Our thanks to William Gruff for posting the following comments, extracts from Glen Poole’s risible article in the Telegraph (we referred to it in a blog piece published a few hours ago) are shown in bold:
‘Can an MP who describes those concerned with women’s equality as “militant feminists and politically correct males”, seriously make a constructive contribution to this global agenda?‘
See what he’s doing there? The old Bolshevik trick of labelling dissenters as mentally ill. Poole doesn’t say so outright, the poison isn’t administered in such concentrated form and does not yet lead to incarceration and torture in some modern Lubyanka, yet his pointless rhetorical question is the same concoction in dilution; a very mild dose of ridicule which is nonetheless the mentality that shuts down opposition by use of force, in this case an appeal to the unthinkingly mocking, programmable mob.
Philip Davies can say nothing sensible so he cannot be taken seriously and can therefore be disregarded, as effectively muted as those confined to psychiatric prisons for ‘counter-revolutionary thoughts’ or whatever the spurious charge was.
It’s also worth observing that the ‘fact’ of a movement, process or tendency being global does not make it beneficial or desirable.
‘Yet when it comes to gender politics, what he wants is confused.‘
A superficial reading might suggest that Poole and his fellow manginas simply cannot understand that other men, and not a few women, hold divergent points of view and, notwithstanding that in a democracy the public consensus usually obtains, the right to hold and assert disagreeable opinions is a natural one, not dependent upon the approval of a self-selecting elite.
I think they understand that perfectly but, like spoilt children, are incapable of accepting it so must destroy those who defend it. The real meaning can be seen as, ‘I am trying to control, reshape and direct the men’s rights discourse along feminist (officially / party) approved lines, as are those who share my platform, and we can see that Philip Davies threatens our efforts to derail a growing independent men’s rights movement. He is ploughing the intellectual ground we wish to claim as ours but we haven’t the intellect, or the integrity, to drive him off so we will arm the mob with emotional sticks and stones and leave it to do our work for us’.
‘Davies is best described as an anti-feminist, a form of gender politics so lacking in independence, innovation and originality, that its primary raison d’être is not to advocate for men or gender equality for all, but to dogmatically oppose feminism … ‘
See what he’s doing there? The old Bolshevik trick of assassination, in this case by ability, reputation and character, if not actually physically. Essentially it’s the Lubyanka concoction but it can only work on the weak willed and simple minded, and Philip Davies, who might better be described as a man with sufficient independence and integrity of thought not to accept the generally prevailing opinion that the emperor is not naked, has shown that he is neither weak willed nor simple minded. Ironically, if he is not simply desperate, Poole shows himself to be what he hopes we will think Philip Davies is.
‘Putting Davies on the committee to scrutinize the GEO … will probably cause the type of conflict and confusion that fuels the gender wars.
Let’s hope so. The ‘gender wars’ are being waged by politically powerful, aggressively misandrous and too often dangerously mentally ill female supremacists against men, with the help of useful idiots like Poole. That we are no longer prepared to oblige women by taking any and all the whimsical, childish, vindictive and insane nonsense they care to throw at us is not fuelling a war we did not start.
Self-defence, however spirited, is not aggression. It is the feminists who, with typically female incontinence, are upping the ante in the ‘gender wars’. They should be aware that men have the stamina and determination to win, even against apparently overwhelming odds, and tend not to give up, however hard the going gets.
‘The only sensible way around this absurd state of affairs is to ban Davies from the Committee … ‘
A double dose of the Lubyanka Concoction: The situation is ‘absurd’ and the Thought Criminal Davies must be removed immediately to rectify it. What is absurd about a capable champion of equality for all seeking a place on the Women and Equalities Committee? What is absurd is that a committee ostensibly concerned with equality should actually concern itself only with addressing and increasing the manufactured grievances of one already over-privileged and unfairly advantaged half of society while increasing the growing number of legally created institutional disadvantages for men and boys.
That aside, strong men invariably exercise a restraining influence on female excesses, in much the same way as a dog controls a flock of sheep, and the Hon. Member for Shipley has demonstrated hitherto that, clearly having the cojones to resist the debilitating influence of oestrogen on the human brain, he can do just that, with the intellect to inject some much needed testosterone fuelled rational thought into the proceedings of the Women and Equalities Committee*.
We can therefore expect a welcome reduction in the quantity of risible, vagina monologue, feminist tosh emanating from the W&EC (hopefully soon to be renamed to something more inclusive) and some gradual but growing influence on the government’s misandrous campaigns against men and boys.
‘ … but not before a Minister for Men and Boys has been appointed with responsibility for leading on the Government’s work to tackle the “problems men and boys have”.’
See what he’s doing there? Objections to a ministry at present are, firstly, that a Minister for Men and Boys would have to compete for time and funding with any and all ministers dealing with women and girls in a cabinet dominated by feminists and presided over by an avowedly feminist prime minister, and, secondly, that MPs willing to share Mr Davies’ platform and stand with him are lamentably few at present so the chances are that anyone appointed as minister, which could easily be a feminist female, is likely to be a tame male at best, where he is not actually a mangina or open feminist.
Just as women have wormed their way into men’s organisations and corrupted them from within, rather than forming their own, so we must do the same. We cannot keep them out of ours and they cannot keep us out of theirs. Much better at present to work for the renaming of the committee, with a change in its remit, and the appointment of additional men in the interests of ‘gender balance’.
All in all, welcome news and an excellent start. Poole’s hysterical outburst shows how easily frightened manginas are, and how easily rebutted.
Expect the minutes of the committee to repeat, ad tedium (if I may coin a phrase), ‘point of order Madame Chair: the Hon. Member for Shipley is mansplaining / manspreading’. The women will certainly try to disrupt the proceedings with irrelevant objections and trivial complaints. Mr Davies has his work cut out.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
