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.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Of Law Revue Girls & Thorny – Privilege & the New Puritanism; Blog Inequality; Identity Politics; Quotas.

Next time you seek to silence an individual who has offended you in some way with words, especially one sworn to an ethic of do no harm, and you seek to silence them with their privilege, then wonder if you’re not simply reinforcing it. That’s privilege as a wall of your making, over which two people can no longer even shake hands to explore the differences that make life the celebration it should be, rather than each left to guard their side of the wall, wallowing in a morass of ignorance, and too often, fear.

[The first section below was originally this post’s ending; I’ve rearranged the order as the initial two sections were only ever about getting to this …]

Identity Politics and Privilege – Law Revue Girls & Context of Comedy:

On Twitter, Saturday night, identity politics got itself into its usual abject mess. Though of all its victims, I wouldn’t have put my money on the Law Revue Girls, clever makers of that  feminist parody of Robin Thicke’s execrable Blurred Lines:

Saturday night the Law Revue Girls Twitter account tweeted the following, defending feminist Lily Allen’s music video from being racist:

You can imagine what ensured. Let me show you:


Despite one of the Law Revue Girls described herself as a racial 'fruit salad', they belatedly attempted to extract themselves from the shit-pond they’d unwittingly dived head first into:

They should’ve known better; the Left aren’t forgiving, and they’re hardest on their own, and so it on went all night. I suspect the Law Revue Girls will now do what all wise people should do – I’m not a wise man - when their privilege is stuffed into in their mouths: shut up. Even Left stalwart, Chris Trotter, admits this mainstay of Left politics, on the silencing of Willie Jackson and John Tamihere:

Rather than korero, the left-wing social media’s first instinct was to condemn, threaten, punish and shut down.

Because the Left typically, arrogantly, are not interested in interacting with differing opinion: they simply seek to shut that opinion down. (For Libertarians reading, that’s an interesting link).

Was Lily Allen’s music video racist? Here’s her defence: you decide.

That’s not the point for me anymore; which is this new linguistic puritanism stalking the land through our fellow citizens, sifting every word for privilege and thought crimes. Giovanni Tiso used this new puritanism of language (hence thought) to take down Willie and JT: I’ve written why I’m not comfortable with that. I wonder if Giovanni understands he’s put himself in the same moral arbiter role of ‘the people’ as Whaleoil has, who would shut down, I suspect, much of the comedy I love: I’ve written on that, also – can a rape joke be defended. About the time radshitzy, neo-Marxist feminist Thorny put herself so humourlessly in my life, checking my privilege for daring to enter her Tweet timeline – that’s all I did, I chipped in on a tweet – I noticed she was also attacking comedian Raybon Kan; I have no idea why, it would be some joke or other she thought he should be shut down for.

I love comedy. Read this link. I love comedy; ‘it lights a fire that warms the coldest nights of my mind’. I record the stand-up on the comedy channel to watch on Friday night: so let’s not kid ourselves where this leads. I suspect less than fifty percent of the stand-up acts on Apollo Live, et al, would survive this new citizen policed thought-crime puritanism. Of home-grown shows, I can guarantee you 7 Days, and Jono and Ben at Ten, two great shows, will very soon not pass muster.

I’m over it. And remember no surveillance Big Brother state can survive for long without an acquiescent people: the secret police usually only ended up on your door when your neighbour potted you in. So though this post doesn’t initially impact on the coercive state, you can bet it ultimately does: hate speech laws, cyber bullying laws, will be the legislative manifestation.

The ethic of this blog is individualism. It is only a classical liberal individualist ethic that will ultimately heal the –isms: sexism, racism, et al. I’ve written further on collectivist identity politics on my post regarding that radshitzy clique of neo-Marxist feminism, but for the record:

Next time you seek to silence an individual who has offended you in some way with words, especially one sworn to an ethic of do no harm, and you seek to silence them with their privilege, then wonder if you’re not simply reinforcing it. That’s privilege as a wall of your making, over which two people can no longer even shake hands to examine the differences that make life the celebration it should be, rather than each left to guard their side of the wall, wallowing in a morass of ignorance, and too often, fear.

[Following, is how this blog post started …]

Gender Quotas:

I’ve been meaning to get back to the Labour Party’s gender quota again: passed, at last, in their annual conference some weeks ago, they'll be running a quota to ensure women comprise 50% of their caucus. This weekend, my loquacious slanderer, Thorny, has kindly provided me with the impetus to make a comment, albeit vicariously. By showing the logic hole, or at the least, missing piece, in her latest post, Ladies, Step Up To The Platform, - Just Not The Mic - nice title Thorny - I wish to keep a promise I made to the Labour women MP’s in this old post of mine concerning this year’s Labour Party leadership contest, which ultimately no woman MP contested (link below):

… all I’m saying is a Labour woman MP must have a tilt [for the Labour Party leadership]. Because this will become my business if, when Labour ever gains that sandpit in the Fortress of Legislation, it then attempts to implement not just a gender quota within the party - which I couldn’t care less about, that’s Labour Party business - but also force it on the private sector, making gender quotas an issue of the voluntary, free society, versus the coerced one again. If no woman contests this [leadership], I'll be pointing out the double standard here. [Why should you demand, by force, what you’re not prepared to do the hard yards for?]

I would love to put the below questions to Thorny by posting on her site, but like so many Left blogs, she lacks professionalism, either deleting comments, or worse, over-writing and mis-representing them, so here we go. Thorny is opining the representation of women in Martyn Bradbury’s Lefty diatribe, The Daily Blog:

Just one question.

How the fuck are you going to do any of that when you’ve already got a roster which is 38% women …

But those women only provide 6% of the posts?

I have done this math.  I have a goddamned spreadsheet.  Because I’ve seen so many people comment about the fucking flood of chaff which covers the TDB front page.

38% women posters.  6% of the total posts.

Trouble is, the accuracy of her conclusion of misogyny, or certainly larceny, can only be proven by a second series of related questions, namely:

Have more women that those 38% approached Bradbury about contributing content, and has he turned those women down?

If this is the case, Thorny has a valid point, given Daily Blog’s Left-Liberal-quota agenda nonsense. Unfortunately Thorny provides no evidence of this; so I’d be interested to know from Bradbury’s point of view what the answer is. Perhaps someone might ask him for me: while I read widely amongst the cross section of blogs, my experience has been very few of the Left have any interest outside their own bullying world view, and if I'm not mistaken, that walking ego, Martyn Bradbury, has blocked me, also.

Further, of the 38% of female contributors providing only 6% of content, are they actually producing an equivalent 38% content which Bradbury is then refusing to publish? Is their productivity that of the men on the site? Bradbury can only publish what he’s been furnished with.

Again, if that is the case, Thorny has a point, but no evidence is provided of same. It’s just the accusation not backed up with detail, and the smear against a Bradbury it's postulated is concerned only with his ‘liberal cred’- (on which Thorny may well be right).

Until those points are answered factually, then based on the fact that ultimately no Labour woman MP did put their hand up to contest the Labour Party leadership, preferring, instead, an enforced quota, I’m going to fantastically – don’t you dare take this out of context – put myself on Bradbury’s side of the equation, until the numbers are given one way or the other.

Mind you, the Left continuing to pull itself apart: what a shame. I guess the bright side is the more time they spend being vicious to each other, the less time they have visiting viciousness on the rest of us.

Blog Inequality:

By the bye, Thorny’s statement in her piece that her blog is ranked in Ken Perrot’s Open Parachute blog rankings, led me to do the irresistible: checking her ranking against mine. Damn: she’s above me in the blog rankings :) Over October she was placed fortieth, I – ahem, low posting month – was way down at eighty fifth.

That's hardly fair; surely my viewpoint is being stifled here? In the worthy cause of combating blog inequality, shouldn’t her readers be forced to read mine to give equal weight to our views? Just as I am forced by that ruthless mechanism of state, the tax department, to share my income with all and sundry, and supporting Thorny's tax surveillance state I have no agreement with, then why shouldn’t Thorny be forced to share her readership with me?

… The answer is obvious: because such a notion is stupid. More than that: unjust. But that’s exactly what the Left advocate with my income, and if you speak up against them, then as is their modus operandi, they will simply seek to beat you into silence with your privilege.

Albeit, before leaving this topic, I would like to take the time to sooth my sore ego, almost the size of Thorny’s, who the odd time I’ve ‘interrupted’ her on Twitter since she first falsely foot tripped me, has - pot/kettle - laid the charge against me of attention seeking; ironically in the exact manner Edwardian gentlemen sought to side-line the suffragettes by condescendingly calling them attention seekers, as if they were but truculent little children.  It seems Thorny has gone full circle.

But of course my readership is minute: my central ethic, unfettered freedom of an individual human being to do and say as they like so long as they harm no one, is an ethic not shared anymore in the West. The battle I fight was lost a long time ago, and I'm just filling in time between drinks, while they remain legal. And I’m not overlooking the seeming illogic that Libertarian NotPC gets something like thirty thousand visits a month, way more than me also: people who believe in freedom tend to be working people, with little time for reading, and what is happening here is that over more than twenty years of hard grafting, Peter Cresswell has formed for himself a monopoly for that time – bastard. I’m working on my complaint to that oxymoronic Commerce Commission right after this missive, to see if I can get them to pare him down to my size: my recommendation will be that he only be allowed to post once a fortnight until his visits are reduced to my level. I don’t plan to do anything different, such as be more productive or more creative: I don’t need to so long as the state will intervene to take the share he has won in the market of blogs, and give it to me under the sanction of fairness.

Related Posts:

Rape Culture: The Roast Busters

Of Comedy, Whaleoil, Kim Dotcom Freedom of Speech and Bounded Liberty.

No comments:

Post a Comment