The Blue Pill.

[guohua]

Here you go, one of them admitted what their job is.

BRZEZINSKI: ‘OUR JOB’ IS TO CONTROL ‘EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE THINK’

Yup he said it! 

Controlling "exactly what people think" is the job of the media, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski boldly declared Wednesday morning.
While discussing President Trump's entreaties to the American people to remain skeptical of the press, Bzezinski worried that if the economy turns south, Americans may end up trusting him over the media. 
"And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think," Brzezinski said. "And that, that is our job."
SCARBOROUGH: "Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, 'Yeah you guys are going crazy. He's doing -- what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'"
BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job."
The comment failed to raise any eyebrows from her co-panelists. Instead, her co-host, Joe Scarborough, said that Trump's media antagonism puts him on par with Mussolini and Lenin.
SCARBOROUGH: "It’s the -- it's the ground noise that he is throwing out there also, whether he is questioning, Mark, the legitimacy of federal judges to do what they have done since Marbury v. Madison. It's when he says the media is the, quote --"
BRZEZINSKI: "Enemy."
SCARBOROUGH: "-- 'enemy of the people', where he sounds like Mussolini or Lenin which obviously causes concern that phrase right there makes him sound more like a dictator in training, when he sends Stephen Miller out and says, basically the president has absolute power, he shall not be questioned."
Scarborough also accused Trump's base of having a "blind spot" on the issue of illegal immigration. 
"We have an economy, let’s face it, we have an economy that is built on illegal immigration," Scarborough said. "We have an economy that is built on that. That is why I say why don’t you just legalize it?"

Embed/download this news clip

Source

[BIAD]

Here you go, one of them admitted what their job is.

BRZEZINSKI: ‘OUR JOB’ IS TO CONTROL ‘EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE THINK’

Yup he said it! 

Yeah, another article to show that the Blue Pill should be tossed away!

It's like the Guantanamo Bay issue, people with a certain ideology that wished to harm others
were captured to glean information from them. In the 'Blue Pill' world, extraction of information
via force is seen as cruel and could even make you cry.

Obama puts on the charm and tells the boys and girls that the base will be closed during his
term(s) and yet, it remains open with these misunderstood detainees still being persecuted for
their involvement with an opposing enemy.

But during his time of not closing the detention camp, the narrative became a belief that cutting
off heads in desert terrain, a twelve year-old slowly sawing off the head of a priest in Northern
France because the knife wasn't up to scratch, ruining a perfectly good Boston marathon and
the halting of a Parisian rock concert with the deaths of 129 souls... were nothing compared to
the awful incarceration of these men in orange jump-suits.

We become used to the words of forgiveness, we get used to thinking of flowery, clement thoughts
that only want peace in the meadow. Let's understand that we're all individuals and we all have
rights. Come with us on our crusade to berate the men who deal with serious issues and timidly
shout yah-boo to those who do the things we don't like to talk about.

The media thunder on telling it's readers and viewers that everything is going to be okay and we
shouldn't think in the concept of 'them and us' and all the while, Teachers and Professors quietly
go about their business indoctrinating the young into believing that individuality is the goal to reach
and segregation will make us free.

There's a poorly-written article somewhere that implies that President Trump will soon be filling
Guantanamo back up with prisoners and I'm in no doubt, there'll be protests in favour of being
kind to those put in there.

The real world isn't the meadow where lambs gambol and play and it isn't a place where decency
reigns supreme, you've got to fight for it.

And maybe during that fight, heads will be plucked out of asses and the reality of what the mainstream
media are really up to can be exposed.

[BIAD]

Here's an oldie-but-a-goodie from back in a time when the public's jading of the mainstream
media hadn't fully matured.

It's from February in 2015, just after 2000 people had been slaughtered in Nigeria, before
12 people are killed in the Charlie Hebdo newspaper debacle in France and just before
ceasefire failures in the Ukraine.

The piece is from a Journalist called Sher Watts Spooner and I just love how these guys
stick together! I've seen it close up and with a smidgen of sarcastic admiration, I've come
to think that this level of comradeship is something rarely seen outside of the fighting Forces.
SOURCE:

I know that if you lie in judicial court of law, the consequences of your falsehoods are your
own and you have to bear them alone. But in the court of public opinion, Journalists have
the luxury of having collegues of the same field running to their rescue to shore up the
perception that they are the purveyors of truth and honour.
And God forbid, that particular curtain is ever seen through.
 
The Brian Williams error: Why do journalists lie?

'The latest newsman to own up to a major fib is NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams.
The funny and likeable Williams has been telling the same story for years — that he was shot
down in a helicopter during the early days of the Iraq War in 2003. Except he wasn’t..'

Now come on people, it was only a 'fib'... not an outright lie for goodness sake!
It's not like it was a report or something. Except it was part of a report, but let's not get bogged
down with semantics, it's not like he's relied upon to relate accurate information via auditory
means or anything.

'...Then some soldiers who really had been shot down in a helicopter in the same incident called
him out, saying Williams was nowhere near the incident and arrived by helicopter an hour later...'

Yeah, some soldiers, huh? Some men who're fighting in a real world reckons the 'funny and likeable'
news-reader had lied to the people they are fighting for. Just some soldiers, huh?

'... An article in the military publication Stars and Stripes gave an account of the story and Williams’
explanation: He “misremembered.” “I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said.
“I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”...'
('Misremembered' isn't really a word, but we'll let it slide, huh?!)

Well Mr. Williams -who I doubt is being paid a lesser wage for reporting the truth than the people
he was supposed to be in the helicopter with, you're now telling us in a Forces magazine written by
Journalists -that at times, you cannot help but say things that are incorrect.

You're now telling us that the auto-cue, the tele-prompter and those pieces of paper you shuffle
have nothing to do with relating accurate information to the public...?
Is that what we're to take from this article written by a fellow-Journalist?

'...I’ve never been in an aircraft that’s been shot down; few of us have, and many who were shot
down didn’t survive to talk about it...'

Who's 'we'...? Journalists or Soldiers? Journalists heavily insured by their respective companies
or the men and women who use these machines everyday because its their jobs?
Why are you trying to tape Reporters to fighting men and women?

Oh, I see. It's to use the honourable aspect of troops in the battlefield and paste it onto Mr. Williams'
'misremembering'. That way, the reader will find it easier to forgive when they mistakenly attach a
chosen profession with a military order involving killing or being killed.

'...Still, it’s hard to believe that Williams could have confused being in a helicopter that was hit by
enemy RPG fire and came tumbling out of the sky with being in a helicopter that landed safely...'

Jeez-Louise! You're doubting his virtue too...? If there was only some way you could use pragmatic
words that could explain this interruption of bull-sh*tting the reader.

'...(UPDATE: Apparently now a pilot says Williams' helicopter was hit by machine-gun fire.
That's a far cry from RPG fire. And even if it's only an exaggeration, it still doesn't let Williams off the
hook.)..'

Phew! That was close! Thank heavens for the... 'a pilot'

'...It’s a story he’s apparently told for years, on and off the air — as recently as a New York Rangers
hockey game, where Williams accompanied a retired soldier who had provided ground security for
those same grounded helicopters...'

Wow! I wish I could get a well-paid job that allows me to 'misremember' on and off air.

'...The soldier received a public tribute and a standing ovation, and Williams repeated his own downed
-helicopter story on the nightly news.

So Williams has apologized and, he hopes, moved on. Twitter is not so kind;...'

You mean the reason he lied on the nightly news for years was because he went to a hockey game with
a retired soldier...? That's what we're going with? Is the reason he later apologised (spelled correctly
without US auto-correct, may I add!)... are we saying that he later apologised because he remembered
'misremembering' or that someone called him out on it?

And if they hadn't disputed his story, would he have still said sorry?

Thank you the world of Journalism, I'm glad that worrying eye-opener was put to bed.

[Ninurta]

Really? What Immigrants were Arrested?
I understand that to be an Immigrant you need to have applied and came into a Country with the proper Documents.

Exactly right. To be an "immigrant", you have to go through the immigration system, with all their papers and forms in triplicate. Anything else is defined as an "invader". Immigrants come by invitation, invaders write their own invite whether you like it or not.

This is another example, a sterling, shining example, of the "left" re-defining words that used to have meaning in order to shape the narrative in the direction they want it to go.


Problem is, and this needs to be pointed out far and wide, that going by their new and "improved" definition (which is utterly at odds with the older accepted definition), NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were merely "immigrants". Their feet need to be held to the fire on this - if they want to redefine "immigrant", then they need to be forced to accept it across the board, not just when it suits them.

That is why, at TOS, I never, ever, allowed a leftist redefinition of an already accepted word stand without challenge. It's all or none, you can't have it both ways, not even if you have two faces and talk out of both of them.

Lately, I've noticed a veritable mountain of this new definition of "immigrant" being used on MSM, as if it is a foregone and accepted conclusion that they have gotten to redefine the word.

They don't get to. Not on my watch.

[BIAD]

Lately, I've noticed a veritable mountain of this new definition of "immigrant"
being used on MSM, as if it is a foregone and accepted conclusion that they
have gotten to redefine the word.

They don't get to. Not on my watch.

Agreed, in European news outlets, labels of migrants and refugees are interchangeable
in a biased manner to nudge a narrative forward. People from any land within -or that
are working to enter the European Union can travel to work in any other EU country
without need of a passport.

A refugee is someone who is fleeing war and because of 'feelings' it's accepted that legal
documents wouldn't be at the forefront of their minds.
To back this up, the media will always show a trembling child with the 'let me in' doe-like
eyes.

It's cheap labour and because the millennials of the first-world believe it's okay to deceive
for one's own benefit, it's portrayed as some type of benevolent act to help a country
with an economic problem.

In my view, it's the same as those working in the USA from Mexico. It's nice to be nice
to those that are beneath you and if you don't, then must be some type of racist!
Establishment logic.

[Ninurta]

The post about the "disproportionate" use of tasers against certain classes of people is another shining example of shaping the narrative. It appears that "disproportionate" is these days a rather subjective term, without an objective definition.

Allow me to elaborate.

First, let's use a different class of people, to remove the obvious racial overtones from the foregone conclusion of "disproportionate" use. Us hillbillies can at times be a fairly violent bunch, so how about we step forward as willing victims in the following example. Most hillbillies, by the way, are white. Now suppose I, as a hillbilly, am be-bopping down the street, tire iron in one hand and tossing bricks through random windows when I am spotted doing so by a police officer who takes exception to my activity.

So, in this illustration, the police officer approaches me to detain me and halt my wayward activity. Let's further suppose that I, in my infinite wisdom, threaten the police officer with the tire iron and get tasered for my trouble. I mean, i was just minding my own business, right? So what if that business involves throwing bricks through windows and threatening armed me with just a tire iron? it's a free country, ain't it?

Now, while I am having the cuffs slapped on me for my alleged miscreant behavior, let's further assume that a local yuppie in a tie-died crocheted beanie sipping a latte happens to stumble along, also minding HIS own business, but he inexplicably doesn't get tasered. Well, there are two of us there from different backgrounds, so the "proportionate" thing to do would be to taser him as well, to keep the playing field level. Amirite?

If I am one of 30,000 hillibillies in this hypothetical city, and the yuppie is one of 300,000 yuppies in the same hypothetical burg, then by rights, to keep it "proportional", the cops need to go taser an estimated 9 more random yuppies out minding their own business. It's only fair, and makes the stats even.

This whole "proportionate" argument is based upon the logical fallacy that everyone is exactly alike. EXACTLY alike, not merely "created equal" or "equal under the law", but precisely the same. A bland, Orwellina, Soviet-esque carbon-copy sameness.

Problem is, we are NOT all alike in that way. Some of us threaten cops with tire irons, some of us sip lattes. The crimes are not the same, not even equal. If hillibillies get "disproportionately" tasered, it's probably because we are "disproportionately" rowdier than yuppies.

So some of us get "disproportionately" tasered, usually because we choose "our own business" somewhat unwisely.

Suck it up, buttercup. Either don't throw bricks through windows and assault cops with tire irons, or else live with the consequences of your own actions and stop the fucking bitching.

Capiche?

[BIAD]

...assume that a local yuppie in a tie-died crocheted beanie sipping a latte happens to stumble along...

Capiche indeed!!

[BIAD]

In my view, it's the same as those working in the USA from Mexico. It's nice to be nice
to those that are beneath you and if you don't, then must be some type of racist!
Establishment logic.

When I typed this, I meant it about the video below.
For many who dislike Trump, this kind of narrative is deemed as normal
within their own circles. It's a class-thing.

[guohua]

Again this just goes to show us that Celebrities should just stick to what they know.
Being Special in their own mind!

[Ninurta]

People from any land within -or that
are working to enter the European Union can travel to work in any other EU country
without need of a passport.

That sounds an awful lot like "The United States of Europe".

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away from Europe, across a vast ocean, a young upstart political entity was created. It started out as 13 more or less independent colonies, under the umbrella of a single sovereign. Over time, those colonials found that single sovereign head to be a problem where concerned their independence from one another, and from that European land far, far away, across that vast ocean. So, they threw a war, and invited a few of those European nations who were having their own problems sorting out who was sovereign from whom, pitting one against another (which turned out to be a pretty easy thing to do, given the animosities at hand), and next thing you know, there were 13 independent states.

Now, that independence thing only goes so far when you're pretty tiny and easy to eat - bite sized. So, those 13 independent bite-sized states decided to band together after a fashion, on the theory that there is strength in numbers. They created a Unity amongst themselves, in order to present a unified front to the rest of the world, which still wanted to eat them, but found the unity might be big enough to choke on. Still, those states took care of their own business internally, and only used the unified front when presenting themselves to the rest of the world, and occasionally (when one of them was having a beef with another) the unified government was called upon to mediate the disputes between them. That was about the extent of it.

Over time, however, that unified, centralized governmental entity took more and more power away from the independent states, and consequently took more and more independence from them. It was a slow process, like boiling a frog. After a time, those same states that threw a war to gain and defend their independence found that they had replaced a sovereign far, far away across a vast ocean with more of the same a lot closer to home, and consequently close enough to grab their necks and choke them down. It seemed that they had learned nothing at all from the events of the past that precipitated their creation, because they repeated the same ones over again.

It could be argued that their final condition after that revelation was worse than the initial conditions which started the whole thing in the first place - that they had jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. After about 250 years, those independent states discovered one day that they were no longer independent at all, and that all of the power they formerly held and had intended to keep for themselves had been stolen away by a centralized sovereign close enough to beat them down, and strong enough to do it, too, thanks to the huge amount of power it had stolen from those states while they slept.

At about that same time, a group of independent, sovereign, states in Europe looked across that vast ocean and said to themselves "How 'bout that? Lookit what they did over there by unifying amongst themselves, and look where it got them! We could probably do that, too, and present our OWN unified front to the rest of the world!" But in doing so and deeming that to be a good idea, they neglected to notice how the sovereignty of the former colonial states had been slowly eaten away by the centralized, unified government they had created for a far different purpose than the one it ended up with, created with far less power than it eventually possessed against it's own people.

You can probably see where this is going at this point. That is why I was so thrilled to find that my British brethren had thrown off the yoke of such a tyrannical construct before it was too late. I'm not yet noticing the rest of Europe taking that hint yet, though. In the end, it's very likely they will be boiled like frogs... but at least ya don't have to have a passport to travel between them!

A refugee is someone who is fleeing war and because of 'feelings' it's accepted that legal
documents wouldn't be at the forefront of their minds.
To back this up, the media will always show a trembling child with the 'let me in' doe-like
eyes.

I'm still of the opinion that the "refugees" are nothing of the sort for the most part. There are far too many fighting age men among them. Men who, if they just stayed at home and fought for what was theirs, could have their own countries instead of trying to steal someone else's. I see them as invasion forces with support staff (that would be the few unpapered women and children who managed to hold their own in the throng of grown men running like hell to get away), just the same as I see the "immigrants" flooding our southern border here.

If they won't defend their OWN country, what can any host nation seriously expect from them?

It's cheap labour and because the millennials of the first-world believe it's okay to deceive
for one's own benefit, it's portrayed as some type of benevolent act to help a country
with an economic problem.

Well, that IS a benevolent act, on the face of it. The problem is a lesson I had to learn hard years ago. That is, if you don't take care of yourself first, you're not going to be in any sort of shape to take care of someone else, not even someone else who really needs help. How many bankers in 3 piece suits have you ever seen going up to a homeless guy on the corner and saying "brother can you spare a dime?" Preposterous, because the homeless guy is in no position to help anyone else. He can't even help himself. Take care of yourself first (a 3 piece suit is not required), and THEN you can help the homeless guy.

HOWEVER - if all the people from those 3rd world cesspools end up camping in your back yard and eyeing YOUR house, who is there going to be back in that crap hole to even help out of their economic straights? It's a self-defeating proposition. They will have what was YOURS, and after they recreate the same conditions there that they had back at home, they aren't going to be able to help anyone else, either.

In my view, it's the same as those working in the USA from Mexico. It's nice to be nice
to those that are beneath you and if you don't, then must be some type of racist!
Establishment logic.

To clarify my position on such things, people from Mexico (or anywhere else, for that matter), immigrant, alien, or invasion soldier - however they come - are NOT beneath me. I'm no better than anyone else - but not any inferior to them, either. I'm no better, and no worse. I've done my share of illegal things, just as they have, and I paid the price for that, just as they should. As I mentioned above, hillbillies can be a pretty rowdy bunch.

It takes a special sort of privileged petunia - a particular pink-haired celebrity comes to mind - to view others as beneath one's self. Put in a plainer way, I'm a grown-assed man, and can clean my own damned bathroom. Don't need anyone else to do it for me... unlike, apparently, the aforementioned pink-haired celebrity. Seriously - how privileged is THAT? To make such an outrageous assumption?

Folks like that have some damned nerve pointing at ME and screaming "WHITE PRIVILEGE!" They can kiss my white-privileged ass - as long as they can figure out how to do it without getting beneath me!


.

[BIAD]

...That sounds an awful lot like "The United States of Europe".

Yep, and that is the project.

In France at this moment, they're paying people who don't or can't have legal papers to
return to their own country.

I saw on a French TV channel this morning, one chap 'from the Ministry' paid a guy from
the Congo 2000 Euros ($2,118) to go back home and most cases, they''re happy to do
it. They get their flight ticket, accept the cash from an envelope the Ministry man hands to
them at the airport and off they go.
And some return a month or so later!

One grizzled gent from Tunisia was paid the 2000 Euros and the French Government went
further to purchase spice-grinding machinery for him in the hopes he would remain in his
homeland.

He did and two women regularly check in on him making sure he's paying his taxes and
keeping his head above water. (That's business wise, not swimming across the Med!)
The French Government assured the programme's viewers that it's cheaper this way.

It's a weird ball-game over here, Ninurta, with political musical-chairs being the main concern.
Refugees and migrants are titles used by the media and don't really mean anything.

Charity advertising always-always shows fearful children (usually boys) and yet, it's young
males that are stood in line waiting to be let into the country.
The Mothers, mature young women or little girls...? Never mentioned.

'...If they won't defend their OWN country, what can any host nation seriously expect from them?'

I agree, but it's the nature of these so-called 'wars' that disturbs me. The way MSM presents them
just doesn't make sense to me (a civilian!)

These battles are presented as an oppressive belief-system that's forced onto others via
invasion of towns and cities. But the accepted practice is use military hardware to free the 'victims'
supposedly trapped in these places.

That might sound sensible on the face of it, but if extremist opinions that manifest violence
is being forcibly applied, surely the source of that radical belief structure should be tackled
too?

Personally, all I see is young, able-bodied men invading first-world countries and soon after,
crimes that not indicitive of that first-world country escalate.
And the majority of these crimes are towards females.

As you say:
'...They will have what was YOURS, and after they recreate the same conditions there that they
had back at home, they aren't going to be able to help anyone else, either...'

Yes, and I'd wager that just like Norway had done to them, when the temperature dropped
because of winter, many 'migrants' asked if they could go south where they presumed its warmer!
So who's left footing the bill?!

'...It takes a special sort of privileged petunia - a particular pink-haired celebrity comes to mind
- to view others as beneath one's self. Put in a plainer way, I'm a grown-assed man, and can clean
my own damned bathroom.

Don't need anyone else to do it for me... unlike, apparently, the aforementioned pink-haired celebrity.
Seriously - how privileged is THAT? To make such an outrageous assumption...'

It's beyond privilege now.
Those who grew-up during WWII would've seen the next generation as ungrateful for not fully
appreciating what their fathers and mothers went through. Today, most kids live in an environment
where a telephone is just an accessory, education is somewhere where history can be changed
to suit one's confusing guilt-complexes and the idea of going without food is ludicrous... something
that only happens in Charity advertising of far-away lands.

The young lady with the pink hair said what she said regarding Mexicans cleaning Trump's hotel
toilets because that's the Establishment way. 'That type of person does this and that type of person
does that'... because that's the way they're reared.

The 'Oh, I feel sorry for them, the Government should do something for (insert so-called
minority title here)'-routine is just a way for applying motive to someone else and with that move,
their own guilt is transposed.

But the anguish... that feeling that the movies and youth-entertaining television programes promote as
an adult feeling...? That's what the first-world kids love to eat. It involves a self-displaying narcissism
that's designed to show others that serious matters are what truly burdens them.

Then after phoning Dad to pick 'em up in the Merc, it's a quick strut to Starbucks because being caring
is thirsty work.

[BIAD]

Here's another one where the lozenge with the colour of Trump's tie may taste
unusual.

Employees Across U.S. Fired After Joining ‘Day Without Immigrants’ Protest.

'Dozens of protesters across the country were fired from their jobs after skipping work
to take part in last week's "Day Without Immigrants" demonstration.

Restaurants and day cares were among the businesses in states like Florida, Tennessee,
Oklahoma and New York where bosses fired workers after they didn't show up for work
in order to protest.



In Nolensville, Tennessee, nearly 20 employees at Bradley Coatings, Incorporated 
-a commercial painting company — were laid off after participating in the nationwide
strike on Thursday, NBC4 reported.

The company's attorney, Robert Peal, said in a statement obtained by the news station
that all employees were told they risked termination if they skipped work on Thursday,
but 18 did so anyway.

The attorney wrote: "Regretfully, and consistent with its prior communication to all its
employees, BCI had no choice but to terminate these individuals.
The reason these employees missed work — to engage in peaceful demonstrations 
-had nothing to do with BCI's decision to terminate them."

That same day in Florida, several staff members at Grace Community School in Bonita
Springs told NBC2 they planned participate in Thursday's protest.
Two employees claimed they were fired as a result, though the head of the school insists
no one was terminated.

Asked by a reporter why the cause was important, Brenda Botello, who quit on Friday
because she was afraid of being fired, said: "Because we are Mexicans... We need to
find another job."

Telemundo 47 initially reported that at Ben's Kosher Delicatessen Restaurant & Caterers
in Long Island, New York, 25 workers were fired Friday when they returned to work...'
SOURCE:

Rule 102: Employers Pay You To Work... Not Protest.
Just sayin'

[Ninurta]

Here's another one where the lozenge with the colour of Trump's tie may taste
unusual.

Employees Across U.S. Fired After Joining ‘Day Without Immigrants’ Protest.

Yup. When I saw that mess on the news, I told Grace I'd fire the lot of them if they worked for me. I run into that sort of thing occasionally, where some youngster on a second shift job conveniently gets "sick" on a Friday evening at 6 PM, when they are supposed to work until midnight. I may let it slide once, but when it happens again at 6 sharp on the next Friday evening, I tell them "I can't tell you not to go, but I can tell you not to come back. That choice is now yours."

A business cannot operate without a reliable work force. If this one isn't reliable, the next one may be... especially when they learn what happened to the last one. We recently had a "Firing Fair" ( as opposed to a "Jobs Fair") where we walked about 10 suddenly former employees out the door and bade them good luck in the future. Strangely perhaps, not a single one of my fine young work force got sick this evening at 6 PM sharp.

In regards to this "National Day Without Immigrants", protest is fine, but do it on YOUR time, not mine. An individual's right to peaceful protest does not admit for them to also disrupt someone else's life, as in disrupting businesses or hampering free travel by, for instance, blocking their way in a public thoroughfare (that's "unlawful detention" around here, and will get charges slapped upon one).

Rule 102: Employers Pay You To Work... Not Protest.
Just sayin'

Absolutely true, and if this one doesn't want to work as agreed upon, there is a line going around the block to replace him from. Party or protest on your own time, not mine. If you misuse my time in that way, I can always find someone who will put it to better use.

Always.


.

[BIAD]

Absolutely true, and if this one doesn't want to work as agreed upon, there is a line going around the block to replace him from.
Party or protest on your own time, not mine. If you misuse my time in that way, I can always find someone who will put it to better use.

Always.

I've used this story before and it's true.
Getting on for thirty years ago now, my wife and I visited a slate mine museum in Wales.
As we made our way through the tunnels and caverns, a guide explained how it worked and
the conditions the slate miners endured.

When a young lad started for the company, he was already in debt. He owed the mine owner
money because the ladders, pick axes and other sundries had to be purchased from the mine
owner so that the employee could do the job.

The world back then was of abject poverty and anyone under forty-years reading this can never
understand the rigged-game the under-classes had to live with. The tools were bought from the
miner owner because if you didn't, you were seen as a troublemaker and chances are, you never
had the money for your equipment in the first place.

But, the debt that the young man's father had accrued hadn't been fully paid, nor his Grandfather's
before him, so by stepping into those black caves, the lad had already taken on a commitment far
beyond what we today accept a twelve-to-thirteen year-old boy should have.
The more dramatic of us my call it slavery, but back then, it was just called life.

So climbing up thirty-foot ladders whilst two men at the bottom held the balanced ladder in the
centre of the cavern, you chipped and hacked to loosen a slab of shale with hopes that you could
acquire a large enough piece to be able to lower it down on a length of rope.

Remember, the treatment of these tools and ropes determined the eternal amount of debt you
would be passing on to your unborn descendants. Which is a slightly-more of a concern than
what the youngsters today contemplate.

At an agreed time, they would gather together in a makeshift 'den' built with the rocks and debris
of the cave and under a single candlelight (another cost!), they would discuss their woes and the
unfairness of being born without a silver spoon in their mouths.


If your utensils became worn or broken, tough. If you fell and were injured, hard-luck and if
you left the job, the upper-class-created laws of the land would visit your loved ones and force
the debt you and your kin had created by evicting your family.
Basically, the socially-accepted system had you over a barrel.

If a miner spoke out of turn or behaved poorly, he was expelled from the cozy room and had to
eat his pastie in the dark with the rats. But during these short breaks, they realised that if they
stood together and approached the mine owner in solidarity, they may be able to convince him
that this current manner of working wasn't the best.

After years of arguing, beatings, killings and sabotage, the miners and slate mine owners came
to an agreement. You were paid for your physical labour and the tools would be provided by the
mine owners. More years would have to pass before that family debt that had been with them like
their very surname, could be brought down and finally paid off.
Unionism was  on it's way.

2017 and people want to skip work for a celebration that has no positive connections with their
personal finances and working conditions...
They have no idea what those before them went through and it's now wasted on trivial things like
this.

Don't get me wrong, there are serious discussions to have about immigration, but taking a day off
for someone you don't know and jeopardising one's income and threatening the future of the
person who's risked more than you to create that job, isn't worthy of the young lad in the mine.

Well, maybe the universities will change that part of history too.

[Ninurta]

When a young lad started for the company, he was already in debt. He owed the mine owner
money because the ladders, pick axes and other sundries had to be purchased from the mine
owner so that the employee could do the job.

The world back then was of abject poverty and anyone under forty-years reading this can never
understand the rigged-game the under-classes had to live with. The tools were bought from the
miner owner because if you didn't, you were seen as a troublemaker and chances are, you never
had the money for your equipment in the first place.

I come from coal country here in the US. My grandfather was a stubby little dark-haired Welshman a few generations removed from Wales, and he worked in the coal mines here for 40 years, back in the days when they hauled the coal out of the mines in mule carts.

It worked in a similar way here, back in the day. The company owned everything, and did it's best to own the miners, too. They didn't pay with real money, they paid in "scrip" - company owned and produced faux money that could only be spent at the company store. You can still find it floating around here as a curiosity, a reminder of days gone by. Each company had it's own scrip, so that you couldn't spend one company's money at another company's store.

The company built and owned the housing the miners lived in. There are still communities here, clustered around abandoned mines, of ancient dilapidated company cookie-cutter houses.

The company owned the housing the miners lived in, and could throw them out on a whim. The company kept the miners dependent by not paying them real money, only scrip,  which could only be spent at that company's store, ensuring that the miners didn't get any notions of independence, so couldn't move to another town or shop at a real store. The miners depended on the company for their very existence, in every little particular way.

My grandfather died of the Black Lung years after the company was gone, and the company gave nary a shit what became of him or any of the other miners they had once upon a time owned in all but title.

Quite a few of the miners were irritated enough by those conditions that they formed unions and went to war with the companies to win concessions and improvements in living conditions. They formed armies and fought young wars against the companies and hired guns, what became known around here as "gun thugs", mostly from the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, Pinkertons, and such like outfits. battles like The battle of Blair Mountain, and The Battle of Matewan, AKA "The Matewan Massacre", were stepping stones towards the results the miners were after, which were eventually realized. Eventually, the miners won the day against the companies, got their improved living conditions, and all was well.

For a while.

As the Union gained more and more power, the wiser miners figured out that they had just traded one master for another, and they were STILL not their own masters, so the war carried on, with the Union taking the place of the companies. It continued on through my mother's days, and on into my own. I can recall every 3 years, like clock work, when the union contract came up for renewal there were young wars, complete with ambushes, burning cars, molotov cocktails, snipers... everything one has come to expect in a guerrilla war seen in any third world country on Earth.

See, the union, after organizing and winning their concessions, got greedy. They thought to wrest more and more concessions out of the companies, and we had weeks and months of violence every 3 years, like clockwork. We always knew WHEN it was going to flare up, but you never knew WHERE there was going to be an ambush, a road block, or who was going to get a night visit and wake up dead the next morning. A good friend of mine was killed in that foolishness. He got a knock at the door around 9 PM one night, answered the door, and was instantly headless from a shotgun blast. No one was ever arrested for that. They may have even gotten away with that - no one will ever know. There are a lot of deep abandoned mineshafts around here, and they keep their secrets.

Another friend died when the loaded coal truck he was driving down a mountain road got ran off of that road, over a mountainside, coming to rest with a dead man at the wheel. Most of him was still at the wheel, anyhow. No one was ever arrested for that, either, much less tried in court.

There are some people for whom enough is never enough, so every 3 years the union would mobilize to extort even MORE, and they gave nary a damn who was in the crossfire. Just as long as they got theirs. They finally extorted so much that the mines started closing down. They couldn't afford to do business any more. That was in the 90's. Then Obama came along and drove the last nail into the coffin, and even more mines closed down. I think there are 3 left in this whole area now. Just 3.

I've often wondered why the Unions never bought out the mines that the companies were abandoning, and kept them operational to keep their members in work. The answer is, of course, that they had made mining so unprofitable that they could not afford to run them with the same concessions to the miners they had extorted from the companies over the years.

Fact is, the union members unionized themselves right out of jobs. Greed and corruption took their toll, and like I said enough is never enough for some folks... then one day they find they have nothing at all, because they wanted too much.

Now, the moral of this long-winded tale is this - and it ties into something else you said: kids these days know nothing of the struggles of their ancestors. They think they can simply extort what they want out of other folks, and just like their ancestors, the day will come when they have extorted too much. $15.00 an hour minimum wage? No problem... until the piper demands his pay, that is. Free college education? No problem... until the day comes when they have to grow up enough to realize nothing is free.

The blood sweat and tears their grandfathers and great grandfathers spent to get a better life will have been wasted when the greed of the children brings it all crashing down around their ears.


.

[BIAD]

...It worked in a similar way here, back in the day. The company owned everything, and did it's best to own the miners, too.
They didn't pay with real money, they paid in "scrip" - company owned and produced faux money that could only be spent
at the company store...

That reminds me, after the tour around the caves, there was the opportunity to trade your current currency
for old pennies of that time and send them in an old store and pub. I found it odd at the time that these two
buildings were the only other structures on the slate mine's property and seemed to have no connection to
it.
Now I know.

Cheers Ninurta.

[BIAD]

It may seem strange to those outside of the United Kingdom and to many who
reside here, it is also, but the law of the land is that if one is to own a television
set -or sets, the owner of renter must have a licence to do so.

There's been times in the past when this law has been challenged on the grounds
of if it's broadcasting issue, then why is there no licence required for a radio?
Or, if a television is manipulated so it cannot pick up a BBC frequency, why does
the owner need a licence?

Better yet, if the British Broadcasting Company is funded from the proceeds of
this licence, why aren't other broadcasting companies like Sky or Virgin-Media
allowed any of the money?

The Government even have vans that patrol the country listening into homes for
unsuspecting licence-dodgers. White vehicles that were once unmarked until
they realised it looked too-much 'Big Brother'!

It's an eternal argument that never seems to offer a fair answer.
The licence is £145 ($180.20) per year unless you're over seventy-five years of
age and then, it's free. If you're partially blind, it's half-priced.
There are other ways that avoid the need of a licence (See here for details)

But now it seems the supposedly cash-strapped Government looked at a new way
of obtaining this tax from it's peasant residents.

BBC's TV licence bullies are exposed: How ruthless bosses order staff to
catch 28 people a week for bonuses of £15,000 a year 

*The ruthless tactics used by BBC licence fee collectors have been exposed
*Families hounded by BBC licence fee collectors have called them ‘intimidating’
*Accused officials of snooping through windows and forcing their way into homes
*Vulnerable people threatened into paying £145.50 fee when it was not necessary
*Have you been hounded by licence fee bullies?
Contact our Investigations Unit via tvlicence@dailymail.co.uk 

'Ruthless and underhand tactics used by BBC licence fee agents can be exposed today.
Under an aggressive incentive scheme, hundreds of enforcement officers have orders
to each catch 28 evaders a week.

Bosses promise bonuses of up to £15,000 a year, saying staff must gather evidence to
take as many people to court as possible. 
Homeowners who fail to pay can be fined and given criminal records.



Among the vulnerable targeted in the past seven days are a war veteran with dementia
and a desperate young mother in a women’s refuge. 

The revelations come from an investigation by a Daily Mail undercover reporter interviewed
for an enforcement job by Capita. The outsourcing firm is paid £58million a year to collect
licence fees for the BBC, bringing in £3.74billion a year.

The reporter was told by bosses: ‘We will drive you as hard as we can to get as much as
we can out of you because we’re greedy.’ He was encouraged to spy on homes and take
money on the doorstep.
‘Cash, debit, credit card, we’ll take anything,’ one TV Licensing manager said. ‘I tell people
I’ll take shirt buttons.’
Last night, the BBC ordered an urgent investigation into the Mail’s findings, insisting there
would be ‘swift and appropriate action’.

Culture Secretary Karen Bradley will question the BBC’s director general Tony Hall about
the Mail’s findings in the coming days. Capita’s bosses also face being hauled before MPs.

The Government is now under renewed pressure to decriminalise the so-called ‘TV tax’
and crack down on the aggressive way in which payments are pursued...'
SOURCE:

Here on the 'Angel Isle' Big Brother has been around a very long time!

[Daitengu]

They wouldnt even survive to reach outer perimeter if they tried snoop on me  .. if by chance they made outer perimiter thats as far as theyd get .......

[BIAD]

They wouldnt even survive to reach outer perimeter if they tried snoop on me  .. if by chance they made outer perimiter thats as far as theyd get .......

But-but, it's the BBC, Dait... the Queen's BBC!!

[BIAD]

Do not jail all paedophiles, says police chief.

'Paedophiles who view indecent images but go no further should not be jailed but
rehabilitated, a leading child protection police officer has said.



Police forces "cannot cope" with the "huge" rise in reports, Chief Constable Simon Bailey,
of the National Police Chiefs' Council, told the BBC.
Figures show the number of child abuse reports is up by 80% in three years.

The Home Office said "viewing child abuse images is a terrible crime and should be treated
as such".

Chief Constable Bailey, the head of Operation Hydrant, which is investigating multiple allegations
of historic sexual abuse across the UK, said he knew his view would cause nervousness and
draw headlines.

But he said the numbers of reports of abuse were at "huge proportions" - an NSPCC study in
late 2016 used figures which suggested the number of individuals looking at such images could
exceed half a million.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme about 400 people were arrested by police in conjunction
with the National Crime Agency every month, for looking at indecent images.

"There are undoubtedly tens of thousands of men that are seeking to exploit children online with a
view to meeting them, with a view to then raping them and performing the most awful sexual abuse
upon them," he said.

"That's where I believe our focus has got to be.
They are the individuals that pose the really significant threat."...'
SOURCE:



This my fault... I must be reading it wrong.