This is very true. The wokes only ever talk about black voices, black bodies, black lives, black ‘truths’. They refuse to acknowledge that there are other minorities, because it just serves to highlight their persistent victimhood.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Why does Harry get a free pass on his donning of a Nazi swastika?
I don't wanna see the argument of "he has learned his lesson" because a lot of the people claiming racism can't let go of history themselves. We shouldn't let go of the fact Harry dressed up in a vile uniform of Government that were going to wipe out most minorities, and people they would deem undesirable.
ALSO England is that racist we fought against that regime. You'd think if we were racist as a whole- history would be vastly different.
I don't wanna see the argument of "he has learned his lesson" because a lot of the people claiming racism can't let go of history themselves. We shouldn't let go of the fact Harry dressed up in a vile uniform of Government that were going to wipe out most minorities, and people they would deem undesirable.
ALSO England is that racist we fought against that regime. You'd think if we were racist as a whole- history would be vastly different.
I personally have seen more racism directed at Asian people than black people, in the UK.
Can't remember William calling his fellow pilots rag heads or pakis either!
Slightly off topic, @mb1202 , but I really enjoy reading your contributions. I sound like an old fart now (I'm only 41
) but you have a very sound and balanced head on your shoulders based on your posts and I'm glad to see that not all youth have been infected by the uncritical wokeism. Keep it up! And the Harkles are still what Freda says
I think @mb1202 needs to have a showdown with Shouty Shola to cancel her outSlightly off topic, @mb1202 , but I really enjoy reading your contributions. I sound like an old fart now (I'm only 41
Charlie Hebdo: Fury over cover of Queen kneeling on Meghan's neck
CHARLIE Hebdo has sparked fury after publishing a magazine cover featuring a caricature of the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, in a shocking recreation of George Floyd's death in the US last year.
WTAF!!!
As disgusting as this front cover is, at least they still have free speech in France.
We are quickly losing ours.
We are quickly losing ours.
Attachments
Slightly off topic, @mb1202 , but I really enjoy reading your contributions. I sound like an old fart now (I'm only 41
I’m blushing!
So glad I’ve found this outlet, nice to talk to like minded people without being ‘cancelled’ every 2 minutes, I can’t tear myself away from posting!Haha get me on GMB against her, I have a few things to say! Awful woman
Nazanin is now released.
I know....I hope those two are happy with what they’ve causedCharlie Hebdo: Fury over cover of Queen kneeling on Meghan's neck
CHARLIE Hebdo has sparked fury after publishing a magazine cover featuring a caricature of the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck, in a shocking recreation of George Floyd's death in the US last year.www.express.co.uk
WTAF!!!
Also friends with Sophie Trudeau who would surely have offered a few words of advice once Meghan got serious with Harry.
I love a bit of silly satire, but that's too below the belt for me.
The Telegraph Article
Just days after JFK’s assassination, Jackie Kennedy crafted a glittering fairytale about her husband’s presidency. “There will be great presidents again,” the grieving widow told Life Magazine in a now-iconic interview, “but there will never be another Camelot.”
Her words soon passed into the cultural lexicon; before long few remembered that the term had never been used during JFK’s tenure. The Camelot myth beguiled America for decades and resonates to this day.
I was strangely reminded of it as I listened to Meghan Markle “speaking her truth” in another famous interview. Certainly, the myth-maker’s hand on the scales was more obvious this time. Instead of King Arthur and his knights, there was Disney, via the Duchess’s ham-fisted reference to The Little Mermaid. In place of Jackie’s delicate breathy tones, we had Harry’s stumbling Estuary English and Meghan’s doe-eyed Californian corporatese.
Yet this was an equally calculated attempt to mythologise the couple and redefine their place in history. Alongside the fairytale references were overt parallels between the Duchess and Princess Diana – perhaps even with Princess Latifa, the captive daughter of Dubai’s royal family. Just as Jackie Kennedy dictated the terms of her interview, Oprah Winfrey proved a compliant interrogator, offering performative expressions of shock at things anyone familiar with Royal protocol would have understood.
“Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security”, laments the Duchess at one point. “Whaaat?”, replies Oprah, with slapstick incredulity. Frost-Nixon, this was not.
Certain claims were instantly uncredible; such as the suggestion Archie was denied the title “Prince” because he was mixed-race, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury performed an official wedding ceremony in their garden, days before the global spectacle of their Windsor nuptials. Many of the headlines used to illustrate the couple’s ‘mistreatment’ by the UK media were at best, taken out of context – at worst, outrageously misappropriated. All told, the Sussexes’ ‘truth’ bears more than a passing resemblance to Trump’s ‘alternative facts’.
Very little of this seems to matter, however, in a world where ‘lived experience’ can, and often does, supersede objective reality. Questioning individuals may expect to be accused of racism, downplaying mental health, or both. “Believe her, no matter what”, seems to be the demand – even when it doesn’t make sense.
“I wasn’t interested in grandeur”, cries the woman in the $4500 dress. Like Alice through the looking glass, we are required to believe impossible things before breakfast. We must trust that an intelligent modern woman neglected to perform even a cursory google of her future husband – a prince no less – before their first date. We must lionise a couple who insist they are being kind and respectful, even as they carelessly cast suspicion around their relatives and compound the Queen’s anxieties at a traumatic time. We are expected to agree that people who are richer than Croesus, wielding vast cultural influence, are unambiguous victims.
Like many born in the early nineties, I vividly recall the death of Princess Diana; the relentless media coverage and months of public lamentation that followed, amid a febrile intellectual atmosphere. The car crash happened the day after my birthday. That morning, school parents flooded my mother with calls asking if the party would be cancelled out of respect; many were outraged to learn it was going ahead. For all Diana’s admirable qualities, my mother simply didn’t feel a five-year-old’s birthday should be ruined to commemorate someone none of us had known personally. For this perfectly reasonable opinion, she became, for a time, the heartless bogeywoman of the school gates.
In the aftermath, Princess Diana, a press-savvy woman, famously adept at manipulating the media, was soon recast as a helpless victim with little agency of her own. Now this equally savvy couple expects us to swallow a similar fiction. The simplistic hero/villain narrative they propose is already winning over a global audience unfamiliar with royal convention and fresh from imbibing The Crown’s highly-coloured view of complex events.
Meanwhile, a strange inversion is underway in Britain. Paid-up progressives, often avowed republicans, are now demanding supplication towards this gilded couple. The Daily Star, reacting in the UK's finest anti-deferential traditions, ridiculed the pair in a series of hilarious newspaper covers, worthy of Hogarth or Gillray. Predictably, the paper stands accused of bullying, along with much of the UK media.
Many viewers will, like me, have believed and been moved by some of the Sussexes’ claims, while doubting others, and becoming so enraged in places it was tempting to take a hammer to the TV set. Piers Morgan didn’t believe a word of it, and said so; now he has been sacked from his job, apparently following a personal intervention from the Sussexes. What is that if not a form of extraordinary privilege?
As the interview winds down, Oprah congratulates the couple on their lucky escape. “It has a happy ending because you made it so”, she trills.
“Greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read”, gushes Meghan, while the doubters reach for their sick-bags.
I’m not convinced either. The Sussex fairytale lacked the elegiac beauty of Camelot, and inflicted greater collateral damage. Their ‘happy ending’ – such that it is – has come at the expense of rational thought, while undermining an institution beloved by millions. But from now on, expect much more of this self-serving jargon as the Sussexes continue their audition for the role of global #BeKind ambassadors. We’re all living Meghan’s “truth” now.
Just days after JFK’s assassination, Jackie Kennedy crafted a glittering fairytale about her husband’s presidency. “There will be great presidents again,” the grieving widow told Life Magazine in a now-iconic interview, “but there will never be another Camelot.”
Her words soon passed into the cultural lexicon; before long few remembered that the term had never been used during JFK’s tenure. The Camelot myth beguiled America for decades and resonates to this day.
I was strangely reminded of it as I listened to Meghan Markle “speaking her truth” in another famous interview. Certainly, the myth-maker’s hand on the scales was more obvious this time. Instead of King Arthur and his knights, there was Disney, via the Duchess’s ham-fisted reference to The Little Mermaid. In place of Jackie’s delicate breathy tones, we had Harry’s stumbling Estuary English and Meghan’s doe-eyed Californian corporatese.
Yet this was an equally calculated attempt to mythologise the couple and redefine their place in history. Alongside the fairytale references were overt parallels between the Duchess and Princess Diana – perhaps even with Princess Latifa, the captive daughter of Dubai’s royal family. Just as Jackie Kennedy dictated the terms of her interview, Oprah Winfrey proved a compliant interrogator, offering performative expressions of shock at things anyone familiar with Royal protocol would have understood.
“Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security”, laments the Duchess at one point. “Whaaat?”, replies Oprah, with slapstick incredulity. Frost-Nixon, this was not.
Certain claims were instantly uncredible; such as the suggestion Archie was denied the title “Prince” because he was mixed-race, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury performed an official wedding ceremony in their garden, days before the global spectacle of their Windsor nuptials. Many of the headlines used to illustrate the couple’s ‘mistreatment’ by the UK media were at best, taken out of context – at worst, outrageously misappropriated. All told, the Sussexes’ ‘truth’ bears more than a passing resemblance to Trump’s ‘alternative facts’.
Very little of this seems to matter, however, in a world where ‘lived experience’ can, and often does, supersede objective reality. Questioning individuals may expect to be accused of racism, downplaying mental health, or both. “Believe her, no matter what”, seems to be the demand – even when it doesn’t make sense.
“I wasn’t interested in grandeur”, cries the woman in the $4500 dress. Like Alice through the looking glass, we are required to believe impossible things before breakfast. We must trust that an intelligent modern woman neglected to perform even a cursory google of her future husband – a prince no less – before their first date. We must lionise a couple who insist they are being kind and respectful, even as they carelessly cast suspicion around their relatives and compound the Queen’s anxieties at a traumatic time. We are expected to agree that people who are richer than Croesus, wielding vast cultural influence, are unambiguous victims.
Like many born in the early nineties, I vividly recall the death of Princess Diana; the relentless media coverage and months of public lamentation that followed, amid a febrile intellectual atmosphere. The car crash happened the day after my birthday. That morning, school parents flooded my mother with calls asking if the party would be cancelled out of respect; many were outraged to learn it was going ahead. For all Diana’s admirable qualities, my mother simply didn’t feel a five-year-old’s birthday should be ruined to commemorate someone none of us had known personally. For this perfectly reasonable opinion, she became, for a time, the heartless bogeywoman of the school gates.
In the aftermath, Princess Diana, a press-savvy woman, famously adept at manipulating the media, was soon recast as a helpless victim with little agency of her own. Now this equally savvy couple expects us to swallow a similar fiction. The simplistic hero/villain narrative they propose is already winning over a global audience unfamiliar with royal convention and fresh from imbibing The Crown’s highly-coloured view of complex events.
Meanwhile, a strange inversion is underway in Britain. Paid-up progressives, often avowed republicans, are now demanding supplication towards this gilded couple. The Daily Star, reacting in the UK's finest anti-deferential traditions, ridiculed the pair in a series of hilarious newspaper covers, worthy of Hogarth or Gillray. Predictably, the paper stands accused of bullying, along with much of the UK media.
Many viewers will, like me, have believed and been moved by some of the Sussexes’ claims, while doubting others, and becoming so enraged in places it was tempting to take a hammer to the TV set. Piers Morgan didn’t believe a word of it, and said so; now he has been sacked from his job, apparently following a personal intervention from the Sussexes. What is that if not a form of extraordinary privilege?
As the interview winds down, Oprah congratulates the couple on their lucky escape. “It has a happy ending because you made it so”, she trills.
“Greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read”, gushes Meghan, while the doubters reach for their sick-bags.
I’m not convinced either. The Sussex fairytale lacked the elegiac beauty of Camelot, and inflicted greater collateral damage. Their ‘happy ending’ – such that it is – has come at the expense of rational thought, while undermining an institution beloved by millions. But from now on, expect much more of this self-serving jargon as the Sussexes continue their audition for the role of global #BeKind ambassadors. We’re all living Meghan’s “truth” now.
I agree. Love the fact that in principle it shows free speech is alive and well, but I think that’s a little too inflammatory. Also it plays into the hands of wokes a bit too much, showing Meghan as the oppressed black woman in danger and the Queen being likened to a racist police officer.
Prince Harry and Meghan's Montecito mansion TRIPLES in value
Last year, the royal couple bought their nine-bedroom, 16-bathroom mansion in the exclusive neighbourhood of Montecito, California, with the help of a $9.6million mortgage.
That should increase their taxes then
More evidence to prove her bullshit in the Sun!!! Love it
,
www.thesun.co.uk
,
Meg says she knew little of royals to Oprah, but blogged about Kate's wedding
MEGHAN Markle wrote about Kate Middleton and Prince William’s wedding on her blog years before meeting Harry – despite telling Oprah she didn’t know much about the royals. In her …
www.thesun.co.uk
Hold the bus - stop right there.
So according to this piece she already has a daughter! Who to? When? How old is she? Where is she? Cmon Tattlers we need to know more.
Good point. I don't think there's any point making an agreement with people that don't keep their word - they just come back for more. Charles bunged them an enormous figure in March last year as part of Megxit. There are rumours it was millions, and was supposed to be a final payment to set them up in their new life. One year later, here we are again. The truth about the Harkles will set the RF free...
Excellent article, thank you!
No the photos of Thomas were done with a Californian agency Mr Rayner runs the picture agency Coleman-Rayner in Los Angeles with business partner Mark Coleman.The only thing that ruins that "Inconvenient Truth" DM article is the section about Thomas and his "notorious collaboration with paparazzi photographers" - wasn't it a set up with the DM themselves? (those silly stories about him being measured by a tailor and working out outside).Will have to watch that again. I was in London (to see Depeche Mode at the O2!) and saw it in a hotel bar when it was broadcast but even I could tell the vibe between him and Schofe was very, very frosty. Morten wasn't exactly willing to be complimentary towards his wife, though. Always wondered Morten and Inez bothered appearing on it! (a-ha fan here)
The astonishing footage obtained by The Mail on Sunday shows the 73-year-old former lighting director arriving at an internet cafe with photographer Jeff Rayner. Minutes later the pair are seen preparing to photograph Mr Markle while he is sitting at a computer looking at a news story about his daughter and Prince Harry.
Mail on Sunday reporters have established that Mr Markle and Rayner, a 44-year-old Los Angeles-based photographer, set up at least four photoshoots. Mr Markle is seen wearing identical clothes in different sets of pictures, suggesting different ‘scenarios’ were possibly staged on the same day.
So a USA pap agency set up the photos, sold them around the world and the British press exposed the scam!
- Status