Neo-Pagan Witchcraft vs Satanism

Otter and Morning Glory Zell

It seems to be necessary to preface every discussion of Witchcraft with an explanation that, no, Neo-Pagan Witches aren't Satanists. The Christian anti-God, Satan, has no place in Pagan pantheons, either mythologically or theologically. Plainly and simply, Satanism is the dark side of Christianity, and Satan is nothing other than the collective Id of Christendom.

Even today, Witchcraft is frequently misrepresented by being confused with Satanism. Often the word Witchcraft is used to represent two wholly opposite phenomena: the survival of ancient Paganism in one instance, and the inversion of Christianity in another. Let us make it clear: a Satanist is a renegade Christian, who, in his rebellion against the authority of the church, worships Satan rather than Christ. Such people are at times called witches and warlocks in popular books and movies but they have little to do with Pagan Witches. Satanists, for one thing, accept the Christian duality between good and evil; Pagans do not. Satanists may choose to worship evil rather than good: but they have utterly bought the Christian world view".

The word Pagan derives from the Latin paganus, meaning "peasant" or "country dweller". It is correctly applied to indigenous (native) pantheistic folk religions and peoples. The term "Neo-Paganism" is applied to the current revival of ancient Pagan religious values, including the sacredness of all Life and the worship of Nature. Modern Witchcraft has been a major component of the Neo-Pagan resurgence since England repealed its anti-Witchcraft laws in 1951.The Goddess and the God of Witchcraft The many traditions of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft have few universal theological precepts, but one of them is certainly the veneration of the Moon Goddess, known most commonly by her Roman name, Diana. She is perceived as manifesting in triple form: as Maiden, Mother and Crone. These triple aspects are identified respectively with the waxing, full, and waning moons. Witches gather at esbats every full moon, to sing and dance in Her moonlight, share cakes and wine, and work magic to heal each other, their friends, and the Earth. Many modern Witches expand the concept of the Goddess considerably, and see Her also as Mother Earth and Mother Nature.

Most traditions of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft also honor the Consort of the Goddess in the form of the Horned God, who is seen as Lord of Animals as well as seasonal ruler of the Underworld. The most familiar version of the Horned God is the Greek Pan, goat-horned and goat-hooved, playing His panpipes, guzzling wine from His freely-flowing wineskin, and seducing nymphs in the woods. He is regarded as lusty and jovial, epitomizing masculine attributes of ideal father, brother or lover. As the Goddess of Witchcraft is closely identified with the Moon, so the God is identified with the Sun. In this way He may be seen mythologically as the lover both of the Moon and of the Earth. Another of His many epithets is "Lord of Light". Every light casts its shadows, and the Lord of Shadows is the other face of the Lord of Light. Lord of the Underworld is the title of the God in Winter when He goes underground with the animals to hibernate. Some traditions had Him alternate with His brother as husband to the eternal Goddess. Others, as in the Greek Hades, had a year-round God of the Underworld, "The Devil."

It is essential to clarify the historic relationship of Pan and the Devil, as Christianity has tended to confuse the two, giving rise to the accusation that Pagans are Devil-worshipers because some Pagan gods have horns. Once and for all, the Christian Devil is not the God of the Witches! The genesis of the Devil comes from a merging of two concepts: Satan and Lucifer. The original meaning of the word satan is "adversary", and his inclusion in the Bible represents an attempt by later apologists of the Old Testament to justify the more negative actions of a benevolent God (such as the persecution of Job) by attributing the actual dirty work to a testing spirit; the original "devil's advocate". This entity was not considered evil until after the Persian conquest introduced the Hebrews to the Zoroastrian dualism of Ahura-Mazda (the good God) vs. Ahriman (the evil God). This later manifested in Christianity as Manichean dualism. The Manichean equation was brutally simple: God=Good; Devil=Evil. But it was not until the year 447 CE that the Council of Toledo declared the legal existence of the Devil as an actual entity, though he was still not thought of as necessarily manifesting in human form.

The Lucifer story is a mish-mashed retelling of the Canaanite myth about the overthrow of Baal by Mot and the usurpation of Baal's throne by Athar, the god of the morning star. The original Hebrew name for Lucifer was helel ben shahar meaning "son of the day star" (the planet Venus). The name Lucifer ("light bearer"), a Romano-Etruscan title of the Sun God, was erroneously used when the Bible was first translated into Latin.

Various shadow gods or divine adversaries contributed to the creation of the Devil, including the Canaanite Moloch or Mot, the Egyptian Set or Suteck and the Roman Saturn.

Judeo-Christian theologians placed all Pagan gods and goddesses in an adversary position to Yahweh, the god of Israel, who, as a monotheistic deity, cannot share a pantheon. This is a profound cultural difference from Pagan pantheons and polytheistic peoples who co-existed together, whether or not in harmony. Also since unbridled sexuality, especially for females, was defined by Judeo-Christianity as evil, Pagan gods and goddesses who were especially sexual or sensual garnered the new sect's particular hatred. Pan (who instills panic) and Dionysus were neither evil nor adversary deities, but because of their riotous celebrations the Devil acquired Pan's horns and hooves and Dionysus' ambiguously mad and bibulous nature. This final equation of the Pagan Horned God with Satan was not established, however, until the year 1486, when the Dominicans Kramer and Sprenger published the Malleus Malificarum, or "Hammer of the Witches", wherein they gave the first physical description of the Devil as he is commonly depicted today, declaring that this was the god worshipped by those they wanted to call "witches", thereby justifying the centuries of terrible persecution inflicted upon those who clung faithfully to their worship of the elder gods.

Witchcraft and Shamanism Witches were the shamans, or medicine men and women, of the tribal Celtic peoples of Europe, and they functioned in the same fashion as shamans of any other tribal culture, be it American Indians, Africans, or Australian Aborigines. In fact, and in time-honored tradition, shamans are still commonly referred to as "Witch Doctors".

Shamans are specialists in herbal lore, and the Witches of Pagan Europe were no exception. Usually, but not exclusively, women, they practiced herbal medicine, midwifery, augury, spell casting, and counseling. Often dwelling alone out in the woods, Witches lived close to Nature, and attuned to Her cycles. Their gardens grew not only food, but also many kinds of herbs, including those valued for their medicinal, anesthetic and hallucinogenic properties. In a period of time when good Christian folk maintained only those domestic animals that could be considered "livestock" (i.e., useful to humans), Witches frequently kept wild animal pets: foxes, ferrets, owls, ravens and of course, the ubiquitous cats. Such became known, appropriately enough, as familiars. When Witches came to be persecuted, so did these familiar animals, and the brutal capture, torture and burning of millions of cats that accompanied the Witch burnings begat the horrible Black Plague that devastated Europe in the 14th century, for the cats had kept the rat populations under control, and it was rat fleas that were the carrier of the bubonic plague bacillus. "The Burning Times"

It is sadly ironic that, though the practitioners of Witchcraft have historically suffered real abuse and persecution, the Witch has somehow continued to be misrepresented as the villain. Christianity did not become the world's dominant religion by peaceful conversion, but by the sword and stake. As the legions of Caesar had forged the Roman Empire over the dead bodies of countless tribal peoples of Europe, so did its heir, the Holy Roman Empire, continue the tradition. Declaring them "heresies", agents of the Holy Inquisition hunted out and ruthlessly exterminated every religion, sect or tradition that would not convert to "The One True Right And Only Way". Witches, however, lived outside of any organized religious structure and were largely ignored until the 13th century, when the Church had finally gained enough power to deal with grass-roots Paganism. "In the 13th century the Church opened its long-drawn-out conflict with Paganism in Europe by declaring "Witchcraft' to be a "sect' and heretical. It was not till the 14th century that the two religions came to grips...In 1324 the bishop of Ossory tried Dame Alice Kyteler in his ecclesiastical court for the crime of worshipping a deity other than the Christian God...

"The 15th century marks the first great victories of the Church. Beginning with the trials in Lorraine in 1408, the Church moved triumphantly against Joan of Arc and her followers in 1431, against Gilles de Rais and his coven in 1440, and against the Witches of Brescia in 1457. Towards the end of the century the Christian power was so well-established that the Church felt the time had come for an organized attack, and in 1484 Pope Innocent VIII published his Bull against "Witches.' All through the 16th and 17th centuries the battle raged. The Pagans fought a gallant, though losing, fight against a remorseless and unscrupulous enemy; every inch of the field was disputed, but the Christian policy of obtaining influence over the rulers and law-givers was irresistible. Vae victis ["woe to the conquered"] was also the policy of the Christians, and we see the priests of the Papacy gloating over the thousands they had consigned to the flames while the ministers of the Reformed Churches hounded on the administrators of the law to condemn the "devil worshipers.' What could have been the feelings with which those unhappy victims regarded the vaunted God of Love, the Prince of Peace, whose votaries condemned them to torture and death? What wonder that they clung to their old faith, and died in agony unspeakable rather than deny their God". It should also be pointed out that the court recorders at the Witch trials were specifically instructed that, whatever gods or goddesses the accused actually claimed to worship, what went into the record was "Satan" or "The Devil". And what wonder if some of those who had come to believe the Biblical history taught them by the missionaries, monks and priests of the conquering faith, concluded that the story must have gotten it wrong somehow? That if there had indeed been a rebellion in heaven, it was clearly evident that the winner had not been the God of love and peace, as his propagandists claimed, but rather a God of cruelty and evil; of war and violence, wrath and jealousy. (This had, in fact, been an old Gnostic tradition.)

The clear implication was that the defeated Lucifer must have been the good guy, and surely many must have swarmed to his allegiance in this belief. While true adherents of the Old Religions certainly knew better, and continued their faith entirely distinct from Christianity, there were surely, then as now, many ignorant people who were simply too unsophisticated or too illiterate to question the Christian paradigm once it became established. And thus did Satanism as a belief and a practice come into being, spawned by the Church, and forever to be locked together with it in a fatal embrace of mutual antagonism.

Whether or not the persecuted peasantry who came to side with Satan against their oppressors thought of themselves as "Witches", the Church and the authorities of the Holy Inquisition certainly identified them as such: "The heart and center of the persecution of Witches was that they were Satanists, that they had rejected the rightful God and given their allegiance to his arch-opponent, and that in their "sabbaths' or meetings they worshipped the ruler of evil, carnality and filth. Some of those accused as Witches do seem to have taken the Devil for their god, worshiping him as an equal opponent of the Christian God, over whom he would eventually triumph. They looked to Satan for power and pleasure in this world and for a happy future in the next, and they vilified Christ as a traitor and a cheat, who had made promises which he did not keep, and who had gone away to live in heaven while Satan remained with his faithful on earth". "The Witches and sorcerers of early times were a widely spread class who had retained the beliefs and traditions of heathenism with all its license and romance and charm of the forbidden...in their ranks every one who was oppressed or injured either by the nobility or the church. They were treated with indescribable cruelty, in most cases worse than beasts of burden, for they were outraged in all their feelings, not at intervals for punishment, but habitually by custom, and they revenged themselves by secret orgies and fancied devil-worship, and occult ties, and stupendous sins, or what they fancied were such. I can seriously conceive: what no writer seems to have considered: that there must have been an immense satisfaction in selling or giving one's self to the devil, or to any power which was at war with their oppressors. So they went by night, at the full moon, and sacrificed to Diana, or "later on' to Satan, and they danced and rebelled. It is very well worth noting that we have all our accounts of sorcerers and heretics from Catholic priests, who had every earthly reason for misrepresenting them, and did so. In the vast amount of ancient Witchcraft still surviving in Italy, there is not much anti- Christianity, but a great deal of early heathenism. Diana, not Satan, is still the real head of the Witches".

Since Witchcraft is still little understood by the general public, whose images are shaped mostly by the popular media, Witches continue to be easy targets for persecution. It must be remembered that, in the previous episodes of Witchcraft persecution hysteria, it was the Witches who were the victims, not the Christians. Witches, and those conveniently accused of being Witches, died by the millions during the terrible centuries of the holocaust they remember as "The Burning Times". They do not wish to repeat that experience today.

Read this article:

Neo-Pagan Witchcraft vs Satanism

Islamic Terrorists Aren’t Nihilists, They’re Firm Believers In Evil – The Federalist

Another day, another massacre, and another string of euphemistic eulogies. Arent we all tired of this yet? Even in his recent speech in Riyadh, President Trump felt compelled to define terrorists primarily as nihilists, whose actions insult people of all faiths.

This is disappointing and condescending, and hearkens to the tone-deafness of the Obama era. The basic idea is that as long as you believe in anything, you cant possibly believe in that. The truth, though, seems to be that quite a number of people do in fact believe in that.

Western secularism is derived from Christianity, and is still subconsciously influenced by Christianity in myriad ways. From this perspective, it is difficult to understand that other cultures may think positively of violence and oppression.

Most of us, for example, would affirm that the Westboro Baptist Church is monstrous and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. This leads us, by analogy, to suggest that ISIS is monstrous and couldnt have anything to do with the real Islamic faith. This is a fallacy born of sentimentality. But lets start by talking about what nihilism is, so that we can see why ISIS and its ilk are not nihilistic at all.

The genesis of nihilism could be traced back to the collapse of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Enlightenment thinkers suggested there is an objective meaning of life that can be known through reason, whereas the Romantics suggested there is a subjective meaning of life that can be known through passion. Nihilism begins with despair over both of these projects, and confronts the possibility that life just has no meaning at all. The sense is captured by Fyodor Dostoevskys dark question in his novel The Idiot: what if the crucified Christ turned out to be nothing but a rotting corpse?

The foremost philosopher of nihilism is Friedrich Nietzsche. He distinguished between two modes of nihilism: the passive and the active. Passive nihilism is characterized by a sense of emptiness and a lack of faith in any and all values; it is a sort of depression where nothing seems worth doing. Active nihilism, on the other hand, refers to affirmatively trying to destroy existing values that are seen as arbitrary or false, so that new, perhaps truer values will be able to emerge. Nietzsche tended to think of himself as an active nihilist, and the subtitle of one of his books is, How To Philosophize with a Hammer.

We can also speak of a nihilism of means, where the basic problem is that you will do anything to get what you want. In that sense, ISIS surely is nihilistic. But so is the current president, and much of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is a nihilism of means to say awful things just to get a rise out of your fans at a rally, and to shut down free speech with riots, or turn into a sycophant for your own team. Nihilism of this kind always happens when a man sacrifices his truth at the altar of power, and it seems to be more the norm than the exception. The opposite of such nihilism is only ever personal honor.

A true nihilist of ends would be a sort of paradox. The closest example I can think of is Heath Ledgers Joker from The Dark Knight: a man who wants to return all of creation back to primal chaos, for its own sake, with no further ends in mind. You could say that itself is an end, except he doesnt care about that, eitherhence the looping paradox.

Nihilism may also sometimes be a matter of perspective. ISIS looks like nihilism from the perspective of America, because ISIS is positively trying to destroy the values of America. Likewise, from a conservative perspective, progressives seem like nihilists, because they are trying to undermine the constitutional values that sustain America. But such progressives think of themselves as dwelling on the right side of History. It is thus important to avoid slapping the label of nihilism on an ideology just because we disagree with or fail to understand it.

The phrase Islam is peace reeks of Orwellian Newspeak. Every time I hear it, I just want to ask: What makes you say that? Is there any foundation for it beyond wishful thinking? It should be a commonplace among both Muslims and all other sentient people that Muhammed was not a peaceful man. Nor can the Quran be plausibly interpreted as a peaceful text.

Are we just repeating the phrase over and over again, like some demented mantra, due to the political convenience of doing so? In that case, we would be the ones engaged in a nihilism of means, sacrificing principle for sheer efficacy.

Muhammed was a military conqueror, and numerous passages in the Quran call for the literal death of unbelievers. These are objective facts. When Muhammed speaks of the sword, reason suggests that this is not the same as Jesus saying that he came to bring not peace, but a sword. Jesus is speaking of spiritual struggle; in the only passage involving Jesus and a literal sword, he told his disciple to put it away.

Some Muslims like to think this is also what Muhammed really meant. Its an implausible interpretation, however, given that Muhammed spread Islam with a literal sword, and many of the surahs of the Quran are set within this context of literal conquest.

There are 13 countries in the world, all Islamic, in which apostasy (i.e., leaving Islam) is a capital offense. The subjugation of women is an integral, not peripheral, element of sharia law. We are not talking about extremists, here; we are talking about what almost everyone would agree to call mainstream Islamic nations, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Is this what peace looks like, or are these nations not really Islamic either? A more pressing question emerges here: is the difference between mainstream Islam and its jihadist variants really a matter of kind, or does it rather resolve itself into one of mere degree?

It is heartening that many Muslims want to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Good on them, obviously. But in an important sense, this evades the critical problem. Do these countless Muslims the world over also believe that Muhammed, as portrayed in the Quran and Hadith, is an exemplary man?

If Muhammed is reported to have committed violence or even atrocities, then how do peaceful Muslims square this knowledge with their own values, religious or otherwise? Are there points at which they believe it is acceptable to disagree with Muhammed, and for a Muslim to conduct his own life in a different manner, while still remaining a Muslim?

Nihilism and evil are not the same thing, even if they may overlap in the popular imagination.

I imagine many people, including many Muslims, are sick of hearing that ISIS is not really Islamic. This is just plain false. Graeme Wood has put it best, in an in-depth article that should be considered required reading for anyone who wants to talk about radical Islam: The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Please note: it is not nihilism, or an absence of values; it is a positive system of values that most decent people are inclined to call evil. (Nihilism and evil are not the same thing, even if they may overlap in the popular imagination.) When the Quran repeatedly calls for devout Muslims to kill the infidels, how is it un-Islamic when terrorists, well, go and kill the infidels? A reasonable interpretation would be not that the terrorists believe in nothing, but rather that they believe, deeply and radically, in the affirmative commands of the Quran.

At a certain point, it is not charity but rather idiocy to ignore what these people keep affirming about themselves. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali says: When a murderer quotes the Quran in justification of his crimes, we should at least discuss the possibility that he means what he says. This would seem obvious enough, except in a culture and intellectual climate warped by Orwellian euphemism.

It should go without saying, of course, that I have nothing against the countless Muslims around the world who want to practice their faith in peace and follow an ethos of live and let live. My only question: is Islam, as an ideology, compatible with that? This is a critical reckoning in which the global community of Muslims must engage.

If ISIS is in fact justified by scripture, then what does this say about scripture, and interpretive methods related to scripture? And if ISIS is not justified, then why not? In short, there is need for a genuine reformation within Islam, marked by free critical inquiry and a refusal to turn away from the truth.

Excerpt from:

Islamic Terrorists Aren't Nihilists, They're Firm Believers In Evil - The Federalist

Vince Staples burns through nihilism and house beats on ‘Big Fish … – Mic

Vince Staples is the hip-hop equivalent of a great character actor moonlighting as a prestige leading man. This is not a slight on the rapper, but an observation: Despite his current rep as a wisecracking TV personality and celebrated everyman emcee, Staples, the 23-year-old from Long Beach, is hard to pin down. He entered the public sphere via the coattails of Odd Future's early shock-raps; he dabbled in Earl Sweatshirts dim aesthetic around the time of his Shyne Coldchain series of mixtapes, in the first half of this decade; he graduated to high-def gangsta rap with his late-2014 EP Hell Can Wait; and he was then cast as a Kanye-esque visionary with the double-disc creation myth Summertime '06, his universally acclaimed 2015 full-length debut.

His nimble voice allows him to slide in the pocket of most beats, a Trojan horse tactic that sneaks his straightforward and poignant songwriting onto all kinds of songs. (His 2016 EP, Prima Donna, existed mostly as a rapping exercise, rifling through as many styles as Staples could muster). More recently, he floated atop a dramatic Clams Casino beat on the producer's 2016 LP, 32 Levels, and on Gorillaz song earlier this year and was equally impressive on both.

Given how familiar fans are with Staples' versatility by now, it's no small feat that Big Fish Theory, his second full-length album, surprises as much as it does. Here, the Vince Staples experience is condensed and sharpened to startling cohesion 12 tracks that span just over 36 minutes, including a smattering of interludes and set to a new kind of backdrop, one filled with mutating trip-hop and house-inspired beats.

In a recent Reddit AMA, Staples said, "Hip-hop is electronic. Go listen to 'Planet Rock,'" a truth that nonetheless doesn't quite prepare you for the album's jarring, Tricky-esque opener "Crabs in a Bucket." Staples is right hip-hop isn't all break beats and soul samples. But the gulf between the type of music that Staples has made for most of his career thus far and the wide, jittery electronic canvases that make up Big Fish Theory is striking. The new direction almost recalls Danny Brown's Old, the 2013 record that followed the Detroit rapper's career-defining breakout, 2011's XXX. With Old, Brown attempted to unite the two modes that then dominated him as an artist: the psyche-baring lyricist and the hedonistic, festival-crowd-pleasing emcee who wants to dabble in EDM. Big Fish Theory isn't as cynical as that record Vince isn't making pill-popping party music but the wildly divergent sounds on this album can leave fans feeling detached from the guy who wrote tightly woven, comparatively traditional hip-hop songs like "Blue Suede" and "Norf Norf."

Still, Staples remains a confident, engaging rapper. The record's almost-title track, "Big Fish," is a minimal, disembodied banger with a Juicy J hook that feels dropped in from another song, emphasizing an alienation and dread that flows throughout the entire album. "I was going crazy not too long ago/ Women problems every morning like the Maury show/ Swimming upstream while I'm trying to keep the bread from the sharks/ Made me want to put the hammer to my head," he raps, presumably a call-back to the headspace he occupied on 2016's paranoid Prima Donna. On the jumpy, Rick Ross-interpolating "Homage," Staples free-associates to a head-turning degree: "Won't no label have me in limbo/ Too much tempo, in Richard Prince mode/ Robert Longo, black as the Congo/ Pay me pronto or it's no convo."

There are other moments where everything snaps into stunning clarity: "745" is one, the album's most straightforward slice of swagger-rap, in which producer Jimmy Edgar's burping electronic beat emulates G-funk with crayons which is to say it's a worthy imitation, but you can sense something's off. "Yeah Right," the eyebrow-raising collaboration with art-pop auteur Sophie and Kendrick Lamar, mostly sounds how you think it would: Sophie's cartoonishly boisterous beat vaporizes the track, while Kendrick is on autopilot mode, raising goosebumps before getting out of the way.

After growing accustomed to the album's amorphous textures, the impression that lingers most is just how sharp Staples sounds on every track. But lyrically, this effort doesn't feel as memorable as his earlier work. "Samo," a Basquiat reference and another Sophie production, is trap music fit for the uncanny valley age, and it's among my favorite songs because Staples is able to create a compelling argument for the enduring allure of the goofy PC Music aesthetic, which Sophie helped establish. On most of the album, a beat's dynamism overwhelms how nuanced a writer Staples is. R&B crooner and longtime collaborator Kilo Kish takes up a large amount of real estate as the album's co-star, appearing on a number of outros and saving Staples from completely dissolving into Big Fish Theory's gumbo of sounds. Appearances from Bon Iver's Justin Vernon, Damon Albarn and A$AP Rocky are largely unrecognizable.

Vince's current ambitious muse is commendable, yet Big Fish Theory's short runtime suggests that is something like a purge. This sort of feels like it's Vince getting out from underneath the long-gestating hype for a proper follow-up to Summertime '06 like how Kendrick fired off this year's streamlined Damn. a scant two years after 2015's massive To Pimp a Butterfly.

The late Amy Winehouse is quoted in the intro to "Alyssa Interlude," from an interview featured in the 2015 documentary Amy: "Sometimes you have to get all the crap out the way before you hit the good stuff, then you're like, OK, I'm getting good stuff now." Whatever led him to this dizzying, defiant new direction, Big Fish Theory is mostly good stuff that leaves you awaiting better stuff to come.

Mic has ongoing music coverage. Follow our main music hub here.

See more here:

Vince Staples burns through nihilism and house beats on 'Big Fish ... - Mic

Considering a weekend in Ibiza? Our guide to the White Isle tells you where to eat, sleep, rave, repeat – Mirror.co.uk

Ibiza is a bucket list destination that everybody needs to tick off.

And we're not just talking about those looking to party - the White Isle has something for everyone.

So if you have a spare weekend, you should seriously consider a whistle stop tour of of this beautiful Balearic.

Yes, it's synonymous with wild antics, all-night raves and extreme hedonism - and rightly so, as there's plenty on offer for hard partying people.

But there are other sides to Ibiza, too.

With its pristine, clear waters and incredible sunsets, super clubs and stunning scenery, once you've visited, you'll find it tough to stay away.

It's a place where memories are made for everyone, young and old.

Here's our comprehensive guide of how to get there and where to eat, sleep, rave, repeat - or even just relax, if that's more your thing.

Try Skyscanner for all the best deals on flights.

Jet2 are now flying from the UK to Ibiza regularly.

Hotel Es Viv - the art deco haven for health-conscious hedonists

Whichever way you turn, this hotel screams indulgence and style.

Always evolving to accommodate its health conscious, party-going clientele, Hotel Es Viv has perfected its mantra to pamper.

Last year the hotel introduced a wellbeing Balance package which included a 24-hour retox-detox experience. Now, to expand on this it has developed a new spacious gym and yoga/dance studio.

The idyllic art deco inspired hotel won the award for Best Hotel Interior in Spain at the International Property Awards 2016. It was also name Best European Hotel and Best Hotel under 200 rooms at The International Hotel and Property Awards 2016.

If the champagne and strawberries lifestyle is your vibe, then Hotel Es Viv is the place for you. More info here .

Ibiza Rocks Hotel - for the party-goers

Since opening in 2008, Ibiza Rocks Hotel has firmly cemented itself within the Ibiza clubbing community, offering a fresh approach to the partying landscape and serving up groundbreaking events to its loyal following.

More info here

Cafe Bondi Ibiza

Cafe Bondi it is a new concept in the San Antonio port area, serving meals and drinks that are as tasty as they are healthy and pretty.

From its wide terrace - with the port in view - you'll be able to enjoy all kind of breakfasts made using organic ingredients, as well as fresh fruit juices, homemade, protein packed milkshakes, healthy and traditional toasts and coffees.

More info here .

Simply put, this place is heaven on Earth. The service is magnificent, from the minute you walk down the steps and enter from the beach.

The restaurant has several terraces over different levels and all tables offer a picturesque view of the sea - with a creative cocktail menu also on offer.

The Mediterranean cuisine is done to perfection and caters for all allergies and dieting needs on request.

By night, the place is full of low lights in the trees and has a wonderful atmosphere with chill out music filling the air.

What's more, it also hosts weddings on the beach - Axwell, DJ and former member of Swedish House Mafia, got married here.

Located to the west of the island, near the area of Cap Negret, pencil this in as a must-see place.

More info here.

Exploring the magnificent coastline of Ibiza is an absolute must, so why not do it just before sunset on your own personal boat.

With Sunset Boats Ibiza, you can expect black MasterCraft 255v powercrafts designed to provide both a perfect day trip or cruise platform for up to 10 people, as well as having more than sufficient power for exhilarating rides and water-sports activities.

Theres no better way to experience the famous Ibiza sunset than pulling up alongside Cafe Mambo in your private boat accompanied by sets by world famous DJs.

Villa Mercedes

Built in 1901 and set in beautiful landscaped gardens, this converted Villa is the perfect location for an elegant mediterranean dining experience.

With spectacular views overlooking the Marina in San Antonio, Villa Mercedes is an outstanding venue and regarded by many as the jewel in San Antonio.

Kumharas

Kumharas is a restaurant situated in Cala de Bou, just a few metres from San Antonio Bay, and boasts one of the best views of the Ibizan sunset.

Each year it grows and evolves into a magical place where you can enjoy a menu rich in all kinds of cultures.

There is also a relaxing chill zone to renew your energy.

More info here.

Caf Mambo

A trip to the White Isle would not be complete without experiencing the world famous Cafe Mambo sunset.

This is the best place for an Ibzan sunset, as the crowds all gather and clap in unison to mark the setting of the sun.

Launched in 1994, in celebration of its 22nd anniversary this year, Caf Mambo has since been hailed for its party vibes and most memorable sunset strip in the heart of San Antonio, Ibiza.

True to its family values, the once small Ibizan house has since transformed into a major venue where you'll calibre of star studded names - including last years BBC Radio 1s 20th anniversary - but a laid back vibe, too.

And it is still a cafe.

It continues to operate throughout the day, serving breakfast from 10am and offering a wide lunch and dinner menu late evening, with fresh cocktails to complement the azure backdrop.

Music On

Where? Amnesia

When? Every Friday starting on May 19.

Who? Marco Carola | Joey Daniel | Leon | Marco Faraone | Miss Kittin | Jamie Jones | The Martinez Brothers & More

Music On returns to Ibiza for its longest season ever. In the sixth summer at Amnesia, Marco Carola and his flagship artists will deliver a frantic season of 21 dates, every Friday starting on May 19.

More details here .

RUMORS Ibiza

When? Every Sunday

Where? Destino

Who? Guy Gerber | Bill Patrick | Sven Vth & More

Each evening is comprised of two to three acts, evoking the atmosphere of the traditional Ibiza events where there are no headline acts and the artists have the freedom to play longer sets in a relaxed outdoor atmosphere

In the midst of the unique line-ups are some of the biggest names in the industry with appearances from Cocoon head-honcho Sven Vth who will be hosting his own night -, electronic musics rockstar DJ Harvey and the innovative Sci-Tec boss Dubfire.

The impressive melting pot of artists makes Rumors one of the most exciting and forward-thinking residencies this season.

More details here .

Circoloco

When? Every Monday

Where? DC-10

Who? This years opening party is something not to be missed.

Seth Troxler, The Martinez Brothers, Tania Vulcano, Kerri Chandler, Jackmaster, Ellen Allien, Jamie Jones, Davide Squillace, Matthias Tanzmann, Sossa, Shonky, Clive Henry and Acid Mondays.

If thats not enough to whet your appetite then youll be glad to hear that Damian Lazarus, Marcel Dettmann, The Black Madonna, Dubfire, DVS1, Adriatique, DJ Tennis, Konstantin and Petar Dundov will also be joining the party.

More details here .

Solomun +1

When? Every Sunday

Who? Solomun & special guests

Where? Pacha

Pachas flagship Ibiza night Solomun + 1 is making a big and bold return in 2017.

It all kicks off on Sunday May 28 and runs until October 15, which will be the very last party on the island this summer.

The concept is simple: the Diynamic label boss plays with a guest of his choosing.

This year, there will be even bigger and better production than ever before to make for a truly unique and immersive house and techno experience at the world famous Pacha.

Solomon +1 is a great opportunity to see the influential house and tech artist play in his natural environment with his closest musical friends.

Often featuring impromptu back to back sets, this really is the finest party in Ibiza and it has been for many seasons now.

Other artists joining Solomun throughout the year include:

Mano Le Tough | Patrice Bumel | me | Damian Lazarus | DJ Hell | Michael Mayer | John Talabot | Dixon | Dubfire | DJ Tennis | Joseph Capriati | Acid Pauli | Butch | Superpitcher | me | Sven Vth | Mind Against | Michael Mayer | Matthew Dear | Konstantin Sibold

More details here .

ANTS

When? Saturdays

Where? Ushuaa

Who? Andrea Oliva | Groove Armada (DJ set) | Matthias Tanzmann | Maya Jane Coles | Raul Rodriguez | Tapesh

Fronted by Andrea Oliva, the 18-week residency will see Groove Armada and Maya Jane Coles return as brand regulars, as well as Nic Fanciulli, Joris Voorn, Klsch and Steve Lawler who are each set to uphold their ANTS family member status.

House gangsta DJ Sneak represents stateside talent that also sees Kim Ann Foxman and Lauren Lane on the bill, with island regulars Cassy, Matthias Tanzmann and Heidi also in attendance.

UK duo Eli & Fur and Circus boss Yousef are confirmed, while rising stars Solardo make their ANTS debut plus ANTS regulars Tapesh, Uner, Francisco Allendes and Raul Rodriguez.

More details here .

Glitterbox

When? Fridays Where? H Ibiza Who? DIMITRI FROM PARIS | ARMAND VAN HELDEN | DAVID MORALES | TODD TERRY | SIMON DUNMORE | DJ PIPPI | BARBARA TUCKER (LIVE PA) | SHOVELL (LIVE ON PERCUSSION)

Glitterbox has announced the Ibiza 2017 season line-up for its new residency at H Ibiza, the brand new superclub by Ushuaa Entertainment.

The club formerly known as Space will be elevated to new heights, with a fresh new look and the most advanced sound and technologies on the island.

From May through September, H Ibiza will play host to the finest selectors from the global electronic music scene.

More details here .

Read more here:

Considering a weekend in Ibiza? Our guide to the White Isle tells you where to eat, sleep, rave, repeat - Mirror.co.uk

Liturgical Muggles and Losing the Sacramental Imagination – Patheos (blog)

This post is the first in a new series on the Sacramental Imagination and is designed both to celebrate 20 Years of Harry Potter and to whet the appetite.

This week marks the 20th anniversary of J.K. Rowlings Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone. For starters, Alan Jacobs of Wheaton wrote a delightful piece on Harry Potter in 2000 and the piece was recently re-published by First Things. Anyone who knows me will know that I am a diehard-Potter fan. I discovered the books early into the series, I believe it was in between the publishing of Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban. Since my adolescence, I have read the books with vigor, attended 4 midnight book releases, watched the movies with a mixture of joy and zealous criticism, listened to the books while I paint, and most recently I attended Harry Potter in Concert with the Kansas City Symphony at the Kauffman Center. I feel a bit like Paul at this point in giving my credentialsonly slightly jokingbut I do this to suggest that I am not some squib jumping on the HP bandwagon.

I was listening to the original NPR announcement of Harry Potter this morningit can be found hereand something grabbed my attention. Margot Adler predicted that the word muggle would become a big thing in common language and then shared an audio clip from Rowling discussing it further. Within the HP series the term muggle simply means non-magical person. However, Rowling shared that she began receiving letters and emails from fans who began expanding the term for modern, non-literary usage. In this form the term came to mean something like dull and unimaginative person. And I cannot tell you why, but it was like a lightning bolt scared my brain (see what I did there) and it got me thinking:

What if there are liturgical muggles? What if the loss of the sacramental imagination is like the difference between magic and muggle (or at least squib)? I suppose the easiest place to begin is first with the sacramental imagination and its loss.

Before I go on, please hear: I am not suggesting that the liturgy is an actual form of magic or that words spoken over bread and wine is a spell or an enchantment like Stupefy or Avada Kedavra. I am not looking to debate hocus pocus (hoc est enim corpus meum) or medieval superstitions. If you find yourself arguing with me on these points then youve missed my meaning entirely. The reader may continue

We are heirs of the Enlightenment. Our collective sacramental imagination has shifted over the course of 2,000 years. The ways in which we interpret information, tell stories, share experiences, and view the world today as Christians in the democratic, capitalist West is different from the earliest centuries of the church in the East and in Rome, it is different from the medieval church, it is different from the overwhelming majority of church history. Why does this matter?

Because we no longer actively view the world as being full of Gods glory, imbued with his presence, overwhelmed by his love, rich with encounters of him, Gerard Manley Hopkins lyric, The earth is charged with the grandeur of God makes no sense to us. Our imaginations, our sense of awe and wonder, our belief in the movement and action of the Holy Spirit is greatly diminished. There is a reason that Harry Potter, Lewis Narnia, the Force in Star Wars, and many similar stories capture our imaginations. Its because it is so other than what we know and what we are used to. Its not that these stories view magic positively but that they show a world teeming with possibilities, of a world where the supernatural is bumping against the natural regularly, where things arent always as they seem.

And that brings me to the liturgy

Our post-Enlightenment, Protestant worship has seen a minimalist approach to liturgy and a dwindling view of enchantment, wonder, awe, and terror before God. These have been replaced with rationalism, with Bible, with Sermon. In many Protestant, evangelical churches the sermon is the centerpiece. Rather than a dually climactic service where Word and Table play off of and interpret each other, these worship services are almost exclusively comprised of worship songs and a long, highly intellectual (though not always) sermon. The mind is what matters here, and how it affects the hands and the feet afterward, but the body is left relatively alone.

Enter the liturgical muggle. Remember that I am using muggle as a dull and unimaginative person.

This is the subtle shift from sacramental worship to rational worship, from Word and Sacrament to more and more Word. I think, and I may be mistaken, that it is obvious how this shift would result in making liturgical muggles. But those in more historical, liturgical conditions arent entirely off the hook. This isnt an us vs. them situation. It is entirely possible to be(come) a liturgical muggle within the liturgy because, for me, liturgical muggles are those who have lost the sacramental imagination.

Even amid liturgical worship, we have lost a sacramental consciousness, awareness, and imagination as the sacraments have less and less to do with reality and more to do with vague and ethereal signs and symbols. Baptism becomes more about the confession of faith (or covenant promise) than the reality of and individual being washed in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, of being made a new person, of being anointed with the Holy Spirit. Or Eucharist is about nourishment for the spiritual journey, or a political act of the highest degree (dont get me started), or a sign of socio-economic equality in the Kingdom of God and not about bread and wine becoming Body and Blood, joining the worship of the cosmos in the heavenly throne room. I could go on and on and on here, but suffice it today that for liturgical muggles water, oil, bread, and wine are always just that. There is no imagination, there is no magic (be careful here) per se. Worship is dull and unimaginative because it is focused exclusively on what our minds can handle and conceive rather than that God is doing in and among us, breaking into our midst regularly, sacramentally.

In my opinion, and I say this with all sincerity and humility, we need to guard against making more liturgical muggles and losing even more of the sacramental imagination. Our Christian worldview needs to shift, and shift pretty dramatically. A deeper, richer, more robust view of the Sacraments will help us avoid becoming liturgical muggles. At the end of the day, rationalist worship or rationalist Christianity is a separation of mind from body, of head and heart, of brain and soul. It may not appear that way, it certainly wasnt intended that way, but it is its own form of escapism, of isolationism, of segregation. The reintegration of these elements, the reintroduction of Sacramental teaching and imagination will result in a holistic, fully-formed, fully informed, fully alive worship and a Christian spirituality that is committed to working within the world we inhabit rather than railing against it constantly.

Read more here:

Liturgical Muggles and Losing the Sacramental Imagination - Patheos (blog)

Mute Museums: Why Chinas Institutions Fail to Connect …

Recently, I visited a certain museum in Shanghai with Dr. Gabriele Neher, an art expert at the University of Nottingham in the U.K. Together, at Nottinghams campus in Ningbo, in the eastern Chinese province of Zhejiang, we run a professional development course for museum personnel, in collaboration with top art institutions in Britain, the U.S., and China.

Gaby and I watch museums the way other people watch planes. Often, we have a hard time even looking at the artifacts on display, having become so attuned to issues of storytelling, exhibition design, visitor experience, and signage. Its hard to see the products when youre focusing so hard on the packaging. The second we step through the doors, we make a beeline for the audio guide booth, or comb the gift shop looking for creative merchandizing ideas.

This particular institution is a hallowed spot in Shanghais museum scene. The low-lit gallery gives off an air of grandeur and houses a number of fine pieces in sealed display cases. Labels placed alongside each artifact tell you what youre looking at: Vase, Southern Song, 12th century, for example.

The objects were indeed beautiful, but Gaby and I walked out of the museum unsatisfied. Having gone inside hoping to learn about Chinese porcelain, our brains had gone numb under a bombardment of highly specialized, fragmented information: Painted pot with bird pattern, Shilingxia Type, Majiayao Culture, ca. 3800 B.C.

There was no explanation of the significance of the birds, of the features of Shilingxia pottery, even of where Majiayao was. I want to know why I should care about pots! Gaby sighed, exasperated. Why should I care about these things?

She had a point. At no point during the exhibition was the importance of the collection explained to us. We left no more knowledgeable about the function of porcelain in Chinese culture. Perhaps the pots we had seen had been stolen by rampaging warlords or used to broker a peace deal between the countrys erstwhile warring factions. But if so, the museum remained tight-lipped about it, and we never got to hear its stories. If visitors with Gabys credentials shes a specialist in Renaissance art and an enthusiastic Chinese history buff are falling by the wayside, what hope can there be for Chinas casual museumgoers?

In the West, our traditional idea of a museum evolved from the Wunderkammer, or cabinet of curiosities. These Renaissance-era collections of objects curated by private individuals, hoarders of rare plants or indigenous artifacts, were gradually opened to the public after the collectors themselves donated them to museums. The collections of Sir Hans Sloane and Elias Ashmole, for example, were bequeathed to what are now Londons British Museum and Oxfords Ashmolean Museum, respectively.

These fairly modest personal collections evolved into the grand public spaces that we frequent as part of a personal or institutional ritual think of the school field trip, annual visits on public holidays, and so on. Much has been made of museums as a kind of modern cathedral, and indeed, the cavernous architecture, the silent space for contemplation, the break from real life, the sense of transcendence invoked by certain works of art all of these reinforce our image of museums as somehow sacred.

Thomas Krens, former director of the Guggenheim Foundation, evokes this kind of architectural rapture in discussing his original vision for the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Alongside architect Frank Gehrys soaring silver forms, he hoped to recreate the sense of awe felt by a 13th-century French peasant, who would scarcely have seen more than a two-story inn previously, standing agape before the vast Chartres Cathedral what Krens describes as massive technology rising out of the landscape, a building calculated to stimulate an emotional religious reaction.

One Christmas, I experienced my own little moment of aesthetic rapture while viewing Janet Cardiffs work The Forty-Part Motet at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa. The piece consisted of a series of microphones installed in a recreation of the Rideau Street Chapel, a beautiful 19th-century building that had formed part of a convent until its demolition in 1972, and which was rebuilt inside the National Gallery in the late 1980s as a permanent exhibit.

As I circled the microphones, crystalline voices rang out from them, filling the entire space with heady choral music. Listening to the voices echoing through the halls in succession, I was moved to tears, shielding myself from the other visitors. For the nonreligious like me, experiences such as this constitute a contemporary version of the sort of divine encounter experienced in a temple or church. It is this brand of wonder that we seek within the walls of a museum.

Of course, not every museum has the ability to evoke a quasi-religious experience, but good museums can still tell stories that pique the curiosity of the public, engaging them and encouraging them to learn more. I like to think of such museums as akin to my favorite high school teacher, who managed, through humor and charisma, to make math seem fun. Yet in China, we are more often greeted by the curmudgeonly old schoolmarm, rapping our knuckles as if to say: This is my elite collection of objects. It is a privilege merely for you to cast your eyes upon them. In taking this stance, many museums alienate the public, waste valuable educational opportunities, and fail to build the strong intergenerational bonds that would keep feet walking through their doors for years to come.

A recent visit to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam demonstrated this perfectly. I was lazily walking through the galleries and noticed an inconspicuous silver vessel. The chalices label explained that it was an old beer mug, and went on to describe entertaining anecdotes about Dutch drinking culture. In my minds eye, I envisioned some rollicking scene closer to Game of Thrones than to historical fact but the main thing was that it immersed me in the world of medieval Holland, a feeling of absorption I didnt get when I observed the porcelain vases in Shanghai.

What sets apart institutions like the Rijksmuseum is that they care about interpreting specialized knowledge for the public. Their so-called content interpreters take the arcane facts supplied by the museum curator and translate the attendant jargon into something that engages the person in the street. In China, though, the curatorial team is usually insistent on keeping the conversation between a few specialists and ignoring everyone else in the room. Sadly, some of the worst offenders come from my field: contemporary art.

Part of the problem with exhibition didactics is the structure and hierarchy of the museums themselves. Most Chinese museums follow the curator-as-king model, whereby all other departments are subservient to the curator guiding the conversation. The curators agenda is often to appear knowledgeable and intelligent to other curators they dont really care much about whether you or I understand them.

In order to build up a loyal following, Chinese museums need to place other departments on an equal footing with their curators. They must respect the unique knowledge of other members of staff and give them a say in how exhibitions are crafted and managed. This will require a radical change of mindset, from being somewhat self-important institutions focused too much on their collections, to becoming client-oriented, public-first organizations.

My greatest hope lies with private museums, whose paltry state funding means they depend on customer footfall to stay alive. But there are also whispers of hope in the state sector as well. The Shanghai Natural History Museum, whose exhibits were designed by internationally renowned museum planning firm Gallagher & Associates, has made great strides in creating compelling visitor experiences, including 360-degree films and live specimen tanks with daily demonstrations, all ensconced in some seriously mind-blowing architecture. Sure, it falls a little short of transcendental, but if the patter of thousands of feet up and down the hallways is anything to go by, it is moving in the right direction.

Editor: Matthew Walsh.

(Header image: A visitor looks at a specimen of an Arabian oryx at the Shanghai Natural History Museum, Shanghai, Oct. 25, 2016. Lai Xinlin/Sixth Tone)

Read more here:

Mute Museums: Why Chinas Institutions Fail to Connect ...

Top Canadian Court Permits Worldwide Internet Censorship – EFF

A country has the right to prevent the worlds Internet users from accessing information, Canadas highest court ruled on Wednesday.

In a decision that has troubling implications for free expression online, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a companys effort to force Google to de-list entire domains and websites from its search index, effectively making them invisible to everyone using Googles search engine

The case, Google v. Equustek, began when British Columbia-based Equustek Solutions accused Morgan Jack and others, known as the Datalink defendants, of selling counterfeit Equustek routers online. It claimed California-based Google facilitated access to the defendants sites. The defendants never appeared in court to challenge the claim, allowing default judgment against them, which meant Equustek effectively won without the court ever considering whether the claim was valid.

Although Google was not named in the lawsuit, it voluntarily took down specific URLs that directed users to the defendants products and ads under the local (Canadian) Google.ca domains. But Equustek wanted more, and the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that Google had to delete the entire domain from its search results, including from all other domains such Google.com and Google.go.uk. The British Columbia Court of Appealupheldthe decision, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision followed the analysis of those courts.

EFF intervened in the case, explaining [.pdf] that such an injunction ran directly contrary to both the U.S. Constitution and statutory speech protections. Issuing an order that would cut off access to information for U.S. users would set a dangerous precedent for online speech. In essence, it would expand the power of any court in the world to edit the entire Internet, whether or not the targeted material or site is lawful in another country. That, we warned, is likely to result in a race to the bottom, as well-resourced individuals engage in international forum-shopping to impose the one countrys restrictive laws regarding free expression on the rest of the world.

The Supreme Court of Canada ignored those concerns. It ruled that because Google was subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts by virtue of its operations in Canada, courts in Canada had the authority to order Google to delete search results worldwide. The court further held that there was no inconvenience to Google in removing search results, and Google had not shown the injunction would offend any rights abroad.

Perhaps even worse, the court ruled that before Google can modify the order, it has to prove that the injunction violates the laws of another nation thus shifting the burdent of proof from the plaintiff to a non-party. An innocent third party to a lawsuit shouldnt have to shoulder the burden or proving whether an injunction violates the laws of another country. Although companies like Google may be able to afford such costs, many others will not, meaning many overbroad and unlawful orders may go unchallenged. Instead, once the issue has been raised at all, it should be the job of the party seeking the benefit of an order, such as Equustek, to establish that there is no such conflict. Moreover, numerous intervenors, including EFF, provided ample evidence of that conflicts in this case.

Beyond the flaws of the ruling itself, the courts decision will likely embolden other countries to try to enforce their own speech-restricting laws on the Internet, to the detriment of all users. As others have pointed out, its not difficult to see repressive regimes such as China or Iran use the ruling to order Google to de-index sites they object to, creating a worldwide hecklers veto.

The ruling largely sidesteps the question of whether such a global order would violate foreign law or intrude on Internet users free speech rights. Instead, the court focused on whether or not Google, as a private actor, could legally choose to take down speech and whether that would violate foreign law. This framing results in Google being ordered to remove speech under Canadian law even if no court in the United States could issue a similar order.

The Equustek decision is part of a troubling trend around the world of courts and other governmental bodies ordering that content be removed from the entirety of the Internet, not just in that country's locale. On the same day the Supreme Court of Canadas decision issued, a court in Europe heard arguments as to whether to expand the right-to-be-forgotten worldwide.

EFF was represented at the Supreme Court of Canada and the British Columbia Court of Appeal by David Wotherspoon of MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman and Daniel Byma of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin.

Originally posted here:

Top Canadian Court Permits Worldwide Internet Censorship - EFF

Tucker Carlson Spotlights Twitter Censorship of Pro-Life Group – Church Militant

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) - Twitter, a privately owned social media giant that boasts of more than 300 million users, is censoring a pro-life group's ads, labeling them hate speech.

On Monday, Tucker Carlson covered this ongoing censorship by Twitter on his show Tucker Carlson Tonight. Live Action is the pro-life group, who's ads are being called hate speech by Twitter and flagged on their social media platform.

Carlson invited on his show Catholic convert Lila Rose, founder and president of the organization, to discuss the issue. On the show, Rose explained exactly what Twitter was objecting to. "The kind of tweets," said Rose, "that they're calling a violation of their hate and sensitive policy show ultrasound images, they're fact checks of Planned Parenthood, they're discussing the prenatal life in its beauty. These are the sorts of tweets that Twitter is trying to block."

Carlson posted a picture of one such ad that Twitter refused to allow on its platform. It was a picture of a baby in utero with the caption, "I AM NOT A POTENTIAL HUMAN. I AM A HUMAN WITH POTENTIAL." On top of the ad is a message by Rose, which reads, "Everyone deserves the right to life! Join me in standing up for human dignity and the least of these."

According to Carlson, Twitter wants Live Action to delete these so-called "sensitive ads" before it will allow the group to buy more ads. Rose points out that Planned Parenthood (PP), the nation's biggest abortion chain, is allowed by Twitter to run ads on their platform, but Live Action, who she calls "the leading pro-life platform for the pro-life movement," is not allowed to do so. She says Twitter is claiming such ads violate their "hate and sensitive policy."

"This is something that they've been kind of keeping a secret, and now we're trying to get this news out that they've been blocking us," said Rose. Carlson responded, "But meanwhile the abortion industry gets to advertise all it wants."

Rose points out that the abortion giant PP has more than a one billion dollar budget and is committing almost 900 abortion every day, yet Twitter ironically says "they're not violating the hate and sensitive policy." She said Live Action is simply "exposing them, talking about the value of preborn life," which she says are messages that a lot of Americans agree with.

She says Twitter has been banning their ads for months now. She relates that Twitter wants them to delete their entire website and create an entirely new website before they can do any more advertising on Twitter. Carlson posted a response from Twitter, which claimed its policy was a set of "clear, transparent rules." Rose denies that the rules are clear because it "took over a year to finally get from Twitter what's wrong with these tweets showing ultrasounds."

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

Read the rest here:

Tucker Carlson Spotlights Twitter Censorship of Pro-Life Group - Church Militant

The Man Movie Encyclopedia: 4 Instances Of Terrible TV Censorship – 411mania.com

Greetings, all.

Before the main event, lets hit the mailbox

bob_a_booey Uh oh. Looks like somebody got triggered by my comment in reply to the other now deleted comments that the dam level isnt that hard. It isnt. The myth comes from people who have played the game maybe 1 or 2 times who havent adjusted to the different mechanics the stage uses compared to the rest of the game, and immediately declare it the hardest thing in history. Or people that saw the AVGN video and simply paraphrase it, which seems to be the case here as this dude is obviously an AVGN fan (his Friday the 13th section is almost a verbatim copy of the AVGN video). I havent played the game in 20 years and I guarantee I could go back and finish that level without too many problems.

First off, if any comments are ever deleted, I have zero hand in it. As a matter of fact, if anyone from 411mania is reading this, please never delete ANY comments from my articles. I dont play that censorship business.

You know, a lot of people told me the dam level isnt a big deal. I looked at it again on youtube, and I swear I played a different level. I thought those damn electric weeds were all over that level. As a kid though, that level was a bitch.

As for your thinly veiled accusation that I ripped off the AVGN, no. First off, Im a big fan of James, and Cinnemassacre. Hes a guy I look up to. That said, I can honestly say with no hyperbole, that Ive never laughed at an AVGN video. Not once. I absolutely do not think James is funny. Hes at his best providing information, thats where he shines. To me, he isnt funny, so Id never steal his material. Also, how on Earth would people not notice from the jump, considering how popular he is? Id have to be pretty fucking stupid.

Either way, thanks for reading, brother.

Team J-Rod Friday the 13th is way more of a complex game then most give it credit forits all about patterns, certain events trigger the appearance of other weapons. I actually love it, because its so different than almost every other game on the NES. Honestly, I absolutely agree. It was a pretty deeply stacked game, and quite different, but at the same time it sucked. John Landing the plane during Top Gunand why did we all have that bloody game.

Oh man, was that a MOTHERFUCKER or what? I remember nothing about that game over than that, and being almost in tears trying to land that fucking plane. Why I cared, I dont know. I didnt like the game, I never saw the movie. That fucking thing.

Also, shout-outs to Ghost & Goblins and that bullshit ending, Tyson from Mike Tysons Punch Out, and Battletoads and that insane 2nd-player fiasco.

Alright, lets hit the main-event.

Before we get to the article, I just want to talk about how asinine TV/film censorship is in the first place. Back in the 30s, they cut a line from Frankenstein where the good Dr. says he knows what its like to be God. Back then, that was just too crazy. Then in the 80s, thanks to Regan, the way he shaped America, and things like the PMRC, horror films became one of the biggest catalyst for our youth to find themselves at the doorstep of debauchery & mayhem. So, the MPAA board hacked most horror films to absolute death. Then today youve got things passing for an R that could have had to be rated X back in the day. So, what this basically says is that censorship is pointless. We end up changing our minds in the future anyways, and deciding that this or that is no longer that bad. Mean while, pieces of art are being butchered by people who push their own thoughts & beliefs into things that they have no real concern for. The same goes for TV. In the 50s they couldnt use the word pregnant on I Love Lucy, but now shows in prime time can throw around goddamn & shit as much as they please. Things are going to constantly be pushed, and eventually accepted. Canadian TV is completely uncensored, and shockingly the country hasnt burnt down in the middle of the night. Another thing thats complete inane is how the top of a womans buttcrack has to be blurred out, yet we can show the rockin double D titties of some fat guy from the Biggest Loser. Whats more visually repugnant? A chicks ass, or a dudes massive, hairy nipple? I mean, after seeing something like that, I can barely jack-off that night. So, lets take a trip down memory lane as we learn about TVs crusade to save us, and some of its finest examples.

Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed When watching Casino, or Goodfellas on TV, its apparent that the greatest insult you can deal to one person is that the hope that they are forgotten. That theyre no longer remembered. Any time Pesci or DeNiro would get fired off, theyd spout off with a forget you!. Then, dare say that didnt hurt someones feelings, youd have to pull out both of your big-guns and fire off with a you motherlover!. Truly drawing gasps from everyone who was around to hear the personification of rage and verbal vitriol. But then again, their rage could come from the fact theyre all wearing bullskin. At least thats what I think theyre talking about, because just as often as theyre forgetting someone theyre talking about their bullshirt. To anyone who endorses this kind of censorship, I say go forget yourself.

The Big Lebowski Do you know what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass? If youve only seen The Big Lebowski on basic cable then you have no idea what the answer is. You do however know what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps. Thats right. Youre hiking up in the Alps, having the time of your life when you all of a sudden come across a stranger. You guys might strike up a convo, you may just pass by with a nod & a smile. Either way, hes going to absolutely bash the hell out of your neighbors car. Because thats what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps. Im dying to know how this all worked out. There had to be a couple of guys in the edit bay discussing it. Should we just cut out fuck?, What? Are you kidding me? You know how dumb thatll sound? No, were better than that. Were TNT. Were about quality & integrity. Man, having that job would be awesome. Youd be watching some Anne Hathaway film for a second, to get a look at her boobies, and youd wonder why on Earth her voice isnt matching her mouth, and why shes talking about some guy named Caliber Winfields dick. I seemed to get off track there. Anyway, in the film, Walter goes nuts on a man whom he believes is his target, and keeps yelling about what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass. But then again, now we know that if you fuck a stranger in the ass, or find a stranger in the alps, the inevitable consequences will be the same.

ORIGINAL:

TV EDIT:

Bulletproof We all know that for a man, theres nothing worse than being forced to sing & dance for another dude. In the underrated classic Bulletproof, Adam Sandler is a car thief named Archie Moses whos best friends with fellow thief Rock Keetz. Well, Archies been making some money on the side of their car stealing operation, and he decides to let Keetz in on it. So as Archie is having Keetz meet the big man, Colton, played by James Caan, hes told to search him because Colton doesnt trust him. Archie then makes a major proclamation that if Keetz is a cop, hell sing & dance. So, you can imagine Archie is praying Keetz isnt a cop, because who wants to get up and have to sing & dance? No self-respecting man, of course. Its a fate worse than death. Later, a big drug-trade goes wrong, and Colton blames Archie due to the fact Keetz was a cop. Well, its a little weird, because he mentions Archies promise regarding Keetz being a cop, and then has Archie get on his knees and tells him to enjoy his last meal. What? If you want a guy to sing & dance, you want him on his feet, and you dont want him sluggish from a big meal. So, you can see right there such foolishness. Later at the end of the film, Archie gets some payback on Colton for trying to make me sing & dance. Perfectly understandable. I mean, Ive heard of tons of guys in prison who damn near kill, or do in fact kill guys who have tried to make them sing & dance. Like I said, no male wants to do that. Hell, Id rather suck a dick.

Die Hard 2 In the pantheon of action films there are many facets that have to meet quality standards in order for it to bust someone right in the mush. On of them, is a rockin catchphrase. Our hero, John McClane, has one of the more well known & classic catchphrases. In Die Hard 2, its Christmas time again and John is chilling in an airport. He notices some no-good-knicks up to no good, or perhaps theyre not, whatever, because hes got the 12 days of Christmas forem. A 12 round clip, that is! Now, hes out to dispatch these baddies and pick up his wife because he has a rockin Die Hard-On. When youre as bad-ass as John McClane, you dont get boners. Because to get a boner, would imply that at one point you didnt have one. So, much like when your stupid girlfriend has people over and you want to watch G Is For Gianna in the living room, uninterrupted, what do you do to a plane full of terrorists? You blowem the hell up. So, as is customary in each case, before you deal the death blow you giveem the catchphrase. McClane gets all cocky and letsem have it. Yippie-Kai-Yay, Mr. Falcon! Who the hell is Mr. Falcon? Theres no Mr. Falcon on the terrorists plane manifest. I mean, theres nothing even close. How the HELL could they justify this? Im dying to know. Not to mention the guy who says Mr. Falcon isnt even close to sounding like Bruce Willis. Plus, it sounds like it was recorded with a motherfalcon sofa.

ORIGINAL:

TV EDIT:

Any questions, comments, drunk-ramblings, feel free to send them my way, I always dig hearing from you, the beautiful people. Twitter: @CaliberWinfield Instagram: @CaliberWinfield I post almost daily with workout related stuff to help you cats out, along with whats coming down the pike via the MME, and general pop culture from the 80s and 90s that I cant seem to let go of. Email:[emailprotected] If you just cant wait until next week, you can also find me at these fine places: The Man Movie Encyclopedia: The Hall of Burly Vol. 1 A collection of the first 19 MME articles written for 411. You get all the classics like Commando, Robocop, and Die Hard, not to mention bad-assery such as Point Break and They Live. Beyond that, you also get two new articles. My Top 5 favorite action movies, and what I believe to be the Top 5 most over-the-top scenes in action movie history. I wont lie, its the greatest self=help/martial arts instruction book of all time.

My Summer Vacation At Camp Crystal Lake My brand new ebook thats become so popular its charting on the album sales charts. I cover the Friday The 13th franchise in Man Movie Encyclopedia fashion, followed up by a few list-based articles, chronicling my favorite kills, moments from the franchise, and a few other subjects. $3 via amazon, or simply email me and get it for $2, either way, itll probably change your life. Caliber Winfield On The Facebook Anything new that I do you guys can find here. Last I checked I was at 54 likes, which is pretty fucking solid in my book. However, I saw Joe Lee and A Bloody Good Time were over 110. Cmon now, we cant let them beat us, can we?! Mercy Is For The Weak Podcast Along with my co-host, we cover everything from movies, music, TV, video games and pop-culture, to pro-wrestling, and all things burly. Were on hiatus at the moment, but theres a decent catalog to go through. All Things Caliber I merged my wrestling website into my long standing website thats been up for over 6 years. Anything under the sun, Ive written about it.

Go here to read the rest:

The Man Movie Encyclopedia: 4 Instances Of Terrible TV Censorship - 411mania.com

Voting rights advocacy group claims censorship – Spruce Pine Mitchell News

A voting rights and campaign finance watchdog group is claiming political favoritism and censorship after allegedly being denied the ability to post billboards in Mitchell and McDowell counties.

Democracy North Carolina tried to post billboards calling attention to the ongoing investigation by the State Board of Elections into the campaign finances of state Sen. Ralph Hise, a Mitchell County Republican and chair of the Senate Select Committee on Elections.

The State Board of Elections began investigated Hise has after he allegedly withdrew about $10,000 in excess loan repayments from his campaign and failed to disclose receiving more than $9,000 in donations from political action committees.

Weve been trying to let the voters in Sen. Hises district know about his problems for a month, but the billboard industry seems so worried about making him mad that they are refusing to rent us space for our message, said Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina.

Hall said in a press release he was initially encouraged to rent space by sales agents at two companies; he selected billboard locations, submitted the artwork and sent it back with modifications requested by the agents. He signed a contract with Lamar Outdoor Advertising for a billboard in Spruce Pine and a contract with Fairway Advertising for another billboard along I-40 in McDowell County.

In both cases, regional managers of Lamar and Fairway Outdoor Advertising called to cancel the contracts, saying the message proposed for the billboards was political and too controversial or too controversial and could cause problems for the company, according to the press release.

It was very clear in talking with the billboard executives that were the victim of political favoritism and censorship, Hall said. Billboard companies are involved in plenty of controversial and political advertising, but they also have high-priced lobbyists, they want favorable legislation and they dont want to anger a powerful state senator at this crucial time.

Hall claimed in the press release one of the companies has a billboard attacking Muslim on I-40.

Its very disappointing, Hall said. But well continue to shine the light on Sen. Hises campaign violations and expose whatever he is hiding.

At least one of the billboards has been posted on U.S. 19E near the Yancey-Madison county line.

As of press time Hise was more than 50 days past the May 5 deadline set to amend his campaign finance reports.

Continue reading here:

Voting rights advocacy group claims censorship - Spruce Pine Mitchell News

Democratic governor vetoes campus pro-free speech bill, calls it ‘overly burdensome’ – TheBlaze.com

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards a Democrat vetoed a bill bolstering free speech on college campuses Monday despite the growing number of assaults upon the First Amendment at universities around the country.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem that creates a long, detailed structure for the evaluation of the freedom of expression on college campuses, Edwards said in his veto statement. However, this bill is unnecessary and overly burdensome to our colleges and universities as the freedoms this bill attempts to protect are already well-established by the bedrock principles declared in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in the Louisiana Constitution.

House Bill 269 called for public colleges in Louisiana to adopt safeguards for free expression that might be viewed as obvious given common understandings of the First Amendment but nevertheless have seemed to be thwarted or disallowed on some campuses to an increasing degree.

Language in the bill notes that colleges should ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression since their primary function is the discovery, improvement, transmission, and dissemination of knowledge

The bill also reminds schools that free speech includes unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive speech. It adds that students and faculty can discuss any topic that presents itself and they also can meet to engage in spontaneous expressive activity.

Also, the vetoed legislation prohibits political expression that disrupts campus activity and the free expression of others.

Republican state Rep. Lance Harris, who introduced the bill, said hed continue to try getting the legislation passed.

Freedom of speech is under siege on college campuses around the country, Harris told The Associated Press. Im going to be looking at different versions. I hope I can visit with the governor and see what he didnt like about this one.

(H/T: Campus Reform)

The rest is here:

Democratic governor vetoes campus pro-free speech bill, calls it 'overly burdensome' - TheBlaze.com

Assembly deserves praise for free speech — Sandy Wedel – Madison.com

I am extremely proud of the Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly, whichpassed the Campus Free Speech Act last week. I earned my master's degree from UW-Madison in 1973 and lived through many violent protests during my time there.

Violence and disruption are neither free speech nor intelligent. They are anti-intellectual and tyrannical. The kind of bullying that happened at Ben Shapiro's talk at UW last November is being tolerated in major universities across America these days. I am proud that the state of Wisconsin, in regards to my alma mater, has more common sense than that and has stood up for civility and true freedom of speech for everyone.

It should alarm us that the students with such hostility, intolerance and irrational thinking might some day be leaders in our country. Perhaps, if the Assembly's bill passes in the Senate and is signed into law, it will encourage those aggressive young people to learn more adult-like behavior.

Actions that prevent the free speech of others are not free speech. Remember the adage: "My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins."

Sandy Wedel, Great Falls, Montana

View post:

Assembly deserves praise for free speech -- Sandy Wedel - Madison.com

Alt-Right in Fat Elvis Mode: 100 or so Nazis gather for Freedom of Speech rally – Baltimore City Paper (blog)

"Can I get some sunscreen?" one young Nazi asks another young Nazi near the Lincoln Memorial where the alt-right's "Free Speech" rallythe more edgy of two right-wing rallies scheduled for the same time in Washington, D.C. on June 25is about to kick off.

The second rally, which is supposed to be "against political violence," splintered off from the first once alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer was invited. Spencer and his supporters call Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, and the other viral right-wingers leading the competing march "alt-light" because they are less openly racist and mostly fall in line with Trump. Who these "free speech" Nazis are specifically, their names, where they came from, the specifics of their beliefs, doesn't matter and many don't call themselves Nazis but that doesn't matter either (FWIW: they prefer "tribalists" and/or suggest white pride is like black power or whatever and shouldn't be a big deal).

The Nazi in need of sunscreen eventually gets some from a Baby Huey-like Nazi wearing a baseball helmet and holding a "Join, or Die." flag. Bounding up the steps past Baby Huey is neo-Confederate Jason Kessler, who waves a Confederate flag and yells that Lincoln was a traitor in the direction of D.C. United Against Hate's nearby counter-rally.

"The South will rise again," someone snickers.

"Fuck Palestine," a kid, probably 15, mumbles.

"Bill Clinton is a rapist" another yells.

And then, a bunch of ostensibly grown-ass men, all part of Identity Evropa, a white Nationalist group, most in white polos and khakis and at least onean older guy in a motorcycle helmetsieg heil-ing, arrive with synth-pop of the foggy faded sort playing from portable speakers.

A few of the Identity Evropa guys are Spencer's bodyguardsand their presence signals that he has arrived, which means the media gathers for an impromptu pre-rally Spencer presser.

Spencer tells cameras that he is "not a white supremacist."

"I don't want to rule over other races," he says. He is just worried about whites "not having a safe space for their families."

And unlike the alt-light, Spencer says, he isn't blindly for the Donald: "Donald Trump has been very disappointing and I am very worried about his presidency. He can obviously redeem himself in my eyes, but whether or not he's going to do that, I'm skeptical."

Spencer, it seems, is entering his paunchy Elvis phase, dressed in a white suit (with black buckled shoes truly deserving of a "What are thooooooose?"), sporting long-ish sideburns, big dumb Ray-Bans, and looking a bit bloated. He is a slightly better talker with cameras in his face, which let him be more oppositional than he is during the actual speech where his speaking style is best described as diet, caffeine-free, Dwight Schrute from "The Office" channeling Mussolini.

"The most radical thing for anyone to say is, 'I am white, my life has meaning, my life has dignity, I am part of a family," he says to the crowd of 100 or so. He adds, as though he's filibustering through an S.A.T. prompt, "Free speech really matters and this is why we are here today."

There is so much bad faith and cognitive dissonance here and the D.C. police are trying to keep everyone separated, not allowing the Nazis to get too close to the D.C. United Against Hate rally a little closer to the Lincoln Memorial ("The rally you want to be at is over there" a cop tells a guy in Trump gear) and moving D.C. United Against Hate attendees, including one woman in a wheelchair, away from the Nazis, a presumably wise decision but also one that offers up a false equivalency between the two groups.

A stronger stance is taken by a Parks and Rec. volunteer who silently leaves three Internet-y Nazis hanging after they want to shake his hand and "thank him for [his] service," they say.

We're all soaking in it out herethe 4chan-ing, Reddit-residing, Pepe meme-ing, racist, anti-semitic, alt-right to which Trump is at least adjacent to or making coy goo-goo eyes at (did you see Eric Trump's got the Nazi haircut now?). That its face, Spencer, has become a meme himself, someone who, when he shows up, bloviates about white supremacy and then often gets bopped in the face or glitter-bombed, which is then GIF'd, makes sense: The internet's demands will always devour youlike the sea it will make you small, take you over, and you will eventually lose to it. Right now, Spencer's virality is shrinking because, it turns out, he's got this horrible sincerity that won't make him lasthe is like Mike Pence or something, someone who actually cares, truly believes his bullshit, whereas it is the "alt-light," Cernovich and Posobiec, who are super cynical like Trump or Mitch McConnell, goofy grandstanders, needling nihilists.

Then, Spencer's speech gets loosely inspirational: "The real challenge is within ourselves, we are the ultimate censors of free speech, we aren't willing to be honest even when we are alone. There is a black cloud that hangs over whites around the world," he says, really going for it here, referring to white guilt. Yes, the black cloud is white guilt.

Today, Spencer's another racist doofus and he is far less entertaining than, say, the internet ding-dong and former Buzzfeed employee who goes by the name Baked Alaska, who gives off Guy Fieri vibes and whose tone is bro-running-for-high-school-class-president.

The culture wars of the early '90s have only recently entered Baked Alaska's radarhis story is he became alienated working at Buzzfeed and was confronted by culturally sensitives millennials so he bemoans "SJWs" and political correctness and tells the crowd they've been blind to what's been going on and it has to end.

"We just deflected it all, we had our hater blockers on and we just didn't pay attention to it and now all of a sudden everyone's getting butthurt, everyone's afraid to be called racist to be called anti-semitic to be called all these names," he says. "And, and I think it's garbage, I think it's absolutely garbage."

Not far away, closer to the Lincoln Memorial, the collection of liberals, folkies, leftists, and peaceniks discuss Richard Collins III, a college student murdered for being black, nod to the deaths that are imminent under Trumpcare, and chant "Nazis out!"

Baked Alaska, well, he's bitching about Twitter suspensionsthe stuff that really matters.

"I actually got suspended from Twitter for a week," he says, noting/boasting it was because he shared a "Gas chamber meme." The audience laughs and cheers (they booed when he mentioned Buzzfeed, though). During his speech, he also makes a joke about being part of "Generation Z"Z here for Zyklon B, the cyanide used during the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, tourists here to see D.C. on a sunny Sunday have no time for the alt-righters. Some confront and debate them and police move them away quickly. One man with his family chuckles, and calls them Nazis, shocked but also unimpressed.

"Yeah, we're Nazis," one teenaged Nazi spits back.

"88," another Nazi yells.

One of them is dressed like a Hitler youthor a bizarre Hot Topic cosplay version, everything about him is slack and clean rather than orderly.

The rally wraps up quickly following Spencer's speech. Identity Evropa members get in formation and leave. One guy from the group smiles and shoots another sieg heil at photographers. Some have helmets on and one keeps fucking with a mouthguard. It seems as though they are on a mission, and at times they pick up the pace to a march-jog along the D.C. sidewalks away from the memorial.

Then they stop at a Metro station escalator, ride it down, and pull out their Metro cards to go home. Safety in numbers, that's all it was. No grand statement or action or confrontation. That's what all of this is: an expression of bewildered fear, an excuse for failure, a way to be a part of something, anything, all hating together.

Their leader, Richard Spencer, didn't join them on the Metro. He jumped into a rental car not long after his speech ended more than an hour ago.

See the article here:

Alt-Right in Fat Elvis Mode: 100 or so Nazis gather for Freedom of Speech rally - Baltimore City Paper (blog)

JBE Agrees With SJW Mobs And Opposes Free Speech At Universities – The Hayride

This past legislative session, the legislature passed HB 269which wouldve required public universities to create policies to protect the free speech rightson university campuses. It was in reaction to the riots at Berkeley earlier this year when Milo tried to speak there.

You would think this was legislation that would be noncontroversial. However, Governor John Bel Edwards decided to veto it.

From The Advocate:

Gov. John Bel Edwards announced Tuesday that he vetoed campus speech and highway bills and signed a hotly-debated measure to change the name of Louisianas lone residential high school.

[]The campus speech legislation would have required management boards for LSU, Southern University and other schools to spell out policies aimed at protecting campus speech, including without limitation and opinions they (students) find unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive. It was sponsored by House Republican Leader Lance Harris, R-Alexandria, a frequent foe of the governor on budget, tax and other issues.

In his veto message, the governor said the legislation is not needed. This bill is a solution in search of a problem that creates a long, detailed structure for the evaluation of the freedom of expression on college campuses, Edwards said. The governor added that the legislation is needless because free speech is already protect by the U.S. and state constitutions.

Lance Harris explains why his legislation is needed.

Harris said the bill stemmed in part from the shouting down of conservative speakers at the University of California at Berkeley and elsewhere. He said that, while no such incidents have taken place in Louisiana, he has gotten messages from students and faculty members who said new speech protections are needed.

In a telephone interview Tuesday, Harris called the veto unfortunate.

As I said in the debate, freedom of speech is under siege on a lot of college campuses around the country, Harris said. Really a lot of states have taken pro-active steps to curb idea suppression.

One of the reasons why JBE vetoed the legislation was that it was written by Lance Harris. Harris is a frequent JBE critic in the legislature. It was a petty veto.

By vetoing this legislation, John Bel Edwards has put himself on the same side as campus SJW mobs who want to supress conservative speech. It shouldnt be a surprise to Hayride readers. After all, one of his interns tried to punish a fraternity for an anti-Colin Kaepernick banner and was one of the anti-Milo ringleaders at LSU.

We asked at the time if JBE agreed with his intern and opposed free speech at LSU and other universities. Now we have our answer. JBE supports the SJW mobs and opposes free speech and universities.

Read more:

JBE Agrees With SJW Mobs And Opposes Free Speech At Universities - The Hayride

Robesonian | Campus wins for free speech – The Robesonian

RALEIGH A couple of months ago, I wrote a column that outlined emerging threats to freedom of speech on college campuses and noted with alarm that few of North Carolinas public or private universities had taken the necessary steps to ensure even a basic level of protection for students, faculty, and visiting speakers.

I am pleased to report that the situation has improved significantly since I wrote that earlier piece. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education assesses the rules and procedures that protect, or fail to protect, free speech on campus. Just a few months ago, only one of the campuses in the University of North Carolina system Chapel Hill was given a green light in FIREs rating system. Most received yellow lights, while four campuses got red lights for failing to provide meaningful protections.

Several UNC campuses contacted FIRE to find out what they needed to do to address the problem, and then took action to remove their intrusive speech codes. As of late June, only one institution in the system, the School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, still has a red-light designation.

Five campuses UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina Central, and East Carolina now have green lights. Thats fantastic! The other 10 universities are rated yellow, which in a couple of cases is still an improvement.

Among private campuses in North Carolina, the free-speech leader is Duke University, with a green light. On the other end of the spectrum, Wake Forest University and Davidson College are blinking red. While First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press, and assembly dont apply to private campuses, they should champion such practices as forming the core element of a truly liberal education.

North Carolina now leads the nation in the number of higher education institutions receiving FIREs top rating. North Carolinians who treasure free expression should be proud of this progress even as we continue to press other institutions to follow suit.

Why pay so much attention to this issue? Unless you are a professor, a student, or a family member of either, you may not see free speech on campus as critical. But its related to a broader phenomenon that youve surely noticed and that may be affecting you more directly the decline of civil, constructive dialogue across political difference.

To recognize the right of someone else to express a controversial point of view is not necessarily to endorse that view. To place a high value on the free exchange of ideas is not necessarily to place a high value on all of the ideas being exchanged, or to place a high level of trust or confidence in the individuals expressing those ideas.

There are at least two core arguments for freedom of speech. One is that we all have inherent rights as human beings to say (and do) whatever we please as long as we dont violate the equal rights of others to say (and do) the same. The other, more consequentialist, argument is that if we allow and foster an unencumbered exchange of views, the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out over time and provide us with better answers to important questions than we could ever get by constraining the debate.

The first argument only applies to government policy. That is, in a free society no politician or bureaucrat has the legitimate power to suppress the views of others through such means as fines or imprisonment. If you come on my property and start yelling at me about Medicaid expansion or whatnot, I can have you ejected. But if you stand on your own property and yell at me, or use private means to communicate your views through spoken or printed word, my only recourses are to answer or ignore you.

The consequentialist argument, however, applies even in non-governmental settings such as private universities where the search for truth is integral to their missions. However messy or uncomfortable it may be in some circumstances, free speech is better than the alternative.

http://www.robesonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/web1_john-hood20176289140616-2.jpg

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation.

.

Continue reading here:

Robesonian | Campus wins for free speech - The Robesonian

New Names for Old Gods – Patheos (blog)

The philosopher William James was one of the turn of the centurys greatest examiners of the religious experience, noting its varieties and studying its phenomena, albeit with the kind of distanced, unheated air characteristic of an academician of that era. But the psychologist Carl Jung was the thinker who intellectually legitimized the religious impulse as a constituent part of the human species.

Jung said that a fundamental part of life is an intense desire to know the divine, a yearning to experience that which is larger than the self. For modern man, a loss of the religious center resulted in all kinds of maladieselevated concerns to realize ambitions, inordinate delight over material possessions, anxiety over the retention of passing beauty, strength, grace, etc. Caretaking of the soul was a remedy for these things, though for modern man an acceptance of that fact proved difficult. Hence, neurosis.

Its not surprising that a being with so limited a life span and skill set, but with such unlimited imagination and intuition, would look up from his stone ax at some point and stare out into the horizon. The earliest evidence of worship seems to stretch back even as far as the Paleolithic, when burial rituals provided food and weapons for a type of transcendence for the deceased.

Adopting a burial itself, rather than abandonment, makes no sense except as a religious practice, if it was ever more than that at all. There might be modern hygienic reasons for caretaking of corpses, but that would unlikely have been a concern of ancient peoples, and even so there are easier ways to rid oneself of pestilent nuisances than burying them.

So there must have been some early concept of a spirit, one that could dissociate itself from the physical body. The idea of another life into which that spirit passedwhether or not it was conceived as eternalwas at least something that was in play from earliest history.

But contemporaneously with that concept is evidence of a totemism of some type, involving hybrid creatures, half-man and half-animal, as depicted on cave walls. So not only did the early worshipers have one of the essential notions of any religiontranscendence, as expressed through passagebut they also had anotherthe notion of a deity (atonement, another definitive notion, could be equally as old, depending on the reason sacrifices and scapegoating were practiced: as a means to appease the gods for sin, or as a means to flatter the gods for favors).

Eons passed, and the gods became plenteous. No longer was the bulbous-figured fertility goddess with enormous breasts the only shape that the divine took. Gods of all kinds appeared, and for all purposes. Gods associated with the cycles of life, with the passage of time, with joy and pleasure, and with fear and loathing, sprang forth to claim their due. And these gods claimed that due in the form of statuary and other means of depiction, which required obeisance. The gods couldnt very well remain out in the cold and heat, so they were given houses, or temples, and at that point mankind was at a place very near the place we currently possess.

The point of all this is to say that one aspect of the religious impulse Jung spoke of is the theophanic desirethe need for the god to manifest. Its not enough for the gods to have names and functions; they have to have faces. After all, we are sentient beings and ultimately cannot be contented with things that remain purely ghostly.

One of the telling features of our times is that the religious impulse in the first world has been transitioned, or transferred, to causese.g., the identification with certain political and environmental stances. In the first world, the vestiges of orthodox worship of a deity remain, of course, but more and more the majority of people profess a spirituality rather than a religiosity, one that rids itself of the traditional aspects that are at odds with the secular episteme.

So God has lost his face and bodyhas un-manifested, as it were. Now, god is often meant, if not written, with a little g, and is accompanied by a superfluity of pronouns to cover all bases. Its fair to say that the old practice of pantheism has returned, the finding of the godlike in all thingsparticularly seas and trees and bees, etc.with its attendant rituals of ecological adoration and stewardship.

But from the purely anthropological standpoint, I dont think it will last. Theres too much history that says otherwise. Witness New Zealands recent bestowal ofpersonhood upon the Whanganui River, the third largest in the country. Its importance to the natives is ancient, but this is the first time that a natural feature has been given equivalent rights with human beings.

Where it gets really interesting is the fact that the river will have guardians, who will for all intents and purposes enjoy the rights of the Whanganui and enforce obligations owed to it. They will, in a legal sense,bethe river when the river needs to leave its ancient banks, put on a suit, and go to the bank or to court.

Poseidon became the manifestation of the Sea, Aphrodite of Love, Artemis of the Hunt, and on and on. Whether they sprang from sea foam or erupted from a volcano, the gods eventually took a shape. And once they had, they expected and received their due from their disciples.

Is such obeisance really distinguishable from the recent theophany of the Whanganui, and the many gods that will doubtless join her/him/it in due timeEverest, Amazon, Eriewith their claims upon our consciences?

Considering the world we live in now, whos willing to bet against this happening? We may have phones and jets, but one wonders how fundamentally different we are from our forebears when it comes right down to things such as these. A.G. Harmon teaches Shakespeare, Law and Literature, Jurisprudence, and Writing at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. His novel, A House All Stilled, won the 2001 Peter Taylor Prize for the Novel.

Above image by Miguel Virkkunen Carvalho, used with permission under a Creative Commons License.

The rest is here:

New Names for Old Gods - Patheos (blog)

Science Finally Realizes Atheists Are More Close-Minded Than The Religious – The Daily Caller

New research has found what many conservatives have argued for years: Religious believers are more tolerant of differing viewpoints than atheists.

The study found that while atheists may like to think of themselves as more open-minded, theyre actually less tolerant of dissenting opinions than their religious counterparts.

The main message of the study is that closed-mindedness is not necessarily found only among the religious, Dr. Filip Uzarevic, a researcher at Catholic University of Louvain who co-authored the research, told PsyPost.

Uzarevicconfirmed thatthe religious and nonreligious each have their own particular targets of prejudice, but atheists and agnostics were generally less open todiffering opinions than Christians.

This contradicts long-standing findings of previous psychological research which found that the religious were more biased than atheists.

In our study, the relationship between religion and closed-mindedness depended on the specific aspect of closed-mindedness, Uzarevic said. Somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to ones own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness.

The study was based on 788 European adults, 445 of whom were either atheist or agnostic. The 255 of the remaining religious believers were of various Christian denominations, but the researchers also included 17 Muslims, 3 Jews and 17 Buddhists.

The idea started through noticing that, in public discourse, despite both the conservative/religious groups and liberal/secular groups showing strong animosity towards the opposite ideological side, somehow it was mostly the former who were often labeled as closed-minded, Uzarevic said. Moreover, such view of the secular being more tolerant and open seemed to be dominant in the psychological literature.

Uzarevic speculated that since the atheists in his study came from highly secularized and nonreligious Western Europe,they likely hadnt had a many opportunities to engage with religious believers, making them more intolerant.

Being interested in this topic, we started to discuss whether this is necessarily and always the case: Are the religious indeed generally more closed-minded, or would it perhaps be worthy of investigating the different aspects of closed-mindedness and their relationship with (non)religion, Uzarevic said.

Uzarevic also determined that strength of belief in either religion or atheism was directly correlated to how close-minded people were.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

Send tips toandrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact[emailprotected].

Link:

Science Finally Realizes Atheists Are More Close-Minded Than The Religious - The Daily Caller

Vatican cardinal on a quest for the soul inside the machine – Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Artificial intelligence. Androids. Transhumanism. Once just fodder for pulp science fiction, technological advances over the past 30 years have brought these subjects to the forefront of any discussion about the future.

Italian Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Vaticans Council for Culture, has been trying to make sure the Church is part of that discussion.

Technology runs and proposes new things at a speed that theology and other paths of human knowledge fail to follow, Ravasi told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on Sunday.

Ravasi runs the Courtyard of the Gentiles, an initiative first proposed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 to dialogue with non-believers. The name comes from the space set aside at Herods Temple that was accessible to non-Jews who wanted to speak to rabbis and other Jewish authorities about God and religion.

The Courtyard is currently hosting a series of meetings on future technology, and what effect it could have on what it means to be human.

Right now, major corporations such as IBM, Apple, and Facebook are pouring money into developing Artificial Intelligence (AI). Although the idea of a conscious computer system still exists only in the realm of science fiction, one of the major tasks people want AI for is to create bots for customer service, which should respond to people in such a way that they cant tell they arent talking to a person.

In other words, a computer which isnt conscious, but no one can really tell.

Meanwhile, transhumanism is the idea of transforming the human body through technological progress.

Some of this is already happening, and can be a good thing: Pacemakers, high-tech artificial limbs, and other new medical devices have improved the lives of millions. In a very real way, cyborgs have lived among us for years.

Other examples of a transhumanist future can be seen with Google Glass, the headset which could record what you were seeing, as well as overlay information into your field of view; and the idea of permanent implants to replace credit cards (and possibly many of the functions of your smartphone), which is already being tested in some countries.

These technologies are not inherently wrong, yet may soon present serious ethical dilemmas.

If an artificial limb becomes better than the original, is it okay for a person to upgrade?

If you can record everything you see, should you? Is it any different than an enhanced memory? And who should have access to the images?

But before you can even discuss the implications of the latest technology, yet another gadget hits the market raising new questions.

Ravasi expressed concern over the overproduction of technological gadgets, and complained of an era of bulimia in the means, and atrophy in the ends.

The cardinal said one problem is schools and universities do not cover enough general anthropology, and humanity finds itself flattened in the onslaught of technological change.

If I learn to create robots with a high level of human attributes, if I develop an artificial intelligence, if I intervene in a substantial way with the nervous system: Im not only making a big technological advance, in many cases very valuable for therapeutic medical purposes, Ravasi said. Im also making a real anthropological leap, touching on issues such as freedom, responsibility, guilt, conscience and if we want the soul.

The cardinal said the digital natives who have grown up in this new era are functionally different from older people, often overlapping the relationship between real and virtual, and the traditional way of considering what is true and false. It is as if they were in a video game.

(Ravasis concern is more prescient than even he might know: Many of the technological advances, especially in the field of virtual reality, are being made in the game industry, where the ethical questions about the technological advances are often overshadowed by the cool factor.)

Ravasi also expressed concern about how biotechnology is changing the role of humanity from being a guardian of nature into being a kind of creator.

Synthetic biology, the creation of viruses and bacteria that do not exist in nature, is an expression of this tendency, he said. All these operations have ethical and cultural implications that need to be considered.

Ravasi is not the first Vatican official to speak on these themes.

In 2004, the International Theological Commission issued a document on Human Persons created in the Image of God.

The document affirms that bodiliness is essential to personal identity, and calls for people to exercise a responsible stewardship over the biological integrity of human beings created in the image of God.

The document reads:

Because the body, as an intrinsic part of the human person, is good in itself, fundamental human faculties can only be sacrificed to preserve life. After all, life is a fundamental good that involves the whole of the human person. Without the fundamental good of life, the values like freedom that are in themselves higher than life itself also expire. Given that man was also created in Gods image in his bodiliness, he has no right of full disposal of his own biological nature. God himself and the being created in his image cannot be the object of arbitrary human action.

It goes on to list conditions for any bodily intervention:

For the application of the principle of totality and integrity, the following conditions must be met: (1) there must be a question of an intervention in the part of the body that is either affected or is the direct cause of the life-threatening situation; (2) there can be no other alternatives for preserving life; (3) there is a proportionate chance of success in comparison with drawbacks; and (4) the patient must give assent to the intervention. The unintended drawbacks and side-effects of the intervention can be justified on the basis of the principle of double effect.

Yet in many ways, the document talks past the conversation now happening, especially since those having the conversation are often working out very specific problems how to fix this medical disorder, how to create a better customer interface, how to create a more realistic game and are not considering the larger picture they may be helping to create.

Ravasi is hoping the new dialogue will help everyone stand back and see that picture, and seriously consider the implications of what they are doing.

It is essential for believers and nonbelievers to re-propose the great cultural, spiritual, and ethical values like a positive shock against superficiality, the cardinal said now that we are living through an anthropological and cultural change which is complex and problematic, but is certainly also exciting.

Excerpt from:

Vatican cardinal on a quest for the soul inside the machine - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Will We Ever Colonize Mars? – space.com

Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) has to grow food on Mars, a planet where nothing grows, in "The Martian."

Paul Sutter is a research fellow at the Astronomical Observatory of Trieste and visiting scholar at the Ohio State University's Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics (CCAPP). Sutter is also host of the podcasts Ask a Spaceman and RealSpace, and the YouTube series Space In Your Face. He contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Ah, Mars. The place that dreams are made of. As long as those dreams involve a poisonous, tenuous atmosphere, inhospitable cold and lots and lots of red. Still, people seem to want to go there. But will we ever make it?

"Yes," if you ask Elon Musk. I agree, but it probably won't be as easy as you might think, even if you think it's going to be really really hard.

What's the problem? Pick up the nearest object and throw it. I don't care if there are people around you. Do it. This is an experiment. This is science. Note how far the object goes before it hits the ground. Now pick it up and throw it harder. It went further, didn't it?

Part of the reason you didn't throw it as far as your ego thought you would was air resistance. Plowing through the atmosphere like a bull in a molecular china shop, the object quickly loses speed. But the actual "hitting the ground part is due to gravity. If you took away all the air, your thrown object would still eventually hit the ground.

In an airless world, no matter how hard you throw the object, it will reach the ground in the same amount of time. That's because gravity only works in the "down" direction, not the "over" direction, so for all gravity cares, you might as well have just lazily dropped it. But the harder you throw it, the more speed it will have, and the farther it will go before inevitably hitting the ground.

Or maybe not so inevitably. Imagine throwing something so hard that in the few seconds before it hits the ground, it reached the other side of a house. Or maybe a street. Throw it harder and you could get it across town. Across the country. Even faster: across an ocean.

Imagine throwing it so fast that by the time gravity gets around to doing its thing, the Earth has curved away from it. Gravity keeps on tugging at the object, but it frustratingly keeps missing the ground.

Ta-da: orbit!

How fast is orbital fast? Around 18,000 miles per hour (or 11 kilometers per second), give or take. There is, after all, an actual atmosphere to deal with.

You can certainly go slower and still visit space. Just make sure you packed a heat shield, because you're coming back down. You can also go even faster than orbital speed and escape the jealous clutches of Earth's gravity altogether, which is what it takes to get to Mars.

And that's the fundamental challenge. There just aren't many ways of pushing stuff that fast. Our best method so far involvesblowing up stuff in a tube, and making sure to leave a hole in one side. Newton's laws do the rest. It seems primitive, but the engineers tell me these "rockets" are actually quite complicated.

We can easily send robots to Mars, because their feelings don't get hurt if you forget to pack the oxygen and food. But people are a different well, animal, altogether. Humans are heavy. Humans need to carry little bubbles of the Earth ecosystem with them everywhere they go. Humans need room to stretch. Humans want to bring human-centric niceties, like hammers and toothpaste and lima beans.

Oh, yeah, and we need to bring them back home, I suppose. So pack the spare rockets and extra fuel.

Let this sink in: at the time of this writing, we don't have the capacity to send humans beyond Low Earth Orbit, the very edge of space, let alone Mars. Getting to Mars is hard, folks, and it requires a lot of new technology.

And that's just enough stuff for a handful of hominids to poke around the place for a bit. A colony? Look around the city you're in, and marvel at all the junk it takes to get you through the day. Think of all the layers of civilization and organization (spontaneous or otherwise) it takes to get you dinner. Made of food. Cooked. On a plate. That you will clean up with water eventually. In a house. On a street. And on and on.

A city is a massively complicated thing. Sure, we've built them from the ground up before, but colonies on Earth have a few advantages, namely, a) breathable air, b) liquid water, c) dirt and d) proximity to other Earth-based cities. Even the U.S. National Science Foundation's Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station the closest to a Mars colony you can get while keeping two feet on the Earth enjoys most of these advantages, and is still a nightmare to keep alive.

And did I mention the cosmic rays? No? Well, now's a good time cosmic rays are high-energy protons (and some heavier nuclei) zipping through the universe, generated inwell, we're not exactly sure, but probably supernovae and other cataclysmic events. The universe is swimming in them, and they cut through DNA like a hot knife through butter. The butter is you in this metaphor, just to be clear. On Earth the atmosphere makes for nice insulation, catching most of the deadliest cosmic rays, but some still make it through, possibly giving everyone especially airline crews a slightly elevated risk of cancer. [Radiation Fears Shouldn't Hold Back Mars Colonization (Op-Ed )]

But a two-year journey to Mars? Exposure on the surface? Better make sure your transports and habitats are well-shielded or buried underground or at least make sure you have some talented oncologists on staff.

Despite these challenges and more, it's notimpossibleto get people to Mars and start a viable colony. It's not like there's any physics-based reason preventing the escapades. It's just a question of engineering. And money.

Lots and lots of money.

SpaceX has an ambitious plan to get a colony on Mars through private investment in ever-larger, cheap, reusable rockets that could deliver a steady stream of people and supplies to slowly build up a colony over decades. It just takes lots of money.

NASA has an ambitious plan to build the Space Launch System, the biggest, most hard-core rocket ever made. With that kind of fire, you could send all sorts of stuff into space, including a crew to Mars. It just takes lots of money.

There are other ideas, such as Mars One ("I know, just leave everybody there, then we don't have to pay for a return ticket!") and Mars Direct, but in the end it takes time. And lots of money.

So eventually, we'll do it. Humans will go to Mars . Babies will be born there. Civilization will flourish or flounder on the Red Planet. It's just a matter of when, and of how much money we're willing to spend. Did I mention the money part?

Sure, if one day everyone decided that we don't need socks anymore, we could use the leftover savings to fast-track a Martian colony. Full of chaffed feet, but a colony nonetheless. We're certainly at the civilizational stage where sending humans to Mars is feasible, which is a huge first step. A hundred years ago, not only did we lack the technology, but also the economic wherewithal to entertain such a wacky notion.

That's the trick to getting to Mars: either we need to be so wealthy as a society that a trip is so economically insignificant that nobody cares, or there needs to be a large political (if led by NASA) or economic (if led by a company) incentive to do it. One or both of those scenarios is bound to happen, sooner or later.

Hopefully sooner.

Learn more by listening to the episode "Will we colonize Mars?" on the Ask A Spaceman podcast, available on iTunes and on the Web athttp://www.askaspaceman.com. Thanks to Ann Fisher for the question that led to this episode! Ask your own question on Twitter using #AskASpaceman or by following Paul @PaulMattSutter and facebook.com/PaulMattSutter.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates and become part of the discussion on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Space.com.

The rest is here:

Will We Ever Colonize Mars? - space.com

NATO allies boost defense spending in the wake of Trump criticism – Washington Post

BRUSSELS NATO allies of the United States plan to boost their defense spending by 4.3 percent this year, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday, a response in part to intense pressure from President Trump that the nations invest more in their militaries.

Trump hasrepeatedly castigated NATO allies for their dependence on the U.S. military for their defense and has at times called into question the basic U.S. security guarantees that have underpinned European stability since World War II.

The increase is a clear demonstration that our alliance stands united in the face of any possible aggression, Stoltenberg told reporters at the NATO headquarters, a day ahead of a meeting of NATO defense ministers. We have really shifted gears. The trend is up, and we intend to keep it up.

The increase an estimate for 2017 will boost military spending by non-U.S. NATO members to about $295 billion, which is still far less than the United States spends alone. Some of the spending increases were locked in before Trumps election in November.

NATO released only a portion of its updated numbers Wednesday, but its previous estimates for 2016 put the U.S. share of NATO defense spending at 72 percent.

The spending increases come after years of budget cuts up to 2014, as European nations trimmed spending on the belief that after the breakup of the Soviet Union, they no longer need to be ready to fight a war on their own soil.

[Watch: Trump says money is starting to pour into NATO]

But after the Russian seizure of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula in 2014, NATO leaders pledged to increase annual defense spending to 2 percent of their gross domestic product by 2024. At a meeting in May, they said they would come up with concrete plans about how they would get there.

The spending increase announced Wednesday is $12 billion more than 2016 levels, and the increases are also growing bigger 2016 spending was 3.3 percent higher than 2015 levels. Still, only five of NATOs 29 members meet the spending guidelines. Romania plans to get there this year, while Lithuania and Latvia expect to meet the bar in 2018.

Stoltenberg said that he was pleased that NATO nations were making progress.

Many people thought that back in 2014 when we made that decision it was not obvious we were going to deliver, he said in a joint interview after his news conference.

Then-President Barack Obama also hit NATO allies for being overly reliant on the U.S. security umbrella, but Trump took the criticism to a new level on the campaign trail last year. Trump suggested that if a NATO member were attacked, he would first check their spending levels before he decided whether to come to their defense.

(Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

Then, at a meeting of NATO leaders last month that was designed for Trump to reassure his allies of U.S. defense commitments, he instead berated them for their spending and held back from an explicit commitment to Article 5 in the alliances charter, NATOs bedrock principle that an attack on one country is the same as an attack on all.

Trump later made that pledge alongside the Romanian president in the Rose Garden, but the damage was done.

Stoltenberg said he was confident in U.S. pledges to NATO.

For me, America First is not America alone, he said in the interview, echoing a Trump mantra.The best way to secure the United States is to be committed to NATO.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis repeated the U.S. commitment Wednesday, speaking alongside his German counterpart, Defense Minister Ursula Von der Leyen.

The U.S. commitment to our NATO Article 5 security guarantee is ironclad, as demonstrated over decades of our steadfastness and given voice more recently by President Trump before the American people, Mattis said in Garmisch, Germany.

Mattis said that the U.S. commitment to NATO deployments in Eastern European nations that feel threatened by Russia would last at least until 2020. He also pointed to a 42 percent increase in Trumps budget request for European military spending.

Beyond any words in the newspapers, you can judge America by such actions, he said.

As they increase their spending, NATO allies have had to walk a fine political line, since Trump isdeeply unpopular among their voters and any sign of capitulating to U.S. demands can now be toxic at the ballot box.

Allies have sought to cast their spending decisions as a response to their own need to defend themselves. Many of the 2017 spending decisions that together form the increase announced Wednesday were made before Trumps improbable November victory.

I welcome the strong focus of President Trump on defense spending and burden sharing, because it is important that we deliver, Stoltenberg said Wednesday. European allies should invest more in defense not only to please the United States, but they should invest more in defense because it is in their own interests.

Germany, Europes richest nation, has been among the biggest laggards in the alliance, and its spending shortfall has been a major element in the Trump administrations deteriorating relationship with the country.

Von der Leyen, the German defense minister, said Wednesday that her country was working toward the spending goal.

We need to have a fair burden sharing in Europe, von der Leyen said, speaking alongside Mattis in Germany. If we want to have stability in the neighboring regions, we have to take responsibility for it.

Gibbons-Neff reported from Garmisch, Germany.

Read more

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Go here to see the original:

NATO allies boost defense spending in the wake of Trump criticism - Washington Post