Share the country! … or go to Canada

Got a problem?  There is a solution.  Sometimes we are too close to see them, so I made a list.

Unhappy about Trump being elected?  Some do’s and don’ts …

  1. SHARE THE COUNTRY!  I’ve been putting up with all of you that I disagree with since about 1990.  It is so bad I went to the other side of the world to find a wife I wouldn’t argue politics and religion with.  That’s right, I don’t like the left or the right, and not many in the center.  But I’ve shared the country and I haven’t protested a single time.  Grow up!  Believe me, it wasn’t pleasant.  I hated just about every second of it.  You can do it too.
  2. MAKE GOOD ON YOUR CANADIAN THREAT!  Did you say you would leave if Trump was elected?  If so, why are you still here?  If Canada is too cold, go to Mexico.  Either country would love to have you.
  3. DON’T PROTEST!  How 3rd world can you get?  Protest and chaos are the techniques that absolutists and totalitarians use to take over when they don’t get their way.  In this country if one doesn’t like the status quo, one conducts a political campaign, which is pretty much like a protest, but civilized, in a rented building, not blocking traffic.  Trump rallies were mass protests.  You didn’t see the masses?  The press used tight head-and-shoulders shots to conceal the mass attendances.
  4. PICK AN HONEST CANDIDATE NEXT TIME!  Clinton had a foreign policy plan to re-assert American might in Europe and the Middle east, to get involved in Syria, that she didn’t talk about during the campaign because she knew Obama supporters wouldn’t like it.  It’s a consistent pattern – she planned her first healthcare in secret, wrote her emails on a private server in secret, etc.  Sometimes if a guy says things you don’t like during a campaign, maybe he is just not willing to lie to you.  There might be some advantage to that.  Someone who seems too polite and all-embracing is always lying.  Someone who seems too good to be true is (too good to be true – and lying).

Happy about Trump but unhappy about the 3rd world reaction from the love-in-now-turned-protest-potentially-chaos spoiled brats?

  1. DON’T PROTEST YOURSELF!  Funny thing is, to protest didn’t even occur to Trump supporters.
  2. JOIN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA if you are really worried, one with a connection to the government of your state.  National Guard will do fine.  You don’t need to buy a gun, they will give you one.  If you don’t like the government of your state, move permanently to another one.
  3. START A BLOG, TWEET, express your opinion.
  4. WRITE OR TWEET TO THE REPORTERS WHO ARE ENCOURAGING THEM!  The media live in a group think fish bowl and hear nothing but their own ideas.  If they get enough negative feedback, they will begin to feel overwhelmed by it and at least a few of them will begin to cover the other side.  THE PRESS ARE CLAIMING EVEN THOSE WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP DON’T REALLY WANT HIM!  Disabuse them of this notion.

On that last point, I have talked with many people about who they voted for.  I find that people who didn’t like either Trump or Clinton, didn’t vote for either.  One young woman in Texas voted Republican except for President she voted for a 3rd party candidate, for example.  Some people just didn’t vote.  I found no one “holding their nose” after voting for Trump.  The people who DID vote for Trump enthusiastically include:

  1. An immigrant whose sister lost her job to offshoring and had to train her replacements.
  2. An Hispanic/Latino who is not an immigrant, whose family has lived here for generations (actually, he points out we of European descent are the immigrants).

The protesters don’t care about trade and jobs.  They are using slogans I haven’t heard since Woodstock.  If they had jobs, they wouldn’t be protesting in the middle of a work day.

 

 

Advertisements

British Inquisition vs. Sharia Law

british-inquisition
The British “Inquiry” into Sharia Law initially shared Theresa May’s tolerance, but as Muslim women who are anti-Sharia join with MPs who are opposed to any non-British law in the country, it may gain a different flavor.  article

I am often asked, regarding my views that religions that advocate killing non-believers should not be allowed, well what do you do about it?  There seems to be a presumption that the only alternative is a Stalinesque purge.  That is a position suggested by the Politically Correct (not!) globalists to scare you into thinking there is nothing you can do.  It is useless to resist.  Well, the Borg said that and Picard resisted them.  So can we.

It has been done before.  Muslims took over large parts of Europe, especially most of Spain, in the mid 700’s.  They were rolled back gradually over centuries, and finally Isabella and Ferdinand united the two major kingdoms via their marriage, and financing Columbus was the least of their accomplishments.

The Catholic Inquisition, operating since the mid 1200’s, was not what you think.  It did not burn witches.  Since the late 700’s burning witches was illegal in Catholicism and itself a capital offense.  Catholics weren’t supposed to believe in witches, and so burning someone for witchcraft was murder, pure and simple.

My friends, the purpose of the inquisition was to prevent sectarian violence, of which burning witches was one example.  A few hundred years later it became abusive, but that is another problem.  When I learned it’s true purpose in relation to the witch-burning, I was stunned at how inaccurate my education in history had been.  What other lies have we been fed?

Ferdinand and Isabella wanted a peaceful, cooperative country.  They asked first the Jews and then the Muslims to convert or leave.  Then they got a special version of the inquisition approved by the Pope, the Spanish Inquisition, and they hired a converted Jew to head it, and determine if the converted congregations were secretly practicing their old ways.  Very wise, as I’m sure he knew what to look for.  Those found in violation were simply detained until they really converted or really left.

It worked.  A few hundred years later, Spain again allowed Muslims to enter, but they have the most tolerant Muslim community in the world, which even tolerates intermarriage with non-Muslims.

The later abuses of the Spanish Inquisition, however, are a perfect example of the fact that once you start an “inquiry,” you rapidly lose control of it, as the British are finding out.  The British Inquiry will become the British Inquisition and at the end of the day, they will have no Sharia Law in Britain.  The various inquisitions of Europe eventually found their way to America and so will this one.

It is made inevitable by the Muslims themselves.  They will not quit killing infidels until their scripture directing them to do that is erased.  And it will make populations madder and madder until they do something.  An “inquiry” is quite civilized compared to “Armageddon,” which some Evangelical Christians are advocating as the “final solution” to the “Muslim problem.”

Frankly, the Christian scriptures need to be purged of a few things too, Armageddon and the entire book of Revelation being high on my list of what needs to go (it was only marginally admitted at Nicea in the first place).  How about a trade, Revelation for Killing of the Infidels?  Political Christianity for Political Islam?  (Without “political Islam” the impetus to export Sharia Law to other countries is considerably less.)

We already have LGBT marriage and recruiting (what do you think Gay Parades are about anyway?), which to me is, well, doesn’t need to be public, let’s put it that way.  If we are going to take something from Islam, why not polygamy?  It is very useful.  Built-in child care as the wives take turns at it while the other one gets a break.  The single spouse idea came from pagan Greeks and Romans, not from the Bible.  God knows that it doesn’t work!

Anyway, back to the subject.  Let’s start a movement to bring “The Inquiry” here.  We probably can’t burn billions of electronic copies of the Koran, but artificially intelligent computers residing on the soon-to-be 5G network that wirelessly can download a movie in a couple of seconds will need something to burn their CPU cycles on.  Why not monitoring the converts from traditional to tolerant Islam?

And don’t even mention religious freedom to me.  I have never been free of religion.  It is in my face everywhere I go, and I suck it up and tolerate the one I grew up with.  I have no use for another one, especially if it has 92 verses saying to kill me.  Get real, folks.  And get rid of the 92 verses, and Revelation while you are at it.  If that’s too difficult, just get rid of religion.

Bing-Google rigging black shooter search results: evidence

Emergency – tier 1 level – red alert.  You cannot trust the US-based internet search and news sources anymore than you can trust the Russian press, perhaps not as much.  I accidentally stumbled across this evidence and was shocked!  The following data were screen captured on November 1, 2016 using a browser I don’t normally use, so that it wouldn’t be influenced by my past searches or cookies.

I compared two search services, and two searches.  There are differences between Bing and Google, and the racial black-white searches are much more heavily rigged than the Muslim searches.  I compared both the search suggestions and the first page of results, vs. recent high profile news stories I know to exist which I could pull up by city name.  There is no telling how deep this goes.

This is very cleverly done.  The search services have conditioned you to think they don’t know the difference between “police shot by blacks” and “blacks shot by police.”  Both searches might well produce just a list of articles with the words in any order, and perhaps they do.  But it is well known that Google hand tweaks results as well.  It appears they are either doing this on a massive scale, which must be very expensive, or their algorithms are much smarter than they have let on.

Here are the Bing suggested searches, which indicate probably the number of people searching for something similar:

bing1suggestions

Here are the Bing results:

bing2blacks

100% of the first page results in Bing are of the opposite type – blacks shot by police.  There could be more than one explanation.  Let’s try Google.  Here are the suggestions:

google1suggestions

Far fewer suggestions on Google suggests that they don’t want you searching for this kind of stuff.  I certainly don’t believe Google users are less interested in violent news than Bing users, in fact I’d guess the other way around.  Bing is sort of erudite compared to Google.  OK, here are the results:

google2black

Again 100% backward on the first page.  I looked at many further pages, and actually it remained 100%.  I could not find ANY black shooter stories from a general query, and I tried many other ways to word the search.

Maybe no black shooter stories exist?  Hardly.  Some very recent very high profile stories should have been near the top of the results, such as this one from Baton Rouge:

bing4batonrouge

Pretty dramatic, huh?  It’s actually somewhat harder to find using Google.  I’ll leave you to explore that for yourself.

There is another way to establish that such stories probably are common, but being suppressed.  Search for black crime statistics:

google4crime

Take the statistics from the top story and divide 52/13 and you find the black homicide rate is 4 times higher.  Now even if they are only shooting other blacks (which may be mostly true if you believe Donald Trump), a lot of police officers are black and they should be standing in the way of the bullets of black shooters at a high rate even if the shootings are totally incidental to committing crimes and not involving any prejudice at all.  Some black officers have been shot, by people of various races including black.  So the job of a search engine, if I ask it, is to select the ones that meet my criteria.  They are not only not doing it, these results prove they are suppressing it.

The racial identity of the Baton Rouge shooter is much harder to find on Google by the way.  I don’t know if that is deliberate or incidental to their sparser use of photographs.

I asked the question whether this was being done for Muslim shooters.  Here are the Bing results:

bing3muslims

Well, they come right up with a nice mix of Muslims shooting and getting shot, just like you’d expect from a keyword search with no semantic understanding.  What about Google?

google3muslim

Google provides a slightly different mix of stories and no photos, but still believably a keyword search with no semantic understanding.

If we let news suppression get a foothold in this country (apparently it already has) then it’s all over.  News media are virtually the only source of information we have to decide on facts and policy far from our home communities.

I’d say write your Congressman but we already know from the recent campaign, they agree with all this political correctness brainwashing.  I’d say write the reporters but frankly I’ve tried that several times in the last year and it does nothing.  I’d say boycott Google and Bing but then what?  The Fox-CNN-etc. outlets basically admit that they are biased.  Even Fox (not my favorite, too repetitively biased) has gone PC with Megan Kelly.

I tried my search on the BBC.  Same results.  It’s possible the search engines could be innocent.  The media outlets might be suppressing the mention of the word “black” in stories about blacks shooting cops.  I actually used the photo to identify the race of the Baton Rouge shooter.  It was hard to find in the text of the first article I looked at.

But even this would not let the search engines off the hook, because there are lots of news outlets, some of them rabidly biased in all sorts of directions, and as they say on the X-Files, the truth is “out there.”

Who won at the end of that series anyway?  The truth remained buried, right?  If that is our unconscious expectation, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How much of this is not so much the political ideals of these business, but the necessity that they please advertisers?  Blacks are enjoying growing economic success, despite their whining, and most of the growth in consumer marketing targets blacks and Hispanics.  If blacks are boycotting a news source because it ran too many stories on black shooters, then they won’t be getting any ad revenue targeted at black audiences, because their ratings among this audience will go to zero.

We need to have news we pay for, I think.  The reverse of vast consumer choice in news outlets’ obverse is the effectiveness of consumer pressure, making all the choices the same.  That’s probably the reason for Megan Kelly.  She appeals to the women and liberals and minorities necessary to get Fox’s ratings up.  Again, I don’t like Fox, just pointing to a principle.  In some ways the BBC is less biased with regard to US News, but even there the black shooter suppression was evident.

What is the reason?

Why would the black shooter searches be censored and not the Muslim shooter searches?

This would need some research, but I have some guesses that might make good starting points.  There has been an attempt since the late 1960s to ERASE RACE from American demographics.  Nothing is supposed to depend on race, except in a perverted way (blacks are poor because someone discriminated against them, otherwise it would not be so – which may be true as far as I know, I’m just reporting the social logic of the time), so nothing should be reported by race.  Especially black race.  If there is a shooter, it’s racist to report that he is black.  So race doesn’t get reported.  “Black man shoots cop” headline would result in a boycott and loss of ad revenue.  I had trouble finding the word “black” in the Baton Rouge article, except with respect to the one black police officer killed, which was probably deliberately included to portray the crime as against police, not against whites.  Maybe so, I don’t know the shooter’s motive.  But failing to collect basic statistics is inexcusable.  And as I said, this doesn’t let the search engines off the hook, but merely suggests they favor the politically correct news sources.

My wife reads the Chinese and Russian news sites to learn what is going on in the US.  Maybe she is on to something?