On being "triggered"

Seriously, how does a person hope to make it through life if they get "triggered" by things?!?

Sure, some parts of life are downright ugly, and many of us would hope that we would never have to experience those things. But unfortunately, some of us end up experiencing those ugly parts of life. If we get ourselves "triggered" by them, then we only do ourselves a disservice.

That last sentence deliberately implies that it is a person's choice to be triggered... because it is. Some things genuinely are disturbing, and that's why we have counsellors and psychologists. But just because a person chooses to not like something (like name-calling or certain topics of statistical analysis), that doesn't put it on the same level as having actually experienced the horrors of war, death and disease.

The world is not a happy, fluffy place full of unicorns and cuddly teddy bears.
But it's also not as harsh as a lot of people make it out to be.

Some times it's worth just growing up... and growing a pair.*


* Metaphorically, not literally. Because for 50% of the population, that would be impossible.

A "multicultural" church??

Is there a requirement for a church to be "multicultural"?

Sure, Christians are to spread the good news to all nations (Matthew 28:19), but does this mean that every church should have every nation under its roof?

Sure, in eternity, all nations will worship God in unity (Revelation 7:9-10), but this side of eternity? We know full well that there are so many denominations because of petty differences and interpretations of Scripture. So why do some church leaders have a drive to see all nations represented in their congregations?

People from different nations are... different. And that means that - this side of eternity - the way they offer worship to God is different. I'm not suggesting that all ways lead to God, as if worshipping other gods is just the same as worshipping the God of the Bible. Just that...

• Black African churches are usually loud and filled with dancing.
• White Western churches are usually quieter and display Christianity in a straight jacket.
• Other ethnicities may well worship God completely differently.

And what's wrong with different churches having a different style, one that might attract more of one people group than another? In this way, all people can at least find a church that really helps and encourages them to worship God.

Perhaps the real question is:

Are we really so arrogant to think that our church will properly cater for the different styles of worship of every ethnicity?

True equality

I'm all for equality.

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.
I'm talking about actual equality, not a reversal of an assumed state of affairs in the past. Modern-day "equality" seems to be all about women getting one-up on men because of a victimhood culture that says that because some women were treated in a derogatory manner a long time ago, all women should now be viewed as more important than men.

I'm not talking about that. Because that's a load of rubbish and will only exacerbate any problems in modern society.

I'm talking about actual equality.
I appreciate it when a woman hold the door open for me.
I appreciate it when a woman puts out her arm to stop me walking across a road with a car coming.
I have no issue with women in the army, as long as they pass the same tests.
I have no issue with a woman earning more money than me, if their work is deserving of it.
I have no issue with a female prime minister or president, as long as they do a good job.

The problem is that the modern understanding of equality is about lowering standards, as if that gives women a chance in "a man's world":
Women in the army - but they need a different test because, in general, they are not as strong.
Equal pay - but women can take time off (and be paid for it) when they have a baby... and maybe men should get leave too? Screw the company...?!

No. True equality should be about raising standards.
I have no problem with a woman who works hard to get that promotion.
I have no issue with women who train in the army until they can carry their wounded comrades off the field of battle.

I am delighted beyond words when a woman shows a man up not by pointing the finger and making demands, but by doing the man's job better than him!

Let's work together to raise standards, not lower them.

You want me to laugh?

You want me to laugh?
I'll laugh if it's funny,
A look at the world through a lens of irony,
Something that's true,
An ingenious reflection on what we do.

You want me to laugh?
I will not laugh if it's harsh,
If you degrade a person or use words that are crass,
Stab in the back,
Take a cheap hit to hide your lack.

I am able to laugh,
But it must be earned:
You'll have to work for it, an art well learned.
Hide your stupidity,
Your arrogant ignorance, and have some morality.

Paypal's acceptable use policy

Paypal have updated their "acceptable use policy".

As always, it seems like it's nothing to worry about... except for the vague terminology that could easily land someone in trouble. Regarding hate, violence, racial intolerance and the financial exploitation of a crime, they change to:

"You may not use the Paypal service for activities that ... relate to transactions involving ... the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime ..."

Sounds pretty harmless? Sounds like "common sense"?
But who's to say what counts as "a form of intolerance"?

Are Paypal users allowed to have their own moral code?
Or is this another excuse for a company to force a left-wing ("far-left") ideology on the common people?

Beware.

Problems with Dawkins' atheism

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts to prove that not only the Christian God, but any god, is a "delusion". He says of the "unpleasant character" of the Christian/Jewish Scriptures that it would be "unfair to attack such an easy target." His "God Hypothesis" is:

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." (Chapter 2)

There are a few brief points to make.

Firstly, despite being a scientist, The God Delusion is filled with very unscientific language and argumentation: it is filled with derogatory and insulting language for anyone who might possible hold a different view. As such, the book is not objective, and therefore not particularly scientific.

Secondly, Dawkins views God as something physical and therefore subject to scientific experimentation and explanation. Yet, the Christian Scriptures say that whilst God may have had some sort of physical presence on earth at times (such as the Ark of the Covenant or Jesus), God is, by nature, spiritual. As science can only test physical things, all science has "proved" is that God (if he exists) is not physical, which is what the Bible says anyway: "God is spirit" (John 4:24).

Thirdly, Dawkins assumes that to say some things are created must imply that all things are created, even God. Essentially a form of Aristotle's "unmoved mover", Dawkins always asks of Christians, "Well, who created God?" And yet, by the very same argument, it could be asked of Dawkins, "Well, what caused the Big Bang?" By denying the existence of a being which is outside of time, Dawkins and his followers now have no explanation of how the universe came into existence. Science, by nature, examines "cause" and "effect": what is the "first cause"?

To rational thinking, intelligent readers, The God Delusion will only reveal an author who is ignorant of religious ideas and is not effective at applying the scientific method, relying instead on childish insults.

(Note: Dawkins apparently is a good scientist - biologist - but this is not apparent in the pages of this book.)

One of the major problems with the idea of evolution and science is that science assumes consistency. An experiment performed last year will yield the same results as today and next year. Yet evolution is about gradual change. Essentially, if evolution is correct, this means that current science is not effective for observing the past or future, only the present (and a small amount of time either side).

The political spectrum

Seriously, what hope do we have???

UK's Orwellian Nightmare

I recently posted about a shocking statistic that was trying to be kept secret: that over 80% of child grooming gangs (in various parts of the UK) involve Muslims. Social media didn't like it, because it didn't fit the current narrative. Twitter not only banned the posts, but also banned certain people's accounts.

One of those accounts was Tommy Robinson. Whilst, on the one hand, I cannot say I agree with everything he stands for, on the other hand, he does stand for something. And in this current age of apathy and confusion, that is to be admired. He is someone who cares about the downward spiral that England is currently travelling.

One of the aspects of that spiral is that, in the current ideology of 'tolerance', Muslims are enforcing sharia law in non-Muslim countries, ignoring the national laws and the media is largely silent because it is deemed 'politically incorrect'. Tommy Robinson wants to make that sort of thing known, to wake people up to the reality that exists outside of the technological bubble.

One the morning of Friday 25th May, Tommy did a live-stream outside a courthouse where a trial was taking place regarding child grooming gangs. The perpetrators were Muslim. All nine of them. And the media was silent on it. Why? Because apparently the court had issued an order that the trial not be reported. So Tommy might have broken that. But why was the order issued? Was it really to 'protect' the perpetrators? Many other similar trials do not have such orders, only that names are not used. Such an order disregards freedom of the press, and it shows that even the courts are engaged in political correctness. Such a trial doesn't fit the current narrative and so it must be silenced.

But there's more at stake. Tommy was arrested during his live-stream. Note the word 'during', not 'for'. The officers, caught on camera (see the last link), gave the reason for his arrest being for "suspicion of breaching the peace", despite the fact, also caught on camera (same previous link), that Tommy was not breaching peace in any way. But even that is not the main problem. Tommy was then jailed, for "contempt of court".

He was arrested for one reason, then jailed for another.

That is not right. That shows that the police will do whatever it takes to arrest someone, and then 'find' a reason to put them in jail if they don't like that person (for example, if that person tries to expose the lies of the current narrative).

What followed was a huge silencing of reports on the situation. Any website or article that tried to expose the lies and show what was really happening was being blocked or shut down.

Articles which remained were largely condemning Tommy. Some people said he was targetting Muslims and therefore must be advocating hate speech (see this comments section). But how can one man cover everything? Other trials get reported. He is only seeking to expose that which is being kept hidden. If the government allowed mainstream media to do their job, and if the mainstream media took their responsibilities seriously, then there wouldn't be this mess in the first place. And there wouldn't be a need for people like Tommy to fight for freedom.

Here are some of the articles that have been archived, but are no longer accessible if you follow the link:

Arrested for live reporting on grooming gang trial

An article which (like this one) shows the problem of Tommy's arrest


Here are some sites that haven't been censored (yet) and show what has been going on:

Orwellian Nightmare

Arrested for journalism

Media crucifixion of Tommy Robinson

Media censorship


This is the reality of the situation in the UK.
Freedoms are being demolished.

Only one year ago, I had never heard of Tommy Robinson or the 'English Defence League'. When I found out about him, I didn't agree with his tactics. But, as time goes on, I find that what he stands for is far more admirable than the current government's authoritarian leadership.



Note: The false label of "far-right", in the current age, simply means "not far left". It's used as an insult, much like the word 'bigot' for people who uphold laws that have been in effect for centuries.

"People of Colour"

The current American 'politically correct' term to call non-white people is 'People of Colour, or POC for short. Because 'black' isn't politically correct, and not an 'accurate' description.

But then, 'white' isn't an accurate description either: the skin of a 'white' person is actually a bit pink, maybe a bit red, maybe a bit brown.

Essentially, we are all 'people of colour', it's just that some people like to exclude lighter-skinned people and bully them.

In any case, the term can't have been coined by a 'POI' (Person of Intelligence). Let's think of the logical conclusion to this...

In the English language, plurals are generally made by adding an 's' to the end of words. Acronyms are no exception, even though this is technically incorrect (e.g. DUIs for 'drivers under influence': note where the plural is).

This means that although 'POC' should technically be used for both 'person of colour' and 'people of colour' (much like the words 'sheep' and 'fish' which are both singular and plural), it gets transformed to 'POCs' for the plural.

And the problem with this is that 'POCs', when said as a word, sounds exactly the same as 'pox'... which is a term for a variety of diseases.


So, essentially, certain black people want to drive out supposed 'systematic racism' by demanding all black people are called something we use for diseases.


Now there's irony!!

University competence

Regarding a university test (Masters level):

More reason why we need to be Maths literate.

Seriously, why is the "(or 4)" even there?!?!

Gun control and modern politics

I came across the video below, entitled "Nick Freitas: Best 7 minutes ever on gun control".

The reality is that he speaks about much more than just gun control. He touches on some of the real problems with debating politics with people. For example, every conservative being labelled a "Nazi", and US Democrat supporters projecting the sins of the Democrat past onto Republican supporters.

He speaks with passion. His honour is exemplary.

Anti-Semitism: good or bad?

WWII was fought because of global reaction to systematic extermination of the Jews.

Anti-Semitism was deemed evil.

Religious tolerance was preached, to help ensure such an extermination never happened again.

The United Nations developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Religious tolerance then went extreme: allowing Muslims to set up their own laws, undermining the laws of the country in which they reside.

But religious tolerance can't be applied equally to Christianity... because, you know, 'white supremacy' or some made-up idea.

But now, this 'religious tolerance' makes Jews who live in Jerusalem.......... guilty.

Australia acknowledges the 'rightful owners' of the land from before colonisation.

Terror-inciting organisation Black Lives Matter demand recognition for atrocities caused against their ancestors a long time ago.

But Muslims cannot accept that Jerusalem belonged to the Jews before they invaded.

So the Muslims persecute the Jews.

And the U.N. says this is acceptable???????

You decide!!

Why Easter is the most important day

Easter and Christmas are considered the two most important days in the Christian calendar. Christmas, because it marks the birth of Jesus, and Easter because it marks the resurrection of Jesus.

Both have been polluted by paganism and secular society, turning them into commercial holidays filled with gluttony and materialism. Christmas was given the date of 25th December because of the winter solstice and the pagan festival held at the time, in order to "Christianise" it. However, Easter changes date each year because it is the Sunday at the end of the week-long Passover festival which is still celebrated by Jews the world over. So Easter is better than Christmas because the date has a better foundation.

But more than that, Easter really is more important. Whilst Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus, and without his birth he couldn't have had a death and resurrection, the birth alone doesn't have any value for salvation.

Good Friday is often celebrated because of the death of Jesus. Many Christian songs are written about the cross, and it is true that Jesus' death on the cross is the sacrifice to pay for the sins of mankind. But Friday isn't the end of the story. In fact, if the story ended with Good Friday, we would only have forgiveness of sins. Satan would have had his victory. Our slate would be wiped clean, but then what?

But Easter Sunday shows Jesus' victory over death. His resurrection shows complete dominance over satan's greatest tool to pull people away from God. It's not just that Jesus was raised to life after death, but that we are raised to life in him if we believe. But not just raised to life after our physical death: raised to life - a better life - in the here and now. This life can be better. Not simply by 'having more things' or being healthy, but our whole motivation for living can be better. Through Jesus being raised to life, we can have life in all its fullness: life in abundance!

Through the resurrection of Jesus:

• Death is defeated, so we have no fear of dying physically.
• All of satan's power is broken, and we can proclaim that over our lives.
• Our lives can be made complete: life to the max.
• There is a hope for something better than what this life can offer.

If we stop at the cross, skipping out on the resurrection, then we miss a huge part of why Jesus came.

Without Easter, there is no hope for this life, or beyond. Easter is the complete destruction of satan's power, showing that Jesus has the ultimate victory.

And that is why Easter is the most important day.

The necessity of "meritocracy"

Social media seems plagued with this idea that a "meritocracy" is a bad thing. Meritocracy is where rewards are given for skills, abilities and talents. Essentially, it's about having criteria.

For example, should a person be allowed to teach biology if they know nothing about the subject and even failed it at high school? To most people, that would seem ridiculous. But, if you think that we shouldn't have a meritocracy, then that's essentially what you're saying.

But here's why society must be based on merits:

If I'm about to have open heart surgery, or brain surgery, or any other surgery.......
I absolutely want the best surgeon who knows his stuff, because I don't want to die!!

Is that plain enough?





Maybe some more examples:

• Should we give people a driver's licence just because they are a minority group or because they've shown they can actually drive a car?
• Do people working for NASA, sending people into space, really need those qualifications in astrophysics?
• Should I allow just anybody to build my house or repair my car, or should I make sure I find someone who is trained in the trade?

Simply put, if you can find any situation where you would essentially 'discriminate' based on skill (or 'merit') - any situation at all - then you believe a meritocracy is a good thing.

And good on you for that.

Address the problem

I recently posted on a statistic that doesn't work with the current "liberal" and "SJW" narrative. Read it here.

Now I come across the video below.

I have a number of questions from this:

1. Why isn't the government* addressing the problem?
2. Why does the media continue to hide and/or "politically correct" the facts?
3. Why do SJWs continue to push a false narrative?
4. And why is it that the first video I come across where someone speaks out against this atrocity... is from a Sikh?!?!

Now, with question 4, I'm not intending to be racist or anything. It's just that this is one of the important things that Christians are meant to be making a stand against. Why haven't I heard from them first? I'm meant to be part of the Christian community, so it's logical that I should hear about it from Christians first. Or is youtube censoring Christian videos too?

* I've decided not to use a capital letter for organisations/institutions that are a disgrace.

"Hate incidents"

Anyone living in the UK needs to be aware of "hate incidents". It's a huge attack on freedom. (I would use the word 'liberty' but that might get confused with 'liberals' and 'libertarian'.)

The information describes a "hate incident" as "acts of violence or hostility directed at people because of who they are or who someone thinks they are."

And an example they give is regarding someone who received a comment because they might have been gay.

This sort of thing is designed with one purpose in mind... and it's not to "protect" people. It's to try to force an agenda through. It's to force into silence those who might have an opposing viewpoint. It's to give the "liberal" agenda a chance to thrive, because someone thinks it's a step of "progress" for society.

But, in their quest for liberal takeover, their subtly has provided a flaw in their plan: their desire for "equality".

The "liberal" agenda is anything but "equal": opposing viewpoints are not equally valid, because it's not considered valid to think that homosexuality is a problem. It's not considered valid to think that forcing children to change their gender is an act of child abuse (more info here).

But "equality" is their motto, because... who would be opposed to "equality"? Only a dictator, surely?

Whilst the idea of "hate incidents" is designed to make sure Christian bakers and orphanages are shut down because of their so-called "intolerant" beliefs (the irony of it: the intolerance of liberals!), it can work against this unhealthy "liberal" agenda.

This sort of policy is incredibly unsafe, because "something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice"... because that's not open to abuse at all, is it?!?!

And here's their flaw: because it would be blatant "prejudice", "hostility" and "intolerance" to single out Christians (which is essentially the agenda), Christians are also allowed to report such incidents.

Hence, if anyone displays hostility towards my Christian beliefs, I can report them for inciting hatred.

And Christians all over the UK should do just that. They should stand up and declare, "We are not a walkover!" But not just if an act of intolerance is committed against them, but if such an act is committed against any of their friends, because anyone else is also allowed to report it.

Inundate the police with "hate incidents" committed against Christians. Play the game. Let this toxic liberal society know what real "equality" is about.

My beliefs are biblical and rooted in rationality. They are not based merely on 'feelings' and imaginations. I have a moral code. If you don't like it, you're entitled to your opinion. If you try to slander me or call me unhealthy things because of my high moral standard, then that's a "hate incident" and you will be reported.

Liberals, how do you like them apples?

Why we need to be Maths literate

Here is a good solid reason to be Maths literate, to be able to understand basic numbers.

This video is regarding a report I blogged about previously: that 84% of child grooming gang members in the UK are Pakistani.

In the video, the man mentions "up to 87%" but that's not particularly relevant for this post.

The woman he's talking to says, "You can't just go around saying that it's Pakistani Muslims and no one else!" (Remember, Pakistan is a Muslim country.)

The man tries to tell the woman that a statistic of 87% clearly implies that it's NOT only Pakistanis who are doing it... that it leaves 13% for other people.

And here's the problem: people hear a statistic and assume it's 100%. This is because only one group has been labelled and therefore it sounds disproportionate.

This is why people get irate about "Tax cuts for the 1%". Why should all those rich people get a tax cut, as if it implies 'every person earning more than me, poor me'? It's talking about 1% of people, who probably earn more than the complainers ever will.
    - No tax cuts for the 1% means the complainer's situation is unchanged.
    - Tax cuts for the 1% means the complainer's situation is unchanged.
So what's the problem? Quite simply, the assumption that it refers to 'anyone earning more than me'.

Would you be shocked to hear that in schools across the country 50% of people are below average?
How could so many schools be failing the nation's children?!?!
Until you stop to actually think about that statistic.

This is why basic maths is so incredibly important. If you're not good at Maths, leave statistics well alone.

Or just avoid me. Because I will check out those stats.
(e.g. Snopes)

The truth behind the shootings

This brave young lady told it like it is.
Forget the fake solution of 'gun control' (it doesn't work). Here's the real issue.

Mass Shooting Stats... and Snopes

This post is based on this article on Snopes.

The article, like many news articles you see on TV or in the newspaper, assumes the average reader can't work numbers. Most of the time, they're right. Most of the time, readers see numbers, assume something about them, and are happy quoting them to their friends to support whatever agenda the original article had.

Sometimes, someone like me gets to have a look.

Have a read of the Snopes article. I'm using their stats that are in the table towards the bottom, and I'm throwing in a couple of other interesting statistics to make a bit more sense of it. Firstly, their table, summarised by country and total mass shooting deaths between 2009 and 2015:

• Albania - 4
• Austria - 4
• Belgium - 10
• Czech Rep. - 9
• Finland - 5
• France - 158
• Germany - 13
• Italy - 4
• Macedonia - 5
• Netherlands - 6
• Norway - 69
• Russia - 12
• Serbia - 19
• Slovakia - 7
• Switzerland - 8
• UK - 12
• USA - 199

Now, consider two more things (note: km2 means square kilometres):

• Area of Europe is 10,180,000 km2; area of USA is 9,833,520 km2
• Population of Europe is 741,447,158; population of USA is 325,719,178

Yes, those stats are simply pulled from Wikipedia (Europe, USA): feel free to do more accurate research yourselves.

The interesting things to note are that:

• Europe and USA are roughly the same size (USA is 96.6% the size of Europe)
• Europe has roughly double the number of people of USA (USA has 43.9% the population of Europe)

This leads to two statistics that the Snopes article does not mention.

1. Looking at the number of mass shooting deaths in relation to the land mass (i.e. Europe should be taken as a whole, due to its size compared with USA, not as individual countries), that would be 345 deaths for Europe (or rather, for 16 countries within Europe, out of almost three time that number in reality). Since USA has 96.6% of Europe's area, that would mean we could expect 333.27 deaths in that time from USA to be on equal footing... but USA only has 199.

This means that, in terms of area, USA is a safer country than the whole of Europe.

2. Looking at the number of mass shootings in relation to population, we could expect USA to have 151.455 deaths... but USA has 199

This means that, in terms of population, Europe is safer than USA, but only just! In terms of population, Europe has 76.1% the number of mass shooting deaths as USA.


Now, also take into consideration the following:

Europe already has very strict gun laws in many countries, and has done for the whole 2009-2015 time period that the above stats are taken from. Surely, given the current debate on USA's gun laws, if gun control really is effective, the mass shooting deaths in Europe should be close to zero... and not over 75% the rate of USA.


The issue with the Snopes article is that it treats countries as equal, especially in terms of population. The stats it shows of the "Annual Mass Shooting Death Rate (per million people)" is criticised when the data is the mean average, stating that the median average would be more appropriate.

This couldn't be more wrong.

Both averages are inappropriate because of the difference in size of the comparisons. If we were to compare each state of USA with each country of Europe, we would have a far better standard for comparison. Europe has small countries like Andorra, Luxembourg, Vatican City, and USA has small states like Rhode Island, Delaware and Washington D.C. would have to be counted as well.

The reality is, travelling from San Francisco to Chicago is not the same as travelling from Paris to Lyon... Paris to Athens is still shorter!

In conclusion, if USA were to impose similar gun control laws to European countries, and assuming every USA citizen (and every illegal immigrant) gave up their guns, the mass shooting death rate would only drop by 25%.

Gun control is unlikely to do much regarding mass shootings.

"Unity in diversity"

Hailed as a huge step forward, a launch into progressive society, the phrase "unity in diversity" is just one huge farce.

Not only is it an oxymoron in itself: "unity" is the idea of bringing together as one, a kind of uniformity; whereas "diversity" is the idea of things being different. "Unity" and "diversity" are opposites, antonyms. But the idea simply doesn't work.

Think about it.

What civilisations have thrived on diversity? How is it possible to have laws (any legal system at all) when individuals want to be treated differently? Do people have different 'rights'?

Islam is thriving in this Western attitude of "unity in diversity". Why? Because they get to enjoy the benefits of it despite not ascribing to it. They don't want diversity: they want Sharia law. They want to enforce their own laws on society. And they start by being free to set up their own 'society within a society'... made possible by "unity in diversity".

In this new age of sexualism, where sexual and gender identities are 'fluid', people who choose to be different to the norm are not inclusive. They don't want "unity in diversity" because they attack anyone who doesn't believe in their post-postmodern gender ideologies.

The racist group Black Lives Matter are doing more for segregating society than unifying it.

The fascist group Antifa is using "unity in diversity" to start riots against anyone who 'diverges' from their ideology.

"Unity in diversity" has replaced the correct version of "unity makes strength".

The military cannot function with "unity in diversity". Sure, there are different roles in the military, but they have a common enemy, fight for a common cause and they dress uniformly so that they don't mistake an ally for an enemy!

Businesses cannot function with "unity in diversity". Sure, different employees have different roles, but individuals cannot begin selling different products through the business.

An element of diversity is permitted, even encouraged for creativity and problem solving, but there must be a big sense of unity for any nation to survive. Western civilisation has destroyed that. Other cultures which are unified (gender identity, Islam, etc.) are undermining the very premise of "unity in diversity" to promote their own agenda.

The scariest video

Not scary as in making you jump, but scary in it's content, the video below is absolutely shocking.

I saw a video recently about Math (because it was American) being racist. Seriously? Maths is the very definition of objectivity! There is no way possible for Maths to be 'racist'... if I buy something that costs £3.70 and I pay with a £5 note, then I will expect £1.30 change. My change is not dependent on my ethnicity or whatever gender I may happen to feel at the time. Can you imagine?

• £3 change if you're Asian
• £0.20 change if you're white
• £1.90 if you're a woman
• £4.30 if you're Muslim
• £10 if you're black (sorry, a 'person of colour')
• £200 if you're a mixed-race trans used-to-be-female but now identifies as a moon-goat
• and if you're a white male and... dare I say it... Christian, there's an extra £50 tax

No. Maths is not racist.

In the video, a book is mentioned, entitled "Race, Class & Gender: An Anthology." I'm tempted to buy it, so that I can gain an insight into this crazy ideology that is the Left. One comment agrees with the professor in the video, that page 14 says:

"Objectivity as found through rational thought is a Western and masculine concept that we will challenge through this text."

I'm genuinely interested to see how they can possibly defend that notion. Can objectivity be found without rational thought? Or perhaps the author would prefer subjectivity instead? Because, if you take away rational thought, you get subjectivity.

What does it do to science? "Today, folks, gravity won't exist. Why? Because I don't feel like it!"

If such a statement gains popularity, civilisation is over. But looking at the world today... perhaps it's already too late. I still cling to hope.

And rational thought.

SJWs and logic

I recently came across the video below.

Unfortunately, things such as average height, muscle mass, location of fat deposits really ARE different between men and women. So is the recommended calorie intake. And how blood alcohol content is calculated.

This is because - despite the rise of 'complete equality' - men and women really do have some basic differences. (You know, there's always the good old 'women have the babies' things which shows a big difference between the sexes.)

It's not just between men and women. Nationality can also play a part. BMI for Asians is calculated differently. Have a look at this photo of the sizes of a t-shirt:

This shows that in the USA, people are so much bigger that an American 'medium' size is equivalent to an Asian 'extra large'!

These are simply the facts.

The video below shows a bunch of SJWs getting 'triggered' (that's the politically correct word for 'irrationally offended') at these facts. But that's not the real issue here.

People are free to get offended at whatever they want (just please don't force 'free speech' to die because of those irrational tantrums). My issue is with them likening people who accept the facts to 'Nazis'.

And here's why:

Think about the logical conclusion to this line of thought. (I know logic is not strong with these SJWs.) If logically thinking people who treat observed occurrences as fact (i.e. most scientists: they make observations and draw conclusions which the rest of society are meant to accept as 'fact') are being called 'Nazis'..........

Does that mean that the infamous Jew-killing monstrosity was simply a logically thinking person? Perhaps he was even a scientist??? Perhaps the SJWs think the Holocaust was just some grand social experiment?

The lesson in all this: if a person fancies themselves an SJW, they need to learn when to keep their mouth shut, because all too often they just end up being a big embarrassment.

Why the Trans community are liberal

Trans people are still pushing to allow children to be able to 'decide' their own gender. They advocate for the notion that a penis doesn't mean the person is male and that a vagina doesn't mean the person is female.

They try to force society to abandon the idea that your biological sex might determine a lot of things for you (such as growing breasts, facial hair, etc.). They want people to believe that it's perfectly normal to pay huge sums of money for surgery to force your body into the shape you think it should be in your head.

And they want society to believe that it is normal for kids to do this too.

The vast majority of Trans people are liberals. Many of them also support the destructive communist ideology.

Why?

Because if you'll believe one lie, you might believe more.

Establishing dominance over a country

In times gone by, when an invading nation wanted to establish their control over their new territory, the option of simply killing everyone wasn't good, as it would mean the invading nation would have to spread itself very thinly (play a game of 'Risk' and you'll understand). An alternative had to be found.

Instead, the invading nation would 'water down' the civilisation of the nation it wished to control. It would do this in two ways:
1. Move citizens of the country to be taken over into the invading nation's homeland (exile, essentially).
2. Grant land in the new territory to citizens of the invading nation's homeland, to establish the culture of the invading nation.

This option worked well, as it would mean there are still people to work the land, pay taxes and keep the economy going.

Fast-forward to modern-day. What's with this mass migration and the push for 'open borders'? The current ideology of 'we must be tolerant' and 'let's not be xenophobic' and 'loving our neighbour clearly means giving them land in our own country' is essentially that second form of invading a country.

What am I trying to say? That politicians are trying to enforce a national takeover by their forcing of countries to take in more immigrants unquestioningly.

The only problem is, the people who are settling in the land aren't bringing economic benefits... they're taking as much free money as possible from a welfare system that's out of control.*



* I'm not against a welfare system that actually helps the citizens in need, in such a way that the citizens are encouraged to take their responsibility of working and paying back into the system that has helped them. I am against a welfare system that just gives out to people who waste money on non-essential things at the expense of needy citizens.

American Democrats... Genius?

In America, lots of people from ethnic minorities are trying to make their voice heard about the supposed 'oppression of white supremacy', which causes many riots (mainly from those against 'white supremacy').

Ignoring the political slur of the meaning of 'white supremacy' and the fact that it's become another 'insult' by the childish name-calling bullies of the Left, the whole situation is fascinating.

All these people are coming together to stand up to 'white supremacy', saying that the non-racist political party is the Democrats... with a white leader.

Now, how's that for political advertising!!!

That's actually a stroke of genius for the Democrats, getting as much support from ethnic minorities as they have by promoting their opposition to a 'white regime' if only the people would follow a white leader.

It's like telling a bunch of slaves, "Hey, we can end slavery together... if only you would work for me for free!"

These ethnic minorities often try to claim that they're intelligent, yet the Democrats have used their lack of it against them.

Give credit where credit's due... well done Democrats!

Where does 84% of child grooming in the UK come from?

I recently came across this article.

It explains how "British-Pakistani researchers say 84% of grooming gang members are Asian."

Asian? How many Chinese or Japanese people do you think are involved in this sort of thing? Exactly. When it comes to it, we find that "Asian" is simply the politically correct way of saying "Muslim" or "Pakistani".

And we all know how much the UK just loves political correctness! You see, even articles have to be careful, because to mention "Muslim background" would obviously be a case of Islamophobia.

What lesson can we learn from this? Don't state facts unless it fits a particular narrative!!

The real lesson should be to do something about "toxic Islam". But that wouldn't be politically correct, now, would it??

YouTube censorship

In 2016, YouTube created a "harassment and cyberbullying" policy. Like many modern-day policies, the intention is good, but the application has horrendous implications. And, like many modern-day policies, if you have 'concerns' about it, people assume you are therefore in support of what it is trying to prevent.

So, first point to make:
Just because there are concerns, it does NOT mean harassment and cyberbullying should be encouraged! The concerns are because of how far it can be taken.

Let's get into it. Italics will be used for the policy. Everything else will be my comments.

Harassment may include:
 - Abusive videos, comments and messages

This is vague. Is a friendly joke that pokes fun at a stereotype a form of 'abuse'? If I were to talk of the Irish tap dancer who slipped and fell in the sink, am I abusing Irish people? Of course not. But it could be seen that way... more on this later.

- Revealing someone's personal information, including sensitive personally identifiable information such as social security numbers, passport numbers or bank account numbers

Sure, that makes sense. But the concern is with two little things: 'including' and 'such as'. Why would these words be concerning? Firstly, because it means that social security numbers, passport numbers and bank account numbers are not the only things counted as "sensitive personally identifiable information", they are simply examples. Secondly, because the word 'including' means 'what follows is in addition to' anything else that might be considered someone's personal information. If a video has a car numberplate, or mentions someone's name... it could be breaching the policy. In fact, many things could potentially be seen as "personal information"... more on this later.

- Maliciously recording someone without their consent

Again, this sounds good and mostly won't have any issues. But if someone says, "This video is of me, and I didn't give consent," then what will happen? Will it be taken down? Will the publisher be asked to provide evidence of consent? The process is vague. Many people record in public - which is not illegal. But if a recording is of a police officer who is abusing his/her power, then the recording could be seen as malicious... more on this later.

- Deliberately posting content in order to humiliate someone

Anything posted is obviously 'deliberate': how can you post something by accident? The wording is clever. It should read: "Posting content in order to deliberately humiliate someone." Most people will read it that way, but the wording means that YouTube can pull down a video which 'accidentally' humiliates someone, because the video was 'posted' deliberately. Yes, people, those English lessons were important after all! YouTube is using clever wording to make it mean something different.

- Making hurtful and negative comments/videos about another person

Where is the line drawn? If I watch a video and feel that my precious little feelings have been hurt by it, can I report it and have it taken down? Anything which criticises a particular viewpoint, or comments on new reporters or politicians who are disgracing themselves, could be seen as making a hurtful comment. In fact, any criticism is essentially a negative comment, so any video which aims to be a form of social commentary of political/public figures could potentially fall into this category... more on this later.

- Unwanted sexualisation, which encompasses sexual harassment or sexual bullying in any form

Again, clever words: 'which encompasses' and 'in any form'. This means that 'sexual harassment' and 'sexual bullying' are only parts of this picture, and 'in any form' is wide open to interpretation. If parents want to share a video of their family's fun holiday to the beach... someone could report 'unwanted sexualisation' of the daughter being in a swimming costume. In fact, many advertisements (which YouTube utilises) would fall into this category, and very often attractive females are used to promote products to a male audience. Do the advertisements get taken down? Of course not.

- Incitement to harass other users or creators

Now, let's say that a particular user has posted a video on a current issue which clearly has two sides, and they say something along the lines of, "Communism is the only way forward, and if you disagree you must be a bigoted, white supremacist fascist." YouTube may use its discretion that the video promotes discussion and allow it to remain. Another user may comment on the video, or create a video in response, where they say, "Actually, Communism is a disaster. It hasn't worked in history; the only times have ended with many people dying and the general population being far worse off as a result." This response, although a logical rebuttal, could be seen as an incitement to harass the creator, and could therefore be silenced... more on this now.

Wherever I have said "more on this later" I am referring to this paragraph:
Such a policy is hugely open to interpretation. It gives YouTube power to do whatever they want with any content anyone publishes... and it means no one has a change to argue against them. YouTube will win every court case because of their own interpretation, and because they created the policy, they can simply argue, "This is the intention of the policy... it is the user who misunderstood it, but that is not our responsibility."

This is exactly why policies must be questioned. 'Simple language' might seem to be beneficial to the common person, but it gives power to the corporation. James Damore was fired from Google (who owns YouTube... and this blog) for questioning them. He presented scientific evidence, but they used their vague policies to have him fired and silenced.

Why is this important? Because it stifles discussion and the pursuit of truth.

There is currently a huge battle between the political left and right. Mainstream media corporations have aligned themselves one way or another, always promoting that they are correct (which is understandable). Many people have become disillusioned and, as a result, have turned to video publishing websites, such as YouTube, in order to facilitate those much-needed discussions and to figure out the best way forward for society to proceed.

Unfortunately, some people have decided that we never really know who we are communicating with, because 'Russian bots' are obviously everywhere. As such, many things posted by real people can be taken down on the assumption that it is a 'bot' and so the voice of people - or of certain viewpoints - can be totally silenced.

YouTube itself seems to have aligned itself with the political left (not surprising, given it is owned by Google who, as mentioned before, fired an employee for providing scientific evidence of how a leftist agenda is flawed), and they censor videos which promote discussion and other viewpoints.

The reason I write this post is because a YouTube video I commented on has been taken down, leaving me with a message saying: "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on harassment and bullying."

Due to the recent incident in Parkland, Florida, there were reports that a particular teenager might have been a mainstream media 'crisis actor' who jumped on this bandwagon to promote a particular corporation. I wanted to investigate this a little myself, but the vast majority of the video evidence had been pulled down by YouTube because of this supposed 'harassment' policy. I eventually found a video, watched it, and could understand why people drew that conclusion. I commented on the video.

I then receive an email saying that someone had responded to my comment, so I went to the YouTube video page to view it. But I couldn't because the video had been taken down. (Thankfully the email contained the full comment, so I could still read it.)

Do I have an insanely high IQ? I don't think so. I believe many people are capable of reading differing views and forming their own conclusions. The fight for freedom of speech is all about allowing people to discuss and form their own view. This form of censorship is typical of the political left (you know, the ones who call everyone 'bigots' if they don't agree with them) and pushes society closer to revolution... because people will eventually be so fed up with it that they will take matters into their own hands.

Corporations like YouTube, whist supposedly having policies for the 'safety' of its users, force censorship onto the population, pushing forward one viewpoint. This is called brainwashing. It is not beneficial for society and it destroys democracy.

Being sceptical

It's always a good thing to question what we read. A while ago, I wrote about misleading headlines, where one of the examples concerned a scientific discovery on Mars.

Now, when it comes to science, we really do need to have an element of scepticism. The reason is because scientists are always trying to validate their research in order to obtain funding.

Imagine being a research scientist and not discovering any evidence for any of your theories for 30 years. Whilst you, as the scientist, may still believe in your theory, the public (or, more importantly, the government) will lose hope and will struggle to keep supporting you.

Hence, any shred of 'evidence' which might support your theory needs to be written about and broadcast to the world so that someone will believe in you and continue giving you the money you need. Sometimes, a jump to a particular conclusion from a tenuous piece of 'evidence' will get you that badly-needed funding. From your perspective, it's worth the risk.

This is exactly what happened with Mars.

On September 29th, 2015, NASA told the world that they had found "evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars". Now, as you read through the article, you'll find that they haven't actually found water... they've only discovered 'darkish streaks' which might have been caused by flowing water.

They wanted to find evidence for their theory: if they can find water on Mars, they might be able to find life (microscopic life) on Mars, too.

But to send probes into space, landing safely on Mars, then moving and taking photos all controlled from Earth... costs a lot of money. NASA needs funding.

When the report came out, I was sceptical. Not because of a firm belief that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the entire universe (I don't really care too much whether life exists on other planets), but because of how the article was worded. The headline was misleading. And if scientists exaggerate what they've discovered, then we should be wary.

I'm always sceptical of new scientific 'discoveries' because I don't want to simply believe whatever new theory some guy in a lab proposes, without the proper scrutiny to know that it's really the truth. I will not let my worldview be blown and tossed by the wind of scientific theory without sufficient evidence.*

Over time, things become clearer.

The 'streaks' on Mars... would seem to be cause by 'granular flows' (e.g. sand), not water. NASA had to amend the initial article by including a link to this one, which updated the evidence.

So my scepticism paid off: water has not yet been found on Mars.



* (Quite simply, this is why some people have ended up in the mess of believing that there are over 100 different 'genders'... and to question it only attracts intolerant and bigoted insults from those people who don't want evidence to prove them wrong.)