California Universities Now Destroying Books After Digitization

Farenheit 451, 1984 or Brave New World, take your pick. It is ironic but not surprising to learn that the educational institutions in California, the global capital of crazy, whose denizens like to proclaim it is the most liberal and progressive state in the Union, is the place where book burning in the free world has begun. Now let me say at this juncture there is nothing intrinsically wrong with burning books if they are damaged or surplus to requirements but when the book burning is an effort to destroy a document of record that once commited to print cannot be changed, the initiative takes on a more sinister aspect. Anybody who has even a competent amateur's understanding of how the internet's storage and retrieval systems work will understand that digital media is not a suitable means of ensuring a definitive and unalterable record of information exists.

A few years ago Californian  universities were caught removing and even destroying library books after digitizing them, a process critics warn leads to 1984-style censorship in which only “corrected” copies of books remain. UC Berkeley in particular was found to have removed 135,000 books from its school library, claiming that by digitizing the books, library space can be reused for meeting rooms and “nap pods.”  

Putting aside the fact that libraries have existed since the Middle Ages as vaults of knowledge safe from tampering; in comparison, the way universities are disappearing books after digitizing them allows anyone with a “politically correct” agenda a way to alter books during digitization – including important texts on history, science and humanities – without anyone ever knowing. Academics and supporters of the political left (where the virtual book - burning mentality seems to reside,) may protest that the people who run universities would never do such a thing, but stories like this give the lie to such self - righteous bollocks:


An Iowa State University instructor has issued a warning to students that if they express opinion that isn’t in line with support for Black Lives Matter protesters, or if they hold pro-life opinions they could be dismissed from the institution.
“No arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc.”

The Young America’s Foundation (YAF) raised a red flag over the warning on a syllabus by Chloe Clark, in which she wrote “Any instances of othering that you participate in intentionally (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, sorophobia, transphobia, classism, mocking of mental health issues, body shaming, etc.) in class are grounds for dismissal from the classroom.” CONTINUE READING >>>
Clark added “The same goes for any papers/projects. You cannot choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do (i.e. no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc.)”
The Daily Caller notes that the YAF was alerted to the warning through its Campus Bias Tip Line.
Continue reading >>>

Exposing the bigotry and hypocrisy of the left in such stories makes no difference however, these people are so full of their own virtue they see what they are doing as righting history's wrongs rather than suppressing free speech and other inalienable human rights.

The removal of 60% of the physical collection at the science library of the University of California, Santa Cruz, for instance, caused an uproar after it was reported that many of the books removed had been destroyed, a story reported the Christian Science Monitor revealed. “A campus spokesman said that nothing had been lost from the scholarly record, since duplicates were retained in other libraries or available online.”

“Given the short timeframe and seeming lack of consultation of the faculty, however, many critics expressed doubts that this was actually the case.” 

This, of course, draws parallels to the novel 1984, in which the protagonist, Winston, works at the Ministry of Truth altering books and important texts while sequentially destroying the original sources to hide the evidence of tampering. In reality, it’s certainly plausible that SJW student-workers digitizing books at a university could “correct for history” by altering or downright removing passages from books that don’t conform to their world view.

Remember, these are the same activists who demand restrictions on free speech if it “offends others” and demand the removal of historical war memorials if they trigger “micro-aggressions” – and college campuses are now breeding grounds for this ideology.

“Suppose they do scan or digitize entire libraries. What then? Will it not be far, far easier for systems of authority to control or manipulate access to historical information?” Asked attorney Quintus Curtius.

“How can we be sure that the University of California will not one day decide to prevent access to all works written before 1950 as being ‘offensive’ or not in tune with political correctness?” “When it comes to our precious cultural heritage, we cannot place our faith in the same institutions that have been betraying that same heritage for the past 40 years.”

On a similar note, Google’s Vint Cerf warned we are heading into a “digital dark age” because digitalized documents will eventually be lost or lack compatibility with new formats. The latter is already more-or-less the case with eBooks which suffer problems converting between different formatting standards.

“Old formats of documents that we’ve created or presentations may not be readable by the latest version of the software because backwards compatibility is not always guaranteed,” said Cerf.

“And so what can happen over time is that even if we accumulate vast archives of digital content, we may not actually know what it is.” 

The far left, in the USA and Europe are embarked on a very dangerous project, one that can only end in blood or fascism. If they had any sense they would take a long hard look at who is bank rolling this project and they will understand that neither option is a good outcome for the working classes and the poor, the very people leftie virtue signallers claim they are fighting for.

RELATED:

Re-Branding Dissent - The Quiet Destruction Of Democracy
Many people, all the contributors to this publication among them, fear that democracy is being destroyed. OK, OK, hipsters will say but ‘we’ve never had democracy’, or, ‘it was destroyed long ago’, but left wing deceit aside, I think its worth actually thinking about how, many forms of democratic expression, effective dissent and peaceful self-determination are being outlawed and abolished in a sustained attack on free speech and civil rights.
How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics' Most Powerful Critics
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.
US Presidents Of The Past warned Against Secret, Shadow Government. By now it should be obvious that peacemake, joybringer and putative aquatic pedestrian Barack Hussein Obama was never really in charge of the US Government. Whatever Obama said would happen, all the American government's policies ensured the opposit would happen. The embedded article thows some light on how the US government really works
Obama's Terrible Trade Pact Is a Scam That Must Be Stopped Says Jim Hightower
Having written a book on the evil trade treaty that will transform the democratic nations into corporate oligarchies, we step aside and hand the baton to Jim Hightower of Alternet who is equally outraged about the iniquities of TTIP's equally evil twin, TPP.
Google Has Become A Threat To Democracy Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, About 10 years ago, Tim Wu, the Columbia Law professor who coined the term network neutrality, made this prescient comment: “To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king.” Wu was right. … Continue reading
Another Reason To Get Out Of EU. UKIP MEP Hits Out At Fishing Policy That Penalises British Fishing Crews
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and an often overlooked area in which our EU membership has perhaps done more damage than any other, the fishing industry.
Democracy: Does It have A Future Or Has Global Totalitarianism Won?
The General Election in Greece (January 2014) could have much wider effects than most elections in small nation, the vote could decide the future of the European Union and have a major breaing on whether democracy can survive the push towards government by a global, corporate oligarchy. It look like being an interesting few months if the anti - EU party wins as polls suggest they will.

Freedom? It's Bollocks. The People Versus The Deep State

Everyone is suddenly talking about the Deep State – the cartels of state security agencies, career bureaucrats, corporate businesses in the military / industrial complex, surveillance contractors, 'opinion makers' and 'philanthropists' whose omnipresence in democratic societies has been brought to light by President Trump’s claims that he was “wiretapped” by his predecessor, and before that by internet whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden and websites such as Wikileaks.

This blog (and our other publications have been talking about The Deep State, the Shadow Government, The Controllers, call them what you will, since before there was alt_journalism and new media. It's not a new think, in fact the establishment of a political establishment, a cliquish caste of lawyers, scholars, military leaders and money men, was probably one of the first things to happen when humans began to form civilised communities.

Because Trump's opponents got their knickers in a right old twist about this alleged 'wiretapping', let's put things in perspective. Wiretapping is an illegal eavesdropping technique that in its true form is obsolete in this era of digital surveillance and Trumps words could in no way be construed as a suggestion that Obama was personally involved in physically setting up any electronic eavesdropping equipment or software. And we now know that several US Government agencies were certainly surveilling Trump campaign headquarters during the 2016 election campaign.

It was because of his habit of making imprecise statements, as if he is thinking aloud rather than making a well thought out statement when addressing the media which enabled those who cannot accept his victory over Hillary Clinton or the fact that he is now US President to ascribe the surveillance to Barack Obama, and so naturally spokesmen for the former President had no trouble batting this charge away. But as a former Obama speechwriter put it:  “I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the [White House] ordered it.”

And then there’s the word “wiretapping”: this brings to mind the old-fashioned physical “bug” that old fashioned spooks like James Bond used to plant on the phone lines of suspected subversives, installed with tools from a harware store in the dead of night. But that isn’t how it’s done anymore. As Edward Snowden revealed and as I know from my career in computers and digital networking, the National Security Agency (NSA) in the USA and the UK Government's GCHQ scoop up everyone’s data and metadate, and store it all in a vast, relational database for later retrieval. Loosely-observed “rules” are supposed to make it hard (but not impossible) for the spooks to spy on American citizens, but the reality is that there are plenty of times when such information is scooped up “incidentally,” and in those cases the identities of those spied on must be redacted.

Except not anymore.Cooperation from Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Google, Facebook, internet service providers and cellular network operators have made possible the sucking up of very detailed information on peoples' movements and activities and building of a reasonable accurate profile of that person.
As the New York Times reported on January 12:

“In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.
“The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.
“The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data…”

At the same time some White House officials were scrambling to spread disinformation about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians – across the government.”

And it looks like Obama administration officials were quick to make use of this loosening of regulation after Trump’s victory. As the Times reported on March 1, after Trump won they were combing through the unredacted raw data looking for evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign:
Their goal was to leave an audit trail of intelligence for government investigators. So sore were members of the Obama administration that Trump had beaten Hillary Clinton and their tickets on the gravy train had been cancelled, they apparently didn’t wait for the investigation to find the planted data, a stream of reportage about “intercepts” involving Trump associates, such as former National Security Council advisor Michael Flynn communicating with Russian officials, found its way onto the front pages of the nation’s newspapers. The source of this intelligence is the key to understanding what happened. The Times tells us:

“American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials – and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin – and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.
“Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.”

Forget about looking court records of applications for warrants to spy on Trump & Co.: it wasn’t necessary. Such archaic relics of the free society was the attitude. as warrants had no place in the brave New World of Obamaland. "If we can do it, that makes it OK to do it," "Seventeen different government agencies shouldn’t be rooting through Americans’ emails with family members, friends and colleagues, all without ever obtaining a warrant," warned American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Patrick Toomey at the time the rules defining NSA powers and constraints were thrown out.
 
But nobody cared, we live in a scientific age and as far as science is concerned justice is a chimera and the end justifies the means. Ironically Trump and his supporters, generally approve of governments spying on citizens and anything else that wears a “national security” identification badge, they had not raised a stink about what Obama was up to and so deserved to be the first victims. Thus the anti-Trump coup plotters were given carte blance to do their dirty deeds. On January 12 a New York Times story reported:

“Under the new system, agencies will ask the N.S.A. for access to specific surveillance feeds, making the case that they contain information relevant and useful to their missions. The N.S.A. will grant requests it deems reasonable after considering factors like whether large amounts of Americans’ private information might be included and, if so, how damaging or embarrassing it would be if that information were ‘improperly used or disclosed.’”

All the leakers had to do was run the material gathered by the NSA through a keyword search and cherry-pick what looked incriminating. Maybe there was nothing to find or maybe, due to the typical incompetence of Team Obama members, there was could have been smoking gun or we would surely have known about it by now. But the lack of such was no obstacle to their goal, which was to give the #NeverTrump cause a banner around which to rally the Clintonistas post-election – “The Russians did it!” – and create a dark cloud of suspicion over Trump’s presidency as being somehow illegitimate.

The new rules on disseminating raw NSA intercepts went into effect on January 3, after then Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed on: the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had previously signed on December 12. And if we look at the reportage coming out of the media, that’s when the stories detailing the alleged links between Trump appointees and Russian government officials started hitting fans and front pages.

It’s difficult to see how anyone could deny that the Surveillance State did a number on Trump and tried to derail his presidency (though Obama fans and Clinton supporters will.) Only days after the loosened NSA rules went into effect, the Washington Post ran a story headlined “US Intercepts Capture Senior Russian Officials Celebrating Trump Win”:

The Most Shocking Revelation From The CIA-Spying Scandal

Via Simon Black of SovereignMan.com