Friday, April 13, 2007

You've been stabbed, son? It's your own fault.

That icon of intellectual and journalistic integrity, Beatrix Campbell, has been at work again. In an article for the Guardian, she blames the recent spate of knife and gun crime in London on – wait for it – masculinity. Oh, so that’s what it is! Personally, I haven’t been involved in it, so I guess that means I’m not very masculine.

"The inexorable rise and rise of knife and gun culture isn't about black communities, or even black boys. It is about boys."

It's got nothing to do with poverty and family breakdown. It's to do with boys themselves.

She directs most of her ire against the Blair government, for apparently asking the black community to take action about knife and gun culture. Dear, oh dear. That is not politically correct; the black community is an Officially Recognized Victim Group (TM). As such, it is simply beyond any kind of criticism or responsibility.

No. Apportioning responsibility for the situation has got nothing to do with the facts; we have to pin the blame on one of our Accepted Ideological Enemies (TM) , regardless of the evidence. It’s all the fault of the male sex. What a surprise.

“But masculinity dares not speak its name in new Labour's language, and blame for menacing behaviour is re-assigned from men to mothers. The problem is children "being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework". That is proxy for no fathers.”

Another shocking heresy! Everyone knows that removing fathers from their children was a social good, resulting in widespread benefits for all. (Cue Soviet propaganda footage of happy smiling children dancing). Besides, fathers weren’t removed – they abandoned their children through their own fecklessness. So there.

As I argued in an earlier posting, there is an overwhelming case for concluding that fatherlessness is a major factor in youth delinquency. All the research shows this, and has done for decades. Feminists have done more to produce fatherless children than any other single force in this country since the Battle of the Somme (and they were even partly responsible for that). Campbell tries to squirt ink into the water by pretending that any discussion of the effects of fatherlessness is an attack on single mothers. It is no such thing. In a real sense those single mothers are just as much victims of the feminazi regime as the absent fathers are. But it is, of course, the children, and ultimately the wider society, who suffer most of all.

Campbell accuses the Blair government of “not addressing the fundamental correlation between masculine cultures and violence across all cultures and classes.”

There is a wealth of material to unpack just in that one sentence. Let’s ignore the two ambiguous occurrences of ‘cultures’.

Firstly, if there is such a strong correlation, then the obvious conclusion is that male violence has a biological basis. But if that is the case, then what does she expect the Blair (or any other) government to do about it?

Secondly, as a Marxist-Feminist of long standing, she is committed to social constructionism, the view that human behavior is socially rather than biologically determined. So what does it mean for her to say that the ‘rise and rise of knife and gun culture…is about boys’. In what sense? If people’s behavior is a product of their social environment, then in what sense can boys be held responsible for their behavior? Surely those who created the social environment for them are the ones responsible. Of course, this will point the finger back to the feminist-engineered fatherlessness and poverty again, and we don’t want that.

Thirdly, she is pretending that there is no connection between violence and social class. This is Campbell at her most disingenuous. Who are these young men who fill our media in London every week? Is it Sebastian and Rupert in Kensington, stabbing and shooting each other over a five pound bag of smack? Is it Giles and Jules, two millionaire city lawyers, glassing each other over an ambiguous clause in the small print? No. It is the poor. The underclass. That is where the knife and gun crime is happening. It is her (erstwhile) beloved working-class who are doing this. And it is mainly, but not entirely, the black poor. It is not the black middle-class either. It is the black urban poor. That is where the gang and weapon culture is. If we want to address this, we had better start being honest about it.

For a social constructionist, how could social class possibly be irrelevant? It is the single most important factor. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

However, she wants to ignore class, because she wants to be able to condemn all men equally. She wants to be able to hate without qualification. Campbell’s outlook on life is essentially a fascist one.

All problems in society are the fault of men.
If we get rid of men we will get rid of the problems in society.


That is exactly what Hitler said about Jews. Let us not forget that the Nazis also regarded themselves as victims of oppression. Fascism, like all religions, brings psychological and emotional advantages to the believer. Men are one of the last groups left that it is still acceptable to hate, and Beatrix Campbell has made an entire career out of hating them. Of course she would never advocate (at least not in public) that men should be exterminated. Instead, feminists like her believe that men should re-make themselves psychologically. We are all victims of our own stupidity.

Her solution is for boys to become less masculine; to become more like girls, more like her. The moral arrogance of feminists is something to behold. ‘Look at me. Am I not a paragon of virtue? Why don’t you take me as your role model? If everyone was like me the world would be a better place’.

It is remarkable how scientifically illiterate people on the Left are. It is a self-imposed ignorance. They will not countenance evolutionary theory because they see it as Patriarchal/Bourgeois propaganda designed to maintain the oppression of Wimmin/Proletariat. However, had Campbell read even some popular science such as Ridley’s Red Queen, she would know that the single biggest factor counting against her plan is heterosexual women. They despise feminized men. They want masculinity. Insofar as masculinity is culturally constructed, more than any other factor women are the ones doing the constructing.

That’s the problem with being a Revolutionary Warrior on a mission to Save the World from Oppression; those pesky oppressed groups just won't do what they’re told.

Females are complicit in the construction of masculine behavior through their sexual choice. Darwinian Sexual Selection – wake up and smell the coffee Beatrix.
Of course lesbian feminists like Campbell don’t believe that any one is really heterosexual. Certainly not women anyway. Like everything else, sexuality is socially constructed, and we are living in a heterosexual dictatorship in which women are brain-washed into believing that they are heterosexual.

It is a world view which can only be sustained by maintaining constant high levels of scientific illiteracy. Where do they think the bunny rabbits come from?

She obviously wants to persuade us that females are in no way complicit in the construction of male violence. Except we all know differently. In the recent fatal stabbing in Hammersmith, “A shop worker told how a pack of teenage girls chanted "kill him, kill him" as a gang of boys chased and then stabbed a 16 year old to death.” Reference

Those girls are in no way responsible for inciting violence are they? No, of course not. The Evil Patriarchy made them do it.

Just like the feminists in World War I who were handing out white feathers to men not in uniform, in order to shame them into joining up, they were deeply complicit in the carnage that followed. Of course after world war I, the feminist movement played its usual trick of denying all involvement. “I’m just a weak and feeble woman. How could I possibly be responsible?” That is what Campbell is doing now for those teenage girls in London. It had nothing to do with them, did it? No. Nothing at all.

By denying the role that females play in the construction of male violence, feminists such as Campbell are simply being dishonest.

Apart from defend blacks and single mothers, the darlings of the Left, and criticise the Blair government for not being feminist enough, Campbell’s article achieved nothing. Her supposed rationale for the recent spate of crime is incoherent in the extreme.

This crime wave has nothing to do with poverty. It has nothing to do with ethnic culture. It has nothing to do with family breakdown. It has nothing to do with women. Apparently, as that boy was lying bleeding to death in the street, it was his own fault. He only had himself to blame for the fact that he was attacked and stabbed by a gang. He shouldn’t have been born a boy. But isn‘t this committing another feminist heresy: blaming the victim? No, not at all. It’s perfectly acceptable to blame the victim as long as the victim is male.

The Hammersmith murder was apparently carried out by a gang called MDP (Murder Dem Pussies). Yes, that was the same murder in which the gang of teenage girls was shouting ‘Kill him!’ In an environment like that, why on earth would a young man want to develop a masculine persona? It’s a complete mystery. Not.

She makes the mistake of thinking that carrying a knife is masculine, and that the only solution to knife crime is to destroy masculinity. Ironically, by saying that boys who commit knife crime are the most masculine, Campbell is encouraging more of it. She is repeating the very same shibboleth that the boys might be telling themselves.

The whole article smells of fear. It is as though Campbell is fighting a desperate rearguard, knowing full-well that these men-hating, Communist-era myths she is peddling are looking increasingly threadbare. She criticizes men for caring too much about their own reputations, and yet she is desperate to protect the feminist movement’s reputation at any cost.

Campbell's article was the usual feminist fare, stale, over-familiar and turgid. Self-serving, incoherent, anti-intellectual garbage. Do they seriously expect us to spend public money on implementing solutions as poorly designed as these? Yes, let's destroy masculinity. That will solve it. Yeah, right Beatrix. We'll get right on to it.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Duke Lacrosse Pantomime Finally Over

All charges have finally been dropped against the three innocent students at Duke University. This is not only a triumph for justice and common sense, but it is a considerable victory for the men's movement agenda.

As Cathy Young argued in her excellent article The Waterloo of Rape-Crisis Feminism, the failure of this case is a victory over the callous, politically-motivated lying of people like Wendy Murphy, professional feminist 'advocates', who have dedicated their careers to the destruction of men's lives, guilty or not, simply because they are men. Let us not forget that this kind of radical lesbian agenda harms genuine rape victims too. It serves the interests of nobody. That agenda has been dealt a blow today.

It is also a victory over the 'Tenured Vigilantes' on the academic Left, supposed educators who were quite happy to see three boys lynched for being white and middle-class, just because it happened to suit their ideological agenda. The academic Leftists at Duke have been dealt a sharp blow today, but it must be followed up with more. Their behaviour towards these students was truly disgraceful, and motivated by the strange pseudo-intellectual cult religion that these so-called academics are members of. This kind of political partisanship has no place on a university faculty. There should be an enquiry into their conduct, and they should have their tenure removed. What kind of ridiculous notion is 'tenure' anyway? That has got to change.

It is a victory over judicial corrupion, and corrupt prosecutor Mike Nifong will now be feeling the heat.

It is a victory over the epidemic of false accusations, and false accuser Crystal Gayle Magnum should now be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Today is a good day. A day of triumph for those who believe in justice and the rule of law. A good day for those who wish to see the vested interests of champagne socialists crumble. A good day for those who want to see false accusations challenged.

But in truth, the story is not over yet. I hope to see Nifong and Magnum in the dock. I hope to see the falsely accused compensated. I hope to see those campus guerillas fired. I want to see a sea-change in the ideological climate on American campuses, so that education is valued over political activism. That is probably asking too much.