Ah, the auld Polygraph. An electronic device renowned in the USA by it’s supporters as the all knowing, the arbitrator of truth. If you’fail’ it then there is only one reason. You lied. Simples.
But your honour may I call my one and only needed witness to put to bed, with a lovely cup of horlicks, a pinch humour and copious amounts eloquence and reason any and all nonsense.
Matt Orchid, take a bow son…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JYYQT4sqVgs&t=14s&pp=ygUMbWF0dCBvcmNoYX
Every night, across our 70-inch UHD screens, the “Experts” are summoned. We see the Watchers, the Listeners, and the Profilers—the high priests of the “eyebrow-rustling-in-the-wind” theoretical model. They sit in clinical studios, analyzing the wreckage of broken lives with a “psycho-babbling” precision that is as impressive as it is useless.
They tell us exactly why a man became a monster after the crime is committed and the handcuffs are clicked shut. This is what the Institution calls expertise: the ability to describe the smoke with academic flair while standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the arsonist. They study the criminal, but they never dare to look at the factory that built him.
While the NGOs, the media, and the government departments give us endless, finger-wagging sermons on domestic violence and misogyny, they maintain a deafening, profitable silence on the industry that fuels it.
They demonize the symptoms—the violent, broken men—while actively protecting the industry that feeds them. They hold press conferences to condemn the fire, while their other hand is busy feeding the fuel into every home, every smartphone, and every child’s pocket.
The Pontificator’s Verdict: The “Mask” is the performative outrage. Behind it, the Institution runs the show, protecting the multi-billion dollar digital slums because they are too integrated into the system to be dismantled. To admit the link between the industry and the violence would be to admit their own complicity.
We don’t need more “Watchers” to tell us what we are seeing. We need an “Anti-Pornist” stance that refuses to follow the institutional script. Whether it’s Kerry Dawson or the man on the street, the mission is the same: to point out the elephant in the room that the “experts” are paid to ignore.
The institutions would rather demonize half the population for their “inherent ways” than spend a single second regulating the demonic websites they promote through their silence. They want you distracted by the “profilers” so you don’t notice the “pushers.”
For 57 years, I have watched this masquerade from the side-lines. I’ve seen the masks change, but the game remains the same. It’s time to stop listening to the “eyebrow-rustlers” and start unmasking the machine that has created the society we now find ourselves.
Question; In the year 2001 Which fall guy (country leader) said ‘they hate you for your freedoms?’ He/they were referring to Muslims from the middle East. Including but not limited to Libya (bad man – not), Iraq (bad man (not), Syria (bad man). He/they said these countries were full of terrorists and that they all wanted to kill us so to keep us safe they said I’d bomb millions upon millions of innocent people causing death and destruction.
Fat forward 20 years these governments now welcome with open arms the Very people they said wanted to kill us for our freedoms. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of these’terrorists that they said wanted to kill us srtoll in bits or RNLI (this is what your donations now enable when donating to the RNLI SO STOP NOW) day in day out for many many years . Call me thick but in what way does this protect us? In what way is moving them in next door keep us safe. Just like the sexed up dossier it’s all less from the masters of death and destruction.
Cast your mind back to 2001.
A Western leader stood in front of the cameras and delivered a line that would echo for decades: “They hate you for your freedoms.”
“They,” of course, being entire nations across the Middle East — Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan — all painted as monolithic threats, all reduced to a single story: dangerous, irrational, freedom‑hating. The message was simple and terrifying:
These people want to kill you. We must act. Bombs will keep you safe.
And so began the invasions, the drone strikes, the “coalitions,” the “operations,” the “missions.” Behind every euphemism were real people, real cities, real families. Millions of lives shattered under the banner of “protecting freedom.”
Fast‑forward twenty years.
The same governments that once insisted these regions were overflowing with terrorists now process arrivals from those same regions with barely a whisper of the fear they once relied on. Boats arrive. People are screened. Policies shift. Narratives flip.
And the public is left with a question that no institution wants to answer:
Were they a threat then? Are they a threat now? Or was the threat narrative simply convenient at the time?
This isn’t about demonising individuals fleeing war or seeking safety. This is about government storytelling — the way fear is manufactured, deployed, and then quietly retired when it no longer serves a purpose.
Because the pattern is unmistakable:
The same institutions that once insisted we were under existential threat now insist everything is fine. The same institutions that sold “sexed‑up dossiers” now pretend they never existed. The same institutions that promised safety through destruction now ask us not to question the consequences.
This is not about blaming people. This is about holding power accountable for the stories it tells — and the lives those stories destroy.
Governments don’t apologise for contradictions. They rely on the public having a short memory.
But The Daily Pontificator does not.
We remember the slogans. We remember the justifications. We remember the bombs. And we remember the silence that followed.
If institutions want trust, they can start by explaining the gap between the fear they once sold and the reality they now present.
Until then, we’ll keep asking the questions they hope we won’t.
For 57 years, I’ve watched the high street change. I remember when a charity shop was a place of genuine communal recycling—a place where a tenner could clothe a man from head to toe. You could walk in with ten pounds and leave with jeans, a coat, and a sense of dignity.
Today, that tenner barely covers the price of the jeans alone. I’ve seen second-hand, donated sofas priced at £500—items given for free, sold back to the struggling public at retail prices. This isn’t “inflation”; it is Institutional Bloat. The “tidbits” have been replaced by “overhead.”
The modern charity has become a mirror of the music industry or the banking system. It is run by the Middleman in the Suit.
Just as the music industry controls the artist and the listener while producing nothing of its own, the Charity Complex now sits comfortably between the donor and the desperate. They like being in the middle because the middle is where the control is. They manage the optics of the suffering on one side and the guilt of the giving on the other, all while ensuring their own survival is the first priority on the balance sheet.
They aren’t “fit for purpose” because their purpose has shifted. They no longer exist to solve a problem; they exist to manage it indefinitely. If the problem disappeared, the suits would lose their salaries.
Here is the logical breakdown of the modern “charity” moral code:
The CEO: Earns a high six-figure salary, sits in a climate-controlled office, and manages “brand strategy.”
The Donor: Earns a low five-figure sum, struggles with the “price of jeans,” yet is told it is their “civic duty” to drop coins into the tin.
It is a mathematical and moral absurdity. There is no logic in a system where the person with the least is expected to subsidize the lifestyle of the person with the most, under the guise of “helping the poor.”
When the person making the charity tick—the donor and the volunteer—gets “diddly-squat,” while the executive at the top enjoys a corporate-level windfall, the mask has slipped. This isn’t a charity; it’s a redistribution of wealth from the compassionate to the professional manager class.
I am a witness to the wreckage of the local community spirit. We have traded genuine, face-to-face help for global NGOs that are nothing more than “Pity Factories.”
I refuse to legitimize the “Buffer Industry.” I saw the holes in the hull 57 years ago, and I’m not throwing my money into a sinking ship just to keep the captain’s cabin dry.
Nothing Like This Happens To White People! Say what mf? You think TPTB actually give a big smelly fart about you after they’ve been tenaciously trying to take over the whole world for the past four thousand years? Great scholars such as Eustace Mullins, The magnificent, the intellectually the indefatigable, the tenacious, the truthful, Professor of African history and studies, Dr Tony Martin . For many years these men of heart courage and character tried to warn us.
A little teaser, this one shows how the police only kill black people, (if you listen to the Communists ).
Yes, you? How many? How many lies does it take before you withdraw your support for Deirdre Rashid?
Welcome to The Daily Pontificate, a place where we pull no punches, where we fear no criticism, where we are true to our morals, our principles and our integrity in our earnest endeavours to get in behind the headlines and the narrative to reveal the man behind the curtain and why you should most definitely take notice of him.
We will wade through the mountains of shit that are incessantly and methodically pumped out 24 hours a day by the institution and it’s army of NGOs.
Subsequently, if you are offended by truth or facts then this is not the place for your delicate soy induced-self.
In our tenacious sights we have charities, media, government, idolatry (the showbiz idol industry ), the left and the right, global warming, fake news, propaganda and how to spot it.
If we could harness the emotion and energy of sport ball fanz and direct it in the to the game of our common enemy, change we would see. Unfortunately, sport ball fanz are absolutely lost and would rather spend hours, days and weeks defending’their’ club from some hurty words an ex footballer has said about’their’club so I’ll try to reach them via The Daily Pontificate on their all revealing Facebook pages
Come on in, pull a comfy chair up, grab a coffee and let’s do this!
The Daily Pontificate.