Atticus Fox

Quotes on Personal Responsibility

UnHerd Online

‘The War Against Objectivity’

James Bloodworth

14th Aug 2019

https://unherd.com/2019/08/the-war-against-objectivity/

The proliferation of information produced by the internet has made it easier to blur the distinction between truth and falsehood. Conspiracy theories increasingly fill the void where ideology – and certainty about the future – used to be. When there are so many competing truths that few individuals have the time to adequately parse, we are inclined to accept the narrative (however far-fetched) that chimes with our emotional predispositions

Christopher DeGroot

‘Duty to Others in an Age of Individuals’ Takimag, June 8^th 2018

Takimag, June 8^th 2018

https://www.takimag.com/article/duty_to_others_in_an_age_of_individuals_christopher_degroot/2/

In the past, people were born into a culture from whose moral customs they’d deviate at their peril. A couple who had a child out of wedlock, for example, would be shamed by their fellows. Quite an unpleasant experience that certainly was, and yet not necessarily unjust, because negative emotions like shame and disgust serve to uphold moral and therefore social order. To eschew these in the name of “self-esteem,” “tolerance,” “inclusion,” and the like progressive therapeutic concepts is destructive…. In the past, a sense of duty to one another was built into the culture, in a reflection of shared religious mores. But when those shared religious mores are replaced by “rights” and an individualist perspective generally, such a sense of duty becomes more and more elusive

Roger Scruton

‘Bring Back Stigma’

City Journal, Autumn 2000

https://www.city-journal.org/html/bring-back-stigma-11807.html

Unlike the old forms of stigma, however, whose function was to bind a community together and to seal each member into the common fate, this new form of stigma has precisely the opposite aim: to permit social fragmentation. The talk of “social inclusion” is a mask for the reverse. Political correctness does not seek to include the Other in “our” community but to accept his otherness and allow him to live outside. In effect, it is attempting to create a society of strangers, each pursuing his own gratification in his own freely chosen way, and none answerable for what he does to anyone but himself.
.

BTL Comment on The Spectator website by ‘Save The West’

The whole point about totalitarian inventions like “hate-crimes” is that eventually everyone is guilty. You supported the monstrous marxo-fascist idea of “hate-crimes” – apparently without realising that the powerful would use the ghastly concept to suppress free speech, and augment their power by doing so. Wakey-wakey!

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-liberals-must-stand-with-kathleen-stock

Quotes On The EU

Diana Johnstone

‘Italy: The Center Cannot Hold’

The Unz Review, 1st Sep 2018

The mystique of the European Union is anti-nationalism, based on the theory that “nations” are bad because they caused the devastating wars of the twentieth century, while European unification is the sole guarantee of “peace”. Convinced of their mission, the Eurocentrists have had no qualms in throwing out the baby of democratic choice along with the nationalist bathwater….The disappearance of left political forces has been almost total in Italy. There are many reasons for this, but a curable part of the problem has been the inability of what remains of the left to face up to the two main current issues: Europe and immigration.

The left has so thoroughly transformed its traditional internationalism into Europism that it has been unable to recognize EU institutions and regulations as a major source of its problems. The stigmatization of “the nation” as aggressively nationalistic has held back left ability to envisage and advocate progressive policies at the national level, instead putting its hopes forever in a future hypothetical “social Europe”. Such a transformation would require unanimity under EU rules – politically impossible with 28 widely differing Member States.

Without such inhibitions, the far right capitalizes on growing discontent.

Another related handicap of the left is its inability to recognize that mass immigration is indeed “a problem” – especially in a country like Italy, with a flagging economy and 20% official unemployment

https://www.unz.com/article/italy-the-center-cannot-hold/

Brendan O’Neill

‘Justin Welby’s EU Delusion’

The Spectator Coffee House, 6th June 2018

It’s pretty clear now that the EU has become a God substitute for our increasingly faithless intellectual elites. It’s their church, their symbol of goodness, their paragon of purity in this world beset with populism and — brace yourselves — people whose political opinions differ from the Guardian’s…The EU acts as a kind of God Replacement Therapy. It is the one article of faith our chattering classes can cling to in these otherwise morally confused times. That is why they praise it so wildly, and so inaccurately. That is why they treat any dissent from the Brussels writ as heresy: Brexit is basically the Beelzebub to their godly EU, the black in their black-and-white moral universe. Because for some of these people, love for the EU isn’t really a thought-out political position — it’s a moral signifier, the way you show you are a good person.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/justin-welbys-eu-delusion/

I Am A Westernist

A lot of the dialogue on political issues focuses on whether you are a Nationalist or a Globalist. Nationalists voted to Leave the EU. Globalist voted to Remain. Nationalists want controlled immigration in order to protect – or maybe even improve – their quality of life whereas Globalists are all for mass immigration so that they have access to cheap labour.

I am not a Globalist. I feel that overthrowing millennia of tribalism in favour of multiculturalism will have many unintended consequences. Plus, The West cannot accomodate everyone who wants to live here. We need to protect the special culture of The West so that it can continue to thrive.

Yet Globalists are prepared to open up The West to anyone and everyone for the sake of a few extra pips on GDP.

I’ve heard Jordan Peterson say that different cultures do not get on (which is why there has always been so many wars). I think the tensions we are seeing in our society confirms this view.

However, ‘nationalism’ is now a tainted term. It is a term associated with fascists. It is a term associated with small-minded, inward-facing bigots. Yet nationalism, for me, doesn’t fit the bill anyway: I want all of Western culture to be protected. I’m not just struggling solely on behalf of English culture. Therefore, the ideology I propose is ‘Westernism’. This is the term for all those that see the threat to The West and seek to protect it.

Many feel that forced multiculturalism is eating away at Western civilisation. Our customs and traditions are being reshaped or abandoned in order to better accommodate immigrants. The Left tells us that Western civilisation is nothing to be proud of. We should discard our history and start from a clean slate.

The Left are convinced that Western Civilisation is bad and thus they have set their phasors to ‘destroy’.

Let me take a paragraph to point out the many brilliant things about Western Civilisation:

Democracy; Exploration: Science; Medicine; Inventions; Intellectual Curiosity; Art; Literature; Legal systems; Relative lack of Corruption; Architecture; Gardening;

We see that our fight to replace the British class system with a meritocracy is being undermined by diversity quotas where standards are lowered to allow certain favoured groups to qualify.

There are active attempts from The Left and minority interest groups to bring down Western Civilisation. They feel that, should they succeed, they will be the beneficiaries. They seek a New World Order.

I do not want these subversive to succeed. They are revolutionaries. They are a 5th column amongst us. What they have to offer will not be better than what has gone before. It will be immeasurably worse. And for that reason, I am not a Nationalist, I am a Westernist.

Political Consensus Helps No One

The referendum result shocked politicians because the views of the electorate on the EU had not been tested for so long. Politicians assumed that the electorate shared the same view as them (or could be cajoled into the same view by unleashing ‘Project Fear’). What became apparent is that politicians cannot adopt a cross-party consensus, fail to consult the electorate on a major element of policy for 40 years and then expect no divergence to have occurred. Let’s summarise all areas in which divergence was allowed to occur:

* There was no popular mandate for the EU that derived from open debate and transparency.
* There was no political debate on the EU as part of the UK general election cycle.

*There was no discussion of the objectives of the EU as part of European election campaigns

* The growth and direction of the EU was not driven by the UK electorate.
* The EU is not accountable to popular opinion as a genuinely democratic political institution should be.
* The UK electorate had not had any say in the various EU treaties that UK has signed up for since we joined the EEC in 1973.
* There was political consensus on Britain’s role within the EU across all UK political parties which left no scope for genuine critical analysis of the EU.
* The expansion of the EU was being driven by the political ambition of a small number of professional European bureaucrats hell-bent on creating a European federal superstate.
* The UK electorate were not provided with information as to the objectives of the EU and the steps that would be taken to reach those objectives.

The EU is a crystal ball that can be all things to all people, depending on the prism of prejudice through which it is viewed:

* To those who distrust politicians, the EU offers a frightening future of a heavier political yoke.

* To those who loathe the Tories, the EU will always be preferable.

* To those that like big government that absolves personal responsibility by controlling every aspect of our lives through regulation and intervention (and spends a lot of money in the process), the EU is a godsend. It’s no coincidence that most public sector workers voted Remain. They have put their faith in the public sector that government will look after them. Leavers, on the other hand, accept personal responsibility as a price worth paying for reduced government intervention.

* To those that harbour John Lennon type feelings of the world living as one, the EU is the start of that utopian vision. The EU appeals to idealists. Idealists are prepared to overlook the negatives of the EU in favour of the ‘big picture’. Rather like how revolutionaries are prepared to overlook gulags and mass executions in order to protect fledgling political movements.

* To those that like to adopt an ‘internationalist’ outlook because they know that such an outlook is fashionable amongst the liberal elites and they don’t want to appear to be ‘Little Englanders’, they will support the EU come what may.

* To those that believe that the UK has too close a relationship with the USA, the EU is a welcome – if unknown – antidote.

However, in truth, we know nothing about how the EU will operate in the future. It is a black box. To support such an entity under these conditions would be foolhardy. I was struck during the referendum that no one from the Remain camp made the positive case for the EU. No one argued how great the EU is. The only Remainer arguments were negative ones: how disastrous it would be for the UK to leave the EU. If that is the best that can be said about the EU, it is clearly best to Leave.

If we had not joined the EEC in 1973, what would be the argument for the UK to join the EU now? There isn’t one. (Please don’t cite the Eastern European countries that have been keen to join the EU as a positive case for the EU. These countries have joined the EU primarily for protection from Russia).

Remainers want to create a homogeneous world. They want to create a world where the same rules apply to everyone. They do not want countries gaining competitive advantages by pursuing their own paths such as optimising tax rates, or reducing red tape or any other measure that might stimulate growth or make their country a better place for its citizens. Remainers want to remove this kind of competition between countries. They want equality, you see. It’s part of their need for conformity.

Appeals to Democracy don’t work on Remainers. They tend to feel that Democracy delivers poor results because democratic governments are always trying to curry favour with the electorate. A significant number of Remainers believe that elections are a distraction and that we should be ruled by a class of bureaucratic elites who know what’s best for the rest of us because they went to the right universities.

I Am The Counterculture. Hear My Roar!

I am now part of the anti-establishment counter-culture. How thrilling. And how surprising. My background does not provide any indication that this would be the case. I was a Tory from a young age. I always found myself supporting the establishment. I regarded the Greenham Common protests very disapprovingly. These people were Lollards. Did they not understand that there were issues of national security at stake?

When it came to the miners’ strike, I again sided with the authorities. The UK couldn’t be held to ransom by militant unionism.

I even tried defending the Poll Tax: surely it made more sense that each person paid rather than each household. It didn’t seem fair that a little old lady living alone in her family home should pay as much for local services as a family of 5 adults living in a similar house next door.

Yet something has changed. I now find myself in opposition to the establishment on almost everything:

I find all the main political parties – and the Lib Dems – to be untrustworthy. They are hypocrites. They lie.

I am a climate change sceptic having realised that the link between CO2 levels and temperatures is very weak.

I look with shock at our police who seem more interested in dancing at Pride marches and prosecuting hate crime than prosecuting actual crime.

I witness in disbelief the vigour with which transgenderism has dominated our culture. Yet there has been no debate: you are either fully supportive of every aspect of transgenderism, as it is presented, or you are transphobic.

I no longer watch the news on terrestrial TV channels as I find the bias insufferable. I was long told there was bias in TV news but I couldn’t see it myself. However, once seen, it can never be unseen.

I think of HS2 tearing through the English countryside and I shake my head at the mediocrity of our leaders. Yet again, all roads lead to London. The government is unable to initiate a major infrastructure project that doesn’t involve London.

I read of Savid Javid, the Home Secretary of a (notionally) Conservative government, publishing plans to crack down on internet freedom by introducing the most draconian internet regulations of any democratic country

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/iplod-sajid-javids-new-internet-rules-will-have-a-chilling-effect-on-free-speech/

Then there is Brexit. The big Kahuna burger of Brexit. Brexit, which has done more than all of the above points put together to highlight the gulf that exists between the people and our cultural overlords. We live in a society where virtually everyone in a position of cultural authority – politicians, journalists, artists, academics, the intelligentsia, FTSE100 board members – and Andrew Adonis are convinced that Britain can only survive as part of an undemocratic, unaccountable federal superstate. They have embraced globalism as their new religion: nationalities and cultures must be swept away to be replaced by something we are assured will be much better. Better for who, we wonder as we witness our homes becoming more expensive and our roads more congested and government incursion into our lives ever more invasive and crime going up.

So, I find in my glorious middle years that I am an anti-establishment rebel. Who’s with me?

All We Are Saying…Is Give Men A Chance

Men are an easy target these days. The rise of Militant Feminism has given new life to the attack on men. Feminists say they still have a long way to go to reach equality in western patriarchal societies. (Feminists have even further to go to reach equality in eastern patriarchal societies! BOOM!). So, let’s list the ways in which women have yet to achieve equality with men. And, just to be clear, these are not subjective differences, these are factually significant differences with many of the differences enshrined in law:

1) Most of the homeless are men https://www.statista.com/statistics/381373/london-homelessness-rough-sleepers-by-gender/

2) Men retire at 65. Women retire at 60.

3) Men get longer prison sentences than women for the same crime http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#criminal_law

4) Males are more likely to be subject to corporal punishment

5) More men (18%) have been victims of domestic violence by a wife or female partner as opposed to 13% of women by a man. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#domestic_violence

6) Screening programs are provided for women related cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. However there is no screening of equivalent cancers affecting men such as prostate and testicular cancer. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#health

7) Cancer research spending is overwhelmingly in favour of women cancers. For example during 2017/8, Cancer Research UK spent double on breast cancer (£45m) compared to prostrate cancer (£22m). https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/how-much-we-spend-on-research

8) The most up to date health targets for the UK include: B1 – reduction of breast cancer by 25%, and B2 – reduction of cervical cancer by 20%. There is not even a mention of prostate, or testicular cancer targets. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#health

9) An unmarried man cannot apply for a passport for a child unless he has permission of mother. However, a mother does not need fathers permission to apply for passport since nationality for children of unmarried parents is via the mother. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#passports

10) In cases of taxation, personal allowances can be transferred from husband to wive but they cannot be transferred from wife to husband. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#taxes

11) Widows are allowed to claim bereavement benefit but there is no equivalent for widowers. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#pensions_and_benefits

12) In the UK military different rules apply to men and women: women can wear earrings; women are allowed longer hair; men get no extra leave when their wives have babies.

13) Boys are more likely to be on psychotropic medications than girls. (Could this be result of principal careers being women who don’t really understand how boys behave? In fact I must find out if there different rates of medicated boys between dual parent and single parent households).

14) Fathers who have been the principal career for their children are less likely to win custody of their children than women who have been the principal carer. (Source: David Benatar, ‘The Second Sexism’)

15) Divorcing fathers are only likely to win custody of children 9% of the time http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#family_courts

16) Only 2% of UK primary school teachers are men. This means that only 2% of young boys will have a male role model at school. 91% of the boys from single parent families won’t have a male role model at home either.

17) Far more men than women die on the job https://www.avoiceformen.com/men/men-over-twenty-times-as-likely-as-women-to-die-at-work/

18) The suicide rate for men is 3.7 times that for women. The suicide rate for young males has shown an alarming increase in recent years. There has been a growth of 70 percent in suicides of young men below the age of 21 years.

https://www.bcmj.org/articles/silent-epidemic-male-suicide

http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#suicide

19) Labour party has a shadow women’s minister but no men’s minister http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#politicians

20) Over 40% of victims of severe physical domestic violence are men but 99.3% of shelter spaces are for women only

21) Men die an average of 7 years before women http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#health

22) The is a long standing bias in sexual assault research which has neglected the similar traumatising effects for men. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sexual-assault-studies-sexism-men-bias-against-rape-women-gender-florida-atlantic-university-sam-a7834766.html

23) Circumcision of baby men is culturally accepted http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#circumcision

24) Boys are second best to girls in terms of educational success https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/our-education-system-must-stop-ignoring-its-bias-against-boys/

These are the facts and they are undisputed.

Then there are the ‘softer’ advantages for women. These are those advantages that are enshrined culturally or biologically, if not legally:

1) Women have much more freedom to choose their lifestyle: work; stay at home as carer; stay at home (not as carer); choose to work full time or part time etc.

2) Women have the right to choose parenthood

3) Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children

4) Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape

5) Negative stereotypes are allowed against men but not women. Misandry is permissible and encouraged. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223989709603527

6) The pressures on males and females to be successful are highly unequal. Men see becoming successful as an responsibility and obligation, whereas for women, becoming successful is a choice.

7) Men are not allowed many spaces they can call their own: women force admittance to men’s spaces but insist on keeping segregated spaces for themselves for ‘safety’.

In summary, gender inequality does not seem quite as cut-and-dried as the mainstream media would have you believe.

Here are some other websites on which you can further balance your biases:

http://www.cultural-misandry.com/feminism-the-hate-group-2/

https://hequal.wordpress.com/

Are You An Extrovert?

Extroverts at first glance:

1) You are never happier than indulging in ‘bantz’ with a group of friends.

2) You have a reputation for being amongst the last to leave any social function

3) You have a habit of striking up friendships with anyone that you come across on a regular basis.

4) You were not shy as a child.

5) You will go to any and every social function to which you are invited

6) You tend to keep conversation light and frothy.

7) You love the lime-light. Natch.

8) You don’t really like being on your own.

9) You would not dream of going somewhere on your own

10) You will go to an event even if you are not interested in the event simply because there will be other people there.

11) You have a tendency to get talking to strangers.

12) You spend a lot of time on the phone

13) You will talk anywhere, anytime. You will have the same conversation with your friend on a crowded train that you would have with them in their home. At the same volume!

14) You like drugs that make you more extroverted. After all, extroversion is your comfort zone

15) You get over arguments quickly. They just aren’t deep enough to find anything important enough to stay angry about.

16) You have been known to say “I can get on with anyone”.

17) You will let people know of very personal things about yourself very soon after meeting them.

18) You are not very good at keeping secrets.

19) You tend to be the “outgoing” one in your relationships.

20) You have no problem with impromptu plans. You see the opportunity in any situation. Aren’t ad-hoc outings often the most fun? Plus, you don’t want to be left out: If anything is going on, you want to be part of it.

21) You follow celebrity news

22) You are rarely ever involved in fights

23) You always get talking to strangers and you don’t even know how you do it. It is something that is operating at a subconscious level.

24) You are an open mouthed smiler. If you are smiling, your teeth are showing.

25) You wear your heart on your sleeve

26) You are not a stickler for following rules

27) You are not big on self-discipline.

28) You prefer social gatherings with lots of people over just a few people.

Are You An Introvert?

The quick quide to Introverts:

1) You are quickly bored by small-talk. (inc banter)

2) You loathe social situations in which you don’t know anyone (or don’t know anyone well).

3) You often go to social functions because of a sense of obligation, not because you are excited to be there.

4) The older you get, the more you find that you minimise social activities.

5) You are quite content to go to places on your own that may be considered places for companionship.

6) You prefer conversations on a one-to-one basis than group conversations

7) You are happy spending time on your own.

8) You were shy / very shy as a child.

9) You are slow to move beyond the most cursory of exchanges with people with whom come into contact on a regular basis

10) You prefer eCommunications – texting; WhatsApp; email etc – to making a phone call.

11) You don’t like talking to friends / colleagues in public places where you can be easily overheard.

12) You like drugs that accentuate your introversion.

13) You pride yourself on your loyalty to your friends

14) You take longer to move on from arguments

15) You pride yourself on ‘telling it like it is’

16) You are uncomfortable around extremely extrovert people.

17) You have OCD tendencies

18) You over-compensate in your desire to hide your introvertedness

19) You tend to assume that you won’t like new people that you meet.

20) You are good at keeping secrets

21) You are slow to trust people

22) You will sometimes avoid people you don’t know very well if you see them in a public place

23) You will take yourself off to be alone on a regular basis.

24) You tend to have extroverts as partners

25) You are not keen on doing things impromptu.

26) You are aware that you have less empathy and tolerance than other people.

27) You are less likely to follow celebrity news

28) You like deep films and deep music and deep books.

29) You criticise the plotlines / dialogue in films

30) If you are a man, you used to get into fights when you were younger.

31) You have been known to prepare conversational topics prior to social engagements

32) You are no stranger to people telling you to ‘Cheer Up’

33) You realise that asking lots of questions is a good contingency plan in conversations

34) You feel you are more aware of awkward silences than other people.

35) You are a closed mouth smiler

36) You are often disappointed by the behaviour of those you are close to

37) You have a reputation for being a smart-arse.

38) You have been referred to as ‘curmudgeonly’ (if you’re a man) or ‘ice-maiden’ (if you’re a woman).

39) You are prepared to jettison friends who have let you down

40) You think of the perfect retort hours after the opportunity has passed.

41) You like to hang around the periphery of any new social situation.

The Left are Racist

It must now be obvious to everyone that the insult of choice for The Left is ‘Racist’. The word is never far from the reach of all Leftists in any kind of debate. Regardless of the subject being debated, if a Leftist hears some ideas he doesn’t agree with, the ‘R’ word will be quickly deployed. Even if the subject under discussion has no direct racial aspect, the dedicated Leftist will have no qualms about throwing R-bombs from the start.

One of the most obvious examples of this phenomenon is the Brexit debate in the UK. The debate is whether the UK should, or should not, leave the EU. It’s an issue that has many obvious implications that should be debated: economics; sovereignty; democracy; accountability; political transparency; whether our elected representatives are better at understanding complex issues than the stupid electorate; culture; the risks of remote rule; EU federalisation; quality of life for the indigenous population; whether the UK or the EU should decide where UK tax revenues are spent etc etc.

However, for Leftists, all of these issues are irrelevant. For your average Leftist, Brexit is a one dimensional issue: If you want Britain to leave the EU, you are Racist.

It feels like this is the ultimate insult for all Leftists: To them, ‘Racist’ must be the very worst thing you can call someone. A bit like a builder calling you a ‘Fucking cunt’. Its a natural fit.

Of course, the reason that Leftists use this word so much is because they live in abject fear of being called a Racist themselves. It’s Freudian: their greatest fear is that, deep down, they might actually be a little bit racist. So calling someone racist serves 2 purposes:

1) it’s a smoke screen for the fact that your average middle class Leftist has no black friends and just one Asian friend who they were at Uni with but don’t see much these days.

2) it’s a good tactic to put your opponent on the defensive. Immediately, as soon as ‘Racist’ makes an appearance, the accused is now on the defensive and subject at hand becomes irrelevant. This can make the Leftist appear that he is doing well in the debate when all that’s happened is that the debate has been reframed to the Leftst’s advantage.

The fact that the Left are so obsessed with Racism can only mean that they are as racist as fuck.

The Feminization of Society

Being in Government often means taking tough decisions. Often, the greater good will come at a cost to a small section of society. However, the decision should have a positive business case: the benefit to the many must outweigh the cost to the few. If a government seeks outcomes where there is no adverse effect, they will be a weak, ineffective government. Decisions that have no downsides rarely have any upsides.

A theory occurred to me that perhaps a difference between The Right and The Left is that The Right have traditionally been more likely to make decisions that have a negative impact on some sections of society as long as the overall outcome is a positive one. The Left, however, has always been more likely to steer a path that doesn’t involve a negative impact on anyone (apart from rich people, of course!). In short, The Right makes decisions based on economics / facts whereas The Left is guided more by feelings of emotion / fairness. Thus, The Right gains the reputation for harshness and The Left gains the reputation for woolly compromises that don’t deliver the intended benefits.

However, it also occurred to me that even The Right has become more compromising in nature in recent years.
For example, I have been following Brexit under the Theresa May’s watch and she is a classic of the compromise type: she is unable to make a tough decision. As such, she ties herself in knots and disappears down the rabbit-hole in an ever more tortuous attempt to find a Brexit solution that will appease everyone. Another Theresa example would be her decision as Home Secretary to block the police from performing stop-and-search in high risk areas. May made this decision to appease the black community but the consequence has been an explosion in knife crime. Again, the greater good is foregone so that a minority are not disadvantaged. Leftist compromise in action. Yet, nominally speaking, May is not left wing.

And then a possible answer hit me: it’s not about Left vs Right anymore. It’s about the feminisation of politics. As more women have entered politics Western governments have become ever more guided by compromise and feelings.

Compromise is a female trait, whereas pragmatic decisions are a male trait. Feelings are now given equal weight with facts. This phenomenon is probably explained by the fact that women score more highly than men for neuroticism and agreeableness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/

Both of these traits lead women to seek compromise and agreement.

In fact, feminisation explains many of the cultural shifts affecting society.

Women are nurturers and carers and protectors. Women do not like to see pain or suffering. And so women are bringing these traits in to the decision making processes. But these traits come with unintended consequences.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160728195604.html

Women, in their nurturing desire for inclusivity and dislike of anyone – or any group – suffering are unconsciously causing many of the problems in Western society:

Women are strong advocates for large-scale immigration. Immigration appeals to female instincts for ‘fairness’ that everyone should have access to the advantages of the West.

Women are unable to be tough on crime. To be tough on crime means to punish people. Women are not very good on punishment. Women are more likely to support rehabilitation than punishment. Also, we are seeing more cases where the law is being applied inconsistently to take into account cultural backgrounds.

Women are advocates for individualism over society. What do I mean by this? I mean that a woman is much more likely to give more weight to anecdotal evidence from someone they know than aggregated data from gathered by a public body. The Anti-Vaxx movement provides a good example of this womanly trait: Most of the leading anti-vaxxers are women. I put this down a convergence of 2 factors:

1) Women have an extraordinarily high investment in the well-being of their children.

2) Women are not as engaged with science as men: And, women respond very strongly to human interest stories. As a result of this, women are more likely to be swayed by anecdotes from people they trust than by cold medical evidence written by someone they’ve never heard of.

Women are advocates for protecting each and every victim group in society. Women do this because they instinctively feel the need to protect any and all ‘victims’. However, when victims are awarded protected status, then it becomes beneficial to claim victimhood status. Thus, we now live in a world of identity politics and grievance culture. With identity politics now in place, it is harder than ever for politicians to make tough decisions. This is because all of the possible victim groups now have such a high profile that doing anything that may inconvenience them becomes impossible.

The result of the feminisation of Western politics is woolly decision making by our governments; high crime; 2-tier policing; mass immigration and identity politics.

It pains me to write this but the very best attributes of women whilst invaluable in the home are actually leading to problems when deployed into wider society.

UPDATE 7 Jan 2020

I came across this piece by Christopher DeGroot that makes the point rather well:

To the studies Barone mentions it should be added that women (on average) are higher in altruism, in conformity, and in neuroticism than men. Add to these differences the greater numeracy of women in academia, and it seems clear that much of political correctness is attributable to women.
Simply consider how this plays out psychologically. With their greater altruism, women care more about other’s feelings than men. Since they are higher in negative emotions (neuroticism), they are more readily offended than men. They also tend to value conformity or consensus more than men do. And it’s owing to the collective power of these traits that large groups of women are so formidable when it comes to enforcing “speech codes,” demanding “safe spaces,” alerting “bias response teams,” and so on.

https://www.takimag.com/article/progressive_academias_threat_to_free_speech_christopher_degroot/

Noah Carl:

As the psychologist Cory Clark notes, women are consistently less supportive of free speech than men, and consistently more supportive of censorship. Compared to men, they’re more likely to say: that hate speech is violence; that it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker; that controversial scientific findings should be censored; that people need to be more careful about the language they use; and that it should be illegal to say offensive things about minorities.

https://noahcarl.substack.com/p/did-women-in-academia-cause-wokeness