Topics few will touch

EU wants law to enforce minimum quotas for women in the boardroom

There’s a double-whammy here. The innocent sounding “quotas” seems fair but:

1. as most people know, it should be about talent, not numbers;

2. the women waiting to be promoted are NOT the ones you actually want in there because they are either:

a. the ambitious, committed, “women should be promoted at all costs and don’t oppress me” type or
b. the malleable and compliant to the narrative, fitting in as cogs and doing their employer’s bidding.

We’ve seen this over and over. The market or workplace needs to find its own equilibirium. There are areas women already dominate because they are better for that type of work and there are areas where ultra-ambitious women have been forced in by the State and pushed up by organizations wanting to appear to be good little PCists – Hewlett-Packard was a perfect example plus the US Corps of Engineers putting an incompetent, Ms. Jody Farhat, doubling with lack of experience in the area, into a position controlling the flooding of the whole Missouri basin – a disaster waiting to happen and happen it did.

Another thing is the proliferation of women-type jobs and hence it will be a woman-dominated workforce before long with a minority of men in positions still above them and the majority of men uneducated, emasculated, yet quite yahoo and dangerous if not contained, men with nothing to lose.  Presumably women then go into this pool and pick mates to procreate with, these mates having no power, as they have no income stream but the State.

This is how women with diseased minds [feminazis like the Harbag] certainly see it going.  Just how they think they’re going to manage and control such brutes is something I think perhaps they haven’t thought through.

There aren’t that many bloggers, except actual misogynists, covering these matters and I’d claim to be the only one, at least in this corner of the sphere, covering the social-engineering aspects in any great detail.  There also aren’t all that many covering the war which has begun between the upholders of marriage, our heritage and Judaeo-Christian values and the army of PCists infesting the world today.

Correct me if I’m wrong on that but there are good reasons people are remaining silent and yet I’d suggest that the way both issues are going are just as destructive as the more fashionable climate scam, that of immigration and of course, the EU, along with the lack of direct democracy – all vital in themselves, don’t get me wrong.

This Cardinal O’Brien, whatever else he’s done, good or bad – what a brave man and the fact that Rowan Williams has finally got off his butt and made similar weak sounds tells me he’s been shamed into it – again, correct me if I’m wrong. Restoring Britain wrote:

It does indeed have little to do with rights of gays and more to do with the deliberate strategy of eroding one of the pillars that gives a sense of cohesion & identity to who we are.

For me it does not matter if you have faith or not, our judeo-christian culture has relevance to us all and gives us something. One of my family members holds himself to be an aethist, but at the same time he acknowledges the judeo-christian faiths provide a moral underpinning for a way of life – a set of guidelines to good honest living. Take it away and you take away the key institution for giving some guidance on right and wrong. That allows the state to define it and we only have to look over recent decades at the infiltration of the state by those who seem keen to collapse it.

The Christian faith however has to look at itself and consider becoming a little more muscular before it returns to its 1st Century model of meeting in secret with secret signs for fear of persecution. It has to make the argument for its case and that its message belongs to believers and non believers alike.

The moves by the EU and lackeys like Cameron and Featherstone, including the issues above as one small part of the whole thrust, are running into opposition and one curious aspect is the change in the media.

The MSM goes radical

Have you noticed how much column space is being given by the MSM lately to these matters and not only that but in a more honest fashion?   A friend suggested this was due to the breaking of the contract between the owners of the media and the backers of the State – that all bets now appear to be off, possibly as a result of the N of the W biz.

I mean – just look at this mockery of politicians, which we didn’t see not so long ago, except in Private Eye or Daily Mash.  And how about:

Shut down this factory of meddling and nincompoopery handing out human rights like confetti

or:

Key dates from history that every pupil should know: Cambridge don says GCSEs should embrace ALL of our nation’s past

It may all be a manipulated joke and just as we think things are coming full circle, returning to a sense of sanity, the MSM may suddenly pull the rug out from under it and call it yesterday’s news.  There’ve been suggestions that this is all designed to ferment foment conflict in the society.

Such minds who wish to do this obviously don’t see that there is already deep conflict.  The very fact that what I write above is going to be vehemently rejected by a large proportion of readers today, whereas it would have been mainstream four decades ago, is a commentary in itself.

I say bring it on – the better we have this out the better.

7 comments for “Topics few will touch

  1. March 6, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Just how they think they’re going to manage and control such brutes is something I think perhaps they haven’t thought through.

    Consider, for a moment, the fact that modern dogma insists that full make-up, high heels, impractical clothing* and a high-maintenance (and expensive) beauty regime is no longer inconsistent with expecting to be treated as an equal in the workplace.

    Perhaps I read too much Desmond Morris in my younger days, but it looks to me rather like a cynical bid to exercise control through the most basic of human impulses.

    *just try walking downstairs in 4″ heels and a pencil skirt carrying a pile of paperwork.

    • March 6, 2012 at 9:42 am

      Oh, and slightly o/t, if you want to see real discrimination in action, just watch the way these boardroom beauties behave towards women – even those older, more experienced and better qualified – who choose not to conform to the sartorial stereotype.

      • Tattyfalarr
        March 6, 2012 at 2:00 pm

        Indeed…”chicks with dicks”…traitors to their sex. 😐

        • March 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm

          I wouldn’t go that far, necessarily, but it’s a long way from the egalitarian utopia we envisaged back in my student days.

          Turns out we were no match for the forces of marketing…

          • Tattyfalarr
            March 7, 2012 at 11:34 am

            It was meant to be descriptive and… since we’re going off-topic…keeping it short and to the point. Such women behave in the exact same way as the minority of men they complain about. If that’s Equality they can keep it 😐

            • March 7, 2012 at 9:04 pm

              Can’t argue with your terseness – or your alliteration;

  2. Single Acts of Tyranny
    March 6, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    “judeo-christian faiths provide a moral underpinning for a way of life – a set of guidelines to good honest living. Take it away and you take away the key institution for giving some guidance on right and wrong”

    I do not subscribe to bronze age philosophy and I don’t murder, rape or molest kids, but not because I think I am on divine CCTV. It’s just that I rationally believe it to be wrong.

Comments are closed.