Teachers are on the radio going on about a wonderful new idea: courses teaching children how to deal with bullies and mobbing. They are enthusiastically waxing lyrical about this and it all sounds very fine and valuable and furry, and you’d never dream that what they are really talking about is making the child responsible for its own safety at school whilst eagerly shirking that responsibility themselves. They carry on taking the paycheque though.
Today, Amnesty International heroes are being provided air time by their accomplices in the international mainstream media to concern us with the rights of mad people interned at Guantanamo Bay. How come people making cash and careers out of being so full of the rights of others always come over as being so full of themselves?
Frit, like any other civilised person, abhors the idea of brutality and torture. Unfortunately, Frit is also very upset when mad people commit terrorist atrocities. Those who blow to pieces innocent strangers on their way to work or burn them at their office desks have, in Frit’s opinion, opted out of the human race and therefore out of their human rights. Their suffering is of no concern. So when a policeman employed to protect society (and paid a large sum of money by society for so doing) sits across the desk from Mohamed the mad terrorist, saying “Right, Sir, we know you’ve put a bomb on the school bus, which school bus is it?”, and Mohamed the mad terrorist replies “I have a right to silence”, Frit would deem the policeman guilty of letting society down when he replies “So you have, Sir, may I make you a cup of tea and introduce you to a hero from Amnesty International?”
In such a situation, Frit would tend to think the policeman is accepting the large sum of money without accepting any of the responsibility. Frit would see it as the policeman’s simple duty to repeat the question with more determination and state-of-the-art insistence. Principles are strategies for achieving desirable ends; they are not convenient excuses to dodge behind when unpleasant responsibility calls.
The European Union, that well intended institution long since highjacked by assorted communists, is in a state about discrimination at the moment. Many words are being spoken about this subject (and sold). It seems that, in some European countries, it is still possible for a free man or woman to choose not to associate with homosexuals without being sued, whereas he or she is not free to choose not to associate with black people without being sued. This is deemed unfair and discriminatory. Unfair to the homosexual, of course, as opposed to unfair to the free man or woman, and the assorted European communist EU botherers are in a dither about it. Having created a society governed by stupid furriness, they find they have some blurred lines. They are unsure where to stop, and the following questions arise:
a. Does Frit’s dear hope of never being subjected to a rogering at the hands of a samesexer under any circumstances mean he might be accused of discriminating against that group and carted off to jail?
b. Does the fact that Mrs Frit is a white lady automatically mean he discriminates against black ladies?
c. Does the fact that he hates cats substantially more than he hates dogs mean he is unfair to dogs?
d. Does his preference for geraniums at the expense of daffodils mean he must at some point be taken before the All Ultimate Big Chief EU Moneyspinning Court of Antidiscrimination and sentenced to slow suffocation by fur?
Confusion about whether back of beyond and unimportant Burma is “Myanmar” or “Burma”, or both, stems from the fact that those who run the international media have given up referring to it as “Myanmar” having found out that the “ruling military junta” of that country, which they dislike because it is made up of horrible soldiers in uniforms (shudder), is responsible for having changed the name. In its deliberations (agonisings) over this matter, the BBC, ever a fair and impartial organisation, makes the mistake of asking the question: “So does the choice of Burma or Myanmar indicate a particular political position?”
Mark Farmener, of Burma Campaign UK, presumably an individual possessed of extremely furry credentials, replies: "Often you can tell where someone's sympathies lie if they use Burma or Myanmar.”
Does this then mean that the BBC has at last been caught having “sympathies”? No, no! Of course not! “It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma”, explains the BBC News website. “This is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar.”
Ah, so they do it for the sake of the audience. How kind. It’s not a political thing at all. So it’s illogical of us to expect they soon ought to stop referring to Persia, an important country right at the centre of world events, as Iran, the name given to it by the unelected, insane, misogynistic Jew-baiting junta that seized power there.
Are we all truly sick of hearing the two stupid words “Dalai” and “Lama”? We know the reincarnate that goes by this title graciously postponed his own nirvana and opted for rebirth in order to serve humanity, but he really needn’t have bothered, we could have gotten along.
Those who like to indulge themselves by giving a few coppers to a poor person are this week giving those coppers to furry Burmese cyclone victims at the expense of Chinese earthquake victims, as these are deemed unfurry for the way they treat those nice innocent Tibetans who are absolute peace loving angel monks to a man and have such a wonderful culture and would never do anybody any harm. Growing up is a long process for some.
Teachers, by definition, ought to be the very last people permitted to teach anybody anything.
Communism was once a sincere ideology that failed because it was mistaken, idiotic and brutal. Today it is just the idle buggar’s strategy for stealing from the industrious.
A golden reporting rule taught at the schools of mainstream media journalism states that when a left-oriented politician increases taxes he does so for the public good, whereas when a right-oriented politician lowers taxes he does so for the public vote.
The State of Israel’s 60th anniversary appears to be providing the mainstream media with a good opportunity to bash the Jews. A typical underhanded attack on Israel brought to the attention of Frit appeared in the British “Independent” newspaper (independent of what?). This article begins with “How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago end up throwing filth at cowering Palestinians?”, a typically vicious, emotionally charged negative blood-soaked statement dressed up as an interesting innocent question. The article then goes on, of course, in typical fashion, to come up with all the anti-Israel answers required, all rendered fair and palatable when prefaced with the admission that Israel has produced some really good writers and journalists over the years, so it's not all bad. The childishness of it!
As with all matters concerning Israelis and Palestinians, Frit would urge the ruling class to view life in terms of harsh realities rather than in terms of highfaluting concepts, and to consider the following tale of two ladies:
Once upon a time at the end of the Second World War, Gerlinde The German Lady was ethnically cleansed from Luxembourg. At around the same time, Fatma The Palestinian Lady was ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel. Gerlinde The German Lady went on to have two children and a new life, and each of her two children had two of their own. Fatma The Palestinian Lady went on to have 57 children, thus no new life, and each of her 57 children had 57 of their own in full knowledge that very little divided by 57 makes very much less.
As hard to grasp as the mind of the ruling class might find it, this, and only this, is the true reason the Palestinians are now at war with Israel whilst the Germans are not at war with Luxembourg.
Today, Frit heard mention of the name of the voter group into which he would least like to fit: white non-college democrat.
In the eyes of the ruling class, Silvio Berlusconi’s vilest of utterances is “Our children must no longer study history books that include Marxist deviations”. Unthinkable words. Ruling class bounders, on their high horses, insist that government should never be involved in the writing and teaching of history. Goodness me no. These tasks “should be left to writers and teachers”, says writer and teacher David Lane in a book full of Marxist deviations that heroically vilifies the Italian prime minister with the object of making lots of money and lots of nice young friends.
