“You like me, you really like me!”

Oh – holy – shit.

So I popped onto my little corner of the net here and was trying like hell to find a way to better organize how my posts are organized over on the left. the recent posts works ok, but having that Month box is annoying. If I want to find a particular post for the purpose of shearing it on social media when a topic comes up which I have written about: I have to search by month then scroll down.

It would be super awesome fantastic if, instead of a thousand and one tutorials about how to organize by category, I could instead just have a simple interface of year – month, click, drop down listing every post that month. You know, like folders and files have worked since…. well since graphical user interfaces were invented….

Low and behold I see …. this:

holy_crap

2,002 FOLLOWERS!?
Holy Jumpin Jesus, who are all you people and where did you come from!?
Kyon-shocked-kyon-the-melancholy-of-haruhi-suzumiya-31549716-500-333

Well shit…  so apparently I now owe people some content on a more regular basis…

Alrighty then, there is one thing I’ve been meaning to get around to, may as well do it now. I may even turn this into a static home page so that people who pop onto ObservingLibertarian.com don’t have their phone suddenly explode as it attempts to load every post I’ve ever made simultaneously. We all know how those Note 7’s are these days, I wouldn’t want to become liable.

Some of this will be posted from other pages, because I’ve already provided some necessary information on myself and my Ideological / Political background. Including providing examples of actual arguments I’ve been in with my opposition across social media. This page will simply serve as an introduction of sorts. This way people who happen stance across my website will see this and decide for themselves if I seem like the type of person they want to follow.

I’m perfectly fine allowing the free market to decide. Each person is free to like, share, subscribe or denounce, ignore and block me as they have will to do so.

I am the Observing Libertarian. I’ve been guest featured by Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield, have a sizable number of articles posted by the Honey Badger Brigade, I’m on TwitterMinds and YouTube.

Am I an MRA? No, I’m Libertarian.
Am I a white identitarian? No, I’m Libertarian.
Am I AltRight? No, the Alt Right is further to the Left than I am, I’m Libertarian.
Am I a White Supremacist? No, Supremacists are authoritarians, I’m Libertarian.
Am I Liberal? Yes and no depending on the topic because I’m Libertarian.

So what gives with all the pro-white and pro-men’s rights material?

10511367_663626353721888_3895820396673099910_n

On both cases I’m speaking in opposition of political parties, sects and factions which advocate for establishing two tiered legal systems in which some classes of people ascend to being first class citizens and other classes of people descend into being second class citizens.

That’s the end of it.

Why do I oppose group Q and support group P?
Group P isn’t advocating to be given superior rights to group Q, group Q is.

It is that simple. I am only tangentially involved. I am not part of any of these movements or groups, I am an outsider lending my voice to the chorus in favor of or opposition to their actions based upon whether or not they are advocating for being given equal rights to those of others or superior rights to those of others.

If we are to be pedantic on the topic:

  • By supporting men’s rights am I a Men’s Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By supporting women’s rights am I a Women’s Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By supporting gay rights am I a Gay Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By supporting trans rights am I a Trans Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By the dictionary definition of feminism am I a Feminist? Yes.

In practical reality however: I’m just a Libertarian.

I support the establishment of a Rule of Law which provides completely equality before the law: equal rights, equal protections and equal punishments. That no one person is permitted to be infringed upon by any other person or group there of, which includes infringement by the State. A law in which civil liberties, personal liberties and human rights are sacrosanct.

Here’s the banner which adorns my twitter, minds and youtube pages.

OLtest4

A full throttle no holds bared statement that all people regardless of any identity of any kind should be treated equally under the law with no special treatment of any kind be it negative or positive.

No second class citizens, no special privileges, no special protections. Everyone treated equally before the law and their individual rights / civil liberties protected BY the law: against the malevolence of others or even against the state itself.

It doesn’t GET any more classical liberal than this. This is the essence of the greatest political and moral philosophers of western civilization boiled down into a single opus that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and everyone within society should be protected or punished equally by the same code of law.

In spite of the above example of my personal classical liberal ideology: when I take a spekr test: I’m almost as far right and south as it is possible to be.

libertarian_4_12_2017_1031hrs

So you see, in spite of being a dyed in the wool classical liberal, a constitutionalist and thereby quantitatively a centrist by definition and nature of the fact that I’m a constitutionalist: I plot on the political landscape as far right wing libertarian. How far right wing? Just look at that spekr result: which is mirrored by a host of other similar tests I’ve taken by the way.

libertarian

That above image was screen capped from a political test I took some 10 years ago or so. I can tell you my political views haven’t changed. In anything: having expanded my library of western philosophers has only further convinced me that the premises upon which I was operating were correct if previously less refined. I have never considered myself left, on the left or a leftist. If the Constitution is held as the center (as it should be), then I’ve always considered myself to be a centrist. yet in the 10 year gap between those two political tests: I think my position relative to the rest of the political landscape has only gone further right.

Here’s the thing…

It’s not that I am moving to the right: it’s that the political landscape under me is moving continually left.

The political landscape has moved under my feet and there’s many many people who always considered themselves to be left leaning yet find themselves agreeing with conservatives in this day and age. Arguing against censorship, against authoritarian rule, against double standard laws. They often remark about how they feel abandoned by the left and begin describing themselves as “classical liberals.” Which, by the way, is exactly how that term came about.

People who didn’t follow suit with the “new left” and the “progressives” on their march ever onward left towards totalitarianism. People like me who adhere to classical liberal principles and philosophical ideas and find that they cannot agree with the left’s constant attempts at enacting illiberal or anti-liberal laws.

narrative

There’s a growing sentiment that conservatism is now the new punk because defending personal freedoms has become the counter culture against the double standard laws being proposed and supported by the identity grievance politics of the new left.

In spite of being in the vaunted “99%” and working full time while earning a lower class income, yes a genuine Poletarian unlike the rich kids on college campuses calling people “bourgeoisie” while wearing $400 shoes and snap-chatting it on their latest generation iPhone: I am thoroughly anti-communist and pro-freedom.

So why do I speak against so many of those movements? I speak against them when they produce propaganda and lobby for superior rights to others. When they stop doing that: I’ll stop speaking against them. They create a lot of rationalizations, fraudulent faux research, biased studies which are easily disproved. This is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.

adminusaequius

What I advocate against: is all those who advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens.

Those people, persons, groups and organizations who DO advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens: are anti-freedom and anti-equality.

No matter how they define themselves or what they define themselves as, even if they claim to be Feminists and the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality: the dictionary definition of “an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex” is a “supremacist.

supremacist23

If you’re advocating for or lobbying for superior rights to be given to a group or groups OVER THAT of another group or groups: you are categorically, unabashedly and undeniably, by definition, a supremacist.

It’s a simple concept really and it goes utterly unnoticed.

2-24

 

“White Crime”…but Who’s “White” ?

infowars_article

I was responding on minds to an article posted by infowars. There’s essentially nothing wrong with the article itself, that I know of. Full disclosure: I didn’t bother to read it. I was already aware from my own research that criminality committed by blacks is as Colin Flaherty puts it “wildly out of proportion.”

I personally conducted a 10 year study using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports in order to debunk Black Lives Matter’s claims about whites killing blacks. Not only did I find that IN SPITE of the fact whites out number blacks 4.63 to 1: blacks kill whites 2.28 times more often than whites kill blacks: but “imagine my shock“, whites are killed by blacks in America more often than US soldiers, of any race, are killed by enemy combatants in the war in Iraq. Regardless of the fact that the 10 year period included the heaviest years of fighting with the highest casualty rates for the whole war.

blacklivesmatterRACIST

Yet even these numbers are wrong… depending upon who you consider to be “White”. With some cursory level of investigation, you can easily find out that what the FBI records as white crimes: come from people you wouldn’t consider white.

Omar_Mir_Seddique_Mateen

Guess what, that guy? Yeah, his act of Islamic terrorism was also written down and recorded by the FBI as a white hate crime because the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report records crimes committed by middle easterners as “white.”

Pakistanis, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Iranians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, Georgians, Turks, Saudis, Algerians, Moroccans: you name it. If they’re in the United States and they commit any crime at all, it’ll be recorded as a crime committed by a white person. It goes into the “white” racial category of the Uniform Crime Reports.

Don’t believe me?
That’s too far fetched?
What kind of Alex Jonesian conspiracy am I weaving here?
Tin foil hattery?

tinfoilhat

Oh ye of little faith. Do I ever make claims without backing up what I say? If you’re new to my articles I forgive you, if this isn’t the first one you’ve read then shame on you. You should know me better than that.

Allow me to take you on a tour of the FBI’s website – step by step, no tricks. You can follow the guide in one tab and complete the tasks at will in another.

First we start by going to the FBI’s official Uniform Crime Report webpage.

FBI_UCR

Now, look just down there where it says Documentation.

FBI_UCR2

Click on “User Manuals”.

FBI_UCR3

These are the field manuals which provide instructions on how to use the reporting system which field agencies (police stations, sheriffs offices, and all other federal law enforcement agencies) apply when reporting those crimes to the FBI for documentation in the yearly Uniform Crime Report.

FBI_UCR4

Once here, scroll down to the last manual.

FBI_UCR5

Here it is, SRS User manual. Click on that to bring up the PDF.

FBI_UCR7

Ok, we are now zeroing in on our target. The digital tour is almost complete.

FBI_UCR8

Once you get to the top page of the PD, Scroll down to page 7.

FBI_UCR9

Here we are… now what’s that?

FBI_UCR10

Aha, there it is. That’s what we’re looking for. Racial designations, page 139.

FBI_UCR11

Down we go.

FBI_UCR12

There you have it boys and girls and attack helicopters and mayonnaise. The FBI’s Uniform crime report records crimes committed by Middle Easterners and North Africans as being committed by white people. However – we’re not done quite just yet, kids. There’s still yet more to show.

Let’s take a trip back to the Uniform Crime Report, because I have something else to show you. Here we have the arrests listed by race for the 2016 Uniform Crime report.

At this point you must be thinking “Wait, holy hell tell me there isn’t yet more buffoonery involved? How many extra non-whites are included in the crime numbers of white people?!”

To which I respond…. an unknown number of Latinos, from Mexico or anywhere else in South America, to include illegal immigrants: are also included in the numbers of crimes blames on “white people”.

If your response was “wait, WHAT?!” – allow me to demonstrate, just as I did above.

FBI_UCR13

Scroll down just a short distance and you’ll see the following.

FBI_UCR14

Ok…. Whites are the majority of the country, this all looks normal. What horrible nonsense are you going to show me in this?

See the edge of the graph? It’s not displaying the graph to fit in window: and that edge isn’t where I cropped the image. You have to manually scroll over to see the rest of the graph on the right side.

FBI_UCR15

What the…. wait: what’s this? Why is this listed as “ethnic”? Why isn’t Hispanic listed in Race over with whites, blacks, etc. ? What’s the difference between Hispanic or Non Hispanic? What is going on here?

FBI_UCR16

Calm down, I’ll explain. See that little 2 which looks like it’s telling you to take Total to the power of 2? Yeah – that’s a special indicator for the graph and it’s data.

FBI_UCR17

To find out what that indicator means: we have to scroll to the bottom.

FBI_UCR18

Oh look, there’s the scroll bar so conveniently placed at the very bottom. Great website design, FBI, good enough for government work I suppose.

FBI_UCR19

Now what’s that say next to the #2 designation?

  • The ethnicity totals are representative of those agencies that provided ethnicity breakdowns. Not all agencies provide ethnicity data; therefore, the race and ethnicity totals will not equal.

That’s right kids: an unknown and unspecified number of police agencies, in the 13,049 agencies agencies which report to the FBI – do not record the Ethnicity of Latinos. They simply classify them, for the FBI Uniform Crime Report, as being White.

So white people, what most consider a “white person” to be, meaning White Caucasians of European Descent: are blamed, on paper, for crimes committed by Middle Easterners, North Africans and Latino’s from Mexico or anywhere in South America – including those who are here illegally.

The official tally for crimes committed by white people: include the crimes committed by people who no one would confuse as being white. This is how the crimes of “whites” are artificially inflated.

Want more proof? Back to the FBI we go. To the top 10 most wanted list, Robin.

FBI_UCR20

Now, this is the current top 10 most wanted list, 10-10-2017, I archived it because I have no idea how often the FBI updates this. . We have 3 men of Europeans descent, meaning: whites. Jason, William and Robert. We have 5 Latinos, 2 of whom are confirmed in custody. Santiago, Eduardo, Alexis, Luis and Walter. There are 2 fellows on here who are of middle eastern descent.

The FBI records all 9/10 of these as being “white”…. Still doubt me, after that the virtual tour I took you on?

Left to right here we go.

Santiago, Race: White (Hispanic).
Eduardo. Race: White (Hispanic).
Alexis. Race: White (Hispanic).
Yasser. Race: White.
Bhadreshkumar. No race Listed.
Luis. Race: White (Hispanic).
Walter. Race: White (Hispanic).

So on the current FBI’s top ten most wanted list: there’s 3 actual white people, 1 Egyptian, 5 Latinos and 1 Indian who is recorded without a race. Indians are apparently raceless. The FBI can’t decide if these should be counted as white people for being middle Easterners or Asian.

Regardless, the FBIs top ten list, currently has 9/10 people listed as white.

-When I shove the absolute irrefutable proof directly in your face and say “See this, right here, with the giant red arrows pointing to it?”
-Directly from the FBI on their official website where they present all of the proof.
-Then I give you a detailed step by step digital tour showing you exactly where the information can be found.

Am I still a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist?

The official tally for crimes committed by white people: include the crimes committed by people who no one would confuse as being white. This is how the crimes of “whites” are artificially inflated.

What’s really a hoot…. Now that you know “white people” include actual whites, Middle Easterners, North Africans and an unknown quantity of Latinos from Mexico and South America, including illegal aliens…. That makes the “White” v Black murders even worse doesn’t it?

blacklivesmatterRACIST

If “Whites” isn’t just what the US CENSUS considers to be white, but a large number of Hispanics, Middle Easterners and North Africans: it means the “white” category of non-negligent manslaughter is actually an even larger volume of people. That means Blacks kill the associated grouping of who is recorded as “white” 2.28 times more over than the reverse: but the cluster of people who are recorded as being “white” out numbers blacks by an even larger sum than 4.63 to 1.

Which means Black criminality / Black violence is even worse than the data I presented.

It means Black people kill Whites, Latinos, Middle Easterners and North Africans 2.28 times more often than anyone from any of these groups kill a Black person.

Remember that the next time some liberal trash is throwing headlines at you like:

Vox White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners
CNN How America has silently accepted the rage of white men
Salon America’s white man problem: After Las Vegas, a familiar script unfolds
Newsweek WHITE MEN HAVE COMMITTED MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN ANY OTHER GROUP
The Intercept The White Privilege of the “Lone Wolf” Shooter

Whenever you see any of these headlines, I want you to keep one thing in mind….

In spite of the fact that the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report includes Whites, Latinos, Middle Easterners and North Africans as all being “white”, in 2016 this conglomerate group who are recorded as being “white” were responsible for 4,192 Murders and cases of nonnegligent manslaughter. Blacks were responsible for 4,935 Murders and cases of nonnegligent manslaughter.

So with all the hyperbole, the vacuous statements, the false equivocations, the manipulated information and the manufactured propaganda made by feminists, SJWs and Neoliberals about “white man” this and “white men” that…

US CENSUS Population Estimates July 1st, 2016
census

13.3% of the population is responsible for more murders and nonnegligent manslaughter than 76.9% of the population, and that 13.3% of the population…. isn’t white men, it’s not even white people.

A difference of 743. It would take “whites” (the conglomerate group) to perform over a dozen Las Vegas style massacres to accumulate the body count created by blacks, who are just 13.3 of the population.

In fact, if you take a harsh look at the FBI 2017 Uniform Crime Report, and add up the numbers… Blacks in America, per year, commit more murders and nonnegligent manslaughter than Whites, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Asians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders COMBINED. That’s not per capita: that’s total volume.

Provided for you here with this handy dandy meme. Share it as you will if you would care to do so.

OLO_Murder

Tell the liberals to print out this article, wrap it around a dildo, stick it up their ass and spin on it.

fuckyou

The Truth About Anti-Brexit Former High Court Judge

Only days ago I was invited by Your Brexit to write for them. The idea of someone who happens to be half Irish, writing for a publication dedicated to freeing Britain from ruler ship by foreign powers… bring forth an interesting question…. do you think it’s possible to die of Irony Poisoning? Far be it from me to turn down the opportunity to participate in such a uniquely glorious paradox.

So while searching about for subject matter I came across various reporting upon the Fawcet Society and it’s lead investigator on a study into whether or not Brexit would weaken the anti-discrimination laws. Now, being an America: I can assure you, I am profoundly accustom to propagndic scare mongering of the highest order.

The red threat, the satanic panic, mad cow disease, west nile virus, swine flu, avian flu, killer bees, zika virus, sars virus, super super gonorrhea and the piece de resistance: cunnilingus is now linked to throat cancer. Take my advice lads, do not even attempt that excuse: not only will it not work but you will find yourself exiled from the marital chamber for a protracted period of time.

Scare mongering aside, I decided to look into this lead investigator, find out what her history is and anything of interest in her background. Is she a partisan wolf in sheep’s clothing or does this report reflect genuine unbiased investigation? If the later, rather than the former, are there any gaps or legislation which could easily assuage the Fawcet Society’s findings?

Low and behold, ladies and gentlemen: I cannot be certain as to whether I’ve tumbled down a rabbit hole or stumbled through the looking glass. What I found was the single largest and most egregious example of criminal conspiracy and judicial misconduct in the entire history of the English judicial system. I warn you, do not entertain even the faintest glimmer of a hope that these statements have been hyperbolic. As you will see, very shortly, I only just barely escaped the realm of understatement.

While researching the good Dame Laura Cox, I found she was in fact the lead author of the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB). As reported by the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. So why would this be of interest? The Equal Treatment Bench Book was a document issued in September of 2010, which instructed all judges across the entirety of the United Kingdom, to give convicted female criminals lighter sentences than men would receive for the same crimes.

Now if you were read that statement and questioned “Isn’t discrimination based upon sex blatantly illegal?” You would be correct, absolutely unquestionably and unequivocally correct, as the law will show you.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”

uk_law_1

A glimpse into the Equality act of 2010 renders an important note to follow. The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) published the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” exactly 1 month before the Equality Act of 2010 was instituted. Could be coincidence, however, it seems rather suspicious does it not?

The Equal Treatment Bench Book, which instructed judges across the UK to intentionally give female criminals lighter sentencing, was published in September of 2010. The equality act of 2010 was instituted October 1st of 2010.

The Equality act of 2010 is quite explicit, and directly worded and absolutely prohibits unequal treatment or discrimination based on race, sex, religion or any other factors. The earlier anti-discrimination law for gender disparity would be the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

In fact, if we search the Equality act of 2010 we find that the law specifically states any activity to occur before October 1st of 2010, would be determined as a breach of law by one of the earlier applicable law or laws.

“If you were subjected to unlawful treatment (eg discrimination, harassment or victimisation) before 1 October 2010, the Equality Act won’t apply. Instead, you’ll be covered by the legislation that was in force at the time.”

anti_equality

Consider, if you will, if the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) had published the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” just two months later: the Equality Act of 2010 would have just been implemented. Everyone and their second cousin twice removed would be well aware that the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” was in direct violation of the law. By publishing the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” 1 month previous to the Equality Act of 2010, they did so while the active legislature in place was The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a law few people would have been familiar with.

Again I say: “Could be coincidence, however, it seems rather suspicious does it not?”

So let us delve into the applicable law in effect at the time. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, CHAPTER 65, Section 2. “Sex discrimination against men.” Sub section 1.

“(1)Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.”

anti_equality2

Oh my, saving a bit of ink I see, very well. Let us look at Section 1 “Direct and indirect discrimination against women”.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, CHAPTER 65, Section 1. “Direct and indirect discrimination against women” Sub section 1 and 1A.

“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a woman if—
(a)on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or”

anti_equality3

In Section 2 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 we find that all rules applying to women, also apply to men and in the section on sexual discrimination against women it specifically states and I quote “on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man”.

According to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, “Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.”

So let us apply the women’s section to men as it is applied to women, as the law specifically states we are supposed to. I shall here in present both laws “with such modifications as are requisite”.

Women.
“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a woman if—
(a)on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or”

Men.
“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a men if—
(a)on the ground of his sex he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat a woman, or”

As you can see, the Equal Treatment Bench Book issued by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) indefatigably instructs Judges throughout the UK to violate the sex specific anti-discrimination law, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in providing women lighter sentencing than men.

Every judge to comply with the orders set forth by the Equal Treatment Bench Book constitutes not only conspiracy to commit a crime, but squarely, by the letter of the law, condemns every aforementioned compliant judge as joint principals in that crime.

Crown Prosecution Service “Conspiracy
The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20. ”

uk_law_2

Crown Prosecution Service “The parties to an offence
Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories / accomplices) (D2).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.”

anti_equality4

There after – every single man who was denied this lighter sentencing was, by law, admittedly discriminated against in that court. By official order, the court treated him “less favourably” than the court “would treat a woman.”

Not only is the entire Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which issued the Equal Treatment Bench Book guilty of violating the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but there after upon the institution of the Equality Act of 2010, until the present day: every judge to apply this lighter sentencing of women has been a complicit and active participating principals in a criminal violation of federal law. As such, every man denied this new lighter sentencing has, under the law, been discriminated against by the court which sentenced him – and has a case against the judge which sentenced him: on the grounds of discrimination.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”

uk_law_1

Not only is it Dame Laura Cox who led the charge to commit an untold and unfathomable number of federal violations to the law: lets not forget it is also Dame Laura Cox who led the Fawcett Society in “investigating” whether or not Brexit will reduce the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws. The very woman who authored the Equal Treatment Bench Book instructing judges to violate anti-discrimination law has also been responsible for producing propaganda that Brexit will harm anti-discrimination laws.

Oh yes, my Dame, we have seen how much stock you put into anti-discrimination laws being followed. We know precisely how much you value the rule of law. You who so flagrantly violate the anti-discrimination laws in favor of your ideology and issue forth orders that others must violate anti-discrimination laws as well.

Dame Laura Cox, you are finished, madam, excuse yourself from speaking on matters of the rule of law. Your word carries no weight upon the topic: for you are in fact a criminal who has to her record an untold tens of thousands of violations of the law. The only things which should be remembered of you: is your despicable lawlessness, your repugnant hypocrisy and your embarrassing disgrace.

Here your sins laid bare, for all the world to see. The dirty secrets and the criminal activities you committed hoping would never be realized or come to be known: at last, are thrust into the light of day.

You, Dame Laura Cox, a former high court judge: have more violation of the law to your credit than perhaps any human being to set foot or breath air upon your Island Nation since the gilded age in which Roman centurions referred to it as Britannia.

radicalfeministarticle-2383275-1B1DE4F5000005DC-148_306x423

Some Animals Are Criminally More Equal

So I came across a couple of examples which I am laying out here, of Criminal Conspiracies to violate the Law by social justice leftists. I will provide the names of the conspirators, the provinces in which the criminal conspiracies took place and the exact legal statutes broken. I will also be providing all of this information to the two publications upon which I found the conspiracies: so that they, with their larger platforms, can inform local law enforcement officials and hopefully the Conspirators will be brought to justice.


First up, Rebel Media. “UPDATE: Victoria, BC film festival canceled after plan to charge white men double”.

rebel_media

In this article, Rebel reports on a story scooped by The Hollywood Reporter about a docu-movie creator, Shiraz Higgins, attempting to get a theater showing to charge white men double the cost of admission.

From The Rebel

Last week, Higgins caused controversy by proposing that white males pay $20 to attend his film about stand-up comics. After a backlash, Higgins opted to lower the price for “White Cis-Straight Able-Bodied Males” to $15 while others would still pay $10.

Roberts said his society “does not believe in, nor does it practice, any form of a prejudicial pricing structure as proposed by Mr. Higgins” and added that “…BBTS feels it cannot support what it sees as irresponsible actions on the part of its organizer.”

The Blue Bridge Theatre Society may have halted the event’s sexism based on moral reasons: and good for them to do so. However, the unstated fact from either the Blue Bridge Theatre Society, the Rebel or the Hollywood Reporter which originally scooped the story…

The event would have been a federal violation of the law.

British Columbia Human Rights Code [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 210, Section 8, sub section 1-B. “Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility“.

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.”

canada_law_1

More over, under Canadian Law, director Shiraz Higgins, who attempted to commit this act, is likely guilty of conspiracy.

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) Conspiracy. Section 465, sub section (1) C and (1) D

465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

canada_law_2

Maybe Shiraz Higgins’s next documentary will be about the Canadian judicial system, or perhaps, even better, it’s penal system. One can only hope.


Next on the docket for the day. Your Brexit “Diane Abbott just said she wants to BAN WHITE CANDIDATES from standing in certain elections”

your_brexit

In this article, Your Brexit examines some of the details between various members of the Labor party attempting to give preferential treatment to potential black candidates by excluding all possible candidates aside from black candidates. racial discrimination in the name of fighting discrimination. Just as logically consistent and sound as one would expect from the communist wing of British Parliament.

From Your Brexit

This may be the sort of headline that you have to read four or five times before it truly sinks in, but the Shadow Home Secretary and Labour MP Diane Abbott has told a gathering in Brighton that Labour should start to build ‘all-black’ shortlists of candidates for local elections.

While speaking to a gathering called The World Transformed, which was an event organised in Brighton by the left-wing activist group Momentum ahead of the Labour Conference in Brighton, Abbott said that only fielding black candidates in certain constituencies would allow more MPs from ethnic minorities to enter the House of Commons.

I sent a letter regarding this, to Your Brexit, as they had an e-mail listed which permits one to contact the editorial staff. I informed Your Brexit of the following information which you are about to read. The e-mail was sent at 10:55pm central time, which was 4:55am London Time. So hopefully in a few hours now, as I write this, Your Brexit will be forwarding the information I sent them: directly to the authorities.

Now, this is the information I sent Your Brexit, however, it will be slightly more interesting presented here than was the e-mail, with the inclusion of all the advantages html provides of course.

I feel it is of some crucial importance that the article be updated to stipulate that if the labor does at Diane Abbott suggests: the labor party would be in federal violation of the UK Equality Act of 2010.

Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 5.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(5)If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others.”

uk_law_1

In fact, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, Diane Abbott and others within the Labor party are already guilty of having conducted a criminal conspiracy to violate the Equality Act of 2010.

Conspiracy
The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20. ”

uk_law_2

You may find the last bit of the e-mail sent to Your Brexit entertaining.

I recommend you send this to the legal authorities while simultaneously publishing the information so that the public becomes aware that the labor party in fact conducted a criminal conspiracy. This will put public and political pressure on the authorities to act on the case, since it’s perpetrators are indefatigably guilty by their own public discourse which has been committed to the public record already.

Even if the conspirators are given the absolute minimum of sentencing, which is likely, it will still create a legal precedent under which anyone who thinks the labor party discriminated against them will then have a case to file in the civil courts.

Never miss an opportunity to make trouble for your enemy. Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
A Brexit Ally from Across the Pond.

I do like to provide others with helpful and uplifting advice whenever I can. I’m just that kind of guy.

evil_laughter


Now, the question becomes, why would these leftists so often act in flagrant violation of the anti-discrimination and pro-equality laws which they themselves helped pass? The answer is quite simple and multi pronged.

1, they never expected these laws to be used against them.

With all the talk and propagandic rhetoric of “social justice” and “equality”, these laws were only put in place as a truncheon to wield against their ideological opponents. They never expected to have to follow the law, only to have something they could use as a weapon. The inclusion of non-specific identities such as race being any race or gender being any gender: was lip service included only for the purpose of quantifying the laws as being equal.

2, they’re unaccustomed to black letter laws or “hard and fast rules”.

Vox Day in Chapter 6 of his book “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police” lays this concept out quite clearly when he describes SJW entryist tactics and the establishment of a “Code of Conduct” which is routinely vague, nebulous, even vacuous in many instances. Obfuscated or dissembled terms and generalizations which can twisted to mean anything the SJWs want them to mean.

Which is wholly and completely different from the legalese which comprises most legal codes. Legalese functions on either black letter law, precedent or hard and fast rules. All properly written law does, in fact. For example, just look above at Canadian and English Law.

A may not do to B, any of aforementioned Q except under circumstance N. Hard and fast rules, black letter law. From there you got to precedent, in case # [Person Vs R] the ruling was P by rationale D provided.

Many people complain about legalese: I find it infinitely more accommodating than the fertile muck in which the SJWs prefer to dwell. I’ll provide a clip from Day’s book to give you a good example of the nebulous swamp which my oppositions likes to infest. I doubt Vox will mind, after all I’m plugging his work and this article isn’t pay to view.

“As noted in the previous chapter, the reason SJWs set up nebulous codes of conduct is that they want to be able to selectively impose discipline on those who question the Narrative in a manner they can interpret as “problematic” or “offensive” while avoiding the need to do so when one of their own breaks the rules. That’s why they do their best to avoid clear lines of demarcation and detailed specifications of what is against the rules and what the punishment will be. They will even do their best to avoid committing anything to writing; it is not an accident that Sir Tim Hunt’s wife received a telephone call from an individual at University College London who still remains publicly unidentified. Like insects scurrying about their business underneath a rock, SJWs prefer to operate in the dark and leave everyone else confused about what really happened.”

Day, Vox. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (Kindle Locations 1678-1683). Castalia House. Kindle Edition.

You want another example? Fine, I got one for ya….

quote-but-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it-away-from-the-fog-of-the-nancy-pelosi-143546

The Lunatics are Running the Asylum

Format issue: The underlined text isn’t just underlined, those are hyperlinks to examples of the metaphor being made in that line. So it’s not just metaphorical to think about remembering off the top of your head some related event or phenomena. Not everyone is so well informed and not everyone will have seen or been exposed to the same materials.

I think the reason people didn’t notice is the format I use for the website. Hyperlinked text and underlined text are indistinguishable. When writing or editing: hyperlinks are blue and when published there is no color differential to distinguish. I simply forgot, that’s my mistake so I don’t blame anyone if they didn’t notice all the information I provided.

“Absurdity of the Current Year”

By the light of a new era,
Two persons of indiscriminate nature
Debate a fish riding a bicycle,
while tweeting Heforshe.
A discussion stifled by limited status,
Disregarded by two pedophile worshippers,
sharpening their knives, timing their bombs
and Chanting death to the westerner.
Welcome to our age,
where we embrace the diversity of the gulag
And find ever redundant ways to express our individuality,
Within the collective group think.
Parroting the preordained script of permissible speech,
Claiming the dehumanization of a race isn’t racist,
Stipulating some animals are more equal than others.
Pity be upon us, George Orwell,
for we failed to heed your warning.
Upon the great alter of ideology,
There, does liberty, go to die.

15699615-b833-4859-99f5-8f3e1a26ddba_560_420

So, for each metaphor you see underlined: that underlined text is actually a hyperlink which will take you to a news article or youtube video of an interview or some such material directly related to the metaphor. So it’s not just some abstraction of current events: I also provide you with a real life concrete example.

Unlike so many mock jam poetry sessions by SJWs where they have a litany of quasi supposedly plausible babble talking about events which never occurred. Their excuse is “well, it didn’t happen to me, and I provided no examples for any of this actually happening but… we know this is what happens even if I can’t provide even a single example.” They’re basically making bad poetry about movies and TV show episodes, without any real, genuine, actual examples of their narrative happening in real life. Treating fiction as a truism.

I, on the other hand, deal with factual events and reality: not ideologically created narratives and certainly not ideologically driven narratives spread by popularized propagandic fiction.

One of my favorite youtubers who’s musically inclined: makes good sport of the SJWs who manufacture these non-real-events presented as real event slam poetry mockeries. I’ll provide a few good examples in order to fully exclaim the difference between my above poem: which provides real live examples for each metaphor, as compared to these vapid vacuous propagandists.

Watch them or don’t, entirely your choice, enjoy at your leisure.


Example A.

Example B.

Example C.

Article Response to Magog’s Gender Biology

Preface: I support trans-people and trans rights. I’m only disproving an argument put forth. I don’t care what you choose to live as. In my personal opinion, speaking as someone who’s code blued three times on three separate occasions, think that whatever changes to your life you feel you have to make in order to be happy; you should make in a deliberate but carefully thought out way. Some life changing alterations are permanent and should therefore be made with deliberate thought, foresight and careful consideration with the aid of well educated and experienced professional council.

Life can be very short, again: I’ve technically been dead three times. Life can be very short, far too short not to try to be happy. So whatever changes to your life you feel you need to make in order to enhance the quality of your life: do it. If that means transitioning, go for it. However, again, do so properly with professional council and adhere to the process currently insisted upon by the medical community. Once parts and pieces begin being removed: there is no going back. A lot of trans people commit suicide years after the transition because they realize they’ve made a mistake and they cannot get back what was taken.

I want for other people to have joyful, happy and fulfilling lives. As such, what choices you make: I advise caution and deliberate, intense, prolonged consideration before coming to and making permanent or irreversible decisions. That all being said, I actually don’t have a problem with gays, lesbians, transmen, transwomen, etc. etc. I just can’t be bothered to give enough of a fuck to care one way or the other. If it makes you happy and enhances the quality of your life, go for it.

7T6Fyoxd_400x400

Also, I would totally bang Theryn Meyer. I can’t not love Theryn, she’s a truly wonderful person, inherently humane: but I’d so fucking wreck her. Good god, she’d have to sit on one of those doughnut pillows for weeks. Don’t get me wrong, I think Blaire White’s gorgeous too, but I love Theryn, she’s a fantastic person.

Anyway, on with the show.


“The gender binary is a myth, it’s untrue.”

According to the The Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects By James Wynbrandt, Mark D. Ludman (1991), Hermaphroditic or Intersex births, meaning some combination of internal and external genitalia other than gender binary male or gender binary male occur approximately 1 in every 50,000 births. These individuals represent a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction of a percentile. Currently we’re at somewhere between 7.4 to 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth but a bigger number generates more for the purpose of being generous, that in mind let’s use 8 billion.

8 billion / 50k = 160,000 people kicking around the planet who either are still Hermaphroditic as a result of not having access to corrective surgery or people who were born hermaphroditic and underwent corrective surgery. Of 8 billion living homosapien sapiens, which is more than we currently have: only 160,000 of them would have been born Intersexed or Hermaphroditic.

Since these people represent, again, a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction of a percentile of the population but the 7,999,840,000 other humans roaming about were in fact born into the gender binary: gender binary is the norm by a 50,000 to 1 margin. So yes, gender binary is a verifiable reality, not a myth and it is true. Your ideology, like so many other religions, demands that you ignore reality and apply a suspension of disbelief in order to accept it as being true, on faith.

“There’s no evidence you can provide to prove it.”

Yes, actually, I can, and I just did. It didn’t take much effort.

“And therefore your claims of logic based around the gender binary can’t be proven or true because you haven’t proven the initial aspects of your argument.”

Again, just did: you’re making a circular argument to support your leap of faith suspension of disbelief which disregards verifiable reality.

Also, when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.

“The idea that gender is related to sex is unprovable because you can’t prove that genitalia determines gender.”

You’re operating on a false premise which is based on the idea that sex and gender are two different things. The word Gender in and of itself was a product of polite society. Saying “gender” instead of sex was a way to stipulate “innie” or “outie” in a time period in which language was segmented to avoid saying certain terms in mixed company as it was considered vulgar or impolite.

Asking for “white” or “dark” meat was a way to stipulate breast or thigh without saying “breast” or “thigh” because such a verbal gaff would be considered a breach in manners. Ideologues of your stripe have since hijacked the word “gender” and misappropriated it’s meaning in order to differentiate gender from sex. The original etymological meaning of the word “gender” was simply a polite way of referring to someone’s sex. Shakespeare, for example, often employed the word “sex” instead, as an intentional faux pas and racy innuendo, especially shocking in it’s day as it was usually his female characters who said it.

So between sex and gender: you are literally arguing over a differentiation which never existed previous to your ideology. Sex and gender are the same thing: you are attempting to hijack linguistics and rewrite the word to mean something different than it ever has before. You’re essentially insisting that “People of Color” is completely unrelated from saying “colored people.” No, it isn’t, it’s identical, it means non-white.

flat,1000x1000,075,f

“There’s more than two pairings of chromosomes.”

Yes there are, and they crop up once every fifty thousand births.

“Again there’s no actual proof that gender is related to chromosomes.”

Even if we are to accept your previously diagnosed broken premise that gender and sex are two different things: according to the Williams Institute, part of the UCLA Law School, only %0.06 of American adults identify as transgender. Which leaves 99.4% of people born in the United States “identifying” their “gender” as the physical sex they were born as. So yes, quantified, verified proof gender is related to chromosomes, signed, sealed and delivered.

“you have no actual proof beyond your own transphobia.”

Aside from reality.

“and thus you have no actual element of logic to deny the existence of non-binary people.”

Aside from reality. Look in your pants, you were born with sausage and potatoes, not clam. The argument that someone is “non-binary” is not based on physical reality, but on “feelings”. Said person doesn’t “feel” like they’re male or female. Feelings are subjective emotions, not physical realities. Again, and as with any other religion, your position is that you believe in something which has no physical reality because you feel what you believe is true. If you believe yourself to be neither male or female in spite of the physical reality of what genitals you were born with – you’re essentially believing in a talking snake in spite of the fact that you know snakes do not talk.

“Thus a transwoman is a woman because you can’t define anything that would make her not a woman as proof of what’s true.”

Aside from “her” having male genitals instead of female genitals, “her” being incapable of reproducing in a way which females do, “her” having to inject “herself” with artificial hormones in order to retain female attributes and aspects and “her” reverting back to a masculine “he” if “she” ever stops taking those artificial chemicals. You can surgically modify a mole to look like a shrew: it’s still a mole.

“And realize we’re moving towards a world that is a more normal one.”

The fact that Intersexed or hermaphroditic births represent only 1 in 50,000 children born and 99.4% of all adults in the United States identify with the sex they were born as shows that neither hermaphroditic intersex births or transgenders are “normal”. The word “normal” refers to that which is most common. That which is uncommon is by definition of NOT being common, abnormal.

“Ultimately we need to move past the gender binary because like I said there’s no proof for it.”

Aside from reality.

evil_laughter

“and realize that these people who claim to be non-binary aren’t lying.”

Yes, people with schizophrenia aren’t lying when they claim they’re Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln, that is what they believe. Reality proves otherwise: but they firmly, honestly, believe they are in fact Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln.

Just because they believe these things to be true, doesn’t make it true, it just means they believe it’s true. A person can honestly lie if they actually believe what they are saying is true. People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth, it was called the geocentric model, after the Copernican revolution it became known that it is the Earth which revolves around the sun, known as the heliocentric model.

Those people believed in what they were saying, but it wasn’t physically true in reality: it’s simply what they believed to be true. This is why the hard sciences use evidence and verification, not subjective emotions, opinions or feelings.

“and consequently we shouldn’t be continually denying their existence.”

No one’s denying that people who think they’re non-binary exist, we know they exist: we’re denying the thing they think they are because reality proves they are not the thing they think they are. We know there exist schizophrenics who think that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re not denying they exist: we’re denying that they’re actually Napoleon Bonaparte because they’re not.

“On twitter you see these people just going on and on that gender is sex gender is chromosomes.”

Because it is, you’re playing a word game built on a false premise to support your ideology.

“there aren’t any studies which back up what they’re saying”

Oh really? Just did.

“People link articles saying these are chromosomes and there’ll be nothing there.”

Yes, again, the hard sciences deal in evidence, verification, proof and fact: not word games. As stated previously “when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.”

“Other people who try to argue against the non-binary line of argument don’t seem to have any real systems”

Yes, again, the hard sciences deal in evidence, verification, proof and fact: not word games. As stated previously “when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.”

really

“‘where’s your proof for non-binaries’ and you’ve missed a point”

No, they’ve exposed the fact that you subscribe to a secular religion which focuses on beliefs, feelings and word games which take place in circular arguments to “prove” the existence of that which does not exist. Going back to the schizophrenic comparison: the dragon in the corner exists because you perceive it even if 99.4% of people don’t perceive your dragon.

“you haven’t proved your initial statement, you need to back up your logic.”

It’s called reality. 99.4% of people “identify” as the sex they were born as and only 1 in 50,000 births have any set of genitals other than male or female. The reality of gender binary is quite well established by physical reality: as is posed to all all religions – it is your responsibility to prove the existence of your God.

“These are real people.”

Yes, they are real people. The schizophrenic who believes himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte is a real person, he just isn’t Napoleon Bonaparte.

“different genders than what has been used to for the majority of human history.”

Yes, if Male and Female has been the norm for most of human history, than anything other than male or female is therefore by definition, not normal. Revert back to the discussion on how “normal” is defined. Also, since these people are not intersexed, they were born with perfectly normal genitals, but insist emotionally and mentally that they believe themselves to be something other than what they were born. A state of mind for which there is no physical evidence: this is referred to as a mental condition. A schizophrenic believing himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte, does not make him Napoleon Bonaparte.

“It’s time to accept there are non-binaries.”

We accept that such people exist, we know there exist schizophrenics who think that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re not denying they exist: we’re denying that they’re actually Napoleon Bonaparte because they’re not.

“It’s time to put the gender binary to bed.”

You mean the thing that 99.4% of people are? If 99.4% of people can’t see the dragon you claim is crouching in the corner crocheting a pussy hat: they’re all wrong for not seeing said dragon. Right, gotcha. Or perhaps…. if you were claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and 99.4% of people, along with physical sciences which prove this to be untrue – would you be calling these people “sinners” or “heretics” ? Again, your ideology, like so many other religions, demands that you ignore reality and apply a suspension of disbelief in order to accept it as being true, on faith.

reality

How to Avoid False Accusations

How to handle False Accusations.

1, Avoid interactions with women in any circumstances which have too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses.

2, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses: extricate yourself from said situation while saying as little as possible and verbally being as polite as possible to excuse your departure.

3, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses and unable to extricate yourself from the situation, visibly remain at as great a distance from the woman or women in question as you can without appearing to be rude and secretly employ the use of a listening device of some kind to record the discourse for use as evidence to your innocence.

4, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses and unable to extricate yourself from the situation, visibly remain at as great a distance from the woman or women in question as you can without appearing to be rude and and if unable to secretly employ the use of a listening device of some kind, pretend to answer a text on your phone while turning on your voice record feature and keeping the phone in handy out of view while stipulating you’re waiting on some kind of important information.

5, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses and unable to extricate yourself from the situation, visibly remain at as great a distance from the woman or women in question as you can without appearing to be rude and unable to secretly employ the use of a listening device of some kind and without a phone or a voice recording feature on your phone: speak glowingly in agreement with anything the female counter part or parts say in order to create a false persona of similarity and shift her or their disposition towards you as being friendly in the hopes that neither she or they will later attack you with a false allegation.

danger_will_robinson_light_tshirt

The single best way to “handle” false allegation: is to avoid having them leveled at you in the first place. The second best method for “handling” a false accusation, is to actively engage in self preservation activities, during interactions, which will minimize the chances of facing false allegation or provide evidence against the allegations if an accusation is in fact made.

As we have seen, any false allegation leveled at you, no matter how false, is likely to ruin your life and your future prospects of employment. Even if you are found innocent, even if it is beyond the shadow of a doubt found to be the case that a false allegation was made with the intent of doing you harm, a simple google search may bring up articles or publications which were written before the eventual truth came out. Your career is likely over and even well into the future, any prospects for work even outside your chosen industry will render you unhirable simply as a result of once having been accused.

Remember always that in the court of public opinions: you are guilty even when proven innocent.

Your best, and only, defense against the havoc and destruction a false accusation can do to your life: is to make every attempt to mitigate the chance of having one made against you.