RSS

Theresa May appears to intend to screw Britons over, one way or another

Dismaying, but unsurprising… (Hat tip.)

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.

“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become “the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet”, the manifesto claims.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers’ browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no “safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online”. That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists’ messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else’s messages, technology companies have warned.

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn’t published, the manifesto suggests.

The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. “We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,” the Conservatives write.

So, the choice Britons get in their upcoming election is this:

If they elect Labour, Brexit could be in jeopardy, because Labour can’t be trusted to see it through. (Maybe that’s her aim…)

If they do vote the Tories back in, Brexit may happen, but Britons will also get increased state tyranny as regards what they can see and post online. A deeper Deep State…

Fucked either way…

Why, it’s as if a certain vindictive ex-Remainder wishes to punish Britons for making the ‘wrong’ choice…

 

Supervillains will slay…

Planned Parenthood Admits Its Murderous Intentions

It’s not a slip up, it’s a rare admission of the truth.

 

Comic: Illegal immigration is theft

This is of course by design; this is what the powers that be want, which is why it has happened.

Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar

Theft of a future, too.

Not to mention the genocide angles of depriving natives.


Source: http://www.wannalol.com/p/763380

I’d love to see an EU/Euro and a GB/£ version of this.

It’s r-selection in practice.

View original post

 
11 Comments

Posted by on May 19, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

State Control

Excellent.

The Rational Male

Reader, constrainedlocus had an interesting thought in the Anger Bias essay comment thread:

“The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.”

What I find interesting is that, from my own personal observations of men in both marriage and long-term relationships, is that this dismissal happens readily and frequently at the micro level in sexual relationships as well. It’s impossible for men not to notice the hypocrisy.

A man need not experience the trivialization of his anger from “the sisterhood” response in the media, in the corporate setting, or even while at a party with other couples.

I think it now common for a wife or long-term girlfriend to assume a certain privilege or “authority” to express and direct her own anger…

View original post 1,697 more words

 
8 Comments

Posted by on May 18, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Austin man sues date for texting during movie

Will S.' Sunny Side Blog

Good for him!

A Texas woman got a reminder this week that dating is the worst.

The 35-year-old woman may be facing a legal dispute after a man she met online, Brandon Vezmar, sued her last week for texting during their first date to the movies, according to the American-Statesman.

Vezmar, 37, filed a claim against his failed love interest, who did not want to be identified, asking her to reimburse him for the $17.31 ticket to a 3D showing of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin, Texas.

Vezmar claims his date started texting about 15 minutes into the film, which is apparently a movie etiquette transgression in his book.

“It was kind of a first date from hell,” Vezmar told the American-Statesman. “This is like one of my biggest pet peeves.”

I hope he wins.  She’s the rudest thing and thoroughly self absorbed.  He…

View original post 5 more words

 
4 Comments

Posted by on May 18, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Video: Muslim in Canada defends pedophilia

So Muslims in the West are still defending their founder’s marriage of a six-year-old girl, and consummation when she was age nine…

Their worldview is not compatible with ours.

It’s as simple as that.

Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar

They’re getting so bold, aren’t they?

I think the only sensible reply to this is Deus Vult.

“Silence is consent.”

The feminists say nothing.

This completely contradicts the notion of consent, which is a positive construct that must be actively given, in all law, so I would question the translation of that word. It must mean something else, Islam knows no such thing as consent. There is only its meaning, ‘submission’. Submission is never consensual, it is coerced. Coercion is like blackmail in another signed (non-marital) contract, it vitiates consent, it becomes invalid. One must be free to consent.

Lying about the conjoined medical phenomena of menstruation and puberty is another strike against reason.

This entire sham of a religion is merely an excuse for war. No other religion is warmongering. It is totally incompatible with the West and its culture and people.

View original post

 

Liberty University Has Much to be Ashamed Of- But This Is the Most Shameful Thing

Reblogged from Zwinglius Redivivus:

This weekend   Trump was introduced at Liberty University as the ‘Man Who Bombs the Middle East’- and the crowd applauded wildly. The Spirit of Jesus is absent from such people.

Christian University? Not by any evidence.

 
6 Comments

Posted by on May 17, 2017 in Uncategorized