Protecting the strong against the weak.

Started by richard ford, Jun 15, 2005, 03:05 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

richard ford

Protecting the strong against the weak. Copyright Richard Ford.

Legislation often presents itself as protecting the weak against the strong, but more often it is the other way around. Let me give you an example...

Suppose group X has sufficient power to push forward favourable laws to protect itself from group Y. This can only be done by claiming a special victim status for the protected group- in other words it can only be done by reversing the truth completely. If group Y were really so powerful and aggressive then it would not have been possible for group X to have used the force of law against them- in fact it would have been worked other way around. The more obsessed society becomes with 'equality' the more unequal it becomes. Religions are among the richest and most powerful institutions in the world yet they are now protected from 'hate speech' while you and I are not. Why are you and I judged to be less vulnerable than the mighty religious organizations with there legions of lawyers? The truth is they are protected because they are powerful- not because they are weak.

We have the mighty feminist consensus that fathers are disposable. Any man who loves his children is looked upon as possessive or even a pervert. He will find it hard to work in any government job or large company with government contacts. In short he faces ruin for the simple crime of being a father. How has this come about? Money. The money flowing into family destroying bodies is colossal. Every time a family divorces then the money is divided three ways not two. The family home will be sold and lawyers will get the greater share. The father will be made homeless and the children are made fatherless. In time the children are more likely to commit crimes, take drugs or fail in life. All of these problems involve payments of public money to the privileged liberal elite. It is this powerful group that will rule out of order any attempt to save the family because this would end their power.

The destruction of the family is an ecological disaster as well as a social one. It creates more households and every expense is doubled. Two cookers, two TV's two everything. Twice as much power consumed, twice the land, twice everything. Britain will not get its CO2 emissions under control unless it reduces the total number of households- and it cannot do this unless it saves the family.

Conspiracy Theory

What they have done is made marxism a profitable enterprise ie "We will destroy you from within"  or  "If we told everyone we were going to hang capitalists on sunday they would be tripping over themselves trying to sell us rope on sunday"  

Also the blankets laced with small pox ordeal.  "We come to help"  

Don't worry what goes around comes around.

I had a "Mediator"  in my school claim she was trying to 'help' me once.  She demanded that I go to her office.  I said we could discuss it over the phone,  she then threatened to contact security and possibly look at having me expelled from the school,  I said,  you went from offering your help to ruining my life in two sentences.  How is this helping "me"?  I said.   She is a communist and a liar.  I've seen this in the system continually.  I've seen it used against women hundreds of times as well.  Children's services are experts at this type of manipulation.

Sadly ironic that all these "services" aimed at helping people have to use threats and have mission statements with clearly marxist concepts riddled through them.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." ~ Mark Twain

Bender

Quote
If group Y were really so powerful and aggressive then it would not have been possible for group X to have used the force of law against them-

Thats a fundamentally true statement.  I would also add that in every civilization women start working away from the home only when that society is in its peak and therefor there are then jobs that can accomodate them.  Yet the feminastys then claim that they were held back, or oppressed, when the jobs away from home were much more demanding.
color=red] You have no Constitutional right not to be offended and I'm here to make sure this non-existent Constitutional right is honored.
[/color]



<<<---Ya know ya want one.

Matt99

Quote
The destruction of the family is an ecological disaster as well as a social one. It creates more households and every expense is doubled. Two cookers, two TV's two everything. Twice as much power consumed, twice the land, twice everything. Britain will not get its CO2 emissions under control unless it reduces the total number of households- and it cannot do this unless it saves the family.


i don't agree with this statement, and find it to be a tad simplistic towards the real issues. In brief- there are many more things the UK could be doing in order to reduce its Carbon dioxide emmmisons, the doubling of households is not a major problem for a number of reasons

1) same number of people split over two households= same number of people= same ammount of energy required to cook meals, have baths, flush loos etc. just split over two houses. the only extra energy expendage is caused by electrical items such as the TV, and lights which would prevously have been shared. Heating is also a major factor, but these split families will have smaller houses presumably, which will often be easier to heat, especially when you consider the house pricing increase which means that many singletons are living in flats.

2) the UK population is now no longer rapidly rising, and is instead ageing and will grow smaller as time goes on. This leads to higher numbers of old people, and fewer children, resulting in an overall net decrease in population numbers. This is partially due to "womens liberation". This means less people are requiring energy, which leads to a lower net consumption of resources overall

3) there are so many things Britain could do better, before it starts worrying about carbon emmisions created by "double families" and the problems caused by them. Look at the airlines, look at the cars, look at the industry, look at the power plants, look all around you and you will see waste. Carbon Dioxide levels carry huge environmental impacts but the majority of it arises from our lifestyle of millions of cars, which are increasing all the time, and transport such as plane travel, which again is increasing. We have huge sprawling cities that waste energy in their very design, heating is inefficient, and green areas way too low.

often carbon dioxide creation will be slightly lower in families per person, but it is far from being THE reason behind carbon dioxide levels. In reality, the re-creation of the family will only have a small impact on overall carbon dioxide emmisions, and is far from a major issue.

Go Up