Wednesday Potpourri

First, the war against free expression proceeds apace. Considering that the new British Labour Prime Minister had developed the habit of incarcerating people who spoke ill of Islam, while ignoring any crimes committed by people of that ethnicity, one Thierry Breton, a Commissioner in the European Union, wrote to Elon Musk, threatening him for allowing Donald Trump a platform on his Twitter/X. 

The Daily Mail brings us up to speed:

In his letter to Mr Musk, Mr Breton issued a stern warning to the South African-born businessman ahead of his broadcast with the Republican presidential nominee.

The French politician, the EU commissioner for internal market, noted the conversation between Mr Musk and Mr Trump would be accessible to around 100 million X users in the EU.

He pointed out, under EU laws, X is obliged to ensure 'all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content'.

'This is important against the background of recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation,' he added.

Mr Breton made reference to the recent violent disorder in towns and cities across Britain in the wake of the Southport stabbing attack.

There are concerns the mayhem was partly whipped up on sites such as X, including due to the spread of online misinformation about the Southport suspect.

Mr Musk recently engaged in a spat with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer amid the chaos on UK streets by claiming 'civil war is inevitable'.

He used the hashtag #TwoTierKeir on his social media site, in reference to allegations of 'two tier policing' in Britain….

In his letter ahead of the Trump interview, Mr Breton told Mr Musk: 'As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdiction, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU.

'Therefore, we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political - or societal - events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.

He warned that 'any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU' which could be attributed to the 'ineffectiveness' of X's monitoring of content would form part of the EU's ongoing probe into whether the site complies with Brussels' rules.

'This is in line with what has already been done in the recent past, for example in relation to the repercussions and amplification of terrorist content or content that incites violence, hate and racism in the EU, such as in the context of the recent riots in the UK,' he added.

Musk replied: “Take a big step back and literally fuck your own face.”

I prefer a more subtle approach. We should ask ourselves why we are paying to defend these people. Perhaps NATO has outlived its usefulness.

Postscript-- the EU is disavowing its own letter. Apparently, it was a mistake. The Financial Times reported:

On Tuesday the European Commission denied that Breton had approval from its president Ursula von der Leyen to send the letter. “The timing and the wording of the letter were neither co-ordinated or agreed with the president nor with the [commissioners],” it said.

Of course, this is a lie, designed to absolve one of responsibility for doing something very stupid.

Second, if you think that the European attitude is some aberration take a gander at the thoughts of one Sara Fischer, of Axios, on CNN:

 “@elonmusk will let Donald Trump speak all of the falsehoods & misinformation that he wants. I mean, he’s not a journalist … Does he want to be fact checking all the information? So I think it‘s just a platform for Trump to come out say whatever he wants.”

Now we know what scares a little scaredy pants like Sara Fischer-- someone who says what he wants to say. Because, if he is a Republican, his every sentence must be fact checked immediately.

Third, and why not report the question that a Washington Post reporter asked at the White House press briefing. Cleve Woodson is obviously an enemy of free expression and democracy:

“One more, @ElonMusk is slated to interview [@realDonaldTrump] tomorrow — tonight on — on. I don't know if the president is going to — feel free to say if he is or not — but I — I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It's a — you know, it's an America issue. What role does the White House or the President have any sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of inter — intervening in that. Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but you know it's a wider thing, right?”

Tell me about how democracy dies in darkness.

Fourth, the Free Press reports that certain groups in Chicago have compiled a blacklist of Zionist therapists. Sally Satel reports:

… trying to prevent clinicians who support the existence of Israel—or are Jewish, or have Jewish-sounding names—from treating patients constitutes a grave breach of professional ethics. Interfering with the work of colleagues for political reasons is unconscionable. 

Unfortunately, instead of fighting back, the major professional organizations are embracing this malignant philosophy. The American Psychological Association has committed itself to “decolonial” psychology. The National Association of Social Workers states that “antiracism and other facets of diversity, equity, and inclusion must be a focal point for everyone within social work.” The American Counseling Association emphasizes “the dynamics of power, privilege, and oppression that influence the counseling relationship.” Training programs for new therapists have injected these tenets into their curricula. 

Evidently, therapy has now become a form of ideological indoctrination.

How much of the mental health profession is infested with stealth anti-Semitism?

Fifth, Kamala Harris has named a new liaison to the Jewish community. His name is Ilan Goldenberg. He was part of the Iran nuclear deal. His attitude toward the Israeli war against Hamas:

 “Hamas would retain some of its military capabilities”.

David Milstein offers some additional points on Twitter: 

Supported Obama's abstention of the anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 + Secretary Kerry's shameful speech at the end of the Obama Administration

Opposed the Trump Admin's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the Embassy to Jerusalem consistent with U.S. law. Ilan said if these actions were taken - the U.S. should unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state / open an Embassy for the Palestinians in Jerusalem - supporting the division of Israel's eternal capital

Opposed the U.S recognition of Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights that has been critical to Israel's security

Supported "a political process that simultaneously pursues the reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and a long-term ceasefire between Israel and a group of Palestinian factions that include Hamas and Fatah and that has the blessing of the PLO"

You can now stop mumbling about how Kamala has a Jewish husband. You might have noticed that her Jewish husband worked for a law firm that represented the PLO, and that Kamala’s Jewish step daughter is militating for a Free Palestine.

Sixth, it turns out that diversity training does nothing to improve diversity. Harassing white people for their privilege does not make for a more efficient or effective company environment.

It is, however, good for the business of lawyering. DEI programs have provoked a blizzard of lawsuits, and for lawyers, that is good news.

John Sexton reports:

It turns out that putting Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi in charge of the nation's collective HR programs hasn't gone smoothly in all cases. Who would have guessed?

Today the Washington Post has a story about the legal backlash that ubiquitous anti-racism training has created. There are at least 59 current lawsuits brought against these training programs by people who say they felt discriminated against.

Seventh, while few of us were paying attention, the consensus on gender affirming care has broken. Leor Sapir explains it in the City Journal:

The main justification for “gender-affirming care” for minors in the United States has been that “all major U.S. medical associations” support it. Critics of this supposed consensus have argued that it is not grounded in high-quality research or decades of honest and robust deliberation among clinicians with different viewpoints and experiences. Instead, it is the result of a small number of ideologically driven doctor-association members in LGBT-focused committees, who exploit their colleagues' trust. Physicians presenting different viewpoints are silenced or kept away from decision-making circles, ensuring the appearance of unanimity.

That was yesterday. Today, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has refused to endorse gender affirming care:

But the U.S. consensus now appears to have its first big fracture. In July, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, a major medical association representing 11,000 members and over 90 percent of the field in the U.S. and Canada, told me that it “has not endorsed any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.” ASPS acknowledged that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”

Next stop, the courts.

I now have some open consulting hours for my counseling practice. If you are interested email me at StuartSchneiderman@gmail.com

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.