There’s a term over on Urban Dictionary which aptly describes the state of affairs we live in. That term is “Clown World”. The very first definition provided goes like this:
A phrase used to describe the current state of affairs in regards to the world (usually socially or politically). The word is employed as to state that something is ridiculous or nonsensical, in a way, “only could this be real, in a world run by clowns (clown world)”
When you read today’s topic can you really deny that this is the case?
The UK Home Office is reported to have refused asylum to a Christian convert by quoting Bible passages which it says prove Christianity is not a peaceful religion.
No, this isn’t a story from The Onion. The UK, a country which has suffered numerous Islamic terrorist attacks over the past few years, has seen knife attacks skyrocket in their capital city as it has become more diverse, and has seen the exposure of countless Muslim child rape gangs, is rejecting a Christian asylum seeker, because Christianity is not a peaceful religion. Forget the fact that the UK has always historically been a Christian society, and is still majority Christian today. Forget the fact that this is a country that jails people for Facebook posts which make similar comments about Islam. Even independent of all that, this is complete and utter insanity.
Well you thought wrong. Haven’t you ever heard of the Crusades?
However, the Home Office demurred, sending him a refusal letter referencing the Bible. The letter said the book of Revelations – the final book of the Bible – is “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence,” and cites six excerpts from it.
I’d imagine those six excerpts were something along the lines of
“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.
“And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
“(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
“If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Oh wait, those are from the Quran, that peaceful book. My mistake.
It then states: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”
As if looking at the current state of the world wasn’t evidence enough already that Christianity is a peaceful religion, in comparison to Islam. Ignore your lying eyes everyone. The media and political establishment will tell you what’s actually true.
The Independent contacted the Home Office, which said the letter was “not in accordance” with its policy approach to claims based on religious persecution. It also said it was working to improve the training provided to decision-makers on religious conversion.
“The people aren’t fully broken yet. Lets pretend we’re doing something, until we’re sure that the no longer have any resistance in them.”
Nathan Stevens, the asylum seeker’s caseworker, tweeted: “I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.”
Get used to it. When Islam is inevitably the biggest religion in the UK, not only will this become the norm, but every native Christian will either be butchered or forced to convert. Just like what always happens.
Two days ago, Ireland had a referendum to remove the criminal offence of blasphemy from our constitution. It was an ineffective amendment, under which nobody had actually been charged in over 150 years, but there was a principle involved, and that principle is freedom of speech. Regardless of how ineffective it was, the fact is, Ireland still technically had a a constitutional amendment in place that in theory, put limits on our freedom of speech. So naturally, anyone who seriously values freedom of speech (which I do), was in favour of repealing it. Although turnout was rather poor, of those who did come out, a huge majority voted in favour of its repeal, suggesting that the majority support freedom of speech.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has welcomed the Yes vote in the referendum on blasphemy as an important step for free speech and the modernisation of our democracy.
I agree. There’s no place in any modern day, free society, for laws that place restriction on a person’s freedom of speech. I too, welcome this result.
ICCL campaigned for a Yes vote in this referendum and we have consistently advocated this change over many years. This positive result brings Ireland into line with international best practice in human rights, as called for by the UN Human Rights Committee.
Echoing the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention, we are now calling on the government to repeal sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009 which define the criminal offence of blasphemy.
They’re coming across very reasonable so far, aren’t they? Watch how that changes in the next paragraph.
We are also calling on the Government to take immediate action to coordinate state bodies’ responses to hate- and hostility-based crime and to bring forward legislation to protect from hate- and hostility-based crime.
And there it is. They talk a big game about how they value freedom of speech, but really what they mean is, they value freedom of speech that they personally agree with. Within 24 hours of the result of a referendum, ostensibly in favour of improving Ireland’s freedom of speech, they’re calling for legislation that will make free speech even more restrictive, all while claiming to celebrate free speech. It’s a literal real world example of Orwellian doublethink.
Executive Director of the ICCL, Liam Herrick, said:
“During our campaign for a Yes vote, our guiding principle was respect for freedom of expression.
You mean freedom of expression that you and your organisation personally agree with.
However, we have also argued that the right to free speech is not absolute
No you fucking prick, the whole point of free speech is that it is absolute. Once you put restrictions on it, it’s no longer “free”. Therefore it’s not “free speech”. This is not a difficult concept to understand.
and should be limited to the degree necessary to protect people from hate- and hostility-motivated crime.
All crimes by definition, involve hostility. And the victim suffers the same, no matter what. It shouldn’t matter whether the victim is LGBT or straight. Black or white. Male or female. Native Irish or immigrant. Christian or Muslim, etc., etc. If they’re an innocent person, who has been victimised by a criminal act, they all deserve the same justice, for the same type of crime. Creating a victimhood hierarchy, were certain demographics, receive harsher sentences than others, or certain victims get more justice than others, is objectively a ridiculous and divisive way to do things. But of course, we already have the precedent from other countries, to know what this is really all about. it’s not about protecting minorities. It’s about punishing dissidents who speak out against the genocide that is being inflicted upon us.
Hate crime is something which is entirely different to blasphemy as it is directed towards individuals or groups, rather than ideas or institutions. There is no legislation in place to deal with hate crime in Ireland at the moment.”
And there shouldn’t ever be. There should be equally severe sentences, regardless of the demographics involved in crime. A black guy who beats up a white guy, should get the same sentence as a white guy who beats up a black guy. A Muslim who murders a Christian, should get the same sentence as a a Christian who murders a Muslim. And a person who expresses their personal opinion on Islam, and the people who follow it, should get absolutely no sentence at all, same as those who express their opinion on Christianity and its followers.
Ireland is obliged by European and international human rights law to have in place a robust framework to respond to and prevent hate- and hostility-based crime.
Yet another reason to leave the EU.
In April ICCL released a report which showed that Ireland is seriously deficient in addressing hate crime when compared to other EU member States.
No doubt, we’ll be falling over ourselves to play catch up, as quickly as possible. I can honestly see Ireland going “full Sweden”, the way things are going.
The Lifecycle of a Hate Crime: Country Report for Ireland shows that from the point at which a victim reports a crime to An Garda Síochána to the point at which a judge sentences an offender, the hate element of a crime is filtered out of the criminal justice process.
And I’ve still yet to see an explanation as to why it should be.
Though it won’t matter. You can be sure that the majority of our treacherous politicians, would be more than happy to oblige, and bring in laws that restrict our ability to speak out against what they’re doing to us.
I’ve quite often mentioned the situation in South Africa because I’m of the belief that South Africa is actually just a preview of things to come in every single (currently) white majority country, in the future. They’re just a few decades further down the path then the rest of us, but the difference is, whereas it’s too late to prevent the inevitable there, there is still time for the rest of us, if we can learn from their mistakes. We can still get off this path in time, if we just wake up and come to our senses, before it’s too late. In the mean time, all we can do is look on from afar at the present situation in South Africa, and try to remind ourselves that we don’t want the same to happen to us.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently announced plans to allow white people’s land to be taken without compensation, which will then be distributed to black people in a move that he believes will be good for the economy.
It has been on the cards for quite some time, but now it’s official. They’re actually going to go through with the land confiscation. And everything I’ve heard on this topic, suggests that the whites will not give it up peacefully. The only question that really remains now, is whether the blacks will exterminate the whites, or will the whites successfully defend themselves in a civil war against them? Either way, bloodshed is inevitable now, and all we can do is wait and see what happens.
The president made the announcement late on Tuesday in a televised address to the nation.
I know it’s an overdone cliche at this point, but I’m going to do it anyway. Imagine if a white leader (for example, Trump), went on TV and announced that he was going to confiscate property from the black minority in America, without compensation, and hand it over to white people? Can you imagine the reaction, both within America itself, and globally?
Yeah of course it would not be tolerated at all. But seeing as it’s a black leader doing it to white people, nobody cares, because they’re brainwashed fools who believe in the idiotic myth of white privilege.
The farmers have claimed that the government’s plan will be “catastrophic and could lead to anarchy and food shortages like Venezuela or Zimbabwe”.
Which is exactly what I’m predicting too, by the way.
The economy of Zimbabwe collapsed after their own land reform was carried out.
“Just an unfortunate coincidence.”
More than 20 years after the end of apartheid in South Africa, white farmers still own the majority of South Africa’s land.
And why shouldn’t they? I already explained it in some detail in this previous post, but the vast majority of the land that makes up South Africa, was uninhabited, before it was colonised by Europeans. Most of the present day black South Africans are themselves descended from immigrants, who settled in South Africa AFTER it was already settled and built up by white people. They willingly chose to come to South Africa in order to share in the prosperity that the white people created, prosperity they could never create themselves. And now, instead of showing their gratitude, they’re driving out, stealing from, and exterminating their benefactors, and are rapidly pushing the country towards the same failed state as every other Sub-Saharan African country. They’re going to destroy themselves in the process, but they’re far too stupid to see that, just like the Zimbabweans were before them.
An organisation representing South Africans, AfriForum, said that land expropriation with no compensation would have “catastrophic results like in Venezuela and Zimbabwe”.
The organisation’s chief executive Kallie Kriel said: “History teaches us that international investors, regardless of what AfriForum or anyone else says, are unwilling to invest in a country where property rights are not protected.”
Yeah, but who cares about history? That’s all in the past. Sure, Communism has resulted in countless millions murdered every time it has been tried. Sure, followers of Islam have always tried to conquer and force their beliefs on every culture they have come into contact with. Sure, multiculturalism has resulted in conflict everywhere it has ever occurred. Sure what is being attempted in South Africa now, has already failed in Zimbabwe when it was tried there. We should try to make all these things work anyway, because… because… well you know what, I don’t even need to give a reason.
Ian Cameron, of AfriForum, said: “We’re really heading for a state of anarchy if something doesn’t change drastically.
Anarchy is probably the best case scenario. I think what we’re actually going to see will be more like Rwanda in 1994, but with the white South Africans in the place of the Tutsis. The rhetoricbeing directedtowards them, is already eerily similar.
“There are places where the police simply refuse to act. They don’t know the law well enough or refuse to apply it to logical reasoning when it comes to defending people’s property rights.”
Or more likely, they just don’t care to enforce the law.
In the 1990s black South Africans received grants and subsidies to buy land plots, which resulted in overcrowding and poor land use.
Because they were too incompetent to use it properly. That might not be such a big deal with small plots of subsistence land, but with massive commercial farms that the economy depends on, and that feed the population, it will be a massive disaster.
South Africa’s history of colonial conquest has pushed most of the black people into crowded urban areas or rural reserves.
They weren’t pushed onto anything. They willingly chose to immigrate to South Africa from other parts of the continent, because of the prosperity that the white South Africans had created, reproduced at a far higher rate than the whites did, until their population exploded, and ended up in their present situation. They have nobody to blame, but themselves.
The 1913 Native Lands Act made it illegal for Africans to acquire land beyond these reserves, which became known as “Homelands”.
They should just be thankful that they were allowed live in the country at all, seeing as they never could have created one with similar living standards themselves. It was actually for their own good in a way that they weren’t allowed to own land. If they had, they would have fucked the country up much sooner than they are now.
About one-tenth of land in white ownership has been transferred to black ownership since the end if apartheid, which is only a third of the government’s target.
Some investors think that Ramaphosa may be simply trying to win political points with the land reform ahead of an election next year.
Democracy in action folks.
Bennie Van Zyl, the general manager of the Agricultural Union of South Africa (TAU SA), said: “For us, this is a pity that they’ve made their choice, because no one will invest in this economy and we actually need growth to address the realities of South Africa. So we have great concern for this approach.
“A lot of foreign countries that have already contacted us as an organisation say if that is the case, we are not willing to invest in your country anymore.
“And if the ANC goes through with this, it will be devastating for this country.”
You’re damn right it will be, but I don’t think there’s any turning back now. It’s going to get very bad there very soon.
And I guarantee you that the media will be blaming the victims when it does happen.
For a long time, I’ve tried my best to understand and make sense of the transgender issue, but even after all this time, I’m still no closer to doing so. It’s not that I don’t feel any sense of sympathy or compassion for what these people are going through. It’s just that after all this time, I’ve yet to see any compelling scientific evidence that a quote, unquote “sex change” actually does meet the criteria for turning people into the opposite sex. As far as I can see, all it does is take vulnerable people with severe mental health problems, irreparably mutilate their bodies, and turn them into a poor imitation of what they aspire to be.
Yet despite these very real reasons that make many people, myself included, feel skeptical, the issue only seems to be getting more attention and becoming a much bigger deal, with absolutely no attempt being made to address our skepticisms . I think really since around the time that Bruce Jenner transitioned, the issue has been heavily pushed by the media and the political establishment as the next big “civil rights frontier” to overcome. We’re led to believe that the reason why we’re hearing so much more about it today is because of “greater awareness”, “greater understanding”, and that more transpeople are “finding the courage” to come forward because of this.
I personally don’t buy it myself. I am not a scientist, so I don’t have the empirical evidence to back up what I’m about to say, but this is my own personal belief, based on observation and contemplation. I personally believe that there are two different kinds of transgender people, similar in a way to how there are two different types of diabetes. Type A, are people who are born with their brain wired differently than what is typical for their biological sex. These people are naturally transgender, and make up that tiny minority who have always existed. There’s probably no way that these people will ever be able to come to terms with their biological sex, and while I don’t personally think that transitioning is a good idea in general, it’s probably the best solution for addressing their specific cases.
Type B on the other hand are a product of nurture rather than nature, and are I believe, the vast majority of cases, particularly the cases that have come in the past few years. The average human brain is not fully developed until around the age of 25 and even then, neuroplasticity, is a thing. The human brain can rewire itself based on external stimuli. Therefore, is it really that hard to consider the possibility that when the media is heavily pushing something, and SJW parents and teachers are encouraging it, that this can have an effect on how children think, and this could be what actually accounts for the massive rise in transgender kids the last few years?
What a strange coincidence here. The parent is trans, and the child is too. Clearly the child came to this decision zirself, and not because of the prompting of the parent.
So if my theory is correct, and the majority of the recent transgender cases fall into the Type B category, then would it not be logical to try and prevent these kids from dealing with the mental health issues in the first place, and potentially have to undergo the highly damaging surgery, by not glamourising it so much, and by not drawing so much attention to it? If it wasn’t being pushed so heavily, there would be much less cases of the Type B, and therefore much less children having to suffer the associated problems of struggling with their gender identity. By all means, have facilities in place to try and identify and help those who fall into the Type A category, but as things stand, the media and activists conflate both the majority Type B and the minority Type A into one category, and in my opinion, this is completely wrong.
Anyway, that was a pretty long introduction to what is in fact, a very brief article that I wished to share.
A review of Ireland’s gender recognition laws is to be brought before the Cabinet this morning.
It reportedly recommends making it easier for children to change their gender.
Commissioned by Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty, it is understood the report recommends letting children officially change their gender without going to court.
Regina Doherty, who is a high ranking member of Ireland’s Fine Gael party.
Never forget, that Fine Gael are supposed to be Ireland’s “right wing conservative party”. They brought Ireland the Gay Marriage referendum. They brought Ireland the Abortion referendum. They’ve talked about making free (ie., tax-payer funded) contraception readily available. Our current Taoiseach is best buds with that snivelling worm, Justin Trudeau. And now, we’re getting this rhetoric from them.
But yeah people are still delusional enough to think that they’re totally a right wing conservative party, because the Overton window has moved so far to the left, that full on Communists are now mainstream, and centrist parties like Fine Gael, seem far right in comparison.
Children under 16 would be allowed to register the change on documents as long as they have parental consent.
Parental consent? Oh dear that’s such an outdated attitude to have. Why should parents have any say in any life changing decisions that their children wish to make? I think maybe Leo should take some advice from how things are done in the country of his good buddy Trudeau.
It would take the decision out of the courts unless there is a situation where one parent does not consent to the change or if there are mental health concerns.
I’m sure we can guess which parent the court will side with in such a scenario.
There have been calls for the minister to publish the report findings, which will likely be done after it is noted by Cabinet this morning.
I look forward to seeing the report. Actually to be honest, I really don’t care.
I can’t see this situation ending well at all. I can see many vulnerable kids with mental health problems, being encouraged to do something that is not in their best interests at all. And then when they end up realising that they’ve made a mistake, as so many do, and feel as if suicide istheir onlyoption, because they’ve destroyed their bodies and ruined their lives, do you think those who encouraged them, are going to accept any responsibility for it? Do you think they’ll honestly reflect on their own behaviour and think “maybe it was a bad idea to encourage this”?
Following recent events such as a man being charged with a hate crime for teaching his pug Roman salutes, a convicted paedophile getting his sentence delayed to go on holiday, and the arrest of Tommy Robinson, simply for reporting on a court case involving Muslim child rape gangs, I made the suggestion that the United Kingdom (now commonly known as “Cuck Island“), was a contender to Sweden’s throne for the most shameful, laughing stock in all of Europe. Well after what I have just learned today, I have to take it back. There is still some will to live left in the Brits, and it looks as if they have finally reached the limits of their patience.
If you’re wondering what I’m referring to, then please watch the following videos.
And my favourite video of all…
And these are all just a small sample of what’s happening. I’m not even counting the videos that show what is happening inside prisons (it’s basically just more of the same).
Look ideally, I would like it if all European countries existed under a system of law and order, were suspected criminals were properly investigated by the authorities, given a fair trial if enough evidence was found to justify trying them, and if found guilty, given an appropriate sentence, depending on the severity of their crimes.
But the UK has failed miserably in that regard. Or rather, I don’t know if you can really refer to it as a “failure”, when it was done that way on purpose, but I’m sure you know what I mean. For the past four decades or so in the UK, there has been an epidemic of young white English girls being groomed, raped, and tortured by men of a primarily Muslim background, with the authorities not only failing to do anything about it, but actively helping to conceal it from the general public. Instead, they’ve been focusing their time and effort on punishing those who speak the truth about what has been happening. This isn’t simple incompetence. This is a massive betrayal of the people they are sworn to protect and serve.
So with the proper channels failing to protect these children, is it really that hard to understand why the ordinary, working class, white Brits, are feeling as if they have no other choice, but to take justice into their own hands? If the police and justice system won’t protect them, then they’ll protect themselves. If the police and justice system won’t punish these rape gangs, then they’ll punish them themselves. You might not agree with their methods, but they’ve been pushed into this situation against their will, and they obviously feel like this is the only option left to them. And personally, I really can’t blame them one bit.
While it is sad to see that things have gotten this far, it is promising to know, that people haven’t given up the will to fight back entirely. While I do unfortunately think that we’re long past the point of finding a peaceful solution to the problems facing Europe, I at least take solace knowing that when shit does inevitably hit the fan, that people won’t just lay down and die. They will resist afterall. And as long as people are willing to resist, there’s still hope.
I want you all to imagine a scenario. Lets say there was a gay man who owned a bakery. One day, a group of conservative Christians came in and demanded that he bake them a cake with a “Support traditional marriage” message, written on it in icing. The gay baker has no problem serving them because of their religious views, but he doesn’t feel comfortable baking a cake with that particular message because in doing so, he is being asked to participate in something that doesn’t match his own values.
He politely declines and suggests instead that the customers go to another bakery, and even recommends one that will have no problem fulfilling their request. Instead of taking their business elsewhere like normal adults, the Christians decide to sue the gay baker for discriminating against their religion, and destroy his livelihood. They do this because they specifically chose this baker knowing that he was gay, and knowing he wouldn’t be willing to make such a cake. It was never about the cake. It was about bullying the gay baker into doing something he wasn’t comfortable with, under threat of the loss of his livelihood. Does this sound morally justifiable to you? If your answer is no, then why is it morally acceptable when the reverse happens?
Well we’ve had plenty of cases of the reverse happen over the years. In fact, one of my very first posts on this blog was in relation to a similar situation that took place in Northern Ireland. However, today’s story is in relation to a case that occurred in America.
A baker was sued by a gay couple for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, and after years in the legal system, the supreme court ruled in favour of the baker.
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, saying the decision was unlikely to have a sweeping legal impact.
The nation’s highest court said the baker’s religious rights were violated when a state Civil Rights Commission decided he had broken Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
Like it or not, religious freedom is under the same legal protection as sexuality is. There was absolutely no need for this case to ever go as far as it did. It was obvious that they were just “butthurt” (and not in the way they like), that this man didn’t fawn all over them.
The refusal by baker Jack Phillips in 2012 to make a cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig became a cultural flashpoint, seen as part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing gay marriage.
It probably was, but it changes nothing. There was no need to sue over this. The free market would have sorted this problem out quite easily. If he wasn’t interested in the potentially lucrative money that could have come from baking gay wedding cakes, then some other baker would have taken the business instead. The gay couples still get their wedding cakes, the Christian bakers get to live in their little niche, and a business opportunity opens up for other bakers, who aren’t devout Christians. Everybody would have won.
But of course, it was never about this. The cake wasn’t what they wanted. Forcing the baker to do what they wanted was the real motivation. If we look at the history of the gay rights movement, it has followed a particular path. In more homophobic times, all they wanted was tolerance. They just wanted to be left to live their lives in peace, free from persecution, and most reasonable people thought this was fair enough, and tolerance was extended.
After tolerance, came the desire to be accepted. They didn’t just want to be tolerated. They wanted to be accepted as equal members of society who didn’t have to hide away from the rest of us, and once again, most reasonable people had no problem with this. What’s the harm in accepting them as equals? If things had stopped right here most people, both gay and straight would have been perfectly happy, because fairness had finally been achieved.
But there were a few who wanted more than this. It wasn’t enough for these ones to simply be equal. They wanted to be pandered to, treated as special beings, and to have the rest of society participate in their lifestyle with them. And if the rest of society refused to participate in their lifestyle with them, they would use the power of the state to force them to do so.
President Donald Trump’s administration intervened in support of the baker.
But the Supreme Court ruling did not address broader questions of religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws or whether baking a cake is protected as free speech under the U.S. Constitution, experts said.
So we’ll be seeing more of these cases in the future then it seems. It isn’t over yet.
“The broad rule that the bakery was looking for here was that it had a license to discriminate,” said James Essex, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“They most emphatically did not get that ruling from this court today.”
If he was still willing to sell them things despite knowing they were gay, then how exactly was he looking to discriminate? He just wasn’t willing to bake a cake for a specific event that his religious views made him uncomfortable with. Would you say the same thing to a Muslim baker who refused to do the same thing?
The decision made it clear that even if the court ultimately rules in a future case that bakers or other businesses that sell creative products such as florists and wedding photographers can avoid punishment under anti-discrimination laws, most businesses open to the public would have no such defense.
Because there is a difference between refusing to serve someone because of their sexuality, and refusing to use your labour to participate in something that you have religious objections to. The baker didn’t refuse to serve them because they were gay, so this comparison is meaningless.
Nonetheless, the couple, Mullins and Craig, said they were disappointed.
“No one should have to face the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced,” they said on an ACLU conference call with reporters.
HE WAS WILLING TO SERVE “YOUR KIND”, YOU FUCKING WHINER!!!!
He just wasn’t willing to participate in an an event that contradicted his religious views. You were perfectly free to buy a product from the store. He just wasn’t willing to bake a specific cake for you. You want to talk about the mental harm you experienced? What about the mental harm the baker experienced by being caught between his desire not to “sin” in the eyes of his God, and his desire to make a living, when you could have just had the maturity to take your business elsewhere?
Annise Parker, head of the LGBTQ Victory Institute, expressed concern it could “open the floodgates” to discrimination.
“Homophobic forces will purposefully over-interpret the ruling and challenge existing non-discrimination laws by refusing service to LGBTQ people … denying them dinner at a restaurant, lodging at a hotel, or renting an apartment,” Parker said in a statement.
Funny isn’t it how the “slippery slope” suddenly isn’t a logical fallacy anymore?
The Human Rights Coalition echoed the view that the ruling “did not change our nation’s fundamental civil rights laws.”
“Regardless of today’s decision, the fact remains that LGBTQ people face alarming levels of discrimination all across the country,” the civil rights group said.
There’s few countries on the planet right now, were “LGBTQ” people face less discrimination, than in the United States. In a country were this is acceptable (warning, NSFW), you can hardly claim to be discriminated against. This reaction is completely hysterical.
Essex added that the issue is “not about cakes.”
Which as I’ve stated above, I agree with.
“It is about access to health care.
It’s about access to education.
It’s about employment.
It’s about people being fired from jobs because their employer has a religious objection to who they are,” he said. The ACLU represented the gay couple.
People being fired from their jobs because their employer has a religious objection to who they are? What about people like this baker potentially being forced out of his job, because you have an objection to his religious views?
“There is an intentional campaign out there of people who are opposed to LGBT rights but also to equality more broadly,” he said. “I’m sure they are out there saying this is a broad victory.”
Colorado Christian University President Donald Sweeting called it “an enormous milestone victory” for “religious freedom and freedom of conscience.”
“We are grateful that the court upheld these today,” he said in a statement.
They’re so used to getting their own way in everything that they do, that they have zero ability to self-reflect, and assume that the only people who could possibly be glad about this result are homophobes, who don’t want them to have any rights. They are incapable of understanding how obnoxious they themselves have become, and to reconsider their own behaviour.
And for that reason, you can be sure that this issue is not going to die anytime soon.
We keep hearing about how the world is progressing. But progressing towards “what” exactly? To me, it seems as if the world is getting a whole lot worse, rather than better, and if this latest story is anything to go by, it seems that a lot of young people in America agree with me.
The rate of children and teens thinking about or attempting suicide has soared in the last decade, with hospitalizations doubling between 2008 and 2015.
2008-2015. Notice anything about those years? Well someone in the comments section sure did.
Now I’m not going to say that this rise can be blamed on Obama specifically, because correlation =/= causation. However, I want to take people back to 2008. The result of the 2008 election was portrayed to the public as offering…
…after the disastrous eight years under Bush. Sure the worst financial crisis since the 1929 Great Depression was only just beginning, but there was still a lot of optimism, that things would get better, and that society was progressing. The election of Obama was a symbol of that expected progress. But here we are almost a decade later, and all that hope was for nothing. I don’t blame Obama specifically for that, but I can’t deny that things did not turn out the way the majority of us were expecting.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently published a study of children and teen hospitalizations related to suicidal ideation (SI) and suicide attempts (SA). They found that in 2008, 0.8 percent of hospitalizations at surveyed children’s hospitals were for suicide attempts and thoughts. In 2015, it was 1.82 percent.
Wow so it actually more than doubled then.
It’s a significant increase that affected all age groups in the study of people 17 and under. The older age groups had higher rates of SI and SA than younger groups.
Dr. Gregory Plemmons, of the Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, told CBS News that depression and anxiety were rising among kids and teens, and that social media could be making it worse.
I don’t think social media is the main culprit somehow, though I’ll wait until the end, before I provide my own theories.
Mainstream media may also play a role in affecting suicide rates. In the past, media coverage of celebrity suicides was linked to increased suicides among the public—so much so that there are written media guidelines on how to avoid killing your readers. The Netflix series 13 Reasons Why was criticized by suicide prevention experts as dangerous and glamorizing teen suicide. After the first season of the show, Google searches for “teen suicide,” “suicide hotline” and “how to commit suicide” spiked.
This still doesn’t explain why these young people are feeling so depressed and anxious in the first place, that they would even consider suicide an option. It doesn’t matter how much you “glamorize” it, mentally healthy people, do not start killing themselves. There are obviously problems which are causing them to feel suicidal in the first place, problems which clearly got much worse between the years 2008 and 2015, and probably beyond that timeframe as well. Blaming the mainstream media and social media, seems to be about diverting away from the real causes.
The National Institute of Health encourages parents and physicians to know the warning signs of suicidal thoughts and take action. It recommends that doctors ask their patients if they are thinking about suicide, taking those thoughts seriously and restricting access to items they could use to kill themselves, like guns. The organization also suggests that doctors help such patients connect with resources like suicide hotlines and follow up later.
All very good advice, but it ultimately seems to be about managing the damage, rather than preventing the damage in the first place.
So anyway, I said earlier on that I was going to provide my own theory as to why this is happening, so here it is. The increasing rate of youth suicide attempts is not an isolated phenomenon. It’s just one of many symptoms of a society that is rapidly heading towards collapse. Other symptoms of this collapse include, but are not limited to:
Mass unemployment and underemployment.
Lack of job security for those who do still have jobs / Gig Economy.
Houses being completely unaffordable, even for a couple who both work, each earning the average industrial wage.
High taxation, without any visible improvement in services. In fact in many ways, services have actually gotten worse.
People lacking a sense of community and camaraderie. General sense of isolation and alienation.
A decrease in law and order (for genuine criminals)
At the same time, an increase in persecution of the otherwise law abiding for frivolous reasons (commonly referred to as anarcho-tyranny).
Terrorist attacks happening on a frequent basis.
Natives being ethnically displaced in their own countries by invaders, that are being helped by their own governments.
(In America specifically) Mass shootings happening on a much more regular basis, even though gun laws haven’t gotten any more liberal in the same time period.
An increase in racial tensions and conflict.
Mental illnesses not only being normalised, but celebrated, and with demands that everyone else deny their own perception of reality and celebrate them as well (eg, recognising dozens of fictional genders with punishments for those who refuse to).
Obesity and the associated health risks on the rise.
Degenerate modern “art”.
Young people learning about sex from hardcore pornography.
Said young people becoming addicted to pornography, which warps their ideas and expectations on sex.
Terrible dynamics between males and females, resulting in both ending up lonely, unhappy, and resentful towards the other (ie. “cat ladies” and “MGTOW/Incels”).
A huge number of marriages that end in divorce, destroying the lives of at least one of the spouses, and any children involved.
Plenty of others that I can’t think of right now off the top of my head.
So when you look at all these problems that are effecting every Western country, is it not easy to understand “why” we’re seeing such a massive increase in suicides? The Obama years really seemed to kick things up a gear, in regards to many of the aforementioned problems, not just in America, but also here in Europe. We keep hearing about all the social/political developments that have taken place such as:
Mass immigration from vastly different cultures than our own
A media which tells only one side of the story on important issues.
Children being raised in daycare, because both parents have no other choice but to work
…and many other developments, have been sold to us as “good things” and “progress”. But the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. If the majority of peoples lives are worse off than ever, then how can any of this be progress? It makes no sense. That is, until you look at it from the perspective, that this is exactly how it’s supposed to be going. That all this “progress” is working how it was actually intended. That is, it was never intended to make things better. It was actually always about harming us.
Yes, it’s that time again. A time when I take screenshots of the insanity that is currently plaguing society, just to give an overview of what we’re dealing with. I figured it has been a while since my last post in this series, so I may as well get another one out. Anyway, lets get on with it.
And that’s it for now, but there will be more parts coming in the future.
So a few days ago, I gave my thoughts on the social media backlash surrounding the verdict in the recent high profile Belfast rape trial. I mentioned that I’d never before, seen so much anger from an online lynch mob (in Ireland at least), and in the few days since, I think it has only gotten worse. One of the things I mentioned in my post was the comment made by Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin on twitter, which I believed at the time could potentially be considered defamatory in nature.
Well it seems that the solicitors for one of the defendants, Paddy Jackson, felt the same way, because the very next day it was announced that they would be pursuing legal action against him. So how does the online lynch mob respond? Do they stop to think that maybe an innocent man is simply trying to do everything he can to salvage his destroyed reputation, by standing up for himself against those who are defaming him? Of course they don’t. Instead, their natural conclusion is that he’s just a money hungry scumbag, looking to make a quick buck at the expense of an innocent public figure, who was simply giving his opinion on the matter. They’ve gone as far as to create a twitter hashtag, “suemepaddy”, were hundreds of them reiterate their belief that he’s definitely guilty, and dare him to try and sue them as well. Lets take a look at some of the posts that are using the hashtag.
#Suemepaddy. Sue the thousands of us who believe her. You can threaten us all you like. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re a misogynist, derogatory disgusting person. It doesn’t change the fact that many Irish citizens never want to see you represent our country again.
I actually think that it’s the people on your side who haven’t. The more of you who use this hashtag, the more attention you draw to the original defamatory tweet, and thus the more potential trouble you cause for Aodhán.
And there are countless other tweets in the hashtag, but I’ll leave it at that. The thing is, as I’ve said before, I don’t have a gut feeling on the truth of this case either way. As far as I’m concerned, it could be a case were justice was done, and innocent men were acquitted, or it could be a case were the justice system failed, and guilty men did get away. But whichever it was, I don’t have the information to confirm either way, and neither does anyone else who are commenting.
Yes, it sucks that it’s so difficult to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in these cases, but what is the alternative? Do we instead change to a default of “guilty until proven innocent” and put the burden of proof on the defendants? Or do we just automatically take accusers at their word, and skip the trial entirely? And does this new policy only apply to rape cases, or in regards to all types of crime? Do we require people to video tape all their sexual encounters, in order to prove their innocence, and if the tape gets “lost”, do we assume that they’re actually hiding the truth and automatically convict them anyway? Do we get people to sign contracts before engaging in sexual activity? If so, what happens when someone claims they were forced to sign the contract against their will and then raped? Do we then make sure to require witnesses to be around for the signing, to make sure it was entered into willingly? And do they have to sign a new contract every single time they plan to engage in sexual activity? Where does it all end? Is there an actual plan in the works to deal with these problems at all, or is it just nothing more than an excuse to get outraged and virtue signal to the world.
And in regards to the outrage, I want to ask those of you who are involved, this very simple question.
And of course, don’t even get me started on Sweden.
I could go on and on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. There have been countless examples over the past few years, of women and girls being victimised sexually all over Europe and in many cases, in ways far more brutal than what is alleged to have happened in Belfast. Where was the feminist outrage? Where were the twitter hashtags? When did the marches take place? The reality, is that when all these incidents took place, the current social media lynch mob were silent. They didn’t speak out against what was happening to women and girls then. In fact, in many cases, they attacked those who were.
So forgive me, if I’m a bit skeptical when I hear these people now coming out and talking about how much they want to protect women and impose justice on those who harm them. They didn’t seem to care much about all the women and girls who have been raped, tortured, and in some cases, killed, by the very real rape culture that is making its way into Europe. Quite the opposite actually. They’ve thrown their fellow females under the bus, in favour of bringing in even more of the rape culture.
The vast majority of people are easily led sheep. And the majority of those who are involved in this lynch mob, have no genuine care for the wellbeing of their fellow human beings at all. They don’t care about that woman, or what she may have gone through. They just see an outrage bandwagon to jump on, so they jump on it. When there’s no bandwagon to jump on, as there never is in regards to “oppressed groups” like Muslim rapists, they’re too damn cowardly and apathetic to say anything at all. They stay silent in those situations, but save their outrage for the easy targets, like the “smug, well-connected, middle-class” white men.
And this is why I have so little faith in humanity.
I’ve said it many times before, and I’m going to say it again. We live in a world that has gone completely insane. I honestly don’t know how much more of this insanity I can take. It feels like everyday, something happens that makes me lose even more faith in humanity.
Today there was a verdict given in a rather high profile court case in Belfast, regarding an alleged rape. A young woman claimed to have been raped by two men at a party, with another two men acting as accessories to the crime. The accused men claimed that the sexual encounters were consensual. Today a jury of eight men and three women, after hearing the evidence presented for the past 41 days, declared all four men “not guilty” of all crimes, and they’re free to go. But of course in a world of social media, the story doesn’t end here. This verdict has generated absolute outrage.
Now I’m going to be quite honest. I haven’t followed the trial, so I cant really give any comment on the evidence that was presented. But that’s not the point of this post. I didn’t make this post to give my own thoughts on whether the men are actually guilty or not because I honestly don’t know. What I wanted to discuss is the reaction on social media, and the implications for those involved in the trial.
Because of the very public nature of the trial, and the fact that all four men have had their names and faces plastered all over the media, we now have one of two possible situations. We either have a group of innocent men, who have had their reputations destroyed by a false accusation and the ensuing trial by social media that followed. Regardless of being acquitted of the crime, these men will always be thought off as “rapists who got off” by a large contingent of the public.
Or alternatively, we have a high profile situation were the justice system failed to convict guilty men, and a victimised woman has had the added trauma of having her character dragged through the mud as a “liar” and a “slut”, in addition to the trauma of her experience. This will also have the added effect of discouraging future victims from coming forward. Why would you come forward when you see that your own character is going to be assassinated, and there’s a chance that you won’t get a conviction anyway?
Whether it’s a case of innocent men being falsely accused, or a genuine victim being slandered as a liar and a slut, an innocent party has just had their reputation destroyed. I put the blame on the media circus surrounding the trial and the hysterical mobs that inhabit social media. And believe me, the mob is very hysterical today. In this country at least, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such anger and division over a criminal verdict. And of course, it’s all emotional rather than logical. Vicious arguments between friends, who have a different interpretation of who was telling the truth and who wasn’t. “Feelings” being presented as “facts”. Talks of massive public marches in opposition to the verdict. Demands that the judge overturn the jury’s decision, etc. It’s all completely nuts.
I really think we need to reassess how the media deals with cases like this. I think that because we (supposedly) operate under a system of “innocent until proven guilty” that the accused should have the right to anonymity during their trial, and this anonymity should be maintained if they’re acquitted. Now if they’re found guilty then absolutely, put their names and faces in every newspaper and every social media feed, and reveal to the world what despicable scum they are. But only if and when they’re found guilty. I also think that there should be less high profile reporting on these cases themselves while they are happening. It just creates a partisan situation, were people will take one side over the other from the beginning, and will only accept a verdict if it goes their way. With less high profile reporting on these cases, there’s less of a chance of people becoming so emotionally invested, and becoming so… well… emotionally unhinged to be quite honest.