Dissenter Browser Plugin

https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/gab-dissenter-extension/releases

The evolutionary psychology of politics

The evolutionary psychology of sexual reproduction

The evolutionary psychology of pornography

The evolutionary psychology of population replacement

The nature of morality

The evolutionary psychology of feminism

The evolutionary psychology of contraceptive dating markets

Speech Censorship Record

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLm4cOOkA9NYkZ8UapwUCxECkPgL15oA/view?usp=sharing

He Who Must Not Be Named: how Censorship Accelerates Civil Conflict

So the book burning begins.

What if I told you there was an argument so persuasive, that anyone exposed to it might change their view of the world? While so transformative, that in order to maintain social order, those in authority would be obliged to question the motivation of anyone communicating it?

"It is clear, as I am sure you are aware, that UK legislators are now moving rapidly towards introducing regulatory powers to deal with those who seek to use the garb of freedom of speech to, instead, preach violent hate with the aim of damaging and undermining our society."

Again, an argument so persuasive, and socially transformative, it might even make people consider sexual deviants as human beings? Who would claim authority to delineate such radical ideas? Those whose freedom had been granted to them by free speech itself? (https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1100527483437297664)





Does the First Amendment only apply to sufficiently obedient individuals, characters who play not, accepting their pre-allotted program? Human beings detest being herded like cattle (https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1107774899232268288). Thus censorship of speech is the most efficient pathway to destabilisation. Everyone honest knows this, even the most ideologically driven utilitarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on4O4g5pQrw&t=0m15s).

"This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines."

banned from Amazon
~27 February 2019

Likewise, institutionalised censorship of language is the ultimate litmus test for national infiltration by authoritarian actors. Dissenting voices are silenced, the public is denied access to alternate ideas or opinions. "Make no mistake", there is little difference between fascism and marxism. It can scarcely be said that communism has exterminated disproportionately more of its own citizens than national socialism. Accordingly, the current censorship saga is causing a massive crisis of credibility for our institutions.

Furthermore, censorship of speech is disproportionately favoured by low GI individuals. Meaning, it is statistically more likely that sociologists including those educated in politics will unwittingly favour such censorship (vs for example, those trained in hard sciences). GI is also positively correlated with "openness" and humour.

"Free speech absolutism vs IQ"
(source)

Yet elements of the British government are actively deleting critique of their censorship agenda. Facetious tweets which a) compare the proposed digital erasure of dissenting citizen voices to that of a "communist" "police state" and b) categorise the dismissal of counter-narrative positions through ideological ad hominem as "propaganda", are buried by social media; https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1101931566387941376 (https://twitter.com/richbrucebaxter/status/1102025471720476672). It is particularly disturbing that this propaganda continues to be fed to the public now that we have direct evidence calling human beings names doesn't work; that it just radicalises them.

"bigot,racist,xenophobe,islamophobe,nazi,fascist!"

It is evident the modern propaganda machine aims to categorise dissenting opinions as "hate", without acknowledging the natural purpose of such emotion (for example, abhorrence of paedophilia or abduction of a community's high-value gamete sex). Similarly, once a totalitarian censor censors speech, they can't stop censoring, because they must forever silence any reference to the dissident. Now on Facebook, the mere mention of "Tommy Robinson" is banned, resulting in immediate suspension/termination of the user. This phenomenon is known as second order censorship, as witnessed by the USSR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN6PDbTv4Ug&t=6m0s, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93ivPbYk-cU&t=0m50s). Next on the authoritarian hit list: Anne Marie Waters. [update 4 May 2019: referencing Alex Jones/Info Wars on Facebook is now illegal.]



What is equally disturbing is that Tommy Robinson content is not even "alt-right" (according to its most broad definition; having a preference for racial preservation), and certainly not "racist" (according to its traditional definition; believing in racial superiority). He was charged for forcibly expelling (punching) 'neonazis' from the EDL, making an international billionaire's endless supply of funding for domestic terrorism (ANTIFA) unoriginal and pale in comparison. What then is the reason for its censorship? Because it is moderate and therefore attractive to the masses? Is the establishment afraid of losing power over the democracy it purports to acknowledge?

Fortunately for the wizarding world, Magic, albeit a non-additive trait based on near 100% recessive dominance (as demonstrated by the Potter, Weasley, Black, Sayre, Longbottom, and Malfoy family trees; some Squibs presumably carry two copies of the favourable allele), cannot be lost from the gene-pool by cross-breeding. Yet in real life we have no such guarantees. The vast majority of the human phenotype is based on the interaction of genetic material at different loci (epistasis; gene-gene interaction). If any such complex adaptations arose in a specific human population over 50,000 years of separation (approx 1/80000 of the evolutionary age of the organism), and if they involved interactions at ~10 or more loci, then the likelihood of them being completely recoverable after ~10 generations of indiscriminate genetic crossing between populations is negligible (bar artificial gene editing). GI is one candidate for which 50% of its effect is predicted to be non-additive (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104 / https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc5985927). Ingroup selection was presumably critical to the acceleration of this trait in Ashkenazi Jews, and it likely relies on interaction at more than one locus. Slytherin may be unpalatable to our most egalitarian affections, but it is not without reason that we tolerate viewpoint diversity. Conservatism is risk management.

Facebook 2012 mission statement ; to "make the world more open and connected, and give people the power to share")

It is an educated citizen's social responsibility to read every banned book. Free citizens never negotiate with psychological terrorists.

(This review is not to disparage censorship initiatives devoid of 'logophobia', of which some here criticised have contributed to, and for which they are respected).

The word 'ally'

The Final Moment (Short Film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv_m3oFMVks

2010: space odyssey (extracts)
https://vimeo.com/324809062
https://vimeo.com/324810065
https://vimeo.com/324812387
https://vimeo.com/324814225
https://vimeo.com/324816067
https://vimeo.com/324817915

The cult of intersectionality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1aSykVhsTo&lc=UgxZ3efQ01McfsC_3JB4AaABAg

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff charged for suggesting that 56yo intercourse with 9yo is paedophilia

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was charged for questioning whether a 56 year old's marriage to a 6 year old and sexual intercourse at age 9 might be called paedophilia. The charge was upheld by both the Austrian Supreme Court and the ECHR (25 October 2018);

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-187188"]}

The suggestion was made within a seminar titled "Basic information on Islam".

Deconstructing BBC Propaganda

"Tommy Robinson: 'You didn't expose abuse'" (BBC Newsnight - 11 Oct 2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqjpna8aLBE&lc=Ugw5Uba5tbf1NnKOPVB4AaABAg

Errors in compilation;
1. (00:08) "a villain to many but a hero to some"; the qualitative judgements reported here have been determined by his representation/labelling by MSM. It would have been productive to report conflict of interest (their role in shaping TR as a villain through terminology such as "extremist"/"far right").
2. (00:23) it would have been productive to report why he goes under the alias TR; protection of self/family against political/religious threats.
3. (00:40) selective broadcasting of disturbed TR supporters makes the BBC look biased and negatively affects their reputation with respect to neutrality.
4. (00:36) it would have been productive to report why his sentence was "later quashed" by the court of appeal; because it had over 7 systematic errors in its execution, making it "fundamentally flawed" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yjbQye5RM / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEBdSc8WLY8 [3:00]).
5. (00:37) it would have been productive to report why TR can "still go back to prison"; because two new charges have been brought forth - claims of jeopardising the Leeds trial by reporting on publicly available grooming gang demographics declared by 3 independent parties - claims which are contradicted by a discussion between the original judge Marson and the CPS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6-EygiQlA 3:58) after they watched the full livestream post jailing TR (in that it contained nothing to jeopardise the trial; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk).
6. (00:47) "these days he calls himself a journalist"; TR has worked for Rebel Media and is currently an independent journalist. He undertook journalistic training with respect to contempt of court at one of the best law firms in the country before being arrested at Leeds court for breach of peace (later "contempt of court" and then quashed by the court of appeal).
7. (1:28) selective broadcasting of unimpressed policewomen makes the BBC look biased and again negatively affects their reputation with respect to neutrality.
8. (1:52/6:50/11:24) "islamophobia" implies irrational fear so it would generally be prescribed after examining the evidence (or making a journalistic case on a broadcast) not before.
9. (5:46) "the majority of paedophiles in this country are white men" - child gang rape/paedophilia (majority "Asian"/Pakistani Muslim) is not equivalent to child rape/paedophilia (majority "white").
10. (5:46) The percentage of "Asians" (Pakistani Muslim) are lower compared to "whites", so we would expect white paedophilia to be much (1 / 1.2m Pakistani/65m total pop x 90% Muslim = 50 times) higher than such "asian" paedophilia all things being equal. One has to examine statistical over-representation of Pakistani Muslim child rape with respect to the base rate (of Pakistani Muslims in the country).
11. (5:50) "go to any Tommy Robinson rally and you would come away with the impression that child abuse is somehow linked to Islam"; a thorough reading of the Old Testament and Quran would seriously assist in the BBC's ability to objectively report on this issue. The bible primarily contains stories/narratives/accounts of events including laws as given to Moses, whereas the Quran primarily contains commands/interpretations/assertions (narration versus dictation). This lends the Quran to being taken as an instruction manual. Moreover, it repeatedly asserts this as its required interpretation (while providing a method for dealing with contradictions across surahs; abrogation - https://web.archive.org/web/20081011212809/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.106 / https://web.archive.org/web/20081019234821/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.101). The bible does not codify sexual slavery (with captives of war), yet the Quran can be interpreted to do so (https://web.archive.org/web/20081019234836/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html / https://web.archive.org/web/20081106182616/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/070.qmt.html / https://web.archive.org/web/20081020003745/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html). Muhammad had at least one child bride (taken at age 6, consummated at age 9), along with multiple wives and sexual slaves, unlike the religious founder of the Church of England (https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.028 / https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050 / https://web.archive.org/web/20081012204954/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.003).
12. (8:00) continuing to interview only critics of TR is not going to improve the BBC's reputation for misreporting about TR.
13. (8:15) "he seemed to be the go to Muslim" - this segment frames an outspoken and unapologetic cleric as exclusively representative of TR's view on Islamic following (it would have been more objective to examine the actual arguments of TR).
14. (10:40) "they are hanging their politics explicitly on an anti-muslim agenda"; this statement is subversive and should be corrected - confounding ideas with people is precisely how actual extremism (dehumanisation) develops. Where politics is involved there is only an anti-islamic agenda. (Note UKIP has multiple unrelated policies so any categorisation of their politics as being dependent on this agenda is questionable).
15. (11:05) "the platforms are been given over to the extremist ideologues" - the only way to prevent actual extremism (which is minimal in the TR movement), is to start reporting on facts neutrally. Censorship will not work as it will just go offline/underground. The solution is more not less information/speech. Similarly, there needs to be greater and more detailed criticism of culture and religion.
16. (11:35) "the people who have exposed scandals throughout the country is survivors contacting the media"; this is of course correct. Yet the "right" (including Sikhs, e.g. https://sasorg.co.uk/about) were talking about the Pakistani/Muslim grooming gangs before the MSM or establishment (first reported by MSM 2010; http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/shropshire/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8662000/8662856.stm). Their coverage was cited by MSM reporter Andrew Norfolk who conducted the first MSM investigation into the demographics of grooming gang assaults. Andrew Norfolk declared their own findings to be in accordance with "the far right's dream story" ("innocent white girls, evil dark skinned men"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7xhNYJV430 3:52), in that it is precisely what the "right" had been reporting. The "right" continue to talk about the problem far more than the MSM, thereby "exposing" the problem to public awareness. Again, it does critically depend on victims to first come forward.

"Tommy Robinson is in prison and this is why" (Channel 4 News - 7 Jun 2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUYPGNvsHXk&lc=UgyZc7uboZpn-AkEzC94AaABAg

Adam Wagner; "If Tommy Robinson was really bothered about getting justice for the victims of the crimes, then he wouldn't have attempted to derail the trial by reporting it in a prejudicial way";
1. The judge who sentenced TR hadn't seen the full live stream; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk]
2. TR was careful to use the word "alleged" whenever referencing the accused (unlike other journalists; e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU).
3. TR repeatedly asked the police and crew whether he was allowed to be reporting outside the court (off the steps). The police responded by saying "as long as you're respectful". Note the reason TR was being so careful in this regard is because he was previously charged with contempt of court (of another child gang rape trial).
4. The question TR asked of the accused "how are you feeling about the verdict? Is there any guilt?" mirrors what a prominent SkyNews reporter asked Count Dankula outside the court (implying that it classifies as respectful according to journalistic standards).
5. Compared to the time in which TR was charged with contempt of court, previous hearings being reported on involved verbal harassment of the accused by media/persons outside the court (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wOtot5z7yA). TR is one of few individuals in the UK yet required to be overtly courteous to alleged gang rapists of young girls.
6. The audience numbers were 10000 during the livestream (the only reason a quarter of a million have now watched it is because the general public have detected a discrepancy in the administration of justice in the case of TR). These audience numbers are similar to those witnessing recordings of previous hearings by independent journalists (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMWABPp7eU).
7. TR's reporting apparently occurred on the final day of the trial when "the jury are making their verdict", meaning it was assumed that the reporting would/could not influence the outcome of the trial.
8. There is evidence to suggest TR is one of only few journalists in the UK who has consistently and actively cared about the UK child gang rape victims over the decade.

Classifying TR's activities as right wing is disingenuous given that 90% of the child gang rape cases involve accused persons from an Islamic/Pakistani background/demographic (and any reasonable individual would like to know why, irrespective of their political affiliation). A large number of persons were instrumental in lifting the media ban ("blackout") on TR's imprisonment.

[note TR's contempt of 25 May 2018 court sentence was quashed by the court of appeal 1 Aug 2018 and he was released from prison. Two new charges have since been brought forward for an optioned retrial of the original case].

Alessandro Strumia's critique of social constructionist extremism

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view

UK citizen arrested for talking about child gang rape outside of court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4

(EDIT: The original link was published by Infowars affiliate REAL TNTV News, now banned. Alternate link not published by a censored media outlet; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdJaHWvLbk)

Evolutionary psychology outlawed

https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10795946/32ca205351011618pdf.pdf

Interviews;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCrQ3EU8_PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-gfO1zHp4w

Background reading;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23862/full

James Damore's critique of social constructionist extremism

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

Interviews;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

The sexual orientation of child abusers in the Roman Catholic Church

Australia's Human Rights Abuse: Governments Legalise Human Consumption (prostitution and commercial objectification)

For we are young and... tolerant.

The following complaint was made to humanrights.gov.au. Now is the time to stand up for your freedom. What Australia is being offered is the protection of dehumanisation and the institutionalisation of the government's beliefs. This is a dangerous combination which historically has been restricted to totalitarian states.

Summary:

Failure of the Australian Government to protect the rights of its citizens - overseeing the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. Prostitution Act 1979). Failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media.

Explain Violation:

The Australian Government has failed to protect the human rights of its citizens. Where other countries (e.g. Sweden) have recognised the vulnerability of its citizens to sexual exploitation and therefore banned the sexual consumption of its citizens (their purchase), Australia has done nothing while claiming it stands for Human Rights. The Australian government has acted in gross negligence. The Australian government has overseen the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. NSW Prostitution Act 1979). It has failed to provide alternate, humane solutions to identified problems facing marginalised members of its society (who have psychological and economic difficulties, often having suffered sexual abuse prior to having their bodies sold for the first time). There has also been a complete failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media. The psychological effects of tolerating the presentation of humans (including Australian citizens) as sexual objects for consumption have not been properly investigated. Until this has been completed (and the scientific data is in order), all forms of media and performance promoting the sexual objectification of human beings in Australian society must be outlawed.

Recommended Actions:

The purchase of "sexual services" (prostitution) should be banned immediately across Australia in line with internationally recognised movements towards integrated human rights protection (Sweden should be taken as a case study). Sexual objectification in the media and performance should be outlawed until complete scientific studies have been conducted as to its effects on Australian citizens (on both those dehumanised, and those experiencing such dehumanisation).

Following this, there should be an immediate move to reevaluate Australia's interpretation of Human Rights, and its primacy over civil rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should make an effort to study the Australian National Anthem (in particular the notion of being "free"), and find in it clues towards the importance of freedom over good intended regulation that does not concern human rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should also study the Australian Constitution, in particular the preamble ("The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth..."), in order to rediscover the limitations and roles of the Australian Government. They should immediately recognise that its roles do not include the enforcement of belief systems on the Australian population (regarding the nature of sexuality, religion, politics, age, disability or otherwise), else we risk establishment of a totalitarian state. With the protections of our citizens against dehumanisation, it is proposed that the desired outcome of universal respect will come of its own accord.

Follow-up communication:

... It should be evident that human rights are intrinsic: they are both absolute and eternal. They are completely independent of what a people vote for or what a legal system upholds. Some of the greatest crimes in history are committed when we do nothing. I suggest that the Australian government (and their Human Rights commission) act of its own initiative to solve the problems I (and other nations) have identified, irrespective of their current legal status...


Statistics:

7.9% of men and 19.7% of women had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 18.
The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis
Noemí Peredaa, Georgina Guilerab, Maria Fornsa, Juana Gómez-Benitob
Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 29, Issue 4, June 2009, Pages 328-338
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735809000245

33.6% of girls, 15.9% of boys had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 16. (for extreme cases: 12% of women, 4% of men). There was a consistent 30% chance of child sexual abuse for females over 40 years (1960 to 2000)
Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia
Michael P. Dunnea, David M. Purdie b, Michelle D. Cooka, Frances M. Boyle c, Jake M. Najmand
Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 141-152

28% of girls and 9% of boys. Over 90% of abusers were men, the girls experiencing mainly heterosexual advances. 24% of abusers were strangers compared with 76% known to the children.
The prevalence and nature of child sexual abuse in Australia.
Goldman, Ronald J.; Goldman, Juliette D
Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage & Family, Vol 9(2), May 1988, 94-106.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-19287-001

Which part of the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with these statistics? What commission has been established to resolve this problem?

Does the Australian Government think that their failure to protect Australian citizens against dehumanisation has not resulted in child abuse? What about all of the child abuse Australia has outsourced to the third world? What about all of the Australian Government employees who use young women and pay for their sexual objectification?

Get real. Take action. Deal with it.