Tony Bennett

Police say no to white men | British services in Afghanistan | Policing | The Sun |HomePage|News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frith

This is now a phenomenon across a broad spectrum of "democracies" of western origin. Men are being discriminated against unfairly and white men are especially vulnerable to this trend. Apart from the slap in the face it gives to all hopeful males seeking employment and educational and career opportunities within the establishment, it also opens a wide path, by means of these deliberate placements, to the political ideology that fuels "affirmative action", or as it has increasingly become known, "reversed discrimination".

Men are increasingly being downplayed, their gender attacked with impunity as nasty, brutish and fascist. In many areas of the workforce and in business men are becoming conspicuous by their absence. Forced out on their own, without special interest groups to defend their rights and often denied financial aid packages and incentives, as well as places in educational facilities, men are having to go it alone in entrepreneurial enterprises as a last resort to impoverishment, or the alternative of lesser positions with little hope of promotion because these are invariably offered to affirmative action candidates.

The negative kickback from this trend is a host of male-negative films, books and TV programmes that constantly refer unfavourably to male endeavour, whether historical or modern or contemporary. Men are beginning to suffer the consequences. They are being stripped financially by divorce settlements that favour the wife so such an extent some opportunistic women are looking at divorce as a means of launching themselves into business, or taking up new careers, secure in the lifelong income from the man who is rendered incapable of making a new life as he is burdened forever with the payments to his ex-spouse. The psychological ramifications should be taken into consideration as well as the financial and social.

This doesn't mean things should go back to the way they were as this is why they changed in the first place. But what is happening now is simply a reversal of chauvinism and preferment and much of this is fuelled by the new left.

I have always stood up for fairness and equality where payment for work and legal representation are concerned. It is all I ever wanted for women or anyone else who was discriminated against on any grounds other than qualification for the job, or right to justice in terms of criminal acts and proceedings. What is happening now is the tip of the iceberg of social change and should be debated openly and given attention.

The fact that some men have no manners and are bullies and will give me a good kicking wherever I happen to go, is no reason for me to stop supporting those who are not and who are being slowly extinguished from the system by the left, using political correctness and by brainwashing the masses by means of the media. I was brought up by a white man. An Englishman. He taught me a lot about how men think and respond. I have paid him back for these insights by always supporting the lads if ever they are forced to stand down and take second place to some preferred subject of the current fan club's fancy. The current fan club's fancy is to drub the white male for as long as it takes to extinguish his soul. I'm afraid I cannot allow this to happen while I draw breath. It is unjust and disgraceful and it is further appalling that white women and white male acolytes of the new left will collaborate to destroy the people who built the west. Yes, women helped and slaves worked, but this is common to all civilizations. Justice does not mean a reversal of the order of merit. It should mean fairness of the order of merit.

I shall die before I stay silent about my own men and counterparts subjected to the kind of injustice women were once victim to. If social justice is to prevail then destroy all special interest groups and legislation and rewrite the laws so that all who have merit can participate. If this is not what the powers that be find to be implicit in the concept of "justice", then men will be left only one choice and that will be to fight for their rights and win.

Good luck lads. Don't let them cause you to make any misakes, ruin yourselves with drink or drugs or sink into depression. Keep fighting. That is what women did and what peasants and workers did. They won. But only because they didn't give up. Form groups, support one another and resist the temptation to attack what seems to be the enemy. That one is a paper tiger. The real enemy is in Parliament. It passes the laws and metes out the punishments. That tiger is real. Bag that one.

Mikeuk

Equality=tyranny

In a free society an employer should have the freedom to employ whomsoever he chooses and to pay them what he pleases.

If they don't like it, they are free to go elsewhere.

Frith

Hang on there, Mike, it isn't equality that equals tyranny, it's favouritism and nepotism.

It should be the employer's right to hire whom he or she wishes. And it is always better to mention in the advertisement whom the employer would prefer to apply so candidates don't waste their time, or get their hopes up. But it should be the prospective employee's right, on the open market, to apply for the job on the basis of qualifications, experience and expertise.

People are not equal, either by birth or by capability. This much is obvious. The problem comes in when people who can do are shunted out in favour of people who have the politically correct credentials. Private employers should be free to hire whomever they like. But in the public sector or anywhere public finds pay part or all of salaries, then you can hardly expect women, or anyone else, to pay tax but be deprived of job opportunities.

It's not an easy problem to solve because "equality" is used out of context and the law is often not only shaped round political correctness but is employed against plaintiffs in court cases.

The situation is too far gone to take back, so it must be modified to be more reasonable and fair to everyone and not be there to bolster the armies of whatever ideology is in power. The original intention was to exact fairness. Unfortunately, the carriage has come off the rails.

Which causes me to think of the grand folly of introducing Sharia into an already overburdened judicial system and creating further havoc and unpleasantness. There should be less legislation, not more. The legislation that exists should be designed so as to create the greatest social justice for the greatest number (in a democracy, obviously, and Shariah does not emanate from any such political ideology), not the greatest confusion and waste of funds for the taxpayer, who ends up paying for something that is designed ultimately to put white men out of work.

eublues

The over-diligent application of 'equality' certainly can lead to tyrrany. For one thing, it is likely to trample on things like freedom.

Frith

Not if it is applied in a Libertarian context of equality before the law that goes together with liberty and freedom of association. These are grand principles that have governed Libertarian views for a few centuries. And they are high ideals that can be incorporated into ideology, not necessary followed to the letter as though they were items in a behavioural rule book. One can't force them to fit some system as they are principles of thought and action and they tend to belong under the heading of ethics.

I think the crude kind of equality that you are rightly concerned about goes together with new age Marxist conceptions of the concept and tend to tyranny, yes, and this is because new age Marxism is basically left leaning fascist. High ideals and adaptation to environments do not seem to enter the contemporary Marxian model. Maybe the basic utilitarianism and univeralism of what we now know as Marxism is to blame. One thing is for certain and that is that Labour, new age liberal democratic extremism and its gaggle of clone ideolgies have parted company with Libertarianism and tradition and are headed out into no man's land.

Mikeuk

Yes, but you cannot impose equality without the exercise of state tyranny.

Arbitrary treatment of existing employees can cause severe hardship and in such cases it may be that intervention can be justified.

But this does not apply where no contract exists. I can see no justification whatsoever for regulating the right of employers to choose any candidate they want for any reason.

Frith

You shouldn't "impose" anything if you are the state organ. It is supposed to represent the will of the people in a democracy. (I am merely presuming this means anything. It doesn't mean much any more, but if one examines what people today think they want and what they are getting out of the state a lot of them are getting what they want. So, in one way, populist politics is proving its point.)

If I were up against you, for example, in a race for the hot seat and you said that you were against certain people being employed on the equality principle as we know it and I said that this should be addressed in terms of duty to those who pay for the system they democratically elect and that this seems to hold room for private employers to hire and fire whomever they please, but that the people who are most vulnerable must have their needs and concerns about employment law addressed, who do you think would win the election?

Mikeuk

The one who offered the biggest handouts!

Frith

The peasants are revolting, sire, it's true.