Tom Caulfield appointed Technical Director of J4MB

We’re pleased to announce the appointment of Tom Caulfield as Technical Director of J4MB. Tom has long been a key contributor to our work, and the work of other people interested in men’s issues. An expert in both photography and video recording, he’s long used the pseudonym “Anthony J Corniche III” for his video recording and editing, and has used the term “Good Men Gone Productions” for some of his work.

Tom was responsible for the filming and editing of the presentations at three of the five ICMIs to date, and the playlists are here – ICMI16 (London), ICMI17 (Gold Coast, Australia), ICMI18 (London). He was also responsible for the filming of the presentations at ICMI19 in Chicago, others are responsible for the editing of the video files. He will be filming and editing the presentations at three ICMIs in the coming 17 months – Australia (2020), India (2021) and North America (2021).

Tom’s photography website is here. The first image:

She seems like a nice girl. Click on “Portfolio” on the upper left-hand corner of the screen to see more of Tom’s work.

We look forward to working with Tom for many years to come.

Images from India

The recent national conference in Delhi, India, was a huge success. It was hosted by Anil Kumar, the driving force behind Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) since 2007. The energy and commitment of the speakers and attendees were inspirational, and I learned a good deal about the SIFF operating model. Anil plans to host an ICMI in India in February 2021. My thanks to Anil and his colleagues for their warm hospitality during the event and later.

Along with others, I took a number of photographs at the conference, and during a later trip to Agra, where we visited the Taj Mahal, the construction of which was completed in 1653.

Anil Kumar address the conference

Another view of Anil

Paul Elam addresses the conference, by video

Satish Babu, an activist

Anil Kumar (not wearing a cap, the only known such photograph in existence), Mike Buchanan, R.P. Shah (SIFF, Hyderabad), Jai Dutt Sharma (SIFF Head of Logistics)

Jai Dutt Sharma, Mike Buchanan, Anil Kumar, R.P. Shah

Mike Buchanan and Anil Kumar on the “Diana Seat”, on which Princess Diana was photographed alone, in 1992. The day before this picture was taken, Donald and Melania Trump had visited Agra and sat on the same seat. The visit resulted in the closure of much of the city for some hours, Anil and I were stuck in Agra train station for seven hours.

One of Anil’s selfies.


Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Mary Wakefield: Why did no one believe Johnny Depp?

A piece in the current edition of The Spectator. As always, it’s a female columnist writing on domestic violence, and as usual, she’s bewildered at the existence of female perpetrators. An interesting article, all the same:

When it was first reported that Johnny Depp had been hit and pelted with crockery by his slight, blonde then wife, Amber Heard, I’m afraid my first reaction was disdain. Johnny and Amber recorded their rows on their mobile phones (as you do) and a ‘reliable source’ leaked the recording: ‘I was hitting you, it was not punching you,’ Amber says to Johnny. ‘Babe, you’re not punched.’ Then, exasperated: ‘You are such a baby. Grow the fuck up Johnny… I did not hurt you, I did not punch you, I was hitting you.’

At first my sympathies were with Amber. C’mon Johnny, c’mon Captain Jack Sparrow, can’t a lady throw a plate or two? Surely a slap, under provocative circumstances, is OK? The TV of my youth was full of ladies with shoulder pads slapping men. Barely a week went by on Dynasty without Joan Collins, as Alexis Carrington, clipping some cowering chap. Very satisfying it was too.

It’s worse for a man to hit a woman than the other way around. You might think you disagree — most millennials are bound to disagree — but think of Hollywood, that mirror of all our souls. Think of the hundreds of jolly romcoms in which the girl gets to swat the guy — he’s come on too strong maybe, or there’s a misunderstanding. No big deal. Now just imagine a romcom in which the male protagonist loses his rag and smacks his love interest.

A week after the recording was leaked, another window opened up into the Heard/Depp love nest; another demented recording found its way to the Mail, and after this one, the affair can be seen in a very different light. My whole gung-ho approach to women slapping men looks different and I’m having to rethink my prejudices, which is uncomfortable.

‘Tell the world, Johnny, tell them: I Johnny Depp, a man, I’m a victim too of domestic violence…’ This is Amber taunting Johnny, hissing at him, daring him to go public. ‘You’re bigger and you’re stronger. I was a 115lb woman… You’re going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say “She started it’’? Really? Just see how many people believe or side with you.’ It was as if the whole drama suddenly changed genre, from a portrait of a rock’n’roll LA marriage into something more like Single White Female.

After recording two, I was not Team Amber anymore. Worse: I wasn’t even on my own team. Amber Heard was right. No one had thought to believe Johnny for a second, no one had questioned her version of events, not because she had a watertight case — but because she was a woman.

To understand how crazy that last recording is, you have to understand something of the history of the Depp/Heard affair. In the summer of 2016, after just a year of marriage, Amber accused Johnny of hitting her. She posted photos of her slightly bruised right eye on Instagram, and as she filed for divorce she took out a restraining order. There really wasn’t much in the way of evidence, but Amber looked the very picture of a 21st-century victim: beautiful, fragile, bravely out as pansexual. The world rallied round and anyone who even considered questioning Amber’s account of events was quickly labelled a misogynist.

Both Depp’s ex-wives seemed confused. Vanessa Paradis said: ‘In all these years I have known Johnny he has never been physically abusive with me and this looks nothing like the man I lived with for 14 wonderful years.’ Depp’s first wife, Lori Anne Allison, agreed, saying he was a ‘soft person’. Depp’s daughter Lily-Rose Depp defended him too, and was attacked by Grazia magazine as a result: ‘Heard’s voice counts and our insidious, doubting voices do not.’

Johnny believes the furore caused him to lose his most lucrative gig, the role of Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series, and no one thought it unfair. I didn’t think it unfair, I simply assumed that Johnny was a cad. It never occurred to me or to the usual activists against abuse that Johnny could be the one who needed help. He’s a man, part of the patriarchy, how can he be a victim?

In 2015, just after Amber and Johnny tied the knot, the UK outlawed ‘coercive control’ — the attempt by one partner to bully and dominate another. But when the law was announced by Karen Bradley, the then minister for preventing abuse and exploitation, she made it quite clear who needed protecting: ‘No one should live in fear,’ she said, ‘which is why this government has made ending violence against women and girls a priority.’ In 2016, The Archers ran the story of timid Helen and Rob, her controlling husband, and for a while after that no women’s magazine was complete without a ten-point checklist: ‘How to tell if you’re dating a male narcissist.’ Diagnostic jargon spilled over from psychology into ordinary marital arguments, which was useful for a while. ‘Don’t gaslight me,’ I once said to my husband mid-row. It felt very empowering. ‘I’m not gaslighting you, I’m just disagreeing with you,’ he said. ‘There’s got to be a difference.’

I’m not suggesting that Amber has a personality disorder — who knows what the next episode of the Johnny and Amber show will reveal? He’s currently suing her for defamation and loss of earnings over the Pirates of the Caribbean affair. Amber says Depp is trying to ‘victim blame’ her and the recordings are being ‘twisted’.

But as we Archers fans know, it is textbook narcissist to accuse your partner of the crimes you yourself have committed — domestic violence, say — and to taunt them with the fact that no one will listen. It’s textbook narcissist to pose as the victim when in fact you’ve been the bully all along.

You can subscribe to The Spectator here.


Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Rod Liddle: The blindness of cultural Marxism

A piece from the 22 February edition of The Spectator:

Words we are not allowed to use any more now include ‘cultural Marxism’. Suella Braverman, now the Attorney General, used them last year and was immediately upbraided by the organisation Hope Not Hate. Very right-wing people sometimes use it too, you see, so it must never be uttered by anyone else. Banning the use of the phrase ‘cultural Marxism’ is about as culturally Marxist as it is possible to get, but I don’t suppose the cultural Marxists at Hope Not Hate appreciated the irony.

Cultural Marxism is a largely 1960s excrescence in which everything must be seen through the prism of unequal power relations, other than which nothing else matters at all. Especially power relations regarding race and gender, the basis of identity politics. As such, then, cultural Marxism is a dominant paradigm in university courses across the country which deal with what we once knew as history (but now might be better named ‘resentment studies’), geography, sociology and all those non-academic subjects of no use to man nor beast, such as gender studies or urban studies.

Of course, unequal power relations between black and white, male and female, gay and straight are interesting issues, worthy of discussion and debate. But with the cultural Marxist there is no debate or discussion: it is a bovine implacability and authoritarianism which defines the approach. And so if a university professor suggests that while western colonialism was undoubtedly a morally flawed venture, not absolutely everything that came out of it was bad, he will be eviscerated by the cultural Marxists, despite the fact that his statement is incontestable — even if that comparative ‘good’ is only a useful railway bridge, a schoolhouse or, er, democracy. Cultural Marxism is one-dimensional, tautologous, absolutist and intellectually stunted. And yet it has great purchase, even away from our campuses.

I listened to a programme on BBC Radio 4 last week — a rare occurrence, for sure, given that the station has become a conduit for incessant whining, acquired victimhood and existential misery. It was a documentary called Not Enough Pride for Charley Pride and concerned the black middle-of-the-road US country singer named in the title. It was the perfect example of how the monomaniacal paradigm of cultural Marxism is now au courant pretty much everywhere.

I listened to this programme because I like country music, and quite enjoy Charley Pride, not least for his fine voice. But this programme was concerned with one thing and one thing alone — the fact that Charley was black in a predominantly white oeuvre. Nothing else mattered. Not his singing, his guitar-playing, his music (!), his very existence and character and essence — nothing mattered in this documentary beyond the colour of the man’s skin.

Had I listened to the trailers or read the blurb on the BBC’s website I would have known what to expect. There was the implication, first of all, that we didn’t know about Charley because he was black. Well, sorry, I knew about him. Further, last July BBC Four ran a documentary about the bloke called Charley Pride — I’m Just Me, which covered identical ground. So, two documentaries in seven months. I don’t remember a single doc in the past ten years on the BBC about, say, Don Gibson, Marty Robbins, Chet Atkins or Kitty Wells, all of whom were white contemporaries of Charley and in musical terms arguably more important. This is the first point to make about cultural Marxism — its proponents will softly lie to you, to suit their agenda. Charley Pride — a man ignored because of his skin colour. No, and no again. He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry by the time cultural Marxism had taken hold and started rewriting history.

But the real issue is with cultural Marxism’s blindness, its funnel-thinking, its reductiveness, its impoverishment. There’s no doubt in my mind that Charley Pride’s blackness is of importance, especially as he was touring the USA at a time when Jim Crow had a certain hegemony: segregated towns and cities and schools, racial hatred, inequality. Country music was largely created by the poor white trash of the southern states and fans sometimes turned up to hear Charley Pride sing not knowing he was black, although it seems they quickly got over their shock. All of that is well worth remembering and should be part of any documentary about the chap.

But it is a long way short of the totality, surely. To be defined not by the quality of your music or your voice, but solely by the fact that he was un-white. It does such a disservice to a talented man who, in his interviews, seemed far more interested in talking about baseball — his first and real love — than in the obsessive questioning of his racial origin. And yet it seems to me that Charley Pride’s skin colour was a big part of the reason Radio 4 decided to make a documentary about the man, and perhaps a big part of the reason BBC Four did the same thing.

Jean-Paul Sartre, a Marxist himself, had it right: we are not like rocks. Our existence precedes our essence and however much we are influenced by the circumstances of our origins, we can nonetheless escape them. For the cultural Marxist, though, this escape is not possible. We are forever imprisoned by either victimhood or privilege and neither of these two things are in any way alterable, they simply are. Such a moronic way in which to view humankind.

You can subscribe to The Spectator here.


Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Bettina Arndt is under siege

Our thanks to John, an Australian MRA, for this:

Bettina Arndt is under siege in Australia. She’s been under relentless attack from the day her honour was announced for “gender equity through advocacy for men,” with feminists recruiting high profile Australians to ask for her award to be rescinded. The mainstream media piled in, publishing endless misinformation designed to damage her reputation, including claims she had misrepresented her qualifications.

Bettina has posted on her website the good news that AHPRA, the health practitioner regulator, is taking no action in response to the orchestrated campaign by End Rape on Campus activist, Nina Funnell, who claimed she was misrepresenting her qualifications. See Arndt’s recent post here and coverage from a local newspaper. She’s very keen this information is widely circulated.

The other recent development was a letter from the chairman of the Council which decides the honours awards, stating that their consideration of any decision about her award must follow their set procedures and “be based on factual information and not by external pressure or lobbying.” Contrary to media reports, no special review of her award has been announced and the Council is simply following normal procedures in this matter. They are clearly fed up with the constant lobbying from feminists lobbying for them to rob her of the honour.

Finally, Bettina’s followers were pleased to see that finally some key media personalities have had the courage to stand up to the mob. First there was Alan Jones on Sky News and then came a stirring performance from Rowan Dean on the Sky News programme, The Outsiders. They both addressed the recent craven act by the Australian Senate which has just voted to condemn Bettina, supporting a deceptive motion about her tweet calling for support for a policeman who was under fire for suggesting the need for an open mind regarding a horrific homicide/suicide case. The link to the video of Rowan Dean’s editorial, which Bettina is keen to see widely circulated, is here.

Note how Dean initially makes a strenuous effort to distance himself from Arndt’s comments.  Media bosses are apparently requiring commentators to condemn Arndt’s remarks before commenting on the free speech issues – to try to appease the activists who are constantly lobbying to persuade advertisers to withdraw their support from any programme which challenges the woke orthodoxy. Funnily enough, Katie Hopkins appeared on the programme after Arndt and was greeted by a similar “distancing” remark from the hosts. She tore into Dean for his failure to stand up to the mob. Fair enough, but there’s been a stream of Sky News hosts who have already lost jobs over saying the wrong thing and offending the woke crowd.  All very tricky.


Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.