100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Rise of the Right
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 08/13/17 01:03 PM
|
|
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/draft-who-is-behind-the-police-stepping-aside-and-ignoring-facist-antifa-violence-at-events-around-the-us/
Who is Behind the Police Decision to Ignore and Allow Facist Antifa Violence at Events Around the US? Jim Hoft Aug 13th, 2017 8:51 am Leave a Comment Guest post by Joe Hoft For over a year at nearly every event NOT sponsored by Leftist Democrat and Black Lives Matter groups, the Police have stepped aside and allowed horrendous acts of criminal violence against event participants while rarely arresting anyone committing these heinous acts. These violent groups, like Facist Antifa, are now inciting murder at these events. Who is allowing this to happen? Will the FBI please investigate these groups and who is ordering the police to allow them to commit violence? The police also were told to stand down last year in Baltimore when Black Lives Matter rioters tore down that American city. Yesterday at a white supremacist event in Charlottesville, Virginia, people were killed. Violent fascist rioters like Antifa were there en masse to shut down the event. (We at the GWP in no way support white fascists but we also do not support or condone violent acts against these same individuals.) One bold reporter by the name of Faith Goldy was neary five feet from where individuals were mowed down after being run over by a lunatic in a car. Goldy noted that the police were no where to be found when the incident occurred. The white supremacists were told to disband and discontinue their protest but the Black Lives Matter and Antifa thugs were allowed to continue their protesting. Antifa and Black Lives Matter were still protesting when the car appeared out of nowhere and ran over people. How many more people will be criminally attacked and murdered before the Police stop in to arrest these rioters like racist Black Lives Matter and Antifa fascists? Who is behind these violent criminal acts? The FBI needs to look into this! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rise of the Right
|
|
a setup from the start by the City-Authorities!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rise of the Right
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 08/13/17 09:13 AM
|
|
right and left have both existed since the dawn of civilizations, but whenever one side rises above the other we have a crisis on a global level. The rise of the radical right in the 1930s resulted in the WW2 and what followed after, then the left rose with the Soviet union and we had some sort of a balance during the next five decades, but after the dissolution of the USSR (which was fighting the Islamic right during the last years of its existence) the right rose again, feeding on the unlimited oil funds from the Gulf countries. The Islamic right started to expand and found many helpers and suppliers, either directly or indirectly by using this rising tide to achieve some plans(), that resulted in the awakening of the White nationalist right in the west which was triggered by the radical threats that aim to change the Western way of living (in Europe mainly, and after that in the USA as a result). National Socialism was/Is about as Leftist as one can get! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,GOOGLE is starting to show its real,SJW-Face now! http://tracinskiletter.com/2017/08/08/hey-google-how-do-you-prepare-a-country-for-totalitarianism/ Hey, Google, How Do You Prepare a Country for Totalitarianism? Feature Article by Robert Tracinski, August 8, 2017 Millions of Americans—most of us, probably—have grown to rely on Google as our default search engine for finding information online. Thousands more have even gone so far as to buy Google Home, an Internet-connected microphone plugged into Google’s computers that is constantly monitoring your home, waiting for voice commands that begin, “Hey, Google.” To the extent we bother to think about it, we accept that Google gathers our data and eavesdrops on our homes, because we assume that they only want to use this technology to sell us things. If the cost of free access to a really great search algorithm is that we have to see a few banner ads, that seems like a very small price to pay. After all, what could possibly go wrong? Well, now we know. Google could decide that its mission is not to provide us with access to information but to police our views to make sure they are Politically Correct. The warning shot is the way Google recently fired one of its high-level engineers, James Damore, for posting on an internal discussion board an anonymous memo making a measured argument against the company’s approach to “diversity.” The big irony? He began the memo by warning that “Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.” Everything that happened subsequently at Google, on Twitter, and in the technology media has validated this warning a thousand times over. For those who point out that Google is a private company that can hire or fire anyone it wants—and for all those “liberals” who have suddenly embraced big corporations’ power to dictate terms to their employees—this is absolutely correct. It is also beside the point. A country does not have a dictator pop up spontaneously, out of nowhere, and suddenly push the bonds of repression down on everyone. The people have to be ready for dictatorship. They have to learn to embrace its habits and practices voluntarily, or at least to show no resistance. In that regard, what is more important than Damore’s firing was the reaction to it, which show us how many people are willing to cheer on and participate in the ruthless suppression of dissent against the prevailing orthodoxy. We are being given a preview of all the steps necessary to prepare a country for totalitarianism. 1. Create an ideological dogma immune to factual or logical criticism. I don’t agree with everything in Damore’s Google memo—a somewhat rambling piece that strikes me as pretty typical writing for a 28-year-old engineer, a mixture of sensible notions with unexamined assumptions. But I don’t have to agree with all of it to think the issues are worth discussing and that Damore shouldn’t be fired for bringing them up. The central argument he makes, and for which he has been attacked, is eminently reasonable: that there are differences between men and women that cause them, in aggregate, not to enter the same fields at the same rates. And if that’s the case, then the attempt to achieve full 50/50 equality in hiring, particularly in very narrow technological specialties, is misguided. Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. That such natural psychological differences exist seems to be uncontroversial among scientists who study sex differences. Moreover, the current Politically Correct dogma on sex differences lacks basic internal consistency. Why is it so important to encourage “diversity” in employment? Because, we’re told, women have different experiences and priorities that would be missed in the “bro culture” of a male-dominated workplace. So therefore, in order to achieve this “diversity,” we have to pretend that there is no difference between men and women in their experiences and priorities. We can have a lively debate about the extent of sex differences, what they mean, or the degree to which they are the product of evolution (which tends to be stated in a crude and oversimplified form), or the product of different experiences relating to sex and child-bearing, or the product of artificial social conventions. But the whole point of this incident is that we can’t have such a debate. Note that when Gizmodo published the text of Damore’s memo, it deliberately excluded his graphs and footnotes to scientific research—dangerous information that its readers must be shielded from. Or decode the message from Google’s VP of Diversity in her official reply to the memo: “Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.” Notice how the second half of that statement negates the first, which is reflected in the outcome. That has been the dominant theme of the response: that it is wrong even to discuss this issue. Heck, it’s wrong to discuss why we’re not discussing it. Which leads us to the next step. 2. Make discussion itself into an offense. I remember a memorable press conference during the Gulf War in 1991, when a Pentagon briefer told reporters that he couldn’t discuss a particular military operation. The reporter asked why, and he responded: “I can’t tell you why I can’t discuss it, because then I’d be discussing it.” This rule of military secrecy has now been applied to gender politics. So according to a writer for one of the more openly leftward technology magazines, to discuss the Google memo in any way, even as a “devil’s advocate,” will get you shunned and may raise questions about whether you’re qualified to do your job. problem is that google has started to skew Searchresults,in other words,it can't be trusted! The Collectivist Philosophy by Top-Google Executives has made the whole thing suspect! what you see with YOUTUBE are only the surface-Ripples! http://www.cnet.com/news/google-cancels-all-hands-meeting-on-diversity-firestorm-james-damore/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 08/12/17 09:37 AM
|
|
Doctor Moreau's Island is long overdue,so is Huxley's Brave New World!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,GOOGLE is starting to show its real,SJW-Face now! http://tracinskiletter.com/2017/08/08/hey-google-how-do-you-prepare-a-country-for-totalitarianism/ Hey, Google, How Do You Prepare a Country for Totalitarianism? Feature Article by Robert Tracinski, August 8, 2017 Millions of Americans—most of us, probably—have grown to rely on Google as our default search engine for finding information online. Thousands more have even gone so far as to buy Google Home, an Internet-connected microphone plugged into Google’s computers that is constantly monitoring your home, waiting for voice commands that begin, “Hey, Google.” To the extent we bother to think about it, we accept that Google gathers our data and eavesdrops on our homes, because we assume that they only want to use this technology to sell us things. If the cost of free access to a really great search algorithm is that we have to see a few banner ads, that seems like a very small price to pay. After all, what could possibly go wrong? Well, now we know. Google could decide that its mission is not to provide us with access to information but to police our views to make sure they are Politically Correct. The warning shot is the way Google recently fired one of its high-level engineers, James Damore, for posting on an internal discussion board an anonymous memo making a measured argument against the company’s approach to “diversity.” The big irony? He began the memo by warning that “Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.” Everything that happened subsequently at Google, on Twitter, and in the technology media has validated this warning a thousand times over. For those who point out that Google is a private company that can hire or fire anyone it wants—and for all those “liberals” who have suddenly embraced big corporations’ power to dictate terms to their employees—this is absolutely correct. It is also beside the point. A country does not have a dictator pop up spontaneously, out of nowhere, and suddenly push the bonds of repression down on everyone. The people have to be ready for dictatorship. They have to learn to embrace its habits and practices voluntarily, or at least to show no resistance. In that regard, what is more important than Damore’s firing was the reaction to it, which show us how many people are willing to cheer on and participate in the ruthless suppression of dissent against the prevailing orthodoxy. We are being given a preview of all the steps necessary to prepare a country for totalitarianism. 1. Create an ideological dogma immune to factual or logical criticism. I don’t agree with everything in Damore’s Google memo—a somewhat rambling piece that strikes me as pretty typical writing for a 28-year-old engineer, a mixture of sensible notions with unexamined assumptions. But I don’t have to agree with all of it to think the issues are worth discussing and that Damore shouldn’t be fired for bringing them up. The central argument he makes, and for which he has been attacked, is eminently reasonable: that there are differences between men and women that cause them, in aggregate, not to enter the same fields at the same rates. And if that’s the case, then the attempt to achieve full 50/50 equality in hiring, particularly in very narrow technological specialties, is misguided. Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. That such natural psychological differences exist seems to be uncontroversial among scientists who study sex differences. Moreover, the current Politically Correct dogma on sex differences lacks basic internal consistency. Why is it so important to encourage “diversity” in employment? Because, we’re told, women have different experiences and priorities that would be missed in the “bro culture” of a male-dominated workplace. So therefore, in order to achieve this “diversity,” we have to pretend that there is no difference between men and women in their experiences and priorities. We can have a lively debate about the extent of sex differences, what they mean, or the degree to which they are the product of evolution (which tends to be stated in a crude and oversimplified form), or the product of different experiences relating to sex and child-bearing, or the product of artificial social conventions. But the whole point of this incident is that we can’t have such a debate. Note that when Gizmodo published the text of Damore’s memo, it deliberately excluded his graphs and footnotes to scientific research—dangerous information that its readers must be shielded from. Or decode the message from Google’s VP of Diversity in her official reply to the memo: “Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.” Notice how the second half of that statement negates the first, which is reflected in the outcome. That has been the dominant theme of the response: that it is wrong even to discuss this issue. Heck, it’s wrong to discuss why we’re not discussing it. Which leads us to the next step. 2. Make discussion itself into an offense. I remember a memorable press conference during the Gulf War in 1991, when a Pentagon briefer told reporters that he couldn’t discuss a particular military operation. The reporter asked why, and he responded: “I can’t tell you why I can’t discuss it, because then I’d be discussing it.” This rule of military secrecy has now been applied to gender politics. So according to a writer for one of the more openly leftward technology magazines, to discuss the Google memo in any way, even as a “devil’s advocate,” will get you shunned and may raise questions about whether you’re qualified to do your job. problem is that google has started to skew Searchresults,in other words,it can't be trusted! The Collectivist Philosophy by Top-Google Executives has made the whole thing suspect! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,that's why "Mad Dog" Gen.Mattis is in charge,and you Guys ain't! 
Its alive,but too "skeered" to move!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they called him a "Food-Guru" in another article!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,GOOGLE is starting to show its real,SJW-Face now!
http://tracinskiletter.com/2017/08/08/hey-google-how-do-you-prepare-a-country-for-totalitarianism/ Hey, Google, How Do You Prepare a Country for Totalitarianism? Feature Article by Robert Tracinski, August 8, 2017 Millions of Americans—most of us, probably—have grown to rely on Google as our default search engine for finding information online. Thousands more have even gone so far as to buy Google Home, an Internet-connected microphone plugged into Google’s computers that is constantly monitoring your home, waiting for voice commands that begin, “Hey, Google.” To the extent we bother to think about it, we accept that Google gathers our data and eavesdrops on our homes, because we assume that they only want to use this technology to sell us things. If the cost of free access to a really great search algorithm is that we have to see a few banner ads, that seems like a very small price to pay. After all, what could possibly go wrong? Well, now we know. Google could decide that its mission is not to provide us with access to information but to police our views to make sure they are Politically Correct. The warning shot is the way Google recently fired one of its high-level engineers, James Damore, for posting on an internal discussion board an anonymous memo making a measured argument against the company’s approach to “diversity.” The big irony? He began the memo by warning that “Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.” Everything that happened subsequently at Google, on Twitter, and in the technology media has validated this warning a thousand times over. For those who point out that Google is a private company that can hire or fire anyone it wants—and for all those “liberals” who have suddenly embraced big corporations’ power to dictate terms to their employees—this is absolutely correct. It is also beside the point. A country does not have a dictator pop up spontaneously, out of nowhere, and suddenly push the bonds of repression down on everyone. The people have to be ready for dictatorship. They have to learn to embrace its habits and practices voluntarily, or at least to show no resistance. In that regard, what is more important than Damore’s firing was the reaction to it, which show us how many people are willing to cheer on and participate in the ruthless suppression of dissent against the prevailing orthodoxy. We are being given a preview of all the steps necessary to prepare a country for totalitarianism. 1. Create an ideological dogma immune to factual or logical criticism. I don’t agree with everything in Damore’s Google memo—a somewhat rambling piece that strikes me as pretty typical writing for a 28-year-old engineer, a mixture of sensible notions with unexamined assumptions. But I don’t have to agree with all of it to think the issues are worth discussing and that Damore shouldn’t be fired for bringing them up. The central argument he makes, and for which he has been attacked, is eminently reasonable: that there are differences between men and women that cause them, in aggregate, not to enter the same fields at the same rates. And if that’s the case, then the attempt to achieve full 50/50 equality in hiring, particularly in very narrow technological specialties, is misguided. Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. That such natural psychological differences exist seems to be uncontroversial among scientists who study sex differences. Moreover, the current Politically Correct dogma on sex differences lacks basic internal consistency. Why is it so important to encourage “diversity” in employment? Because, we’re told, women have different experiences and priorities that would be missed in the “bro culture” of a male-dominated workplace. So therefore, in order to achieve this “diversity,” we have to pretend that there is no difference between men and women in their experiences and priorities. We can have a lively debate about the extent of sex differences, what they mean, or the degree to which they are the product of evolution (which tends to be stated in a crude and oversimplified form), or the product of different experiences relating to sex and child-bearing, or the product of artificial social conventions. But the whole point of this incident is that we can’t have such a debate. Note that when Gizmodo published the text of Damore’s memo, it deliberately excluded his graphs and footnotes to scientific research—dangerous information that its readers must be shielded from. Or decode the message from Google’s VP of Diversity in her official reply to the memo: “Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.” Notice how the second half of that statement negates the first, which is reflected in the outcome. That has been the dominant theme of the response: that it is wrong even to discuss this issue. Heck, it’s wrong to discuss why we’re not discussing it. Which leads us to the next step. 2. Make discussion itself into an offense. I remember a memorable press conference during the Gulf War in 1991, when a Pentagon briefer told reporters that he couldn’t discuss a particular military operation. The reporter asked why, and he responded: “I can’t tell you why I can’t discuss it, because then I’d be discussing it.” This rule of military secrecy has now been applied to gender politics. So according to a writer for one of the more openly leftward technology magazines, to discuss the Google memo in any way, even as a “devil’s advocate,” will get you shunned and may raise questions about whether you’re qualified to do your job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,I guess he will be fed that type Stuff for a while now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why put it in your Body?
Isn't the Chip in your Creditcard not good enough any more? What happens when the Chip gets full,or defect? ER to dig it out and replace? You all better have another Think about the matter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conrad73, LOL....you know have you ever consider doing stand up? I love your comedy. was thinking of suggesting that to you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,that's why "Mad Dog" Gen.Mattis is in charge,and you Guys ain't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
your time to clean the Latrine,Miller! Sorry Sarge,No can do,got to go to Sickbay get my Hormone-Shot! COMPANY, A TEN HUT! Private Miller's hormone shot is more important to him than cleaning your latrines. You will double-time march private miller to medical, Stand at attention while he recieves his shot and double-time back here. At which time you will all clean the latrines for inspection at 9pm. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? SIR, YES, SIR! HUT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
your time to clean the Latrine,Miller!
Sorry Sarge,No can do,got to go to Sickbay get my Hormone-Shot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
streetparade zürich
|
|
anyone ggoes to zürich to partty at streetparade this weekend? maybe we can meet already in Zurich,but even Seven Horses couldn't get me in that Rummel!
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
