Our thanks once more to NIgel, surely our most indefatigable commenter, who has posted so much excellent commentary over the years. He’s just posted comments on a piece we posted yesterday about a video, Richard the Fourth: Labour’s Plan to Criminalise Masculinity. His comments take up the remainder of this blog piece:
“Yes Jess [Jess Phillips MP] waffles and yes young men are likely to get fed up with being fed the establishment view, just as in the past young men revolted against the establishment in the past. But I think the video underestimates what is at stake here. The movement of non-feminist views from being simply supposedly atavistic sexism or old fashioned religious ideas to being a form of terrorism is part of the long term project of “making the personal political”. The objective is to make all the “personal” a matter for the state to intervene and control.
The idea, borrowed from Marxism, is to ensure the state is able to manage all aspects of life that were considered “personal”. Far from an apparently daft notion of deciding such things are “terrorism” it is to continue to grow the role of the enlightened state to manage its people. We can see this in the way more and more aspects of life that were once considered the province of the family or morality from Churches and other religious institutions have become considered the business of the state and its agents. At the sharp end of this have been “rape” and “domestic abuse” long considered to be morally wrong but generally outside the sphere of marriage and family relationships, with the agents of the state reluctant to address such things within the “private” sphere. Over the years this then gets extended to more and more intervention and control and then what is considered to be included widens and widens to “Domestic Abuse”, “Dating Abuse” “coercive control” “rape culture” “sexism” and now “misogyny”. The practical effects are seen in complaints from the Police that they are expected to be “social workers” and “turn up to very dispute about who controls the TV remote” policing relationships rather than “catching the bad guys”.
This latest move to further turn the private into political may look a bit silly, but it is more sinister than that because it is about following through on making the personal political, and being clear that contrary or private ideas are in fact terrorism, because they are a challenge to the state’s management of the individual and their relationships and their thoughts. In fact if you read the Istanbul Convention this is quite explicit. In that non- or anti-feminist views are “terrorism” and the state is to crush them.
This isn’t a new thing, after all the DV industry had a go at getting “domestic terrorism” used to describe DV in the late ’90s, it didn’t stick probably because after “9/11” “terrorism” was very obviously political and ideological.
So despite Jess’s disingenuousness the agenda is to further increase control over the personal through state intervention. It is part of the long-term project of making no part of life “private” nor leave any space for any ideas that are not approved by the state. On the assumption of course that the state follows the “correct” view. In eastern Europe before the Wall fell this was Leninist Marxism. In the current UK this is Feminism. And it’s perfectly logical, for if from the very dawn of time men have been appallingly evil oppressors, you do need to take complete control of them to prevent this millennia long evil from re asserting itself.
Expect to see a proliferation of cases whereby boys are visited by police to deal with their “misogyny” when they don’t want to play with girls etc. Just as we have seen such interventions for “racism” (and a few for sexism).
“Making the personal political” is not just a silly slogan, it is a real political project and its truth is masked by Jess’s waffle.”
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X (formerly Twitter) channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
“The personal is the political ” is the most dangerous attitude because it means that nothing is personal any more. All your actions and thoughts are the business of the authorities and that justifies them taking action against you. Of course our personal actions and thoughts do have moral consequence,s but that is not the same thing.
LikeLike
Thanks John, good point. This is all to do with the central goal of feminism i.e. female supremacy regardless of the consequences.
LikeLike
Exactly. In previous centuries there were comparatively few actual laws, in the sense of legislation passed by Parliament. Much of everyday life was regulated by the beliefs and morality usually promoted by religious institutions. Hence the attempt by Marxist regimes to ban both religion and family structures to end anything “private” (not just property, or enterprise but belief and morality). Now we have an ever increasing inventory of legislation controlling every aspect of relationships as if the state’s agents from Schools, to Courts to Social Administration to Police can manage every part of life that once was seen as nothing to do with governance. Feminism has simply taken this as the core activity, rather than a part of a wider transformation to a perfect communist society, to ensure there is no patriarchy. The attraction of this is of course that for aristocratic, middle class and class privileged women, aren’t as controlled as they would be under a communist regime. For the “class” woman is always the “Proletariat” that must become the “dictatorship” no matter how much private property, privilege, entitlements they have! Neat trick.
LikeLike
The horrid piece of legislation is beyond sickening! Great Britain is literally hanging itself with this kind of insanity! I hope you Brits fight tooth and nail this horror and you fight fat-assed, man-hating Jess too!
LikeLike
Looks like Nigel could do his own YouTube channel with that comment.
LikeLike
That’s very generous of you.
In your video of the street altercation “On free speech an offending others” there is a good example of how this will pan out. In that case the white man was reported to police, there probably isn’t a “crime” as such but he will get a visit from the police and likely have a “non crime hate incident” recorded by the Police. Which will turn up on any “Police Check” required for many jobs. So although there was no crime effectively the man will have a form of criminal record with real consequences it he was a teacher or aspired to be amongst other jobs or indeed if a volunteer. This is how “misogyny” will work, no actual crime as such but a record non the less that can have real consequences. And of course in the context of the video being both brown and crucially a woman in an agument with a man here behaviour, which he simply mirrored, cannot be reproached. In short you don’t actually need a law or a crime to shut people up using the Police.
LikeLike
This this popped up. Konstantin Kissin reminding us that the Soviet Union had “smashed the Patriarchy” and had created the new society without any traditional limits on the individual. Except of course it had to crush all freedom to create this utopia. https://youtu.be/f2W2TbUSuhs?si=q5xbRGVOPp5Fuu52
LikeLike
Describing Phillips’ invective as “waffle” is doing it an injustice. It is much worse than that.
LikeLike