Saturday, 16 March 2019
In some dialogue on a posting from Riley Brown (July 4th's Outrageous behavior does bother most gay people) the conversation has taken several turns beyond LGBT issues. It brought to mind some thoughts I recorded just a little over a year ago following the Orlando nightclub massacre. The article touches upon several of the topics entered in the aforementioned dialogue. Though some of the events referenced are not present day I believe many of these thoughts to be germane to the further discussion.
For any who may find interest in the main topic there are further thoughts shared upon this in the article Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Hate Crimes at http://theburghalhidage.wordpress.com
Certain terms and expressions work their way into our modern lexicon. It is an inescapable fact. Though these may frequently be oxymoronic or grammatically incorrect they do still become a part of our discourse and are generally accepted to have certain meanings. Here is a fairly innocuous example: irregardless. One hears this in common use and though strictly speaking it is incorrect, within the context of it’s use the intended meaning is generally understood. I’ll demonstrate here.
“Irregardless of the hate crimes statute the victims were no less murdered.” See what I mean? It is not correct, but nonetheless having been said the word’s meaning within that context is understood. I am not making an apology for frequent misuse of the language, simply illustrating a point. Dialects, strictly speaking, are no more correct, but are indisputably part of any language. Colloquialisms, though improper, are recognized in our dictionaries. In a good dictionary they are in fact identified as such. It’s not an approval, just an acknowledgement.
Within the sentence citing this example there is another term which has entered the language and it is likewise incorrect but accepted. What are “hate crimes”? Aside from the use of the expression they are defined under statute. Without getting into the legalese I’ll give you a layman’s definition of the term. A hate crime is when an individual or group of individuals commit an act which is already prohibited by statute, but is deemed to be more illegal by virtue of it’s hateful motivation. This might come in the form of vandalism, assault, assault with battery, even homicide, just to name a few.
A law which prohibits certain acts will have attached some sanction, fine, improisonment, the death penalty,) which is intended to simultaneously to punish the act and to serve as a deterrent against the commission of such acts. So one must conclude that the purpose of any hate crime statute is to serve as both an added punishment for and deterrent against the perpetration of acts which are already deemed an offence against the law of the land.
The hate crime appendix simply magnifies the degree to which these acts are a breach of the social contract. As it is now a part of law in many jurisdictions we may assume that there was, at least at one time, an intended purpose to their enactment. Examined practically this purpose does not seem evident.
Hate crimes legislation are another example of feel good legislation. It is symbol over substance. The impetus for this now seems manifest in the reaction we see in our media to the Orlando massacre. With Paris and San Bernadino and Brussels there was an abundance of horror and dismay expressed over the airwaves. With Orlando we now see an orgy of outrage (whether sincere or manufactured) and moral indignation injected.
"It was a hate crime," scream liberals or progressives, as if the victims would be any less dead if the perpetrator had said, "No, I wasn't motivated by racial or religious hatred, homophobia, or political extremism, I just felt like killing some people. It wasn't personal, just everyday insanity."
There is an added layer to offence deemed 'hate crime' because of such acts having targeted a demographic group which has been bestowed some preferential status. There is, however, still the reluctance to call this what it is. Even with the heightened sensitivity attached to such monstrous act due to the nature of the targets the politically correct crowd still insists on pulling up short of decrying this as another attack upon our freedom and culture by extremist groups which, having been allowed to flourish in our tolerant society, now display total intolerance of those who hold different views.
This is not to diminish the seriousness of murderous acts in which the victime is targeted because of race, religion, sexuality or culture in any way. Making some special show of added abhorrence on account of the fact that these victims were Muslims, white, European Christians, or members of the LGBT community does more to diminish than anything I might have to say about it. Where the victims are law abiding citizens who were engaged in their commonly accepted rights to freedom of speech, expression, association and worship. They were murdered in cold blood.
Established statutes clearly identify these acts as crimes and law courts have the power to levy sanction upon the perpetrator should they survive to face a trial, another provision of human rights conventions identified as due process of law. Conferring an added level of offense to the perpetrator does nothing to elevate the victims. It only elevates the act and the perpetrator.
If there is any need to identify this as something other than or in addition to the crime of homicide it would be this. This was yet another act of war upon us and our way of life, in all of it’s many forms, committed by an individual in the name of Islam. If the same thing had been perpetrated upon these people by, oh I don’t know, let’s say a member of some Christian church who espouses the sinfulness of the gay lifestyle the reporters and pundits would be falling over each other to be the first to grab the microphone and condemn Christians for their intolerance. Anyone who would argue to the contrary is lying not only to their audience, but to themselves as well. Yet on the point of a condemnation of Islam? The silence is deafening.
For those members of the LGBT community who have been content to be pandered to by the politically correct crowd I would caution you to take careful note of this phenomenon. Not only because of but especially because of this tragedy. It tells you rather starkly where you stand with these people. A religion and culture that not only condemns in word, but also acts in deeds to punish what they perceive as a sin, is being given a pass by those same people who claim to have your back. Not only do they go to great pains to defend this great “religion of peace” they even go so far as twisting themselves into a pretzel to deny the nature of it even when it is on full, murderous display. I for one am tired of being lectured to about how we must be tolerant of the existence of this scourge in our midst.
As a community within our broader population the LGBT’s have, if in some instances rather begrudgingly, attained a measure of acceptance. Worth noting is that each of you as US citizens were already accorded the same constitutional protections as anyone else. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection under the law. You may wish to argue to the contrary, but as a point of law these are facts. I would not attempt to deny that there have been instances where this may not have been the actual practice, but again speaking in a strictly legal sense this is so. Just as there is no need to attach a special provision to a homicide for it’s motive there is likewise no need to enact a special, separate provision of protection under the law for your orientation. There just isn’t. You are protected, or should be, same as anyone else. There is only the need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. To make this argument does not automatically cast one into the category of homophobia. What the politically correct crowd continually succeed in selling is the notion that only a wholehearted embrace of your lifestyle constitutes you’re being treated fairly and sorry to rain on that parade, but I’m here to tell you that just isn’t so. Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that everyone must like you and approve of the way you live. It only upholds your right to do so without the government infringing upon those rights. Your rights to engage in your life as you may see fit absent the interference of your fellow citizen is protected by the statutes of the state in which you live. No more, no less.
There are citizens of this country who engage in their right to the freedom of association and freedom of speech. They often may not agree with you or your choices, but their rights are no less sacred than yours. They don’t have to like you or approve of how you live. They are also free to say so. The only prohibition is that they may not, assuming that your activities are not in any way illegal, interfere with your free exercise of the inherent right to live as you please. The common interest that we all share is a right to be secure in our persons and homes. There may be people who personally do not approve of what you do, but if they’ve done nothing to interfere than they are guilty of nothing other than offending your sensibilities so get over it. Living in a free representative republic as we do it is a proposition rather like ( and I do apologize for the facile reference) a line from the GI Joe Movie: We all go home or no one goes home.
You may not care for or agree with the opinions of these people and nor do you have to. What you should bear in mind, however, is that as fellow citizens of this country you all have a stake in the preservation of these liberties. Despite what you may have been told the only threat to those same liberties is coming from nowhere else but Islam. In facing that threat we need to put aside the fact that 90% of it’s members may very well be people who simply wish to go about their lives undisturbed the same as us. That regrettably does not change the fact that this still leaves something of an order of 160-170 million members who mean us ill. They clearly, in fact rather proudly, display their desire and willingness to attack and destroy the lives and rights of homosexuals, women, Christians, Jews and even other muslims who do not adhere to their law.
I penned an opinion piece following the Paris attack last November. I will reiterate a portion of it now as it seems that nothing has changed. I will continue to say it until this madness comes to an end, which it appears may be for the rest of my days on this earth. We are not at war with terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. The ideology employing the tactic is Islam. It makes no difference that it may only be a minority of its members doing so. Islam is where it lives. Islam and western civilization are as two cars travelling in opposing directions upon a single lane. It could be a father or mother behind the wheel of our vehicle, it makes no difference. The driver of that vehicle is faced with this dilemma: riding in said vehicle as passengers are the driver’s family. The driver of the opposing vehicle likewise has their family riding as passengers. Those passengers are not the ones driving the vehicle. They may very well be innocent, but as they seem to be powerless to thwart their driver’s determination to plow headlong into your vehicle, thus endangering you and your family, you have to make a choice. Are their innocent lives so sacred that you are prepared to sacrifice your own family to spare them a fate delivered not by you, but by their driver? It is not a choice that one wishes to make, but it is no less the choice that is placed before us. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.
Friday, 23 November 2018
So Who Are The Real Racist, Sexist, Hetrophobic Bigots?
The Intolerant, Authoritarian Left Are The Racists And Bigots, Not The Libertarians And Conservatives
by Arthur Foxake
Why Diversity is a Lie
Tim Murdock is the host of White Rabbit Radio and the voice of Horus the Avenger. He is behind the widely circulated memes, "Diversity is a code word for White genocide" and "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White." He has also produced the popular animations "How Whites Took Over America," "Anti-Racist Hitler," and "Johnny Racist."
Tim recorded a broadcast for Red Ice Radio, in which he took a long and highly critical look at the ridiculous double standards of the "Yooman Rights" and multivulturalism and diversity mob. The broadcast begins with a detailed definition of the broad term of "genocide" (lefties are notoriously illiterate, in their lexicon when a white person kills someone with darker skin it is genocide, when the situation is reversed it is social justice). Then he goes on to link these points to explicitly stated agendas of certain power elites seeking to achieve the disappearance of specific ethnic groups and the eradication of particular ethnically pure states.
We hear him discuss the very public proclamations of EU officials that blatantly reveal the war being waged against Whites and ancient European cultures with the full approval of the bureaucratic dictators in Brussels (who, insanely are white).
Further, he invites us to consider how elites are using technology and psychological warfare to deliberately modify the behavior of ethnic Europeans, and look at the increased questioning by alternative media journalists of suspicious politics and open border policies that are alerting even the mainstream to the anti-White thrust of globalism.
In the second half, the breakneck speed of the demographic restructuring taking place in the west comes under scrutiny and we are shown how this is ultimately bringing about the swift destruction of the mental wall that has kept many Whites from seeing the larger agenda of mass immigration. We look at the recent Charleston church massacre in relation to the collective tension resulting from the forced absorption of non-Whites into Western civilization.
Tim underscores how the powers that be are being undermined by their own insane policies, which appear to be part of the execution phase of an aggressive and drastic plan to take ownership of everything on the planet. At the end, we reflect on the crazy practices of anti-White Whites and the identity politics that have predominately White countries in a state of arrested development.
There is much in the broadcast that the Daily Stirrer team do not fully agree with, we do not for example think there is any substance in the idea of a 'Zionist conspiracy', that there are many Jewish people is the financial and academic communities is something that has come about because of historic repression of of Judaeism which marginalised mmbers of the faith, but our editorial policy* is to promote true diversity, diversity of ideas, rather than the deceitful of using social engineering policy to make people of different skin colours live in culturally homogenous communities.
Labour Elite Thinks Northerners Are Thick - I Told You So
Mass Immigration Marginalises White Working Class Says Soros Think Tank
Here's How Working Class Organisations Out Of Which the Labour Movement Grew Were Hijacked By Elitist Control Freaks
The International Elite's Contempt For National Sovereignty
Ersatz Culture Created By World View Theorists To Undermine Western Values
New World Order War On free Speech Comes To Britain - Guardian editor accused of treason
Is It Lack Of Diversity That Drives Liberal Hate And Intolerance
Captive Minds, Conformity and Cowardly Intellectual
Equal Rights Campaigners Not Christians Are Imposing Their Belief On Others
A Liberal's Dilemmas
The Philosophy of Anarchy
The Partisan Politics Of Failure
Wednesday, 31 October 2018
In October 2018 a leading US Newspaper well known for its leftist bias, The New York Times ran an article by Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology (who should thereforer know better) at Brown University, arguing that biological sex is not binary. The piece joined a long succession of outraged media criticizism of the recent Department of Health and Human Services’ recently leaked memo, which proposed legally defining sex as either male or female, and also triggered the usual social media shitstorm from liberals and snowflakes claiming that our sex is defined by 'feelings'; and not by biology.
From a scientific perspective, the HHS’s definition is absolutely correct. Biological sex refers to whether we are female or male, based on our anatomy and reproductive functions. The concept of sex is, by definition, binary.
Fausto-Sterling’s piece points to the existence of intersex people as evidence that this isn’t the case. Certainly, research has shown that as many as 1 percent of the population may have some intersex characteristics, intersex being a medical condition denoting that an individual possesses anatomy characteristic of both sexes, such as a combination of vulvar and testicular tissue. Statistically speaking, even if this is correct, (the proven number with interesex characteristics is far lower so that one per cent figure is based on estimates of the number of undiagnosed cases,) it means that the vast majority of us fall into one category of sex or the other.
We are therefore faced with a question of whether a statistically rare occurrence should be considered typical. An common analogy used to illustrate this is the fact that most of us have 10 fingers. There exist individuals who possess fewer or more than 10 digits on their hands, but this hasn’t called for a re-conceptualization of how many fingers a human being has.
Fausto-Sterling makes a big thing of how, earlier this month, one of the far left's favourite hate figures, Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, banned gender studies programs. Orban is regularly referred to as “far-right” by the academic community and mainstream print and broadcast media for stating that the government “[does] not consider it acceptable ... to talk about socially constructed genders rather than biological sexes.” Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen additionally pointed out that gender studies “has no business in universities” due to being “an ideology, not a science.”
Most people will agree that is a down to earth, common - sense approach, and nothing at all to do with the far right ideologies of tyrants.
Indeed, gender—whether we subjectively feel male or female—is biological, not a social construct and to argue it is flies in the face of well established scientific knowledge. Ironically the supporters of gender studies tend to be the same people who scream "DENIER" when anybody questions the very dodgy science that supports the Climate Change hysteroa. An extremely large and consistent body of scientific research has shown that gender is the result of prenatal hormone exposure, even in the case of intersex individuals, as opposed to adults and society imposing gendered norms on unsuspecting children from the moment they leave the womb.
After describing “the process of gender socialization,” the piece goes on to say that “[f]etal hormones also affect brain development.” How would it be possible for hormones to affect the developing brain in utero, but not the expression of this brain development, which manifests as sex-typed differences in interests, personality, and behavior when the child is born? Such pseudo science is total bollocks.
The piece also references the work of psychologist John Money, which contradicts Fausto-Sterling’s very thesis. Not only have Money’s ideas pertaining to gender identity been widely discredited, but they also demonstrate how gender is biological. Many have surely heard of the unfortunate case of David Reimer, a Canadian man whom Money surgically reassigned as female after Reimer lost his penis in a botched circumcision as a child. Money believed that Reimer could be successfully socialized to live life as a girl.
Upon reaching puberty, however, Reimer rejected his brainwashing (no other word for it,) and chose to live as a male. Tragically took his own life at the age of 38 having become a profoundly unhappy person due to the wxperiences inflicted on him in childhood by well meaning, but ideologically driven academics. Reimer’s case conforms the innateness of gender—that one’s sense of being male or female is not learned or a question of choice but is embedded.
It isn’t necessary to redefine “sex” in order to facilitate the acceptance of people who are different. Pushing for social change for the sake of change, as advocates of cultural marxism do, only leads to misguided policies and unnecessary confusion for the public.
Going beyond Fausto-Sterling’s twaddle and the propaganda of the Gay BLT political actvists, this argument has been extended to include the transgender community, with its proponents contending that transgender people defy male and female categorization, and offer proof that sex and gender are a spectrum. But the true meaning of the term “transgender” means that a person identifies more as the opposite sex than their birth sex, which still operates within a framework of sex being binary. There have, throughout history, been men who live as women and women who live as men.
We can, and should, advocate for the rights of intersex people and those who do not fit typical gender norms, while at the same time acknowledging these scientific truths. And for those small number who genuinely have physical characteristics of both sexes, medical science is now able to go some way at least towards eliminating confusion.
Wednesday, 19 September 2018
One thing that has regularly been setting off my bullshit detector recently is 'Data Science.'
WTF. Gathering, collating and presenting information (aka data when it is 'given' to a computer - the old Latin classes coming in handy again there,) is the age old skill of the clerk. It has nothing to do with science, which these days is the most abused word in the English language.
Data Science is often linked with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, two phrases that are only loosely defined because we only have a very sketchy understanding of how intelligence originates, and machines cannot learn in the way a human (or an animal,) learns, they can only perform programmed operations.
As I had a major deadline to meet this week I haven't done much by way of new writing, but here's an interesting take on AI and machine learning I came across today.
Machine learning — Is the emperor wearing clothes?
A behind-the-scenes look at how machine learning works
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
As the politicians continue to blether to no effect about the terms on which Britain will trade with the EU after Brexit, and mainstream media, owned by global corporations except for the BBC which is technically ownedf by the nation but is managed and staffed by LEFT WING CUNTS, continue to bad mouth anyone wo was part of the LEAVE campaign, or has confessed to voting to leave, a question that is being asked in pubs and bars all over the land goes sometjing like this: Why isn't the European Union asking the UK for a good trading deal when they need the UK’s billions in imports as much as the UK needs theirs?
The concept of the EU as a whole is the elephant in the room here. While the original Common Market, and its subsequent names, The European Economic Community and The European Community were sold to voters as a free trade and economic cooperation group for west European nations, the underlying concept was for "ever closer union" towards a federal European superstate, with the sovereignty of member states surrendered to a central bureaucracy, reducing ancient nations like England, Scotland, Denmark, France, Spain and Portugal to the status of semi autonomous provinces.
The EU is currently comprised of 28 sovereign states (27 from next April) ranging from Germany with the fourth largest economy in the world and a population of eighty five million to little Malta and Luxembourg which are each home to less than a million people. Each has its own priorities. For any decision to be made all 28 (in the form of the Council of Ministers) need to be in agreement. On top of that there is the European Commission (EC) - the EU civil service, except they actually have a say and the European Parliament who like to think they have a say.
In reality the EC makes decisions, the Council of Ministers refines it the EP rubber stamps it. The fly in the ointment for federalists is that any member state can veto any proposal it's political leader (i.e. representative on the council of ministers deems not in the interests of their country.
With the differing electoral cycles changing the political complexion of the different sovereign states’ governments, and with anti EU feeling gaining ground in many member states it is very difficult to achieve a consensus on anything. Some areas of policy are covered by majority voting and those areas move a little faster.
A good example of this is CETA, the Comprehensive Economic And Trade Agreement, a trading agreement with Japan, often incorectly referred to as a 'free trade' agreement as it set out in over a thousand pages the rules and regulations which would apply to trades between EU and Japanese companies as well as tariffs and export limits on certain categories of goods. It was negotiated, agreed, signed and to all intents and purposes a done deal. Then Italy had a General Election and their Government changed. The new Italian Government do not think CETA is a good deal for Italy and have said they will not ratify it.
So, even though all 28 governments agreed it, and 9 have ratified it, it now looks dead in the water. The trade negotiators can re-engage and re-negotiate a deal, but it would be open to another government scuppering the revised agreement.
As I see it, this has been the problem with the EU since the turn of the century when the single currency (The Euro) was introduced. It is too big and is unable to make big decisions in a reasonable timeframe. The natural limit of the EU was probably reached in 1995 when Austria, Sweden and Finland were admitted. At that point it could be said that roughly the area west of a line drawn from the southernmost shore of the baltic to the northernmost tip of The Adriatic was the EU. And those nations have a lot in common culturally and economically.
We could go into the whole ‘Federal European Superstate’ debate but I have dealth with that elsewhere (HERE, HERE and HERE). While I am against the UK being part of a federal European superstate, I think it its either that or the collapse of the EU. Only when German workers are wiling to fund Greek unemployment benefits and healthcare will the EU really work well.
Back to the question:
The EU negotiating stance, which is basically that the UK must continue to accept EU authority in all matters of policy and law, is basically all they can agree upon in the timescale. To deviate from that would lead to a deal that they could not get ratified by all 27 remaining EU nations after Brexit. Here lies the problem. Germany, France, Italy & Spain want to continue to export their cars to the UK, Eastern European Governments want their citizens to be able to live and work freely in the UK. France wants to export wine and cheese to the UK, the Netherlands wants to sell us tulips and beer and Denmark wants us to keep buying its bacon. But France do not want unrestricted imports of British beef & lamb, Germany does not want unlimited exports of engineering products and textiles and so on and so forth. And they'd all like to get their hands on a slice of our trade in financial and management services.
There is no way such a deal could have been done in 2 years, it's unlikely one could ever be done. I doubt that the 21 month implementation period recently suggested would be enough time to achieve anything significant.
In my opinion (which has not wavered since I voted to leave,) I voted to leave) the UK will spend a substantial time on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms, which are not really very different to the terms EU member states trade on now, while trade agreements with individual member states are negotiated and as the EU disintegrates. During that time we can be outward-looking negotiating agreements with countries that are able to make decisions in a timely manner.
If we leave the EU without agreement on March 29th, 2019 I would put money on there being trade agreements in place with the other major economies long before the EU.
The Labour Case For Brexit by Kate Hoey M.P.
After my short intro is a savage indictment by Brexit supporting Labour MP Kate Hoey of the way the Labour Party has abandoned the working class and is now trying to betray the party's proud heritage and its roots in the industrial areas by taking Britain into an undemocratic, corporate controlled, capitalist friendly, elite dominated globalist control freak project.
Dutch Referendum This Week Shows why We Should Leave The EU.
Few of you were aware probably that there is an EU referendum vote in The Netherlands this week. As usual with anything negative about the EU barely a word has been printed in the topic in mainstream media and the silence from our notionally unbiased national broadcaster The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been deafening.
French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism
Europeans want us British to lead them out of Europe. Don't be fooled by project fear, the European Union (aka the Euronazi Federal Superstate) is falling apart. There will not be chaos if we leave, there will be chaos if we stay.
Head Of European Institute: Brexit â€˜Betterâ€™ For Everyone
Brexit would be the best result of Britainâ€™s in / out referendum for both Britain and the EU i a Belgian professor who heads up the European Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) has said.
Johnsonâ€™s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. Itâ€™s time to be brave
OK, I know a lot of you think Boris is most accurately described by a word many people find offensive, but heâ€™s put together a very good argument here on why we must leave the EU. Published in part here under â€˜fair useâ€™ terms and conditions, in the public interest ...
Cameronâ€™s EU Package: Not A Deal But A Few Turns In The Spin Machine As we and almost everybody else predicted, David Cameron's deal to improve Britain's relationship with the EU is worthless. It changes nmothing, and can be vetoed once we have voted to stay in.
Cameron Plays Deal Or No Deal In Europe
David Cameron, who was apparently up all night trying to make other European leaders understand why his country needs a better deal in order to poersuade the prople it is a good idea stay in the EU. Unless Cameron gets what will enable him to sell the idea of surrendering national sovereignty to a Federal European Superstate ruled by a committee of unelected bureaucrats in to the British public he will not campaign for the UK to remain in the bloc
Wednesday, 24 January 2018
This week veteran French actresses and 1960s / 70s sex symbol Catherine Deneuve, took a different view.
Deneuve was the most high-profile of 100 prominent French female celebrities who signed an open letter criticising the #MeToo social-media campaign, and related drives to expose sexual harassment in France and elsewhere.
The Hollywood and mainstream media campaigns, the Le Monde letter said, had gone beyond exposing individual perpetrators, and had unleashed a torrent of "hatred against men and sex". Add to that the usual noise from London's metropoilitan leftie screechers who, supported by the usual suspects, The Labour Party, Unite Against Fascism, The Anti - Nazi League, the Gay BLTs and the tesicularly deficient progressive wing of the Conservative Party responded with their own Pavolian hatefest. The people can be relied on to unfailingly respond to the trigger signals.
"Puritanism" was running rampant "like in the good old days of witchcraft", the French feminists argued, stating that the freedom of men to pester was "essential to sexual freedom".
Around the world - but mainly among the liberal elites of east and west coast USA, the shock of dropping jaws striking the ground registered two point five on the Richter scale and a tsunami of outrage swamped social media. In France itself there were some strong reactions - both for and against - but the response was not front-page news and most people simply gave a gallic shrug and said "Qu'importe".
Those different reactions say a lot about the different ways feminist view the world in the Anglosphere and Southern Europe France and the US. "It's hard to imagine a US movie star not being comprehensively pilloried" for signing such a letter, says Emily Yoffe, contributing editor for The Atlantic magazine. And that is a key point; the Politically Correct Thought Police who patrol the internet might get their knickers in a twist and start raging about diversity when someone complains about immigrant refusing to integrate but there are many aspects of diversity followers of the pensée unique are just not willing to tolerate.
The French women are not the first to break ranks from the politically correct consensus.
In an interview for Business Insider, Matt Damon, star of the highly successful Bourne franchise drew plenty of virulent ctiticism for expressing quite mild concerns about the conduct of the #MeToo movement. He said that the majority of men in Hollywood were not involved in sexual misconduct but this is not not gaining attention.
"We're in this watershed moment, and it's great, but I think one thing that's not being talked about is... the preponderance of men I've worked with who don't do this kind of thing," he said during an interview while promoting his new film Downsizing.
Many social media users condemned the actor for suggesting not being a sexual predator was an accomplishment although that is a ridiculous distortion of what he meant.
It is not the first time Damon has commented on sexual abuse following rape allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein. Last week in an interview with ABC News Damon said groping and rape were two different things and shouldn't be treated the same.
"There's a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right?" Damon told ABC'S 'Popcorn' with Peter Travers "Both of those behaviours need to be confronted and eradicated, without question, but they shouldn't be conflated, right?"
Criticizing the politically correct zealotry of the #MeToo campaign may be taboo in the USA and Britain, so why can such views as are expressed in the letter to Le Monde accepted with so little fuss in France? One reason, according to Anastasia Colosimo, a political commentator who lectures in Sciences Politique in Paris, is author of "Les bûchers de la liberté," (The butchers of Liberty) and is an enduring influence in France of 1960s-type feminists, steeped in the free-wheeling ethos of the time.
"A key aspect of the struggle of the 1960s was the need to remove any guilt attached to feminine sexuality," she says. "Women openly said they had the same craving for sex as men."
The signatories of the letter also include writer Catherine Millet, 69, best-known for a 2002 memoir detailing her sexual history in graphic detail. Among the others are Catherine Robbe-Grillet, the author of sadomasochistic stories, and Brigitte Lahaie, a 1970s porn star turned talk-show host.
These older feminists see the drive against harassment, which gathered steam in 1990s America, as a threat to the sexual revolution their generation has achieved. They accept the need to fight rape and workplace harassment. But in their view, says Ms Colosimo, activists who put such dangers at the heart of the modern feminist struggle promote a view of women "as victims and helpless objects of male desire rather than free agents".
This contrasts with the Anglosphere where the feminist movement has been completely hijacked by ugly, hairy - arsed, man - hating lezzas who are prepared to condemn Harvey Weinstein although he has not yet been convicted of anything, but simultaneously defend Muslims who rape and sexually exploit white girls, "because Multiculturalism."
The pushback is not just in France however, ridiculous claims from the gaggle of squawkers in Hollywood and other sectors of the celebrity circus have alienated more level headed commentators. Novelist Margaret Atwood has criticized #MeToo, from a different angle, her provocative article is published in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper. The lifelong feminist is singing, if not quite from the same songsheet, certainy from the same songbook as she complains that a broken legal system which permits media witch hunts rather than ensuring due process is observed, thus negating the legal rights of those against whom allegations have been made but as yet no charges have been laid.
We saw a similar trend in Britain after the crimes of DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Savile were exposed in 2013 after a police investigation into evidence of his prolific sexual abuse of under age and vulnerable people had been in progress for some months. While rumours had circulated about Savile's behaviour for years, as was the case with Harvey Weinstein, those who should have acted closed ranks to protect Savile because his carefully constructed public image made him a cash cow for their media companies and charities.
As soon as the Savile story gained traction , though he was safe from legal action having died in 2011, multitudes of attention seekers started to make #MeToo style allegations against male celebrities most of which were not supported by any evidence at all. And as in the latest outburst of politically correct madness names of the accused were made pubic before any legal process was initiated. The legal rights of those accused have been ignored by the very people who usually scream most loudly about "rights".
American novelist Lionel Shriver, is also sceptical about the motivations of those jumping on the #meToo bandwagon. Unanimity in Hollywood, she suggests, is result of risking ostracism by going off-message: "Given the nature of social movements these days, if you have reservations you keep your mouth shut."In the social media age, Shriver adds, "You have one position that's acceptable and everyone piles on to it. If you express a dissenting opinion, you're going to get slaughtered."
This has not deterred Shriver, who fully supports the Deneuve line and regards #MeToo as a "witch-hunt". "We're losing the distinction between serious sexual assault and even rape and putting a hand on a knee," she says. "It's as if someone finding you attractive is an insult. I beg to differ: I'm complimented if someone is attracted to me. The only question is: am I allowed to say no?"
Last year another major French actress, Fanny Ardant - born in 1949 - went so far as to say that the campaign against sex pests was redolent of fascism. Fascism is an accusation that has been levelled at the forces of politically correct authoritarianism in other contexts too, and with good cause.
Tuesday, 28 November 2017
What dad had discovered was that some time after the 1918 Representationn Of The People Act was passed by the national government under David Lloyd George, which extended voting rights to all men and to women over 30, thus paving the way for the working class vote to enable The Labour Party to compete with The Conservatives and eclipse The Liberal Party, certain elitists, aristocrats, wealthy business people and academics feared their elite social class would lose its grip on power. Led by The Fabian Society these new upper class leaders of the party that claimed it was a grass roots working class movement had only contempt for the working classes, whom they regarded as inferior beings.
George Orwell exposed this soon after it had happened, in the second half of his polemical book The Road To Wigan Pier. Orwell had been commissioned to write a study of the terrible working and living conditions endured by the working classes in British industrial towns. What the wealthy, elitist members of 'The Left Book' club, which commissioned the study, hoped Orwell would produce was an argument for paternalistic socialism, with a government of enlightened, socialist elitists presiding like the Patrician caste of ancient Rome over the ignorant, stupid, ineducable, almost bestial lower orders.
What Orwell did produce was indeed a study of working class life, but he found among them intelligence, sensitivity and a rough edged kind of nobility in the way they endured the privations of life. In the second part of the book however, Orwell wrote an exposé of the patronising, condescending, self righteous attitudes of these wealthy, virtue signalling socialists. And he was probably the first to identify one of the most despicable traits of these people, their inability to tolerate anybody disagreeing with their utopian vision or pointing out the very obvious flaws in their ideas for solving social problems.
This was no trivial matter, just as it was becoming clear that both Germany's National Socialists and Russia's Communists were monstrously tyrannical regimes under which the working classes were as badly off as they had been under the old monarchies, Orwell had revealed that the Fabian socialists rather liked both, particularly Hitler's policy of eugenics. So long as those born to rule continued to rule and those born to toil were kept in their place, The Fabian's idea of Utopia stood.
I became a member of The Liberal Party in the early 1960s, at the time The Liberals in parliament were a tiny remnant of the once great party, but at local level they were much stronger. Though the party had become more collectivist and less libertarian than the party of 1918, it was still possible as a liberal to hold and express an unorthodox opinion. The same was true of Labour, but free speech was a privilege extended only to older members. Among the younger ones hatred of anyone opposed to "the agenda" was starting to become de rigeur.
The left, traditionally the political position of individual freedom, personal development and self - determination has since then continued on its path to authoritarianism.
It is very revealing to observe how opinionated Labour supporters women who dare to stray from the party line are treated by 'new' Left in Britain today? Just fine, provided one stays on message. Dare to dissent and the mask of diversity and benevolence, over which the Left claims to have a monopoly, slips.
The latest name to be added to the list of people in the Labour Party who have fallen foul of Fabian authoritarian for expressing an unsanctioned view is German born M.P. Gisela Stuart, who, it was reported last week, was allegedly reminded that she “had another country to go to” by former press officer to Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell. Her crime: daring to campaign for Brexit (Mr Campbell called the story “truth mangling”).
First, can you imagine the furore had anyone said that to Jamaican born Diane Abbot with regard to her racist, black supremacist view of white people in Britain? Secondly, it has been established beyond doubt by the attitude of the EU bureaucracy to Brexit negotiations and by the performance of the UK economy since the Brexit vote that is was the Remain campaign, supported by Campbell and his crony Blair, that mangled the truth in their campaign. Thirdly, recent events in Europe have demonstrated that the intention of the E.U. was to create a bureaucratic dictatorship that would swallow all member states into a single European superstate.
What adds to the insult is the suspicion that if any Conservative or Liberal Democrat behaved towards dissenters like that, they would risk their career – but that the Left gets away with so much by invoking a philosophical “get out of jail free” card, they are the party of diversity and multiculturalism.
Incredibly, the now suspended Labour MP Jared O’Mara actually said as much a little while ago, when he refused to resign over his own derogatory comments but suggested that had such bile been uttered by a Tory MP, the situation would have been different because Conservatism doesn’t foster “equality and egalitarianism”. Eventually, and reluctantly it must be said, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was forced by public pressure to act.
What breathtaking arrogance! What stunning hypocrisy! What is the source of this benefit of the doubt the Left is prepared to allow itself but not its opponents? What gives socialists the right to demand that they be held to a lower standard than those to which it holds its opponents? What credibility can this veneer of egalitarianism and tolerance have if its prozelytizers consistently fail to practise what they preach, behave in an increasingly elitist manner and yet continue to take the support of their historic working class constituencies for granted?
The Left’s obsession with the quasi - religious dogma of diversity and equality of race and sex has reduced these important matters to a lazy box-ticking exercise, which a huge section of the population now holds in contempt, ultimately harming the cause of the very groups it claims to be supporting.
If the Left truly values diversity, it must celebrate dissent. People must have the right to oppose same sex marriage, affirmative action hiring policies, academic uplifts for minorities and the promotion of transgenderism in schools. When differing opinions can be houted down and earn those who express them threats of violence, the echo chamber may well sound harmonious, but the while the voices bouncing the walls repeat the same ideas, a dangerous anger is simmering silently on the back burner.