Forum für

Autisten und interessierte Zeitgenossen

The establishment media is hiding the dramatic news that President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice has announced a national campaign to eradicate the imported practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

By ignoring the imported FGM practice, the TV networks “are guilty of aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims,” says an April 18 statement by the Media Research Center and ACT for America.

The federal government’s dramatic policy announcement was made April 13 when officials revealed they had charged a Muslim doctor for performing FGM on two American girls from Minnesota. The doctor and the two girls have immigrant parents from Muslim countries, where Islamic leaders endorse the peculiar institution to keep women subordinate to men. Officials also said they had found additional child victims in Michigan.

The establishment media has largely hidden the administration’s new pro-female policy and the shocking crime, which threatens or has already victimized more than 500,000 young American women whose parents are immigrants from countries where FGM is routine.

On April 13, the New York Times just posted a 637-word article on page A14 about a “Michigan doctor” without mentioning “Islam” or “Muslim.” The Washington Post merely ran a 760-word online article on April 13 about a “Detroit emergency room doctor,” and a four-paragraph AP report in the newspaper about a “Detroit-area doctor” on April 14. Neither article mentioned Islam.

TheHill ran a 221-word piece on April 13 about a “Detroit emergency room doctor” which hid the role of imported Islamic ideas. Politico’s website shows no mention of the Muslim doctor’s s name.

The Virginia-based Media Research Council slammed the TV networks on April 18 for ignoring the issue. “Since last Thursday, The New York Times, FoxNews.com, and CNN.com have all posted pieces online about the case and Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ran a segment about it on his show Friday. So far, the morning and evening news shows at the big three networks have been silent, and as of this morning so has CNN,” MRC reported Tuesday, April 18.

“The media’s moral compass is hopelessly broken,” said an April 18 joint statement from MRC President Brent Bozell and Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT for America, an anti-terror groups with a reported membership of 500,000 members.

Lara Trump shared her disappointment in news networks for refusing to air President Donald Trump’s latest paid campaign ad, on the grounds that the 30-second television spot is “false.”

[...]

CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS have refused to run the ad, according to the Trump campaign, citing a graphic in it that describes the mainstream media as “fake news.”

“The mainstream media is not fake news, and, therefore, the ad is false,” CNN said in a statement defending its decision. “Per our policy, it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted.”

Der Norddeutsche Rundfunk weist Kritik der AfD-Spitzenkandidatin Alice Weidel an seiner Satiresendung „extra 3“ zurück. Ein Unterlassungsbegehren der Politikerin habe der Sender abgelehnt, teilte der NDR am Freitag mit. Alice Weidel hatte sich dagegen gewehrt, dass sie in der Satire-Sendung vom 27. April als „Nazi-Schlampe“ bezeichnet wurde.

[...]

Ehring hatte in der Satire-Sendung auf Weidels Rede beim AfD-Parteitag in Köln reagiert: „Jawohl. Schluss mit der politischen Korrektheit, lasst uns alle unkorrekt sein. Da hat die Nazi-Schlampe doch recht.“

Nicolas Blancho, Präsident des Islamischen Zentralrats (IZRS), rechtfertigt in einem Facebook-Video die Steinigung als Strafe bei Ehebruch. Blancho warnt vor der Relativierung der Texte im Koran. Dazu verweist er auf die Sendung «Arena» im Jahr 2010. Dort wurde er aufgefordert, sich von der Praxis der Steinigung zu distanzieren, wie sie etwa der Iran vorschreibt. «Alle droschen auf mich, alle drängten darauf hin», erinnert sich Blancho im Video.

Jetzt, sieben Jahre später, bereut es Blancho «kein bisschen», dass er sich damals in der «Arena» nicht distanziert hat. Doch will Blancho die Steinigung auch für die Schweiz? Auf Anfrage von 20 Minuten teilt der IZRS mit, «dass man die Anwendung der strafrechtlichen Abteilung der Scharia ausserhalb eines islamischen Systems klar ablehnt».

Gab.ai erlaubt etwas längere Texte, ist funktional Twitter ebenbürtig, und wurde explizit gegründet, um der freien Rede nach US-Vorstellungen einen Schutzraum vor den Folgen staatlicher Repression zu bieten. Repression, die in Deutschland durch Heiko Maas, seine Ex-Stasi-IM-Bekannte und das Netzdurchsetzungsgesetz so weit gediehen ist, dass der Minister als negatives Beispiel für Meinungsunterdrückung in der New York Times auftaucht. Eine Repression, die der Stiftung von Anetta Kahane kostenlose Werbefläche bei Google gibt, um nach dem Skandal um das von ihr betriebene Prangerprojekt “Neue Rechte” ihre Sicht der Dinge zu verbreiten – denn die Flächen wurden der Stiftung von Google gegeben, weil sie in der von Maas eingerichteten Task Force gegen „Hate Speech“ sitzt. Inzwischen ist ein Projekt der Stiftung auch offizieller Partner von Twitter, wenn es um “Beleidigungen” geht.

[...]

Ich habe also ein nicht unkritisches, aber stabiles Verhältnis zu Twitter gehabt – bis vor ein paar Wochen. Da hat Twitter massiv angefangen, Aussagen und Accounts in Deutschland zurück zu halten – mit einer deutschen Voreinstellung bekam man sie nicht mehr zu sehen. Ich war damals in Italien, mit den dortigen IP-Nummern war alles bestens sichtbar. Es wurden Accounts durch weitgehende Unsichtbarkeitmachung eingeschränkt, die nichts erkennbar Strafbares oder Illegales geschrieben hatten, sondern allenfalls zynisch oder deutlich waren, oder sonst wie legal extremen Missmut zum Ausdruck brachten. Mein persönlicher Eindruck ist – durch nichts belegt natürlich – dass Twitter durch das Ausschalten von Accounts und die Resonanz der empörten Nutzer der Politik zeigen wollte, dass sie auch unpopuläre Entscheidungen treffen. Man muss die Firma da vielleicht sogar verstehen: Das Editieren ist enorm teuer, Twitter schreibt weiterhin hohe Verluste, und finanziell wäre es besser, wenn die gesetzlichen Regeln nicht allzu teuer in der Umsetzung sind. Allerdings zeigte Twitter da meines Erachtens auch, dass es durchaus zum Overblocking bereit ist. Das ist bei Politikern ein fataler Fehler – jedes Zugeständnis sorgt dafür, dass sie den Eindruck haben, richtig zu handeln.

[...]

Man kann nicht frei reden, wenn die Rede nicht einmal mehr Zitate erlaubt. Das Problem gab es schon mit dem Bild der napalmverbrannten Kinder aus Vietnam, das bei Facebook zensiert wurde. Jetzt verhindert Twitter, dass ich erfahre, welche Probleme es mit Antisemiten in Berlin gibt. Das ist eine Plattform, die mich zwingt zu überlegen, was ihr Algorithmus zu tun gedenkt. Das ist keine Meinungsfreiheit.

[...]

Es gibt da also kein Umschalten zu einer Zensur und einer DDR2.0, sondern eine schleichende Veränderung, bei der einseitig fragwürdige Kampagnen toleriert werden, ohne dass es deshalb Konsequenzen gibt. Die Frage ist bei solchen Entwicklungen immer, wo sie noch hinführen werden: Werden es weiter Moralmarketingaktionen wie “Doppeleinhorn” oder “Nohatespeechde” sein, bei denen sich politische Freunde der Regierungsparteien über finanzielle Zuwendungen freuen können, ohne Schaden anzurichten. Oder lernen Politiker und setzen zukünftig erfahrene Staatstrolle ein, die auch bereit sind, mit schmutzigen Tricks zu arbeiten – Ansätze dazu sind bei der SPD schon zu sehen. Und wird sich Twitter vor mich stellen, wenn ich mich wirklich mit Maas anlege, sein Ansehen schädige und sein Staatssekretär Twitter einen Wink geben sollte? Ich komme aus dem Bayern der CSU, da hat man schon viel erlebt, und wundert sich über gar nichts mehr.

The former governor’s lawsuit came shortly after CNN forced the resignation of three journalists over a story on the Russia investigation that prompted a retraction and apology to Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci.

And that followed erroneous reports by CNN and ABC that James Comey was going to testify that he never told President Trump he wasn’t under FBI investigation on the Russia matter—except that Comey actually backed up Trump on that point.

CNN also got tarred, through no fault of its own, by Kathy Griffin holding up a severed “Trump” head and host Reza Aslan calling Trump a piece of excrement and an “embarrassment to humankind.” The network cut ties with both of them.

Every mistake, misstep and overreach gives ammunition to a president who takes a very dim view of the media and has unleashed a torrent of “fake news” tweets in the last two days. And each blunder further convinces Trump supporters that the press has no interest in being fair to this president and his people.

[...]

One person who has refused to be bullied is Sarah Palin. Her lawsuit, filed yesterday, deals with a Times editorial that was utterly false and had to be corrected.

That editorial was reprehensible, mean-spirited and utterly tone-deaf, coming as it did the same day that Steve Scalise was nearly killed and four other people wounded at a Virginia baseball field.

It accused Palin of “incitement” in the 2011 wounding of Gabby Giffords, and the killing of six others, because her political committee circulated a map with crosshairs to mark 20 targeted Democratic districts--with no evidence the gunman ever saw the map.

Palin has every right to be furious and every right to sue—but whether she can win is another question.

The lawsuit says that the paper’s response “did not approach the degree of the retraction and apology necessary and warranted by the Times’s false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited murder.” The paper tweeted a “sorry” to its readers but did not apologize to Palin, which might have averted the lawsuit.

A Times spokeswoman said in a statement, “We have not reviewed the claim yet but will defend against any claim vigorously.”

Palin’s problem is that the Supreme Court sets a very high bar for suing public figures for libel, ironically set out in the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan. A public figure, which the former VP nominee most assuredly is, must prove that something was published with actual malice or with reckless disregard for the truth. Having run a correction the next day, the Times might be able to mitigate the charge of malice.

What’s sad is that the Times was trying to deflect attention from criticism of left-wing rhetoric, since the Virginia shooter two weeks ago was an avowed hater of Republicans, to right-wing rhetoric by resurrecting this false liberal charge from six years ago. But at the very least, Palin’s lawsuit casts a harsh spotlight on what the Times editorial board did.

“There’s a deep fascist streak in politics now. Ironically, the fascism of today marches under the banner of anti-fascism, and it claims the moral credibility of anti-fascism,” D’Souza said. “In other words, it tries to take all the odor of fascism – stained as it is with the Holocaust, Auschwitz – and project it onto Trump and on the right.”

“This is a massive historical deception. That’s the Big Lie at its core,” he said. “If the premise is true that fascism has now crept deeply into the bowels of the left, we can’t pretend like that hasn’t happened and continue with politics as usual.”

“The Republicans that I watch on TV think it’s the 1980s,” he complained. “This is Reagan vs. Tip O’Neill. It’s a gentleman’s fight. They can both go out to a bar and have a beer afterwards. That’s not the America we live in now.”

D’Souza saw the election of former President Barack Obama as the tipping point for left-wing fascism.

“It wasn’t even Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton was largely living in the aftermath of Reganism. He was, largely, in policy terms, pulled by the Reagan tide. Remember, he signed welfare reform, for example,” D’Souza recalled.

“When Obama came in with his sort of Alinskyite sensibility, and Hillary, of course, having the same, a kind of gangsterism came into American politics.” he continued, “a gangsterism that said things like, ‘Let’s deploy the IRS against our opposition. Let’s wiretap using the FBI. Let’s try to put our opponents in prison.’ This is sort of fascist behavior, and this is the kind of thing that I don’t think – I mean, Jimmy Carter would not have dreamed of it. Neither would JFK or Truman.”

D’Souza said the left was driven to embrace these tactics by “the glimpse of being able to establish exactly what the fascists always wanted: a complete centralized state.”

“Remember, for example, that with the NSA today there are surveillance technologies that were completely unavailable to Mussolini in the 20s or Hitler in the 30s,” he pointed out. “So in a sense, true fascism, full-scale fascism, is more possible today than it was in the twentieth century.”

“This is sort of the leftist objective. Now, they thought that they were almost there – and then, out of nowhere, comes this bizarre guy Trump, and he sort of turns the tables. He takes over, and they’ve suddenly lost all three branches of government, and they can’t believe it. This is the fury out of which they’re striking back,” he said.

D’Souza cited National Review writer Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism as another effort to track the evolution of fascist thought into modern left-wing politics, although he thought Goldberg was too reluctant to draw a solid link between today’s Democrats and the tyrants of the previous century.

“Now, I’m not comparing the left to the Nazis of Auschwitz,” he added. “But I am comparing them to the early Nazis, and, in fact, I would insist that the history of the Democratic Party – look at its 150-year history of racism, slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan. This history is actually more reminiscent of Nazism than of, say, Mussolini-style fascism.”

“Mussolini didn’t actually have concentration camps,” he elaborated. “He didn’t persecute the Jews in the systematic fashion Hitler did. He didn’t have segregation. Mussolini’s fascism, in a sense, was much less racist. So if you want to compare racism, you’ve got to compare the Democratic Party with the Nazis – both those groups imbued, over most of their history, with deep racism.”

Kassam proposed that much of this truth has been hidden by rebranding left-wing heroes of the past, such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s transformation from eugenicist to “women’s health” pioneer.

“Margaret Sanger’s basic premise was eugenics,” D’Souza agreed. “More children from the fit and less from the unfit. She was in support of fairly extreme measures, including segregation and then, notoriously, forced sterilization in order to deprive lower-class and uneducated women of the chance to reproduce. She was very explicit about that.”

“Now, when the Nazis did it in 1933, Margaret Sanger gave speeches praising it. She said, ‘Look, the Nazis, the Germans, are ahead of us. We’ve got to catch up to them.’ This is the actual Margaret Sanger, but it’s not the Margaret Sanger you’ll find in Planned Parenthood brochures,” he said.

Kassam asked what conservatives, Republicans, and non-political average Americans can do to combat false allegations of fascism and extremism leveled against them by the left.

“Number one, I notice that the Republicans very rarely answer the accusations that are made against them,” D’Souza replied. “For example, all Trump needs to say is something like, ‘Hey, guys, it’s very interesting you call me a fascist. First of all, you guys slay me on every existing platform. I turn on the TV, comedians are ridiculing me. The media is blasting me. Hollywood people are railing. If I was really a fascist, do you think I would allow that to happen? Do you think Mussolini would allow the radio in Rome to be blasting him? No, he’d send some people over. They’d shut down the radio station. That would be the end of that.’”

“Real fascism doesn’t tolerate that kind of dissent,” he noted. “The pervasiveness of it is clear proof that Trump is not an authoritarian; he’s not a fascist.”

“The reason that the left makes the headway that they do is that they’ve actually redefined things, and this is an intellectual task of some time. It began in academia; it’s been promoted by Hollywood and the media,” he said. “For example, a lot of ordinary educated people think right now that fascism equals nationalism. By that definition, Trump would seem to be closer to fascism than, let’s say, Bernie Sanders. But the truth of it is that nationalism is not a key defining feature of fascism at all.”

“I was born in India. Gandhi was a nationalist. Mandela was a nationalist. All the anti-colonial leaders were nationalists. Churchill was a nationalist. The American Founders were nationalists,” he pointed out.

“Obviously, all these people weren’t fascists, so clearly nationalism, although descriptive of Hitler and Mussolini, doesn’t actually get to the core of what fascism means. We need to do the intellectual work to understand these things and then get them out,” D’Souza advised.

D’Souza said his book uncovers “parallels between things that were happening in America and things that were happening in Mussolini’s Italy or Nazi Germany.”

“In reality, I found causal relationships. The guys, for example, who wrote the Nuremberg laws, the senior Nazi officials, are literally standing there and debating these laws holding in their hand the blueprints of Democratic laws of the Jim Crow South. And they’re basically saying, ‘All we need to do, in effect, is cross out the word black and write in the word Jew, and we’re home free.’ Literally, the Nuremberg laws were not parallel to, they were based upon – they were directly derived from – Democratic laws formed in America, in the South,” he said.

Südchinesisches Meer
China protestiert gegen amerikanisches Kriegschiff

Mit dem illegalen Eindringen in ein umstrittenes Seegebiet provozieren die Vereinigten Staaten Nordkoreas wichtigsten Verbündeten. China fühlt sich untergraben.

[...]

Das internationale Schiedsgericht in Den Haag hatte die weitreichenden Gebietsansprüche Chinas im Südchinesischen Meer vor einem Jahr als unrechtmäßig abgewiesen.

Spinnt die amerikanische Regierung jetzt völlig? Trump benimmt sich wie ein trotziges beleidigtes Kind und die Marine provoziert bewusst die Chinesen die als Einzige Nordkorea zügeln könnten?