empire watch, latest
Comments 180

John Pilger: The Hijacking of Feminism

Today’s liberal feminism is a sinister 21st century variant of historical feminism. It is one key apparatus of many currently being utilized by the capitalist system rooted in patriarchy, misogyny and racism. This nefarious system employs trillions of dollars funneled through the non-profit industrial complex (via foundations) to protect and expand these formidable power structures. Today’s liberal feminism is a racist fascism, bound by whiteness, privilege and class, that markets reformism and accommodationism under the clever guise of grassroots activism.


Advertisements

180 Comments

  1. kevin morris says

    When I was growing up in the 50s, many women stayed at home looking after young children. When my father went on short time, my mother had to go out to work- part-time. Now, it is inconceivable that a family could survive on the income of a single wage earner. Of course, its always portrayed as a woman’s right to do fulfilling work whilst the reality is that for many, of both sexes, work amounts to little more than drudgery and would be avoided if there was any real choice.

    I’d be more inclined to view that as a triumph for capitalism rather than a triumph for feminism.

    Liked by 2 people

    • In many countries this change – from families surviving on one parent’s paycheck to being forced to survive on both parents’ paychecks from two full-time jobs AND also part-time jobs and government social welfare handouts (with all the bureaucratic restrictions that applied) – occurred about the same time that governments decided keeping inflation down was more important than tackling unemployment or underemployment and adopted Friedman / Hayek neoliberal economic policies (mid to late 1970s). By then, many trade unions were more or less closer to government bureaucracies in their attitudes and less responsive to the needs of their rank and file, and tended to cooperate with governments by agreeing to halt or suppress demands for increased wages to keep up with inflation and the cost of living.

      Thus in Australia during the 1980s, a Labor government signed a wages accord with trade unions through their peak union representative body (Australian Council of Trade Unions) to control the growth of wages.

      About the same time the use of credit took off among Australian families. See a connection?

      Kevin, you spoke truer than you knew when you said that two-income families were more a triumph for capitalism than for feminism.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed: a critique of ‘social control’ that is itself a form of ‘social control.’ And the trick is accomplished by eclipsing, by diverting attention away from, that one social relation that under capitalism pretty much subsumes or cuts across all others: class — as conceptualized on the basis of property relations underpinning the economic exploitation of one class by another.

      And that is also Pilger’s critique of an embourgeoised feminism. Without tackling the social relations implicit in the processes of capitalist production, feminism becomes a bulwark against the liberation not only of women themselves, but of everyone.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Tom Turner says

    I don’t know why I keep going back onto CiF considering they delete any mention of the great John Pilger. They deleted this link earlier which deals with the history of untrue war reporting. It seems they’re just as interested in keeping us all misinformed as the government. I’ve just asked them to close my account. At least I won’t be tempted back now.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. chrisb says

    So now we have a man defining what is and what is not ‘true feminism’? Er, some mistake surely …

    Like

    • You’ve been well trained, I see. You snapped right to the most anti-intellectual vantage from which to critique the information presented. So pious! So correct. With sandbags like you in place, must Hegemony ever worry?

      Liked by 1 person

    • chrisb says

      Feminism has never been ‘hijacked (from) under the noses of women’, because feminism has never belonged to women. The struggle for women’s rights started with women in small, unrepresentative groups. They did not seek the endorsement of other women, because they understood that many women were too conservative to accept their own liberation. What they sought was to propagate their views. To their credit, they were fighting prevailing abuses and prejudices that now seem incredible in the West if not in much of the rest of the world. They were also fighting ridicule from all but a small group of supporters. And they were also campaigning while holding down a day job.

      In the 70s and 80s a group of women saw that feminism could BE their day job. They formed cliques within left wing councils and quangos and did what they wanted with part of the budgets of these organisations. At no point, however, did they stand for any form of election or approval from women. They agreed amongst themselves what should be their agenda and excluded anyone who disagreed. One of their main aims was to abolish the family by increasing state provision for single mothers. In this they were partly successful. Amongst the poor, the percentage of children living without their fathers grew sharply. Anyone with either wealth or stable employment still had to think carefully before having a child and so amongst the middle and upper classes family life continued.

      It was not surprising that corporate Britain embraced feminism. The refusal by working class men to improve their academic attainment meant that corporations needed to employ academically educated women instead of letting them stay at home to raise their children. Employing women with children came with costs and corporate Britain was happy for the state to pick up a large part of the childcare bill. (In the same way, corporate Britain was happy to embrace multiculturalism, as it helped break down working class cohesion and solidarity).
      At no point have women ever been asked what they wanted from feminism, let alone have their wishes been realised. Of course no established mechanism exists to give women and only women a vote. However, even if the electoral register were to be reorganised so as to permit a Minister for Women to be elected by women, the feminist Establishment would be opposed to it, because they could no longer control the ‘Feminist’ agenda and no longer control how governments acted ‘on behalf of women’. In the same way that amongst fatherless children a ‘father’ is high on the wish list sent to Santa, many working class women would like nothing more than a faithful husband who works to support his children. Those wishes, however, are blasphemy to many feminists and would threaten to reverse decades of ‘progress’.

      Having an open election for those seeking to hold feminist office would also make something apparent that to most of us is obvious but to the High Priestesses of Feminism is to be denied: different women hold different views and the differing views are often explained by the differing circumstances in which they live. The Women’s Rights that matter to a highly educated and accomplished woman working in finance or business is that she can rise to board level and gets paid the same bonuses as her male colleagues. The Women’s Rights that matter to a British-Somali girl is that her parents don’t organise her rape and that she doesn’t have her clitoris cut off with a dirty razor and no anaesthetic. To complain that the views of a feminist reflect her race and class is about as useful as complaining that night follows day. Of course they do. The privilege comes from never having to consult the people whom you claim to represent.

      Like

      • “The privilege comes from never having to consult the people whom you claim to represent.”

        The point is actually for everyone to represent themselves, no? With everyone needing to approach the responsibilities of Justice with their own hard-won understanding of the concept. No one owns the discussion of Human Rights, although everyone is an authority on Her/His experiences. If I’m informed on the matter of a, say, Human Rights violation among Eskimos, I don’t need to have “Eskimo blood” to comment. If I comment ignorantly, that’s another problem. If I’m an informed commenter, I have something to bring to the table, whether or not the commentary is “personal”.

        Liked by 1 person

        • chrisb says

          ‘The point is actually for everyone to represent themselves, no?’ So you’re going to try to cram 60 million plus people into the Houses of Parliament? Or everyone in the borough into the town hall? Representative government arose because calling everyone together to discuss and resolve matters was impractical at any level above the parish. The question therefore should be whether the people who claim to represent us actually do. My argument is that the women and men who control the feminist debate don’t represent the broad spectrum of women in this country and never have. More than that – they do try to own the discussion on Women’s Rights for their own personal benefit.

          As for the specific violation of women’s rights that I mentioned – female genital mutilation – it is not a question of bringing commentaries to the table. It is a question of action or inaction. No one in this country has been convicted of any offence connected to FGM. Yet medical staff regularly discover that girls born in the UK have suffered FGM. Why don’t all the self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ in medicine, the police and the law insist that these crimes are at least investigated?

          There was a trial of Dr Dhanuson Dharmasena, who in trying to stem the bleeding of a mother post-partum tried to repair the mutilation committed by someone else. The jury took only 30 minutes to find him innocent. Being prepared to ruin the career and life of a doctor on a spurious charge in a show trial exposes how far the Establishment are prepared to go to cover up this crime.

          The valid accusation against the white, upper class women who dominate the feminist debate is not that their views reflect their own experience of life. As I said, that is inevitable. It is that they are prepared to hide serious crimes such as FGM, rape and even murder in the name of their agenda and self-interest.

          Like

          • The word “represent”, to which I was responding, in your original comment, was clearly then used, by me, to refer to the representation of view-points in a comment (or commentary) …not in Parliament. You’re one of those shape-shifting, goal-post-moving, Amateur-Spin-Doctor-type liars who probably can’t even use the toilet honestly. I’ve only one response left for you, mister: BLURRRGH (with the appropriately dismissive facial expression).

            Go fill someone else’s comment box with sophistry’s bilge. I have a rainy Sunday to attend to with more pleasure than I could hope to glean from reading more bullshit.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Yup, last night, I don’t know why, but I re-read Chrisb’s original comments and expostulated out loud: “Holy fuck!”

              The contradictions and misattributions are so many and dense, that my brain literally cramps up trying to the follow the the threads of this unholy tangle of assumptions and counter-assumptions. The shape-shifting metaphor is apt.

              I suspect, however, that Chrisb’s condition is both more severe and more innocent than just being a liar. A liar at least has a grasp of reality and puts forth a more or less internally coherent narrative, otherwise he would not be a liar. I don’t think Chrisb is so much lying as a bit intellectually unhinged or confused.

              But in either case, most certainly: BLURRRGH! And, might I add, ARGHHH!

              Liked by 1 person

      • “The refusal by working class men to improve their academic attainment . . .”

        Their “refusal,” indeed!

        It’s not as if at the end of a long day’s slogging, one ever returns home, tired and drained, or then having to face up to the added duress of worrying about one’s inadequate finances for a lifetime of inadequate wages received.

        If working class men are working class men, it’s there doing, of course.

        Why with only a bit less “refusal” and bit more gumption, the entire class of men who now perform blue collar work could be, to a man, highly educated, accomplished, working in finance or business, each occupying a place at the levels of management, at the board levels, even, getting the same bonuses as their more enterprising, accomplished and highly educated feminine counterparts.

        You see, that’s how a real revolution happens. By pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Anything is possible. The schmucks are schmucks by their own doing.

        Chirsb, something tells me you need to get off your ass after work to do a bit of improving on your academic attainment . . .

        And you wouldn’t be a ‘man’ by any chance? What, then, gives you the right to speak on behalf of your self-actualizing feminine careerists?

        Liked by 1 person

        • “Their “refusal,” indeed!”

          Going after that strain of the comment would have been biting off more than I could chew, as I’m (ironically?) busy making chili for Daughter’s dinner! Interesting twist, though, wasn’t it?

          Like

          • Oh, a bit of twist indeed.

            And what with everyone in administration, no one would ever have to do any manual labour again.

            “Where’s housekeeping? They’ve all been promoted to the board of directors.”

            Chili! Yum!

            But why is your “wife” not doing the cooking? — (Bewildered and speaking in a reproving tone. (I’m am a working class schmuck, after all).)

            Like

        • pavlovscat7 says

          Dialectical materialism and stereotyping notwithstanding,,,,sometimes, given enough evolutionary time..the stereotype does become a genotype.

          Like

        • chrisb says

          I think you’ll find everyone, male or female, who was raised in the UK and is currently in the workforce, went to school. The UK goes to greater efforts than any other I know to ensure that all children go to school, regardless of the attitudes of the parents. In fact, the UK is so determined to ensure this that they take the policy to the point of being ridiculous by threatening parents with prison.

          Of course it is hard to gain academic qualifications and education while holding down a full-time job, though many in the older generations did so. That’s why children need to make the most of the opportunities offered to them at school and post-16 college. A significant proportion of students did not and still do not.

          Like

          • “… Of course it is hard to gain academic qualifications and education while holding down a full-time job, though many in the older generations did so. That’s why children need to make the most of the opportunities offered to them at school and post-16 college. A significant proportion of students did not and still do not.”

            The issue then is why students did not and do not take advantage of opportunities offered to them at school. Perhaps the problem has more to do with school than the students themselves. Maybe some students attend schools where the opportunities are denied them, due to poor teaching or the school itself having to cut back because of lack of funding from governments or private owners. Have you asked the students themselves?

            In the past also, before the Age of the Internet, there were such phenomena as technical colleges and night schools for workers and those who missed out on college or university to study for technical diplomas and certificates. I think you’ll find many of these places have now gone the way of dinosaurs.

            Like

          • I know some homeschoolers, UK. They live. I’m sure a search would come up with the community resources they are and create together.
            Note that self education is nothing to do with the outer form-ideas (framing concept) of education – so much as a genuine curiosity and receptivity to the transformational journey of discovery.

            Like

      • This has to be the wackiest and most uninformed comment I’ve seen so far on this comments thread. Congratulations, Chris B.

        Like

    • And if I am a ‘white’ man, clearly it is impossible for me to have an empathic appreciation of the misery of another person especially if that person’s skin color is other than white?

      Liked by 1 person

      • The divide-and-conquer quicksand of Identity Politics… what a useful tool (if you’re one of The Owners and don’t want to see those Serfs uniting anytime soon)!

        Liked by 1 person

      • chrisb says

        There’s a difference between having empathy and telling people what to think. No doubt you consider black people so fresh off the plantation that they still need the white man to look after them. Just like you think that women with their small female brains in their pretty little heads need the likes of you and John Pilger to tell them what they want.

        Like

        • “There’s a difference between having empathy and telling people what to think.”

          You think?

          And if “telling people what to think” should be off the table, what are you doing here, in this thread, commenting in public, engaging others, debating them?

          Or do you subscribe to the view that “thinking” is something that the ‘sovereign’ individual should do and does entirely in the privacy of his own head?

          You see, Chrisb, we are ‘social’ animals. Permit me to elaborate at least one implication of that by quoting something that I cobbled together a little while ago, to save myself a bit of time and effort, and that, anyway, I would only be recapitulating:

          “Have you ever noticed that no human being who has ever lived ever did so without in some way having been dependent upon at least the work or labor of another human being to survive? To be human is to be dependent upon the collective efforts of other humans in order to live, and in the aggregate, to have others equally depend upon oneself.

          “That is an unsurpassable biological ‘fact’ of our evolutionary being. That dependence is so much a part of what it means to be a human being that it is also encoded, so to speak, in the very fabric of each person’s mental constitution: the culturally inherited content of one’s mentation, which is virtually everything that equates to the content of one’s symbolic representations in the mature years of one’s life, as well as the consensuses of opinion to which one comes to adhere through discursive encounters with others, is primarily the product of ‘group interactions.’

          “If the individual’s mind is to some degree independent and autonomous, that independence and autonomy is really only possible as the ‘product’ or ‘resultant effect’ of discursive interactions that occur between individuals or groups of individuals, modalities of conversational encounters that over time the individual internalizes as the cognitive functions or features of his own mind.

          “The voice inside your head that is you talking and thinking and conversing with yourself, is really the voice of the cultural elements or currents of organized opinion in the cultural context of your upbringing that have taken root in the tissues of your living brain.

          “Therefore, before an individual can even begin to exercise anything like the freedom of his unfettered will, he must not only learn to satisfy most of the demands placed upon him by the society in which he lives, but also assimilate much cultural baggage before he reaches a point in his cognitive development where at least a part of his discursive engagement with the world becomes a manifestation of his own independent and autonomous effort to think his way through to various possibilities of ‘being,’ to asserting his will in matters of choice available to him.”

          So whether your agree with me or not on this particular issue, Chrisb, ‘telling other people what to think’ as well as ‘being told what to think by others’ is what humans are about. We live ‘together.’ At one and the same time, each of us is solitary and social. And some kind of working arrangement has to be worked out among ourselves to resolve this tension inherent to the human condition. Consequently, there are ‘rules’ of interaction that mediate between the poles of what people are, and these ‘rules’ of living are ‘impositions’ that run in two opposite directions: duty to the community and ‘freedom’ to the individual. So sneer all you want at the notion that it is right and proper that anyone should want to tell someone else what to think,’ it is both unavoidable and eminently moral.

          And then what is this ‘education’ that you laud so highly if not ‘telling’ entire generations of people what to think?

          You need to think more deeply, Chrisb. See, I just did it. In exactly the same way that you did itr when you implied that I should ‘stop telling others what to think,’ and in exactly the same way that you do it whenever you muster the effort and the time to engage anyone in conversation about ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds.’

          As for the rest of your comment, are you familiar with the psychological concept of projection, in the clinical sense of that term?

          Liked by 1 person

  4. pavlovscat7 says

    Who was that other bloke who led the righteous into battle against the estates of the realm, with his talking the truth to power weapon? ….Noam..Noam Something…what ever happened to him?

    Like

    • Don’t forget that NC was useful to a point (like Newton); when one is ready to, one moves beyond him. None of us will have started on this path by going straight from the Normalized Brainwash Schedule to locating/following Your Idea of the Perfect Radical… it’s a continuum and a process. The trick is in being unsentimental as one moves on. But the other trick is a potential trap… going so far in the process that the difference between Your Idea of the Perfect Radical and My Idea of the Perfect Radical becomes highly subjective… and a matter of lifestyle virtue-signaling. Even this high on the mountain: Late Capitalist Traps abound. Oh yeah: something about Ego, too!

      So, perhaps JP is a data-guru I will need to transcend at some point. But, for me, for now, he’s solidly great.

      Liked by 1 person

      • pavlovscat7 says

        Ascribing an italic, perfect radical as some noumenon that I use as comparison to lesser radicals.. is a verbal mate: You already know the deeds of the dirty..What the problem is as I see it, people look to these gurus as some sort of protection and when push comes to shove, standing behind Pilger for protection is as safe as standing behind Chomsky….Take the shortcut home mate.

        Like

        • JP as a shield/ wall/ bullfighter’s cape? Nonsense, good fellow. Neither is he a talisman. See it how you like, of course, but don’t think it’s through my eyes you’re doing it. How many pairs do you think you’re binocularizing…?

          Like

        • Or, put it this way: how much of what you know (or “know”) about “What’s Really Going On” is about firsthand experience or Primary Sources? Someone is doing the legwork; in some cases it was JP. How many of us are doing actual legwork? Aren’t we, in fact, philosophers-in-the-margins, working, primarily, with data got by others…?

          Liked by 1 person

          • pavlovscat7 says

            I didn’t say it was through your eyes did I ? I also didn’t say you or any body else can not consider Pilger any way you like..did I?….. Down the episodic road we go …and the 9/11 elephant now looks no bigger than a mouse:

            Like

            • By means of holographic technology, of course, and then ‘dustifying’ all other alternatives with direct energy weapons. How else does anyone ever go with axial nutation and orbital physics, by the way?

              Like

              • pavlovscat7 says

                Carefull Pilon…sometimes that tactic makes people suspicious and the go down the very road you mockingly tell them leads nowhere.

                Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  But to answer your dismissive question anyway Norm.. The polar, melted mass-migrations, will deviate the earths nutation, and alter states of isostasy, to inundate all state and nation… Although I will concede that the CIAs moving to Denver could be for other reasons than the water views:

                  Like

              • pavlovscat7 says

                “Dustifying” ..is going to take a little longer it seems,,I’ll come back later and try after I shoot some things:

                Like

          • pavlovscat7 says

            Me to bed now…gotta shoot things in the morning…. I hope I don’t have that dream again where a reputable salesman sold me a car that was one wheel short.. but I cut him some slack because the other three wheels spun like the be’geeuz!

            Like

              • I would have commented hours ago, but ended up taking an impromptu morning nap . . . good that I wasn’t on the road and driving . . . while watching and listening to this in particular . . .

                742 views and counting!

                And . . . and . . . and some even claim to have found the viewing ‘exciting.’

                It’s more probable that they wrote their comment in reference to the dreams they had had . . .

                I myself was doing some crazy shit on a mountain bike coming down Whistler Mountain . . . from the little bit I can remember . . . I suspect that in dreams we often compensate for the stimulation we are denied while barely awake . . .

                Anyway, I’ve taken it — the video — and put it in the medicine cabinet in the place of the bottle of Temazepan and threw that out. “Happy” is a far better treatment for my addiction to opiates. It’s incredibly effective and entirely “natural” . . .

                Many thanks for the link!

                Liked by 1 person

                • His voice is an ideal specimen of what the kids call “ASMR”. I quite enjoy his content (books/ songs/ lectures)… and he mentioned me in his previous album (documented fact)… the tiny, non-exploitative triumphs of the avant garde lifestyle… laugh

                  Like

              • pavlovscat7 says

                Apologies…I see now not only your defence of the prols but your aspirations as well: But, for what its worth, from a retired plumber that for 50 years has not only been orientating what madam had for breakfast, but having to listen to it as well…Your back is eternally grateful for your skiving:

                Like

                • I chose house-painting for 20 years (mindlessly-skilled physical labor I affording me space to think while working)… then I finally figured out a way to earn a living creatively! Always got along with plumbers, fellow painters and carpenters but roofers… ugh. Always the most irritating bastards (with the loudest music) on site!

                  Like

                • If you have back problems let me ask: are you on diuretics? Because, amusingly enough, I went through a phase during which I was practically addicted to pineapple-orange juice (don’t laugh) which is a powerful diuretic. Had me pi… I mean, micturating… my brains out. Causing the vertebral disks to contract just enough to cause sciatic nerve-pinching! Agonizing! Second time I went through this season-of-pain I figured out the problem, rehydrated properly and my back pain has been gone for years. Just in case it’s applicable…

                  Like

  5. Interesting that (as an Australian, of course), John Pilger devotes a considerable part of his speech to lambasting Julia Gillard, Australia’s first female prime minister, who came to that position in a last-minute putsch within the Australian Labor Party against the incumbent Kevin Rudd, supposedly on the flimsy grounds that he was an ineffective leader (que? most of his predecessors were hardly effective themselves) and a hard task-master on himself, his cabinet ministers and his own staff (well, duh, that’s why he was the leader) in an election year, just before the election campaign period began. A putsch which the US government must have known of in advance since within half an hour of his downfall, Rudd got a phone call from Obama offering him a job!

    As Prime Minister, Gillard agreed to allow the US to open military bases in Darwin and Perth. One of her other legacies to Australia is undermining public education by pushing for privatisation at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Now that she’s out of Australian federal politics, she’s still hawking a privatised education model around the world but accusations of fraud from past and present career postings continue to dog her (see links below). She appears to have close ties (indirect) to Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine Albright: war hawks in their own right.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWU_affair

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/donors-threaten-to-desert-gillardled-global-education-fund/news-story/3d3a5376211ae1f9e9d2f9903b62ca44

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes. The notion that politicians are in power is only true in token – excepting where they don’t betray and sacrifice the support of their citizens to cartels of influence that use people and life as a host to feed off or manipulate and lay waste. In case of non-compliance, the economic hit men; the dark ops of proxy or overt assault. A monopoly of terror is the old world order. We become the thing we hate because it was in our projected perception of the other all along. Thoughts come home because they never left.

      The narrative for public consumption is a food source of emotional reaction for masked intent.
      De-tuning from the signal – opens the realisation it is but a jamming device in the form of a signal.
      Planet Fear can synthesize ‘reality’,
      Fear seems to happen to us – but it is something we do.
      John says the ‘personal’ hijacked the political.
      Of course every movement of being is hijacked by fear-defined thinking.
      Until we cease to validate and run fear defined thinking.
      Addressing deceits and self-contradictions in oneself is necessary to addressing them in society. They are the same – but the self must be re-purposed from within or one is simply triggered into reaction and undone or compromised and become part of the noise. But the issues of consciousness can ONLY reflect the issues of our world. And a unified purpose holds a different perspective. Fear can never wholly unify – because what is feared is necessary to its seemingly autonomous existence.

      A merely external outlook sees without seeing. Looking within is really an opening to seeing. I don’t equate consciousness with the personal – but the personality level operates a defensive mask. Assigning power to the mask forgets the one it was made to serve. The persona is complex masking – running the original program.
      But any genuine moment lived, felt, know, shared – is testimony that the mask is the the mask.
      If we called the mask ‘Caesar’ and the freedom of being, ‘God’ – then give only what is due to each and don’t co-fuse the two. Who need to dominate to possess, but the dispossessed? The ‘Caesar’ mind says there is no genuine moment lived and that love is a weakness and a deceit. Where power is the only truth in a life that wars and dies – and if you want it you have to sacrifice these ‘moral’ inhibitions to prove your worth! Now you are one of us”, and you know the penalty of weakness, without it having to be said.
      We make choices and can then seem trapped in those choices, but seeming trapped is itself a choice to accept such as true in place of opening a fresh perspective.

      Like

    • pavlovscat7 says

      Close but no cigar Jen……It’s Rupert Murdochs’ Newspolls here that motivates the apparatchiks of the 3rd estate t dance by the numbers and change party leaders. To even be a chance, pre-elections, they have to go cap-in-hand to The Ruperts’ Lair. Before Murdoch made Rudd P.M., on one of his visits to London the Ruddster wound up at a strip joint and the pics of kev with his pants down are probably still in Ruperts’ album. While I’m no wrap at all for Gillard she merely played the game according to The Crowns’ and Murdochs’ job description..Kevin Rudd was so far up his own self-possession, he couldn’t breath enough to build an argument to counter the platitudes and Christian nano-nonsense of a Speedo-wearing, bike riding, Catholic schoolgirls dream date.. Tony Abbott….a perfidious priest, a lawyer, a journalist, another in the long history of Rhodes Scholars that are groomed for the job of Australian Prime Ministers. The no X chromosome man and valedictorian of the Bob Santamaria School of Reds Under The Bed..Abbott himself was eventually newspolled onto the backbench and replaced by another Rhodes Scholar, journalist, lawyer, and Goldman Sachs wunderkind, Malcolm Turnbull… Now here is a bloke every Aussie Mother in law could love..he even donated a million of his own treasure that he has buried in the Cayman Islands, to his own political party to get himself reelected (just). After Murdoch made Abbott P.M. Abbott was found wanting by the media when it came even the most platitudinous demographic here that he was flat out struggling to string two sentences together…. Abbott was/is an arse.. Rudd is a child.. Turnbull is a creep..and Gillard is everybodys invisible auntie. Come down under and cop an eyefull of Auzzie politics controlled by a man than owns over 70% of the Australian media. Murdoch has even positioned his minion and ex Google Hecate, Michelle Guthrie as head honcho of the ABC… the National Broadcaster. The one with the slogan, “It’s your ABC”… It’s Murdochs’ ##@%ing ABC! And this, American/ Australian, rough little, bodgie son of a Jewish mum, gave the eulogy for his dear-old in one of Australias’ oldest Churches behind….wait for it….behind a humongous golden eagle: Murdochs’ News of the World (onomatopoeic).. is moving or has moved the great oracle of the epoch high up in your new Freedom Tower: Why do “we” have to do you yanks thinking for you?… Why does this device put a red squiggly line under Australias’ possessive case ? Do I have to set the record straight on the bloody a’postrophe now?

      Like

      • pavlovscat7 says

        And a bonza sheila she would make if she ain’t Norma. And further. The next Oz P.M. is also a Rhodes Scholar..and a good catholic boy whose mum in law was the erstwhile Governor General. Prince Malcolm…crowned at Scone by Phillip Adams..was a good protestant boy originally, but like Tony Blair he converted to Catholicism. Prince Malcolms’ Gal Lucy….who struggles to speak these days because her face is so buffed and polished..was once the lord mayor of Sydney. At that time, Dr. Hanan Mikhail Ashrawi, a female english professor and international human rights activist, was chosen unaminously by the board to be the recipient of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. The Prize was to be awarded by Then NSW Premier, Bob Carr. Subsequently though, all these good faith plans came to a convoluted halt and messages were sent back and forth between the partys and Ashrawi and others were informed that she would not be giving her lecture or receiving the peace prize and she was not even welcome at the university. Not to put too fine a point on this but..The reason this internationally respected activist was blackballed was pressure from individuals and groups in Malcolms’ electorate..(he was not P.M. at the time) ..made it clear that his P.M. prospects would be mightily dented if Lucy and Co., went ahead as planned. So…. Ashrawis’ crime? in a nutshell? Ashrawi was a Palestinian, and the authourity in Turnbulls electorate are those other, so-called semites…….you can fill in the blanks:
        P.S. Both our top catholic civilians are totally schtum on our top official catholic, Cardinal George Pell..who had to flee to the Vatican to escape the persecution of small children who just can’t seem to find forgiveness in their hearts. Pell is now the Vatican bagman in charge of keeping the holy gold away from these vindictive types……don’t forget to vote!

        Like

        • That’s quite the analysis in detail, there, Mr. Cat. How much more compelling it might have been with a couple of rhymes thrown in. Pity that. About the absence of rhymes, I mean. Nevertheless, I feel I now have an immensely sharper and broader comprehension of “all” the political goings on in Australia, all of which I’m sure is mirrored at some level in equivalent detail, here, in the True North and anywhere else that imperial capital has a foothold.

          Just wondering, though: is it because it’s getting late and you are percolating at a deficit, or it it rather that you’ve inadvertently wondered too deeply into an overgrown forest and now just can’t find your way back?

          Like

          • pavlovscat7 says

            No need to thank me Norma..As you go through life you’ll find people are willing to help you progress….just don’t be afraid to ask. As for the overgrown forest..I live, thrive, and go there for/rest. You best get a guide though if you ever want to venture there…some things in there bite.

            Like

      • I am Australian and Pavlovscat7 will soon have to call himself Pavlovscat8 because by nailing himself to his own cross with his comments he has sacrificed another of his nine lives.

        Liked by 1 person

        • pavlovscat7 says

          Oh! touchy… Still, it’s probably best if I do the jokes Jen…saves embarrassment all round. Don’t panic..Norma will be here soon on a Survivor Island collusion type proposition for you. Good on ya love xx

          Like

  6. feminishism [fɛmɪnɪʃɪzəm]
    n 1 misplaced demand for love from women who have only ever really been, at best, needed, desired or fawned over 2 easily-acquired nexus of opinions that ambitious, masculine and intellectual women can bolt onto their frail egos in order to advance their careers as journalists and academics while beating the drum for the opportunity for women to degrade themselves as thoroughly as men, and crawl further up the iniquitous mountain of filth called ‘career’

    From The Apocalypedia http://expressiveegg.org/portfolio/apocalypedia/

    Liked by 1 person

  7. To be clear: John Pilger is NOT attacking FEMINISM; he lauds actual FEMINISM in this same speech. He’s attacking a cynically-exploited variant (let’s call it “Pheminizm”) that the NeoLiberals (for example) have been using to provide Progressive Cover for Right Wing projects for decades. I think it’s important to listen to the entire speech before jumping to the rash conclusion that Pilger is lamenting Women in the Workplace et al. I came of age in the early ’70s and I was raised to believe that Women and Men are Equal in Every Way, in aggregate (and if they aren’t already… in trivial matters such as arm strength, for example… there’s no absolute reason they can’t be). I know a Sexist when I see/hear/read one and Pilger is no such thing.

    Like

    • pavlovscat7 says

      We might have to get binra in on this battle’o’ the sexes.? We might find that Johnny is Jewish and genetic predisposition is causing him to blame his mother?…………………MODERATOR!!!

      Like

    • pavlovscat7 says

      In his ‘forgot to mentions’ ,Pilger forgot to mention that Germaine Greer forgot to mention, how Josh Frydenberg subliminally ordered Prime minister Julia Gillard to stand in the Australian parliament and swear a shibboleth to Israel. All the initial and fair prosecutions of faux-feminism by John Pilger, reached a denouement in his approval of gay marriage:.. Am I now to be fobbed off with the debate-veto phobic card…and was my indictment on that charge caused by the unsubstantiated charge itself..or did I really just witness, the the replacement of the freedoms that Pilger had just espoused… to the establishment of a faux-gayism..based on Pilgers’ own prosecutions?

      Like

              • What is exceptional is the cluster of attributes presented over time; novelty is not the requirement, esp. of any one attribute. Anyway, I assumed you had JP in your pillory over semi-philo-semitism (the polarity you’d most likely abhor). If you have a case to make against JP, can’t you specify (gnomic-mode or not)?

                Liked by 1 person

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  I musn’t be au fait with American jurisprudence?… I hadn’t realised that you can define the modus and terms of reference that I must prosecute and defend under. I think yo’ll don’t understand just what a “verbal” is in the Oz lexicon.

                  Like

      • Well, Mr. Cat, not everyone of renown holds to exactly all of the opinions you hold to or even expounds each and everyone one of the not entirely mutually and logically relevant items in their extensive catalog of opinions when they stand up to speak to this or that specific issue, as in this instance, the hijacking of feminism.

        Or can any discussion of this particular co-optation approach completeness without addressing head-on the crime of 9/11 together with the obscenity of Zionism?

        You don’t like Pilger. We get it. He isn’t as perfect in all of the ways you would want him and all of the rest of us to be. And doesn’t he get a whole lot more attention than you do, eh, Mr. Cassandra? Don’t you just hate that?

        But here, for your consolation, a bit of advice for you from your very self:

        “If you keep looking at, and qualifying the players….You lose sight of the game and all of its contingencies:”

        Just to be clear and so that you don’t misinterpret yourself: try to focus on the discussion and a bit less on yourself and the possible quirks and idiosyncrasies of the personalities participating in the conversation. Otherwise the focus of the discussion will tend to get lost for you and your poetically overwrought effusions will by and large just end up being ignored. And you wouldn’t want that, now would you?

        Like

          • pavlovscat7 says

            The dogs are barking…there must be someone around…I got the hammer working pretty baby but the nails ain’t going down.

            Like

        • pavlovscat7 says

          Well that was false witness wasn’t it Pilon?… I was focusing on Pilger ? Ten points for convincing yourself though. And no points for me for flushing something from cover? Stop reading my stuff Pilon..you’ll only go mad.

          Like

          • Clever Cat!

            “Ia that what makes him exceptional?”

            Who might the “him” of the “la” be, I wonder?

            But never mind. I think I can guess.

            “I was focusing on Pilger?”

            No, no. Not at all. Whoever accused you of doing that? I only said about Pilger, if you are leveling the accusation at me, where Pilger entered into it, in what I wrote, that it’s obvious that you don’t like him. Maybe I’m right. Maybe I’m wrong. But that’s what I wrote in so many words.

            I also implied somewhat directly that your antipathy might have something to do with him not having much to say one way or the other about 9/11. I didn’t read that anywhere in anything that you might have written. I’m just pulling that out of the ether. That isn’t illegal, is it?

            And then there is Israel. Not at all a recurring theme with you, Mr. Hammer and Nails. It’s just that I myself find that it doesn’t get enough air time. Don’t you?

            But anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, what is your take on Mr. John Exceptional’s notion that “feminism uninformed by an awareness of class is meaningless?”

            That’s what I’m really mad to know, Mr. Cat.

            Otherwise you worry yourself needlessly over the possible effects that your comments might have on my sanity. But I do thank you for your worriment.

            Like

              • I’m trying. But I’m grossly overweight and out of breath. And I’m really not used to high heels. A dress in winter is also not something I’d advise, at least not without a good pair of leggings. Now to heave myself out of this chair and over to the elliptical. How disgraceful that I ever let myself go to this extent . . .

                Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Even if you’re thinking you have successfully used projection, to what you believe is your audience.. You would still have to be getting of on mocking emotionally tenuous adolescents with eating disorders wouldn’t you? I can see why your chicken arse would avoid SO WHAT, on John Cales Walking On Locusts Album:
                  You really are a piece of work:

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Have we only just arrived at the point where the conversation has descended into absurdity? I thought we had reached a while ago, already.

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Pretending to take your bat and go home now are you Pilon? The problem is you have left a trail of depositions, including videos, that others besides myself can assess. Your squirming, like a rat in a corner that has been found by the trail he has left is almost tangible. Pilon plays the “survivor island” strategy and tactic with you Jen…… Pilon plays ”I’m your intellectual confirmation” with you St Aug… BUT NOW.. Here is his deposition trail…..The evidentiary burden that Pilon thinks he has fulfilled with his high conciliation…has these visible attachments of a rat that has been caught in his own trap. Sometimes cognitive dissonance can also be in play while somebody has been pissing in your pocket:

                  Like

                  • I am a rat. Binra is a freak. Mohandeer is an embarassment for being too forthright and earnest in his conversatio with Binra. “We” play at “survivor island.” I never tire of mocking people. Always, sarcasm is my default mode of engaging anyone who appears to diverge from my point of view. Why, even in the videos I have posted, my smug conceit is in play. For apparently, I’m “ mocking emotionally tenuous adolescents with eating disorders.” And yet if Mr. the Cat would bother to follow, say, the second video to its source, what he would find, rather than a target being mocked, is actually a very talented individual making a point about music, in particular, ‘pop music,’ and only one such as you, Mr. Cat, would latch onto the irrelevant detail of man who may be a little corpulent but perfectly at ease with himself, and no fool for appearing as he does.

                    I always find it interesting that when the tables are turned, it is the bully that cries foul and the loudest. And you are quite correct: both you and I have left ample commentary by which to be judged.

                    I’m only surprised that your insecurities broke through as easily as they have. I had imagined you’d be a harder ‘nut’ to crack.

                    Why does it bother you so much that you, no less than anyone at all, including me, can made into a caricature, an object of disdain and mockery?

                    Why is it alright for you to dish it out but not to receive it?

                    Let me answer that last question for you: you feel small and inferior in world where you recognize that some people are immensely more adept in ways that perhaps you aren’t. Take John Pilger, for example. Or Noam Chomsky, eh.

                    Well, Mr. Cat, get over it. You have your qualities. I have mine. You have your faults. So do I. No, you are not perfect, Mr. Cat. No one is. Not even you. That doesn’t mean you need to loath yourself or anyone else. The giants you seem to see about are more like you than you imagine, and you are less different than anyone than you might fancy.

                    So why not try moderating your insults a bit? Or is it that you are accustomed to not having your bluster countered?

                    Play nice. I’ll play nice. Otherwise, fuck you, eh.

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Come on binra.. come on Mohandeer…back me up..you heard what pavlovscat called you and his intent…remember how I told you?
                  sincerly: Pilonxx

                  Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  I made no claims at all about planes, real, imagined, or artfully produced. you did…but seeing as you want others to not investigate.. buy asking me to produce evidence…I’ll try and use your swerve to make them investigate?….Don’t go looking on the internet..you tube or anywhere else for evidence of computer generated imagery of alloy air frames entering the sides of steel and concrete buildings..or planes that enter one side of said buildings and come out the other side people !!!! Don’t do it! THOSE VIDEOS AND THEIR EXPLANATIONS DO NOT EXIST!!.. They didn’t exist in 2001 so they cant exist now..post hoc ergo propter hoc in Pilon World……And even if they did..the above physics is entirely
                  plausible……. You are busted Pilon.. Repent!

                  Like

                  • Mr. Cat! In what possible sense could I be obstructing anyone in an investigation of what did or did not hit the Towers by asking you to provide ME with YOUR evidence for believing whatever it is you believe about what brought the Towers down?

                    You are making a claim, as obliquely stated as it is, that . . . what?

                    Something hit the Towers?

                    Nothing hit the Towers?

                    Something and nothing hit the Towers at the same time?

                    Your obsession with the Towers hit Towers? Or was it your towering obsession with the Towers that hit the Towers?

                    It’s difficult to tell, eh, with your so straightforward elocutionary gnomic style.

                    And you know this, whatever it is that you know, presumably, because you, not me, are the one saying whatever it is you are saying.

                    Also on presumption, you “know” whatever it is you know on the basis of some “information” that can be itemized. So please be so kind as to itemize it or stop trolling; and if you do have actual “information” at the ready, post that evidence that YOU have in an appropriate thread, you know, where the topic is, say, the claim that planes impacting the Towers were the events that ultimately initiated the collapse of the Towers, or something along that line.

                    As for your swerve, that you mistake to be mine, do the words ‘raving lunacy’ have any meaning for you?

                    Because at the moment, that is how the content of your comment is coming off for me if for no one else.

                    Now take a deep breath and do what is incumbent upon YOU, and NOT ME, to convince ME or WHOMEVER you want of whatever you believe:

                    Provide:

                    a) a clear and concise statement about what your claim is

                    &

                    b) directions, indications or links to where your hard evidence can be found together with a reasonably brief summary of that in which the evidence consists.

                    I hope I’m not being too snide for you in what it is I’m requesting.

                    This is your last chance to engage me on the issue. See, I’m not ignoring you, what you claim or your evidence. I just don’t know what your claim and evidence are, apparently, and isn’t that what you want, that I and everyone would come to “know” what you “know?”

                    Until we meet again on the other thread.

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Yes indeed..Good questions that you answered in the deposition you left before asked them. You are tumbled mate!..Hoisted by your own petard and every new deposition you leave you pull the string tighter. One of your better depositions though, where it was your intent to dismiss computer generated imagery and dustification; by snide derogation…actually sent people down the path where your intent was to detour them. Thank you for that. The penny will drop for some quicker than others. That little 9/11 thing…. That truth that this huge unified field of words is trying to hide.

                  Like

                  • Do you think you can find your way back to the appropriate thread for that discussion?

                    I’d gladly engage you there on this issue,but for one condition: that you produce sources to confirm the existence of any technology in 2001 that would have been capable of producing the “computer generated imagery” that you claim were “the planes flying into the Towers.” Otherwise, forget it. Address yourself on this issue to someone else.

                    Or am I being unreasonably “snide” and “derogatory” in my request and yet again?

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Re entered comment: I made no specific, or specious claims about planes, real, imagined, or artfully created..you did pilon. But seeing as you want others to not investigate..by asking me to provide evidence..I will try and use your swerve tactic to incite those others, to investigate. Do not go searching on the internet, on youtube or elsewhere people.. for evidence of computer generated imagery of alloy airframes entering the side of steel and concrete buildings, like a hot knife through butter..and DO NOT look at imagery of said planes entering said buildings and partially exiting (intact) on the opposite side of those buildings.. Further more, Those images, texts and narratives DO NOT EXIST. In pilon, post hoc ergo propter hoc logic they couldn’t have been created in 2001 so how could they exist today? …SO DON’T BOTHER INVESTIGATING! And further more, if you do find any, “not able to be created” creations…they are fake but the fakery they suggest is totally and physically plausible.

                  Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Norman Pilon has an extant deposition that asks, “surely no one is saying that planes did not hit the buildings?” Here are some places anyone can go to find some people that DO say, “no planes hit the buildings, the pentagon, or crash landed in Shanksville”…………[.Major general (retired) Stubblebine ]…[.No Planes on 9/11 by Gari Jones, part 1 and part 2]….[Pilots for 911 truth]…. [Expert pilot John Lear,No planes hit the towers on 911]….. [911, No Planes Theory Undeniable Proof!! 2013]….. You can go there too Pilon if it isn’t disrupting you quest to form new allegiances elsewhere..Survivor Island…you are a walk up start.

                  Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  PILON! PILON!…. WHERE ARE YOU MATE? YOUR AUDIENCE AWAITS Their EDIFICATION…..Seriously though Pilon..You’re controlled opposition mate..what is it about the no planes reality that makes controlled opposition, architects and engineers et al.. go to water?

                  Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Pilon…..you haven’t used quote mining yet..give that a go. Someone is calling from the den, “When does Survivor come on?”

                  Like

                  • “Calm down, Mr. Cat. You will give yourself an aneurysm if you haven’t already.

                    “If I am, as you claim, such an upstart – and it’s true, I have behaved a tad unkindly toward you, even if you are not entirely innocent of all incitement – why do you bother yourself so, with me? It looks like agony, and it’s all self-inflicted, too.

                    Furthermore, how much influence do you think that I, a Pilon of no account, have in the world? Is my opinion on the issue of whether planes did or did not fly into the Towers so impactful on public opinion that you have to make it a mission of yours to convince me and others that I, a Pilon of no account, am wrong on this issue? My first initial may be “N.” but the last is not “C.”

                    Look, we are not as far apart on the matter of 9/11 as you imagine.

                    If, as I think that you do, you believe no planes hit the towers, then planes hitting the Towers did not bring down the towers.

                    If, as I tentatively believe for the time being pending evidence to the contrary, planes did hit the Towers, then those planes nevertheless did not bring down the towers.

                    Now I don’t know what you believe was the source of the energy that brought down the Towers was, but: if it was DEW technology as posited by Dr. Judy Wood, it certainly wasn’t gravity alone – and this, I think, is roughly a proposition with which you agree (but if you don’t, don’t blow another gasket, just correct my inaccuracy, eh); and if it wasn’t DEW technology but something more analogous to conventional explosives, then it yet and certainly wasn’t gravity alone – and this is closer to what, for the time being and pending contravening evidence that you yourself might yet present, I hold to.

                    Now pay attention: notice that the ‘consequents’ of the ‘conditional propositions’ I’ve put forth are pretty much all the same. Go back and read them again if you have to, in case you’ve already forgotten what they were, and try to appreciate the point that I’ve just made.

                    So what gives, Mr. Cat?

                    Why so sourpuss?

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Pilon has gone off this track survivors…too many of our character references here I suppose. He’s gone over to another department to divert you from the pilots for 911 truth and the other no-plane evidence. Where is Saint Aug by the way?…I can’t play good cop/bad cop if all I’ve got is bad cop…HELLO VILLAIN! ….. sorry, fruedian slip…Hello Pilon.

                  Like

                  • Mr. Cat, your audience of none doesn’t care where you take your show or rather would, if it existed, probably applaud that you finally and mercifully took it elsewhere. Nor does mine, of none also, care one bit as much. It’s obvious you are up to little else but trolling, braying like a donkey, despite being a Cat, merely to draw a bit of attention to yourself. But that just goes to show what a clever Cat you are, doesn’t it? Because that’s what clever Cat’s do, eh. If only they could write so that we could understand them . . .

                    Now to return to Judy Wood droning on about the all so mysterious disappearance of the Towers. I’m sure I’ll learn something. At least I hope so . . .

                    For those who might be interested, a link to the interview to which I’m subjecting myself:

                    Titled: “What Happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001”

                    . . . done some four years ago.

                    Thus far, it doesn’t recommend itself too highly, but I’m only still some 36 minutes into it . . . only another 84 to go.

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  It’s ok Pilon..I got one of Dr Woods, hastily cobbled togther, first editions of. “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO”…I forget how many years ago..must be a few. I have loaned it out to quite a few otherwise intelligent friends now and they too have gob-smackingly comprehended it. And they too have also joined the ranks of the damned…mea maxima culpa. Don’t panic though Pilon..keep trying, you’ll catch up eventually. Judy Wood god bless her, has a less than dominant style in her presentations….so as you have already started to do..she would seem to be easy meat for your facetious insults….Don’t slip back into that confession is your defence style straight away though….do a bit of quote mining first. And of course I don’t need to remind you to keep laying down your ignorance of the law to me….master admonishing the student style.

                  Like

                  • Well, Mr. Master, that’s 2 hours of my life I’ll never get back. Sorry, I just can’t rise to the level of your poetic genius, to gob-smackingly comprehended it. Do forgive me yet another confession, eh.

                    Like

                  • Since I did express the hope that I might actually learn something from listening to that presentation from Judy Wood, I thought I’d share this with you, Mr. Master:

                    Did you know that the “micro-spherules” that have attracted so much attention and analytical effort from the likes of Steven Jones, whom you doubtlessly disdain, Mr. Master Meister, are of the same kind found in “crop circles?” Oh, yes. Ain’t that the truth!

                    Yup, Wood just drops that there, just like that, @ 1h57m08s, to then move on to what she calls a summation of her “evidence,” without further elaboration of any kind on the possible significance of those “micro-spherules” and “crop circles” beyond that “heat is therefore not necessary to their formation.”

                    So just like that, as an aside, an incidental mention, a barely noticeable footnote in the midst of all of the other nonsense she mumbles on about, almost spoken beneath her breath, Jones and Harrit et al. are “disproven” and “dismissed” for all of their laboriously established conclusions about the “iron rich micro-spherules.”

                    It’s obviously not that Wood is trying to create a subtle association between what is plain ludicrous “woo” and serious 9/11 research. No, not at all. Either that, or to be most charitable, Judy Wood is really Judy “Woo.” Wood.

                    In any case, between deliberate disinformation and just plain old, run of the mill stupidity, the effect would be the same on reasonably scientifically literate but uninformed publics. On the other hand, only people with the dimmest appreciation for what counts as ‘scientific’ evidence could hold Wood’s efforts in high regard.

                    That I now know for a certainty.

                    Sincerely,
                    Grasshopper

                    P.S. You can, of course, accuse me of quote mining, eh. But unfortunately, I’m relating exactly what you will find in Wood’s ‘depostion,’ to say it in terms that you can understand, eh, Mr. Master Meister of all things Poetic.

                    Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  Well what did not work was how you thought your facetious dismissal would work as projection..Your usual dismissal of truths you can not or will not understand is evident to others you know?.. Its a psychopaths’ thing I know and we must tread carefully with the afflicted…So I will thank you for taking anyone who went, to Judy Wood and who got more out of it than you planned, and seeing as how you KO’d yourself on that one… I thought the survivors might have called it a draw…but now.. seeing as how perpetual petulance is both your reward and your refuge; I’ll let the other survivors mark our cards…. Oh and for your request for something poetic ?? What in the ruins of the classic architectureal order would have been remnants of The Doric, The Ionic, or The Corinthian…At the ruins of the WTC we can see an additional, New order…. The Menorahan:

                  Like

  8. If you take the Cultural Marxist view that serious social and cultural issues (with genuine intent for change) have been appropriated by capital, stripped of purpose, and used as instruments of control, pacification, but particularly divisiveness – may I suggest that the very same issues (feminism, multiculturism, same sex marriage, etc) may be about to get reconfigured, re-fused, and re-ignited as they get rolled back and replaced by ‘traditional Conservative values.’ That is if President Breitbart has anything to do with it.
    Obviously, I can’t actually predict that that is the plan – but the Trump/Bannon/Kushner emerging Troika have a whole website dedicated to what they’d like to do – and I for one don’t get a warm feeling reading it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • What nonsense are you talking about? The Cultural Mrxism is the Orwellian nightmare perpetuated by, for example, the Guardian, that has been tearing western society to pieces for 20 years. Ya know, its actually far more complex than that, but something tells me based on your comment and complete lack of awareness of reality that I should not waste my time. I am actually insulted by how wrong your comment is and how confused you are at mixing up serious issues with Leftwing nonsense – who do you think has created this? Are you a Guardian troll? Il give you a short explanation: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And another: Barack Obama. No go back to the Guardian where you belong and protest Assad, or something.

      Like

      • Gee, thanks – I’ve been called a Putinbot and Kremlin troll before – but never a Guardian troll.
        It is not on the Guardian’s say so or authority that I’m taking the Bannon agenda seriously (does anyone want to argue that Bannon is an innocent that has no agenda?) Nor do you have to read the Guardian (which I don’t) to conject what that agenda may entail – he’s not exactly shy in putting it out there.
        Trump’s shoehorning him a position on the NSC should raise alarm bells for any peace loving person – despite, and not because of, what the M$M say (do I have to point out that particularly in America, the CIA control the M$M’s agenda – and it ain’t pro-Trump. Anyone want to consider that the M$M may be spewing ‘White’ or ‘Grey’ propaganda – i.e. using slightly less twisted vestige of ‘Truth’ against him – as opposed to ‘Black’ propaganda – which is totally made up?)
        Bannon’s unique positioning IMHO, effectively lengthens the leash on the CIA, by extending a chain of command where there was little or no accountability anyway (and precious little oversight.) Whilst maybe not “unrestrained” – but,let me see now – is the CIA a force for world peace or capitalism’s secret army? Whatever they do (under ‘direct’ control or on their own agenda) is not going to be for the greater good.
        BTW, I do “protest Assad” but not in the way you accuse. FWIW, it looks as though TPTB are foisting a federalization plan on Syria under the guise of the Astana/Geneva peace process (read Andrew Korybko’s analysis of the Draft Constitution) – and Russia is driving it – but this forum is not the place to elaborate on that – suffice to say, it’s not peace that TPTB are planning.
        Which leads me back to the conjecture that the smokescreen for the proles will come under the banner of a ‘return to conservative values’ (which, BTW Putin has been advocating for many years – indicative was his ’13 speech at Valdai about the “legitimization of[Euro-American] parties that promote the propaganda of paedophilia” which is “the path to degradation.” Maybe there is no link between Bannon and Dugin, and it’s all M$M hype [or black propaganda] – but it has got me intrigued enough to look into and at least consider that they are singing off the same song sheet (and potentially in greater alignment over Syria?) Shoot me down with reasoned argument – but I’m afraid no one can tell me that it is not a legitimate line of enquiry.)
        PS. It could be #FakeNews or more black propaganda, but there is another draft EO in circulation. It appears that at least three other people (the journos) have followed my line of reasoning.
        https://www.wsj.com/articles/draft-of-executive-order-proposes-expanding-legal-protections-on-religious-grounds-1486071114

        Liked by 1 person

          • NOOOOOOOOO. Bannon is an economical nationalist. He is trying to undo the destruction of US society by radicals like Obama. The neo liberal msm are attempting to destroy him and trump (who is a social liberal, by the way). Obamas created this Orwellian nightmare where the people who believe they are Leftwing are closer to fascists than anything else. Look, anyone the msm is attacking is probably trying to do a good thing for the people unlike the neoliberal elites who are trying to turn planet earth into an economic cesspool of cheap labour and slavery. The eu is thebperfect example of this. Thats why Brexit MUST happen.

            Like

            • Obama was part of a continuity of agenda that you can trace back as far as you like, but really came to the fore under Reagan/ Bush the greater evil. The quickening obviously happened under Bush the lesser evil, with the GWOT, suspension of the constitution, curtailing of individual freedoms, etc. Instead of opposing this essentially proto-Fascist agenda, the liberal class, following their elite, have instead developed into faux-radical, delusive-progressive cultural narcissists instead – purblind to the torture, murder, bombing, and droning. Thus far, maybe we can agree?
              But Obama did not start this ‘Orwellian nightmare,’ he merely facilitated the continuum of an agenda set by others – some call the Deep State (the permanent infrastructure of the US MIC, staffed by careerists, who do not necessarily change from administration to administration.) But even the Deep State serves a purpose and doesn’t necessarily call the tune – ultimately the ‘Gods of Money’ (the uber-rich capitalist elite) do.
              Where we are diametrically opposed is in that you seem to think that Trump/Bannon/whoever can write their own ticket or call another tune. I don’t. Trump serves money, not the people (repealing Dodd/Frank instead of installing a 21st century Glass Steagal – and look at the richest ever group of billionaire economic advisers he has assembled.)
              I’m not wholly sure who (multiple actors, multiple agendas?) but someone is inciting the snowflakes to riot using something readily identifiable as Bannons agenda. Maybe Bannon himself is not behind it and the M$M is trying to destroy him before he can “do a good thing for the people?” However, I am deeply distrustful of that interpretation.
              Bannons “Judeo-Christian” capitalism or “economic nationalism” (or whatever meaningless label you want to choose) is capitalism writ large and is no friend of the people.
              If people want to protest, protest that. Or protest the deaths of 57 Yemenis (including 8 women and 8 children) – in what must have been a legacy or continuity of agenda SEAL raid occurring on Trump’s watch – perpetuating the Big Lie that is the GWOT.
              If Trump or Bannon want to do some good for the majority of the people everywhere – stop the GWOT.
              Until they do, I have my thesis, you have the antithesis – I’m not sure even Hegel could find enough common ground to establish a synthesis.
              PS. You did give me a good belly laugh saying that Trump is a social liberal – good one!

              Liked by 1 person

    • “If you take the Cultural Marxist view that serious social and cultural issues (with genuine intent for change) have been appropriated by capital, stripped of purpose, and used as instruments of control, pacification, but particularly divisiveness – may I suggest that the very same issues (feminism, multiculturism, same sex marriage, etc) may be about to get reconfigured, re-fused, and re-ignited as they get rolled back and replaced by ‘traditional Conservative values.’”

      I think that’s a valid point, BigB, but the reason that Progressive Cover worked, so well for so long, was that the smiley face presented was the opposite of the goals TPTB had in mind; it doesn’t work as well when Right Wing projects have a Right Wing face, because a Left Wing has a clearer target to oppose. I mean, bringing back the Bushes… but with a Black Face!… that was a stroke of genius. A Lefty couldn’t march against those (racist) policies without being branded a racist! Won’t work nearly as well in Trumpland, which may be why TPTB still appear to be trying to depose him.

      Like

  9. Willem says

    In terms of survival, women were always the ‘strong’ sex. Not in the US anymore, so it seems. Here is what happened when ‘feminism’ started to play a major role in the US in 1980 onwards. See the figure, life expectancy for women (the rich excluded) declined when 2010 was compared with 1980. In 2010 the average life-span for women is now equal/slightly lower as compared with men.

    So now both men and women are the weaker sex.

    There may be numerous explanations for this graph: one is that since the 1980s women and men have to work both to make ends meet (the rich excluded). Which leads, of course, to all sorts of problems. Ever noticed the stress of (young) parents who have to leave work early (but can’t), because their children are waiting for their love at kindergarten? Just one example that is striking to me. Ambition, as a word that defines the career of a man or a woman in corporate society. Glass ceilings that have to be broken, while children cry at night because they want their parent’s love that they lack in kindergarten during the day because mummy and daddy have to work. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand the risk that such a family is prone to (stress, anger, divorce, etc).

    And why? – because ‘sisters are doing it for themselves’?

    Always seemed like a Big Lie to me.

    More on this at NakedCapitalism (where I copied the figure from)

    And thanks for the John Pilger video.

    Like

    • I think MAO (Morbid American Obesity) is weighing heavily on those 1980/ 2010 statistics. If you fly over the country now you can see a dip in the topology near the middle where the super-heavyweights are concentrated. Mostly down to one product, too: High Fructose Corn Syrup.

      Like

    • Melissa says

      yes indeed, the reason women entered the workforce in the USA is definatly because of that dastardly feminism, rather than say a need to sell their labour to maintain standards of living in declining imperialist states

      Liked by 1 person

      • The upshot, I think, of Willem’s comment is: feminism kills . . . in the long run. The evidence is no longer anecdotal. It has been plotted. And graphed. Scientifically.

        In a roundabout way (and oddly enough), that’s also, if only at least in part, Pilger’s message: feminism kills. Or rather, under certain circumstances and on the wrong kinds of assumptions, it can.

        Willem apparently very much liked Pilger’s critique of “feminism”. All things not being equal, of course. Certainly not the perspectives of very different people.

        Like

        • JP isn’t taking Feminism to task, Norman; he’s exposing NWO FAUX-Feminism. Two very different things.

          Listen, the idea that Men should “earn the bacon” and Women “should be housewives” is a retrograde artifact of the expansionist phase of Empire, when America was advertizing the so-called “New Frontier”. It’s utter bullshit; if anything, THAT preset is what kills: Men die early of heart-attacks and become alienated from Wife/Children as a chasm of resentment develops between them (traditionally resulting in Wife and Child abuse). And, as I pointed out, any graph that shows Women now dying earlier, on average, than they once did, that doesn’t mention McDonald’s, is not to be trusted.

          I’m a composer by trade and Wife is a classical musician. She was on tour during big chunks of Daughter’s Babyhood and so I did the feedings (when Wife wasn’t available) and changed 90% of the diapers and all that. When people sometimes chimed in “Oh, it’s great how you’re helping Mom!” I wanted to slap them (laugh) and their Sexist presumptions. I WAS Mom. We never hired a babysitter or resorted to Daycare: Daughter was with ME the whole time. She’s now 11 and things are great (not to mention the fact that she’s top of her class).

          The Old Arrangements no longer need to be clung to. Caveat: Sex is not Sexist… Wife and I have a roaring great Sex Life (because I cleverly, to his day, do 90% of the housework… the amount of Good Will that generates can NOT be underestimated… the benefits profound! I’m 17 years older than Wife and I appreciate every minute of it).

          Daughter is part of a vanguard of Feminist Children who will ignore the old Gender Roles. She could name all nine (yeah: NINE) planets, on “sight”, before she was in kindergarten. No boy is her boss. She is not into pink.

          Anecdote: when she was five-ish she loved Spiderman and had a really cool Spiderman Suit (with built in muscles) that she wore to the Halloween parties. Some kids mocked her; “Spiderman is a boy!” The next Halloween she wore it again but the mockery discouraged her (sadly). This last Halloween we spent HOURS looking for a costume that suited her… something that was “allowed” for girls but wouldn’t make her VOMIT. Couldn’t find one!

          Two or three days before Halloween she had an AHA moment and started, like the A-Team in a tough spot, making her own costume, from scratch: a dragon (with wings). She made it from shoe boxes and other bits of scrap cardboard using her beloved Hot Glue Gun (very important tool). I had to buy the big sheets of cardboard for the wings and had to cut the forms out when she’d drawn them… otherwise she designed, assembled and painted the whole thing herself, under her own initiative. Went to the big Halloween party at the arboretum (hundreds of kids)… entered the costume contest… won First Prize. Paraded around the place having her picture taken by lots of awestruck parents.

          The perfect metaphor for (genuine) Feminism.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I’m in perfect agreement with the spirit of everything you say and to what you attest. I’m married with children, too, and did as much diaper changing and ‘mothering’ as Chantal did, and though our twins are about done with university at this point, they still live at home and we are still very much a close-knit family and, furthermore, no one could accuse the boys of being by any stretch sexist or chauvinist. All of us, to a man — the twins were once boys — are feminists in the spirit of being egalitarian and thoroughly unimpressed by anything to do with gender or ever sexual orientation, which doesn’t mean, of course, that the ambient culture hasn’t had some ‘effects’ on our comportment in gender specific albeit very much innocuous ways . . .

            So my comment was a tad playful — I thought.

            Feminism that isn’t inverted chauvinism and, as John insists, class-blind, is liberation from patriarchy, from social subordination and implicit denigration, and it certainly can’t be hazardous for anyone’s health, both psychologically and physically.

            And indeed, Willem is confusing ‘coincidence’ or ‘correlation’ with causation: a falling life expectancy has more to do with living conditions and life style than with the development of more egalitarian attitudes between the genders.

            So my comment is more a reflection of what I take to be Willem’s attitude than a revelation of my own — unless you catch the irony, that is. Unfortunately, it would appear that my attempt at being subtly ironical was a failure. 😦

            Liked by 1 person

            • “Unfortunately, it would appear that my attempt at being subtly ironical was a failure. 😦”

              Not a failure, N… a sleeper! It would have crept up on me…

              Like

        • Which ‘ism’ isn’t?
          As soon as it has a label it enters the world of misuse – relative to whatever its original intended meaning.
          The destructive effect of judgement – as opposed to discernment – goes all the way down to the foundations.
          I am not saying blame judgement. But as we define our self does project out to others and our judgement of others does reinforce the conviction.

          The underlying issue is that every movement to liberation or freedom is subverted, absorbed and used to maintain the ‘System’. My point is that the ‘System’ is not in its agencies – but a pervasive internal ‘system’ that appeals to a lack of power and protection AS power and protection. As rules that start out with good ‘intentions’ as if to serve us – that become rules to which humanity is sacrificed.

          If anything is set up as a ‘good’ then the seeds are sown and the stage is set for it to be brought down as a ‘bad’.
          In every such ‘good’ is a personal investment. In every such ‘bad’ a baby in the bathwater.
          When people called Jesus ‘good’ he was quick to prevent this in himself – because he was intimate with the Life – that is not ‘possessed’ so much as shared in. Once you believe you have possession – you are victim to loss and offence. So in modern terms once you let the mind hijack the true movement – you will defend and justify it against anything that threatens that mind. The movement to a wholeness of being hasn’t gone away – it’s simply ignored while the war commandeers all resources to its imperative.

          The drive to differentiate oneself better than others or to assign others worse oneself, is born of a sense of lack.
          I feel the ‘a tempt’ to be more than we are is what created the belief in less – and the sense of being denied and deprived, betrayed and abandoned. Our human condition-ing.

          This ‘dynamic’ of psychic-emotional conflict has generated an insanely complex fragmentation of action and reaction in identity such as to be increasingly dysfunctional or indeed obviously insane. The ‘surface’ mind cant keep a lid on it and yet the lid is the force that denial uses to push back.

          All politics as is framed and contained is identity politics. But if politics is the way we effect the governance of our society – then it is easily displaced and usurped by a ‘government’ – be that a tyranny of despotic force or of cunning lawyers capturing the state.

          So anything attempting to change it will give the forms of change to a more and more powerfully defended state.
          That does not mean it wont change or has to change for the worse – but that there is a polarisation of fear that prevents any real change, and so such a world becomes more and more at odds with Reality.

          Like

  10. michaelk says

    I just don’t understand why he feels he has to use language which seems designed to antagonize and insult these women. I just don’t think it’s necessary. It’s almost like he doesn’t want to communicate with women and establish a dialogue, but just slap them down for being stupid; perhaps not the best tactic for influencing someone?

    Like

    • “It’s almost like he doesn’t want to communicate with women…”

      You mean, because all Women represent a block of uninformed Dupes and are so child-like that they have to be spoken to in a special, soothing voice…? Check your Pheminizm, man; your presets are showing.

      Like

  11. michaelk says

    I don’t like his tone here, at all. He’s unecessarily aggressive in my opinion and by employing such inflamtory language I think he’s opened himself up to criticism, which is unhelpful. I don’t know what audiance he’s addressing, or lecturing, but I imagine an awful lot of women, hearing about this would find it incredibly insulting and patronising.

    Like

    • “I don’t like his tone here, at all.”

      He’s calling out The Manipulators at The Top and he’s telling the Truth about the mechanism of the manipulation.

      Pilger is brave and (largely) deeply-informed and his commentary is necessary. People who whine “I don’t like his tone here, at all” are always the low-level shock-troops The Manipulators count on to keep Truth Tellers silent. It’s always about “offense” and “outrage” and “his tone” and never about open debate; the point is always to demonize anyone who violates Consensus. The point is to kill Dissidence in its cradle to leave Hegemony unfussed to do what it will. If Pilger delivered this speech in the wishy-washy “maybe I’m right, maybe they’re right” “tone” that the average PC-Baby prefers to hear, there’d be no point in giving the speech at all. The speech is about a serious problem Pilger is necessarily pointing out (in essence: the use of Progressive Cover to secure Right Wing objectives).

      Now, I disagree with JP on the “Climate Change” (redundant phrase) issue; I think getting us to worry about C02 (you know, the stuff that plant life thrives on) to the exclusion of terror about the thousands of types and tons of lethal toxins we’re pumping into the ecosystem, every hour, is “The Devil’s” neatest trick in years… but I wouldn’t demonize/ denounce or otherwise shout this speech down over that detail merely because it “offends” me. Either that bit is True, in the end, or it isn’t. But we won’t ferret the Truth out by being prissy PC scolds and quislings.

      Liked by 3 people

      • pavlovscat7 says

        Fair enough assessment on Pilgers episodic revelations of the bleeding obvious Aug.. and his general worth… Pilgers position on 9/11 though remains an “Out damned spot!”. You’re right on the dialectics of “Climate Change” but wrong on the physics…a smokescreen of dialect to deflect from the REALITIES of “The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming”….remember those terms?.. and their all to real physics that had to be removed from the minds of the public by the Pollyanna term “Climate Change”? Might be timely for one to research ambiance physics and just where the synoptics that intermingle deeper than ever, are getting the cold, that ambiance requires for nominal averages. And while you’re up there, extrapolate the sudden and violent, nutational readjustments that will result from this massive and epochal, redistribution of mass, on the orbital physics of this big wobbling ball. A few drowning archipelagos will be the least of our worries. (as they are now, viewed from air conditioning). ……Did the earth move for you dear? .. I’ll ask the CIA..they’re moving to Denver for the water views:

        Like

        • “You’re right on the dialectics of “Climate Change” but wrong on the physics…”

          I didn’t comment on the Physics of it, Pavy! I have a secondhand info/belief on the topic that isn’t worth sharing in public, as it’s all rather unremarkable. After reading the leaked Climategate Emails I realized it was merely a matter of finding a scientific authority I found the most convincing, bearing in mind that I have no serious schooling on the subject. But triangulating plausible explanations against the “cui bono” question (answer: Al Gore, Western Energy Giants)… and tree-ring data from some German university or other… I came to a conclusion that strikes me as persuasive.

          Like

          • pavlovscat7 says

            Aye…And why? Generally its akin to Big Business donating to all political parties syndrome..and big energy/business pays the various pipers of ‘climate change’..(what a piss’ant term).. in the same strategy. More specifically though, The pipers-paid, naturally go softer on big polluter than they should if they, (the pipers) were more genuine than careerist : And the biggie..! The public is made Aware of that overt collu$ion, presented as a conspiracy uncovered..thus creating the desired suspicion of the pipers by the public, and ergo the desired imprint on the public orthodoxy, that the physics and realities of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the greenhouse effect must, by association, also be bogus…. All contingencies are catered for.

            Like

            • Well, the only contingency they can’t cater to is the ultimate revelation that every Gov or local power structure is, primarily, at War with “its own people”. The Masses are operating under the subliminal misconception that “The CIA” (generic term) does its Evil on “their” (mainstream majority’s) behalf… that’s why they turn a blind eye. The game is to keep them thinking that… every atrocity is therefore forgiven in advance. That one can’t be fed back into The System for energy… that one’s the toxin The System can’t metabolize.

              Like

        • “Fair enough assessment on Pilgers episodic revelations of the bleeding obvious Aug…”

          It’s obvious to us, sure, but who with any visibility is saying it in public? As I’ve said elsewhere: if a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth (as observed by some famous Naztie or other), imagine how much more True the Truth becomes when you repeat it…?

          Like

            • It’s impossible to segregate audiences so neatly in the age of Mass Distribution of Content, man. Every possible degree or combination of Tyro/ Adept has an opportunity to be exposed to every kind of content. Many years ago, I was searching for something (on a pre-Google engine!) and came across a very strange page mentioning “Building 7”. “Eh?” I asked myself. “Building 7 came down, too…?” And I was already a “radical”. I just hadn’t been exposed to that particular bit of info… yet. The more of it out there, the better. Nothing is too obvious to address and re-disseminate, IMO. It needs to be hammered into the head of the Collective Semi-Consciousness and we’re all tiny hammers…

              Like

              • pavlovscat7 says

                I know..My blessing and my curse is Cassandras’. But self praise and self depreciation is no recommendation… (GEE’Z I’m turning into binra)…I was sitting watching the Towers decay in real (CNN) time and my immediate reaction was,’ you sons ‘o’ bitches’..not at the deus ex machinas’ of ishmaeli terrorists that were about to lasered into the public acceptance..but at the Philadelphia experiment cabals et al that did the deed and all the arsehole traitors that Cassandras’ curse condemns me to know. Lenny Cohen asked a pertinent question in his song, ‘On that Day’…(with my majuscule emphasis not Lennys’) …..”Answer me this, I won’t take you to court, did you go CRAZY, or did you REPORT, on that day they wounded New York?” I went crazy. Still am.. and I hope my mother would be very proud of me.

                Like

                • As it happens, I was on my way to collaborate on a script with someone that afternoon (6 hours later here)… she called and said “Get over now!” There was a room full of people, centered around her TV, when I arrived. When the first building collapsed I exclaimed, “The plane didn’t cause that!” Everyone stared at me for a moment, then went back to watching The Narrative. Soon enough the “official explanation” was produced and.. I felt like a total fucking fool! Laugh. It wasn’t until that night I was using “Copernicus” (or whatever that search engine was called) that I saw that weird little “Building 7” .gif and felt vindicated.

                  Better a Cassandra than a Pollyanna or a Candide.

                  Like

              • pavlovscat7 says

                And now, my au’ Gust friend.. can our halo-effects be uncrowned as we look to the center of Hurricane Erin? And be two sisters-weird if we said that Judy would come to Birnham? …yeah, I know, sometimes I make myself laugh.

                Like

                • Too many comment threads on-the-go at any given moment, Pavy! 21st century plate-spinning: an underappreciated trick…

                  So, anyway: how long have you been interested in Kit Marlowe’s work-in-exile…?

                  Like

          • I’m not sure about ‘more true’ – but reminders are needed in a world of forgetting – its easy to drift – takes discipline to hold to conscious purpose.
            That lies and deceit are part and parcel of our govs, banks, corps, pharmas and not forgetting most everyone else – is part of a compartmentalized mind that obviously ‘works’ in terms of its function or we wouldn’t use it.
            Hide and keep secret what you don’t want to know or to be exposed in. Maintain the masking devices as ‘law and order’ or civilisation or sew some fig leaves together…
            NOT joining in the lie grows a new perspective – but the lie is subtle and hijacks our mind in ways we don’t recognize – but the signs are there. I love that John gives witness to our humanity – in the willingness to address what many others don’t.

            Like

            • The objective observation of the clear-eyed individual is always in tension with the mediated consensus of the masses (which exist in unified opposition to the individual).

              Like

              • A relationship may have tensions but that’s part of creative expression.
                The defacto assignment of conflict to relationship is an expression of a dividual.
                To operate in a ‘dividual’ – the rejected or discarded parts are pushed out of the control zone of an exclusive self-sense.

                But Individual originally and truly refers to indivisibility. You can hate yourself – but which of these is YOU?
                The Individual is seen as a threat by the tacitly reinforcing society of ‘dividuality’ which is fronting it out as if they are individuals and an integrated wholeness of being is a heretical, demonic, absurd, ridiculous, dangerous fallacy.

                A lie can only seem to be at expense of true. A society founded on a lie can assign some lies more true than others and act as if that is so and believe their experience it is so. But its ALL lies – even the symbols of truth are subverted to stand in place of.

                For everything and everyone in my experience I have a version through which I relate. I don’t meet you – so much as my version of you. This ‘self’ is variable and can and does change. When my version of me and yours of you are resonating at matching frequencies communication occurs. Meeting happens.

                There are those who manifest qualities I don’t accept or forgive or want to recognize in myself. A re-educational opportunity.
                There are others who follow preferences I don’t share. Joy is a freedom song.
                And those who in this or that moment I meet or join in shared purpose. Which truly is everyone at some level.

                Another way is saying there is the movement to be free of the mask and also the movement to strengthen the mask – and these are also within us. To be known for who we truly are. To win or achieve or become something or someone in the regard of others.

                These tensions are part of the structure of our consciousness and world and the personality level is the masking out of them as fragments of a wholeness we believe we have lost – or don’t deserve or have completely forgot.

                I don’t know about objective – I cannot Not experience through a consciousness but I can be vigilant and watchful as to bias – and notice the feedbacks that alert me to its distortion and see if it is true of me.
                I don’t feel it meaningful to make contest or war over truth – as if it must be defined definitively. But honesty is a congruency of being and a coherence of experience – all of which is known within consciousness – even if designated unconscious and masked off from – to rise within perception in opposition.

                I’m not arguing against what you said but expanding its frame of reference. Concepts of self and group are not relational entities. Identifying in concept costs the energetic participance of relating, which is on the fly, out of the hat, or feeling our way – rather than a set of rules or rituals to reenact. (‘Safely’ masked but dead).
                I can only relate through a willingness of relating. I don’t care to define myself in concept – unless it serves the moment for that moment.
                I have a version of ‘the masses’ which is variable and always changing – but I haven’t a word for a collective relating of individuals in shared purpose. Perhaps Spirit serves well enough – for me now at least.

                Like

    • Barbara McKenzie says

      Pilger is talking for women like me, who see supporters of the Women’s March as either manipulative or gullible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • pavlovscat7 says

      The tone..has to inspire the audience that that are listening to a burred up..though contained..objector. His genuineness must be delivered with the appropriate degree of histrionics: The act is not the point…though it does poke you in the eye when the majority of the world is an act.

      Like

  12. Seamus Padraig says

    Modern feminism is–and has been for some time–a total fraud. The real, original feminism was about women’s suffrage and equality before the law. Post-war ‘feminism,’ however, was manipulated by the TPTB to serve the ends of the régime. Consider Gloria Steinem’s well-known ties to the CIA, for example. We should not be surprised that feminism ended up like this; most aspects of Cultural Marxism (CM) now serve the régime. If they’re not being sponsored by the CIA, then they’re just being sponsored by the likes of George Soros. Sad …

    Liked by 3 people

    • The Wikipedia links to articles about Steinem’s CIA connection have been blocked. The CIA has absolutely ‘nothing’ better/good to do.

      Liked by 2 people

        • Indeed. The good news is that there’s easy to find info online about this. In fact, searching led me to a book that I have added to my ‘to buy’ list and it covers Steinem and much more. It’s called “The Mighty Wurlitzer.” – http://bit.ly/2l13HFt

          Like

  13. If a movement of wholeness of being addresses imbalance, denial and fakery, it meets the mind of perpetuating imbalance as the act of denial in allegiance to a fake sense of self.
    I’m talking both within the individual and as a Family.

    When concepts are taken out of context and woven into identity – they marketize or weaponize ‘identity’.
    True relationships are not embodiments of coercive denial and deceit but are a living (context of) willingness in which denial coercion and deceit can be brought to awareness and resolved within an honesty and honouring of communication – which is not limited or defined conceptually or emotionally – being a relational awareness in which the rigidity of mind and its emotional denial can be recognised and truly felt from a shifted perspective rather than acted out in set of an identity seeking reinforcement or validation.

    The play of narrative identities and emotional reactivity – including the suppression of emotional expression – is the fixation in investments of power and protection against any resolution in which loss of power is perceived. The mutually exclusive polarisation is the symptom of unwillingness to heal or truly listen, receive or recognize another – save what they can be used for private gratification, masked in terms that deflect the assignment of hate or lovelessness to the other.

    The seduction of the mind is believing it in place of a truly receptive presence, The form the seduction takes will indicate where a sense of lack is filled. A mind can therefore be a deceiver – in the wish to be other than as we fear we are or have become. An escape and evasion of believed self-lack in external seeking, founded on a sense of survival urge over and against a threat of being denied and deprived by experience of dissonance that is intolerable and so is pushed down, frozen out, denied – because it cannot articulate itself except as a redefinition of self and world in terms of fear and division – guilt and separation.

    It isn’t just our economy that runs on war and fear of war – it is our personality construct and social identities that is predicated on a breakdown of communication that imprinted itself pre-verbally and upon which an ego or self image is grown and adapted to the human world – which is a construct upon the organism of a psycho-emotional mapping or conditioning of inner realities externalised and embodied as shared experience – BUT the sharing in the belief and right to power of deceit, denial and coercion, is the ‘private mind’ of a sense of separation from Life, operating a sense of isolation that seeks fulfilment externally in substitutions that join in order to separate, or seek in order to not find, because a truly shared experience is love – and love is undefended and therefore open to feel not only fulfilment of joy in being – but the uprising of dissonance of denied self that seeks reintegration – because we never escape our self so much as split or dissociate within consciousness – and so the time and space of evading and delaying the inevitable has an undercurrent of fear. BUT any truly shared or synchronous experience witnesses to a quality of being free of struggle and deceit – if only for an instant, and this re-cognition and remembrance grows the capacity to re-evaluate the ‘conditioned’ self, and to release energy from futility of struggle to more consciously aligned purpose.

    Willingness is forgotten in ‘survival mode’ in which a set of actions and reactions override a felt consciousness with the feeling one MUST fight, shield or escape – and all resources are directed there – and all other needs are subordinated. The clinging to a mind of driven identity is locking oneself in fight or flight stress, losing all perspective and succumbing to fear and hate as if it were power.

    The movement of being in which you can recognize yourself and move as and thus be, identified in life – is the movement that a psycho-emotional defence operates to deny, subvert and usurp – or ‘hijack’ to pass off as its own conflicted justification for power over life – which is substituted for and usurped by narrative identities of a managed existence. There is a choice but to recognize we have choice we have to align in it by choosing NOT to align with the falsely framed fear-defined path of a past made in confusion, and to pause and listen and feel and relate with what is here – anew.

    Like

  14. For years and years we’ve been simmering in the culture of hysterically divisive and post-rational Pheminizm, delivered in so much of the “News” and Pop Gossip (from hologram couple Beyoncé and Jaye Z and their supposed male-infidelity-rooted relationship problems to every celeb hubbie’s “outrageous” midlife crisis faux pas and the excessive rape content of TV) in an effort to help get Hellary back into office. An effort to help get HRC in by demonizing anyone (and every candidate) who doesn’t have a vagina. In the aftermath of that failed psycho-political campaign: millions of fucked-with (in some cases unhinged) psyches. Just as Exxon is (nominally) required to clean up its oil spills, shouldn’t psychologically toxic advertizing campaigns foot the bill for all the polluted psyches they leave in their wakes…?

    To quote an article on Salon.com:

    “But starting around the turn of the decade, rape on television morphed from a delicate topic to practically de rigueur. In the last two years alone, shows as vastly different as “Downton Abbey” and “Game Of Thrones” have graphically portrayed violent rape—typically, but not always, perpetrated by men onto women—to the point that depictions of sexual assault on television have become a regular part of the national discourse. “SVU,” “Outlander,” “Broad City,” “Inside Amy Schumer,” “Orange Is The New Black,” “Tyrant,” “Stalker,” “Shameless,” “Scandal,” and “House Of Cards” have all handled sexual assault, in their own way—either by depicting rape, exploring whether or not a sexual encounter is rape, or making jokes about how often rape happens. For a crime that has a dismal 2 percent conviction rate, it certainly is getting talked about an awful lot.

    “I can identify that this is a phenomenon that is happening. It’s a little harder to explain why. Some of it is purely a numbers game: There’s more television than ever—and more and more of that television is not on broadcast networks, with their stricter censorship rules and mandates for reaching a mainstream audience. It’s certainly easier to depict and discuss sexual assault on television now than it ever was before.

    But that’s not the whole story. ”

    “But starting around the turn of the decade…” indeed. Wouldn’t it be amazing if they told us what the “whole story” is? Or was? It was “Clinton 2016”. And maybe it will continue as “(Chelsea) Clinton 2024”. And “Malia Obama 2040″…? By which time the heterosexual reproductive tradition will, sadly, be considered a barbaric relic, one supposes…

    Like

  15. Secret Agent says

    Sorry John, like any criticism of Cultural Marxism, this is inflammatory hate speech, so STFU before AntiFa punches you in the face.

    Like

    • writerroddis says

      I’m guessing this is irony. But without strong contextual clues irony is a dangerous tool in the narrow bandwidth – relative to face to face speech – of the written word.

      Like

      • Irony, definitely! But a risky maneuver that doesn’t always work; I think the “STFU” is the indicator, but plenty of Clintonistas actually talk and write that way, so…

        Like

        • Irony is when sarcasm establishes a meta language of coded messaging for the ‘in group’ that spins off its own identity and hijacks the movement is originally arose to support.
          I don’t say this is consciously intended – but sarcasm has been called the lowest form of wit with some reason.
          The mask of humour can deliver a payload of hate. This may be completely different in context and so as said already – without full context it can backfire.

          I appreciate that for me at least this moment of noticing serves to illuminate ways that we lose the movement by taking the role of its protector. Ultimately, hijacking is an inside job. But if we present ourselves in role we can then be fed and led or undermined and bled – in such identification.

          The movement – as I use it – is a living rising and supporting inspiration. Once it institutionalizes it is already hijacked – because as John Pilger points out, any insult or threat to the institution (and its figureheads) is defended against without the introspection by which to recognize the nature of ‘institutional’ or ideological ego.

          This is part of the corruption of power. Giving power to idols sacrifices the true movement. The forms of sheep can be wolves in disguise – so identity in form is robotic, will-less, sleepwalking. The Feminine is the Receptive and without the Receptive – NOTHING gets in. Communication is blocked and a divorced and psychotic Projective systematically disempowers itself in pursuit of an illusion of power.

          The true balance of receptive and projective is not two – but nor is it a directed narrative of ‘oneness and unity’.
          Directed narrative is defined reality, and has all the power we give it, but is not a true will of magnetic desire calling and aligning a resonance of electric response. Its more a stifling or suppression of the will in fear of loss of control – that then substitutes for Power.

          If we give up our will for a substitute then we may define it as ‘being hijacked’ – rather than recognize our need for true being and be the condition in which it can reach us as the feeling and knowing of being – a true movement of recognition. From which perspective our projection is truly aligned and grounded as a representative expression of an integrity of being rather than an elitism of self-justifying power to deny freedom of movement of being.

          It’s ironic that using the ideal of ‘freedom of movement’ as a weapon invokes the ideal of a true freedom as a cover for private agenda – which aligns vibrationally in open ‘conspiracy’ to manipulate and remake life in its own image. If the fruits of the lie are evils – the father of the lie is a wish hijacking true will. To align with true seems a disobedience to the false and may be treated as treachery, betrayal and heresy by those who don’t know that what they think they know is falsely framed – but it is at rest within an unconflicted sense of self. There is a quality of being that is not willingly given up once opened – and a vigilance against deceit that grows in discernment by recognizing how and whereby it is deceived.

          The persona becomes the hijack of true individuality – until reintegrated to serve a different function. The ‘end-times’ uncover us back to our beginnings – yet forwards to a true RE-evaluation of our foundation. Perhaps a sense of disobedience to relational self honesty calls stronger than the desire to embrace Life? But the greatest human virtue is that which lives THROUGH us, as recognition extended to others that then reflects to us as truly shared existence, rather than virtues which by denial and limitation and control can be assigned to a personal and private sense of power – whatever forms it takes.

          Like

          • Sarcasm may indeed be the lowest form of wit, but irony, which is always implicitly sarcastic, isn’t always motivated by hate.

            Sometimes the intent is merely to hold up a mirror to help someone catch a glimpse of how he or she appears in the eye ironist, to help impart a bit of ‘self-consciousness’ or ‘self-awareness.’ It works — when it works and is intended in that more benign way — to arrest attention and thereby give what might be a much needed pause.

            Sometimes, too, irony is born merely from an impulse to play and nothing more, neither above nor below, either to the right or to the left.

            Not every gesture that might be interpreted as hostile is necessarily so, Binra.

            People can feign pretty much anything that they want to on the basis of a multitude intentions, and then can even do that retrospectively by reinterpreting the meaning in depth of anything they might have said or done.

            That intelligence can posit varying degrees of intent and multiple, even contradictory layers of meaning to any single sign, utterance or gesture — that merely speaks to the power of human imagination, to the way in which human meaning enters into the world and there proliferates for good or bad.

            Unfortunately, it is also the way in which deception, and sometimes madness, too, also enters into the world.

            Irony, at least, is always honest, at least when it works. And yes, even when it delivers a payload of contempt which may well be deserved, as I think the Secret Agent’s may well have been.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Thankyou for expanding as you have.
              I don’t know that unconscious or denied hurts/hate consciously intend hostility – so much as express in ways that often invoke it.
              I enjoyed the qualities conveyed in what you said as well as what you said.

              Like

          • Bernie Holland says

            Binra speaks with wisdom and insight, but in language which is accessible only to the intellectually accomplished. To precis such an essay in simpler terms without dumbing it down would prove to be a great achievement – and one that appears currently to be beyond the capacity of most people.

            Like

            • Thanks and I don’t disagree.

              But I also feel a genuine willingness is never unrewarded – and the basis for willingness is not a ‘should’ so much as a movement within that is from a different place than where the ‘should’ operates. We are mostly raised to struggle to learn and to drive ourselves to take on information or develop abilities – and fortunate if we open a joy of learning, and find abilities growing that surprise and expand our sense of who we are.

              I invite the expansion of focus from ‘reading’ what we already know (or presume to know) to reading within desire in whatever way the movement and attention alights. The insanity of our times can also serve as an awakener of desire for a true sanity. I don’t claim to more than the willingness to align in and share it as I feel it – and at the moment it comes out as this.

              Understanding ‘about’ – in itself never healed anything – but seeing the mind in act – is insight – that is a shifted perspective IF one honours it rather than running off with it as if to feed a private stash. Even a moment of such a recognition – is more worthy to me than acquiring the form of an understanding by which to seem to accumulate knowledge or ability – but without its realisation and fruits.

              And no one has to understand that for such recognition to arise as dropping from head to heart – in a connected sense of presence and not the shorthand skim of impressions and associations.

              There is an undercurrent of psychic-emotional ‘stuff’ coming up that is not so ‘under’ current – and it threatens to drag us ‘under’ if we let it. Maybe ‘we’ is the wrong word. It’s my responsibility for myself to be vigilant for my peace and against inviting or allowing insanity to take root – no matter what anyone else does or the world does.

              I feel that beneath ANY appearances the tones and qualities communicate along pathways of resonance. The context of communication is set out in all sorts of rules – but without invalidating any of that – it is a synchronicity.

              Or its just a load of bollocks! – but then that’s freedom to accept or not according to what is moving and accepted real for anyone in that perception. My desire is to encourage freedom as a conscious appreciation rather than an evaporating gratification. or carrot on a stick. Use it or lose it.

              I can feel sickened, appalled and horrified at our inhumanity – and yet a deep love of humanity – so I feel what I feel and choose what I prefer – which may be a willingness to open into something that is beyond me or I cant do – but I don’t need to know what I don’t need to know and I trust that what I need to know comes to me as I need to know it. That’s to say I don’t carry it around getting in the way and nor really do I analyse situations so much as read them as a listening into being. There are always other ways of seeing. I cant see for anyone else – but how would a paradigm change if some weren’t simply living the new one anyway?

              Like

  16. Runner77 says

    Amen. John Pilger possesses more integrity and writes with more insight than pretty much any other journalist . . .

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Michele Cochrane says

    Darling

    I haven’t read this yet, but suspect it is similar to my argument. I wish Nina would read it.

    Mum xx

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s