Following on from my last post...
Anyone who engages in "doxxing" (giving out a person's personal information, including but not limited to their name, address, phone number, etc. for the purposes of spam, hatemail, threats, etc.)...
... is the very fascist they accuse Trump of being.
Don't be a hypocrite. Be a decent human being and accept that people don't always have the same perspective. Otherwise you're a fascist.
After the US election, after election day itself (which showed Trump winning) when a bunch of new votes, software glitches and other mysterious - and, of course, completely normal - things happened to give Biden the lead, a bunch of... "logically challenged"?* ... people celebrated the supposed "win against fascism".
Why was it a "win against fascism"? Because, obviously, Trump is the biggest fascist to ever walk the earth and apparently completely destroyed American values... (by upholding the law, denouncing white supremacy, donating his Presidential salary, not engaging in wars in the Middle East, brokering peace deals, and ultimately gaining the highest percentage of minority votes for Republicans since Ronald Reagan... go figure).
So, in order to make sure such "fascism" is never again allowed to rear it's ugly head in America, those who oppose Trump set up the "Trump Accountability Project".
This project aims to ensure that any Trump supporters are never allowed to further their careers or hold public office. They get named, shamed and held back in life. I guess this is the true definition of "equity" that left-wing people support?
This is supposedly the sure-fire way to ensure "fascism" is held at bay...
But, you may be wondering, isn't it fascist in nature?
Don't ask stupid questions, or you'll get "fact-checked" by Facebook, banned by Twitter, and slammed by the mainstream propaganda machine media.
Thankfully, after Joe Biden's calls for unity (which are sure to work, because they are just like Trump's calls for unity), the "Trump Accountabilty Project" was scrapped.
If the outcome of the election (as it's still not confirmed, despite what the media says) does go in Biden's favour, he'd better last out the full 4 years, because I'll bet this "Trump Accountability Project" will start up with a vengeance if Harris takes over.
* "logically challenged" because the election is currently still not confirmed, but the vast majority of people are brainwashed into thinking it is. And I'm not talking about Americans alone, I'm talking about the whole world, including leaders of other countries who have congratulated Biden on his "win" that he hasn't actually gained yet.
So much of language is filled with "buzzwords". The particular buzzwords can depend on your profession, but those words are the dog-whistle to the 'higher powers' that you know what you're doing, and you're in-line with their agenda. One of the greatest situations for using buzzwords is in interviews. Get the language correct, and you get the job.
One area of great concern regards what many have come to call the "New World Order".
Joe Biden has talked of "reimagining policing" and "reimagining" NATO. It's a great buzzword, to "reimagine". To most people, it's a fairly harmless word which they believe is used to inspire hope for the future. But those a little more switched on, it's a dog-whistle to something else.
"The Great Reset" is an idea whereby crises such as the Covid-19 outbreak can be used to influence policy and the populace in a particular way. There are a number of groups that don't want people to look back to a time before 2020, but to look ahead to a "post-Covid" world, to a "new normal".
These people want to change every aspect of society: "the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions."
They will use any means necessary to eliminate capitalism: "In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism."
They will destroy everyone's lifestyle: "one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles."
They will twist reality, implying that the forced lockdowns show "willingness" (as opposed to oppression by the state): "populations have overwhelmingly shown a willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of health-care".
They have determined what is best, what is needed, and the populace must comply: "Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need."
They want governments to become more authoritarian: "That will require stronger and more effective governments".
They want a focus on outcome rather than opportunity (i.e. hard work doesn't pay off, because everyone is rewarded the same; a step in the direction of communism): "steer the market toward fairer outcomes."
They want taxes and regulations to increase: "governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy)".
Any money should be used to implement a new system, this system: "Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one".
Apparently all of this is for "the public good".
We need to "reimagine" life...
In short: before we exit the current crisis and can think rationally, submit to a communist takeover!
After all, it's for "the public good" and will ensure people like Klaus Schwab will become the new elites.
Note: I never used to believe in this "New World Order" idea... but the evidence is mounting that there are people working to subvert the current governments and systems to enforce a global communist takeover, where they get to enforce their rules on everyone else. Sound like fun?
Let's do some calculations...
If I were to shuffle a deck of cards, the chance of it ending up in perfect numerical order, within the correct suits, as if the cards had just been pulled from the pack for the first time is:
1 in 80 658 175 170 943 878 571 660 636 856 403 766 975 289 505 440 883 277 824 000 000 000 000
That's 1 in 8 x 10^67.
If I were to do that 4 times in a row, the chances would be 1 in 42 324 668 846 415 660 077 857 202 047 347 746 677 935 967 944 612 046 667 814 114 345 170 207 396 228 703 086 283 421 770 796 366 410 106 374 242 729 407 222 439 001 313 217 490 503 683 356 007 835 033 781 255 324 651 204 466 826 842 852 565 637 467 820 039 406 627 183 944 921 497 480 856 600 576 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
Or 1 in 4 x 10^271
Now, let's assume that in one particular US county, 99% of the population supports Biden (which, statistically is never the case, but let's suppose anyway). The chances of a box of 20,000 ballots all for Biden would be 1 in 2 x 10^87.
Already these chances are far smaller than the first shuffle of the deck of cards above.
Let's suppose this 99% Biden-supporting county finds a box of 64,000 ballots. The chances of every ballot in that box being for Biden is 1 in 2 x 10^279.
That's over 10,000,000 times smaller than all four shuffles of the deck of cards above!
The story is that there was a box of 128,000 ballots, all for Biden, in a county that's a fair bit lower than 99% supportive of Biden?!?!?
That would be in the order of 10^560...
So, let's assume it was a "typo". If there were 15,000 ballots all for Biden, with not a single one for Trump, those chances are 1 in 3 x 10^65, and that's still assuming a 99% Biden-supporting populace.
In short, if, there are ballot drops with all the votes going to one candidate, it is pretty much certain that there's something fishy going on.
When the media uses the phrase "without evidence", it can mean a few things:
If there really was no evidence, it would be a very short story, and likely won't even be given air-time. Many rumours are out there, but they don't make the news because there's no evidence (or not enough) to support it.
When the media uses the phrase "if true" (which they did to exhaustion with the impeachment of President Trump), it can mean:
And that's about it. Because if there's no evidence, it would be a very short story and likely won't even be given air-time. (Am I repeating myself?!)
This is because the media know that many people watch their "news" and they know the power it can have. They use the power to change the minds of the people subtly by repeating the same things over and over again and then use the fact that "it's been in the news" as "proof" that the story is valid.
It's a fallacy. Don't fall for it.
