STONE: 11 ILLEGAL US BASES IN SYRIA,CANADA GONE FULL COMMIE?,THE NEURODIVERSITY OF FREE SPEECH AND MORE

If you ever wanted a final answer as to how illegal American actions were in Syria, or who the U.S. supports and what the U.S. does to overthrow nations, it does not get any better than this. I tried to link the actual Turkish government report, but an intercept is instead loading a hijack script when I try to go there. Someone wants this shut up as well as possible. Too late though.

I heard about this yesterday but did not entirely believe it. But now the Turkish government itself has posted it, so it must be true. If someone does want this shut up, it is too late now because even https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/turkish-leak-of-u-s-positions-in-syria-seen-endangering-troops" target="new">Bloomberg has had the references to the Turkish news agency for two days.

Ok, so the question then is for WHAT REASON did the U.S. have 11 un approved military bases in Syria for? I don't need to answer that, do I? That does not look good AT ALL. But it is confirmation of a truth that anyone who pays attention to things knew all along.

The linked report in the post below does not actually say U.S. travelers will be banned, but This one and many others do.

Possible war preparations?

U.S. citizens banned from North Korea

A travel ban to North Korea has been put in place, with the death of Otto Warmbier given as a reason. Though his death is highly suspicious some think he was a mossad spy who bit a poison capsule after being sent to jail, and there is substantial evidence this may be the case. It remains unproven (and always will) but would explain why he arrived to the U.S. brain dead, evidently after being brain dead in North Korea for more than a year. There are other things that could just as easily explain that however . . . . .

At any rate, I myself probably would not vacation there . . . . . and now, by law, you cannot. SEE THIS

It is possible the Pentagon wants all Americans out of there before they blow the place up, but this has not been officially stated. 

A clarification on the post

"this web site cannot progress"

Anonymous sent:

Hi Jim, point understood re appearance of no/highly limited new traffic to the site. I am wondering if it's possible to determine within an acceptable likelihood what drives new traffic to the site. Is it individual word of mouth? Is it people mentioning the site in comments sections? Is it people mentioning the site in social media?[See original article below DC]

My response: What has happened is that filters have been put in place to prevent alt media stories from going viral. It is not only this web site. It would be affecting everything you stated. As many people have said, they have no problems accessing this site from new computers (I do not either, I hit it from random cybers all the time) so that is not the issue. The problem is that when something gets posted that should be popular, nothing shows up in the traffic stats. In the past, when any big story hit traffic would triple or even go up by as much as 10X. Now, no matter what is going on, it stays completely static. It does not go up or down by even 300 people, when before it would fluctuate by as much as 500, 000 if the story was huge, and usually you would see peaks and dips of 30, 000 or so as a normal matter of course.

The normal baseline is where it has always been, but there are no peaks anymore because something is clipping them off. And I have noticed that very few really good stories are making it to the forums, even though they are still getting posted. It is as if there is an approved list that is drawn up daily, and if it is not on that list, it is not allowed to go anywhere. In the past, I used to see great stuff pop up on various forums from many people in alt media. About two months ago, that changed. Now it is all just flatlined nothingness. And when I have posted stuff I have found to forums, it either gets wiped out, or trips bans. Something is really amiss. Nothing I have posted anywhere lately has stuck. And I don't post what I put on this web site, it is other people's stuff, so it is not just me.

This happens from cyber cafe computers also, so it is not that I have been flagged (I can't be flagged, that's impossible) because of the way I am configured but it seems content gets scanned, and that is what triggers deletes and bans. It is happening so rapidly and so completely that only an AI could ever do it. It is as if an AI is vacuuming up entire alt media articles and comparing text strings as stuff goes across the web to decide if it makes it or not.

I strongly suspect that if anyone in alt media checks their own stats (not Alexa) they are going to see that things are trending downward, starting in May, and that nothing is going viral anymore, it is all just flat lined.

So hopefully this clarifies what I am talking about in my post about this site not being able to progress. It is not only this web site - things are getting very bland in the infosphere, unless you have time to hit 500 unique locations and see what everyone has posted. Before it was much easier because anything good would pop up in 10 or 12 places that are easy to check. That is not happening anymore because something huge is stopping it. If people can't get their stuff linked by readers anywhere outside of their web sites they will slowly die. And that is precisely what the goal of the elite has to be if they want alternative views shut down, so they can rig elections and fool everyone at will.

Anyway, the post "this web site cannot progress" is not specifically about this web site, it is about all of alt media. It appears we are fast approaching a flash point.

Oregon couple loses kids because of low IQ

Here's the back story: Both parents got their high school diplomas and they are normal diplomas, not special diplomas for disabled people. So they can't be that stupid. The dad has an IQ of 66 and has his drivers license. That's a low IQ but it is only borderline retarded. The mom has an IQ of 72, which is very low average, but not retarded. So it really looks like the state stepped out of line, when the average Iq in the following countries is:

Republic of the Congo: 65
Cameroon: 64
Central African Republic: 64
Ethiopia: 64
Gabon: 64
Mozambique: 64
Sierra Leon: 64
St Lucia: 62
Equatorial Gunea: 58

Those are not hoax stats, you can look them up anywhere, and those are AVERAGE IQ's, which means half the population in those countries is below that.

So since there was never any evidence of abuse or neglect, and the parents can actually talk sensibly, taking the kids appears to be very wrong here and is a probable slippery slope to something far worse for everyone in the future. SEE THIS

Has Canada gone full communist?

A Canadian dentist diagnosed a 10 year old girl with 9 cavities, and wanted to do a mega gouge bill of totaling "thousands" of dollars. There's no way cavities come out to "thousands", braces do, maybe extensive dental work might, but for drilling cavities that's a gouge no ifs or buts.

So the mom seriously doubted the quote, and did not have that much money anyway so she took her girl to another dentist for a second opinion. The second dentist said there were fewer cavities so she had the work done there. Sounds all normal up until now.

Here's where it goes commie: The first dentist called Child Protective Services, said the kid was in desperate need of dental care, and sent protective services to bust the mother for child neglect! Fortunately when they arrived the mom had a clean bill of health from another dentist and the kid was not taken. But the fact this could happen at all proves beyond a doubt the government in Canada is totally out of whack so badly that dentists can tag any price they want on a kid, and then use the state to enforce it by taking the kids away if the parents are not damn lucky. In this case, the dentist lost. But the fact this happened at all speaks volumes. SEE THIS

Due to an apparent deployment

of weaponized AI, this 

web site cannot progress.

There are no longer unique traffic spikes. The only thing that could cause it so efficiently is a web resident weaponized AI.

Though the traffic from normal visitors doubled over the last two days, absolutely zero new unique visitors hit the web site. This trend has been ongoing for about two months. In the past, if the traffic from regular users doubled, unique visits would go up by about 500 percent. The fact they are now going up by zero can only mean that this web site is being entirely blocked for anyone who has never seen it before. This means the battle cannot be won simply by trying to get a message out. "unique" visitors are started fresh every month, with even regulars counted as uniques. For the last two months regulars represent the only unique visits there are. SO:

To the people who wrote such an efficient web killing AI, congratulations. To the rest of us: This has to be happening to everyone. I do not believe this web site has been singled out. All the traffic stats for ALL alt media are falling now. If you own an alt media site, take a look at your stats, FROM YOUR SERVER, not second party. You will be spooked. And if they actually succeed in preventing us from advancing our message, and therefore providing a peaceful solution, then war is the only answer. They have drawn the line. There is no choice but to seek other options if this continues.

If they force a civil war to happen, REMEMBER ONE THING: Soft targets are the only thing that should be considered. And I mean, civilian targets. Because the enemy that is destroying us is operating at a civilian level, The problem has to be addressed CIVILIAN AGAINST CIVILIAN, THAT IS WHAT A CIVIL WAR IS. You cannot fix such a problem by working through the government. You take whatever you have, and unleash it on OTHER CIVILIANS that are using whatever positions they have to subvert you. Most of these enemy civilians work in the government. Don't walk into their offices and talk to them there, meet them on the street and settle your grievances, OPEN UP A POSITION IN GOVERNMENT, and then have someone decent go and take the job. A majority of the civilians that are performing subversive roles are Jewish. And in a civil war, places of worship, professional areas, and any other places the enemy meets (like Starbucks) are supreme options for settling grievances. And by the way, not many Jews use starbucks but their witless goy trolls do. Effectively they are the same target.

It is not time to act yet, but it is DEFINITELY time to start making arrangements. We first have to see if Trump can fix this. They are working their butts off to see he cannot. They are definitely destroying alt media right now with artificial intelligence, in the hopes of having a monopoly by the time the next election comes around. They MUST BE STOPPED.

They are not your friend. They openly and overtly want to destroy the United States and have made it an object of pride, which they often don't even veil anymore. They won't even hide it on college campi anymore. Their motives are out in the open, and if it is your motive to save the nation, and theirs to destroy it, the lines are drawn and you have your obligations to not only your country, you have your obligation to the future of everyone.

At any rate, traffic has fallen off considerably here since mid May because no one new is making it. It suddenly dropped by about 10 percent and then stayed completely static with no fluctuations in traffic whatsoever. This is not a natural situation, something is definitely amiss, and if things don't change, we will all have absolutely no option other than to go hot..

Man builds stairs for 0.0084615

the cost of the LOWEST bid out

of his OWN POCKET, city says no!

A park in Toronto needed 8 stairs built down an embankment. The lowest bid the city accepted was $65, 000 CAD, with the highest being $150, 000 CAD. Someone in the neighborhood got upset by the rip off, and built what looks like perfectly good stairs for $550. The city wants them torn out, because someone did not get their kick back!

In my opinion, the stairs could have been better for $550 because for that price they could have been concrete. But the neighborhood still clearly proved that the city is basically robbing the people by drastically overpricing projects. In this case, they clearly inflated the cost by 99 times over, for the LOWEST bid!

I know a contractor in Canada. He wanted to get work from the city of Vancouver. So he filed all the paperwork, submitted it, and a little while later he got a call. The only thing they wanted to know, for him to qualify, is if he would give kickbacks to anyone in the city government who gave him work.

In other words, they did not ask for his skills or anything else, all they wanted to know is if they would get their cut of every deal. And he was laughing, because that was the real requirement for getting contracts with the city. And he was perfectly happy to do it, and said that even if he gave a big kickback, he could still beat the competition because their bids were so outrageous.

Anyway, evidently Toronto runs on the same system. I believe this system is in place everywhere, including even small town America. if you want to see why your taxes are so high, take a look at this Toronto news report. This pretty much says it all!

There is an update to the shooting

report below the fluoride report

In that update I stand my ground completely, plus am turned off by the "she saved the ducklings" story and the change in the police officer testimony. Something stinks with this, and I am not budging an inch even if some people are very upset.

Mexican kosher toothpaste

Yesterday, Claudia found some kosher toothpaste, checked it for fluoride, there was none. I will be going back to that store to document it.

As many of my readers know, I investigated fluoride in toothpaste a few years ago and discovered that anything with fluoride was never marked kosher. Additionally, nothing that was kosher ever had fluoride. Once I published this, that changed, and now many brands in the U.S. have fluoride and are marked Kosher. So what are you supposed to do about that? ANSWER: Check the market outside of the U.S.! I can do that and never thought about it.

It would be really easy however, with that one ingredient to remember, just to warn anyone about it and I am sure the Jews are well aware, and avoid Colgate like the plague. And they also have their sources for their own toothpaste (toms fluoride free toothpaste at Wal Mart is one of them).

And that reminds me, do you remember when I posted this picture?

In Mexico, Prozac is not called Prozac. It is simply called Fluoxetina. So why is this box of children's fluoride mouth rinse called Fluoxytil? Well, you guess. I'll give a hint. And that is that Prozac is, by volume, approximately 20 percent fluoride. The remainder of what is in prozac is designed to get that fluoride across the blood brain barrier and keep it there. Technically, since anything that bonds with fluorine is a form of fluoride, Prozac could be defined as 100 percent fluoride, and Mike Adams claims 95 percent. But that is not really how it plays out in the real world application, because a majority of what is in prozac is designed to make sure the fluoride component gets into the brain very effectively, where it then separates and stays. Once in the brain, the half life of prozac is 45 days. That means you can dose way beyond what is needed, go off of it, and crash a year later when you'd never suspect that is why your brain went haywire so long after you quit. It only takes 1 milligram of fluoride in your brain to totally wack it out, and Prozac goes into the stratosphere beyond that.

Fluoride proponents will say that the fluoride in prozac is not the same as the fluoride in toothpaste. But I'd beg to differ with that position, when we have a box of FLUOXYTIL right here, (which might just not say fluoxetina because "fluoxytil" sounds more fun.) At any rate, it is WAY too close for me. I'd say we have a match.

There is a reason why Prozac is Fluoxetine Hydrochloride and not straight fluoride

The reason is because if anyone ate enough fluoride to have the same mental effects at the same level Prozac does, it would kill them. Fluoride is poisonous to the body, so the only way to super dose it into the brain without blowing out organs and browning teeth is to put it on a carrier molecule, and that is what the hydrochloride part of it is. Hmm, sounds like an acid. Not quite, but close.

In chemistry, a hydrochloride is an acid salt that can be used as a carrier for chemical compounds. In the case of prozac, it is to allow fluoride into the brain under the disguise of a salt, where it then separates and allows the fluoride to do it's dirty work. Since a major component of prozac is a hydrochloride salt, it cannot actually be 95 percent or 100 percent fluoride, even though on paper it could technically be represented that way.

When fluoride is put into toothpaste and water absent a carrier, it can still cross the blood/brain barrier, but it does not do it nearly as well as when it is bonded with a hydrochloride carrier. So that's the difference between the fluoride in your toothpaste, and the fluoride in prozac.

Did I say fluoride in YOUR toothpaste? I hope it is not there, you should be buying Tom's toothpaste, or brushing with Ivory soap (that works great) or whatever else, FLUORIDE IS FOR THOSE WHO THINK YOU ARE STUPID FOR BELIVING IN CONSPIRACY. Let them eat fluoride, and keep the "benefits" for themselves.

SHOOTING UPDATES:

They are now covering up Justine's feminist activities by instead labeling her as a "life coach!" Yep, that is exactly what feminists activists do - they "coach" women to a new "life". Question: If Justine was engaged, how could she be a feminist?

Answer: Virtually all the women at the tip of the Feminist spear know it is a weapon, and don't follow it themselves when outside of the public eye. Most of the most damaging high level people have multiple kids, and a family they won't mention. Their message is ONLY for those they seek to destroy, with the primary target (at this time) being Western civilization.

Justine might have been absolutely great at home. At the tip of the spear, the feminists are as two faced as it gets.

I might as well mention Barbara Spectre here -

And on that note - Barbara Spectre claims Western civilization only dates back 200 years, and is therefore has no heritage to worry about destroying.

My response: The piano is older than that. How about reading glasses, around since the 1400's? What about Shakespere? And when did Columbus set sail? 1492? how about Gallileo? All the ships had a compass back then. I mean, a working MAGNETIC COMPASS. And Barbara knows that. But if the goal is to destroy Western civilization, "White males hate and oppress women," and it all only goes back a short while.

And now the update to the shooting report.

Gee, I am sorry! If the Feminists put the battle lines where you have put them, they ought not be surprised if not everyone out there is a limp wristed beta that's going to cry for them when they take a loss, AND I DOUBT THEY DID ANYWAY, the story stinks!

Anonymous sent:

The things you said about Justine Damond are unforgivable. Filthy lies dredged up from the murky depths of a sick mind. What a vile, scum sucking predator you are, a purveyor of lies and deception. She was so far above you in evolution, you couldn't even comprehend her goodness, so you attacked her after her murder. You are even worse than the piece of shit who killed her

My response: Nothing was dredged up or invented. Everything I stated was documented. If a Somali killed her for a reason the media refuses to state, (obviously there had to be a reason) then it is perfectly ok for people to question that.

Now they are saying he could not see what was going on, was scared, and shot. I don't buy that. I don't buy that, because "complete testimonies" published in different locations said there was a loud noise that scared the officer and others and do not mention a noise. ALL say the police body cams were off, INCLUDING THE CAR CAM all the while they were supposedly responding to a rape and were "worried about a possible ambush". So BOTH cops violated protocol in a claimed way that makes absolutely no sense. if they were headed into a threat, they'd want that recorded yet it is all just a black hole. What is up with that? This whole story stinks. And when a story stinks, you have to dig to find out possible reasons why. That means looking into the background of who got shot, and the background of who the shooter was. HERE ARE THE FACTS:

FACT: She was a professional activist who pushed the feminist/anti gun agenda. She supposedly did yoga for 17 years, but was only in America for a year. That means the 17 years of yoga does not apply. She had no real job other than as an activist. She was deeply rooted in the feminist hirarchy. She was primarily mourned by the feminists who organize activities, including the women's marches. CNN REPORTED THIS. I REPEAT, EVEN CNN REPORTED THIS, but that's not the 1, st second, third, fourth, or fifth place I heard it. CNN comes in dead last.

So that is how it was, and that's the very first clue to why if this story is not entirely fake, a Somali Muslim may have shot her - because if that's the type she was, she probably meddled in Islamic affairs and did damage he felt there had to be revenge for. What's wrong with saying that, other than that it reduces the amount of sympathy for the situation you seem to want?

So now they say the officer was confused and scared. I doubt it, because his partner was stunned that he opened fire. If there was a reason to be scared, his partner would not have been surprised he opened fire. IF THERE WAS A LOUD NOISE AS THEY ARE NOW STATING his partner would not have been surprised he opened fire. So there is bullshitting going on now. I doubt there was any loud noise. If that be the case, and I am trying to make sense of a nonsense story, then the other rational option is that he recognized her and shot.

Obviously there is a lot of heat on this, and I have not explored whether or not she was Jewish. If so, going against the official story would cause backlash. And i am not backing off on this even if some people are pissed, because I happen to be right on my perspective.

Not saying it the way the MSM said it is not making stuff up. Go over what I said, and tell me where I am wrong. Don't just tell me I made stuff up, because I did not. Even my claim about the Jewish community in Minneapolis being one of the most subversive in North America is accurate, in the United States it is probably #5, and Canada included it is probably #7. This was learned during my experience with the Jewish community. Don't expect an MSM link for that. Minneapolis a real hot spot that can spawn B.S. and set up anything it wants. Seems that may be the case with how irrational the story line is. Point out where I am wrong please, or suck it up.

I WILL REPEAT, and I don't care if it pisses a few people off:

EITHER THIS WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION (BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE ABSENT MORE INFO SO I AM LEANING TOWARDS TOTAL FABRICATION) OR THE ADDITIONAL INFO IS THAT SHE MEDDLED IN ISLAMIC AFFAIRS AND PISSED A SOMALI OFF. Just because CNN won't report that does not change the obvious. No one simply pulls out a gun and starts shooting without cause. None of the officer stories concerning a possible threat makes sense, because ALL 3 CAMERAS WERE OFF, IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF THE RULES which would not have happened without intent. There was not supposed to be a record of this, and that is why the cameras were off. There is no other answer. So the overwhelming probability is that either it is fake, or revenge. What else is there? Don't count on the MSM to report it!

This is a story where a key feminist activist, probably #1 in Minnesota, bit the dust. Howcome the MSM is backing off on that and instead focusing on how she rescued some ducklings? Feminists have hurt America so much that in a civil war, they have to be a primary target. She was very high level. That is not a fabrication. The biggest reaction came from the feminists who organize the women's march, and that she was deeply intertwined with that, and even her "family" was. CNN reported this. WHERE DID I MAKE ANYTHING UP? ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO FIND THAT?

If you are so into this story to be so passionate, you really ought to know enough about it to know everything I said is 100 percent supported even by the MSM, which is unusual - perhaps they never figured anyone would take what they posted and interpret it the way I did. But to ignore the feminist activist vs Islamic fundamentalist angle of this is to fly completely blind. To ignore the significance of ALL CAMERAS OFF is also to fly completely blind.

Oh but she was "so loving". Just like any abortion doctor. CNN would definitely point out how "loving" a shot abortion doctor was. It is all a matter of propaganda. A matter of "perspective." A pit bull can be VERY loving on it's own turf, all the while the rest of the world needs to WATCH OUT.

Too much is being ignored in this story. I WILL NEVER believe this is a story about an irresponsible over reactive cop. NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS. it is definitely something else, which means the answer is out there, and it is childish to get angry with people who don't buy the official line and actually look for the real answer unless whoever gets mad had an agenda with this, or is totally wrapped up in, and trusting of the MSM.

Ok so I escalated it a notch beyond before. That's what you will get from me with this, because I know I am right, and my lines are drawn.

McCain has brain cancer

That fits.

My comment: This is a sad day for ISIS, because on the day they had their arms shipments and funding cut by Trump, their best ally was diagnosed with brain cancer. Let's all hope for a death bead 911 confession. SEE THIS

Trump has ended covert funding

to CIA backed rebels in Syria

The Washington Post just can't let the Trump/Russia meme die, and they can't admit that it is really ISIS being de-funded but they did at least report in a way that made it obvious it always was American backed rebels in Syria wreaking all the havoc. They also said that Russia stopped the CIA plan from working. That's pretty blatant truth from the Washington Post, that only goes to show that the alt media had it right all along while the MSM sat there spinning on lies.

We will probably still get ISIS beheading videos because Trump did not go far enough to de-fund Site Intelligence Group, but this is at least a good start. SEE THIS

The Neurodiversity of free speech

The following writing by a sufferer of Aspergers is very long, and very brilliant. It makes a solid case that common "mental disabilities" make "political correctness" impossible to follow. If enough lawyers and other people see this, it will destroy the thought police at American universities and put an end to "political correctness" because it makes a rock solid case demonstrating the illegality of much of today's PC culture in colleges. He lays out a rock solid case for any anti-discrimination attorney to follow so that the "neurodiverse" can sue the pants off the PC police because whites are being totally discriminated against.

This looks like it may be the death knell for all PC anti-free-speech policies on campuses, as this article shows how it is impossible to implement them in a way that does not violate anti-discrimination and disability laws. If enough lawyers and students see this it will mean an end to the entire PC culture because it opens the door to endless discrimination lawsuits, even when the victim of discrimination is white.

The Neurodiversity case for free speech

Geoffrey Miller, July 18 2017

Imagine a young Isaac Newton time-travelling from 1670's England to teach Harvard undergrads in 2017. After the time-jump, Newton still has an obsessive, paranoid personality, with Asperger's syndrome, a bad stutter, unstable moods, and episodes of psychotic mania and depression. But now he's subject to Harvard's speech codes that prohibit any disrespect for the dignity of others; any violations will get him in trouble with Harvard's Inquisition (the 'Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion'). Newton also wants to publish Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, to explain the laws of motion governing the universe. But his literary agent explains that he can't get a decent book deal until Newton builds his 'author platform' to include at least 20k Twitter followers - without provoking any backlash for airing his eccentric views on ancient Greek alchemy, Biblical cryptography, fiat currency, Jewish mysticism, or how to predict the exact date of the Apocalypse.

Newton wouldn't last long as a 'public intellectual' in modern American culture. Sooner or later, he would say 'offensive' things that get reported to Harvard and that get picked up by mainstream media as moral-outrage click bait. His eccentric, ornery awkwardness would lead to swift expulsion from academia, social media, and publishing. Result? On the upside, he'd drive some traffic through Huffpost, Buzzfeed, and Jezebel, and people would have a fresh controversy to virtue-signal about on Facebook. On the downside, we wouldn't have Newton's Laws of Motion.

Let's take a step back from this alt-history nightmare and consider the general problem of 'neurodiversity' and free speech. In this article, I'll explore the science of neurodiversity, and how campus speech codes and restrictive speech norms impose impossible expectations on the social sensitivity, cultural awareness, verbal precision, and self-control of many neurodiverse people.

I'll focus on how campus speech codes impose discriminatory chilling effects on academic neurodiversity, partly because I'm a nerdy academic who loathes speech codes. But it's not just personal. Ever since the Middle Ages, universities have nurtured people with unusual brains and minds. Historically, academia was a haven for neurodiversity of all sorts. 

Eccentrics have been hanging out in Cambridge since 1209 and in Harvard since 1636. For centuries, these eccentricity-havens have been our time-traveling bridges from the ancient history of Western civilization to the far future of science, technology, and moral progress. Now thousands of our havens are under threat, and that's sad and wrong, and we need to fix it.

This article is a bit long, because the argument is new (as far as I know), and it requires a bit of background. But I hope you'll stick with me, because I think the issue is neglected and important.

From eccentricity to neurodiversity

Censorship kills creativity, truth, and progress in obvious ways. Without the free exchange of ideas, people can’t share risky new ideas (creativity), test them against other people’s logic and facts (truth), or compile them into civilizational advances (progress). But censorship also kills rational culture in a less obvious way: it silences the eccentric. It discriminates against neurodiversity. It imposes a chilling effect on unusual brains that house unusual minds. It marginalizes people who may have great ideas, but who also happen to have mental disorders, personality quirks, eccentric beliefs, or unusual communication styles that make it hard for them to understand and follow the current speech norms that govern what is 'acceptable'. Harvard's speech codes and Twitter's trolls may not prohibit anything in Principiaitself, but they drive away the kinds of eccentric people who write such books because of all the other 'offensive' things they sometimes do and say.

Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that 'the tyranny of the majority' tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).

Nowadays, 'the tyranny of the neurotypical' oppressing the neurodiverse may be the chief danger of our time.

The neurotypicality assumption behind speech codes

Campus speech codes may have been well-intentioned at first. They tried to make universities more welcoming to racial and sexual minorities by forcing everyone to speak as inoffensively as possible. But a side-effect of trying to increase demographic diversity was to reduce neurodiversity, by stigmatizing anyone whose brain can't color inside the lines of 'appropriate speech'. The more 'respectful' campuses became to the neurotypical, the more alienating they became to neurodiverse people.

Here's the problem. America's informal 'speech norms', which govern what we're allowed to say and what we're not, were created and imposed by 'normal' brains, for 'normal' brains to obey and enforce. Formal speech codes at American universities were also written by and for the 'neurotypical'. They assume that everyone on campus is equally capable, 100% of the time, of:

• Using their verbal intelligence and cultural background to understand speech codes that are intentionally vague, over-broad, and euphemistic, to discern who's actually allowed to say what, in which contexts, using which words;
• Understand what's inside the current Overton window of 'acceptable ideas', including the current social norms about what is 'respectful' versus what is 'offensive', 'inappropriate', 'sexist', 'racist', 'Islamophobic', or 'transphobic';
• Use 'Theory of Mind' to predict with 100% accuracy which speech acts might be offensive to someone of a different sex, age, race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, or political outlook;
• Inhibit 'inappropriate' speech with 100% reliability in all social contexts that might be reported or recorded by others;
• Predict with 100% accuracy what's likely to trigger outrage by peers, student activists, social media, or mainstream media - any of which might create 'adverse publicity' for the university and a speech code inquisition, without due process or right of appeal, for the speaker.

Speech codes assume a false model of human nature that everyone has the same kind of brain that yields a narrow, 'normal' set of personality traits, cognitive and verbal abilities, moral temperaments, communication styles, and capacities for self-inhibition. This neurotypicality assumption is scientifically wrong, because different people inherit different sets of genes that influence how their brains grow and function, and every mental trait shows substantial heritability. These heritable mental traits run deep: they are stable across adolescence and adulthood, and they span everything from social intelligence to political attitudes. They also predict many aspects of human communication - probably including the ability to understand and follow formal speech codes and informal speech norms. The neurodiverse are often just 'born that way'.

Why speech codes stigmatize the most creative thinkers

When universities impose speech codes, they impose impossible behavioral standards on people who aren't neurotypical, such as those with Asperger's, bipolar, Tourette's, or dozens of other personality quirks or mental 'disorders'. Historically, neurodiversity was stigmatized with extreme prejudice, but recently the Autism Rights Movement, the National Alliance for Mental Illness, and other advocacy groups have fought for more acceptance. (The terms 'neurodiversity' and 'neurotypical' come from the Autism Rights Movement, but I'm using them here more generally.) Neurodiversity is even celebrated in recent books such as Thinking in Pictures by Temple Grandin (on Asperger's syndrome), A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar (on schizophrenia), The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Kevin Dutton (on Dark Triad traits), and Quiet by Susan Cain (on introversion).

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.

Most of the real geniuses I've known are not neurotypical. Especially in evolutionary game theory. They would have a lot of trouble comprehending or following typical university speech codes. I suspect this would have been true for most of the brilliant thinkers who built civilization over the last several millennia. Consider just a few geniuses who seem, given biographical records, to have been on the autism/Asperger's spectrum: Béla Bartók, Jeremy Bentham, Lewis Carroll, Marie Curie, Charles Darwin, Emily Dickinson, Albert Einstein, Sir Ronald Fisher, Sir Francis Galton, Glenn Gould, Patricia Highsmith, Alfred Hitchcock, Alfred Kinsey, Stanley Kubrick, Barbara McClintock, Gregor Mendel, Bertrand Russell, Nikola Tesla, Mark Twain, Alan Turing, H. G. Wells, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. (Aspies like me enjoy making lists; also see this resource.) Moreover, the world's richest tech billionaires often show some Asperger-like traits: think Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg. And in movies and TV, outspoken, insensitive Aspies no longer just play 'mad scientist' side-kicks, but heroic protagonists such as Tony Stark, Sherlock Holmes, Gregory House, Lisbeth Salander, and Dr. Strange.

On the upside, the civilizational contributions from neurodiversity have been formidable - and often decisive in science and technology. On the downside, 'Aspy' traits seem common among academics who have suffered the worst public outrages against things they've said and done, that weren't intended to be offensive at all.

The varieties of neurodiversity

Restrictive speech norms are a problem for people on the autism spectrum, which includes about 1% of the general public, but which is a much higher proportion of academics in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM fields) - like Sheldon Cooper, a Caltech physicist on the TV show The Big Bang Theory. Apart from the autism spectrum, a much larger proportion of students, staff, and faculty at any university have other neurological disorders, mental illnesses, or personality quirks that make it hard to avoid 'offensive' speech all of the time - even if they're 'high functioning' and have no trouble doing their academic work. For example, speech codes make no allowance for these conditions:

• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (3%) imposes high impulsivity and a tendency to blurt out inappropriate comments;
• Tourette syndrome (1%) can include irresistible compulsions to say obscene or derogatory things;
• Social (pragmatic) communication disorder (a newly recognized disorder, prevalence unknown) impairs abilities to use language 'appropriately', to match communication styles to different contexts and listeners, and to read between the lines given subtle or ambiguous language;
• PTSD (8% prevalence) increases sensitivity to reminders of past trauma ('triggers'), which can provoke reactive anger, verbal aggression, and offensive speech;
• Bipolar disorder (4%) can trigger manic phases in which beliefs become more eccentric, and speech and sexual behavior become less inhibited;
• Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (5% prevalence) often lead to unusual communication styles, social awkwardness, and eccentric views that fall outside the Overton window;
• Paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal ('Cluster A') personality disorders (4% prevalence) involve social awkwardness, eccentric behaviors, and odd speech patterns, which can come across as insensitive or offensive;
• Histrionic, narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial ('Cluster B') personality disorders (2% prevalence) involve impulsivity, attention-seeking, emotional instability and/or lack of empathy, which result in speech and behavior that often violates social norms.

Some of the prevalence estimates are imprecise, and many people have more than one of these disorders. But together, mental disorders like these affect at least 20% of students, staff, and faculty. That's higher than the percentage of American college students who are Hispanic (17%), Black (14%), LGBTQ+ (7%), or undocumented immigrants (5%). And for many of these mental disorders, symptom severity peaks at the ages of typical college students: universities are demanding that the neurodiverse inhibit their speech most carefully when they are least able to do so.

Apart from diagnosable mental disorders such as Asperger's, a substantial minority of people on any campus are on the extremes of the Big Five personality traits, which all have implications for speech code behavior. Low Conscientiousness predicts impulsive, reckless, or short-sighted speech and behavior - i.e. being more likely to violate speech codes. Low Agreeableness predicts being ornery, offensive, and disagreeable - i.e. violating speech codes. High Openness predicts adopting unusual beliefs and eccentric behaviors - i.e. violating speech codes. High Extraversion predicts being hyper-social, hyper-sexual, and hyper-verbal - i.e. especially violating codes about sexual behavior and speech. Since the Big Five traits all show substantial heritability, any speech code that can't realistically be followed by people who score at an extreme on these Big Five traits, is basically punishing them for the genes they happened to inherit.

Beyond mental disorders and personality quirks, many people on campuses at any given time are in states of 'transient neurodiversity' - altered psychological states due to low blood sugar, life stressors, medication side-effects, or 'smart drugs' such as caffeine, Ritalin, Adderall, or Modafinil. Also, sleep disorders affect over 20% of people, and the resulting sleep deprivation reduces inhibition. These kinds of transient neurodiversity can also interfere with social sensitivity, Theory of Mind, and verbal inhibition, so can reduce the ability to comply with speech codes. Unless universities want to outlaw fatigue, hunger, heartbreak, meds and coffee it's hard to maintain the delusion that everyone's speech will be 100% inoffensive 100% of the time.

How neurodiversity makes it hard to understand speech codes

Since speech codes are written by the neurotypical for the neurotypical, the neurodiverse often find them literally incomprehensible, and it's impossible to follow a rule that doesn't make sense.

For example, a typical set of 'respectful campus', 'sexual misconduct', and 'anti-harassment' policies prohibits:

• 'unwelcome verbal behavior'
• 'unwelcome jokes about a protected characteristic'
• 'hate or bias acts that violate our sense of community'
• 'sexist comments'
• 'degrading pictorial material'
• 'displaying objectionable objects'
• 'negative posters about a protected characteristic'

These quotes are from my university's recent policies, but they're pretty standard. I don't understand what any of these phrases actually allow or prohibit, and I worked on free speech issues in our Faculty Senate for two years, and in our Sexual Misconduct Policy Committee for one year, so I've puzzled over them for some time.

Lacking good Theory of Mind, how could a person with Asperger's anticipate which speech acts would be 'unwelcome' to a stranger, or might be considered 'sexist' or 'sexually suggestive'? Lacking a good understanding of social norms, how could they anticipate what counts as a 'hate act that violates our sense of community', or what counts as an 'objectionable object'? Lacking a good understanding of current civil rights legalese, how could any 18-year-old Freshman - neurotypical or not - understand what a 'protected characteristic' is?

The language of campus speech codes is designed to give the illusion of precision, while remaining so vague that they can be enforced however administrators want to enforce them, whenever personal complaints, student protests, lawsuits, or adverse publicity make it expedient to punish someone for being 'offensive'. So, students, staff, and faculty are expected to be able to 'read between the lines' of speech codes to understand what is actually forbidden versus what is actually permitted.

But people differ in their ability to understand spoken and written language, including the dry intricacies of administrative policies, the ever-changing euphemisms of PC culture, and the double standards of Leftist identity politics. Deciphering speech codes requires high levels of verbal, social, and emotional intelligence to discern the real meaning behind vague euphemisms and social justice shibboleths, and the neurodiverse may not have the kinds of brains that can make those kinds of inferences.

Speech codes are also intentionally vague so that anyone who's upset by someone else's speech can make a complaint, with the subjective feelings of the listener as the arbiter of whether an offense has occurred. In most campus speech codes, there is no 'reasonable person' standard for what speech counts as offensive. This means that even if an Aspy or schizotypal person develops an accurate mental model of how an average person would respond to a possible speech act, they can't rely on that. They're expected to make their speech inoffensive to the most sensitive person they might ever encounter on campus. The result is the 'coddling culture' in which administrators prioritize the alleged vulnerabilities of listeners over the communication rights of speakers. In fact, the only lip service given to neurodiversity in campus speech codes is in the (false) assumption that 'trigger warnings' and prohibitions against 'microaggressions' will be useful in protecting listeners with P.T.S.D or high neuroticism. Administrators assume that the most vulnerable 'snowflakes' are always listeners, and never speakers. They even fail to understand that when someone with P.T.S.D is 'triggered' by a situation, they might say something in response that someone else finds 'offensive'.

Systematizing versus empathizing

Autism spectrum disorders are central to the tension between campus censorship and neurodiversity. This is because there's a trade-off between 'systematizing' and 'empathizing'. Systematizing is the drive to construct and analyze abstract systems of rules, evidence, and procedures; it's stronger in males, in people with autism/Asperger's, and in STEM fields. Empathizing is the ability to understand other people's thoughts and feelings, and to respond with 'appropriate' emotions and speech acts; it's stronger in females, in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and in the arts and humanities. Conservative satirists often mock 'social justice warriors' for their 'autistic screeching', but Leftist student protesters are more likely to be high empathizers from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, than high systematizers from the hard sciences or engineering.

Consider the Empathy Quotient (EQ) scale, developed by autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen to measure empathizing versus systematizing. Positively-scored items that predict higher empathy include:

• 'I am good at predicting how someone will feel.'
• 'I find it easy to put myself in somebody else's shoes.'
• 'I can tune into how someone else feels rapidly and intuitively.'
• 'I can usually appreciate the other person's viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.'

Negatively-scored items that predict lower empathy include:

• 'I often find it difficult to judge if something is rude or polite.'
• 'It is hard for me to see why some things upset people so much.'
• 'I can't always see why someone should have felt offended by a remark.'
• 'Other people often say that I am insensitive, though I don't always see why.'

Reading these items, it seems like a higher EQ score would strongly predict ability to follow campus speech codes that prohibit causing offense to others. People on the autism spectrum, such as those with Asperger's, score much lower on the EQ scale. (Full disclosure: I score 14 out of 80.) Thus, Aspies simply don't have brains that can anticipate what might be considered offensive, disrespectful, unwanted, or outrageous by others - regardless of what campus speech codes expect of us. From a high systematizer's perspective, most 'respectful campus' speech codes are basically demands that they should turn into a high empathizer through sheer force of will. Men also score lower on the EQ scale than women, and Asperger's is 11 times more common in men, so speech codes also impose 'disparate impact' on males, a form of sex discrimination that is illegal under federal law.

The ways that speech codes discriminate against systematizers is exacerbated by their vagueness, over breadth, unsystematic structure, double standards, and logical inconsistencies - which drive systematizers nuts. For example, most speech codes prohibit any insults based on a person's sex, race, religion, or political attitudes. But Aspy students often notice that these codes are applied very selectively: it's OK to insult 'toxic masculinity' and 'patriarchy', but not to question the 'wage gap' or 'rape culture'; it's OK to insult 'white privilege' and the 'Alt-Right' but not affirmative action or 'Black Lives Matter'; it's OK to insult pro-life Catholics but not pro-sharia Muslims. The concept of 'unwelcome' jokes or 'unwelcome' sexual comments seems like a time-travel paradox to Aspy people - how can you judge what speech act is 'unwelcome' until after you get the feedback about whether it was welcome? Even worse, most campus speech codes are associated with social justice theories of gender feminism, critical race theory, and social constructivism, which reject the best-established scientific findings about sex differences, race differences, and behavior genetics. Requiring Aspy academics to buy into speech codes based on blatant falsehoods violates their deepest systematizer values of logic, rationality, and realism. For an example of a systematizer's exasperation about unprincipled speech codes, see this letter by a Cornell student with high-functioning autism.

To test my intuitions about these issues, I ran an informal poll of my Twitter followers, asking 'Which condition would make it hardest to follow a college speech code that prohibits all ‘offensive’ or ‘disrespectful’ statements?'. There were 655 votes across four response options: 54% for 'Asperger's', 19% for 'Schizophrenia', 14% for 'Bipolar', and 13% for 'ADHD'. The results of this one-item survey, from a small sample of my eccentric followers, should not be taken seriously as any kind of scientific research. They simply show I'm not the only person who thinks that Asperger's would make it hard to follow campus speech codes.

In fact, to many STEM students and faculty, empathizers seem to have forged campus speech codes into weapons for Aspy-shaming. In a world where nerds like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are the most powerful innovators, speech codes seem like the revenge of the anti-nerds.

How speech codes impose disparate impact on people with neurodiversity

When a policy is formally neutral, but it adversely affects one legally protected group of people more than other people, that's called 'disparate impact', and it's illegal. People with diagnosed mental disorders qualify as 'disabled' people under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws, so any speech code at a public university that imposes disparate impact on many common forms of neurodiversity is illegal.

What is the disparate impact here? Given restrictive speech codes and speech norms, people with various kinds of neurodiversity know that at any time, they might say something 'offensive' that could lead to expulsion, firing, or denial of tenure. They live in fear. They feel a chilling effect on their speech and behavior. They learn to self-censor.

Consider how speech codes can feel wretchedly discriminatory to people with neurodiversity:

• Imagine you’re a grad student in the social sciences and you hear about peers getting into trouble making off-the-cuff remarks when teaching controversial classes, such as Human Sexuality, American History, or Social Psychology. You are deterred from teaching, and drift away into private industry.
• Imagine you are a man with Asperger's syndrome doing a science Ph.D. and you see social justice activists destroying nerdy male scientists for their non-PC views, trivial mistakes, or fictional offenses, as in the cases of Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt. You realize you'll probably make some similar misjudgment sooner or later if you stay in academia, so you leave for a Bay Area tech start-up that's more forgiving of social gaffes.
• Imagine you're an anthropology professor with Asperger's, so you can't anticipate whether people will find your jokes hilarious or offensive until you tell them. But you get better student course evaluations when you try to be funny. Now your university imposes a new speech code that says, basically, 'Don't say anything that people might find offensive'. You need good course evaluations for promotion and tenure, but your brain can't anticipate your students' reactions to your quirky sense of humor.
• Imagine you're an undergrad, but you have bipolar disorder, so sometimes you get into manic states, when you become more outspoken in classes about your non-PC views on sexual politics.
• Imagine you're a university system administrator with Tourette syndrome, so that sometimes in meetings with other IT staff, you can't help but blurt out words that some consider racially or sexually offensive.

In response to these chilling effects, neurodiverse academics may withdraw from the social and intellectual life of the university. They may avoid lab group meetings, post-colloquium dinners, faculty parties, and conferences, where any tipsy comment, if overheard by anyone with a propensity for moralistic outrage, could threaten their reputation and career. I've seen this social withdrawal happen more and more over the last couple of decades. Nerdy, eccentric, and awkward academics who would have been outspoken, hilarious, and joyful in the 1980s are now cautious, somber, and frightened.

This withdrawal from the university's 'life of the mind' is especially heart-breaking to the neurodiverse, who often can't stand small talk, and whose only real social connections come through vigorous debate about dangerous ideas with their intellectual equals. Speech codes don't just censor their words; they also decimate their relationships, collaborations, and social networks. Chilling effects on speech can turn an Aspy's social life into a frozen wasteland. The resulting alienation can exacerbate many mental disorders, leading to a downward spiral of self-censorship, loneliness, despair, and failure. Consider political science professor Will Moore: he had high-functioning autism, and was so tired of accidentally offending colleagues that he killed himself this April; his suicide note is here.

If being driven to suicide isn't disparate impact, what is?

There's an analogy here between neurodiversity and ideological diversity. Campus speech codes have marginalized both over the last couple of decades. American universities are now dominated by progressive Leftists, registered Democrats, and social justice activists. They are hostile and discriminatory against students, staff, and faculty who are centrist, libertarian, conservative and/or religious. There are real career costs to holding certain political views in academia - even if those views are shared by most Americans. This problem of ideological diversity is already being addressed by great organizations such as the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, by online magazines such as Quillette, and by free speech advocates such as Alice Dreger, Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris, Laura Kipnis, Scott Lilienfeld, Greg Lukianoff, Camille Paglia, Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, and Bret Weinstein. By contrast, the neurodiversity problem has not been discussed much, although it might be easier to solve through anti-discrimination lawsuits. In principle, speech codes discriminating against certain ideologies is a form of disparate impact, but at the moment, being a Republican or a Neoreactionary is not a 'protected class' under federal anti-discrimination law, whereas having a disability such as a mental disorder is.

Conclusion: What to do about neurodiversity and free speech

Campus speech codes discriminate against neurodiversity. They impose unrealistic demands, fears, and stigma on the large proportion of students, staff, and faculty who have common mental disorders, or extremes on the Big Five personality traits, or transient disinhibition due to sleep deprivation or smart drugs. As a practical matter, it is virtually impossible for someone with Asperger's, bipolar, ADHD, low Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness, extreme fatigue, or Modafinil mania to understand what kinds of speech acts are considered acceptable, and to inhibit the production of such speech 100% of the time, in 100% of educational and social situations.

In a future article, I'll outline a legal strategy to use the ADA to eliminate campus speech codes that discriminate against neurodiversity.

For the moment, just consider this: every campus speech code and restrictive speech norm is a Sword of Damocles dangling above the head of every academic whose brain works a little differently. We feel the sharpness and the weight every day. After every class, meeting, blog, and tweet, we brace for the moral outrage, public shaming, witch hunts, and inquisitions that seem to hit our colleagues so unpredictably and unfairly. Like visitors from a past century or a foreign culture, we don't understand which concepts are admissible in your Overton window, or which words are acceptable to your ears. We don't understand your verbal and moral taboos. We can't make sense of your double standards and logical inconsistencies. We don't respect your assumption that empathizing should always take precedence over systematizing. Yet we know you have the power to hurt us for things we can't help. So, we suffer relentless anxiety about our words, our thoughts, our social relationships, our reputations, and our careers.

That era is over. Neurodiversity is finding its voice and its confidence. People with mental disorders and eccentric personalities have rights too, and we will not be intimidated by your stigma and shaming. We will demand our rights under the ADA through the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and in federal district courts. We will educate administrators about the discriminatory side-effects of their bad policies. We will shatter your Swords of Damocles and raise our freak flags to fly over campuses around the world.

For centuries, academia has been a haven for neurodiversity - a true 'safe space' for eccentric thought and language, for thinking the unthinkable and saying the unsayable. We will make it that haven again, and there is nothing that university administrators can do to stop us. Everything is on our side: behavioral science, intellectual history, federal law, public opinion, and liberal academia's own most sacred values of diversity and inclusivity. Neurodiversity is here to stay, and we will not be silenced any longer.

If the neurodiverse stand up for our free speech rights, campus speech codes will go extinct very quickly. In the future, they will be considered a weird historical curiosity of runaway virtue-signaling in early 21^st-century American academia. The freedom to think eccentric thoughts and say eccentric things must be protected again. The freedom to be eccentric must be restored. Newton must be welcomed back to academia.