Speech isn’t violence


Speech isn’t violence

Jonathan Zimmerman

February 25, 2019

When the actor Jussie Smollett charged that two men in “Make America Great Again” hats attacked him while yelling racist and homophobic taunts, my fellow liberals were quick to blame the rise in such incidents upon President Trump and his supporters.

Smollett was arrested last week for faking the whole episode, but the larger trend is real: Hate crimes have spiked during the Trump era. And surely the President’s own bigoted rhetoric — Mexicans are rapists, Africans and others live in “shithole” countries, and so on — has something to do with that.

So why aren’t we also denouncing the culture of intolerance on America’s campuses, where dissenting voices have faced physical attacks? And doesn’t our silence on that score make us partially responsible for the violence, just as Trump is complicit in hate crimes?

Consider the assault on a conservative activist last week at the University of California-Berkeley, where he was displaying posters declaring “This is MAGA country” — which Smollett said his attackers shouted — and “Hate crime hoaxes hurt real victims.”

Two men accosted the activist. One denounced him for “encouraging violence”; as if on cue, another man then punched the activist in the face.

Noting that the incident took place on Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza, epicenter of the university’s Free Speech Movement in 1964, school officials were quick to denounce it. “We strongly condemn violence and harassment of any sort, for any reason,” they said in a statement. “Our commitment to freedom of expression and belief is unwavering.”

But the plain fact is that respect for free speech is eroding on our campuses, precisely because so many people view it as violence. So we shouldn’t be surprised when they respond with the physical kind.

That’s what happened at Middlebury College in March of 2017, where a mob attacked author Charles Murray and injured the political science professor who had invited him. Two months after that, students at Evergreen State College forced biology professor Bret Weinstein to leave campus; administrators urged him not to return, warning that they “could no longer guarantee his safety.”

Unlike Murray, a noted conservative, Weinstein is a staunch liberal who supported Bernie Sanders in the last presidential election. His sin was to oppose a so-called “Day of Absence” at Evergreen, in which all white people were asked to leave the campus.

And later that fall, protesters interrupted a talk I was giving at Western Washington University — in favor of free speech, ironically — on the grounds that I was promoting violence. “Advocating for the right to racist, sexist, and transphobic speech is violent,” one of their signs read.

No actual violence erupted that day. Surely, though, the pernicious idea that speech is violence provides a convenient pretext for the real kind. If my talk was the equivalent of punching others in the nose, wouldn’t they be within their rights to punch me first? Or, at least, to raise their fists in self-defense?

That argument was on toxic display during the last big free-speech controversy at Berkeley, over a scheduled speech in 2017 by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Since Yiannopolous’ anti-gay and anti-trans comments were violent, protesters argued, it was legitimate or even necessary to counter them with physical violence.

Indeed, some demonstrators claimed, any riposte to that argument was itself violent. “Asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives mater is a violent act,” wrote one Berkeley graduate in the student newspaper.

So I guess she would read this column, too, as a form of violence. And she wouldn’t be alone. According to a 2017 survey of 800 undergraduates around the country, 81% think that words can be violent. And 30% — that is, almost one out of three — think that physical violence can be justified to prevent someone from using offensive words.

You can’t have a free university — or a free society — on those terms. Words will always offend someone. And if you construe them as violent, you clear the way for physical assault upon anyone who gives offense.

That seems to be what happened last week at Berkeley, where one attacker said that conservative speech encouraged violence. But the rest of us encourage it, too, if we don’t step up to denounce the whole idea of speech as violence. It’s too easy to criticize President Trump for stoking hate and intolerance. It’s a lot harder to look in the mirror.

Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author “Campus Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

Anglo-American spooks in Canada covertly steer the coup in Venezeula

Except for the malarkey about joint efforts to explore the moon, this is aninstructive piece.


Anglo-American Deep State Operatives in Canada Caught Steering Venezuelan Coup

Matthew J.L. Ehret
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:47 UTC 

venezuela freeland

Since Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself president on January 23, it has become obvious to all intelligent onlookers that this “people-power color revolution” is not directed by Trump at all but rather by what has been exposed as the trans-national “Deep State”. When we look behind the layers of false narratives obscuring the true motives behind this operation, we should not be surprised to find the ugly picture of an insecure empire trying desperately to break apart the new coalition of Russia-China-American partnership now in danger of overthrowing the script for global dictatorship that has been building up for decades. 

While anti-Trump neocon Elliot Abrams has been assigned to manage the ongoing coup from the American side of things, an overlooked force driving this scheme is not to be found in America itself, but is rather transatlantic, or more specifically, British-inspired operations in Canada. Two of the most active players in this operation, who we will showcase below, are Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and her Oxford cohort Ben Rowswell. Rowswell is not only the former Ambassador to Venezuela but current President of the Canadian International Council (aka: the Round Table Movement of Canada1). 

The Role of Chrystia Freeland


A map showcasing Lima Group membersAfter completely crippling Russian relations with Canada for over six years, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, a close friend of George Soros, has been at the forefront of every attempt to preserve the structures of the failing Anglo-American Empire, including playing a guiding role behind the regime change “direct democracy” movement now tearing apart Venezuela. 

In a January 24 Global News article entitled ‘Canada played key role in secret talks against Venezuela’s Maduro‘, an unnamed Canadian Government official described Freeland’s role in the coup: “Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido the night before Maduro’s swearing-in ceremony to offer her government’s support should he confront the socialist leader“. 

The quote refers of the Lima Group, a coalition of 14 Latin American nations (11 of whom endorsed the Venezuelan color revolution on January 4) which was founded in August 2017. While some wonder why Canada is a member of this coalition of Latin American nations, the fact is that Canada is not only a member, but the founder.2 The group was set up entirely to legitimize the regime change movement of Venezuela. Not only did Freeland speak with Guaido two weeks before he declared himself president, giving him the green light to begin the operations and stating that Canada would support all actions he takes against Nicolás Maduro, but she will be presiding over Lima Group’s next anti-Maduro meeting in Ottawa on February 4.

In a Globe and Maileditorial of January 27, Ben Rowswell described Canada’s surprising role as leading member of the Lima Group in the following terms: “That our country stands so prominently among these comes as a surprise to many Canadians. It is the product of 18 months of effort over which the Trudeau government has carved out a uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion.” Rowswell then laid out the three principles of the “uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion” as a combination of:

  1. The premise that sovereignty stems from the people,
  2. That direct action to overthrow a government must come from the people, and
  3. International support is vital for a “democratic” regime change.

While Freeland’s guiding hand behind the 2017 creation of the Lima Group satisfied “principle 3”, “principle 1” is a somewhat meaningless truism when it comes from an ideological social engineer, while “principle 2” remained the most difficult during the years of failed Western coups against socialist governments in Venezuela. Unifying the highly scattered and disorganized forces needed to unseat a president has always been the biggest challenge for the Deep State. In the case of Ukraine and Syria, the use of Nazis and ISIS terrorists were vital recipes for success, but the absence of similar forces in Venezuela posed a major problem which Ben Rowswell himself was assigned to manage in 2014. 

Click on the link for the rest.

“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety” is “the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world”

Dr. Martin Pall: “Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”

From Sott.net

By Arjun Walia


We are in the midst of a 5G wireless technology rollout, and politicians have yet to address safety concerns. I recently used Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as an example, but it’s happening worldwide. It’s one of many examples that illustrates how large corporations completely control politics. I also recently wrote about Robert F. Kennedy explaining how this came to be, and how they’ve been able to completely compromise government, big media, and our federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting and informing us.

In the video, he uses Big Pharma as an example, as they provide the most money to congress; even more so than big oil and gas. In that article I also outline multiple examples of fraud so readers can get a clearer picture of what’s going on and see some actual evidence of it.

It’s clear that we are not being protected, and politicians are simply abiding to the the will of their masters, the big corporations, who in turn act as slaves to their ‘financial overlords,’ the big banks. We continue to see products and services being approved and implemented without ever going through any safety testing. This is a big problem, and one of the main reasons why we could be seeing a drastic rise in multiple diseases and ailments, especially when it comes to neuropsychiatric disorders. A study titled “Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression” published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy outlines this quite clearly, and it’s only one of thousands of peer-reviewed studies raising multiple concerns in regards to this type of technology.

Is there really any concern for the well being of humanity within these institutions? If not, why do we continue to support them? Is it because we’re under the illusion that there is actual concern? 

Anyway, in this article, I’d like to draw your attention to Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. Taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” he states that:

“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”

Read the full article and view the video here
Click on the link for the rest.

How gender feminists and trans activists play games with science

Are gender feminists and transgender activists undermining science?

They deny scientific findings, just like Flat-Earthers do…

By Debra W. Soh*

In the world of radical identity politics, two groups with very different philosophies have been ignoring science in the name of advancing equality: gender feminists and transgender activists.

Gender feminists — who are distinct from traditional equity feminists — refuse to acknowledge the role of evolution in shaping the human brain, and instead promote the idea that sex differences are caused by a socialization process that begins at birth. Gender, according to them, is a construct; we are born as blank slates and it is parents and society at large that produce the differences we see between women and men in adulthood.

The idea that our brains are identical sounds lovely, but the scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Many studies, for instance, have documented the masculinizing effects of prenatal testosterone on the developing brain. And a recent study in the journal Nature’s Scientific Reports showed that testosterone exposure alters the programming of neural stem cells responsible for brain growth and sex differences.

Gender feminists often point to a single study, published in 2015, which claimed it isn’t possible to tell apart male and female brains. But when a group of researchers reanalyzed the underlying data, they found that brains could be correctly identified as female or male with 69% to 77% accuracy. In another study, published in 2016, researchers used a larger sample in conjunction with higher-resolution neuroimaging and were able to successfully classify a brain by its sex 93% of the time.

Even if male and female brains were identical structurally, this would fail to say anything about differences in brain functionality. Indeed, studies have shown sex differences across a wide variety of cognitive domains, including verbal fluency (the ability to generate many different words starting with a given letter) and mental rotation (the ability to rotate three-dimensional shapes in the mind). In one study using functional MRI, women outperformed men on the former, while men outperformed women on the latter.

In my experience, proponents touting the “blank slate” view are willing to agree, in private conversations, that neurological sex differences do exist, but they fear that acknowledging as much publicly will justify female oppression. This is backward. As it stands, female-typical traits are seen as inferior and less worthy of respect. This is the real issue the movement fails to address: Nobody wants to be female-typical, not even women.

Distortion of science hinders progress. When gender feminists start refuting basic biology, people stop listening, and the larger point about equality is lost.

Unlike gender feminists, transgender activists firmly believe that gender is a biological, rather than social, reality — but of course they don’t believe that it’s necessarily tied to sex at birth. They also believe that gender identity is quite stable early on, warranting a transition not only for transgender adults, but also young children who say they were born in the wrong body.

From a scientific perspective, they’re partially right: Gender identity is fixed, but only in adults; the same can’t be said for children, whose gender identity is flexible and doesn’t become stable until puberty.

Currently available research literature — including four studies published in the last nine years — suggests that 61% to 88% of gender dysphoric children will desist and grow up to be gay adults. (Or, in my case, a straight adult). They won’t continue to identify as the opposite sex in adulthood. In one study of 139 gender dysphoric boys, 122 (88%) of the boys desisted.

While transitioning can be beneficial for transgender adults, it therefore doesn’t make sense to treat trans children in the same way.

Nevertheless, transgender activists and their allies have branded desistance as a “myth,” and those who suggest otherwise are called bigots or, dismissively, trolls. It’s not hard to understand why. The idea that some gender dysphoric people may grow up to be comfortable in their birth sex is interpreted as a threat to the community. Acknowledging that reality may seem like a slippery slope to denying the need for gender reassignment surgery even in adults.

But ignoring the science around desistance has serious consequences; it means some transgender children will needlessly undergo biomedical interventions, such as hormone treatments. Even detransitioning from a purely social transition can be a difficult process for a child. In one 2011 study of 25 gender dysphoric children, 11 desisted. Of the desisters, two had socially transitionedand regretted it. They struggled to return to their birth sex in part because of fear of teasing from their classmates, and they did not dare to make the change until they enrolled in high school.

Both the gender feminist and transgender movements are operating with good intentions — namely, the desire to obtain the dignity women and transgender people rightly deserve. But it’s never a good idea to dismiss scientific nuances in the name of a compelling argument or an honorable cause. We must allow science to speak for itself.

*Debra W. Soh is a sex writer and sexual neuroscientist at York University in Toronto. Follow her on Twitter: @debra_soh


Why is gender dysphoria a social justice cause, when it could be a symptom of vast chemical pollution?

Or does that question answer itself?


From Douglas Yates:

“In modern times, an increase in chemical production has led to widespread environmental chemical contamination that can affect normal hormone function in those exposed, particularly in vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women. Many of these identified endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which include pesticides and substances used in manufacturing a multitude of products, have been reported to interfere with thyroid hormone function, yet public health policy does not fully address the risks to vulnerable populations.”

Brain disorders in children linked to common environmental toxin exposures https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180324103152.htm

Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18981931


Rapid-onset gender dysphoria – a study of parental reportshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30114286