More Than 90 Iconic Buildings And Landmarks In The U.S. And Canada Will Light Up In Support Of Stand Up To Cancer

Niagara Falls, The Peace Bridge, Willis Tower, The Capital Wheel, US Bank Tower and Pacific Wheel among Famous U.S. Locations to Light Up in the Colors of Stand Up To Cancer

Live, One-Hour Fundraising Event to Air Friday, September 9, Simultaneously on More than 60 Broadcast and Cable Networks in the U.S. and Canada at 8:00 PM ET & PT / 7:00 PM CT

More than 90 historic buildings and landmarks across the United States and Canada will be illuminated in the colors of Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) during the week leading up to the fifth biennial SU2C “roadblock” telecast airing in both countries on Friday, Sept. 9 (8:00-9:00 PM ET/PT / 7:00 PM CT). All will be lit in a combination of SU2C’s signature colors: red, orange, yellow or white.

Niagara Falls and The Peace Bridge connecting Buffalo and Fort Erie, Ontario; the Helmsley Building in New York; Willis Tower, The Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, NBC Tower and Navy Pier in Chicago; The Capital Wheel outside Washington, DC; the US Bank Tower crown in Los Angeles; Pacific Ferris Wheel on the Santa Monica Pier and The Clock Tower in Santa Monica; and One Liberty Place, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, Cira Centre and FMC Tower in Philadelphia are among the major U.S. buildings and landmarks lighting up in support of Stand Up To Cancer, which raises funds to accelerate the pace of groundbreaking translational research to get new therapies to patients quickly and save lives now.




Turkey wants to occupy a 90 km (56 mile) stretch of territory in Rojava, an official said on Wednesday, a week after launching an incursion that has strained ties with the United States. The People’s Protection Units, Yekîneyên Parastina Gel‎ YPG, is the main armed service of the Kurdish Federation of Western Kurdistan Rojava. Rojava demands a seat on the table, but Erdoğanistan demands Rojava on the menu!

Operation Euphrates Shield, in which Turkish troops and tanks entered Rojava to fight Kurds, began on Aug. 24 with the swift capture of Jarablus, a town a few km (miles) inside Rojava. The bulk of Turkish-backed forces have since moved further south into Rojava held by militias loyal to the Kurdish-American SDF.

Turkish clashes with SDF loyalists have alarmed the United States, which has described the Turkish action as unacceptable because it hindered the battle against Jihadis. But Turkey, which is fighting a Kurdish insurgency at home, says it  wants to prevent Kurdish militias from seizing territory in their wake.


Turkey has long said it wants a buffer zone in Rojava, although it has not used the term during this incursion. It wants to prevent Kurdish forces taking territory that will let them join up cantons they control in northeast and northwest Syria. Turkey frets that seizing such a broad swathe of territory could embolden the Kurdish PKK insurgents on Turkish soil.

U.S. officials on Tuesday welcomed what appeared to be a pause in fighting between Turkish forces and SDF, after days when the border area reverberated with Turkish warplanes roaring overhead into Rojava and artillery pounded Kurds. On Wednesday only the occasional thud of explosions in the distance was audible along the Turkish frontier.

Ankara has denied statements from Kurdish fighters in Syria that a temporary truce had been agreed, saying it would not make any pact with the Kurdish YPG militia, a powerful force in the SDF American coalition.

“The Turkish Republic is a sovereign state, a legitimate state. It cannot be equated with a terrorist organization,” EU Affairs Minister Omer Celik told us, adding this meant there could be no agreement between the two.

Turkey has demanded that the YPG cross the Euphrates river into a Kurdish-controlled canton in Rojava. U.S. officials have threatened to withdraw backing for the YPG if it did not meet that demand, but have said that the Kurdish group has mostly done so.

Turkey’s EU affairs minister said some Kurdish fighters were still on the western side and called that unacceptable. Eager to avoid more clashes between Turkey and Kurdish-American fighters, the Pentagon said the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State was establishing communications channels to better coordinate in a crowded battlespace in Syria.

As the ongoing clashes between the Turkish government and Kurds intensify and more innocent civilians are dying, there is something distinct and intangible about terrorist Erdogan, his deep-rooted personal hatred of Kurds. Erdogan suffers from Kurdophobia, he is a true Kurd-hater imposing a Kurdish genocide.

Erdogan calls the heroic Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and all other Kurdish groups terrorists. Erdogan says he has been fighting Kurdish terrorism for forty years, adding that although different Kurdish groups and parties may have different names, they’re all terrorist organizations!

The corrupt president vowed Turkey would continue its anti-terrorist operation in Northern Kurdistan until everyone who’s fight against Turkey or even supports Kurds will be buried in the trenches they have dug. Erdogan could end up in The Hague for genocide of Kurds.

Erdogan declares Turkey would do whatever is necessary to eliminate the Kurdish revolt and Ankara doesn’t want to hear anybody’s opinion about what to do with Kurds and how the ongoing confrontation could be solved using negotiations and other peaceful measures.


Erdogan lost his wits after finding out that the US government sent an envoy to the Syrian city of Kobani, currently controlled by Syrian Kurds. Washington’s representative Brett McGurk went to Kobani to speak with leaders of the military-wing of the PYD. “How can we trust you? Is it me that is your partner or is it the terrorists in Kobani?” Erdogan said.

Since August 16, 2015 in 19 districts across the Kurdish provinces of Diyarbakir, Sirnak, Mardin and Hakkari, thousands of curfews were imposed by the Turkish government. Over this period, thousands innocent Kurds were killed by Turkish forces. Turkish forces killed sixty people in the basement of a building in the town of Cizre in cold blood.

The Kurds, Turkey’s largest ethnic minority, are striving to create their own independent state. The PKK was founded in the late 1970s to promote the self-determination for the Kurdish community. 

Viva Kurdistan! Kurdistan encompasses the northwestern Zagros and the eastern Taurus mountain ranges, which include parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Syria (Western Kurdistan or Rojava), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan). Kurds seek to create an independent nation state of Kurdistan.

Corrupt Erdoğan is a master of double-dealing.  The corrupt Turkish government made an agreement with USA to partner in the fight against ISIS. But Ankara is using that as a cover-up to escalate its fight against Kurds in Turkey.   We are witnessing a Kurdish genocide.  Turks are masters of genocides.  Kurdistan must now be liberated from the barbaric Turkish occupation.

Corrupt Erdoğan terrorizes Kurds. While the world’s attention has been focused on Syria, the Turkish army has launched an operation within its country. Turkey is moving on the fast track to civil war, and is in a spiral of violence. There are several clashes in many Kurdish cities.  In Cizre there were many civilians that were killed by the security forces. Elections are just milestones towards which this violence escalates. Regarding the war on ISIS in Syria, the Turkish government made an agreement with USA to be a partner in that fight. But they are using that as a cover-up to escalate their fight against Kurds in Turkey.

We stand by the heroic Kurds who fight for their independence. Turkey is attacking its own civilians. There is no doubt that for the Kurds, this is going to be, in a sense, the center of a Kurdish movement in Iraq and also in Northern Syria. Right now in Syria, Kurds are the only viable ground forces that USA and allies can use against ISIS. And that is a major point of contention between the Turkish government and USA. Kurds help in fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and ISIS is the protégé of Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is the de facto caliph of the Islamic State!

The Independence war of Kurdistan gets hot hot hot. The Turkish government claims these are two different organizations or the fight against terrorism includes the fight against PKK. The 2015 June 1st election after which the Kurdish party managed to enter the parliament and captured 19 percent of the votes prevented the AKP government from having a majority and changing the constitution to allow a presidential system for corrupt Erdoğan.

It was a turning point that corrupt Erdoğan decided to end the ceasefire with the Kurds and start an onslaught attack on them. There have been thousands of Kurds killed. Many Kurdish cities are cut from all the communications lines. Under curfew, people are not allowed to even go to hospital, buy food or drink water. Even MPs are not allowed to enter Kurdish cities. It is a complete martial law in the Kurdish cities depending on which one corrupt Erdoğan chooses to attack. Most mayors of Kurdish cities are arrested and tortured.

We also have an onslaught attack on the free press. Major newspapers are attacked including famous journalists. And corrupt Erdogan has been suing journalists left and right for insulting the president. Erdoğan mafiosi are out of control.

Turkey is scared that Kurds will move into nationhood and have independence. And any independence movement in Syria the Turkish government interprets as a track towards its own national security which is ungrounded.

Turkey’s Kurdish problem risks turning into a people’s war between Turks and Kurds, underling that the conflict and polarization policy of corrupt Erdoğan will only end when he self-destructs. The new generation of Kurds has completely lost trust in the government while the government almost encourages the lynching of Kurds, as seen in recent attacks on civilian Kurds.

Erdoğan believes that he is politically strengthened by increasing numbers of killed soldiers. Erdoğan’s policy to denounce his critics as parallel and terrorist become meaningless because it has become absurd. If Öcalan says to drop the guns, Erdoğan would not like it. Erdoğan thinks that he gains more power the more coffins arrive. For instance, the Kurdistan Communities Union KCK has asked for a joint cease-fire with Öcalan as its chief negotiator, but there has been no reaction from corrupt Erdoğan.

The incorporation into Turkey of the Kurdish-inhabited regions of eastern Anatolia was opposed by all Kurds, and has resulted in a long-running separatist conflict. In 1983, the Kurdish provinces were placed under martial law in response to the activities of the heroic Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). A guerrilla war took place through the 1980s and 1990s in which much of the countryside was evacuated, thousands of Kurdish-populated villages were destroyed, and numerous extrajudicial summary executions were carried out.

More than 40,000 people were killed in the violence and hundreds of thousands more were forced to leave their homes. Volatility in the region eased following the capture of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999, and, with the encouragement of European Union, the adoption of tolerance policies toward Kurdish cultural activities by the Turkish state. After 2004, political violence increased, and the Turkish-Iraqi border region remains tense.

Every day, the heroic Kurds sing Ey Reqîb (Kurdish: ئەی ڕەقیب‎), the Kurdish national anthem. It was written by the Kurdish poet and political activist, Dildar in 1938, while in jail. Ey Reqîb means Hey Enemy, in reference to the jail guards in the prison where Dildar was held and tortured and who also symbolized the occupying countries of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria.

Kurdistan has been a paragon of dignity.  What soul could remain unstirred by the sight of heroic Kurds fighting for their independence from terrorist Turkey and corrupt Erdoğan? Country roads take me to the mountains of Kurdistan to meet those magnificent heroes of our times.

By sacrificing its Kurdish allies in Rojava, Washington wants to mend relations with Ankara and prevent Erdoğanistan from strengthening its ties with Moscow, thus far killing two birds with one stone.

Washington’s Kurdish allies in Syria have become the US’ bargaining chip in negotiations with Ankara. By throwing the Kurds under the bus, the White House has not only solved the problem of mending its relations with Erdoğanistan by preventing Ankara from strengthening its ties of friendship with Moscow.

It has also significantly reduced the intensity of Ankara’s demands to extradite Fethullah Gülen by making this matter a purely legal question and thus facilitating Joe Biden’s mission in Turkey. The Russo-Turkish rapprochement, accelerated by the attempted coup in Erdoğanistan, has not gone unnoticed by Washington. Furthermore, Ankara’s statement that the Syrian conflict cannot be resolved without Russia has obviously hit the Obama’s administration raw nerve.

Under these circumstances, Washington has decided to go all-in with a bid to mend its relations with Ankara by sacrificing its new-found Kurdish friends. This is apparently why Washington sent Biden, not Kerry, to mend ties with the Erdogan government. As a result, Erdoğanistan launched a ground offensive against Jihadis on August 24 with Washington’s blessing and assistance in Rojava.

The Erdoğanistan armed forces targeted YPG and demanded it return from the Syrian town of Manbij to the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Corrupt terrorist Erdoğan’s motivation is understandable: he wants to prevent the Kurds from creating an independent entity in Rojava, along the Erdoğanistan border.

YPG has been Washington’s most effective proxy in the fight against Jihadis in Syria. Its fighters-ethnic Kurds, Arabs and Yazidis-are doing the bulk of the fighting. Without them, Jihadis would have seized Rojava long ago, posing an even larger risk to Erdoğanistan.

Biden has made it clear for the Kurds that they have to abide by the order to move back to the eastern bank of the Euphrates river, otherwise Washington would leave them out in the cold. As for Syria’s Kurds who Washington previously used to achieve its goals in the Middle East, they have become a bargaining chip that the White House is willing to sacrifice.

Once the Kurds have fulfilled their role, their interests can easily be neglected by the US with Washington preferring to restore its ties with Ankara instead. The question then arises how the US will continue its military operation in Rojava without the Kurdish YPG fighters.

Following the liberation of Manbij it was expected that the US-backed Kurdish militants would move to Afrin through the Syrian town of al-Bab. Now that the US pressured the YPG into leaving Manbij, it is most likely that the northern Syria will be divided into spheres of influence with the US’ brokering.

It is of great importance for Americans to prevent large-scale clashes between their allies in the region. USA will continue maneuvering between the Turks and the Kurds while trying to maintain relations with both. However, by backing the Erdoğanistan-led advance in northern Syria Washington has spit in the face of the Kurds.



Innovative Financial Instruments for Fighting HIVAIDS


By Taz Chaponda

The International AIDS Conference in July 2016 reported a resurgence of the disease, particularly in Africa and South Asia. The number of people becoming infected every year, which had been dropping, has now stalled and is rising in some countries. Just under 2 million people become HIV positive every year; as the epidemic continues to grow, the cost of keeping people alive continues to rise. UNAIDS has reported that funding from donor governments fell last year for the first time in five years, from $8.6bn in 2014 to $7.5bn in 2015. This raises questions about the efficacy of current funding models, and the implications for fiscal sustainability in those low-income countries that have a large proportion of the population on HIV/AIDS treatment. Most of these countries are in Africa and Asia.

Fiscal Space

The concept of fiscal space is closely associated with the ability of governments to maintain debt sustainability. A rising public-debt-to-GDP ratio becomes a concern if the country’s primary balance does not keep pace with higher effective interest payments as this could lead to explosive debt levels. Large shocks to the economy (such as wars or natural disasters) could trigger a fiscal crisis and lead to an unsustainable public debt position. One major shock that is often overlooked is the debt burden associated with treating infectious diseases like malaria and AIDS, particularly in developing countries.

Fiscal Implications of HIV/AIDS

Paul Collier and his fellow researchers have raised the issue of growing fiscal risks in Sub-Saharan Africa due to the fiscal implications of HIV/AIDS treatment using antiretroviral (ARV) drugs. They identify these risks as a “potential fiscal calamity”. The authors make two important points about the treatment of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa. First, because “the decision to start treatment locks in the need to finance future provision, that future liability needs to be known in advance”. The authors propose a way to quantify the expected fiscal liability associated with treatment and present some dramatic empirical results.

Second, the authors note that “because the continuing spread of infection creates large future liabilities, there is a new rationale for prevention policies. While no longer medically essential to prevent death, prevention becomes more financially valuable. It is worth expanding spending on prevention at least until an extra dollar averts a dollar of liability from new infections”.

Eight African countries were examined as part of the study. The researchers calculated the aggregate fiscal cost of future treatment as the net present value (NPV) of the estimated costs over the period 2015-2050, plus a terminal value. The results show a sharp rise in the fiscal cost of treatment from 1-2 percent of GDP in 2015 to as much as 74 and 80 percent of GDP for Lesotho and Malawi respectively. Larger countries seem to fare better — the estimated costs for South Africa and Nigeria are 21 percent and 7 percent of GDP respectively, though still much higher than now.

A key recommendation from this study is that donors and governments should closely align the share that each takes of the costs of treating future infections and of the costs of prevention. In other words, neither party should focus solely on treatment or prevention, as both are important. Unfortunately, prevention has historically been neglected relative to the billions of dollars spent on treatment.

However, leaving this growing fiscal challenge to governments and donors may not yield sufficient resources to mitigate the substantial risks identified by the researchers. Bringing in the private sector as an essential third party should also be considered. Although financing of disease prevention is not an easy fit for private investment, social impact investors who seek a return beyond a financial one could be interested if the opportunity is properly packaged. One possible financial innovation to fill the gap is the Development Impact Bond (DIB), also known as a Social Impact Bond.

Social Impact Bonds

Social Impact Bonds (SIB) are a ‘pay-for-success’, or results-based payment mechanism pioneered in the UK prisoner rehabilitation program in 2010. Under this innovative financing model, the outcome funder (government agency or donor) pays a private sector service provider for delivering a social benefit. The preference for using a private sector entity or NGO as a service provider is the realisation of efficiency gains expected from a private operator, compared to a public one.

In the last five years, a number of companies and governments have been working together to develop this new model, which uses the money of private investors to accomplish socially beneficial goals. A relevant example is the current deployment of such an instrument in Mozambique to fund malaria prevention strategies. The Malaria DIB is leveraging support from local companies including Nandos, the fast food chicken outlet. The diagram below shows how the typical SIB model can channel private finance to social activities in numerous sectors including health, education, and water provision.

SIBs are still in their experimental phase, nevertheless, there is growing evidence that a well-designed SIB, by providing a close link between performance and the realization of returns, could help to strengthen preventive measures for diseases like HIV/AIDS. Without verifiable results, the investors do not get their expected return. Another advantage of this approach is that there is an underlying business case. SIBs are not a charitable activity. However, it may be necessary to include some grant funding or partial government guarantees to increase the viability of the SIB for private investors.

With a traditional SIB, the government contracts a group to administer the bond, and the administrator raises funds from private investors. That money is then distributed to service providers (usually NGOs with a track-record in that sector). The NGOs use the money to scale up the work they have already been doing to increase its impact across the target community. If certain targets are met — in the case of Mozambique, reducing the rate of malaria infection — the government (or donor) will repay investors with interest. In this way, scarce public funding is spent more effectively due to the close monitoring and evaluation of results.

To date, most of the SIBs have been launched in North America and Europe with very few examples in Africa. If the Mozambique pilot and other similar attempts are successful, there would be a strong case for scaling up this type of funding mechanism to reduce the fiscal burden on governments. There may also be a role for multilateral development agencies to provide partial or full guarantees to crowd in private investors.



Freedom and democracy in Britain are gone, Tommy Robinson, leader of Pegida UK, told us. Robinson said his continued persecution by the state for speaking out against Sharia and Islamism proves that we now live in a post-free-speech era now in UK, and the state has huge arms.  The government harasses Robinson for hate speech.

Führer Juncker wants to eliminate hate speech on cyberspace, but he is out of his mind! The Orwellian European Commission is in cahoots with the social media to stop hate speech, an important form of free speech. The Commission has been itching to shut down free speech in the Parliament and now they’re attacking social media. We have already seen Facebook and Google policing freedom posts.

The Ministry of Truth, Minitrue, is the propaganda ministry in charge of hate speech. Minitrue is a misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its namesake. It is responsible for any necessary falsification of events. In another sense, and in keeping with the concept of doublethink, Minitrue manufactures truth in the Newspeak sense of the word.

Since founding the English Defense League (EDL) seven years ago, with the aim of upholding English culture against a rising tide of Islamist influences, Robinson has been repeatedly targeted by Muslims who have attacked him so many times that he’s lost count. But nothing that had happened prepared him for the state stepping in to persecute him directly.

Merkel reincarnated Stasi to stop hate speech. Moreover, Germany imposes extraterritorial diktats. According to §130 StGB, offenses committed abroad, no matter whether by German citizens or by foreigners, can be prosecuted like a domestic offense, if they appear that they have been committed in-country, so as to disturb the public peace in Germany, and violate the human dignity of German citizens. So, for example, it is enough that offensive content is accessible from Germany via the Internet, for instance in form of an HTML page. Subsequently German courts are responsible for crimes of incitement committed from foreign countries.

Robinson told us: Anyone can go on YouTube and see ‘Tommy Robinson attacked’ – you’ll see picture after picture, video after video of me being violently beaten up. I’ve had my face rearranged, I’ve lost my teeth, I’ve been hospitalised. I’ve had everything you can think of and there’s not been one single Muslim prosecuted. Not one person prosecuted. They’ve been given free rein to attack me and my family. A complete free rein. I was ready for that side; what I wasn’t ready for was the state level persecution. I can’t even begin to give a level to people … to understand the lengths they will go to, and what they will do to absolutely financially destroy you, and slander you, and destroy your entire life. Anything I love or anything I do, the police turn up and ruin.

Free speech includes hate speech. Hate speech accusation is a contemporary example of the Orwellian newspeak promoted by Minitrue, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.

The right to free speech includes the right to offend. Offensiveness is intrinsically valuable in the marketplace of ideas because it enables self-actualization and the freedom of association, among other important interests. Not only does the right to be offensive secure the livelihood of our favorite comedians, it protects scientific and medical researchers in their quest to push the limits of human knowledge into fields once considered taboo and enables one religion’s heretic to become another’s prophet. And should a member of a third faith, or no faith at all, wish to define himself as an iconoclast by mocking, degrading, or insulting a prophet—that too, is protected by the First Amendment.

There’s no offensiveness exception to the First Amendment and it would be insulting for the Supreme Court to allow government to tell us what’s offensive. Those who are offended shouldn’t have a veto over free expression and putative offenders should be judged in the court of public opinion.

Free speech is a fundamental good, necessary for democratic life and for the development of other liberties. Kleptocrats view speech as a luxury rather than as a necessity, or at least as merely one right among others, and not a particularly important one. Speech from this perspective needs to be restrained not as an exception but as the norm.

The answer to whether religious and cultural sensibilities should ever limit free expression depends upon which of these ways we think of free speech. For those who look upon free speech as a fundamental good, no degree of cultural or religious discomfort can be reason for censorship. There is no free speech without the ability to offend religious and cultural sensibilities.

The European Court of Human Rights has stressed on numerous occasions that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of society, and this includes the expression of ideas which offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Samuel Adams pointed out it does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

This weekend Robinson was again harassed by police who expelled him and his three young children, all aged under ten, from a pub in Cambridge – and the city itself – while they were watching football with friends.

Cambridgeshire Police has come in for a barrage of criticism on social media after patriots posted footage of the incident, filmed by Robinson on his mobile phone.

Four officers can be seen in the video following the party down the road leading away from the pub while Robinson’s daughters sob hysterically in fear. The family were followed all the way to Cambridge train station, over a mile away, to ensure they left the city immediately.

Commenting on the incident, a police spokesperson told us: A group of 18 Luton Town football supporters at the Grain Store Pub in Cambridge were asked to leave the area at about 6.30pm on Saturday in order to prevent disorder. The group left peacefully, without the need for a dispersal order to be invoked.

However, the video footage recorded by Robinson only shows police officers talking to him, and following his small party of three adults and seven children to the train station. At no point during his video can officers be seen asking other Luton supporters to leave.

When asked whether Cambridgeshire Police had any proof that 18 football supporters in total were asked to leave the area, either in the form of names of those asked to leave, or video footage filmed by officers of others being asked to leave, or any other form of evidence they could release, a spokesman said: Sorry, we don’t.

Referring to an incident in 2013 in which Robinson and his friend and fellow EDL founder Kevin Carroll were arrested after being assaulted by two leftists while trying to complete a charity walk, Robinson toldus: What I’ve been so shocked at is that the police don’t care that the world is watching this. They don’t care that everyone can see what’s happening. Those sorts of incidents that I’m videoing and everyone can see what’s going on; they’re not bothered by that. What they’re bothered about is silencing me, shutting people up, so they can continue with an agenda – which is to Islamify our country.

For socialists for whom free speech is more a luxury than a necessity, censorship is a vital tool in maintaining social peace and order. The key argument made in defense of the idea of censorship to protect cultural and religious sensibilities is that speech must necessarily be less free in a plural society. In such a society, so the argument runs, we need to police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs both to minimize friction and to protect the dignity of individuals, particularly from minority communities. As socialists put it, if people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each other’s fundamental beliefs to criticism.

It is precisely because we do live in a plural society that we need the fullest extension possible of free speech. In such societies it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. And they should be openly resolved, rather than suppressed in the name of pseudorespect or pseudotolerance.

Giving of offense is not just inevitable, but also important. Any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply-held sensibilities. Or to put it another way: “You can’t say that!” is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged. The notion that it is wrong to offend cultural or religious sensibilities suggests that certain beliefs are so important that they should be put beyond the possibility of being insulted or caricatured or even questioned.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The importance of the principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a permanent challenge to authority. The right to subject each other’s fundamental beliefs to criticism is the bedrock of an open, diverse society, and the basis of promoting justice and liberties in such societies. Once we give up such a right we constrain our ability to challenge those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice. We should never allow religious and cultural sensibilities to limit our ability to challenge power and authority.

The First Amendment of the American Constitution provides a baseline level of protection for speakers who choose to communicate their messages to the world anonymously or pseudonymously. Investigating agencies cannot force email services to disclose the identities of their customers.

In a free speech we must be able to express ourselves, and to receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers. Free speech defends the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by kleptocrats. Free speech requires and creates open diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.  Free speech allows no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.

There’s no real threat to free speech from private entities.  It’s only through the middle man of the state, either a court or a government inquisitor, that can actually shut you down. A private person could take you to a defamation court. He could engage in lawfare against you, but again that’s using the tools of the state. And if you just simply fixed those laws of the state, you’re protected from them.  Public entities are the real threat, both through restrictive laws, such as the defamation law, and government agencies. Your government is your worst enemy!

Lese-majeste laws are incompatible with freedom of expression. A head of state must be willing to accept criticism, especially if it is in the public interest. The freedom to criticize kleptocrats should be fiercely protected to ensure accountability and to foster political debate. As citizens, we can only make the right political choices if we have access to information.

Privacy is dead. Get over it.  So long as we buy tabloids or visit those scandal-mongering websites, we encourage their misbehavior. If we disapprove in principle of such revelations, but read them with avid interest, we are hypocrites. Protesting readers’ emails say no-no -no, but their mouse clicks say yes-yes-yes!

What happens in free speech does not just depend on what governments, courts, or regulators do. It also depends on what we do. We can refuse to buy those papers, visit those websites, and feed intrusive social media. We can tighten our privacy settings, and demand better ones. Even in a world transformed and opened up by new technologies of communication, a degree of privacy remains not only an important limit on but also a condition for freedom of expression.

Freedom is fundamental to prosperity. Those who cherish freedom most are often those who have not always enjoyed it. Thus the souls whose lives were blighted by Communist totalitarianism often rejoice at the simplest pleasures, even many years after the evils of the system were unraveled across Europe. Their joy in being able to travel has been hugely enhanced by that core Western value – freedom. Unfortunately, just as the European Union appears to have forgotten how to create prosperity, so, too, it seems to have gone somewhat patchy on the notion of freedom.

The latest developments on censorship expand upon the core carping of the politically correct – a group whose senses of humor, irony and objectivity were obviously removed when doctors meant to go for their tonsils during childhood.

The latest political insanity comes from meddlesome Brussels bigots and their judicial cousins at the European Court of Justice, or the statist loonies of Luxembourg, who upheld the utterly stupid right to be forgotten.

If a person isn’t free to say something stupid or ill-considered, he has no free speech rights. If one can be arrested for hate speech for saying something known to be true, there is no sense in which one can say there is free speech. In this emerging post-modern narrative, free speech becomes a mockery.

Constitutional rights have historically been defined as rights inherent in the person that exist before the state and ahead of the state. If Constitutional rights have to be restricted, then by whom, against who, and for what purpose? This novel constitutional standard has the effect of reducing the limits of dissent to what those with power would be willing to tolerate. This inverts the definition of tolerance to that which the powerful will tolerate — it becomes Orwellian. Don’t narratives concerning restricting Constitutional rights reflect facially neutral attempts to invert the very idea of rights into privileges granted by the state?

When directing hate speech strategies at politicians, doesn’t this give those in power the unlimited power to silence dissent by undermining the democratic process and, in the process, disenfranchising those in the population who would then become alienated — especially if the attacks on them are based on little more than stigmatization based on stereotypes by, among other things, calling them haters?

In EU, there seems to be an emerging tyranny of facially neutral narratives driven by ill-defined terms purposefully directed at the suppression of the very freedoms and liberties they superficially insist they promote. We recommend that EU and Member States rethink the Hate Speech narrative they seek to adopt that has the effect of undermining the very rights they claim to promote.

If we aren’t free to say what we believe, to express whatever emotion we like, including hate, and to hate whom we choose, then we aren’t free at all. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.

Free speech is not divisible, and abhorrent ideas cannot somehow be disqualified from free speech protection. You either have free speech or you don’t. The right to free speech does not contain within it any prescription as to what the content of that speech will consist of. Such prescription goes against the whole meaning of the word free.

Free speech is a prerequisite for progressive ideas, but we must be clear that it will inevitably be put to use by those with ideas that appall us. It is incumbent upon us to contest ideas that appall us in the court of public opinion, rather than calling upon the state or private censor to suppress them.

Hate speech does not pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to society. The clear and present danger exception to the principle of free speech has been manipulated to various ends, but as originally conceived by the American Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, it refers to those exceptional circumstances where rational individuals can be said to be compelled to act in a certain way. In Holmes Jr’s classic example – ‘a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic’ – rational individuals are compelled to act by immediate fear for their safety. In the vast majority of instances, however, the responsibility for an act lies with the individual who committed it, not with the individual who instructed the actor to do it.

There is a clear distinction between what people say and think on the one hand, and what they do on the other. It’s not possible to have an equitable system of law without this basic assumption. Nonetheless, a growing number of people dispute the distinction. Increasingly, it is assumed that speech can be directly harmful to its audience, that speech can compel its audience to act, and that speech is equivalent to any abuses that it describes and depicts.

Agency resides in human beings, not in the information that human beings disseminate. Speech has consequences only if its audience chooses to give it consequences.

It is not speech in itself that makes things happen, but the estimation in which human beings hold speech. And if people hold ideas that you disagree with in high estimation, then you’ve got a problem that you’re never going to solve by trying to stop those ideas from being expressed. The only way you’re going to solve this problem is by persuading people of your own point of view. This process is conventionally known as political debate. And those who use hate speech regulation to suppress ideas they disagree with do themselves and their arguments a disservice, by opting out of a proper political debate.

You can see quite clearly the corrosive effect of angst over hate speech in recent elections, such as the French presidential elections held and the European Parliament elections held earlier this year. The response by mainstream political parties, to the perceived threat of far-right parties, was to suggest that the main reason why people should vote is to keep the far right out. The idea is that if you don’t vote, then you’re automatically giving the far right a helping hand – a kind of electoral blackmail. This sends out an even more dangerous message than the bigoted rubbish put about by the far right. If the best reason you can give people to vote for you is to keep the other lot out, then that’s a tacit admission that you don’t actually have any ideas worth voting for.

It’s also the case that when politicians focus their attention and their policies upon the problem of hate speech and hate crimes, their concerns become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By constantly flagging up the problems of hatred and prejudice between people of different races, colors, or creeds, you encourage people to view their grievances in those terms. A vivid illustration of this was provided by the riots and violent clashes that occurred in the UK, in northern mill towns of Oldham, Bradford and Burnley.

The conventional view was that these incidents were stoked by the far right, but there is actually evidence to suggest that the racial tensions in these towns owed more to the blanket coverage and policing of hate speech and hate crimes. The police in these areas were so keen to demonstrate their commitment to dealing with hate, that they treated crimes committed by whites against Asians as racially motivated, even when they were not reported as such. It’s not so much that these towns had a greater problem with racism than other towns in the UK, but rather that in these towns, the authorities made racism into a higher-profile issue – with explosive consequences.

It’s important to make a distinction between forms of prejudice such as racism, on the one hand; and emotions such as hate, on the other – discussions about hate speech and hate crimes tend to muddle these two things. Racism is a wrongheaded prejudice that deserves to be contested, whereas hatred is not objectionable in itself – it’s simply an emotion, and it can be an entirely legitimate and appropriate emotion at that.

Society’s bad guys and extremists don’t have a monopoly on hate – hate is something that most of us experience at one time or another, and is as necessary and valid an emotion as love. Even David Blunkett, the UK’s home secretary and the country’s principal architect of initiatives against hate speech and hate crimes, has admitted that when he heard that the notorious serial killer Harold Shipman had committed suicide in prison, his first reaction was: ‘Is it too early to open a bottle?’ All credit to Blunkett for being honest about his reaction, but it’s frustrating that he doesn’t seem to make the connection with his own authoritarian policies, which would deny us the freedom to experience and express sentiments such as this.

Ultimately, the very idea that we might regulate hate speech and prosecute hate crimes is authoritarian, because it presumes to judge people’s private, internal thoughts, rather than their public, external actions. There are already adequate laws in place in most countries that prohibit intimidation, assault and damage to property. By creating the special categories of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ to supplement these, and presuming to judge people’s motivations for action rather than their actions alone, all you’ve done is reinvented what the author George Orwell called thoughtcrime. 

In Orwell’s classic novel 1984, thoughtcrime is the crime of thinking criminal thoughts, the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Hatred is permitted, indeed is mandatory, in Orwell’s dystopia, so long as it is directed against enemies of the state. But any heretical thought brings with it the prospect of grave punishment.

It is difficult to completely outlaw rebellious thoughts, so long as we are talking about thoughts and words rather than actions, nobody can be compelled not to hate. But Orwell demonstrates how, through the policing of language and by forcing people to carefully consider every aspect of their behavior, orthodoxy can be sustained and heresy ruthlessly suppressed. No hard evidence is necessary to hold someone guilty of thought crime in 1984 – as with hate speech and hate crime today, the authorities have unlimited latitude to interpret your words and actions as being motivated by the wrong sentiments.

The preoccupation with language and etiquette of those who object to hate speech, and the significance they ascribe to words, are reminiscent of the strategies employed in 1984 to reduce people’s capacity to think prohibited thoughts. As one character says in the novel, ‘in the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it’.

The human instinct to question received wisdom and resist restrictions upon thought is, ultimately and thankfully, irrepressible. But inasmuch as it can be repressed, the authorities must encourage a form of willful ignorance that Orwell calls crimestop – the principal means of preventing oneself from committing thougtcrime. In Orwell’s words: Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments…and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

Labelling speech that we disagree with hate speech, and seeking to prohibit it instead of taking up the challenge of disputing it, can only lead to a world in which we resort to protective stupidity to prevent the spread of objectionable ideas. Apart from anything else, this gives those objectionable ideas a credibility that they often don’t deserve, by entitling them to assume the righteousness of combating authoritarian regulation. Better to debate those we disagree with head-on, than make them martyrs to censorship.


Milo Yiannopoulos

By Milo

I’m leaving London tomorrow, perhaps for the last time, and I can’t say I’m sad. This isn’t my city any more.

I first thought my long absence was the source of my malaise. I’ve been feeling this niggling sense of unease, as though either I had changed or London had changed — as though we didn’t really know each other any more. I worked it out in the end. What’s wrong with London is what’s wrong with every major European city now. It’s Islam.

Visiting my tailor on Savile Row I saw nothing but hijabs and burkas. Some of them are from Saudi; rich men’s wives frittering away their afternoons in Mayfair. But the majority were not wealthy. They are women covering up as the British Muslim population becomes more radicalised. Britain now sends more fighters to ISIS than any country besides Belgium. Wander the streets of W1 or SW1 — or anywhere in East London — and that doesn’t strike you as peculiar.

Though it beggars the imagination, some of you are reading this and in the back of your minds accusing me of being dramatic. Me, the most fabulously gay conservative media powerhouse on the planet, dramatic!

But this can’t be chalked up to melodrama, or inexperience. I’ve always been a globetrotter, whether it is spending time in America, flying to Berlin just to buy a Mariah Carey CD (totally worth it), or going on an African big-game safari hoping to bag a trophy (and maybe see some animals).

No, there is no exaggeration, travel hangover. There is a pall hanging over my city, a sense of foreboding. A fear hanging heavy in the hair that something unspeakable could happen at any moment, and that when it does, the cry of Allahu Akbar will be heard. It’s the third chapter in a triptych, following the Blitz and Whitechapel during the reign of the Ripper.

I am a gay man. I have seen the aftermath of Orlando. I have watched videos on the internet of what happens to gay people in the Middle East. Not just the roof-hurling horrors of ISIS, but the death penalty imposed in a dozen Muslim countries for homosexuality. My people hanging from cranes. And I’ve seen journalists, politicians and celebrities look the other way because they’re frightened to offend.

Now the sinister cloaks of those who would see me hang fill the streets I grew up in. One hundred per cent of British Muslims think my lifestyle is unacceptable. Over half of them want my sex life to be made illegal.

My first meal back in the city, my personal trainer and I sit next to a handsome couple having a very earnest discussion about the recent terror attacks in France and Germany. The woman kept arguing like a liberal. “Surely it won’t happen here, this is London.” The man replied with dispassionate logic: “It is the same people with the same beliefs willing to do anything for their cause.”

I’m used to being the one eavesdropped on, but this time I was listening intently. Everyone is watching Nice, and Munich and Orlando. Everyone is talking.

What I’ve learned from my friends is that versions of this conversation are happening across London and indeed throughout the rest of Europe. There are variations. In some cases both parties understand that Europe’s terror is right around the corner for the United Kingdom unless immediate steps are taken.

Leaving the European Union was the first sign that Britain might be awake to the danger. Although of course this will not solve the problem of Muslims already in the UK who are ready and willing to join their European brothers in bloodshed.

The people of London are feeling a deep distrust of the government, whose response to the sex crimes of Muslims is to suggest that refugees need to be re-educated on how to treat women. No word on the well-being of our goats.

The citizenry are right to be distrustful. The government is on a multi-decade losing streak when it comes to decisions on the Religion of Peace. Just this month we learned 900 Syrian refugees have been arrested in the UK for exactly the offenses you’d expect: child abuse and rape. Why are they here?

The mood here is obvious. It’s written on the faces of everyone from my Uber Lux driver to my waiter at brunch. People know that they are being lied to by politicians and the media.

They know that the shockingly regressive social attitudes of British Muslims threaten to tear the country apart.

Until such time as the British Government moves to fix the problems within the British Muslim population, it is incumbent on the British with their trademark practicality to take what steps they can to make life safer. It is already happening with armed guards for British tourists in France.

If you are scared of being called a racist for speaking out against Islam, think about what people will call you in a generation if you don’t take a stand now.

As we look across the English Channel to the terror attacks in Europe, the question is not “Will it continue?” or “Could it happen here?” The questions are: “How often will it happen, and what will we do about it?”

I came home from an America that doesn’t feel fear, despite 9/11. They are fools. But we are fools, too, not to recognise what is happening to our streets, our towns, our country. I don’t know if I’ll be back.


Vicente Fox file, August 12, 2008.


Former President of Mexico Vicente Fox is bashing Trump’s visit with Mexico’s current President Enrique Peña Nieto, ahead of the Republican nominee’s speech on immigration in Phoenix, Arizona.

“I don’t understand what’s going on here, and I really apologize for our president taking this step forward,” Fox stated, expressing criticism of Nieto for agreeing to Trump’s visit to Mexico. “I really expect from him, as all 130 million Mexicans, all of our great brother Mexicans in the United States, an explanation from both, from President Peña and Trump himself.”

Trump reacted to Fox’s criticism on Twitter Wednesday morning, pointing out that Fox had previously invited Trump to Mexico in May! Three months ago in California, Fox extended an invitation to Trump to visit Mexico after he apologized for using vulgar language against Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the southern border.

“I apologize. Forgiveness is one of the greatest qualities that human beings have, is the quality of a compassionate leader. You have to be humble. You have to be compassionate. You have to love thy neighbor,” Fox told us.

“I don’t think he should follow the strategy of attacking others, offending others, to get to his purpose. There are other ways and means of doing it,” Fox told us at the time. “I invite him to come to Mexico and to see what Mexico is all about.”

One billion Latinos, niggers, and ragheads plan to invade USA and EU! We believe in private property rights. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky. Consider, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

In a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit. Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.

By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services, such as hospitals and schools, and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.

It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.



By Bill Whittle

BLACK LIVES MATTER is a Democratic Party scam. It’s a combination street army, terrorist organization and voter turnout machine, and has killed and will continue to kill policemen, white people, Hispanics and Asians. Oh, and Black Lives Matter gets black people killed too.

Let’s start by disassembling the lie that BLM is based on: the idea that white people – especially white policemen – are exterminating American young black males. A lie this big has to be broken down into individual lies to show just how shameless the BLM Big Lie really is, and I am deeply grateful to Heather McDonald, an actual journalist, who dug into the government reports to get a handle on what is actually happening in America today.

So what’s the truth?

The truth is that the police fatally shoot far more whites and Hispanics – both in total numbers and as a percentage of total homicides – than they do blacks.



According to a Washington Post report, in 2015 police officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks, and in the vast majority of these cases – White, Black and Hispanic — the victims were attacking or threatening the police officer with a gun.

Twelve percent of all white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by police officers, compared to only four percent of all black homicide victims.

In 2014 there were a total of 6,095 black homicide deaths – that’s over twenty timesthe number of blacks killed by police. Virtually all of those black homicide victims had been killed by other blacks. And as far as the lie of blacks being exterminated by whites, the truth is that blacks commit murder at eleven times the rate of whites alone.

So if black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would protest what is far and away the primary killers of young black males in America, which is other young black males.

But they don’t. So they don’t.

Now it is absolutely true that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, and yet are only 13% of the national US population. That means blacks are twice as likely as whites to be shot by police. Surely that is evidence of racial targeting on the part of racist officers.

But it’s not; in fact it is just the opposite. Let’s take New York, for example: 23% of New Yorkers are black, but they commit 75% of the shootings. Whites make up 33% of the population of New York City. They commit about 3% of the shootings.

So what does that actually mean? It means that if blacks commit 75% of the shootings, and whites commit 3%, then cops are twenty-five times more likely to be looking for a black shooter than a white one.

In neighboring Brooklyn are two communities: predominately black Brownsville, and predominately white and Asian Bay Ridge. The shooting rate in Brownsville is not 25 times that of Bay Ridge. It is 81 times higher.

So what does this mean for BLM’s Big Lie: that white cops are assassinating black males?

The number of policemen killed in the line of duty has more than doubled in 2016. Over the last ten years, a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black assailant than an unarmed black being killed by a cop.

Oh, we have a national epidemic, all right. When it comes to who actually gets killed in confrontations between blacks and police, 18 times as many cops are killed by blacks than unarmed blacks are killed by police.

So why does the President invite the leaders of Black Lives Matters to the White House for support and encouragement? Why does the Attorney General, only a few days after a BLM-inspired murderer assassinated five policemen in Dallas, say to the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement that they “should not be discouraged” by the fact that there were dead policemen in Dallas, and that the Justice Department would continue to work with them in order to build “a brighter future.”


Well first, BLM is handy as Street Muscle; a private army of thugs they can send to disrupt Republican conventions and especially Donald Trump rallies. Leaked emails reveal that the Ford foundation, George Soros and a few other shady characters are raising $130 million dollars for the BLM cause. Even at the going rate for professional protestors, $130 million is far more money than they could spend on street protests. So why are they raising that kind of money? Because Big Players know the value of fear when it comes to getting their way.

You see, Black Lives Matter is really a get-out-the-vote machine that the Democrats cannot win without. They need a huge majority of black voters, and a huge number of them too, in order to win national elections. Blacks came out for Obama. They are not so keen on Hillary, but if the President and the Attorney General tell black America that they are being murdered by white policemen – despite the fact they know the numbers we just went over — then it’s in the vital interest of Democrats to gin up and keep up a perpetual race war in order to motivate the slaves on their vote plantation.

The BLM movement provides a moral fig leaf for the real message, which is this: keep the Democrats in power, and the entitlement bribes of Obama phones and EBT cards and all the rest are going to keep on coming. Throw the Democrats out – all of America’s black-on-black killing fields have been governed exclusively by Democrats for half a century or more – and the riots we see in Ferguson and Milwaukee and all the rest will be coming soon to a city near you.

By claiming victimhood these professional protesters are calling for reducing the police presence in black communities. And that means more black people – many hardworking, law-abiding and completely innocent black people — will die at the hands of other black people.

The Democrats not only don’t care about all of this – they actually need to keep these fires burning down black neighborhoods in black cities so that soulless, shameless mediocrities like Barack Obama can go golfing in the Hamptons with his rich white friends, and Hillary Clinton can make $100 million dollars selling political influence for cash.

It’s blackmail. And it’s going to get bigger. And it’s going to keep coming.