We need to be far more critical in our searches

This was my first post of the day across the way but it seems to me that the principles touched on can also apply to our own research and collating of data …

(0748) Before we take even one step further

Patrons are reader/authors, reader/commenters and then readers … and as well as all the wunnerful attributes of each, there are also flaws, repeating flaws, some of which can be categorised:

a.  Having our faves whose testimony we wave through more or less uncritically, with time … whereas there are serious question marks about them. Donny himself is one of those, still proud of his Operation Warp Speed.

b.  Part of this fave biz is that we brook no criticism of our darlings … not in the back of our mind. In fact, to criticise marks the criticiser as an underminer, as a subversive element … and thus we create dissent in the tavern … where the camaraderie and collective responsibility to the narrative we create outweighs sheer politically sceptical sense.

Let me mention two … first Gonzalo Lira, of whom Ripper wrote:

Oh dear.. Its appearing that Gonzalo Lira is an SBU asset. Scott Ritter knocks holes in Gonzalo's escape story (14:40 in video)

How do I know? I used the search engine, always remembering that engines have their own biases too, e.g. Wikipedia.  We have snippets on Lira which should not be ignored … not if we wish to get the whole truth, not just half truths.

Yet we do not like anyone criticising or calling into question the view we have settled on in our own minds … we can take it quite personally.

c.  Protesting that we do not do any such thing is virtue signalling. Naturally, no one likes to be vaguely accused of this and we demand corroboration … standard tactic of the Woke left is to ask one word: “Sources?” Esp. when the sources have been blanket suppressed … neat trick, that.

So easy to negate with one word, e.g. “Racist!” without that projecter/flinger himself being subjected to rigorous scrutiny.  There’s a standard retort from me to this habit of the insta-riposte:

Sir Norman Anderson, describing himself as "an academic from another discipline who has browsed widely in the writings of contemporary theologians and biblical scholars”, writing in Lawyer Among Theologians, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1973, p15, about the quality of the criticism of the anti-Christian so-called intellectuals:

"At times [I am] astonished by the way in which they handle their evidence, by the presuppositions and a priori convictions with which some of them clearly (and even, on occasion, on their own admission) approach the documents concerned, and by the positively staggering assurance with which they make categorical pronouncements on points which are, on any showing, open to question, and on which equally competent colleagues take a diametrically opposite view."

When Ripper criticises Lira, our job is to at least note it each time Lira’s mentioned or included in a report, esp. by the American side, e.g. judges, colonels and generals. Not leaving out Scott Ritter himself.

And then there are “Doctors” Naomi Wolf and David Martin.  It is wrong to include their medical opinions as any better than our own as their doctorates were not in medicine … they are pulling a sleight of hand to present themselves as authorities on matters medical.

Are they not entitled to a view, having extensively searched? Absolutely … just as we do … but we do not pass ourselves off as doctors, meant to be taken as doctors of medicine on medical issues.  That is my main criticism … that and the desperation to be included on the Big Stage as “influencers” … always on the Big Stage … that is the point.

d.  There is an element of either laziness or bloodymindedness … obstinacy if you like … in continuing to uncritically present people who have serious question marks against them, just because they seem to be our champions, once the criticisms have been made by those on our side of politics.

Another is Alex Jones. There was first of all Bohemian Grove … how he even got inside, how he was never challenged … then there was how he folded on Sandy Hook, when he was wrong to … those matters have by no means been addressed.  Also questionable were Rense in the old days of the net, plus Ted Gunderson.

e.  The opposite applies too … to have the word WEF attached to you or to have used a horned hand sign is a major red flag, e.g. Tulsi Gabbard. Then there are Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.  Explore the negative literature first … how many patrons just put a name into the box and press, using what comes up, exploring that which ggl have helpfully arranged at the top of the first page?

You might put it down to no time to search further … those doing it to us though put it down to our human laziness. Thing is that to thoroughly research something can take years. On one issue … that of conceal and carry, a judge has just produced a 620 odd page report alone … who has that time?  

That’s not laziness to baulk at that … but just typing a name into a search box is.

f.  Always type in a negative, e.g. Steve Harley gay, or Tara Fitzgerald slut, something you’d like to see vehement rejection of … remember you’re not saying they are, you are searching … why search eulogies? For example, when searching for Pippa M, also type in “walk of shame”.

People such as me who type in negatives the whole time, who are cautious, cagey, untrusting … are we unpleasant people to be around? I could make a case for that, yes … but what do you want … the truth … or something nicely sugarcoated?

See, the problem is that we are are also community spirited here and to a point, it’s good not to push our fellow tavern denizens because we also need some solidarity, rather than being completely unherdable cats … and ultrasensitive to personal criticism too.

In short, a balance is required … but also not to let an obvious anomaly to slip past un-noted … particularly if there are people who’ve done a fair amount of work to bring those anomalies too us.

g.  We are ageing and the memory is genuinely deteriorating, plus we’recstressed out by the whole global situation as it seems increasingly likely to affect us … I don’t mean the climate bollox itself but the egregious draconian “measures” the evil muvvers in control are grinning as they impose on us sheeple.

It’s because the customers want it, innit

https://www.ceoemail.com/

It's No Such Thing...

...and we should frankly welcome it:

Merely to state that biological sex matters could be enough to confer this disgrace.

You might call it a disgrace, we should look on it as a badge on honour. 

Yesterday it was reported that Britain might soon be expelled from the UN's 'Human Rights Council' because our own Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously recommended that single-sex spaces should be protected according to a person's physical sex rather than their more nebulous 'gender identity'.

Wait a minute, what value does it hold anyway?

Following complaints against the EHRC from trans-rights groups — including Stonewall — a process has begun that could see the EHRC's ranking by the UN slip below that of comparable organisations in such bastions of liberty as Palestine and Zimbabwe, leaving us on a par with Libya and Venezuela. We would be, in short, a pariah.

*shrugs*

Its 'Human Rights Council', so ready to censure Britain over whether trans women should enter female changing rooms, has members from the notably liberal regimes of China, Cuba and Pakistan. Only a few weeks ago, it appointed Iranian diplomat Ali Bahreini to chair its 'Social Forum' in Geneva. Bahreini is the representative of a savage theocracy that hangs gay people, executes protesters and deploys its squads of moral guardians to beat up women who refuse to wear the burka.

Exactly! Why should we want to belong to a club that has such members anyway? 

And Why Shouldn’t You Be Questioned?

Guardian interviews with school leaders elsewhere revealed widespread concern about deteriorating behaviour among pupils, coupled with a lack of support for school policies from some parents, both issues highlighted in the Ofsted annual report last week.

“Behaviour has got worse, but what we don’t get is any support from the parents,” said one head of a secondary school in the Midlands, who did not want to be named. “They don’t want their children being sanctioned. They question more than they support.”

Why shouldn’t they question you? You’ve proven yourselves to be partisan, secretive and lazy. 

“In the past students were in lessons. They might be disruptive in lessons and you’d have to deal with that kind of behaviour. “But there’s a new thing coming up in schools in the last year and a half – students are turning up to school, but they don’t go into any lessons and they just wander around the building. They want to come for the social, but they don’t want to go into their lessons.

“So then I have to put a sanction in place and I’m having to suspend or put them in a removal room. But most of the time they don’t comply and the parents have no sway with the children either.”

Gosh, maybe that lockdown did some good after all, if it’s burst the ‘teacher as god’ bubble. 

There are more fights between pupils and more disruption from the setting off of fire alarms.

“But for us, the biggest issue is students just refusing to follow instructions point blank.”

In some cases when a child refuses to leave a classroom, the whole of the class has to move elsewhere instead.

Well, since schools are usually fans of collective punishment, I find it rather hard to really care…after all, it’s a rod you’ve clearly made for your own backs, after all:

Glyn Potts, headteacher of Saint John Henry Newman RC College in Oldham, said suspensions had doubled at his school, from 81 days last year to 161 days this year.

“I don’t necessarily think behaviour has got worse,” said Potts. “What I would say is the level of need and the level of complexity of young people has increased exponentially.”

Unmet special needs, mental health issues and persistent post-pandemic absence are all creating tensions in schools, which can result in breaches of the behaviour code.

“In the past we had naughty boys and girls who did things that were naughty,” Potts added. “Now it’s just far more complex than that.”

Maybe it isn’t, though? 

Global socialism in two news items

There it is in one ... the voters of the land vote in these puppets who were parachuted through party preselection on a different platform altogether, all controlled by a central cabal elsewhere, they suddenly switch leaders and end up with the foreign marxist they wanted ... constituents having no say ... now out comes the real agenda ...

... and voters, bewildered, ask what the hell happened as thousands of foreigners a day pour in ... the worst types, not skilled workers with small families ...

... and there it is ... the number done on you. By all means sweep them out of power and put the other lot in, even worse.

A Court Case For The Times...

Sadly, the times we are living in. And they are pretty horrific.

The alleged perpetrators, feral and with seemingly no parenting to speak of:

Her alleged killers – a boy and girl both aged 15 at the time – were 'preoccupied with violence, torture and death' and had swapped messages discussing how they wanted to kill people they knew, Manchester Crown Court heard. 

Girl X told Boy Y that after they met up, the plan was to 'grab onto Brianna slit her throat when she starts to fall stab her in the back then pass me knife'. She added: 'I want to stab her at least once even if she's dead jus coz it's fun lol.' 

Jurors were told that since being held in a secure unit, Girl X had been found to have 'traits of autism and ADHD' and showed 'high levels of anxiety'. Boy X had been diagnosed with autism, they were told, along with a 'high level of social anxiety'.

The justice system, concerned less with the victim than the welfare of the defendants:

... the trial is being conducted with 'more informality' than normal, the trial judge, Mrs Justice Yip, told them, with both accused being helped to follow proceedings by 'intermediaries'.

The victim, narcissistic and damaged by gender nonsense:

...Brianna was living as a young woman at the time of her death but was born a boy with the name Brett Spooner. 

On the eve of what would have been Brianna’s 17th birthday, her mum, Esther Ghey, spoke to ITV News and said she feels like there's a "hole" in her heart but is bittersweet as people are celebrating her daughter's life as "Brianna would've wanted that.” 

The student had dreams of becoming TikTok famous, having racked up an impressive 31,000 followers on the social media platform with her videos.

What to say? Those who decry the concept of  'broken Britain' should take a good hard look at this case and reconsider. 

Be cautious ... yes ... but also ready to move fast

 This needs presentng to you with no journalistic input from me ... coz journalistic input is bias, confirming or denying or ignoring what was actually said. There might be nothing at all ... but there might very well be something.

There's a huge difference between sitting on a fence and clinging to a centrist position no matter what ... or else having positions all over the spectrum which tend to even each other out ... which has implications for parliaments and assemblies, which is a different series of posts.

So I'm going to run screenshots now of what I saw when I just awoke. There were fourteen items, most I ditched as pap, these I kept to look at again:

Weighty matters in the cheerleading hands of birdbrains

Wikipedia "editors", a euphemism for closed shop Wokism, oft write: "this article has multiple issues" and goodness but does this morning's TDS (below) ever have issues, few of which are down to their misleading but which far highlight more the very problems of information transference, confirmation bias, a priori assumptions, academic fashion, plus the snuffing out of discussion of clear anomalies.

From the get-go, there's the issue of even understanding that opening paragraph above and for those even able to take that onboard is my arrogant questioning of someone's intellectual capacity, illustrated nicely in the comment I've retained for well over a decade on my "others say" page:

"You want to know why? Because you are a cretin.  You are a mad man, of limited intellect, with an axe to grind.  You come over as slightly unhinged."

I've always loved the "slightly" bit there and must acknowledge that the lady's daughter did ask me to take it down, said lady having a bad day at the time but it does illustrate how manner and choice of words can sway, before any "facts" can even be established:

There's also the point Chuckles used to make about lefty academics:

A Christmas Advert which, strangely, rings True.

As my readers may know, I lost my Jacqueline some 30 months ago, to a hospital and medical people who simply did not care.

But, through the medium of an advert generated by a massive American car manufacturer, which chimes with just the right notes, and subtly brings in, without diminishing, that terrible ‘Long Goodbye’ which has affected many thousands: that Advert brought my Jacqueline and the decades of memory, back to me.

The decision of a monolithic American company to resurrect an old-fashioned ideal, of Family values, of Love and of the truly old-fashioned ideals of Marriage, was probably made with a definite slant towards commercialism: but, whatever the reason; Thank You, Chevrolet!

The Bee speaks a vital truth

There's an existential crisis, good people. Increasingly I've been repeating myself at N.O., OoL, on Twitter, Gab, even on my Jstack, but what can I do ... a key message is a key message, and this from the Bee is key:

Readers of the Bee   Over the past couple of weeks, major brands like Apple and Disney have been pulling their ads from X (formerly Twitter) in an effort to try and pressure the platform into doing their bidding. Why?  There are two primary reasons: Because they hate freedom, and because they can. The first reason doesn't require much elaboration. Of course they hate freedom. These corporations are infected with the woke mind virus. It just goes without saying that they'll try to silence and destroy anyone who challenges their flimsy, farcical worldview.   The second reason is about money and power. Their bottomless budgets give them complete control over companies like X. If they don't like something X is doing, all they have to do is threaten to withhold their spend. They don't have to actually cripple X; they merely need to remind X that they could if they wanted to. This tactic works without fail. No one in their right mind has ever told a company like Disney to take their mountain of money somewhere else.   Until now.