CSIS opposes anti-muslims in Canada

From the Ottawa Citizen (Thursday march 2, 2015, P.# C1):

"Even if they are not drawing thousands into the streets, the Canadian government is apparently watching right-wing groups like PEDIGA, Quebec Identitaire, and the JDL closely. The Canadian Press reported on Tuesday that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS, Canada's CIA) recently advised the office of Public Safety Minsiter Steven Blaney of its concerns during a secret September briefing, noting that Canada's burgeoning anti-Islam movement poses an "ongoing risk, particularly as its proponents advocate violence."

Well, No shit, sherlocks - we advocate for DEFENSIVE anti-muslim violence, because obviously you overfed government parasite liberals aren't doing your jobs!!!

Google’s Fact Checking Scheme: A War on Truth

OK, this is SCARY! This site, at Blogger.com, is OWNED BY GOOGLE.

Within a day of the FCC taking over the Internet, Google has decided it wants to define the truth of all web content!

From here:

Google to become final arbiter of “facts”?

Google recently published a research paper proposing that the world’s largest search engine change its ranking algorithms to dampen sites with a high number of “false facts”. The paper specifically uses the example of Barack Obama’s nationality, and New Scientist uses the specific example of “anti-vaccination sites”,  leading some to speculate this is an effort to target “conspiracy theories” and alternative news.
It’s a worthy concern. Facebook not long ago launched a feature to do just that. When people don’t like a story that’s getting around, they can report it as false, and Facebook will dampen that link, no matter who shares it. I’m going to speak anecdotally about my own experience here for a moment, but I hope you’ll come to see the bigger picture. For those of us who make enemies on social media, this presents a pretty serious problem, because Facebook does not check these reports, at least not thoroughly. I have been banned from Facebook dozens of times, and usually it is because somebody reported something I posted as containing nudity, violence, or racism, where none existed. Those reports are made by ideological rivals for ideological purposes, and my voice is repeatedly and severely diminished as a result.

The High Tech War on Truth

Whether the issue at hand is Facebook’s reporting system, or Google’s fact checking, those of us with unpopular ideas are going to be contradicting the vast majority of people out there, and a system that punishes us for doing so is troubling to say the least. For me, Facebook is my top referrer for traffic to this website, Google is my second. I imagine that I’m not alone in this. Algorithm changes of any sort damage my business and my voice, and they happen more frequently than you might imagine if you don’t monitor these things. Were the standard for relevancy to change to credibility, and to be measured by “how many people agree with him” I would essentially be erased from the Internet. That might sound like a good idea to some people, but I’m not the one you need to be concerned about.
What I do here, for better or for worse, is start conversations. This works out pretty well in the present paradigm where the primary ranking indicator is popularity in terms of who is linking to and talking about you. I’ve long said that there is no such thing as bad press, in part because all “bad press” does is drive up your relevancy on search engines and social media. I certainly prefer people say nice things about me, but I prefer them to say bad things, than to say nothing at all.

This doesn’t always work out so well on a system like Reddit, where there is a reputation system that includes a downvote. There are coalitions of people on the web who hate me so viciously that they will do anything to damage my reputation and diminish my distribution. One such coalition exists on Reddit, and downvotes anything posted there from this website, without even reading the content. The fact that it comes from my domain is enough. This has caused Redditers to delete posts from this website, because the downvotes on my content damage their reputation on Reddit. Other times it causes the content to become labeled as controversial, and the competition between upvotes and downvotes causes the content to appear more popular, driving a great deal of traffic to this website. In large part, it just depends on who gets to it first, but it has almost nothing to do with the quality, much less the factual accuracy, of the content in question. Point being, agreement has no bearing on quality or accuracy.

Potential Upside

Rather than paint this as all doom and gloom, I should point out that this could be used for good. We’ll talk about problems with the fact checking algorithm later, but for a moment let’s consider the value of a “truth meter”. Presuming one existed and was accurate, this could be an excellent tool.
The paper proposes a similar model to Google’s “Knowledge Vault”. If you ask Google a question, Google will often give you an answer that doesn’t require you to click through to another site. When I want to check the exchange rate of Bitcoin for example, I search Google for “Bitcoin price” and Google displays the current average from Coinbase.com, updated every three minutes. This is fine with me, because I consider Coinbase to be a reputable source for this data. If I search for “cure for cold” I get some information from the Mayo Clinic on cold remedies. Even though we all know there is no cure for the common cold, this is about as close as we’re going to get to an answer to my question.
There are other reputation metrics on the web right now, and clearly there is nothing wrong with that. Web of Trust for example is a browser plugin with over 131 million downloads. It checks the reputation of the website you’re visiting “based on a unique crowdsourcing approach that collects ratings and reviews from a global community of millions of users who rate and comment on websites based on their personal experiences”. That store with the prices that seem too good to be true? WOT might save you from a frustrating and time consuming battle with identity theft. LazyTruth is a browser plugin that checks if the email you’re reading is some kind of chain letter hoax by comparing it against FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, which are themselves a sort of reputation metric.
If Google wants to get into the fact checking business, they could save me the trouble of installing yet another browser plugin, or searching for topics on fact checking sites, similarly to how they save me the trouble of visiting Coinbase or Mayo Clinic now. That’s a valuable service which a lot of people might appreciate.
Additionally, ranking a site highly just because it is already popular might not be the best way to determine the quality of the content, factual or not. New websites pop up every day, and some method of promoting them over a popular competitor whose quality is in decline might be of great benefit to content producers and consumers alike. Fact checking could be one way of establishing that quality.

Mission Creep

The primary problem as I see it, is that Google, Facebook, and other services we use to get ourselves connected to information have largely served to connect us with the information we want by determining what others have found relevant. This is a very specific task, and changing it to fact checking is a dramatic change in protocol. It is a completely different business model that in no way resembles the service you originally signed up for.

As stated earlier, there are already reputation metrics available for people who want to use them. These are specific services provided by entities who specialize in providing it. If they aren’t doing a good job, you just stop using that service, or go to a competitor. You lose nothing other than their fact checking service by leaving that website.
If Google gets into the fact checking business, and does a bad job, you lose your search engine. If Facebook gets into it and does a bad job, you lose your social network. More importantly since the idea behind these algorithms is to prevent you from seeing the content in the first place, you’ll never actually know if the content is fact or fiction, because you’ll never even see it. When the services that connect us to content start hiding it from us because they disagree with it, we never get the opportunity to find out of the service provider is doing a bad job. If we don’t find out that they are doing a bad job, then we lack the information necessary to make the decision to choose a different service provider.
I would have next to no problem with “Google Truth” or “Facebook Reputation” services. Even if they did a poor job, I could always choose a different service, or compete with them if I saw fit. They might wrongly slander and harm the reputations of good people, but if they did so on a large enough scale, it would in turn damage the reputation of those services. Take for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center. They smear people as violent racists and sexists and gay bashers all the time, often on very flimsy evidence. This type of institution gains a lot of sway with race baiters and social justice warriors, but they are despised by most conservatives and libertarians. We just make a value judgement on whose word we’re going to accept and move on for the most part.
The SPLC on the other hand isn’t deciding whether or not I see the content of the people they smear. Google and Facebook do. That presents a far more serious problem, which makes me inclined to stop doing business with them.

Chilling Effect

Let us say that Google takes the position that widgets do not cause cancer. Let us also say that some smaller source says that widgets do cause cancer. Now there is a dispute between these two institutions on the factual accuracy of the question.

As a content producer, I see that Google sends me a great deal of traffic. I am dependent on that traffic for my livelihood. I also see that the smaller source provides me with no traffic at all, because they are not a search engine, that is not their function. Should I come to the side of the smaller entity, Google will punish me by pushing my site down in the search results. Potentially not only the article in question, but the entire domain could become discredited and even content Google sees as credible would be pushed down in the rankings, dramatically injuring my business. This makes content producers extraordinarily unlikely to disagree with Google.
Let us say someone does defy Google, and gets their business ruined as a result. Someone else sees that happening. They know that Google is constantly adding new “facts” to their database, and contradicting those facts will punish your search engine placement. A statement they make today, could be deemed false by Google tomorrow. Even if the content producer who Google punished yesterday was factually incorrect, even if he deserved to be erased from the Internet, doing that to him will have a dramatic impact on other well meaning content producers. They will be weary of challenging main stream narratives in general.
Google’s research paper mentioned the “Birther” conspiracy, and this provides a perfect example. Let us pretend that in 2016 there emerged a presidential candidate whose nationality really was in question. Content producers would be inclined not to report on the issue, for fear of being silenced by the world’s largest search engine, a system they rely on to put food on their tables.
New Scientist mentioned “anti-vaccination” sites. Well, if Google were to take the position that vaccines were safe and anybody who said they weren’t was a liar, then the emergence of a dangerous vaccine at some point in the future would not be as widely reported on due to fears of censorship by their biggest driver of traffic and advertising revenue. The real fact on vaccines is that they are not as safe as marijuana, so would pro vaccine sites that say “vaccines are safe” as a blanket statement be flushed? I have a hard time imagining that this would result in anything positive.

In short, Google would not just be driving down the emergence of incorrect information, they would have a dramatic impact on what people said before they said it. That goes contrary to everything we’ve come to enjoy about the Internet as a place for the exchange of ideas, and competition for hearts and minds.

The Myth of Neutrality

As I recently remarked, there is no such thing as neutral. We all have certain biases, and the best that we can hope for is to make those biases known and let people decide for themselves how to interpret data. The FCC cannot make the net “neutral” they can only control it in the way they see fit. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, because to even say a thing is news is to take a position on an issue. The pages of Wikipedia are fraught with left wing and feminist bias that has been well reported on by many, not the least of which was to label “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory.
To decide whether or not a thing is true, and to flush the untrue statement to the bottom of search results, necessarily would make Google an arbiter of debates. Google might make some attempt to appear neutral in that, but the biases of their developers would bleed through in some way no matter what. Say a developer implements a fact checking system, sees results he does not agree with, and then alters the fact checking algorithm to fit his world view. If Wikipedia, a system that anybody can edit, will throw cultural Marxism into the conspiracy theory dumpster, then let us not pretend that a more tightly controlled mechanism like Google’s search algorithms won’t be subject to the same biases.
Were Google search results to begin flushing “conspiracy theories” down the toilet on wikipedia standards, just imagine how many conservative and libertarian websites would cease to have a voice on the world’s largest search engine.

Popularity By Any Other Name

Ultimately, Google is incapable of actually being the arbiter of truth. The proposed method of determining the factual accuracy of a given statement is actually just a different measurement of popularity than they currently use. Instead of determining popularity based on how many people are linking to the content, they would judge the popularity based on how many people were saying the same thing, and call that factual accuracy. This itself, is factually inaccurate, as popularity and truth are often worlds apart.

Per the research paper from Google; (emphasis mine)

We propose using Knowledge-Based Trust (KBT) to estimate source trustworthiness as follows. We extract a plurality of facts from many pages using information extraction techniques. We then jointly estimate the correctness of these facts and the accuracy of the sources using inference in a probabilistic model. Inference is an iterative process, since we believe a source is accurate if its facts are correct, and we believe the facts are correct if they are extracted from an accurate source. We leverage the redundancy of information on the web to break the symmetry. Furthermore, we show how to initialize our estimate of the accuracy of sources based on authoritative information, in order to ensure that this iterative process converges to a good solution.

Facts are accurate because they come from a reputable source, and a source is reputable because it is accurate. They determine if it is accurate based on how many people are saying the same thing. This is just another popularity contest using a different yard stick. Instead of judging relevancy based on inbound links, they are determining “accuracy” based on similar thought processes.
This of course, is no measure of accuracy at all.
For a great deal of time it was thought that tomatoes were evil. This very popular notion parroted by many of the time, turned out to be complete nonsense. It took awhile for people to figure out that aristocrats were dying of lead poisoning, not tomatoes themselves. Imagine that phenomenon in the age of Google fact checking, any site that said tomatoes were safe, would quickly be flushed to the bottom of the search results.

Think about the hysteria that followed the release of “Reefer Madness” in the 30’s. That nonsense went largely unrefuted, and was in no small part responsible for the countless cages and coffins now filled due to the war on drugs. Challenging those ideas on the Internet is why Washington, Colorado, Alaska, and Washington DC have legalized marijuana in defiance of the federal government, and states like New Hampshire are moving towards decriminalization. Now imagine that trying to take place in an era of Google “fact checking” where to disagree with the notion that marijuana leads to rape and murder, would flush you to the bottom of the search engine rankings.
Trying to pass off popularity, however your measurement is taken, as accuracy is a fundamental flaw in the way human beings think. Our confirmation bias is a huge problem in discussions on all sorts of topics from politics, to economics, to health, and beyond. It is specifically because things like Google and Facebook have operated in the way they operate that we’re able to overcome some portion of that hazard, and the proposal by Google’s researchers would put a huge dent in that progress while competitors struggled to gain market share back with better ranking policies.

That doesn’t just harm businesses or screw up your enjoyment of the Internet. That costs lives, fills prisons, and steers nations to war.

FCC's "GENERAL CONDUCT" Rule, RULES THE INTERNET - SUCKERS!

The FCC's new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that DON’T count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. Vague rules are a problem.

First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach they claimed we need to protect the open Internet. Second, people should worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? It's all subjective, you suckers!

The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.”

To liberals, "competition" and "innovation" (i.e: not-toeing the party line) IS what hurts consumers!

The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

Arguing with Liberals

“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” (Psalm 29:9)

“It’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious.”

-ANONYMOUS-

Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist! They will always ignore your facts and counter them with emotive feelings and anecdotes.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES!

The state education leftist propaganda indoctrination system teaches abuses kids with the false notion that they’re entitled to unearned self-esteem, and to not be offended by having their feelings hurt by the often-painful truth. Cause and effect are ignored, because it’s always someone or some thing else’s fault: enforced predeterminism excuses are at the root of all their favorite victimology sales scenarios.

When “self-esteem” (like “respect!”) is demanded but not earned, the demanders are insisting they are entitled to have rights without the concomitant corollary responsibility for having to earn them – exactly like ALL criminals always assert!

Criminal Marxists insist: “You earned stuff I didn’t bother to, SO YOU OWE ME!”

The criminal negligents in the ‘education system’ only indoctrinate children in how to be better criminals!

And criminality retards children, because it keeps them dependent on others.

“The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens.”—Leo Tolstoy

Here’s an obvious difference between the left and right: remember the old adage about “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime!“?

Right-thinking, civilized and law-abiding folk are all for promoting individual self-reliant responsibility, and so want to teach people how to fish (fend) for them selves, while leftist proglodytes really only want their victims to become dependent on them, as slaves are to a master; i.e:

“Vote for us again, or you won’t get tomorrow’s fish – CAPISCE!?”

Liberalism is extortion, bribery, and blackmail all in one! Whee!

Criminals are infantile delinquents (worse than juvenile delinquents) because by imitating children and acting childishly, by posing as perpetually demanding infants, they can often play on their victims’ instincts to defend and educate children. Children are the only people in society who really are – at least temporarily – entitled to have rights without responsibilities. Criminals like to bask in the false perpetual extension of their pretended childhoods, routinely and slanderously accusing their victims of being “unfair!” to them.

In short, criminals only ‘teach’ victimology and how to be better extortionists, to children.

So, to liberals, there really are no evil crimes nor evil criminals, because everyone’s really only a helpless victim – of “society,” “products of their environments” (what’d Karl Marx himself call it – ‘Historical Predeterminism’ or something?) and/or “Slaves of Allah!”

And besides, to them, life’s too complex for anyone to ever really understand cause and effect, so, “since” all facts are therefore really only opinions anyway, any given liberals’ entirely fact-free opinion is the diversely opposite equal of any of those silly conservatives’ objective facts!

And THAT’S why everyone is equally entitled to unearned self-esteem! Whee!

(And remember, kids: “There’s No Wrong Answers”)!

Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist!

They’ve really only declared a confession of non-compus-mentis!

And their favorite deflection is the childish critical thinking logical fallacy called the Argumentum Tu Quoque, which only amounts to trying to compare two unrelated wrongs in order to pretend to make one of them into a right. “Two Wrongs Make a Right”:

“There’s no evil crime nor evil criminals because we (i.e: you) all do it, too!Whee!”

Beyond that, their crime is all about the objectification: victim-blaming “defensively pre-emptive” slander.

They embrace the slanderous victim-blaming attack-first criminal “philosophy” that the best “defense” is a good offense, to keep their opponents on the defensive so they will remain emotionally off-balance and so never be able to (counter-)attack ‘first!’

Only lying thieves (fraud being the most basic form of criminal theft, the theft of the Truth) slanderously pretend their victims are too dumb to be educated!

The “elites” – including the “education” elites – are cowardly masochist traitors to rationality and civilization, who always want to form ever-larger gangs to protect them selves; they are all about the double-standards of subjectivism, and so oppose universal objectivity; they want rights without responsibilities, and so must offload their responsibilities onto their victims.

The reason they embrace might-made group “rights,” is both offensive and defensive: they can always assert they are “defensively protecting” others if and when they can make even a tenuous connection between some others at least somewhat similar to them selves who,  somewhere else, at some other time, were oppressed by some other people who were sort of like YOU; in which case, YOU OWE THEM!

The corollary is that if and when they get caught for their crimes, they can always use the group idol as an alibi-excuse to dilute their own culpability:

“I didn’t do it! ONLY ‘the GROUP’ did it! Whee!”

(Substitute “The System,” &/or “The Procedures” or your choice of idolatry for “The Group!”)

I’m pretty sure the main strategy AND subsequent tactics of liberals is to always generalize to dilute personal responsibility. It’s why they endorse group rights and responsibilities and absolutely hate factual cause-and-effect specifics. Generalizations are lies and exaggerations used to hide all the specific details of their individual criminal culpability. And they also get to blame specific victims for general group membership responsibilities, too!

They are criminals.

And, as such liberals like to assert that:

“Criminals have rights, too!”

Well, actually: - NO, they don’t.

See, the Law is a social contract, where people agree to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first.

From agreeing to this, we get our only real right (to not be attacked first) and we have our only real concomitant, corollary responsibility (to not attack others first).

But when one chooses to break that contract and avoid one’s contracted responsibility BY attacking others first, one also thereby gives up one’s own right to not therefore be defensively (counter-)attacked by one’s attempted victims, second.

That counter-attacking second bit, was formerly known as “JUSTICE.” Criminals also used to be known as “Out-Laws” because their own choices had placed them outside the protections of the Law; it was therefore open season on them.

And even the courts do it, sometimes years later, when the perp is no longer a clear and present danger, because, as even the falsely divided civil and criminal laws agree, one must pay for what one takes.

The only job of any court or judge is to determine who started it, and to punish the instigating aggressors for their (even if failed) attempts; after all, it’s the thought (intent) which counts! And even “only attempted” crimes, are still crimes.

Any court or judge which refuses to do so, has abdicated their position of authority, and have become criminally negligent.

Basically, liberals are masochists: always trying to pretend to “control” their fears, BY causing the most worst-case-scenario pains they fear.

There’s no perversion or crime a liberal won’t Submit to or at least try to “compromise” with first. They seem to believe that it’s prudent, shrewd, realistic ‘realpolitik’ to rush in first, before some other fools beat them to it!

I believe even the most willfully self-blinded, obtuse criminal negligent (muslim, liberal) is almost NEVER really focused on chasing nebulous “hope and change” (say, via dopamine output stimulation) as they so-often pretend to others, so much as they are avoiding pain (or, in their cases, more specifically avoiding the fear of pain – including the fear of having to face those fears to actually discover and cancel the root causes of the mistakes and unsolved problems which cause the pains they fear).

Even the most hardened drug addicts quickly become acclimatized to their drug of choice, and so require more and more and more of it to reach the same state of obliviousness, just as people who choose the relief from work tedium of a beach vacation quickly tire of the scene, as their minds automatically prioritize information by level of potential danger, and can be counted on to instinctively cast about for more problems to solve, more pains to avoid.

Such is the nature of the thought process itself, whether they want to honestly admit it or dishonestly try to avoid it and distract and deflect others into not-noticing they are doing so; they find millenniae of hard-wired evolutionary learning isn’t so easily avoided by even the stupidest monkey.

So basically, everything liberals do is a deliberate attempt to pretend to ‘prove’ themselves to be mentally incompetent, so they won’t have any responsibility to think for them selves about anything. We should simply let them ‘prove’ their point, declare them non-compus mentis, and move on to other problems, while striving to improve the education system for all future generations.

“He that is good at making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”

-Benjamin Franklin-

(But there’s some good news, too: People are born tabula rasa - as blank slates – so it’s plain to see that liberals have actually been trained to be stupid and evil, by other people who were also trained to be stupid and evil; each generation trying to outdo the previous ones in the depths of evil stupidity to which they sink)! Criminality is nurtured not nature.

And so, when arguing with liberals, please always remember this simple rule of thumb, kids:

Truth welcomes scrutiny. Falsehood demands tolerance.

;-)

In fact, lefties always sound retarded (hence, the accuracy of such terms as “leftardation,” “libtarded,” etc.) BECAUSE all they’re ever really doing is trying to think up alibi-EXCUSES FOR THEFT, so of course their language has to employ all the critical thinking logical fallacy evasions, distractions, deflections, euphemisms, and metaphors (i.e: lies) in order to sell it to sane people, (and all crimes are forms of theft); i.e: “Wealth Redistribution” and that of course requires lies, like I just said, most often in the form of evasive metaphors and euphemisms (like for the best instance example, the term “Wealth Redistribution” itself)!

Openly, honestly endorsing stating one’s “Theft is Good!” assertions usually won’t work, when trying to sell it to sane people.

If they were just plain stupid, they’d have to get some things right every now and then, just by random chance – but they don’t, because they have to know what’s right, in order to so perfectly oppose it all the time!

Since evil leftist masochists are always hell-bent on becoming victims of worst-case scenarios, they “project” onto and slander-blame their victims, because their first emotion is fear of getting caught for their crimes.

So subjective double-standards are what they’re all about! Deliberately! For them, No objective Truth allowed!

Most of their sub-sequent forced predeterminism and group-rights idolatry is also only an excuse to “defensively” either do nothing, or to enjoy a perpetual excuse to attack others first, even if only by having the false right to delinquently force their own self-reliant responsibilities onto groups of “privileged/guilty” (innocent) others.

And of course they’ll always try to co-opt the largest gang, the government, into helping them with their wealth redistribution theft schemes.

As Thomas Jefferson noted:

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors?”

And yet deliberate “error” (i.e: willfully intended, criminal negligence) isn’t really ‘error’ at all, is it?

The motto of criminally negligent leftists everywhere must be: “There’s No Money In Solutions!” (So: Please Give Generously – AGAIN!)

They will always refuse to solve temporary problems with easy, simple and permanent solutions, in favor of not-solving them, spinning and pretending they are “eternal crises” with only temporary, band-aid “management therapies” available, in order to exploit the almost infinite number of symptoms unsolved problems generate.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of The Golden Rule of Law (which simply defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First!”) one can address with lesser, circumstantial “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.n.

Who's Behind WWIII?

I think the banksters want another war, because since they fund both sides, whoever wins, owes them, and whoever loses, owes the winner (who owes them). And they also not only get to increase their profits by it, but they also get to reduce the world's populations while suckering the survivors into demanding the banksters cement their own control by taking over as a world government. It's win/win for them, and a very scary lose/lose scenario for us.

And their bought-and-paid for pawns, our so-called "leaders," will never lift a finger to stop them.

Why?

Because it's always all about the money, and the illusion of control over others it brings.

Banksters are criminal frauds, operating on a global scale.

Banksters "own" all the deeds and debts of all the other false idolatrous entities OFFICIALLY called "the legal fictions of the corporate persons."

Not only do these vile sales-masters sell money (which obviously instantly devalues not only that money, but the labour and goods it re-presents as well) but they have also "allowed" them selves, through the last two centuries of bribing their political sales-puppets, the luxurious indulgence in outright FRAUD called "fractional reserves," whereby their mouths literally write checks their pockets can't cash; they literally print money out of thin air; up to 50 times (5,000%) what they actually have in their reserves. "Fractional Reserves" = criminal COUNTERFEITING, people!

Repeat endlessly, compounding this crime, year after year, and century after century. And, unlike real-world, cause-and-effect investments, they charge idolatrous interest regardless of real economic activity; interest IS inflation. Fraud IS theft, and, so far as I know, theft is still a crime. In fact, all crimes are forms of theft.

The banksters always finance BOTH sides of EVERY conflict, because then the winners still owe them AND so do the losers; THEY never lose, and the only frontiers left are the destruction and "reconstruction" of all existing countries!

America didn't fare so well under its own "reconstruction" costs, so why should we help the foreign banksters to inflict the same on anyone - much less on everyone - else, too?!

Bottom line:

Banksters ARE evil (because they sell money, which obviously and instantly dilutes the value of that money, the labour used to earn it, and the worth of the goods it can buy; interest IS inflation).

Just picture a political leader telling the banks they are out of business. They would quickly round up an army of unemployed assassins and offer ridiculously huge bribes to the leaders' own staff to betray him and leave him open to assassination. The only way the banks can be removed is AFTER they've already fallen and their money is completely worthless.

Now, let's also examine what the banksters are telling their complicit minions and all-too-willing accessory stooges:

GLOBALISM, ("AGENDA21") JEALOUSY AND NATIONALISM - IS THERE REALLY ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM?!

(THE SHORT ANSSWER IS: NO)!

IS JEALOUSY A RIGHT, OR A CRIME? IT'S REALLY ONLY BACKWARDS, VICTIM-BLAMING CRIMINAL NONSENSICAL SLANDER. AND IT'S OFFENSIVE TO PRETEND JEALOUSY IS THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN'S GOD.

Liberals have been taught the fallacy that the idea of "nations" is what has always caused all past wars - the simple and "jealous" struggle for other's territory.

Furthermore, they think that only all the white people, including the Jews, invented the idea of property and territory; that innocent nomadic savages who believe in tribal collectivism are better than greedy individualists who want to horde (and improve!) personal property! To them, nationalism began during the Enlightenment.

But the simple truth is, nations were all formed naturally and organically from families, clans, and tribes, and eventually become states and empires over time.

So, naturally (being tool-blaming idolaters) leftists then decided to destroy all sovereign nations, to prevent all futue wars: "no nations = no wars for same!"

It's like saying people will fight over diamonds, or food - so the liberals' "solution" is do destroy all the diamonds and poison all the food, FIRST.

THEN THERE WILL BE "PEACE!"

Exactly like with islam, which pretends all hope is fraud, (since the future cannot be known for sure), so destroy the hope and Submit to fear, and there will be the certainty of eternal, static "PEACE!"

;-(

And also exactly like islam, the liberals want to destroy the "idols" - people's ties to their families, gods, and past, in order to prevent circumstantial "jealousy!"

i.e: If people don't live in "houses" (nations) then some criminally lazy people won't be jealous of all the work other, "privileged" people put into fixing theirs up!

;-|

LIBERAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES ONLY "TEACH" (ABUSE KIDS THESE DAYS WITH) SEDITION!

Like their globalist bankster donors, owners and sponsors, they are against all sovereign national governments!

And, as such, their curriculums should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb ASAP! Sedition/treason is still a CRIME, as far as I know, (delinquent governmental notice and enforcement against it notwithstanding).

Further, they plan to eliminate "RACISM" by blending all the "races" (especially the Whites) into ONE RACE!
And, far from really believing in "Diversity," they only use that cry as a temporary bludgeon, to make sure all the 'races' which are currently minorities IN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE, become the majority there. Note how liberals don't attack the Chinese or Japanese for being isolationist "racists" (which they proudly are) or demand hordes of negroes emigrate to Japan of China? Do they demand that the Blacks in Africa self-dilute with Asians?

Liberals want to eradicate "greed" by destroying property rights, and to do that, they must destroy individualism, human dignity and self-reliance, and make people into infantile dependants.

This is what their fear-focused, self-defeating masochism and the desire to ignore all cause-and-effect who-started-it free-will choice, to make it all stop, leads to!

ONLY CRIMINALS THINK THIS WAY - THAT JEALOUSY IS A LEGITIMATE REASON TO ATTACK OTHERS; THAT THE SELF-INFLICTED POVERTY CAUSED BY CRIMINAL CHOICES, "CAUSES" THE CRIME!

i.e: "If you didn't live in such a nice house, then I wouldnt be jealous of it! So, since you bothered to earn that house and I didn't, you have to either let me live in it with you for free, or destroy it because it hurts my feelings and I have a right to not be offended by the painful truth that I'm a lazy criminal! It's your fault!

This of course blames the victim's property (and the fact that the criminal's victim actually owns property) for the criminal's own desire to steal or destroy it.

But of course, no amount of force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT - or will not - govern themselves.

;-)

The problem lies with the "liberal" (criminal's) fears of others being "better than them," and their "jealousy," not with other people being able to own things.

THEY ARE STILL IDOLATERS - BLAMING THE ITEMS, TOOLS AND IMAGES FOR THEIR OWN CRIMINAL DESIRES AND ACTIONS.

"BAN GUNS! BAN PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ALL KINDS! BAN "NATIONS!" THEN WE WON'T HAVE TO BE JEALOUS OF YOUR STUFF ANY MORE, AND WE WON'T "HAVE" TO ATTACK YOU FIRST, SO THERE WILL FINALLY BE "PEACE!""

" ... er ... we meant to say: "If you didn't have any guns or the "nations" from which to launch the wars we know you'll launch against us, you couldn't do it, SO we must attack you and take your guns and nations away from you first, before you can inevitably do the same to us!

The "Historical Predeterminism" made us do it to you before you could inevitably do it to us, you evil criminals!"

i.e: "YOUR STUFF MADE ME WANT TO STEAL IT!!!"

("IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE STUFF, I WOULDN'T "HAVE TO" STEAL IT, OR ATTACK YOU, YOU EVIL RICH HARDWORKING BASTARDS! YOUR STUFF MAKES ME FEEL BAD ABOUT BEING A LAZY CROOK")!

CRIMINAL MASOCHISTS ALWAYS WANT TO CREATE AND JOIN THE LARGEST GANGS BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID NOT TO, WHILE SLANDERING EVERYONE ELSE AS BEING ABOUT TO ATTACK THEM FIRST!

;-(

Race to the bottom: Obama takes over the Internet

WELL, IT HAPPENED.

Obama's "net neutering" scheme just got passed by the unelected FCC* in America.

But "SO WHAT?!" Liberals Cry: "YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT INTERNET ANYWAY!"

*I think it stands for "Fascist Control Cabal."

Anyway, president Hussein just got his wish - the end of the free market of ideas, to be quickly replaced with - if you know anything about liberals, you've already guessed it - a race to the bottom by catering to the lowest common denominator.

Do you (OK, did you) like being able to pay a bit more for a faster Internet connection to stream videos?

Did you care that the RantingLesbians website, which had a whole 13 subscribers, ran a bit slow?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU WANTED!

Because now your video-streaming will run a LOT slower, so RantingLesbians sites can be "equal!"

Oh, and BTW: Obama's FCC now has control of the internet in the U.S. and can shut down sites whose content it doesn't like - exactly like China and Iran and North Korea. So: Thanks, liberals!

From the L.A Times, via here:

WASHINGTON (TNS) — In a landmark decision for the future of the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved tough net neutrality regulations to oversee online traffic.

The new rules prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against legal content flowing through their wired or wireless networks, such as by charging websites for faster delivery of video and other data to consumers.

In an expected 3-2 party-line vote, the agency’s Democrat majority approved a plan by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that puts broadband providers in the same legal category as more highly regulated conventional telephone companies.

Wheeler has promised a modernized, light-touch regulatory approach that would exempt Internet service from many of the tougher provisions of that designation under Title 2 of the telecommunications law, particularly rate regulation.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” Wheeler said in voting for the proposal. “The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
He said the new rules and classification were “no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.”

FCC member Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted for the regulations, said: “We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind.”
“We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online,” she said.

Ajit Pai, one of two Republicans on the FCC, said the new regulatory proposal abandoned 20 years of bipartisan consensus “to let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation.”

“It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public,” he said.

The FCC’s vote culminates a decade of efforts by Internet companies such as Amazon.com Inc. and Google Inc., public interest groups, digital rights advocates and key Democrats, including President Barack Obama, to enact the toughest possible rules to protect consumers.

Chad Dickerson, chief executive of Etsy, an online marketplace for handmade and vintage goods, said his company would never have grown from a start-up had it not been for an open Internet. Many of the people who sell items on Etsy urged the FCC to enact tough regulations.

“Without strong rules to prevent discrimination online, the innovation economy would suffer,” he told the commissioners at the meeting. “Thank you for voting to protect the Internet as an engine of opportunity the likes of which we have never seen.”

However, Republicans, free-market advocates and telecommunications companies, including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., have called the rules a solution in search of a problem that risks damaging the Internet economy.

They said that the Internet has thrived outside of strict government oversight, and they warned that burdensome regulations could hinder online innovation and investment in expanded broadband networks.

“While I see no need for net neutrality rules, I am far more troubled by the dangerous course that the commission is now charting on Title 2 and the consequences it will have for broadband investment, edge providers and consumers,” said FCC member Michael O’Rielly, who voted against the measure.
Pai saw the White House behind Wheeler’s proposal.

“Put simply, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is not the solution to a problem. His plan is the problem,” said Pai, who accused Obama of improperly influencing the actions of the independent FCC.

Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, criticized the vote. He warned of legal challenges but stopped short of saying the company would sue.

“We have never argued there should be no regulation in this area, simply that there should be smart regulation,” Cicconi said.

“What doesn’t make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great-grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of 80 years ago, live under it,” he said.

Telecom firms said they support the principle of net neutrality but not the FCC’s approach, and they have promised to sue to overturn the regulations.

Legal challenges led federal judges to toss out two earlier FCC attempts to enact net neutrality rules, and new lawsuits could leave the matter unsettled for three years or more.

The FCC said it chose to take the controversial step of reclassifying broadband providers for utility-like regulation — reversing a 2002 agency decision — because the move stood the best chance of withstanding a legal challenge to the net neutrality rules themselves.

–Jim Puzzanghera
Los Angeles Times
___
(c)2015 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Liberals are proud of being mentally incompetent

A Liberals' favorite bludgeon, Political Correctness, is really only attempted thought control by threatening extortion.

The first thing humans do when confronted with strange new ideas is to emotionally deny them (to act "offended" with "hurt feelings").

It's all nothing more or less than the first part of the natural thought process, as first noticed by Aristotle, and most recently expanded on by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and others.

We all prioritize fear of pain, before we can get to having a hope of less or no pain.

Ancient Greek Logic describes this as a three-step process, where our hypo-thesis is countered by the anti-thesis (where we throw everything we can imagine might go wrong, at our new idea) and whatever survives is called the syn-thesis. The whole speculative idea is called the thesis.

But idolatrously static, hidebound and fear-focused liberal masochists want to short-circuit the rest of that natural thinking process, and insist nobody has a responsibility to become right (as in factually correct) but only a false right to remain irresponsibly wrong.

To accomplish this crime, they have no facts, and so must rely on emotion - on all the critical-thinking logical fallacy distractions, deflections and evasions (like their favorite, the argumentum tu quoque, where they pretend they can ignore crimes by merely comparing two or more unrelated wrongs, and so somehow magically turn one of them into a right, like this):

"Islam isn't an evil crime because we (i.e: you) all do or did it, too! Whee!"

Most small children realize that two unrelated wrongs won't make one of them right, but liberals never seem able to bring themselves to figure this out.

Barring that, they will resort to gutter insults ("hateful racist bigot!") to keep up the illusion of their false right to not be offended or have their feelings hurt by the often-painful Truth.

Liberals are criminally negligent infantile delinquents, who, since they like to pretend that "Life is so complex that we can never really understand cause and effect, so since all facts are really only opinions anyway, my subjective fact-free opinion is the diversely-opposite equal to your silly Conservative objective facts! Whee!" - have really only in public declared them selves to be non-compus-mentis (proudly, mentally incompetent) and so should be banished, due to their self-exile choice, from the public exchange of ideas.

Their latest attempted thought-control crime is in trying to take over the entire Internet, to silence the open discussion of ideas:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/obama-power-grab-triggers-1st-amendment-nightmare/

Liberals, like all criminals, are basically masochists, always trying to "control" their fears BY causing the worst-case scenario problems and mistakes which cause the pains they fear the most. Their motto (beyond the basic "There's No Money In Solutions!") always seems to be "If we don't rush in first, some other fools might beat us to it!"

Bottom line: Dear Liberals: If it isn't broken, don't try to "fix" it!