Feminism a Neo-Con Tool 2656


UPDATE

Minutes after I posted this article, the ludicrous Jess Phillips published an article in the Guardian which could not have been better designed to prove my thesis. A number of people have posted comments on the Guardian article pointing this out, and they have all been immediately deleted by the Guardian. I just tried it myself and was also deleted. I should be grateful if readers could now also try posting comments there, in order to make a point about censorship on the Guardian.

Catching up on a fortnight’s news, I have spent five hours searching in vain for criticism of Simon Danczuk from prominent or even just declared feminists. The Guardian was the obvious place to start, but while they had two articles by feminist writers condemning Chris Gayle’s clumsy attempt to chat up a presenter, their legion of feminist columnists were entirely silent on Danczuk. The only opinion piece was strongly defending him.

This is very peculiar. The allegation against Danczuk which is under police investigation – of initiating sex with a sleeping woman – is identical to the worst interpretation of the worst accusation against Julian Assange. The Assange allegation brought literally hundreds, probably thousands of condemnatory articles from feminist writers across the entire range of the mainstream media. I have dug up 57 in the Guardian alone with a simple and far from exhaustive search. In the case of Danczuk I can find nothing, zilch, nada. Not a single feminist peep.

The Assange case is not isolated. Tommy Sheridan has been pursuing a lone legal battle against the Murdoch empire for a decade, some of it in prison when the judicial system decided his “perjury” was imprisonable but Andy Coulson’s admitted perjury on the Murdoch side in the same case was not. I personally witnessed in court in Edinburgh last month Tommy Sheridan, with no lawyer (he has no money) arguing against a seven man Murdoch legal team including three QCs, that a letter from the husband of Jackie Bird of BBC Scotland should be admitted in evidence. Bird was working for Murdoch and suggested in his letter that a witness should be “got out of the country” to avoid giving evidence. The bias exhibited by the leading judge I found astonishing beyond belief. I was the only media in the court.

Yet even though the Murdoch allegations against Sheridan were of consensual sexual conduct, Sheridan’s fight against Murdoch has been undermined from the start by the massive and concerted attack he has faced from the forces of feminism. Just as the vital messages WikiLeaks and Assange have put out about war crimes, corruption and the relentless state attack on civil liberties have been undermined by the concerted feminist campaign promoting the self-evidently ludicrous claims of sexual offence against Assange.

As soon as the radical left pose the slightest threat to the neo-con establishment, an army of feminists can be relied upon to run a concerted campaign to undermine any progress the left wing might make. The attack on Jeremy Corbyn over the makeup of his shadow cabinet was a classic example. It is the first ever gender equal shadow cabinet, but the entire media for a 96 hour period last September ran headline news that the lack of women in the “top” posts was anti-feminist. Every feminist commentator in the UK piled in.

Among the obvious dishonesties of this campaign was the fact that Defence, Chancellor, Foreign Affairs and Home Secretary have always been considered the “great offices of State” and the argument only could be made by simply ignoring Defence. The other great irony was the “feminist” attack was led by Blairites like Harman and Cooper, and failed to address the fact that Blair had NO women in any of these posts for a full ten years as Prime Minister.

But facts did not matter in deploying the organised feminist lobby against Corbyn.

Which is why it is an important test to see what the feminists, both inside and outside the Labour Party, would do when the leading anti-Corbyn rent-a-gob, Simon Danczuk, was alleged to have some attitudes to women that seem very dubious indeed, including forcing an ex-wife into non-consensual s&m and that rape allegation.

And the answer is …nothing. Feminists who criticised Assange, Sheridan and Corbyn in droves were utterly silent on the subject of Danczuk. Because the purpose of established and paid feminism is to undermine the left in the service of the neo-cons, not to attack neo-cons like Danczuk.

Identity politics has been used to shatter any attempt to campaign for broader social justice for everybody. Instead it becomes about the rights of particular groups, and that is soon morphed into the neo-con language of opportunity. What is needed, modern feminism argues, is not a reduction of the vast gap between rich and poor, but a chance for some women to become Michelle Mone or Ann Gloag. It is not about good conditions for all, but the removal of glass ceilings for high paid feminist journalists or political hacks.

Feminism has become the main attack tool in the neo-con ideological arsenal. I am sceptical the concept can be redeemed from this.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

2,656 thoughts on “Feminism a Neo-Con Tool

1 33 34 35 36 37 89
  • Clark

    Habbabkuk, let’s not worry about the rates too much; I’m sure RobG will be quite generous, if he can be persuaded to meet us at all.

    Could you clarify “gite” please? I tried Google Translate and it replied simply “cottage”.

  • Why be ordinary

    Rob G

    So if I get this right, you are waiting for MSM gatekeepers to put up some digital images on your screen? You live in France. It should be easy enough to get out from behind the screen and go look. As I say, it’s what Tintin would do.

    If you’re going to come and arrest me, you’ll have to get out of the house anyway.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    RobG
    16/01/2016 10:23pm

    Hi RobG,

    “Still waiting for news coverage of the 130 funerals that should have taken place in the week or so after the November attacks in Paris.”

    Is it then your position that there were no such deaths? None at all?

    I have been watching the video of David Shayler and Nick Kollerstrom that Mark Golding put up and it has got me interested. I am quite willing to look into evidence as to whether there were any such deaths or not.

    If it is someone’s position that the deaths were the result of hired guns by the neo-con establishment, that is quite difficult to look into one way or the other. If it is someone’s position that there were no deaths, that can be based on evidence.

    I am more than happy to be convinced on the evidence, wherever it leads. Happy to present it back to the forum for other people to make up their own minds.

    Many thanks,

    John

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Mark Golding
    17/01/2016 12:04am

    Thank you for the video link. Very interesting. One of the most interesting features of these continuing attacks is that there always seems to be a passport left somewhere prominent for prompt identification of the attackers. I do find that very strange.

    I know that the credibility of the person need not have any necessary connection to the truth of what they say, but does not David Shayler seem like something of a nut to you? He does to me, on what I have seen of his website.

    That’s not to say, of course, that he is not talking sense on this particular matter.

    I had no idea who Nick Kollerstrom was. I have now had a look at who he is, and he strikes me as a very similar person to Robert Faurisson. Would you agree?

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Mark Golding

    Your welcome JSD – David is a ‘nut’ – that is the trick; clearly the unbalance makes him appear trivial and ‘outside’ of the establishment norm. Essentially though David retains remarkable insight. Bless him.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Mark Golding
    17/01/2016 9:43am

    So he’s a useful idiot, in a reverse sense?

    Thanks, John. And yes – bless him, he seems a good person who’s been given a very hard time.

  • Clark

    John Spencer-Davis, 9:18 am:

    “If it is someone’s position that the deaths were the result of hired guns by the neo-con establishment, that is quite difficult to look into one way or the other”

    Well the mainstream narrative is that violent islamist extremists did the killing. Whether they were specifically hired to kill people in Paris or not, such extremists frequently are funded, trained and armed, almost exclusively from neocon sources. Neoconservatism creates the market in which they flourish.

    Neoconservatism is the public face and thus we can address it. Secret deals may never be revealed, or revealed only with distortion.

    I think David Shayler went a bit mad after going on the run with, er, – her name has slipped my mind; Mark Golding, please remind me. Or maybe Shayler puts up a front of insanity as cover to say the otherwise unsayable.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Clark
    17/01/2016 9:50am

    Yes, I understand the point and I absolutely agree with you, or at least I agree that the suppliers are interested in the money they can make from the arms supplies and the training, etc etc. Whether or not the consequences are a side issue from the money making or are intended by the suppliers is a different question. My own view is that the objective was regime change in the Middle East, and that the elites that wanted it were too stupid and reckless to realise that the people they were arming and training were intelligent motivated people who would eventually come to have their own agenda. Elites are now trying to deal with that situation and utilise it for their own purposes. But geopolitics is not something I claim to have very much insight into, no doubt I am being a bit naïve.

    As I understand it, there are many people who believe it’s all nonsense – the alleged deaths in Paris never occurred, they were simulated, etc. Rob G seems to be of that opinion. That strikes me as something about which a likelihood can definitely be established by examination of what is publicly available.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Habbabkuk (Easter holiday)

    Clark

    “Habbabkuk, let’s not worry about the rates too much; I’m sure RobG will be quite generous, if he can be persuaded to meet us at all.”
    ________________

    Thank you, Clark. Just to clarify: it’s the region that interests me rather than the opportunity to meet Rob. And I certainly wouldn’t expect him to offer me a discount or anything like that.

    It is rather puzzling though that someone running a business – a business from which he draws his income or at least a part of it(according to himself)- should be so reticent about the price of the product he’s selling.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Could you clarify “gite” please? I tried Google Translate and it replied simply “cottage”.”

    ____________________

    Very, very broadly it’s just holiday accomodation in the countryside. Perhaps Rob – at the same time as he finally communicates his rates – might go into ire detail as to the exact type of accomodation, the size, what else is on offer, etc? In between times you could use wikipedia to get a general idea.

  • Habbabkuk (Easter holiday)

    Macky

    “Careful RobG of visits from “Person of Interest” labellers;”
    ____________________

    I’m trying – in accordance with Craig’s and the Mods’ wishes, to keep my posts political and not personal but I do think I have to right to correct wrong info put around about me.

    I don’t think I have ever labelled anyone specific on here as a person of interest, although I admit to having described certain posts as interesting and others as rather less so.

    As always, I stand ready to be corrected (links would be nice).

    Thanks and have a happy, peaceful and productive Sunday.

  • fred

    “Central Paris on a Friday evening, and not one mobile phone clip of what happened?”

    Yes there is, I just posted a link to one. You ignored it just like you ignored the links to coverage of the funerals I posted.

  • defo

    Clark
    Thanks very much for the link, and your thoughts.
    I’m a physics freak myself. It’s the human need to know thing.
    To be fair to Albert, it was Leo Szilard who conceived the chain reaction, from Einsteins equations. And Albert was for a demonstration of the weapon which didn’t involve mass murder.
    I get where your coming from, using religious allegory to elucidate moral ideals.
    Fair enough. But almost by definition, and certainly in practice, religions are beliefs. Beliefs that were formulated in a simpler time, without one iota of evidence.
    Who (pre Newtons opticks) would think a rainbow was anything other than a sign from above, rather than a natural consequence of the differing wavelengths of the visible spectrum ?
    The closest I can bring myself to the idea of a ‘God’ is that IMHO everything in the universe is linked, at the Planck scale. i.e The universe, and everything in it is ‘God’.
    Religion has had its time. We wouldn’t be where we are without it though.

    Anyhoo, may your God speed your recovery. And lang may your lum reek.

  • Clark

    Habbabkuk, 10:05 am, thanks. It’s the opportunity to meet up that interests me. I think that text communication such as these comment threads, for some reason unknown, encourages escalation of hostility and suspicion – the original hacker community that wrote the technical Internet communication protocols noted this decades ago. An effective antidote to this is personal meeting, so I’ve always tried to encourage that whenever possible, and I have found it very rewarding; everyone I’ve met through Craig’s blog has proven to be excellent in some way or another.

    If Rob doesn’t want us to come and stay, there is no reason that he should publish his rates or location here.

  • defo

    Giyane
    “Why would the Creator not have the right to be recognised as a creator of the universe?”
    Maybe he/she/it would like to stop by our wee blue dot so that we can all big up so fragile an ego.
    “Why would the Creator of the human heart and mind not choose which hole is good for us?”
    The human heart & mind are the products of 1.5 bn years of evolution. No designer required.

    “Do you put antifreeze in your engine and oil in your diesel tank? Yes. Well that’s why your oil cooler has burst into your coolant bottle and white smoke is blowing from your exhaust.”
    I’m probably just too thick to get it, but i’m guessing that’s a very funny put down.

    Thanks for your reply. Peace be upon you.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Defo
    17/01/2016 10:28am

    Hi Defo,

    Just so I understand where you are coming from, is it your position that the universe had a beginning? And do you see that beginning as having been some kind of natural event and process, like a quantum fluctuation, rather than from an act of willing by something conscious and supernatural?

    I must take issue with you that religious beliefs were formulated without an iota of evidence. On the contrary, there was plenty of evidence. It was just wrongly interpreted, because the accumulated weight of knowledge and explanation was simply not available. You gave your own example of something as beautiful as a rainbow. How to explain a rainbow? People did the best they could with what they had at the time. I do not think that human beings are more intelligent than they were three millennia ago – possibly, even the reverse. What we are is more knowledgeable.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Clark

    Defo, 10:28 am; thank you, too. I’m glad you like fourmilab.ch, it’s John Walker’s site, one of the older presences on the Web. He is related to the original hacker community I mentioned above. There’s lots of whacky and interesting material there.

    Your ideas of God are similar to my own. We have very good physical-mathematical models describing how things decay and break down, become more homogeneous or “boring”, namely thermodynamics. But our understanding of the development of the universe shows it to have consistently diversified, to continually become “better” and “more interesting” as time has passed, and there is no reason to assume that the process stopped two million or so years ago when humans first emerged.

    In this sense, something seems to be “creative” – I really have no other word for it. I don’t mind paying a bit – well actually a lot – of respect to that “creator”, whatever it may be.

  • Habbabkuk (Easter holiday)

    Clark

    “If Rob doesn’t want us to come and stay, there is no reason that he should publish his rates or location here”
    _________________

    Thank you for those thoughts, Clark.

    You may be right as far as we two are concerned but surely he might be happy to receive like-minded souls (like-minded to him, I mean)who comment on and read this blog?

    After all, he did volonteer the information that he ran a business and even said something about bookings from UK visitors having fallen away somewhat owing to fears about terrorism.

    But I think you should let him speak for himself – perhaps this evening? There may be a very simple reason for his reticence.

  • Clark

    Mark Golding. thanks. Yes, Annie Machon, whistle-blower with David Shayler. I’ll watch the video you linked later.

  • defo

    Hello John & Clark
    A beginning implies time, and as Albert seems to have proved time is relative to, and intrinsically linked to space (your position and velocity in it). Therefore without space, there is no time. No ‘before’.
    As for an intelligent creator, well we’re into turtles territory here. Whence the creator ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    BTW I used to be envious of those with religious beliefs, a comfort and crutch for an otherwise ‘pointless’ existence. Speaking of pointless..Time to do stuff.

    Regards to all.
    Scott

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Defo
    17/01/2016 11:23am

    If you take where we are at the moment, in an expanding bubble of space-time, and you reverse, in the mind, that expanding bubble back and back and back so that it contracts, to what do you eventually come?

    I understand that there is no “before”. What I am saying is that there was – nothing, and suddenly there is – something, which is space-time. Is it a meaningful question to ask whether there was an initial switch which turned nothing into something, or is it not? And if it is, then was that switch a natural event, or was it not?

    Thanks, John

  • Clark

    John Spencer-Davis, 11:35 am; I think you’re venturing into the territory of unanswerable questions, or at least unanswerable until after another breakthrough like quantum physics.

    What we do know is that even empty space, as close to “nothing” as we can find, doesn’t remain as “nothing”. “Virtual particle pairs” are “created” by quantum fluctuation (a direct implication of the uncertainty principle), only to mutually annihilate an instant later – unless one of the pair is captured by, say, a black hole, in which case the other one becomes detectable as “black hole radiation”.

    But this shows that the entire universe is somehow infused with “creation”. Or to put it religiously, God is everywhere.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Clark
    17/01/2016 11:48am

    Yes, I know I am. I just wanted to see what Defo’s take on it was.

    I know about quantum fluctuation (vaguely). Is the initial “switch” (if there is one!) some kind of quantum fluctuation out of absolutely nothing, and if so was it in some way qualitatively different from what we can postulate now. And I am assuming that if one is a natural scientist one does not assume that God pressed the big red button, but that some natural event was the “switch”.

    Kind regards,

    John

1 33 34 35 36 37 89

Comments are closed.