#hypocrites

Overthrow the Monarchy? What would the left do without it?

52000C3D-E1D1-4EBC-ADCA-149651BC8069.jpeg

Kenan Malik of The Observer wrote of the need to ditch the monarchy. His view was that adding skin colour to the mix won’t change the overall desire to throw it in the dustbin of history. He said,

Nor can I work out why adding a few more black dukes and duchesses, or even kings and queens, should be a step forward. Equality does not mean making inherited privilege more “diverse”. It requires us to get rid of the whole shebang. Adding a splash of colour to a feudal relic is not my idea of social progress.

So typical is the envy of the left that they want to strip everything from the Royal Family and make them all commoners. Why not turn Buckingham Palace into a soup kitchen and boarding house? Put Queen Elizabeth into a waiting list for public housing. Ignore that Prince Harry and others in the Royal family have served their country in the armed forces. Harry put his life on the line in defence of his country. It is a wonder whether Malik has served his country with as much distinction. What fine men the princes have become despite the tragic loss of their mother.

However we should examine the hypocrisy of the left to overthrow the monarchy. BBC, the socialist biased state broadcaster rejected its charter and couldn’t help itself throw President Trump under the bus in terms of comparing crowd numbers at the Inauguration versus Harry & Meghan’s wedding. Three things;

1) were it not for the overwhelming popularity (18mn watched it in the UK alone and 100s millions worldwide) of the Royals then the BBC couldn’t have an opportunity to bash the President in this way;

2) for the Queen to accept a divorcee into the household to marry her grandson shows how ‘progressive’ Her Majesty is. Good luck getting the Japanese Imperial Household Agency accepting something like this. The left should praise her open mind not censure her for being an out of touch bigoted granny and;

3) the wedding was all about diversity which the left loves so much. The 14 minute self-indulgent hijack (sorry, sermon) from a black bishop to a black cellist to a black choir. The music was indeed delightful. Harry even drove away in a ‘save the environment’ electric Jaguar E-type although one could argue that an original petrol version might not have started.

Malik should study the 2015 survey by Yougov which found 68% of the British public believe the monarchy to be good for the country and 71% think it should remain in place. The total annual cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is £292m. Brand Finance Research believes the monarchy tips in around £1.8bn per annum to the UK economy. That is to say they more than pull their weight.

He shouldn’t envy the Royals but pity them. Think of what the Queen has sacrificed in the 66 years she has ruled. Sure the accommodations at Buckingham and Windsor Castles are comfortable, not to mention the numerous butlers and servants who make life easier but think of what she has had to give up in terms of privacy to serve her country. Think of the paparazzi who hounded Diana to her death over 20 years ago. The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will be increasingly scrutinized by the media. The mainstream media would die without the monarchy.

Yet Malik drones on about his real hidden agenda suggesting, “As for the belief that Meghan will break down barriers for black people and make minorities more accepted as truly British, that’s as anachronistic as the monarchy. Faced by an abusive skinhead or by a police officer about to stop and search me, my first thought has never been: “If only there was a black Windsor, then I might be accepted more.”

How in the name of all that is holy that he can talk of how poorly minorities are treated by the British police in 2018? Perhaps he should look at the shameful cover-ups over ‘Asian rape gangs’ by the police over decades to show how the complete opposite is true. Or answer why two ‘white’ fathers were arrested by the police for trying to rescue their underage daughters from rape dens? They were charged with illegal entry and disturbing the peace. Or the arrest and deportation of EU citizen Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone looking to make a speech at Speaker’s Corner and conduct an interview?

Society may be far from perfect but to run these identity narratives using the monarchy as a beacon of bigotry serves no purpose when the facts are examined. Perhaps he should take up his victimhood with London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan because voters are so against minorities. No, it’s just easier to imply that white Brits are xenophobes and the monarchy embodies that same white privilege. Until we guillotine the Royals, the sharp remedy that will cure this lack of diversity awaits.

Black Royalty in the Castle of White Privilege?

1137FA8D-F463-471E-97C4-AE6B8FC14FB7.jpeg

By the tone of this article, one would be led to believe that Meghan Markle has managed to pull a fast one on the Royal Family. That maybe her pathway to the Castle of White Privilege was in part due to the Queen buckling to her Twitter feed bullying her to accept diversity rather than the reality that Her Majesty, at the ripe old age of 92, just simply loves her grandchild. What grandparent wouldn’t be wounded by seeing her grandson walk behind his mother’s coffin in front of millions? Why does race have to enter this equation? She is a grandmother like any other. Queen Elizabeth has served her country with exceptional dignity for  longer than most of us have been alive. She worked in the war as a mechanic before taking the throne in 1952 and has visited most countries in the world to adoring fans, even today. Hardly a sign of an old woman with no grip on world affairs. You might recall, HRH was an ardent supporter of Brexit. Her Majesty is sharp. Yet take a look at this quote from Kalyn Wilson,

Markle is everything the monarchy needs in 2018, a modern woman with a foot in the real world, and one who doesn’t retreat from her life story but embraces it.

Although couldn’t one argue that Harry, the product of a broken home, a person who fought with bravery in the British Army in Afghanistan and one who has faced the long running smear that his father is not Prince Charles but James Hewitt, make for someone that embraces life after many hard knocks? What has colour got to do with it? Why didn’t Harry just head down to Brixton to find a destitute black bride like Eddie Murphy did in Queens, NY in the film Coming to America? Surely he could have helped dispel White Privilege by not only marrying a black woman but one who wasn’t wealthy to start with. How could he be so classist? How insulting Harry didn’t marry a Brit! Wilson goes on,

A hallmark of white privilege, aside from the wielding and exercising of power through political means, is the employment of exclusivity as a means of social control.

Why does the media have to turn this wedding into a circus about identity politics? Could it be that the Royal Family has acted like most whites, blacks, Asians, Muslims, Christians and Hindus who overwhelmingly tend to marry within their social groups? It is not done in all cases, purely as a fix, but most likely because of the circles people they interact with. Population density of whites in Britain 50 years ago was around 90%. It is still 80% today. So even today, one has an 8 in 10 chance of marrying someone that is white. The miracle of flight has now allowed people to travel so they could fall in love with someone from a different background. Interracial marriages are growing, yet further evidence that those who could defend white privilege choose to mix their bloodlines for none other than the love of their partner.

Although, say the Queen had deep reservations about Markle which happened to have nothing to do with her skin colour? Being royalty is about keeping standards. All of the scandals that have surfaced about Megan Markle’s roots have been deeply embarrassing. Should the Queen question the actions of Markle’s father who staged photos of himself for $100,000? Or her sister that has used Meghan’s media status to flog, The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister? It is a given that the Royal protocol office would have gladly given advice on the most tasteful way to promote Meghan’s childhood photos. Wouldn’t this actions by her family give the Queen a preview into the upbringing of her soon to be granddaughter-in-law? The Queen is no stranger to scandal. Her uncle married a divorced American, Wallace Simpson, and abdicated the throne to her father. Several of her children have split up. Her husband Prince Phillip has said some off-colored remarks in his time with respect to race, but does that automatically make HRH bigoted or racist? 

It would be nice for Ms Wilson to acknowledge that the Royal Prince is in love with Meghan Markle and leave it there. He undoubtedly chose her for her. She accepted. One can only hope that she doesn’t live up to any of the sensational headlines, the spiteful press or the silly actions of her family members. For if Meghan Markle ends up divorcing Prince Harry in years to come for some trivial reason, the Queen may well have been on the money with respect to her character not the colour of her skin. One can only hope for the sake of both of them they have a fairytale wedding where they live happily every after. If Markle can achieve 1/10th what the Queen has done in her decades of service we should be only too happy. Don’t worry though Meghan, it is enough that you’re “black” according to Wilson.

Enough!

B50F9E62-ADA4-4D2E-885B-4FA4DC3ABCED.jpeg

Social Justice actor Benedict Cumberbatch typifies the stupidity within Holywood. Box office takings have been driven by key actors/ actresses for decades. Top drawer female leads like Meryl Streep have seldom taken a back seat to her male costars when it comes to pay. This equal pay for equal work malarkey is insanely obtuse. Assuming an extra works 1/10th the time that the lead does, by rights they deserve 1/10th. If the lead makes $10mn then surely the extra is entitled to $1mn on the equal pay for equal work metric.

This type of posturing is so typical of the new age. Will Streep accept a pay cut to equal out her male peers in movies? Unlikely. Hollywood reeks of hypocrisy on most levels. To take Cumberbatch at his word suggests 1000 caveats  that will only filter to those he would deem worthy. He’d never expect the extra to be paid anything near what he earns even on an hourly basis. Only those that might inflate his social justifiablity.

Perhaps male supermodels should howl in protest that their female equivalents smash them for pay. Or is that female supermodels are plainly more desired than men by the end user – cosmetics, luxury goods and apparel.

ABC goes bananas but slips up on cold truths that split the narrative

02CD0689-EB3B-4276-BC19-15CA5633D0AA.jpeg

On March 18,  CM wrote about the gross inefficiencies at the ABC, which have rapidly deteriorated over time. We said,

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

According to The Australian, in response to the budget cuts coming over the following three years,  the ABC responded today with,

The ABC says there is “no more fat to cut” following the federal government’s announcement to slash $84 million in funding from the public broadcaster…News director Gaven Morris has hit back at the three-year funding freeze announced in Tuesday’s federal budget, which maintains more than $1 billion a year for the broadcaster.

“Make no mistake, there is no more fat to cut at the ABC. Any more cuts to the ABC cut into the muscle of the organisation…We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been…We’re the most minutely scrutinised media organisation in Australia…$84 million over three years, there is simply no way we can achieve that without looking at content creation and certainly looking at jobs within the organisation.”

Well perhaps if the ABC stop airing radical feminists who demand that parents seek approval from their babies when changing nappies or called conservative politicians who served in the military as “c*nts” perhaps it might justify for more budget.

It is a pretty simple. Online media pretty much allows such a wide array of choice that we do not need a taxpayer funded media (which readily breaches its code of conduct with regards to political bias) to provide so much content.

We have multiple ABC TV & radio stations plus multiple websites. One could argue for one each. We certainly do not need to give the ABC more money to expand its platforms to make up for a shortfall in quality content to arrest declining market shares.

Get consent from your infants you thoughtless parents

4D0294A4-6533-426B-BBD9-70463B9ECA44.jpeg

It shouldn’t surprise us with the left’s lunatic thinking that a child knows that it is responsible for soiling it’s own diaper. Of course only our national broadcaster, the ABC, would host such people on their programmes. Is it any wonder the ABC has had a budget freeze for the next three years. It should be heavily slashed given it wastes tax payers money on such inane stupidity. No wonder it’s viewership continues to decline.

We work with parents from birth… just about how to set up a culture of  consent in their home so, “I’m going to change your nappy now. Is that okay?” Of course the baby’s not going to respond, “Yes mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.” But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that they’re responsible…”

You can find the ABC’s budget malaise here.

University of Texas to treat unrestrictive masculinity as a ‘mental health crisis’

6782E319-828E-4677-87FF-3DCAA6BA1E38.jpeg

What will they think of next? Why doesn’t The University of Texas (UT) tackle unrestrictive ‘femininity’ as a mental health crisis too? Seems a bit odd in the struggle for gender identity and equality that only masculinity is deemed a problem.  “MasculinUT” is being organized by the school’s counseling staff and most recently organized a poster series encouraging students to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.” The program is built around “restrictive masculinity” and tries to encourage men to drop traditional gender roles to “act like a man”, be “successful” or “the breadwinner.” Arise the unsuccessful breadlosers. The question is whether the UT Counseling and Mental Health Center (CMHC) will offer post-graduation counseling when these students realize the real world doesn’t operate that way?

Little did I know that the day my parents thrust a Tonka truck in my hands at the tender age of three, they were recklessly setting of a ticking time bomb of traditional masculinity and enforced gender expression. The untold damage they caused by preventing any chance to express my gender identity via experimenting with a Barbie doll and making me wear dresses. Let’s get serious. My parents would recall from as young as two I had a passion for cars and could even rattle off the names of Boltsdragon and Meladies Benz before I could walk. I’ll be damned if loving mechanical things (I still do) wasn’t hard-wired in my DNA from birth. My parents didn’t force it for one second.

So what is a mental health crisis surrounding masculinity?  UT would have us believe it is toxic. Surely the need for pushing restrictive masculity should extend to the animal kingdom too.

Perhaps lions and wolves must be re-educated so that the weaker male lions/wolves in the pride/pack get equal opportunity to sire the females during mating season. Seems a bit wrong that the clear and present mental health issues of the strongest lion in the pack – indoctrinated by the evil, oppressive and overbearing Mother Nature – causes him to feel he can’t delegate such a responsibility to other no less fertile males.  How conflicted he must feel at times? Or could it be that the lionesses (apologies for forcing gender identities here) on heat prefer to be sired by the strongest male in so far as it ensures in her mind she will have the strongest cubs? Surely not a factor? Stands to reason that the raging hormones of the male lion youth get so worked up by their unrestrictive masculinity that they are led to fight the strongest male lion in order to attain sexual dominance. Why is it the strongest male leaves the pride/pack when he’s overthrown by the new kid? Same for marsupials too. Kangaroos have the same rules.

What about unrestrictive femininity? How can the civil rights of male praying-mantises be protected? Is it fair that the female of the species gets away scot-free after decapitating the male after conception? This is murder in the first degree. Mother Nature is far too cruel. She is also sexist given the lionesses do the ‘lion’s share’ of the ‘shopping’ when it is time to feed the family. Something must be done immediately.

Yet think to one’s own youth. Whether male or female it was more likely that your desires were hormonally driven rather than pre formed based on education. Was your first sexual experience guided by a pre-foreplay restricted checklist or was it simply letting unrestricted nature take its course? Was undressing uncomfortable or was the power of pheromones so overriding that it was but an irrelevant detail?

Was it a surprise to see many women at your university ogle, envy or date the fit young men rather than make a b-line to ogle, envy or date the fat slob with no dress sense and poor hygiene? Did you ever experience unrestrictive femininity at play where the girls fought to date the hottest guy and had no compunction in deposing the current girlfriend through every possible means? Trophy boyfriends were just as sought as trophy girlfriends. Survival of the fittest works both ways.

Surely it should come as no surprise that the UT American football coach explicitly looks for the most masculine players for the team. No sense putting a 150lb weakling as a line blocker if he must challenge a 300lb opponent? Will the ‘jocks’ be required to pave way for the ‘nerds’ to satisfy the restrictive msaculinity guidelines put forth by the UT CMHC. Now the coach can say, “we may have lost our exemplary decades long win record team, but I am proud we represent restrictive masculinity!

The irony is that other schools running the program (UNC-Chapel Hill and Northwestern being but two) admit there is no evidence that masculinity itself contributes to violence. So if there is no fact/theory behind the ‘unrestrictive masculinity is a mental health crisis’ it must mean that it is nothing more than an ideology. What a surprise to see the cultural Marxists looking to spread their backward thinking in the classroom.

To the women reading this, would you prefer random men didn’t trigger their unrestrictive masculinity and step in to protect you if you were being assaulted by another man? Social experiments like the video before and the history of how prison inmates deal with rapists and child molesterers shows that real men are deeply protective of their code and any violation is swiftly dealt with.

DNA is a funny thing. To think the UT Dean gives any credibility to the CMHC for pushing such absolute institutionalized snowflakery is beyond comprehension. It is the CMHC that has the mental health crisis, not the other way around. Unrestrictive stupidity is a curse which seems to be spreading wider by the day. May I suggest a StupidUT program?

 

Count Dankula of Nazi salute pug infamy escapes prison term

1B192D9F-00BF-4773-B4B3-BF69C9A43A9E.jpeg

Scottish comedian Count Dankula taught his girlfriend’s pug to do a Nazi salute as a prank. The video went viral. Regardless of the level of one’s taste in humour, he clearly never intended it as a hate crime. Luckily for the Count, the courts have ruled that he doesn’t need to do a 12mth jail term as was flagged. The fact that it even saw the inside of a courtroom shows just how ridiculous the legal system is becoming. The Crown initially claimed he was inciting hatred against Jews. Count Dankula was convicted of a crime with an £800 fine.

Unlike Kathy Griffin who has seen her career nosedive since after the Trump decapitation stunt, Count Dankula is likely to see a jump in following because he hasn’t made a song and dance about being a victim of his own making.