Google’s New Algorithm Will Only Show You ‘What They Say Is True’
With 2.8 billion 'facts' currently in the database
Health Science
While most of us have been busy thinking about net neutrality, guess what Google has been doing. The leading search engine has decided to change the criteria it uses for ranking content on the internet, so that content will no longer be ranked by popularity, as it has been since the beginning. The new ranking system will instead use what it has determined to be ‘truth’ as its ranking tool. This Orwellian move opens the door for Google to homogenize thought and become the global arbiters of truth, with the ability to send content it declares as ‘untrue’ into the dustbin of obscurity.
The term ranking refers to the position at which a particular site appears in the results of a search engine query. A site or a web page is said to have a high ranking when it appears at or near the top of the list of results provided by a search. Under Google’s current set up, the higher the number of incoming links to a website or page, the higher the ranking. The content is considered too, but much of it is about popularity.
According to Hal Hodson writing for New Scientist:
“This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites are full of misinformation that can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.”
Misinformation? A recently published paper from Google outlines how it’s going to take care of that, by giving each website or page a ‘truth score’ determined by counting the number of ‘incorrect facts’ on its pages. A website having few ‘false facts’ will be considered trustworthy and will be able to rise in the rankings. The score computed for each page will be known as its Knowledge-Based Trust score.
Google’s software will tap into its new Knowledge Vault, an automated data base currently being hailed as the largest store of knowledge in human history. The Knowledge Vault gathers and merges information from across the internet into a base of ‘facts’ about the world, and the people who live in it. These are facts the software agrees on and considers a proxy for truth, based on their being accepted as truth by the majority of people.
Websites that contain information contradictory to what is in the Knowledge Vault, known as ‘untruth,s’ will be kicked down to the bottom of the ranking, where few eyeballs venture to go.
As an example, let’s look at some possibilities for truth:
- Possible truth #1: Vaccine makers are altruistic and have our best interests at heart. The vaccines they make are safe and lead to better overall health and longevity.
- Possible truth #2: Vaccines are loaded with toxic chemicals, don’t work as advertised, and lead to ruined natural immunity and outbreaks of disease. They are made by greedy people.
- Possible truth #3: There is some truth and some untruth in each of the other possibilities.
If the majority of people believe possible truth # 1, it will indeed become ‘truth’ at Google, and the website that sponsors this ‘truth’ will advance in the search rankings. And if the least number of people believe possible truth #2, the website carrying it will decline in the search rankings, and may be headed for obscurity at the bottom of the rankings list. The outcome of a website sponsoring possible truth #3 would probably be to maintain its current ranking position.
As of now, the Knowledge Vault has accumulated 2.8 billion ‘facts’. Of these, many million are rated as confident facts, meaning Google’s model gives them a more than 90 percent chance of being true. The Knowledge Vault cross-references new facts with what are already known, giving the system some fluidity.
The new system is not live and there have been no timelines announced for its implementation. As knowledge of this new ranking system spreads, concerns are sure to be raised. Whether or not the other search engines follow the lead of Google may be a determining factor.
Additional Sources:
Image from: Intelaform
So, what is a good alternative search engine to Google?!! Please do an article on that, because it is time for Google to go the same route as McDonalds!
Most people will believe anything without questioning it. How is leading people to what is more objective and factual going to impact society negatively? Google isn’t “controlling what people think is true”, the search engine will rank pages based on a score of how factual they are. People can still use their critical thinking. The vast majority that aren’t willing to will at least be spoon fed something useful. If I searched “what is the meaning of life”, it would be more useful to give me links related to science than religion.
Welcome to Larry Niven’s “Amalgamation of Regional Militia.” With the Obama Administration’s using returned vet status as de facto proof of mental instability and reason enough to deny a vet the right to own a gun we now have ARM and the ‘psychists’ running around. Common Core is close enough to ARM’s attempts to retard innovation for me, too.
Always looking for a good read. Sounds like an interesting book.
Hey, what good dystopia can come of a society of capable and informed people? School is one of the worst crimes against humanity in all of our history, and has been at least since circa 1904-1905 when Rockefeller/Carnegie took control of American education with a 100 million then-dollar teachers’ pensions fund — for the schools that play by the rules, of course. The rules: “Do what we say in order to create the easily managed consumers our pocketbooks require.”
I was just describing the painful process of addition our children are being forced through to their own detriment in Common Core to someone today. It’s horrible.
Read John Gatto!
The Underground History of American Education:
The references alone make this book a goldmine
https://archive.org/details/JohnTaylorGattoTheUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanEducationBook
https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
and of course, the reason this 30-year award-winning teacher decided to stop teaching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJhSAv-NrDo
I find that Yanex actually returns more results that contain alternative media. Also, a guy is setting up a search engine for alternative media, SigTruth.com but seems to be in elementary stages yet.
They’ve already messed up the Search engines. I used to love searching for things because I would get results for many many many alternative websites. Now, nothing but mainstream websites with the SAME information. Funny how “diversity” is actually being used to create uniformity. I recall a few years back researching some of the nefarious things the CIA has done and got mounds of information right up front. Recently, I have been working on FBI activities, and sure enough, searches mostly only give me results for MAINSTREAM media articles (which have been already scrubbed).
Remember Ari Fleischer? He was George Bush’s press secretary for a while. There was a news piece about his Press Room where he showed all the TV monitors that were going 24/7 on every major Network news station, and where he worked from during his tenure with the white house. (Although you cannot find this from searching Google anymore). Basically, the Government is monitoring every major news station and if they don’t like something they have them cut it immediately.
Americans think they live in a free society but that is quickly being absolved. I notice where I live MOST people are totally oblivious to what is going on. They are being dictated by News “perception” rather than fact and truth. Example is the Tsarnaev trial, which is basically how dictatorships operate, with the illusion this kid even has a defense team, which he does not. If the Rule of Law was being followed, Judy Clarke would be disbarred for her participation in executing this kid without a fair trial.
I’m with you, man. Searching used to be fun. Now it’s like talking to a half-wit that can’t just run with a few keywords but has to know exactly what you’re asking or can tell you nothing. Part is simply organic (search engine optimization: please die), as websites game old algorithms new ones are needed. But, yeah, I remember — it used to be downright fun.
This is why I now search more on the article directories than I do on Google and other search engines. Some days I avoid Google completely and frankly, I think I get better and more relevant information.
Um… evidence based rankings are a good thing. How is that not obvious? Would you prefer it to rank things with no evidence higher?
Time to back up claims, or shut the heck up.
They are shutting up the alternative voices. Anyone can skew the “facts”, the Government does it all the time with the Corporate-State controlled media.
There is no such thing as an “alternative voice”. If dissent has merit, then it has evidence to support it and can be considered on equal footing. Otherwise, it’s just gibberish.
There is no broad conspiracy to limit scientific truth or discovery. Certain industries and individuals can clearly be corrupt – and are influenced, but the scientific method is self-correcting. Over time, bad science can survive the demand for actual evidence. That’s why it’s important.
Dissent is absolutely critical to the scientific method, but is *must* be evidence driven. Otherwise you are just opening yourself to putting harmful and non-functional “alternative” voices like astrology and homeopathy on an even footing with things proven to work.
“Alternative” is simply code for “has not been proven to actually work.” Or worse…”has been shown to not work”.
If the evidence you have amounts to a room full of nodding heads, then, no, it is not a good thing. How is THAT not obvious?
What does that even mean? Every advancement we’ve made went through the basics of providing evidence. The scientific method works… Anything that can’t be backed up with evidence is at best, simply hypothesis, and needs to be presented as such.
As soon as we present conjecture on the same playing field as evidence driven reasoning, you open the door to all sorts of kookery.
Unless you want articles on Astrology receiving the same weight as psychological research, or gibberish about homeopathy reciting the same consideration as proven medicine, you would have no problem with a simple insistence on evidence.
Evidence does not enter into the algorithm. Popularity does. I’ve seen too many rooms full of wrongly nodding heads to put any faith in an internet full of them.
Incorrect. Popularity is how it works today. That’s how BS “alternative” things like homeopathy wind up in searched for cancer treatments.
Did you read the paper?
Yes, I read it; it’s a popularity contest and falseley conflates popularity with truth in its own vernaculum.
You clearly did not read it. Popularity is literally the problem it is designed to overcome. You could argue that you don’t like the methodology, but to mis-characterize it as “popularity” is just wrong.
You know, man, I am glad I re-read the article because it shows how goofy this website is. The 1-2-3 questions offered by the author are ridiculous — the 3rd shows us that the first two are not facts but opinions. Contradicts itself.
I still don’t understand where you’re coming from in terms of the methodology. Riddle me this. I wrote this to lifeofliberty, and I’m wondering how you would answer the question about Galileo:
“My point is: nothing — NOTHING — true comes through the mainstream press. If sunny weather was hurting sales they’d tell you it’s raining. From parroting obvious lies (Sadaam… WMD’s) to coming up with fresh ones out of whole cloth the mainstream media is unparalleled at creating and selling false realities. The fact that people believe those lies is a discredit to those people. But with this new web-ranking, when people believe the lies, the lies then become “facts.”
Do you see the problem?
When Galileo was tried and sentenced for
presenting his findings, what do you think Google’s new idea for web-ranking would have put “Does the Earth orbit the Sun?”
I’m seriously asking you this question. It’s not a joke and it’s not rhetoric.”
First – no one disputed Galileo’s facts, his observations were true, and the algorithm would have evaluated the facts *without political interference*. It’s not a priest with an agenda, it’s objective math.
Galileo was proven correct in time by the self-correcting nature of the scientific method which corrects for bias and corruption by taking nothing on faith. So yes, a methodical exploration of what has been proven to work *would* exonerate him, just as it actually did. As the truth became obvious, the algorithm would rank it higher. More factual evidence = more likely to be true.
Also, I think you don’t understand what the internet is. While “mainstream” media certainly participates, anyone can publish. It’s the democratization of knowledge. It contains (over time) the collected social knowledge of humanity. It’s not edited. A ranking by factual truth would simply help keep bad ideas from being given equal footing with things we know to work. That’s how science operates. The model that supports the evidence the most is given precedence until the body of evidence changes.
Your “nothing true comes through the mainstream media” is irrelevant, since we are not talking about the mainstream media, but academia and the broader context of factual knowledge.
It sounds like one giant appeal to one giant authority to me. Galileo was tried and convicted and nearly killed — he would have had a great time waiting for everyone to agree with him so that what he said could be considered true.
I like what you wrote: “the collected social knowledge of humanity.” It shows us what knowledge is, and how self-referential it necessarily is. Where does some specific piece of knowledge come from? That’s a problem for scientists and historians alike. Google could really aid knowledge by listing references. References I like. A great big computer head-nod I don’t.
It’s not a head nod to state known facts. Comparing a claim to the evidence at hand is *exactly* how we advance.
Evidence = references. Simple as that.
Here, let me say it better. Let’s say for argument that this thing works great, and I mean perfect. Still hate it, because it’s still an appeal to authority.
Why is that bad? Well, that logical misstep opens the door to manipulation, does it not?
Gold standard: state your references.
It’s not an appeal to authority – it’s literally an appeal to evidence. That’s the opposite. It’s an agnostic bit of math comparing claims to things *we know to be working*.
It’s software. It says what you make it say, period.
Even if it works, it can’t possibly work. The truth is too large for some algorithm or computer-learning process to lay claim to. The mind that seeks the truth from one source seeks no truth at all, just the shadows on the cave wall. And those voices are known to grow in chorus, against any that would seek another source, are they not? If truth is the claim then the claim is false. One source for wisdom is no source at all.
Google’s motto is “do no evil.” So I guess we can take comfort in that.
Google is unequivocally evil. It’s not the “who”, but the “what” that’s intriguing. It’s not a single source, that’s the beauty of the idea – the inputs are limitless. Did you read the paper?
Fcrynoutloud our comment thread is longer than this article.
It’s a beautiful idea, I agree. Explorations of its limitations should be boundless and ongoing. Unless of course it’s perfect.
I put those types of considerations far above the heads of the media-driven crowd, who are compelled by emotions and lies. What I’m seeing is a great, electrical changing in the mind-switch, a swaying public opinion that will declare all in this website search engine “good,” and all outside of it “bad.” I see this thing of Google’s as a powerful entity, and I’m picturing Mickey Mouse right now and a room full of brooms because I see nothing to stop this entity from the running the show.
It is an appeal to authority. I can write software that will make those limitless inputs say exactly anything I want them to say; done.
It’s just the applied principles of the scientific method to web searches. That’s it. Demanding evidence to support claims is no more harmful than doing mathematics or looking both ways before crossing the street. It’s how we get better at understanding things. It’s literally how we advance as a species.
Is Google corrupt? You bet.The engine could be corrupted, but then folks would go elsewhere. And if the engine doesn’t work, someone will build one that does. It’s that simple. Progress – we take what works, we build on it, we get better.
It’s not about stifling dissent – quite the opposite. It’s about making sure dissent with merit gets heard above the noise of quackery.
Unless you want the astrologers to be heard at the same volume as the astronomers, the homeopaths to be given the same weight as the osteopaths, and the young eathers to be taken as seriously as the geologists, that is.
I had a geology teacher in college who told us about a question he got wrong on a graduate-level geology test. He had answered the question in support of the theory of plate tectonics.
It’s not the quacks I’m worried about but the gatekeepers. This new tool sounds seductive — I don’t have as much faith in as you do — but I’m really not interested in “searching the web” only to find Hal telling me what to think. If Hal was perfect he’d make a good reference. Hal won’t be perfect, but will represent a huge hurdle to cross concerning information Hal doesn’t like. Voices of reason will be marginalized, and voices of idiocy empowered. Same old business.
There are few gatekeepers anymore. The internet leveled that playing field and continues to do so. This is about reducing the noise, not blocking the signal.
So we finally resolve into a difference of opinion. Cheers! Good talking with you.
My final point is this: perception management is timely, and its timeliness is crucial. No one in power cares what anybody thinks about the Gulf of Tonkin incident today. But when it happened, it was crucial to those who wanted war to get public opinion on their side, so they created the perception of an incident. Sounds so innocent in plain print.
I think the official narrative of the Gulf of Tonkin incident would have ranked high according to Hal. I think some Vietnamese soldier’s tweet would have faced absolutely insurmountable noise. It’s a matter of opinion, at this point, of course.
Salud!
Ironically, one will have to go to the more off-center, and looney sites to GET the truth even more…Not a biggie for those who have those kinds of sites bookmarked anyway and is pretty astute on what’s truth and what’s bull dung on those sites, so who cares about “rankings”??
inconspicuous GOOGLE SEARCH ALTER ALERT
https://twitter.com/sjsrana/status/575538531210260482 https://plus.google.com/117953276774098078497/posts/5mwJaGBmFqV
Eat your recycled food and shut up.
Google does know that millions will stop using their search engine and gmail if they keep this up. Those government contracts must be pretty lucrative.
Ho-lee shit. I have never heard of a more fitting contrivance that actually deserves the tired Orwellian monicker, but this is it. Say hello to the Ministry of Truth.
Think about getting out now while you still can.
okay, so this will be easy… basically anything near the top of Google’s search, is bullsh!t agenda, and what they want you to know. Got it.
I do hope the executives at Google realize that the SHTF part of our future is almost here… there will be no safe haven for anyone from this company. You will be hanged from the nearest tree, if not shot between the eyes first.
Who is always in control of the gatekeeping and controlling of info(think Wiki, think federal reserve, think insurance companies, think medical field, think sports teams owners, think wall street, think banks, think precious metals, etc.,). Who owns and controls Google? Who are the top people gatekeeping at Google?? Who owns and controls Facebook?? This is a rhetorical question
Here’s a rhetorical answer: the bankers.
Bankers? lol
No, it’s a microscopic minority that controls everything. zionists
We can just call them the PTB.
I’m with you in heart. But in mind, no. The answer to AtomicMetroid’s questions is one word: bankers. Two words if you want to put “international” in front for a little precision.
I’d rather call them zionists
I should have also added “just look at this website where this disingenuous article was posted”. Look at the “truthfulness” of the ads found here. Go to the home page. Look around. Tons of misleading ads. Tons of hyperbole. Tons of pure unadulterated crap.
Yes, there is SOME useful info here, but you’ve got to wade through all the self-promoting, money-grubbing GARBAGE. Definitely not a “truthful” website. No, I spend zero time here because of this sort of false advertising.
So is the author’s objection to this new knowledge-based approach really a published concern about the misleading crap found on this website? Possibly. Plenty of misleading website owners will be quite upset that they can’t continue to get decent rankings based on popularity, but will be judge against truth and accuracy.
But isn’t that what journalism is actually supposed to be? Truth and accuracy? And doesn’t the public good be better served by serving up honest, accurate, factual websites instead of misleading garbage full of sponsored ads, ridiculous claims and endless hyperbole?
I’m VERY tired of having to pick apart the good from the bad when I read anything online. Websites are guilty of interjecting tons of useless claims without sufficient facts or evidence to back them up. Additionally, the number of advertisers is absolutely insane. Sometimes I turn off all images in my browser so I can just try to read the content (it doesn’t always work).
The real problem here is what is being published – not what Google is considering doing. The author is either too dumb to know the difference, or disingenuously trying to deflect the relevant points to something not even related.
So you turn to the mainstream press so you can swim the sea of truth, eh?
A rather dumb assumption. No. I do not watch television nor read mainstream websites. But I do spend hours each day by choice staying current on topics of interest.
Oh, I wasn’t assuming anything. My point is: nothing — NOTHING — true comes through the mainstream press. If sunny weather was hurting sales they’d tell you it’s raining. From parroting obvious lies (Sadaam… WMD’s) to coming up with fresh ones out of whole cloth the mainstream media is unparalleled at creating and selling false realities. People believing those lies is a discredit to those people. But with this new web-ranking, when people believe the lies, the lies become “facts.” Do you see the problem?
When Galileo was tried and sentenced for presenting his findings, what do you think Google’s new idea for web-ranking would have put “Does the Earth orbit the Sun?”
I’m seriously asking you this question. It’s not a joke and it’s not rhetoric.
I’m in total agreement with you. This article is a good example of what will be bumped down the list if Google develops their new algorithm. To get a better view of the new algorithm (which, by the way, is still in development) read this article… http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/03/02/google_researchers_try_search_ranking_based_on_factual_accuracy_instead.html
No system is perfect. Everything bound by perception has bias. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. No one has The Truth, but only their own version of it.
The best anyone can do is to think critically and be fair minded.
Let people read the crap and MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. I’m sick of these people who demand conformity. Where has all the wisdom gone?
You absolutely have it straight, bro. You know what I would love? Why not make a search engine that will lead straight to the references — the stated sources of knowledge? And then let the robot dig deeper and ultimately uncover all of the references, and display them. That’s knowledge. Getting a great big nod from Hal is neither comforting reassurance nor a logically sound method of learning of and from the truth.
What an incredibly disingenuous article. The author interjected numerous straw arguments to falsely support her opinion. Some “truth” you’ve got there.
At issue is the concept and application of knowledge based rankings in a PRIVATE search engine. Google can do whatever it wants, end of story.
So the next question is will this be better or worse for users of Google? The author predicts the future using straw arguments. Big mistake. Without checking, it’s not hard to figure out that a multi-billion dollar company can hire some pretty talented people vs. the author’s skill set and experience. This is a no-brainer. Yet another couch-surfing ‘expert’ weighing in with another useless opinion piece.
I rather LIKE the concept of “truth based” if it works. Something to counter-act the growing levels of stupidity in the country.
If I were to stupidly use the arguments the author attempted, then I’d have to go further and claim that knowledge based computers (which she type up this article on) are worthless (it’s called spell check and grammar check for the idiots reading this). Moreover, I’d have to also argue that any technology that used knowledge base computers or databases (including computers designing computers and software, which we all use) are also ‘worthless’. So toss out our medical devices and surgical techniques. Toss our scientific research and modeling. Hell, toss out most of our advanced society, since knowledge bases don’t work.
It’s ok to distrust Google (I do, for the record), but it’s not ok to mislead your readers that you are able to predict the future; that you are better qualified to pass this judgement; and that it won’t work and will more poorly serve Google users then what is available now. That is simply wrong.
I am VERY familiar with Google’s ranking methods and improvement is desperately needed. I hope it does, but if it doesn’t, I can use a different search engine. Having the option to choose is still available to me and finally, the CHOICE to choose is great.
Relax dude. Who’s talking about “telling google what to do?” From your comment it seems you have apples in your oranges basket. The issue is clear: world’s largest search engine is going to send you results of a web search query based on what most people say is true. Your comment suggest facts or truth is involved. The very mention of the word “fact” in this context is disingenuous.
Did you even read the article? Apparently not. Try looking up “knowledge base databases” to understand how they are created, maintained and updated. Or ask an expert. Your apologist position indicates you have zero understand on the “issue” or the disingenuous straw arguments made by the author.
The article is one and a half computer screens long. I just managed.
When facts become facts by vote you get: culture: like-minded people acting in agreement. What all of that has to do with actual truth or knowledge I guess I’ll have to leave to you to explain to me.
I want no part of a culture that gets its facts from listening to what people already think about something. Please don’t conflate Truth and knowledge with facts-by-vote.
You got it straight, bro — I was too blinded by my conclusions to pay much attention to the author’s argument. This article’s pretty silly and the example questions aren’t examples at all.
I do want to know an answer to my Gaileo question, though.
No amount of improvement of googles ranking methods will help with media bias and propaganda. The only thing that does help is critical thinking and socratic questioning to approach an approximation of “The Truth.” The problem is not one of what google does or doesn’t do, but in the choices people make based on the information given to them. Since the “great unwashed masses” tend not to think critically or to be fair-minded, they are subject to moral panic and hysteria that makes them easy to control. George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth comes to mind when I read that such algorithms are being proposed.
No system is perfect. Everything bound by perception has bias. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. No one has The Truth, but only their own version of it. The best anyone can do is to think critically and be fair-minded when processing news and information.
As it says in The Foundation for Critical Thinking, Thinker’s Guide For Conscientious Citizens on
How to Detect
Media Bias &
Propaganda
In National and World News:
“…The uncritical mind is unconsciously driven to identify truth in accordance with the
following tacit maxims:
• “It’s true if I believe it.”
• “It’s true if we believe it.”
• “It’s true if we want to believe it.”
• “It’s true if it serves our vested interest to believe it.”
The critical mind consciously seeks the truth in accordance with the following instinct-correcting
maxims:
• “I believe it, but it may not be true.”
• “We believe it, but we may be wrong.”
• “We want to believe it, but we may be prejudiced by our desire.”
• “It serves our vested interest to believe it, but our vested interest has nothing to do with
the truth.”
Mainstream news coverage in a society operates with the following maxims:
• “This is how it appears to us from our point of view; therefore, this is the way it is.”
• “These are the facts that support our way of looking at this; therefore, these are the most
important facts.”
• “These countries are friendly to us; therefore, these countries deserve praise.”
• “These countries are unfriendly to us; therefore, these countries deserve criticism.”
• “These are the stories most interesting or sensational to our readers; therefore, these are
the most important stories in the news.”
Critical readers of the news reverse each of these maxims….”
I’m all for creating a better system for searching out accurate and precise information, but I’m also very aware of how vested interests can distort facts to push an agenda.
In the age of information, we must all become good at epistemology (search: wikipedia epistemology).
Well said. I would add emotion in to the mix. The man that combines logic, thought, and action (masculine aspects) with intuition and emotion (feminine) gains the necessary integrity. Logic-based is good but only half-good. Feelings and intuition offer a hard-wired truth circuit that informs action, and vice-versa with the masculine aspects. It’s the combination that makes creation — that’s why I argue to incorporate both in your day-to-day.
Because at the end of the day, we’re here to feel good, not just to think good.
Yes, Google seems to be censoring and painting the search. Once an alternative appears I’m out of here as its really quite annoying now not being able to find stuff I know that is present on the web.
Vietnam knows that China’s economy can no longer be export-driven, nor will it be converted to consumerism, because one billion Chinese are used to such pecuniary levels of poverty that they cannot bear to spend to profligacy. Vietnam knows that China must keep its factories producing at a growing rate of approximately 7% in order to absorb new workers and keep its current workers working. The CCP must accomplish this even though there is only a limited market for those goods inside China and a diminishing market for those goods outside China. And Vietnam knows that the only way the CCP will maintain control over China is by instituting a war economy: in other words, producing goods that are destroyed so that other goods can be made to replace them: in other words, armaments.
I’ve already informed you on previous posts which country is the likely victim. Consequently, Hanoi has been on a defense build-up through a series of major arms acquisitions with Russia worth billions of dollars, including six Kilo-class submarines and up to 20 Su-30 fighter-bombers. Note that these Russian submarines are vastly superior to the submarines that Russia has sold to the PRC, ensuring a qualitative advantage for Vietnam in a military engagement. Now, add to that fact that Vietnam has opened its highly strategic deep-water port at Cam Ranh Bay to the world’s navies, in particular to Japan and the United States. In other words, for those of you who can’t read between the lines, Vietnam is in the process of arranging a treaty with the US, perhaps even on the same terms as the ones we have with the Philippines and Japan.
Now, assuming that this may happen sooner than later, you can expect that China will not be able to exercise its war economy on Vietnam for the same reason that China cannot risk US involvement by engaging in war with Japan, Taiwan or the Philippines. Consequently, the PRC has a very tiny window of opportunity to engage in war with Vietnam before the US becomes a major stakeholder in the outcome of such a war. If China waits too long to attack Vietnam, it may be forced at a later date to exercise war against Central Asian countries, militarily aligned with Russia, or engage an economically weakened Russia directly. After all, the Czar stole Russia’s Far East from the Qing Chinese in the 1850’s, and China’s lost territories must be returned at some stage to accommodate the billion-plus Chinese locked behind an artificial border on China’s northeast. The choices are stark: war with Vietnam this year or war with Russia next year.
Regardless, it all ends anyway for the CCP in 2017, with the Battle of the Senkakus…when the PLA Navy is sunk below the waves and the PLA Air Force is downed into the sea…
There were three Supreme Leaders in Hell – Chairman Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini and Kim Jong Il. Wanting to know what was going on in the world above, they asked Satan to let them call the ruling parties in their former countries, hoping to provide advice to the new leadership.
The Ayatollah called Iran and talked for 10 minutes then, satisfied with the nuclear advancements in Iran, paid Satan 10,000 yuan. Kim Jong Il called North Korea and talked to his son for 15 minutes then, satisfied with the standoff with the West, paid Satan 15,000 yuan for the call. Then Chairman Mao Zedung called Chairman Xi Jinqing and talked for over an hour about the failure of economic reform and rampant PLA corruption and the overwhelming pollution of the air and water and food that was killing over a million Chinese every year, which was just getting worse and worse. Scared about all that was going wrong in the PRC, Chairman Mao asked how much his call had cost then, so happy to hear that the price would only be 10 yuan, paid Satan for the very long talk.
Offended by the difference in telephone charges, Kim Jong Il and the Ayatollah complained that Chairman Mao had spoken to Chairman Xi for over an hour and paid only 10 yuan, while they themselves had spoken for only a few minutes and paid exorbitantly in the thousands of yuan…to which Satan responded: “A CALL FROM HELL TO HELL IS LOCAL.”
Shut up
Chinese Premier Li Kegiang did not spare words when he spoke to the National People’s Congress and the People’s Political Consultative Conference last week. “With downward pressure building [you trolls better believe it] and deep-seated problems in development surfacing [oh, yeah, you trolls need to believe that the roadblocks we’ve engineered are insurmountable], the difficulties China will encounter in the year ahead may be even more formidable [you trolls should understand that he means ‘impossible,’ because the feckless CCP cannot fly by simply flapping their arms].”
Yes, the PRC is dying, as I warned you two years ago. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Xi is now in the process of deconstructing the government under the guise of an anti-corruption campaign to save the various elements of Chinese prosperity in the New Chinese Dream. As the Gorbachev of the PRC, he is succeeding remarkably well in removing all the old-time key players who kept the Middle Kingdom as a behemoth monolith, a lumbering dinosaur of obsolescent ideology within the PAX Americana. Very soon, the subject colonial peoples in the hinterlands will be free to design their own futures; and the Han Chinese in China’s major cultural watersheds will be free to pursue their own highest dreams. Thank you, Xi Jinping!!!
Long live the Yangtze People’s Republic. Long live Tibet. Long live East Turkestan.
Long live the Yellow River Federation. Long live United Mongolia. Long live Manchuria.
Long live the Oriental Pearl. Long live Hong Kong and Macau. Long live Taiwan……….
The Chinese economy is very much like a zombie. It appears to have life
as it lumbers along, but even the premier of China doubts that the
economy is anything more than the walking dead without Western
technology and economic revitalization. Read his words to the NPC, if
you doubt what I’ve written.
Why is the CCP so concerned about the welfare of Africans, even wasting billions of yuan in making sure that African children have new buses to bring them to school, when Chinese children do not even have a good sidewalk on which to go to school.
Why should African children ride to school in comfortable, air-conditioned new buses while Chinese children have to walk along the side of a dirt road, in danger of being run over or abducted by sexual deviants? Why can’t Chinese children have a good sidewalk on which to walk to go to school, where they are learning to be good citizens? Why should African children have Chinese-paid buses to go to school, where they only learn to hate the Chinese people for being so rich that they can afford to give such magnificent school buses to African nations?
Your attitude rests on this issue! Why is the CCP providing AIIB funds, earned by Chinese labor and deprivation, to African countries to better their lives at the expense of Chinese well-being? Why is the CCP so intent on improving the quality of life in other countries while denying the same benefits to its citizens, who actually earned those AIIB and Silk Road funds?
Why must Chinese children be deprived a good sidewalk to walk upon on their way to school so that an African child can have a comfortable bus ride on a beautiful new highway purchased by the sweat of Chinese labor? Revolt!!!
Shut up dissident
A dissident of what, Pooney?
use other search engines
My biggest gripe (besides spying) against search engines is that they show advertisements first.
As to “misinformation” on the internet, every fool (even This fool) knows that. I don’t let anyone – neighbors, government, corporations, etc. – determine for me what’s “true.” That’s MY job. So “popularity” listings aren’t much of a problem .
The evil Google “truth ranking,” however, would be a great big fascist, tyrannical, dictatorial, censorship problem. Plus, of course, the spying. That’s why I use startpage.com instead of Google.
Sounds a lot like Google did the classic 3-step manipulation: 1) Create a problem or call something a problem. 2) Wait for pubilc outrage or act outraged yourself. 3) Present the so-called solution, the thing that you (the instigator) wanted all along. – It stinks. I never use anything from Google.