Journey with us to a state where an unaccountable panel of censors vets 95 per cent of citizens’ domestic internet connections. The content coming into each home is checked against a mysterious blacklist by a group overseen by nobody, which keeps secret the list of censored URLs not just from citizens, but from internet service providers themselves. And until recently, few in that country even knew the body existed. Are we in China? Iran? Saudi Arabia? No – the United Kingdom, in 2009. This month, we ask: Who watches the Internet Watch Foundation?
Read the rest of it - and while you are reading, think *IMPLICATIONS*. Ignore the porn excuses, because that's all they are - excuses. They want to control the internet, restrict access to information they don't want us to know, and porn is just the excuse they use to do exactly that. They couldn't care a toss about porn (or kids), but they are using those things to gradually tighten their grip on POLITICS. They wouldn't bother with all the secrecy if all they were interested in was the porn ... hell no, they'd be broadcasting the details of their achievements far and wide
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/06/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet?page=all
Morg
.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
MORE ISLAM
Dr. Emmanuel Tanay (German Professor) summarised the way many on MyT feel in an essay called “A German View of Islam”, which I shall quote now:
“We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.”
He continues:
“The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 40 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery and ethnic warfare. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
* Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
* Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
* Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
Recommend you go read it all:
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2011/01/warsi-is-wrong/
Morg
.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
LEG-IRON AGAIN - this ought to make you guffaw in places. It did me.
Pink numbers and fluffy words.
If a man cuts wood into planks at a rate of x planks per hour, seven hours a day, and if it takes 12x planks to make a shed, how long does it take the man to prepare enough planks for four sheds?
That was the sort of 'practical' question we used to see in maths classes. They were never ever worded as 'A properly butch bloke, married, with kids, and not even slightly camp, not even a bit of it, was cutting planks...'
Nor were they worded 'A man minced to work at a walking pace of three miles per hour, but stopped at every shoe shop on the way...'
Most of the time, the 'man' in the question didn't even have a name. He had no religion, no skin colour, no age, no sexual preferences of any kind and for all I knew, no teeth and no hair. He was just a generic human whose only reason for existence was to give the question a focal point.
So I was a little mystified by this statement:
"When you have a maths problem, why does it have to involve a straight family or a boyfriend and girlfriend? Why not two boys or two girls?
Well, where there were two fictional characters in such questions, they were usually two boys or two girls. There was no suggestion they were shagging each other into a frenzy, they were usually passing apples around or sharing out sweets. I recall no questions involving boyfriends or girlfriends. They were all very platonic and all focused on the point of the lesson. The maths. Not the social engineering, just the maths.
Children apply very simple forms of logic to life. If they are in a maths, English or geography lesson and their teacher starts insisting on bringing sex into it, they are first of all going to forget all the maths, English and geography and concentrate on the sex. Here's what will go through the mind of the teacher while writing up a quadratic equation in rainbow colours:
"I'm being really right-on and politically correct and all these children will now understand, through the medium of numbers, that being gay is a valid and noble way of life."
Here's what's going through the mind of every kid in that room:
"Whoa. My teacher is a poof."
The quadratic equation? Forget it, they aren't listening to that any more. They are now speculating on whether Mr. Maths is getting hot and bothered with Mr. English, whose new rendition of Romeo and Jeremy they have just had to read. Or maybe they have a threesome with Mr. Geography, who insists they speculate on why gay people move from the countryside to the town while ignoring the straight people who do the same thing for the same reason. It's where the jobs are. In teaching, apparently.
This goes all the way down to four-year-olds who have only just worked out how to use those bits for peeing and have not yet dreamed of any alternative function for them. They know nothing about sex, straight or gay, and care nothing about it either. Which is just as well since they aren't supposed to be doing anything about it for another twelve years yet. Show them video of Larry Grayson's show and they'll laugh, because it was funny. Mr. Grayson's sexuality will simply not occur to them, he's just a funny man doing a funny show.
Start putting gay scenarios in front of them and they will just be confused. Whatever lesson was supposed to have been taught will be lost among the random noise in those small brains, which are now trying to work out why the man selling planks to the shed-maker gets paid in kisses. Lessons will, as usual, not be learned.
Then they'll go home and little Dwayne will explain to his dad, Tattooed Dave, about this new and strange lesson format and Tattooed Dave will phone Hairy Bob and Tumbleguts and the entire estate will explode in homophobic rage. Then the producers of this insanity will purse their lips, tut loudly and say "See? Told you they were all homophobic." Ah, the glory of the Righteous, creating and then exacerbating the problem they claim to solve.
How can this have come about? Didn't the Coagulation say they would get schools back to teaching things kids actually need to know rather than baffling and distracting them with irrelevancies? Well, here's a clue, tucked neatly into a corner of the text:
A spokesman for the TDA said the funding was secured last March and that £20,000 was to go towards the lesson plans, with the rest spent mostly on the website.
Last March. So it's not the Coagulation's doing. It's one of the Brown Gorgon's little time bombs, with funding already placed and the fuse lit by the blob in charge of education at that time. A certain Ed Balls. The bug-eyed globule of lard who insisted that children must be taught about sex from an early age, for reasons upon which we can only speculate because they were never defined.
How many more pre-funded bombs are waiting to go off, I wonder? How many more of these land-mine groups are sitting on a pile of money, waiting just long enough to ensure the Coagulation get the blame for their lunatic actions? Should we expect the 'Delights of Divorce' group to pop up next, or will it be the 'Get your Parents Arrested' consortium, or maybe they managed to get as far as the 'Maths makes your eyes bleed' and 'Spelling gives you cancer' and 'Why learn geography when you can't afford to go anywhere' syndicates?
This Labour-produced rubbish will not 'enhance children's understanding of gay issues' at all. It was never intended to. Like all Labour's meddling, it is a distraction from lessons, a means to disrupt learning, to produce more dependent drone voters who spend all day in front of the TV soaking up propaganda. If it has any effect on anyone's opinions on matters of gayness, it can only make things much, much worse.
But then, that's all Labour's meddling ever did. If only the Coagulation could see that.
That was the sort of 'practical' question we used to see in maths classes. They were never ever worded as 'A properly butch bloke, married, with kids, and not even slightly camp, not even a bit of it, was cutting planks...'
Nor were they worded 'A man minced to work at a walking pace of three miles per hour, but stopped at every shoe shop on the way...'
Most of the time, the 'man' in the question didn't even have a name. He had no religion, no skin colour, no age, no sexual preferences of any kind and for all I knew, no teeth and no hair. He was just a generic human whose only reason for existence was to give the question a focal point.
So I was a little mystified by this statement:
"When you have a maths problem, why does it have to involve a straight family or a boyfriend and girlfriend? Why not two boys or two girls?
Well, where there were two fictional characters in such questions, they were usually two boys or two girls. There was no suggestion they were shagging each other into a frenzy, they were usually passing apples around or sharing out sweets. I recall no questions involving boyfriends or girlfriends. They were all very platonic and all focused on the point of the lesson. The maths. Not the social engineering, just the maths.
Children apply very simple forms of logic to life. If they are in a maths, English or geography lesson and their teacher starts insisting on bringing sex into it, they are first of all going to forget all the maths, English and geography and concentrate on the sex. Here's what will go through the mind of the teacher while writing up a quadratic equation in rainbow colours:
"I'm being really right-on and politically correct and all these children will now understand, through the medium of numbers, that being gay is a valid and noble way of life."
Here's what's going through the mind of every kid in that room:
"Whoa. My teacher is a poof."
The quadratic equation? Forget it, they aren't listening to that any more. They are now speculating on whether Mr. Maths is getting hot and bothered with Mr. English, whose new rendition of Romeo and Jeremy they have just had to read. Or maybe they have a threesome with Mr. Geography, who insists they speculate on why gay people move from the countryside to the town while ignoring the straight people who do the same thing for the same reason. It's where the jobs are. In teaching, apparently.
This goes all the way down to four-year-olds who have only just worked out how to use those bits for peeing and have not yet dreamed of any alternative function for them. They know nothing about sex, straight or gay, and care nothing about it either. Which is just as well since they aren't supposed to be doing anything about it for another twelve years yet. Show them video of Larry Grayson's show and they'll laugh, because it was funny. Mr. Grayson's sexuality will simply not occur to them, he's just a funny man doing a funny show.
Start putting gay scenarios in front of them and they will just be confused. Whatever lesson was supposed to have been taught will be lost among the random noise in those small brains, which are now trying to work out why the man selling planks to the shed-maker gets paid in kisses. Lessons will, as usual, not be learned.
Then they'll go home and little Dwayne will explain to his dad, Tattooed Dave, about this new and strange lesson format and Tattooed Dave will phone Hairy Bob and Tumbleguts and the entire estate will explode in homophobic rage. Then the producers of this insanity will purse their lips, tut loudly and say "See? Told you they were all homophobic." Ah, the glory of the Righteous, creating and then exacerbating the problem they claim to solve.
How can this have come about? Didn't the Coagulation say they would get schools back to teaching things kids actually need to know rather than baffling and distracting them with irrelevancies? Well, here's a clue, tucked neatly into a corner of the text:
A spokesman for the TDA said the funding was secured last March and that £20,000 was to go towards the lesson plans, with the rest spent mostly on the website.
Last March. So it's not the Coagulation's doing. It's one of the Brown Gorgon's little time bombs, with funding already placed and the fuse lit by the blob in charge of education at that time. A certain Ed Balls. The bug-eyed globule of lard who insisted that children must be taught about sex from an early age, for reasons upon which we can only speculate because they were never defined.
How many more pre-funded bombs are waiting to go off, I wonder? How many more of these land-mine groups are sitting on a pile of money, waiting just long enough to ensure the Coagulation get the blame for their lunatic actions? Should we expect the 'Delights of Divorce' group to pop up next, or will it be the 'Get your Parents Arrested' consortium, or maybe they managed to get as far as the 'Maths makes your eyes bleed' and 'Spelling gives you cancer' and 'Why learn geography when you can't afford to go anywhere' syndicates?
This Labour-produced rubbish will not 'enhance children's understanding of gay issues' at all. It was never intended to. Like all Labour's meddling, it is a distraction from lessons, a means to disrupt learning, to produce more dependent drone voters who spend all day in front of the TV soaking up propaganda. If it has any effect on anyone's opinions on matters of gayness, it can only make things much, much worse.
But then, that's all Labour's meddling ever did. If only the Coagulation could see that.
And if you do follow the link, the first comment is worth reading.
Morg
.
Friday, 21 January 2011
FOOD IS THE NEW TOBACCO
Well, by now everyone knows how far the tobacco denormalisation has progressed. You can now get cancer by reading a blog written by a smoker whether he/she is smoking while they type or not (I am, which means it's a dead cert for you). Nicotine is a deadly poison and the cure for it is nicotine, but only Pharmer nicotine is good for you and all other nicotine is bad. And there are plenty of people out there stupid enough to accept this without a thought in their heads.
Alcohol denormalisation is well under way even though, as with smoking, consumption is already in decline. Again, it will be done by racking up the duty with VAT on top. Drinkers will see all the same techniques familiar to smokers - abuse, lies and made-up numbers.
Now it's the turn of fats. Yes, the 'fat tax' is coming to town. This time they are not even trying to hide the real reasons and they are not even pretending it's for your own good. They know that out there in the general population are many who have fallen hook, line and sinker for second, third and nine hundredth hand smoke, for 'every drinker is an addict' and passive drinking, and now they feel no need to bother with all the charade any more. Just put the tax on. The suckers will lap it up. Are they that stupid? Of course they are, they've fallen for everything else.
So-called ‘fat tax’ on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst the Danish population by 5.5 days.
You will pay this tax for ten years and be rewarded with five and a half extra days of... paying tax. Of course, that's only an estimate. Results may vary. That doesn't matter because as usual, the results are just made-up numbers anyway.
The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States, with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual freedom on the other.
No pretence there. They see it as a way to increase their funds so they can nag us harder.
Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as “a component in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets”. They noted that measures at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family, individual – are increasingly advocated.
Yes, here we go again. It's only the beginning. Total control is on the way.
Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media attention also had a lot to do with it.
And here's the admission. It's the same techniques again. So if you're having fun villifying smokers on the net while munching on a bacon sarnie, doughnut or biscuit, enjoy it while you can. You're going to get all the abuse you dished out - and more - right back at you. You're going to see those biscuits in plain wrappers sold from behind a screen. In fact, apart from the fruit and veg, everything will be sold from behind a screen. The screens won't be labelled either. If you see the word 'tobacco' you will immediately become addicted and will be forced to smoke 40 an hour until you die, kippered.
Yes, all the banning and abuse changed smoking habits. Increasingly, we buy from vans in alleys or on shopping trips abroad instead of buying the ones that fund our persecution. We don't spend money in pubs, clubs or restaurants, we buy our drink from behind the booze screen or from Calais for now. Until the home brew is ready. Man with a Van will soon have spirits on offer. Next we'll have to learn to bake and get hold of a deep-fat fryer if we want cakes, biscuits or doughnuts. That's assuming lard isn't completely banned, but then there are ways around that too. Soon, the only place you will be able to taste any of these things will be in a Westminster bar that has only 650 members.
Oh, sure, there are those who don't smoke, don't drink, and live on tofu and dandelions but you know, the number of denormalised people will soon, if it hasn't already, far outstrip the 'normal'. That would make election interesting, assuming we get another one.
This fat tax will be billed as being aimed at the overweight. The smoking ban only affected smokers, didn't it? Nobody else ever went to the pubs that closed down, nobody who worked there really wanted to work there and the landlords didn't really want to be landlords. Only the smokers were affected.
The drinking controls only affect 'binge drinkers' (those who drink three pints or equivalent) and will never affect someone who just goes out for a quiet evening and only drinks three pints. Oh yes, they believe it.
The fat tax will only affect the overweight and won't affect those who are slim but who like a bag of chips once in a while, or an occasional cake, or a bar of chocolate...
There are occasional smokers out there. They'll buy a pack once in a while, then not buy any more for weeks or months. Those smokers get the same sneers and looks of disgust as pack-a-day smokers. There are those who buy a bottle of whisky once a month or less, take a small glass once every few days and that's all. They are subject to the same abuse as those who buy a bottle a day.
So no matter how trim your physique, you're going to get sneered at when you buy one doughnut or one Mars bar. Quite possibly by a drunken smoker. That's how division works. Everyone has someone to look down on. Everyone sneers at everyone else.
Oh, sure, the tax is a small thing. If you buy occasional cigarettes, booze or cakes then you're not paying all that much, really. But it doesn't stop there. Look back on the recent history of smoking. Look at the unfolding war on drink. Watch fat go the same way. Observe the demonisation of the food industry.
Ridiculous? Well, it's hard to regard the food industry as being demonic, compared to what are non-essential luxury items such as tobacco and alcohol. Nobody, surely, would ever consider treating food as if it was tobacco? Oh, but that is exactly the approach being prepared. Among the 'experts' testifying there is an ordinary sheeple, whose tobacco/alcohol indoctrination has taken such hold that she has this to say:
“Absolutely I think the food industry is as guilty as the tobacco industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, and probably several others, of doing anything and everything to make a profit without the slightest thought for will this make people sick except to have it "allowed" by our government, hopefully with some kind of government perk or kickback to boot. The corn, wheat, sugar and soy industries are especially guilty of this.
They KNOW the food they sell causes allergies, auto-immune disorders, diabetes, obesity, Chronic Fatigue, candida overgrowth, bowel disorders, etc. Yet they "fund" studies to prove otherwise.”
Isabel Crabtree, consumer, location not disclosed
Note that she is not talking about burgers or crisps or pork scratchings here. She doesn't even mention meat (also on the removal agenda). No, the food industries she regards as evil are corn, wheat, sugar and soy.
You know, the stuff that grows out of the ground. She KNOWS that those foods cause a whole range of diseases just as she no doubt KNOWS that every smoker dies of cancer and every drinker dies of cirrhosis. It's the food that causes obesity in her mind, not the amount eaten. As for Candida overgrowth - that's thrush, isn't it? What the hell is she doing with her food? With table manners like that I hope I never have to share a restaurant with her.
So, food addicts, are you ready to be denormalised? Yes, you are addicted. I can go for considerable periods, weeks, even months without smoking or boozing. How long can you go without food? See? You're addicted. We are all addicts with this one. Don't bother trying to apply logic and reason. The other side will never even try.
Note also the conviction in Isabel's comment that the evil food industry funds research that proves food isn't poisonous. Heard that one before somewhere? You tell Isabel she's wrong and guess what? You must be a food indistry shill. You would think that some of them, faced with exactly the same rubbish over and over again, applied to every new scare, would think 'Hang on.' They never do. They really are that stupid. Over and over, the same method works because the drones have no minds of their own and just absorb whatever thoughts they are given. If you meet one, try it yourself. They really will believe absolutely anything.
She's not the only froth-mouthed swivel-eyed shrieking banshee you'll meet. Soon they'll be all over the place, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-AGW denier, anti-food... where do we go from here?
Anti-water and anti-air, perhaps?
They could just be honest about it and declare themselves anti-life.
http://underdogsbiteupwards.blogspot.com/2011/01/food-is-new-tobacco.html
Morg
.
Alcohol denormalisation is well under way even though, as with smoking, consumption is already in decline. Again, it will be done by racking up the duty with VAT on top. Drinkers will see all the same techniques familiar to smokers - abuse, lies and made-up numbers.
Now it's the turn of fats. Yes, the 'fat tax' is coming to town. This time they are not even trying to hide the real reasons and they are not even pretending it's for your own good. They know that out there in the general population are many who have fallen hook, line and sinker for second, third and nine hundredth hand smoke, for 'every drinker is an addict' and passive drinking, and now they feel no need to bother with all the charade any more. Just put the tax on. The suckers will lap it up. Are they that stupid? Of course they are, they've fallen for everything else.
So-called ‘fat tax’ on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst the Danish population by 5.5 days.
You will pay this tax for ten years and be rewarded with five and a half extra days of... paying tax. Of course, that's only an estimate. Results may vary. That doesn't matter because as usual, the results are just made-up numbers anyway.
The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States, with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual freedom on the other.
No pretence there. They see it as a way to increase their funds so they can nag us harder.
Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as “a component in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets”. They noted that measures at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family, individual – are increasingly advocated.
Yes, here we go again. It's only the beginning. Total control is on the way.
Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media attention also had a lot to do with it.
And here's the admission. It's the same techniques again. So if you're having fun villifying smokers on the net while munching on a bacon sarnie, doughnut or biscuit, enjoy it while you can. You're going to get all the abuse you dished out - and more - right back at you. You're going to see those biscuits in plain wrappers sold from behind a screen. In fact, apart from the fruit and veg, everything will be sold from behind a screen. The screens won't be labelled either. If you see the word 'tobacco' you will immediately become addicted and will be forced to smoke 40 an hour until you die, kippered.
Yes, all the banning and abuse changed smoking habits. Increasingly, we buy from vans in alleys or on shopping trips abroad instead of buying the ones that fund our persecution. We don't spend money in pubs, clubs or restaurants, we buy our drink from behind the booze screen or from Calais for now. Until the home brew is ready. Man with a Van will soon have spirits on offer. Next we'll have to learn to bake and get hold of a deep-fat fryer if we want cakes, biscuits or doughnuts. That's assuming lard isn't completely banned, but then there are ways around that too. Soon, the only place you will be able to taste any of these things will be in a Westminster bar that has only 650 members.
Oh, sure, there are those who don't smoke, don't drink, and live on tofu and dandelions but you know, the number of denormalised people will soon, if it hasn't already, far outstrip the 'normal'. That would make election interesting, assuming we get another one.
This fat tax will be billed as being aimed at the overweight. The smoking ban only affected smokers, didn't it? Nobody else ever went to the pubs that closed down, nobody who worked there really wanted to work there and the landlords didn't really want to be landlords. Only the smokers were affected.
The drinking controls only affect 'binge drinkers' (those who drink three pints or equivalent) and will never affect someone who just goes out for a quiet evening and only drinks three pints. Oh yes, they believe it.
The fat tax will only affect the overweight and won't affect those who are slim but who like a bag of chips once in a while, or an occasional cake, or a bar of chocolate...
There are occasional smokers out there. They'll buy a pack once in a while, then not buy any more for weeks or months. Those smokers get the same sneers and looks of disgust as pack-a-day smokers. There are those who buy a bottle of whisky once a month or less, take a small glass once every few days and that's all. They are subject to the same abuse as those who buy a bottle a day.
So no matter how trim your physique, you're going to get sneered at when you buy one doughnut or one Mars bar. Quite possibly by a drunken smoker. That's how division works. Everyone has someone to look down on. Everyone sneers at everyone else.
Oh, sure, the tax is a small thing. If you buy occasional cigarettes, booze or cakes then you're not paying all that much, really. But it doesn't stop there. Look back on the recent history of smoking. Look at the unfolding war on drink. Watch fat go the same way. Observe the demonisation of the food industry.
Ridiculous? Well, it's hard to regard the food industry as being demonic, compared to what are non-essential luxury items such as tobacco and alcohol. Nobody, surely, would ever consider treating food as if it was tobacco? Oh, but that is exactly the approach being prepared. Among the 'experts' testifying there is an ordinary sheeple, whose tobacco/alcohol indoctrination has taken such hold that she has this to say:
“Absolutely I think the food industry is as guilty as the tobacco industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, and probably several others, of doing anything and everything to make a profit without the slightest thought for will this make people sick except to have it "allowed" by our government, hopefully with some kind of government perk or kickback to boot. The corn, wheat, sugar and soy industries are especially guilty of this.
They KNOW the food they sell causes allergies, auto-immune disorders, diabetes, obesity, Chronic Fatigue, candida overgrowth, bowel disorders, etc. Yet they "fund" studies to prove otherwise.”
Isabel Crabtree, consumer, location not disclosed
Note that she is not talking about burgers or crisps or pork scratchings here. She doesn't even mention meat (also on the removal agenda). No, the food industries she regards as evil are corn, wheat, sugar and soy.
You know, the stuff that grows out of the ground. She KNOWS that those foods cause a whole range of diseases just as she no doubt KNOWS that every smoker dies of cancer and every drinker dies of cirrhosis. It's the food that causes obesity in her mind, not the amount eaten. As for Candida overgrowth - that's thrush, isn't it? What the hell is she doing with her food? With table manners like that I hope I never have to share a restaurant with her.
So, food addicts, are you ready to be denormalised? Yes, you are addicted. I can go for considerable periods, weeks, even months without smoking or boozing. How long can you go without food? See? You're addicted. We are all addicts with this one. Don't bother trying to apply logic and reason. The other side will never even try.
Note also the conviction in Isabel's comment that the evil food industry funds research that proves food isn't poisonous. Heard that one before somewhere? You tell Isabel she's wrong and guess what? You must be a food indistry shill. You would think that some of them, faced with exactly the same rubbish over and over again, applied to every new scare, would think 'Hang on.' They never do. They really are that stupid. Over and over, the same method works because the drones have no minds of their own and just absorb whatever thoughts they are given. If you meet one, try it yourself. They really will believe absolutely anything.
She's not the only froth-mouthed swivel-eyed shrieking banshee you'll meet. Soon they'll be all over the place, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-AGW denier, anti-food... where do we go from here?
Anti-water and anti-air, perhaps?
They could just be honest about it and declare themselves anti-life.
http://underdogsbiteupwards.blogspot.com/2011/01/food-is-new-tobacco.html
Morg
.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
THE MEANING OF A PHOBIA
So gobby "Baroness Warsi" thinks islamophobia is the last form of "bigotry" which is acceptible in middle class households.
She says that even saying somebody is a moderate muslim is a form of bigotry. It seems the followers of this barbaric medieval system must be above criticism, and we can not even call them moderate.
The fact that she has only her present position of influence owing to the ticking the muslim and female boxes seems to escape this so called intelligent woman. Her only claim to fame has been to lose an election for the Tories when she was awarded instant promotion, understandable as few muslims are Tories.
She should also have learnt by now the meaning of English words, having I believe been born here, although she still has the slight alien accent characteristic of muslims but absent from Indians Sikhs, Chinese etc.
A phobia means an irrational fear.
Yes we do fear the increasing influence of that intolerant creed, it's rapid increase and propensity for violence. Yes we do hate our people being blown up or threatened with beheading or muslim statements that they will rule us.
Yes we do hate our country being taken over and parts of our towns taken back to a pre medieval appearance, but that is not a phobia.
It is not irrational, it is a fact.
I would recommend the "Baroness" a little Chrisian phrase (if she can read it without running the risk of a stoning) "First cast the mote out of thine own eye" before complaining about our perceived phobias.
Has she ever heard of Hindu, Sikh, Chinese or African phobias?
No of course not and the reason is that these people, even when they are here in numbers too large for our liking do not bomb us or state their aim of taking over OUR country.
Oh and BTW you think English people do not like you. You should hear Hindus I have spoken to.
Any derogatory comments or opinions I may have which you call a phobia are as nothing to what they think.
She says that even saying somebody is a moderate muslim is a form of bigotry. It seems the followers of this barbaric medieval system must be above criticism, and we can not even call them moderate.
The fact that she has only her present position of influence owing to the ticking the muslim and female boxes seems to escape this so called intelligent woman. Her only claim to fame has been to lose an election for the Tories when she was awarded instant promotion, understandable as few muslims are Tories.
She should also have learnt by now the meaning of English words, having I believe been born here, although she still has the slight alien accent characteristic of muslims but absent from Indians Sikhs, Chinese etc.
A phobia means an irrational fear.
Yes we do fear the increasing influence of that intolerant creed, it's rapid increase and propensity for violence. Yes we do hate our people being blown up or threatened with beheading or muslim statements that they will rule us.
Yes we do hate our country being taken over and parts of our towns taken back to a pre medieval appearance, but that is not a phobia.
It is not irrational, it is a fact.
I would recommend the "Baroness" a little Chrisian phrase (if she can read it without running the risk of a stoning) "First cast the mote out of thine own eye" before complaining about our perceived phobias.
Has she ever heard of Hindu, Sikh, Chinese or African phobias?
No of course not and the reason is that these people, even when they are here in numbers too large for our liking do not bomb us or state their aim of taking over OUR country.
Oh and BTW you think English people do not like you. You should hear Hindus I have spoken to.
Any derogatory comments or opinions I may have which you call a phobia are as nothing to what they think.
BRITISH CHILDREN BANNED FROM WOMENS AND CHILDRENS GROUP
Now, read this very carefully and then consider the last paragraph -
Its website claims around 50 women attend the weekly sessions every Thursday.
"Thus Making Links presents a friendly St Neots face to people who might otherwise be outsiders."
"It is a group for ladies from other countries. It is not for British people.
Does this mean WE the INDIGENOUS BRITISH can set up a BRITISH ONLY GROUP.
It may well be worthwhile for the Party to seek Legal advice on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)