Aussies go full Orwellian – require ID to use social media?

 

The government could require you to hand over your passport to tech companies before posting online in a move that’s been slammed by experts.

The Australian government is mulling a proposal which would require citizens to provide at least two forms of identification if they want to use social media, under the guise of ‘battling online bullying and more easily report users to authorities.

I thought the Aussies had more sense. But then again they were more than happy to give up their guns.

“Are we turning into North Korea? This is Orwellian,” one user wrote on Twitter after reading the recommendation.

 

 

Under the guise of preventing online bullying, the Morrison government’s plan would require ‘100 points of identification’ in order to use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram – and online dating platforms such as Tinder, according to news.com.au. To satisfy the ‘100 points’ requirement, citizens would need to combine ‘Category 1’ methods of identification (birth certificate, passport, citizenship papers) with ‘Category 2’ ID (Valid government-issued license, public employee photo ID, doctor’s note).

 

Hard to believe:

H/T: Zero Hedge

We already have had the experience with Parler. Recall?

Hacker Archives Every Deleted Parler Post -“Very Incriminating” UPDATE

We thought that by wandering over to Parler we could breathe easy with our comments.  After all we thought we would not be censored for the most part and it appeared it was going to be live and let live. No data mining. (Chuckle time)

We are in for a nasty shock.

We could fire off a comment feeling free as a twitter bird.. 

Now we find that all of our comments and videos are identifiable to us, most including our location, have been harvested from Parler.

Coming to our swamp soon.

Norway Criminalizes Certain Hate Speech in Private Homes and Conversations

 

This is like a bad movie. Speech control leading to thought control. We already are being encouraged to rat out our neighbor if they are not “obeying” the Masters demand for correct behavior. Now to the point of discussions with our spouse? Tell me they have to be kidding. Biden is all in with this:

The move to criminalize speech has led to an insatiable appetite for new limitations and broader prosecutions. Norway is an example of this headlong plunge into speech controls and crimes in the West. This week the legislature adopted (without even a vote) a new criminal law that punishes people for saying anything deemed hate speech toward transgender people in their own home or private conversations.

People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.

….

Minister of Justice and Public Security Monica Maeland  declared victory because speech regulation must be “adapted to the practical situations that arise.” The “practical situation” includes speaking to your own spouse or family.

….

The most chilling fact is that European-style speech controls have become a core value in the Democratic Party. Once a party that fought for free speech, it has become the party demanding Internet censorship and hate speech laws. President-Elect Joe Biden has called for speech controls and recently appointed a transition head for agency media issues that is one of the most pronounced anti-free speech figures in the United States.

 

 

From Jonathan Turley:

The New York Post reports that Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. As I previously addressed in a column, Stengel has been one of the most controversial figures calling for censorship and speech controls. For a president-elect who just called for everyone to “hear each other,” he picked a top aide who wants to silence many.  Since it would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.  This is not the first Biden aide to indicate a crackdown on free speech in the new Administration and Biden himself has called for greater censorship on the Internet.

Last year, Stengel wrote a chilling Washington Post op-ed that denounced free speech as a threat to social and political harmony.  Like a number of liberal and Democratic figures, Stengel struggled to convince readers that what they need is less freedom:  “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

It is a trend that seems now to be find support in the media, which celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

More at  Zero Hedge

 

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Scottish Hate Crime Bill Would Criminalize Offensive Dinner Table Conversations

 

“Stirring up hate” is the operative phrase. Looks like Scotland’s holiday meals and family get togethers will be subdued events. After all, one could go to jail according to the new hate crime bill.

That includes off-color dinner table conversations with friends and family. Asked whether people would be allowed to speak freely within their own homes, Yousaf said he disagreed “in terms of principle and policy” with the idea of keeping the law out of the living room.

“Let’s just give an example, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against Muslims,” he said. “Are we saying that that is justified because it is in the home?”

Humza Yousaf

 

Here is a look into the gazing ball of what our future here in America soon will look like:

Scotland’s new odious hate crime bill would go so far as to criminalize dinner table conversations if their ‘offensive’ content is reported to police.

“Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law,” reports the Times.

Such conversations were previously protected under the Public Order Act 1986, which includes a “dwelling defense” that shields conversations that take place in private homes from being prosecuted, however that would be removed under the new law.

The new bill would add an additional crime of “stirring up hate” against a protected group by “behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person,” as well as the crime of possessing “inflammatory material.”

Critics have argued that the vague term “stirring up hate” could be broadly interpreted and could lead to people like JK Rowling facing criminal charges and up to seven years in prison for expressing views about transgender issues.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said journalists, writers and theater directors could also be dragged into the courts if their work is deemed to have stirred up “prejudice.”

To get an idea of Yousaf’s mentality, he previously gave a speech to the Scottish Parliament in which he complained that the vast majority of senior positions in Scottish authorities were filled by white people.

Demographically, Scotland is 96% white.

Humza Yousaf says Scotland is Too White

 

 

H/T: Summit News

The best of the world’s swamp.

Oxford students want University to ban clapping

 

Just when you think it cannot get more absurd it does. Oxford University no less. The next generation’s leaders will now become mute little automatons. Silent drones carrying out their master’s orders. It’s all about control – the hint I give you on a Friday.

The Oxford University student council is lobbying the prestigious British university to end applause, arguing that it could trigger anxiety and was unfair to disabled students.

The Oxford Student reported Wednesday that the council had passed a motion to “mandate the Sabbatical Officers to encourage the use of British Sign Language (BSL) clapping, otherwise known as ‘silent jazz hands’ at Student Council meetings and other official SU events,” and to “lobby the University” to make similar changes.

“Loud noises, including whooping and traditional applause, are argued to present an access issue for some disabled students who have anxiety disorders, sensory sensitivity, and/or those who use hearing impairment aids,” the university newspaper said.

The students’ decision comes a year after the University of Manchester Students’ Union made the same move to “avoid triggering anxiety and improve accessibility.” More at

Free Beacon

Yes, let’s have a joyless useless life. Welcome to 1984 and then some. From my stash of old stuff:

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures. A reminder from George Orwell.  This is where we are.

 

 

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge push the button.

New Rules! YouTube Banning anything critical of illegal immigration UPDATE!

 

There is no slowing down the loss of our rights to free speech when in the hands of a corporation. The latest in determination of what “hate Speech” is. Now a new protected class: Immigration Status.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, said it’s removing thousands of channels that violate the new policies.

Ethnicity? Nothing critical permitted opposing the suppression of Muslim women?

Immigration? Wall jumpers banned?

 

 

YouTube’s new policies will take effect immediately. Specifically, the service is banning videos “alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion.” The ban applies to a range of characteristics, including race, sexual orientation and veteran status.

YouTube’s changes follow moves from Facebook to prohibit not only white supremacy , but also white nationalism and white separatism.

Read more at Time

 

UPDATE:   Looks like YouTube got the hint on this one.

Liberals cry censorship after YouTube demonetizes SPLC content

Daily Caller: Liberal activists are crying foul after YouTube’s demonetizing frenzy slammed the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization known for labeling conservative groups as hate groups. A video SPLC [Read More]

 

They have been doing YouTube’s dirty work! Is this just a distraction?

You got it. The same group that said Patriot Groups marked as Hate Groups by Southern Poverty Law Center 

Here is their map to their so-called “Hate Groups” –  Hate Map

Here is a list of the various groups including Christian identities – Catholics and Oath Keepers: SPLC Groups Monitored

Last August, a guest post by Mustang, filled you in on the SPLC group and what they are about – Excusing Leftist Hatred – SPLC

 

The left-wing nonprofit SPLC— which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Snip…

First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers designing the algorithms policing the video platform but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

More at  Daily Caller

BONUS: SPLC Revisited … Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

Double Bonus:

Ca Dems trys to pass law against “fake news” creates Ministry of Truth

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 We already have “censors” concerning social media. Now California wants to legislate the truth and chose who does this? The left has been working on this for years. They never rest.

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.

 

Thanks WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

Flashback: Obama’s government intrusion into media content

 

Many are wondering just how the news media fell off the rails and became the democrat sycophants that they are today. I thought I would wander through my old stash of posts for a Saturday flashback and see what we could discern.

Ah yes, the glory days of the Obama administration when we started that long miserable road of “fundamentally transforming America.”  Those were the days of us wearing tin foil. So they said.

 

FEC moving to control and regulate Internet, blogs, News media

The Internet is the last bastion of true free speech by the everyday Joe and Jane.

Via Washington Examiner:

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Keep reading…

 

FCC to police and question media, websites regarding content

November 1, 2013

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across  media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment  concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which  is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a  comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of  information on demographics, point of view, news topic  selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and  out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers,  web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell,  who served as a FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller.  “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been  privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one  should be concerned.”

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to  invasive questioning about their work and content.

FCC Wants to Regulate Internet’s ‘On/Off Ramps,’ Commissioner Says

June 13, 2011 — bunkerville

 

 

Judicial Watch Documents Radical Group Consulted with FCC to Push Obama’s Internet Takeover

June 5, 2011

McChesney strongly believes in government control of the medium and the message.

In a 2000 article — titled “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle”  in Review, McChesney laid out his goal of using media as a tool for socialist change:

Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism…

In 2009, McChesney said the following about capitalism and the media:

  • “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”
  • “There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
  • “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”

FCC Orders Newsrooms To Partner With Soros-Funded Non-Profits

February 4, 2011

Under the terms of the FCC order approving Comcast’s takeover of NBCU, at least half of NBC’s 10 O&Os have to find a nonprofit news center with which to work within the next year. The order cites the KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org alliance as the model for what it would like to see in other NBC markets.

Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBC’s FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners.

There’s just one problem with this: Voice of San Diego is a member of INN (Investigative News Network) which is funded by the Open Society Institute, the URL of which is “www.soros.org.” Yes, these “non-profit” journalism centers are funded by George Soros. Full Story at Big Journalism

 

NBC, Universal, Comcast cave to FCC Diversity

January 14, 2011 — bunkerville

NBCU will strive to ensure the presentation of diverse viewpoints by seeking the expanded participation of minorities on its news and public affairs programming,” the companies promised in writing to black leaders. “To advance this goal, NBCU will consider suggestions from the African American Advisory Council of individuals who could be considered for such participation.”

The media giants also agreed to allow black leaders to have influence over NBC’s news programming. In addition to programming “diversity,” the Comcast and NBC Universal Memorandums of Understanding with different race-specific civil rights groups promise “diversity” in company employment, in supplier and vendor procurement and in “philanthropy and community investment.”

FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station

December 3, 2010

This is an abbreviated portion found over at CNS:

American journalism is in “grave peril,” FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says, and to bolster “traditional media,” he said the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcast station at relicensing time.

In a speech at the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York on Thursday, Copps also said station relicensing should happen every four years instead of the current eight.

“If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.”

Ever since Barack Obama became president, prominent conservatives have warned about liberal efforts to squelch conservative and Christian talk-radio.

NPR Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

October 26, 2010 — bunkerville

     Schiller, a New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to “reinvent journalism.” That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the “Future of Journalism.” Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it “the new public media.”

With now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News, Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the government in general and NPR in particular. Keep Apologizing Vivian, we got your number , who explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009, it is public radio’s responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left by dying local television stations and newspapers

FCC Chairman Ducks Question About FCC Official’s First Amendment Views

November 5, 2009 — bunkerville

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, after testifying at a congressional hearing on texting while driving Wednesday, was asked whether he agreed with Mark Lloyd’s views on the First Amendment. He refused to say if he agrees with the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Czar Mark Lloyd that freedom of speech is an “exaggeration” and that concerns about free speech serve only as a “distraction” from policy debates.

Instead of answering the question, Genachowski said he would rather focus on drivers who are distracted by text-messaging.

CNSNews.com: Your Chief Diversity Office, Mark Lloyd, wrote in 2006 that freedom of speech had become an exaggeration and that free speech concerns served to distract from policy debates. Do you agree with those statements?Genachowski: We’re here today to talk about distracted driving, and today is a day to focus attention on that issue and that’s what we’ve done.

In his book, Mark Lloyd said his approach to communications was inspired by left-wing radical Saul Alinsky.

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork. From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance,” Lloyd wrote.

Alinksy, author of the book “Rules for Radicals,” wrote that his methods were intended to guide people intent on overturning the American system.

“’The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” Alinsky explained. “’Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

 

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.

College allows student handing out the U.S. Constitution after 2-year legal battle

 

Day after day we need to battle the absurd Marxism that is destroying our schools and colleges. It is hard to believe that it took a long drawn out legal battle just to retain this basic right given to us by our founders. What is worse, it is luck. It could have turned out a whole lot differently had they not settled. Luck of the draw apparently.

After a two-year battle, the Los Angeles Community College District has agreed to abolish a policy that limited student expression to “free speech zones,” available only through application.

Pierce College student Kevin Shaw was handing out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution in November 2016 when an administrator told him that he would have to confine his activity to the school’s “free speech zone.”

 

The school told Shaw that he would have to apply for access to the 616-square foot zone and that his failure to comply would result in his removal from campus.

…..

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Community College District agreed to settle the lawsuit, as well as to revoke the unconstitutional policy that recognized all campuses within the district as “non-public forums,” effectively removing free speech restrictions placed on 150,000 students, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

“I wish it hadn’t taken two years for my school to conclude I had a right to free expression,” Shaw told Campus Reform.

“All the same, I’m thankful to know future students won’t have to worry about being harassed for expressing political opinions.”

Zero Hedge

Our Rights. Do most of us even understand them?

Our Rights

Do most of us even understand them?

By Mustang

A common complaint today is that one or another social media platform have banned someone because they, in some way, violated platform standards of conduct.  At least, that’s the allegation; but I have to ask: Um … so?

Perhaps it is true that social media standards are draconian, and they may even be politically biased.  We may not like these so-called standards, but there is another argument.  Given what we know about human behavior on social media, some of which is out-right cowardly and vulgar, most of which we would never tolerate from anyone in person, and some of which is clearly dangerous to public safety, what is wrong with an attempt by social media to enforce well-mannered and lawful dialogue?  

Hasn’t it been true in the past that terrorists have used social media to communicate their plans and aspirations? Aren’t there predators on these platforms, people who bully and harass others?  Aren’t there some people who are unable to construct simple sentences without using the “F-bomb”?  I’m trying to imagine how many of us would host an afternoon party at our homes and then put up with such nonsense from one of our guests.  Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t put up with it more than a nanosecond.

Beyond this, there is the inane argument that social platforms are denying its clients their first amendment right to self-expression (no matter how inappropriate those expressions may be).  Well, a short review of the First Amendment is in order. The Constitution and its amendments only apply to government’s behavior toward us … it does not protect behavior between private persons. 

In other words, there is no right to free speech when someone is standing in our living rooms making an ass of him or herself —and should I toss an offensive person out the door, they have no right to have me arrested, or drag me into a civil court, for doing so.  I’m thinking we ought to stop using the “first amendment” argument: it is silly.

I often wonder if social media platforms aren’t part of the reason our society has become so fractured—so, my final argument, allowing that Facebook or Twitter is not a government entity, is that if people are offended because social media restricts their speech or behavior, they can always cancel their accounts—which, as best as I can tell offers us access to their platforms free of charge.  We do have choices, right?  We could, for example, reduce our profanity, curtail the tendency to be rude or obnoxious to people we have never even met, and we could seek ways of expressing our political proclivities other than shouting at one another.

What say you?

Ca Dems trys to pass law against “fake news” creates Ministry of Truth

 

For some reason I don’t think this will end well. We already have “censors” concerning social media. Now California wants to legislate the truth and chose who does this? The left has been working on this for years. They never rest.

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 

Earlier in February I posted this:

Southern Poverty Law Center secretly policing content for YouTube

The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in policing content on their platform, The Daily Caller has learned.

The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Patriot Groups marked as Hate Groups by Southern Poverty Law Center

Danger from the Patriots! LA Times warns U.S.

 

Too Orwellian to even think about. Let’s legislate this:

One of the latest legislative proposals from California aims to make government the arbiter of truth.

Senate Bill 1424 would create an advisory group on “fake news” to work with social media companies to weed out what the government deems incorrect information on the internet.

This legislation, if passed, would require California’s attorney general to create the group, consisting of “social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars,” to study and mitigate the problem of spreading false information.

According to CBS Sacramento, even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a left-leaning nonprofit civil liberties organization, called the legislation “flawed” and “misguided.”

This bill mirrors the trend in Europe, where government commissions to police speech and the news are becoming common.

California, emboldened by a stridently progressive Legislature, is trying to bring these Orwellian fake news panels to the United States.

37 Examples of Real College Courses That Are Too Crazy to Believe

 

 

While we hear how college kids are outraged at the burden of huge debts that will take them years to pay off, few are as outraged about the courses being taught. The nonsense of Antifa and the diminishing of free speech by conservatives, one has to ask what are our children getting out of a college education? Here are a few snippets:

 

Authored by Michael Snyder via The American Dream blog,

You just can’t make this stuff up.

All over America we push our young people to get good grades so that they can get “a college education”, but then once they get through college many of our young people are completely unequipped to deal with the real world.

I am about to share with you a list of 37 of the most ridiculous courses that are currently being offered at major U.S. colleges and universities today.  This information comes from a brand new report that was just put out by Young America’s Foundation, and it is tempting to chuckle as you read through what they have compiled, but the truth is that what is happening to our system of higher learning is not a laughing matter.  The following is a short excerpt from the report

The following are 37 examples of real college courses that are almost too crazy to believe…

#1 MCL 135: Vampires: Evolution of a Sexy Monster (University of Kentucky)

#2 HIST 336: Saints, Witches, and Madwomen (University of Nebraska)

#3 WOMGEN 1225: Leaning In, Hooking Up (Harvard University)

#4 SOAN 261: Campus Sex in the Digital Age (Washington & Lee University)

#5 GSWS 434: The Politics of Ugly (University of Pennsylvania)

#6 AMS 398: FAT: The F-Word and the Public Body (Princeton University)

#7 GWS 462: Hip Hop Feminism (University of Illinois)

#8 GWS 255: Queer Lives, Queer Politics (University of Illinois)

#9 SOC 388: Marriage in the Age of Trump (Davidson College)

#10 HISTORY 330-0: Medieval Sexuality (Northwestern University)

#11 AI 318: Zombies: Modern Myths, Race, and Capitalism (DePaul University)

#12 SOCI 332: Alternative Genders (Texas A&M University)

#13 AMCULT 103: Drag in America (University of Michigan)

#14 AMCULT 334: Race, Gender, Sexuality and U.S. Culture in Video Games (University of Michigan)

#15 AMCULT 411: Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music (University of Michigan)

#16 WGS 255: Deconstructing the Diva (DePaul University)

#17 GLBT 3404: Transnational Sexualities (University of Minnesota)

#18 GSFS 0208: Unruly Bodies: Black Womanhood in Popular Culture (Middlebury College)

#19 MC 2002: Media, Sport and Culture: Amplifying the Sporting-Ism (Louisiana State University)

#20 THEO 025: The Bible and Horror (Georgetown University)

#21 SOAS 3500: Queerness in South Asian Literature and Cinema (University of Iowa)

#22 AADS 2204: Black Women and the Politics of Blackness and Beauty (Vanderbilt University)

#23 AFR 334: Radical Theories of Political Struggle: Anti-Black Racism and the Obama Administration (Williams College)

#24 COLT 0510F: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, The Men and the Myths (Brown University)

#25 HIST 379: Queering Colonialism (Washington & Lee University)

#26 AMST 274: Rainbow Cowboys (and Girls): Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality in Westerns (Wellesley College)

#27 AFA 4430: Black Lives Matter (University of Florida)

#28 RELI GU 4355: The African American Prophetic Political Tradition from David Walker to Barack Obama (Columbia University)

#29 RELG 032: Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology (Swarthmore College)

#30 RELG 033: Queering the Bible (Swarthmore College)

#31 ENVS 042: Ecofeminism (Swarthmore College)

#32 FRSEMR 61D: Trying Socrates in the Age of Trump (Harvard University)

#33 GSWS 2219: Deconstructing Masculinities (Bowdoin College)

#34 GSFS 0325: American Misogyny (Middlebury College)

#35 BLSTU 3850: Gender, Hip Hop, and the Politics of Representation (University of Missouri)

#36 AAS 301: Black to the Future: Science, Fiction, and Society (Princeton University)

#37 SOC 105: Race, Religion, & Donald Trump (Davidson College

As a bonus, let me share with you 20 more crazy college courses that have been previously offered at colleges and universities around the nation.

This list comes from one of my previous articles, and even though most of these courses are no longer being offered, they still serve as examples of how pathetic our system of “higher education” has truly become in recent years… more at Zero Hedge

%d bloggers like this: