Thursday, March 30, 2017

Media again hiding race of muggings

So here we have the media hiding the racial identity of men mugging people.

So 'the media' claims the police are looking for the attacker, but the media also neglects to mention that the man (and his friends) are all 'of African appearance'.

It's all in the video.

Yay for hiding the race of violent offenders!

The media, not reporting fake news, just hiding real news.  Because remember, it's not fake, just selectively reported.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Female driver hits male, media doesn't feature gender

So a woman who was declared a "drug driver" hit a cyclist and left him for dead.

I notice how the headline and sub-heading have no mention of the fact the the driver who did this was in fact a woman.  It's not until the end of the (rather long) first paragraph that the man was hit by a woman.

Knowing how soft the courts are on women, she'll likely be out in 18 months, despite the person she severely injured not being able to ever run again or return to work as a podiatrist, which is really saying something since it's hardly a career that requires a lot of physical activity.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Call the Midwife goes full PC

Now, a series like Call the Midwife, which is about a group of midwives living in East London in the 1960s, is always going to be PC.

But it's not as overt as when it features an episode that features Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Now, given that it's a BBC drama, it's got more than its fair share of anti-male, anti-white bias including:

  • Except for the Doctor, all the main male characters a dopes (Chummy's husband the police officer, Fred the groundskeeper).  Only in the last few series has a second regular male character who isn't stupid or hopeless: the priest.;
  • If there's violence in an episode, it's the husband more than 95% of the time;
  • If a woman's in a bad situation (poor, forced into prostitution), it's because of the husband or man;
  • None of the nurses there are in the slightest bit racist, not even the old ones.  It's mostly white males (and only occasionally white women) on the show who are racist, never any other race.  I think the series feels that they'd 'dealt' with racist women in an earlier series, forgetting that the stories focus on lots of new expectant mothers, so each year would bring a fresh batch of potentially 'racist' people who hadn't got 'the message'.  That being said, it'd get pretty boring if every week it was featured.

But this recent episode featuring FGM takes the cake.  The story centers around a Somali woman who is expecting, who is further along than she thought (she was going to give birth in her native Somalia).  The midwives realise that her nether regions have been mutilated and she won't be able to birth naturally.

Where the show goes full PC (you NEVER go full PC!) is that, once the otherwise all knowing doctor finds out from head office what it's all about, he declares that "it's a practice that predates Islam".

Think about that for a minute.  You've got a patient who has been mutilated.  You then find out that every girl from that country has been mutilated.  But your immediate reaction it to confirm that it's not Islam that's to blame, it "pre-dates Islam".

We can't have Islam being shown in a negative light, can we?

But, in a show that loves to portrait white men as abusive idiots, how is this any different from most of the other episodes?

I personally feel that the quality of the show has gone downhill since it finished up the original source material.  They've introduced topics on lesbianism, homosexuality, vaccinations and more.  What started out as touching real life stories has morphed into a show that tries to pack in as much historical content as possible.

That being said, given that it's supposedly set in London following on from WW2, there's surprisingly few characters, even in the background, with any war injuries (missing legs, arms, etc).  I guess in Call the Midwife world, those people just kindly disappeared into the background.  But that's probably just because they're men.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Female student attacked, media does usual thing

So a poor female student was violently attacked whilst waiting at a bus stop, but the report holds back that the person doing the attack is also a woman.

As usual, the media features in the headline that the victim is female, but holds back that the perpetrator is female.

Same as this story about a FEMALE driver who was drunk and talking on her mobile phone when she pinned a 5 year old girl during a crash.

The drunk woman then left the scene of the accident because she felt intimidated.  Way to go media, you're defending a woman who broke two laws and hurt a little girl.

Would a male who had done the same thing be defended by the media in the same way?  Probably not.  Especially if he'd had a history of the same thing as this particular woman is supposed to have.

Group of Australian Muslims call for death, the Left silent

So an angry group of Muslims in Australia has been found to be agreeing that people who leave Islam should be killed.

I wonder where all those Lefties who defend Islam are when things like this come out.

Don't tell me:

  • Religion of peace
  • These are just radicals
  • Not indicative of the whole religion

They don't even need to respond, we already know the stupid things they're going to say.

And the more cases like this come out, the more these stupid defenses of a violent belief will fall on deaf ears.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Public lambasted for lack of intervention during attack

So the media has decided to call out people who "did nothing" while one young lady was being attacked.

Things that were noticed about the article:

  • The headline features that a young woman was viciously bashed, but only mentioned that the attacker was also a women later in the report.  Had the attacker been male, that detail would have been in the headline;
  • The attack was noted to have possibly been racially motivated and, even though we can see that the attacker is clearly not Caucasian in the video, race is otherwise left out of the article;
  • The victim is either Asian or dark haired Caucasian, so it won't be declared a hate crime.

Here's what we know about the media: had people around the area intervened and taken the attacker down, the video would have been edited to show a bunch of men (because women don't usually intervene physically) taking down a woman of a racial minority.

You want to know why people don't want to intervene these days?  Because we all know that the media can't be trusted to show the whole truth and are more than happy to edit videos to progress their agenda.

Better to just stay out of the videos altogether.

Fake media - helping to dissuade people from helping others for years!

London attack, media hides motivation

Disgusting media is at it again, hiding the true motivations behind the attack by a Muslim man, attacking innocent Westerners just because he believed that they deserve it.

Notice they're quick to identify the man as "British born" and that it was a "lone wolf" attack?

Not ONCE do any of the following words appear in the article:
  • Jihad;
  • Muslim; and
  • Islam
They mention that the man was known to police and MI5 for his extremism.  What extremism might that be?  Was he an extremist My Little Pony follower?  Was he an extremist Star Wars fan?

One can't recognise a person for being an extremist without also identifying the concept to which they are extreme.  I might be called an extremist Capitalist, but if I were simply called and extremist, people these days are likely to assume that all extremism is religiously based.

I'm getting so sick of the media trying to hide all of these details and then wondering why things like Trump getting elected or Brexit happens.

Here's a little secret: because you're so far removed from the common person who is able to rationally identify the group who are overwhelmingly behind these attacks that they're also getting sick of the media pretending that there's nothing there.

That's the real danger here: the more the media tries to hide it, the more the public will seek out the truth from alternative sources, which carries the risk of being made up.  So if the media wants to get their credibility back, they'd better start reporting ALL of the facts, not just when the perpetrators is white and male.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Car & knife attack in London, media hiding major detail

So an attack has occurred in London by a Muslim-looking man who ran people over with a car, then followed up with a knife.

I linked to the above article directly because that's the ONLY article I've found that includes a photo that clearly shows the suspect of the attack.

Consider the following articles from:


What do all of those articles have in common?  They all hide any mention of the identity of the suspect.  Just in case the first link decides to take down the photo of the suspect, here it is:


Is there any doubt as to the background of the suspect?  I don't think so.

As usual, the media is going out of their way to hide that information until such time that it's "old news".

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Former female PM to head anti-suicide organisation

So the news has just come out that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be heading BeyondBlue, an organisation trying to help people with depression.

Why am I concerned about this?  Well, suicide is overwhelmingly a male issue.  In a country where one third (about 32%) of domestic violence victims are male, yet the focus is solely on the female victims, it would stand to reason that in an issue where about 80% of all suicides are by males, then the focus should be predominantly on helping men.

I'm not saying that she can't do the job, I just think that with her track record for:

  • Removing any penalties on women who make false accusations in family court to get an advantage in custody disputes;
  • Bringing into law the Violence Against Women and Children Act - assumes in any violent relationship that the man is the perpetrator;
  • Felt the need to give buckets of public AUSTRALIAN money to island nations to help the women there with their careers, but only committed a paltry sum (by comparison) to help with male suicide; and
  • Changed IVF laws to allow single women and lesbians access to government subsidized IVF (I've really only got an issue with allowing single women to use it, but that's a story for another day).

Given that the first two items above have probably done more to cause more male suicides than any Prime Minister in quite a long time, I just don't see her doing anything other than try to shine a light on those poor forgotten women who committed suicide.

Time will tell how she commits her time, but I honestly think that this narcissistic person will hijack the organisation and make it, yet again, about the poor women.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Media asks if being anti-vaccinations should be illegal

So the media is asking if being an 'anti-vaxxer' should be illegal.

I think the bigger question is why are we supposed to listen to an organisation (the Media) that is owned by 'big pharma'?

Notice that the Media (big pharma) isn't directly calling for being anti-vaxxers to be declared criminals, they simply ask the question and lay out some fairly basic information (not all of it, mind you) and hopes that people jump to attention.

I mean, it's not like vaccinations have ever been withdrawn from use due to bad side effects like it was in Japan in 1989-91 or Britain in 2009.

I mean, it's not like the manufacturers of these vaccinations and the doctors who administer them are completely immune from Civil lawsuits if the vaccinations kill or permanently disable someone. Oh wait, thay are.

For the record, I am pro-vaccination, but I very much like the media programming whereby they attempt to label people who may have legitimate concerns over the industry as kooks.  We should all have a right to be able to question something without being labeled undesirable.

It would be a different story if, like most other professions, the company that provides the vaccination were legally liable for the outcome.  Perhaps then they'd have a bit better incentive to have a zero harm vaccine.  Either that, or they'd just jack up the prices of their already expensive vaccines (which the government is happily making mandatory for all children) to cover the cost.

Do vaccinations have a place?  Yes.  Should it be that a child by the age of 18 has 69 does of 16 different vaccinations?  Sounds like a lot when I put it that way, doesn't it.

Another car jacking by the usual suspects

So a couple of dark skinned men have cut a man with their machete before stealing his car.

The man has now moved his family out of the suburb and into hiding in a different suburb.

As usual, the media keeps back the racial identity of the perpetrators until the 7th paragraph, despite the photos clearly showing dark skinned men.

Australia is fast turning into South Africa, where carjackings are very frequent.  If only there were a group of people we could simply deport the first time they commit these kind of offenses...

I know, what about violent immigrants who don't follow the law and assault people!  We wouldn't have to separate out a group based on their skin colour, we'd judge them on their actions alone and we'd also be keeping our own citizens safe and making our country a safer place for it.

Nah, some leftist morons might consider a equal opportunity policy (commit a violent crime if you're an immigrant and get deported) to be racist, despite the same policy potentially be used against white immigrants.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Someone poisoned David Lawrence, media hides who

So there are two different reports about the death of David Lawrence here and here.

One of them only mentions that his "partner" or someone close to him might have killed him.

The second one mentions that the home of his FEMALE partner at the time has since been raided.

As usual, the media plays down or covers up when WOMEN kill or assault men, preferring only to report on cases when men kill or assault women.

This is one of the reasons why I WILL NOT PAY FOR any subscriptions claiming to be 'news', when clearly they filter out details or rearrange facts to suit their agenda.

It's disgusting and it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.

Gay marriage - forcing companies to back it

So business leaders back gay marriage, despite the gay mafia threatening private companies who don't publicly share their view.

So it turns out the politicians were right, allowing both sides to put forward their arguments did result in attacks and hatred... only from the side that is supposedly all about love and equality.

Anyone who is not familiar with history knows that the Left has a very dark history of forcing people to do things they don't want to do, to ruin people who don't agree with them and to even kill people who aren't 'with' them.

Fortunately we're not at the third stage yet, but remember it's a slippery slop.  One minute you're being calmly told that marriage is all about equality, nothing else.  The next minute you're being accused of homophobia, yelled at and threatened.  Finally, you're being tracked down to your place of work and being outed as being racist, homophobic and misogynist for not saying what they want you to say.

It's funny because the people who have always lived in Australia just assume the best of people, whereas people who grew up in the former Soviet Union see the tactics for what they are: fascism.

It doesn't help that children today think that Hitler was Right-Wing, that Communists haven't been behind the overwhelming majority of state-sponsored murder in the history of the world and that the death toll of native populations of countries colonised by colonial British is upwards of 25 million.

As with anything, the numbers of deaths under communism gets rounded down every couple of years and the number of deaths due to white colonialism gets rounded up.  Before you know it, Stalin will only have been responsible for less than 1 million deaths, but most of those will be declared to have been criminals anyway, and the total number of Native Americans who died because of British settlements will be over 100 million.

Another aspect to all this that everyone is missing is that the slippery slope only gets worse.  First it's gay marriage, then it's polygamy and finally it's child marriages.

The arguments for all three will play out like this:

Gay marriage - why isn't it ok for two loving adults to get married, regardless of their gender since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for heterosexual people to get married and divorced?
Polygamy - why isn't it ok for three loving adults to get married, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for gays and heterosexuals to get married?
Child marriages - why isn't it ok for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for a homosexuals to get married and for people to have more than one husband/wife?

Before you know it, you'll have a 60 year old man with three wives who are all under 18 years of age or a 60 year old man with three husbands who are all under 18 years of age.

That's not to say there aren't some gay people who aren't going to be together forever, but the statistics show that gay men have a much higher partner count than heterosexual men, polygamy results in a gross gender imbalance whereby women are 'collected' by wealthy men, leaving more single men unable to find a wife and child marriages are often the result of arranged marriages, why can be abusive.

Of course everyone can point to instances where that's "not true", but not allowing children to marry until they reach a certain age is a general rule put in place to protect children and vulnerable people.

The strongest argument one can make against child marriage is this: if the love is so strong and marriage is meant to be forever (60 year marriage), then what does it matter if the loving couple get married when the younger person is 15 years old or waiting 3 years?  If a relationship is so sensitive that waiting a few years to be formally recognized, then it's probably not that strong to begin with.

Personally speaking, I don't care either way what individuals do.  Hell, when I was young and single I loved the idea of gay men in as much as the gay men were usually well dressed, well spoken and would otherwise have outclassed me (I'm generalizing here) in the pursuit of the women I pursued.

What I most strongly disagree with is this strong-arm tactic where you threaten the livelihoods of people who don't openly share your point of view and the politicians arguing that the laws of the land should just be changed since no one is game to openly come out against it.  If the plebiscite is held, I think you'll find far more people against the idea than the numbers the polls claim.  A bit like the polls that predicted that Trump didn't have  chance in hell of winning.

As a great man once said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Female author stabs man, media defends

So a woman has been sentenced to 13 years jail for stabbing her housemate 22 times, killing him.

Notice how the report leaves out that the 'author' is actually a woman in the title?  I guess it's kind of assumed given that the author was pregnant.

Then the report goes on to list out all of the reasons why she did what she did, thereby arguing that she's not really a bad person, she was just:

  • Hungry due to suffering morning sickness;
  • Pregnant;
  • Suffering withdrawal from alcohol and cannabis;
  • Angry that he hadn't been "providing for her like he promised"; and
  • Craving cigarettes.

It's interesting that she got such a long sentence, although I guess it'd be hard to defend killing someone.  I mean it's not like she permanently disfigured a man, put him in a wheelchair for 4 months and injured him with a knife so badly he needed 243 stitches.  She would have only been given 3 and a half years for that.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Woman murder-suicides son, media defends her

So here's a story about a woman who killed her son, then sent her ex (the father of the now dead son) a message to come and get him, before killing herself for her ex to find.

Notice how the actual headline starts out defending the child killer: "She was a great mum".

No, great mum's don't kill their children.

Great mum's don't kill their children just to hurt the father of said children.

No, this was not a great mum, or even a good mum.  This was an evil woman who the media spends most of the article defending her actions or dismissing them as "she was just in an emotional place".

Notice that the 'report' doesn't even get to the detail that his ex-partner killed their son until about the 4th paragraph?  A person who stopped reading at the third paragraph could just about walk away thinking that the guy had found his son and ex dead from a home invasion!  Notice that it says they were "found dead".  The boy was found dead, so technically it's true, but what's held back is that the mother did it.

Consider the difference in reporting from that story to this story about Greg Anderson and Rosie Batty, with Greg being painted as violent, abusive and mentally imbalanced and is described in the headline as "killer dad" with the opening paragraph reading "he killed son Luke".  The other article takes until the end of the article to even use the word "kill" and does it in a throwaway manner that "she may have killed".

Maybe Greg was violent, abusive and all of that, although he's not here to defend any of the accusations thanks to a police officer who shot a man armed only with a cricket bat (hardly a weapon of mass murder).

Or, maybe like Matt Davis and Stacey Docherty, there's more to the story, the difference being that the media is happy to speculate on what drove Stacey to do what she did, whilst defending her as an otherwise "great mum", whilst no attempt at understanding or putting forward of any positive attributes of Greg are put forward.

This is because the old rule of "never speak ill of the dead" apparently only applies to women and left-wing people.  Left wing people and women should be treated as flawless saints when they die, with their memory being bullet proof.  Men and right-wing people are open for attack after death.

The problem with the media and people doing this so blatantly is that more and more people are waking up to the inequality and are starting to question the narrative.  It's only going to get worse from here as they'll double down.

Also, I highly doubt Matt Davis will become a paid for speaker on domestic violence of mental health issues of women any time soon, because despite the fact that more children are killed by their mothers than their fathers, women are still the overall victims.

Monday, March 13, 2017

First step in many - granting fathers less than half

So here we have a case of a threesome gone wrong, with the ex-wife (now in a lesbian relationship with the mother of the child) now awarded one-third custody of a boy.

One wonders why the woman, not the biological mother, even needed to be legally considered one since she's actually living with the biological mother anyway.

This obviously is a ploy to argue that the man's access to his son should be reduced since he's not half of the parenting equation, he's only a third.

Men, be careful with whom you have children and ALWAYS question the motives of any woman who accepts that you have a child with another woman whilst you're in a relationship with them.

Far too many men have been hurt by women who 'discover' that they're actually lesbians after they've had a couple of children with a man.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

UPDATE: Muslims taking over public schools in Sydney

So here's a story about how 19 schools in Sydney have been identified as at risk for radicalization of Muslim students.

Think about that for a minute.  You send your child to a public school expecting there to be no religion, only to find that the place is run like a mosque.

This will only lead to non-Muslims taking their children out of the school and moving them to other schools, resulting in a rise in the percentage of Muslim students in the school.

Notice how the story doesn't get around to reporting that 19 schools are affected until the NINETEENTH PARAGRAPH!?!  The bulk of the story is about Punchbowl High School, leading the average reader to assume the problem only exists in one high school, when there are 18 other high schools with the same problem.

Now let's hear from Muslim apologists as they try to explain how "a little radical Islam never hurt any innocent people", because we all know that they don't define non-believers as 'innocent'.

UPDATE:

So it looks like it's worse than previously thought: children as young as 11 years old are threatening to behead female teachers, threatening them for not letting them do what they want and walking out of lessons to go and pray.

Where are those Muslim apologists when you need them?  Simple plan: when the children turn 18 years old, ask them which country has their allegiance, Syria or Australia.  If they answer anything other than Australia, send them there with a one way ticket and cancel their passport.

We don't need people who hate us living here with, or even off, us.  If they love their 'home' country so much, why are they even here???

ADDITIONAL UPDATE:

We're now asked to believe that the anti-radicalization programs the government is trying to implement are actually "playing into the hands" of radical recruiters.  I'm always surprised when the proposed solution to a growing problem is to stop trying to solve the problem.

The easiest solution is to identify the people doing the radicalizing and give them a one way ticket out of the country to a country that already lives by the set of religious rules that they're so keen to follow here.

I don't go to a hip hop club and try to get them to play country music, so why do Muslims get to come to Australia (or other western countries) and then demand their own bigoted beliefs be respected?

Monday, March 6, 2017

I guess the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't want men to know donor children

So I posted a comment to the SMH article about "All children deserve to know who their parents are" which basically stated that the argument about are right to heritage extends downwards as well as upwards.

Put simply, a donor father should also have a right to contact any donor children once they reach a certain age.

Apparently my comment was a bit too sensitive, since it didn't make it past moderation.

I guess the headline should rather be "All children deserve to know who their parents are but not the other way around".

P.S.  I've submitted the following comment and will see if it makes it past the gatekeepers:

"They should have the right as the donors should also have the right to have contact with the children.
A right to know ones heritage also extends down the family tree, as well as up."

I'm not holding my breath.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Media making the case to stop circulation of $50 and $100 notes

So the media is now adding fuel to the fire for the removal of the Australian $50 and $100 notes: they're being counterfeited.

So they caught $365k in $100 notes in circulation and $1.1 million in $50 notes that were actually counterfeited.  So of all of the money in circulation, they caught about $1.5 million in 2016.

That sounds like cause enough to cancel all $50 and $100 notes.

There's no way that this is all just a smoke screen to justify forcing everyone to digitize their money and keep it in banks.