Saturday, June 13, 2009

Rake's Progress

My regular readers may recall an earlier post in which I replied to an article in the Guardian written by Dr Katherine Rake, then head of the Fawcett Society. Reference

It seems that Rake has now moved on to a new job as head of the "Family and Parenting Institute, a heavily state-financed organisation set up by Labour to speak for parents and children" Reference

"The organisation was set up in 1999 by then Home Secretary Jack Straw to shore up family life and encourage parents.

Last year it received nearly £8million from Ed Balls's Department for Children, Schools and Families towards its declared mission of 'supporting parents in bringing up children'.

Dr Rake, who will take over from the Institute's founding chief executive Mary MacLeod, has long declared her intention is not to support parents as they are, but to revolutionise their lives."

The appointment of Dr Rake, who is likely to earn £60,000 a year, comes at a time of growing pressure on mothers to go out to work.

Despite overwhelming evidence that a majority would prefer to stay home to bring up young children, ministers have piled pressure on them to take jobs and warned that those who fail to do so, and who rely on the income of a husband or partner, are likely to face poverty".

As one of the comments on the article asks, "Is this some sort of joke?"

It is like putting the Taliban in charge of girls' education.

"'Katherine Rake's agenda is more about reversing sex roles than helping parents.'"

The thing which is most breathtaking about ideologues like Rake is their moral arrogance, and their willingness to coerce others to accept an agenda they do not want. They know better than the rest of us. They are possessed of special arcane knowledge. The working class are suffering from false consciousness and cannot be allowed to make decisions for themselves. They need revolutionary leaders like Rake to tell them what to do.

This attitude was best summed up by Simone de Beauvoir in her now-notorious interview with Betty Friedan. "We don't believe that any women should have this choice [of staying at home with her children]. No woman should be authorised to stay at home with her children. If there is such a choice then too many women will make that one". Reference. It is worth noting that both Friedan and De Beauvoir were committed communists. De Beauvoir at that time was an admirer of Mao, the greatest mass murderer in history.

She was also a paedophile according to a recent biography 'A Dangerous Liaison', by Carole Seymour-Jones (Century, 2008). One reviewer described it thus: "Simone de Beauvoir and lover Jean-Paul Sartre, whose writing paved the way for our Godless permissive times, lived private lives of utter depravity. Today, she would be behind bars for her sexual activities with her young pupils, but in those days she got away with it." Reference

Yet this woman remains a powerful inspiration to the feminist movement.

Having previously collaborated with Mary Daly, who advocates mass extermination of men, Rake has taken over De Beauvoir's totalitarian mantle, and is on a taxpayer-funded mission to 'revolutionise' the family.

I would like to ask Rake: What if we don't want our families to be revolutionised? All the evidence shows that this is the case.

'Tough', Rake would no doubt reply, 'it's for your own good, and the long-term good of society'. OK, let's assume she is right. There is still the small issue of consent, something that feminists are usually very keen on demanding for themselves: 'My body, my choice'. Apparently, women are the only ones who are allowed to exercise consent, and only in their dealings with men, in order to refuse heterosexual relations. The rest of the time, according to feminists, even women are not allowed to choose for themselves either.

The situation is this. Rake is going to forcibly transform our families. There is coercion involved, but it us for our own good. Here are a couple of analogies.

I remember reading a news story a few years ago about a burglar in Germany who broke into people's houses and cleaned up. He would literally clean the house, and then leave. Arguably, he was doing the owners a favour, leaving the house in a better condition than he had found it. There are two points to make about this. Firstly, this behaviour is regarded as so strange that the man in question is judged to be mentally ill. The fact that he entered the house without the owners' consent means that he is judged to be a criminal. Secondly, would you want that guy to visit your house? If you found that he had paid you a visit, would you be pleased? Of course not. You would feel that your life had been violated. Choice had been taken away from you.

Here is a second, entirely fictional, analogy. You are walking down the street. Suddenly an unmarked Transit van screeches to a stop next to you. Some large men jump out and bundle you into the back. It speeds off. You find yourself taken to a secret government facility. You are tied to a table. You are being prepared for surgery. The needle goes into your arm. You are trying to scream with fear, but no sound is coming out...

You wake up, and you feel OK, a little different, but OK. A kind nurse explains to you that the government has implanted an electronic device into your brain. The effect of this device is that you are now 50% more intelligent than you were before. They give you a cup of tea and they let you go home.

How would you like that?

That is the kind of deal that feminists are offering, with regard to your family. They are going to drive a coach and horses through your human rights, but it's OK, it's for your own good.

This is nothing new. That has been the essential message of the political Left for generations.

I say to Rake, 'My family, my choice'. Get your hands off my personal life. I'm quite capable of choosing for myself, thank you very much.

I also say to Rake: What if you are wrong? Have you ever thought of that? What if your vision of the family turns out not to be viable, and you cause more problems than you solve?

These grandiose dreams of engineering a perfect world are always flawed. They never work. Twentieth Century history shows us that they result in mountains of corpses at every turn. The great philosopher Karl Popper said, "Those who promise us heaven on earth have only ever delivered hell". Reference

Left-wingers must know their plans are dubious and unpopular, otherwise, why the coercion? If what you are offering is so great, why doesn't everyone choose it?

The reality will be that, although the burglar has washed the dishes and swept the floor, he has also stolen your valuables. Although you are more intelligent, you stand a good chance of dying on the table, or losing the ability to see. The government will then form a blindness support group and make you a member, using even more taxpayers' money, employing even more cronies, and requiring even more State intervention in your life.

This is more or less what Rake is doing now. The organisation that she is leading was only formed in the first place in order to try to ameliorate the worst effects of the damage to family life that Left-wing policy had already wreaked.

It is like the government paying someone to cut you, and then paying someone else to stitch the wound, and then charging you for both.

De Beauvoir was far from unique. The kind of people who advocate these hare-brained schemes are generally a bunch of freaks and wierdos, misfits with desperately unhappy lives themselves, and who nonetheless deign to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. A historian friend of mine was discussing the Crusades and remarked, 'Only mad people go on Crusades'. Rake, Harman and the rest of the feminazi mob are on a crusade to 'revolutionise' your personal life - and you are paying them for it. £60,000 a year in Rake's case.

Have you got the message yet? Through your taxes, you are paying her to destroy your family. You have no choice in the matter.

"The chairman of the National Parenting Institute is Fiona Millar, long-term partner of Tony Blair's former spokesman Alastair Campbell.

She said that Dr Rake 'has a strong track record in research, policy and campaigning and will be a great asset to the organisation at a time when the recession is putting extra pressure on families up and down the country'"

Rake's appointment shows, even more, the need to remove the Labour Party from government.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Harriet for PM

This week has been a disaster for Gordon Brown, if rather a good one for the country, as it saw the resignation of several ministers, all of whom we are better off without.

Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith and Caroline Flint all quit the government last week. Along with them went James Purnell, the apparent architect of the policy to confiscate the passports and driving licenses of men who fall into arrears on their child support payments, without needing to go to all the tiresome bother of getting a court order. Reference

Good riddance to the lot of them.

However, it’s not as simple as that. This group of female Labour MPs, along with the disastrous Beverley Hughes, style themselves as the 'WAGs' (Women Against Gordon), and rather than spend more time with their families, they are instead plotting the downfall of the Prime Minister. Reference

Flint resigned in the huff last week claiming that Gordon Brown ‘uses’ the women in his cabinet as ‘female window dressing’. According to many news sources, the reason for this feminist conspiracy is apparently that Flint was passed over for promotion.

Flint was the Minister of State for Europe, and "On 31 March 2009 she admitted that she has not read the Lisbon Treaty, the controversial document which codifies the rules of the European Union. Critics described her admission as "extraordinary" and "unbelievable," particularly given that the minister's responsibilities include overseeing the introduction of the Treaty". Reference

In all likelihood, Gordon Brown realised that Flint was just crap at her job. If she can't do a relatively low-level ministerial job properly, can't even trouble herself to read a document, why does she think she should get promotion? But that is not politically correct. Gordon Brown obviously has a Problem With Women (TM).

“Asked if Brown had a problem with women, Flint told the Observer: 'I don't know. It would have been nice to have had more conversations about the policy areas I was involved with.

'But we didn't, so I don't know that. You've only got to look and see where women are in cabinet and where they aren't: and they aren't in positions of power, they aren't running spending departments. There's only Yvette [Cooper] now who's actually running a spending department.'

Flint claimed that women in Brown's government were used as 'a smokescreen, a way of making it look like you've got a lot of women around the table' without letting them influence anything.”

This is a remarkably disingenuous statement. Jacqui Smith was the Home Secretary – one of the four great offices of State – until last week, when she resigned.

The thing to notice about this group is that very few of them would even be MPs at all were it not for New Labour’s shameful policy of having women-only candidate short-lists. This is a blatant offence against democracy, and goes against the wishes of the vast majority of people in the country. All of these women were elevated to Parliament in the 1997 election as the so-called ‘Blair’s Babes‘. If we lived in a pure meritocracy, do you really think that Jacqui Smith would have been the Home Secretary? She has been an utter disaster. Not one of these women can hold a candle to the likes of Betty Boothroyd, Barbara Castle or Margaret Thatcher, all of whom had to enter Parliament the traditional way - through the front door, rather than being smuggled in the back way by Auntie Hattie when the voters weren't looking. They are mediocre, over-promoted nobodies. Yet the likes of Flint is still not happy. “I’m only the Secretary of State for Europe. That’s not fair! These men are picking on me! I want more!”

This intake of second-raters should be a lesson to us about the perils of 'positive discrimination'. We should always appoint the best person for the job, regardless of who they are. That was plainly not done in this case.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and if there is no real scorn to be had, then just make some up.

This coven of self-serving parasites, most of whom have spent their time in Parliament ripping up off with their dodgy expenses claims and done very little else, have now decided to topple the government. It seems that they are determined to continue stirring the cauldron until Brown is forced out.

Ask yourself this: Who is likely to benefit from this?

“Conspicuously absent from the gatherings are two of Mr Brown’s closest allies in the Cabinet – Commons Leader Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper, last week promoted to Work and Pensions Secretary.”

If Brown falls and there is a leadership election, one of the favourites to win will be Auntie Hattie. Could this be the real agenda? Everyone knows that she has wanted it for years. She has been suspiciously quiet of late, don’t you think?

If she wins, it will be something of a hollow victory. She can play the queen of her rapidly disintegrating sand-castle, sitting atop with the encroaching tide lapping around her stilettos, for another twelve months or so, before she has to call a General Election, when there is absolutely no question that New Labour is going to be comprehensively panned. In some ways I’m sorry that she wouldn't get longer. It would be interesting to watch the effects of five or ten years of radical feminist government. With only one year to play with they won’t have enough rope to hang themselves.

Too Sad for Words

Thanks to BrusselsLout for drawing my attention to a new blog by one Cath Elliot, called 'Too Much to Say For Myself'

The first thing that struck me about this was the title. The structures, 'too much', 'too many' and 'not enough' are always and only used in English in a negative way, to describe perceived problems: "There is too much traffic in London", "There are too many people and not enough houses", and so on. Her title implies that someone has told her that she talks too much. Perhaps some Victorian school-teacher has caught her talking in class, and admonished her with a wagging finger: "You've got too much to say for yourself, my girl!" She, being the clever and fearless Left-wing activist that she is, has cunningly taken that expression and 'turned it around', throwing it back in our Patriarchal faces in a feat of post-modern irony, analogous to the way in which the gay community re-appropriated the insult 'queer', by describing themselves as queer, thus removing the stigma. The difference is, of course, that the gay community - or the male gay community anyway - actually has been subject to real discrimination. I seriously doubt that anyone has actually told Mz Elliot that she has 'too much to say for herself'.

The implication of the expression is not that she merely talks too much, as someone genuinely might when they spend 25 minutes loudly discussing Big Brother during a funeral service. Her meaning is obviously political; that she thinks too much, and forms her own opinions; that she is too independent; that she is insufficiently obedient and respectful towards the Patriarchal-Capitalist hegemony. That is clearly what she wishes to communicate. That she lives under an oppressive regime which cruelly attempts to silence her, and that she, the noble, struggling heroine, has bravely turned the master's weapons against him. She is a rebel, a dissident. How cool is that?

The wraith of George Orwell lurks in the background in the form of a quote by none other than Andrea Dworkin. Anyone who admires Dworkin should be treated with suspicion at the best of times, but this is a quote by Dworkin apparently praising truth and integrity. Dworkin believed that the primary interaction between men and women was rape; that rape (and violence generally) defines the male-female relationship more than anything else. For example,

"In this society, the norm of masculinity is phallic aggression. Male sexuality is, by definition, intensely and rigidly phallic. A man's identity is located in his conception of himself as the possessor of a phallus; a man's worth is located in his pride in phallic identity. The main characteristic of phallic identity is that worth is entirely contingent on the possession of a phallus. Since men have no other criteria for worth, no other notion of identity, those who do not have phalluses are not recognized as fully human.". Reference

To most people, this sounds like the ravings of a disturbohead. While we may have sympathy for the mentally-ill, adopting them as role models is hardly a strategy for long-term health, happiness and success. In the quote that Mz Elliot has chosen, Dworkin exhorts us to tell the truth. Just like she does. "Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it. In life, they commit it."

Try reading the Dworkin again, but this time, instead of 'man', substitute the word 'black'. How does it sound? That little thought experiment should give you an insight into the kind of fascists that these radical feminists really are.

Turning to the content of the blog itself, Mz Elliot refers to Twitter and claims that "yet another online platform is in the process of being hijacked by misogynists." I'm not familiar with Twitter myself, but she refers to some threads called #liesgirlstell and #3wordsaftersex.

Looking at the first of these, the contributors are mainly girls, so I'm slightly confused as to the source of Mz. Elliot's umbrage. Perhaps she is concerned that they are letting the sisterhood down by admitting that they tell lies; for the truth, as Dworkin would no doubt inform us, is that wimmin never lie. Lying is a bad thing, and only men do bad things.

The second one, supposedly funny things to say in three words immediately after sex, is equally humdrum, containing posts mainly from women, but Elliot highlights a few that she considers morally unacceptable, and evidence of a deep-seated universal conspiracy to oppress women. Her examples include "F*ck you bitch", "Please unlock me", "I have aids", "time to die". Why she regards these as misogynistic is hard to fathom. It is nowhere implied that a man is speaking to a woman, or that the couple is even heterosexual. You can read into it what you will. Even if we were to assume those things, some of them still do not add up to misogyny; "Please unlock me"? No experimentation with furry handcuffs allowed in the Elliot household, evidently. She seems to be working on the assumption, promulgated by Dworkin, Mackinnon, Daly and the rest of that crew of lesbian Nazis, that all heterosexual sex is rape. Her claims just don't make sense otherwise.

Camille Paglia once described the feminist movement as "a jumble of vulgarians, bunglers, whiners, French faddicts, apparatchiks, dough-faced party-liners, pie-in-the-sky utopians and bullying sanctimonious sermonizers." That seems to be what is on display here. Not only does Mz. Elliot show no understanding of humour or irony, or any view other than her own absolutism, but even worse than that: Despite her insistence on her own inalienable right to speak as much as she wants, she devotes her time to trying to control everyone else's discourse. She tells us what we are allowed to laugh at, what we are allowed to say, think, do and believe.

She is a puritanical, authoritarian, bullying, humourless drone. Her intellectual mediocrity is matched only by her mean-spiritedness. She differs not one jot from the BNP member who came to my blog recently. Both derive their identity from hating others, and viewing themselves as victims. A less healthy or socially-responsible mindset is hard to imagine.

It is difficult to see how Elliot's moral program differs from that of Mary Whitehouse. Where Whitehouse concerned herself with smut on television, Elliot has gone multi-media, concerning herself with smut on the internet. She is another self-appointed, self-serving Puritan, setting herself up as some sort of cultural policeman, wagging her finger disapprovingly at the uncouth masses.

It is strange that none of the women I know - partner, mother, sisters, friends, colleagues - seem to think that they are cruelly prevented from speaking by an oppressive masculine regime. What we have here is a lot of whining about nothing much, pursued in the name of liberty, and for the sake of self-aggrandisement. The reality is that Western middle-class women (such as Elliot) live lives longer, healthier, more privileged, and certainly more secure, than those of Roman Emperors, and to make it even worse, these advantages have been handed to them by men.

Anyway, I've talked to much. It's time to go and murder someone.