Some Animals are More Equal, again… again.

Oh for the love of: is this going to become a whole series of something? Would you people stop being such supremacists already?


For fuck sakes, here we go again… I think I may just create a “SAME” (Some Animals are More Equal) series and just label them “SAME: Date – Topic”. I think that’d be the best way to deal with these supremacists in the Labor party. For crying out loud. These party lobbied for the antidiscrimination laws, some of these idiots even WROTE the thing, then voted on it.

Now just a few years later, predictable as leftists tend to be, they’re hard at work every couple of weeks trying to advocate for laws and actions which are ILLEGAL under that very same law. The Torries should just offer to put me on the payroll, so I can sit off to the side in Parliament and repeatedly remind Labor “No! That’s illegal under the law your wrote, you supported, you advocated for, you voted for and was passed.”

maxresdefault (9)

Lets see here we got “Some Animals are More Equal” the original under that title where a pub was charging men more than women. Then we have “Some Animals are Criminally More Equal” where a documentarian attempted to charge men more than women, and a Labor member suggested making all black shortlist of candidates for local elections. On the 30th of September I exposed “The Truth About Anti-Brexit Former High Court Judge“, providing irrefutable evidence that a former high court judge was responsible for tens of thousands of acts of discrimination in criminal sentencing: sentencing men to longer prison sentences than women.

Could you leftist pigs possibly just stop? It’s tiring. Every time I turn around you’re getting up some criminal supremacist high jinks attempting to violate the UK’s anti-discrimination laws. Could you possibly just stop? Okay? It’s tiring.


Okay…. lets trod down this often beaten path, yet again, shall we?

No, labor, you can’t lower the retirement age for women unless you also lower the retirement age for men. You do not get to allow women to kick back and hop on their pensions early while men continue to work themselves to death. Women ALREADY live on average 3.7 years longer than men: you do not get to widen the divide you despicable fiends.

No, labor, you may not violate the law. By the way, even attempting to advocate for the changes they want to make: constitutes a criminal act.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”


Crown Prosecution Service “Conspiracy
The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20. ”


Crown Prosecution Service “The parties to an offence
Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories / accomplices) (D2).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.”


Now, the question becomes, why would these leftists so often act in flagrant violation of the anti-discrimination and pro-equality laws which they themselves helped pass? The answer is quite simple and multi pronged.

1, they never expected these laws to be used against them.

With all the talk and propagandic rhetoric of “social justice” and “equality”, these laws were only put in place as a truncheon to wield against their ideological opponents. They never expected to have to follow the law, only to have something they could use as a weapon. The inclusion of non-specific identities such as race being any race or gender being any gender: was lip service included only for the purpose of quantifying the laws as being equal.

2, they’re unaccustomed to black letter laws or “hard and fast rules”.

Vox Day in Chapter 6 of his book “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police” lays this concept out quite clearly when he describes SJW entryist tactics and the establishment of a “Code of Conduct” which is routinely vague, nebulous, even vacuous in many instances. Obfuscated or dissembled terms and generalizations which can twisted to mean anything the SJWs want them to mean.

Which is wholly and completely different from the legalese which comprises most legal codes. Legalese functions on either black letter law, precedent or hard and fast rules. All properly written law does, in fact. For example, just look above at Canadian and English Law.

A may not do to B, any of aforementioned Q except under circumstance N. Hard and fast rules, black letter law. From there you got to precedent, in case # [Person Vs R] the ruling was P by rationale D provided.

Many people complain about legalese: I find it infinitely more accommodating than the fertile muck in which the SJWs prefer to dwell. I’ll provide a clip from Day’s book to give you a good example of the nebulous swamp which my oppositions likes to infest. I doubt Vox will mind, after all I’m plugging his work and this article isn’t pay to view.

“As noted in the previous chapter, the reason SJWs set up nebulous codes of conduct is that they want to be able to selectively impose discipline on those who question the Narrative in a manner they can interpret as “problematic” or “offensive” while avoiding the need to do so when one of their own breaks the rules. That’s why they do their best to avoid clear lines of demarcation and detailed specifications of what is against the rules and what the punishment will be. They will even do their best to avoid committing anything to writing; it is not an accident that Sir Tim Hunt’s wife received a telephone call from an individual at University College London who still remains publicly unidentified. Like insects scurrying about their business underneath a rock, SJWs prefer to operate in the dark and leave everyone else confused about what really happened.”

Day, Vox. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (Kindle Locations 1678-1683). Castalia House. Kindle Edition.

The following taken directly from my website’s home page…

This is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.


What I advocate against: is all those who advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens.

Those people, persons, groups and organizations who DO advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens: are anti-freedom and anti-equality.

No matter how they define themselves or what they define themselves as, even if they claim to be Feminists and the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality: the dictionary definition of “an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex” is a “supremacist.


If you’re advocating for or lobbying for superior rights to be given to a group or groups OVER THAT of another group or groups: you are categorically, unabashedly and undeniably, by definition, a supremacist.

It’s a simple concept really and it goes utterly unnoticed.