All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
33:14
This Week in Stupid (24⧸06⧸2018)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 24th of June 2018.
This has been a busy week, so let's get to work.
The first issue on the list is Article 13, which has been approved by the European Union, and the BBC has described this article as disastrous.
A committee of MEPs has voted to accept major changes to European copyright law, which experts say could change the nature of the internet.
They voted to approve the controversial Article 13, which critics warned could put an end to memes, remixes, and other user-generated content.
Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they linked their news content, was also approved.
One organisation opposed to the changes called it a dark day.
The European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs voted by 15 votes to 10 to adopt Article 13 and by 13 votes to 12 to adopt Article 11.
It will now go to the wider European Parliament to vote on in July.
I'm sure I don't have to explain why this is a really bad idea to give the European Union the power to do this to Europe.
Many US newspapers are already prohibiting their content from being viewed from within the European Union.
Undoubtedly, because of this kind of nonsense, they obviously don't want to have to start paying people to link to their news articles.
And for the rest of us who like to just make memes, remixes and other user-generated content, we're pretty shit out of luck if this goes through.
Open Rights Director Jim Killock told the BBC Article 13 must go.
The EU Parliament must have another chance to remove this dreadful law.
And Article 11, Jim.
The EU Parliament's duty is to defend its citizens from unfair and unjust laws.
I don't know if I think that's true.
I think that the EU is a tyrannical organisation and I've been telling people this will become a tyrannical organisation in time.
Slowly but surely they will just continue to vote themselves increasing and ever further reaching powers that will become oppressive to the people who have to live under them and this is a prime example.
The EU Parliament isn't opposed to this kind of thing.
This is what it's for.
This is the centralization of power in the hands of the European elite.
This will include large multinational or giant conglomerate media organisations who can afford to pay to link to people's pieces and will completely demolish small independent news outlets that can't.
This creates a huge barrier to entry for any kind of citizen journalism.
The sort of journalism that is becoming increasingly more relevant in the age of social media and increasingly more relevant given the political bias of the establishment.
So this is what you can do.
I've left a link in the description to saveyourinternet.eu.
They have a tool here to help you email your MEP and email your MEP I strongly suggest you do.
Personally I wouldn't recommend using the automatically generated text, I would recommend writing your own in there and I would recommend you be polite but firm and say I am a citizen of a country that is a member of the EU and I firmly disapprove of this and as my MEP I wish you to represent these objections and to stop the passage of these bills.
And please remember that it is not just Article 13 that is the problem, it is also Article 11.
As I understand it, the second vote on these bills is on July the 6th so we only have about two weeks.
So I guess it's time for us to get to work.
But now we can also get to the fun stuff.
What I'd like to call the wokening.
The Huffington Post have got so woke that they published an article this week called Women Are Evil.
I'm not joking, I'm not making this up.
This is literally the title of this and it is actually on the Huffington Post.
And of course, it has right-wing women on it.
Evil, evil right-wing women.
The monsters are always men.
They menace from the highest positions of power.
They lurk in the shadows of our subconscious.
At this time of reckoning, thanks to movements like Me Too and Time's Up, some of our cultural monsters are being revealed.
But there is a reckoning that hasn't yet happened, and that's with women, who use their bodies and social positions as wives and mothers to mediate how we handle the monsters of our society.
Right, so it's not actually that women are evil, is what you mean.
It's that wives and mothers are evil.
These intermediaries are all too often women.
White women of privilege who are doing quite well under the patriarchy.
It's a neat trick.
Enforcing a system that affords you an amount of privilege, but also oppresses others just like you.
And it's one white women have been playing for years.
Do you hear that, white women?
They are coming for you.
You are now at the very bottom of the privilege scale along with the white men.
If you are an intersectional feminist, this is what you asked for.
It was 53% of white women after all who voted for Donald Trump, a president who has publicly admitted to assaulting women.
I guess that's the grabbing them by the pussy when they let you.
Women are in positions of power in his cabinet, and it's his daughter Ivanka who provided much of the cover for his policies during the campaign.
Her presence for many Trump supporters continues to soften his most aggressive and erratic positions.
This week, Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nelson became another female human shield for the Trump administration.
Nielsen defended Trump's zero-tolerance border enforcement policy, which led to thousands of children being separated from their parents.
A story that we will get to in due time.
A policy that has incited national outcry, and on Wednesday caused a rare backtrack by Trump to end the family separation edict.
Listen, dumbasses, Trump did not institute this state of affairs.
He is in fact the person who's ending it, at your request.
So maybe a thank you would be in order.
Wasn't it Bill Clinton that signed this in in the 90s?
And Obama and Bush carried it on just without even thinking about it.
In fact, Obama deported the most illegal immigrants of any of your presidents so far.
But when it was his tenure, crickets.
In other places too, women have been laying down their bodies and reputations to protect men from their actions.
I love the way that she writes this, as if women are literally jumping in the way of bullets and getting shot to protect the men.
Katie Royfe, Daphne Merkin, the women who signed an open letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education in support of Wanot Diaz, and so many others who quietly mediate the tone and tenor of the conversation, sending emails in support of the men who abuse power.
Well, let's be honest, these are just accusations of them abusing power, aren't they?
And often these accusations don't line up with the character of the men that they personally know and have known for decades.
And given how you, Huffington Post, believe that women are evil, it's unlikely to just be one political faction that has the evil women in it.
And if there are evil women making false accusations against men of otherwise decent character, I'm not surprised that there are going to be women who put themselves in the line and say, no, I don't think this is true.
I've known this man for a long time, he's been kind and gentle, and this just does not sound like anything that he has done, and this person isn't a credible source, blah, blah, blah.
We forget women fought against suffrage.
Those goddamn evil women oppressing themselves.
And even the good feminists of that era ignored Jim Crow and pushed for policies that hurt women of colour.
Just so you know, intersectional feminists have been speaking for years about how racist early feminism was.
For example, in her book Mothers of Massive Resistance, Elizabeth Gilseppe McGray points out that it was white women who played a key role in the crafting of white supremacist politics, using the purity of their bodies and their roles as women and mothers to justify the menace of their actions.
I tell you what, I'm completely in agreeing with you at this point, Huffington Post.
You've opened my eyes.
You've really rammed that red pill down my throat.
I completely agree.
Women just can't be trusted, Huffington Post.
They seem to be rather vindictive and racist.
You've really opened my eyes to the female menace.
I never thought the Huffington Post would answer the women question.
Quite this directly.
Looking forward to your next article on Jews and Muslims.
In fact, this seems to be just a rebrand of the Huffington Post as going full alt-right.
This menace of white women.
Oh, now it's just the white women.
I'm surprised you didn't include Republican as well in there.
But anyway, the menace of white women has yet to be reckoned with, and there's a reason why.
Criticise the hypocrisy of women they hide behind their roles as wives and mothers.
As if using one's uterus has ever conferred innocence or empathy.
Roasted.
It's a pretty mythology that we spin about women, that their positions within the patriarchy as wife and mother somehow protects them and renders them blameless, even when they perpetuate a culture of abuse or an administration that is wholly corrupt.
And this catch-22 doesn't just happen in the highest positions of power.
In 2015, a study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that women who are young, white or mothers, receive a more lenient sentence and lower bond than their male counterparts.
I can't believe the Huffington Post is now parroting MRA talking points.
I'm looking forward to them going full MGTOW.
Next week, women just cannot be trusted.
They are basically serpents with vaginas.
In her new book, Anyman, which imagines an America menaced by a female serial rapist, Amber Tamblin flips this script and suggests a way out of the tangle of systems and women and culpability and victimhood.
Or if not a way out, a flicker of lights pointing us to the end of the tunnel.
Tamblin's villain isn't a victim.
She's no slighted Eileen Waranos, no abused Casey Anthony.
She is no rehabbed wicked witch of the west or slighted evil queen from Snow White.
Instead, Maud the rapist is offered a narrative arc few women real or imagined are offered, to let their actions stand for themselves and themselves alone.
Finally, women can start taking responsibility for themselves.
And the thing is, I know that there are thousands of women watching this who are like, yes, this is what I've been arguing for the whole time.
I want women to have to take responsibility for themselves in the same way that men do, because that is how they will be equal.
What is unique to the narrative is not that a woman is capable of evil.
Women of colour, poor women, fat women, trans women, queer women, ugly women, single mothers.
They're all made into monsters by the mythologies that shore up the privilege of middle-class white women.
Oh boy, here we go.
What is unique about Tamblin's book is that in the story a woman is allowed to be evil, independent of her cultural baggages.
There is no victimhood storyline for Maude.
No, but she's a wife and a mother defense.
She's a monster, pure and simple.
By seeing the world we live in upside down, we are better able to see who we are and how we fit into these structures.
And in doing so, come to terms with both the pernicious systems that silence and abuse us all and our roles in enabling them.
Well, I have to say that has got me completely woke to the whammen problem.
There was an interesting article published today on The Times that demonstrated just how evil and controlling the white wamin are.
Ministers put curbs on trans rights.
Groups that exclude self-identifying women from female-only sites are to be protected.
So the wamin are more powerful than the trans people.
Ministers have vowed to defend women's rights to exclude transgender people from female-only spaces such as changing rooms, lavatories and swimming sessions.
In a significant victory for campaigners, the government has promised not to put the rights of those who identify as women ahead of those who are biologically female.
Once again, the biologically female white wamin are oppressing the people below them.
Its intervention comes in the wake of a series of clashes that have come to light in the years since the government floated proposals to allow adults to change their gender legally without a doctor's diagnosis.
Men identifying as women were permitted to swim at the ladies' pond on Hampstead Heath in North London, and a woman who requested a female nurse to perform her cervical smear was called in by a person with stubble and a woman with a fear of men was locked in an NHS women's psychiatric ward with a burly six-foot transgender patient.
Well, I just can't see any problem here.
I mean I thought that we all agreed that if you identify as a woman, then you are a woman.
If you decide I want some of that juicy female privilege, I want to be an evil white woman who's going to hold down other people, trans people, women of colour, all of the other various oppression groups, then why can't you?
How are the UK government going to justify this without resorting to patriarchy?
Now the government has faced down pressure from Labour and influential backbenchers to tilt the balance further in the direction of transgender rights as it prepares to announce a consultation with the Gender Recognition Act.
This is expected to coincide with the Pride in London parade on July the 7th.
A statement from the Government Equalities Office, which honestly sounds like the sort of thing that you'd expect to see in the Soviet Union, isn't it?
Not in a liberal democracy, overseen by Penny Mordaunt, the Woman and Equalities Minister, again, how is that something that exists in a liberal democracy?
Promises that advancing the rights of trans people does not have to compromise women's rights.
It said, we are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single-sex spaces.
Any gender recognition act reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, nor the exemptions under the Equality Act that allow for single and separate sex spaces.
It pledges, providers of women-only service can choose not to provide to trans individuals provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis.
That's really fucking transphobic.
The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single-sex activities.
Provider may exclude trans people from the facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.
What can I?
That's- oh my god, I can hear the howling from here.
The scream of rage from woke university students who have just picked up their copy of the Sunday Times and have read this out loud to their friends.
But what's interesting is that the UK government, presumably because they don't know shit about feminism, is actually catering to the demands of trans exclusionary radical feminists, otherwise known as TERFs.
The government statement came in response to a petition launched by Amy Desier of Man Friday, a feminist group that seeks to ridicule the notion that people should be allowed to self-identify with a particular gender.
They identify as men on Fridays by indulging in behaviours such as man-splaining, explaining something to a woman in a condescending or patronising manner, man-spreading, sitting with legs wide apart on public transport and using the men's changing rooms at shops that allow self-identification.
A group of women assured that they were welcome to swim in Hampstead Men's Pond as self-identifying men, arrived in mankind but were escorted away by the police.
Mordaunt has signalled that she is not yet persuaded that people should be allowed to select their gender without requiring formal medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, in a big shift from the language of Justine Greening, who trailed the proposals a year ago when she was Women in Equalities Minister.
As you can see, the question is not whether we are going to be ruled over by feminists, it is what kind of feminists are going to rule over us.
Stonewall, which campaigns for gay and trans rights, said, trans people are subjected to appalling levels of abuse in daily life and dehumanized by the way the current debate questions their very rights to exist.
Calm down, Stonewall, you hyperbolic bunch of children.
No one is saying that trans people don't have a right to exist.
What they're saying is they can't simply just change their gender as the wind blows to get what they want out of society.
But this is unacceptable in Britain in 2018, and it demonstrates just why the Gender Recognition Act needs urgent reform.
A government source said, an exemption clause on a case-by-case basis is a common sense solution to some of the objections raised by the government's plans to make it easier for adults to legally change their gender without a doctor's certificate.
And to their credit, this actually does make sense.
Someone who has actually gone through the effort of transitioning and has had the surgery, taken the hormones, then yes, I'm prepared to accept them as a woman.
Someone who turns up with a beard and a dress, less so, I am afraid.
I guess I'm a bigot that way.
Speaking of bigots, let's have a chat with Owen Jones and his amazing plan to destroy the European Union, as if the European Union wasn't on rickety enough foundations as it is.
Hungary is making a mockery out of EU values.
It's time to kick it out.
Kick out one of the member states, Owen.
Are you insane?
It's time for the European Union to takfir Hungary.
Hungary will no longer be known as a European country, not that it avoids, and there it is, a member state casually flouting basic democratic norms and human rights, swiftly evolving into an authoritarian regime with absolutely no meaningful consequences.
Why?
Because they don't accept refugee quotas.
Consider the latest act in Hungary's slide towards what its Prime Minister Victor Orban boasts as an illiberal democracy.
The country's parliament has not just passed a law making claims for asylum almost impossible, the very act of helping migrants and refugees has been criminalised.
Furthermore, a 25% tax has been slapped on the funding for NGOs that support immigration.
Yeah, George Soros' NGOs.
Well done.
In practice, that means having anything positive to say about immigration.
Well, it's their country, Owen.
If they want to prevent refugees coming in, and they want to make it a criminal offence to help illegal refugees into their country, they are free to do so.
In the same week, the musical Billy Elliott was cancelled in Budapest after a vicious homophobic campaign by the pro-government press, including the claim in one government-linked newspaper that it could transform Hungarian boys into homosexuals.
Yes, that's rather amusing and backwards.
And I completely agree with you, Owen, that the EU should definitely kick out Hungary, and possibly Poland, and probably a lot of the Eastern European nations who all feel the same way about homosexuality.
Did you think Eastern Europe was progressive because they used to be communist, Owen?
At the very least, Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, which demands all EU countries respect the values of the EU, should be activated with the suspension of Hungary's voting rights and other sanctions.
Yeah, it's not going to make them dig in their heels or anything, Owen.
I'm sure they're going to be completely amenable to the bullying from the EU led by far-left radicals such as yourself.
But Article 7 should be activated with the suspension of Hungary's voting rights and sanctions.
This demand has already been made by European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, which lists 12 breaches ranging from the weakening of the judiciary to restrictions on free speech.
Yeah, I don't agree with Viktor Orban on this.
Do you know what's really interesting on this, Owen?
I don't make pro-Orban videos.
I would love to, because he's pissing off all the right people, but he's not doing it in the right way.
Donald Trump isn't doing things like this.
And so I can say, yeah, Donald Trump's my guy.
Donald Trump's kicking your ass.
Donald Trump is owning you all repeatedly on a daily basis, and he's not destroying liberal democracy.
Therefore, I quite like Donald Trump.
I can't really say that about Viktor Orban, because although he is owning you on a daily basis and making you howl like a bunch of squealing baboons, he is also doing damage to the liberal nature of his country, and as you've already pointed out, proudly so.
It's why I can't really engage in Orban memes.
But Hungary, along with increasingly authoritarian Poland, is making an utter mockery of the EU's stated commitment to democracy and human rights.
Well, I mean, like, let's not point fingers about who's being democratic or undemocratic, shall we?
I mean, how many times do we have to vote on the Lisbon Treaty that you are invoking?
Of your island, or was it Denmark or the Netherlands?
A few times until you get the required results, isn't it?
I mean, I'm just saying that if we would say that the EU's relationship to democracy is flirtatious but non-committal, that would be pretty accurate.
So I don't know if the EU is actually in any position to start criticising other people for their lack of democracy, but I'm just saying that as an Englishman, I actually like the accountability of my politicians to the demos, the voters, which the EU isn't.
But in 2016, Luxembourg's foreign minister called for Hungary to be expelled from the EU because of its treatment of refugees.
And he was right.
Yes, the EU is buffed by multiple crises, from Brexit to the assumption of power from Eurosceptic Italian government, but its acceptance of its own member states succumbing to authoritarianism may prove its greatest existential threat of all.
Well, okay, let's put it this way.
Before Merkel invited the entire third world into Europe, was Hungary doing this?
No.
Oh, well, it's almost like this has been the consequence of Germany's unilateral policies that have affected the rest of Europe and the other states in Europe that are still sovereign despite the lamentations of the Eurocrats exercising this sovereign authority.
And while they do it, you can't stand it and think they need to be kicked out.
And like I said, Owen, I completely agree.
Nothing is going to hasten the collapse of the European Union faster and more effectively than the European Union booting out its own members.
And since we're on the subject of illegal immigration, let's talk about that Time magazine cover.
Donald Trump, looking down at a refugee girl who has been separated from her parents, doesn't know what her future entails, with the words, welcome to America.
This is just further proof that a fourth Reich is being erected by Furah Drumpf across America.
Oh, actually it was fake news and that never happened.
A cage, I read about a, did you say want want?
Womp wamp indeed.
The father of the tearful two-year-old Honduran migrant girl who became the face of the family separation news coverage says that his young daughter was never actually separated from her mother when caught by US border patrol.
Instead, he says his daughter and his mother are together in the US, in custody at a family residential center in Texas, otherwise known as a concentration camp.
Moreover, the mother has been deported from the US in 2013, according to a statement given by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to BuzzFeed on Thursday.
Dennis, whose other names I'm not even going to try and pronounce, told the UK Daily Mail that his wife Sandra 32 had taken their daughter Yanella Denise on a dangerous journey to the US on June the 3rd without telling him.
So, we could call this kidnapping.
They had since been in touch, he said, and learned that the two had been detained together but never separated.
So, they did nothing wrong.
Yanela Denise became an iconic symbol of oppression to the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy under which adults who cross the border illegally are prosecuted.
I see no problem with that policy at all.
As a result, children traveling with migrant adults are often taken to shelters separately until they can be reunited with their parents, a family member, or a sponsor.
How nazi-like.
Getty Images photographer John Moore took the famous photograph of Yanella Denise standing on the ground and looking up in tears while McAllen, Texas Border Patrol agent, searched her mother next to a patrol vehicle.
The image spread like a California grass fire.
Time magazine used a cutout of the little girl in its recent cover, where she was depicted confronting President Donald Trump.
Multiple news outlets using the photograph as a symbol of the pain of families being separated by US government officials.
A Facebook fundraiser that used the photograph to solicit funds to help reunite families has already raised nearly $20 million, becoming the single largest crowdfunding campaign in the history of the social media platform.
Getty images caption the photograph by indicating that mother and daughter had been sent to processing center for possible separation.
Hernandez says that his wife and daughter were never separated by Border Patrol and remained together, and that he did not support his wife Sandra's decision to leave her home and travel through the dangerous conditions to try and seek political asylum in the US.
Because she wasn't trying to seek political asylum in the US, was she?
I didn't support it.
I asked her why.
Why would she want to put our little girl through that?
But it was her decision at the end of the day.
I don't have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take her baby with her in her arms because we didn't know what could happen.
He had said that she talked about going to the United States for a better future and did not say that she had made the decision to take the 1,800 mile trip, paying a coyote, a smuggler, $6,000 to take them.
So she was an economic migrant, not a political asylum seeker, who'd kidnapped a child that she was not separated from, and Time magazine used this to portray the precise opposite.
That she was an asylum seeker fleeing violence from Mexico.
That she was separated from her child and had done nothing wrong.
This whole story is a lie.
How dare you?
How dare you?
How absolutely dare you, sir?
And of course, after this public humiliation, time was forced to issue a correction saying the girl was not carried away screaming.
The Time magazine article said this.
Moore said that the girl's mother had a weariness in her eyes as she was stopped by Border Patrol agents.
The father of three said that his years of experience did not inoculate him from feeling intense emotions as he watched agents carry away the screaming girl.
But he said he knew he had to keep photographing the scene.
And this was replaced with, Moore said that the girl's mother had a weariness in her eyes as she was stopped by Border Patrol agents.
The father of three said that his years of experience did not inoculate him from feeling intense emotions as he watched agents allowed the mother to pick up her child and loaded them both into a van, but he said he knew he had to keep photographing the scene.
And they issued the correction, the original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene.
The girl was not carried away screaming by US Border Patrol agents.
Her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.
As in, we lied to you.
A bare-faced, bold lie that we wanted to happen.
We wanted this girl to be separated because it serves our agenda.
It fills our narrative with a convenient victim.
Won't someone think of this two-year-old girl who was separated from her mother?
This viral picture.
This is our lie and we want you to believe it.
Joining me now, an exclusive interview about the backlash to the cover is Time Magazine's editor-in-chief, Edward Felsenthal.
Ed, thanks for being here.
As soon as it was revealed through an interview with the child's father, the family had not been separated, there was a really strong right-wing backlast year cover, including from the Trump administration.
Did you make a mistake by having this crying girl on the cover?
Look, I think John Moore's photo was and will remain an iconic one.
We chose the photo because this little girl became the face of this story on front pages and home pages and TV screens.
But maybe she shouldn't have been the face of this story if she wasn't separated from her mom.
Well, you know, as John just said and has said all along, none of us in the media who used the photo knew what had happened to the girl after this precise moment.
And I actually think part of the power of the image is that unknown.
This was a girl who's coming to America, has just completed one terrifying journey, and whatever its contours, whatever happens to her faces another very frightening journey as well.
But by Monday of this week, we knew that she hadn't been separated from her mom.
In fact, on Tuesday, you all issued a correction to a web story about that.
I don't believe the case.
We did make an error, which obviously I regret and hate it as make.
hate making errors anytime.
Sure.
But we made an error on a web story early in the week, not part of the cover package, in which we said that the mother had been separated, and we quickly and transparently corrected that.
We didn't know, nobody using this photo knew on Monday or Tuesday that they had not been separated.
Well, we knew according to the government they had not been separated, but by Monday, Cena reported, according to the government, they had not been separated.
Now, I understand we should be skeptical of what the government's saying when it comes to this story.
And to this day, we still don't know the status of a lot of these kids that have been separated.
It's sickening.
But I just wonder about the use of this photo and whether you all discussed whether it was the appropriate one to symbolize the family separation policy.
We discussed it as we discussed every cover.
And we felt that, I felt that this photo symbolized this moment in America.
She became the face of this debate, of this crisis, and juxtaposing her with the person whose decisions, in whose hands her fate was held, I thought was a powerful, important statement of the decisions we have to make as a country.
One objection to pushing this kind of lie is that it's massively dangerous to incentivize women to try and illegally cross the border, given how 80% of them are raped crossing into the U.S. 80%.
Almost all of the women who get across the border have been raped.
According to a stunning fusion investigation, Fusion being a far-left media outlet, 80% of women and girls crossing to the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey.
That's up from the previous estimate of 60%, according to an Amnesty International report.
So the people traffickers are getting more rapey.
In 2014, immigration authorities expect more than 70,000 unaccompanied minors to come through the United States unlawfully.
I wonder what happens to these poor fucking kids.
How many of them do you think are raped along the way?
So when a Mexican presidential candidate says that it's a human right to emigrate to the United States and encourages people to do it, where is the backlash against this just wildly irresponsible advice?
Mexican presidential candidate Andreas Manuel Lopez Obrador has called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday, declaring it a human right for all North Americans.
And soon, very soon after the victory of our movement, we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world, adding that immigrants must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.
And he declared it a human right that we will defend.
People in America, the Americas, do not have a human right to live in the United States of America.
The United States of America is completely within their rights to build a big, beautiful wall in order to keep you out.
And if they find you in their country, they are completely within their rights to prosecute you for breaking the law and deport you back to your country of origin.
There is no fucking human right to live in the United States.
And the only reason that you're saying you want to live in the United States and not in Mexico is because Mexico is a fucking shithole because of people like you.
Energetic people are leaving your country to flee to another country where they think they will have better opportunities.
These people should be fixing Mexico.
But instead, a politician in Mexico is encouraging people to just mass leave the country and go to a better one.
That's honestly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
And just to be clear, the ICE employees enforcing their own laws, at least in general, have done nothing wrong.
So it's kind of weird that a far-left activist who happens to be a professor at NYU has put together a list doxing them all.
1,500 US personnel.
Sam Levine, a far-left artist and game designer, is an adjunct professor at New York University's Tisch School of Arts.
He created a database of almost 1,600 ICE employees using their LinkedIn profiles and shared it to his 3,600 followers on Twitter Tuesday morning.
Antifar, the far-left organization labeled as domestic terrorists, which they are, picked up the database and spread it to their followers on Twitter hours later.
The database is also spread to a subgroup on Reddit that encourages spreading personal information, where they live and their contact information known as doxing of people they consider Nazis or alt-right, which according to them includes ICE and the NSA and literally everyone else.
Doxing ICE agents is good and moral, one Reddit user posted on a thread that shared the database.
The far left is a dangerous force because they generally go unpunished.
The far right are a dangerous force that are smacked down at every opportunity by sovereign power.
▲
Export Selection