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.

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

Father John Misty Belongs to The Left

Ever noticed how The Left claim ownership of any artist or artiste that is Left Wing?

I discovered this recently when I joined a Father John Misty fan group on Facebook recently.

You may not have heard of FJM. He is a singer / songwriter. He plays the guitar. He tours with an 18 piece orchestra. He writes wry, ironic, caustic exposees of human behaviour in his songs. His lyrics include the following:

“We’re [humans] the earths most soulful predators”

And…

“I’m writing a novel (coz it’s never been done before)”

and…

“And now every insufferable convo

Features her explaining the cosmos

Of which she’s in the middle”

His songs are very interesting. Not only are there lots of interesting lyrics and ideas but the guy has a very good voice. He can hit those upper notes with ease. Also the songs tend to be quite long so each song can really take you on a journey. I get the impression he is a troubled soul which possibly adds further to my interest.

From a small number of interviews I’ve seen him in, it is clear that he’s a raging lefty. Not really surprising. I don’t let that spoil my appreciation of his music. I like him for his voice and songs. Not for his politics. For this reason, I make a point of not seeking out his interviews. I am happy to remain ignorant of the man behind the music.

When his 4th album came out last year, it received a very good review by Rod Liddle in The Spectator

I posted the link to this review on the FJM fan page.

Immediately, I received some Antifa-type responses suggesting I had introduced fascism to their safe space. The first response was

“Sounds a bit fashy”.

Soon there were other posts where these keyboard warriors announced that they

“punch Nazis”.

I could not resist responding to a couple of comments. My responses quickly attracted other noble social justice activists to the thread. Their excitement at being able to confront a real, live fascist (me), from the safety of their own bedrooms was palpable.

A couple of these super-woke loons expressed wonder that I like FJM. One of them pointed out that FJM sings against capitalism. I pointed out that FJM songs are more about how ludicrous humans are. Another member of this tolerant fraternity suggested that I just like the melodies.

To these accusations I pointed out that art is for the benefit of whosoever appreciates it.

Anymore, to cut a long story short, I was doing a good job of swatting away the many self-loathing snowflakes that were queuing up to pile in. However, one of the FB moderators saw that my combination of tolerance, common-sense, eloquence, facts, a sound understanding of the role of art in a society, a keen eye for what threatens the stability of Western society, and an appreciation of historical context was a danger to the coddled mindset of FJM fans and so he stopped me from making further posts on the thread. At that point, I left the group.

We are now in a society where everyone are reminded to stay in their own lane: The Right are not allowed to support art that The Left consider to be theirs. The Left are happy to stick to their own echo chambers. However, The Right are much more tolerant of other perspectives. The Left don’t like this.

Quotes on Identity Politics

Henry Jacobson

‘Neville Southall: The Homo Sovieticus of the Corbyn era’

Spiked Online
7th June 2018

Identity politics – a cultish faux-leftism where ideas are valued according to who’s saying them; where all criticism can be deflected through childish appeals to ideological purity; and where free speech is replaced by a convoluted system of competing ‘platforms’, obliging anyone with a public profile to surrender their own voice in order to ‘signal boost’ the views of unrepresented minorities.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/06/07/neville-southall-the-homo-sovieticus-of-the-corbyn-era/

Taylor Lewis

‘Bourgeois and Boring’

Takimag
June 8th 2018

As Rusty Reno points out, it is the “rich and powerful” who have “adopted the LGBT agenda as their most beloved cause.” Corporate CEOs, intellectuals, big financiers, nonprofit presidents, politicians, and pundits are using the blunt force of their positions to push it into broader society. But the more the gay cause is fashioned as a bludgeon to hit holdouts, the duller it becomes.https://www.takimag.com/article/bourgeois_and_boring_taylor_lewis/

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

John Stossel

‘Jordon Peterson vs. The Left’

Reason
13th June 2018

[Jordan] Peterson observes, correctly, that the world poverty rate has been cut in half in the 21st century, while the description of the world heard on campuses is that things are worse than ever, mostly because of inequality, oppression, and patriarchy.

Part of the problem, says Peterson, is that “social justice” courses on campuses change the meaning of the word “justice” from rightfulness or lawfulness into a demand for justice for groups, based on the assumption each group must be equal to every other. Men, women, blacks, whites—all should have the same income, job preference, everything.

In a free society, that’s impossible to guarantee, even if everyone is equal under the law.

But students are taught that every time there’s a difference in outcome, it’s an injustice, a new reason for outrage. The anger never ends.

Peterson says the activists who are so angry about injustice should be happy they live in societies like America, places founded on individual liberty and free markets.

“Everyone is doing better here than anybody has ever done on the face of the planet throughout recorded history, and the whole West is like that!” he told me. “To call that all a tyrannical patriarchy is indicative of a very deep resentment and an historical ignorance that’s so profound that it’s indistinguishable from willful blindness.”

https://reason.com/archives/2018/06/13/jordan-peterson-vs-the-left

Spectator online forum, 14th June 2018 Peter Evans in comment against Peter Hitchens’ article:
‘Marxism didn’t die. It’s alive and well and living amongst us

I now subscribe to the view that the new communism, which is predominantly sex and gender communism (although a fetish for skin colour plays a prominent part too), actively induces the malice-drenched, pathologically envious, resentfully destructive malevolence it poses itself as a solution to. The fanatical embrace of egalitarianism has nothing to do with the Christian belief that we are all created equal in the image of God but must take responsibility for our actions, it has nothing to do with “levelling” a supposedly tilted playing field. It’s about flipping the field and seizing power to impose dogma-driven and deeply pathological grievance policies, all of which are delusionally aimed at eradicating any condition that might arouse envy (the enraged resentment at anything that we imagine might be better than ourselves). There is no prospect of self-improvement in such a regime, no prospect of self-reform, no hope of redemption and no freedom.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/marxism-didnt-die-its-alive-and-well-and-living-among-us/

David Thompson, Feb 25th 2016
“Unwise Counsel”:

Of course Laurie [Penny] has the considerable advantage of being raised, comfortably, in a stable family by two middle-class parents with the terribly bourgeois values she now claims to hold in contempt. If instead she’d been raised in keeping with her own professed standards – say, by a disaffected single parent with multiple transient partners and no lifelong commitment – I somehow doubt she’d have been able to spend time at Wadham College finding herself politically and playing “riot girl.” In effect, and like so many of her type, our leftist guru is coasting on the legacy of values that served her well but which she claims to despise and urges others to reject

https://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2016/02/index.html

Konstantin Kisin on David Thompson
May 22nd 2018

These enemies of the [Soviet] state included my great-grandparents who met in a concentration camp for political prisoners. Every morning at their camp, three people would be picked out at random from the general population of the camp and thrown into the icy waters of the lake to freeze and drown in full view of the other prisoners to ‘keep things under control.’ With this background, I am —perhaps understandably— hypersensitive to the emerging far-left in Western politics. I can’t help noticing similarities in the rhetoric about “eradicating inequality,” “smashing the class system,” and a new age of “radical egalitarianism.” And when I do, I shudder, because… it’s a reminder of the unforgiving reality that those who don’t realise how good they have it, or take their lives of plenty for granted, are vulnerable to demagogic ideologies that promise to tear it all down to build a ‘better tomorrow.’

https://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2018/05/index.html

David Thompson

‘Modern Savagery’

Nov 26th 2017

As noted here before and illustrated at length, it’s interesting just how often “social justice” posturing entails something that looks an awful lot like spite or petty malice, or an attempt to harass and dominate, or some other obnoxious behaviour. Behaviour that, without a “social justice” pretext, might get you called a wanker or a bitch. A coincidence, I’m sure. And it seems to me that when your chosen means of expressing piety and high motives include terrorising a lone female driver, picked at random, and trying to smash her car’s windscreen into her face while videoing her distress, then some self-reflection may be in order. And likewise, when Black Lives Matter activists and “social justice” juggernauts deliberately and laughingly obstruct ambulances and other emergency vehicles, and endanger the lives of random people, while giving the ambulance drivers the finger, this doesn’t exactly indicate some lofty moral purpose.

It does, however, tell the rest of us, quite vividly, what you are

It’s sometimes hard to see much difference between a “social justice” activist and a sociopath with a flimsy excuse.

https://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2017/11/index.html

Tim Newman Blog
“The last straw? If only”28th July 2018

28th July 2018

It’s often said that a sign of country undergoing improvement is a growing middle class. What I think we’re seeing now is what happens when the middle classes get too big and too comfortable for too long. It won’t end well.

http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/7947/

 

Paul Gottfried

‘Yes, Virginia (Dare) There Is A Cultural Marxism—And It’s Taking Over Conservatism Inc.’

Vdare.com
May 22nd 2017

For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the crusade against capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against “prejudice” and “discrimination.” They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because it will bring the working class to power, but to fight “racism,” “fascism,” and the other residues of the Western past.

If they can’t accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags— hedge fund managers, Mark Zuckerberg etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers’ state, i.e. the leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of command economies in the Soviet bloc. Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures, the obliteration of gender roles and the utter devastation of “the patriarchal family.”… It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure that our so-called “conservatives” are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right.

https://vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-dare-there-is-a-cultural-marxism-and-it-s-taking-over-conservatism-inc

George Orwell:

“Most middle-class Socialists, while theoretically pining for a class-less society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige.[…] If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry, and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses.”

Gavin McInnes

“10 Things I like about white guys”

Takimag

March 2nd 2017:

We have a lot of women here marching for rights they already have and minorities complaining about oppression, but nowhere in the world is there more free speech, gay rights, feminism, and need to embrace diversity than in the West. Personally, I think they’ve gone a little far with it all, and the fact that appeasing these ingrates only makes them complain more makes me think they’re getting a little spoiled.

https://www.takimag.com/article/10_things_i_like_about_white_guys_gavin_mcinnes/

Gavin McInnes

“This country was not built by Beta males”

Takimag October 25th 2013:

I had gone on a show to discuss masculinity and was ridiculed for saying men are more masculine than women. The left’s creative destruction puts single mothers on a pedestal while scoffing at traditional families. I believe this anti-machismo dogma is linked to anti-capitalism and is ultimately anti-American. I also think it’s a dangerous virus that threatens Western culture at its core. This country was not built by beta males.

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

Ross Clark

“The sexism in our prisons the govt is happy to ignore”

The Spectator
27th June 2018

The government seems to have absorbed an unwritten rule of feminism: that it is perfectly acceptable to assert intellectual and emotional differences between men and women when it works in favour of the latter, but not when it works against them. Make out that men are more disposed towards aggression and violence and thus deserving of harsher treatment through the criminal justice system and you are enlightened; suggest, on the other hand, that female under-representation in top jobs might possibly be partly down to differences in drive and ambition, and you are a sexist pig.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/the-sexism-in-our-prisons-the-government-is-happy-to-ignore/

Christopher De Groot

“Progressive Academia’s threat to free speech”

Takimag 13th July 2018

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/

Roger Scruton

‘Bring Back Stigma‘

City Journal
Autumn 2000

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 theopposite 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 allowhim 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

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

Douglas Murray

“Does Teen Vogue Understand what it means to be literally a communist?”

The Spectator Coffee House
17th July 2018

There have been many consequences of the great post-war skew in our politics. But one – which Jordan Peterson and I recently discussed in Dublin – is that while the right knows where it can go wrong, the left does not. Worse, it no longer even seems to want to know. A fact that allows malevolent people to mischaracterise the whole shape of our politics.

Because on the political right the fall-away from the political centre is portrayed as being exceptionally close to that centre and almost unbelievably vertiginous from there. You might step one place to the right by arguing for lower taxes. But take one step further and – woah – it’s all the way down to Nazism. Take a step leftwards, by contrast, and you can just keep going and going, running all the way to an end. An end that never includes the Gulag.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/does-teen-vogue-understand-what-it-means-to-be-literally-a-communist/

‘PetaJ’, Spectator CoffeeHouse comments August 30th 2018:

The [Social Justice Warriors] are showing all the symptoms of mass psychopathy: the need to control; the blame shifting; the victim playing; the inability to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions; the inability to empathise; and finally the nastiest of them all – the pleasure they derive from inflicting pain on others.

‘MikeF’, Spectator CoffeeHouse comments August 30th 2018:

…the politics Ms Bellos espoused back in the 80s were those of hard-left intolerance and what she is suffering from now is their logical or perhaps that should be even more illogical extension. Like all these left-wing feminists who are being targeted by the ‘trans’ lobby she is essentially asking for an exemption from a brand of politics she has promoted – an ideological ‘safe space’ in which some degree of empiricism still operates. In contrast the ‘trans’ activists are simply following that brand of politics to its inevitable conclusion and once you unleash a self-defining, self-justifying irrationalism you cannot call a halt to it – it is remorseless and insatiable and will devour everything in its sight.
Ms Bellos seems unable to admit that the only real defence against such forces are a politics based on freedom of speech, independence of mind, empiricism and a respect for difference of opinion. Until she and all those like her are prepared to do so they will be trampled on in this way.

Gad Saad

“Is Toxic Masculinity A Valid Concept”

Psychology Today
March 8th2018:

Think of the male archetype in romance novels, which is a literary form almost exclusively read by women. He is a tall prince and a neurosurgeon. He is a risk-taker who wrestles alligators and subdues them on his six-pack abs, and yet is sensitive enough to be tamed by the love of a good woman. This archetype is universally found in romance novels read by women in Egypt, Japan, and Bolivia… Most of the traits and behaviours that are likely found under the rubric of “toxic masculinity” are precisely those that most women find attractive in an ideal mate. This is not a manifestation of “antiquated stereotypes.” It is a reality that is as trivially obvious as the existence of gravity.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/homo-consumericus/201803/is-toxic-masculinity-valid-concept

Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussim

‘Hard Truths about Race on Campus’

WSJ

May 6 2016

In the past few years, a new approach has gained attention and become a common demand of campus protesters: microaggression training. Microaggressions are defined as brief and commonplace daily indignities, whether intentional or not, that make people of color feel denigrated or insulted. The idea covers everything from asking someone where they are from to questioning the merits of affirmative action during a classroom discussion. But microaggression training is likely to backfire and increase racial tensions. The term itself encourages moralistic responses to actions that are often unintentional and sometimes even well-meaning. Once something is labeled an act of aggression, it activates an oppressor-victim narrative, which calls out to members of the aggrieved group to rally around the victim. As the threshold for what counts as an offense falls ever lower, cross-racial interactions become more dangerous, and conflict increases.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hard-truths-about-race-on-campus-1462544543

Lionel Shriver
‘Millennials aren’t taking offence. They’re hunting for victims’

The Spectator
1stSeptember 2018

Despite youth’s reputed belief in the importance of being earnest, the whole ID politics movement is emotionally disingenuous. When during that Evergreen foofaraw a rabid convocation of students cowed the college president into lowering his arms at the podium because they found his hand gestures ‘threatening’, those students didn’t feel jeopardised; they were dominating and emasculating a man supposedly in authority. The students cowering in ‘safe spaces’ don’t feel endangered; they’re claiming territory. In protecting the faux-helpless from noxious opinions via no-platforming, they’re exercising power. The experience of exercising power isn’t scary, except on the receiving end; it’s supremely gratifying. These people aren’t frightened. They want you to be frightened of them. And we’re not talking ‘microaggression’. PC police often prefer macroaggression, the kind that can get people sacked.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/millennials-arent-taking-offence-theyre-hunting-for-victims/

Lionel Shriver

‘Identity politics are by definition racist’

The Spectator
18th August 2018

I also blame identity politics — which have whipped up racial antagonism, encouraged nakedly anti-white bombast and ushered in a glaring double standard that’s unsustainable.You cannot have black identity politics, and Latino identity politics, without conjuring the pastel version. Yet only ‘white identitarians’ are demonised as driven by hatred. Whites are the sole race the mainstream western media forbids to forge a sense of unity or to defend their own interest. The only identity whites are allowed is self-disgust. Whites who stray from ceaseless self-crit are moral degenerates.

The American left urges every race to organise, pull together, demand their rights if not special treatment, recognise their common experience, celebrate their people’s separatehistory and separate accomplishments — except one. If white people do the same thing, they’re bigoted and beyond the pale. That mixed-message platform isn’t politically saleable in the long term, isn’t actually fair and is already backfiring big-time.

The movement insists that what we are is more important than who we are; that our lives derive their meaning from our membership of groups; that what happens to us isn’t the product of our own decisions but of unequal power dynamics that are bigger than we are. Ergo, your complexion eclipses everything else about you. Identity politics are overtly and explicitly racist.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/identity-politics-are-by-definition-racist/

“When censorship is crowdsourced” Jonathan Kay

Quillette
9th Sep 2018

In many creative spheres, in fact, censorship hasn’t just been decentralized. It’s been crowdsourced. Which is to say: The very writers, publishers, poets, musicians, comedians, media producers and artists who once worried about being muzzled by the government are now self-organizing on social media (Twitter, especially) to censor each other. In its mechanics, this phenomenon is so completely alien to top-down Big Brother-style censorship that it often doesn’t feel like censorship at all, but more like a self-directed Inquisition or Chinesecommunist “struggle session.” However, the overall effect of preventing the propagation of stigmatized ideas is achieved all the same.

…pale faces won’t necessarily tolerate being told that Caucasians alone cannot be regarded as a cohesive people, cannot experience solidarity, cannot feel communal pride, cannot fight back when slandered or stereotyped, cannot advocate for their interest and cannot ever, ever feel sorry for themselves.

Tabletmag.com ‘Betty Friedan and Scum’

August 2nd, 2018

Marxism and female psychology are a natural fit psychologically, but not for me.

Extract from ‘The Limits of Critique’ by Rita Felski in article ‘Suspicion and the Corruption of the Liberal Mind’ by Stephen Harrod Buhner

Quillette.com
22nd Aug 2018

Rita Felski: “The spread of poststructuralist theories [have schooled social critics] in preternatural alertness and vigilance. [Suspicion is] no longer a temporary way station on the path to a newlydiscovered truth, it is a permanent domicile and dwelling place for criticism . . . . This entrenching of suspicion in turn intensifies the impulse to decipher and decode. The suspicious person is sharp-eyed and hyperalert; mistrustful of appearances, fearful of being duped, she is always on the lookout for concealed threats of discredited motives. In short: more suspicion means ever more interpretation.”

Stephen Harrod Buhner:

Those who have absorbed the mindset now extend suspicious reading to everyone and everything anyone does: words, body language, dress, hair, music, art, even food. They actively reject the face value of communication, whether literary or social; hold nothing as innocent of power motivations, whether directly or through unconscious complicity in those power motivations.

To regard the majority of Western peoples as possessing malign motives; to base a life upon such a point of view; to approach all books, plays, art, and human interactions with this kind of suspicion is not, however, a sign of clear-eyed perception but rather, as one of my psychology professors once put it, a diseased mind.

https://quillette.com/2018/08/22/suspicion-and-the-corruption-of-the-liberal-mind/

Lance Welton
‘US Stuck with Racial Division’

Vdare.com
Sep 8th 2018

America’s Ruling Class has a schizophrenic attitude towards race. If you want to talk about issues like crime or immigration, then “race” is a social construct with no biological basis and if you disagree then you’re worse than Hitler. However, when it comes to Affirmative Action, or noticing that minorities disproportionately suffer from certain congenital illnesses, then “race” magically becomes both biological and painfully real.

https://vdare.com/articles/u-s-stuck-with-racial-division-the-census-should-measure-it-scientifically

Rod Liddle

‘The 10 most fatuous phrases in the English language’

The Spectator
1st November 2014

If someone says you’re on the wrong side of history, it is their smug and stupid way of telling you that you are wrong and they are right, no more. Conservatism is always on the wrong side of history because it is innately opposed to profound social change. Social change is always good, you see, even when it is utterly calamitous or pointless or unnecessary.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/my-top-ten-most-fatuous-phrases/

The American Conservative ‘After Racism the Left Struggles to find a new menace’ by Robert W Merry (review of article ‘Why The Left is Consumed with Hate’ by Shelby Steele in WSJ) Sep 26th2018

…the 1960s—when the country finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. “That acceptance changed America forever,” he [Steele] writes, adding it imposed a new moral imperative that the nation must show itself “redeemed of those immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.”

The genius of the Left in those days, says Steele, was that it identified itself with that moral imperative. “Thus the labor of redeeming the nation from its moral past would fall on the left. This is how the left put itself in charge ofAmerica’s moral legitimacy. The left, not the right—not conservatism—would set the terms of this legitimacy and deliver America from shame to decency.”

Thus did the Left create the wellspring of its political and cultural power. “The greater the menace to the nation’s moral legitimacy, the more power redounded to the left.” And the 1960s bestowed upon liberals “a laundry list of menaces to be defeated”—racism above all, of course, but also eventually “a litany of bigotries ending in ‘ism’ and ‘phobia.’’’

Steele doesn’t stint in giving the Left credit for many worthy achievements since that 1960s moment when it claimed a monopoly on civic morality. “It did rescue America from an unsustainable moral illegitimacy,” he writes. It also established “the great menace of racism” as the country’s “most intolerable disgrace.”

But now the Left is in crisis because it is running out of menaces to fight. “The Achilles’ heel of the left,” writes Steele, “has been its dependence on menace for power.” As long as it can raise the call against such things as “systemic racism” and “structural inequality,” it can leverage those evils for power, as it has been doing for half a century. But now a mortal threat to this power formula has come into view: “The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power.”

That leaves anxiety-riddled liberals seizing upon hate in a kind of last-gasp effort to retain power. As Steele puts it:

Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.

Steele has written extensively about how this syndrome harms America. But he seems particularly anguished about how it harms America’s blacks. “The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity,” he writes. “And here we are again, forever victims.”

And yet the Left, for all of its civic vehemence and dark emotion, remains “stalked by obsolescence.” There simply aren’t enough menaces these days to meet its demands for power. The result is that the voices of the Left are becoming ever more unconvincing. Writes Steele:

It is hard for people to see the menace that drives millionaire football players to kneel before the flag. And then there is the failure of virtually every program the left has ever espoused—welfare, public housing, school busing, affirmative action, diversity programs, and so on.

And so, writes Steele, the Left’s “indulgence of hate” should be seen as essentially a “death rattle.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/after-racism-the-left-struggles-to-find-a-new-menace/

James Kirkup
‘Trans Rights have gone wrong’

The Spectator

6th October 2018

Trans-genderism is the perfect ideology for the on-demand internet age. It gives unquestioned primacy to ‘lived experience’, elevates emotion above evidence and convicts — after instant trial by social media — any scrutiny or doubt of that most heinous contemporary crime, intolerance. It chills debate and stifles critical thinking.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/

David Cole

‘Yes, women can lie’

Takimag
9th October

…it’s become a litmus test that, to not be condemned as a Hitler, one must accept that a man who thinks he’s a woman “on the inside” is actually a full-fledged biological woman. That’s what the left does. Like cult leaders, leftists are not content to believe their own nonsense. They must force you to believe it, too.

Because that’s how you know you’ve broken someone, that’s how you know you can bend them to your will…when you can persuade them to see what isn’t there, and accept as truth that which is objectively false.

https://www.takimag.com/article/yes-women-can-lie/

Tucker Carlson

“Identity politics is a scam”

Fox News

20th February 2019

Any change of the status quo is a threat to them [the elite] by definition. It is much better for them to have the population squabble over unresolvable questions of identity. A nation that is arguing about skin color is not asking how a tiny group of people is now flying private while almost everybody else has gotten poorer.

So identity politics is a tactic designed to prevent conversations dangerous to the ruling class, obviously.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-identity-politics-is-a-scam-and-its-notIP is a scam-so-different-from-the-one-jussie-smollett-just-pulled

Dr Campbell Campbell-Jack

‘A father’s rights sacrificed on the transgender altar’

Conservative woman

6th March 2019

WHENEVER progressives make gains, we find ourselves with less freedom and less respect for the individual. One small favoured group’s freedom to act as they wish too often means the reduction of the freedom of the majority.

hhttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-fathers-rights-sacrificed-on-the-transgender-altar/

Francis Mcevoy

The minions of Marxism undermine with the intensity of a plague of musk-rats, and every irresponsible pleasure-seeker, every apathetic egotist, and every fatuous imbecile who thinks it fashionable or clever to decry everything traditional, patriotic and wholesome is helping to increase the momentum of our national decline.

– Francis Mcevoy

Uri Harris

‘The Sudden Unpopularity of neoliberal centrists’

Quillette

14th March 2019

Ultimately, there’s a good argument that corporations and wealthy individuals who engage in modern social progressivism with its basis in critical theory are sawing the branch they’re sitting on. While they might themselves see no conflict between laissez-faire capitalism and social progressivism, they’re contributing to the build-up of a mainstream worldview that sees society as consisting of oppressive systems to be dismantled, and capitalism naturally fits at the top of the intersectional matrix.

The Sudden Unpopularity of Neoliberal Centrists

 

John Gray

“The roots of Identitarian Liberalism”

Jan 27th, 2020

…human identity is not a unilateral act of self-assertion. It requires recognition by others, and this is a process fraught with difficulties. Not only is recognition sometimes denied — as when demands for nationhood are rejected by existing states. Worse, people find projected onto them identities they do not themselves recognise.

 

 

 

Live Right, Vote Left

I am often confused by the inconsistency between people’s lifestyles and their politics.

The inconsistency is most beautifully exhibited by left wing voters.

I have some some nice middle class friends where at least one member of the couple – usually the woman – is left wing.

They exhibit all the traits of social conservatives – appreciation of (old) western culture (the arts; museums etc); concern for their children’s education; living in nice middle-class enclaves; a very non-diverse circle of friends; shopping in Waitrose; European holidays in large rented villas, UK holidays in either Centre Parks or upmarket locations of natural beauty (Not too far from one of the Royal Palaces). These friends are not involved with political activism. They adopt the typical laiser-faire attitudes of right-wingers: live and let live, everything will probably work out for the best in the end.

By all known logic, especially bearing in mind where we are in the cultural landscape right now, they should all be right wing. Only the right wing is going to protect those things they hold dear. However, a significant number of them are left wing.

I always find the inconsistency between their lifestyles and their politics to be jarring. They have hitched their colours to the Labour Party. I don’t understand the fit. I find it hypocritical. I call them ‘socialist conservatives’.

Are the political views of socialist conservatives something they have adopted by way of virtue-signalling? Or is it a legacy of their upbringing that they can’t bring themselves to abandon? In other words: how deep are their leftist convictions? To better understand the political philosophies of these people I have started compiling a list of questions that I will (subtly) put to them. So, subtly they won’t know what I’m doing. The idea is to probe their understanding of the world we live in and their place in it. I want to see if they are aware of their hypocriticality or not. Against each question, I have added the context for the question.

Questions to get to core of peoples’ political beliefs:

  1. Do you believe that all people are born equal and that it is nurture, rather than nature, that forms them? Context: true Leftists believe everyone is born the same

  2. Do you believe that inequalities between people are only ever the result of injustices? Context: a true Leftist would always believe this.

  3. Do you believe that social cohesion has reduced in our society over the last generation? Why do you think that is? Context: if they say “immigration”, it means they’re right wing. However, they may not answer truthfully.

  4. Do you believe more in equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Context: Right wingers would say opportunity. Equality of outcome will never be achieved without draconian government intervention.

  5. Do you believe there are differences between the races? Like, for example, that blacks are fast runners. Or that Aborigines have innate sense of direction. What other differences have you noticed? Context: it’s always interesting to discover Leftist views on race.

  6. Do you believe that intelligence is mostly inherited? Context: Leftists don’t believe that intelligence is inherited. Leftists pretend to believe that nurture is solely responsible.
  7. Do you believe that we should live in a meritocracy? Or should there be affirmative action, e.g. quotas? Context: Leftists would espouse a tortuous logic to justify why meritocracy is not the correct approach. If your friend tries to argue for affirmative action, ask them about the situation at Harvard University where Asian students were discriminated against in order to accommodate places for other minorities.
  8. Do you believe that people are primarily responsible for their own wellbeing and the well being of their children? Or should the government intervene more in our lives? Context: Leftists would make an argument for the State. If your friend argues for self-determining families, they sound right-wing.

  9. What do you think of the state of the Left currently e.g. identity politics; anti-semitism; anti free speech movements; open borders; socialism; Antifa; 4th wave Feminism; no-platforming, grievance culture: multiculturalism etc etc? Context: a right winger would be appalled by these aspects of Western culture.

  10. Do you believe Western civilisation is worth protecting? Context: only an imbecile, high on the fumes of political correctness could possibly argue that Western Civilisation is evil and must be destroyed. I doubt your ‘lefty’ friends would go anywhere near that far.
  11. Do you believe that socialism is worth trying in Britain? Context: they’ll say ‘yes’ whilst praying it never happens.
  12. Do you believe The Left still has the well-being of the poor working class as their primary concern? Context: watch them squirm their way through this one.
  13. Do you believe that governments should make tough decisions for the greater good (even if some members of society are adversely affected by some decisions)? Or should governments make compromise decisions that deliver less benefits but do not adversely affect anyone? Context: Women tend to chose the latter. Then follow up with the next question.
  14. If answer to above question was ‘Compromise’, ask how compromise is possible in an increasingly fractured and multicultural society.
  15. Do you believe that, collectively, the world has never been economically better off than it is alright now? Context: this is a fact. It will be interesting whether the person acknowledges it
  16. Do you believe Westerners should be free to follow their culture as per custom? Or should Western culture adapt to better fit with incoming cultures? Feel free to use massacre of Charlie Hebdo journalists as an example.
  17. Do you think Britain is a sexist and racist society? If so, can you name a society that isn’t?
  18. Do you believe that free speech should be protected or curtailed? If curtailed, which subjects should be off-limits?

If you are going to (subtly) introduce these questions to your friends in order to gauge where their true political affiliations lie, I would suggest you you need to ask them about possible unintended consequences of some of the ‘pat’ rehearsed answers they are likely to provide. For example, they may well refer repeatedly to ‘oppression’. Ask them to describe a world where no one is oppressed. Do they believe they would be as economically comfortable in such a world as they are now?

The Puritanical Gatekeepers

The Left are now the gatekeeper of public discourse: The Left determines acceptable culture in our society.

I contrast this to my own upbringing in the ’70s and ’80s when it was always The Right that was the gatekeeper of our morals.

In those days the focus of The Right’s puritanism was the subject of sex. Anything to do with sex was heavily controlled: No sexual swear words; no discussion about sex and certainly no sex itself. Mary Whitehouse was the highest profile embodiment of this movement. A quick recap for those too young to remember Mary: Mary Whitehouse was an elderly Christian lady who went one-on-one with the ‘permissive society’. Mary was on a mission to protect the youth of Britain, whether they wanted protection or not. She once went to court to shut down a play that she didn’t approve of. Famously, Mary hadn’t seen the play herself but she had heard it was unsuitable. Who else but Mary! She was doing the government’s job for them because the British government experienced a crisis of confidence in the post-war years that rendered it unable to do very much. As far as I was concerned as a pubescent boy, Mary was stopping me from seeing more boobies. She was every teenage boy’s mortal enemy: a busybody out to ruin everyone’s fun.

These days the cultural landscape is owned by The Left. The Left is equally puritanical but in a different way. The Left doesn’t care about protecting the young from the permissive society. The Left has other helpless victims that need their protection: LGBT personnel; PoC; non-indigenous religions (with the conspicuous absence of Judaism). The mission of The Left is to protect minorities, not minors. Hence, there are no longer any taboos on sex. Swearing is no longer a problem. Crude sexual language is not an issue. Each and every aspect of sex can be discussed in all its glory whatever your age. Pride festivals encourage us to celebrate every form of sexual expression.

Yet Puritanism is still a feature of The Left. It’s just that now it’s an intolerant, controlling form of Puritanism. It’s a Puritanism where speech is monitored. It’s a Puritanism where debate is stifled. And it’s a Puritanism where The Left seeks to exclude those that do not share it’s ideology from the public arena.

As Jim Goad writes:

The taboos have switched from the sexual to the cultural, but shiver me timbers if they aren’t enforced with the same blind, vengeful, true-believer tenacity as the old taboos.

As such we witness the social media companies removing conservative voices from their platforms. For example, here, there and everywhere

And we have hate groups like HOPE not Hate, the authoritarian busybodies that take delight in hounding people that they hate and clearly see no irony in the name of their group. Examples one and two.

Another participant in the farce that is the 21st century is ‘The Living-At-Home-With-Mummy Beta Male Club’, also known as ‘Antifa’. Antifa serves as The Left’s paramilitary wing and is willing to engage in a whole lot of Fascist activities in order to stop Fascism. Anyone else noticed that The Left don’t get irony? Here are some further details on these charmless rapscallions.

But which individual can be most held-up as the new-age equivalent of Mary Whitehouse? It’s hard to say because the new puritans are much greater in breadth and depth than the ’70s could ever muster. Thanks to identity politics, there is a never ending roster of people that police Western culture looking to take offence. These people are the academics li, the professional 4th wave feminists, the race-baiters like David Lammy, MP; the left wing journalists like Owen Jones. Owen has made it his job to ensure that no one says anything that a minority group that falls under the protection of The Left doesn’t want to hear. Owen is prepared to do this even if it means having to call people Nazis on a regular basis.

Are we better off now? No, of course not. On the one hand, we are not allowed to debate any of the contentious issues of our age for fear of falling foul of The New Puritans and on the other hand, even sex has been politicised to the extent that if we’re not prepared to have sex with black transgender disabled people, we must be bigots.

I think I miss Mary.

I Come To Bury Tommy Robinson, Not To Praise Him

Tommy Robinson is the EDL leader. EDL are a bunch of football thugs that added racism to their repetoire. Tommy is the guy that bangs on about the evils of Islam the whole time.

Everywhere that Robinson goes there’s trouble. He attracts trouble. He should stop antagonizing Muslims. He should let them pursue their culture if that’s what they want to do. What Muslims do in the privacy of their own homes doesn’t affect me. It shouldn’t affect Tommy.

And he is quite common, isn’t he? He is definitely very working class. He seems quite fiery. And I hear he has some criminal convictions. People say “You need to look at the big picture rather than focusing on Tommy’s past”. But I say that breaking the law is breaking the law and can never be condoned.

He is a fringe character. Not mainstream.

One to avoid.

I would not want to encounter him at a dinner party. And nor would any of my friends.

He is clearly just a populist rabble rouser.

We already have UKIP as the ‘acceptable’ face of anti-globalism and racism in the UK. We don’t need Tommy.

Tommy Robinson says nothing to me about my life. He must be racist because he keeps pointing out that most of the grooming gangs raping young English girls in places like Telford and Rotherham and Rochdale and Newcastle and Bradford and Oxford and Huddersfield and Burnley and Keighley and Bristol and Aylesbury and Peterborough and Banbury and Blackburn and Blackpool and Middlesbrough and Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent and Sheffield and Skipton and Preston and Reading and Brierfield and Derby and Dewsbury and Carlisle and Doncaster and Leeds and Nelson and Oldham are Muslim.

What good can come from drawing attention to these isolated incidents?

It’s just going to inflame tensions across the country.

I’m sure that police and social services and parents and teachers and politicians will see the signs next time so that vulnerable English girls will be safe. It is highly unlikely that anything like this could ever happen again like it did in these 29 towns. These 29 cases were clearly just one-offs.

I know that Tommy Robinson was warning about Muslim Rape Gangs a few years ago. But who wants to accept warnings from someone like him? It is not his job to raise these issues. It is the job of the relevant authorities to deal with these cases. We don’t need the likes of Tommy Robinson making Hate Speeches and Hate Videos bringing these incidents to our attention. Tommy should leaving reporting of these stories to the BBC. The BBC reports the news in a suitably restrained way as befits our national broadcaster.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-bbcs-shameful-silence-on-the-telford-sex-scandal/

https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/bbc-ignores-rape.html/

And anyway, Tommy pointing out the number of towns affected by grooming gangs (29) and the number of Muslims convicted in the grooming cases (>200) and the number of girls affected raped by the grooming gangs (>1,500) is just going to incite the anger of white parents in these towns who may feel compelled to take the law into their own hands.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/will-the-bbc-go-back-to-ignoring-grooming-gangs/

If I was Muslim I would be very displeased with Tommy Robinson. These people just want to be able to get on with their lives. Yes, there might be a few bad apples but we can’t smear 7% of the population because of a few bad apples.

The number of Muslims that commit terrorist activities is really quite small. So really we are in very little danger. As Sadiq Khan said, terrorism is just part and parcel of living in a big city.

We need to be making these people welcome. We need to recognise that Muslims have a very different culture to us. The days of the British forcing our culture on other peoples are over, thankfully. We have put such colonial behaviour behind us. Now it is time for Tommy Robinson to do the same. Britain must accept Muslim culture. Brits did what they wanted when we occupied their countries. So Muslims should be allowed to behave how they want now they are in our country. It’s only fair.

Tommy is demonizing a British minority group just because there are aspects of their culture that he feels are incompatible with British culture. Things like FGM; terrorism; female oppression; anti-west rhetoric; rape gangs; sharia law; halal slaughter etc etc. Why doesn’t Tommy concentrate on all the positives that Muslims contribute to Britain?

Just because they perform FGM on their daughters. Why is that our concern. I’m sure some Western practises annoy Muslims but you don’t see them trying to curb our way of life.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519519/Muslim-Patrol-jailed-harassing-couple-holding-hands-men-drinking-bid-enforce-Sharia-law-East-London.html

It’s because of verbal attacks by Tommy Robinson that Muslims are now having to campaign for Hate Speech laws so that Tommy Robinson can no longer attack them for those aspects of Islam that Tommy objects to.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/islamophobia-definition-racism-uk-british-muslims-letter-government-discrimination-a8682621.html

I trust that our lawmakers will soon provide Muslims with the protection from criticism that they so deserve and need.

We just want to live in harmony with these people. I strongly suspect that most, if not all, of the attacks we have seen carried out by Muslims are directly related to the agitation from Tommy. If Tommy left them alone they would leave us alone. Probably.

Tommy likes to warn that “Islam trumps everything ” by way of showing us that Muslims will tend to be a very homogeneous and supportive group. What’s wrong with that? I like it that Muslims have a strong sense of community and culture. It makes me cross that these so called patriots cannot accept some limitations on British community and culture in order for Muslims to be more comfortable in their own community and culture.

Britain should definitely accept more diversity so that the Muslim community can become more homogeneous.

Shouldn’t we leave Muslims to police themselves? After all, they are religious with a very strong appreciation of what is right and what is wrong. We should just let their Inams deal with the few bad apples that want to take revenge on British society because of how they have been treated by the likes of Tommy.

Islam is the ‘religion of peace’ but then Tommy says that Muslims are taught to lie in order to mislead non-believers as to Islam’s true agenda. I can’t believe that is true. I have not seen any evidence of that and even I did I would not believe it unless it was reported by the BBC.

I’m not going to support Tommy Robinson. People will think I’m not a very nice person. People might think I’m racist.

As such, I will not listen to what Tommy has to say and nor will my middle class friends.
Tommy Robinson needs to shut his mouth for the good of diversity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813870/MP-shares-Twitter-post-telling-abuse-victims-shut-up.html

Bailiwick News Archives

The Libertarian Alliance

For Life, Liberty and Property

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

True Masculine Value

Being a man of value in a world increasingly hostile to authentic masculinity: Redpill, Marriage, Fatherhood, Counter-Feminism.

Adam Piggott

Atticus Fox

PJ O'Rourke meets Bill Hicks

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Atavist Magazine

PJ O'Rourke meets Bill Hicks

Longreads

Longreads : The best longform stories on the web

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started