Sunday, August 03, 2008

Why I Stopped Reading the Guardian

I just wanted to point out this article to you, in case you haven't come across it.

Why I Hate Men, by Julie Bindel

There are a couple of good responses to it, here and here.

She hates men, so she tells us, because we are violent towards women, and she cares deeply about the welfare of all of her 'sisters'.

What I have absolutely no intention of doing in response to this poisonous libel is to meekly explain that I am not violent towards women, and that although some men are sometimes violent, I do not condone blah blah blah...

I will not fall into that rhetorical trap. Articles like this are nothing more than fascist hate-speech. Can you imagine the reaction if the Guardian published an article called "Why I hate blacks: At least those who perpetrate crimes against whites and those who do nothing to stop it." Such an article would be rightly regarded as neo-fascist propaganda. The fact that the Guardian publishes this material demonstrates just how bankrupt the political Left has become. When this counts as liberal and progressive discourse, we are really in trouble as a society.

Like other forms of fascism, radical feminism tries to unite a client population (in this case women) under a totalitarian leadership (Bindel and her mentally-disturbed sisters) by trying to convince them that they are under threat from a common enemy, and that they must unite in mutual self-defence. Although she has changed the names, Bindel's rhetoric is literally the rhetoric of Hitler. The parallels are striking.

The Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s was one of the most liberal, democratic societies in history. Within this society the Nazi party arose. The Nazis appropriated German identity for themselves; they claimed to speak on behalf of all Germans. The Nazis regarded themselves, and therefore all Germans, as victims of an international conspiracy by Jews and Communists. Hitler called for bold action. The embattled Germans must rise up against the common oppressor and defend themselves. The newspapers of the time were full of anti-Jewish propaganda, inciting hatred against the target group. Once a climate of hatred and suspicion had been successfully established, a legal process began whereby Jews were systematically stripped of their rights. Few objected to this because the propaganda campaign had been so effective, and the Nazis' claims were protected by a reign of terror: anyone who opposed Hitler was eliminated. Violent attacks against Jews began, and were tacitly encouraged by the leadership. The Nazi ideology resulted, to cut a long story short, in the total destruction of German society.

Hitler thought that he was being forced to defend himself in a race war. In reality, he was the only one fighting it. Real conspiracies often emerge as a defence against imagined ones. The same is true of the feminist movement.

Bindel and her ilk are among the most privileged human beings in history, leading lives longer, healthier and safer than those of any Roman Emperor. But they think that they are being persecuted. Just look at any radical feminist text, such as Susan Faludi's "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women"

The media and popular culture have been full of rampant anti-male propaganda for decades. The legal rights of men are being systematically dismantled. This is being done deliberately. Anyone who opposes this process is condemned as a misogynist and socially marginalised.

Feminism is a paranoid conspiracy theory. It is a fascist conspiracy, because it targets a biologically defined group, and it maintains its rule by means of intimidation.

There simply is no such 'war against women'. However, as with the German case, the 'defensive' counter-conspiracy is real enough. As Christina Hoff Sommers stated "Insofar as there is any gender war going on, feminists are the ones fighting it themselves".

The claims that fascists make are intended to instill fear into the population, and do not stand up to any rational strutiny. I hardly need to to point out that men are far more likely than women to be victims of violence, or that women are also capable of violence. This week's Ministry of Justice report, quietly leaked onto the internet when they thought no-one was looking, demonstrates that violence is now the most common category of crime committed by women. Fascists like to cherry-pick their evidence to match their prejudices.

There is no doubt that Bindel is a mentally-disturbed extremist, and is a neo-fascist by any meaningful definition. People like her do what they do partly as a result of their personal neuroses. Dale O'Leary and others have pointed out that radical lesbian feminists often harbour deep resentment against their fathers. They also do it to impress the girls. Bindel swaggers in the Guardian, the big swinging dick in the jungle. It is not about rescuing women from danger at all, for there simply is none to speak of. It is about personal self-aggrandisement and eliminating competition for mates.

We are already seeing widespread social breakdown in Britain as a direct result of this poisonous ideology. This war will not be so dramatic; what we have now is a kinder, gentler fascism. Instead of Jews being stripped of their rights and businesses, we see men being stripped of their rights, property and children. The effects are more subtle, more low-key. Instead of getting a chunk of shrapnel in your chest, you will get a hoodie's blade. The long-term effects will be the same. The kind of radical feminism espoused by Bindel is long-term cultural suicide.

Bindel enjoys the confidence of Harriet Harman, who in effect rules the country while Brown is on holiday. Many of Harman's insane-sounding anti-male reforms come from Bindel and her politburo. Brown's leadership is now in question. Harman seeks to replace him. If that happens, then Bindel will be the power behind the throne.

Be scared. Be very scared.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

someone should tell that man hating dyke to STFU!

paddybrown said...

I was a Guardian reader myself for a long time, until the Toni Comer story. You may remember, a black single mother, while violently drunk and disorderly, was forcibly restrained by a police officer, who, acting according to his training, punched her in the arm to deaden it so he could cuff her. He didn't do her any damage, but him punching her was caught on CCTV.

The gender baiters had their say, but the race-baiters explicitly tried to turn it into their own Rodney King beating, which was astonishingly irresponsible considering the fallout from what happened to Rodney King. After a bit more of the facts came out, they dropped the story - for a week, and dragged it all up again, having learned nothing.

The policeman, Anthony Mulhall, was removed from frontline duties, despite doing nothing wrong. He was later quite properly exonerated, but was found dead on Mount Snowdon last month, and may have taken his own life. I hope the shitstirrers on the Guardian are proud of themselves.

Mark said...

Dear Heretic,

two comments:
1) From what I have read of your site, your arguments do not veer off toward personal animus/ad hominem or diatribe, your sources are almost(?) always referenced, your views are often insightful, your logic is sound and your critiques of commenters respectful yet devastatingly persuasive, HOWEVER, for all that, I do wonder whether there is a certain naivety in naming your blog as you have, for in so doing you risk deterring potential visitors from visiting at all, and detracting from the obviously considerable effort you expend in developing your argument and sourcing references for your points for those who do visit. Perhaps you use your blog, in part at least, for venting, but if so, why go to such effort? If your purpose is to change opinions - and surely that is the point of being so much more thorough than other sites - then why handicap yourself from the outset?


2) I don't know if you were aware, but the FBI tracks hate groups in the US. They use a seven-stage model to delineate intensity of activity. Gender per se is not one of the proscribed motivators, but even so, it occurred to me that it might be an idea to apply the model to what the feminists get up to and compare their activities to groups that ARE recognised as hate groups.

Now clearly, the web being what it is, there's bound to be all sorts of fruitcakes out there of all persuasions and I don't doubt the there are some truly repellent individuals on both sides of the gender war, but that's not what we're talking about here: we're talking about the activities of high profile columnists and stereotypical portrayals in mainstream national media, and about senior government officials in charge of defining policy and legislation in the governing party.

Here's a page with details of the process. Clearly we're up to stage five already, and arguably, given women's preference for manipulation to induce attack indirectly, stage six...
The seven-stage hate model: The psychopathology of hate groups
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin/March 1, 2003
By John R. Schafer, MA and Joe Navarro, MA
http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups355.html

Heretic said...

Dear Mark,
Thank you for your kind comments. Perhaps you are right about the name. I have sometimes wondered about it. It was a snap decision, made for several reasons: a cheap pun on 'heretical sects'; I regard feminism as a kind of religious sect; the subject of the blog is sexual politics and the views expressed are certainly heretical; if you put 'sex' in the title you get more readers, everyone knows that.

Thanks for the FBI link. I shall check it out.

Male Rights Network said...

Of course you could argue that race antagnonism and sex antagonism are quite different (I would). As such, they have different outcomes when promoted by the media, they are held to different standards [if unspoken], they have different degrees of tolerance before societal outrage and revolt.

Equating race antagonism and sex antagonism is a form of the Marxist egalitarian we have all grown to despise!

Of course these Lefty-Feminist journos should follow their own egalitarian line. But as we know, this will not happen as lefists and feminists are never consistent in such matters.

Male Rights Network said...

This is why your reference to Jews in Nazi Germany is relevant, but things will not necessarily pan out the same way in the Man-Hating Feminist West.

Nick S said...

The thing that is so hypocritical is that we live in a society that is otherwise ultrasensitive about stereotyping and demonising people.

The politically correct brigade are constantly lecturing about how we must treat everyone as individuals and not label different groups according to the bad behaviour of some.

Yet it seems that men are the one group that can be collectively villified and labelled. To give one example, there are various government ads in many countries about domestic violence and the like that portray all men as the perpetrators and women as the victims. Yet it would be inconceivable that a government would run an advertisement singling out any other group (such as a racial or religious minority) and presenting them as always being the perpetrators in any situation.

Anonymous said...

My response to the mangina who commiserated the angry language in the comments:

Hey, Eddie, my boy. It’s called Future Shock. Change comes so fast people can’t keep up with it. We have had forty years of totally unprincipled and vicious attacks on men in the entire Anglosphere.

Suddenly out of nowhere come a large group of angry men. Hey, this isn’t supposed to happen. Men, all men but me, for I am special and different, are supposed to accept every imaginable lie and insult tossed in their faces.

OOOOO, how mean to actually fight back!!!!!!

Get used to it, babe. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Anonymous age 66

Ed said...

"Anonymous age 66" or "Irlandes" or whatever you're calling yourself, here's my response to you:

Did you meet a devil woman? Did she take your heart away? Well, maybe you had it coming to you. Maybe you wanted it that way. Anyway, any love is good love, so take what you can get: there’s something you’re never going to forget. But now I’ll look at you with these big brown eyes and say: “Please stop posting your mindless gibberish on my blog, you utter lunatic.”

Ed (26h)

Anonymous said...

Marc said "If your purpose is to change opinions - and surely that is the point of being so much more thorough than other sites - then why handicap yourself from the outset?"

Marc is clearly a man who knows absolutely nothing about activism nor about how the real world works.

Anonymous said...

Did you meet a devil woman? Did she take your heart away? Well, maybe you had it coming to you. Maybe you wanted it that way.
*****

Wow, so are you going for the full fembot bingo, or are you just taking a break right now?

Cause you forgot: tiny penis, gay and still living at home in mamma's basement....

SavvyD said...

She could have phrased it better. I get that what she REALLY meant was that she hates the men who do violent things. This isn't all men, but it sure sounds that way as she starts out.

In my life I've had men who are wonderful and men who are awful. I've also had women who are wonderful and women who are awful. And I've been both wonderful and awful.

Anonymous said...

“Wow, so are you going for the full fembot bingo, or are you just taking a break right now? Cause you forgot: tiny penis, gay and still living at home in mamma's basement....”

According to Wikipedia, a “fembot” is a “robot designed to look like a human female”. What have robots or bingo got to do with anything? You ask whether I am “taking a break” – a break from what? What “cause” do you think I forgot about? Why are you wittering on about penises, homosexuality and basements? I don’t understand a single thing you say. Perhaps this confusion is due, as you suggest, to the possibility that I just “ain’t seen nothin’ yet” – “b-b-b-b-baby”.

Ed (26h)