Geert Wilders has been a subject of modern political discourse. Curiosity drove me to see what he actually has to say. I have posted a video of his.

I do agree with his point that softening a message is pointless.  All that is written or spoken on a political subject will offend some people.  One cannot express views and simultaneously care if people are offended.  If I cared more about getting along than about expressing views, then free media productions never would have been created.  I agree with his anti-elitism too.  Powerful capitalist leaders do not serve national interests.  I agree that infidels should not “play dumb” to Islam and should be assertive and firm in combating Sharia style extremism.  In my opinion, Bush/Obama and their neo-con/neo-liberal supporters have made it more difficult to intelligently critique Islam without being written off as part of the establishment.

My only criticism is that he did not truly show the other side of the argument, which is that ideological opposition to imperialism drives Muslims into extremism.  In other words, Islamic fundamentalism can be a symptom of an alienated persona which originally fights a just cause.   On the other hand, many fundamentalists are in fact motivated by visionary and cultural tendencies rather than rebellion against the West.  Reducing all fundamentalism to resistance against imperialism is oversimplification.

I support those who resist imperialism, even if they do it under the banner of Islam.  But to the extent they become imperialists themselves (immigration, forcing sharia on non-Muslims), I do not continue to support Muslims.

I encourage all Free Media Productions readers and writers to contact your political representatives to tell them you support measures like this. I am a REALIST and am sick of people living in a fantasy world. With powerful search engines like google peering into the blogesphere, we can’t afford to have people’s reputations maligned by libel and impersonation in the name of the god forsaken free market. The internet is real life. Both the Third Positionists and Marxists should support these measures.

Ideologically, The Third Positionists should support these measures because they take society one step closer to a totalitarian state. The Marxist-Leninists should support them because the more anger and antagonism they produce, the better chance there could be for a revolution.

This is what I have to say about Cowards who hide behind the apparent “anonymous status” of the internet and abuse it. Hail totalitarianism and death to liberalism!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07112009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gag_the_internet__178749.htm

When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a “chilling effect” on speech that might hurt someone’s feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama’s choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It’s the bland titles that should scare you the most.

“Although obscure,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Sunstein was appointed, no doubt, off the success of “Nudge,” his previous book, which suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings.

Czar is too mild a world for what Sunstein is about to become. How about “regulator in chief”? How about “lawgiver”? He is Obama’s Obama.

In “On Rumors,” Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which “people’s beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire.” That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. “We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet,” he writes. “We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?”

Sunstein questions the current libel standard – which requires proving “actual malice” against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere “negligence” isn’t libelous, but Sunstein wonders, “Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?” Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.

An article from the Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery is now available for public view on the internet. It is one of the better articles written before the magazine majority changed its staff and strategy in recent times. It describes how technology makes data mining easier and why this is a dangerous situation. Smart people, especially political dissidents, must be aware of the risks and indeed aware of the fact that people are “out to get” them. A defensive action plan is required in cyber warfare.  Here are some particularly important excerpts quoted below by the author Ken Thompson.

Today, we must question our trust in all aspects of the information environment, including online companies and even the infrastructure of the Internet. We live in an era of rampant data disclosure and ubiquitous implied trust-two factors that will come to haunt us in the near future.

Despite the best intentions of those doing the collecting or communicating, it is impossible to guarantee it (your personal information) will stay private or not be used for some malicious purpose.

As an example, AOL disclosed, in August 2006, the search queries of some 657,000 of its users that contained sensitive and personally identifying information.

Free online services aren’t really free; we pay for them with micropayments in the form of personal information.

In some ways, trust is increasingly irrelevant, because, if we are to be members of the Internet-enabled society, we have no option but to rely on the powerful tools that we have at our disposal (such as those provided by major search engines). Like rats forced to endure electric shocks to acquire food, we must use these tools to acquire information and communicate. The implications of data disclosure and retention are profound, including cooperate and law-enforcement abuses and identity theft, as well as second and third-order effects impossible to predict. Those of us who are aware of the risks already self-censor our activities, even if we continue to indulge in them.

What is most worrisome is less that the data is being collected at any given moment and more how it will be used (and abused) in the future. Future advances in data mining, profiling, and machine learning are particularly worrisome. While I don’t foresee a dystopia in the near future, I do see a steady decline in individual freedoms and liberties. This decline is not new, dating back to at least the 1970s when large computerized databases of personal information were being formed in earnest. The pace accelerated globally in the aftermath of 9/11. Will we eventually reach equilibrium?  I think not. The gravitational pull of both profit and power will continue to drive decline.

Public outcry may have the power to stem the tide, but public opinion is fickle.

Those in power are loathe to relinquish or even share it. And, as the power and control of this information (and its data-minded results) provides over hundreds of millions of citizens is seductive, corruption is inevitable. Action is critical, before it is too late to forestall individuals from losing control of their own data and perhaps even of their digital identities.

The moral of the story is to be careful with whom and where you associate, and to protect your personal information. Good luck.

So you don’t believe that the imperialist bourgeois media doesn’t take an active interest in framing the information you consume on a daily basis?

While concrete and comprehensive media analysis of the latest conflict in Gaza won’t be out for a few months now, just looking back at a report in the last four years, it’s hard to believe that much has changed in the way the mainstream media covers stories related to Zionist-Israeli aggression against Palestinians when absolutely no substantial changes in the ownership of the means and instruments of mass communication have occurred.

According to a substantial media coverage report by the organization, “If Americans Knew,” mainstream media coverage did an abysmal job of portraying accuracy in the reporting of deaths between Israelis and Palestinians.

One of their most interesting studies focuses on the coverage of Israeli vs. Palestinian deaths reported by the Associated Press (AP). The AP is the premiere news agency providing news and information to millions of Americans on a daily basis, providing many of the stories surrounding national and international news to local daily news papers in addition to popular search engine news aggregators like Google and Yahoo.

According to the “If Americans Knew” 2004 report, the AP covered the death of Israelis 7.5 times higher than Palestinian deaths.

This number becomes particularly unusual when one looks at the data for all deaths resulting from conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians in 2004. According to the report – there were a total of 821 Palestinian deaths resulting from conflicts. The AP newswire reported only 543 in its headlines and first “lead” paragraphs – the information most often consumed by the most readers.

Conversely, the AP newswire included 141 headlines and first paragraph reports on Israeli deaths. In other words, despite the fact that 7.6% more Palestinians died as a result of conflicts in 2004 (821 to 108). The 141 headlines for 108 Israeli deaths means that 131% of Israeli deaths saw headline/first paragraph coverage; while Palestinians deaths received a mere 66% coverage.

When it comes to the deaths of Zionist-Israeli vs. Palestinian children, the coverage by the AP was even more atrocious. As a result of conflicts between the Zionist forces and Palestinians, 22% more Palestinian children died than Israeli children. Despite this, the AP covered the deaths of Zionist-Israeli children 7.5 times more than Palestinian children.

Similar media analysis studies for television broadcast news yield similar results. The organization, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (www.fair.org) has conducted similar studies that reveal eerily similar conclusions.

So what conclusions may we draw from this? Firstly, there is in fact a pro-Zionist, pro-Israel bias in the bourgeois media. Secondly, a privately owned media represents the interests of the ruling elite and cares little to nothing about objectivity or ethics in journalism. Undoubtedly the ongoing war of aggression at the hands of Israel against the people of Gaza will yield more disturbing analysis in how it was framed and portrayed in the media

*All statistics, information and data were retrieved from “Deadline Distortion: Associated Press Coverage of Israeli and Palestinian Deaths,” available at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

Fellow dissident Robert Lindsay is experiencing difficulty with the censorship imposed on him by Google.  Note that google has purchased youtube, and that youtube gave us trouble too.

The same website that accepts neo-nazi websites (websites that out the personal address and phone number information of enemies) into its index doesn’t allow us to make videos and censors Robert Lindsay?  I am not a fan of Microsoft, but I can fully support Microsoft’s search engine ambitions in alliance against Google.  What a perverted display of hypocrisy, allowing people to have their reputations damaged by online gossip on forums that always gets to the top of the search engine, while simultaneously stifling more professional debate.

http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2008/12/blog-status-report.html

Blogger locked this blog due to violation of the Terms of Service Agreement and the Content Policy. An investigation was undertaken and it was determined that while this blog is, like a lot of us, offensive, it, like most of us, does not yet deserve to die.

I guess some poor sensitive souls complained about the blog and a lot of people started crying, saying it was offensive. There were people crying everywhere, all over the country and even in some other nations, all because of Robert Lindsay.

A lot of people couldn’t go to work because they were too tearful, and traffic even got held up in some major US cities because of all the people crying. People would go into work and start crying and they would have to go home.

“Men” would come to read Robert Lindsay and start crying. Then they would go home and try to have sex with their girlfriends and wives, and halfway through the act, they would start crying again, lose their hardons, and curl up in a ball of tears next to their diabolically cackling women.

Robert Lindsay was starting to effect the economy and sex life of the nation itself.

Health experts warned that pretty soon some of these emo tards were going to start cutting themselves, burning themselves, acting out in Borderline ways, and even committing suicide on the Internet. All because of Robert Lindsay. It was a Goddamned public health issue, and Blogger had to do something quick.

Complaining about Robert Lindsay? That’s like complaining about the sky for being blue. The whole purpose of this blog was to be offensive. It was the spirit of Tony Clifton, Wally Gator, Lenny Bruce, the Sex Pistols, the Germs and the /b/ section of the Chans transmuted into a blog-shaped form.

Now you have to click through a content screen before we let you in here to be internally scarred and corrupted.

As part of our commitment to bringing members, listeners, readers and viewers an eclectic multimedia experience, Free Media Productions was committed to producing unique content that told the story of news neglected and selectively censored from the mainstream media. For convenience sake, our staff and producers used the popular video-sharing website, YouTube, as the means for hosting and distributing our videos. However, our experience with YouTube in our three month relationship was marred by arbitrary censorship which resulted in 2 videos being pulled AND finally discovering that our account, freemediavideos, has just been permanently disabled (11/20/2008).

While it’s not surprising that a for-profit website like YouTube would have an interest in censoring what content it makes available to the public – what we really can’t figure out is why they feel it necessary to remove videos and disable accounts that report on matters that in no way could be confused with any violation of community guidelines or terms of service.

The latest video which resulted in the disabling of the freemediavideos account was simple coverage of the Iraq war from the perspective of the Iraqi Resistance. The images and footage incorporated into the video depicted nothing overtly graphic or explicit. Furthermore, most if not all the footage had been included in numerous broadcasts in the international media.

Furthermore, other videos on youtube showcasing American occupation forces being blown to pieces by IEDs and grenades, remain online. The only difference was that our particular video included a very specific message to frame the issue.

Thus, the only conclusion that one can deduce is that YouTube censors videos not on the basis of violation of community guidelines or terms of services alone – but also political messages that administrators personally disagree with.

It’s not that we would expect anything different given the content of our videos. But, it is a major inconvenience when a lot of work and time was put in towards producing said videos, only to have them removed when they were OBVIOUSLY not in violation of ANY TERMS OF SERVICE.

Oh well. Free Media Productions will be restoring its Video Room soon, and we will replace all of our previous videos and continue to produce more.

Here is the link for the censored version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMhERXBY_q4