The Books Are Already Burning

A tweet from Jordan Peterson. An essay from Bari Weiss. Both in defense of an author whose book, Irreversible Damage, has been relentlessly attacked. Inexplicably, the ACLU has called for it to be banned. This book’s transgression? As the author, Abigail Shrier put it, it is “an exploration of why so many girls would, in such a short timeframe, decide they are transgender. And it raises questions about whether they’re getting appropriate medical treatment.”

How on earth can a topic like this be considered so toxic, so threatening, that the ACLU would support a censorship campaign? Bari Weiss, who resigned from the New York Times in protest of their culture of hatred, harassment and suppression of dissenting voices, has spoken up in support of Abigail Shrier. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor who became famous when he refused to obey a new law that made it a crime to refuse to use someone’s proclaimed gender pronouns, has also been supportive of Shrier. But these are celebrities who have themselves been targets.

To really get a taste of how vitriolic the cancel mob has become, consider the case of Dr. Harriet Hall, a family physician who posted a favorable review of Irreversible Damage on the website Science-Based Medicine. Within days, thousands of comments, emails and calls to the editors led them to issue a retraction and remove the review.

In Shrier’s essay, posted as a guest column on the substack account of Bari Weiss, she calls for people to stand up to this mob. But Shrier also acknowledges the risk:

“The fear these silent supporters express is rational. Even the most ordinary comments can get you branded as persona non grata, some flavor of ‘phobe’ or ‘ist.’ Hardly a week goes by without a story of some professor being reprimanded, a starlet losing a job, or a young reality TV figure abjectly apologizing for something he said that was completely obvious and true. Others have faced more profound threats — parents to the custody of their children, journalists and even editors of scientific journals to their physical safety. People I respect have lost livelihoods and marriages.”

This is what it has come to, with the full complicity of the internet communications monopolies. This has nothing to do with respect for the dignity of transsexuals. It has to do with whether or not children should be encouraged to do what may be irreversible damage to their bodies and their psyches.

To even write about this incurs risk. What do you want to accomplish? What are your goals, not only in your relationships and your career, but in the wider world? What do you believe in? What do you advocate? How important is your reputation? How will whatever it is you hope to persuade more people to work towards be undermined, if you are tagged as a “transphobe,” or whatever other “…phobe” or “…ist” that it’s now so easy to call someone?

There are many battles being waged. Many causes. Many controversies. Cancel culture, applied with extreme bias by big tech, has decided if you merely want women like Abigail Shrier to be given a fair hearing, on an issue affecting the future happiness of children, you are a bigot.

That is wrong. More people should defend Abigail Shrier’s right to speak her mind, come what may.

 *   *   *

 

Conservatives of Color

If anyone still thinks that “demographics is destiny,” they’re not paying attention. Little by little, and inexorably, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and gays are embracing conservative politicians and fighting for conservative values.

The idea that the conservative movement might acquire momentum by attracting a critical mass of leaders who are not aging white males is a mortal threat to the American Left. It terrifies them. And that is exactly what’s happening.

There’s a reason that Larry Elder had to sue California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to get included on the upcoming September 14 recall election as a gubernatorial candidate. Larry Elder and Shirley Weber are both Black. But Shirley Weber is a quintessential Democratic politician, someone who spent her entire life in academia and the public sector. Larry Elder, on the other hand, is a self-made man who has spent his entire life in the private sector.

If people like Larry Elder gain access to the national stage to espouse their values, the monolithic bloc of Black voters who turn in majorities for Democrats, year after year, in the 90 percent range, will be undermined yet again. Eventually the monolith will not just be cracked. It will fall down completely, and America will realign behind conservatives.

This trend was demonstrated in 2020, as reported in a Newsweek article from October of that year where an election survey revealed an astonishing 24 percent of registered Black voters intended to vote for Trump. For all his image problems, often self-inflicted but magnified nonstop by a biased media, Trump had won over 24 percent of Black voters, which is more than twice what Republicans had previously been able to attract.

What about Hispanics? Consider the 2020 election results in South Texas. As suburban households defected to Biden, it was the Hispanic vote in the Rio Grande Valley that carried the state for Trump. Based on the chaos breaking on America’s southern border in 2021, Texas is going to be a red state for a long time to come, and Hispanics are indeed driving that destiny.

These conservatives are a diverse group. The list includes brilliant intellectuals, passionate writers and actors, and a handful of insouciant imps. But most of these individuals are defined by an authenticity and dignity that puts their counterparts on the Left to shame. Review this list, and know that thanks to them, Americans may be optimistic about the future of the nation.

Derrick Blackman

Jermain Botsio

Dr. Kynan Bridges

Taleed Brown

Mark Burns

Anthony Cabassa

Franklin Andres Camargo

Austin Chenge

Ward Connerly

Horace Cooper

Chandler Crump

Stacy Dash

Patricia Dickson

Byron Donalds

Jamarcus Dove-Simmons

Dinesh D’Souza

Clifton Duncan

Wayne Dupree

Larry Elder

AJ Faleski

Damani Bryant Felder

Malcolm Flex

Inaya Folarin Iman

Kmele Foster

Shekinah Geist

Ricky Godinez

Bryson Gray

Lynnett Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson

David J Harris

James T Harris

Christopher Harris

Zach Hing

Keith Hodge and Kevin Hodge

Peggy Hubbard

Emma Jimenez

Will Johnson

Kash Lee Kelly

Alan Lee Keyes

KingFace

Kimberly Klacik

Anthony Brian Logan

Anna Paulina Luna

Jay McCaney

Jon Miller

Mind of Jamal

Chadwick Moore

Douglass Murray

Andy Ngo

Mike Nificent

Antonia Okafor

Candace Owens

Star Parker

Robert Patillo

Joel Patrick

CJ Pearson

Jesse Lee Peterson

S.A. Rivera

Omar Rivero

Deron Slater

Rob Smith

Brandon Straka

Carol Swain

Brandon Tatum

Joy Villa

Errol Webber

Allen West

Terrence K Williams

Major Williams

Jevon O.A. Williams

Justin Wilson

Milo Yiannopoulos

 *   *   *

Larry Elder’s Running for Governor of California

Once in a great while someone enters the American political arena who has the potential to completely upend the prevailing political landscape. Larry Elder is such a person.

A native Californian, Elder began his career as an attorney but in 1993 launched a weekday evening talk radio show. Now known as “The Sage of South Central [Los Angeles],” for nearly 30 years, Elder, an African American, has been a source of wisdom and common sense and has influenced a generation of listeners.

As a Black conservative, Elder is a threat to California’s Democrats, and that is reflected in how they are using bureaucratic tricks to keep him off the ballot. Singled out for special treatment, Elder’s application to run in the September 14 special recall election has been delayed based on allegedly improper signatures and tax return disclosures. The supposed violations are immaterial and would not be used to derail a candidate that was not a threat to California’s ruling class.

Common sense, coming from someone who can relate to normal voters, would indict the Democrats on nearly every facet of public policy in California. In every critical area, from, for example, education and law enforcement to housing, the homeless, energy and water policies, and forestry, Democrats have failed Californians.

Instead of addressing these issues with pragmatic policies that solve the problems, California’s Democrats, with more than a little help from Republicans, have indulged the agenda of powerful special interests: socialist teacher unions, leftist billionaires, monopolistic corporations, and environmentalist and social justice activists. The rhetoric is compelling, the goals often sound noble, but the results have been dismal. Elder would cut through the rhetoric and explain reality.

Whether or not Larry Elder ends up on California’s recall election ballot will be known in a few days. If he is denied a spot, it will be yet another example of just how corrupt California’s politics have become. If he manages to compel the bureaucrats to do the right thing, and does have a chance to speak to California’s nearly 20 million registered voters, he has the potential to change everything.

California, and America, needs more people like Larry Elder. And they are coming. With increasing frequency and increasing intensity, across America, conservatives of all colors are asserting themselves.

 *   *   *

Is Gab.com the Alternative?

When Parler was bounced off Amazon Web Services back in January, it seemed like a good idea to migrate to Gab, since they control their own server network. As YouTube continued its relentless suppression of counter-narratives, Gab TV was one of many good alternatives. And as the war on counter narratives extended to financial services, Gab again beckoned, with a plan to open their own bank.

How’s all that working out?

Independent banking, perhaps Gab’s most ambitious aspiration, still has Torba playing defense. Just last week another bank canceled its relationship with Gab. In a report published by The National File, Torba said “I predict that soon we [Gab] will see the same level of financial persecution used against churches who refuse to go woke and continue to preach God’s Word. Christians and conservatives need to wake up to what is happening in this country. We’re moving beyond simply getting banned from Facebook and Twitter and onto something much worse: they want us banned from the entire financial system.”

Despite setbacks on the financial front, which could eventually prove fatal, if you believe free speech should be free in America, then Gab, and its founder, Andrew Torba, still deserve a lot of credit. Gab TV is up and running, and the original Gab.com is a throwback to the wild free-for-all that Twitter and Facebook once were. But scale is the challenge, and Gab, for all its integrity, does not reach a lot of people.

Scale is relative, of course. And it isn’t easy to get user figures for Gab. Their global Alexa ranking is 2,208. That’s impressive, but Twitter’s Alexa ranking is 38. To achieve the scale of their monopolistic rival, they have literally a world of ground to make up. According to Omnicore, Twitter is used by 21 percent of U.S. adults, with over 200 million worldwide users. According to The Intercept, as of March 2021, Gab had 4 million users.

Gab TV is off to a good start, but have a look at their view counts. Scroll down to videos posted 24 hours ago and find the one with the most views: Gab TV’s most popular July 12 video, based on counts one day later, has the edifying title “SICK! School Hires Gay Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey to Teach Small Children How to Stick Stuff Up Your Butt.” Yes, perhaps we need to know what some on the extreme Left is trying to teach our kids, but at 643 views, not too many people got the message.

Gab, just like Parler, Odysee, BitChute, Rumble, and dozens of other alternative platforms, faces an almost impossible challenge. They are competing with three monopolies: Twitter for short form text, Facebook for long form text, and YouTube for videos. Those three companies own their respective markets. Their competitors, and there are many, are competing for the remaining ten percent slice, if that.

As Robert Mariani, writing for The American Conservative, put it back in January, “You Can’t ‘Just Build Your Own Twitter.’ To build an alternate social media website with a dissenting moderation policy, you must first invent the universe. Good luck.”

Another big problem for the alternative platforms, beyond the challenge of inventing a parallel universe, is the stars and constellations they will attract. We value fringe content, all of those odd stars, because if you navigate through them, you will find valuable information. But you have to explore a lot of idiocy as well. The mainstream platforms, for all their sinister manipulation of the narrative, have a huge advantage. Pretty much every nonpolitical attraction, from how to string a guitar to how to repair a washing machine, climb Mount Shasta, or find every old friend you ever knew, is right there. With that critical mass, they’re never going to lose most people.

The monopolies know this. That’s why fighting to make them respect free speech is just as important as supporting the alternative platforms.

 *   *   *

Twitter Bans Nick Fuentes

What took them so long? When reviewing the list of people banned by Twitter, you have to wonder how the President of the United States could be “permanently suspended” (is that an oxymoron?), but Nick Fuentes remained. He must have done a careful dance to avoid somehow violating Twitter’s “terms of service” until now. And even now, Twitter won’t tell anyone what was the last straw.

Fuentes, at the ripe old age of 22, has already made quite a name for himself. His initial videos, which he started posting as a college freshman, weren’t terribly alarming. He would initiate debates over immigration with people who disagreed with him, and appeared to be having the time of his life. This quality, the gleeful troll upsetting Leftist pieties, at first probably disarmed some of his critics. In a 2019 interview with Milo Yiannopoulos, those qualities come through loud and clear.

What also comes through, then and now, is a young man who openly admits he wants to live in a society that is majority white, condemns homosexuality, and claims America’s media and financial sectors are dominated by Zionists. Should people like Nick Fuentes be permitted to share their opinions on public online forums?

The answer to that is clearly open to debate, but along with Ben Shapiro – no fan of Fuentes – we’ll error on the side of inclusion. Not only because speech, no matter how much we disagree with it, remains protected under the First Amendment. Not only because the Section 230 exemption requires publicly used platforms like Twitter to refrain from editorial censorship. But also because of the double standard.

It doesn’t matter if you agree with the double standard. Free speech laws aren’t designed to protect speech you agree with.

Why is it that other nations, from Japan and Israel to virtually any Islamic nation, are permitted to scrupulously preserve their culture, whereas critics of culturally disruptive mass immigration to the United States are branded as racists? Why is it that Islam condemns homosexuality, but if some Christians share those beliefs, they are subject to lawsuits and online censorship? Why is it that members of Congress such as Ilhan Omar can condemn alleged Zionist influence, but Nick Fuentes cannot?

There’s another reason it is a mistake to ban someone like Nick Fuentes from platforms like Twitter, and it is what this will do to him. Everyone pushed off the mainstream platforms doesn’t just lose their audience and years of work. They are reminded that free speech isn’t free. They are reminded that only narratives that meet with corporate approval are tolerated. They are reminded that there is a shocking degree of unanimity among what corporations tolerate.

Finally, they are reminded that if you are a Leftist and say offensive, outrageous things, you are tolerated, whereas on the Right, not only are you not tolerated, but you are held up as supposed evidence that the entire Right thinks like you do, and should therefore be destroyed. Nick Fuentes no longer has reason to be reasonable.

This is no way to unite the nation. Allowing people like Nick Fuentes to speak their minds, exposing them if they’re loose with the facts, engaging them if they’re proposing solutions or expressing preferences that are unpalatable or ill conceived, is a pathway to reconciliation. It’s also the American way.

 *   *   *

Facebook Launches Extremist Snitch Campaign

Want to mess with someone you dislike? Maybe some person hiding behind a pseudonym that insulted you on Facebook with an abandon that only an anonymous coward might muster? Well now you can. Facebook has made it easier than ever to snitch on your enemies.

“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist,” is the unsolicited message popping up by the thousands, if not millions, on the feeds of unsuspecting users. Facebook then helpfully offers “confidential support.”

As reported in American Greatness, another new popup courtesy of Facebook is a warning that “you may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently,” which goes on to say “you can take action now to protect yourself and others.”

What irony. How is this not an ominous new escalation in the war on free speech and unmanipulated thought? Where exactly is the line drawn that separates the “extremists” from the rest of us? And how can we trust a company to be impartial when applying that definition, when it is ran by a CEO that spent over $400 million dollars to buy a national election and put his senescent puppet into the White House?

To those with a sense of history and more than a little skepticism over man’s capacity to remain civilized, these moves are not isolated or insignificant. They are part of a rapidly progressing movement to concentrate economic and political power and silence dissent.

The apparent hypocrisy, where looting, vandalism, violence and intimidation is tolerated when motivated by favored causes, while mere ideas are crushed if they challenge those causes, erases any credibility Facebook – or any of the big online platforms – might otherwise have. They’re not looking for extremists. They’re looking for political dissidents who are on the wrong side.

The day may come when people on the Left realize the con. Because this ongoing transformation of America into an oligarchy will not end well for the foot soldiers on the Left, regardless of how useful they are today. That day may not come too soon.

 *   *   *

LinkedIn Deletes Account of mRNA Inventor

You would think that the scientist that invented the mRNA and DNA vaccines would not have his opinions overruled by the censors overseeing LinkedIn accounts, but if so, you’d be wrong. Last week the personal account of Dr. Robert Malone, the pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology, was deleted by LinkedIn without warning or explanation.

In an appeal, LinkedIn did the courtesy of replying to Dr. Malone, offering six examples of what they allege was “misleading or inaccurate” information about vaccines and COVID-19. But if you read these examples, what you are viewing are reasoned, informed opinions by one of the leading experts in the world.

One may argue, ad infinitum, First Amendment rights, the prerogatives of LinkedIn as a private company, and the relevance of anti-trust precedents. But there is another even more basic governing principle that can apply here: Is LinkedIn a “platform,” or is LinkedIn a “publisher,” and if LinkedIn is a platform, enjoying Section 230 immunity under Federal law, why are they exercising editorial discretion as if they were a publisher?

This solution – forcing censorious platforms to adhere to their obligations under Section 230 – invites the fewest conflicting interpretations. That Section 230 is not invoked invites speculation and nurtures conspiracy explanations. Why, after all, is someone of Dr. Malone’s stature being silenced? Someone who has made such fundamental contributions to the technologies that he is criticizing should not be silenced, they should be amplified. Maybe there are facts we haven’t taken into account?

Not only was Dr. Malone silenced despite his stature as one of the leading experts in the world on this new vaccine technology, but he was silenced despite offering a nuanced perspective. Dr. Malone wasn’t shooting from the hip, calling into question the entire COVID-19 vaccination effort. He was merely stating his belief that for young children and adolescents, the risks of the vaccine might outweigh the benefits.

Big tech has made it clear they will censor whatever threatens a mainstream narrative, in this case on the question of who should get a COVID-19 vaccine. It begs the question: Who is defining this mainstream narrative, and why? Because it has become obvious to anyone paying attention since, say, June of 2015, that there is such thing as a “mainstream narrative,” and those who don’t adhere to it will find themselves without a voice.

And then, guess what? On July 5th, after much outcry, Dr. Malone’s account was reinstated by LinkedIn. People with less credentials and fewer followers are never so lucky.

 *   *   *

National File – Hard News for the New Right

Twitter, like Facebook, YouTube, and, for that matter, Source Watch, is a good place to find alternative voices not because they aren’t trying to silence these voices, but because they are. Call it the Streisand effect, defined by Wikipedia as ” a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information.”

Twitter did their job again a few weeks ago when they locked out the news site “National File,” after it reported that a 13 year old died after receiving a second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Epoch Times reported the lockout, later lifted, but the public spotlight hit the National File, and we had a look.

To be clear, there is nothing terribly special about the National File. Undoubtedly ran on a shoestring, they have a news website, the obligatory social media accounts, and a YouTube channel that’s been dormant for over six months.

So what’s the point?

The point is that when you view their home page, keep two things in mind. First, you need sources like the National File to find reports that embarrass the Left, or tell the rest of the story about something that the Left has distorted into a smear on the Right. Because you’ll never see any of that on the mainstream media platforms – online or offline.

Second, if you examine the National File’s content, you will find the predictable selectivity. The news they choose to report defends the Right and exposes the Left. But their respect for facts doesn’t merely match that of the mainstream media, but exceeds it. Anyone who thinks that David Muir at ABC, or, for that matter, Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook or Jack Dorsey at Twitter, is going to care any more about the truth than National File editor Tom Pappert, is living in fantasy land.

That is why we started Winston84, and that is why we continue to highlight examples of censorship and examples of alternative voices that are suppressed. We welcome the National File to our directory of irreverent investigators, and wish them well.

 *   *   *

 

Vivek Ramaswamy Demolishes Stereotypes

Once in a great while a promising leader emerges that gives all of us hope for the future. Vivek Ramaswamy is one of these individuals. Only 35 years old, Ramaswamy has already earned a degree in biology from Harvard, a law degree from Yale, and founded several biotech and healthcare technology companies and subsidiaries. His new passion? Fighting “wokism.”

In a 26 minute YouTube video that has attracted over 100,000 views, and probably would have attracted millions of views if it were furthering the corporate narrative, Ramaswamy offers a rare blend of brevity, detail, insight and eloquence. He begins by relating the experiences of his own immigrant family, explaining that “hardship isn’t the same thing as victimhood.”

He then defines woke culture as “new secular religion in America, where your identity is based on race, gender, and sexual orientation,” and “it [woke culture] posits that America is a systemically racist country, where if you’re black you are inherently disadvantaged, and if you’re white you’re inherently privileged.”

In a monologue that really should be heard in its entirety, Ramaswamy continues: “If you say ‘I’m not racist’ that means you are a racist, if you say ‘all lives matter’ that somehow means you believe that black lives don’t matter.”

Ramaswamy understands what’s happened, explaining that “in the name of diversity we have sacrificed true diversity of thought, in the name of democracy we have sacrificed our most important democratic norms of free speech and open debate, and in the name of inclusion we have created an exclusionary culture where certain views are just not welcome.”

These observations, and the culture of fear that Ramaswamy accuses woke culture of creating, is only part of why his video is so powerful. He explains how critical race theory moved from a fringe academic theory in the 1990s to the defining characteristic of American establishment institutions today. His theory is that corporations, their public image reeling in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, embraced the notion of race as the defining cause of oppression, because it deflected activist attention from economic oppression. As he puts it, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Wall Street to move from being the bad guys to being the good guys just by adopting these values.

No brief summary of Ramaswamy’s remarks can do them justice. He skewers the conventional libertarian mentality as completely inadequate to these times, as the government is now pressuring corporations to exercise censorship and surveillance that Americans are constitutionally protected from the government doing.

In his conclusion Ramaswamy asks “what does it mean to be an American today, in the year 2021? I can’t remember a time in my life when we more badly needed an answer to that question.” He calls for Americans to cultivate a shared identity, and to view our history with pride.

“Today as a people we are hungry for a cause. We are hungry for a sense of purpose. We are hungry for identity. The absence of a shared cause in America is a black hole at the center of our nation’s soul and when you have a vacuum that runs that deep, bad things start to fill the void. That is part of what makes wokeness so appealing as the new religion of our time.”

“We are hungry for a cause but we have forgotten that America itself can be that cause. We have spent over a decade celebrating our diversity and we have forgotten all of the ways that we are actually the same, united by a common set of ideals as a country…”

“A fundamental part of that vision was the American dream, that no matter who your parents were you could achieve that dream with your own hard work, your own commitment, and your own ingenuity. We spent the 2010s celebrating our diversity, we have to spend the 2020s celebrating what binds us together.”

This is a man to watch. Watch the video. It is unlikely to be removed, but don’t expect it to be promoted, either!

 *   *   *

COVID-19 Early Stage Therapies Remain Censored

The American Journal of Theraputics published a study on June 17 that found “the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19–0.79, in a sample of 2,438 patients,” and “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who weren’t, according to the review.”

Meanwhile, in India, the most recent surge of COVID-19 cases was suppressed within weeks after “India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare revised its guidelines on April 28 to include a recommendation that asymptomatic and mild cases be treated with Ivermectin.”

Why isn’t this headline news in the United States? Why is it that early stage, inexpensive therapies for COVID-19, which appear to be effective against the latest variants, remain forbidden topics for national networks? Why are these reports accompanied by warnings and deboosted on social media platforms, if they’re allowed to appear at all?

These forbidden topics slowly give way to truth, as proven with Facebook’s about-face earlier this month wherein they now allow claims that COVID-19 was engineered in a lab, and does not have natural origins.

The suppression by social media platforms of information about Ivermectin and other early stage treatments is both inexplicable and well documented. For over a year, information about Ivermectin therapy was suppressed by the World Health Organization and and censored online. And there is plenty of evidence that the “fact checkers” used by these social media monopolies are in fact partisan “fact blockers.”

In any pandemic there are four steps that public health authorities take. They mandate social distancing, they develop early stage treatment protocols, they develop late stage treatment protocols, and they work on a vaccine. But with COVID, part two was largely ignored. Not only ignored, but maligned.

History will not be kind to the special interests that denied hundreds of thousands of people access to treatments that could have saved their lives. It is not necessary to be against vaccinations, or indulge in conspiracy theories, in order to realize that for some reason, America’s health establishment engaged in murderous negligence, with the full complicity of the media, online and offline.

And they’re still doing it.

 *   *   *