Ipsos i-Say Review: Is This Survey Site Worth Your Time?

Cull, The Great Population-

I've been working intermittently on this essay for several months, so no surprise it's chaotic. There is plenty more yet to find, or were left out, so no surprise if there are sequels.
Culling | wkpd (action) is a special case of parse, and segregate, wherein a selection is removed after sussing it out. See also Selection Theory 1, and selection search 2.
Plan B readers: For Plan A, scroll down here.
search this title with the current Plandemic Psy-Op, this is a hot topic; here are a few top links which I've sifted thru...
The Great Culling has begun: Will your genetic lineage survive? 2012 | ntrlnws
repost, illustrated (hngdbnkrs)
Current event summary by "Radix Verum" (root truth) A “Smart Virus”: Evidence Elites Plan to Cull Human Population Mar.16.2020 | ptrtspbx
Spontaneous Causes
Unforeseen consequences of Industrial Revolution and economic development
Cull of the Wild
Agricultural employment: has the decline ended?
Urbanization and Wealth Call to a Waning of Family Life
We don't need so many 'farm-hands' anymore, we've got the Reaper, (not the Scythe).
11 Women Share Why They Don’t Want To Get Married Oct.2019
Why is it the Way of the World that White Women Are So Woke? (they go bonkers, serious trouble) 35 min
contrasting K strategies 19:12 religiousness collapsed in Western countries from 1960s onwards (rise of secularism, Marxism)
Trending away from Tradition
Abandonment of Family Values (it's the Children, not the money)
A National Tragedy, Chinese Children Abandoned 2016 27 min China is a SOCIALIST STATE, which values government power, not its citizens
12:13 "he'd realize that his kids are great, they're not the burden he'd imagined, and it's worth a few hundred yuan to make a trip home. I just want parents to know their children are precious." - volunteer social worker Pan Ya Yun (7:40 +) note link to wealth-related video at end
Annie sings Maybe (I got parents)
Women are trying to escape Saudi Arabia, 41 min
G Hardin: Stalking the Wild Taboo 3rd ed. 1972 29pg.pdf
Beyond some undetermined, but not large, number the stimulation people give each other becomes more irritating and inhibiting than mind-expanding. (p. 5)
Pareto Principle Applied to Human Population
About a fifth of the people are far more significant than the 4-fifths, in nearly every way. This seems to be a natural phenomenon. (Implication is that Christian sacred reverence for life is not justified from a cultural perspective. It might be a traditional remnant of small nomadic clans. Selective culling would be more eugenic, thus more competitive. Nomadic livestock herders have done this since prehistoric times. (This need not be done in a cruel way. However, any policy that makes life easy for poor people is dysgenic. What's better would be finding ways to get rid of them. Counter argument that some people are poor due to chance, is get rid of them anyway, for being both poor and unlucky.)
80/20 Rule for techies (index) | scidir
Improving National Prestige, per capita statistics by reducing population (reduce common denominator, the ratio increases)
Longevity applies to individuals and to kinship groups, in that living long (sustaining healthy life) is commonly valued by persons, and by clans; it's called "evolutionary psychology".
Both history and DNA studies have revealed that human societies arose and fell, depending on many factors, but the important thing is, survivors made plenty of efforts to stay survived, while the less energetic were crushed or merged into oblivion. Thus raw nature may seem without purpose, but there is this: survival defines success. Survival IS life's purpose. Humans may be irrelevant to the whole universe, but our special place on earth is not the entirety... a sea of stars
For the person, sustaining health has proven to be a result of a few stratagems requiring discipline. Similarly, sustaining a clan requires discipline known as Eugenics (keeping good genes, or dumping bad ones, or both. Dysgenics | wkpd is acting to a society's counter-purposes. See also Dysgenics | metapd
Population Studies
K selection theory
Eugenics practices of the Jews Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics” 2011 | OO
u\acloudrift has a divergence from many population discussions (especially the famous overpopulation scam popular with globalists) per the concept of "capacity limit" (Kapazitätsgrenze). Globalists insist there is a finite limit on populations due to finite quantities of resources like matter and energy. My divergence says they are not allowing for intellectual advancement, an infinite resource. As time goes on, human culture finds new ways and means, and there is probably no end to this, see Beginning of Infinity by D Deutsch Also, keep in mind the concept that the meaning of "human population" can change too. Even the concepts of time and space can change. create new space from existing space stretching time with virtual artificial life
Women are by nature limited to K-type reproduction, while exceptional men have the ability to attain a hyper-successful r-type strategy. Think of it as the happenstance option, occurring in royalty, in which there may be many concubines, or rape, like the cases of Genghis Khan, or the Red Army, having a superfluity of females available in a defeated society. Of course, non-exceptional men have a higher chance of zero reproductive success. For men, sustainability is more of a gamble than for women, who have a high chance of having offspring, if they want to try it. Reproduction is their bailiwick.
Fertility rate, world (illustrated) Pre-Industrial Families
Therefore, logic suggests preference for girl children for clan stability. Any preference for boy children (per female infanticide) would indicate a preference for honor (high prestige, which has enhanced choice of females as a benefit). Going for honor over reliability is a gamble (seeking small chance for big win).
Plan A; Culling Tails, a bell-curve de-squeeze.
Cull criteria: (1) status, productivity, amount and type (income or wealth, and means), and (2) having sponsoring entities who both qualify to stay (and take responsibility for support of deportee "candidate", being mostly children and dependent parents), either may qualify.
Plan C: Taking out the Rightail (Cull original, 'take out the virtual trash'; trash in this case meaning hazardous to social health, virtual meaning calculated with close scrutiny and fancy math, a derived scale of social virtue.)
Plan D: Plan C lite (failing to remove, well then just publicize and ostracize, see Social Virtue Scale)
Health Issues
Modern Life has stress without release mechanisms
TrthFct Men's potency issues 7 min
Fight or Flight Complex
Cortisol (stress hormone) Disconnection: Stress vs Longevity
4 Major Stress Hormones 2017 | psy
Estrogen Reduces High Levels of Oxidative Stress 2008 | MDndia
How to Reduce Cortisol, the Stress Hormone Nov.6.2019 | bbrnft
Contra-indication: Estrogen Involved, Stress Response 2003 | wbMD
A CUP A DAY (of recipe)...CLEAR CLOGGED ARTERIES, HEART - Dr Alan Mandell, DC 6 min
Longevity & Why I now eat One Meal a Day 16 min
Longevity, Sex Factors
Subversive Causes
Inter-group competition has produced covert genocidal programs
Non-Spontaneous (planned) Causes (notice this word is plural noun and present tense verb)
Depopulation conspiracy theory (sarcasm)
WHO's behind it? (double entendre) World-Mandarins
civil servant, often in a satirical context, (e.g. as in the titles of such works as The Mandarins by Simone de Beauvoir, Chomsky's American Power and the New Mandarins, etc.)
Libel-Label: the 'World-Mandarins' is intended as a funny name for an otherwise shadowy group who prefer to remain obscure, so they intentionally deny any name. Which is also appropriate because this group has no public organizational structure, similar to an Amoeba, it can squeeze into and out of public places.
world’s real puppetmasters 2016
JFK's secret society speech
Committee of 300, 2013 | mdchkr
Who: a 0.1% elite persons (vs the 99.9% common persons) smart, but Machiavellian hidden "Masters of the Universe" who pull the puppet strings of "the powers that be" (aka TPTB)
What: Our World is not to their liking yet, they endeavor to fix it (aka Tikkun olam). One of the Mandarins' prescriptions (Rx) is to get our world rid of most of the 99.9%, the medicine is marked (skull & bones). Medicine tastes bad, so they sweeten it with hoaxes and their favorite is FEAR. So there must be bogeymen, demons, witches, Satan, etc. Because they don't want anyone else to think there is a Garden (a 2011 wikiwar story) available here on Earth, but only in the hereafter, aka The Void today, not tomorrow. See also skull & bones.
Bill Gates declaring (world) is overpopulated —and was an overpopulation declaration Gates near immediately followed with his grim warning of millions of soon to come deaths and his stating: “The world needs to prepare for pandemics just like war”.
trth factry Apr.3 abuse, trafficking of children, Jewish activism as middlemen, MK ULTRA
The Great Unpatterning Continues. Make Sure You Take Advantage Of It Mar.12
GLOBAL ELITES CAUGHT PLOTTING THE ISLAMIC INVASION OF EUROPE OCT.2015
Overview of Great Cull operations BIOWEAPON UNLEASHED per RD Steele, SGTrpt 35 min very interesting interview, esp. if you include the necessary grain of salt; show closes with prediction by H Kissinger: "Palestine will be restored to the Palestinians by 2022," and THAT is going to change the world. (IOW Israel is goin' down, folks.) SGT per bitchute
CORONAVIRUS UPDATE! Will the Chinese Communist Party COLLAPSE? 9 min
Chinese Communist Party Struggles to Contain the Coronavirus Fallout
X22 reports Corona virus is not serious illness, but may be a cover for elimination of certain persons; CV narrative begins 18:00; total run time 28 min
COVID19 Scamdemic reveals BigPharma's takeover attempt Apr.2020
virus epidemic a cull of old folks?
Trump DEFEATED in 2020 by #WuFlu Black Swan Event? Feb.2020 10 min | BPS
#WuFlu Corona Chan C-chan meme How a Pandemic could END CIVILIZATION 10 min
5+ NWO Agendas Accompanying the Coronavirus Epidemic Mar.4.2020
Coronavirus 5G Connection and Coverup Feb.17
Experts Fear 'Suicide Wave' As The Social Fabric Of America Becomes "Unstitched" Tyler Durden Apr.3.2020
Silent War against children
21 Harsh Truths Black People Don't Want to Hear
Culture War?: Bring Back Un-American Activities surveillance!
Rise of the Frankfart School (like esophageal reverse peristalsis, brings a taste of bile)
Heather MacDonald: The Diversity Delusion 68 min
Culture War Redux (mucking postmodernism!)
There was a time in America when virtually all intellectual activity was derived in one way or another from the Communist Party… resulting in a disastrous vulgarization of intellectual life, in which the character of American liberalism and radicalism was decisively – and perhaps permanently – corrupted. —Robert Warshow (1947); The Immediate Experience: Movies, Comics, Theatre and Popular Culture (NY Dbldy&Co, 1962), p. 33
"virtue, the arts and humanities were permanently interconnected, and that Americans should act accordingly" —G Washington
Our nation was founded on the ideals and rights promoted by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and those principles evolved through the growth of American culture... "Throughout our history, American culture has been fueled by creative anti-establishment energy. But that spirit of rebellion found a counterbalance in deeply rooted respect for traditional values, in a taste for direct storytelling and humor, and in community and civic pride. We have a healthy skepticism of officialdom, and any attempt to engineer much-needed changes in the arts through dogma and censorship will fail. But cultural institutions and the government can support and foster the individuals and groups that, for the last few decades, have worked to reclaim skills, communicate with an aesthetically engaged public, and promote beautiful and meaningful public spaces. In the best American tradition, that enterprise should encompass both the fine arts and pop culture – a powerful antidote to totalitarian agendas." –James F Cooper (artist)
Sad but true, modernist freedom of expression often plays to natural human weaknesses, while a virtuous life requires discipline (strength). Young people are especially vulnerable to influence attempts to drag them into unhealthy modalities (ex. sex, drugs, violence, incivility, etc.). Various vices are regulated by law to minimum ages (eg. alcohol, tobacco, driving, voting, military service, etc.), other socially degenerate influences should be too.
The Cosmopolitan Ethos promotes modalities like that to subvert the 'host' culture. That systematic degenerative interventionism is motivated by a cultural hate ideology to keep the Cosmopolitans voluntarily segregated from their cultural (Goy) environment.
Raising Kitsch to Legitimacy (subversion of traditional aesthetic)
Raising Pornography to ubiquity (subversion of traditional sex mores)
Raising Ignorance to a scholastic goal (subversion of traditional education)
Raising Foreign Wars to a default policy (subversion of practical stability and peace)
Classical Causes of Depopulation
(Hot) War, Famine, Plague
War: the Great Male Gender Expender
Men Are the Expendable Gender | tvtrp
Why war evolved to be a man’s game – and why that’s only now changing (computer models) 2018
For the Love of doG
Shout Have Auk! Unleash the Gods of War
Great War Europe diminished quality men's population
quoting Genghis Khan
Equality for women: death in war
List of famines
List of Plagues
Demographics and Fate
Immigration and differential reproduction rates for various races of women allow demographers to make pretty-good predictions for the ways populations will trend according to race (don't forget evolution is a race, LoL).
Here in USA, many on the political right are concerned about losing their majority demographic segment and since non-whites lean much more left (they like socialism, due to government hand-outs), the white right is worried about being robbed and encroached upon in other ways by coercive socialist tyrannies. (Socialist Trannies too.)
Here are a few words to help cheer up those who are worried like those majority-now-to-become-minority-later white folks. Just because you are outnumbered, does not mean you don't count. Look at what the Jews have done. They are about 2% of the population, but they control all the most important parts (and the most degenerate parts too) of our economy, media and government.
Minority whites can learn from the Jews, to be more community active, concentrate more on "what's good for whitey", and much less on sympathy for the down-on-their-(p)luck losers. (Kick 'em out.)
End of White America Is Now Assured PCR
hegemonic discourse (plaintiff, currently PC) vs individual and tribe (defendant, local discourse) absolvo: segregation results in no conflict of interest; Venn Diagrams have no intersection Part of the problem of conflict is PC has no tolerance, no humor, has a tyrant's demand for orthodoxy
Example Medieval Europe was dominated by Roman Catholic Church (hegemon), results are called Dark Ages, for several reasons, including lack of creativity in arts except those limited to Church, poor historical coverage, illiteracy, violence common, travel dangerous, focus on defensive fortifications instead of trade, etc.
Overpopulation Contrarian
Premise: Overpopulation is an over-hyped meme. NOT saying it's fake, just exaggerated because the truth is, the representation of it is way-biased by wealthy elites with big "megaphones" (media influence).
Exhibit 1 Overcrowding vs Underexploited Spaces
Having done considerable air travel above remote areas, and civilized ones too, I've noticed that from the aerial perspective, earth is sparsely inhabited. This is not exaggeration, it's true. Prove it for yourself, fly over the planet in Google Earth.
Humans have overcrowded themselves by going urban in droves, I suspect it's because of the two-sided problem of need for close proximity to a large population to augment economic exchanges, and limitations due to transportation (of the physical body). As Internet use grows, the need to be present in the flesh will decline, and a more dispersed population will develop of its own accord, because crowding is a bummer (see next link set).
Fraarming the Debate, Collective vs Individual
Public vs Private: A Short History of Enclosure in Britain
If degradation results from non-management and collapse can be averted by sound management, then there can be no "remorseless logic" leading to inevitable "ruin". Nor is there any reason why a private property regime (particularly an unjust one) should necessarily be preferable to the alternative of maintaining sound management of a commonly owned resource.
Note: Your author (me) is an 'equality' denier, that is all claims from Progressive Left (should be left behind) because inequality is an easily proven state of nature, and Mother Nature has a tendency to crush all her disre-specters (see study notes on Lucifer Principle).
Of the Commons: Top-Down Regulation proven inferior to Bottom-Up cooperation
Without moral resistance, a few private entities become inordinately powerful, that's natural probability at work.
Regulating against Human Nature (which the Progressives deb-hate) is a Sisyphean Labor, ipso facto the Progressive assumption that human nature can and should be reprogrammed is a mistake.
Demonstration that poor management is due to ignorance of what works... Voluntary Birth Control (eg. Bangladesh) vs Gov regulated version (eg. China 1-child policy)
Crowdfears
Territorial Imperative by R Ardrey 1966 | wkpd
Spouting Progressive Hypo Crazy, a 10
BL00MBERG'S Fortunate Tragedy Timing wwg1wga 30 min
escaping tunnels (NYC 5:5, pier 90) to be continued
Related: [Alternative Recycling 1](work in process)
Crow Ding Deniers
CROWDING AND BEHAVIOR by J L Freedman 1975 | Kirkus Reviews
THE CROWDING SYNDROME: Learning to Live with Too Much and Too Many by C Bird 1976 | Kirkus Reviews
study notes
farmers turn dry scrub into lush pasture with introduction of grazing animals
Lucifer Principle by H Bloom, Book Reviews
Anatoly Karlin | selfblog Francis Fukuyama | FA/CFR JMG van der Dennen | GroningenU Theodore A Green | trthwylf
Why is Western Society Toxic? 2017
Henry Makow's blog
Call to Redux Un-American Activities
Un-American Activities
religious affiliation a major trope of India
Hindu vs Muslim and the segregation of Victorian India
Hindu Group Calls for Forceful Expulsion of Christians from India 2018
https://www.reddit.com/overpopulation/comments/d1af8t/10_conventional_ideas_on_population_control_me/
Truth Factory YouTube channel
ID control
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=a+powerful+antidote+to+totalitarian+agendas.%22+%E2%80%93James+F+Cooper+(artist)&t=h_&ia=web
submitted by acloudrift to AlternativeHypothesis [link] [comments]

How COMMUNISM and the U.N. set out to DESTROY AMERICA Part 1 (enhanced)

By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D. February 25, 2005 NewsWithViews.com (link below article)
I remember the protests that took place near the lawns of the White House. From the late 1960s into the 1980s, shrill voices filled Washington, DC with anti-American rhetoric wrapped in blame-America-first rampages. It made me wonder why those speaking and those attending didn't just pack up and move to different pastures, places where they could build something instead of trying to tear down the nation that gave them so much freedom.
It was not a pretty time in the history of America, but it wasn't just the young people who were to blame. Many had only a marginal knowledge of the real issues and some didn't even know why they were there. Those protestors didn't know that the hate-America diatribes were well orchestrated, their roots deeply buried in a series of masterfully crafted plans concocted by those against whom they protested.
It took years for me to realize that what preceded the 'hippie revolution' was almost a century old and was far more insidious and dangerous to our sovereignty than youths protesting. Behind our backs, and with the usual media assistance, Americans were sold a passel of lies that only the best charlatans in the political world could have conjured up, with or without evil incantations.
I knew the plan from both the humanist viewpoint and Biblical prophecies, which I eventually studied. Those plans are now coming to fruition as God said they would, which makes living at this point in history (or His Story) rather incredible. Still, I was intrigued by a little book I stumbled upon at a local thrift store, book that documented some rather evil, behind-the-scenes plotting on the part of our government. It's the stuff that often warms the hearts and minds of those who subscribe to one conspiracy theory or another; and it was a bit ironic that the book was amidst a collection of Christian literature and Bible studies, a most appropriate place for truth to reside. What did I have to lose other than the meager purchase price?
As the face of the author stared back at me, the title and table of contents convinced me that answers to lingering questions about ongoing plans to destroy the United States would be found within. I bought and read the book, then became determined to revive the author's story four decades after it was published. I don't know if he's still alive, and I don't care how right wing he was. His story should be told if, for no other reason, to prove that our government has had a long-standing desire to sacrifice our national sovereignty on the altar of a one-world government ruled by (((those with money and power))).
Maj. Arch E. Roberts AUS (Ret), an 18-year veteran, didn't mince words in his efforts to stop the caustic, anti-American agenda of the 'liberal establishment' in the 1950s and '60s. In his book, Victory Denied ... Why Your Son Faces Death in 'NO-WIN WARS, (Chas. Hallberg & Company, 1966). Maj. Roberts wrote to expose the real goals of the United Nations and those in the Pentagon and State Department who were driven to destroy the United States. There are some things we already know are true and some we suspected were true. What's astonishing was the ordeal Maj. Roberts went through for telling his fellow citizens the truth and how little the American people really knew about his plight then or know about it now.
After reading a few intro pages, I came to an editorial from The September 4, 1965, edition of the Chicago Tribune. Written by J. Howard Wood, Publisher, and W. D. Maxwell, Editor, titled 'One Man's Battle,' it told the story of the government's removal of Maj. Roberts from active duty status. Maj. Roberts made a speech before the Daughters of the American Revolution that 'offended army censorship and government officials.' He was in danger of losing his position in the army as well as his military pension for speaking the truth about the socialist/United Nation's takeover of our government.
Maj. Roberts didn't take it lying down. A court decision in his favor returned him to full duty with all the attending benefits to which he had previously been entitled. He demonstrated incredible courage against those who wanted to keep him and others like him silent; a sinister enemy that sought to silence American military men. His was a 'war' against the real enemies of free speech.
The 'rule' that silenced Maj. Roberts and others was instituted during the administration of John F. Kennedy. It emerged from the noted 'Fulbright memorandum' that Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR) sent to the president in 1961. At the time, the senator was chairman of the foreign relations committee and was concerned that members of the military were discussing the dangers of communism with such intensity and frequency that they could only be viewed as suffering from right-wing radicalism. The danger was far greater if men, such as Maj. Roberts, told the public what he knew.
Fulbright also claimed that right-wingers believed that social legislation was the by-product of socialism, which was another name for communism. If members of the military were allowed to speak openly against communism, voters wouldn't support the new administration's social programs and foreign policies, all of which were socialistic in nature.
A mentor to Bill Clinton, Fulbright was an anti-anti-Communist; and anyone who knows the rules of positive and negative integers understands that an anti-anti-communist is a communist. He strongly believed in peace through education, although the content of his educational programs might prove to be more in keeping with socialist indoctrination. The September 4, 1965, Chicago Tribune editorial didn't let the senator off the hook. It claimed his goal was to 'embark the [Kennedy] administration on a campaign to suppress any statements by military men which might be offensive to the Kremlin' because they were starting to "mellow" and were 'moving toward "convergence" with the United States and the west.'
This led to the total cessation of all 'seminars and troop indoctrination programs relating to the real nature of communism.' Whether such indoctrination was in the form of military propaganda or honest education may only be relevant in relation to the Domino Theory expounded upon by government officials, the belief that if one nation fell to communism, other surrounding nations would fall as well.
Most Americans were told that our government was trying to find a peaceful solution to the Cold War, but convergence means to have a union with, something they would have rejected from the outset. Americans would have demanded to know why the United States government would want to converge with a communist dictatorship? Silencing our military and keeping them in the dark regarding the dangers of communism to any free nation was only part of the solution to prevent a disgruntled electorate. Further, this was right before the Cuban Missile Crisis when American's saw how evil the Soviet Union really was.
At the time, Maj. Roberts was an information officer at the time. He was stationed with the American 24th division in West Germany where he was creating a program to train the troops about the goals and dangers of communism. That assignment ended shortly after the highly decorated commander of his division, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, was warned by his superiors because of his vocal belief that some politicians were sympathetic to communism and that required the election of pro-American conservatives. Walker had already been reassigned in November 1961 for putting John Birch Society literature in the hands of US troops stationed in West Germany. He was relieved of his command by Elvis J. Stahr, Secretary of the Army, because of his outspoken anti-Communist activities. According to the web site of the society named for Walker, in the John F. Kennedy administration, anti-Communism was an unpardonable "crime" (Para. 1).
Walker's affiliation with the infamous John Birch Society did not bode well for him. Such membership made him a right-wing radical in the eyes of more moderate Americans. The fact that Maj. Arch E. Roberts served under Walker's command and his willingness to speak before organizations steeped in American patriotism made him another target in Kennedy administration's efforts to silence hard-line-anti-Communists.
As the September 4, 1965, Chicago Tribune editorial stated: 'The Roberts case is unlikely even to provide a footnote in the history books, but it nevertheless provides an interesting reflection of the fantasies cherished in Washington these last few years. Chief of these is that the way to deal with communism is to give it assurance that the United States entertains only the kindest thoughts about it and in no circumstances will speak ill of it.' (This was certainly a long held policy until President Reagan decided it was time for diplomacy and tact to take a back seat and for true leadership to take control of the situation. (Ipso Facto, the fellow travelers tried to kill him. )
But in the early 1960s, the left was bent on pacifying America's enemies. Unfortunately, pacification and appeasement are often bought with a price; in this case the sovereignty of the United States. Further, any assumption that the left viewed communism as a threat was probably untrue. More than likely, they viewed it as way a to become the powerful SuperParent of the masses and the great provider of social services (aka gibs ) from the national treasury. Who could defeat them down the road if they were willing to care for each citizen the way Sen. Huey P. Long (D-LA) suggested "from cradle to grave?" See related THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN AMERICA: CONSEQUENCES, CAUSES, AND REMEDIES | washingtonsblog
According to Roberts, however, those concepts were not new. Washington had decided long before the election of John F. Kennedy that America's sovereignty was temporary at best and a world government, ruled by elites, would become the 'caretaker' of the world. (Issue begins with Cecil Rhodes and his legacy organizations to expand British Empire worldwide, financed by Rothschild family, and continued in USA by wealthy "philanthropists" and bankers, leading to installation of Federal Reserve, and control of Woodrow Wilson, a very complicated story.)
In the preface to his book(Victory Denied ...), Maj. Roberts stated that his work was 'motivated by the Korean betrayal and the war in Vietnam constitutes the urgent reason for its publication.' Also revealed was that elected and non-elected officials in government allowed the United States to become nothing more than a puppet of the United Nations.
Maj. Roberts relied on public speeches he presented from 1962 through 1965, along with intelligence gathered by private investigators he employed while trying to expose the civilian newspaper, Overseas Weekly, which American troops received through the US Army. He also relied on public records from various Senate and House of Representatives committees, and Pentagon and State Department documents. His findings paint a startling picture of our government's betrayal of the citizens it swore to protect and the Constitution it swore to uphold.
His story starts with a quote from the September 12, 1954, New York Sunday News. 'The U.S. (upon admission of Red China to the United Nations) will push for approval of a joint U.S.-Philippine plan to weld the military forces of all sixty member nations into a workable international army.' That the newspaper blatantly wrote a piece that announced the creation of an international army had to frighten Americans who had experienced the ravages of World War II, the Korean War, and were soon to be knee-deep in the Vietnam War.
According to Maj. Roberts, millions of Americans knew that such political pressures under the guise of International Peace and Security would undermine the US Constitution. Those who studied the United Nations and its Charter knew full well that the greatest threat to the sovereignty of the United States could be found in the push to give the Security Council of the United Nations total control over world military power.
Lest you think it was only Democrats who backed the plan, guess again. Maj. Roberts noted the headline of a story from the June 20, 1965, edition of the Denver Post, which read, 'Six House GOP's Seek Backing on U.S. Force for U.N.' He called the public relations campaign 'astounding' because it glorified the achievement of world security through the creation of an International Peaolice Force, manned and financed by Americans.
Again, millions of Americans knew better and were convinced that such a military build-up under the control of a world body would create a totalitarian, one-world government. They weren't wrong to believe as they did. The conditions under which our military fought in the Korean and Vietnam Wars were largely hidden from appropriate scrutiny, although the press stirred up a phony controversy to gin up anti-war sentiment. However, the conditions under which American soldiers now fight in Iraq, where the slightest 'slip' produces a court-martial, should alert all Americans that our military is answering to someone or something other than the President of the United States, the supposed Commander in Chief of the American military.
Maj. Roberts' claim that the United Nations has power over American military personnel was validated in the UN Charter. Article 24 states, 'In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.' Some say the extent of that responsibility was open to interpretation. However, Article 42 stated that the organization could engage in military action 'by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security ...' That fiat included the power to authorize the use of force for purposes of self-defense and other purposes. It's the 'other purposes' that confers upon the UN far more power than any sovereign nation should allow it to have.
That the left regularly insists on UN intervention as a means to settle disputes without war is almost laughable in light of the military power and authority that was handed over to the organization almost six decades ago. Clearly, the left isn't looking for an alternative; it just wants to keep the power where the UN Charter says it should be kept.
Even more astounding is the source of weaponry and manpower when the Security Council votes to engage in a military action. Maj. Roberts was all too aware that the United States had no debate or veto power regarding who would serve, where the military equipment would come from because most would come largely from this nation. National sovereignty wasn't subject to debate or veto, either. If the Security Council voted to go into a particular nation with military force, it could do so without hesitation.
This put the UN in a power position above the United States government, its Constitution, and its laws. To soften the idea that the UN would intervene in the domestic tranquility of any nation, Article 2, paragraph 7 prevented intervention in matters normally handled by a member state within its own borders.
However, any limit on UN jurisdiction was deliberately camouflaged by another public relations campaign that painted the organization as a world body of great benevolence that must secure the approval of its members. It is unclear if our World Heritage Sites, which put American land in the hands of and under the control of the United Nations, are example of such benevolence. As far as Maj. Roberts was concerned, whether the goals of the UN were good or evil, carefully constructed public relations campaigns obscured the dangers and power inherent in a world body having such extensive powers. It was this belief that led him on a campaign to alert the American people. By delving into the internationalist agenda and identifying who controlled the UN military forces, Maj. Roberts unearthed the most vile and deadly plan to destroy the United States from within, thereby destroying what little remained of its sovereignty.
Part 2 of this series (not found) will examine what Maj. Roberts called 'The Strange Case of General Vasiliev.' The imminent rise of world government may still seem astounding, even when the word globalism is bandied about like confetti to test the will of the American people. Even more alarming is the extent to which Soviet and other foreign nationals controlled the United States military and how American soldiers have been serving under the UN banner for decades.
© 2005 - Jill Cohen Walker - All Rights Reserved
source
Jill Cohen Walker earned a BA from Goddard College in 1977, a JD from Franklin Pierce Law Center in 1980, and an MS in journalism at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 1999. A freelance writer for fifteen years, she has written numerous articles for tech magazines and newspapers, and co-authored a book on hiring practices in the printing industry.
She taught Social Studies for one year in a northern middle school, and medical-legal and bio-medical courses in the Allied Health division of a local community college for four years. A student of legal history and the US Constitution, she began to study current events and Bible prophecies in March 1985. Her deep interest in and awareness of American politics started during the 2000 elections when she realized the prophetic time clock was ticking fast. She is the co-author of the novel "The Call to Prayer". (www.thecalltoprayer.net).
study notes
"Committee to Restore the Constitution" (text format) optional formats
Archibald Roberts collection, 1953-1994 | RchvW
submitted by acloudrift to AlternativeHypothesis [link] [comments]

Welcome to 1984: Big Brother Google now watching your every political move - by Robert Bridge (RT) 9 Sept 2017

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/402588-google-eric-schmidt-republicans/
Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.
The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."
Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeIIpLqsOe4
"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."
Really?
Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.
For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.
Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.
That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right. 'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."
The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred.
Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s."
"We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves. Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."
Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where 'Googlers' enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves,"says Damore, who was very cynically fired from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange.
Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy, it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or otherwise.
Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy."
Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump.
When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future?
In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of news from the political right today.
In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic strongholds, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the Economist reported: "On the eve of America’s presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent."
The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat. Who will guard us against the Google guardians?
Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of 'fake news,' Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report. The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa.
In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information.
The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after Trump jokingly told a rally: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they began pushing the fake news story, with help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most inopportune time for the Democrats.
With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails, nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense.
According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails.
"In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented. "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true—and it very clearly isn’t—the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him." Blame Russia
The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of the political spectrum.
Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google, addressed the question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in Trump's favor.
"You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work better, absolutely," he said.
Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think "we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources..."
That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire worldview? To ask the question is to answer it...
"Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify as fake news," Pichai said.
And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," to determine what should be flagged and what should not.
Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? especially since these groups also have their own heavy political axes to grind.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted.
Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington’s political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators?
“We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance,” Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. “Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective.”
McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization “creates enormous financial burdens for the program.”
Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have registered millions of views.
“Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary – from the left or the right,” Black told the Boston Globe’s Hiawatha Bray. “It’s not about specific videos... It’s about pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.”
In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good.
"If we don’t take over today’s platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King’s College London.
It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise, it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known as 1984.
@Robert_Bridge
https://www.reddit.com/CapitalistParadise/comments/6z1fbn/welcome_to_1984_big_brother_google_now_watching/?st=j7daxb9o&sh=bebbf456
submitted by FinnagainsAwake to RADICALFREEDOM [link] [comments]

Welcome to 1984: Big Brother Google now watching your every political move - by Robert Bridge (RT) 9 Sept 2017

Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.
The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."
Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeIIpLqsOe4
"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."
Really?
Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.
For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.
Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.
That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right. 'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."
The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred.
Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s."
"We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves. Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."
Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where 'Googlers' enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves,"says Damore, who was very cynically fired from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange.
Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy, it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or otherwise.
Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy."
Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump.
When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future?
In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of news from the political right today.
In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic strongholds, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the Economist reported: "On the eve of America’s presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent."
The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat. Who will guard us against the Google guardians?
Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of 'fake news,' Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report. The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa.
In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information.
The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after Trump jokingly told a rally: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they began pushing the fake news story, with help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most inopportune time for the Democrats.
With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails, nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense.
According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails.
"In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented. "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true—and it very clearly isn’t—the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him." Blame Russia
The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of the political spectrum.
Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google, addressed the question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in Trump's favor.
"You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work better, absolutely," he said.
Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think "we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources..."
That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire worldview? To ask the question is to answer it...
"Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify as fake news," Pichai said.
And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," to determine what should be flagged and what should not.
Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? especially since these groups also have their own heavy political axes to grind.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted.
Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington’s political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators?
“We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance,” Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. “Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective.”
McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization “creates enormous financial burdens for the program.”
Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have registered millions of views.
“Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary – from the left or the right,” Black told the Boston Globe’s Hiawatha Bray. “It’s not about specific videos... It’s about pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.”
In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good.
"If we don’t take over today’s platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King’s College London.
It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise, it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known as 1984.
@Robert_Bridge
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/402588-google-eric-schmidt-republicans/
submitted by FinnagainsAwake to CapitalistParadise [link] [comments]

Welcome to 1984: Big Brother Google now watching your every political move - by Robert Bridge (RT) 9 Sept 2017

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/402588-google-eric-schmidt-republicans/
Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.
The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."
Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeIIpLqsOe4
"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."
Really?
Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.
For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.
Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.
That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right. 'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."
The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred.
Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s."
"We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves. Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."
Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where 'Googlers' enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves,"says Damore, who was very cynically fired from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange.
Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy, it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or otherwise.
Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy."
Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump.
When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future?
In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of news from the political right today.
In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic strongholds, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the Economist reported: "On the eve of America’s presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent."
The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat. Who will guard us against the Google guardians?
Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of 'fake news,' Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report. The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa.
In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information.
The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after Trump jokingly told a rally: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they began pushing the fake news story, with help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most inopportune time for the Democrats.
With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails, nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense.
According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails.
"In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented. "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true—and it very clearly isn’t—the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him." Blame Russia
The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of the political spectrum.
Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google, addressed the question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in Trump's favor.
"You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work better, absolutely," he said.
Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think "we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources..."
That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire worldview? To ask the question is to answer it...
"Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify as fake news," Pichai said.
And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," to determine what should be flagged and what should not.
Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? especially since these groups also have their own heavy political axes to grind.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted.
Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington’s political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators?
“We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance,” Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. “Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective.”
McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization “creates enormous financial burdens for the program.”
Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have registered millions of views.
“Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary – from the left or the right,” Black told the Boston Globe’s Hiawatha Bray. “It’s not about specific videos... It’s about pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.”
In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good.
"If we don’t take over today’s platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King’s College London.
It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise, it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known as 1984.
@Robert_Bridge
https://www.reddit.com/CapitalistParadise/comments/6z1fbn/welcome_to_1984_big_brother_google_now_watching/?st=j7daxb9o&sh=bebbf456
submitted by FinnagainsAwake to WorkersVanguard2 [link] [comments]

I-Say is an online survey rewards community powered by Ipsos, one of the largest and best paying survey-based market research companies around the world. Ipsos works with the world’s most trusted brands and companies to help improve their products and services. All this is possible through our community’s members’ feedback and opinions. These additional earning opportunities are part of what makes Ipsos i-Say a legitimate and worthwhile survey program. The site keeps users engaged by offering these options, instead of just taking mindless surveys all day. In other words, extra opportunities to earn points make i-Say not just profitable, but also fun! 1. Ipsos i-Say loyalty program Ipsos is a research firm that was formed in 1975 and has over 15,000 employees in various parts of the world. Ipsos has an online division known as Ipsos i-Say.As far as online market research is concerned, this is one of the largest firms around. All you have to do is to register on the website, take a survey, and earn points. Ipsos i-Say is a legitimate paid survey site available to residents of Canada and the United States. Their close competitors include Swagbucks, Toluna, Maru Voice, and Pinecone Research. Survey sites are one of many ways to earn extra cash from home. No survey site will make you rich, however, if you are looking for opportunities to make a few bucks in your free time, taking surveys on i-Say The loyalty program is based on a tiered system. When you respond to 10 surveys, you’ll earn 50 bonus i-Say points. When you respond to 50 surveys, you’ll get 200 points. That is in addition to the points you already earned for each survey you completed. The loyalty program runs from January 1 to December 31st.

[index] [11050] [7002] [3981] [12135] [10745] [1407] [4910] [9594] [12959] [3851]