The alt-economy?

DAD, at a site called NOWP, wrote this morning:

Another company to boycott. Steak and sausages will soon have to make way for tofu and soy. Lidl supermarket chain wants to focus more on vegan instead of animal products in the future.

https://freewestmedia.com/2023/02/04/lidl-to-significantly-reduce-meat-choices/

I replied: 

That's significant as we're running out of stores to patronise but it also highlights the true horror of our situation ... namely that even if we do boycott the bstds, there are three things militating against "go Woke go broke":

a.  We are only 10% to 25%, which does not send stores broke ... and they know that.

b.  There is the convenience factor.  Don't discount that if a certain store is part of your regular visiting pattern, it's hellish difficult to now cease that, esp. as the alternatives are, frankly, awkward.

c.  The vast majority of normies are blissfully unaware, even if bugs are listed in the ingredients.

Phantom Digger added:

I heard during the week that Tesco is closing the deli counters in all their stores. 2,000 layoffs. Everything now pre-packaged. 

If the layoffs include butchers then some of them should think about starting up their own shops or getting together with others to bring back the local butchers shops as in the old days before the supermarkets put them all out of business. 

Lidl's meat is already limited. Only good for poultry. They will 'woke' their profits away over here. Tofu will emasculate the male pop, which is probably the intended consequence - end up with man-tits like Gates of Hell.

I suppose we have to look about and listen to the grapevine for local outlets ... I see a white van economy forming, a rogue economy until they send the troops in to stop it.

The legacy dam wall is cracking , long live social media

It's obvious, as Mandy Rice Davies might observe, that as a blogger and tweeter, I'd agree with the sentiments here:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-grim-future-of-establishment-journalism/

In one sense, the problem is an old one. To work in a newsroom is to be exposed to intense and continuous dishonesty. 

The dissimulation comes in various forms: spin, outright lying, misleading but true facts, half-truths, quarter-truths, lack of context, sly exaggeration, selective amnesia, deceptive jargon, false statistics, sleazy personal attacks. After about a year any journalist with reasonable powers of observation will notice that they are working in a forest of lies.

There is no legal obligation for people talking to the media to tell the truth, but decent journalists attempt to counter the mendacity. Although they are always outgunned, they put up a fight in an attempt to present as much truth as possible.

That fight has all but disappeared.

Yes indeed.  The tricks of the MSM trade are then posted and discussed in the article ... I'm going to f fwd past that and turn the spotlight onto us, the soc-media writers, whether on blog or tweet or gab. Sooner or later, by a process of attrition, being caught out by scams, by trolls, by all of that ... we learn the ropes ... or should.  If not, then there's scarcely any point.

Meanwhile, the previously Woke (or just MSM fed normies) wake up one by one ... it almost never goes the other way and that's where longtimers in this blogging game have an issue. 

What of those newcomers who have genuinely broken the spell, people such as Naomi Wolf, former feminazi ... or those who claim they have, such as Tulsi Gabbard?  What should our attitude be towards new allies?

Caution, I'd say, with a welcoming smile, knowing there is many a trap laid.  

And it's a minefield, with the most ridiculous stances by the bad side. In that first Trump debate v Clinton, the Demrat adjudicator was trying on this "factchecker" bollox, earpiece in ear ... the rules stated that neither candidate could go outside to consult during the break and yet Clinton had "special dispensation" to do just that and footage showed her consulting ... etc. etc.

Now watch the flat denial that that happened. Watch carefully anyone at all, e.g. Snopes or Politico or Real Clear Politics and the claim to be "impartial", with no a priori political convictions whatever.  It's an out and out lie.

I occasionally quote Sir Norman Anderson, in Lawyer Among Theologians, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1973, p15, about the quality of the criticism of so-called intellectuals:

"At times [I am] astonished by the way in which they handle their evidence, by the presuppositions and a priori convictions with which some of them clearly (and even, on occasion, on their own admission) approach the documents concerned, and by the positively staggering assurance with which they make categorical pronouncements on points which are, on any showing, open to question, and on which equally competent colleagues take a diametrically opposite view."

As I wrote in a post elsewhere this morning ... follow the money ...  this was Deep Throat's dictum to Woodward in All the President's Men but a bit of thought and we'd add "immunity from payout" plus "immunity from prosecution" as powerful motivators to lie, to act shoddily.

A far safer way is to accept that everyone is biased, at least a little, we dig and find what we said, then what they said, then consult the folders of snippets we picked up over the years and form an initial opinion.  Meanwhile, organisations with heavy motivation due to all the factors listed are quite onesided, whilst stubbornly claiming to be unbiased.

How will normies ever catch up with the liars both in MSM and plants in soc-med?  Sadly, only when events catch up with them.  So far, mainly Pfizer has been under the hammer, now and then Moderna, today at the Daily Sceptic it was AstraZeneca.  It's just a question of time until Hancock, for one, is nailed.

The War On Personal Freedom Continues...

Innovative neighbourhoods, where everyone living in them has access to most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, could be trialled...

In London?  

...in Norfolk.

The least populated and mostly rural county? What gives? Why choose this? 

Such neighbourhoods have gained popularity in the United States, Australia and Scandinavia, with the concept that people can walk to and back from services within 20 minutes - 10 minutes there and 10 minutes back.

Which might be ok in dense conurbations, and assuming you can walk, but to trial this in Norfolk makes no sense at all. Bloody Greens and Lib-Dems... 

Lana Hempsall, Conservative county councillor for Acle...

*sighs* 

...proposed a motion about the possible creation of the neighbourhoods at a recent county council meeting, which was supported by 48 councillors, with none voting against.

While cars would not be banned (Ed: at first...), the neighbourhoods would be designed so walking, cycling or using public transport might be a more direct way to reach services.

Whether you like it or not. 

Make no mistake, they want to remove personal freedoms. And the best way to do this is to remove the invention that's probably given people the most personal freedom. 

To readers of and contributors to OoL

The karens have been at it again. To these wrongdoers, I can only say: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do ..."

One at OoL:

Your post titled "Of both NHS issues plus online reporting" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and deleted the post, previously at:

http://orphansofliberty.blogspot.com/2023/01/of-both-nhs-issues-plus-online-reporting.html

And one at N.O.:

http://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/2023/01/sunday-4.html

Along with this bollox:

We encourage you to review the full content of your blog posts to make sure they are in line with our standards as additional violations could result in termination of your blog.

As we do nothing but comply, at either site, with the community guideline demand that we tell only the truth and as we do not mislead in any way, to a fault, obviously any demand of us to do the opposite, i.e. not to tell the truth and to throw in our lot with Wokery is not worthy of response.

In practical terms, anyone using these services might need to look at available alternatives and have something in place. Also, anyone who saw things at our blogs worthy of keeping, you'd best get archiving now.

To readers and patrons, apologies for these sad people but we knew this might happen.

As Cults Go, It's Rather Innocuous....

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett on the latest thing that makes you one of the 'smug middle classes':

The big book purge began when I decided to go through the shelves and discard any book I was vaguely embarrassed to have in the house, for reasons of quality, subject matter, politics or author (look at your shelves and you probably have your own equivalents). Since then, I’ve been jettisoning them every few months with no regrets. Only twice have I needed to look something up in a book I’ve thrown away, and rebought a cheap secondhand copy.

Budgeting in her household must be fun... 

The poster shows a cat and bears the slogan: “THAT’S WHAT I DO, I READ BOOKS, I DRINK TEA AND I KNOW THINGS.” Apologies if you own this poster, but to me it encapsulates everything that is smug and middle class about the cult of book ownership. I don’t mean reading – provided you’re lucky enough to still have a local library, that is a pastime that is accessible to almost everyone. No, I specifically mean having a lot of books and boasting about it, treating having a lot of books as a stand-in for your personality, or believing that simply owning a lot of books makes one “know things”.

God, the 'Guardian' really is an awful rag, isn't it? 

Victim

The whole question of bona fide “victim” came up again in a post by Romy Cerratti:

On Friday 17th December Jeremy Clarkson provided such fuel with his Sun column in which he said he ‘hated’ Meghan Markle and that he dreamt about her parading ‘naked through the streets of every town in Britain.’ 

Personally, I could not imagine anything more revolting than “Marky” parading in the buff, except maybe clackers Pelosi or Clarkson himself but there you go … tastes differ.  Let’s press on:

The outrage burns on, provoking endless discussions about misogyny and calls for Clarkson to be cancelled from working on all media platforms. In contrast another media story about another woman, whose victimhood is not a matter of debate, made the news without a scintilla of the impact of Clarkson’s ‘naked Meghan dream”. 

On 9th January the inquest into the death of Beth Matthews, a young woman who died in a secure psychiatric hospital last March made it into the news. In the following days the shocking failings in her care were exposed and the jury ruled last week that she had died from ‘suicide contributed to by neglect.’ 

As a patient with suicidal ideation, all Beth’s post should have been opened and checked before it reached her hands. However she not only managed to order poison online but open the parcel containing it and swallow enough to end her life. 

It was also revealed that two other young women, Deseree Fitzpatrick and Lauren Bridges, had also died due to medical negligence in the same hospital ward that year. The news media ripple created by the death of these three women was swamped by the tsunami provoked by Jeremy Clarkson insulting one highly privileged woman. 

Meghan Markle is the ultimate woke ‘victim’, the poster model for female oppression woke feminists can’t get enough of.

Right. And yet something led her to become the arch-narcissist she is (Marky), some childhood trauma, maybe just some twist in the oestrogen, who knows? How about today’s invisible class the white male?  How about the white woman suffering in silence? 

In Britain, we admire the stoic victim who suffers in silence, shuts the gob and lets no one know what traumas they’re going through.  Conversely, what of a poor sod who does admit a trauma due to, say, NHS negligence? Is it noble and admirable to fail to mention it?

What of this invisible man in the States?

https://www.wnd.com/2023/01/not-guilty-jury-clears-catholic-father-targeted-biden-doj/

I mean, who is worthy of that coveted victimhood status and who is not?  By which criteria?  Conversely, can celebs not be victims in any shape or form?  By virtue of celebrity?

What of brusque curmudgeons making narky remarks about Marky? What of our entire caustic set? Just where do we draw the line as to who gets our sympathy and who does not?

Food for thought?

How Does It Do This, Exactly..?

 Whut..?

The new research contradicts claims made by former home secretary Priti Patel, who launched the scheme to deter people crossing the Channel in small boats, saying they were “not genuine asylum seekers” and were “elbowing out the women and children, who are at risk and fleeing persecution”.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. So what if they are married? Does no-one think that might be a ploy to prevent removal? 

Beth Gardiner-Smith, spokesperson for Together With Refugees and chief executive of Safe Passage, said: “This scheme is not just morally wrong; it’s expensive and unworkable. If our government were serious about tackling smuggling and saving lives at sea, they would scrap this plan and urgently expand safe routes for refugees.”

Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, said: “This brutal policy will not end small boat crossings, it won’t stop people smugglers and it won’t keep refugees safe. There is a kinder and more effective option: give safe passage to refugees in Calais.”

There you go, folks! Worried about being burgled? Just leave your front door open! 

The issue should never have arisen

As someone implacably anti-Woke and vehemently against the banning of anti-Woke viewpoints, it's a temptation to write that the Djoker (my fave male tennis player) has been vindicated but really ... had the other young chap won ... weeellllll, so what? 

Both had a huge amount riding on it, the young chap has a longer future to come back.

Well done, Djoker, but politics should never have seen him banned in the first place. As with all Djokovic fans, it's nicer to be able to write it from a position of magnanimity rather than of sour grapes ... but it does not alter that core issue either way.

When "leaders" on "our" side stubbornly stick to Globo-Woke positions

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/reform-chiefs-attack-on-bridgen-is-a-cowardly-own-goal/

I wrote:

Tice would not even know, would not be even remotely aware of his own goal. I for one shall never vote for that M25 idiot or for his party.  So far, UKIP or nothing for me.  Last time was nothing.

Reader Penseivat wrote:

At one point, was considering a vote for Reform, if they placed a candidate in my constituency, but the more I read about Mr Tice, the less I'm likely to follow his party. Invited to an ex Services Christmas dinner in Hartlepool, where he is hoping to be elected as their MP at the next GE, instead of mingling with veterans of the Korean war, the Indonesian Confrontation, Aden, Northern Ireland and, more recently, Afghanistan and Iraq, he apparently stayed close to his host, a member of the Reform Party. When invited to speak, he made a political speech, rather than one relating to the service those present made to their country. After winning a bottle of wine in the raffle, this multi millionaire hung on to his prize, which cost less than £7, instead of returning it for someone else to win. I doubt that he made few friends that evening, and his chances of being elected seem very remote. So, it looks like the Monster Raving Loony Party for me. But aren't they already in power?

Yes, everything I've seen of Tice has been iffy, he shows all the signs of being a chancer and look how he promtes Reform - the Tory alternative, himself as alt-PM.  But cynically so ... he wants to keep in with the wets as well, the anti-kipper, "respectable" seller-outers.

As for Nigel, his People's Army bollox was a worry ... then he sold out to the Tories.  That will not be forgotten.

On the other side of the pond, The Donald is haemorrhaging core support over his pro-pfizer stance, same as Tice, when our stance, based on all the things coming out now, is diametrically opposite. Various middling pundits have said they'll not vote Trump as long as he stubbornly pushes deathjabs.

Twenty Three Minutes of Life

 

Pure, and unadulterated Mismanagement of the Highest Order