Monday, October 14, 2019

Rental Cars To Use Facial Recognition To Spy On Your Vacation

0

from Activist Post:

Five days ago, IDEMIA announced their plan to install facial recognition cameras in rental vehicles.

IDEMIA and Omoove are combining forces to spy on car renters everywhere.

You will never rent a car the same way thanks to EasyOpen solution that combines IDEMIA’s expertise in secure service enablement and Omoove’s experience in Shared Mobility platforms and on-board technology. (Source)

They got one thing right, “you will never rent a car the same way.” Because now companies will use facial biometrics to spy on your family vacations, shopping, dining, etc. in real-time.

This year, both companies have just announced the introduction of a new process for the digital enrollment of the driver combined with facial recognition technology, which will be implemented into EasyOpen solution.

Last year, I warned everyone that the Lincoln company has installed ‘complimentary’ TSA PreCheck biometric scanners in their 2018 vehicles. (Click here see how Honda’s 2018 Odyssey uses CabinWatch to spy on passengers.)

Turning rental cars into facial biometric surveillance platforms is a privacy nightmare.

How will law enforcement use facial biometrics?

Police will use facial biometrics to spy on your family

Law enforcement and car rental companies will be able to use facial biometrics to spy on your vacation no matter where in the world you go or which company you choose.

Car rental companies can combine GPS and facial recognition data to create an intimate record of your family vacation.

A 2015 news article in The Street, revealed that most rental vehicles are equipped with GPS location systems and cameras.

Numerous Florida car rental companies are notorious for literally shutting off engines of cars that cross state lines.

And another article in Komando warned that Hertz had secretly installed video cameras in their vehicles.

Once a rental company has your facial biometrics and other personal information, it will be easy for law enforcement and data mining companies to access those records. (Click herehere and here to find out how car rental privacy polices share your personal information.)

Who is IDEMIA?

IDEMIA, formerly known as MorphoTrust also wants states to do away with physical drivers licenses and IDs and store everyone’s facial biometrics on a smartphone.

As of August 2017, there are eleven states using digital drivers licenses and IDs in the U.S. (Click hereto find out more about IDEMIA’s digital drivers licenses and IDs.)

Who is Omoove?

Omoove specializes in end-to-end shared mobility; in other words, they work with car rental companies to track a vehicle’s every movement in real-time.

 

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

Omoove gives your operators the ability to track vehicles and access diagnostics in real-time through a central console, so you never have to worry about losing visibility into key user and vehicle metrics again. (Source)

Unfortunately, IDEMIA is not the only company trying to install facial biomterics in rental cars.

Read More @ ActivistPost.com

CIA whistleblower loses in court, sparking warning of ‘chill’ for those seeing abuse

0

by Tim Johnson, McClatchy DC:

WASHINGTON 

A federal judge Wednesday dismissed a complaint by a Cuban-American employee of the CIA, and his attorney said the decision may put a chill on other whistleblower charges from within the intelligence community.

The employee, a Miami native who goes by the pseudonym James S. Pars, alleged that his career at the CIA had derailed after complaining of conditions at a remote foreign posting that he said were akin to a “college dorm,” and that the agency failed to conclude an inquiry into his charges after nearly three years.

Pars’ attorney, Susan L. Kruger, said Wednesday’s ruling by a federal judge in Washington would have a ripple effect across multiple intelligence agencies.

“What might happen here is that potential whistleblowers won’t want to speak up because their agencies will ignore any kind of whistleblower complaint that will come their way,” Kruger said.

Federal Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled that Pars’ lawsuit failed to establish that the CIA had a legal obligation to conduct an inquiry and that Pars could ask courts to compel action.

A CIA spokesman, Dean Boyd, said the judge’s memorandum opinion “clearly spells out the reasons for the court’s decision in this matter. We have no further comment for you.”

Pars began a one-year assignment in December 2014 as a deputy chief of base in an unidentified war zone wracked by rocket attacks. His stint was cut short after barely three months.

His CIA superior at the base, Pars said, “would get depressed and get into cooking spells for hours. Baking was her specialty.” She picked favorites among employees, allowing them to do little while others toiled hard, he said. The senior communications officer, he added,“would constantly not do his job. Would watch TV all day in his office … Would come in late every day.”

The superior would take employees on “trips for food, shopping or trips to the gym” even if it exposed them to potential rocket attacks, Pars said in his lawsuit.

The dispute partially rests on action taken by former President Barack Obama in 2012 when he signed a directive ensuring that intelligence agency employees could report waste, fraud or abuse and be protected from workplace retaliation as long as they acted through government channels.

Pars said he put in for numerous other jobs at the CIA after his one-year tour was cut short in February 2015 but was repeatedly turned down, landing his 16-year career on ice.

In an email to McClatchy, Pars described himself as a South Florida native.

“I lived in Miami from 1967 through 2000. Born and raised in a Cuban-American household of immigrants who fled Cuba,” Pars said.

In a separate statement, Pars said that he’d done a brief stint in the U.S. Army Reserves before joining the CIA, and that he is a licensed Christian minister.

Pars’ lawsuit, filed in late December 2016, aimed to compel the CIA’s Inspector General’s Office to complete its inquiry of his retaliation complaint. Until such an inquiry is complete, Pars is unable to appeal to the higher-echelon inspector general of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

By failing to conclude the inquiry in a timely manner, or even at all, Kruger said, the CIA thwarted Pars’ ability to pursue his whistleblower complaint at a higher level. Such action, she said, would have “a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers in the intelligence community.”

Pars, who is on forced administrative leave, has continued to pepper legislators on Capitol Hill and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats with email pleas regarding his case.

Read More @ McClatchyDC.com

CONFIRMED: Algorithm Change Causes POTUS Trump’s Facebook Traffic to Plummet 45% – Sanders, Warren Traffic UNCHANGED!

0

by Cassandra Fairbanks, The Gateway Pundit:

A recent algorithm change has caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.

The change announced earlier this month has severely hurt Facebook traffic at top conservative sites – including this one.
However, liberal websites are reportedly not seeing a drop in traffic!

(In 2016 Facebook traffic accounted for roughly one-third of our TGP traffic. Today, although our traffic continues to grow our Facebook traffic continues to decline.)

According to a stunning report by Breitbart Tech’s Allum Bokhari, the decline in engagement on Trump’s Facebook cannot be attributed to a drop in posting frequency on the part of Trump.

via Breitbart Tech

“In the 13 days prior to Facebook’s algorithm change (28 Dec – 10 Jan), Trump made 67 posts, with no significant drop in engagement. After the change, Trump posted at roughly the same rate – between 59 and 67 posts in each 13-day period, but was still met with the dramatic decline in engagement seen above,” Breitbart reports.

The changes in the algorithm came following extreme pressure on the platform from Democrats who blame social media for Hillary Clinton’s election loss.

“You’ve created these platforms, and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it … or we will,” Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein threatened Facebook prior to their changes.

Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com

Facebook Keeps Secret Files on EVERYONE Including Non-Users – Here’s How to See Yours

0

by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project:

Even if you do not have a Facebook account and have never visited the domain, Facebook is still tracking you and they are keeping all this intimate information entirely secret.

It is no secret that Facebook has long exploited its user base, kept a trove of data on them, and is essentially an intimate and personal database on 1.4 billion people ripe for the picking of the surveillance state. The insidious nature of Facebook has discouraged many people from using it and is causing millions of users to delete their accounts. However, what many people do not know is that you don’t even need an account for Facebook to spy on you and mine your most intimate data.

Even if you have never had a Facebook account, this social media leviathan uses online tracking devices that follow a user’s internet activity via third-parties and you never have to visit Facebook for it to happen.

While Facebook has become an everyday part of life for hundreds of millions of people across the world, many of those active on the platform are blissfully unaware of the vast amounts of personal data the company aggregates about them. So, why would anyone who has never visited the domain need to worry about Facebook spying on them? Well, the answer to that question is data.

With data becoming one of the greatest resources for business in the modern era, individuals are increasingly becoming more concerned about exactly what type of information can be found about them in cyberspace – and on Facebook in particular.

While people are offered a range of privacy setting options to choose from when posting on Facebook, many are completely unaware that they have the ability to customize the privacy settings on the information they share.

This can create a dynamic where your personal information is easily preyed upon by strangers, advertisers, and criminals alike. And, you don’t need a Facebook page to be a target.

As a report from the Daily Mail notes:

Even if you have never entered the Facebook domain, the company is still able to follow your browsing behavior without you knowing it. More than 10,000 websites contain invisible trackers, called Pixels, which record information about visitors. This includes everything from the operating system you use to your IP address and activities on the website during a session. This gives the firm insights into everything from where you are in the world, who your internet service provider is, the types of sites you like to visit and how long you spend on them.

It has now been over a decade that Facebook has been mining data on billions of people and for the first time in our history, a private company has been meticulously gathering, storing, analyzing, and selling data on entire populations for more than ten years.

As The Free Thought Project previously reported, if you have a Facebook profile, you can download it to see the insane amount of data this company has on you. 

Even if you are okay with Facebook creepily storing all of your data—forever—other people, outside of the social media platform have access to this data as well.

 

Fortunately, there’s a way to determine exactly how much of the information you share on Facebook is publicly accessible.

A simple tool made by Supremo now allows you to see exactly what personal data you have shared with strangers on Facebook.

The Supremo website presciently warns:

Hi there! Did you know that every single time you visit a website, you reveal information about yourself simply by visitingSimilarly, websites that allow you to log in via Facebook could be collecting all kinds of information if you haven’t properly checked the permissions you’re granting.

Ironically, the tool asks for permission to access your personal information on Facebook. However, the company notes that the “information we’ve gathered will be completely removed from our records but there are more malicious uses of your personal information potentially.”

While Facebook users can see what this data collection company has been storing on them, non-users are left out in the cold. The privacy of internet users tracked via third-party is mostly secret and there is currently no way of seeing what Facebook knows about you.

However, you can still block Facebook from following you around the web.

If you use Google Chrome, you can do the following.

If you allow cookies by default, you can still block them for a certain site.

  1. On your computer, open Chrome.
  2. At the top right, click More Settings.
  3. At the bottom, click Advanced.
  4. Under “Privacy and security,” click Content settings.
  5. Click Cookies.
  6. Next to “Block,” “Clear on exit,” or “Allow,” click Add.
  7. Enter the web address.
    • To create an exception for an entire domain, insert [*.] before the domain name. For example, [*.]google.com will match drive.google.com and calendar.google.com.
    • You can also put an IP address or a web address that doesn’t start with http://.
  8. Click Add.

The good news is, as the New Zealand Herald reports, people are getting wise to this and “earlier this month Belgium ordered Facebook to stop tracking internet users who have no accounts with the social network, or face fines of 250,000 euros a day.”

Australia is also getting in on the action and the federal government has ordered the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to investigate the big tech giants in what ACCC chairman Rodd Sims said will be the broadest inquiry of its type in the world, according to the Herald.

Read More @ TheFreeThoughtProject.com

What’s Going Down in China is Very Dangerous – Part 1

0

by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:

I’m sure all of you are aware of the dramatic power play pulled off over the weekend by China’s Communist Party to eliminate term limits for both the president and vice president. Prior to the move, Chinese leaders have stuck to two five-year terms since the presidency of Jiang Zemin (1993-2003), but that’s about to change as wannabe emperor Xi Jinping positions himself as indefinite ruler of the increasingly totalitarian superstate.

While the weekend announcement was illuminating enough, I found the panicked reactions by Chinese authorities in the immediate aftermath far more telling. The country’s propagandists took censorship to such an embarrassing level in attempts to portray the decision as widely popular amongst the masses, it merely served to betray that opposite might be true.

China Digital Times compiled a fascinating list of words and terms banned from being posted or searched on Weibo. Here’s just a sample of some I found particularly interesting.

 

  • The Emperor’s Dream (皇帝梦) — The title of a 1947 animated puppet film.
  • Disney (迪士尼) — See also “Winnie the Pooh,” below.
  • personality cult (个人崇拜) — Read more about the image-crafting campaign that has been steadily cultivated by state media over Xi’s first term.
  • Brave New World (美丽新世界) — See also “1984,” below.
  • my emperor (吾皇)
  • Yuan Shikai (袁世凯) — Influential warlord during the late Qing Dynasty, Yuan became the first formal president of the newly established Republic of China in 1912. In 1915, he briefly re-established China as a Confucian monarchy.
  • Hongxian (洪憲) — Reign title of the short-lived, re-established monarchy led by Yuan Shikai, who declared himself the Hongxian Emperor. After much popular disapproval and rebellion, Yuan formally abandoned the empire after 83 days as emperor.
  • Animal Farm (动物庄园)
  • N — While the letter “N” was temporarily blocked from being posted, as of 14:27 PST on February 26, it was no longer banned. At Language Log, Victor Mair speculatesthat this term was blocked “probably out of fear on the part of the government that “N” = “n terms in office”, where possibly n > 2.”
  • emigrate (移民) — Following the news, Baidu searches for the word reportedly saw a massive spike.
  • disagree (不同意)
  • Xi Zedong (习泽东)
  • incapable ruler (昏君)
  • 1984
  • Winnie the Pooh (小熊维尼) — Images of Winnie the Pooh have been used to mock Xi Jinpingsince as early as 2013. The animated bear continues to be sensitive in ChinaWeibousers shared a post from Disney’s official account that showed Pooh hugging a large pot of honey along with the caption “find the thing you love and stick with it.”
  • I oppose (我反对)
  • long live the emperor (吾皇万岁)

The full list is far more extensive and ridiculous, but the key point is that such a pathetic and panicked response from government censors highlights government insecurity, not strength.

I fully agree with a recent observation made by Charlie Smith, co-founder of GreatFire.org:

Smith said he believed Beijing had underestimated the outrage its decision would cause. “The response from Chinese netizens indicates that Xi may have miscalculated how this would be received by the general public. Hence, he has asked the censors to put in overtime and things like the letter ‘N’ end up as collateral damage.”

The internet response to the Communist Party’s move to abolish term limits was not what leadership expected or desired, which prompted a panicky and desperate attempt to immediately clean up internet discourse.

It’s pretty sad when a government in charge of the lives of over a billion people is terrified of Winnie the Pooh memes.

The huge tell that China was about to take a major totalitarian turn occurred last year with the draconian government response to Bitcoin and crypto currency exchanges generally. The people of China were embracing the technology as much as anyone else and were in a perfect position to be global leaders in this paradigm changing new ecosystem. Xi responded to this by shutting the whole thing down.

Not only did he dash the enthusiasm, drive and talent of some of his country’s smartest technologists and entrepreneurs, but he also made it clear to the world that the Chinese model will continue to be one of command and control, rigid hierarchy and centralization. This is a tragic and historic mistake, and I think the coming brain drain out of China could be massive. This provides an opportunity for more open nations to scoop up some serious talent as they look to leave. As noted previously, Chinese authorities banned the word “emigrate” earlier this week, which should certainly tell you something.

Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

Why is Google/YouTube taking down these videos and threatening the sites that post them?

0

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

Scroll down this URL to the last video of the blond female student at Parkland, Alexa Miednik. She says she walked out of the building with the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, while shots were still occuring in other parts of the building. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-25/infowars-receives-youtube-termination-warning-over-crisis-actor-video

This Parkland teacher, Stacy Lippel, describes the shooter as police in full armorhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-26/questions-emerge-over-florida-shooters-full-metal-garbNotice that Lippel also says the shooting was occuring after the fire alarm went off. Isn’t the official story that Cruz pulled the fire alarm after his rampage was over so that he could escape by walking out with the other students?

How did Cruz get rid of his full armor in time to walk out of the building with Alexa Miednik?

Why is David Hogg, the suspected crisis actor, the witness of choice of the presstitutes and not Alexa Miednik and Stacy Lippel? Hogg can’t seem to remember his lines:https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-25/infowars-receives-youtube-termination-warning-over-crisis-actor-video

Who do we believe, the eyewitness students and teachers, or the authorities and presstitutes, who never tell the truth.

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org

In Explosive Accusation, Sharyl Attkisson Says Obama DOJ Secretly Switched Her Computer Hard Drive

0

by Joshua Caplan, The Gateway Pundit:

This week, ‘Full Measure’ host and former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, accused the Obama Justice Department of secretly switching out her computer hard drive.  

“Re: My govt. computer intrusions…What would you think if I told you the hard drive of one of my personal computers was secretly switched out w/another while in custody of the Justice Dept. Inspector General– before they gave it back to me? (Tick-tock.)” tweeted Attkisson.

PJ Media reports:

You may recall that Attkisson’s computer was hacked back in 2012 while she was working for CBS and reporting on the Benghazi scandal. CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said at the time that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News “has determined through forensic analysis” that “Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012.”

“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts,” McNair said. “While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

The investigative reporter is currently “seeking $35 million in damages,” after the Obama administration allegedly spied on her computer.

Screenshot of affidavit: 

When asked who and why the Trump Justice Department would be fighting against her for things the previous administration allegedly did, the reporter said, “I only know the names of the career attorneys at DOJ (same under Obama as Trump). They are getting orders from higher up. I don’t know the names of exactly who.”

Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com

Why we’re calling for the regulation of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to halt malicious censorship and create a fair platform for public debate

0

by Mike Adams, Natural News:

Today, I’m calling for the government regulation of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to halt these tech giants’ nefarious, malicious censorship, “shadow banning” and blacklisting of independent media content.

The focus of this regulation is not to order tech giants what content they must allow, but rather to enforce a level content playing field so that a free society can engage in debate, discussion and independent journalism without the constant threat of being bullied, blacklisted or shadow banned by the internet’s wildly biased, left-wing gatekeepers.

In essence, we need “content neutrality” enforcement that prohibits these tech giants from punishing or censoring content simply because the psychologically fragile “crybully” employees who work at those companies can’t handle a point of view they don’t like. Sadly, over the last several years as cultural lunacy has taken over the liberal landscape, tech giants like Google have descended into delusional left-wing cults, dominated by totalitarian weirdos and deranged techno-loonies who believe they alone have the right to determine what content the public sees. (Read details of Google’s bizarre, delusional dystopitardian work environment from James Damore’s shocking lawsuit.)

This was underscored recently when YouTube began wholesale banning or blacklisting of accounts that dared to question the official (false) narrative of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting. Any video that dared to state confirmed facts such as sheriff’s deputies being ordered to stand down was subjected to extra scrutiny and, often, an outright ban.

When tech giants protect one point of view while banning all opposing views, that’s extremely dangerous to any free society

The fact that YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter are now picking one point of view while banning all contradictory content is not merely unfair, but dangerous to any democratic society. Who decides which point of view is the “correct” one? How does YouTube glean divine truth in order to justify such decisions in the first place?

More importantly, what is the cost to democracy when one side of every debate is never allowed to participate in any real discussion? Can democracy even exist in such an ecosystem where merely asking unpopular questions gets you permanently silenced and blocked from public discourse? (Answer: The tech giants are following in the footsteps of totalitarian regimes, not freedom-oriented democracies or republics. They despise real debate for the simple reason that the irrational Left can never win any real debates if they’re rooted in facts and reason. Their only remaining tactic is to silence their opposition and thus “win” the argument by eliminating any disagreement.)

The fact that YouTube and other tech giants so easily and quickly decided they had the sole right to banish unpopular views without any real justification proves just how dangerous these techno-monopolies have become. They have now demonstrated they’re willing to exploit and abuse their positions of power in order to systematically suppress information for purely political reasons which have nothing at all to do with genuine violations of “community guidelines.” In essence, YouTube and other tech companies have decided that a “community violation” means “anything with which we disagree.” That’s not merely irresponsible; it’s dangerous.

The First Amendment protects speech from GOVERNMENT oppression, but not censorship inflicted by powerful corporations

The First Amendment was written to protect Americans from totalitarian government that might seek to abolish the right of an individual to express their own thoughts, ideas or religion. Unfortunately, the First Amendment does not restrict politically-motivated censorship by tech companies which are now more powerful than governments in terms of shaping the public debate “ecosystem.” It’s now clear from the nefarious actions of the technology giants that First Amendment-like protections need to be extended to include protections from the oppression of free speech inflicted by technology corporations.

Because of a lack of such protections, myself and nearly every other member of the independent media have all been victims of deliberate, malicious, underhanded actions by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to silence our views. We’ve all been shadow banned, blacklisted, punished, demonetized or selectively targeted in acts that can only be called severe civil rights violations by the technology giants. These are malicious acts that surely qualify as criminal assaults on the civil rights of individuals, yet they continue to be carried out right now, seemingly immune to government regulation or lawsuits that merely seek content fairness.

Ultimately, I believe that every conservative voice or independent media content creator who has been targeted by these malicious censorship actions should take part in a nationwide class action lawsuit that demands billions in damages from the nefarious, deliberate violations of civil rights that have been maliciously carried out by our nation’s most powerful technology firms. Class action lawsuit discovery would no doubt prove that Google, Facebook and Twitter have systematically and maliciously targeted content solely for reasons of political bias, and that they sought to conceal their malicious agenda through the use of “shadow banning” or search algorithm tweaking that was configured specifically to punish conservative or independent content producers. (Eric Schmidt, for example, has been named the mastermind behind the Clinton-coordinated “fake news” narrative that further sought to silence and blacklist independent media sources.)

Google is EVIL, and it’s time to defeat evil across the ‘net

Simply stated, Google is pure evil. Facebook is evil. Twitter is evil. Worse yet, they are malicious in their intent, demonstrating no regard whatsoever for the very fabric of a democratic nation which is rendered utterly unsustainable when the voices of half the citizens are silenced by decree. If these techno-tyrants are capable of such dangerous abuse of power that threatens the very fabric of our society, they must be heavily regulated and exposed for their vile Orwellian tactics.

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

Soros Calls on EU to Regulate Social Media to Fight Populism

by Liam Deacon, Breitbart:

Billionaire open-borders activist George Soros has demanded the European Union (EU) regulate social media because voters’ minds are being controlled and “manipulated”.

He claimed the size of social media firms made them a “public menace” and argued they had led people to vote against globalist causes, including electing President Donald J. Trump, in an article for The Guardian published Thursday.

The speculator, who runs one of the largest campaigning groups in the world and is noted for his interference in foreign politics and elections, said ultimately unregulated social media threatened democracy and the “integrity of elections”.

New media websites and populist groups have been prolific on social media, using the platforms to surpass mainstream media and promote causes Mr. Soros and his allies oppose.

Mr. Soros has a cosy relationship with the EU’s unelected leaders, meeting with them 11 times since the Brexit vote. Prime Minister Theresa May, in contrast, has had just three meetings in that period.

Just over a week ago, it was revealed Mr. Soros had quietly pumped half a million pounds into groups trying to block Brexit and overthrow the Tory government.

In the Guardian article, he wrote that social media can “influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it” and “this interferes with the functioning of democracy and the integrity of elections”.

 

Due to social media use, he claimed people are losing “freedom of mind”, adding: “This danger does not loom only in the future; it played an important role in the 2016 US presidential election.”

“President Donald Trump would like to establish his own mafia-style state,” he said, claiming the President was part of the same problem as North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-un.

 

Read More @ Breitbart.com

Zimbabwe 2.0: South Africa Votes to Confiscate White Minority’s Land Without Compensation

0

by Chris Menahan, Information Liberation:

The South African parliament voted on Tuesday to move forward in amending their Constitution to allow for the confiscation of land from their white minority without compensation. 

The move has come just twenty-four years after apartheid officially ended. Whites ended the apartheid system only with the explicit constitutional guarantee that their land would never be stolen, but now that they’ve become a small minority with rapidly dwindling political power that’s all gone out the window.

From News.com.au:

SOUTH Africa’s parliament has voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation.

The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party.

The Democratic Alliance is the party most white South Africans vote for. Whites make up less than half of the party and the entire party got only 22 percent of the vote in South Africa’s 2014 general election.

It was amended but supported by the ruling African National Congress and new president Cyril Ramaphosa, who made land expropriation a key pillar of his policy platform after taking over from ousted PM Jacob Zuma earlier this month.

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,” Mr Malema was quoted by News24 as telling parliament. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

According to Bloomberg, a 2017 government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland in South Africa.

Whites own the land because they colonized it and built it from nothing starting in the 1600’s. They literally “drained the swamps” covering many parts of South Africa and built giant farms in their place. 

Read More @ InformationLiberation.com