Connect with us

Free Speech

Washington Post Attacks ‘Dystopian Fiction’ Genre

Published

on

The Washington Post, owned by Amazon head Jeff Bezos, ran a hit piece Saturday attacking the genre of “dystopian fiction.”

Ironically, the Post’s headline reads: “Dystopian fiction makes people more willing to justify political violence. Should you worry?”

The Post piece is behind a paywall, which is one Wall the newspaper respects.

Trending: Federal Judge Orders Epstein Victim’s Lawyers to Destroy Court Docs Related to Ghislaine Maxwell

This is an actual passage from the actual article, written by University of Maryland government and politics professor Calvert W. Jones:

“After this first experiment, we did not know what to do with these results. Would dystopian fiction really have a significant effect on what people thought ethically acceptable?

In our first experiment we tested two dystopian stories, the Hunger Games series and the Divergent series, to make sure that it was not only a special story that is unique. And both caused similar increases – about eight percentage points – in support of violent political action and the belief that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve justice.”

Jones’ Washington Post passage ends

There is not much that can be said about the irony here, because it’s not funny. It is deeply disturbing that our corporate/government overlords’ favorite newspaper is attacking dystopian fiction for making people too violent.

Will this study be used to justify some government program, some new regulation, some new digital book-burning practice?

Dystopian novelist Philip K. Dick said the following:

“Today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups… So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

Free Speech

Supreme Court Rules That Foreign Soros-Backed Operatives Do Not Have First Amendment Rights

The ruling was against the Soros-backed Alliance for Open Society International.

Published

on

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday making it clear that a major front of progressive billionaire oligarch George Soros does not have 1st Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

In the case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts ruled against 1st Amendment right for the Soros front. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented against the majority while Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case.

The Alliance for Open Society International hoped to soak up federal funds earmarked to stop HIV/AIDS throughout the world. However, they hit a snag due to an act of Congress banning any group that supports prostitution from taking these funds. The pro-hooker leftist group attempted to sue to get around that act of Congress, but were rebuked by the conservative majority. Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion for the case.

“We appreciate that plaintiffs would prefer to affiliate with foreign organizations that do not oppose prostitution,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But Congress required foreign organizations to oppose prostitution in return for American funding. And plaintiffs cannot export their own First Amendment rights to shield foreign organizations from Congress’s funding conditions.”

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Those foreign organizations are legally separate from the American organizations. And because foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, those foreign organizations do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the Policy Requirement,” he continued.

“In sum, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution,” Kavanaugh concluded.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence to Kavanaugh’s opinion in favor of the ruling as well. He went even further than Kavanaugh in supporting Congress’ prohibition on issuing HIV relief funds to organizations that support prostitution.

“The Policy Requirement does not violate the First Amendment, regardless of whether it is applied to respondents, respondents’ legally distinct foreign affiliates, or any other organization, foreign or domestic,” Thomas wrote.

The Soros network is unhappy about the ruling and the fact that they will be denied the federal funds because of their international support for the flesh trade.

“The Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda on U.S. organizations and restrict their right to free speech,” said Patrick Gaspard, president of the Open Society Foundations.

“The Anti-Prostitution Pledge compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services. Condemnation of marginalized groups is not a public health strategy,” Gaspard added.

Regardless of their whining, the decision is final. The ruling could have the cascading effect of denying foreign Soros-backed operations any constitutional protections in terms of their alleged support for terror groups such as Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA as well.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending