Reader’s Links for November 14, 2020

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

66 Replies to “Reader’s Links for November 14, 2020”

  1. Turkey fines Google $25.6 mln for breaching competition law

    “Turkish authorities have fined Google on Nov. 13 196.7 million Turkish liras ($25.6 million) for breaching the country’s competition law.

    Previously, the Competition Board opened an investigation upon a complaint that the tech giant abused its position to give an unfair edge to some companies.

    The board ruled that Google breached the law by complicating organic search results in the content services market by placing text ads intensively and uncertainly at the top of the general search results, according to information received by Anadolu Agency.

    The investigation included Turkish Google Reklamc?l?kk ve Pazarlama Ltd., Google International LLC, Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd., and Alphabet Inc., it added.

    In March 2019, the European Commission also slapped a $1.69-billion fine on Google for breaching the EU’s anti-trust rules on online advertising.”

  2. France not ‘free-speech champion’: Amnesty

    “Amnesty International on Saturday accused the French government of not being the “champion of free speech that it likes to think it is,” criticizing recent rhetoric by the government as “shameful hypocrisy.”

    “The French government’s rhetoric on free speech is not enough to conceal its own shameless hypocrisy,” said Marco Pirolini, a researcher in the rights group, adding that freedom of expression “means nothing unless it applies to everyone.”

    He accused French President Emmanuel Macron and his government of doubling down on a “smear campaign” against French Muslims over the murder of Samuel Paty, a French teacher who was brutally murdered in mid-October.

    “[They] launched their own attack on freedom of expression,” said Pirolini, citing recent incidents such as the hours-long questioning by French police of four 10-year-old children on suspicion of “apology of terrorism.”

    He also referred to a court ruling on two men for “contempt” after they burned an effigy depicting Macron during a peaceful protest, as well as a bill being discussed in parliament that would criminalize the use of images of law enforcement officials on social media.

    “It is hard to square this with the French authorities’ vigorous defense of the right to depict the Prophet Mohammed in cartoons.”

    He stressed that Muslims’ freedom of expression and religion usually received scant attention in France under the guise of Republican universalism, underlining that in the name of secularism, Muslims in France were banned from wear religious symbols or dress in schools and public sector jobs.

    “France’s record on freedom of expression in other areas is just as bleak. Thousands of people are convicted every year for ‘contempt of public officials’, a vaguely defined criminal offence that law enforcement and judicial authorities have applied in massive numbers to silence peaceful dissent,” Pirolini added.

    “In June this year, the European Court of Human Rights found that the convictions of 11 activists in France for campaigning for a boycott of Israeli products violated their free speech,” he said.

    Pirolini criticized recent moves by authorities to dissolve organizations and close mosques on the basis of the “ambiguous concept of ‘radicalization.’” He also accused the government of conflating “radicalization” with the actions of devout Muslims.

    “The government’s free speech campaign should not be used for covering up the measures that put people at risk of human rights abuses including torture,” he said.

    Last month, Macron described Islam as “a religion in crisis” and announced plans for tougher laws to tackle “Islamist separatism” in France.

    Tensions further escalated after middle school teacher Paty was murdered and beheaded on Oct. 16 in a Paris suburb in retaliation for showing his students blasphemous cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad during a class on freedom of expression.

    Insulting cartoons by the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo were also projected on buildings in some French cities.

    Macron defended the cartoons, saying France would “not give up our cartoons,” sparking outrage across the Muslim world.”

  3. Europe’s battle against Islamist terror – Jerusalem Studio 557

    France has become a major battleground in the fight between governments of Europe -whose populations are mostly Christian, and Islamist terrorists – who are out to impose their ideology by all means possible.

    The recent brutal attacks in France and Austria have reignited dialogue among European leaders to combat (what they term) political Islam.

    Is it just a security problem, or a more fundamental one?

    Will the measures taken by French and other authorities decrease the friction, or only increase it?

  4. New Pentagon adviser said Pompeo, senior officials made rich by ‘Israeli lobby’

    A newly appointed senior adviser at the Pentagon has said on at least two occasions that “Israeli lobby” money is responsible for Washington’s support for Jerusalem, and accused high level officials, including US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, of becoming “very, very rich” as a result of their support for Israel, CNN revealed Friday.…

    Macgregor was named as an adviser to acting defense chief Christopher Miller, who replaced Mark Esper when he and other top Pentagon officials were fired this week by US President Donald Trump and replaced with loyalists.

    In a 2012 interview with the Russian state outlet RT, Macgregor said the pro-Israel lobby had “enormous influence” and wanted military action to be taken against Iran.

    “I think the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] and its subordinate elements or affiliated elements that represent enormous quantities of money that over many years have cultivated an enormous influence in power in Congress,” he said.
    Ugh. Even I knew about MacGregor.
    And why was he spewing jooo-hate drivel on RT?

    This is the same wing of the party that loves Ron Paul, one of the Top Ten U.S. antisemites of 2014. Who also is funded and promoted by Russia, an “antiwar” activist.

    • “Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decide”
      by Publius Huldah – September 20, 2020


      It has become obvious that one of the purposes of the COVID-19 scam is to bring about unrestricted mail-in voting in the toss-up and Red States so that the upcoming presidential election can be stolen by the Left for the senile Joe Biden and his constitutionally ineligible running mate, Kamala Harris.

      Our elections are already tainted by the “ghost voters” described in Deroy Murdock’s article (published 2017) [here]. Murdock showed that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who didn’t exist were registered to vote. But that number wasn’t sufficient to elect Hillary Clinton; so the Left needs more ghost voters. With mail-in voter registration, dead people can be registered to vote; and with unrestricted mail-in voting, those dead people can vote forever.

      The Plaintiffs in this action claim to be distressed about the statutory requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) appear in person to vote because it forces them to choose between their “health” [they might catch COVID-19 if they go to the polls] and their right to vote. 1

      On September 9, 2020, federal judge Eli Richardson issued a preliminary injunction which has the effect of setting aside, for the upcoming presidential election, the statutory requirement – established by the Tennessee Legislature – that persons who registered by mail, show up in person the first time they vote.

      Here is Richardson’s 29 page Order.

      So let’s cut 29 pages of bunk down to its essence: Richardson ruled that the Tennessee Legislature’s requirement that the first-time voters (who registered by mail) physically appear at the polls, imposes a “moderate burden” on voting rights; and the State failed to show the Court that Tennessee has a “legitimate state interest” to justify that burden. 2

      Even worse: Throughout his Order, Richardson writes repeatedly [some 20 times] of Plaintiffs’ “First Amendment right to vote”; and says at the end of para 31 of his Order,

      “…it is likely that Plaintiffs will prevail on their claim that the first-time voter requirement violates the First Amendment right to vote…”

      But the First Amendment makes no mention of a “right to vote”. 3 Furthermore, in footnote 22 of his Order, the Judge says:

      “In a prior order, the Court declined to address any suggestion that there is no First Amendment right to vote, for any purposes at all, by mail in particular… The Court was well aware that McDonald supports such a suggestion, but the Court simply did not need to opine on that matter. The Court likewise does not need to do so here…”

      What? The Judge declined to address whether or not a First Amendment right to vote actually exists – even though he has already determined that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) show up in person to vote “violates the First Amendment right to vote”!

      2. Why do Plaintiffs and the Judge repeatedly speak of a “First Amendment right to vote”, when the Judge isn’t prepared to say that such a right even exists?

      They may be aware that the federal court has no jurisdiction over this case; but are attempting to fake it by claiming that the case “arises under the Constitution” via the First Amendment.4

      The judicial power of the federal courts is limited to those few categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, clause 1, US Constitution. Not one of the categories invests the federal court with jurisdiction over this case. This case can’t be said to “arise under the Constitution” because there is no “right to vote” in the US Constitution; and the remaining categories listed in Article III, §2 are clearly inapplicable.

      So it appears that Plaintiffs have fabricated a mythical “First Amendment right to vote” in order to provide a pretext for the federal court to exercise jurisdiction in this case – and that the federal judge let them get away with it.

      “In key swing states this year, mail-in ballot rejections plummeted from 2016 rates”
      by Daniel Payne – November 13, 2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.