December Adverts - I almost forgot! They're still ridiculous!

December – Adverts – 

There are some really ridiculous adverts nowadays, be they magazines (Ed; What?), TV adverts, and on the internet; even on my Facebook pages.

Below is an example!

Really?  A black female, who is into Golf?  I must admit, this one took me by surprise!  Does this type of person even exist?  Ah, bless . . . in the woke mind, she does.  (Ed; You used "she"!  You may have misgendered them.)

Which naturally leads us, to all the young, female, black, classical musicians, that we see in the world today . . . not.  It would be interesting to see just how many of this type of BME person actually does these exams; but I've more important things to do.

Oh, leave it to even the Co-Op to go full insane and woke.  This is from the Scottish version, which means, it can ONLY be BME / Muslims who are their customers . . . wtf!

As you can tell from here; all 10 of them are honky.

Ah, it's Microsoft again, and is it just me, but it seems that there are no more crackers working for them, at least since Bill Gates left.  It's always interesting with woke propaganda like the below, to try and "spot the whitey".

The below really takes the cake!  It's simply preposterous, patronizing and blatantly racist, to even suggest what the advert suggests.  This could be in the advert Hall of Fame.  It comes from a disgustingly woke website, Deutsche Welle.  A radical, far-left, borderline Nazi website, that was originally set up to help learners, but has morphed into insanity.

The translation reads; "Thanks for a great 2024 with all of You".

And finally, to that woke of woke places, the National Trust (Scotland), who once again have the absence of the male honky, and stuff in our faces, the mixed race couple, without the evil, white male.

They can fuck themselves!  I actually cancelled my subscription during the Neil Oliver scandal, and have missed nothing.

Recht

Christmas 2024 - Tea with the Vicar & The State of the Anglican Church, Part 1

The other day, I had tea with my vicar.

He was, in many ways, the archetype of the trendy, left-leaning clergy we often hear about. He despised Trump, adored Harris, and seemed to revel in every modern “woke” trope imaginable. Intellectually, he was sharp—there’s no denying that—but I often wonder about the application of such intelligence. What good is it when it doesn’t seem to address the pressing issues facing humanity today, particularly in the spiritual and practical realms?

When I left our meeting, something struck me about the entire interaction. Theology? It hardly came up. Discussions about job creation or how the church could practically support struggling communities? Absent. Conversations about the dire state of the Anglican Church? Nowhere to be found.

Instead, the focus was on gender. Yes, gender theology.

At one point, the vicar asserted that angels have no gender. This led us into a broader discussion where he claimed God the Father doesn’t have a gender either. I found this fascinating because the same people who insist on the ungendered nature of God often refer to the Holy Spirit as female and attribute masculinity to the devil. The inconsistency is glaring. This selective application of gendered theology seems less about fostering understanding and more about advancing a woke agenda.

Women’s Ordination and the Internal Divide

As someone who attends a slightly traditional church, I’ve noticed a peculiar dynamic. Opposition to women’s ordination often doesn’t come from men, as many might assume. In fact, much of the resistance comes from women themselves.

When women’s ordination was first introduced, some of its strongest proponents were women who saw it as a step toward inclusivity while acknowledging inherent differences. They hoped to bridge divides, not deepen them. Yet today, the narrative has shifted. Dissenting women are labeled misogynists by the same radical left figures who claim to champion their rights. It’s profoundly hypocritical and deeply unsettling.

Final Thoughts

The Anglican Church faces countless challenges—declining attendance, financial struggles, and societal irrelevance among them. Yet, instead of addressing these pressing issues, the focus seems to be on divisive, performative topics like gender theology.

If the Church truly wishes to survive, it must return to its roots: faith, community, and action. These are the things that once gave it strength and relevance. It’s time to move past the trendy distractions and focus on what really matters.

Kamala and decertification

 

As for you right-wingers out there, I just wonder how many of you fucking geniuses still think it's a good idea, to be able to "decertify" a federal election?  At least, if it is the job of Mike Pence, who has now left the Trump train for good, the past year.

C'mon, where are all you brain boxes.  A complete, fucking embarrassment to the conservative movement. 

C'mon, comment on this.  Please . . .

Here's a question for you idiots from four years ago, and in particular you ones who thought Pence could decertify the election for President.

That's right, I don't want you to get what you like, because you're not going to like what you get or the old saying I can't really remember how it goes.

What if Kamala Harris would decertify the election?

Think about that for a moment.  What would stop her?  And PLEASE don't talk any shite to me about; "It's different now."  or "Uh, she has no right to do that!"

Really?  

According to you lot, she DOES have that right.  And who knows this could be the ace up their sleeve, and you lot have NO reason to complain.  Don't you?

This has been bothering me for SOME time.  LONG before, I believe, Dan Bongino brought this up recently.

Why not? Why won't she do it?

Yeah, I heard all you geniuses back then, and well, you were told that four years ago that that, wasn't the case, and that he (Trump) should not have even tried it.  That it was completely bat shit crazy for you to try it and now it could easily come back and bite you in the ass, correct?

But the big question is, why wouldn't she?

In fact, it actually seems like a very good idea, but then again what would happen?

You probably have various different possibilities;

1) She decertifies the election.  This would then mean that Joe Biden remains President.

2) On the other hand, Biden never ran, so wouldn't that mean, that she would be President, after all, she is the sitting Vice-President.

3) But she can't be President, because she actually lost the election?

4) Biden resigns, Kamala becomes President (just like Gerald Ford did, after Nixon resigned), and with an "invalid" election, she remains President?

WTF?

As before, four years ago, I am not only at a loss of what could / would happen, but still furious, that any idiot would have actually believed that it would've been a good idea, even if permittable, to "invalidate" an election.

Recht

Why are liberals always so nice? And why do they always expect the best of people? Is this their flaw?

 

I met a friend recently who actually thought that Joe Biden resigned, not because he was being chased and pushed to resign, but that he actually was a decent human being, and felt that it was the moral thing to do, due to his health (and let Kamala take over)!

That is simply ridiculous!  And I thought to myself how anyone could actually think like this? Sure enough, this friend of mine is a liberal and they naturally can't think like that.  They could only think the best of Biden; besides Biden being a career politician for the best part of 50 years, MUST be so self-less, and a person into public service.  My friend literally knows NOTHING about the American political process, and even LESS about just how corrupt the Biden Crime family are.

When I finally told them that Biden was pushed by his fellow Democrats, and that at one time, he had no intention whatsoever to resign, until apparently, Nancy Pelosi had to tell him that his own party would push for the 25th Amendment to be used; he looked shocked.  Honestly!  He was genuinely shocked!

But then they slowly realised that they were wrong and that we were correct with our explanations.  It was a very, strange experience.

At the same time, I appreciated their genuine "goodness".  This particular friend does not really have a mean bone in their body, but, in this case, I simply had to burst their bubble. 

Equally, I watch a lot of GB news; a "far right" TV network in the United Kingdom. 

It's not!  There are a good deal of leftists on the network, but it is then balanced with many from the right, or as I would label it, the Centre / Centre-Right.

On it there is a particular man called Josh Howie, who also suffers from this; I'm so nice type of syndrome - that I find that many from the left suffer from.

Time and time again over the past few years, he's always taken the side that people are good, that people are decent and all they need to do is listen to a certain logical argument and they will change their mind or come to a good, decent decision or viewpoint. And time and time again, he's proven wrong - and at times is exasperated by the Left's intolerance.

My point, that like above, when Howie has been confronted with the facts about things,  normally he changes his mind.  The below shows this:

He is still a Labour (reluctant) supporter, though he has admitted that his vote for them in the British 2024 Parliament election was a mistake.  

But once he saw -

1) Many of the Left are NOT into Free Speech!  (He is)

2) COVID hurt his family / children's education & the vaccines did little, if anything to help.

3) The economy was destroyed, as opposed to a country like Sweden.

4) How he was attacked / cancelled due to his classic liberal views.

And after the above were all proven true, and that we should NEVER have locked down, he changed his mind, and at times the last few years, loses it on his broadcasts.

Who knows, my point is maybe, just maybe, certain people on the Left DO look at facts / other opinions, and will come to a viewpoint that it more aligned to the right.

I don't know if I'll hold my breath though.

Recht

A simple question about dogs; How does a normal person answer it, as opposed to a Leftist freak?

 

I'm fascinated by the difference between us normal people, and the Leftist freaks in the world.

So much so, that I've always considered what would happen if a liberal or a right-winger saw a dog crossing the street and suddenly a car, turning into the street, ran over it—not a bicycle, but a car (Editor: You love them bikers!).  I love ALL people!

First, I KNOW this is a simple question.  I KNOW that there are multiple viewpoints.  I KNOW that the two views can be swapped here as well.  But, this is done only to generalise about two distinct groups.

I believe the reactions from either side highlight the differences between the two "sides". 

I'm not saying which side is correct, as in this case both may be partly right and wrong, but it does show how they think, feel, and perceive things.

A Conservative Perspective: A conservative might view it like this: the dog crosses the street, the car comes around the corner and accidentally hits it. From a neutral perspective, we might say that there was nothing the driver could have done—the dog is not human—and that we should pay our respects and move on with life.

A Leftist Perspective: On the other hand, the leftist would undoubtedly see it in a completely different manner. 

They would likely react emotionally, thinking, "How can this possibly happen in this day and age? How could a dog, something as sweet as Fido, suffer death and be taken from its owner?" 

They would question the driver's actions, saying, "What was wrong with the car driver? How dare they not take all due care and have compassion for the dog? How dare they make the turn?" and so on, ad nauseum.

They would express this with such intensity as if the driver was completely in the wrong, and anyone who questions them would be labelled a fascist, Nazi, or a Trump supporter. They would simply never consider that these accidents happen, that the car owner and driver likely took all reasonable care and respect for the dog, but did not see it until the last second, and that everyone should just get on with life.

They would NEVER react like this.  They would persuade themselves, and at the same time attempt to persuade anyone near them, that they were in the right.  And that the case was settled and that the dog and their owner(s) were the victims, ripe for some form of compensation.

My Explanation: To anyone who actually examines these two opinions or anyone with common sense, the first opinion is literally the only reasonable one. 

Yes, it explains the behaviour correctly.  Yes they (the driver) did not try to kill the dog.  Yes, these are accidents, and yes, please don't notify the police. 

But if you do wish to bring cops into this (the Leftist opinion), I thought you didn't like the police?

Therefore, I'd believe that the matter is over and done with.  If the dog is registered; contact the owner. If the owner was with the dog; have sympathies - there was no foul play. 

Just could everyone PLEASE accept this, and do NOT try to assign blame!

The case is closed.