WHY WON’T THE LEFT ATTACK BILDERBERG, THE REAL 1% DOMINATED BY WHITE MALES?


060217bilderbergdudes

Why does the Left ignore Bilderberg when it’s literally made up of mostly white males who represent .0001% of the world’s population?

Bernie Sanders launched an entire presidential campaign on striking back against the 1%, and he was also a proponent of diversity, so why won’t Bernie supporters speak out against Bilderberg?

The secretive group currently meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, is the source of all the problems Bernie Sanders campaigned on.

“[Bilderberg is] trumpeting the diversity of a conference where less than 25% of the participants are female, which would be a huge step forward, if it were currently 1963,” the Guardian’s Charlie Skelton pointed out. “And as for racial diversity, there are more senior executives of Goldman Sachs at this year’s Bilderberg than there are people of color.”

“Perhaps by ‘diverse’ they mean that some of the participants own hedge funds, whereas others own vast industrial conglomerates. Some are on the board of HSBC, others are on the board of BP. Some are lobbyists, others are being lobbied. That sort of thing.”

So why won’t the Left separate itself from corporate-controlled globalism? You would think a group of unelected bankers and corporate masters controlling the fate of humanity would be the PERFECT enemy of the Left.

Especially when they’re old, white elitists.

The Left is predominantly anti-war, yet Bilderberg was behind many of the world’s major conflicts.

The Left is for eradicating poverty, yet Bilderberg wants to concentrate the world’s wealth and resources to a handful of people.

The Left is for diversity, yet Bilderberg and similar global bodies lack diversity despite steering major world events.

The Left demands open, representative democracy, yet Bilderberg meets in secret behind closed doors without a record of the proceedings.

So why won’t liberals dump the globalists and stand up for the values that supposedly represent the Left?

Please send this article to every leftist you know.

https://www.infowars.com/why-wont-the-left-attack-bilderberg-the-real-1-dominated-by-white-males/

When Robots Take Our Jobs, Should Everyone Still Get a Paycheck? Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-robots-take-our-jobs-should-everyone-still-get-paycheck-180958483/#8gE79io7eTuWx3lA.99 Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


connie_the_concierge2.jpg__800x600_q85_crop

There’s nothing new about worrying that machines will take our jobs. More than 200 years ago, Luddites started taking sledgehammers to weaving machines.

But tech anxiety got a fresh jolt last month when the White House sent out a Council of Economic Advisers report including a projection that people making less than $20 an hour have an 83 percent chance of eventually losing their jobs to a robot. The odds for those earning up to $40 an hour are more than 30 percent.

Not that most Americans would find that very surprising. According to a Pew Internet Survey released last week, more than two-thirds of Americans think that within 50 years, most jobs will be done by robots or computers—although the vast majority conveniently thought that won’t happen with their own jobs.

No matter how this plays out, it’s pretty clear that machines will be handling more and more work, particularly now that increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence is enabling them to take on mental tasks too. And that is raising a big question:  When machines dominate the work world, what are all the people they replace going to do for money?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-robots-take-our-jobs-should-everyone-still-get-paycheck-180958483/?no-ist

Trump dominated rivals on social media in 2015


Donald_Trump_group_selfie_1160_AP.jpg

One reason Trump seemed to run the board on social media: Unlike other candidates, whose feeds were carefully curated and run by staff, Trump tweeted, Facebooked and Instagrammed directly to followers, often seemingly off the top of his head.

“He says things others won’t and can get direct access to people without a filter,” said Zachary Moffatt, Mitt Romney’s former digital director and cofounder of digital strategy firm Targeted Victory.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-dominated-rivals-on-social-media-in-2015-217280#ixzz3w90Zb8sV

TRUMP DOMINATED RIVALS ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN 2015


trump-autograph1

That’s the consensus of nearly every social-media analytics firm and expert. What it may mean as the campaign unfolds into 2016 is less of a unanimous vote.

One reason Trump seemed to run the board on social media: Unlike other candidates, whose feeds were carefully curated and run by staff, Trump tweeted, Facebooked and Instagrammed directly to followers, often seemingly off the top of his head.

Trump Dominated Rivals on Social Media in 2015