Academic Papers Liberated - Open Access to Knowledge

Open Access  Knowledge Liberated Academic Papers https://sci-hub.io/ If you: 1.  find an academic article -- eg search Google Scholar; 2.  click on the 'citation' option in the article; 2.  copy the site address provided in that citation blurb; 3. copy that address link to Sci-Hub input field & select the 'key' button (on the right); ...    it should retrieve the academic paper of your choice.  Wow! Cool graphics on that site: What could be better than crows & keys?  :) Russian to English Translation from:  https://vk.com/sci_hub Alexandra Elbakyan Alexandra Elbakyan The developer, programmer, the founder and the current site Sci-Hub Sci-Hub | Open access to scientific information By eliminating barriers to the dissemination of knowledge Website: http://sci-hub.io About Sci-Hub → Official site of the project Sci-Hub "We are fighting for freedom and mass dissemination of scientific knowledge in society. The purpose of the project - the removal of all barriers to scientific knowledge. A major barrier to this stage of development of human society - is a false idea of ​​the necessity of intellectual property, which restricts the freedom of copying the scientific and educational information. We stand for the abolition of the property; Communism - an essential component of the scientific ethos (Robert K. Merton) Sci-Hub project provides free access to scientific literature. Distribution of literature on the web is artificially limited to copyright laws, designed to protect "intellectual property." Now the project Library at sci-hub.io publicly available hosts more than 48 million peer-reviewed scientific articles are available for free download." Translation from:  https://vk.com/sci_hub ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT The academic paper liberation site Sci-Hub got a mention by WikiLeaks, so I thought I'd check it out. It was hard trying to figure out what material to look for, when I'm not sure what I want or how to best formulate the queries. Eventually searched for something connected to Sweden. Boy, there's some nut jobs in Sweden, I've discovered. I'm talking some really scary ppl -- and this is in what is supposed to pass for academia. Seriously, it's enough to make your hair stand on end. The left isn't just sick, it's dangerous. \/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/ As it's frustrating not being able to occasionally access academic papers during online travels looking for more 'solid' info, this site is really cool.   P.S.   Just read the VK info re the abolition of intellectual property and I had to have a bit of a laugh at the communism quote, in light of my horrified assessment of the left of politics in Sweden. I'm still not convinced about the merits of the left, but I like access to free info.    ;) Hope this post makes sense.  I'm really, really, really sleepy & tired most of the time. Hard to focus & everything feels like it's in slooooooooooooww motion. Taking me FOREVER just to format the page etc ... it feels like HOURS to do the tiniest thing.  Freaking me out. LOL  ...  it's like being in a slow bubble.

Corrupt Butthole British Undemocratic State - Writes the Rules of Political Persecution

ꕤ Butthole BRITISH UNDEMOCRATIC STATE Writes the Rules of Political Persecution FREE ASSANGE 18 December 2015 British Home Office www.gov.UK/homeoffice https://govwaste.co.uk/ [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. re: EXTENSIVE ONGONG COST Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) covert police activity uniformed policing op at Embassy Ecuador (period sought:  19/06/ 2012 to 10/2015) FREEDOM OF INFO REQUEST PURSUANT TO Freedom of Information Act (2000) ('the Act') UNDEMOCRATIC British State ❌ NOTIFIES GOVT: WILL NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION SOUGHT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC INTEREST GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY FREEDOM OF INFO LAWS VITAL TO MAINTAINING GOVT. ACCOUNTABILITY Thus said government REFUSES to PROVIDE info requested to INDICATE if info is held ❌ Same CORRUPT government that writes the laws has absolved itself of this vital obligation INCUMBENT upon  the 'democratic' state THUS the Butthole British State has REFUSED to remain accountable & transparent to the public it purportedly serves the dodgy BUTTHOLE BRITISH STATE has absolved itself of being held accountable by virtue of passing LAWS in favour of state institutions controlled by corrupt government ALL in pursuit of maintaining STATE POWER  exercised on behalf of elite interests whom corrupt Butthole government actually serves at all times   THEREFORE CORRUPT BUTTHOLE BRITISH GOVERNMENT  is not obliged to provide the voting public (that it pretends to represent) with vital information (& thus transparency demanded by democracy) owing to the SPECIAL PERMISSION  the said CORRUPT BUTTHOLE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS GIVEN ITSELF UNDER   Sections 23(5) & 31(3) of the Act UNDEMOCRATIC DENIAL of information committed Ad Absurdum JUSTIFICATION UNDER GUISE & PRETEXT pertaining to: bodies dealing with security matters S.23(5) for purpose of safeguarding national security S.24(2) prevention of 'prejudice' of law enforcement S.31(3) which are the very Butthole British bodies that are also involved in the POLITICAL PERSECUTION of Australian journalist, publisher of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange publications that exposed USA, British & Allied Government Wrongdoings & WAR CRIMES   BUTTHOLE BRITISH STATE SELF-EXEMPTION from public accountability Sections 24 & 31 of the Act EXEMPT the undemocratic,  politically-persecuting state from the 'public interest test' re disclosure of info & allow the corrupt state to rely upon DENYING government transparency to the voting stakeholder public, whom the state pretends  to represent ... & fervently pretends to do so, just prior to mock 'democratic' ELECTIONS CORRUPT POLITICALLY PERSECUTING BUTTHOLE BRITISH STATE HAS PERMITTED ITSELF TO DENY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION on the following smart-ass basis: BRITISH MINISTRY OF TRUTH to 'neither confirm nor deny' existence of information Butthole British Home Office Corrupt British State Typically hiding behind 'Security' bodies  that have nothing to do with actual state security & everything to do with shielding state wrongdoings & preserving the interests of the elites that control the state, and a state that pretends to exist to serve the interests of the masses -- the masses that the state & the elites partner to exploit  ... the very 'Security bodies' that 'SEXED UP'  info re Iraq to ensure that Britain would COMMIT ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ at British taxpayer & other expense Section 23 under the Act permits the corrupt state to hide behind 'security matters' that shield its corrupt institutions (ie including bodies dealing with 'security matters') from democratic, public scrutiny & the corrupt, politically persecuting DEMOCRACY DENYING TOTALITARIAN state acting on behalf elite interests has thus ABSOLUTELY EXEMPTED itself from public interest considerations under the joke Act ... any time it is politically convenient to conceal (or commit) wrongful, undemocratic & otherwise unjust or illegal deeds by a Butthole British State merely PRETENDING to serve: justice & democracy BUTTHOLE BRITISH GOVERNMENT pretending  to represent interests of the people  AND pretending to be accountable  to the people The same BUTTHOLE BRITISH GOVERNMENT which is publicly elected and therefore legally & otherwise obligated to serve public interests:  but judging by Butthole British government neglect, violations (including political policing & record of political police RAPING activist members of the public ... no, I'm not kidding) -- along with a litany of other violations of decency, democracy, law and justice -- the indication is that state 'serving the public' ideal is far from reality. EXAMPLE British Crown Prosecution Service 'justice' ie. DENIAL OF JUSTICE  [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] THE TRUE FACE OF THE BUTTHOLE BRITISH UNDEMOCRATIC STATE The State v. UK miners' strike miners at British Steel coking plant South Yorkshire, 1984 Battle of Orgreave   & Other British Public Protests LINK | More Metropolitan Police Service ('MPS') aka 'the Met' (informal) territorial police force law enforcement:  Greater London City of London square mile responsibility of:  City of London Police {not MPS} MPS comprised of 32: Borough Operational Command Units Ministry of Defence police MoD property throughout UK / HQ Whitehall & other MOD establishments British Transport Police policing:  rail network, incl. London Royal Parks Constabulary merged with MPS 2004 parks policed by:  Royal Parks Ops Command Unit {plus small park police council maintains} MPS officers have legal jurisdiction throughout all of England and Wales incl. areas w/ special police forces, eg MoD {likewise for all officers of territorial police} / also have limited power Scotland & Northern Ireland The serious inquiries go to MPS { eg terrorism, complex murder } with assistance fro relevant specialist force(s) even if MoD or railway incident location Royal Exception officers involved in protection of royalty & other VIPs have full police powers in Scotland & Northern Ireland (in connection w/ such duties) RANKS Commissioner Deputy Commissioner Assistant Commissioner Deputy Assistant Commissioner Commander Chief Superintendent Superintendent Chief Inspector Inspector Sergeant Police Constable ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COST TO TAXPAYER 2011/12 MPS total expenditure: £3,692 million ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- MPS Established: Metropolitan Police Act 1929 est. 1829 by Robert Peel known as:  the 'bobbies' 55,000:  officers, staff, traffic wardens, community support officers & volunteers (2016 figure, MPS site) controlling:  7 million Londoners, commuters & visitors over:  620 square miles (997.7 km square) ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Robert Peel one of founders of:  Conservative Party father of modern British police b. Lancashire son of wealthy textile manufacturer & parliamentarian Peel issued:   Tamworth Manifesto comprising principles re basis of modern  British Conservative Party education:  Oxford + other Entry to politics at age 21 as MP for Irish rotten borough of Cashel, Tipperary rotten borough =  existence prior to the Reform Act 1832 parliamentary borough = town with royal charter granting it incorporation = right to send x2 elected burgesses as Members Parliament, House of Commons Butthole British Elites - Bribery Constituencies electing members to House of Commons remained same for centuries / did not reflect population shifts --> electors so few some places --> electors could be bribed by wealthy patron --> known as:  'Rotten Boroughs' (inf.) --> aka 'Pocket Boroughs' (inf.) --> aka 'Nomination Boroughs' electors voting as patron instructed them voting by show of hands, so none dare vote contrary  LINK | More Peel:  created modern Conservative Party on ruins of 'old Toryism' PM of UK (twice) 1834-1835 1841-1846 Home Secretary (twice) 1822-1827 1828-1830 [Wikipedia + MPS site] ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- That's pretty much how I understood that Butthole British government notice, denying information on the costs of persecuting journalist, Julian Assange. Peel & the Conservatives sound interesting.   I'm guessing Peel is an example of who rules Britain even today. Need to catch up with that after I figure how to prepare a chicken biryani. This recipe looks good - here.   Looks straightforward.  Least favourite parts:  handling raw chicken & fresh chilli.  Onion slicing on big scale, not so great either ... lol.  Might do without the mint and might throw in some almond flakes & maybe some sultanas. ꕤ

Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia - Suppression of Multiple Freedoms, Including Intellectual Freedom

ꕤ Horst Mahler former German lawyer + activist b. Silesia 1936 2009 - at 73yrs old sentenced to 11 years ie, for old man:  amounts to DEATH SENTENCE Political Prisoner: German judge pronounced Horst Mahler: "not able to be re-educated" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler Horst Mahler -- 2000, joined National Democratic Party of Germany -- (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) -- 2001 German govt began process attempting to ban NPD -- Mahler acted as attorney for party -- govt uses of Volksverhetzung (incitement) accusations v. party -- petitions court to seize Mahler's computer assets -- Mahler successfully defeated effort -- Mahler later left party (2003) Horst Mahler -- charges re 9-11 statements -  Volksverhetzung (incitement)  -- for claiming 9-11 "concocted conspiracy" & not al-Qaeda -- 2004 'Holocaust denial' under  Volksverhetzung (incitement) -- this is in connection to his role in VRBHV -- Society for the Rehabilitation of Those Persecuted -- for Refutation of the Holocaust (VRBHV) -- 2006, passport revoked to prevent Teheran conference -- 2007, Volksverhetzung (incitement) -- re Vanity Fair interview with Michel Friedman (CDU) -- Friedman, former VP of the 'Central Council of Jews' in Germany -- Friedman brought charges against Mahler alleging:     1 -- Hitler salute; &     2 -- shout of "Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman!" -- Mahler told Friedman that:  "the systematic extermination of Jews in Auschwitz is a lie" -- 2006:  9-mth sentence -- 2007:  6-mth sentence without parole for Hitler salute -- when reporting to prison for a 9-mth term THE PREVIOUS YEAR -- 2009, Feb:  6-YEARS prison, no reduction or bail -- 2009, Mar:  5-YEARS ADDITIONAL prison 'holocaust denial' & 'banalisation' -- thus, a total of 11-YEARS prison to a 73 year old -- effectively, DEATH SENTENCE Horst Mahler -- was defended by Sylvia Stolz -- Stolz repeatedly convicted & imprisoned Sylvia Stolz lawyer political prisoner: repeatedly imprisoned by Germany / Merkel for thought crime Feb 2015: imprisoned for 20 months by a court in Munich for a speech she delivered in 2012 Stolz  3.5 years imprisonment  + prof. exclusion (5 yrs) --> for defending client in court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Stolz Stolz *referred to as Mahler's wife on other site. *not sure if this is correct or not. Article re British Bishop Richard Williamson ... mentions Germans Bishop Williamson wins appeal against conviction in Germany Posted on February 23, 2012 "... Indeed in March 2009 the German lawyer Horst Mahler received the maximum five year prison sentence for such offences, as did the German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel in 2007 after being expelled from Canada under an unconstitutional “national security certificate”.  German lawyer Sylvia Stoltz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2008, and banned from practising her profession." A criminal investigation of Bishop Williamson was launched by the German authorities within weeks of the broadcast, and in October 2009 he was fined €12,000 under the German system of “order of punishment”, which initially involves no trial but is sometimes accepted by defendants in straightforward cases, such as traffic offences and the like. The Bishop’s initial lawyer Matthias Lossmann had been appointed via the SSPX, and pursued a defeatist strategy which led to his client being convicted following a trial in Regensburg in April 2010, though the fine was reduced to €10,000. A first appeal was heard in July 2011, again in Regensburg, by which time Bishop Williamson had taken on new lawyers – first Wolfram Nahrath, and later Prof. Edgar Weiler, who represented him at the appeal hearing which I attended. The outcome of this appeal was to reduce the fine again to €6,500, but the legal arguments introduced by Prof. Weiler have now resulted in the complete throwing out of the charges. A reading of the documents suggests that Prof. Weiler was successful in challenging the very basis of the charges – namely the essential question of at what point Bishop Williamson had committed an offence.  Was it illegal simply to make these statements in Germany, even behind closed doors, to the Swedish journalist?  Surely this was not a “publication”. Were the prosecutors arguing that Bishop Williamson had intended the comments to be broadcast in Germany, bearing in mind that he was speaking to a Swedish journalist for a Swedish programme?  Or that he had not done enough to prevent that publication?  If so, in what sense?  The broadcast clearly shows Bishop Williamson warning the journalist that such comments are illegal in Germany and that they should not be published there. The higher court has now agreed that the prosecutors’ charges against Bishop Williamson failed to make these matters clear, and that his conviction should therefore be thrown out. [ ... ] ... dangerous ambiguity of a German legal system which operates by very different standards of free expression from many of its European partners. Dr Fredrick Toben with Lady Michele Renouf following the defeat of a European Arrest Warrant in the London courts, allowing Dr Toben to return to Australia a free man rather than be extradited to Germany. Such contradictions led of course to the historic victory in the London courts in 2008, when a European Arrest Warrant against the Australian academic Dr Fredrick Toben, drawn up by German prosecutors was similarly thrown out for reflecting the very vagueness of the law it is based upon, which fails to define terms such as “holocaust” or its unique alleged mass murder weapon.  On that occasion too, the German authorities and their partners in the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that they would appeal and continue to seek Dr Toben’s extradition, but they quickly abandoned their flimsy case. CONTINUES http://jailingopinions.com/blog/?p=22 SMH Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis' plans for discrimination law May 13, 2014 Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has strongly backed the Abbott government's plans to water down race hate laws, describing them as a welcome challenge to "Jewish supremacism" in Australia. In an explosive submission to Attorney-General George Brandis' review of the Racial Discrimination Act, obtained by Fairfax Media, Mr Toben congratulated the government for its attempt to rectify what he describes as a "flawed law, which only benefits Jewish-Zionist-Israeli interests". His comments drew immediate anger in the Jewish community, which has warned that the government's plans for Section 18C of the act will open the door to "vilification on a massive scale". Mr Toben said Senator Brandis – who famously defended people's "right to be a bigot" – had incorrectly claimed the need for reform of the Racial Discrimination Act was about free speech and the conviction of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt under 18C. "The essence of what the RDA Section 18C is all about and why it needs to be repealed is that the so-called 'Bolt law' is in effect a 'Holocaust' protection law," Mr Toben wrote. "The 'Bolt law' case was used in an attempt to hide this Holocaust matter and to make it a free expression issue. The trap set for the multiculturalists in Australia by Jewish interests, who designed Section 18C, is that the sole aim of this section has always been to legally protect ... the Holocaust-Shoah narrative." Senator Brandis distanced the government from Mr Toben's support on Tuesday, describing him as a "nutter".  "I've never read anything that Mr Toben has said but I'm aware of his views from press reports and views I've heard attributed to Mr Toben are absolute rubbish," he said. "I don't agree with Mr Toben but I do agree with President Barack Obama who said last week in relation to the Donald Sterling case: 'when people, when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let them talk'." The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, and the Zionist Federation condemned Mr Toben but said it was the government's proposal that would allow him to freely peddle his views. Mr Toben, a German-born Australian, was found to be in breach of discrimination laws in 2003. He went to jail in 2009 for defying Federal Court orders to remove material from his website that claimed there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and describing the murder of millions of Jews during World War II as the "Holocaust myth''. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said: "I am sure the government will derive no joy at all from Fredrick Toben's endorsement of its proposals to water down section 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. "Toben has spent a large part of his life vainly attempting to rehabilitate the disgraced record of Nazi Germany. If the government's proposed changes to the law are enacted, racist rants of this kind will be given a free pass on the basis that they are part of a public discussion. "Worse still, overtly racist discourse will be given the accolade of freedom of expression. It's time for the government to abandon its ideologically-driven attempt to emasculate laws that have worked well for nearly 20 years." Tsvi Fleischer of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council said the changes proposed by the government were a licence to vilify on a massive scale. "Toben's submission is more evidence of that," he said. "If the changes go through according to the government's model for comment, we do fear that people like Toben will be able to say whatever he wants – which is usually how evil the Jews are all the time." Labor senator Lisa Singh said: "Mr Toben is wrong in almost everything he says, except in his claim that the Abbott government's changes would give him licence to continue his racist tirades. "George Brandis has offended the vast majority of communities and organisations across Australia with his proposals to license racism. The only people still supporting him unequivocally are extremists like Holocaust denier Frederick Toben." SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/holocaust-denier-frederick-toben-backs-george-brandis-plans-for-discrimination-law-20140513-zrbnx.html One man's 'race hate laws' are another man's political (and potentially ethno-political) suppression laws. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Sylvia Stolz lawyer politically persecuted political prisoner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Stolz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCuwbbNQcZI ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Those that think Germany is some pinnacle of 'European values' and the embodiment of 'justice', 'freedom',  Western 'democracy' and Superhero goodness-and-light, might want to take a look at some of this material. Germany is a totalitarian state and Germans are political prisoners not only for challenging official political and historical narratives, but also for seeking to defend themselves in court (which is next to impossible, if you listen to what Syliva Stolz has to say on the matter in the video above). Germany is a totalitarian state of the worst order:  a state that is forcibly 're-educating' citizens, & denying, suppressing, extinguishing various freedoms, defences and academic facts etc.  I'm not sure what that is, but I think Mahler and various others targeted by the German state are (or have in the past been) political prisoners and/or targets of political persecution. This is a bigger revelation to me than the Snowden leaks confirming that we are under the intrusive gaze and supervision of a coterie of Western totalitarian powers conducting mass-surveillance upon multiple unsuspecting entire nations across the world (including their own). This is absolute proof that the 'freedoms' we are given to believe we have in Western democracies are a lie. Why would anyone dream that whistleblowers or defenders of any civil freedoms whatsoever belong in brave new fascist Germany? And who knew that there's Canadian-German and British-German collusion to prosecute people for apparently speaking their minds?  Wow. And it doesn't end there.  Apparently, Australia was also instrumental in suppression of thought/opinion of a German-Australian academic, Dr Fredrick Toben (given the Federal authorities website take-down order) -- an academic the Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has labelled a 'nutter', in what is most likely a desperate attempt to distance himself from the said academic's approval.  Nice one.  lol I don't know anything about Toben, but all these academics around the world cannot be 'nuts'. Recall from earlier reading of related material that there's also been a New Zealand academic that's fallen prey to what I guess is suppression of dissenting opinion or thought -- but in an academic setting (and in empirical terms, I guess), which is probably far worse than suppressing the voices of the great unwashed (academia requires integrity and grounding in reality, and academia is a thought-leader, a thought shaper, a voice of reason,  and an authority 'defining' that which is -- but that vital voice of reason is silenced by the state). Below are some notes I did back when I first came across this New Zealand academic.  I've left out the parts that might be considered controversial (yeah, I know, what a chicken ... lol).  Anyone that's interested can link and read the article.  Note:   page 2 is not linked.  It's a two-instalments deal, & the source has not correctly linked the second instalment.  The article's written by an academic, Thomas Fudge, who resigned in protest at Canterbury University's refusal to publish an article defending NZ academic, Joel Hayward.  Thomas Fudge sounds like a really cool and decent guy.  History's his field so he'd also have some amazing things to share. Thomas Fudge's article in defence of Joel Hayward is one of the most mind-blowing things I've ever read. ------- PS -- It's a sad day when you have to rely on the Liberal party to defend vital freedoms, while the pathetic waste of space that is the Labour party lobbies to rob you of freedom. What passes as the 'left' of politics disgusts me.  And all this time I fancied myself a 'socialist'.  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Summary Holocaust, history and free speech 11:04 AM Thursday Jul 24, 2003 by Thomas Fudge, History Lecturer Canterbury University history lecturer THOMAS FUDGE has resigned in protest at the university's refusal to publish this article defending a young academic against the charge of holocaust denial. It appears in two instalments, today and tomorrow. [note:  page 2 of article/letter, link broken.  No.  It's a two-instalments deal.  Not linked.] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3514153 Article also available at:   https://archive.is/e8Q2A  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- In Summary Subject:  MA Thesis Joel Hayward 1993 Hayward awarded master of arts degree first class honours in history University of Canterbury thesis on the historiography of the Holocaust later wrote a PhD thesis 1996  -  appointed to a lectureship at Massey University late 1999 -- MA thesis publicly denounced -- New Zealand Jewish Council: -- alleged thesis historical revisionism constituting Holocaust denial -- Hayward -- repeatedly apologised -- agreed to the extraordinary step of including an appendix to thesis -- modifying his findings, co-operated with subsequent investigation -- university appointed an independent working party to investigate -- claims against the thesis -- committee consisted of: -- retired High Court judge Sir Ian Barker -- Professor Ann Trotter -- Professor Stuart MacIntyre -- lengthy report concluded that the thesis was seriously flawed -- & Hayward should not have essayed a judgement in such a controversial area -- report did not recommend withdrawal of the thesis by the university -- & did not agree with the allegations -- that Hayward's argument was racist or motivated by malice -- opinion:  thesis did not deserve high marks received widely publicised in media -- no fewer than 6 serving or retired members of history dept -- persisted in own judgement that thesis was a first-class effort -- notwithstanding finality of report & qualified exoneration of Howard -- during 2000, 2001, and 2002 Hayward received hundreds -- of pieces of hate mail -- abusive phone calls, threats against himself, his wife & small children -- harassment at Massey University -- & continued negative media attention -- livelihood affected: -- attempts to publish, unsuccessful -- efforts to find employment, unsuccessful -- issue is beyond concern over allegedly flawed (but unpublished) research -- is this issue re academic values & freedom? -- is this issue of academic freedom and intellectual fashions? -- Hayward's detractors claim that he is wrong in terms of both -- censure attempts several years prior to 1999, before thesis written -- due to this, Hayward embargoed thesis for 3 years as soon as it was examined -- on 3-yr expiration, Hayward notified university library -- to make thesis available to researchers -- library replied it had restricted thesis, so it could only be consulted w/ -- Hayward's permission until 1999 -- almost immediate allegations published re holocaust denial -- was outrage over thesis a device for attacking Hayward? -- one critic stated academic freedom could exist without academic responsibility -- LEGAL OPINION: -- interpretation re Hayward thesis -- permitted very limited right to academic freedom -- those for academic freedom argue: -- universities should be great storehouses of wisdom & learning -- & students should be able to learn & choose -- Academic freedom implies -- no taboo subjects, no off-limits topics -- official statements re NZ academic libraries -- that no materials & authors should be restricted or removed due -- to doctrinal disapproval or pressure -- senior academics, however, steer students from controversial subjects Holocaust -- IRRESPECTIVE of intellectual considerations -- those wishing to question received notions re holocaust in NZ -- are controlled by accepted 'truth standards' -- danger lies in ambiguity of 'truth standards' Howard rejected well-established 'facts' -- re holocaust -- thesis examined writings of those who questioned holocaust industry -- a significant number have done so over last 30 years -- Is it not the duty of universities & researchers to question -- conventional understandings? MA Thesis 'The Fate of Jews in German Hands:  An Historical Enquiry into the Development & Significance of Holocaust Revisionism -- Joel Hayward -- investigation of holocaust histriography -- esp. branch regarded as 'revisionist' -- concluded some of the revisionist literature unworthy of -- in-depth scholarly consideration -- other material found to be significant & noteworthy -- Hayward arrived at 3 principal conclusions based on historiography -- & weight of historical evidence: DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE FACTORS AVAILABLE AT SOURCE -- working party investigating Hayward thesis -- FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY of:  racism, anti-Semitism or falsifying data SOURCE http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3514153 --------------------------------------------------------------- LINK TO THESIS http://ipac.canterbury.ac.nz/ipac20/ipac.jsp?index=BIB&term=373451 Thesis not available online - must request a copy. --------------------------------------------------------------- ꕤ

Milo Yiannopoulos: ' UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings'

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ CENSORSHIP The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings BroadbandCommissionReportLaunch September2015_RLB_4011_400x267 UN Women/Ryan Brown by Milo Yiannopoulos 25 Sep 20150 In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.” In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public. So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women. Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday. According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work. In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.  [lol  Milo's always so funny.] Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are. Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers. The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements. The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.) Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind. Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney. Ridicule and criticism are not harassment. What your guests have done on the internet is harassment. @googleideas — Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) September 23, 2015 The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.” It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy? Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues. Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha — Tyler, The Creator (@fucktyler) December 31, 2012 Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.” Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.” The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why? The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.” As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters. The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines. Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention. You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit. It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists. The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What, in my view, amounts to Western social and political oppression, driven by a melange of exploitative politicians and their parties, supranational organisations, non-government organisations, interest groups, various media darlings, the complicit corporate media, and leftist independent media, is suffocating. Social media 'victimhood' lobbying culture has a parallel industry of 'victimhood' professional media messaging, sensationalising, and delivering a Chinese water torture of incessant dripping of subjective and agenda-driven complaint and sermon of one kind or another, posing as 'universal truth', delivered from a position of moral 'authority,' insisting the world is not as it ideally 'should' be, according to these self-appointed 'authorities' and their 'victim' ego identified exhibits, various 'supporters,' and other professional beneficiaries of 'victimhood' of some kind or other. Self-interested and/or agenda-pushing parties receive rewards of a personal, professional and/or political nature, while pushing for a state-mandated emotional and social 'nirvana', that defies reality. What they have in common is exploitation of what they portray as the 'need' to 'protect' some group or other (the designated 'victim', portrayed as 'helpless' etc), and calling for measures that ultimately put at risk important civil (and therefore political) liberties of all people.  And when dealing with the internet, any incursion on freedom of speech is not merely confined to the nations of specific agenda-pushers; detrimental impact is amplified:  internationally. Taking a 'protective' path concerning freedom of expression and freedom of speech, will not deliver the blissful conditions sought. Instead, we can expect:  state-serving, and  state enforced, social and political oppression and sterility. Milo's right about the UN being a joke.  On top of publicly severing heads in the hundreds per annum, Western ally, Saudi Arabia has recently sentenced a teenager to crucifixion. As well as benefiting politicians that wish to stifle dissent and criticism (and abusers of power the world over that wish to silence critical voices), the path of censorship also benefits heavy-duty oppressors such as Saudi Arabia, when censorship is used (as it will be) to stifle criticism and information. Freedom of speech (and therefore personal and political freedom) should be vigorously defended, first and foremost. As a measure of where we are heading, check out the following item. An Oxford educated libertarian described the item as 'beyond parody' and an example of politically correct student union suppression of free speech: http://home.warwickpride.org/welfare/safe-space-policy/ Read ... and, once you've stopped laughing:  weep.  But do it quietly.  lol [*Had to take a second look at that, as I thought that maybe he was mistaken and that this had nothing to do with students.  Nope, he's not mistaken.] Other Source | here Source | here Source | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ