They Don’t Work To Kill All Dissent, They Just Keep It From Going Mainstream

If Angelo Agathangelou over there is allowed to stand on a soapbox and criticize the UK war machine, then the UK must be a free country. So they don’t work to silence all dissent. What they do is work to make sure that dissent never hits a critical mass and goes mainstream.

 ...We know they can’t shut us down completely or else they’ll break the illusion of freedom and lose the ability to propagandize effectively

By Caitlin Johnstone: One of the most consequential collective delusions circulating in our society is the belief that our society is free. Our society is exactly free enough to create the illusion that we have freedom; from that line onwards it’s just totalitarianism veiled in propaganda.

I get comments from people every day wagging their fingers at my criticisms of western imperialist agendas against nations like China or Iran saying “If you lived over there you wouldn’t be allowed to criticize the government the way you criticize western governments!”

Fems Running French City Lyon Remove Meat From School Lunches ~ Slammed For "Putting Ideology On Kids' Plates"

Fem Stephanie Leger conveniently scapegoats COVID-19 as the reason for globalist zero meat

By Tyler Durden: Consuming meat has become a cultural staple across the world. But with the surging middle class in China and elsewhere, demand for beef, pork, and processed chicken has erupted. Global elites are pushing for societies to consume a plant-based diet because they say there's a clear linkage between the worldwide livestock industry and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Of course, France would be one of the first to mix politics with food. 

French Agriculture Minister Julien Denormandie denounced school officials in Lyon, the capital city in France's Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region, who removed the meat from menus. School officials conveniently scapegoat COVID-19 protocols as the reason for the removal, according to RT News. 

"Let's stop putting ideology on our children's plates," Denormandie tweeted on Sunday.

The Double Standard Maternal Preference

'Contrary to popular belief, there was never a time in history when courts treated children as the “property” of their fathers. ...The movement that occurred in the nineteenth century was to a near-absolute preference for placing children in the sole custody of their mothers. That judicial predilection has come to be known as the maternal preference doctrine.' ...On the basis of the Judaic sentiments of Sigmund Freud.

By Tom James: Contrary to popular belief, there was never a time in American history when courts treated children as the “property” of their fathers so that mothers had to wage a decades-long Equal Rights campaign to win the right to have the custody of their own children. As explained in my book, The History of Custody Law, whatever the case may have been in other countries, American judges were applying the “best interests of children” standard to decide custody as early as 1804. Sometimes an early nineteenth century judge even went so far as to chastise an attorney who tried to put forward a “father’s rights” argument instead of a “best interests” argument. The truth is that America began by deciding custody on the  basis of morality and marital fault. The movement that occurred in the nineteenth century was from that to a near-absolute preference for placing children in the sole custody of their mothers. That judicial predilection has come to be known as the maternal preference doctrine.