It’s interesting when you cut through the bull**** you often get to the real beliefs of people....
take for example the cap on child benefit.... the government, fairly sensibly, decided that it was no longer a good idea to subsidize people to have lots of children and so said going forward from a point in time that they would limit child benefit to a maximum of two children (allowing for multiple births the second time around). Now some bright spark in policy spotted that the usual suspects (mainly 3rd wave feminists inculcated with Neo/cultural Marxism) would use the incredibly rare scenario of a woman with two children already who becomes pregnant with a third as the result of a rape and who wants to keep the child as a lever to attack the (in my opinion sensible) policy...
So, they put a clause in allowing for child benefit to be paid for a third child in the event of that child being the result of a rape....
Cue hysterical wailing (from the usual suspects) that woman would be victimised by having to at least show some information to corroborate that a pregnancy was the result of non-consensual sex in the extremely unlikely scenario of being pregnant a third time with a child that was the result of rape.
Basically, there are four options in this scenario
1) Abandon the whole policy
2) Allow child benefit for a 3rd (4th, 5th...etc?) child based on the say so of the mother that she had not consented to the sexual intercourse that has resulted in the conception of the child that she none the less intended to carry to full term
3) Refuse any allowances in any circumstances for more than two children to receive child benefit
4) Stick to the policy of allowing child benefit for a third child in exceptional circumstances (like where it could reasonably be assumed if not proven to the criminal standard that the child was the product of an in consensual union (of course multiple births would also have to be allowed for twins etc)
When you look at the options you realise that the people making noises about the proposed exception and the required proof aren't really about objecting to the exception itself and the required information for it to apply...
Why well if you went for option 2) you can bet a lot of 3rd born (4th. 5th etc) children would suddenly be self-declared the product of an un consensual union by their mothers rendering the whole policy a joke that discriminated against the honest whilst rewarding liars
and if you went for option 3) the usual suspects would be wailing ...but what about (the extremely rare) scenario where a woman has been raped resulting in her third child! So, the usual suspects object to both option 3) and 4) option 2) would make a mockery of the whole policy and so what are you left with? Option 1) which is what the usual suspect are actually arguing for but (like a lot of similar arguments) they can’t be honest about their true intentions because the regular public would not really agree with their actual aims (In my example stopping any policy to restrict child benefit)
Now back to the subject in hand all this talk about diversity and 'positive discrimination' is actually nothing to do with wanting a fair and equitable society. Its actual aims are the destruction of western, liberal, enlightenment society. Because this society, due to its inherent 'white' past, has been deemed 'racist' 'colonial' and most comically 'patriarchal' (from people who either come from or have affinity with countries where women are actually oppressed).
When students and Evergreen college in the US demand white students and teachers leave college for a day they are not pushing for diversity and tolerance... no they are seeking to implement a system whereby white (especially white cis hetro males) can legitimately be discriminated against...
When the student head of Cambridge Universities 'equality group' tweets that 'all white people are racist' he's not being misconstrued as the disgusting rag that is the Guardian gave him a platform to claim no he is engaging in the all too common, Neo/cultural Marxist inspired belief that not only is he not racist towards white people but that he is incapable of being racist towards them as racism is actually some strange combination of prejudice and power that only whites possess!
Of course this nonsense is aided, abetted and sometime lead by ‘whites’ often those that have themselves lead incredibly privileged lives and seem to suffering from some sort of guilt complex about it where they seek to take all ‘whites’ down with them and their self-loathing
take for example the cap on child benefit.... the government, fairly sensibly, decided that it was no longer a good idea to subsidize people to have lots of children and so said going forward from a point in time that they would limit child benefit to a maximum of two children (allowing for multiple births the second time around). Now some bright spark in policy spotted that the usual suspects (mainly 3rd wave feminists inculcated with Neo/cultural Marxism) would use the incredibly rare scenario of a woman with two children already who becomes pregnant with a third as the result of a rape and who wants to keep the child as a lever to attack the (in my opinion sensible) policy...
So, they put a clause in allowing for child benefit to be paid for a third child in the event of that child being the result of a rape....
Cue hysterical wailing (from the usual suspects) that woman would be victimised by having to at least show some information to corroborate that a pregnancy was the result of non-consensual sex in the extremely unlikely scenario of being pregnant a third time with a child that was the result of rape.
Basically, there are four options in this scenario
1) Abandon the whole policy
2) Allow child benefit for a 3rd (4th, 5th...etc?) child based on the say so of the mother that she had not consented to the sexual intercourse that has resulted in the conception of the child that she none the less intended to carry to full term
3) Refuse any allowances in any circumstances for more than two children to receive child benefit
4) Stick to the policy of allowing child benefit for a third child in exceptional circumstances (like where it could reasonably be assumed if not proven to the criminal standard that the child was the product of an in consensual union (of course multiple births would also have to be allowed for twins etc)
When you look at the options you realise that the people making noises about the proposed exception and the required proof aren't really about objecting to the exception itself and the required information for it to apply...
Why well if you went for option 2) you can bet a lot of 3rd born (4th. 5th etc) children would suddenly be self-declared the product of an un consensual union by their mothers rendering the whole policy a joke that discriminated against the honest whilst rewarding liars
and if you went for option 3) the usual suspects would be wailing ...but what about (the extremely rare) scenario where a woman has been raped resulting in her third child! So, the usual suspects object to both option 3) and 4) option 2) would make a mockery of the whole policy and so what are you left with? Option 1) which is what the usual suspect are actually arguing for but (like a lot of similar arguments) they can’t be honest about their true intentions because the regular public would not really agree with their actual aims (In my example stopping any policy to restrict child benefit)
Now back to the subject in hand all this talk about diversity and 'positive discrimination' is actually nothing to do with wanting a fair and equitable society. Its actual aims are the destruction of western, liberal, enlightenment society. Because this society, due to its inherent 'white' past, has been deemed 'racist' 'colonial' and most comically 'patriarchal' (from people who either come from or have affinity with countries where women are actually oppressed).
When students and Evergreen college in the US demand white students and teachers leave college for a day they are not pushing for diversity and tolerance... no they are seeking to implement a system whereby white (especially white cis hetro males) can legitimately be discriminated against...
When the student head of Cambridge Universities 'equality group' tweets that 'all white people are racist' he's not being misconstrued as the disgusting rag that is the Guardian gave him a platform to claim no he is engaging in the all too common, Neo/cultural Marxist inspired belief that not only is he not racist towards white people but that he is incapable of being racist towards them as racism is actually some strange combination of prejudice and power that only whites possess!
Of course this nonsense is aided, abetted and sometime lead by ‘whites’ often those that have themselves lead incredibly privileged lives and seem to suffering from some sort of guilt complex about it where they seek to take all ‘whites’ down with them and their self-loathing
Last edited:
