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??