The Feminist War on Women

It’s increasingly clear that when people say they’re pro-choice, they don’t actually mean they’re in favour of choice. They’re merely pro-abortion. And if women have to be coerced into having abortions, that’s fine with them.

Even if the woman is coerced into an abortion by her boyfriend, that’s still fine. Despite all the feminist rhetoric about women having control of their own fertility, if it’s a matter of getting that baby aborted then it’s OK for a man to pressure a woman into doing it.

And as for offering women the choice of adoption, that’s clearly totally unacceptable. At least it is for Planned Parenthood where they’ve succeeded in almost eliminating that choice altogether.

Of course feminists understand that the great danger of giving women choices is that they might make politically incorrect ones. Feminists are determined to prevent that from happening. Why do women need to bother about making choices when the feminist sisterhood is happy to make their decisions for them.

The brutal truth is that feminists despise women. Women have an unfortunate tendency to want to be female, whereas if they’d only listen to the feminists they’d realise that what they should be doing is concentrating on becoming men. It’s not the “patriarchy” that treats women as second-class citizens, it’s the feminists.

drinking the Kool-Aid of democracy

The capacity of human beings to delude themselves knows few limits. Few human delusions have been quite as pervasive, or as destructive, as the rather touching belief in democracy. Marxism is the only delusion that can match it for sheer silliness.

The idea that the best way to choose a ruler is by a popularity contest is so extraordinary that it is difficult to see how it could ever have been supported by sane people. Wisdom and truth cannot be determined by putting the matter to a vote. We don’t decide whether gravity is true or false by putting the question to the vote.

The idea that democracy, freedom and justice form some sort of magical triad is an associated idea that is equally ludicrous. As conservative philosopher Roger Scruton points out in his excellent book England: An Elegy English liberty was historically assured not by democracy, but by the rule of law.

Scruton argues, convincingly, that the British constitution (an unwritten constitution but a very real one) was an elaborate system for protecting citizens against democracy. The monarchy and the House of Lords balanced the power of the House of Commons. Even more importantly the common law provided protection for individual rights against the dangers of democratic tyranny.

All that went by the board when Tony Blair set out to trash a constitution that had served the nation well for centuries.

The founding fathers of the United States were equally aware of the perils of democracy. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to provide a defence against the follies of politicians.

Tyranny exercised by 51% of the electorate is no different in practice to tyranny by a dictator. Democracy has been described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner (a quote widely attributed to Ben Franklin although in fact it dates from the 1990s).

Of course the counter-argument to all this is that the alternatives are worse. This is a misleading argument since the alternatives usually presented are dictatorship or technocracy. Those alternatives are certainly worse than democracy, but other alternatives such as the limitations on democracy outlined by Scruton are generally not mentioned by enthusiasts for democracy.

When your ship is heading for an iceberg the options might be limited and somewhat unattractive but simply continuing on the same course will in the long run be an even more unpleasant option.

I’ll close with a quote from John Adams, in a letter to John Taylor on 15 April 1814:

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” –

censorship by stealth

The biggest peril to freedom of speech today comes from corporations that are willing to cave in to pressure from lobby groups and introduce self-censorship.

While it’s true that leftist governments, such as the current Australian government, are determined to do all they can to crush dissent and prevent freedom of speech the fact is that government censorship is at least relatively open and therefore easier to oppose.

Censorship by stealth in the form of self-censorship by media outlets is more insidious and much harder to fight against. And while the mainstream media has for decades been keen to toe the politically correct line the danger today is that the internet will go the same way.

This is a danger that conservatives have been slow to recognise. The left-wing bias of sites like wikipedia is potentially a greater threat than the left-wing bias of the dinosaur media like the New York Times, The Guardian and the Fairfax press in Australia.

An equally serious threat is that internet corporations, despite their brave talk on the subject of SOPA, will tamely submit to government censorship, or even the mere threat of it. The opposition to SOPA was driven mainly by the fear that it might cost them money. If it had been simply a matter of principle I seriously doubt that they would have cared.


moonbat actor named Australian of the Year

So actor Geoffrey Rush has been named Australian of the Year. For services to political correctness, presumably. The moonbat actor has made it clear that he intends to use the award to advance the current government’s far left agenda on illegal immigrants, climate change, gay marriage and the rewriting of Australian history to make it more PC.

He claimed he would not see the award as “a licence to pontificate” and immediately started to pontificate on issues about which he clearly knows nothing other than the accepted left-wing political line.

It’s more proof that actors should stick to acting and leave politics to the grown-ups.

This is truly a shameful episode. The Australian of the Year awards have been exposed as a political sham.

fly that car flag

It’s Australia Day tomorrow, so make sure you fly your Australia car flag. It’s worth it just to upset moonbats like Farida Fozdar.

Of course if you’re a leftist it’s not Australia Day, but Hate Australia Day, an occasion for orgies of hand-wringing and whining.

Mind you, it’s difficult for anyone to remain positive about our future with our lunatic prime minister pushing for constitutional change to permanently enshrine racism in the Australian Constitution.

how liberalism has ruined comic books

Popular culture today is almost entirely dominated by aggressive leftist political agendas. Even comic books are not immune, as Darin Wagner notes. A point echoed by D. S. Hube.

It’s become impossible to just sit down and enjoy watching a movie or a TV show without having political correctness rammed down one’s throat. Even kids’ programming these days mostly consists of political indoctrination. Strident political propaganda does not make for good entertainment.

the moral decay of the west

Western civilisation is now engaged in a life-or-death struggle with militant Islam, and the west’s most dangerous enemy in this war is its own moral weakness and depravity.

The family has been all but destroyed and we are now in the process of putting the final nail in the coffin by legalising gay marriage. “Sex workers” are more respected than mothers. We are too selfish to raise our own kids and we expect the government to do it for us by providing unlimited childcare, a sure recipe for producing another alienated, immature and poorly socialised generation.

The western world is awash with drugs.

We have a growing underclass that is vicious and moronic.

Education standards have been slipping for decades. Schools teach kids about condoms but they can’t teach them to read. Universities are factories for producing political activists dedicated to destroying western civilisation.

Hatred of our own civilisation is the dominant characteristic of our mainstream media.

We have the Occupy movement – dirty unwashed hippies and poorly educated overgrown babies who think they can bring about the promised land by wallowing in their own excrement and chanting their hatred for their own society.

We have feminists preaching an agenda of hate and self-pity.

We have millions of people medicated to the eyeballs on Prozac, and more shockingly when children behave like ordinary children we label them as having ADHD and medicate them to the eyeballs as well.

In the US you can be a terrorist but that won’t stop you getting a cushy academic job in a university. Ask Bill Ayers.

We have environmentalists intent on destroying not merely the economies of the west but the entire western way of life. Scientists no longer care about truth, they just want funding.

We have no belief in our own civilisation or our own achievements. We are riddled with irrational guilt.

Unless we can rediscover some moral purpose and some belief in ourselves we have no chance of successfully facing the challenge of Islam.

SOPA and online gangsterism

This whole SOPA business, and the hysterical reaction to it from sites like wikipedia, amazes me. There seems to be little appreciation of the fact that piracy is not merely criminal, it is gangsterism on a huge scale. There’s no moral difference between the online pirates of today and the racketeers of the past.

Not that I feel any great sympathy for the music industry or for Hollywood. Personally I’d be delighted to see a moral sewer like Hollywood go under. But I feel even less sympathy for online pirates, or for sites that really have no legitimate purpose other than to facilitate piracy and that makes millions out of it.

It seems to me to be a symptom of a very disturbing disease – the culture of geek entitlement, the belief of a frighteningly large proportion of the online world that it’s perfectly OK to just steal stuff if you can’t afford to buy it. Or even that it’s perfectly OK to just steal stuff even if you can afford to buy it.

It’s the same mindset that drives the Occupy Wall Street scum, that the world owes them a living. Overgrown spoilt babies who gleefully loot the candy store then cry when there’s no more candy left to steal.

what greens really want

Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola has suggested that “the state should enact draconian measures of discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.” Climate change deniers are to be “re-educated” in eco-gulags. He also thinks big cities should be attacked by “some trans-national body like the UN” with nuclear weapons or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks” and is in favour of genocide.

Dr Eric R. Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas in Austin believes that 90% of the world’s population should be culled by means of the airborne ebola virus.

President Obama’s science advisor John P. Holdren is on record as advocating a world government that would reduce the world’s population through forced abortions and mass sterilisation.

What it all comes down to is that environmentalism is an ideology of hate.

the need for fewer university students

Australia’s current Prime Minister, back in 2009 when she was merely the Commonwealth Education Minister, announced that the government would commit itself to ensuring that 40% of Australians would receive a university education.

Now it seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing the western world these days is that we already have far more university graduates than we need. We only need so many physicists, lawyers, doctors and engineers. That suggests that most of the extra university graduates are going to be arts graduates. What on earth would be the use of so many additional arts graduates?

How many arts graduates do we in fact need? My guess would be, very few. All these additional graduates are going to expect to be provided with jobs, which means the government will be under pressure to provide lots more totally unnecessary jobs for them. They will have qualifications that nobody needs, and will lack any skills that really are needed.

This might sound like just another example of the folly of a loony left government but in fact from the point of view of the Left it makes perfect sense. They see universities as factories for producing more leftists.

What we really need are fewer universities and fewer university students. The taxpayer should not be expected to fund the creation of left-wing political activists.