Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Privileged White Misogynist Right-wing Male Douche Bags & the Queen of Thorns.

This missive includes relevant advisories to the below tweeters; surprisingly comprises a short essay on postmodernism, likening it to the French Revolution visiting literature;  mentions, unsurprisingly, Exclusive Brethren for the second time in this blog; a sexy feminist; a man owning his privilege, and even one apology (Carrie). To:

@vincristine @HORansome @LewStoddart @juliefairey


I let myself be dragged into a flame war with a Tweeter calling herself Queen of Thorns. Easier to let her explain how it started in her blog on me here – warning, her blog is a hate site (look at 'Officially Scum' tab), so there’s a high toxicity quotient (don’t go here mum, just read on; honestly, God will smite you if you were to click).

You’d have to agree that’s one vitriolic post (and you should have seen her tweets): this is my response, especially to this bit of purple prose:

Here’s the deep sexy analysis bit:  Mark is a dude.  A white dude.  With white dudely privilege.  So for his entire life, he’s been absorbing societal narratives which are pretty clear on the fact that his opinion should always count, his voice should always be heard, and  when women have the audacity to talk, and retweet each other, he has every right to insert his 2 cents on a completely different topic.

And by doing so, he is of course being completely civil - because any behaviour on his part must be acceptable if it doesn’t actively involve physically attacking people with swords while screaming “fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck”.

White male privilege:  I think Mark Hubbard haz it.

No you don’t think, QofT, because if you had, you would’ve found out some facts before putting this all over the Internet.

First the context: my post to Carrie’s (@Ellipsister ) retweet was not a reply to the QofT at all, QofT was right, I’d not read her post, just skimmed it, because she wasn’t who my tweet was for; but try explaining that on Twitter. My reply to Carrie was merely part of an on again off again dialogue I have with Carrie between our very different blogs … you’ll see Carrie on my blogroll, as I am on her’s. However, not understanding the context, and thus dropping it - and partly my fault, perhaps I should have deleted QofT’s handle from my tweet, but I was in a hurry, and didn’t think to - anyway, I’m afraid QofT took it upon herself to be offended and take umbrage, thinking I had arrogantly derailed her post because I am, quoting a mix of her blog on me and her tweets, a ‘privileged white misogynist right-wing male douche bag’ - all that, note, from someone thinking it offensive to be referred to as a lady’. And this, also, from an anonymous blogger – yeah, another one - who describes herself in the ‘about’ to her blog as ‘Lefty, feminist, Wellingtonian, philologist, geek, willing tequila-drinker, and rejecter of labels’: ‘rejecter of labels: really? You were pretty quick to label me on the basis of one tweet not even directed to you.

I could de-thorn QofT's argument from the outset by saying in the same circumstances I would have done nothing different if she and Carrie had been men, that is, it had nothing to do with them being women. Or that there is no such thing as butting in on Twitter, because it's Twitter - social media; if QofT wanted Carrie's unfettered attention, then she should have emailed. However, given the vileness of what QofT has done to me on her site, identifying me only with a group, white males, simply seeing me through her obvious prejudice against the generic white male she sees as her enemy, so denying me my individuality, my singular, unique, narrative, and slandering me with her foul mouth on false assumptions, let's take the long route.

Look through my blog: I’ve never, nor would I ever, attack a member of the public in the manner QofT has. I attack politicians, yes, but only where those politicians are promoting or forcing me to accept ideas that are anathema to me, and taxing me for the privilege. I keep this blog to ideas. Also, I promote a constitutional, societal, and creative individualism, meaning I like to think I come to relations with everyone as an individual first, in this way, avoiding the sort of stereotyping that has led QofT to call me all of the above, without knowing anything about me at all.

For the record, if it must be set, for my own mind if nothing else as my blog is above all an exercise of the self:

I am not right wing; I just don’t happen to be left wing either. Read my blog.

Using the term ‘lady’ in retaliation to someone who has just stereotyped me as a misogynist douche bag does not make me a misogynist nor, I hope, a douche bag; just pissed off. Read my blog.

But what of the remainder: ‘privileged white male’? I used the term white-mail against this, by which I meant the way QofT’s employ bullying to shut a point of view down by using the catch-all ad hominem, ‘privileged white male’, as if that explains everything about the white male concerned who happens to be angering them at the time; ie, denying a while male’s individual humanity and difference from all other white males. That’s exactly the type of erroneous stereotyping she hates employed on herself, and rightly so.

But explain to me, Qof T, what a privileged white male is. I don’t feel like one. I don’t find the concept relevant to my life: like all of us, I’m just trying to pursue my happiness, and see where it takes me. Let’s have a look at my ‘societal narratives’ I’ve spent ‘my entire life absorbing’, because I suspect they’re not remotely what you have assumed them to be – how could they, you don’t know me.

Is privilege economic? I wasn’t born with a silver spoon; often-times my sisters and myself still support my parents in their retirement as they’ve struggled all their lives.

Is privilege family or old-school connections? Well other than my direct family, for a long time I didn’t have any. Funnily enough the reason my parents have always struggled is because my family were Exclusive Brethren, New Zealand’s true cultish sect, and early in my life the whisky alcoholics that run the Exclusives made the pronouncement that Dad – not mum, believe me, the Brethren are sexists of the highest order - wasn’t allowed to work with his hands, so he’d had to sell the farm he’d worked his way into, during a period of depressed farm prices, rot in a city for four years, until the edict had changed, but inflation had ensured he could never buy back into a farm of sufficient scale again.

Talking about privilege, if I think about it, those Exclusives didn’t do my family any favours. As Exclusives we could have no contact with those not Exclusives: also no TV, no radio, no books other than the Bible, no newspapers, no education, no contact. Doesn’t bode well for the pursuit of happiness in a privileged fashion. Indeed, if we were still Exclusives, I wouldn’t have a clue what Twitter or the twenty first century was, and certainly not a tertiary education; I’d have a wife and twenty children, all drones, and be working in a Brethren business.

So, sort of skimming back to the misogyny label you’ve pinned on me – sort of not – in a sick way completely devoid of privilege, I owe any current happiness I have in being an atheist of the world, rather than an Exclusive, to a girl; namely, one of my four sisters who was born intellectually handicapped. Those same whisky alcoholics that told us to leave our farm, took it into their barely-formed medieval minds that intellectual retardation was the work of the devil, so my immediate family was cast out of the sect, and when that happened, my parents lost contact with everything they knew, and everyone. Exclusives have huge families, but they can have no contact with the outside. I’ve never known my grandparents, or the multitudes of aunts, uncles, cousins that I have: I've got no immediate extended family – sorry, I lie, one aunt who was out, now sadly deceased. I think my only early memory is of my two sets of grandparents – I can’t remember quite anymore if all four were there, I do remember the piano teacher grandmother with her walking stick – stealing into our property, frightened, they weren’t allowed to be there - and would had to have publicly recanted and repented if found out - anyway, stealing into our property to say their final goodbyes to their children and grandchildren, for they knew they would and could never see us again – and they didn’t: when the last of them died, Dad’s mum, he got an obligatory ring from their solicitor four days after she was buried. I just remember the grandma with the walking stick, because we have a final photo and she’d defiantly thrown her stick to the ground so she could stand under her own will for a fleeting few seconds until the camera clicked, before being subsumed back into the hive mind of the sect. Only the two grandmothers are in the photo which has me second guessing if the grandfathers were there that day at all: for some strange reason, my family doesn’t really talk about it (I’ve just realised that).

So, anyway, QofT, privileged white male and my ‘life-long narratives’: to use your language, (for impact is it?): what the fuck does that mean?

I’m just an individual. What I’ve got materially, my wife and I, a professional team, 50/50 team all the way, did the hard way. I’ve got to forty seven years old, and ardent capitalist that I am, I’m happy with some aspects of my life, reasonably disillusioned with others, especially the pursuit of money, so I’m cutting back, chilling, living a bit in my own head doing  my own pursuits, especially literary. And that’s no comment on my advocacy of capitalism, because that has never been about money – really, you should read my blog - but the voluntary, non-coerced transaction. For women, I've never understood why that big swathe of left feminism has always eschewed voluntarism for coercion? Another of my ‘societal narratives’ was dropping out, after one month, from a Master of Arts in English Literature at Canterbury: I had to leave because I came up against the minds of Derrida, Foucault, et al, who had set themselves the task of destroying those things I love, language and literature: it is unsurprising to me that their work was picked up with such enthusiasm by that same branch of Marxist feminism described above. To those under-privileged non-academic types reading this and wondering what I mean, it’s called variously postmodernism, deconstruction, whatever, and in simple terms is like the French Revolution visiting literature, in that it started out in something good, the enquiring mind of the Enlightenment, then added in envy and vendetta – now as then called ‘social justice’ – took out reason and ended in the atrocity of the guillotine, the same guillotine Marxists and F (capitalised?) Feminists have taken to the language. Or to put it another way, QofT’s blog-spew about me is the tone of what postmodernism has become, turned into a blog. How do I surmise QofT is a postmodern, poststructural feminist? She uses the word narrative, and ironically labels herself same under her ‘about’ tab. Let’s face, it was unlikely we were ever going to get on.

Qualification: if I were a woman, I would most certainly be a feminist, but a non-sexy classical liberal one, not a Marxist. Just thought I’d get that in.

So am I a ‘privileged white misogynist right-wing male douche bag’. Read my blog, and you decide. I’m moving out of the gutter of your mouth, QofT, and back to ideas. Regarding yourself, reading your post on me made me feel like I did when  curiosity once had me often  stray into that vile, toxic wasteland known as The Standard-less: it’s a vicious place, as even Clare Curran found out (and also for the record, I like Clare).  Quite possibly the women of Hand Mirror wonder why I comment there sometimes: but it’s just the same thing; curiosity. I’m trying to catch up with the stuff of living a life.

I will keep up the odd tweet to Carrie, because although there is nearly nothing I agree with on her blog, probably similar to her views regarding mine, the tone from her writing is better than I achieve, in that it evinces openness to new ideas, an on-going learning and moulding of her mind on the page which is fascinating, and someone who is, sorry for saying this Carrie, nice. Or rather, an adult, rather than the infantilism afflicting The Standard and the blog post that is the subject of this rejoinder. The one apology I make is for Carrie being carried into a difficult place beyond her control: I will be far more circumspect next time; it’s too easy on Twitter to flick off a tweet without thinking overly. But speaking about control, which is also, of course, ownership …
… On the eleventh hour into the melee rode on his white stead one Matthew Dentith (   @HORansome ), PhD – is that double privilege: white male and ivory tower? - talker on the radio, and in a manner QofT would have called butting into a conversation, but I wouldn’t – it’s Twitter! – telling me ‘I must own my privilege’, his sombre tone making it sound like this privilege thing I’ve obviously got stuck around my neck is more in the nature of an albatross. And this in ‘defending’ – were you Matthew you sexist you – a vicious sniping blogger who won’t even own her name, in that she posts anonymously. Ignoring the fact (or fiction) of what my privilege is, again, I asked Matthew ‘how was I to own my privilege’; it sounded awfully smug, arrogant, even, and full of false assumptions. Matthew repaired to a cop-out position that he didn’t have to waste his time to ‘learn me’, despite having taken the time to have butted in; I must work it out for myself. Well I can’t Matthew, I’m hamstrung by first a state school education, and then a tertiary one and hell, worse, I’m a white male: plenty of room in comments, and unlike The Standard, I don’t play around with the content nor chronology of same, so tell me what my privilege is, and then how to own it: what does that latter even mean? Can I, for instance, give it to someone else, because my privilege is starting to feel more like leprosy to me?
Though finally, back to QofT, that denier of labels who also labels herself, of all things, Lady Taboo – oh that’s original (you do bring out the worst in me): in passing, you can't be on the Internet accusing an ‘entitled libertarian’ as pathetically needing attention, without needing attention yourself: after all, why are you blogging? (I’m wondering if you’re thinking of librarians here? And hey, no slight to librarians, I’ve been one of you also.) Don't say you're blogging about ideas, because there was none of those in your post; just mad, bad words. Speaking for myself, one wellspring of my writing is a feeling of ill-defined boundaries about myself, and my writing is the life-long work of defining to my own satisfaction, no one else’s, what I believe; perhaps you could start with defining yourself a bit better, by spewing that venom you do from your own name. As Matthew would say, own it. But everyone blogging is an attention seeker to some degree, otherwise none of us would be here: get over it.

Good luck in your endeavours, Queen of Thorns, but try freeing yourself from the prickles of yourself, and that cage of hate you write from (which I hope is not from the privilege of some ivory tower somewhere). I plan to just leave this alone now: another thing life has taught me is that the use of ‘douche bag’ says a lot more about the teller than the receiver; I’ve never liked a person who uses that against people.

And with that; it’s all a bit turgid isn’t it. I feel like something nice. The first of my tomatoes for the new season, let’s place our attention here, because I’m embarrassingly proud of them.

Update 1:

QofT has refused to put a link up to this post, from her dreadful post, as my 'defence', calling it linkspam. One of her accusations was that 'I' didn't understand the Internet.

If she represents a true, completely closed,  Marxist feminism, that is frightening. Interestingly, the Exclusive Brethren are also known as Closed Brethren.

Above all else, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge reality.

Update 2:

For poster Draco on QofT's blog. Because I doubt if the below comment will be allowed in full on QofT's blog post, either, I repeat it for Draco here below ... note this is the blog where free speech rules, not Soviet styled feminism ... for followers of QofT's site why not ask her why she is against free speech, especially the rejoinder of a man she has just shamefully libeled.

For Draco, on why I was banned from Labour's blog, Red Alert:

For the record, I got banned from Red Alert for arguing with Trevor Mallard over their comment posting policy which saw blog stalwarts able to post real time, with dissenting opinions held back and moderated, meaning dissenting opinion was not able to keep up with debates point by point and argue consistently. It was nothing to do with you Draco.

Regarding [QofT's appalling post], a woman interested in a voluntary society would not shut down debate, I've posted a full rejoinder to it on my blog. Unlike on my blog where I keep an un-moderated, free speech policy, [QofT's] blog does not have that, preferring the Soviet show trials model, so you'll have to Google, (and that's if all this post makes it up).

Why are you so scared of me Thorny you can't let your readers see both points of view? My rejoinder is getting a lot of traffic ... I wouldn't want to be working from the point of ignorance (of it) you seem to prefer.

Update 3:

My comments to QofT's blog continue to be re-written in good old Soviet style, so my last comment to Thorny's shut down of my right to respond is as follows:

 You do realise you've become what you hate?  And I suppose you don't care, it's the only rational explanation, but you are marginalising your 'cause' more than if you'd done nothing. That is, as far as Marxist feminism, and feminism proper - your labels not mine - are concerned, you've put yourself in the way of what both are trying to achieve. As well, of course, vis a vis your irresponsible drek on me, you're just an awful person. If you had any guts, yeah, no doubt masculine BS, but you'd read my post and answer to it. It's got nothing to do with feminism, just being some sort of decent individual. But of course you believe, ironically, in enslavement to group-think, and the surveillance state to enforce it, so I guess you believe you don't have to be responsible for what you say or write.

Rand help us.

Update 4:

Patronising bit coming.

What the feminist movement can learn from me. QofT, if you see her schoolgirl twitterings behind her hand (without my handle), thinks I’m an egotistic male, throwing around my maleness in an attention seeking power tantrum. Learn this QofT: forget the group think, if your personal reputation is attacked and slandered maliciously, then you defend it with all your energy, all else be damned, because you are the centre of your life, and from that, for me, of the voluntary society. Individuals must be accountable and responsible for what they write and put out on Internet, otherwise it's the vicious society everytime, exemplifed by QofT's malicioius posting. Yourself: there's no higher principle. Now miss-read that.

QofT: I’ve given you the easy, amicable out; a link to this post from your post. That's all I want. The full story. Reality.

Update 5:

Check out my Twitter timeline: @MarkHubbard33

The Cult of Thorn accuses me of harassment and blackmail.

Yes, me.

For the record:

As I said to one, it’s a bit like nuclear warfare: what matters is who fired the first shot. So let’s be clear, I’m the harassed, the clock can never be reset on that.

There is no blackmail involved. I’ve been wronged. There’s a vile post about me so I am simply defending myself, to which end I have set out my very reasonable terms. For the record I'm a libertarian who believes wholly in the non-initiation of force, so don't let any loose minds even go there.

So let’s end all that emoting nonsense.

Now let’s look at the Cult of Thorn site. Thorny – the rejecter of labels - labels herself a feminist, she is also a Wellingtonian (lord help us if she is either a privileged academic or privileged civil servant?). Her site centres itself around a Wall of Scum’ – lovely, isn’t it. On that wall of scum are:

One of New Zealand’s foremost minds in jurisprudence: Stephen Franks.

A personal heroine of mine, Deborah Coddington. I don’t agree with all Deborah writes (and she probably wouldn’t my own), but she’s been out there, and on the freedom, small government side of the ledger, exposing herself to the vileness that is the Cult of Thorn and their like, forever (don’t take offence, Deborah).

A site centred around a wall of scum, with an anonymous blogger who has vile, forked tongue who uses it to throw her prejudice around wantonly. Isn't that called a hate site? Really, what sort of feminism does this represent?  And on what I’ve said, who reasonably would want to be signed up to whatever it’s ethic is? Because it's pretty shit.

Update 6:

This is the end of today’s round.

To reiterate my point in update 4, why am I doing this, and why do I not let it go? It’s because when it comes to defending my character, I’ve got all my life to do so, because my character is my life, and if Thorny takes one thing from this – yeah, patronising git that I am - it’s not to take the life of complete strangers she knows nothing about, this lightly, tritely, and vilely. I’m a white male, yes, I can’t actually help that, and I’m certainly not apologising like Matthew seems to think he has to, that’s pathetic (read post above), but before that, just as before Thorny is a woman, or this Marxist mish-mash feminist, I and she are individuals.

Something else: I love people who are ‘out-there’, I would probably like Thorny, but that’s beside the point, and partly to make Thorny spit in her whisky.

This site is about the individualism and the necessity of a constitutional individualism combined with the non-initiation of force principle for the free society I wish to live in.

There’s actually little I can do regarding that damned post of Thorny’s, but my terms are more than reasonable, so I will keep doing it. I will always be civil – perhaps partly because civility is anathema to Thorny, I’m not above that - but I am no threat, at all, to Thorny, I’ll just follow her posts where I can, and bring her up on those matters where I think she’s philosophically wrong, at least when I get the time, because that would be a full time job. I will also as much as I am able, keep in good humour with the Cult of Thorn ;)

So tomorrow, and though wisdom would say no man should step into commenting on the rape culture, that truly is taboo, apparently, Lady Taboo, however, Thorny’s blog post on the rape culture written last week, contains a huge double standard. If I still feel my judgement is sound in the morning, I’ll be calling her on it.

Tea time out for the Hubbards’.

Oh, why do I keep doing the attention seeking thing of twittering these links? Well what’s the point of doing this otherwise?

Update 7:

A sensible person will understand the fear and trepidation I post the below comment to a QofT blog piece about rape culture with, especially to the ‘liberal’ blog involved. I have an inkling of how vicious and irrational the emotional blackmail may end up being. I hope I am found wrong, and I hope also my judgement will not be found wanting in posting this – these issues are hard, this one, for me, imponderable, and so sometimes one is left to either lapse into silence, or step out into the abyss of public opinion (much of it uniformed – indeed, some of the tweeters arguing with me since my first post on Friday – not the ‘gym blog’ poster on Saturday, I got you wrong; sorry –  were steadfastly holding to a ludicrous, and to me, offensive, position that they ‘didn’t have to’ read my post defence – fine, but idiotic to then wage a nonsense debate with me ‘on’ that post. Just as I see QofT proudly boasting behind her hand that she ‘doesn’t have to read my post’ – that makes you not only uninformed, but through your wilful ignorance, frankly, more than a little stupid, and obviously entirely prejudiced, as you can only be speaking from a position of prejudice, nothing else; plus to smear someone, then refuse to read their rejoinder is reprehensible on every level of being a thinking human. It’s some sort of idiotic ‘I’m standing up for my womanly right to be wilfully uninformed and ignorant if the information source is a white male’ – perhaps someone can explain that to me; I read very widely, and don’t understand it.) … Anyway, I’m putting the below up, regardless, because here’s the thing:

I know that a simple cross-tweet on Twitter – social media – does not make me a misogynist (an awful label to put on a man), an abuser of male privilege, certainly not a douche bag, indeed, QofT didn’t even get right-wing correct, because I’m no conservative – politically I’m Libertarian (which is a very wide school of people, linked by desire for small government, freedom of the individual, and the non-initiation of force principle. It’s a school that is genderless and raceless, and even includes creeds as disparate as dyed in the wool atheist, Objectivist, humanists like myself, to the glorious three un-wise men of Christian Libertarian blog Eternal Vigilance.

In regards to my comment, the accusation will be made, first up – and I can just about guess who will make it - that I am simply using a blog on rape culture, that very serious topic, to shamefully push my own barrow of defending my character from QofT’s falsehoods. No. The writer of that blog post has a huge double standard, completely relevant to the rape culture debate as it deals with causes. That’s why I’m posting it (and read the last paragraph of the comment).

But one very important note on the time I have available: Workwise, I have a ruthless deadline on 31st March I can’t miss due to the deleterious consequences it will have for myself, and for other people, so I don’t have the luxury of being able to necessarily defend this thread, or conducting a Twitter debate, until April, and I’m happy to do so then. I love a debate. I’m in no way trying to welch out, but my clients, and my livelihood, to say nothing of the lovely Mrs H, have to come first.

My comment to Qoft’s post on rape culture is as follows: before judging, hold your anger and get to the end of it. The post is here: it will be interesting in itself as to whether my comment makes it up, or whether it will suffer the same fate as under QofT’s policy on her blog of replacing my comments with more of her prejudice (and possibly, issues).

(Addendum: I’ve just tried post this to The Daily Blog, and it doesn’t seem to get through … @LewStoddard … is this possibly just a technical problem? And I only mention you, here, Lew, because I see you in the comments, and I know no one else involved in that blog - do you?)

* * *

Would rape culture include, upon no knowledge at all of a woman's background or history, demeaning and debasing her with vicious names and smears like douche bag and man-hater, and also libeling her reputation online with falsehoods; while conducting such an attack from a position of anonymity, because the perpetrator feels they are beyond law and morality due to their anonymity: especially when they are made aware of their falsehoods, but then refuse to redress the wrong?

For a long time I’ve been wondering whether to add such a question to this thread, judgement on these matters is difficult, because I would hate to belittle in any way the seriousness of what is an abhorrent rape culture - at least in part made through women being treated as objects, their identity defined by a group, gender in this case, or even a series of physical attributes, rather than as individual human beings with their own singular narratives - however, it is in that parenthetical cause I find similarities, and the victim in this instance is placed in a powerless or certainly invidious position as they don't have redress against the unknown malicious assailant who obviously feels empowered by being able to mistreat a woman in this way, and that assailant is able to escape any consequences of their actions. What I'm talking about is a form of cyber bullying, and worse. Note that what tipped the scales for me in posting this, and the only reason for why I have, is because in the instance of this article I feel there is a double standard involved on the part of the author, Queen of Thorns, and that makes this question an issue in itself.

Which means I'm asking is cyber bullying a woman from anonymity part of rape culture? I grant it’s not necessarily sexualised violence in all instances, though in some it certainly would be, but it comes from a similar wellspring of assailants dehumanising their victims, their individuality, and threatening them, or otherwise abusing them, through the prejudices they have to the grouping they identify that woman, or victim in any other context, with.

Another related question.  Say the woman victim had societal power, privilege even, through being white, educated, having a well-paying job, even a wealthy family background, etc; is she any less a victim in this scenario simply because she has privilege?

Like everybody on this thread (assumption), I want to live in a peaceful, civilised society that is devoid of a rape culture, and that society will only exist on recognising individuality, not identifying people via supposed groups they belong to, but seeing them for themselves, and this can further only be built in a world where all individuals are accountable for their words and actions, and thus are exposed to the consequences of treating other individuals badly, abusing them, especially by prejudicially viewing them only as a a faceless constituency of a gender, race, et al.

Addendum: predictably, to me at least, I have been accused on Twitter of trivilising rape. No. My point is one cause of rape culture is objectification: that is, not seeing people as individuals, but belonging to groups with attributes indistinguishable from the group, and that QofT's blog in many ways runs on such an objectification of those she has put in the 'enemy camp, or aforementioned wall of scum. And such a double standard needs to be called.

Next accusation?

Update 8:

My above comment will not appear on 'liberal' blog, The Daily Blog:

Note 'me making one post' was to call someone she knows nothing of, other than a cross-tweet, via her post, and then tweets, a privileged white misogynist, right-wing male douche bag.

And I'm trivialising?

The Daily Blog has a 'liberal agenda'. I wonder what that is, or whatever it is, it obviously starts with censorship. As with QofT's own blog, it's run like a Stalin show trial. If you're ever reading The Daily Blog, remember what may be far more important is what you're not reading, because they don't want you to see it. Whatever their purpose is, it's discredited, entirely.

QofT continues to ignore my questions, and asking for explanations. She obviously feels herself as having no responsibility for her words, including how my behaviour, to defend my character, is 'victim-blaming'.

And I'm not a very important man, I'm entirely insignificant. I'm just mad at being grossly wronged, and there being apparently nothing I can do to fix it.

Now, imagine my name was Margaret and I said the above sentence: what do you think QofT’s attitude to me would have been then. She’s the one person you might have thought would be in a position to know better, but she can't see past her prejudice and hate.

Update 9:

 My post is now up on Daily Blog. Thank you: a change of policy - interesting in itself. I wonder if QofT will comment?

Update 10:

As I said above I've got time constraints and have to disappear, if I'm wise, until I reach my deadline, also, I want my life back (possibly as much as QofT wants her's, possibly not), but also another blog I read, Deborah Russell's 'A Bee of a Certain Age' has an interesting post, and links, up on Internet trolling. Now I have no agreement with Deborah over her left politics, it goes without saying, and her writings on tax policy never fail to have me hopping around my office to vent a bit :) but if this is the true experience of women bloggers, then perhaps I can start, just a tiny little bit, to understand the (catch-22) anger behind QofT's blog. This leads to the following:

1) QofT's manner of blogging will create a self-fulfilling prophesy regarding the reaction she gets - yeah, I know, now that 'is' victim blaming and doesn't excuse the behaviour. 

2) This changes nothing I've posted: I am the one who has been trolled, and that post still up on QofT's site is a permanent injustice to me. As long as it remains, as long as she puts no link up to this, at the very least, then QofT remains a low life and loathsome. What QofT is running from behind her anonymity, with her wall of scum, is a hate site - what do you expect to achieve with that?

But that said, I'm buttoning back, a bit, to consider things, get work done, use any time I have to get my blog back on track - ideas and the free society.

Leaving only one thing left to be said for now: QofT - do the decent thing.

Also, I retract my comment on The Daily Blog, who ultimately did publish my comment - though you shouldn't need pushing (unless QofT in her tweet above was talking about trashing from her site? Whatever).

(Needless to say I leave myself the option to reinstate everything).


  1. You have missed the idea behind privilege, I think - or that's how it reads to me here. It is not that you yourself were raised with wealth. It is that you are white and male. And that does mean (whether you agree or not) that out in the wide world you are given privilege - your opinions are listened to, you are rarely mocked or abused, you are not looked upon as weak or as a criminal. You CAN rise to the upper echelons while no one calls you names or degrades you purely based on your looks or your colour. It is indeed a privilege - & you had as little choice or influence on it as if you had received great wealth from generations past.

    1. Not mocked or abused? Have you seen my Twitter stream since writing this?

      I see what you say, and you have a point. I treat everyone on their individual terms, regardless of gender or race. That's all any of us can do.

      Thanks for your considered reply. It makes a nice change.

    2. Actually one more point. My post is against QofT's accusation of my 'lifetime societal narrative in privilege': my point is I and my family have not existed for our whole lifetimes. Some of that time was spent more invisible than any woman, any ethnic group, etc.

    3. QoT would've meant your lifetime so far. Obviously your lifetime isn't complete. But I'd wager that you're going to continue to have white male privilege for the rest of your life, as I don't think you're going to become trans*.

    4. 'I'm going to to continuing having white male privilege'.

      Well it would seem so.

      Are we all sure we're not so wrapped up in my privilege that 'we're' not just getting on with it? Spoken, of course, as I can't avoid it, from privilege.

      Top of my head there's 60 to 80 farms and businesses on my books: on all farms, the wife is a full 50/50 partner - there wouldn't be an exception. Husband and wife have differing duties, but in way more than half the wife is the financial manager and whom I deal with for decisions.

      The top two non-rural businesses on my books are both owned, managed and run by women, and one of those is the biggest employer.

      Yes I know all the stats: but they've ceased to relate to my albeit anecdotal evidence.

  2. Wow, you're kinda proving your white male privilege by insisting you don't have any. And if you think some Twitter rebuking/one Twitter argument is the equivalent of the mocking and abuse suffered by those without privilege, you are reeeeally ignorant.

    Come on. If you treat people on their individual terms them that's great. But you've got white privilege, and it's showing. I mean, heck, you're a libertarian! There's a strong element of privilege running through that!

    But essentially, you've had your privilege pointed out. it's up to you what you choose to do in future; whether you will acknowledge it or whether you will discard it, strike out against those pointing it out, and continue to pretend you don't have it. Up to you. I hope you choose the former.

    1. " I mean, heck, you're a libertarian! There's a strong element of privilege running through that."

      I want to have a discussion, but we can't unless you can explain that proposition fully, because I think the situation is the opposite.

      Regarding your other points, first, please see my comment above, and as an aside, the way that QofT 'pointed out my supposed privilege': are you comfortable with that?

      And I don't need to acknowledge my privilege, do I? So long as I do treat people without discrimination, and in our group of friends we are all broadly similar in this, then this issue of acknowledging, or not, my privilege, is question begging?

      And another thing, for further discussion, would you label yourself as a Marxist feminist? Because that's where this could get interesting.

    2. 'And I don't need to acknowledge my privilege, do I?'
      Yes you do. To ignore it is to perpetuate it. You can't plead ignorance anymore.

      No, I am not a Marxist feminist.

      Libertarians are privileged, because poor people are smart enough to realise that it takes a village to survive, and no man is an island. Libertarians are always in a modern functioning society, insisting that they don't need any of it from government. It's a joke.
      See for a few good examples.

    3. No libertarian believes they are an island, other than one's that don't understand libertarianism. Of course I'm part of the village and I need the village: but a libertarian is simply saying the village doesn't own them.

      It's the voluntary society, versus coercion. As a laissez-faire capitalist I trace my true ancestry to the peace/freedom movement of the 60's.

      Up versus down. Freedom versus statism (mobocracy).

  3. Hi Mark

    I'm conscious that words of empathy cannot compensate for your negative exclusive brethren experience. I am glad to hear that you have survived and are in a space where you can regather your thoughts. There is hope. Keep up the good work.


    1. Cheers Brendan. It's not 'bad', though when writing something like above it's hard to control line between melodrama and this is what it is. I was young, and what or who you don't know is irrelevant to a greater degree than less; my parents and some of my sisters copped it far worse, obviously. And I'm an atheist, and intellectually repudiate Christianity, but not Christians or their blogs. Many of my friends a Christians :)

      And tell you what, I'm finding from Twitter a Christian is a prime rationalist compared to the sisters of Marx. Jesus (no offence).

  4. Mark, you are arguing with misanthropy. A genuine, albeit unrecognised hatred of the human individual, for the sake of being an individual and being judged on deeds and ideas, not inherited traits. It is philosophically akin to those who happily would classify, arrest, deport, enslave and kill, those who were deemed to have "privilege". The Khmer Rouge treated anyone who wore glasses as suspicious. What you are dealing with is a classifier, who has debased you, dismissed you, and is looking for another to classify with approval or derision. What you say to defend yourself or describe yourself is irrelevant to the classifier - like a religious or racist zealot, or indeed a Marxist-Leninist.

    You are deemed, ironically, because of your ancestry and genitalia, to automatically to have had a range of experiences and attitudes, utterly regardless of whether you had them or not. The world is viewed through a prism that deems your background to put you in a silo - debate over. It is mindlessly simplistic and childlike.

    Whilst I expect none of those expressing the views in this instance seek to do violence to you or others, consider if it were the early 1930s and you were Jewish in Germany. You would have been deemed privileged, but also malignant, and so regardless of your actual behaviour or opinions, you are dismissed as an "unperson", who is worthy of no further consideration.

    It is, indeed, very Orwellian. It forms the kernel for a philosophy, and from that the politics, and from that justifying the actions that have created rivers of blood in the past century or so.

    For those rivers of blood have come from the will of those who sought to destroy "societal narratives" that wanted to remake men and women in their idealistic image, on the grounds of justice.

    The road to civilisation is to be an individual with rights, protected from other individuals by the state delineating rights, and interacting voluntarily with other individuals. The ability for families to be created, but for people to leave them when they are stultifying, the ability of people to relate to their ancestry, but to move on when it does not fit. The ability for people to simply say "no", to any collective or gang, who wants them to live their life a different way - as long as they do not initiate force or fraud against another. You're presenting something different, which challenges the simplistic structural power relations narrative. However, once fitted into it, unless one listens, the narrative is a closed book. It's what was seen in Mao's Cultural Revolution - do you follow the little red book or are you a capitalist roader/counter-revolutionary/revisionist connected to the "old ways", who automatically thinks in dangerous incorrect ways.

    What makes me smile wryly is how anybody living what could be seen as a bourgeois middle class existence in a developed country can possibly claim to point fingers at essentially similar people over "privilege". Although I doubt the finger pointers spend much time conversing with illiterate south Sudanese village dwellers.

    1. Great comment; much appreciated - thanks Scott. Especially your last paragraph. If you were here, I'd share that bowl of tomatoes :)

  5. Great post (and nice tomatoes).

    1. Thanks Richard. The sheep cartoon up on Eternal Vigilence is going to my Windows 8 background for a while.

  6. oh my god, you're still going on about it? I saw this on twitter days ago. Get a life, you chode. You're clearly never going to actually get it, so instead, get OVER it.

    Christ, what a whingey little man. Your wife must wear earplugs 24/7.

    1. The thing about principles, is they are eternal. Try getting some principles to live your life by, and arguing a point, rather than your pre-school ad hominem comment here.

      The publishing of my comment by The Daily Blog signals a major problem for QofT: until that link to this post goes up onto her slanderous blog post, this never ends. Ever. Read my blog. I have my entire life to defend my character, because it is my life. I take it you feel your life is not worth defending?

      And if you think I'm a chode, whatever that is, then I'm but a mouse compared to Mrs H. Truly, I've watched her wipe the floor with some poor blokes and blokesses - no sexism in the Hubbard household.

      Please, let's not have the low standard of Left debate I see on the Stardard(less) on my blog; instead of null inanities like you've just posted, try thinking, then posting. Let's have an intelligent debate. (Note there are lots of free online dictionaries you could use for your next post. Fingers crossed you won't look like such a chook in your next post).

    2. By the way, regarding my phrase, 'I have my entire life to defend my character, because it is my life'. Adopting that slogan as their ethic would get the feminist movement further than an eternity of Thorny's, and her forked, disgusting tongue.