So NOT surprised by this! We all knew that this one was rigged from the beginning. Millions of votes NOT being counted should make everyone in this country furious!
Tell me again why people don’t trust or believe HRC/DNC
So not just a hundred thousand after all? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to be fired and then indicted.
At least 3 counties FLIPPED so far. LA county is said to have 2 to 1 voting for Bernie in uncounted ballots. And there is a lawsuit alleging voting FRAUD filed in Ohio for starters. More to come.
Reblogging for added comments
Holy fucking shit batman
Fuckin lol
ugh
So, will they be counted now? Does this undermine existing votes made due to “well Hillary is winning right so I should vote for her” since this is fraud and all
An account of Mr. William Wilkerson after the Battle of Richmond, Kentucky, August 30th, 1862,
“I heard groans, which I was sure came from a cornfield near at hand. Looking down the corn rows I soon discovered two wounded soldiers lying about forty yards apart. One was a Federal and the other a Confederate. A cannon ball had broken and terribly mangled both of the Confederate’s legs, while the Federal was shot through the body and thigh.
‘I am dying for water’, I heard the Federal say, just as I discovered them. His words sounded as if they came from a parched mouth.
‘I have some water in my canteen. You are welcome to a drink if you’ll come here’, said the Confederate, who had feebly raised his head from the ground to look at his late enemy when he heard his pitiful cry for water.
'I couldn’t move to save my life' groaned the Federal while his whole body quivered with agony.
Then I beheld an act of heroism which held me spellbound until it was too late for me to give assistance I should have rendered. The Confederate lifted his head again, and took another look at his wounded foe, and I saw an expression of tender pity come over his pain distorted face as he said, 'Hold out a little longer Yank, and I’ll try to come to you.’
Then the brave fellow, by digging his fingers in the ground and catching hold of the cornstalks, painfully dragged himself to the Federal’s side, the blood from his mangled legs making a red trail the entire distance.
The tears ran down my cheek like rain, and out of empathy for him, I groaned every time he moved, but I was so lost to everything except that fellow’s heroism that I did not think of helping him.
When the painful journey was finished he offered the canteen to the Federal, who took it and drank eagerly, the water seeming to sizzle as it passed down his parched throat. Then, with a deep sigh of relief he reached out to the Confederate, and it was plain to see as they clasped hands and looked into each others eyes that whatever of hate may have rankled once in the hearts of those men had now given place to mutual empathy and love. Even while I watched them I saw the Confederate’s body quiver in pain, and when his head dropped to the ground I knew a hero had crossed the dark river.
The Federal kissed the dead hero’s hand repeatedly and cried like a child until I had removed him to the hospital, where he too died the next day.
Source: My Brother’s Keeper; Union and Confederate Soldier’s Acts of Mercy During the Civil War, by Daniel N. Ralph
Our media is surprisingly Orwellian, and it’s not always due to government control. People practice “doublethink” at their own volition, without a Thought Police. Social media (Twitter, Facebook) are instituting their own private Thought Police. Online journalism now means that the press is free to edit old articles, to change past reporting to conform to new political realities.
Consider the example in the book 1984 regarding the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia (representing English, Russian, and Chinese empires respectively).
At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That’s the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of “truth”. Which is more true, what everyone knows and what’s in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?
Then Ocean’s allegiance switched back again. On the sixth day of Hate Week, as crowds gathered to denounce Eurasia, the Party switched enemies to Eastasia. In a particularly rousing speech against their enemy, the speaker was handed a slip of paper, and in mid-sentence, without pause, without change in content or tone, he changed the name of the enemy he was speaking against to Eastasia. Eurasia was now their dearest friends. Those holding banners denouncing their enemy were suddenly embarrassed to discover they had unaccountably written the wrong name, and quickly trampled and destroyed them.
This change meant work for Winston in the Ministry of Truth:
Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound-tracks, photographs–all had to be rectified at lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere.
Last November, the Tsarnaev brothers (the “Boston Bombers”) were “refugees”. News articles from all the mainstream news outlets agreed, such as The Washington Post, the Atlantic, Time magazine, the UN/VOA, Vanity Fair, the Huffington Post, Nobody disputed that description. Even Wikipedia described them as “refugees”.
Then terrorists attacked Paris, killing 129 innocents. A Syrian passport was found, making it look like terrorists inserted one of their own into the stream of refugees flowing into Europe. This created political backlash in America, where the House of Representatives passed a bill to hinder Syrian refugees coming into the country.
The other, pro-refugee side, has fought back, claiming that no refugee in American has ever committed a terrorist act. It’s at this point that the Tsarnaev’s become an embarrassing counter example, since indeed they committed the worst terrorist attack since 9/11.
To fix this to conform to the new political reality, the Tsarnaev’s were reclassified as “asylees” (asylum seekers) rather than “refugees”.
To make this reclassification work, history had to be re-written. The Winston Smith’s of the world had to go backward in time to edit old stories to conform to the new reality.
For example, the Wikipedia page on Tsarnaev changed, purging the word “refugee” and replacing it with “asylee”.
Wikipedia is just the start. The mainstream media likewise went back and “fixed” their embarrassing mistakes in news articles. If you search for “tsarnaev refugee” for dates before the Paris attacks, the top result is this article from the Washington Post. The Washington Post edited this article, purging the word “refugee” from both the title and the contents, either replacing it with “asylee” or rewording things. Here’s a picture of the original title/lead, followed by the new version. The date of this change was November 19, 2015 – in other words, specifically in response to the Paris debate.
What unreal about this change is that “refugee” and “asylee” refer to the same people. It’s like how “emigrant” (or “emigree”) and “immigrant” refer to the same people, just with a different focus. One (emigrant, refugee) focuses on leaving the original country. The other (immigrant, asylee) focuses on arriving in a new country. But to arrive in one country is to leave another – it’s the same person doing both.
They are saying the Tsarnaev’s are no longer Chechen emigrants/refugees, but now American immigrants/asylees. This reclassification is technically correct, because they arrived in American first, then applied for asylum status, unlike those applying from refugee camps in and around Syria. But this technicality doesn’t change who they are. Being American immigrants/asylees doesn’t change the fact that they are also refugees/emigrants fleeing strife in Chechnya.
In English, the word “asylee” isn’t really used. Sure, it’s technically a word, but used so seldomly that it’s not included in spellcheck dictionaries. That’s why I enabled spellcheck when creating the above picture, to demonstrate this issue – spellcheck underlines the word in red. Most people have never heard of the word “asylee”. Go to the local bar and ask random people what the word means. They’ll just look at you funny. Indeed, your first hurdle will be the fact that you aren’t sure how to pronounce it right yourself. According to Google’s Ngrame, “refugee” is preferred over “asylee” by a 250:1 ratio in the English language.
For journalists, since both words are valid, but one is rare and confusing, the correct word to use is “refugee”. This is especially true when it’s the emigration side being stressed, as in the above Washington Post article. While you can make a case for discussing “asylees in America”, the correct word in the article would be “refugees fleeing war”. I just verified that the AP Stylebook has a reference for “refugee” but no entry for “asylee”.
This post isn’t about refugees, but Orwelianism. What’s shown here is retroactive changing of history to conform to the new political consensus. It’s doublethink, as people strive to change their own thinking. It’s newspeek, as people try to change what others believe by changing the words used to express those ideas. It’s also about the mainstream press, which has become part of the corrupt establishment, obviously violating every principle of journalism in order to exercise power.
One interesting facet of the debate regarding men’s rights is incarceration rates. In the U.S, 93% of people behind bars are men, with only 7% being women. This could, of course, be seen as an example of the violent and base tendencies of men, but a more enlightened person would probably take the position that our society conditions men into a role which by nature is more likely to encourage violent or criminal behavior. On one side men are socialized towards aggression and violence, and on the other into a provider role which can lead to crime when no other options are available because of a perceived need to care for family, whatever the risk.
Both of these positions, however, take one thing as given: men commit more crime, and the task at hand is finding out why. The question being asked, thus, is “why do men commit more crime than women?”
For the moment, we’re going to completely discard that assumption and make a different one: men and women commit the same amount of crime. With that in mind, we’ll ask a very different question: “If men and women commit equal amounts of crime, why are so many men in jail?”
This sounds irreconcilable, right? I mean, there’s no way the disparity could be that great without men committing more crime. It’s huge! Well, let’s start at the beginning, by asking questions. We’ve assumed that men and women as classes commit equal amounts of crime, but are they punished equally? We’ve all heard about discrimination against people of color in the courts, so could the same thing be happening to men? That’s just not possible, is it, in our “patriarchal male-centered men-first culture”….right?
Wrong. A black person is approximately 19% more likely to be convicted than a white person, but a man is approximately 165% more likely to be convicted than a woman….the bias is greater by a factor of eight. If you understand how statistics work, this means that if a white woman has a 100% adjusted chance (we’re doing comparisons, remember, and not tests, so this is valid) then a black woman has a 119% chance, a white man has a 265% chance, and a black man has (at least) a 315% chance. Thus, if we have the same number of criminals of each type at trial, if 10 white women are convicted the numbers will end up like so:
10 white women 12 black women 27 white men 32 black men
With exactly the same number of equally guilty people of each race/gender, we saw 22 women convicted….and 59 men. Big difference, eh? In fact, this factor alone gives us a prison population that’s 73%male and 27% female. That’s three men in jail for every woman, but still far from our 93/7, which is thirteen men for every woman.
We’ve made an assumption, though: men and women are given the same sentence. Turns out, that’s simply not true. Overall, women get 40% shorter sentences, which if use women as a baseline means that if women get 100% sentences, men get 166%. (There is of course also a race component, but we won’t worry about it here. Suffice it to say that the race component is smaller than the gender component.)
What that means is that if a woman gets a one year sentence, a man will get a 1.66 year sentence. What effect does this have on our prison population? Simple: it raises the number of men in prison at any one time by a factor of about 1.7. If we go back to our earlier set of people this means that if we’re counting in years and the average 100% sentence is one year, we’ll have the same 22 women in jail, but 98, not 59 men. How about we run the percentages again? This time we’ve got 82% men, or four to one. At the very least this means we’ve got either a third as many women in jail as we should, or three times too many men.
Two simple factors, and from the exact same number of criminals with the exact same level of guilt we’re already up to four men in prison for every woman. Since the actual numbers are 93% to 7%, how close are we? Not very, actually, but we’re already very far from even. As every good infomercial will say: but wait, there’s more!
See, up until now we’ve been presuming that everybody serves the entirety of their sentence, but in real life that’s not actually true, is it? Most offenders get out early, on parole. So how do the numbers stack up? Actually, we don’t know. There isn’t very much information available on the point of parole, but in practice we’d expect to see more of the same: women more likely to be paroled, and parole at an earlier date. This means that 166% sentence could easily get higher by comparison, and quickly. Since parole eligibility comes after serving only 33% of a sentence, more women being paroled could easily substantially reduce their average sentence. This isn’t even the last of it.
We made one final assumption, way back at the beginning: that the number of people brought to trial was equal. The thing is, that’s not actually true either. Regardless of who committed the crime, it’s more likely that a man will be arrested, and the police are more willing to take a man to court in the first place. This means that if we go all the way back to the beginning, to the actual point where women and men commit an equal number of crimes, we see several effects. First, some men are arrested and brought to trial for the crimes of women, crimes not committed by men in the first place. Second, of the cases where they correctly identify a female perpetrator, we’ll see a higher percentage of those where the perpetrator simply isn’t brought to trial at all. (Also note that men being brought to trial on flimsier evidence isn’t going to reduce the conviction rate any, that’s already stuck.) This also considers the fact that men are more likely to be victims of false accusations of IPV, sexual assault or rape, especially in places with “no-drop” prosecution for those offenses.
We don’t have adequate data on either of these but we can make a couple wild-ass guesses and see where we end up. Note: this is where the relatively reliable data ends, from here on it’s a thought experiment rather than analysis.
Let’s suppose that the sentences women serve are twenty percent shorter, that ten percent of men are blamed for crimes committed by women (surprisingly reasonable, it turns out) and women are twenty percent less likely to be brought to trial.
Starting with 100% of crimes for each, we first shift ten percent from women to men:
Women: 90%, Men: 110%
Now we subtract 20% of the female number from it:
Women: 72%, Men: 110%
We now go to trial, for which we’ll equalize back to 100% of women as perpetrators and adjust the number of men accordingly:
Women: 100%, Men: 153% (Note that just from this, by the time we walk into the courtroom we’ve already got 50% more men than women. We haven’t even had a trial yet.)
We now have a trial, with the conviction rates we outlined (265%):
Women: 100%, Men: 405% (We’re already at 4 to 1, note how things compound.)
Next, we apply the sentencing differential of 166%:
Women: 100%, Men: 675%
Finally, we apply our parole differential (80% for women means 125% for men):
Women: 100%, Men: 844%
So what’s our ratio? 89% men to 11% women. If we raise the additional chance of a man being brought to trial from 20% to 40%, our ratio becomes 92% to 8%. This might strike you as unreasonable, but remember that the numbers confirm men being convicted two-and-a-half times as often and getting over fifty percent longer sentences. We regularly see cases that would have led to an attempted murder charge for a man being basically dismissed because it was a woman holding the knife, and if you take a look around you’ll see the same.
Do men really commit more crime?
The answer is probably “yes,” for all the reasons brought up way back at the beginning. Men are pushed by society to be violent, aggressive, dominant, which unsurprisingly results in more violence. Men are told that they must provide, and many attempt to do so at the cost of their safety and freedom. To a degree, women don’t commit crimes simply because they don’t have to: men will do it for them. Women rarely need to commit violence: men will do it for them. Women rarely need to break the law to provide for themselves: men will do it for them. The wives of the Mafia are just that….the wives. They share in their husbands’ gains but not their crimes, and why would they do otherwise when they can get almost all the benefit with almost none of the risk?
Regardless, that isn’t even close to justifying the numbers we’ve seen. Even just accounting for the bias we’ve got solid numbers on we can see that our incarceration rates are off by a factor of three. Certainly, that’s bad enough to be unconscionable. However, the fact that with perfectly reasonable numbers we can put things near par, giving us literally thirteen times as many men behind bars as should be? That’s utterly horrifying, and the only thing more horrifying is the fact that nobody seems to give a shit. If this were happening to women, there’d literally be rioting in the streets….but to men?
Bloodied members of the American Legion recover following a fight with members of the German American Bund (American Nazi Party) in 1938. World War I veterans especially hated the group and would make to interrupter their rallies when possible.
The men here were part of a 100 man group of mostly Jewish vets who infiltrated Hitler’s 49th Birthday celebrations being held at the Yorkville Casino in Manhattan - they were outnumbered by the 3,500 or so Nazi sympathizers in attendance, but nevertheless, at the signal donned their American Legion caps and started a ruckus.
