The Portland Narrative of The Right Wing Rally

There was a Right Wing rally in Portland on August 17^th 2019. The rally was to raise awareness for domestic terrorism, particularly to highlight the actions of the group known as Antifa. This rally was in response to the brutal attack, at the hands of Antifa, on an independent journalist Andy Ngo that left him with a brain hemorrhage.

Narrative One

Leading up to this rally there was a lot of hot rhetoric on both sides. This of course caught national attention and the media was attempting to bill this event as the next Charlottesville. Naturally this alarmed the public, no one wants Neo-Nazi’s and White Nationalists gathering in their city.

This narrative was pushed by the mayor, Ted Wheeler, and the mainstream media. The only problem was that the Right Wing groups were not Neo-Nazi’s or White Nationalists. In fact Enrique Tarrio, one of the organizers and head of the Proud Boys is not white at all. Seems a bit odd that a White Nationalist group is led by a non-white person.

The media and the Progressive mayor, not interested in allowing the truth to get in the way of a useful narrative, ignored that fact. The mayor instead doubled down. He made the rounds on major media outlets saying that violence will not be tolerated in Portland.

His statements were a bit vague and any attempt by media personalities to get him to clarify who he was talking about were dodged. He seemed to imply that he did not want groups from outside of Portland to bring violence into the city. It seemed like mayor Wheeler was going to allow the police to do their jobs to keep the peace.

The mayor, along with a group of Portland organizations, held a rally a few days before saying they don’t want outsiders to bring violence into their city. That they don’t want people to come here and say hateful things and spread their hateful message.

In an unrelated and totally coincidental matter, several members of Patriot Prayer had arrest warrants issued for them and were taken into custody. This included the head of Patriot Prayer Joey Gibson, who turned himself in voluntarily to the police.

The Death of Narrative One

The rally was set to start at 11am on Saturday August 17^th 2019. Several groups showed up early to organize people and to share their location on social media. I arrived 15 minutes early and made my way to park where the rally was set to take place. After making my way around the police line and ending up among the black bloc I eventually made my way to the Right Wing group.

The Right Wing groups met up in the park, surrounded by police and screaming protesters. The protesters shouted at the Right Wing groups, called them Nazi’s, fascists, racists, and yelled at them to go home. While the organizers were from out of town a lot of people at the rally lived in or near Portland.

The Proud Boys got between the protesters and other members of the rally, trying to keep everyone focused on the speakers rather than engaging in shouting matches. Most the people at the rally understood that Antifa were a distraction and focused on the speakers. While in the park the Right Wing groups knelt down and said a prayer.

They prayed for Antifa and the city of Portland. To bring light into the city and to bring an end to the hate. This was followed by a signing of the national anthem and chants of USA. After this the organizers announced they would march to another location. They walked across the bridge and ended up at their location. It was here that a man walked into the group and started shouting F*** YOU while pointing at the face of every person he saw.

The Proud Boys acted quickly to keep the crowd away from him and the police quickly removed the man from the situation. No punches were thrown, no one was beat up and the police did their job. Soon after this, around 1:30pm the group was told by the organizers to disperse and head home. People left and made their way home.

The rally was over and it was peaceful. Antifa remained and turned their anger on individuals they singled out as Nazi’s, the police, and even attacked the bus the Proud Boys were attempting to leave on. Seems a bit odd that Antifa members spent hours yelling at the Right Wing groups to leave and the moment they try to leave they attack them.

After the Right Wing groups left a civil disturbance was declared due to illegal blocking of roads and several assaults committed by Antifa. The next day the media tried to carry the narrative forward writing things like ‘violence rocks Portland at Far Right rally’ or ‘13 arrested at Far-Right protest in Portland.’

They seem to have forgot that almost everyone has a cell phone with a camera and can watch the events happen in real time, unedited. These media companies had their comment sections light up as people pointed out that they are attempting to mislead people. Mayor Wheeler came out afterward and said that Joe Biggs, one of the organizers, was no longer welcome in Portland.

Wheeler said that Bigg’s message of hate had no place in the city of Portland. This narrative died as soon as the bus carrying the Right Wing rally goers left the city.

Narrative Two (Plan B)

We the people are not stupid. We understand that Antifa is a huge problem in Portland, but Mayor Wheeler refuses to directly address them and the media refuse to shine the light on this group. The first narrative was false and that falsehood was exposed for the world to see, and public sentiment started to turn against Wheeler and Antifa.

That is when the second narrative was born. In order to shift public sentiment against the peaceful Right Wing groups the media started running stories about how much businesses who closed their shops the day of the rally suffered.

The estimated cost to these businesses was $3 million and expected to grow. The media of course is trying to stand this narrative on the corpse of the previous one. They say if these Right Wing groups would not provoke people than things like this would never happen.

To clarify, the narrative goes like this. If Right Wing groups would stop committing the crime of being Right Wing in Portland than black clad people would not have to violently assault people, destroy property, and attack the police costing millions of dollars of tax payer money and hurting business.

It would seem that the Mayor does not believe the people actually committing the acts of violence and property destruction are responsible for their actions. Instead it is the groups who those people hate. It also seems that Mayor Wheeler believes the Right Wing groups are responsible for the hate and anger of other people because the Right Wing groups are the objects of that hate.

The Mayor of Portland seems to think that Right Wing groups should not be allowed to go into certain places if they are hated in those places. And if they do go into those places they are not allowed to enter, the simple act of being there is justification for the outrage, anger, hate and physical attacks they suffer. Not only that but that they are to blame for the attacks they suffer and any damage done due to those attacks.

The goal of this second narrative seems to be the same as the first, sway public opinion against the Right Wing groups.

A Comparison

Joey Gibson, leader of Patriot Prayer told reporters that he and his group have done around 60 rallies all over the state of Washington. All have been peaceful, no property damage was done, and no one was hurt. A few counter protesters even showed up but they all remained civil and everyone got to exercise their right to free speech peacefully.

 

Antifa protested in Portland after the election of President Donald Trump and cost the city $1 million in damages. There was no Patriot Prayer in the city, the Proud Boys did not exist as a group, and no one was counter protesting them. They were so upset about the election of Donald Trump they attempted to burn down and destroy the very communities they now claim they are protecting.

The question becomes, if Patriot Prayer can have around 60 peaceful rallies (so peaceful they get zero media coverage) all over the west coast, why is it that there is only fighting and violence in Portland? You must also ask, if Antifa protests turn toward violence and destruction even in the absences of Right Wing groups, why does the mayor not address directly the issue of Antifa violence?

The problem at these rallies are not the Right Wing groups (don’t get me wrong the Right Wing groups have problems of their own to be sure, just like any other group), they understand they are under a microscope at these events. They understand that any hint of aggression, any fighting, or any statement will be analyzed, picked apart, twisted and turned if it can be used to support the narrative that the cause of all the problems are Right Wing groups.

The problem is not even Antifa, but rather the culture of Portland itself. A ‘Progressive’ culture that increasingly focuses on a person’s group identity as an indicator of good or bad. A culture that believe the world is a conflict between good and evil people. A culture that believes if words make you upset that is violence, to be met with physical violence justified as self-defense. A culture that applies laws differently depending on your ideological belief and the fact that you wear a mask.

MayAGA Day 20: Wink and a Nod

I have been wearing my MAGA hat everywhere I go for about 20 days now. When I first started this challenge it was awkward to put that hat on my head and go out of the house. I worried about what others would think or do when they saw it.

So far that worry has been unfounded and those who comment on the hat have been positive. Now I put the hat on my head and forget that I am wearing it. The places and people I see frequently seem to not notice anymore. It has become common place.

Nothing really exciting has happened and that is why I have not had anything to write about. Honestly that is exactly what I wanted to happen.

A Wink and a Nod

I was out walking the dog when I noticed an elderly lady working in her yard. She saw me down the street and walked toward me.

 

At first I was a bit nervous, not because I was worried about this lady but because my dog has a bad habit of jumping and he is a big dog. She approached me and from a safe distanced asked if she could pet my dog.

I explained to her if he starts to whine or get nervous then the answer is no, but if he is okay with it than yes. She put her hand out, he smelled it and immediately leaned against her for some pets. She loved on him for a minute, getting her fur fix she said, and we talked about dogs.

At the end of the conversation she leaned in and looked up at me sideways and said “By the way I like your hat.” Of course I smiled and said thank you and she went back to her friend to continue working in the yard.

The next instance was at a local Albertsons. I was walking through the store and as usual I could tell people noticed the hat but were largely going about their business. I passed an employee who was talking with another customer but I could tell his eyes followed me for a second longer than usual.

I brushed it off as him just thinking I might need help. I was looking for a product I did not know exactly where it was, so I figured he picked up on my lost expression. A few seconds later I heard he call to me from behind.

“Excuse me sir.” He said standing by the door leading to the back of the store. I turned and looked back and as we made eye contact he said “I like your hat.” I again smiled big and said thank you. He nodded and went back to work in the back of the store.

Silent Support

These two instances are not the only time someone has commented on my hat. I have not had anyone get upset, just positive feedback. I took some time to think about those encounters and what they meant.

In each of those encounters the comment was made in a public space but was meant to be a private conversation. It was almost as if they said they supported the hat but did not want to wear one themselves. Or that they were thankful that someone was doing something they wanted to do but felt they could not.

Before I took on this challenge I felt the same way. In fact I probably would have been one of those people who gave a quick positive comment in passing if I had seen someone in a MAGA hat.

I have often wondered why people felt they had to stay silent. For the most part I think people just want to avoid conflict. For me I left a very real social pressure that being Republican, Conservative or wearing a MAGA hat made me a bad person.

I knew Conservatives, Republicans and people that wore MAGA hats and they were perfectly normal, regular, good people. They worked hard, loved their families, and helped their neighbors. So why should these good people feel ashamed to be themselves?

I do not have the answer to that question outside of social pressure. Thankfully I have spent most my life being socially awkward and have had to build up an inner strength that can stand against social pressure when needed.

Even with this practice I had a hard time taking that step. But if my experience is any indication the only thing that holds people back from taking that step is themselves.

If you want to wear a MAGA hat or get involved with the Republican Party, do so. Go to a meet up or join a Facebook group (Here are a couple groups I am a member of Oregon Republican League, Young Republican’s of Washington County). Check it out, talk to people, and make the choice that is best for you.

Thanks for reading and hope you all are having a great MayAGA!

What is MayAGA and will you stand with us?

What is MayAGA? It is a month where liberty loving Americans say they will not be silent anymore, don a MAGA hat, and do what they can to Make America Great.

While the MAGA hat is linked to President Trump I ask that you consider looking deeper at the meaning of wearing a MAGA hat. I am not asking people to wear it in support of President Trump, rather wear it as a symbol that you will not be afraid anymore. Afraid that if you dare to speak the truth as you see it you will be attacked and ostracized.

Participation

The basic level of participation is to wear a MAGA hat during the month of May and go about your life as normal. Wear it to the grocery store, to the movie theater, or out to a restaurant. Do not make a scene or big deal about wearing the hat, just wear it and act normally.

The next level is to do something during the month to Make America Great. Organize a food drive, accomplish a personal goal, pick up trash in your local community, or help an elderly person carry their groceries to the car. We are not asking you to change the world only do something that makes something slightly better for yourself or someone else.

Anything more beyond that is up to each individual to decide.

The Rules

I.          You must remain 100% non-violent. Meaning even if you are attacked physically you do not fight back. You protect yourself, take the attack, stand up, dust yourself off and refuse to back down.

II.        You must be 100% non-racist. MAGA does not know skin color, everyone is welcome.

III.       Speak carefully. Tell the truth as best you can and if you wouldn’t say it to or in front of your mother don’t say it. Remember the media is hungry to take you out of context to sell their narrative.

IV.       Do not wear a MAGA hat if you WANT TO piss people off or trigger others. Rather wear it as a sign that you will not be told what to say or believe.

V.        Ignore the haters. Some people might call you names, shout or yell at you. Do not engage them, they are not interested in a conversation and not worth the time or risk.

VI.       Always remain calm and never back down or apologize for your MAGA hat.

VII.     Treat everyone as an individual not as a representative of their group. One man does not speak for all men simply because he is a man.

VIII.    If someone is afraid of you or your hat offer to have a conversation with them. If they refuse do not push the issue or mock them.

IX.       Do not chastise, name call, or play the shouting game with people who spew hate at you. Most of them simply do not understand or are enslaved by their ideology.

X.        If someone takes your MAGA hat, demand it back but do not attack them. They can take or destroy the hat but they cannot take or destroy your liberty.

XI.       Do at least one thing during the month to Make America Great Again. Personal and local community betterment make bigger impacts than you think.

Concerns

I understand people have concerns about participating in MayAGA. The main concern is that people are afraid they are going to be attacked and hurt. While this is something to worry about I do not believe it is as common as we all believe.

The truth is that liberty is not safe and that this is a legitimate concern. The real question is what do you do about it? Do you allow yourself to be silent out of fear, enjoying the temporary security of obscurity and bondage? Or do you face it directly and ultimately become stronger for the struggle?

Participating is going to take a certain amount of courage and risk. If someone comes to hurt you remain calm but do not back down. Ultimately they want to silence you and make you afraid to be you. Do not give them the satisfaction.

If this happens you need to understand that the many eyed media monster will be watching you. How you act in this situation can determine how this whole project will be viewed. Remember most of the media wants to make you out to be a villain for standing on your own.

It is not just the media who will be watching your actions. Other liberty centered Americans will be watching too. They will be watching and waiting to see if they want to stand with you or if you are just another provocateur looking for self-aggrandizement. Act in such a way to inspire others to stand with you and join the cause of liberty.

The other side of this concern is if people who claim they are participating do something unsavory. This is always a possibility with any movement, but some safe guards have been built into this project to protect against this.

The chief among these are the clearly stated rules. Violating these rules breaks the association and the person or persons violating them will be barred from official participation.

The media will not care about this, they have a narrative they want to sell at any cost. The truth is we are not doing this for them or their praise or approval. We are participating for our own individual reasons and to answer the call to do something courageous. You are not guilty for the actions of others and if someone does something you do not like you can disagree with them.

We are not a collective, we are an association of individuals capable of making up our own minds and making our own choices and living with the consequences of doing so.

If you have other concerns feel free to contact me and we can address them together.

Elizabeth Hovde and Oregonian vs Mayor Wheeler, Portland Resistance and Antifa

Elizabeth Hovde did the unthinkable, she dared to tell her truth in a Progressive city. On October 28^th 2018 the Oregonian published her opinion piece titled The Misunderstood Joey Gibson and the backlash was swift and aggressive.

Misunderstood

Elizabeth Hovde’s opinion piece was based off her time spent with a local activist group known as Patriot Prayer and their leader Joey Gibson. The rally opposing Washington gun-control Initiative 1639 took place at Washington State University Vancouver campus.

Ahead of the rally the university chancellor cancelled classes and advised students to remain off campus fearing violence. The Patriot Prayer rally was anything but violent. Joey Gibson even set up a question and answer period so that he could discuss his opinion with those who disagreed.

Hovde wrote what she experienced and submitted it to the Oregonian editorial board for publication. It was published and immediately attracted the attention of some powerful people who condemned her, called for her to be fired and for people to target the Oregonians sponsors in an attempt to shut down the long standing publication.

Journalists and Public Officials for Censorship

It is a strange sight to see writers and journalists offering support for censorship. They of course would deny that is their ultimate goal. This denial would not be a lie, because they would believe that they are not supporting censorship. Yet these same people would celebrate if Hovde's article were taken down and she were fired.

I am reminded of Matthew 7:20 “Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.” While they may not be calling for censorship directly nor do they believe they are asking for that, their actions are going to result in that outcome. As Thomas Sowell once said, “Consequences matter more than intentions.”

Mayor Ted Wheeler, who has attempted to use his position as Portland’s Mayor (and police commissioner) to falsely spread public fear in an attempt to stifle the individual’s first amendments right to freedom of expression, had this to say about Elizabeth Hovde article.

His statement shows that he clearly does not understand what Patriot Prayer and Joey Gibson stand for. Joey Gibson has repeatedly called out white supremacists and neo-Nazi’s and told them they are not welcome at his rallies. The speakers at Patriot Prayer rallies are from different backgrounds and ethnicities. At an event on June 30^th 2018 Patriot Prayer had Asian, Black, Hispanic, male, female, Trans and LGBTQ attendees. Speakers included people of various ethnicities and even a Trans person.

Multnomah County Chair Deborah Kafoury had this to say.

She is stating that the Oregonian ‘complicit’ in stoking ‘violence and hatred’ and that it is ‘unforgivable.’ If you were a supporter of Deborah Kafoury and trust what she has to say, what are you supposed to take away from this statement? She wants you to be mad at the Oregonian and to believe that they are spreading hate and violence.

What sort of response should you have to an individual or organization spreading hate and violence? Naturally you would experience fear and in order to protect yourself from that fear you must oppose the Oregonian.

People like Ted Wheeler and Deborah Kafoury will tell you that in order for them to protect you from this boogieman they must be given more power and authority. Authority over where, when, and how people can protest in Portland. Power over what can and cannot be published in the press.

Anna Griffin news director for OPB and Samantha Swindler video producer, editor, and writer for the Oregonian had this to say about their fellow writer and journalist:

Half Truths and the Weasel Rhetoric of Alex Zielinski

Alex Zielinski of the Portland Mercury penned a response to Elizabeth Hovde and the Oregonian. She starts by mentioning the tragedy of 11 people killed in a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Why? Because she is trying to tie two unrelated events together to make one look worse through association.

She even calls Hovde article The Misunderstood Joey Gibson a ‘love letter to the leader of the Portland area’s own far-right extremist group.’ She even falsely calls Patriot Prayer a ‘militaristic group of far-right provocateurs.’ Patriot Prayer is in no way militaristic, which means advocating or pursuing an aggressive military policy.

She also goes on to mislead the reader about violence at Patriot Prayer rallies. She frames these acts of violence as if they are spontaneous and happen in a vacuum, when in reality there would be no violence if Antifa did not show up and attack people, throw mortars, urine and bricks at crowds peacefully taking part in a permitted march.

Alex also misleads her readers about claims made by Mayor Ted Wheeler that Patriot Prayer members were ‘lugging rifles and ammunition’ to a peaceful protest, which she puts in scare quotes. These claims were refuted by Portland Police. The men with guns all had legal concealed carry permits and 100% cooperated with the police. When asked to leave the guns in a locked container in one truck and the ammunition in a locked container in another truck the men complied with the request. According to Portland Police “No laws were broken, and there was not imminent danger to the public.”

Yet Alex and Mayor Ted Wheeler would have you believe they were on the roof top with sniper rifles. Alex also makes the claim that LGBTQ friends and Muslim neighbors ‘feel they must stay indoors or leave town altogether’ when Patriot Prayer plans a protest. She offers no evidence or proof of these statements but claims them as fact in the hope that you, the reader, sympathize with these terrified characters that she created out of whole cloth.

As Christopher Hitchens once said “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” She also outright lies about Jeremy Christian, framing the man accused of fatally stabbing two men and wounding a third on a MAX train as someone who is a mainstay of Patriot Prayer rallies.

The fact is he was kicked out of the one Patriot Prayer event he tried to attend. Here is video evidence of him being kicked out of the one Patriot Prayer event he attended by Tiny and other Patriot Prayer members.

She again tries to mislead her readers by saying “Every single protest in Portland that ended in violence over the past year and a half was organized by Patriot Prayer.” She makes is sound like Patriot Prayer is going out and committing these acts of violence, but in reality the only reason there is violence at these events is because Antifa shows up and attacks, harasses, threaten and antagonize people who attend.

Antifa even left someone who came to protest Patriot Prayer bloody laying in the street with a wound on the back of his head that would require 4 staples to close. They did this because he was carrying an American flag, a symbol of freedom and liberty. She then goes on to accuse Hovde of “cropping out hateful rhetoric and violence.” Patriot Prayer has offered a $2000 reward for video proof of Joey Gibson’s hateful rhetoric and no one has been able to claim this prize.

Alex ends by condemning the Oregonian editorial board and insinuating that her fellow citizens, who are part of Patriot Prayer, who could be her neighbors, the guy pumping her gas or the mechanic working on her car, are not worth listening to.

Portland Resistance Demands Action or Else

Portland Resistance offered a condemnation of the Oregonian claiming that “giving platform to this message is unconscionable, unethical, and dangerous behavior.” They continue by making a list of demands. The demands include:

1)      Issue a front-page apology to our community for their callousness and carelessness in publishing the “The misunderstood Joey Gibson” opinion piece.

2)      Fire Elizabeth Hovde.

3)      Discontinue the practice of lending fascists a platform to recruit and legitimize their hate.

First they do not represent a community, they were not elected or selected and simply claiming you stand for someone does not mean you actually represent them. You are not entitled to an apology for simply reading an opinion you did not like, grow up.

They then want to destroy the career of Elizabeth Hovde over an opinion piece they did not like. Lastly they accuse the Oregonian of “lending fascists a platform to recruit and legitimize their hate.” A baseless accusation of a paper that has published pieces criticizing Trump, Patriot Prayer, and Joey Gibson in the past.

If you are on the Oregonian editorial board I offer this one piece of advice, do NOT apologize. It will only be taken as an admission of guilt on your part and will make things worse. Stand by your journalistic ethics.

They also threaten that if these demands are not met they “will result in a strategic boycott of Oregonian advertisers, beginning with local companies with progressive leanings and proceeding from there.” Essentially they are threatening to bring financial harm to people who had nothing to do with this opinion piece in the hope that they can force the newspaper to do what they want.

This is a naked attempt to hold businesses and charities hostage so that they can force the press to submit to their will. They justify this use of force by claiming they are opposing “white supremacists.”

It is okay to disagree and I do not want any of the people mentioned to be censored or fired, I would rather their ideas be out in the open for everyone to see. But it is not okay to attempt to shut down, censor, and suppress through the force of social ostracization. It is not okay to hold businesses and charity hostage in an attempt to damage a newspaper who published an opinion piece you disagree with.

I have often disagreed with the Oregonian and probably have disagreements with Elizabeth Hovde, but I stand with their right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The First Amendment is Not Your Right to Freedom of Speech

The first amendment is not your right to freedom of speech. The first amendment is simply a limitation on the government. That limitation is the legal protection to ensure that a government does not suppress your speech.

A popular argument is that since the first amendment only applies to the government, companies like Facebook and YouTube can limit your speech. It is their company and product, they have the freedom to say what is and is not allowed to happen.

That is only partially true.

What is Behind the First Amendment?

Freedom of Speech is a basic human right. Any conversation about rights has to take into account one basic question: where do your rights come from?

Of course the founding fathers in America believed, mostly, that your rights come from God and preexisted government. Atheists have a problem with this idea as they do not believe in the existence of a being known as God.

Yet even an Atheist can find utility in the idea that your rights come from outside of the human sphere. If your rights come from something beyond human authority than the idea follows that no human authority is justified in taking those rights away from you.

The individual’s rights flow from some greater force (call it God or Nature or whatever you like), along with free will, to use as they see fit. Part of living in a civilized society means that as an individual you decided that you are okay giving up part of what makes you an individualistic creature in order to fit into society and to help it function.

Liberty and freedom does not mean the absence of rules and limits, but it means the application of those rules and limits that help foster the greatest amount of freedom for the individual. This is getting a little off the topic of freedom of speech, but it needs to be said.

Freedom of speech is so important in this aspect because it is the method we, as individuals, use to determine what those rules and limits are that guarantee the maximum amount of freedom. Of course this means we need to be free to say stupid, offensive, and harsh things regardless of how it makes others feel.

Throughout history we can find examples of where the truth or what is viewed as right today was seen as offensive. The idea that slavery was immoral was offensive to most of the world at one point. It was also seen as offensive to think that people should have the right to self-determination and should not be tied to the land owned by a lord or king.

In order to say what you think in the pursuit of truth you must be willing to risk being offensive. You also have the responsibility to allow others to be offensive to you in their pursuit of truth.

Facebook, YouTube, and Free Speech

The popular argument is that Facebook and YouTube are their own companies and should have the freedom to do with their service as they see fit. I would agree with that to some extent, a company has the freedom to decide the scope of their business.

I am not entitled to the property or labor of another individual. Yet the right to freedom of speech is a right owned by the individual and that right can be oppressed by more than just the government.

Companies like Facebook need to make a choice, are they going to be a platform (a place where people can speak and thus be obligated to uphold the individual’s right to freedom of speech) or are they going to be a publisher (a place that edits and approves the type of speech allowed).

For a private company there are problems with both. If it is a platform you run the risk of people saying offensive and hurtful things that you and the majority of individuals do not agree with or like, which could lead them to leaving your platform. The benefit would be that you are not responsible for the things other people say.

For example, if I say something hurtful or derogatory over the phone, it is not AT&T’s fault that I said those things while using their service, the individual is responsible for their own actions.

Yet if they are a publisher and have a say in what does and does not gets published than they can be held liable for things being said by users of Facebook. They might be able to keep the outrage police happy for some time but policing one billion users every day will be an increasingly difficult task.

They can hand over more and more freedom but will only get an exponentially decreasing return in security. At some point due to stifling the individual’s free speech, the rise of competitors, and the increase in cost of policing their platform, Facebook will no long be able to function at a profit and will cease to exist.

Note: when I say free speech I do not mean free from all limits, but free speech within the currently established legal limits for speech in a public square.

The Hecklers Veto

The first amendment is a limit on the government is the same argument ‘protesters’ use to shut down speeches on college campuses or political campaign rallies. They apply pressure to event coordinators and location owners in the hope that they will stop people from speaking.

They do this by falsely labeling people alt-right or neo Nazi, getting local papers to publish stories spreading these false claims, and if that does not work protests will be organized and violence with be threatened.

In Portland Oregon threats of violence were used to shut down a local annual parade. Protesters disrupted a talk at PSU by James Damore by damaging sound equipment. Protesters silenced speaker Christina Hoff Sommers as well at Lewis and Clark Law School.

It is true that the first amendment is only a limit on the power of the government. Yet the right that this limit protects supersedes government.

Individuals have a right to free speech and it does not matter if it is the tyranny of the tyrant, majority or minority that is trying to oppress that right, it is still the suppression of a human right whose oppression should be odious to all freedom loving people. 

Man in UK Convicted for Being #GrosslyOffensive

A Scottish YouTuber who goes by the name Count Dankula has been found guilty in a UK court for a joke video he posted.

He is currently facing jail time.

The Video

The video in question was created by Count Dankula, Markus Meechan, in 2016 as a prank on his girlfriend, who was always telling him about her cute pug.

The joke was that Meechan would teach the dog to raise its paw to Nazi phrases as if it were giving a salute. As he stated in the video, he wanted to make the cute dog into the least cute thing he could think of, a Nazi.

Being a YouTube personality Meechan uploaded a video of him training the dog to his channel. The video was viewed over 3 million times and has been put in a suspended state by YouTube as offensive content.

The Verdict

This video landed Meechan in hot water with the UK authorities under the Communications Act of 2003. This lead to charges being filed against him and a court case that has lasted two years.

On March 20, 2018 a guilty verdict was handed down. It stated that Meechan was guilty of being grossly offensive (#grosslyoffensive) and he will be sentenced on April 23, 2018.

This means that being offensive in the UK is now illegal and you could face jail time. Since anyone can be offended at any time by anything it means it is up to those in power to determine what is and is not offensive.

A situation has developed in the UK that would seem laughable if it were not so horribly true. The police refuse to investigate and bring to justice Muslim grooming gangs for fear of appearing racist but will gladly send someone to jail for an offensive video on YouTube.

It is a dark day in history when your government ignores young girls and women being abused, raped, tortured, sold into sex slavery and in some cases killed because the perpetrators of those crimes have a specific minority status (some might call it privileged), but the full weight of the law needs to come down hard on someone posting a ‘grossly offensive’ joke on social media.

I am thankful that I am in the US but my heart goes out to the citizens of the UK and I stand with them in their fight for free speech.

#grosslyoffensive

#Liberalist

Media Conspiracy or Out of Control Group Think?

The above video is of an interview that was uploaded to YouTube on January 16^th 2018. Cathy Newman, a Channel 4 News reporter, interviewed Jordan Peterson, a professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, who has attracted a massive following by telling people to ‘clean up their room’ and ‘tell the truth.’

After this interview was posted it immediately went viral, the original YouTube video has been viewed 2,900,851 times with 114,597 up votes and 2,417 down votes and 55,324 comments at the time of this writing.

Shortly after this interview, claims were made by Channel 4 that ‘threats’ have been made against Newman and that they were bringing in additional security. It was at this time that the media smear machine went to work, attempting to paint Peterson, through the actions of his ‘followers’ as a sexist, misogynist ‘alt-right’ bigot.

These media outlets are attempting to use character assassination in order to attempt to salvage their narrative, even if they have to mislead to do so.

The Threats

According to Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, Cathy Newman has been on the receiving end of “vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat” and that it is “[A] terrible indictment of the times we live in.”

According to the Independent, security experts have been hired by Channel 4 and they are considering police involvement.

When asked for proof of these threats very little is forth coming. According to The Daily Mail the ‘abuse’ included comments such as ‘RIP Cathy Newman’ and ‘Cathy Newman we know where you live.’

That last statement seem ominous to be sure, but no screen shots or images are provided as proof. They go on to say that more than 500 postings have been made calling Newman a bitch. The Daily Mail also claims that Newman’s 13-year-old daughter found a pornographic mock-up on Instagram of her mother with Dr. Peterson.

They go on to claim that Peterson’s “admirers” attacked Newman by describing her in a comment as the “Low IQ Left Establishment” and saying that she should be “ashamed of such a catastrophic interview.”

The Daily Mail continues saying that critical comments were expected but the death threats have caused serious alarm. Yet they do not provide any examples of these death threats. No quote is mentioned nor a screen shot shared.

The Threats seem to amount to people saying mean things to her on the internet.

The Headlines

These are some of the headlines describing this story. Clearly they are misleading, either for ideological reasons or for clicks.

The Independent says that the abuse was misogynistic and that it is all just a backlash against the #MeToo movement.

 

The Daily Mail calls the interview a ‘row’ and calls Peterson an ‘anti-feminist.’ The interview was tough and could be called a row for embellishment but to label Peterson as an anti-feminist is just wrong and has zero evidence to back it up.

The Sun also calls it a ‘row’ and calls Peterson a ‘controversial academic.’ He covered what makes him controversial in the interview.

Huffington Post states that Newman is threatened after the interview. It is miss leading because it is unclear what kind of threats are made, who is making them, and proof that the threats have actually been made.

The headline does not say allegations of threats, rather they just state it as fact.

The Guardian defends Peterson.

 

The Star simply reports that security has been bolstered.

 

One article analyzes the ‘abuse’ and finds it lack luster and worst against Peterson and his supporters.

 

The Mirror says that Peterson didn’t agree that the gender pay gap is unfair. This is very misleading because what Peterson took issue with was the degree to which sexism determines the pay gap as opposed to other factors such as women’s own interest.

Add Mirror:

 

The Copy and Paste Job

While reading these articles and writing my own I noticed a pattern. A few of the articles used the same phrases and I am not talking about using the same quotes.

Several articles call Peterson a Controversial Psychologist or Professor (The Star, Huffington Post, The Mirror). I first thought that they were just writing along similar lines because they were all writing about the same story.

That is until I came across this line from The Star “Peterson is best known for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender and non-binary people who request them.”

This line jumped out at me because it is misleading and untrue. I also had a suspicion that is had heard it somewhere else. A quick check of my notes showed that I had written down this quote from a Huffington Post article.

Not a similar quote, the exact same quote. I pulled the article back up and started rereading side by side with The Star article. They were the exact same. Not similar but word for word the exact same (below are screen shots of the text from each article side by side).

I do not know if this is just lazy journalism, two media outlets sharing the same article or a collaborative effort by two media companies to push the same narrative. Something tells me it is a bit of all three.

History Repeats

This is not the first time we have seem media outlets all run the same story from the same perspective, pushing toward the same goal with little or no regard for facts or evidence. We have seen this with President Trump over and over again.

It is also not the first time we have seen the Progressive’s push a narrative in an attempt to further their ideology that turns out to be a lie. The recent hijab cutting in Canada that elicited a response from their Prime Minister Justin Trudeau turned out to be a hoax just to name one.

This time they were pushing to smear Jordan Peterson because of his sound defeat of their ‘social justice’ view of the world, which divides everyone into victims or oppressors. They want to distract from one of the big truths revealed in this interview. That Freedom of Speech is a right and should be protected and the ‘right’ to not be offended is nothing more than a thin excuse for authoritarian control and censorship.

Part 1: Behind the Scenes of Googles Monstrous Culture of Bias

The Google Memo went viral around the world and sparked a debate around discrimination in the work place. Recently James Damore, the author of the memo, has filed a class actions lawsuit against Google.

The following is the information from the first 16 pages of this lawsuit followed by a short authors note.

Who is James Damore?

James Damore is the author of the now famous (or infamous) Google Memo titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.

Before working for Google Damore attended the University of Illinois where he received a Bachelor’s of Science in Molecular Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. He went on to attend Harvard University and received a Master of Science in Systems Biology.

While he was employed at Google, Damore received the highest possible rating on two separate occasions on his performance review, one of which included his most recent review. He received approximately eight performance bonuses, was never disciplined or suspended and was promoted to Senior Software Engineer.

He did not supervise employees nor did he assign work and he had no ability to hire or terminate anyone. Since his memo was leaked and his termination he has gained notoriety, fame among the Free Speech crowd and infamy among the Progressive/Social Justice crowd.

In the Name of Diversity

Google holds weekly company-wide meetings called “TGIF meetings” to discuss topics involving Google. On March 20, 2017 Damore attended a TGIF meeting entitled “Women’s History Month.”

This meeting was led by Ruth Porat, the Chief Financial Officer of Google, and Eileen Naughton, the Human Resources Director of Google. In this meeting individual departments were called out and shamed if they were comprised of less than 50% women. Departments that comprised more than 50% women were applauded and praised.

Porat and Naughton also announced that when looking at people for promotions or for leadership opportunities that Google would be taking into account gender and ethnic demographics.

They followed that with a statement that Google’s racial and gender preferences in hiring were not up for debate because this was morally and economically the best thing for Google.

Diversity and Inclusion Summit

This summit took place in June of 2017 and was attended by Damore because to Google a “commitment to diversity and inclusion” was an important factor in promotion to leadership. At this time Damore was on a path toward leadership.

The summit was organized by Google’s senior vice presidents and other members of Google’s leadership team, including Ari Balogh, Vice President of Engineering at Google and Sridhar Ramaswamy, Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads.

In this summit presenters discussed policies designed to prefer categories of people (women, and certain but not all ethnic minority groups). These policies included things such as providing extra interviews and putting applicants into a more welcoming environment based on their race or gender.

They also discussed putting ‘diverse’ individuals into high priority queues so that they were more likely to be hired and hired faster. ‘Diverse’ in this situation was defined as ‘women or individuals who were not Caucasian or Asian.’

Damore, troubled by these statements and policies spoke with Google HR member Meghana Rao who stated she had received similar complaints in the past from employees with conservative views and stated that “some of the political things at Google were a problem.”

In a breakout group Damore asked if Google looked at viewpoint diversity when making hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. He was told that Google only looked at demographic diversity when making hiring and promotion decisions.

The Google Memo

It was after this meeting that Damore decided to write the Google Memo. Damore made no attempt to hide the memo but instead published it publically within Google so he could gain input and edits from coworkers.

He shared it in several groups within Google including CoffeeBeans (a group that discusses various issues at Google), the Women at Google Program, the Code of Conduct team, and Google HR.

Along with the memo Damore questioned the legality of diversity programs such as “Women Who Code” “BOLD” (an internship program offered only to women and underrepresented minorities), and “Stretch” (a class Google offers exclusively to women).

The sources he used to back up his memo were the Wiley Online Library, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Quillette, The British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, and The Atlantic. When the memo was published in the media these citations were left out or ignored in an attempt to attribute the conclusions directly to Damore himself.

The Code of Conduct Team responded by referring Damore to Google HR. None of Damore’s claims about illegal hiring practices were investigated or pursued by Google HR, other than terminating his employment.

The Women at Google group responded by stating their goal: 50% representation of women at Google.

His purpose in developing the memo was to promote discussion among Google employees regarding “diversity and inclusion.” He ended the memo saying:

 

Bias Busting

In July 2017 Google held another Diversity Training that consisted of an online course followed by an in-person training. The in-person training was titled “Bias Busting” and was focusing on biases against women in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace.

Approximately 20 Google employees were present at this training ran by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google. When Damore verbalized his dissent during the training other employees, including managers, laughed at him derisively and considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of disparagement.

As feedback to this training Damore submitted his memo. It was at this time that is started circulating wider within Google and eventually was leaked by an unknown Google employee to either Vice Motherboard or Gizmodo. This selectively quoted and misinterpreted version went viral across the media and around the world.

Threats

On August 4^th 2017 Rao and another Google HR member called Damore into a meeting. They explained that while they could not ask him to take down his memo because it was protected political speech, they still thought it was in his best interest to do so.

Damore understood this as a threat from Google with termination for internal speech about workplace issues. Namely the issues of Google’s gender and race quote programs and its dismissal of unpopular (conservative) political viewpoints.

These were not the only threats Damore received. On August 3^rd 2017 George Sadlier, Director at Google, sent out a mass email condemning Damore’s essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an investigation into Damore.

Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against Damore. On Friday August 4^th 2017 Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google who is a member of Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

 

When Damore forwarded this email to Google HR they suggested Damore work from home until things cooled down.

Other employees took it a step farther and suggested not only that Damore be terminated but that those who shared his views or supported him should also be terminated.

 

These practices were not only allowed but rewarded by Google. The Google Recognition Team allows employees to suggest fellow employees for “Peer Bonuses” typically awarded for outstanding work above and beyond an employee’s job duties.

A Peer Bonus was not only suggested but reviewed and considered appropriate and approved to proceed by the Google Recognition Team for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo].”

Colm Buckley, a high-ranking SRE (Site Reliability Engineer) Director, on August 5^th 2017 stated his intention to stifle political dissent within Google.

 

Due to this environment Damore filed a complaint the morning of August 7^th with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). After this massive companywide approved, promoted and accepted attack on Damore Google made the decision to terminate his employment.

At 6pm on August 7^th Rao and Chuck Wu, Senior Director of Engineering for Google, called Damore to let him know of their decision to fire him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” When Damore attempted to explain why his termination was unlawful, Rao stated that this was Google’s final decision and that there would be no discussion.

This information was drawn from the first 16 pages of the class action lawsuit filed against Google by Damore and other employees. It not only shows the incredible bias at all levels of Google but also the acceptance of discrimination as long as it is against approved groups.

Authors Note: This is part one of three focusing on this lawsuit. The second part will focus on the termination of David Gudeman and the third part will look at the potential class members that may also be included in the lawsuit. Feel free to share this post anywhere and everywhere, I strong believe this information needs to be known and I doubt that Google is the exception rather than the rule, but only time will tell.

Written by Cody Benson