#but supporting genocide is my hard line in the sand

[reallycoolsoup]

yeah the dems suck ass but if that guy wins we don't GET to vote third party next time

I feel like you misunderstood my post

I was basically saying I want the democrats to actually move left, to appeal to there voter base, and to stop funding a genocide

And I really don't think me voting third party will make Kamala lose, if she loses it's cause she failed, she could easily win the Michigan vote by saying she's going to stop arming Israel, should could easily win the younger vote by not funding the police so they can beat down protestors, she could easily win a large voter base if she campaigned on universal healthcare, she could easily win the latin Americans voter base by not being so fascist about the border

None of those things are in my control, my control extends to the ballot box right now, and if this is "the most important election of our lifetime" like the last 4-5 then they should actually give people something to vote for

Not just vote against Republican

[violentlypeaceful]

I just really do not understand the Democrats who are on the right side of every single human rights issue EXCEPT Palestine. They talk themselves in circles:

1: We should focus on Issues here at home since we're living under facism!

Ok, so we shouldn't support Ukraine then either, right? Or USAID? Those are issues far beyond our shores, yet we understand how our stance on those effects us and the world.

2: Palestine is full of terrorists, it's hard to defend them!

Sorry, you fell for propaganda. Just because you aren't wearing a red hat doesn't mean you never fall for any propaganda ever.

3: Well you guys are just single issue voters who cost us the election!

As much as I would love to say that what is happening in Palestine was a line in the sand for voters, the numbers prove differently. Even if every single 3rd party vote went to Harris, she still wouldn't have won. Also, there is plenty of fishy things regarding this election to even say she would have won had this issue not even been a thing. Also, a good chunk of Pro-Palestine voters went with Harris! We very much understood that she would be easier to push to do right, but you can't deny that Biden had over a YEAR to make me stop seeing blown up babies on my screen and he didn't, maybe hold your party accountable (the party who still is doing jack to actually stop facism) and stop blaming us people who actually want freedom and justice FOR ALL.

Seriously. I'm being asked to push genocide under the rug, and for what? I can still support every single Democrat stance and fight for what is right in a war our government is funding, I'm sorry if you guys can't.

I can also safely say that I am aligning with the Democrats currently purely because they are Trump's opposition. As soon as this is all over (knock on wood this administration has an end) I'm leaving the Democrat party until they can start following the morals they claim to have.

[missmayhemvr]

Here's a question to the vote blue people, can you find me a candidate to vote for or advocate for, any state, county, city, position what ever that fits these 2 conditions? Just two it shouldn't be that hard, they are just ultimate red lines. If they can't meet these two I truly see no point in voting for them.

The two conditions are they must be against the genocide of Palestinians and they must be against cop city and the raising of police funds which are then used to militarize the police. Their voting records have to be consistent on this.

I won't tell people they should vote for genocide at home or abroad. I won't vote for people that will hand cops money for fucking bear cats. Simple, and yet you'll find about 10 in the whole nation. And you think your time is better spent berating the victims of the violence of police brutality and the victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide, than tearing this system out by the roots at all cost. That my liberal reader is why you are ultimately doomed on any political goal or issue you not only care about today but will ever care about.

You have more grace and forgiveness for a literal segregationist than the people who were directly harmed by the bills and retortic exposed by him.

You think you'll be allowed to hold a line in the sand after you vote for someone doing a genocide? For someone that responded to the blm uprisings with, "I fully support cop city"? Don't think yourself better than your cousins that will vote Trump this year. I hope both them fall down a long flight of stairs together.

[not-that-debonair]

for a long time ao3 ran their donation drive and people donated or didn't, but in the past 4 or so years the rise of a lot of different parts of fandom (ex. cancel culture, antis vs anti-antis, pearl-clutching 'save the children' couched in liberal ideology) has brought the drive into the limelight every time it comes around because of ao3's terms of service. ao3 is designed to be an archive, moderated but not necessarily actively managed in the same way a dynamic community website is, and from the beginning the point of the "lax" policies was to remove the ability of anyone to draw lines in the sand that might snowball into another purity crusade the original founders experienced in other online communities. if you say "no one can post [x]", even with the best intentions, the worry is that it sets a precedent for a group of people to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. so ao3 decided unless it's breaking the law, it stays. that isn't to say this policy doesn't have huge effects in terms of what does get posted onto ao3, ex. blatantly racist fic, fic involving minors in sexual settings, fic involving incest, etc, but the policy stands not so much to protect that fic, but to protect the idea that no one person or group of people get to play god, so to speak, and arbitrarily decide what fiction is acceptable and what isn't. a lot of people don't like that, and see ao3's refusal to take that fic down or ban that fic altogether as approving of or supporting those ideas. ao3 has also come under fire for not having a hard-block function within the website and in many people's eyes not doing more to allow users to remove contact with fic and authors that might be triggering or abusive, and for unfortunately recently announcing their work on a block function right around the time a tag-breaking fic was garnering attention, leading people to believe they were only implementing a block function due to complaints about the fic rather than the requests users of color had been making for years. there is also a sense that ao3 has ignored the requests and complaints of users of color to remove authors and fic that are blatantly racist, and instead given them non-answers or merely directed them to log a report if they believed the fic or author was violating the terms of service. but again, this stems from the "lax" policies that ao3 was designed to stand behind. and with the pandemic still going on as well as the racial unrest that's come to a head in the last year (i should specify this is in america), a website that's already controversial regarding many topics but including racism managing to garner so much money in a short amount of time put a sour taste in people's mouths when there are other places the money could have gone to, and in their minds deserved to go to more than ao3. even people who support ao3 voice complaints every donation drive that the excess money past their goal isn't redistributed to other charities (or to a charity to begin with. most people don't realize ao3 is a project of the organization for transformative works (otw), which is itself a charity, and that's who's actually running the donation drive). in my personal opinion the concerns and issues pointed out are valid, but lay too much blame at the feet of ao3 and ask it to do something it wasn't designed or created to do. racism in fandom is a major problem, but being able to remove racist fic doesn't solve the problem, it merely alleviates a symptom. same with the claimed "child pornography" aka fic involving minor in sexual settings (which, to my mind, conflates the real issue of sexualizing minors with legal child pornography). and as for the guilt trip of saying people are disgusting for donating to the drive, most of the donations to ao3 during the drive are about the price of a movie ticket; even if you average out the donation total to the number of donators it's $29. i don't see people calling for the genocide of a group for deciding to rent a movie or buy a piece of art, but donating to ao3 instead of a struggling marginalized

creator is apparently enough to warrant your death. i'd probably get dragged through the streets and called a privileged white racist cunt for supporting ao3, but i don't think it or the otw (which by the way, has won landmark cases regarding u.s. copyright law and fair use and allowed transformative media aka fanart, fanfic, fanvids, etc, to exist the way it currently does without constant threat of legal action, and retains a legal team who represent (for free!) creators that find themselves facing legal action over transformative media) is responsible to single-handedly fix the wrongs of a deeply corrupted society that allows these wrongs to exist. tl;dr - ao3 has a policy that doesn't judge fic, which makes people think they support things like racism and child porn, because it has that reputation people want the money to go to marginalized creators or charities, and with the pandemic making people hard up for money they really want that to happen and judge people who support ao3 as also supporting racism and child porn and cancelled as well

Well that’s certainly a lot to think about... I don’t think I’m going to share anymore of my opinions on the matter since evidently there is a lot more going on than I thought and I don’t want to risk making and ill informed statement.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain it to me, I really appreciate it, this helped a lot.

[ingek73]

01-22-2112:00 PM

‘Time is running out’: Prince Harry calls for social media reform after U.S. Capitol riot

In a Q&A with Fast Company, The Duke of Sussex responds to social media’s role in the Capitol attack and explains why the next step must be to hold social platforms accountable.

[Photo: Samir Hussein/WireImage/Getty Images]

BY KATHARINE SCHWAB

LONG READ

Over the past year, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have become increasingly outspoken advocates for healthier social media—a topic that is clearly near to their hearts, given the horrendous vitriol and harassment they have faced online and in the press.

By partnering with organizations that aim to understand technology’s impact on society and vocally critiquing the state of online life in the media, the couple are using their clout to push for change in the current digital ecosystem. In an essay for Fast Company last August, Prince Harry called on business leaders to rethink their role in funding the advertising system that underlies the misinformation and divisive rhetoric that’s often shared on social platforms.

“This remodeling must include industry leaders from all areas drawing a line in the sand against unacceptable online practices as well as being active participants in the process of establishing new standards for our online world,” he wrote.

Now, social media is facing an inflection point, just weeks after a violent mob stormed the Capitol in an attack that was conceived, plotted, and stoked primarily online. Powerful platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube responded by suspending Donald Trump’s accounts, while Amazon and Apple cut ties with Parler, a social network that was used by the rioters. But experts and regulators believe that more must be done to reform social media.

Against this background, Prince Harry is once again imploring people to pay attention to the problems social media have wrought. In a wide-ranging interview with Fast Company, he explains why social platforms must be held accountable for the Capitol attack and the circumstances that enabled it, and why we must remodel the digital world before it’s too late.

FC: Six months ago, you wrote an essay for Fast Company in which you asked companies to take action to ensure the meaningful reform of our “unchecked and divisive attention economy.” How has your perspective on social media’s role in society changed over the last few weeks since the attack on the U.S. Capitol?

Prince Harry: When I wrote that piece, I was sharing my view that dominant online platforms have contributed to and stoked the conditions for a crisis of hate, a crisis of health, and a crisis of truth.

And I stand by that, along with millions of others who see and feel what this era has done at every level—we are losing loved ones to conspiracy theories, losing a sense of self because of the barrage of mistruths, and at the largest scale, losing our democracies.

The magnitude of this cannot be overstated, as noted even by the defectors who helped build these platforms. It takes courage to stand up, cite where things have gone wrong, and offer proposals and solutions. The need for that is greater than ever before. So I’m encouraged by and grateful for the groundswell of people who work—or have worked—inside these very platforms choosing to speak up against hate, violence, division, and confusion.

FC: Why is this topic so important to you? How was your outlook affected by the well-documented online harassment you and your wife have faced in the U.K.?

PH: I was really surprised to witness how my story had been told one way, my wife’s story had been told one way, and then our union sparked something that made the telling of that story very different.

That false narrative became the mothership for all of the harassment you’re referring to. It wouldn’t have even begun had our story just been told truthfully.

WE ARE LOSING LOVED ONES TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES, LOSING A SENSE OF SELF BECAUSE OF THE BARRAGE OF MISTRUTHS, AND AT THE LARGEST SCALE, LOSING OUR DEMOCRACIES.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

But the important thing about what we experienced is that it led to us hearing from so many others around the world. We’ve thought a lot about those in much more vulnerable positions than us, and how much of a need there is for real empathy and support.

To their own degree, everyone has been deeply affected by the current consequences of the digital space. It could be as individual as seeing a loved one go down the path of radicalisation or as collective as seeing the science behind the climate crisis denied.

We are all vulnerable to it, which is why I don’t see it as a tech issue, or a political issue—it’s a humanitarian issue.

From an early age, the guiding principle in my life has been about the duty to truth, the pursuit of compassion, and the alleviation of suffering. My life has always been about trying to do my part to help those who need it most, and right now, we need this change—because it touches nearly every single thing we do or are exposed to.

FC: Where do we go from here? What do you think needs to change to create an online atmosphere where truth, equity, and free speech are all prioritized?

PH: I ask the same thing every day and lean on the experts to help give guidance on how to reform the state of our digital world—how we make it better for our kids, of course, but also for ourselves—now.

The avalanche of misinformation we are all inundated with is bending reality and has created this distorted filter that affects our ability to think clearly or even understand the world around us.

What happens online does not stay online—it spreads everywhere, like wildfire: into our homes and workplaces, into the streets, into our minds. The question really becomes about what to do when news and information sharing is no longer a decent, truthful exchange, but rather an exchange of weaponry.

WHAT HAPPENS ONLINE DOES NOT STAY ONLINE—IT SPREADS EVERYWHERE, LIKE WILDFIRE: INTO OUR HOMES AND WORKPLACES, INTO THE STREETS, INTO OUR MINDS.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

The answer I’ve heard from experts in this space is that the common denominator starts with accountability. There has to be accountability to collective wellbeing, not just financial incentive. It’s hard for me to understand how the platforms themselves can eagerly take profit but shun responsibility.

There also has to be common, shared accountability. We can call for digital reform and debate how that happens and what it looks like, but it’s also on each of us to take a more critical eye to our own relationship with technology and media. To start, it doesn’t have to be that complicated. Consider setting limits on the time you spend on social media, stop yourself from endlessly scrolling, fact-check the source and research the information you see, and commit to taking a more compassionate approach and tone when you post or comment. These might seem like little things, but they add up.

Finally, there’s a responsibility to compassion that we each own. Humans crave connection, social bonds, and a sense of belonging. When we don’t have those, we end up fractured, and in the digital age that can unfortunately be a catalyst for finding connection in mass extremism movements or radicalisation. We need to take better care of each other, especially in these times of isolation and vulnerability.

FC: Since the Capitol riot, big tech companies from Twitter to Amazon have exercised their power by making determinations about who gets to use their products. Do you think companies should have the power to make decisions about who has access to some of the most prominent platforms on the internet?

PH: We have seen time and again what happens when the real-world cost of misinformation is disregarded. There is no way to downplay this. There was a literal attack on democracy in the United States, organised on social media, which is an issue of violent extremism. It is widely acknowledged that social media played a role in the genocide in Myanmar and was used as a vehicle to incite violence against the Rohingya people, which is a human rights issue. And in Brazil, social media provided a conduit for misinformation which ultimately brought destruction to the Amazon, which is an environmental and global health issue.

In a way, taking a predominately hands-off approach to problems for so long is itself an exercise in power.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about Speakers’ Corner, an area in London’s Hyde Park which is home to open-air debate, dialogue, and the exchange of information and ideas. I used to go past it all the time.

This concept of a ‘public square’ isn’t anything new—it can be traced back to the early days of democracies. You get up there and speak your piece. There are ground rules. You can’t incite violence, you can’t obscure who you are, and you can’t pay to monopolise or own the space itself. Ideas are considered or shot down; opinions are formed. At its best, movements are born, lies are laid bare, and attempts to stoke violence are rejected in the moment. At its worst, intolerance, groupthink, hate, and persecution are amplified. And at times, it forces lines to be drawn and rules or laws to emerge or be challenged.

I THINK IT’S A FALSE CHOICE TO SAY YOU HAVE TO PICK BETWEEN FREE SPEECH OR A MORE COMPASSIONATE AND TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL WORLD.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

I’m not saying we should abandon technology in favour of Speakers’ Corner. Rather, it’s that we should avoid buying into the idea that social media is the ultimate modern-day public square and that any attempt to ask platforms to be accountable to the landscape they’ve created is an attack or restriction of speech. I think it’s a false choice to say you have to pick between free speech or a more compassionate and trustworthy digital world. They are not mutually exclusive.

With these companies, in this model, we have a very small number of incredibly powerful and consolidated gatekeepers who have deployed hidden algorithms to pick the content billions see every day, and curate the information—or misinformation—everyone consumes. This radically alters how and why we inform opinions. It alters how we speak and what we decide to speak about. It alters how we think and how we react.

Ultimately, it has allowed for completely different versions of reality, with opposing sets of truth, to exist simultaneously. In this, one’s understanding of truth does not have to be based in fact, because there’s always an ability to furnish some form of “proof” to reinforce that version of “truth.” I believe this is the opposite of what we should want from our collective online community. The current model sorts and separates rather than bringing us together; it drowns out or even eliminates healthy dialogue and reasonable debate; it strips away the mutual respect we should have for each other as citizens of the same world.

FC: How do you plan to use your platform to push for change when it comes to hate speech, algorithmic amplification, and misinformation in 2021? Since you’re not a trained expert on these topics, why do you think people should listen to your perspective?

PH: I know enough to know that I certainly don’t know everything, especially when it comes to tech—but when you see this as a humanitarian issue, then you see the spread of misinformation as requiring a humanitarian response.

This is why my wife and I spent much of 2020 consulting the experts and learning directly from academics, advocates, and policymakers. We’ve also been listening with empathy to people who have stories to share—including people who have been deeply affected by misinformation and those who grew up as digital natives.

What we hope to do is continue to be a spotlight for their perspectives, and focus on harnessing their experience and energy to accelerate the pace of change in the digital world.

FC: Your Archewell Foundation has collaborated with several groups and institutions that aim to rethink technology and study its impact on people. As a philanthropist, why are you supporting research efforts within this space?

PH: If we’ve learned anything, it’s that our dominant technologies were built to grow and grow and grow, without serious consideration for the ripple effect of that growth. We have to do more than simply reconsider this model. The stakes are too high, and time is running out.

WE HAVE TO DO MORE THAN SIMPLY RECONSIDER THIS MODEL. THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH, AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

There are a lot of incredible people and digital architects thinking about—or already working on—innovative and healthy platforms. We need to support them, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it can make commercial sense. And we have to look at the state of competition and ensure that the landscape doesn’t indiscriminately squeeze out or incentivise against fresh ideas.

I believe we can begin to make our digital world healthier, more compassionate, more inclusive, and trustworthy.

And it’s time to move from rethinking to remodelling.

FC: Given your concerns about divisiveness, misinformation, and hate speech online, how have your views on using social media yourself changed over the last few years? How do you approach it now and are you planning to make any changes?

PH: It’s funny you should ask because ironically, we woke up one morning a couple of weeks ago to hear that a Rupert Murdoch newspaper said we were evidently quitting social media. That was ‘news’ to us, bearing in mind we have no social media to quit, nor have we for the past 10 months.

The truth is, despite its well-documented ills, social media can offer a means of connecting and community, which are vital to us as human beings. We need to hear each other’s stories and be able to share our own. That’s part of the beauty of life. And don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting that a reform of the digital space will create a world that’s all rainbows and sunshine, because that’s not realistic, and that, too, isn’t life.

There can be disagreement, conversation, opposing points of view—as there should be, but never to the extent that violence is created, truth is mystified, and lives are jeopardised.

We will revisit social media when it feels right for us—perhaps when we see more meaningful commitments to change or reform—but right now we’ve thrown much of our energy into learning about this space and how we can help.

FC: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about our ability to build a healthier online ecosystem?

PH: Optimistic, of course, because I believe in us, as human beings, and that we are wired to be compassionate and honest and good. Aspects of the digital space have unfortunately manipulated (or even highlighted) our weaknesses and brought out the worst in some.

We have to believe in optimism because that’s the world and the humanity I want for my son, and all of us.

We look forward to being part of the human experience—not a human experiment.

[lawfulgoodness]

This is going to sound angery, but I want you to know that I genuinely like your blog [it's helped me as a Christian and been very inspiring] and you [I mean I don't know you but you seem lovely]. How can you compare Trump supporters to Nazis when Antifa set a university on fire to prevent a gay Jew from speaking? When within a week of Trumps election a guy was pulled from his truck and beaten for being "One of those white boys who voted Trump!" [he didn't even have a Trump bumper sticker].

Hey anon -

I’ve tried to figure out which one of your messages to reply to, because I’m only going to go this far off-topic for you once. I’m also going to do it under a cut, so my followers that prefer to avoid political discourse can.

 In all honesty, I have no idea where you’re coming from, because I have never once compared Trump supporters to Nazis.  Not once.  Never.  Don’t believe me?  Here’s every instance of the word “Trump” on my blog.  

In case you missed it, I’ve only posted one thing about him since the election, and that was the Christmas song “Oi to the World,” a diversity-celebrating punk song meant to encourage folks that might be feeling threatened by the recent rise in xenophobia.  Am I a fan of Trump?  Not by a long shot.  Do I call all Trump supporters Nazi?  Hell no.  Because that would make most of my family Nazis, and I’m aware that they aren’t.  They attempted to pick the lesser of two evils, and while I vehemently disagree with the option they picked, I am perfectly capable of still loving and respecting them as individuals who care about me and care about the state of our country.

You know who I called Nazis?  Nazis.  Antisemitic fascists who openly state “I don’t want a society based on equality“  or that promote so-called “peaceful ethnic cleansing” or that publish articles asking “Is Black Genocide Right?”

And I get it, I do.  You’re on tumblr, and you see this mob-mentality that’s ready to tar & feather anyone that questions HRC’s policies or fitness for the office of president.  You see everyone drawing lines in the sand and phrasing everything as “us” vs. “them,” as though we have to either align ourselves with violent rioters or the hate-filled professional troll & pedophilia apologist they were protesting.  

But I’m not going to do it.  I’m not going to buy into this system that says everyone who voted for Trump is a racist homophobe that wants to leave Syrian refugees to die.  I’m not going to buy into the assertion that anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton is a libtard sheeple that hates free speech brainwashed by the lamestream media.  I’m going to work hard with my local charity to ensure refugees find a place to call home.  I’m going to engage my local senator to reassess his recent rubber-stamping of every proposal the White House sends out; I’m also going to challenge the people around me to be more respectful and engage in a meaningful way with him, rather than just screaming partisan slogans.  And I’m going to do whatever I can to ensure the local and national government is held accountable for ensuring “liberty and justice for all.”

If you want to talk, (and I mean actually talk instead of anonymously dumping your socio-political existential angst in my askbox), please do so.  I have friends and mutuals here on tumblr that I can talk about my faith & my political leanings with; people that challenge me and that, hopefully, I challenge to be better.  You’re welcome to send me an ask or a tumblr message that I can reply to without having to fill my blog with this much off-topic political discourse.  But I’m also not buying into a system that attempts to validate people spewing their political positions into the void of the internet when their followers are really just here for alignment charts and d&d related reactions gifs.

Also, fuck Nazis.

[hahobemorekaiba]

“Not this time”

I know people that voted for Donald Trump.

I know people that didn’t too.

And what offends me most is when people decide to ask “Why are you taking this so personally?” like it’s not my business and my duty as a human being to turn a blind eye.

It’s because it is fucking personal.

It goes back 2 generations, to my Grandfather, which is where my very un-British surname originates from.

You want to know why it’s personal? I’ll tell you.

Because people are refusing to open their eyes wide enough to see this is a repetition of history, and not just history but recent history in which the survivors still live today.

Trump supporters claiming this is not like WWII, not at all mirroring Nazism, are too blind to realise that this is how it starts, how it begins. 

Hitler didn’t just appear out of thin air. He didn’t just take over Germany like a whirlwind. It took 12 years from the moment he took power, longer if you count the years beforehand. And he did not fire a single bullet or drop a single pellet of Zyklon B into the Auschwitz gas chambers.

No, instead those he’d managed to convince his ideas were the correct ones, the angry, the confused, those felt hard done by and those indoctrinated in his world, did his bidding.

You think Auschwitz just existed? Don’t be so fucking stupid. Auschwitz only became what it was after it seemed the idea of exterminating the Jews was entirely possible.

It didn’t begin with Auschwitz.

It began with a broken Germany, its citizens angry and confused in the aftermath of WWI, and a man with words.

That’s all it took… words

And someone to listen and interpret them.

It began with words until the most angry took action, justified in their own minds by the belief of ‘making our nation great again’ and ‘keeping out the undesirable to keep us safe’

Sound familiar?

Only then it was Jews, and now it’s Muslims.

Jewish people forced to flee were rejected safe passage to countries like the US, they died at Auschwitz. Anne Frank was one of those Jews rejected a Visa, she died at Bergen Belsen.

And me? Why am I angry? Because it began with an angry nation wanting simple answers to complicated questions. It’s easier not to search for the complex reasons behind why the world is the way it is, instead it’s easier to blame someone, the easiest target. Can you see it yet? I can.

And this is very personal.

My Grandfather was 14 years old when he first used a rifle. He was sent to a refugee camp in the war before returning to his home city only to be thrown out when the Nazis came.

His town was emptied of the residents most of which were sent to Auschwitz. But he joined the resistance, the partisan fighters of Yugoslavia and he fought. Saw horrific things and never dare speak about it out of fear and pain. He was targeted because he was in the Nazis eyes a “Slav”. therefore eastern European was uncultured, and unworthy of life.

He came here as a refugee to England, he was accepted. America wouldn’t take him. His other option was Germany, for obvious reasons he refused that branch and came here instead.

50 years later Yugoslavia broke out into civil war.

In Bosnia, the region he was from, thousands of Muslims were massacred in the second genocide to hit the country in less than half a century. Although he was not there, and was stateless, this is part of my own history.

Europe did nothing to help these people escape as a result, thousands of Muslim men and boys were murdered by “christians” and women were put into “Rape camps”.

This is part of my background.

My Grandfather fought in the resistance against fascism and hatred so I wouldn’t have to.

But it seems that, although I will not yet state that he failed, that I may have to continue what he started.

If I have to be the resistance too, then so be it.

The difference is between then and now, is that then people did nothing until it was too late.

Now, we are standing up before it escalates.

I will not bury my head in the sand as thousands of children in desperate need are turned away back to the country they are running from, nor will I stand by whilst an entire religion is targeted as being the problem, when Donald Trump is the problem at the heart of what is becoming a very toxic America.

In Europe we have seen what words of hate can lead to. We have seen the line between patriotism and nationalism stepped over.

And we with roots in Bosnia have seen what hate towards Muslims can lead too.

This is personal.

Martin Niemoller’s famous speech “First they came for…” has never been more relevant. 

And I will not be a bystander.

I will march until my legs cave in and scream until my lungs are shot.

We are the resistance that rose before the war began.

We are a rebellion.

And I Rebel.

[republicstandard]

Republic Standard Banned From Twitter: See You on Gab and Freebird

These are curious times to hold conservative opinions. Around the same time that Donald Trump, Theresa May, and Emmanuel Macron took it upon themselves to mete out punitive justice to the Syrian people for a crime the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has yet to verify, Twitter launched another attack on us, the free speech press. This time, they're getting personal.

Overnight, both the Twitter accounts of Republic Standard and myself personally were suspended. No rationale is provided. Moreover, all of the accounts that are operated by other administrators of Republic Standard- unrelated to the magazine, have also been suspended.

Once again for the cheap seats; unrelated business accounts operated by people who merely have access to the Republic Standard account have been suspended for the crime of associating with a magazine that publishes uncomfortable truths.

The point of interest is that while I have expected to be booted from the platform for being a horrible edgelord, the Republic Standard account only published the articles from this site and adverts for our merchandise. This can only mean that this is a targeted and ideologically motivated attack against the alternative press by Twitter, either unilaterally or at the behest of a co-ordinated campaign by hard left activists. Suffice to say; we will not be silenced by social media companies pushing a neo-Marxist and pro-war agenda.

You can find Republic Standard on Gab, and all our articles are mirrored on our sister site, the Freebird Forum which also curates our comment sections that you find at the bottom of the page. It feels a little ironic that on our sites we have one all-encompassing commitment; to uphold and defend the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is our line in the sand- beyond political ideology, beyond our personal opinions is the commitment to upholding freedom of speech; for everybody.

As a Briton, I know the consequences of allowing the state to define what kinds of speech are permissible. I have to return to my homeland soon, to make arrangements for my wedding- and we will see what happens when I arrive. Is that paranoia? Hopefully. Who can say what will happen in a day or a week?

A month ago, Martin Sellner of Generation Identity and the YouTuber Brittney Pettibone were prevented from entering the United Kingdom. Pettibone was due to interview the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson. With no crime having been committed, the British state detained both Sellner and Pettibone and then deported them back to Austria.

Two weeks ago, Tommy Robinson was permanently banned from Twitter, for so-called hateful conduct. Robinson gave the speech Sellner had been due to give at Speaker's Corner, to a crowd of thousands. You can follow Tommy Robinson on Gab.

Last night Martin Sellner discovered he has been banned permanently from the United Kingdom, for the crime of leading a "right-wing organization."

Unfortunately, @Martin_Sellner once again has been taken into custody by border police. The Government have decided to abandon freedom of speech. Regardless, the conference will still be happening tomorrow and we won't let this halt our momentum. #FreeSpeech pic.twitter.com/pyAFhcEXq8

— Generation Identity (@GeneratIdentity) April 13, 2018

Today, we all face a future which has taken a turn for the totalitarian. The governments of the free West are bombing Syria with impunity, for crimes that have not been proven.

In 2003 I was one of the millions who marched against the criminal wars of the Tony Blair and George Bush in London. It feels little different today; that our governments are falling into lock-step towards a war which is almost certainly illegal. We have received unverified reports from serving members of the United States military that the Marines, Rangers and Air Force have received deployment orders to the region, as "the largest US Strike Force since Iraq" takes shape. Unlike in 2003, there has been no need for a dossier, dodgy or otherwise, to convince three nuclear powers to attack Syria. All we have been told is that it is "likely" that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in a rebel-held town that his army had surrounded and was about to conquer.

In case you missed it: In response to media queries, the Spokesperson for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) confirms that the #OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team is on its way to #Syria and will start its work as of Saturday 14 April 2018. pic.twitter.com/IZUIpg2DsZ

— OPCW (@OPCW) April 12, 2018

Without OPCW verification, we will now never know the truth. All we will be told is that our cause is just. Trump good. Assad bad! In his earlier address, President Trump had said:

"We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."

US Secretary of Defence Mattis claims that "right now, this is a one-time shot," but let us be real. There is no reason for this scale of deployment unless the West is going in hard. "We" are going in without a UN mandate, again; to effect futile regime change, again; to condemn Christians to genocide, again. And for what? Is it a coincidence that these strikes took place shortly after the solemnity of the Shabbat Mevorchim prayers, guaranteeing a prime-time Israeli television audience?

That is just the speculation of some online delinquents who cannot be trusted to behave in the authorized manner on mainstream social media- don't quote me on it. Just by making the suggestion that this is the beginning of a war at the behest of the Knesset, we would have broken many unwritten terms of service; and probably British laws, too. I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and former BNP leader Nick Griffin; this war is a mistake that we will live to regret; this war is illegal, and this war is immoral. It was wrong when John McCain funded radical Islamic terrorists and called them moderates in 2013, and it is immoral today when Trump, May, and Macron unilaterally attack a nation based only on guesswork and allegations.

The war is not just one of clear war crimes against the much-troubled Syrians, but one against reality itself waged by the combined powers of Silicon Valley, the mainstream media and our own governments. It is the product of an agenda that is beyond politics. I have written before the fight for the future of the West itself taking place right now- and I believe I have, unfortunately, been proven right. Dispel any doubt in your mind that there is a war being prosecuted against you.

I wrote a little while ago about the price of truth; and it is still not for sale. In terms of the Twitter ban, I cannot say that we are surprised- perhaps only in that Republic Standard has managed to become so notorious in four short months since its inception that Twitter felt we had to be expunged from the site.

If you are reading this, you are part of a struggle that will be remembered in history; if we are victorious. If we lose, no-one will even know we tried. We will continue to defend and uphold the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, across as much internet real-estate as it is possible to occupy.

All of us at Republic Standard thank you for your continued support. We are citizens from many countries, just like you. Just like you we want to live in peace, and with freedom. Join us, and let the truth be known.

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech- but it doesn't come cheap! Will you make a small donation towards our running costs? You can make a difference by clicking here.

Follow us on Gab! Republic Standard

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the Evil Empire.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2HmmiJV via IFTTT