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.
Trowbridge H. Ford
25/01/2016 2:41pm
I think you misunderstand freedom of speech. It means you have a right to say what you like and write and distribute what you like, without penalty. It does not mean I have to debate any nut who wants to debate me.
I don’t want to debate with anyone who thinks the earth is flat, but I don’t say they should be put in jail for saying so.
Kind regards,
John
RoS: Yes, it was meant to be sarcastic (hard as it is to believe). But in might not have been a one-off – he’s on a roll – whining about someone laying an ad-hominem on him! Anon1 offended by someone laying down an insult? I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya!
What JFK said in 1961 — whether or not he actually believed it –is most definitely not what he said — and certainly believed — in 1963. As he said in his American University speech:
Can’t determine when exactly JFK said this, and it apparently dealt with the communists worldwide, including the CCP, and sounds like what he said in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis when Khrushchev was committed to vastly expanding Soviet influence.
Sounds like a great speech to me.
If you read Chomsky’s book, he made out that the President and the CIA were on the same page after the settlement of the Crisis, committed to taking over the world themselves, starting with imposing Saddam Hussein on Iraq (p.144), when, in fact, the Agency was plotting to kill JFK themresides.
Returning to Westminster shenanigans of which I’ll never be short of material to comment on, mores the pity.
The Chancer of the Exchequer Gideon Osborne, had no choice but to pull the teeth from the watchdog the (FCA) the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA, were in the process of running an indepth investigation into banking culture in Britain.
Osborne’s woes stem back to 2013 when he appointed Martin Wheatley as the tough new boss of the FCA. Mr Wheatley had come from the Hong Kong’s
Stock Exchange where he rooted out corruption, rather successfully.
As head of the FCA Mr Wheatley put the onus on the bankers in Britain to prove themselves innocent. The strong arm tactics gave the casino bankers the jitters and the likes of HSBC threatened to move their headquarters out of London, if something wasn’t done about Mr Wheatley.
The following week Gideon Osborne sacked Martin Wheatley, and replaced him with a yes man, or woman to be precise. Her name was is Tracy McDermott, McDermott began systematically removing and undoing all of Martin Wheatley’s good work.
MacDermott was a member of the predecessor of the FCA, the FSA, Financial Services Authority, which became defunct in 2013, her appointment and the appointment of another FSA member (John Griffiths-Jones) will now release a report claiming that no overhaul of the British banking system and conduct, is required.
John Griffiths-Jones, worked for KPMG, as an accountant.
KPMG was the official auditor for a string of banks that got into trouble, including HBOS. Yet KPMG gave them a clean bill of health.
Anyone who refuses to discuss matters his host, not just a nut, brings up is not only engaging in bad form for a guest, but also is an arrogant denier of free discussion.
“So all they have left, as ably demonstrated by RD here, is name calling and weak yah-boo style insults.”
Might I suggest you follow the thread and what Chomsky actually said in the interview Macky linked to – he made a claim that the US and UK were off the scale when it came to evil despite your ridiculous claim “that Chomsky’s arguments are impossible to dispute” which is just your authoritarian speak for saying that no such arguments can be tolerated because you have defined the framework for such arguments. Who says what constitutes evil acts? Who says how they are measured onto a scale? What account is taken of positive/good acts? What about the philosophical position put forward by GE Moore and other philosophers that good is an attribute the meaning of which is indefinable? Is anyone else other than Noam and his disciple Glenn allowed a view on these matters? Isn’t there possibly just a little hypocrisy in the position of Chomsky who decides to live in the most evil state, and presumably pay taxes to it, while at the same time make ample use of the freedom of expression that it permits, when plenty of other less evil states don’t permit such freedoms.
Might I suggest that if you want to defend a position taken by your hero you actually try to do so in the future rather than resorting to your inner totalitarian.
On the war front, Nato and her allies don’t seem to be fairing too well on the Syrian front, as Government /Russian forces capture the key-town of Lataki.
Government troops and militiamen, supported by Moscow’s air power and joined on the ground by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and Iranian forces, have pressed offensives in the West and Northwest of the country in recent months, seeking to reverse gains made by insurgents last year.
Now might be a good time for Nato to reflect on the illegal conflict in Syria that they are involved in. Thankfully events may kick in (Geneva talks) that suprecede Nato’s lack of common sense on the matter.
Trowbridge: I take it you’re no respecter of the right to silence, if – say – you see no benefit in discussing a given subject with some individual?
Trowbridge H. Ford
25/01/2016 3:19pm
I did not say free discussion, did I? I said freedom of speech. They’re different.
If my host wanted to say that the lizard people controlled Earth, I would perhaps listen politely for a while, then leave, but that would probably be because I didn’t want to be rude. Chomsky has presumably had his ear bent for so long that he has dispensed with such niceties.
No-one should be able to prevent anyone else talking. But they are quite free to depart, and leave them talking to themselves. You misunderstand freedom of speech.
Kind regards,
John
RD: The answer to pretty much all your questions is “The established record” . It might well suit you to get me running around, reproducing quotes at length and then arguing them, but I’m not going to play your run-around game, sorry.
Read one of his books which sets out the scale of the evils we have perpetrated, and argue about a point in there if you like. And no, there is no hypocrisy in criticising your own country – at least, not to someone who isn’t an authoritarian, Establishment fawning stooge like yourself.
“Government troops and militiamen, supported by Moscow’s air power and joined on the ground by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and Iranian forces,”
Funny how some people have no problem with foreign interference when the West is not involved – I suppose it is all driven by a person’s underlying ideology.
I observe one’s right to silence all the time when most posters choose to say nothing about what I claim, though some tell me to go elsewhere.
And Chomsky certainly engaged in no silence when he just dismissed any discuss of any conspiracy when he said conspiracies, even if they occur, accomplish nothing, one of the world’s most ridiculous claims.
RD: Sorry, I forgot a reference. Try “Turning the tide”:
http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Noam_Chomsky-Turning_the_Tide%20_US_intervention_in_Central_America_and_the_Struggle_for_Peace.pdf
Start at page 135, “Defending our sovereignty” if you don’t want to read a lot of preamble.
If one was inclined to have a inquisitive or suspicious mind, then the unusually large outbreak of the Zika virus in Central and South America, may have ones radar on alert.
Of course like the Ebola virus, (we all know which country owns the patent on that particular virus) the Zika virus has been around for awhile now, the 1950’s for the Zika virus, to be precise.
The Zika virus is in some cases seen as a milder form of Dengue fever, which appears to have a US Patent.
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2000057910A1?cl=en
Returning to the Zika virus, which is carried by mosquito the US has a history of using mosquitos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Buzz
It would also appear that a patent that treats Zika fever is held by the US.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8278282
The US has a history of interfering in South America, big pharma would have much to gain by producing and selling a cure or antidote for the Zika virus.
“Funny how some people have no problem with foreign interference when the West is not involved – I suppose it is all driven by a person’s underlying ideology.”
_____________
On the contrary RD, I’d must rather prefer not comment on the Syrian conflict, but the legitimacy of British involvement in the war is suspect at best. I live in Britain I expect higher standards from Westminster, so when they get it wrong, as they obviously have on this and other occasions the public should speak out.
I hope for all our sakes a quick and peaceful agreement can be agreed in Syria. Maybe then the millions of displaced Syrian civilians can return home, and relieve pressures on struggling EU countries financial resources.
Now the mods are deleting my posts but I still have the right to free speech!
“The US has a history of interfering in South America, big pharma would have much to gain by producing and selling a cure or antidote for the Zika virus.”
And, of course, the antidote would also contain one of Bill Gates’ infertility drugs to ensure the population was kept to a minimum, as is being done elsewhere in the world. GM crops, ‘doctored’ vaccines and war are among the methods being used to control foreign populations. But for Chomsky of course that would be a conspiracy theory. Not a very nice world we live in.
Banksy’s London artwork criticising the migrants treatment in Calais
It is a thankless job trying to sort out the innocent refugee from the psychopath/sociopath peppering the multitudes. It reminds me of the Walking Dead and the sad choices decent people must make in the face of maniacal criminals devoid of human qualities.
“Banksy’s London artwork criticising the migrants treatment in Calais”
How many ‘refugees’ has the multi-millionaire Banksy taken into his home(s)?
Glenn
You just don’t get it do you – what Chomsky is saying about the UK and the US being top of the list for evil is an opinion and not a fact. I daresay Chomsky unlike yourself can marshall facts in support of his opinion – but they will still not make an opinion into a fact. If you place great weight on the ability of intellectuals to oppose their own state and the value of free speech, which are demonstrably greater in the US than in many places elsewhere (I call on Noam Chomsky as my first piece of evidence) then you are quite able to have a different view. Some of us can cope with societies where different viewpoints are possible – some cannot.
“Now the mods are deleting my posts but I still have the right to free speech!”
Once again, Trowbridge, I fear you misunderstand the meaning of free speech.
It means you can say what you like, but does not mean someone else is obliged to publish it (less still a private citizen!).
It does not mean you can demand someone’s attendance, and it does not you mean that you can force them to discuss whatever you demand they discuss.
RD: I take it from your 5:07pm above that you could not find any flaw in the extensive reference I gave you, and would much prefer to make sport of me running around, getting quotes and arguing them, while you sit back chuckling and waving them away.
You have a nice solid reference there, do some work you lazy sod.
And RoS is quite correct, I was making the same sort of point earlier – criticising your own country is not a crime, and does not imply hypocrisy.
GM crops, ‘doctored’ vaccines ……are among the methods being used to control foreign populations.
Evidence please – you might also wish to comment on the self imposed one child policy by your Marxist Leninist friends in China.
BTW if you had read your Marx properly you would know that he didn’t share your belief in conspiracy theories either.
Has anyone else noticed that the overwhelming majority of the footage (that not produced by the BBC at any rate) of the ‘refugee’ crisis shows columns of young men advancing through Europe with barely a woman or child among them?
What sort of man leaves his wife and children at home, supposedly where they are in grave danger, while he does a runner – not to the first safe country he comes to it should be added, but to the one that will give him a free house and benefits? And why doesn’t he stay and fight? Is there nothing worth fighting for in these places?
And have you noticed the attitude they carry with them. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement. Give them this, give them that, and if you don’t then they get violent. Never a please or thank you. Never any humility when they ask another country to accommodate them. It’s just expected that they will be granted what they want because that is what they’ve heard happens and that is why they are coming here.
” which are demonstrably greater in the US than in many places elsewhere…”
I am weary of the mitigated superiority of the US in free speech discussions. I’m certain there is more water in the Mojave Desert than on planet Mercury, but I don’t recommend you spend too much time drilling. It won’t replace the sweat you perspire. We are also blessed with the freedumb to choose paper over plastic bags at the supermarket.
Anon1: You do have a bit of a point at 5:13pm, I have to confess.
“I take it from your 5:07pm above that you could not find any flaw in the extensive reference I gave you”
I didn’t even look at it – I had the pleasure of reading Chomsky many years ago.
“criticising your own country is not a crime”
No – and the ability to do so is a fundamental human right. The hypocrisy comes from using your taxes to support what you believe to be the most evil regime in the world, to say nothing of the bodies from which he has taken honours – especially when you have the ability to go elsewhere. I don’t support the expulsion of hypocrites but I do believe in my right to call them out.
“How many ‘refugees’ has the multi-millionaire Banksy taken into his home(s)?” ^
I have no idea and nor do you. Whatever the answer it does not disqualify him from commenting via his art on their plight.