Leg-iron has written a piece which had Frank Davis poking his head above the parapet to catch a wider view of society, post-smoking ban, which had me pondering on both their thoughts and felt inclined to add my own observations.
Like Frank, I was interested in the fact that favoured groups suddenly go out of favour, as we are seeing right in front of us these days. Leg-iron noticed an article in the Mail about the latest Office for National Statistics survey on homosexuality showing the same result as last year.
The Daily Lunacy claims that the Government’s ‘equality’ agenda is not working because we aren’t all dressing up as Julian Clary and singing ‘I’m a little teapot’.
Only one in 100 people say they are exclusively homosexual, an official survey found yesterday.
Is that not enough? Does ‘equality’ demand a fifty-fifty split?
The count by the Office for National Statistics shows that despite the promotion of same-sex marriage and full gay equality by David Cameron and the Coalition, there has been no increase in the past year in numbers of people who say they are gay.
In the past year? This year we have the same population as last year, the only difference is we’re all a year older.
Leg-iron proposes that, in the interests of true equality, we are all assigned a gender, skin colour, religion and sexuality from the State.
Equality demands the numbers match. Some of us will be declared fat and some thin, some will be allocated political beliefs so that all parties get a fair and equal share of the vote…
It makes a lot of sense. If you’re an equality-obsessed psychopath who prowls the corridors of power considering novel ways of creating an extra layer of chaos in the community at large.
Leggy makes the following points,
Why can’t we all just be ‘people’? That would be so much simpler and would require no government involvement whatsoever. It would require no equality legislation because everyone would be defined as a ‘person’ and gender, skin colour, religion, sexuality, size, none of those things would matter at all. None would be defended in law because there would be no need. The law would define crimes against ‘the person’ and deal with them accordingly.
If someone beat me to a pulp because I come from Wales I would not care why they did it. I would only care that they did it. Beating someone to a pulp is illegal, the reasons are irrelevant, the crime is in the beating and there should be no opportunity for excuse. Because these differences are used as excuses. ‘His religion made him do it. He was influenced by some neo- Nazi group or other’ and so on. It does not matter. The trial should be concerned only with ‘did he do it, yes or no?’ and the only mitigating circumstances would involve direct provocation.
So, if someone beat me to a pulp because I was constantly provoking them, then that should count in the defendant’s favour. If they did it because their friends egged them on, or their holy book said that Welsh people must die, or because they were drunk or for any reason that did not involve me provoking them, then the law should not make any allowance at all. The law should treat everyone as equal.
‘Equality’ as applied to human relations is not a mathematical formula. If there was only one gay in the country he/she would be ‘equal’ if we were all treated the same.
Instead we are sorted and categorised and classified like some farmer’s stocktake and there are those who think this is a good idea because, at the moment, they are the favoured stock.
But that is part of the ‘fun’. Having Government pet groups is a perfect way to engineer a divided country, and that is largely the point of feminism, militant homosexualism and mass immigration, to have a large melting pot from which to choose your (Temporary) Preservation of Favoured Races in the Tussle for Strife.
But apparently, ‘cattle’ is exactly the word the elites use to describe the rest of us. It’s why they treat us like animals and the way most of us allow them to and keep voting in their puppets, it’s hardly surprising they keep pushing the boundaries. I know we now pay tax on top of tax on top of tax. Considering the American Revolution was fought on tax and I’m sure we must be getting squeezed tighter than they ever were, it’s a dangerous game they are playing on many levels.
The tide has started turning for last year’s favoured stocks – Muslims and travellers are not getting the easy ride they have become accustomed to any more. It will get worse.
If you are one of this year’s favoured cattle, beware. They are just fattening you up for the slaughterhouse.
Don’t believe it? As a smoker I have watched society from the outside for a long time now. I have no desire to rejoin what I see. It’s not nice in there. You think it’s great that the government is on your side, fine, you carry on believing that.
Note though, that they are now pushing a gay agenda just like the previous favoured groups and look what happened to them. The disabled? People who cannot move or speak are now being classed as fit for work while only a few years ago, someone with a bad back could languish on benefits with a free car thrown in. When that tide turns, it turns all the way.
Watch the tide.
Indeed. As Yuri Bezmenov – former KGB subversion agent – says, when they have finished with their useful idiots they get rid of them. Sometimes literally.
It all had Frank pondering…
It had me thinking that perhaps it’s entirely random who’s “in favour” and who’s “out of favour” at any one point in time. Later, on further thought, I wondered whether it came in waves.
I think it depends who the ‘authorities’ consider most dangerous/inconvenient and/or who can be used most for political leverage.
I don’t pay much attention to Jewish affairs, but I have the idea that antisemitism has been on the rise in recent times. It never really ever went away, of course.
Being, as I am, keen to learn what I can about the real power structure on the planet, there is a great – in my view – misconception that it is all the fault of “the Jews”. Some people use the word ‘Zionists’, but it seems that “Jews” is used increasingly. Just because some of the big banking families are Jewish (like Rothschild and Warburg) they assume that “da Joos” run everything, when it is far more likely that the Jesuits/Vatican do.
The Jews are God’s chosen people, while Babylon the Great in Revelation is a city on seven hills. That, of course, is Rome.
But a new generation has been misled by “Truth Movement” disinfo agents into believing the Jews are behind the New World Order, so called, and so anti-Semitism is acceptable again in their eyes.
Frank adds, Certainly the world seems to be a much less tolerant place than it was 30 0r 40 years ago.
Indeed it does, and you don’t need to step outside of these shores. A story I have told before is about the short time I worked in an insurance office in Oxford Street, London, in 1991. There were probably about thirty of us. Myself and another two Scots, a Welshman, at least one Ulsterman, a few from other areas of England and an American woman, a French mademoiselle, a Nigerian fella (who was planning a clever, major insurance scam), an Algerian Muslim alcoholic, two Indian girls, an Arabic gentleman and my boss, who was half Irish and half Indian and referred to herself as an “Irish Paki”: her words, not mine. There was even one or maybe two native Londoners working there, would you believe?
There was no “racism”. There was no “homophobic bullying”, in fact, “sexuality” was never mentioned. We just worked and went out for lunch in various groups and sometimes had a few pints after work before catching our trains home. I don’t recall hearing anyone talking down anyone else at work or even at lunch or in the pub. Well, maybe just our boss, but not because of her genetic “heritage”.
Two of the three bosses were women. Two were “ethnic” – all three if you include Mags from Scotland.
What I’m saying is that today, a similar office would no doubt have had visits from “diversity officers” ordering us to get along with each other and that there was no place for racism in the workplace. Stonewall would have sent posters and information about stamping out the rampant homophobic bullying they imagined MUST be going on. Feminists would no doubt be asking why one of the bosses is a man…
Of course, all these social re-engineering ploys brought to us via unintelligent politicians and fake charities and phoney human rights laws and compromised media to subvert our culture had the natural and intended effect of stirring up trouble where none (or little) existed before. It created a divide and rule which we never experienced in that most diverse atmosphere in London. Maybe I was fortunate to work with likeable people, but I was a Scot living in England for 13 years and never experienced any hatred towards me because of it.
Nowadays (I moved back north nearly 16 years ago), it may be different. Many English want Scottish independence because they believe the propaganda, such as the perception that we take out more money than we put in or that England gets less than its fair share (it depends what data you use – as usual – some show Scotland as a net contributor to the UK in terms of taxation and some areas of England are heavily subsidised by the South, of course) and we now get “free” prescriptions up here, which is unfair, I agree, but which irritates the English more than walking into a swarm of midges on a hike through the Highlands.
Simple things can create a massive rift between people. Just a teensy bit of favouritism – whether asked for or not – makes the others agitated and causes division.
My regret is that many more of us couldn’t see what was happening 20 or 30 years ago or more and stubbed it out back then and kept our country as an oasis of relative sanity in a crazy world. Maybe if Al Gore had invented the internet twenty years earlier …!
I’m sure the Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Irish, Greeks, Spanish, Swedes, Dutch, etc. feel the same way.
But I thought it was exciting and vibrant working with so many people from different backgrounds. I don’t think any of us had an inkling we were guinea pigs in a global eugenics experiment, which has actually been ongoing for a long time.
Frank suggests that,
Perhaps there’s a feedback loop at work. When one bunch of people get trodden on, they take it out on other people. And they in turn take it out on yet another bunch of people. And everyone gradually gets angrier and angrier with everyone else. Eventually it all boils over.
With Pastor Niemöller’s famous, “First they came …” statement in mind, some of the targets have changed, but the sentiment seems to remain. Both Leg-iron and Frank seem to have distanced themselves from the goings on in the wider community since the smoking ban, when they consider themselves to have been rejected by society.
In their case… First they came for the smokers, and others didn’t speak out because they weren’t smokers. Now smokers are given increasingly appalling treatment for using a legal product. Even many non-smokers see the unnecessary cruelty imposed on this large section of society, especially people in hospitals and care home and soon possibly even in prisons.
Now they are coming for the drinkers. Talk of Cameron’s 45p per unit minimum and Salmond’s 50p seem to have been shelved amidst legal implications as part of our EU membership, but after a couple of decades of egging on youngsters with trendy flavoured vodka-based drinks with their telly adverts suggesting the stuff is to be drunk in serious quantities, it is hardly surprising what has happened. Before I ditched the telly nearly nine years ago, I remember thinking that one of these alcohol companies seemed to be trying to compete with illegal drugs with their message.
But now, the resultant generation of young alcoholics and binge drinkers brought up to worship their exotic happy juices are in the health fascists’ sights too. There is even talk of putting the incapacitated ones in privately-owned “drunk tanks” for the night and charging them a huge sum of money for the overnight stay.
How many should have gone to hospital instead? How many will die? Who will care, now they are part of the denormalised ones?
You could argue that the dehumanisation programme started with abortion, but few people spoke up for the unborn because they were already born.
Christians are being denormalised. If you listen to Yuri Bezmenov you’ll understand why. Simply because once a society loses its faith system, it’s a gonner. It collapses. It gets taken over.
It’s even crazier, though, because while there is genuine and increasing institutionalised intolerance hatred of Christians, smokers, patriots, the elderly and the sick there are all manner of invented “hate crimes” just because someone has said something, or overheard someone else say something, that they don’t like.
But people think if they keep their heads down and don’t make a fuss about anything, they’ll survive. It’s not like that now. UN Agenda 21 and “sustainable development” means we are all expendable. We need to get together to fight the real enemy. But people seem to love their enslavement too much, as exemplified by something else frank wrote,
Smokers aren’t a small minority. They’re a very large minority. Depending where you look, they range from 20% to 50% of the population. When minorities that large get angry, you don’t get pogroms: you get civil wars.
But you see them huddled outside for a smoke in all weathers. The odd landlord who breaks the ban ends up in court. Almost every single citizen subject does as he or she is told. We are acting like lambs to the slaughter.
To sum up, I imagine the Tories are devastated that the number of homosexuals has stayed the same tiny proportion of the population, making Cameron and Salmond look even more stupid (and who would have thought that possible) after rushing through “same-sex marriage” by order of Brussels.
I used to worry that we would end up as an Islamic country, as many still do, but I cannot see this happening now. I don’t think those canny social engineers will allow more than enough into the West as they need to change all our institutions, laws and way of life. And once they have outlived their usefulness, which seems about now, they will be esteemed as dross like the majority of us.
This country is barely recognisable as the land I grew up in. Coming from the West of Scotland, our traditional hatred centres on Rangers and Celtic and their religious wings, Protestantism and Catholicism. Now the whole shebang is under the microscope with sectarian songs and chants banned and even Celtic players crossing themselves before going onto the pitch seen as “provocative”.
I was brought up on the Rangers side of the Glasgow fence and although I went to very few games and we weren’t big on the whole thing, I still grew up believing that Celtic fans were barely human. For some years now, I have distanced myself from the whole sordid affair. The joke is that Protestantism is Catholicism Lite.
I used to visit the local branch of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster now and again (the one Ian Paisley set up and whom I had the chance to speak with for quarter of an hour one evening about four years ago) and I remember one tale from one of the preachers about a young man carrying a Loyalist banner through the streets which read, “For God and Ulster”.
The preacher asked the youth if he believed in God. He replied that he didn’t.
If you ask me intolerance is increasing because God is being pushed out more and more. He is used as the excuse, like always, but Christ said to love your enemy as yourself. He will sort out the wheat from the tares. We just have to try to love everyone, hard as that may seem. But when you consider that we have a common enemy stirring us up, overtaxing us and trying to control every aspect of our lives, it should be easy to kick them into touch. But some people just love to hate too much. Some know no other way. Some only care about their own hides. The bad men with the big mixing spoon know our weaknesses. That’s why we have to grow stronger in resolve and moral fibre and stop this experiment and take back control of our lives and communities and country.