Amazon workers are seen at a facility in Douai, France on Feb. 2, 2021. (Michael Spingler/AP Photo) Censorship & Socialism

By Petr Svab March 12, 2021 Updated: March 12, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

The author of a book that criticizes transgender ideology, has said Amazon banned the book from its inventory based on a false argument.

Amazon quietly removed the book, titled “When Harry Became Sally,” last month without explanation. When probed for the reason by several Republican senators, the online retail giant said it has chosen to not sell books “that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” in a March 11 letter to the lawmakers obtained by The Wall Street Journal (pdf).

But the book does no such thing, author Ryan Anderson told The Epoch Times.

“Nowhere have I ever said or framed LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” he said via email. “The phrase ‘mental illness’ does occur in the book twice—but not in my own voice: once quoting a ‘transwoman’ writing in The New York Times, and once quoting the current university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.”

Anderson makes a distinction between transgenderism, which he describes as a belief system that’s in major part political, and gender dysphoria, an established mental condition of extreme and persevering discomfort with one’s biological sex. He acknowledges that the discomfort is genuine, not imagined.

“The book also discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of gender dysphoria in the most recent edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Amazon, curiously, still sells that. Gender dysphoria is listed in the most widely respected and consulted book on psychiatric disorders because it is a serious condition that causes great suffering,” he said.

“There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down, about how best to help patients who experience gender dysphoria. ‘When Harry Became Sally’ is an important contribution, praised by medical experts, to that conversation. Amazon’s delisting of it cuts off vital political and cultural discussion about important matters when we need it most.”

Amazon didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The claim that the book portrays transgender people as mentally ill has been repeated multiple times since its publication three years ago.

The Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon, ran a story about the book on Feb. 2, 2018, making several false statements that were removed later that day. The article was furnished with a short notice that it “has been updated.”

Matthew Franck, associate director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University who reviewed Anderson’s book, called the article “a journalistic disgrace,” in a series of tweets at the time.

“The newspaper needs to do much more than an anodyne note about an ‘update,’” he said.

Recently, he commented on Twitter that Amazon’s explanation proves its ignorance about the book.

Anderson also noted the parallel with the Post article.

“Three years ago Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post made false statements about me and my book … Now Bezos-owned Amazon is repeating those falsehoods as justification for cancelling my book,” he commented in a March 12 tweet, referring to Amazon’s chief executive Jeff Bezos.

He noted that Amazon’s censorship move comes during a major push to enshrine transgender ideology in law.

“The timing of Amazon’s move is highly suspicious, coming the weekend before Congress voted on a radical transgender bill—the so-called ‘Equality Act’—of which I am one of the most out-spoken critics,” he said in the email. “It seems that Amazon is using its massive power to distort the marketplace of ideas and is deceiving its own customers.”

The act would allow men who identify as women to compete in womens sports as well as women’s locker rooms, restrooms, and showers at any establishment providing service to the public, including schools. It explicitly invalidates religious objections, meaning religious institutions could be forced to hire homosexuals, undermining precepts in orthodox religions against homosexual behavior.

Roughly coinciding with its censorship of Anderson’s book, Amazon updated its policy to ban books that contain “hate speech.” It hasn’t specified what would fall under that label.

The move fits into a pattern across American society of censoring certain political perspectives using methods that result in a culture of self-censorship. A large part of that censorship is imposed by big tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

“Big Tech offers the Left the holy grail of speech regulation: censorship with no accountability to voters and no constitutional restraints,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) commented in a March 11 tweet. “This is why liberals not-so-secretly love these monopolies. They do the Left’s bidding.”

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) recently requested Amazon hand over documents and communications related to censorship and content policing activities. They gave the company until March 25 to respond. Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvabHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends

The logo of Google is displayed on a carpet at the entrance hall of Google in Paris, France, on Nov. 18, 2019. (Michel Euler/AP Photo) Censorship & Socialism

By Masooma Haq March 12, 2021 Updated: March 12, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

Clay Travis, founder of conservative sports website Outkick Media, says that big tech companies have too much power and are infringing on Americans’ First Amendment rights.

“Big Tech controls the country. And they control the country by deciding what you see. And Big Tech’s power is only growing in the wake of Joe Biden’s election,” Travis told lawmakers at the House Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee at a hearing Friday.

Travis recounted how after President Donald Trump joined his radio show on Aug. 11, 2020, on Outkick the Coverage, traffic for the website soared only to crash the next day.

“Because Facebook killed our traffic. Overnight, our readership vanished on their site. We lost 68 percent of our Facebook users and 76 percent of our new users on the site,” Travis told lawmakers.

He said his team concluded that because of the positive coverage of Trump, his organization was censored and lost thousands of dollars in revenue. Travis said the data from his site proved this.

“If we wrote too often and too favorably about the president, Facebook punished our site,” Travis said during the hearing titled “Reviving Competition, Part 2: Saving the Free and Diverse Press.”

“If we didn’t mention Trump very much, our site traffic grew. The power of Facebook was clear and their message was too: if you post content we don’t like, your audience will vanish.”

As a part of the effort to “save free press,” Antitrust committee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ranking Member Ken Buck (R-Colo.) reintroduced the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCP Act) in the House this week. The bill creates a temporary safe harbor for smaller news publishers to negotiate fees with online platforms like Google and Facebook—that share their content for free.

Another witness at the hearing, Microsoft President Brad Smith, who said he supports the JCP Act House legislation, criticized Google’s dominance in the digital advertising market.

“News organizations have ad inventory to sell, but they can no longer sell directly to those who want to place ads. Instead, for all practical purposes, they must use Google’s tools, operate on Google’s ad exchanges, contribute data to Google’s operations, and pay Google money,” Smith said in his written testimony.

A companion bill to the JCP Act was also introduced this week in the Senate by Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

Chairman Cicilline said that this bill would be one in a series of bills that would attempt to reign in Big Tech’s monopoly. He said part of the reason for having the hearing was to see how to improve the bill that was recently introduced.

“Those who won our independence believed that public discussion is a political duty, that the greatest threat to freedom is an uninformed citizenry,” said Cicilline. “And that the freedom of thought and speech is indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”

Ranking Member Buck said Big Tech has too much power to decide what information and news consumers get.

“We are now seeing Big Tech making content-related decisions for people around the world, including here in the United States. What content is available to a free citizenry is driven and shaped by the political agendas of these tech corporations, not consumer preferences,” he said.

Others who testified at Friday’s hearing were News Media Alliance President & CEO David Chavern; Graham Media CEO Emily Barr; NewsGuild President Jonathan Schleuss; and journalist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald.Help us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends

President Donald Trump walks off stage after an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held in the Hyatt Regency in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 28, 2021. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Donald Trump

By Samuel Allegri March 13, 2021 Updated: March 14, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

The Alabama GOP gave former President Donald Trump a framed copy of a resolution the party passed unanimously, declaring him to be “one of the greatest and most effective presidents” in the history of the United States.

The framed resolution was presented to Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday evening.

“Whereas, President Donald J. Trump was one of the greatest and most effective presidents in the 245-year history of this Republic,” the resolution honoring Trump reads at the start.

“President Trump put the American people and the American worker first in all his decisions and policies,” it continues.

It then goes on to mention other achievements by the 45th president, such as “Operation Warp Speed,” the largest tax cuts in American history, and withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), replacing them with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA.)

“The resolution, basically, it just talks about the greatness of Donald J. Trump, how he made America great again and I hope other states will follow suit,” Perry Hooper Jr., a member of the state party’s executive committee, told Fox News.

Hooper was Trump’s Alabama campaign co-chairman in 2016 and worked on Trump’s campaign finance committee ahead of the 2020 election.

“He’s just done so many great things,” Hooper said. “I was a kid when Reagan was elected and I thought nobody would top the great things Ronald Reagan did. But then comes along Donald J Trump and in my opinion, he’s not just one of the great presidents, he is the greatest president we’ve had in America.”

The resolution also praises Trump for standing up to China and revitalizing American manufacturing.

“He stood up to China,” the resolution states, “bringing back manufacturing industry to the U.S. and by increasing ‘made in the U.S.A.’ production while securing access to new markets for America’s farmers.”

The article also mentions his building up of the military and assigning 220 federal judges “who will interpret the Constitution as written,” as well as confirming three judges to the Supreme court.

It says that Trump showed “strength and leadership” internationally by withdrawing from the “shady” Iran nuclear deal and installing the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

“President Trump accomplished more in 48 months than Joe Biden did in 48 years as a senator and vice president,” the resolution reads.Help us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

People stand in the lobby for Amazon offices in New York, N.Y., on Feb. 14, 2019. (Mark Lennihan/AP Photo) Congress

By Mimi Nguyen Ly March 12, 2021 Updated: March 12, 2021

Two Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are asking Amazon to answer to allegations of “systemic viewpoint-based discrimination” against conservative viewpoints.

In a letter to current Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) requested that the prominent cloud services provider turn over documents and information on its alleged censorship activities.

“Big Tech, including Amazon, is engaged in systematic viewpoint-based discrimination. In the unfortunate phenomenon of ‘cancel culture,’ Amazon plays a leading role in silencing and censoring the political speech of conservative Americans,” the lawmakers wrote.

They added, “In just the last several months, Amazon has exhibited a pattern of curtailing, censoring, and removing from its platforms content that espouses conservative viewpoints.”

Jordan is the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and Buck is the top Republican on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust.

The two allege that Amazon has been “exerting editorial control” over content on its platforms in a way that is “biased against conservatives and conservative viewpoints.”

They listed out several alleged editorial decisions by Amazon that “give the appearance of a coordinated effort to cancel conservative speech” on the big tech company’s platforms.

Three incidences occurred in June 2020. In one instance, Amazon “refused to allow” advertising for a book that was critical of transgender ideology, the two noted. In another case, Amazon’s Kindle e-book self-publishing platform refused to publish a booklet that challenged certain prevailing views on the efficacy of lockdowns imposed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In yet another instance of the same month, Amazon temporarily banned President Donald Trump’s account from its video streaming service, Twitch, over comments he made at political rallies. Amazon later disabled Trump’s account indefinitely from Twitch after the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

Another incident cited by the two GOP Reps include Amazon’s de-platforming of Parler, a competitor to social platform Twitter, that is popular among conservatives.

Jordan and Buck asked the company to produce documents by 5 p.m. on March 25 on seven alleged cases of censorship against conservative viewpoints.

Amazon and Bezos didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for comment from The Epoch Times. Bezos earlier this year said he is set to step down as CEO in the fall, to be replaced by Andy Jassy, who currently runs the company’s cloud computing business.

Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Antitrust Subcommittee chair Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), were copied on the letter.

The letter to Amazon comes just over a week after Jordan called on Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to hold a public committee hearing on “cancel culture,” which would be the first of its kind. Nadler’s office at the time did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.Read MoreJim Jordan Urges Jerry Nadler to Combat the Rise of ‘Cancel Culture’ in America

Jordan, who focused on cancel culture in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in late February, told The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders that free speech won’t exist if the left is the only entity that is allowed to define what speech is.

“That’s the scariest thing happening in the country. If you can’t have a First Amendment real debate, if you can’t speak out, how are you going to win. How are you going to win the tax debate? How are you going to win the border security debate? How are you going to win in any public policy issue? If only one side is allowed to talk? So that’s why we have to fight this more than anything else,” he said.

Public sentiment against big tech censorship and cancel culture has grown louder following the censorship of former Trump and other conservatives, especially in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, and following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, amid allegations of voting irregularities and election fraud, and the New York Post’s unfavorable report about then-candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

Online platforms have been accused of using their powers to stamp out or suppress speech they don’t agree with. Trump and a number of other GOP lawmakers have, since last year repeatedly called to limit or remove legal liability protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for companies that are believed to have censored viewpoints they don’t like.

Janita Kan contributed to this report. Follow Mimi on Twitter: @MimiNguyenLyHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

A woman rides past the barricades of the “autonomous zone” near where George Floyd died in May 2020, in Minneapolis, on March 10, 2021. (Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images) US News

By Tom Ozimek March 11, 2021 Updated: March 11, 2021

The so-called “autonomous zone” around the site in Minneapolis where George Floyd died last year has become a threat to public safety and a danger to residents and businesses, a police association says.

Retired Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith, spokeswoman for the National Police Association (NPA), told Fox News in an interview on March 11 about recent incidents around the intersection of E. 38th Street and Chicago Avenue, renamed George Floyd Square in memory of Floyd’s police-custody death.

“George Floyd Square is now an autonomous zone. They just had a homicide there,” Smith told the outlet, adding that violence in the barricaded area has been a constant problem since riots rocked Minneapolis last summer.

Police said a man was shot and killed in the area on March 6. Minneapolis Police Department spokesman John Elder told local outlet KSTP that responding officers “were met with interference” when they approached the zone’s barricades.

Miami-based reporter Brian Entin was recording material outside the zone’s barricades when he was accosted by two activists demanding that he leave.

“You’re going to be in a bad situation here in a second,” one of the activists can be heard saying in the video. “You’re being called out for what you are and you need to get out of here,” the person says.

Entin later interviewed the aunt of 30-year-old Imez Wright, the man who was shot and killed inside the zone.

“Were police able to get in and help him?” Entin asked.

“Police were not allowed to get into that area,” replied the woman, who wasn’t identified by name in the report, who added that her nephew was carried outside the zone before being taken to the hospital, where he later died from his wounds.

She said law enforcement “was not welcome” inside the zone, which she called an “atrocity,” suggesting that her nephew might have survived “had things been different.”

Asked about the atmosphere inside the zone, the woman described it as “volatile” and “militant” and that people wanting to go and support the initiative aren’t particularly welcome.

In her remarks to Fox News, Smith also said there are businesses around George Floyd Square “that get robbed by the same people two to three times a week” and that people inside the zone “just can’t get police services.”

She said the problem is most acute in the vicinity of the Third Precinct, which was burned down.

Retired Seattle police officer Steve Pomper, in a March 9 post on NPA’s website, blamed local authorities for being too lenient.

“The key takeaway here, for everyone, is SPD [Seattle Police Department] officers swiftly reclaimed their police station (unlike Minneapolis, Seattle still had a station to reclaim) and tossed CHOP/CHAZ into the anarcho-communist ash heap of history,” Pomper wrote, referring to Seattle’s now-defunct autonomous zone by its two acronyms—the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest and the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

“In Minneapolis, insurrectionists destroyed an MPD [Minneapolis Police Department] precinct because the mayor wouldn’t allow the cops to do what they’re trained to do,” Pomper wrote.

On March 8, hundreds of people gathered outside the fortified courthouse in Minneapolis for the first day of the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who has been charged in Floyd’s death.

Demonstrators chanted, “No justice, no peace!” and speakers implored the jurors to “do the right thing.” Many in the crowd carried banners, some reading “Justice for George Floyd” and “Convict Killer Cops.”

Floyd’s death sparked protests and riots after footage emerged showing that Chauvin restrained Floyd for an extended period with a knee to the neck.

In the interview on Fox News, Smith said Minneapolis is preparing for “inevitable rioting” because “no matter how this case turns out, there likely will be violence.” Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOMHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

Gen. Daniel Hokanson speaks to members of Congress during a hearing in Washington on June 18, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool/AFP via Getty Images) US News

By Zachary Stieber March 12, 2021 Updated: March 12, 2021

The National Guard’s chief recommended against extending the deployment of personnel in the U.S. Capitol, arguing the military reserve force didn’t have enough volunteers and faced pressing needs within their states, according to a newly published memorandum.

Gen. Daniel Hokanson, the Guard chief, wrote in the memo that officials hadn’t been successful in securing enough volunteers to meet the U.S. Capitol Police’s request for over 2,200 soldiers to remain in Washington. Only 500 had volunteered, he wrote.

States deployed tens of thousands of Guardsmen to the Capitol in the wake of the Jan. 6 breach, reaching a peak of some 26,000 on inauguration day. The number has steadily declined since then, but thousands continue guarding the Capitol, which also remains behind razor-topped wire.

Hokanson noted that states are experienced unprecedented demand for Guard support because of the COVID-19 pandemic, riots, and weather events, along with the typical deployment requirement overseas.

“Additionally, faced with pressing needs within their states, numerous Adjutants General and Governors have expressed their unwillingness to order the involuntary mobilization of NG personnel to man the mission,” he said.

“Moreover, I am concerned that the continued indefinite nature of this requirement may also impede our ability to man future missions as both adjutants general and guardsmen alike may be skeptical about committing to future endeavors,” he added, recommending the pursuit of “other inter-agency law enforcement options.”

The memo was obtained and published by Fox News. It appeared to be from last week.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on March 9 overruled the concerns, signing off on the Capitol Police’s request for continued Guard deployment. Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman, who made the request, told lawmakers earlier this month that threats to the Capitol, the surrounding area, and members of Congress are increasing.

Maj. Matt Murphy of the National Guard told The Epoch Times via email on Friday: “We cannot discuss internal deliberations that may have taken place as part of the Department of Defense decision-making process. The National Guard will carry out this mission with professionalism for as long as we are required and approved to support.”

The Pentagon didn’t return a request for comment.

John Kirby, the Department of Defense’s press secretary, told reporters on Thursday that Lloyd “doesn’t want our National Guard troops up on Capitol Hill one day longer than they need to be.”

“I don’t think anybody wants to see this become an enduring mission. And by enduring I mean a forever mission. At the same time, he recognizes that there is a legitimate need for them,” he added, calling the Capitol Police’s request “valid.”

Pressed on whether Guardsmen would be forced to serve if enough volunteers weren’t found, Kirby said, “I think the decision for the involuntary activation makes sense on a couple of different levels, and that gets us to May.” Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieberHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

An American Flag at Davis Wade Stadium in Starkville, Miss., on Sept. 1, 2018. (Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images) Censorship & Socialism

By Petr Svab March 9, 2021 Updated: March 11, 2021

News Analysis

While many Americans worry about ever-increasing censorship, those responsible for it have managed to amplify its effects by creating a climate of self-censorship.

Due to the psychological mechanisms of self-censorship, a single account blocked, a single video deleted, or a book banned can result in a broad chilling of speech. Important policy debates don’t occur, news story ideas aren’t pitched to editors, and books aren’t accepted for publishing, or written to begin with.

In some cases, it appears the censors employ the psychological tricks on purpose, achieving maximum suppression with minimal responsibility. These methods aren’t new—in fact, they have long been employed by totalitarian regimes.

The principle of self-censorship is that people, just to be on the safe side, refrain from saying even things that aren’t outright banned by some applicable rules.

An example is the effect of the Johnson Amendment, a law that prohibits tax-exempt nonprofits, including religious organizations, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Even though the law doesn’t prohibit discussion of political topics and stands virtually unenforced, opponents have long argued that pastors have avoided political topics in their sermons just to be sure they can’t be accused of running afoul of the law.

Here are a number of methods used to enhance self-censorship.

Vague Rules

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the world’s most notorious censor of free speech, has for decades used the method of making its policies intentionally vague. During its past political campaigns, for example, the central leadership would issue a decree that “rightists” and “counterrevolutionaries” were to be punished. The next lower rung of Party officials wouldn’t be told what exactly makes one a “rightist” or a “counterrevolutionary” and perhaps not even what the punishment should be. No official, however, would want to be seen as too lenient—that would carry the risk of being labeled oneself. As such, each successive level of bureaucracy would intensify its interpretation of the policy, leading to ever more extreme results. In some periods, the hysteria went far beyond self-censorship, as even refraining from political speech wasn’t enough.

“During the Cultural Revolution, … people couldn’t buy food in canteens if they didn’t recite a quotation or make a greeting to Mao [Zedong]. When shopping, riding the bus, or even making a phone call, one had to recite one of Mao’s quotations, even if it was totally irrelevant. In these rituals of worship, people were either fanatical or cynical,” the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party” states.

In contemporary China, dissidents are often targeted for “subverting the state” or “spreading rumors.” The regime has proven that virtually any political statement can be subsumed under one of these charges.

The method appears to now be in play in contemporary America.

Amazon recently updated its policies to ban books that contain “hate speech,” without explaining what it considers as such. Since Amazon controls more than 80 percent of the book retail market, publishers are left to guess whether a book may get the “hate speech” label and thus be much less profitable to publish.

Roger Kimball, the publisher of Encounter Books and an Epoch Times contributor, said he so far hasn’t considered avoiding titles that may be targeted by Amazon, but he called it “a very worrisome harbinger.”

“It is possible that other publishers will do that,” he told The Epoch Times. “Certainly, I think that the atmosphere for opinion is much narrower now than it was in the past.”

He gave the example of Simon & Schuster, a publishing powerhouse that recently canceled its publishing of the book of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) due to Hawley’s questioning the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

If publishers bow to Amazon, authors may go even further, altogether avoiding topics that may spook the publishers.

Other tech platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter usually provide some definition of hate speech and other content rules, but have acknowledged that they intentionally keep at least part of their policies secret to prevent people from circumventing them. The effect is that users try to guess the boundaries of censorship themselves.

Those who invested great efforts to build their online followings are likely to adopt especially stringent self-censorship, as they have the most to lose. YouTube, for example, bans any content that says the 2020 election result was affected by fraud. The policy seems relatively clear, yet it appears to have nudged YouTube personalities to avoid the topic of election integrity altogether, just to be on the safe side.

Perception of Random Targeting

Another method to induce self-censorship is selective enforcement. During the CCP’s past political campaigns, it would pick targets for persecution seemingly at random. Even the targets wouldn’t necessarily know what exactly had brought the Party’s wrath upon them. In response, people would scramble to make sense of the situation, drawing red lines of self-censorship based on guesswork.

Elements of this method can be seen in various settings in the West.

When Amazon recently banned a book that criticizes transgender ideology, published by Encounter Books in 2018, it didn’t explain why. Instead, Amazon quietly updated its book policies on hate speech. It then left it to the public to connect the dots and label the book as hate speech themselves.

Similarly, other tech platforms commonly refuse to comment on specific cases of censorship or even tell the accused what exactly they did wrong.

This method can also work through changes and exceptions to the rules. The CCP has been notorious for constantly changing its policies. Allies of the revolution of yesterday found themselves enemies of the Party today, but could expect to be called upon to cooperate with the Party tomorrow. Hence came the saying, “Party policy is like the moon, it changes every 15 days.” People have found themselves in a position of constantly trying to figure out how to be in alignment with what the Party is currently saying and even anticipating what the Party might say next and preemptively avoid saying anything that might be deemed problematic in the future.

The tech platforms of today openly acknowledge that their content policies are a work in progress. Over the years, new rules have been repeatedly added and are usually applied retrospectively. Thus, content that was acceptable yesterday may get banned and removed today. More restrictions can be expected tomorrow, or the companies may reverse themselves on some issues.

Rules can also be bent for political convenience. Facebook, for example, considers verbal attacks on people based on their race, sex, or sexual proclivities to be hate speech. But its contracted moderators were informed in 2018 that for a period of time, attacks on straight white males would be exempted as long as they were “intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ,” an internal memo said.

Guilt by Denial

Another method is using denial or resistance as evidence of guilt.

In current progressive ideologies, denying that one is racist or has “white privilege” counts as a confirmation of the charges. In fact, any resistance to the ideology and its labels is often labeled as “white fragility” or “internalized oppression” and thus illegitimate. Leaving no room for rightful criticism, the ideology discourages debate. Rather than deal with the grief of being pejoratively labeled, many keep their objections to themselves.

Jodi Shaw, a former student support coordinator at Smith College, an elite women’s college, recently left her job over what she described as a “dehumanizing” environment.

In 2018, the liberal arts institution put in place a number of initiatives to fight “systemic racism” at the school. Yet the efforts didn’t sit right with her, Shaw told The Epoch Times in a phone call.

She was instructed to treat people differently based on their race and sex, which in practice meant projecting onto people one’s own stereotypes, she said.

She said it felt fake.

“There’s a script for white people and a script for people who aren’t white. And it felt like you kind of had to stay on the script,” she said.

It was clear to her that there was no room for disagreement or even doubt.

“You just cannot talk about it out loud,” she said. “You can’t express your doubt out loud.”

A staunch liberal, she tried to get along with the program, telling herself it’s just being done “to help.”

When the doubts persevered, she even questioned her own morality.

“Does that mean I’m racist?” she asked herself.

“I think a lot of people on the left have this issue where they feel a little confused. They feel like something doesn’t feel right, but I’m not supposed to think that something’s not right,” she said.

The staffers in her department were “true believers,” she said, but she talked to seven or eight people from other departments who privately shared her concerns.

“Whispers, you know, in hallways and stuff, alone, they’re like, ‘Yeah, this is just like, something’s really messed up about this,’” she said.

Ultimately, she concluded that there was no “inner racist” talking, it was her conscience, and the ideology was just messing with her psyche.

“It’s how this ideology works. It gets into your head, and I think it’s damaging,” she said.

Guilt by Association

Another way to impose self-censorship is extending blame beyond the target to anybody even tenuously associated with it.

Totalitarian regimes have long used this tactic, punishing family, friends, colleagues, supervisors, and other associates of dissidents.

Examples of guilt by association are common today. Media, universities, and other institutions willing to host speakers from another political camp are criticized for “giving a platform” to “hate” or some other pejorative. Anybody uttering a word of support for one of the censored figures can expect to be targeted next.

When Shaw started to talk about her concerns publicly, she found that the Smith staffers who privately agreed with her suddenly became unavailable.

“The fear of guilt by association is so terrifying that people—they won’t even text me,” she said.

That not only induces self-censorship in one’s circle but also further isolates the target.

“You get isolated, and you’re not able to talk it through with somebody else and determine that, yes, indeed there’s something wrong,” Shaw said.

Kari Lake, former news anchor at Fox 10 in Arizona, faced criticism for merely setting up an account on alternative social media sites Parler and Gab. The critics argued that she was guilty by association, since Parler and Gab had been labeled as a favorite platform of “Nazis.”

While the attacks never made Lake question her beliefs, it did prompt her to self-censor, she told The Epoch Times in a phone call.

“I actually find myself not posting stories that are just factual because I’m like: ‘Oh, just posting that, even though it’s true, might anger some people. It might just get the left mad and I don’t want to, you know, kick the hornet’s nest,’” she said.

It’s been especially disheartening for Lake to see censorship endorsed by many fellow journalists.

“They’re just fine with it, and it saddens me,” she said.

She’d like to see more diversity of viewpoints among journalists, estimating that most in the profession lean left. Even the few conservative ones she knows are “very, very closeted about it.”

“The people I know might even act or pitch stories that might appear left-leaning to kind of show people, ‘look, I’m not conservative,’” she said.

A few weeks ago, Lake quit her job.

“I realized, well, I’m part of that. I’m part of this system. I’m part of the media, and if I don’t like it and I can’t do anything to change it, then I need to get out,” she said.

Solution

Censorship in America is peculiar in its form as it’s largely not the doing of the government. It’s not even necessarily the result of government pressure, though that now seems to be underway as well. Rather, it’s based on actors both in and out of government across the American society aligning with an ideology that’s totalitarian at its root.

It’s unlikely that Americans can rely on somebody pushing against the ideology from the top. In fact, the ideology appears to now be endorsed by a majority of the government.

Yet it may be that government measures wouldn’t offer a solution as long as a significant share of the population still subscribes to the ideology or is willing to go along with it.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 speech “The Spirit of Liberty”:

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

It appears Americans’ stand is now to rekindle that spark of liberty in the hearts of their peers. Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvabHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

A Customs and Border Protection officer speaks with immigrants at the U.S.–Mexico border in Matamoros, Mexico, on Feb. 25, 2021. (John Moore/Getty Images) US News

By Charlotte Cuthbertson March 9, 2021 Updated: March 11, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

Mexican cartels are getting stronger as the Biden administration weakens security at the border, according to several current and former law enforcement officials.

Most cartel violence occurs in Mexico as different factions fight for territory along the border into the United States. Smuggling drugs and humans is their primary business, and they control the border.

But the cartels are also embedded inside the United States, and indications point to more violence stateside this year, according to Jaeson Jones, a former captain for the Texas Department of Public Safety, where he ran the border security operations center.

“The game has changed now,” Jones told The Epoch Times on March 3. “They don’t fear us. It’s just not like it used to be. And you can’t blame them. I mean, they have no reason to—we’ve done nothing to contain them. They’re just completely out of control.”

Jones said cartels will “absolutely” cause more violence “everywhere, much deeper” into the United States. He said the problem with cross-border crime and cartel violence is that it’s not identified as such in the FBI’s uniform crime data system.

“So when you hear from a lot of people who say, ‘There’s no proof that cross-border violence is occurring,’ that’s wrong. It is. It’s occurring every single day in many, many ways,” Jones said.

He pointed to an example of a double murder in Alabama in 2018 of a 13-year-old autistic girl, who was beheaded, and her grandmother, who was a drug smuggler with reported ties to the Sinaloa cartel.

In 2019, two Border Patrol agents were fired upon from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande while they were patrolling by boat.

“Agents saw four subjects with automatic weapons who shot over 50 rounds at them. The boat was hit several times but no one on board was injured,” said an Aug. 9, 2019, Customs and Border Protection statement.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Jones said, an alert went out to agents that Cartel de Golfo (CDG) intended to kill agents on a boat the next day.

He said CDG is losing the battle for territory in the small city of Miguel Alemán in Mexico, across the river from Roma, Texas. The cartel wanted to blame the shooting on rivals Cartel Del Noreste (CDN), a faction of the Los Zetas, “to cause the Mexican government to come after CDN,” Jones said. “Think how bold that is.”

He believes President Joe Biden, “whether he wants to or not,” will be forced to take action against the cartels because of the fentanyl issue.

Illicit fentanyl coming across the Mexican border is chiefly responsible for fueling the escalating opioid crisis, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Overdose deaths are at record highs in the United States.

“The overdose deaths are not going to get lower,” Jones said. “They’re going to go through the roof this year because of the migration issue. Because as they [border agents] focus on migration at the border, they’re not focusing on [drug] seizures. So you give up one for the other.”

Often, the cartels will send large groups of migrants to cross the border illegally in one area to tie up Border Patrol resources while they smuggle drugs and other people through another area nearby.

Sheriff A.J. Louderback from Jackson County, Texas, said Border Patrol has been apprehending about 1,000 illegal border-crossers every day for the past three weeks in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, mostly in large groups.

“We essentially have an open border today on the southern border of the United States,” Louderback told The Epoch Times on March 5.

The Cartel de Golfo controls the Mexican border into the Rio Grande Valley area in Texas; anyone who wants to cross illegally has to pay the cartel. The lowest price he’s heard is $250 per person, Louderback said.

“So 1,000 people a day … you’re looking at a quarter million dollars a day, coming in and funding the cartel for its future violence, and future enhancement of all things criminal that go along here in Texas and the United States,” he said. “So fundamentally what we’ve done is promote this.”

Jones said the price for crossing has recently skyrocketed to $2,500 per person, or even higher, depending on their country of origin. Many of those who cross don’t have enough money and are then indentured to the cartel once they’re in the United States.

Law Enforcement

The Mexican government has also made moves that hamper U.S. law enforcement, particularly the DEA, inside Mexico.

In mid-December 2020, the Mexican government introduced a law that would require “foreign agents” operating in Mexico to share information with the Mexican government. The foreign agents will also no longer have immunity, and Mexican officials will have to get permission before meeting with a foreign agent and to submit a report afterward.

The DEA has offices in Mexico and has had agents operating there for decades. Homeland Security also operates to disrupt drug and human trafficking routes.

Derek Maltz, former head of the DEA’s special operations division, said the new law will “completely expose” law enforcement agents and their operations.

“And so Mexico is taking full advantage of America during all these turbulent times with the transition of presidents, with the COVID, with the weak immigration policies put forth by Joe Biden’s administration,” Maltz told The Epoch Times on Feb. 24.

“They’re setting it up so the only people that win are the corrupt government officials, the Chinese organized crime groups, and the cartels.

“And there’s no doubt in my mind—based on all my experience, and looking at drug enforcement and immigration-related matters—that the cartels are in a much easier place now to position their manpower throughout America, [and] continue to distribute all these poisonous drugs and pick up the mass amounts of proceeds that have been generated from the business.”

As an escalating number of illegal immigrants enter the country, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced an operation to surge Texas law enforcement personnel to the southern border to help combat drug and human smuggling.

“Texas supports legal immigration but will not be an accomplice to the open border policies that cause, rather than prevent, a humanitarian crisis in our state and endanger the lives of Texans,” Abbott said in a March 6 statement. Follow Charlotte on Twitter: @charlottecuthbo

President Joe Biden signs executives orders in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington on Jan. 26, 2021. (Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images) Censorship & Socialism

By GQ Pan March 9, 2021 Updated: March 9, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

The U.S. Department of Education has reversed a Trump-era decision that declared race-based “affinity groups” at public schools to be discriminatory, according to the New York Post.

After a whistleblower teacher’s complaint from the Evanston-Skokie School District in Illinois, the Trump Administration’s Education Department in 2019 launched an investigation into the district’s practice of dividing students and staff into different groups based on their race and conducting activities allegedly aimed at helping address discrimination and “white privilege.”

According to documents obtained by the NY Post, the practices carried out in the Chicago-area school district were found to be in violation of Title VI, the federal law prohibiting race-based discrimination in education. The practices deemed discriminatory by the Trump administration included, among many others, “racially exclusive affinity groups” that separated students, parents, and community members by race, a “Colorism Privilege Walk” that asked students to move forward or back according to racial privileges they supposedly have or lack, and a policy that explicitly directed staffers to take into account a student’s race when taking disciplinary actions.

The whistleblower told the NY Post that she received a call on Jan. 6 from Carol Ashley, the enforcement director for the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), who told her that the OCR had issued a letter of finding that the district was engaging in discriminatory behavior.

However, on Jan. 22, two days after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the teacher received another call from Ashley, informing her that the findings and any further actions have been indefinitely suspended as part of the new administration’s effort to promote “racial equity” in schools.

The suspension of the OCR investigation was also confirmed by Superintendent Devon Horton of the Evanston-Skokie district, who told the NY Post that “last month, the proceedings were suspended by OCR pending its reconsideration of the case in light of the executive orders on racial equity issued by President Biden.”

In the executive order signed on his first day in White House, Biden vowed to embed racial equity, rather than equal opportunity, into his administration.

“Equal opportunity is the fundamental promise of America. But systemic racism and discrimination in our economy, laws, and institutions have put the promise of America out of reach for too many families of color,” the order reads, adding that the Biden administration will take “bold and ambitious steps” to root out “inequity” from the economy and expand opportunities for “communities of color and other underserved Americans.”

Equity is a concept tied to the Marxist “critical theory,” which slices up society into identity groups based on race, gender, sexual proclivities, and other factors, while dividing the groups into oppressed and oppressors, similar to how Marxism labels people as oppressors or the oppressed based on class. In political parlance, equity commonly refers to equality of outcome, rather than equal treatment.

The OCR did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

Petr Svab contributed to this report.Help us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.