters when their economic circumstances are better: blacks will behave as blacks.

Public opinion about supposedly ‘vulnerable’ Islamist men on an international level has become so ‘toxic’ that the Guardian no longer wants to offer up its comments section as a vehicle through which people all around the world can say things that the Guardian editors and journalists don’t agree with.

See here:

Guardian, ‘The readers’ editor on… handling comments below the line’, Stephen Pritchard, 31 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

As a result, it had been decided that comments would not be opened on pieces on those three topics unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation and that they believed a positive debate was possible.

The policy would be worldwide, applying to our UK, US and Australia offices, as the issues were global. And, where they were open, it was likely that threads would close sooner than the typical three-day window.

[...]

This was not a retreat from commenting as a whole, she said; it was an acknowledgement, however, that some conversations had become toxic at an international level – “a change in mainstream public opinion and language that we do not wish to see reflected or supported on the site”.

[...]

Totally exploitable.

This is almost like a return to the 1970s, except with a massively expanded infrastructure for communication, which results in black propaganda and grey propaganda being pushed by all sides of the political spectrum until one side finally cries out in pain and shuts everything down.

The difference now is that if the Guardian staff refuse to facilitate these conversations because they find it to be too painful, it won’t make them go away, it just means that these conversations will be shifted to other locations which are not under the watch of people in their political camp.

One thing that social democrats have never been able to understand is how to win at Information Operations (IO). They had forgotten that some audiences are more sophisticated than others, and that in a completely globalised communication environment in which the internet ‘remembers everything’, their attempts to fabricate a false reality to support their political positions in different temporal and geographical contexts will always be exposed. There will always be some commenter who will ask “Why did they say this thing here, but then this other thing over here? It’s contradictory! It makes no sense at all!”

For example, if a news organisation, such as perhaps the Guardian, or the Huffington Post, writes articles in its North America edition that try to induce feelings of guilt and paralysis among the Americans of European descent by taking the position that the Pilgrims who landed in North America on the Mayflower were actually a collection of religious fundamentalists who ended up carrying out genocide and were subsequently hated and reviled by the Amerindians, then that is an anti-Pilgrim line they can take. It’s based on reality so a person could indeed say it. But they would have to be consistent about it.

A problem emerges for that newspaper if it should happen to mysteriously become pro-Pilgrim in a Middle East and North African context, where the Islamist reactionary ‘refugees’ who are fleeing from the Middle East and North Africa to find ‘a new life’ in Europe, are presented as being beyond reproach because of their similarity to the American Pilgrims. American Pilgrims who are suddenly recast as noble heroes fleeing from a supposedly repressive Europe to find ‘a new life’ in the Americas. ‘Pilgrims fleeing repression’ is also a narrative based on reality. But its moral content and implied policy prescriptions are 180 degrees opposite to that of the aforementioned anti-Pilgrim narrative.

It’s 2016, social democrats. If you constantly contradict yourselves like that, then it becomes possible to find the key which is held in common between the different kinds of propaganda you are creating, by simply comparing them to each other. That’s something which is pretty trivial to do in the era of digital media. So that happened, and will continue to happen.

I would say to everyone who has been struggling against social democrats, that this latest move to restrict speech which is being carried out by the Guardian should be regarded as a victory of sorts over the Guardian. They are in fact conceding that the people in the various ethno-nationalist camps—globally—have a level of influence over mainstream public opinion which has been able to move the mainstream out of lockstep with social democrats.

Counterpropaganda involves shining a light in the darkness, and the Guardian’s desire to retreat into the darkness when hit with that light only further reveals the perniciousness of their propaganda campaign, and also its fundamental weakness.

It’s true. I think you know where this article is going to go.

One of the most notable features of the Donald Trump phenomenon which is being feted by just about every ethno-nationalist website—except Majorityrights, thank goodness—is the remarkable opportunism and irresponsibility which seems to appear at every turn.

The Donald Trump phenomenon is a presidential candidacy phenomenon which was initiated by the actions of one man, Donald Trump himself, who is trying to subsist off of the pre-existing electoral lobbies inside the Republican party. It is not a movement. It’s Donald Trump saying things that he thinks will convince the various contradictory segments of the Republican party voting base to imagine that he empathises with them while you wait with bated breath to see what he’ll say next, so that you can write yet another breathless article on how the Trump train ‘cannot be stopped’.

Excited People

Just because Donald Trump has managed to weaponise the slack-jawed voters of Iowa against their former owners—for now—does not mean that some great revolution has arrived or that there is a ‘train’ that is going somewhere. Donald Trump has merely succeeded in getting people who identify as Republican to become excited about voting for the Republican party.

That doesn’t make them suddenly not a bunch of disorganised idiots who believe idiotic things. It means that they are now merely an excited bunch of disorganised idiots who believe idiotic things excitedly.

Economic Power Precedes Political Power

Now, some of you are reading this and thinking to yourselves, “Why have these people at Majorityrights always got to ruin everyone’s fun?”

Your fun has to be ruined, because it is harmful. Attaching yourself to a political candidate like Donald Trump, and running articles that praise him for an entire electoral season, even though you know that you have no means through which you can control him during his hypothetical presidency because you have no lobby, is a pretty bad idea.

It is said that economic power precedes political power. Where does economic power come from? Not strictly from an abundance of wealth, but rather, from controlled scarcity. For example, if I had control of all water in a country, my power over its governance would be unrivalled. But if everyone could create disparate water-fountains everywhere without my permission, then my power would vanish almost immediately. The same logic applies to political movements, if they are to have any power in the material world at all, then they have to be able to make credible bargains.

In the context of American ethno-nationalist movement figures who claim to appreciate the merits of National Socialism or some variant of it, which kind of economic power should they be aiming to control? They should be aiming to control the one thing which is in abundance everywhere. The people’s labour power. Most people in the United States have only their labour power that they can either choose to give to an employer or withhold from an employer, and any movement that were to gain the ability to switch labour on or off at will and at mass, would be one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. Given that labour union density in the United States hovers around a pathetic figure like 10%, it is not like there is much competition in that realm from the liberals or anyone else.

Despite this, year after year Americans do nothing other than wait for the next white saviour to descend and save them, while paradoxically festooning their websites with the symbols of a labour movement that actually emerged as a ‘workers party’ from the ground up and not from the top down.

Celebrating for no reason

I’ve been looking at the on-the-ground reporting that Matt Forney has been doing, as he’s been chronicling his adventures in Iowa and a lot of what he’s written I’ve found to be extremely well done and I have no intention of deriding his efforts in that regard.

However, I want to quote something from an article he recently wrote because I think that he has in fact highlighted a large part of the problem without having been aware that it is a problem:

Return of Kings, ‘Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign Is The Biggest Political Uprising In Decades’, Matt Forney, 27 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

Finally, Trump has expanded the conservative base to a degree that no other politician in the U.S. has done in eons. During the introductory speeches, one of Trump’s campaign co-chairs asked how many people in the audience had never voted in the caucuses before. Close to half the crowd’s hands went up. Trump has done the seemingly impossible: get people who are tuned out of the political process involved again, and supporting conservative principles at that.

It’s clear that Donald Trump’s combination of nationalist, conservative policy proposals, his personal charisma and his willingness to speak the truth will carry him through the presidential primaries. But the real question is whether he can win Iowa, the only one of the early contests where he’s lagged behind: he’s been trailing Ted Cruz in the polls for the past month, though he’s been posting solid leads in the past week.

[...]

This is precisely the danger. Life has been returned to a party which ought to actually have died. Furthermore, what has been occurring are not ‘policy proposals’, more so than a disparate collection of forcefully repeated statements and semi-comical tweets, which no ethno-nationalist group has any power to hold him to after he is elected.

In Iowa, who was he actually making deals with? Christian Zionists and Evangelicals. Many of them are highly motivated and are unfortunately not actually stupid at all. Christian leaders do not see Trump as their first choice for president, in fact only 2% of them view him in that way. However, they are nothing if not pragmatic. They realise that they have the ability to command large numbers of people who sit in pews and are receptive to messages that come across the pulpit about who to vote for. They also have an economic bazooka which stems from that organisational power, which enables them to sit down at the table with the highly cynical Donald Trump, and make actual deals with him.

Trump has been calling out to those people as though to bring them to the table from since the very beginning of his campaign. The message that “If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me.”, which was a probing attempt to see what the reaction would be, was his first outreach. Getting a response that looked like it was backed by a voting block with solid fundraising power (albeit funds that he may not necessarily need but would be helpful to him nonetheless) then led to him increasing the appeal to a new level with his statement on how he intends to “protect Christianity”. Next he went on to say that he believes that “Christianity is under siege” and that Christians “don’t exert the power” that he thinks they ought to have.

Trump was calling for Evangelicals to make a deal with him. He may get it, but it will be a two-way street, he will have to give them something in order for them to give him something. They see it as a case not where Trump will somehow grant them cultural leadership again, but rather, a case where Donald Trump can be induced to create the environment in which they would be more free to operate. They enter into alliance with him cautiously and with actual representatives on the ground who know what disgusting things they want and how to get those disgusting things.

Platform melted

That ability to go out and make deals and threats, is an ability that American ethno-nationalists do not have, because American ethno-nationalists haven’t put anything onto the table that they could threaten to remove from the table. Instead, it was as though Donald Trump approached the American ethno-nationalists and they said about it, “It was love at first sight, we looked at Trump and our platform melted away.”

Finding people who are willing to shill for you 24/7 can often be difficult. Generating a good SEO plan with the kind of agility required by a political candidate whose positions change depending on who they are artfully making deals with on any given day, would be gruelling work with an exorbitant cost. Mercifully for Donald Trump, he has almost the entire Alt-Right’s followers who reside in the nexus where Twitter, 4chan, Youtube, Facebook, and Reddit meet, who will do all of that work for him for free, and he can ultimately treat them in any way he likes because he is in no way structurally beholden to them. Trump can get amazing results on the internet for $0.

Donald Trump’s social media accounts could generate interest all day long, simply by entertaining ‘controversial’ ideas and statements. Those accounts could then do even better by mocking the responses of ‘outraged’ social-democratic news sites afterwards. Donald Trump’s Twitter and Facebook could become home to 4chan Pepe the Frog memes, which are often witty and which save the campaign staff the effort of having to invent their own memes. That actually happened. Why then should they do any work at all?

‘Everything is totally fine and stuff’

Another example of a great misunderstanding, comes from the Daily Stormer, which carried a triumphalist article after Donald Trump initially received a boost in Iowa. The boost was attributable to the Sarah Palin endorsement, and the mathematics of Evangelicals realising that Trump may be the person they would need to make a deal with.

Somehow the Daily Stormer interpreted it like this:

Daily Stormer, ‘Trump Jumps 11 Points in Iowa, Dominating All’, Andrew Anglin, 24 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

It is looking like Trump is actually going to be the next President, short of some insane and unpredictable event.

I’m deeply surprised Jews haven’t already launched some serious tricks.

[...]

Is this actually real life?

The Daily Stormer people seem to be unaware that the Jews already launched a collection of serious tricks. Those tricks are known in aggregate as ‘the Donald Trump campaign’.

New Observer, “Israeli ‘Opened Slovakia’s Door for Iraqi refugees,” 25 Jan 2016:

An Israeli political consultant pushed nonwhite Iraqi “Christian” refugees on a dozen European nations before “using his contacts” to get Slovakia to accept them—but refused to consider trying to get them asylum in Israel.

Aron Shaviv and Benjamin Netanyahu

Aron Shaviv, who orchestrated Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent election campaign in Israel, runs a company called Shaviv Strategy and Campaigns, which claims to be a “global political-strategy consultancy specializing in winning election campaigns on behalf of the center-right” and delivers “winning Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, and referendum campaigns to political leaders from across Europe and globally.”

According to an article in the Israeli-based Times of Israel titled “How an Israeli opened Slovakia’s doors for Iraqi Christian refugees” (January 25, 2016), Shaviv was the person who arranged for the Iraqi Christians, driven out of their northern Iraqi hometown of Qaraqosh by ISIS, to be resettled in Slovakia.

The Times of Israel reported that when Shaviv was approached by activists trying to find the Iraqis asylum somewhere, he started “combing through and contacting his network of political connections. The team tried at least a dozen countries before getting a hearing in Slovakia.”

“My policy was the path of least resistance—the first country that showed any kind of positive leanings was Slovakia,” Shaviv told the Times of Israel.

He said that it was important in Slovakia, still a very traditional Catholic country, to get both the Vatican and its local religious authorities involved.

  “We thought that the right approach was to get the Slovak church to take ownership and say these are our people,” said Shaviv.

  And after many trips to the Vatican, it came on board in saving its Iraqi Catholics.

  “The determining messaging that got them to really identify and take ownership was that this is the last Christian community on earth that speaks the language of Jesus,” Shaviv said.

Shaviv said that several factors contributed to the Slovakian government’s willingness to accept the refugees. For one, although it was the first European Union country to state it was not willing to accept Muslims during the massive waves of migrants and refugees reaching European shores in 2015, like all EU countries, it must fulfill a refugee quota.

Iraqi Christians demonstrate in Germany.

Of course, it would never enter Shaviv’s head to offer these Iraqis refuge in his own country, because Israel legally forbids immigration by non-Jews, tests potential immigrants by DNA to make sure they are Jewish, and outlaws marriages between Jews and non-Jews.

Shaviv is not the only prominent Jewish activist busy bringing in nonwhite Christian refugees into Europe, and diverting them away from Israel. The recently deceased British Jewish Lord George Weidenfeld set up the “Weidenfeld Safe Havens Fund” in July 2015 specifically to bring them to Europe.

        Invoking Abrahamic Jurisdiction

NYADagbladet, ‘Facebook gets involved in asking users to report on what has heretofore been free opinion,’ 21 Jan 2016:

Illegal speech has always been forbidden on Facebook. And there are also opinions which are classified as “hatred and intolerance.” Now Facebook is taking a hard line against dissent by building a system wherein you can report friends whose opinions are dissident of their party line regarding migrants and their assimilation.

Facebook’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg, yesterday presented its new strategy at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This week it has launched a new project which is called the Initiative for Civil Courage online.

“Civil Courage”

From left, Sasha Havlicek, Gerd Billen, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Neumann, Anetta Kahane at the launch of the initiative at the World Economic Forum

There is much talk about stopping the IS and terrorism in the social media. But behind the new venture hides also other motives. It is mainly in response to protests flaring-up in social media against the great migration and refugee flows into Europe that the company now intends to take action. The initiative will particularly target Germany, where the protests were at their strongest according to Reuters.

- ‘Hate speech has no place in our society - not even on the Internet, said Sandberg of the new venture.’

Merkel and the German government are a significant party in pushing Facebook to apprehend “hatred and calls for violence.”

Clear illegality has always been forbidden to write and Facebook’s employees censure that sort of continent as soon as it is discovered. However, the company will now focus on detecting users who make “xenophobic remarks,” according to Britain’s “Independent.” It has now engaged media company Bertelsmann to clean up and monitor traffic on the German part of the platform. The company has also set aside a million euro to be allocated to “nonprofit organizations” to help in the effort.

Opinion based reporting

But the really big operation is not launched yet. Facebook will have an opinion reporting system that allows users to alert the company when friends’ opinions start to diverge too much. Then you should be able to flag that they are ‘at risk of being radicalized, “according to IDG.

It is still unclear what the definition of too radical will be, whose posts will be deleted and if it should be decided by a robot or by human judgment.

Markus Andersson

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Here by contrast is Gaurdian coverage:

Guardian, ‘Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg: ‘likes’ can help stop Isis recruiters,’ 20 Jan 2016:

Speaking at Davos, Facebook’s COO said the company believes ‘counterspeech’ by the online community is the best way to combat propaganda

Silicon Valley is now an open combatant in the war against Islamic extremism.

In increasingly brash tones, tech executives are discussing publicly how their companies can help the west stop Islamic State recruiting efforts online. That shift is welcome news in Washington, London and Berlin, but it could also raise questions about American tech firms’ role in the global marketplace of ideas.

Less than two weeks ago, Silicon Valley’s leading executives joined a closed-door meeting with America’s most senior security staff and law enforcement officials to discuss how to combat Isis’s recruiting efforts online. Agents for the terrorist organization have increasingly turned to platforms such as Facebook,

Alphabet’s YouTube and Twitter.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 20 January, Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg pointed to one source of inspiration for the digital war against Isis – “a ‘like’ attack”.

She explained a recent effort by German Facebook users to “like” the Facebook page of the neo-Nazi party and then post positive messages on the page.
“What was a page filled with hatred and intolerance was then tolerance and messages of hope,” she said.

Google says Isis must be locked out of the open web.

She then pivoted to Isis and added: “The best thing to speak against recruitment by Isis are the voices of people who were recruited by Isis, understand what the true experience is, have escaped and have come back to tell the truth ... Counter-speech to the speech that is perpetuating hate we think by far is the best answer.”

Speaking separately in London on the same day, Alphabet’s director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, talked about efforts to force Isis agents off the public internet.

“It could be where we can see greater short-term wins,” said Cohen, who met with Pope Francis on 15 January along with Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

Revealed: White House seeks to enlist Silicon Valley to ‘disrupt radicalization’

US officials, lawmakers and politicians have complained that the companies aren’t doing enough to keep terrorists away from civilians online. Donald Trump famously said last month he wanted to talk to Microsoft founder Bill Gates about “closing the internet up” in some places to stop Isis.

And while tech executives privately were sympathetic, they were often nervous about confronting the issue publicly. The internet, by its nature, is open. Tech firms – rooted in America’s liberal tradition of free speech – are skittish about playing traffic cop about posted content. Sandberg’s and Cohen’s remarks Wednesday suggest those concerns have diminished.

During the national security meeting in San Jose, Silicon Valley executives in the room, including Sandberg and Apple’s Tim Cook, appeared open to the idea of helping Washington combat Isis online.

The Guardian reported at the time that US officials asked Sandberg about Facebook’s technology that allows users to flag friends who are posting suicidal thoughts on the platform.

After Sandberg explained it, tech executives in the room discussed whether a similar system could be developed for flagging social media users showing signs of radicalization.

It’s time for another instalment of ‘things Putin actually said’. Imagine that Europe became a really hazardous place to live one day, so hazardous that the Jews started looking for places to run to in order to escape from the backlash stemming from their own handiwork.

Would Putin facilitate them in their escape?

Let’s find out. See here:

Euronews, ‘Jews welcome in Russia, Putin tells Europe’s Jewish leaders’, 19 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

Putin meets with Kantor.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has met with European Jewish leaders to discuss their concerns over rising anti-Semitism on the continent.

During the meeting, Putin pointed out that many Jews emigrated from Moscow when it was part of the former Soviet Union. He said now they can come back.

The president of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor said the number of Jews fleeing Europe is also on the rise.

“The situation with the Jews in Europe is the worst it has been since the end of the Second World War,” said Kantor. “The Jews are again in fear and a Jewish exodus from Europe is quite real. There are more Jews fleeing France, which is considered very secure, than from civil-war-torn Ukraine.”

“Let them come here,” said Putin. “They emigrated from here under Soviet Union, but now they can come back.”

Of course. He’ll probably invite them to settle in the ‘Far East’, land which the Russians have no warrant to put themselves in, much less their Jewish friends.

RFE/RL, ‘Russia’s Jewish Autonomous Region In Siberia ‘Ready’ To House European Jews’, 20 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

Far East Jewish Autonomous Region.

The governor of Russia’s Far East Jewish Autonomous Region says the area is “ready” to house Jews from Europe who are facing anti-Semitism.

Aleksandr Levintal said his region “will welcome Jews from European countries, where they may face attacks by anti-Semitic elements.”

Levintal also called his region “the first officially established Jewish statehood.”

Levintal’s remarks come a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin called on Jews to return to Russia.

In Moscow on January 19, Putin told the head of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor, that he had seen reports saying European Jews were scared to wear a yarmulke, the traditional Jewish skull cap, in public.

Putin told Kantor, “They can come to us. They left the Soviet Union. Let them return.”

The Jewish Autonomous Region was established by the Soviet government in 1934 in a part of southeastern Siberia that borders China.

In 1948, the Jewish population there peaked at 30,000—a quarter of the region’s total population.

By 2010, out of 180,000 residents in the region, only about 1,600 were of Jewish ancestry.

The Russians want to use their federal structure as a tool to vector more Jews into Siberia. How long is humanity going to have to endure the existence of a structure like the Russian federal state? Who will rid the world of that gigantic bloated cancer?