Outrage!

Where is the outrage?

The internet is a wonderful thing. A world of information at the touch of a button. Of course I suspect that it is also giving a voice to those who’ve never had one before, and that is not necessarily a good thing! I am seeing various causes that previously no-one would bat an eye, suddenly attracting vocal and virulent discussion. An example being opponents of UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), there are those who insist any support for this political party must be racists. Ergo the divisions are coming thick and fast along with the hate and in some cases physical violence.

The feminist movement, especially, it appears in the US appears to be quite powerful, but to a casual observer such as myself, only on superficial issues, such as the “Grab a Pussy” remark made by Donald Trump. That last sentence will certainly get me in trouble with the femistas! How dare I say such a thing. Having a penis means I am not allowed to pass comment, or involve myself in something which is none of my business. Well I’m puzzled by this form of argument, as if they want to forward their own cause, then they couldn’t be doing a worse job of it. I am led to believe that feminism as a movement, is actually in decline. No, I not overly surprised.

The point I am making is this. The internet has opened my eyes to the abhorrent anti women practices.

Where in Nepal this practice is seen as normal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/banished_for_bleeding

Where in Saudi Arabia women are nothing literally more than slaves.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/19-year-old-gang-rape-victim-to-receive-200-lashes-6-months-in-jail-in-saudi-arabia/

I could go on and on, with most Middle East countries treating women in such a way. When some European countries are now implementing a ‘Burka’ ban, I barely hear a whisper from the feminist movement in support of this, well certainly not in the mainstream media. I could be wrong of course, but average Joe/Josephine gets their news through the main media networks. Yes, it’s a lazy way to find out what is happening around the world, but that’s life. Maybe they are going nuts within their own social networks, but what good is that.

Slightly puzzling is the following:

Anglea Merkel

Theresa May

Christine Legard

Two are leaders of countries in the top 6 economically powerful nations, and the last is the head of the IMF. So are they simply puppets of ‘men’ who are really in charge? I have to say I’m a tad disappointed that they do not give women a louder voice in the world. Or hold to account the middle East for the legalised slavery of women. Oh make no mistake, this is exactly what it is. When I hear a muslim woman in the UK supporting the choice to wear the Burka, I hear nothing more than someone who has been brainwashed. Had it not been such a hot potato then you would hear a united chorus saying exactly that. Because of this we should not take their defence of the Burka seriously.  In terms of more local issues, I cannot believe that women are fighting for zero tax on sanitary products, when they really should be lobbying for these products to be free of charge. How ridiculous that a normal bodily function that affects half of our population should impose a charge. Okay, we pay for toilet rolls, but of course that is not gender specific.

The French may be about to show modern women their way in the world. Marine Le Penn refused to wear a head covering when meeting a Sunni grand mufti. This refusal to cover her head, apparently sparked outrage across the Arab nations. May I suggest their outrage was not because of a respect issue, but more to simply subjugate any woman into admitting they are less than men and should be regarded as such. After all respect should go both ways, and so why was they not outrage in the Liberal west at the request that she should wear a head covering?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/23/marine-le-pen-refused-to-wear-a-headscarf-to-meet-with-lebanese-leaders/?utm_term=.e4b2442158b3

I suspect the reasons for their ineffectiveness, is nothing more than in-fighting and power grabbing. In effect, the leaders of these movements, prove themselves to be no different to their male counterparts. Becoming more obsessed with holding onto their positions, rather than fighting for the issues for which their gained said position. So sadly for women around the world, I suspect until religion becomes a by-word for ancient man/women, then we will still be living with these abhorrent practices 200 years from now.

How Offended Am I?

Whether they are normal members of the public who decide to vote for a Liberalist party, or they are the leader of a party that believes in these values. Recently, with such seismic events in world politics, the frustration of these people is palpable.

Their politics, they would have us believe, is one of tolerance fighting for their less well equipped fellow man (their condescension lies within this aim) and to make the world a wonderful place. Unfortunately, from their haughty towers, they fail to convince those from either the left or the right, and as can be seen at elections they even fail to convince the moderates, of which I consider myself to be.

However, as generally they are educated, they have been very clever, as they have installed over decades, their philosophy on the majority by stealth. It started in the schools and universities and then by various pressure groups, policy crept in through the backdoor. One example of this is the crime of hatred towards a particular religion. This can be any religion of course. As my politics are moderate, the Liberalist will accuse me of being from the racist far right, to even suggest that this is a stupid law. Why? Well, in Britain we have more than enough laws that can deal with any hate crime, and do not need one specifically for religion, homophobia or racism. My other objection, is, that as an atheist should we really be promoting such archaic beliefs? By separating out specific 'Race' crime aren't we creating division where we should be looking at inclusion? By separating out Homosexuals, are we not drawing attention to a lifestyle choice that should simply just be accepted in the educated 21st century?

I was accused recently by an online FaceBook friend, of offending her. When I challenged her on this, she went onto say that I didn't even realise that I was being offensive! WOW. Now I'm not as educated as many are, and I put that down to mild dyslexia. However being dyslexic does not prevent one from being confident, and certainly does not mean one is automatically stupid. I took screenshots of the discussion and showed them to a wide variety of friends in a professional group, and to a man and woman, most actually suggested that I had been very restrained, rather than offensive. So as someone who is a very logical person, I dismantled the conversation that I had with said offended Liberal. Then I dismantled the messages of support, just in case I was having my ego massaged. My conclusion is this, and have noticed this really more often than I am comfortable with, given that I live in a society that encourages free speech. I was not offensive toward her, but by accusing me of being 'offensive' it would discourage me from continuing on my path of discussion. So ultimately Liberals have devalued 'being offended', so it barely even means anything at all now and most people are getting simply bored on hearing that someone is in fact offended. What is the result of someone being offended? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Currently 24hrs on from being offended by me, she has not blocked me or unfriended me on FaceBook! So I wonder, how offended was she really?

Below we see a prime example of an attempt to control the conversation by accusing the other person of being offensive and condescending.

When discussing politics, the Liberal can rarely discuss or argue their position effectively, and as soon as they realise their position is falling off the cliff, their default position is to be offended. Once that has been dismantled, then they will look to accuse you using other adjectives that all amount to the same thing. Yet again one is forced to bat away such accusations, then dependant on the subject, one could be accused of racism or in fact most of the isms were pretty much invented by liberalism. So once these labels get thrown around enough, their aim is to get one of the 'isms' to stick, thereby fulfilling their poor attempt at winning ground for the philosophical position. So in effect they are not wishing to enter into an adult discussion, but cling to, with their dying breath a position that is untenable.

Okay that covers discussion and how using what we commonly know as 'Political Correctness' to close down discussion and free speech. Looking at how, post the EU referendum in the UK and more recently the US presidential elections, we immediately heard of a massive rise in hate crimes. Well, at least this is what we were told, by, yes, liberals. Amazingly here in the UK a few months on from the referendum the Liberal media has failed to identify anyone who was alleged to have committed a hate crime, or rather, have failed to report on a single hate crime going through the courts that can specifically be attributed to the vote to leave the EU. Certainly nothing more than the usual level of hate crime, which will always be with us unfortunately. In fact, following both the vote in the UK and the vote in the US, the only protests we have seen are by those who although say they believe in democracy, and in the US the Liberals rally behind the 'Democratic' party, but as seen by the destruction and violent protests in the US, only believe in democracy IF it is their brand. Some quite ridiculous reports of university students being so overwhelmed by the US result, that they were allowed time to come to terms with their grief before returning to class. Goodness what sort of a world are these liberalists creating. Young people who cannot conceive that someone might disagree with their political and or philosophical viewpoint.

I have no affection or affiliation to either US candidate, and frankly am amazed at how the US could have two such poor candidates for the position of the most powerful leader on the planet, but that of course is their affair, and we here in the UK are far from voting for the most qualified at times, as we recently saw with probably Britains worst ever Prime Minister, in David Cameron. Who it now appears was literally nothing more than a poor second hand car salesman. The fact he was rich simply concealed these short comings. What we have seen on both sides of the Atlantic are Liberals who are now looking to undermine the democratic vote because they didn't get their way. We are seeing it with challenges through the courts here in the UK, and in the US, settlement of civil matters to enable Trump to be sworn in.

To close, Liberals are NOT democrats, they are more closely aligned to communism of the 50s and 60s whereby anyone talking out against the political ideology was sent to prison. In our democratic society they don't get sent to prison they simply and constantly get labelled with an 'ism', in the belief that the old adage of dirt sticking still holds true.

Fake News?

Politicians are becoming increasingly apoplectic in their efforts to convince the general populous that they are the safe pair of hands. That they are the only ones to be trusted. The rise of populism (a dirty word amongst the establishment) has occurred because of Russian hackers, or fake news. Having witnessed Brexit, and the almost more unbelievable US election and the rise of the Trump (however shaky that may be), they appear not to understand where they are going wrong, and are almost visibly becoming more and more desperate. An example of this, is President Hollande throwing his enthusiastic support behind the (albeit “Independent”) establishment clone, who appears to have been taken from the box, specifically to defeat the rising and real threat of Marine Le Pen. Hollande has become so unpopular he didn’t even stand for re-election. But it appears his ego does not allow him to believe that he is, actually unpopular, hence publicly giving his support to Macron. Now any amateur psychologist will tell you, that is not a smart move, if he genuinely wants Macron to win. He would have been far better to have kept quiet and slipped away with fingers and toes crossed that the plan works.

We hear politicians time and again explaining how they did not get their message over to the electorate. When the actual truth more often than not, is, that they did and as with Brexit were wholly rejected. Even post referendum the remainers, who have now had nearly a year to come up with an argument that could win them the vote. Unyet they persist on social media with the sorry old arguments that failed to win the first time round. Of course there is the oft quoted saying by Einstein “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” This fits nicely into the Liberal framework of their campaigning and targeting of the electorate. The shallowness of their argument was the most extraordinary position to take, and why many chose to vote Brexit. A couple of the corkers were, “We like our roaming charges for our mobile phones.” “We love being able to go to Brussels for the weekend.” Ultimately they carried out their argument from predominantly within the echo chamber, and either didn’t have a clue, or alternatively didn’t care about the working class man or woman whose lives have been so drastically and negatively affected by the EU’s open door policy.

More recently we are still hearing about the lies on the battle bus claiming £350 million for the NHS. So why are politicians getting so uptight over fake news, when it is quite apparent to the electorate and has been for years that politicians simply lie. Hence why they nearly always show towards the bottom of any table of trustworthy occupations, along with estate agents and lawyers. But of course now the establishment is losing the argument. Previously it was okay to lie and disseminate fake news because the only parties who would ever be in power, were Labour or the Conservatives. So it was almost an unwritten, unspoken understanding, that the losing party would simply have to wait its turn to yet again. Whilst the winning party could continue with it’s own version of the news it wished to reveal to the public whilst the opposition would put up only a token resistance on matters of most importance and little or none in lesser cases of legislation.

The Russians are coming!

Whether there is any truth in the current narrative of Russian hacking, I’m not sure the public actually care. The Russians didn’t put the tick on their ballot paper, nor could they. Oh, wait for entirely electronic elections to arrive, and I humbly suggest that each election will be rigged whichever way the establishment will want it rigged. So for my money we should abandon any ideas of electronic forms of elections or referenda. Ultimately though, the establishment need to wrestle back control of the voting public and if that means blaming anyone but themselves, they will. Speaking for myself my mind was made up years before politicians attempted to manipulate me, and obtain my cross on the ballot, and I suspect many, many others. We had to wait nearly 40 years for a referendum, now if the politicians were that confident that everything was balanced and above board the it wouldn’t have mattered if we had an election yearly, as they would have nothing to fear. But as the years rolled by with an expenses scandal the public were told by their Prime Minister that, “It was time to move on.” The EU accounts that simply could not be signed off, and further explosive revelations, more and more people became very discontented, at least outside of the capital.

So what impact could the Russians have had?

Well, they could make up stories about the EU having empire building intentions, which appear to be true as it happens. Or they could have smeared Hillary Clinton which may have persuaded one or two, but most of that information appears to have been buried, as the US would not want the embarrassment of corruption in high echelons of power. Or the stories were simply untrue to start with! Now, If a powerful person has been slandered, and most of these powerful people are lawyers. Then why have no civil suits been brought for slander? I don’t know, I’m just a simple man, but my gut says something smells fishy. Okay, so Russia wanted Trump, maybe! But today Obama gave his full support for Macron, isn’t this a degree of interference in another countries election process? He also tried this tactic, whilst still president, and gave a full bloodied interference siding with the remain campaign.

We have also heard the ill advised comments via a ‘hot mike’ by Angela Merkel to curtail racist comments on social networks. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/

What she actually meant was, we need to censor content we do not like. So now we see groups like ‘Prison Planet’, or Paul Joseph Watson undergoing soft censorship. So does this not then come into the realms of fake news? If you are only going to distribute one side of the argument then surely, that is then fake news, as political opposites can put whichever spin they like on any given story. We in the UK have seen the BBC becoming less and less unbiased, which is actually entirely contrary to its remit.

Fake news and blaming anything other than themselves is the nuclear weapon in the tool box of dirty spin, for the establishment to use, as the populous, whether in the UK, US or now it appears maybe France are now realising that their votes can make a difference, without needing to remain within the establishment umbrella, and they don’t like it!