NYT: An Outbreak Spreads Fear: Of Measles, of Ultra-Orthodox Jews, of Anti-Semitism

From the New York Times:

A measles outbreak in a New York suburb has sickened scores of people and stoked long-smoldering tensions between the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community and the secular world at large.

SPRING VALLEY, N.Y. — Erica Wingate was working at a clothing store in town this week when a male customer, with the black hat and sidelocks typically worn by ultra-Orthodox Jews, started coughing.

Another shopper standing next to him suddenly dropped the item she had been holding and clutched her child. “She was buying something, and she just threw it down,” Ms. Wingate recalled. “She said, ‘Let’s go, let’s go! Jews don’t have shots!’”

A measles outbreak in this suburban New York county has sickened scores of people and alarmed public health experts who fear it may be a harbinger of the growing influence of the anti-vaccine movement. But it has also intensified long-smoldering tensions between the rapidly expanding and insular ultra-Orthodox Jewish community and secular society.

The authorities here in Rockland County have traced the spread of measles to ultra-Orthodox families whose children have not been vaccinated.

And so some residents say they now wipe public bus seats and cross the street when they see ultra-Orthodox Jews. Hasidic leaders said they feared not only a rise in anti-Semitism but an invasion of their cloistered community by the authorities under the guise of public health.

On Tuesday, county officials took the extraordinary step of announcing a state of emergency, barring unvaccinated children under 18 from public places, including restaurants, shopping centers, houses of worship and schools.

“They did it to themselves,” Ms. Wingate said, referring to the Hasidic people who have refused to vaccinate. “But I feel terrible for everyone.”

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on NYT: An Outbreak Spreads Fear: Of Measles, of Ultra-Orthodox Jews, of Anti-Semitism

#204 3-27-19 Facebook Bans White Nationalism

Transcript of part of Wednesday’s discussion:

Kyle: Kevin, first I have a question for you, you talked about how I was obsessed with the idea of these dissident right people who were threatening me. Then Luke mentioned to you something very obvious to anyone in this space- [that these threats are being made]
KMG: You’re like one of these celebrities who carries on about the haters – I got death threats, so that means my position is right and no-one is allowed to be against it!
Kyle: Wrong!
KMG: You always argue from the particular to the general.
Kyle: You implied that that wasn’t the case, that that wasn’t the case in this space, so you were wrong, right?
KMG: I don’t care about the crazy people in the chat. I’m talking about the people who are speaking.
Kyle: The people who told me to polish my passport? Matt talked about how I should be ready to leave the country, I think Brundle has made allusions to it though I don’t know whether he said it very specifically, but yes, people in the hangout, and there have been people in the hangout before who were much more ‘fringe’ than the people here right now.
Brundlefly: The thing is Kyle, you’re mixing it up in nationalist circles, ok, and by its very nature nationalism is going to look at you as an outsider, a man with three passports, or two at least, I don’t even know if you are a citizen of the united states yet, but you have stealth declared that you have two foreign passports. So, like, it is very irritating for you to lecture actual American nationals about what it means to be an American, it is beyond the pale, frankly.
Kyle: I am an American citizen, that is one of my [two] passports.
Brundlefly: You’re not an American national.
Brundlefly: Ruston, there is no question that our people were weak in response to the pressure applied by the outgroup. I don’t think weak Christian leaders, in a vacuum, are deciding, you know what, we no longer want to be Christian. It’s that you have Atheist Jews, anti-Christian Jews, pushing to do these things, and there were Christians who gave in. No question, we have a problem, this is the thing. Counter-Semetism or whatever you want to call it, telling Jews to shove it up their ass when they push anti-Christianity and things that are bad for us, is what has been missing, it’s what we used to have. The ability to identify the Jew as a Jew, as being separate from the Christian. This was my point which I originally made to Kyle. When we are defined, Jew vs White or Jew vs Gentile or Jew vs Christian, however you want to cut it up, when the Jew is distinguished, it is not good for the Jew.
Kyle: The process whereby Christians became left-wing predated atheism, predated prominent Jewry, Christians were turning left well before that was even an issue, like the Quakers, like the Puritans, they were turning left, there was this energy behind left wing policies that actually initiated when you had basically Christian nations, so no I don’t think it is about the Jews.
Kevin: So there’s no agency, there’s never any agency is there Kyle?
Kyle: I am precisely saying that there IS agency, you continually twist my words to mean exactly the opposite of what I said, I am saying there is agency, Jews did not rob them of their agency, Jews were not in charge of what happened, it was the Christians who were in charge, the Christians had agency, they decided to move the way that they moved and they have responsibility.
Brundlefly: Something I want to make clear to Kyle that he might not be aware of, is I do have a Jewish wife, so you may put me in the box of some neo-Nazi who wants to do terrible things to all Jews, and it’s just not the case. What I’m primarily concerned with is stopping Jewish malfeasance, because I think as Luke and Kevin and everybody knows, the Jews, and I guess Ruston with the rear-guard action wants to deny, but Jews have had a terrible influence on our culture through Cultural Marxism attacking Christianity, promoting feminism, homosexual rights, and so forth… Mass immigration, and it’s like, these are the things for which I resent Jewish influence. If they were like, a benign actor as an elite, who would care? I mean, the Anglo-Saxons, I guess, we talked about this last week, or earlier this week, the Norman yoke.. Who cares from the peasant perspective if the elites are good to them?
And this is why I say, like, what exactly is the value proposition that Jews offer? They offer nothing but degeneracy. They offer nothing but hostility against the host population. They want to atomize us, they want to destroy our traditions, they want to cause our daughters to miscegenate with Africans, OK? If you don’t act right, something is going to happen. And I know you can like sit there with your ‘whip hand’ and your big smile, and I am telling you, for my sake, for my son’s sake, for my wife’s sake, your sake, you need to be quiet. You need to sit back and reflect on your Jewish triumphalism, because it’s really gonna have a ton of negative consequences for you and your people.
Melchy: I’m gonna moderate what Brundle said, just to dial it down a bit because that’s my role here. Kyle, you talked a minute ago about American Christians sort of liberalizing over those, 18th, 19th, 20th centuries and that’s sort of true, we did all that. Like, we did that, among ourselves, because we had a coast-to-coast Christian nation and we decided to experiment with freedom and inter-Christian trust. And it was into that scene, onto that stage, that people like Adorno showed up, looked around, and thought well here’s a subvertible people. And that thing, that is fraud, like that is a lie, and this is all I want. I don’t want Jews expelled, I don’t want whatever Brundle just said, I just want them to be seen in clear, real terms. You’re the one always talking about reality, Kyle. I just, people don’t know! They don’t know the reality. And it’s not, you’re using the term, not schizophrenic, but insane in the chat, it’s not schizophrenic to want people to know what’s actually going on. People don’t know this stuff, people don’t know this. I mean, that’s what’s so sort of enthralling about this scene to me. I just can’t believe it, I can’t believe the stuff I have learned in the past 5 years. And I am telling you, most Christians out there, the liberal ones, the liberal ones especially, met some kid in 7th grade who seemed real cool, cuz he was an atheist. That’s what he told them, I’m an atheist, and he’s gonna smoke with them and stuff. And guess what, it’s not that he was an atheist, he was a Jew. That happens over and over again, and that level of subversion, that ‘passing’ that you can do that you don’t get to see what the Jewish person is, you don’t get to see it – like, this is a huge advantage. It’s a huge advantage. And the Jews know this, and they play on it and take advantage of it. And it’s fraud. It’s un-truth.
Kyle: So, I just want to say, Melchy, your view of coast-to-coast Christian unity is patently absurd. What you had were Christian groups that were radically different in the South vs Puritans and Quakers in the North, who had radically different views on where the country should go, that erupted into violence a lot of the time… I often allude to this advertisement that was placed by the Puritan colonizers in England, sort of telling you what the sort of people they wanted were, and it was a picture of a native american squaw with the caption ‘save us.’ So, differences among Christians go back very very far, and this is precisely the sort of thing that I mean, there is this delusion that before the Jews came, it was all peachy, and that’s what I mean by anti semitism, it’s delusion about how the Jews influenced things. And this extreme exaggeration of how everything was perfect, and then the Jews came along. That’s what I mean by anti semetism, it’s basically this cognitive distortion that makes the Jews vastly more relevant than they were, and makes the world before the Jews some sort of idyllic paradise, when it just wasn’t.
Kevin: You just agreed with what Biden said and now you’re saying the opposite! Arguing with you is like arguing with a Communist.
Kyle: Wrong, Kevin, I agreed with what Biden said, I am not shifting ground one little bit, I say that Jews are disproportionately influential, and they don’t make up the dominating force in the United States. 11% of Senators, 1/3rd of Nobel Prize winners, very disproportionate, but they don’t make up a dominating force in the United States. A disproportionate influence, but not a dominating force that is has its boot on the neck of American gentiles.
Kevin: Can you imagine some other group in the United States or in Britain saying, we have decided that the phrase Cultural Marxism cannot be used? Can you imagine anyone else having the gall to do this and what’s more amazing, it appears to be working?
Kyle: I mean, sure, people can have the gall all the time to talk about how various phrases are slurs, you have a lot groups in the US talk about how various phrases are slurs, rather prominently actually, fairly marginalized groups actually can say ‘this word is a slur you can’t use it’ and actually have that work, so yes that can happen. I don’t like that process, I like freedom of speech, but that does happen and it’s not at all isolated to the Jews, and this is another example of basically cognitive distortion when it comes to Jews, viewing them as unique in a way that they never are. And it’s conflation of complete Jewish dominance, with disproportionate Jewish influence. This is the cognitive distortion that I am talking about, this is precisely the sort of stuff that puts people on the fringe, and damages the right because it makes it conflated with people who seem very dangerous to Jews, and rightly seem very dangerous to Jews.
Kevin: You are not a rightist, Kyle, you are a libertarian, and libertarianism is an offshoot of Manchester liberalism. You are not a rightist, you are not a conservative, I don’t see that you are in any position to speak for the right in any sense.
Salty Sage: I was gonna help with the rear-guard action, go full rear-guard action with Ruston, and Kyle, I guess, but you know… You have to look at internal causes. You’re never going to advance yourself or your people if you’re always externalizing all of your problems. Not to say that there are never external problems, but if you always say, oh it’s them, it’s not me, then you’re never going to, you’re going to stagnate. You’re just trying to develop like a magic key, like we used to talk about. And y’know, we gotta remember, our dear fed father, Rodney Martin, RIP, that’s what he would talk about, huh? OK? Boomer Kyle?
Brundlefly: I can accept a non-white member of the elite that actually cares about the people, that’s all it is. I mean, this is the problem I think with Jewish elites in Christian nations, is that the cultural hostility just cannot be mitigated.
Melchy: You know what else, Brundle, Kyle’s, like, mania to rule, is, I feel like most of us could agree, why does it have to be an octopus with its arms all the way around the earth, couldn’t we break this up into smaller sovereignties so there could be more and more local ruling? I mean, why does it have to be this international elite, which really it doesn’t feel any affinity for or association with any particular state, or people. Is that a natural phenomenon, Kyle, do you think, there can only be one and that’s why we need international rule?
Kyle: Well, no, I don’t think that there can only be one that rules them all. And I think that in the global context, Jews are even less of a dominating force than they are in the national context of the US. They are a disproportionate force but in no way a dominating force. And their interests are regularly disregarded when it comes to various foreign affairs. Russia does not really care that their policies in Syria are not perfectly in line with the national security interests of Israel. They have their own interests, and they plow forward with them, and Israel must make way before the bigger fish. That’s the reality of geopolitics, there’s always a bigger fish.
In terms of what Monsieur was saying, I am broadly sympathetic to what you might call prole resentment of elites, and I am always talking about how open borders are bad, and about how it’s terrible that you have these elites, white jewish asian elites who talk about how horrible and racist the white working class is, while themselves not immersing themselves in the diversity that the white working class faces. So I am talking about that. But there is this very specific group, which is overrepresented here, which is a group like I said probably around 50,000 strong, which is at this point responsible for on the order of 70 deaths –
Brundefly: Wow!
Kyle: And when you translate that into murder rate, it’s a lot worse than El Salvador, the country with the highest murder rate in the world. El Salvador has 83 per 100,000, and this would have the equivalent of around 120 per 100k, it’s a very violent group and it’s not representative of prole whites. To make it representative of prole whites is to insult gravely those prole whites. I absolutely believe the white working class is infinitely better than the 50,000 strong group of anti semites.

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on #204 3-27-19 Facebook Bans White Nationalism

A Delicate Aggression: Savagery and Survival in the Iowa Writers’ Workshop

Here are some excerpts from this new book:

* Engle, the son of a horse trainer who regarded teaching as another form of athletic coaching, transformed the peer criticism component of Schramm’s method into a blood sport.

* When authorship became a sustainable occupation, certain commercially successful writers found themselves isolated from the literary community. Stephen King succumbed to this truth in his emotional acceptance of the Distinguished Contribution to American Letters award from the National Book Award Foundation in 2003. King saw this lifetime achievement award as a token recognition of his decades-long dominance of the genre fiction market and an unmistakable sign that none of his works were worthy of the highly esteemed National Book Award itself, regardless of his various attempts to write literary fiction of that caliber. Authentic acceptance among the ranks of the elite literati permanently eluded him, he realized. The stigma of genre fiction writing that prevented him from joining the ranks of great American authors “was still hurtful[;] it’s infuriating and it’s demeaning,” he confessed. King has long held a grudge against the establishment occupied by figures like Martin Amis and Michael Chabon, leaving him “bitterly angry at writers who were considered ‘literary.’ ” Chabon, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, is a graduate of the prestigious creative writing MFA program at the University of California, Irvine, and Amis is the son of the literary lion Kingsley Amis, whom Time named one of the greatest British writers since 1945. King, without a degree like Chabon’s or a legacy like Amis’s, complained that these writers “seemed to have an inside track.”38 He is not mistaken that Norman Mailer and John Cheever, among others whom King revered and emulated throughout his career, all coursed through Iowa City and joined forces with the Workshop during their careers, the former in various visits and conference presentations, and the latter as a faculty member. Had he been armed with an Iowa MFA, King (the King of Shawshank Redemption and Dolores Claiborne rather than Cujo) might have been a force to be reckoned with in the literary world.

American culture has been so disinclined to canonize popular writers because it deems that commercial success should follow rather than precede artistic greatness, mainly because of the persistent myth of the starving artist. To starve for one’s vision and then attain wealth is acceptable, whereas the reverse is an execrable taboo. Most master narratives of literary history, especially those produced by the webmasters and memoirists of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, obscure the commercial concerns for promotion and publicity in order to highlight a mystified portrait of the literary artist’s creativity, a vision of authorship ironically at odds with Engle’s. But creative writing programs came of age when literature itself became show business, and Iowa was attentive to this shift. Resistance to or renunciation of that shift crippled fledgling programs such as Columbia’s, which until recently offered limited financial support for its MFA creative writing students on the smug assumption that writing was the bastion of the independently wealthy.39 Iowa, on the other hand, responded to the cultivation of consumer taste and the popularization of literature visible not only in the standard bearers of the New Yorker, Harper’s, and the Atlantic, but in increasingly sophisticated popular postwar venues such as Look and Flair.

* The coupling of literature with commercial culture received similar flack from the Workshop students in 1972 who rebelled against their director’s mandate for professional publications, a decree they said was as American as apple pie and Vietnam. But complete renunciations of commercial measures of authorial success had their own liabilities, as seen in Melville’s illustration of the idealistic young author’s role in derailing his own career. Without a market to check and balance the creative writer’s ego, the Workshop student risked falling into Melville’s trap (figured through the fictional Pierre), in which he “imagined himself as high priest charged by god to bring forth Truth.”42

Workshop students subscribing to such a conception of authorship rooted in the myth of the solitary genius passively waited to be “discovered” at their own peril…

Formal guidance on publishing would be useful, perhaps in the form of a class dedicated to it, she argued, since eventually “many excellent writers are forced to learn” how to write for a mass audience, and “probably with no detriment to their career hopes.”43 Although no such courses would ever appear on the curriculum, the workshop method served in tandem with the program’s well-connected faculty as vehicles of professionalization within the institution’s larger culture, whose privileged inner circle Spargo had clearly not circulated in. An insider like T. C. Boyle would never ask that class time be dedicated to instruction on how to publish; such information was exchanged in the social networks between rather than in classes.

Creative writing program administrators have long faced the dilemma of whether and how to train students to pursue truth at the expense of professionalism and vice-versa. Truth seeking and professionalization, as Michigan professor Irving King claimed in 1908, do not need to be mutually opposed goals. “The truth seeker,” he argued, “is really the person who chooses, definitely and habitually to abandon the careless attitude in the sphere of activity in which he is engaged.”44 Aesthetic truth, King contended, could be transformed into a deliberate undertaking rather than a “careless” one reliant on a purely intuitive process of conjuring insight. Interestingly, creative writing programs originally distinguished themselves from basic writing associated with introductory English composition courses and standardized vocational training of journalists. Both were considered too rigid and formulaic to accommodate the more wide-ranging experimentation and modes of expression of creative writing.

* Resistance to the forces that mediate writing proved quite marketable, ironically, in several notable instances throughout literary history. The increasingly commercial condition of literary publishing is the subject of a contemptuous satirical novel called The Literary Guillotine by William Wallace Whitelock. In it, editors take over control of contemporary literature. “Writers may be relatively important, but it’s the editors, in the last analysis, upon whom literature depends,” a well-reputed publisher proclaims.46 In the nineteenth century, the publishing house of Roberts Brothers expressed the same sentiment with their No Name Series, which represented a backlash against the myriad editors, publishers, and agents creating and conditioning the reception and thus the reputations of authors.47 The purpose was to separate the text from the industry and to cleanse it of any distorting filter or spin of intermediaries. The stated intention was to restore the pure, unsullied relation between author and reader, liberating literature from a reception dictated by marketing campaigns on behalf of authorial name brands. The literature, and not its promotion and meta-commentary by blurbers and publicists, they insisted, should carry the day. But such pretensions were a thinly veiled scheme by which to entice readers into guessing which of the well-known writers, such as Louisa May Alcott, recruited for the series had penned each title. Emphasis inevitably gravitated directly toward authorial identity as the fetishized literary commodity.

* It thus came as a shock to her instructor Paul Engle when the bespectacled, nunlike O’Connor regaled the room with the erotic encounter of Hazel Motes, later to become Wise Blood’s protagonist, and the oversized African-American prostitute, Leora Watts. Engle promptly called his star pupil into his office for a one-on-one conference, where she immediately froze.3 The private confines of his car, he suggested, might provide a more comfortable setting for her to speak openly about her sexual experiences.

Engle and his protégée, the strongest of the first generation of writers to enter the Workshop in the 1940s, walked in awkward silence down the hall, crossing the parking lot flanking the Quonset huts that housed the program. It was with trepidation that O’Connor climbed onto the wide bench seat of Engle’s car for an intimate discussion with her mentor about what constituted an effective sex scene. “There, I explained to her that sexual seduction didn’t take place quite the way she had written it—I suspect from a lovely lack of knowledge,” Engle recalled. Despite his efforts to transform his car into the functional equivalent of a confessional booth, a private place for the budding writer to fully disclose her sexual experiences to him, she refused to comply.4 Her confession in this case was that there was nothing to confess. She had committed no personal sin, nor—in her humble estimation—had she committed a literary one in her fiction. Politely holding her ground, she swung the door open and stepped out of the car, bringing Engle’s tutorial in literary erotica to an abrupt end.

* But like many creative apprenticeships, O’Connor’s aesthetic development would not reach full fruition until she had figuratively killed off her mentor.

* Snodgrass’s self-possession is extraordinary in light of the Workshop’s active suppression of subjectivity. The program according to Engle derided introspective writing as a narcissistic form of talking to one’s self, or worse, an indiscreet public method of resolving psychological problems that should otherwise remain private. Many graduates from Snodgrass’s era simply stopped writing after enduring two years of the doctrine of depersonalized authorship.

* During his expensive therapy sessions his doctor ironically steered him away from questions “about those things where I could sound impressive.” His powers of poetic expression were stymied; “more often he asked me how I was planning to pay my rent.”

* Snodgrass’s greatest creative achievement came at his most vulnerable personal and professional moment. He was at the nadir of his precipitous fall from family man to divorcé, from precocious prodigy to failed writer facing the prospect of dropping out of the Workshop, given Engle’s withdrawal of financial support.

* MFA John Gilgun observed that Iowa Workshop alumni, unlike graduates of Grinnell and Columbia, remain in close contact in the manner of former students of the English public school system, except “We don’t meet in the House of Commons or in The Foreign Service; we meet in the foyers of publishing houses.”

* In an interview published in Look magazine in June 1965, Paul Engle blithely bragged that “out of the nearly 2,300 men and women who have labored in his workshops, only one ever committed suicide on the scene in Iowa City.” He claimed this was remarkable since “Beautifully balanced people do not become artists.” In portraying himself as the “bill-paying daddy to more poets than any man in the history of letters,” Engle carefully suppressed details about the deceased and their circumstances.

* Medical research “is confirming the long-held suspicion that there is a clinical link with important psychosocial implications between creativity and mental illness.” In particular, eighty percent of a sample of thirty Iowa Writers’ Workshop members studied by Nancy Andreasen “suffered from affective disorder compared to thirty percent of a matched control sample whose occupations ranged from lawyers to hospital administrators and social workers.” Shelley was not in a small minority, as Engle liked to suggest. Among the thirty Workshop members of Andreasen’s study, “Forty-three percent of writers had suffered from bipolar disorder in comparison with 10 percent of the controls.” Two of them committed suicide, totaling six percent of the sample.

* Jane Smiley: She distilled Melville’s technique of maintaining reader interest into a two-pronged strategy focused on “the inherent strangeness of whaling, and the author’s quest (expressed in his varieties of style) to exhaust the spiritual meanings

(((Luke Ford)))
meanings of obsession (or ‘monomania,’ as it was called then).” The length of the novel, she argues convincingly, is due to the time it takes to (re)train his audience. His novel “must be long,” she explains, because “it takes a while for the author to impart to the reader enough information to enable the reader to make sense of everything the author wishes to communicate,” much like Bach retraining his “listener’s ear and listener’s mind to his musical ideas.” She urges that the novel is worth the time and effort to relish “the double strangeness of Melville’s vision—the exotic locale and visionary ideas—above every other joy that novel can afford.” But in a “Note added later,” Smiley recants. She claims that despite its status according to many as “the greatest American novel . . . it clearly didn’t make enough of an impression on me” because she had “internal arguments with the author all the way through.” She wondered why she felt a duty to appreciate Moby-Dick despite not enjoying it, asking whether this was “because the concerns of the novel are extremely masculine and I really don’t care about them.” Revisiting the novel in an attempt to grasp it at a deeper level seemed out of the question. Such a rereading would be “like going out on another date with someone who was okay but not compelling the first time.”

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on A Delicate Aggression: Savagery and Survival in the Iowa Writers’ Workshop

Facebook Bans White Nationalism

Monsieur writes:


When I was 20, I came upon a very unpleasant fellow ranting and raving about the evils of the elite. And the crux of it? The vast American empire, which was carefully hidden from view with platitudes about freedom and democracy.

I dismissed him as a madman and a crank. After all, even the simplest schoolchild learned about American imperialism and the empire. Only a fool would be mindblown by that.


The effect of the modern educational system is to keep the proles in a state of perpetual ignorance. This is another step in creating a system of total information control.

For the Inner Party, nothing is forbidden. I have Camp of the Saints, the Manifesto, and other banned books. I discuss HBD, immigration, badthink ideas. The vast libraries of Western Civilization are open to me.

On the novel The Diamond Age, regarding the lifestyle of the Equity Lords:
The most important quality to achieving an “interesting life” is deemed to be a subversive attitude towards the status quo.

Anyways. In 1984, to gain admission to the Inner Party, one must read the forbidden book. As I say, there is heresy in the Cathedral. Or as someone has noted, the only people buying the Turner Diaries at his bookstore were SWPLs. Do you think the Red Duke, Jageillon, was ignorant of the true poverty of the Soviet Regime?

Of course, Orwell got a few things wrong.

The Red Duke is not policed by other szlachta. The Inner Party is not policed by the Inner Party. Recall the Outer Party. They are deprived of information and forced to live the message of Ingsoc to a fanatical extent. Would this make them cynical? No, of course not.

It makes the true believer. And what the true believer wants more than anything is to burn the heretic. It is not the Inner Party that polices the Outer Party. It is the Outer Party that polices the Inner Party. The Emperor kneels outside the Pope’s door. The Red Duke must be careful for the eye of the political commissar, these useless fellows chosen for the ideological purity.

And, of course, Orwell was wrong about the standard of living. It turns out hunger makes men revolutionary while plenty makes them fat and indolent.

Enjoy the soma, Luke. I know I do.

From the WSJ:

Facebook Inc. FB -1.08% said it would begin banning content that praises or represents white nationalism and white separatism on its Facebook and Instagram platforms next week.

Facebook has been under fire globally for failing to take sufficient
action against hate speech and misinformation on its site. Pressure on
Facebook is mounting following a live stream of the New Zealand mosque
massacre, which prompted the country’s prime minister to call for
overhauling New Zealand’s social-media laws.

The social-media giant previously only restricted users from
supporting white supremacy. The company said Wednesday that after
talks with academics and civil groups over the past three months, it
determined white nationalism and separatism can’t be separated from
white supremacy and other hate groups.

“We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white
nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader
concepts of nationalism and separatism—things like American pride and
Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity,”
the company said on its website. “It’s clear that these concepts are
deeply linked to organized hate groups and have no place on our

Facebook said Wednesday it needs to improve on finding and removing
hate from its platforms. The company also said it would start
redirecting people who search for terms associated with white
supremacy to Life After Hate, an organization that helps people leave
hate groups.

Posted in Facebook | Comments Off on Facebook Bans White Nationalism

Facebook to Ban Posts Promoting White Nationalism and White Supremacy

I wonder if other forms of nationalism will also be banned? What about black nationalism? Jewish nationalism? Japanese nationalism? Polish nationalism? Nigerian nationalism?

Will Christian supremacy, Jewish supremacy and Islamic supremacy also be banned? If you are serious about your religion, you believe it is supreme, so will all religious people be banned from expressing their faith on Facebook?

From Haaretz: Facebook Inc announced Wednesday that it will soon ban white nationalist posts from its platform, reported Vice’s Motherboard. The new policy will ban statements like, “I am a proud white nationalist” and “Immigration is tearing this country apart; white separatism is the only answer.”

Facebook’s policy director of counterterrorism told Motherboard, “We decided that the overlap between white nationalism, [white] separatism, and white supremacy is so extensive we really can’t make a meaningful distinction between them.” The ban reportedly goes into effect next week.

The announcement comes less than two weeks after Facebook was heavily criticized for its role in the Christchurch mosque attack – which was briefly live streamed on Facebook.

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Facebook to Ban Posts Promoting White Nationalism and White Supremacy