If you look closely at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, the leaders of the three traditional political parties in Britain (and supposedly representatives of three differing ideologies) you couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them. They are all men of the same age, the same social background – and all of them live and breathe feminism, with all its incontrovertibly Marxist credentials. Even for conservative David Cameron, feminism takes precedence over his party’s traditional political imperatives, which are inimical to Marxism and indeed all socialist political principles.
Yet, for Cameron and his cabinet, as for the feminist political class of which he is a fully paid-up member, feminism trumps everything. They have even had themselves photographed wearing T-shirts saying, ‘This is what a feminist looks like’. The most recent example of this was a publicity stunt organised by the media hungry Fawcett Society, perhaps the most prominent, vociferous – and socialist – feminist lobby group active in Britain today, and much beloved of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Labour Party as a source of partisan policy utterances.
The Fawcett feminists lined up Miliband and members of his shadow cabinet – and Clegg and his – for the cameras, in what was clearly intended to be a sign of solidarity between Labour and the Lib Dems on the left wing of politics and their joint feminist beliefs, but the stunt backfired when it was revealed that the garments bearing their sexist statement had been made in sweatshops in Mauritius, by exploited women who were sleeping 16 to a room. The irony of this own goal seemed to have little effect on Fawcett or the politicos, and the feminist-dominated press, of course, characteristically treated it very leniently.1See also The Fawcett Society’s response.
Cameron, a much more polished PR man from his pre-politics professional life than the Fawcett ladies, tactically avoided this debacle (although he has openly self-identified as a feminist on many occasions in the past). However, his Home Secretary, Theresa May, can be seen here wearing the same T shirt, with the same message – and for whom? Yes, you’ve got it, the Fawcett Society. The photograph is proudly displayed on their Pinterest website.
Here, we have Theresa May, a Conservative Party Home Secretary, who obviously sees no problem in being openly associated with a deeply left-wing political lobbying group. May is a prominent conservative, but she is a feminist first. For her, clearly, its political credentials notwithstanding, feminism trumps all other political considerations. Feminism, which is an offshoot of Marxism, is alive and well in the Conservative Party as much as it is in the Labour Party (which is its natural home) and in the Liberal Democrats, who are neither liberal (in the truest Enlightenment meaning of Liberalism) nor democratic, as they do all they can to further the cause of women as a social class, above all other social groups.
In Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, we have a group of self-serving, unmanly men who, in the name of equality, diversity and political correctness are pandering to every whim of women for the sake of a vote here and a vote there – and, in the process, they are presiding over and even prosecuting the destruction of men’s roles, and the importance of men to society.
These effete men, and the highly motivated women who are hovering and vying for their jobs, just ooze feminist ideology from their very pores. They are collectively nothing better than a ‘one-trick pony’, promulgating the most partisan, family destroying, socially divisive ideology in history, and they have miserably failed in their solemn duty to ensure inclusiveness and balanced breadth of thinking and policy that seeks to represent all of society. Instead, they simply spend their time sucking up to one sector of the electorate – women – whilst completely ignoring the issues that men and boys are facing in the relentless assault on democracy that feminism is perpetrating.
They represent a generation of politicians driven by feminism that trumps their every decision, every utterance, every policy – every political stunt. Political passions and the aspirations of the genuine left or the right, or something in between such as liberalism, have nothing to do with it. Each and every one of these outrageously biased, self-serving politicians is riding the tiger of feminism for all it is worth, and they don’t understand that the haemorrhaging of political support and credibility they are experiencing is in no small part the result of their slavish adherence to the tenets and dogma of this divisive creed.
Politics should not be about gender, it should be about finding balance in the overall interests of society as a whole. Our current bunch of totally feminised political leaders are oblivious to the folly of putting women on high pedestals whilst allowing men’s and boys’ interests to be consigned to the shadowy wings (or the gutter and the grave – 84% of the street homeless are men2http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/HiddenTruthAboutHomelessness_web.pdf, and suicide is the leading cause of death of men under 50 years of age.326% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 who die have committed suicide, compared to 13% of women in the same age band. In 2012 the male:female suicide rate differential was 3.3:1, having nearly doubled since 1982, when it was 1.69:1. Unemployment, leading to family breakdown, is known to be major risk factor for men, as is the loss of contact with children after divorce.) If these things were happening to women, their would be a public and political outcry.
That is why these feminised politicians are being held in universal contempt by the electorate – half of whom are men, and a good part of the remainder are women who see how feminism is destroying their men: their husbands’ careers, their sons’ marriages, their grandsons’ education, their brothers, fathers, friends and work colleagues’ self-esteem and status in society – and is enslaving women to lives in which they have to be ‘superwomen’: both mothers and workers, impossibly trying to reconcile the two essentially irreconcilable roles, because that is the way society has been shaped by feminist politics over the last three or four decades.
There is a fundamental principle that without representation there should be no taxation. Men provide 72% of all income tax receipts in Britain4Source: Table 3.3: Distribution of total income before and after tax by gender, 2011-12 – Taxpayers only Survey of Personal Incomes 2011-12 Updated January 2014. United Kingdom Office for National Statistics but men have no minister, unlike women. Indeed, we have a Minister for Women and Equalities, which is about the finest example of Orwellian doublespeak you could possibly invent. In certain constituencies, male voters will have all-women candidate short lists imposed upon them by Labour in the May 2015 general election, and even conservative David Cameron is has made noises to make this part of future Tory election strategy.
This is not equality, and neither is it diversity. By and large, the reason why there are few women in politics is because few women want to go into politics. Even Caroline Spelman MP, who is active trying to bring in women-only candidate shortlists in the Tory party, admitted in 2008, when she was Chairman of the Conservative Party, that only 10% of the people seeking to be prospective parliamentary candidates were women.5See here for the key points of this woman’s activism for Tory all-women PPC lists. ‘Twas ever thus. Ordinary women are not motivated to engage in national politics, and the women who are, are self-selecting – these days that means radical feminists, intent only on furthering women’s advantage wherever they can. They are not in the least interested in balance, let alone men’s issues, and that makes them dangerous to all of us.
The incessant harping on about the alleged ‘need’ to have more women MPs has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with feminist activism in the pursuit of its own agenda, which is to have more partisan women in parliament activating for ever more privilege for women, and providing lobby fodder for ‘White Knight’6So-called ‘White Knights’ are those men who are programmed to rise to the defence of any women who is attacked or criticised. It arises from an atavistic protective instinct in men, which inclines them to protect women against other men. In this way, feminists, who constantly seek to convey a sense of vulnerability and weakness (when the opposite is the truth), use these men to act against their own best interests, and against the interests of men as a class. The White Knight’s sense of self-worth hinges upon his need to serve women, and he is happy to denigrate or disadvantage his own sex because men have no great gender cohesion and in any case are programmed to compete against each. Women on the other hand cohere ‘politically’ to other women and seek the protection of men, encouraging them to compete for the satisfaction of protecting them. Thus, the innate tendencies of both sexes are exploited by feminism. men, or cynically opportunist men who want to cling to power using whatever political ideology gives them that power.
The same is true in business. Vince Cable, a feminist White Knight, Lib Dem MP and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills since 2010 is openly threatening firms with measures, backed by the force of law that amount to legalised positive discrimination, to force them to appoint more women to their boards. This means privileging women who probably have neither the experience nor expertise to do the job properly, and favouring women not only over men, but other groups too, and its purpose is to get more feminist women into the seats of corporate power where they can further the cause of feminism.
Like more female MPs, more female directors has nothing to do with equality and diversity. True diversity and equality of opportunity should be gender blind. True diversity – not the concocted doublespeak diversity so beloved of the feminists, which really means parity of numbers – would automatically produce disproportionate numbers of men and women, if they are selected solely on their choice to present themselves as candidates, and their diverse aptitudes and merits. That is what diversity means. Anything other than that is social engineering.
Then there is the political engineering we have seen practiced by David Cameron in only the last few months in his placement of inexperienced women with nakedly feminist agendas into key cabinet posts whilst sidelining or sacking men of ability who were doing a good job. A whole string of sound men, conviction politicians, were sacked or demoted in order to make way for junior women who couldn’t hold a candle to them for experience, skill or intelligence.7http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10967111/Reshuffle-Ken-Clarke-out-as-David-Cameron-prepares-to-promote-women.html Two notable examples of this sexist cull were David Willetts (also known as ‘Two Brains’ because of his intellect) as universities minister, and Michael Gove, who was replaced as Education Secretary by Nicky Morgan.
Gove was trying to redress the gender favour of girls in our education system by re-introducing more examination assessment, at which boys are better, to replace the almost exclusive continuous assignment based assessment, which favours girls.8Collins W (2014) Ibid. He was meeting vigorous opposition from the feminist dominated education system, so Cameron appeased them with a woman pushover, Morgan. David Cameron is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and he is promoting inexperienced, incompetent women to high office in the land to appease the ideology he has so wholeheartedly embraced, so he can retain power.
The Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP was elevated to high office far beyond her experience. Her appointment was not for reasons of skill and ability, but for political considerations, no doubt in preparation for the coming May 2015 general election so Cameron can avoid criticism for having too few women in his cabinet. This article, posted on Conservative Woman website, speaks for itself about her. She was undoubtedly elevated to her level of incompetence. It also speaks for Cameron’s craven capitulation in the ridiculous pursuit of feminism.
And what is Ms Morgan’s agenda? It is certainly not the education system and its advancement. She is intent on using her office to advance feminism by threatening boys – vulnerable children – with brainwashing at school with feminist dogma.9 Woodall K. (2014) ‘Brainwashing Boys: Feminist doctrine for the early years‘. 10Purdy H. (2014) ‘”We must educate our sons to save our daughters” – Yvette Cooper speaks!‘ And this is at the same time when boys are tragically falling behind in the qualifications race. Today, almost a quarter of boys in state schools are classed as having special educational needs11‘One in four boys is labelled as having special educational needs as state schools rake in funds’ – Daily Mail because they are being systematically and institutionally handicapped by what is now a feminist constructed, gender politicised state education system, wholly orientated towards girls’ achievements, and dominated by women teachers.12Between 1970 and 2010, the proportion of female primary and nursery school teachers rose from 77.4% to 87.4%.SOURCE: Collins W (2014) The Trouble With Boys in Education. MRA-UK – Challenging public incredulity on men’s human rights. Cited in Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) Election Manifesto 2015.
Ms Morgan is one of a line of radical feminist women who have unashamedly tried this tactic of increasing the power and influence of feminism in the long run by using their political power now to condition the young to feminism. The Roman Catholic Jesuits have a saying, ‘Give me a child of seven, and I will show you the man’. These women are outrageously trying to implant their political views in a future generation of men by getting at them as boys and indoctrinating them. This is child abuse, and smacks dangerously of Hitler’s Nazi youth.
In higher education, there is an increasing gender gap in the race for university places.13http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2688271/Boys-losing-university-gender-gap-Nearly-95-000-women-apply-degrees-start-autumn.html#ixzz3NBzzDYfW%20 14See also this critique. This is not the result of equality of opportunity, it is the result of dangerous social engineering brought about by feminist bigots who are fixing the system, not only in the schools, but also the university entrance system, where diversity considerations trump academic prowess in interviews for student intake. Even on campus, young men are becoming a disadvantaged group, as well as being treated with suspicion, simply because of their sex. Freshers, for example, are being made the subject of diversity indoctrination – not least in issues to do with consent to sex with women students in the so-called ‘rape culture’ that is rampant on campuses here and in the United States, Canada and Australia.
Feminist social engineering can be seen at work in the government’s push for women in the so-called STEMM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine and Mathematics). There is no doubt there is a policy of positive discrimination at work, attempting to create desired gender outcomes – for which read more girls and young women studying these subjects at the expense of boys’ and young men’s places. Brunel University, for example, is offering bursaries of £22,750 only to women if they wish to take an MSc in engineering. This handsome incentive, costing the predominantly male taxpayer over £900,000, is not offered to men,15http://www.brunel.ac.uk/cedps/courses/women-in-engineering. unless a male applicant is a male-to-female transexual or in ‘transition’. (This is not a sarcastic comment, it is the truth.16https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/brunel-university-an-update-on-a-scandalous-story/)
The women engineers who are being so disgustingly favoured by this almost unbelievable hypocrisy are being advanced by the actions of radical feminists in the seats of power, whose agenda is about women’s advantage, not equality of opportunity, and are prepared to administer this slap in the face for the men who will provide the vast bulk of income tax revenues in the future.
In Britain, we are suffering from a crisis of political leadership. Under a common ideology, which transcends the original ideology of their respective parties, we have a group of relatively young, totally feminised, Generation X men and women, who have created what amounts to an ideological dictatorship in which, with unashamedly discriminatory prejudice, using top-down directives and cultural pressure, even using the force of law, seek to impose ‘equality’ at every turn, even though their measures bear no relation to common sense and are often patently and ridiculously unfair.
Despite their otherwise bland appearance, these men (and women like Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper and, yes, even Theresa May) are extremists, operating behind the facades of otherwise normal political parties and their legitimate political aims. Labour is no longer the party of labour, we don’t have a working class anymore, so it adopted the other Marxist principle of ‘The Woman Question'17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_woman_question under Tony Blair. The Liberal Democrats are not liberal in its truest Enlightenment sense: their leader, Nick Clegg, is a passionate feminist and proponent of Europe, the most undemocratic, controlling, illiberal political entity the world has ever seen, and, as for Conservative Cameron, Margaret Thatcher must be heaving and turning in her grave at his activities.
Thatcher hated feminism. She called it ‘poison’ because she recognised its Marxist political credentials, and it is astonishing that the Conservative party is prepared to have its leader (and its current Home Secretary as well) be so publicly left wing in their espousal of feminism. Do neither of these two senior politicians know anything about political history? Or is the Conservative party just mortally afraid of the overly powerful women’s lobby, and not prepared to do anything about them for fear of losing women’s votes? Is that the degree of political prostitution the Tories have been reduced to?
Now, more than ever before, we need statesmen to lead us: strong, intelligent, balanced leaders, who will offer balanced, decisive, clear-minded leadership. We need leaders who will stand up and be counted for what is right and wrong, and who will take a stand against what feminism is doing to society. That sort of leadership has historically been a masculine characteristic (with the notable exception of Margaret Thatcher, who loathed feminism and all it stands for, because she knew it was Marxism in disguise. She stood firm as a bulwark against its infiltration into this country).
Our present political classes can never provide this kind of leadership because of their blind devotion to one political ideology. They have totally sold out to an all-pervading creed, which, like totalitarian creeds of the past, such as Nazism, seek to control and dominate everything, sidelining or attacking genuine opinion and destroying genuine social balance.
The bottom line is, that in the pursuit of a particularly distorted version of equality, we no longer have government of the people, by the people, for the people – we actually have government of the people by feminist ideologues whose sole focus is the best interests of women at the expense of men’s.
All this has allowed a malaise to permeate our once free and upright society. We have judges who judge in the family courts without wisdom because they are following ‘diversity training’ and run in fear of the storm of feminist wrath that would be unleashed upon them if they made a decision that even remotely challenged the supremacy of the mother in child custody cases, and we give tax breaks to organisations such as The Fawcett Society that enjoy freedom from tax granted by their charitable status but then, unchecked, engage in nakedly political activities, which is banned under charity law, promoting a one-sided view of society that basically attacks and vilifies men, spreads division, and promotes policies that are anti-male – yet one of the fundamental principles of charitable status is philanthropy – the love of one’s fellow men, and the fostering of – well – charity?
These feminist organisations are part of the parasitic ideology of feminism that is feeding off society: breaking it down, undermining it and dividing it so it can rule it. They leverage enormous amounts of funding (some get that directly from the state), and use that to offer their snake-oil remedies for invented ills such as the so-called rape crisis (which doesn’t exist), the alleged epidemic of domestic violence against women by men (which doesn’t exist), and the ‘pay gap’, the ‘glass ceiling’ etc. (which demonstrably do not exist, if the figures are dispassionately analysed18‘Gender Income Propaganda. 19The Glass Ceiling Delusion.).
The truth is, these organisations are the evidence of the malaise in our society caused by feminism. They thrive on whipping up moral panics through the undiscerning consumption of nakedly ideological propaganda, propagated right from government, through institutions like this, and fed on by the media.
Each of these examples, and there are many more,20The best available summary of the issues facing men in society today can be found in the 2015 Election Manifesto of the political party Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them), available for free download here show how sick our society has become under this political class, driven by feminism. Such a state of affairs would have been considered extraordinary at any other time in British history, but it is real, and it is due to the wholesale adoption of this insidious, alien, parasitical ideology that has managed to attach itself to virtually all politicians, and insert its poison into the body politic, and our national institutional framework.
This is why there is a crisis of politics in Britain today. This is why a somewhat untypical politician like Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), who has studiously constructed a public persona in direct contrast to those of his politically correct, effete counterparts is attracting such a groundswell of public support. Farage has no policies to speak of, save for the general idea of controlling immigration and campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union, but that is not the point. His presence and his persona, which convey ‘ordinary’ maleness, common sense, and groundedness are sufficient to attract people to him.
He and his party are rapidly proving to be a rallying point around which ordinary folk will gather: people who might otherwise be unable to articulate precisely why they are so disaffected. Farage’s popularity is less about the electorate going for what he is saying than about the image that he presents, one that reeks of common sense and represents a stand against the ‘political class’ to which he refers; that class of politicians comfortable in its own cultural bubble and whose entire culture is crafted by feminism, political correctness, and deeply holier-than-thou attitudes.
Farage has had a couple of flirtatious challenges with feminism: the first was over his comments about women in the City of London, where he worked, that those women who were ‘prepared to sacrifice the family life’ could do just as well as men,21http://news.sky.com/story/1197923/farage-working-mothers-worth-less-than-men and the second was when he said women who breastfeed in public should do so without being ‘ostentatious’ when asked to comment on Claridge’s’ decision to ask a breastfeeding mother to cover herself. He went on to say that those belonging to an older generation, are embarrassed when women breastfeed in public.22His comments can be viewed here.
Both of these perfectly honest, straightforward views were met with the characteristic mob bullying of feminists who grossly misinterpreted what he actually said so as to criticise him within their own rigid constructs, but what he said resonated widely with normal people. Not so with David Cameron, however. He said it is ‘totally unacceptable’ for breastfeeding women to be made to feel ‘uncomfortable’ in public.
Earlier on in this piece, I used the term ‘riding the tiger’. It comes from an ancient piece of wisdom from the Indian subcontinent where they have a saying, ‘He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount’. In other words, sometimes it is more dangerous to stop doing a dangerous thing than it is to continue doing it. I suspect that many people in the Tory party are locked into this syndrome, which is why the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems have not the remotest chance of redressing the obscene imbalance and inequality of treatment of men in favour of women that is now rampant in our society.
The only way such a thing is going to be brought about is for this entire political class to be swept away by the electorate, and consigned to history as a bad job. 2015 might be the year in which the all-pervading ideology of feminism has its historical crunch moment.
I believe that the outcome of the coming British general election in May 2105 could deliver a serious constitutional crisis with the major parties, unable to get anywhere near a working majority on their own, scrambling for political support from a plethora of minority parties, prostituting themselves and their principles to get it. With any luck, when the dust has settled, each of the main parties will find it expedient to depose their current leaders and elect new ones who, because of the divided nature of politics, will have to pragmatically reassess just what it is they actually do stand for – and what the entire electorate wants..
In any other times than these, I would have thought such a crisis a tragedy for the nation, but I will welcome it if it happens. I will welcome it because it might finally eject this ideologically corrupted feminist elite out of office, and out of power – hopefully for good. Then we can return to a fair and just society for women and men, and begin the process of reconstructing a truly egalitarian nation, like we once had.
I sincerely hope that Nigel Farage, with the national reach his party now has, will seize the opportunity of raising a nationwide standard for his so-called People’s Army, that articulates the much needed challenge to the politically correct feminist fanatics currently in power, not so much for the need for the United Kingdom’s independence from Europe as much as the pressing need for the individual’s independence from the oppression of radical ideologues, who hold power over them. I hope he comes to realise the electoral power available to him if he gives voice to what I believe is a massive silent majority that hates what is happening, but has lost hope. (Maybe he and Boris Johnson will find some sort of pragmatic alliance, characterised by the common touch? Who knows.)
I also hope that those who live in constituencies where candidates are standing for election specifically on men’s and boys’ issues, such as Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) are in Nottingham, will cast their vote for those parties in protest against the self-styled political elite, represented by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, who are selling our society down the river to a totalitarian ideology that is relentlessly re-engineering society, and benefiting no one but its sponsors.
[ + ]
|1.||↩||See also The Fawcett Society’s response.|
|3.||↩||26% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 who die have committed suicide, compared to 13% of women in the same age band. In 2012 the male:female suicide rate differential was 3.3:1, having nearly doubled since 1982, when it was 1.69:1. Unemployment, leading to family breakdown, is known to be major risk factor for men, as is the loss of contact with children after divorce.|
|4.||↩||Source: Table 3.3: Distribution of total income before and after tax by gender, 2011-12 – Taxpayers only Survey of Personal Incomes 2011-12 Updated January 2014. United Kingdom Office for National Statistics|
|5.||↩||See here for the key points of this woman’s activism for Tory all-women PPC lists.|
|6.||↩||So-called ‘White Knights’ are those men who are programmed to rise to the defence of any women who is attacked or criticised. It arises from an atavistic protective instinct in men, which inclines them to protect women against other men. In this way, feminists, who constantly seek to convey a sense of vulnerability and weakness (when the opposite is the truth), use these men to act against their own best interests, and against the interests of men as a class. The White Knight’s sense of self-worth hinges upon his need to serve women, and he is happy to denigrate or disadvantage his own sex because men have no great gender cohesion and in any case are programmed to compete against each. Women on the other hand cohere ‘politically’ to other women and seek the protection of men, encouraging them to compete for the satisfaction of protecting them. Thus, the innate tendencies of both sexes are exploited by feminism.|
|8.||↩||Collins W (2014) Ibid.|
|9.||↩||Woodall K. (2014) ‘Brainwashing Boys: Feminist doctrine for the early years‘.|
|10.||↩||Purdy H. (2014) ‘”We must educate our sons to save our daughters” – Yvette Cooper speaks!‘|
|11.||↩||‘One in four boys is labelled as having special educational needs as state schools rake in funds’ – Daily Mail|
|12.||↩||Between 1970 and 2010, the proportion of female primary and nursery school teachers rose from 77.4% to 87.4%.SOURCE: Collins W (2014) The Trouble With Boys in Education. MRA-UK – Challenging public incredulity on men’s human rights. Cited in Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) Election Manifesto 2015.|
|14.||↩||See also this critique.|
|18.||↩||‘Gender Income Propaganda.|
|19.||↩||The Glass Ceiling Delusion.|
|20.||↩||The best available summary of the issues facing men in society today can be found in the 2015 Election Manifesto of the political party Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them), available for free download here|
|22.||↩||His comments can be viewed here.|