Wimminz + wikileaks + terr’rism

I want you to bear with me a while…

In a recent article in a tech rag about wikileaks / Assange, a reader had this to say;

Well, I’d slow down a minute, whilst yes it’s popular to hate Assange, I think a more pertinent question is whether we should trust the existing media?

Let’s be honest, Assange’s organisation did at least publicise leaked material that the press could only have dreamed of, and our press in the UK are horrendously agenda driven- you only have to look at how bad things get at election time where the Murdoch press basically slander whoever they decide is less beneficial to their business, The Guardian goes for whoever is left leaning and so forth.

So I agree, Assange is a jackass, but I think it’d be foolish to say “Well, Assange is a jackass, so the media must be right”. Frankly, I think the media are at least as bad as Assange, and so in a case like this it’s worth considering that the Guardian may well in fact have made up those quotes.

Personally I’ll leave this one to the courts, but I wouldn’t put my faith in the press more than I’d put my faith in Assange that’s for sure, they’re both as bad as each other. One wants to expand his ego by exposing secret information, and the other wants to influence the UK’s political agenda and make money doing it without all that hassle of, you know, getting elected.

Well, now that you have read that, you might turn around and ask me MY opinion of Assange.

My opinion is, (like the poster who stated the above), that I have never personally met Julian Assange, and so (unlike the poster above) it would be entirely wrong of me to form an opinion one way or another about him.

So, where does the poster above get the idea that Assange is a “jackass“?

Since he has never met Assange, the only possible place he can have gained this impression is from reading the Main Stream Media, however, the poster also says that the MSM is itself totally unreliable and full of shit.

You see the problem here, if the MSM is totally unreliable and full of shit, then you cannot trust anything they say, in fact, being strictly logical, you MUST treat EVERYTHING they say as SUSPECT AT THE VERY LEAST, and unlikely to be closely related to the factual truth.

And if you do that, then you cannot assume that Julian Assange is an asshole, au contraire, since everyone is going to such lengths to portray him as an asshole, assuming he is one is probably the most unsafe option.

=====================================================================

What applies to Julian Assange and Wikileaks also of course applies to everything else in the MSM, whether it is coverage of a single story about an individual Man, or coverage of Family Court, or coverage of Men’s rights.

In yesterday’s article, Pink Handcuffs, about paedo-mummy and her paedo-daughter in a paedo-rape triangle with a young boy, the sub-heading in the Daily Mail said;

“Husband filed for divorce after wife was charged with affair”

Now, how you can turn “repeatedly raped a child“, which is what this particular wimminz actually did, into an “charged with affair” (which in any event could only happen under Sharia law, in which case BOTH adulterers would be whipped) is the real lesson of the day.

The simple answer is you cannot, not by any measure of simple stupidity, ignorance, negligence, incompetence or anything else.

You can only do this with sustained and persistent malice, and a deliberate intent to spread, disinformation, and foster propaganda.

I know in my own case where False Rape Accusations were made by my skank ho ex as integral part of a Family Court battle, that in over two years of regular dealings with Police, with Family Lawyers, with Child Services and with several Judges, you simply cannot explain away consistent behaviour over such a period as anything other than deliberate malice and prejudice.

It simply isn’t possible to be that incompetent, because while it is very true that one should never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence, when the errors are ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, made on one side, rather like a shopkeeper who always gives the wrong change, and it always just happens to be short change, then the only possible conclusion is deliberate and malicious behaviour.

People do not fuck over other people who they see as an equal, it goes against everything in human nature, first you have to dehumanise them, so it becomes easy to dismiss the plight of the “terrist raghead” and open up with the .50, and it becomes easy to dismiss the plight of the “deadbeat dad” or “evil rapist male” and open up with the injunctions, custody, maintenance and prison sentence.

If “Everything you have been told is a lie” is true, if “Everything you know is a lie” is true, then, logically, since we are nothing but Nurture + Nature, the sum of our genes and experience, it must also be true that “Everything you are is a lie”

This is simple inescapable logic, and if everything you are is a lie, then strap these explosives to your chest, and Allah will greet you with 99 virgins… and we all know what YOUR eulogy will read like….. terr-rist raghead suicide bomber psycho micropenis etc

While it is all very well to bring democracy and coca-cola for cheap oil and yadda yadda yadda, I mean, who could possibly be against DEMOCRACY???

Well, we all live in a fucking democracy, in which a paedo-mum rapist is portrayed in subheadings as having her evil nasty male husband having the nerve to divorce her skank ho ass, because she has an AFFAIR.

…and I REALLY do not even BEGIN to know how to defend that to anyone, much less a crazed muslim with an AK who wants to tear it all down.

or a terrorist like Raul Moat, who I also, like Julian Assange, have never met personally, so who knows the truth there?

I KNOW I DON’T

As I have said elsewhere, all wimminz lie, all the time, we know MSM lie all the time, and niggerz lie all the time, so the only people we can trust are real women, and real Men, and there are precious few of them around.

Never mind who is John Galt, who is Julian Assange, who was Raul Moat, who was Emily Pankhurst, who is Harriet Harman and Hitlary Clinton?

We will never know, until and unless we meet them, but we can certainly form a working opinion, based upon how they are marketed and sold to us.

Since you (society) lie all the time, if you tell me they are good, then they are certainly evil, if you tell me they are evil, then they may be evil, or they may just be enemies of evil.

I only know one thing for sure, you (society, MSM, wimminz, police, courts, lawyers, politicians) have been crying wolf for so long, it is safer and saner for me to treat you all as evil scum, and reserve judgement only on those whom I have met, and whose deeds I have observed first hand.

This is what it means to be a Man in 2011 AD.

Trust no-one, we are all lone terrorists, seeking truth and justice in a world inimical to both, in a world where truth and justice and responsibility and culpability are terror weapons.