Connect with us

Opinions

Twitter suspensions will continue until every conservative is silenced, unless…

Published

on

Twitter suspensions will continue until every conservative is silenced unless

Twitter is targeting conservatives. Some would argue they always have, but things have changed in the past couple of weeks that should infuriate anyone who believes men are not women, migrant caravans are not harmless, or free speech should be allowable even on social media.

The pretense of being politically unbiased has been dropped based on Twitter’s actions. If you ask their press office, they’d never admit to it, but following a string of high-profile conservative suspensions and bannings, it’s clear they’re in the process of a purge.

Combat veteran Jesse Kelly, who hosts a radio show and is a regular contributor on The Federalist, was permanently banned from Twitter yesterday. At this point, nobody, including Kelly, seems to know why.

Once or twice and it could be a coincidence. But Laura Loomer, Michael KnowlesCandace Owens, Bruce Carroll, James Woods, Gavin McInnes, and other prominent conservative voices have been temporarily suspended or completely banned recently. Tucker Carlson and Fox News have stopped using the platform after Twitter refused to take down Tweets listing Carlson’s home address. Glenn Reynolds, better known as Instapundit, deleted his Twitter account in protest.

These recent actions have many conservatives concerned.

“Twitter started by banning people on the fringes, and now it seems they’re starting to move in and target conservatives who are closer to the mainstream like Jesse Kelly,” said Kassy Dillon, a writer at DailyWire. “It’s a shame. Twitter needs to be more clear about what rules people are violating.”

This isn’t the first time the site has been accused of quashing conservative voices. Earlier this year, reports of “shadow banning” emerged. Conservatives were allegedly targeted by the platform. Twitter denied it, but reports continued to come in of strange results on Twitter searches and reduced exposure for known conservatives.

With the rash of actual bans and suspensions, there’s no way for Twitter to hide it this time. It’s right in front of us. So how should conservatives respond?

“Twitter, clearly, is not a platform for free speech,” said Chris Pandolfo from Conservative Review. “So what are conservatives prepared to do about it other than… complain on Twitter? I don’t know the answer to that question and the bannings will continue until someone on the right can answer it.”

Is there an answer? Do conservative switch platforms? Do we abandon social media? Do we throttle down our opinions? Nothing seems immediately viable on the surface when faced with a platform many rely on that seems bent on stifling us.

There aren’t many alternatives with the same sized audience. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Reddit are the only domestic social platforms with comparable reach. If a user’s goal is to share ideological messages and communicate to the masses, isolated alternatives like gab.ai won’t help. They’re simply echo chambers, which is possibly what Twitter is trying to become on greater scale.

Hateful conduct policy

At the heart of this issue is the recently updated Hateful Conduct Policy. In it are some obvious reasons for censorship such as calls for violence against an individual or group. But one of the additions that has many scratching their head is “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

It means you can’t call a transgender woman a man even if biologically speaking they are.

It means you can’t call Caitlyn Jenner by her male birth name, Bruce.

It means you can get banned for asking why a transgender woman isn’t a man, as Meghan Murphy learned last week.

Murphy is not a conservative. She’s a progressive feminist. But even she was suspended for declaring that men aren’t women and asking questions about transgenderism. That tells us something very important. It isn’t necessarily conservative accounts that are being targeted, though they’re obviously more on Twitter’s radar. It’s conservative ideas that are the target.

This means the situation is actually worse than we thought. If conservative philosophies are Twitter’s focus, then it isn’t about not offending other users. It’s really more about offending social justice warriors such as the ones on Twitter’s leadership and censorship teams.

Bethany S. Mandel, who also writes for The Federalist with Kelly, sees the company culture at Twitter as a driving force behind the purge.

“This is the result of the left wing bubble Twitter staff operate in,” she said. “They whine and complain about Trump’s supposed war on the press, but have no qualms silencing speech they simply disagree with.”

To many, this seems like a free speech issue, but as Mandel points out, the Constitution doesn’t protect us from the whims of a private company. It’s their platform. They don’t have to be fair.

“We don’t have a 1st Amendment right to Twitter, but a lot of us give them an awful lot of free content,” she said. “The value add has been disappearing for some time. It’s time for conservatives to start considering alternatives platforms.”

It started on the fringe but has spread to the middle

Incremental change is what can kill conservatism on Twitter. They started by hitting the fringe elements attributed to the right, such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Now they’re moving towards the middle. How will they get there? By adding to the list of suspension-worthy offenses.

Knowles was suspended over a joke which was actually pretty common on Twitter. He told Democrats to get ready for election day on Wednesday, November 7. This was very clearly a joke and even some on the left told a variation of “alerting” Republicans to get their voting shoes on for Wednesday. Even if we put aside the idiocy Twitter assumes in people by thinking they could miss the election over a Tweet, we can’t dismiss the fact that he was kidding.

We’ve already seen what happens when questions are asked about transgenderism. What’s next?

Will climate change skeptics be deemed a threat in the future? Yes.

Could it be deemed offensive on Twitter to refer to illegal immigrants as anything other than the acceptable term, “Undocumented immigrants?” That one may happen sooner rather than later.

What about anti-vaxxers? Flat-earthers? Moon landing skeptics? Could these pseudo-scientific views be labeled dangerous just as Knowles’ joke was? Yes, and while some conservatives won’t grimace about these conspiratorial concepts being purged from Twitter, we should be. Just because a particular fight isn’t one we share doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on their right to express their opinions.

The left is demonstrably hypocritical. Conservatives need to take the higher road.

Can we save Twitter? Should we?

To me, the answer to both questions is “yes.” I’m not ready to give up on one of the most widely used communication and broadcasting tools available. That would be a victory for Twitter and for leftists. If Twitter used their platform’s Infinity Gauntlet to suspend half the conservatives on their platform, they wouldn’t shed a tear. They would be one step closer to the indoctrinating echo chamber they really want to be.

I’ve head several ideas about how to fix it. Some are calling for government regulations. Call me jaded, but I’d rather keep DC out of this battle.

Others have suggest finding an alternative. None exist right now, at least not anywhere near the scale of Twitter. It would take a large investment for someone to build a free-speech social network that could grow quickly and achieve half the reach of Twitter, and it’s hard to imagine such an investment would be fiscally prudent.

If I were leading the Twitter revolt, I would coordinate a campaign that highlights Twitter’s hypocrisy, doubles down on sharing our conservative philosophies, and fights the urge to play the left’s ban-game.

Step-by-step, it would look like this:

  1. Call out as many hate-filled leftist Tweets as possible. When leftist darlings like Louis Farrakhan, Michael Avenatti, or Eric Swalwell post things that would get a conservative banned, we need to share these Tweets with an attached hashtag, something like #NotBanned. We need to point out as many instances as possible, but we cannot report them to Twitter. More on that shortly.
  2. Share conservative ideas like never before. They want to silence us. That means we need o get louder. Some will get banned. Heck, all of us might get banned. But now is not the time to back down. Tweet more. Share more conservative articles and videos. Get loud and help other conservatives get loud. Retweet like crazy. If they ban us, they ban us. To quote Twitter darling Hillary Clinton, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”
  3. Fight the urge to play the ban-game. We don’t want conservatives banned, but we should also not want leftists banned. Don’t give Twitter examples of them being “fair.” Don’t give leftists reasons to call us hypocrites. I’ll be pointing out all suspensions and bans that I see regardless of ideology because our goal is to have a platform that adheres to lawful protections of free speech. Twitter doesn’t have to abide. It’s their platform. They could ban anyone who likes soccer more than football if they wanted to (not that many would). But if we can point a mirror their way to let them see their own hypocrisy, maybe they’ll have a reason to stand down. It’s a long shot, but it allows us to take the high road regardless of their choice.

The purge has started. Now’s not the time to back down. It’s their platform and they don’t want us on it, but that doesn’t mean we should roll over and put our eggs in a different basket. There’s a way to fight this if we stay true to our beliefs.

Here are some of the best Tweets following Kelly’s ban:

 

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Why ‘Unpopular The Movie’ is so unpopular: It calls out false Christianity

Published

on

Why Unpopular The Movie is so unpopular It calls out false Christianity

YouTube is rife with faith-based teachings and movies that garner millions of views for inaccurate and often heretical teachings. That’s what’s most popular on social media today. Believers in the Bible have a hard enough time combating false religions and atheism. It’s even more challenging going against the poor teachings that are flooding western society, particularly on the internet.

The Bible never said it would be easy, especially in the end times.

One movie I came across by the grace of God (thank you, Twitter user Doreen Virtue) offered some of the most compelling 25-minutes of truth I’ve heard recently. Coincidentally, it came to my feed three days after I posted an article about a teaching by Pastor Paul Washer, who happens to be teaching in Unpopular The Movie as well.

We have before us a society that is bent on making Christianity as open-minded and all-inclusive as possible. It seems to our human understanding that this would make sense, but only because our human understanding is so far below the understanding of our Creator. He knows best. This is why Christianity is the only religion that goes against our natural sense of pride by declaring nothing in us is capable of helping us achieve salvation. We are dead. Our lives are only saved by the sacrifice of He who created us.

The notion of inclusion is a lazy way of not having to do as we’re commanded, to spread the Gospel message. It’s why the notion that Allah and God are the same is sinful, a topic we also recently covered as told by Naeem Fazal. There have certainly been a lot of coincidences lately.

Only through continuous repentance and ongoing belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior can we accept the undeserved gift of salvation. If you believe in a wide gate and a broad way, it’s time to watch this movie.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

NZ Hate Preachers

Published

on

NZ Hate Preachers

Having worked with Kiwis for many, many years, and having followed events in En Zed for the last three decades, I was just as shocked and horrified as anyone about the horrific massacre of Muslims at Friday prayers at their mosques in Christchurch on March 15, 2019.

You can see my three contemporaneous articles here:

My immediate reaction was that this was an extreme anomaly. I had followed reports for years about New Zealanders traveling to the Middle East to participate in Islamic jihad. I was also aware that authorities had been concerned that terrorist groups were setting up shop and recruiting from within New Zealand.

At that time, I recollected a very detailed article from some years ago documenting this situation even as I watched Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern don the hijab, join the Islamic call to prayer and declare that her entire country stood in solidarity with the followers of Islam.

Since then the so-called Christchurch Call has been issued seeking world governments to impose censorship of anyone who speaks candidly and objectively about the threat of terrorism in the name of Islam. We here in the United States are fortunate that President Trump has seen through the thinly veiled imposition of censorship and refused to let our country be seduced.

You can read the entire article entitled “Preachers of Hate” by Ian Wishart. The online archive indicates a date of January 1, 1970, but the actual publication date was March 30, 2007. The article can also be read in the Australian Edition here.

After the Christchurch attack two months ago, the point I remembered most distinctly 12 years after first reading this article was that American Imam Siraj Wahhaj was one of the foreign Islamic Preachers of Hate who had visited New Zealand in years past and who had helped influence Muslims living in that South Pacific country.

His son of the same name has been tied to suspected terrorist training compounds in New Mexico and Alabama recently which were allegedly training potential school shooters. Whether the elder Imam Siraj Wahhaj is acknowledged as a mentor or not, his political philosophy most definitely represents that of new U.S. Congresswomen Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

Following is the excerpt from the NZ Investigate Magazine article of March 30, 2007. FIANZ is the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand.

SIRAJ WAHHAJ

Another Muslim scholar brought out to New Zealand in 2001 – just months before 9/11, was American convert Siraj Wahhaj, invited here by FIANZ. Wahhaj was once hailed as a “moderate” in the US, and became the first American Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the US Congress, in 1991, as a recognition of his “moderate” views. But like Bilal Philips before him, Siraj Wahhaj was leading a double life: teacher’s pet moderate Muslim on the outside for the benefit of politicians and the media, die-hard radical extremist on the inside. Wikipedia records that Wahhaj was named by the US Department of Justice as another of several “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments” including the World Trade Centre in 1993.

As Salon magazine reported on September 26, 2001, Wahhaj had a close relationship with an Islamic terrorist, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdul Rahman, inviting him to speak at Wahhaj’s Brooklyn mosque and even testifying as a character witness for Rahman in court.

Wahhaj, who like Philips slipped into New Zealand without opposition by the SIS, police or border security, is also quoted in Salon as calling the original Gulf War 1 – against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait – “one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history”, and “part of a larger plan, to destroy the greatest challenge to the Western world, and that’s Islam.”

Comparing the fall of Soviet Russia to the current crisis in the West, Wahhaj warned America too will be crushed unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda”.

Journalist Daniel Pipes, in The Danger Within, details a 1992 address Wahhaj gave to an audience of New Jersey Muslims.

“If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. ‘If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own Emir [leader] and give allegiance to him…Take my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us’.”

So that was Siraj Wahhaj’s agenda just a year after reading the opening prayer in the same US parliament he was hoping to overthrow, and he is welcomed as an esteemed speaker by moderate Muslims in New Zealand.

The website MilitantIslamMonitor.org has compiled its own research on Wahhaj.

“There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend”

“Wahhaj extolled the joys of martyrdom in this Jihad website entry, ‘No one who dies and goes to Paradise is going to want to come back to this world, except a Martyr, a person who gave their life for Islam, for Allah, they will want to come back to the earth and die ten more times in the way of Allah, because of the great gifts Allah has given them in Paradise’

“Wahhaj often writes and speaks on the subject of martyrdom in Islam. Some of his works are entitled: ‘Are you ready to die?’ ‘The blessing of Death’ ‘The easy way to Paradise – how to get there’.

“In addition to martyrdom Wahhaj is a proponent of polygamy and has produced many tapes on the subject.”

While the latter topic might fit Labour Party policy in New Zealand, it is doubtful Wahhaj’s commitment to military jihad would.

For his part, Wahhaj has told American media they’ve misunderstood him, that “Islam is a religion of peace”, and that he really is a moderate.

We here at NOQ Report highly recommend that authorities both in the United States and in New Zealand revisit these allegations that were documented a dozen years ago. Right now our friends in Aotearoa are understandably still in shock.

But we need to prevent anyone, particularly Wellington and other national capitals, from taking what happened in Christchurch out of context. It is also our urgent mission to ensure that warnings of a potential counterattack by a geographically-dispersed ISIS or other Islamic terrorist group in retribution are not censored.

To PM Ardern, I would say, take a deep breath and step back from the erroneous presumptions you have made in the aftermath of Christchurch. The seeds of discontent have already been sewn and the roots of an Islamic Insurgency already exist in your country’s soil.

Call in your intelligence community and consult with your counterparts in the United States and other allied countries. Back off from the Christchurch Call and all attempts to impose censorship.

If you were paying attention to what happened in Sri Lanka, if you are watching what is happening in Nigeria, if you focus your gaze beyond your own island nation, you will realize that Muslims are not always victims as they were at Christchurch.

Don’t let one horrific and unforgivable atrocity distort your view of reality and warp your perspective on what you must do in the future to keep Kiwis of every religion and ethnicity safe from harm.

I would enjoin our American government to move beyond some of our own political squabbles and consider how those who pose a threat to our own domestic security may also have their tentacles around our good friends in New Zealand and other close allies.

Agencies investigating the terror compounds in New Mexico and Alabama might want to put somebody on a plane or at least have a video conference with your counterparts in New Zealand. What were Siraj Wahhaj and other Islamic Preachers of Hate doing and with whom were they doing it as documented in the article from 2007?

We at NOQ Report will continue to do our utmost to put together pieces of the puzzle as they become available from open sources. Stay tuned for further developments.

SIRAJ WAHHAJ

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Healthcare

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Published

on

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

There are four tactics favored by many mainstream media outlets, including the NY Times, that help them fulfill their two primary goals. Let’s start with their goals since they’re blatant: get more eyeballs for their paid subscription model and help Democrats win elections.

How do they do this? They have standard journalistic strategies that work for them well because they’ve been around for so long. They have access to people, manpower to cover stories, and resources to acquire assets necessary to make their stories popular. Those are the positive strategies they use, strategies that every news outlet strives to benefit from to various degrees. But they also use four tactics that help them with their secondary goal of pushing the left’s agenda:

  1. Shock headlines. While they rarely go as far as smaller outlets or tabloids, they are masters among the “big boys” at generating headlines to make their points.
  2. Credible experts with an agenda. One can argue that this is a technique all good outlets use to push their various agendas, but nobody is as adept at it as the New York Times. For example, if they’re pushing global warming, they get the best activists with science studies degrees to push the narrative.
  3. Manipulative statistics. Again, this is a common tactic, but the NY Times has mastered it. They have stat-finders on staff who comb the various studies of the world to find data that supports their premise. If that sounds natural, let’s not forget the idea should be the other way around. They should use statistics to form their premise.
  4. Begging the question. Contrary to the popular use of the phrase, it actually refers to a logical fallacy in which a premise becomes the basis of evidence for the premise. Similar to circular reasoning, it assumes a disputed notion to be factually correct.

In one editorial they published yesterday, they used the four tactics all at once. The title of the story is, “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”

I won’t link to it.

The article itself is an exercise in begging the question. For the statement in the headline to be remotely true, one has to assume that the preborn baby that’s aborted is not a life. If it were a life, then the statement would be (and in fact, is) ludicrous.

Of course, it obviously makes excellent use of the first tactic, the shock headline. I rarely read anything from their news outlet anymore, but it got me to click through and read it. When I did, I realized exactly what they were doing. First, they used the second tactic, a credible expert with an agenda, to not only help with the article but to actually write it. In this case, the expert is Dr. Warren M. Hern. His expertise is being a physician and epidemiologist who specializes in late-abortion “services.”

Dr. Hern proceeds to use the third tactic, manipulative statistics, to make his point that abortions are less likely to kill the mother than pregnancy or childbirth. Is it true? Absolutely. I learned this myself when my wife nearly died as our fifth child was lost in a miscarriage. Both pregnancy and childbirth are risks to mothers, much more so than abortions.

Nobody can dispute this fact. But the way this fact and others are framed, such as a statistic showing African-American women were more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than Caucasian women, were intended to be terrifying to mothers and to support his claim that pregnancy kills the mother at a higher rate than abortion.

But again, his entire argument relies on the notion that the child in the womb is not actually a life.

We are faced with a society in which a large percentage feel the same way. They have to in order to maintain their own self-perception of not doing harm to another human. Otherwise, abortion becomes murder. The only way it can’t be seen as murder is if the baby inside the mother isn’t seen as life.

This is why it’s so very important we start looking at abortion in America as more than just a political or even religious issue. It’s a cultural issue, one in which we are failing to deliver the right message. Most people can be made to appreciate the value of the life within the womb if they’re allowed to look beyond the politics. They are getting bombarded with the same two messages. Pro-abortion activists say they’re defending women’s rights. Pro-life activists say they’re defending the baby’s rights. Both arguments can have merit based on how a person perceives the baby in the womb. If it’s seen as a life, it’s hard to say that life has no right to live. If it’s seen as a parasite, clump of cells, or “potential” human, then the rights of the mother prevail.

Articles like this one in the NY Times are meant to change the way culture perceives abortion. We must fight back by continuing to push reality, that a baby in the womb is a life. We have the truth on our side. It’s time to use it.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending