Google has done everything it thought it could get away with to hide meaningful results for searches about Hillary Clinton's health.
All of the major tech companies are all in for her and they must be held accountable. They are enemies of the historic American nation.
Breitbart reported Aug. 30:
Recent search engine results indicate Google, whose CEO is a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is suppressing negative search results about the Democratic party’s presidential nominee.
Searches for “Hillary Clinton’s he-” across three different search engines provide quite different results. When searched on Google, the first suggested searches provided are “Hillary Clinton’s headquarters,” “Hillary Clinton’s health plan,” and “Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan.”
Search results on Bing return the suggestions, “Hillary Clinton’s health,” “Hillary Clinton’s health issues,” and “Hillary Clinton’s health and weight,” while search results on Yahoo return the suggestions, “Hillary Clinton’s health problems,” Hillary Clinton’s health,” and “Hillary Clinton’s health issues.”
Earlier in August, New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo called on Google to “fix” search results related to Clinton’s health. “Google should fix this. It shouldn’t give quarter to conspiracy theorists,” he tweeted.
This isn’t the first time that Google has been accused of favouring one presidential candidate over another. In June, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accused Google of being “directly engaged in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Later that month a video was released proving that Google was altering search results in favour of the Democratic Presidential nominee.
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google parent company Alphabet, runs a pro-Clinton digital group called The Groundwork which directly focuses on Clinton’s digital media presence.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
How Google Fixes Search Results To Favor Hillary Clinton II
All of the major tech companies in the United States are promoting Hillary Clinton just as Wall Street money favors Clinton over Trump 99-1.
REPORT: In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.
Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google's autocomplete can too. A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete. Because of recent claims that Google has been deliberately tinkering with search suggestions to make Hillary Clinton look good, this is probably a good time both to examine those claims and to look at my new research.
As you will see, there is some cause for concern here. In June of this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that Google's search suggestions — often called "autocomplete" suggestions — were biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version has now been viewed more than a million times on YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute version has been viewed more than 25 million times on Facebook. The video's narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print after screen print that appeared to demonstrate that searching for just about anything related to Mrs. Clinton generated positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though Google Trends data showed that searches on Google that characterize Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common — far more common in some cases than the search terms Google was suggesting. Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did offer negative suggestions for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. "The intention is clear," said Lieberman. "Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site."
Google responded to the Sourcefed video in an email to the Washington Times, denying everything. According to the company's spokesperson, "Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause." The company explained away the apparently damning findings by saying that "Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person's name."
Since then, my associates and I at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) — a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in the San Diego area — have been systematically investigating Lieberman's claims. What we have learned has generally supported those claims, but we have also learned something new — something quite disturbing — about the power of Google's search suggestions to alter what people search for. Lieberman insisted that Google's search suggestions were biased, but he never explained why Google would introduce such bias. Our new research suggests why — and also why Google's lists of search suggestions are typically much shorter than the lists Bing and Yahoo show us. Our investigation is ongoing, but here is what we have learned so far...
The three main findings were as follows:
1) Overall, people clicked on the negative items about 40 percent of the time — that's twice as often as one would expect by chance. What's more, compared with the neutral items we showed people in searches that served as controls, negative items were selected about five times as often. 2) Among eligible, undecided voters —the impressionable people who decide close elections — negative items attracted more than 15 times as many clicks as neutral items attracted in matched control questions. 3) People affiliated with one political party selected the negative suggestion for the candidate from their own party less frequently than the negative suggestion for the other candidate.
In other words, negative suggestions attracted the largest number of clicks when they were consistent with people's biases. These findings are consistent with two well-known phenomena in the social sciences: negativity bias and confirmation bias.
Negativity bias refers to the fact that people are far more affected by negative stimuli than by positive ones. As a famous paper on the subject notes, a single cockroach in one's salad ruins the whole salad, but a piece of candy placed on a plate of disgusting crud will not make that crud seem even slightly more palatable. Negative stimuli draw more attention than neutral or positive ones, they activate more behavior, and they create stronger impressions — negative ones, of course.
In recent years, political scientists have even suggested that negativity bias plays an important role in the political choices we make — that people adopt conservative political views because they have a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli. Confirmation bias refers to the fact that people almost always seek out, pay attention to, and believe information that confirms their beliefs more than they seek out, pay attention to, or believe information that contradicts those beliefs. When you apply these two principles to search suggestions, they predict that people are far more likely to click on negative search suggestions than on neutral or positive ones — especially when those negative suggestions are consistent with their own beliefs. This is exactly what the new study confirms. Google data analysts know this too. They know because they have ready access to billions of pieces of data showing exactly how many times people click on negative search suggestions. They also know exactly how many times people click on every other kind of search suggestion one can categorize.
To put this another way, what I and other researchers must stumble upon and can study only crudely, Google employees can study with exquisite precision every day. Given Google's strong support for Mrs. Clinton, it seems reasonable to conjecture that Google employees manually suppress negative search suggestions relating to Clinton in order to reduce the number of searches people conduct that will expose them to anti-Clinton content. They appear to work a bit less hard to suppress negative search suggestions for Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders, Senator Cruz, and other prominent people.
Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google's autocomplete can too. A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete. Because of recent claims that Google has been deliberately tinkering with search suggestions to make Hillary Clinton look good, this is probably a good time both to examine those claims and to look at my new research.
As you will see, there is some cause for concern here. In June of this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that Google's search suggestions — often called "autocomplete" suggestions — were biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version has now been viewed more than a million times on YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute version has been viewed more than 25 million times on Facebook. The video's narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print after screen print that appeared to demonstrate that searching for just about anything related to Mrs. Clinton generated positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though Google Trends data showed that searches on Google that characterize Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common — far more common in some cases than the search terms Google was suggesting. Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did offer negative suggestions for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. "The intention is clear," said Lieberman. "Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site."
Google responded to the Sourcefed video in an email to the Washington Times, denying everything. According to the company's spokesperson, "Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause." The company explained away the apparently damning findings by saying that "Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person's name."
Since then, my associates and I at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) — a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in the San Diego area — have been systematically investigating Lieberman's claims. What we have learned has generally supported those claims, but we have also learned something new — something quite disturbing — about the power of Google's search suggestions to alter what people search for. Lieberman insisted that Google's search suggestions were biased, but he never explained why Google would introduce such bias. Our new research suggests why — and also why Google's lists of search suggestions are typically much shorter than the lists Bing and Yahoo show us. Our investigation is ongoing, but here is what we have learned so far...
The three main findings were as follows:
1) Overall, people clicked on the negative items about 40 percent of the time — that's twice as often as one would expect by chance. What's more, compared with the neutral items we showed people in searches that served as controls, negative items were selected about five times as often. 2) Among eligible, undecided voters —the impressionable people who decide close elections — negative items attracted more than 15 times as many clicks as neutral items attracted in matched control questions. 3) People affiliated with one political party selected the negative suggestion for the candidate from their own party less frequently than the negative suggestion for the other candidate.
In other words, negative suggestions attracted the largest number of clicks when they were consistent with people's biases. These findings are consistent with two well-known phenomena in the social sciences: negativity bias and confirmation bias.
Negativity bias refers to the fact that people are far more affected by negative stimuli than by positive ones. As a famous paper on the subject notes, a single cockroach in one's salad ruins the whole salad, but a piece of candy placed on a plate of disgusting crud will not make that crud seem even slightly more palatable. Negative stimuli draw more attention than neutral or positive ones, they activate more behavior, and they create stronger impressions — negative ones, of course.
In recent years, political scientists have even suggested that negativity bias plays an important role in the political choices we make — that people adopt conservative political views because they have a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli. Confirmation bias refers to the fact that people almost always seek out, pay attention to, and believe information that confirms their beliefs more than they seek out, pay attention to, or believe information that contradicts those beliefs. When you apply these two principles to search suggestions, they predict that people are far more likely to click on negative search suggestions than on neutral or positive ones — especially when those negative suggestions are consistent with their own beliefs. This is exactly what the new study confirms. Google data analysts know this too. They know because they have ready access to billions of pieces of data showing exactly how many times people click on negative search suggestions. They also know exactly how many times people click on every other kind of search suggestion one can categorize.
To put this another way, what I and other researchers must stumble upon and can study only crudely, Google employees can study with exquisite precision every day. Given Google's strong support for Mrs. Clinton, it seems reasonable to conjecture that Google employees manually suppress negative search suggestions relating to Clinton in order to reduce the number of searches people conduct that will expose them to anti-Clinton content. They appear to work a bit less hard to suppress negative search suggestions for Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders, Senator Cruz, and other prominent people.
How Google Fixes Search Results To Favor Hillary Clinton
Google has blackballed my website Lukeford.net from its search results since August 18.
I was curious why, so I hired a company to investigate Google's claims of malicious code on my site and it reported back to me:
In other words, the so-called malicious code was simply information about rape hoaxes that apparently Google did not like.
Google is doing everything it can to throw this election to Hillary.
Free Beacon reports:
“Crime” and “indictment” are not the only terms Google is keeping hidden from searches of Hillary Clinton, a Washington Free Beacon analysis finds.
Common search terms associated with Clinton appear to have been scrubbed from Google as the tech giant has been accused of manipulating its autocomplete results to favor the Democratic presidential candidate.
Matt Lieberman of SourceFed released a video showing examples of Google skewing its autocomplete results for Clinton, while other search engines simply display the most searched terms.
“While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton,” SourceFed wrote. “If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm.”
For example, when searching Hillary Clinton “cri,” Google finishes the phrase as “crime reform.” On Yahoo, the result is “criminal charges.” On Google’s own trend website, there were not enough searches for Hillary Clinton and “crime reform” to build a graph of the results.
Typing Hillary Clinton and “ind” gives Google users results on Hillary Clinton and Indiana. On Microsoft’s Bing search engine, a user gets Hillary Clinton and “indictment,” yielding results for the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server.
Just putting the name “Hillary Clinton” into Google, you are directed towards searches for her “twitter,” “email,” “age,” and “speech.”
I remember what Google did to Senator Rick Santorum for a decade:
In 2010 Savage said he would take the site down if Santorum donated US$5 million plus interest to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.[5] In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. Google refused, responding that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances...
When asked in June 2011 whether Google should step in to prevent the definition appearing so prominently under searches for his name, Santorum said they should intervene only if they would normally do so in this kind of circumstance.[20] In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to intervene by altering the indexing of the content, saying, "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country...To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle but I suspect that's not true."[6] In response to Santorum's request, a Google spokesperson asserted that Google does not "remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."[6]
According to Talking Points Memo (TPM), "Google did crack down" on google-bombing in the past.[44] In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb", when it was actually a relevant use of the search query santorum to create "a new definition for the word".[44] Sullivan argued that, in a Google bomb, pranksters persuade Google's algorithm to send the wrong results for a certain term (e.g., when pranksters caused the search term "miserable failure" to point to the White House website's presidential biography page). In Santorum's case, on the other hand, the term "santorum" still points to a web page about a "santorum"—which happens to be Savage's neologism instead of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Sullivan concluded that, "for [Senator Santorum] to say Google could get rid of it would be like him saying, 'I don't like the word 'unicorn' and I think that that definition should go away.'"[44]
Some sources describe the neologism campaign as a prank.[45][46] However, despite three times as many inbound links,[5] observers have noted that search engines Bing and Yahoo had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.
From Observer.com:
There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is “directly engaged” in her campaign. It’s been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.
So it should come as no surprise that there have been multiple reports accusing Google of manipulating searches to bury negative stories about Clinton. SourceFed details how Google alters its auto-complete functions to paint Clinton in a positive light.
For example, when you type “Hillary Clinton cri” into other engines like Yahoo! or Bing, the most popular autofills are “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” but in Google it’s “Hillary Clinton crime reform.” Google denies they changed their algorithm to help Clinton, and insists the company does not favor any candidate. They also claim their algorithms don’t show predicted queries that are offensive or disparaging.
But Google has gotten into hot water on multiple occasions for connecting Trump to Adolf Hitler. In June, when users searched “when Hitler was born” it generated the expected information on Hitler but also an image of Trump. In July, searches for Trump’s book, Crippled America, returned images of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf. Google has since fixed both—but again, why do these issues always conveniently disparage Trump and help Clinton?
Twitter is another culprit. The company has gotten a lot of slack for banning conservatives and Trump supporters such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos and, most recently, rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump. Twitter has provided vague answers as to why conservative voices have been banned while they’ve allowed other users to call for the killing of cops.
Just yesterday, Buzzfeed revealed that the social media giant’s top executive personally protected the President from seeing critical messages last year. “In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama.”
This year, Twitter isn’t just banning conservatives—the platform also changed its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.
The founders of some of the most popular pro-Trump Twitter handles—including @USAforTrump2016 and @WeNeedTrump—insist Twitter is censoring their content. They’ve pointed out that Twitter changes trending hashtags associated with negative tweets about Clinton (which has been reported before). On August 4, shortly after the hashtag “HillaryAccomplishment” began trending, it was taken over by anti-Clinton users, who used it to mention Benghazi or Emailgate. Eric Spracklen, @USAforTrump2016 founder, noticed the hashtag was quickly changed—pluralized to #HillarysAccomplishments.
“They take away the hashtag that has negative tweets for Clinton and replace it with something that doesn’t so the average person doesn’t see what was really trending,” Spracklen said. “This happens every day.”
Jack Murphy, founder of @WeNeedTrump, says followers complain they often aren’t able to retweet his pro-Trump tweets.
Instagram has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light. In June, a conservative comedy group called Toughen Up America was banned with no warning or explanation. Last week, the popular Australian-based graffiti artist, Lushsux, was banned from Instagram after he posted photos of a bikini-clad Clinton mural he painted.
“I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat, but the timing of the Hillary Clinton mural posting and the deletion that ensued can’t just be a coincidence,” he told the Daily Mail Australia. Lushsux has posted photos of way more graphic murals, including a topless Melania Trump and a naked Donald with his package in full sight. These images did not trigger any censorship from Instagram.
Facebook has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices like Black Lives Matter activists. The problem became so transparent that Sen. John Thune sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain their practices.
Facebook denies it discriminates against “any sources of ideological origin” and Zuckerberg did meet with conservatives in an attempt to resolve this issue. While some walked away from the meeting encouraged that Zuckerberg wants to repair their relationship, other prominent conservatives rejected the invitation as a publicity stunt. It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.
Many conservatives have come to expect this kind of thing from the mainstream media. CNN, which paints itself as the centrist antidote to right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC, has actually been among the most disingenuous offenders during this cycle, fully earning its derisive nickname “Clinton News Network.” For example, as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday’s New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn’t think much of the Wall Street Journal‘s revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn’t mention that the payment was sent on “an unmarked cargo plane.” New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”
Another favored CNN trick is to present a “balanced” panel comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats and a host, as they did on the afternoon of July 29, just to name one instance of a hundred. However, the Republican side always features one Trump supporter and one “Never Trump” Republican, with the host grilling the Trump Supporter—often a beleaguered Jeffrey Lord—in what amounts to a 4-on-1. So much for balance.
Right now, CNN has a story on its site called “Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?” There’s no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump’s Republican challengers.
No Republican willing to criticize Trump is too insignificant to merit coverage on CNN. When a minor Christie staffer announced on her personal Facebook that she’d be backing Hillary, she somehow merited a 1200 word story on CNN’s website and euphoric coverage on the air by Brooke Baldwin for “splitting with her party.”
Daily Stormer reports:
Never forget: the Alt-Right is basically the same thing as ISIS. So every program that deals with ISIS needs to also deal with the Alt-Right.
Seriously though, the main problem is the US-backed terrorist group ISIS. Stopping online racism is just a secondary thing, tacked on, because people who disagree with political correctness are maybe also like, terrorists somehow.
RT:
Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) has made extensive use of online and social media platforms to spread its vision of radical Islam or lure recruits to wage jihad in Syria and Iraq.
…
Jigsaw, a technology incubator run by Google, has teamed up with London-based startup Moonshot CVE to design technology capable of redirecting a potential Islamist browsing for IS-related words and phrases to creative anti-extremist messages or videos.
Called ‘The Redirect Method,’ the program operated in trial mode for eight weeks from January to March, according to the Christian Science Monitor. It reached over 320,000 people searching for IS-associated keywords, from the terrorist group’s slogans to the names of buildings in Islamist-held areas.
The users’ metadata was collected during the eight-week trial and was used to send them advertisements and links to anti-extremism videos. Altogether, over half a million minutes of videos were watched by the ‘targets.’
But the pilot project was not restricted to making new videos and other content. Instead, Jigsaw and Moonshot CVE have drawn upon anti-IS video content already available on YouTube.
“It’s not just we need a huge amount of investment, we need content that’s authentic and credible,” said Vidhya Ramalingam, co-founder of Moonshot CVE, which curated English language videos for the pilot program.
Here is Vidhya talking about far-right extremism against Moslems on the BBC.
Funny, I can’t seem to find her talking about ISIS anywhere, which is strange, as ISIS is supposedly the focal point of her little project (with blocking racism simply tagged on for good measure).
In fact, all search results for her indicate that she’s an anti-racism activist who has never worked on an anti-terrorism program ever before.
She created “The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)’s programme of work on far-right extremism and integration and diversity.”
This is from her bio on Oxford University’s site (she is a senior fellow):
Xenophobia and intolerance
Racial violence
Far-right extremism and terrorism
Intervention (Disengagement and de-radicalisation)
Community resilience
Here are her articles on The Guardian, all of which are about the “far-right threat.”
If you want to ask her about this, you can hit her up on Twitter:
@vidhya_ra
I’m sure she’s got a totally good explanation.
In a second phase – set to begin later this year – Moonshot CVE and US-based company Gen Next are planning to deploy the same technology to blunt far-right messages in North America.
“The interesting thing about how they behave is they’re a little bit more brazen online these days than ISIS fan boys,” Ross Frenett, co-founder of Moonshot, told the Intercept.
“In the UK, if someone in their Facebook profile picture has a swastika and is pointing a gun at the camera, that person is committing a crime. In the US, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.”
Yeah.
This isn’t going to work, obviously, but it certainly demonstrates the level of desperation they are dealing with.
We are winning the culture war. And they are pulling out all the stops to try and shut us down.
I wonder if Google will use this program against left-wing extremism like Black Lives Matter?
The Guardian reports in 2014:
The internet giant Google has announced it is to sever its ties with an influential rightwing lobbying network, the American Legislative Exchange Council, accusing it of “lying” about climate change.
The move, ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change, delivered a victory to campaigners and the UN’s newly minted initiative to persuade companies to shun climate-denying business lobbies.
Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, told National Public Radio that the company had joined Alec, a lobby group that shares model legislation, for a campaign on an unrelated issue. But he said: “I think the consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”
Alec’s views on climate change were not in line with Google’s, he said.
“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”
Steve Sailer wrote in 2010:
Comments on the post:
* 1. This action is not "mindless" animus. It's radical ideology at work.
2. This action is not a "trivial" thing. It's a calculated attack in the Culture War.
And what about the obvious question: "Who will be next to start circling the Google memory hole?"
* I found this at the Google site:
"We try to filter out suggestions that include pornographic terms, dirty words, and hate and violence terms. If you encounter a term that should not be suggested, please let us know by posting in the Google Web Search Help Forum."
I wonder if "Pat Buchanan" was overzealously put in the "hate" terms.
* Google search removed all listings to my PrestoPundit after I broke the story about Obama's socialist father, the man Obama says gave him his political ideals.
All pleas to relist my blog were ignored.
* Do not read without a hanky: Google Maps imagery, currently available in the public area, displays at about about 1/100 of the satellite magnification imagery that is available in the restricted area of Google (not open to the public).
Do not read without a hanky: Google Chrome browser has taken user tracking to a whole new level.
Do not read without a hanky: Google has provided search engine query user files going back years to a wide variety of intel and security departments as a matter of routine - in cases with no warrant, arrest or even "person of interest" declaration.
* It's not just Google's drop-down menu that implies a leftwing bias.
Its logo also indicates that Google no like some patriotic America holidays. A few years ago, conservative groups complained that Google had not acknowledged either Memorial Day or Veterans Day with a "doodle" but had marked the launch of Sputnik by America's Cold War adversary.
Daily Mail 2010:
Search engine Google has been accused of censoring its results after users discovered it never suggests search terms when it comes to Islam.
In a time-saving feature the internet phenomenon, whose motto is 'don't be evil', helpfully suggests common searches as people type in what they are looking for.
For example, if you type in 'Christianity is' in the search bar a whole range of options flash up including controversial suggestions such as 'Christianity is fake' and 'Christianity is a cult'.
But anyone typing in a similar phrase which replaces Christianity with Islam gets no suggestions at all.
The anomaly has led some to conclude the firm, famed for its democratic approach to the world of information it controls, is censoring the search results.
Google's normal search suggestions originate from searches made around the world, adverts and known web pages.
The company also says on its website: 'We try to filter out suggestions that include pornographic terms, dirty words, and hate and violence terms. If you encounter a term that should not be suggested, please let us know by posting in the Google Web Search Help Forum.'
A Google spokesman claimed the strange absence of results was a software problem.
He said: "This is in fact a bug and we're working to fix it as quickly as we can.'
Google also makes suggestions which are in the future tense. Search for 'Islam will' and the results are very balanced, including suggestions such as 'Islam will be destroyed' and 'Islam will take over the world'.
US NEWS June 22, 2016:
The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
When Google's employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people's lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don't let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn't let Google do so either.
Let's start with the most trivial blacklist and work our way up. I'll save the biggest and baddest – one the public knows virtually nothing about but that gives Google an almost obscene amount of power over our economic well-being – until last.
1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google's search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type words such as "democracy" or "watermelon," but it freezes when you type profanities, and, at times, it has frozen when people typed words like "torrent," "bisexual" and "penis." At this writing, it's freezing when I type "clitoris." The autocomplete blacklist can also be used to protect or discredit political candidates. As recently reported, at the moment autocomplete shows you "Ted" (for former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz) when you type "lying," but it will not show you "Hillary" when you type "crooked" – not even, on my computer, anyway, when you type "crooked hill." (The nicknames for Clinton and Cruz coined by Donald Trump, of course.) If you add the "a," so you've got "crooked hilla," you get the very odd suggestion "crooked Hillary Bernie." When you type "crooked" on Bing, "crooked Hillary" pops up instantly. Google's list of forbidden terms varies by region and individual, so "clitoris" might work for you. (Can you resist checking?)...
3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company's strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube for removing her openly pro-life music video, but I can find no instances of pro-choice music being removed. YouTube also sometimes acquiesces to the censorship demands of foreign governments. Most recently, in return for overturning a three-year ban on YouTube in Pakistan, it agreed to allow Pakistan's government to determine which videos it can and cannot post.
4. The Google account blacklist. A couple of years ago, Google consolidated a number of its products – Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, YouTube, Google Wallet and others – so you can access all of them through your one Google account. If you somehow violate Google's vague and intimidating terms of service agreement, you will join the ever-growing list of people who are shut out of their accounts, which means you'll lose access to all of these interconnected products. Because virtually no one has ever read this lengthy, legalistic agreement, however, people are shocked when they're shut out, in part because Google reserves the right to "stop providing Services to you … at any time." And because Google, one of the largest and richest companies in the world, has no customer service department, getting reinstated can be difficult. (Given, however, that all of these services gather personal information about you to sell to advertisers, losing one's Google account has been judged by some to be a blessing in disguise.)
...The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software that might infect or damage people's computers. There are many such lists – even tools, such as blacklistalert.org, that scan multiple blacklists to see if your IP address is on any of them. Some lists are kind of mickey-mouse – repositories where people submit the names or IP addresses of suspect sites. Others, usually maintained by security companies that help protect other companies, are more high-tech, relying on "crawlers" – computer programs that continuously comb the internet.
But the best and longest list of suspect websites is Google's, launched in May 2007. Because Google is crawling the web more extensively than anyone else, it is also in the best position to find malicious websites. In 2012, Google acknowledged that each and every day it adds about 9,500 new websites to its quarantine list and displays malware warnings on the answers it gives to between 12 and 14 million search queries. It won't reveal the exact number of websites on the list, but it is certainly in the millions on any given day.
In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites, justifying its action by claiming that most of the websites in that domain appeared to be "spammy." According to Matt Cutts, still the leader of Google's web spam team, the company "reserves the right" to take such action when it deems it necessary. (The right? Who gave Google that right?)
And that's nothing: According to The Guardian, on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2009, at 2:40 pm GMT, Google blocked the entire internet for those impressive 40 minutes, supposedly, said the company, because of "human error" by its employees. It would have been 6:40 am in Mountain View, California, where Google is headquartered. Was this time chosen because it is one of the few hours of the week when all of the world's stock markets are closed? Could this have been another of the many pranks for which Google employees are so famous? In 2008, Google invited the public to submit applications to join the "first permanent human colony on Mars." Sorry, Marsophiles; it was just a prank.
When Google's search engine shows you a search result for a site it has quarantined, you see warnings such as, "The site ahead contains malware" or "This site may harm your computer" on the search result. That's useful information if that website actually contains malware, either because the website was set up by bad guys or because a legitimate site was infected with malware by hackers. But Google's crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that have merely been "hijacked," which means the website itself isn't dangerous but merely that accessing it through the search engine will forward you to a malicious site. My own website, http://drrobertepstein.com, was hijacked in this way in early 2012. Accessing the website directly wasn't dangerous, but trying to access it through the Google search engine forwarded users to a malicious website in Nigeria. When this happens, Google not only warns you about the infected website on its search engine (which makes sense), it also blocks you from accessing the website directly through multiple browsers – even non-Google browsers. (Hmm. Now that's odd. I'll get back to that point shortly.)
The mistakes are just one problem. The bigger problem is that even though it takes only a fraction of a second for a crawler to list you, after your site has been cleaned up Google's crawlers sometimes take days or even weeks to delist you – long enough to threaten the existence of some businesses. This is quite bizarre considering how rapidly automated online systems operate these days. Within seconds after you pay for a plane ticket online, your seat is booked, your credit card is charged, your receipt is displayed and a confirmation email shows up in your inbox – a complex series of events involving multiple computers controlled by at least three or four separate companies. But when you inform Google's automated blacklist system that your website is now clean, you are simply advised to check back occasionally to see if any action has been taken. To get delisted after your website has been repaired, you either have to struggle with the company's online Webmaster tools, which are far from friendly, or you have to hire a security expert to do so – typically for a fee ranging between $1,000 and $10,000. No expert, however, can speed up the mysterious delisting process; the best he or she can do is set it in motion.
So far, all I've told you is that Google's crawlers scan the internet, sometimes find what appear to be suspect websites and put those websites on a quarantine list. That information is then conveyed to users through the search engine. So far so good, except of course for the mistakes and the delisting problem; one might even say that Google is performing a public service, which is how some people who are familiar with the quarantine list defend it. But I also mentioned that Google somehow blocks people from accessing websites directly through multiple browsers. How on earth could it do that? How could Google block you when you are trying to access a website using Safari, an Apple product, or Firefox, a browser maintained by Mozilla, the self-proclaimed "nonprofit defender of the free and open internet"?
The key here is browsers. No browser maker wants to send you to a malicious website, and because Google has the best blacklist, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox – and Chrome, of course, Google's own browser, as well as browsers that load through Android, Google's mobile operating system – check Google's quarantine list before they send you to a website. (In November 2014, Mozilla announced it will no longer list Google as its default search engine, but it also disclosed that it will continue to rely on Google's quarantine list to screen users' search requests.)
If the site has been quarantined by Google, you see one of those big, scary images that say things like "Get me out of here!" or "Reported attack site!" At this point, given the default security settings on most browsers, most people will find it impossible to visit the site – but who would want to? If the site is not on Google's quarantine list, you are sent on your way.
OK, that explains how Google blocks you even when you're using a non-Google browser, but why do they block you? In other words, how does blocking you feed the ravenous advertising machine – the sine qua non of Google's existence?
Have you figured it out yet? The scam is as simple as it is brilliant: When a browser queries Google's quarantine list, it has just shared information with Google. With Chrome and Android, you are always giving up information to Google, but you are also doing so even if you are using non-Google browsers. That is where the money is – more information about search activity kindly provided by competing browser companies. How much information is shared will depend on the particular deal the browser company has with Google. In a maximum information deal, Google will learn the identity of the user; in a minimum information deal, Google will still learn which websites people want to visit – valuable data when one is in the business of ranking websites. Google can also charge fees for access to its quarantine list, of course, but that's not where the real gold is.
Chrome, Android, Firefox and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the U.S. – 74 percent worldwide – and these numbers are increasing. As of this writing, that means Google is regularly collecting information through its quarantine list from more than 2.5 billion people. Given the recent pact between Microsoft and Google, in coming months we might learn that Microsoft – both to save money and to improve its services – has also started using Google's quarantine list in place of its own much smaller list; this would further increase the volume of information Google is receiving.
To put this another way, Google has grown, and is still growing, on the backs of some of its competitors, with end users oblivious to Google's antics – as usual. It is yet another example of what I have called "Google's Dance" – the remarkable way in which Google puts a false and friendly public face on activities that serve only one purpose for the company: increasing profit. On the surface, Google's quarantine list is yet another way Google helps us, free of charge, breeze through our day safe and well-informed. Beneath the surface, that list is yet another way Google accumulates more information about us to sell to advertisers.
You may disagree, but in my view Google's blacklisting practices put the company into the role of thuggish internet cop – a role that was never authorized by any government, nonprofit organization or industry association. It is as if the biggest bully in town suddenly put on a badge and started patrolling, shuttering businesses as it pleased, while also secretly peeping into windows, taking photos and selling them to the highest bidder.
Consider: Heading into the holiday season in late 2013, an online handbag business suffered a 50 percent drop in business because of blacklisting. In 2009, it took an eco-friendly pest control company 60 days to leap the hurdles required to remove Google's warnings, long enough to nearly go broke. And sometimes the blacklisting process appears to be personal: In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered "When Did Google Become the Internet Police?" after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: "It's funny," he wrote, "how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?"
Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google "blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google's founders" – Eric Schmidt – "in a story about growing privacy concerns." The company declined to comment on CNN's story.
Google's mysterious and self-serving practice of blacklisting is one of many reasons Google should be regulated, just as phone companies and credit bureaus are. The E.U.'s recent antitrust actions against Google, the recently leaked FTC staff report about Google's biased search rankings, President Obama's call for regulating internet service providers – all have merit, but they overlook another danger. No one company, which is accountable to its shareholders but not to the general public, should have the power to instantly put another company out of business or block access to any website in the world. How frequently Google acts irresponsibly is beside the point; it has the ability to do so, which means that in a matter of seconds any of Google's 37,000 employees with the right passwords or skills could laser a business or political candidate into oblivion or even freeze much of the world's economy.
I was curious why, so I hired a company to investigate Google's claims of malicious code on my site and it reported back to me:
Hey there,
I have just finished working on this site and everything looks to be clean...
Also it looks like both Google alerts are caused by the following post.
http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=104020
In particular the following extract from it:
===
"Here Are EIGHT Campus Rape Hoaxes Eerily Like The UVA Rape Story"
===
It is is false alarm from Google side
We've gone ahead and submitted the website to Google Webmaster Tools for blacklist review. They usually revoke the warning after a couple of days although sometimes they can take up to 72 hours.
You also may try just to omit the name of the article or rephrase this paragraph so Google will exclude the article from its blacklist faster (because it will stop triggering false alarms).
In other words, the so-called malicious code was simply information about rape hoaxes that apparently Google did not like.
Google is doing everything it can to throw this election to Hillary.
Free Beacon reports:
Here Are 10 More Examples of Google Search Results Favorable to Hillary
“Crime” and “indictment” are not the only terms Google is keeping hidden from searches of Hillary Clinton, a Washington Free Beacon analysis finds.
Common search terms associated with Clinton appear to have been scrubbed from Google as the tech giant has been accused of manipulating its autocomplete results to favor the Democratic presidential candidate.
Matt Lieberman of SourceFed released a video showing examples of Google skewing its autocomplete results for Clinton, while other search engines simply display the most searched terms.
“While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton,” SourceFed wrote. “If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm.”
For example, when searching Hillary Clinton “cri,” Google finishes the phrase as “crime reform.” On Yahoo, the result is “criminal charges.” On Google’s own trend website, there were not enough searches for Hillary Clinton and “crime reform” to build a graph of the results.
Typing Hillary Clinton and “ind” gives Google users results on Hillary Clinton and Indiana. On Microsoft’s Bing search engine, a user gets Hillary Clinton and “indictment,” yielding results for the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server.
Just putting the name “Hillary Clinton” into Google, you are directed towards searches for her “twitter,” “email,” “age,” and “speech.”
I remember what Google did to Senator Rick Santorum for a decade:
The campaign for the neologism "santorum" started with a contest held in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a sex columnist and LGBT rights activist. Savage asked his readers to create a definition for the word "santorum"[1][2] in response to then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality, and comments about same sex marriage. In his comments, Santorum had stated that "[i]n every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."[3] Savage announced the winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". He created a web site, spreadingsantorum.com (and santorum.com), to promote the definition, which became a top internet search result displacing the Senator's official website on many search engines, including Google, Yahoo! Search, and Bing.[4]
In 2010 Savage said he would take the site down if Santorum donated US$5 million plus interest to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.[5] In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. Google refused, responding that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances...
When asked in June 2011 whether Google should step in to prevent the definition appearing so prominently under searches for his name, Santorum said they should intervene only if they would normally do so in this kind of circumstance.[20] In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to intervene by altering the indexing of the content, saying, "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country...To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle but I suspect that's not true."[6] In response to Santorum's request, a Google spokesperson asserted that Google does not "remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."[6]
According to Talking Points Memo (TPM), "Google did crack down" on google-bombing in the past.[44] In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb", when it was actually a relevant use of the search query santorum to create "a new definition for the word".[44] Sullivan argued that, in a Google bomb, pranksters persuade Google's algorithm to send the wrong results for a certain term (e.g., when pranksters caused the search term "miserable failure" to point to the White House website's presidential biography page). In Santorum's case, on the other hand, the term "santorum" still points to a web page about a "santorum"—which happens to be Savage's neologism instead of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Sullivan concluded that, "for [Senator Santorum] to say Google could get rid of it would be like him saying, 'I don't like the word 'unicorn' and I think that that definition should go away.'"[44]
Some sources describe the neologism campaign as a prank.[45][46] However, despite three times as many inbound links,[5] observers have noted that search engines Bing and Yahoo had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.
From Observer.com:
Tech Companies Apple, Twitter, Google and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump
There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is “directly engaged” in her campaign. It’s been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.
So it should come as no surprise that there have been multiple reports accusing Google of manipulating searches to bury negative stories about Clinton. SourceFed details how Google alters its auto-complete functions to paint Clinton in a positive light.
For example, when you type “Hillary Clinton cri” into other engines like Yahoo! or Bing, the most popular autofills are “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” but in Google it’s “Hillary Clinton crime reform.” Google denies they changed their algorithm to help Clinton, and insists the company does not favor any candidate. They also claim their algorithms don’t show predicted queries that are offensive or disparaging.
But Google has gotten into hot water on multiple occasions for connecting Trump to Adolf Hitler. In June, when users searched “when Hitler was born” it generated the expected information on Hitler but also an image of Trump. In July, searches for Trump’s book, Crippled America, returned images of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf. Google has since fixed both—but again, why do these issues always conveniently disparage Trump and help Clinton?
Twitter is another culprit. The company has gotten a lot of slack for banning conservatives and Trump supporters such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos and, most recently, rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump. Twitter has provided vague answers as to why conservative voices have been banned while they’ve allowed other users to call for the killing of cops.
Just yesterday, Buzzfeed revealed that the social media giant’s top executive personally protected the President from seeing critical messages last year. “In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama.”
This year, Twitter isn’t just banning conservatives—the platform also changed its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.
The founders of some of the most popular pro-Trump Twitter handles—including @USAforTrump2016 and @WeNeedTrump—insist Twitter is censoring their content. They’ve pointed out that Twitter changes trending hashtags associated with negative tweets about Clinton (which has been reported before). On August 4, shortly after the hashtag “HillaryAccomplishment” began trending, it was taken over by anti-Clinton users, who used it to mention Benghazi or Emailgate. Eric Spracklen, @USAforTrump2016 founder, noticed the hashtag was quickly changed—pluralized to #HillarysAccomplishments.
“They take away the hashtag that has negative tweets for Clinton and replace it with something that doesn’t so the average person doesn’t see what was really trending,” Spracklen said. “This happens every day.”
Jack Murphy, founder of @WeNeedTrump, says followers complain they often aren’t able to retweet his pro-Trump tweets.
Instagram has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light. In June, a conservative comedy group called Toughen Up America was banned with no warning or explanation. Last week, the popular Australian-based graffiti artist, Lushsux, was banned from Instagram after he posted photos of a bikini-clad Clinton mural he painted.
“I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat, but the timing of the Hillary Clinton mural posting and the deletion that ensued can’t just be a coincidence,” he told the Daily Mail Australia. Lushsux has posted photos of way more graphic murals, including a topless Melania Trump and a naked Donald with his package in full sight. These images did not trigger any censorship from Instagram.
Facebook has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices like Black Lives Matter activists. The problem became so transparent that Sen. John Thune sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain their practices.
Facebook denies it discriminates against “any sources of ideological origin” and Zuckerberg did meet with conservatives in an attempt to resolve this issue. While some walked away from the meeting encouraged that Zuckerberg wants to repair their relationship, other prominent conservatives rejected the invitation as a publicity stunt. It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.
Many conservatives have come to expect this kind of thing from the mainstream media. CNN, which paints itself as the centrist antidote to right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC, has actually been among the most disingenuous offenders during this cycle, fully earning its derisive nickname “Clinton News Network.” For example, as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday’s New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn’t think much of the Wall Street Journal‘s revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn’t mention that the payment was sent on “an unmarked cargo plane.” New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”
Another favored CNN trick is to present a “balanced” panel comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats and a host, as they did on the afternoon of July 29, just to name one instance of a hundred. However, the Republican side always features one Trump supporter and one “Never Trump” Republican, with the host grilling the Trump Supporter—often a beleaguered Jeffrey Lord—in what amounts to a 4-on-1. So much for balance.
Right now, CNN has a story on its site called “Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?” There’s no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump’s Republican challengers.
No Republican willing to criticize Trump is too insignificant to merit coverage on CNN. When a minor Christie staffer announced on her personal Facebook that she’d be backing Hillary, she somehow merited a 1200 word story on CNN’s website and euphoric coverage on the air by Brooke Baldwin for “splitting with her party.”
Daily Stormer reports:
Paki Anti-Racist Recruited by Google to Change Search Results on Alt-Right Searches!
Never forget: the Alt-Right is basically the same thing as ISIS. So every program that deals with ISIS needs to also deal with the Alt-Right.
Seriously though, the main problem is the US-backed terrorist group ISIS. Stopping online racism is just a secondary thing, tacked on, because people who disagree with political correctness are maybe also like, terrorists somehow.
RT:
A pilot project launched by Google’s startup incubator and a British IT company will target potential Islamic State recruits – and also the American far right – with new software that pairs violence-related search entries with anti-extremism ads.
Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) has made extensive use of online and social media platforms to spread its vision of radical Islam or lure recruits to wage jihad in Syria and Iraq.
…
Jigsaw, a technology incubator run by Google, has teamed up with London-based startup Moonshot CVE to design technology capable of redirecting a potential Islamist browsing for IS-related words and phrases to creative anti-extremist messages or videos.
Called ‘The Redirect Method,’ the program operated in trial mode for eight weeks from January to March, according to the Christian Science Monitor. It reached over 320,000 people searching for IS-associated keywords, from the terrorist group’s slogans to the names of buildings in Islamist-held areas.
The users’ metadata was collected during the eight-week trial and was used to send them advertisements and links to anti-extremism videos. Altogether, over half a million minutes of videos were watched by the ‘targets.’
But the pilot project was not restricted to making new videos and other content. Instead, Jigsaw and Moonshot CVE have drawn upon anti-IS video content already available on YouTube.
“It’s not just we need a huge amount of investment, we need content that’s authentic and credible,” said Vidhya Ramalingam, co-founder of Moonshot CVE, which curated English language videos for the pilot program.
Here is Vidhya talking about far-right extremism against Moslems on the BBC.
Funny, I can’t seem to find her talking about ISIS anywhere, which is strange, as ISIS is supposedly the focal point of her little project (with blocking racism simply tagged on for good measure).
In fact, all search results for her indicate that she’s an anti-racism activist who has never worked on an anti-terrorism program ever before.
She created “The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)’s programme of work on far-right extremism and integration and diversity.”
This is from her bio on Oxford University’s site (she is a senior fellow):
Vidhya regularly advises governments, NGOs and international organisations on:
Here are her articles on The Guardian, all of which are about the “far-right threat.”
If you want to ask her about this, you can hit her up on Twitter:
@vidhya_ra
I’m sure she’s got a totally good explanation.
Yasmin Green, head of research at Jigsaw, was quoted by the Intercept as saying: “The branding philosophy for the entire pilot project was not to appear judgmental or be moralistic, but really to pique interest of individuals who have questions, questions that are being raised and answered by the Islamic State.”
The Jigsaw project to date includes 30 ad campaigns and 95 unique ads in English and Arabic, but the de-radicalization effort will not be limited to Islamic State.
In a second phase – set to begin later this year – Moonshot CVE and US-based company Gen Next are planning to deploy the same technology to blunt far-right messages in North America.
“The interesting thing about how they behave is they’re a little bit more brazen online these days than ISIS fan boys,” Ross Frenett, co-founder of Moonshot, told the Intercept.
“In the UK, if someone in their Facebook profile picture has a swastika and is pointing a gun at the camera, that person is committing a crime. In the US, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.”
Yeah.
This isn’t going to work, obviously, but it certainly demonstrates the level of desperation they are dealing with.
We are winning the culture war. And they are pulling out all the stops to try and shut us down.
I wonder if Google will use this program against left-wing extremism like Black Lives Matter?
The Guardian reports in 2014:
Google to cut ties with rightwing lobby group over climate change 'lies'
The internet giant Google has announced it is to sever its ties with an influential rightwing lobbying network, the American Legislative Exchange Council, accusing it of “lying” about climate change.
The move, ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change, delivered a victory to campaigners and the UN’s newly minted initiative to persuade companies to shun climate-denying business lobbies.
Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, told National Public Radio that the company had joined Alec, a lobby group that shares model legislation, for a campaign on an unrelated issue. But he said: “I think the consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”
Alec’s views on climate change were not in line with Google’s, he said.
“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”
Steve Sailer wrote in 2010:
The main Google searchbox on Google.com has a feature where if you start typing a phrase it tries to anticipate what you have in mind and offer the complete phrase in a drop down pick list based on what other users have asked. For example if you type into Google's searchboxHow do I
Google offers ten suggestions for completing this entry, beginning with these three useful questions:How do I find my IP address
How do I know if im pregnant
How do I get a passport
Commenter Victoria points out that if you type in, however, Pat Bu, Google offers you the following ten prompts:Pat BurrellWho are these people?
Pat bus schedule
Pat Buttram
Pat Burrell stats
Pat Burns
Pat Burrell wife
Pat Burke
Pat Buckley Moss
Pat Buckley
Pat Burns cancer
Using the power of Google, it's easy to discover that Pat Burrell is a leftfielder, Pat Buttram was Gene Autry's sidekick in 1930s singing cowboy movies and later Mr. Haney on Green Acres. Pat Burns is a former hockey coach. Pat Buckley Moss is a painter. Pat Buckley was the wife of William F. Buckley.
Somehow, I don't think those are the most famous Pat Bu...s on the Internet today.
If you type in Pat Buc, then Google just gives up giving you prompts, which it doesn't with other letters. For example, Pat But prompts you with a whole bunch of new names even more obscure than the immortal Pat Buttram.
Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. So, let's type into Google Patrick Bu. And we get another list of prompts, but none of them include He Who Must Not Be Named.
Finally if you type in Patrick J. you'll get a list of prompts of people named Patrick J. Something, none of them as famous as Patrick J. Buchanan, winner of the 1996 New Hampshire GOP Presidential primary.
Of course, Google can't (yet?) delete Pat Buchanan from their main search engine, just from the prompts. If you type Pat Buchanan into Google's searchbox, you get back:Results 1 - 20 of about 1,630,000 for pat buchanan. (0.22 seconds)
In contrast, if you type in Pat Buttram:Results 1 - 20 of about 49,300 for pat buttram. (0.32 seconds)
It's the sheer pettiness of Google going to the trouble of banning Pat Buchanan from its little prompting feature, one of its least important, that is so amusing and eye-opening.
P.S.: Richard Hoste points out in comments that Yahoo.com's search bar has the same prompting engine, with Pat Buchanan being the first of the Pat Bu and second, behind Pat Benatar, for Pat B. Another commenter points out the Microsoft's Bing search bar delivers the same prompts as Yahoo: Buchanan is the #1 Pat Bu and #2 Pat B.
So, somebody at Google is doing this intentionally. To repeat, this one example isn't at all important -- what's striking is the mindless animus of somebody at Google that would lead to going to all the trouble of doing such a trivial thing.
And because Google is so close to being a monopoly, it's crucial that the public monitor abuses by Google stemming from Google's not exactly subtle political biases, such as this silly little thing or the more serious annihilation of Mangan's blog in November (which was rectified after many complaints).
Ridicule is the best medicine.
Comments on the post:
* 1. This action is not "mindless" animus. It's radical ideology at work.
2. This action is not a "trivial" thing. It's a calculated attack in the Culture War.
And what about the obvious question: "Who will be next to start circling the Google memory hole?"
* I found this at the Google site:
"We try to filter out suggestions that include pornographic terms, dirty words, and hate and violence terms. If you encounter a term that should not be suggested, please let us know by posting in the Google Web Search Help Forum."
I wonder if "Pat Buchanan" was overzealously put in the "hate" terms.
* Google search removed all listings to my PrestoPundit after I broke the story about Obama's socialist father, the man Obama says gave him his political ideals.
All pleas to relist my blog were ignored.
* Do not read without a hanky: Google Maps imagery, currently available in the public area, displays at about about 1/100 of the satellite magnification imagery that is available in the restricted area of Google (not open to the public).
Do not read without a hanky: Google Chrome browser has taken user tracking to a whole new level.
Do not read without a hanky: Google has provided search engine query user files going back years to a wide variety of intel and security departments as a matter of routine - in cases with no warrant, arrest or even "person of interest" declaration.
* It's not just Google's drop-down menu that implies a leftwing bias.
Its logo also indicates that Google no like some patriotic America holidays. A few years ago, conservative groups complained that Google had not acknowledged either Memorial Day or Veterans Day with a "doodle" but had marked the launch of Sputnik by America's Cold War adversary.
Daily Mail 2010:
Google 'censors its website so anti-Islam searches fail to appear'
Search engine Google has been accused of censoring its results after users discovered it never suggests search terms when it comes to Islam.
In a time-saving feature the internet phenomenon, whose motto is 'don't be evil', helpfully suggests common searches as people type in what they are looking for.
For example, if you type in 'Christianity is' in the search bar a whole range of options flash up including controversial suggestions such as 'Christianity is fake' and 'Christianity is a cult'.
But anyone typing in a similar phrase which replaces Christianity with Islam gets no suggestions at all.
The anomaly has led some to conclude the firm, famed for its democratic approach to the world of information it controls, is censoring the search results.
Google's normal search suggestions originate from searches made around the world, adverts and known web pages.
The company also says on its website: 'We try to filter out suggestions that include pornographic terms, dirty words, and hate and violence terms. If you encounter a term that should not be suggested, please let us know by posting in the Google Web Search Help Forum.'
A Google spokesman claimed the strange absence of results was a software problem.
He said: "This is in fact a bug and we're working to fix it as quickly as we can.'
Google also makes suggestions which are in the future tense. Search for 'Islam will' and the results are very balanced, including suggestions such as 'Islam will be destroyed' and 'Islam will take over the world'.
US NEWS June 22, 2016:
How did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?
The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
When Google's employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people's lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don't let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn't let Google do so either.
Let's start with the most trivial blacklist and work our way up. I'll save the biggest and baddest – one the public knows virtually nothing about but that gives Google an almost obscene amount of power over our economic well-being – until last.
1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google's search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type words such as "democracy" or "watermelon," but it freezes when you type profanities, and, at times, it has frozen when people typed words like "torrent," "bisexual" and "penis." At this writing, it's freezing when I type "clitoris." The autocomplete blacklist can also be used to protect or discredit political candidates. As recently reported, at the moment autocomplete shows you "Ted" (for former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz) when you type "lying," but it will not show you "Hillary" when you type "crooked" – not even, on my computer, anyway, when you type "crooked hill." (The nicknames for Clinton and Cruz coined by Donald Trump, of course.) If you add the "a," so you've got "crooked hilla," you get the very odd suggestion "crooked Hillary Bernie." When you type "crooked" on Bing, "crooked Hillary" pops up instantly. Google's list of forbidden terms varies by region and individual, so "clitoris" might work for you. (Can you resist checking?)...
3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company's strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube for removing her openly pro-life music video, but I can find no instances of pro-choice music being removed. YouTube also sometimes acquiesces to the censorship demands of foreign governments. Most recently, in return for overturning a three-year ban on YouTube in Pakistan, it agreed to allow Pakistan's government to determine which videos it can and cannot post.
4. The Google account blacklist. A couple of years ago, Google consolidated a number of its products – Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, YouTube, Google Wallet and others – so you can access all of them through your one Google account. If you somehow violate Google's vague and intimidating terms of service agreement, you will join the ever-growing list of people who are shut out of their accounts, which means you'll lose access to all of these interconnected products. Because virtually no one has ever read this lengthy, legalistic agreement, however, people are shocked when they're shut out, in part because Google reserves the right to "stop providing Services to you … at any time." And because Google, one of the largest and richest companies in the world, has no customer service department, getting reinstated can be difficult. (Given, however, that all of these services gather personal information about you to sell to advertisers, losing one's Google account has been judged by some to be a blessing in disguise.)
...The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software that might infect or damage people's computers. There are many such lists – even tools, such as blacklistalert.org, that scan multiple blacklists to see if your IP address is on any of them. Some lists are kind of mickey-mouse – repositories where people submit the names or IP addresses of suspect sites. Others, usually maintained by security companies that help protect other companies, are more high-tech, relying on "crawlers" – computer programs that continuously comb the internet.
But the best and longest list of suspect websites is Google's, launched in May 2007. Because Google is crawling the web more extensively than anyone else, it is also in the best position to find malicious websites. In 2012, Google acknowledged that each and every day it adds about 9,500 new websites to its quarantine list and displays malware warnings on the answers it gives to between 12 and 14 million search queries. It won't reveal the exact number of websites on the list, but it is certainly in the millions on any given day.
In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites, justifying its action by claiming that most of the websites in that domain appeared to be "spammy." According to Matt Cutts, still the leader of Google's web spam team, the company "reserves the right" to take such action when it deems it necessary. (The right? Who gave Google that right?)
And that's nothing: According to The Guardian, on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2009, at 2:40 pm GMT, Google blocked the entire internet for those impressive 40 minutes, supposedly, said the company, because of "human error" by its employees. It would have been 6:40 am in Mountain View, California, where Google is headquartered. Was this time chosen because it is one of the few hours of the week when all of the world's stock markets are closed? Could this have been another of the many pranks for which Google employees are so famous? In 2008, Google invited the public to submit applications to join the "first permanent human colony on Mars." Sorry, Marsophiles; it was just a prank.
When Google's search engine shows you a search result for a site it has quarantined, you see warnings such as, "The site ahead contains malware" or "This site may harm your computer" on the search result. That's useful information if that website actually contains malware, either because the website was set up by bad guys or because a legitimate site was infected with malware by hackers. But Google's crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that have merely been "hijacked," which means the website itself isn't dangerous but merely that accessing it through the search engine will forward you to a malicious site. My own website, http://drrobertepstein.com, was hijacked in this way in early 2012. Accessing the website directly wasn't dangerous, but trying to access it through the Google search engine forwarded users to a malicious website in Nigeria. When this happens, Google not only warns you about the infected website on its search engine (which makes sense), it also blocks you from accessing the website directly through multiple browsers – even non-Google browsers. (Hmm. Now that's odd. I'll get back to that point shortly.)
The mistakes are just one problem. The bigger problem is that even though it takes only a fraction of a second for a crawler to list you, after your site has been cleaned up Google's crawlers sometimes take days or even weeks to delist you – long enough to threaten the existence of some businesses. This is quite bizarre considering how rapidly automated online systems operate these days. Within seconds after you pay for a plane ticket online, your seat is booked, your credit card is charged, your receipt is displayed and a confirmation email shows up in your inbox – a complex series of events involving multiple computers controlled by at least three or four separate companies. But when you inform Google's automated blacklist system that your website is now clean, you are simply advised to check back occasionally to see if any action has been taken. To get delisted after your website has been repaired, you either have to struggle with the company's online Webmaster tools, which are far from friendly, or you have to hire a security expert to do so – typically for a fee ranging between $1,000 and $10,000. No expert, however, can speed up the mysterious delisting process; the best he or she can do is set it in motion.
So far, all I've told you is that Google's crawlers scan the internet, sometimes find what appear to be suspect websites and put those websites on a quarantine list. That information is then conveyed to users through the search engine. So far so good, except of course for the mistakes and the delisting problem; one might even say that Google is performing a public service, which is how some people who are familiar with the quarantine list defend it. But I also mentioned that Google somehow blocks people from accessing websites directly through multiple browsers. How on earth could it do that? How could Google block you when you are trying to access a website using Safari, an Apple product, or Firefox, a browser maintained by Mozilla, the self-proclaimed "nonprofit defender of the free and open internet"?
The key here is browsers. No browser maker wants to send you to a malicious website, and because Google has the best blacklist, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox – and Chrome, of course, Google's own browser, as well as browsers that load through Android, Google's mobile operating system – check Google's quarantine list before they send you to a website. (In November 2014, Mozilla announced it will no longer list Google as its default search engine, but it also disclosed that it will continue to rely on Google's quarantine list to screen users' search requests.)
If the site has been quarantined by Google, you see one of those big, scary images that say things like "Get me out of here!" or "Reported attack site!" At this point, given the default security settings on most browsers, most people will find it impossible to visit the site – but who would want to? If the site is not on Google's quarantine list, you are sent on your way.
OK, that explains how Google blocks you even when you're using a non-Google browser, but why do they block you? In other words, how does blocking you feed the ravenous advertising machine – the sine qua non of Google's existence?
Have you figured it out yet? The scam is as simple as it is brilliant: When a browser queries Google's quarantine list, it has just shared information with Google. With Chrome and Android, you are always giving up information to Google, but you are also doing so even if you are using non-Google browsers. That is where the money is – more information about search activity kindly provided by competing browser companies. How much information is shared will depend on the particular deal the browser company has with Google. In a maximum information deal, Google will learn the identity of the user; in a minimum information deal, Google will still learn which websites people want to visit – valuable data when one is in the business of ranking websites. Google can also charge fees for access to its quarantine list, of course, but that's not where the real gold is.
Chrome, Android, Firefox and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the U.S. – 74 percent worldwide – and these numbers are increasing. As of this writing, that means Google is regularly collecting information through its quarantine list from more than 2.5 billion people. Given the recent pact between Microsoft and Google, in coming months we might learn that Microsoft – both to save money and to improve its services – has also started using Google's quarantine list in place of its own much smaller list; this would further increase the volume of information Google is receiving.
To put this another way, Google has grown, and is still growing, on the backs of some of its competitors, with end users oblivious to Google's antics – as usual. It is yet another example of what I have called "Google's Dance" – the remarkable way in which Google puts a false and friendly public face on activities that serve only one purpose for the company: increasing profit. On the surface, Google's quarantine list is yet another way Google helps us, free of charge, breeze through our day safe and well-informed. Beneath the surface, that list is yet another way Google accumulates more information about us to sell to advertisers.
You may disagree, but in my view Google's blacklisting practices put the company into the role of thuggish internet cop – a role that was never authorized by any government, nonprofit organization or industry association. It is as if the biggest bully in town suddenly put on a badge and started patrolling, shuttering businesses as it pleased, while also secretly peeping into windows, taking photos and selling them to the highest bidder.
Consider: Heading into the holiday season in late 2013, an online handbag business suffered a 50 percent drop in business because of blacklisting. In 2009, it took an eco-friendly pest control company 60 days to leap the hurdles required to remove Google's warnings, long enough to nearly go broke. And sometimes the blacklisting process appears to be personal: In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered "When Did Google Become the Internet Police?" after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: "It's funny," he wrote, "how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?"
Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google "blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google's founders" – Eric Schmidt – "in a story about growing privacy concerns." The company declined to comment on CNN's story.
Google's mysterious and self-serving practice of blacklisting is one of many reasons Google should be regulated, just as phone companies and credit bureaus are. The E.U.'s recent antitrust actions against Google, the recently leaked FTC staff report about Google's biased search rankings, President Obama's call for regulating internet service providers – all have merit, but they overlook another danger. No one company, which is accountable to its shareholders but not to the general public, should have the power to instantly put another company out of business or block access to any website in the world. How frequently Google acts irresponsibly is beside the point; it has the ability to do so, which means that in a matter of seconds any of Google's 37,000 employees with the right passwords or skills could laser a business or political candidate into oblivion or even freeze much of the world's economy.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Trump Supporters Unleash Anti-Semitic Tweets at NY Times Editor
Such delicate sensitive souls all shocked and horrified by the hate.
If you love good, you hate evil. If you love your people, you hate their enemies. That's how the world works.
A Torah Jew does not pay attention to such things as racism and bigotry. He doesn't worry about anti-Semitism.
I'm probably a bad person for saying this, but I'm kinda glad that few people are paying attention to the bigotry slur anymore.
I love how the following story ends, congratulating Weisman for stepping away from his Twitter experiment before he loses his mind. Since when has confronting people who hate you a likely cause of insanity? Only if you are a delicate flower.
(JTA) — New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman is clearly familiar with the anti-Semitism of some Donald Trump supporters in the Twittersphere. So maybe he shouldn’t be surprised by the reaction to his own tweet calling them out for it.
But it’s hard not to be a little shocked.
On Thursday, Weisman referred to Trump’s wavering renunciation of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke back in February, Melania Trump’s justification of the anti-Semitism unleashed on reporter Julia Ioffe for her GQ profile of the would-be first lady last week and Sheldon Adelson’s recent appeal for Republican Jewish leaders to support the presumptive GOP nominee for president — all in less than 140 characters. .
Melania Trump says @juliaioffe provoked vile antisemitism. Klan all in & Adelson urges Jews to back @realDonaldTrumphttps://t.co/7wFJwVFOSt — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016
Weisman’s tweet caught the eye of “Cyber Trump,” who proceeded to bait the Washington, D.C.-based Jewish journalist into a response.
@jonathanweisman@AriFleischer do you wish to remain hidden, to be thought one of the goyim by the masses? — CyberTrump (@Rusted_Ovum) May 19, 2016
@jonathanweisman@AriFleischer This isn’t academy, Weisman - you can’t snub your way out of accountability for who you are. — CyberTrump (@Rusted_Ovum) May 19, 2016
Flabbergasted that antisemitism in the Trump voter ranks isn’t getting more attention, at least from the @RJC . https://t.co/qt5uI5bUIb — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016
After the exchange made waves in the Twitterverse, the anti-Semitic deluge only got far, far worse. Weisman retweeted the responses.
@jonathanweisman@RJC@Rusted_Ovumpic.twitter.com/Xwj2BiWeJ8 — Spectre ✘ (@SpectreReturns) May 19, 2016
@jonathanweisman Another reporter and I received a photo on Twitter recently of Jews at a concentration camp, telling us to move to Israel — Rebecca Shabad (@RebeccaShabad) May 19, 2016
@jonathanweismanpic.twitter.com/iVqpMu22pO — Timmy Norris (@AgentTimothy) May 19, 2016
@RebeccaShabad@jonathanweisman Do it kike; after the Mexicans and Muslims you filth are next. — pantsukampfwagen (@pantsukampf) May 19, 2016
Pictured: @jonathanweismanpic.twitter.com/yy59dyN2Rv — Mandrake (@vicmandrake) May 19, 2016
Some took notice and attempted to throw Weisman a life preserver.
I just had a look at @jonathanweisman ’s feed and I’m half-convinced civil society is doomed in this country. — Andrew Edwards (@AndrewEdwardsLB) May 19, 2016
@jonathanweisman People are horrible. I’m sorry this is happening to you. — Game: Blouses (@knck1es) May 19, 2016
But Weisman ultimately had to check out, presumably lest he go off the deep end.
For those who sent kind thoughts, thank you. Antisemites, thank you for showing yourselves. No more retweets. My work is done for the day. — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Is Donald Trump A Potential Fuhrer?
Mike Enoch tells Richard Spencer: "Donald Trump hits liberals with a visceral fear... His appearance. He's tall, blonde, Aryan-looking. I'm in control. These Fuhrer-esque characteristics... There's this gut fear amongst liberal and Jews. Here's this goy-looking powerful guy saying all this nationalist stuff. That's bad for us."
Mike: "The neo-con movement has no interest in the preservation of a white Gentile majority in the United States. You could say that they should because without the white gentile majority they are finished. With all the Mexicans, Muslims, Africans coming in, these people will sympathize with the Palestinians. Latin Americans big time sympathize with the Palestinians. They are not going to have any religious feelings about the Holocaust. They are not subject to this guilt trip that white people are."
"Michael Savage says that if we lose this white Christian Protestant majority, Israel is done. Israel is done without the United States."
Richard: "Jewish power has functioned on a basis of white Protestants and it can't without them."
Mike: "They consistently attack the white Protestant majority and that is what they need to sustain themselves."
Richard: "It's the parasite destroying the host."
"A higher percentage of white Protestants believe that Jews are the Chosen People than Jews believe Jews are the Chosen People."
WP: Trump has a stranglehold on the GOP nomination. So why isn’t he getting credit?
Chris Cillizza writes: Donald Trump cruised to a double-digit win over the Republican field on Saturday in South Carolina. It was his second straight easy win — coming 11 days after he swept the New Hampshire primary by nearly 17 points.
Those back-to-back victories coupled with Trump’s second-place finish in Iowa’s caucuses — in which he took the second-most votes of any Republican candidate ever — affirm a very simple yet still not fully grasped fact: Donald Trump is the heavy favorite to be the Republican presidential nominee this fall...
Why isn’t Trump getting the credit and coverage he deserves? Because, at root, there is still a belief within the party establishment and the ranks of the media that he will somehow implode or that voters will “wise up” or “get real” — or something. The problem with that theory is that Trump has done lots and lots of things that (a) can be described as “gaffes” and (b) would have ended or severely compromised other campaigns. Yet none of it has touched him.
In fact, his willingness to say anything, no matter the underlying facts, seems to affirm to his supporters just how “independent” of the political system he really is.
One example: Trump spent the week before the South Carolina primary savaging George W. Bush and insisting that the 43rd president didn’t keep the country safe because the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, happened on his watch. Not only is that sort of rhetoric verboten within the Republican Party, but it was widely considered especially noxious in a state where the Bush family remains very popular.Yet, of the 1 in 5 South Carolina Republican voters who were either veterans or had a military veteran in their house, Trump crushed the competition.
Ask yourself: What could Trump possibly do or say that would somehow be seen as a large enough mistake to cost him large amounts of support?
Given the steadiness of his numbers, the idea that Trump will either derail himself or be derailed seems like the most wishful of thinking by establishment Republicans. Ditto the idea, which I still hear nearly every day in Washington, that the establishment will “figure out” a way to stop Trump. Trust me: If they could have stopped Trump, they would have done it a long time ago.
Even after former Florida governor Jeb Bush bowed out of the race after his disappointing South Carolina finish, the establishment vote remains split between Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. And even if Kasich gets out sometime soon — my guess is he won’t — I remain unconvinced that the establishment vote, even when totally unified, is enough to beat Trump.
U.S. - China trade: National Review is the 'Buffoon,' not Trump
From American Thinker: In one of National Review’s hit pieces against Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump (“What Trump Doesn’t Understand – It’s a lot about our Trade with China”), correspondent Kevin D. Williamson called Trump a “dangerous buffoon” because he would threaten tariffs upon China’s products and thus risk a trade war with China. But it’s not Trump who is the buffoon on trade; it is National Review!
Trump plans to take on the huge U.S. trade deficit with the world, and especially with China. He threatens to place upon Chinese products a tariff like the 45% tariff that China recently placed upon some U.S. cars. Such a threat could lead to negotiations between the U.S. and China about balancing trade, and Trump wrote the book on negotiations. When an article tears into a candidate for having his facts wrong, the magazine that prints it probably should check to make sure that the candidate is actually wrong. But; National Review failed to fact-check this piece. Its correspondent, Kevin D. Williamson, wrote: "China did put a punitive retaliatory tariff on some cars made by GM and Chrysler…. That was a 12.9 percent tariff, incidentally, nothing like the 45 percent that Trump imagines, and it is being withdrawn. Chinese buyers in fact love American cars — a Buick is a much bigger status symbol in China than in New Jersey."
David Goldman aka Spengler Frightened Of Donald Trump
Comment: Surprise!“Conservative” “American” – don’t you love how he had the American flag flying in the background of his cover photo – compares Trump to … wait for it…. Hitler. https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/01/25/the-resistible-rise-of-donald-trump/
This was a tribal conservatism, one that had very little to do with ideas, and everything to do with nationalism and a sense of us-versus-them.To put it mildly, Goldman celebrates the nationalism and tribal conservatism of the people and country he actually cares about. Hint: it's not Americans.
We’re a long way from Germany in the late 1920s, to be sure, but the parallels are disturbing. The Republican Establishment shouts from the rooftops that it prefers Hitl–, er, Trump to the horrible Ted Cruz. As Bob Dole put it, Trump could “probably work with Congress, because he’s, you know, he’s got the right personality and he’s kind of a deal-maker.” Robert Costa at the Washington Post, David French at National Review, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline, and other commentators too numerous to mention have weighed in on the same theme.A real whos-who of American First Conservatives. I'll definitely listen to them. Thanks for the “tip”, Dave.
Without a return to entrepreneurship, America’s economy will stagnate and America’s middle class will continue to lose ground. Donald Trump represents the triumph of resentment over hope. I don’t know what American voters will do. But I’m frightened.Oh no, Heaven forbid, Dave is "frightened"! What about the actual Americans who’ve suffered 50 years of open borders and open anti-white animosity from their “leaders” and your fellow “experts”? Do they have the right to feel frightened, knowing there is nowhere to run – unlike you? As with other “Respectable Conservatives” like Ben Shapiro, Fox New, National Review, etc. the mask has come off.The comments section is the best part. Some pile on, openly celebrating the demise of gentiles. Others point out how stupid his article is and how slimy his motives are.
* This author lost his aura of "one of the smartest political commentators" by talking at the end of this piece as unhinged hack at the service of this or that wing of RINO political machine, calling itself Republican Party. Same thing happened of late with articles by editorial board of Commentary and "smartest" authors, who supposedly know better than us. All these smart people spent too much time in respected circles, got too much vested into their "smart" status, that it shows in any smart hit piece that they can write. Usually in the last couple of paragraphs.
His smartness is of the artificial kind that lacks integrity. This article is sum of its parts; it doesn't compute.
This is the same kind of smartness that causes Likud establishment to promote Peace Racket that rules Israel since mid-1990s, no matter which party wins in elections. It must be made irrelevant together with destruction of organized political racket that it obediently serves.
What is happening now is Great Middle Class revolution. We should be grateful to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for giving it a voice. And to people like Mark Levin. In spite of Mr. Goldman.
* Donald Trump VS the Davos Man
The pundit and activist class can’t seem to figure Donald Trump out, but as I have attempted to argue elsewhere, Trump’s politics are not really as inscrutable as all that. Trump is that guy at the barbershop who says "We need to run the US more like a business. What America needs is a CEO, not another President." Trump just happens to have a lot of money and the credentials to be that CEO himself. The theme that the US is getting out negotiated on the international stage and we should start acting more in our own economic best interests have been there since Trump first became a public figure in the 1980's. Trump, for example, opposed NAFTA before opposing trade deals was the cool thing to do on the right. The consistency of this message suggests that it is sincere, regardless of whatever one might think about the Trump phenomenon that has erupted since he announced his campaign. This economic nationalist message is the key to understanding Trump’s politics.
Trump’s opposition to “free trade” deals and open borders and unabashed advocacy of economic nationalism directly challenges the Establishment consensus in a way that no other candidate dose. All the major candidates in both parties with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders actually take Establishment neoliberal presumptions for granted.
I wince a little when I hear Trump says that America’s leaders are “stupid” and are being out negotiated by the more clever leaders of Mexico, Japan, China, etc. This is grating and potentially unhelpful. What is really the issue here is not smarts but priorities. The leaders of these other nations negotiate with the economic interests of their own countries in mind, while the US negotiates on the basis of fidelity to some imagined set of international rules of fair play, which just so happen to perpetuate the current system that enriches the global elite at the expense of national integrity. But regardless of Trump’s less than ideal formulation, who else is saying this?
Trump is ultimately a patriot who loves his country and wants to restore it to its former glory, as suggested by his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.” Imagine that. But this chauvinistic attitude is contrary to the rootless cosmopolitanism of the global elite. If you’re still struggling with Trump’s place in relation to the Establishment, ask yourself this: “Would Trump fit in at the World Economic Forum?” Trump is not Davos Man described in the introductory quote. He is the antithesis of Davos Man. He is a red-blooded American patriot from Queens, New York who just happens to have a really big bank account. Criticize Trump’s policies and ways if you must, but let’s not have any more of this nonsense that he is just another member of the Establishment. If you don’t see the fallacy of this claim, you don’t get why Trump’s rise represents such a fundamental challenge to the ruling order.
* We've been through three election cycles now where constitutionalists have done their damnedest to get people to wake the h3ll up, only to have their candidates sabotaged or, with but a couple of exceptions - Cruz being one, co-opted by TPTB. The wrecking ball known as Donald Trump will finally put paid to the constitutionalists this cycle, and helped by the very people angry at the system he helped to create and has no intention of reforming. The very enemy Trump's backers say they are rebelling against are laughing their a$$es off. Thank-you, sirs! May we have another?
* I love the power of the media. It must be intoxicating and exhilarating to make baseless allegations about the rich and powerful especially when they happen to be men who have achieved more and lived more in one life than media hacks will in nine.
So, I'll try my hand at it, though I am attacking a man who is obviously of perverse and unsatisfied sexual needs who is in the pay of a foreign power. I would also like to add that this very same person is responsible for material omissions regarding the eligibility of his favorite presidential candidate - candidate no doubt in the pay of the author's foreign masters.
How does that feel? I thought Spengler was a dignified deep-thinker. Comparing Trump to Hitler is beyond infantile. First of all, Hitler was monomaniacally fixated on Jews - Trump shows no such obsession with Mexicans or any group or issue.
Could it be that Spengler - like his coreligionists - favors a dull and virtually impotent White, Western world with such aggression as is permitted to be devoted either to fighting Russians or Muslims in far away nations that cannot hurt us as long as we keep them there.
It is manifestly obvious that Spengler and his ilk fear the slightest awareness of racial and ethnic interests on the part of whites whereas his ilk form private and public policy based on the first test of ethane-centrism: "is it good for the Spenglers, Cohen, Goldberg, etc. of the world?"
Please take your football and go home. Not to America, but to the city where the bank your checks are written on is based.
I ask again - how does that feel? Cuz I gotta tell you, I love this! I haven't done a thing but hack away and somehow I feel like I achieved something!
* Your comments are way out of bounds- I am no fan of Trump (I tell people I already lost this election). This country used to produce people of genuine substance as our leaders. Do you see George Washington running around, I don't? The Dems have completely lost touch with the people and the Republicans have become equally out of touch. Every thinking Jew knows that the survival of the Jewish people requires a strong robust United States led by people of ability and character. Lastly, America is deeply divided politically but you better wake up to the idea that an effective sustainable modern society needs healthy debate and no one has a monopoly on wisdom.
* This is a bit shallow. The author tries to paint the white working class as a bunch of whining bigots. In point of fact, Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, and others, tried to warn Americans 20 years ago that the American plutocracy was about to betray them. You might want to read this and learn something, instead of writing the usual Jewish tripe about all those Nazis waiting around in Middle America to throw you out...
* When Middle Class people are tired of being kicked around, that's an "ugly mood." Only to the elites who continue to benefit from how things are. When Trump speaks to these concerns, he's Hitler. He's not. He is not espousing a view of mystical racial superiority - only speaking some truths that media can't handle, because they are the poodle of a system that is getting rich from these facts, and they don't want anyone upsetting the gravy train.
* Where I do object to your essay is invoking Hitler in your unashamed attempt in deconstructing Donald Trump while enthusiastically waving your Ted Cruz inspired pom-poms. Your support for Cuz is your business but it becomes my business when the horrors of Nazism and Adolph Hitler are so cavalierly and dishonorably used to malign someone, anyone in fact. It goes to sensationalism, intellectual dishonesty, and a mitigating of the unspeakable crimes of that era. Mike Goodwin would be proud.
* It's not clear whether you are trying to attack Trump or not but even without Ivanka's marriage, one does not make it in the New York business world if he is anti-Semitic.
* I wonder if the author has any qualms with Israel's immigration policy?
* And here we see illustrated yet again an age old observation: that no matter what superficial form or ideology they adopt (capitalist/socialist, liberal/conservative, atheist/religious, etc.), at the end of the day, JEWS ARE JEWS, and will always circle the wagons to propagandize against any leader who demonstrates an ability to unite the goyim and who doesn't submit to the Judaic will. And this is precisely why Amerika so desperately needs a leader like Trump: to BREAK this REAL CONSPIRACY and FIGHT for OUR PEOPLE!
Study who is propagandizing against Trump (and Putin) most militantly -- see any patterns? Trump has the potential to be an American Putin: strong, popular, Christian, and most importantly, SOVEREIGN. The last thing the West needs is more WEAK TRAITORS AND SHILLS like the ZOG/NWO tool MERKEL! European peoples everywhere are UNDER ASSAULT and need STRONG NEW LEADERSHIP, because our societies have been subverted by people who FEAR and DESPISE us!
* David P. Goldman: "Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism with her father's blessing (my rabbi instructed her). It was a serious conversion; Ivanka knows Jewish law in great detail and is very observant. Trump--as I said in the first line--likes Jews. He is pro-Israel. As president he would be a strong supporter of Israel."
* Trump is not Hitler. There is a large space between Hitler and what I said, believe it or not. It's called normal nationalist/racial leadership, before the West was subverted by globalist shills and cultural marxists. My kind are in a dark mood because we haven't had any strong leaders advocating for us in decades; just an endless parade of hostile shills, tools and non-useful idiots. White people literally have no homeland, and no strong leaders willing to defend us, under the post-1945 Pax Amerikana regime. Clearly, this situation is going to change one way or another, because there is something very big stirring throughout the West. My advice to hostiles: get the fuck out of the way!
* America was smarter in 1980 than it is now. In fact, it's not even remotely close. That is what diversity and multi-culturalism have brought America - abject stupidity and the rise of Progressive politic. The Republican Party has followed suit.
I think what people are failing to recognize about the Trump mantra, is when it's all said and done, little or nothing will really change unless we elect Trump as dictator. I don't trust the man enough to do that.
When the election is over, Trump should he win, will swing the art of the deal.
That's no more than a continuation of what's been transpiring for 25 years. Trump is the continuation of Hope & Change with promises of a wall and harsh talk of Islam.
* David Goldman: The Weimar government printed money to buy foreign currency to pay reparations when it had no money to do so. The Versailles Treaty was at fault. Hitler "told the truth" about Versailles when a lot of German politicians temporized. In fact, he was a lot more accurate concerning the facts of Germany's economic problems than Trump is about the US.
* Until recently, Spengler has displayed a Spengler-esque pessimism about the decline of the West in general, but he has tended to make an exception for the exceptional US, on the Bismarkian grounds that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America."
Readers of Spengler know that he links this "special providence," and the American exceptionalism which it at once reflected and furthered--to the Protestant roots of America's founding political theology. Those roots have now withered, and their fruit of a unique blend of individual initiative and a communal spirit quite distinct from tribalism (but classically evinced in the "civil society" that Tocqueville found so characteristically America) has consequently shriveled on the vine.
Americans are isolated, atomized, linked perhaps by Internet smarm and Kardashian gossip, but sharing neither the "mystic chords of memory" of a collective past nor the spiritual bonds enjoyed by those who regard themselves as part of a pilgrim body whose defining essence is found not in the blood and soil of the here and now, but in a transcendent eschatological destination. In short, constitutional patriotism is dead, and orthodox Protestantism has declined--perhaps fatally. Indeed, part of our "Weimar moment" is reflected in the cultural decadence and spiritual vacuum that have accompanied this decline. In Germany, the same vacuum that birthed cabaret culture also helped called forth You Know Who, who obligingly filled the spiritual emptiness with demonic brio.
What to do? We can seek provisional unity in a tribalism that pits in-groups against out-groups: This is the way of progressive multiculturalism and identity politics. Or we can seek unity in a Leader who seems to embody the now-absent spirit of the people, of the Volk, such that when they behold him on the stage, they seem to behold themselves--healed, united, restored--in a magic mirror. How can mere reason and the graphic presentation of employment statistics avail against such a "vision"?
We have, then, a party already committed to Balkanization, and another one heading down the path towards mystical authoritarianism. This won't end happily.
Welcome to the Pessimists Club, Mr. Goldman.
* David Goldman: I'm worried. Our predicament reminds me of the conversation between the optimist and the pessimist. The pessimist says, "Things are so bad they can't possibly get worse." Says the optimist: "Don't worry. They will."
* Adolf was a one-off, a singular response to the unique situation and distinctive cultural history of Germany. My point was that nature abhors a spiritual vacuum just as much as a physical one, and thus such vacuums will be filled--generally, by a malevolent force.
There is a segment of the American public that is responding to that vacuum by hungering for a nationalistic strong man to respond to the mess created by the progressive, internationalistic messiah-figure that the left sold its soul to in 2008. This hunger is evident in the authoritarian character of their attacks on those who dare to disagree with them. Trump didn't create this hunger, but his entry into the race brought it to the surface and gave it focus.
I believe that Trump is a mildly demagogic narcissist who bumptiousness in office could deeply harm American national interests . . . but I don't think he has the right stuff--either in inclination or capacity--to be an American version of You Know Who (just as Obama lacked the right stuff to be an American Lenin or Stalin). What scares me more is After Trump: Obama the thesis, Trump the antithesis . . . and then something or someone very, very bad as the "synthesis" to clean up the mess. I think a similar pattern is afoot in Europe.
* Comparing Trump to Hitler or any other tinpot dictator is the last refuge of second rate, derivative intellectuals. Before taking over Germany Hitler, the bitter corporal, the failed artist, had no real accomplishments. He had no real family beyond a mistress. He was an angry, dysfunctional neurotic, a borderline psychopath who passed deep into the hinterland as he began loosing his war. Trump is a largely self made billionaire and media celebrity, neither feats are highly admirable, nor are they common or easy achievements. As for stability, Trump is by all accounts an excellent father of four exemplary children, apparently liked by all his successive wives and has few complaints from his many well paid employees. Such cannot be said of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Peron, Castro or even American wannabees like Huey Long or George Wallace. Spengler, awaken from your ideological slumbers! The key to Trump's appeal is the courage to take a stand for the long ignored and always bypassed and snubbed desires of the majority on Americans on the crucial subject of immigration.
Americans rightly feel they have been tricked, lied to and disrespected on immigration. But to turn those angry feelings into reasons, here is why we are turning to Trump: 1) Our current immigration policies discriminate de facto in favor of those who can readily violate our southern border and against nearly everyone else across the planet. 2) Most Americans feel there are only two legitimate reasons for allowing new immigrants in: they should either provide skills and talents our economy can use or present a strong case for compassion, and our compassion should never favor one ethnicity over others. 3) Most people in the top 10% financially are seldom affected by immigrant crime, school and safety net strain, and neighborhood deterioration, many benefit by the access to cheap labor—all of this is even more true for the top 1%. 4) It is the bottom 90% who must bear the negative impact of uncontrolled illegal immigration. 5) In the last 45 years voters have been ignored on how many immigrants they want admitted and from where—you can bet that at no time would the majority favor immigration policies that allowed 60+% of all new immigrants to be underskilled and undereducated laborers from Mexico and the northern triangle countries. 6) Most suspect that US immigration policies and practices are crafted to benefit the wishes of special interests, especially those seeking cheap labor or bloc voters. 7) Few Americans want the USA to become a bilingual country like Canada or worse Belgium, yet they are increasingly confronted by Spanish everywhere, when it was almost nowhere 50 years ago. 8) Most Americans favor assimilation and the melting pot of which most are products. 9) Americans increasingly resent the intellectual arrogance and presumption of moral superiority displayed by those who try to dictate what we all should be allowed to say and and dare to think about immigration. A viable democracy requires that all citizens be entitled to respect as individuals, and neither the government nor self serving elites should be allowed to manipulate thought and suppress dissent. Americans see in Trump a leader who can bring us democratic, rather than elitist and oligarchic, immigration policies.
* David Goldman: I would vote for Trump against Hillary. Trump to my knowledge is not a criminal. The Clintons are a criminal enterprise.
The Need For Eugenics
Comment: Automation will reduce the demand for low IQ workers.
Genetic engineering will increase the supply of high IQ men.
Therefore, the wages of low IQ men will continue to decline.
Low IQ men will be drawn to crime and extremism.
But the population of low IQ men is growing.
This population growth will lead to wars and famines, resulting in a tidal wave of refugees.
What is the most effective way to halt the population growth of the unemployable?
Pay a billion women to get on birth control.
The payment will appeal most to poor women, who on average have low intelligence and high birth rates.
* A lot of cybercrime is committed by Asians and Middle Easterners with the collusion of co-ethnic employees within the targeted companies. No great intelligence needed, just the exploitation of a high-trust work environment.
Blood doesn’t lie: Mark Melancon leads pro athletes in growing usage of blood analytics
REPORT:
"The Red Sox nutritionist at the time, Tara Mardigan, introduced Melancon to a company called InsideTracker, a blood analytics company based in Cambridge, Mass. which uses blood testing to screen for 30 different biomarkers — including vitamins, hormones and other metabolic markers — and determine optimal zones for each level based on a highly personalized questionnaire which looks at a person’s age, weight, activity level, ethnicity, personal goals and more."
Comment: I found this on Baseball Think Factory and it seems to have triggered a few people. “Quackery”, “Pseudoscience”, and “Ignorance” are all used in the first 5 comments. Sabermetrics is always looking for the next set of data to analyze, PitchFx and FieldFx (I think defensive analysis is really the diminishing returns phase of baseball analytics) being the latest craze, but let’s not dig TOO deep.
Steve has talked in the past that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all diet, and what better one to find out what works for you than drilling down to your individual biology?
Indians Fight Over Affirmative Action
From the BBC:
India’s constitution, adopted in 1950, inaugurated the world’s oldest and farthest-reaching affirmative action programme, guaranteeing scheduled castes and tribes – the most disadvantaged groups in Hinduism’s hierarchy – not only equality of opportunity but guaranteed outcomes, with reserved places in educational institutions, government jobs and even seats in parliament and the state assemblies.
India’s constitution, adopted in 1950, inaugurated the world’s oldest and farthest-reaching affirmative action programme, guaranteeing scheduled castes and tribes – the most disadvantaged groups in Hinduism’s hierarchy – not only equality of opportunity but guaranteed outcomes, with reserved places in educational institutions, government jobs and even seats in parliament and the state assemblies.
The logic was simple: they were justified as a means of making up for millennia of discrimination based on birth.
In 1989, the government decided to extend their benefits to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) – those hailing from the lower and intermediate castes who were deemed backward because they lacked “upper caste” status.
As more and more people sought fewer available government and university positions, we witnessed the unedifying spectacle of castes fighting with each other to be declared backward.
Jews Might Be A Great Fit For China, Russia
What if Israel were destroyed? What if the USA turned hostile to Jews? What if Western Europe turned hostile to Jews? Jews could move to Russia and China. They might be a good fit. Russia and China don't have western notions of human rights. They wouldn't put up with any subversion of their national goals and national cultures. They would limit and channel Jewish energies in ways that are productive for their host countries. Jews won't take over the media in Russia and China and turned it against the natives. Jews might forswear revolution because Russia and Chinese would have few compunctions about killing revolutionaries. Jews might forswear ridiculing the traditional Russian and Chinese identity in exchange for their own safety. Jews would like see advantages in behaving in ways that are productive for their host. Russians and Chinese have a strong sense of their own identity and will respect Jews for their strong sense of a Jewish identity. On the other hand, Jews are more likely to have respect for hosts who have a strong sense of identity and are unwilling to put up with any subversion. I've found that Jews have more respect for fellow ethnics, particularly East Asians, who put their own people first than Jews feel for naive white people who only subscribe to "universal values." Israelis, for example, tend to have contempt for American naivety and generosity. Israelis regard Americans are easy to manipulate. By contrast, Koreans, Japanese and Chinese won't put up with that.
Trump Vs Pope
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* The words “Muslim” and “Islam” appear nowhere in that article. The New York Lies. That’s what that is, a lie. When the story has been for weeks that “Trump’s an Islamophobe who he wants to throw the Muslims out and ban them,” omitting the historical Muslim connection here is simply a lie.
The funny part is the common perception that MSM outlets sensationalize everything to increase revenue. On the contrary, the MSM frequently de-sensationalizes stories to make less money while shaping The Narrative.
Sort of like how there’s lots of dollars Hollywood doesn’t want, like the money from The Passion of the Christ, or from following the trail blazed by 300.
Trump has also been blessed with some useful enemies.
That’s the beauty of Trump’s candidacy; we get to show that we’ll gladly choose the Carney Barker with halfway decent political positions over the hostile Republican elite. This is kind of the point.
the pope was right.there is little evidence that Donald is a practising Christian.
The pope’s a heretic.
Like Sellar and Yeatman, sometimes Steve writes to console his readers. Getting in a front-page fight with the Pope is monumentally stupid. If Trump were a stock, even the dullest brokerage on Wall Street would be dumping it by now.
No, the pope clearly did Trump a favor. Even NPR agreed (NPR!). Yesterday they had several bites of how this will actually help Trump. One was from Carol Swain, which had me gobsmacked. She managed to properly encapsulate Trump’s appeal in about 30 seconds, in her usual astoundingly unbiased style.
I am surprised at how many people I know who didn’t realize the long occupations of Spain or Eastern Europe, or the millions of Europeans taken into slavery.
You’ve got to be uninterested in history to miss Al-Andalus and the Reconquista. We’re talking the better part of a millennium of European history here.
I’m waiting for “Rehmat” to charge in and tell us it was the Pope’s army who attacked the peaceful Muslims vacationing in Rome that year.
Rehmat doesn’t get many (any?) posts in Steve’s bailiwick.
So, are you [Corvinus] simple or disingenuous?
He’s a bit of both, I think, but heavy on the latter.
Yeah, ’cause he’ll turn off Hispanic voters, who, as every Republican knows, are the key to electoral victory…
If memory serves, Trump has gotten way more hispanic votes than Cruz or Rubio.
[Sound of "Family Feud" buzzer]. Wrong. Trump did make a guarantee. He himself said such an event would not have happened. It’s in the King’s English, Fiddler.
Trump–”I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened.”
You heard it here first: Trump’s going to lose the ‘sperg vote.
Do you understand the notion of political rhetoric, or are you too befuddled by your Aspie literalness to understand anything at all?
His neuro-atypicality seems genuine. Otherwise he’d know his ‘sperg style isn’t persuasive.
“How do you feel about being hated by the leader of the world’s largest religion?”
He should have taken her to school for saying the pope “hates.”
* It seems clear that it is in the best interest of American citizens to close the southern border, although many people disagree with that (I do not know if you are one of those who disagree). Likewise it seems to be in the best interests of a certain class of Hispanic/Latino people to come to America, legally or illegally. If you grant that these two interests are at loggerheads, why wouldn’t you say that it is appropriate for Americans (or whomever you think should fill the thought experiment) to prioritize their self-interest over that of another? Unless you are a troll, which I cannot tell, do you admit that there isn’t a Kantian-style solution for political problems, wherein everybody obeys an a priori, universal rule? Or do you think that everyone, everywhere, should act with perfect logical consistency, as if no natural groupings of people were possible? This crowd, myself included, take a principled stance against the idea that people are only distinct according to number: we believe that there are many natural groupings to be made within the larger group of humanity, and I think we have good arguments to prove that that is more than a belief. I am not trying to be patronizing, but the nature of the commenting system is that a person can only have the appearance of being reactive. What are your beliefs?
* Interesting how this Islamic Sack of Rome has been ignored by PC scholars and academics who fall over one another in their op stampede to blame modern Muslim aggression on the Crusades. Of course these proponents of Doublethink fail to mention that the first crusade was launched three centuries after the Saracens invaded and occupied southern Italy and Iberia. And it was from their base in Sicily that the warriors of Allah attacked Rome and began devastating towns and villages all over the Mediterranean murdering and enslaving the luckless inhabitants. Fortunately for Europe the Normans defeated the Moorish Sicilians in the 11th century.
* A couple of comments about setting expectations for “Casablanca:”
- The quality of dialog varies more than in just about any other movie. The best lines are maybe the best ever, but other lines are really corny.
- The emotional intensity is not high for about the first 45 minutes, until the song kicks in. “Casablanca” owes more to “As Time Goes By” than perhaps any other movie owes to any other theme song.
In general, “Casablanca” is a bit of a hodge-podge that happened to come together as a great movie at the last moment.
It was popular and respected on its first release (winning Best Picture for 1942), but its modern reputation derives in part from it becoming a cult film for Harvard students in the late 1950s when the Brattle Theater started playing Bogart films during finals week.
In general, everybody involved in “Casablanca” was kind of winging it.
* I’d never heard of the Islamic sack of Rome in 846 until 24 hours ago. I could give you the exact dates of two others: 410 AD and 1527, and approximate one other 390 BC. But the Arabs looting Rome, at least the parts outside the walls, in 846 AD was news to me, and I’m relatively well informed.
Granted, that was during the Dark Ages. But then Pirenne argued that the Dark Ages were dark in Europe because the Muslims transformed the Mediterranean from a highway into a danger zone for Europeans.
The Romans could travel by land because they had the organization to keep up the roads. When the Germans took over Europe, they didn’t have the societal competence to keep up the roads. Still, they could use the Mediterranean, which is amazingly useful. But then Muslim pirates took over the sea.
* Viktor Lazlo was apparently based on Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, a Eurasian aristocrat involved with various international agencies, who advocated for race-mixing to occur between White and dark gentiles. He wanted the goyish races to mix in order to produce a common mulatto race which could be ruled over by a pure-blood Jewish elite (Coudenhove-Kalergi was not himself Jewish).
* Japan has very strict immigration policies. As a result, Muslims are not admitted and the last major terrorist attack inside that country occurred about a fifth of a century ago in the Tokyo subway – committed by some crazy, and very rare, native cult. Japan has gotten perfect safety and cultural homogeneity all for the price of missing out on a little virtue signaling. Works for them. In the mean-time, the West has suffered riots, assassinations (Theo Van Gogh), numerous shootings and terrorist attacks using explosives and automatic/semiautomatic rifles, large numbers of rapes and sexual assaults, crime...
* The dark-haired woman in ABBA, had a Norwegian mother (non-Lebensborn, I think though) and a German-soldier father. After the war, her mother fled with her to Sweden where opinions were less polarized and there was less social rejection. At one point, ABBA was supposed to be second only to Volvo, in terms of Swedish export earnings. So this was at least one case where Sweden overwhelmingly benefited from its policy of open-mindedness and acceptance of immigrants.
* Since we’re observing the one hundred year anniversary of World War I, I’ve often asked myself similar questions. How would the United States have been adversely affected by a German victory in World War I. Without U.S. intervention, that seems quite likely. By the spring of 1918 Russia was out of the war, the French Army was in various stages of mutiny and almost incapable of offensive action. The British were still in it, but the losses at Third Ypres had been almost catastrophic. The Germans came very close to winning in the 1918 Kaiserschlacht.
But how would a Europe dominated by Germany have posed a threat to North America; hard now for me to see!
* Or would WWI have dragged on into 1919 without American intervention? The German offensive to take Paris in the spring of 1918 before the Americans really arrived in large numbers seems to have petered out about 70 miles outside of Paris. The defense had the upper hand at that point in history, so it’s not clear that anybody would have won if the U.S. stayed out.
Perhaps without U.S. intervention the war would have dragged on into 1919 or 1920 and ended with Communists overthrowing the governments in Berlin and Paris, and perhaps London?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)