Wrong Answer to Google Political Correctness

 

The new Kurt Schlichter article in Townhall titled Conservatives Must Regulate Google And All of Silicon Valley Into Submission was just wrong on so many levels and we just had to have our say. We just could not see how any honest conservative would call for government to correct what is a problem in a business situation. We are supposed to believe that competition and profit motive takes care of any such situation. The real solution is to compete using our own better business and fair practice openly competing to rectify any such problems. Using the sledgehammer of government to rectify the slide leftwards by Google, the Facebooks, the Twitters and presumably much of Silicon Valley would be exactly the kind of acts by progressives which we have spent much of our time fighting and complaining over. His first sentence states, “Google’s fascist witch-burning of an honest engineer for refusing to bow down at the altar of politically correct lies was the final straw, an unequivocal warning to conservatives that there’s a new set of rules, and that we need to play by them.” Nope, that is not the answer. The answer is for conservatives to enter this market investing capital and establish a competing company which either provides a right leaning response in that market, or better to provide a truly neutral centered market response where people can find straight answers to their queries or have honest discussions without censorship by the company providing the platform. That is the conservative answer.

 

Kurt Schlichter stated the conservative approach was to allow profits, and competition would take care of such problems. His claim then that, “For businesses, one obligation was to generally stay out of the cultural and political octagon,” may have been an old rule but political neutrality has not been true in many businesses for quite some time without people demanding a political solution. One prime example is Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream who have been extremely left supporting with their actions but there has been no demand for any government intervention as there are many other ice cream vendors where conservatives can buy such products thus avoiding adding to the profits Ben and Jerry’s owners can use on leftist campaigns and causes. His next paragraph gives the crux of his argument stating, “But the Woke Weenies of Silicon Valley, flush with cash, power, and unearned smugness, decided that they just couldn’t keep on the sidelines and make their money. No, they had to make change, as in, changing us. They violated the most important of the old rules – they chose a side.” So they decided to choose a side and work to minimize the conservative message which supposedly cripples the conservative message. The answer, let us state it again, is for conservatives or another entrepreneur to enter the market and compete by providing a better and more honest or a conservative effort, thus providing options for consumers. Yes, granted that competing against Google, Facebook, Twitter and let us even add in YouTube, would be a difficult and challenging prospect and would require finding some means of advertising campaign to get a leg up and then allow competition lead them to gain popularity and a reputation. Complaining that these companies are flush with cash and have the advantage of an established consumer base and in order to level the playing field, government intervention should be used to force these companies to play in a manner conservatives would find appropriate. Let us look at some history in the same arena of the Internet when a company called America On-Line, better known as AOL, had a near monopoly on e-mails, gaming, chat rooms and dial-up modem connections which might have appeared to be overwhelming. AOL did run into competition which eventually led to Google taking over many of these areas and then came numerous free e-mail providers and Twitter and ICQ took over chat with a better system and before you know it, within a couple of years and AOL was fighting for its survival. Why would this be any different? Yes, these companies have everything going for them but as Kurt Schlichter points out, they are making a business decision which might be a shaky and problematic decision. This should indicate an opening for new competition which could establish a foothold and then work into direct competition by offering a better and more equal product. That would be the answer.

 

Kurt Schlichter even pointed to another area where the vast majority of those within this area have taken a leftward position, the media and entertainment industry. He also pointed out that the conservatives managed to make entries and had some established companies which grew their audiences as a response to the leftward lunge by especially the news media and opinion in print media through talk radio and establishing conservative competition. That was the correct message he should have used for this situation as well. There was a time when all there was in news media on the air television were ABC, NBC, CBS and a few scattered media systems as well as local stations. Then came cable television and ninety-nine channels and even then the vast majority of news and opinion remained left leaning. As cable became more affordable, the demand increased for variety and even international news broadcasts became available and we soon had five hundred channels and an array of choices which was unbelievable when compared to what we used to have just a decade or so earlier. Today there are cable companies and satellite television where there are a thousand channels and when adding Internet television the number of channels will soon be virtually uncountable. There will be thousands of channels and while you surf there will be nothing worth watching, or so we will often still complain there is nothing worth watching. Again, technology and advancements produced an environment which permitted sufficient room for competition making the playing field even and everybody had their opportunity to try and be heard. If they offered what people enjoyed, they succeeded.

 

The Internet should be the place where this would be true for any service and if the current Silicon Valley companies desire to take a leftward lunge, then perhaps it is time for some group of startups to build a wonderful area where the weather is nice and start employing those programming engineers and technicians and mathematicians and other related fields required to build competing companies perhaps in or around the Myrtle Beach area (see image below). This could start just what will obviously be required to remedy this situation, not government regulations. Kurt Schlichter wrote, “Yet they still expect the same laissez-faire treatment as any other business even as they try to gut us politically. They discriminate against conservatives,” and they should get exactly that, as should their competitors. He adds, “See, what leftists do not get is that principles are part of systems,” which is why they should be easily competed against as they offer a less and less diverse product.

 

Myrtle Beach

 

Kurt Schlichter then uses the argument of, “the period after feminism demanded total female social equality with men, but men still generally picked up the check. That imbalance cannot persist forever; eventually the people on the other side feel like suckers, so they stop playing by the old rules. That’s when the new rules arise,” which is exactly the solution here. The new rules need to be social and in competition and not in rules put in place by government. Then Kurt Schlichter takes a sharp turn back to having the government intervene with, “And that’s why conservatives now need to savagely regulate companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. We need to use our political power in Congress and red state legislatures to incentivize Silicon Valley to return to a system where its companies embrace political and cultural neutrality, or suffer crippling consequences.” That is wrong, wrong, and so very wrong. Then he admits the problem with his argument but stands on it again, with, “Yeah, I know that heavily regulating private businesses is not “free enterprise,” but I don’t care.” Additionally, I just feel like letting him make the argument and then refuse to demand we simply compete stating, “they didn’t keep their part of it, and I see no moral obligation for us to be played for saps and forgo using our political power to protect our interests in the face of them using theirs to disembowel us. I liked the old rules better – a free enterprise system confers huge benefits – but it was the left that chose to nuke them.” And then we get, “Well, size matters, and Silicon Valley’s giants are just too darn big. Time to chop them up like old Ma Bell. Let’s apply the antitrust laws that were made for taming just these types of octopod monopolies.” Ma Bell is a false flag as there were companies attempting to compete with them but the government granted Bell a virtual monopoly. While despite the government using the Silicon Valley services, they are not granted a monopoly and there is no prevention of competitors to step up to the plate and go for the big one, the home run of toppling one of these companies with a better product.

 

Closing, Kurt Schlichter makes recommendations including, “So how about the Algorithm Transparency Act, a law that bans these big Internet companies from putting their fingers on the scale of discourse and requires them to make available online all of their operating algorithms? Yep, that would give competitors a peek at their intellectual property, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for transparency.” I do agree with his last line which reads, “Like I always say, you’re going to hate the new rules.” True, we would hate any new rules as we would rather there be less rules. Our argument for such things will always be competition, competition, competition. As far as making their algorithm opened up to competitors, no. Once there are competitors who come up with competing algorithms such a law would become a double bladed sword and counterproductive as their algorithm would be their advantage. We are sorry Kurt Schlichter but we have to claim that the proper answer is to out compete by giving the people an honestly fair and even product which simply provides the best answers regardless of the political slant and allow Silicon Valley to go as far left as the Democrats and become unusable by the average American or the people of the world, we need remember that competition on the Internet are international so really the competitors could set up on the Riviera or even in Israel where the talent for such a start-up is plentiful.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Bullies, Leftists and Islam Utilize Identical Strategies

 

There is a reason not to give an inch, a millimeter, a micron, or the width of an electron, photon, or neutrino to the pressures from bullies, Leftists or Muslims. They will continue to scream, yell, whine about the other side not being serious about whatever and beat and pound the drum for whatever it is they are demanding. Should you ever back up even to tie your shoelaces, they will rush in and take that space and immediately begin their demands that you tie your other shoe to be fair and give both shoes equal treatment and give them that other chance to rush forward. The racket never ends and it envelops every inch of common ground be it real soil, boundaries, demarcations lines, positions on issues, judgements, legislation, rates, fees, taxes, benefits or almost anything one can think or imagine. They would demand that your dreams comply with their ideologies with severe penalties for not conforming to their ideas of what is right, righteous, permitted, desirable and the definition of every word and concept. Just as the leftists have their Political Correctness, the Islamists have their religious doctrines. Both groups demand that their concepts, ideas, definitions and demanded actions must be obeyed by everyone they come near. Immediately after you accept even a single concept they immediately press for the next concession for which in return they promise that they will perform all sorts of great and wonderful things. These things never materialize and the reason is always the same, if only you did the next thing, meet this demand, surrender on this issue, part with this parcel of land, forfeited this building, granted this right, permitted these practices, universally complied, stopped this act, don’t allow that practice or what ever item they feel is your next weak point that they can exploit. This routine never ends and there can be no end, or at least no end, which leaves anything you might feel comfortable with or treasure, as they demand total and complete surrender on all things. That is the basis for political correctness and, especially, multi-culturalism, where all cultures are considered to be equal with none inherently superior. There is one exception, Western Culture, which is deemed to be inferior to all others and must be destroyed for the sake of humanity.

 

You believe there must be a difference because Leftists are a political group and Islamists are a religion. Well, you are half-right on both. Leftists believe so completely in their ideology that it has become a virtual religion with its own doctrines and demands on what you eat, how you dress, what defines a marriage or a family and where you can live and with whom you can associate. Islam is not simply a religion as it also dictates a political hierarchy where Imams are given ranks based on their piousness and by this they become the rulers over the society and they allow a person or family to be the dictatorial rulers for as long as they meet the financial and other expectations of the religious elite. Both Islamists and leftists follow a doctrinaire way of life, which is so entirely encompassing of actions, eating, attitudes, and insistence that their concepts be taken on faith that they offer the doctrinaire attitude of governance as well as the conceptual demand in faith of a religion. They are so similar except that when it comes to certain conceptual ideas they are exact opposites. Marriage is one such area. Muslims allow a man to have as many as four wives while leftists allow for same sex marriages and multiple husbands or wives or any arrangement with which those involved are satisfied. Islam defines a woman as worthy of the status of half that of a man, leftists demand full and total equality to the point that women, as the more aggrieved party, actually hold power over that of a male. Islam defines dietary rules making different foods either Halal or Haram, permitted of forbidden. Their laws define the meat of which animals are acceptable, that creatures from the sea may be eaten and almost all fruits and vegetables are permitted. Leftists also have rules for what is permitted and that which is verboten. Meat, in the world of Monty Python, is right out. For the unwashed, that means not permitted. Fruits and vegetables must be grown using no fertilizers in virgin soil watered with pure spring water and it is preferred if they were grown with the right supportive music and given plenty of sunlight. Eggs, if you are permitted to eat eggs, must come from free-range chickens who had ample space in which to congregate and spread their wings and not be stressed by confinement. The eggs must be certified non-productive despite the availability of roosters. Perhaps you might come across a subsection of leftists who allow meat but only from free-range cattle who were grass fed in open fields. We went to a lecture at a synagogue once by a leftist who instructed us on the how and why all meat must be raised in this manner so that the cattle had productive lives. He made the mistake of allowing me to ask one simple question, which was, “Assuming that Americans continue to eat meat at the current level, how much land and is there that much land available in the world to raise sufficient cattle using his standards.” His answer was as honest as it was brief, “No, there would not be sufficient land.” We found this interesting, as the title of his presentation was, “Standards for Agriculture to Meet the Public Demand.” He even started his lecture with a sentence that negated his theme as he proclaimed that if we were to pay the actual cost for raising cattle according to their environmental impact, then a McDonald’s hamburger would cost approximately $500.00 each. I knew from that point forward that everything he would present was going to be ridiculous and that he had drank the leftist Kool-Aid and there was little hope of his saying anything resembling possible. Islamists and Leftists have such relevance to one another that one augments the other, but don’t believe us, here’s another who sees the connection and is pictured right below.

 

 

That is another thing that is interesting about leftists and Islamists, they both believe things that make their entire set of parameters self-defeating and self-destructive. For leftists it is the fact that everything in their world must meet with every form of leftist demands and stipulations despite the fact that they do not agree with one another on numerous particulars. But the old leftist rule was that any leftist group supports every other leftist group such that should one leftist group be holding a demonstration, whether you agree with them or not, as a leftist you are required to come and show your solidarity. There are leftists who believe that animals may be kept by humans as pets because having a pet is helpful and grants better health and mental support that soothes the inner beast. There is another group of leftists who believe that no animal may be caged or kept for any reason and that circuses (which have been all but driven from existence) and zoos are cruel and unusual punishment of innocent animals, and do not even go to using animals in scientific studies or testing. So, please explain how one can have a paddock for their horse that is sufficiently large to satisfy the leftist who demands that horses run completely free and never ever be ridiculed by placing a saddle upon them and bridle and stirrup. These animals must be free and would love our town as it has a large number of free-range feral cats. Of course, this leads to a complete lack of squirrels, mice, and any other variety of rodents. Islam has the problem of sects, each that has its adherents who believe that their Imams are more knowledgeable and thus should rule the world once Islam had conquered and converted or eliminated every non-believer. This leads to conflict as those who do not follow the exact dogmas they receive from their particular set of imams being classified as apostates. In Islam, there is nothing more deplorable than an apostate is. Apostates are to be put to death, which would lead to inter-faction warfare until only one exactly defined form of Islam would remain with its adherents. This would lead eventually to splits within this group as some minimally important rule or even whether or not a particular fruit or not was Halal or Haram, and this difference would lead to an eventual war over this difference as no differences are to be tolerated. Just as Leftists cannot agree on everything, Islamists also cannot agree on everything. The number one cause of loss of Muslim life is other Muslims such as the warfare in Syria, Libya, and Iraq. The war between Turkey and the Kurds is intra-Islamic in nature as both sides are Muslim. Leftists are starting to have the same problem such as they cannot include BLM (Black Lives Matter) in many of their protests if there will be a white speaker and there are extremist women’s groups who refuse to attend any protest where men are permitted and so on and so on. The similarities and the reasons are terminal and self-destructive to the point that either would logically eventually lead to the end of humanity. Yes, they use the same demanding posturing on even the smallest of details and never can give an inch but will take whatever you are tricked into believing this sacrifice will satisfy them only to soon realize that nothing you do can satisfy the monster you are facing because it actually wants your absolute elimination.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Universities Where Students Major in Feelings

 

College just ain’t what it used to be unless your major field is one of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. These courses, for obvious reasons, still require students to know how to reason, problem solve and prove their work with complete documentation on how they arrived at their answer. The STEM curriculum is as strict and thorough as it ever was. Outside of STEM is an entirely different world where feelings are examined and every answer is valid and no proof is ever required as long as your position is correct. The reality of the problem is covered very neatly in the fact that at the United States’ largest university system, California State Universities, nearly 40% of incoming freshmen require remedial math and English courses after failing the entrance competency tests. That is 40% failing both math and English, the individual numbers are difficult to come by but if we remember correctly the numbers approached 60% needing remedial English and over 75% required remedial math after failing the entrance exams nation wide if one leaves out students enrolling in STEM course majors. What is even more disturbing is what follows once they begin to take actual college courses, for some starting in their second year, that the courses are watered down and grades often inflated in order to not deter the students from continuing to pay the outrageous tuitions and also allow the universities to collect Federal monies provided by the department of education to cover costs of required courses in politically correct course work with such courses stressing identity-politics emphasizing racial, sexual and religious fault lines and newthink definitions where words mean what you wish them to mean and not necessarily what your parents knew them to mean.

 

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

 

The reality is that students currently owe over one-trillion dollars in student loan debt, and hold diplomas in subjects so weak and leaving them completely unprepared for the workplace as they were for college upon arrival taking competency exams which remanded the majority to taking remedial courses just to achieve a minimal entrance level of competence. Many major employers have been required to hire teachers very often from STEM courses to provide remedial education for entrance level positions due to the lack of qualified entrance personnel. So, students graduate high school and gain entrance to a college, often their state university system as they are required by statute to accept every high school graduate with a grade point average above 2.0 or possibly as low as 1.5 or as high as 2.5 depending on the state. These students grades were inflated in high school and upon reaching college require remedial classes in order to be capable of even doing freshman basic courses. They then graduate college and apply for a job and many major employers are required to give college graduates remedial education such that they can perform entrance level jobs. Is it just us or does this indicate a problem somewhere in the education system from the very beginning to the very highest levels?

 

When there are reports of teachers in grade school teaching about alternative sexual identities and how the students should question their sexual identities, as they may not actually be the gender their chromosomes forced upon them, this is a problem. Having condoms available for the asking in elementary schools is a problem. Allowing students to arrange for an abortion through the school without parental consent or even parental notification even after the fact is a problem. Teaching sexuality and sexual positions in junior high schools is a problem. Having teachers and counselors having prescriptions for psychotropic drugs such as Prozac and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to treat ADHD or antidepressants is a problem. These are not medical professionals and the physicians who proscribe such drugs largely on the recommendation of teachers and counselors is simply dangerous and can seriously harm these young students irrevocably. That is dangerously wrong. When teachers in any level of public schools tell their students that their parents should not be permitted to ground them and that restricting their rights such as the right to use a phone, watch television, listen to music, watch whatever shows they wish, send them to their room or any form of punishment and that any student who is suppressed by their parents in such a manner can simply tell the teacher and they will see to it that the situation is remedied such that their parents will be counselled and will never try to harm them again, that is a problem. When the school tries to replace the parents in raising the children and use the power of child protective services to threaten parents with the loss of their child, that is seriously wrong. These are things which either we or people we have spoken with have experienced with public schools in the suburbs of some of the major cities in the United States. Perhaps the increasing numbers of children being home-schooled is a direct result of the degrading of the education in the public schools where instead of an education students are receiving indoctrination and instead of being taught to think, they are being instructed what to think.

 

Where we once had the three R’s; Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, the schools have replaced them with the three new’s; newthink, newspeak, and newfacts. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley and even Albert Camus would understand the new school systems, and that is far from being a good thing because these are three authors the students will never be recommended to read by their school. These are too precocious and controversial plus they are the wrong gender, race, religion and simply unacceptable. Most public schools no longer give assignments which require students to read literature, to read books, instead they receive handouts which are mostly political opinions and always environmentally sensitive and gender sensitive not to mention politically correct through and through. Often these handouts are to be left at schools and not taken home as that might arouse a nosy parent to read the handout and maybe become concerned. The schools do not want concerned parents, they like the parent to remain unworried and when they have parent-teacher conference they usually talk about the behavior of the child and the concerns of the teacher and the schools and possibly they will have a counselor to add their expertise. The really unfortunate parent is the one who asks too many questions as they will need to be reminded who the child belongs to, which is the school. The school must not be questioned and students who have their education augmented at home and will ask questions when what the school teaches does not quite match what the child was taught at home, well, that is when the real problems begin. That child is labeled disruptive and the parent is warned that the child has been displaying an unhealthy attitude in class and questions authority. Children must never question the school’s authority, only the parent’s authority is questionable. Lucky is the parent who has their children’s trust and whose children believe them over the schools.

 

The major question is when will this system collapse in from lack of integral support? Industries are requiring better-trained employees and the major universities are turning out protestors and snowflakes who cannot even take a discouraging word, let alone rebuke. The universities are so busy providing safe spaces and trigger warnings and addressing micro-aggressions that they have no time for actual education. There are legions of professors and indoctrinated “sensitive” students ready to react should, heavens forbid (and do not mention the concept of heaven at one of these universities, too Christian), a speaker get invited who lacks the proper temperament, attitude, world view, politics or anything which might sound adverse to the propaganda taught in their classes, there will be an upheaval to prevent their polluting these butterflies delicate minds which are as fragile as are their wings on which they have yet to learn to fly. They are told only the political correct, ecologically friendly, earth preserving, liberated views which must be preserved and protected from contrary truths as the students are taught that the ideas and views they are presented in their gentle classes is the only truth and all else which does not agree with the university leftist teachings are evil and monstrous and require being shouted down and never permitted to gain traction as once that occurs their entire world will collapse.

 

That actually might be the single truth they are being told, that once reality breaks through the painted glass windows on which the drawings of butterflies, kittens and puppies are drawn for their protection, that will start the end of their safe and warm little world and the truth that they have been robbed of an education will tear their world apart leaving these fragile adult-children shaken and bruised. They will hopefully feel rage filled form of anger that will drive them to self-teach those things they should have been taught so far back in their education that it is scary. One thing that will rip holes in their lives is when they realize they were never taught to read, only to recognize the words that their educators desired they know. Being taught whole word recognition is not learning to read, it is being indoctrinated and denied the ability to learn on your own. The learning will begin there, with the painful path of learning to read all over again, this time by simply saying the letters of each word together faster and faster until it sounds like a word you have possibly heard in a song or on a television show. Then the lights start to go on and education will finally start for real. Slowly at first, the words come and then reading becomes easier and a pleasure and then one can read the forbidden works. May we recommend the gentlemen we named earlier, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Albert Camus. For George Orwell we recommend Animal Farm and 1984 where in the second you will recognize some of your educational indoctrination and understand newspeak, which is nothing but whole word recognition and political correctness. And for Aldous Huxley we recommend Brave New World where you may recognize the betas of the society and begin to feel deeply for the savages and one in particular as well as his mother who sought her heaven in little blue pills and became a Soma version of a Snowblind Friend (Steppenwolf, song below). Albert Camus is a bit more difficult to recommend as he has written so much worth reading in philosophy, novels, short stories, but perhaps starting with collections of essays such as “Resistance, Rebellion, and Death,” then move on to short novels such as “The Stranger” and “The Silent Men.” From here, the classics are fair game such as “The Count of Monte Cristo” by Alexandre Dumas, which is a great adventure and “Last of the Mohicans” by James Fennimore Cooper and our last recommendation will be “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift. For those more into love stories or relations there are numerous novels such as “Great Expectations” by Charles Dickens and for science fiction there is Jules Verne and H. G. Wells and lastly, for the macabre there is always anything by Edgar Allen Poe. On a side note about Poe, one of the most beautiful love poems ever written is his Annabel Lee.

 

 

Also read newspapers including ones your professors warned you were evil, new ideas cannot actually hurt you, only ignorance can be dangerous. Seek out information and then reason what you read and hear and come to your own conclusions. Once you get a basis, return to school, take STEM courses, and learn skills that cannot be replaced by a robot in five to ten years. The education the university likely gave you would not even get you a job cleaning up behind a robot, which would be performed by a robot anyway. The age where robots take over jobs that do not require free thought is coming at us very quickly and when you and others out of university before you realize some truths and demand the minimum wage be increased to fifteen dollars an hour, then we will see robots all the faster as robots are a relatively high initial investment but then pay for themselves within a decade and then they keep working with minimal complaints making profits and not demanding promotions or higher pay or even a coffee break or lunch hour or overtime and work twenty-four seven with only brief downtime for upgrades and periodic maintenance. It really is no wonder that increasing the minimum wage will price workers right out of their jobs, and that is not a joke but a reality. Education, a proper and real true education is priceless and knowledge is the one commodity for which employers are willing to pay. Skills are the other commodity that will get you a position that pays well. Repairing robots will be a decent paying job, actually a profession. The only problem is within the next twenty or so years there will be robots which repair robots including repairing any malfunctioning repair robot. Then only Einstein types will have jobs and the robots will keep the more entertaining from amongst us as pets and the rest, well, that is something we had best hope the robots are programmed to care for us and like us or we will soon become extinct after inventing our replacement. Can anybody say Cylons?

 

Cylons Both Original and the Newer Version

 

Beyond the Cusp