In the past few days, there’ve been topics posted on which add up to people being thoroughly sick to death of it all.
There was Bill Whittle on the Narrative:
It’s the lies, the dishonesty, which bring me to my knees. It’s the smug lies, the false case studies, the cut and paste techniques, the photoshopping out, the false and massaged stats and it’s the turning on essentially honest men and women and accusing them of lying – this is the reason Bill Whittle is deeply angry, the reason I’m deeply angry, the reason so many around the western world are now deeply angry.
And angry people are unpleasant, right? You don’t like my tone, you don’t like Bill Whittle’s, when he points these things out:
“The only way to bring down this edifice of success and prosperity [of the emerging American nation] was to go to the root morality that it was based upon and attack it from all sides. Gender studies, radical feminism, African Studies, Native American Studies, the deconstruction of classical literature to show racism or sexism or whatever useful ism, for philosophies that didn’t even exist at the time of their writing, all of these programmes and all they do is inculcate and aggravate a sense of rage, separatism and victimology and [they] assign to the only culture which actually tries to eradicate these injustices the sole onus of their origins.”
It’s being misrepresented and then being accused of misrepresentation. It’s all part of it.
There was the group behind the Leveson Inquiry thing:
Like many a famous author whose name appears on the cover these days, it appears that Leveson had the help of a ghost writer. In his case, it was Cathcart, professor of journalism at Kingston University and co-founder of the tabloid-bashing Hacked Off campaign.
Cathcart’s book makes clear that Hacked Off was not only instrumental in getting the Lib-Con coalition government to call the inquiry, but it also effectively wrote the script for the entire year-long hearings and laid out the demands that formed the basis of Leveson’s conclusions.
How did such a small elite lobby group come to have such a say in the future of press freedom?
The answer is that it is not a “small” elite lobby group. It is an organization which came out of the ODPM, backed by EU and other big money plus parliamentary grants for its programmes [posts passim ad nauseam].
It has deep roots in Tavistock and Chatham House which is far older and so yes – it is not only going to have inordinate influence behind the scenes but it is, in effect, going to puppet-master the show.
There was the Berlusconi alimony thing:
Via Wiggia, the Slog and a comment by a former blog-colleague, Morningstar on the Berlusconi payout to the former wife:
John, having been stuffed by the divorce industry a couple of times and an expensive lack of justice regarding spiteful women who didn’t like the fact that I dusted myself off and started again (without them)…….. Suffice to say that research (rather than propaganda) show that the majority (78%) of divorces are initiated by women for ‘trivial’ reasons such as ‘self discovery’ and the like (the no fault – I want a divorce and I’m gonna get you to support my new lifestyle reasoning).
Am I bitter, to a degree, yes I am, but only because the law is unjust and unsupportive ‘in the interests of the child’ even when one has had a recommendation for full contact from the ‘mediators’ report………. then comes along the state hammer to ensure that the ‘ex love of your life’ gets the benefits of your endeavour (nothing to do with the children) as a matter of course.
It is iniquitous, it is outrageous and I am dead-set against alimony in any form. If she sues for divorce, then stuff her – she’ll not get a penny from me. That is right up front with me – under no circumstances will I pay alimony if she sued, no matter what the State tried to make me do.
Child support though is an entirely different affair yet even that is ruled by the feminazi cabal in cahoots with government.
When women stop f***ing men over, then some sort of love might return. I know women who actually agree with this and never wanted to take their man to the cleaners. It was the State which decided it through the CSA harridans and other arms of the law. Not saying the women would say no to the handout but they didn’t initiate it.
Ian Hill came in with the whole injustice of the way things are:
Because at bottom, “equalities” is really all about damning the traditional breadwinner – the white working class male – in favour of foreigners, who will work for less because it’s all they’re used to, and in favour of women, most of whom will work for less because they’re just second income earners. On top of which there is the law of supply and demand – with too many workers now looking for too few jobs, wages are driven down through competition for employment. And the politicians get their bungs.
Like those British politicians who scrapped the married man’s tax allowance, forcing women out to work. And like those Brussels politicians who gave us the “equalties” directive – now enacted into UK law – which enables employers to discriminate against whites and males. The EU’s stance on female boardroom quotas, which Mike Buchanan opposes, is but another stage on this unprincipled and corrupt road to oblivion.
It has to stop because there are so many of us thoroughly sick to death of it all. I don’t know how to stop it – we can’t even agree among ourselves, especially on peripherals.