Wednesday, May 09, 2012
'Grooming' young girls is across, not 'within' community: ethnic in-group is the major factor. It's not just Pakistanis, though, and demonising IS a danger.
An in-group/out-group boundary is the salient but un-stated major factor in the sexual 'grooming' of young girls to then hand round others for sex. Ethnicity cannot but be the profound factor given that ethnicity is the most important in-group marker.
As Martin Narey (the Barnardos chief executive) points out, in the North of England such 'grooming' is "overwhelmingly" by those of certain ethnicities: some African as well as Indian sub-continentals. So it seriously understates the severity of the skew towards ethnic-minority perpetration to focus only on Pakistanis. Not that a focus on Pakistanis does not reveal an extraordinary skew. And note how the BBC suddenly becomes innumerate in failing to factor in that a mere one per cent of the UK population is Pakistani. This renders Pakistani perpetration wildly disproportionate.
The major crime to the PC mindset is to be male, followed by being 'white' – the full complement of attributes of the typical 'worker' in PC conceptualisation. So to be of an ethnic-minority provides a degree of immunity to PC-fascist attack. Hence the efforts made by commentators to portray sexual 'grooming' as not to do with ethnicity, and to pretend it's 'within' rather than across community.
The danger is that the PC hegemonic mindset is in line with biologically-based (evolved) extreme prejudice towards the male, so we can now expect yet further ratcheting up of anti-male hysteria re 'grooming'; this being facilitated by absurd age-of-consent laws (18, when the average age of menarche is 11), and entirely ignoring the specific circumstances, including any perspective of the girls involved of genuine relationship, where this is the reality, or part of it.
It should be kept in mind that men in many ethnic-minority enclaves are heavily restricted in their sexual behaviour, so necessarily they are obliged to seek outlet outside their enclave; and that here the great majority of females are 'white'.
It is all too easy to demonise Muslim men generically regarding cross-community sexuality, and therefore it is important to distinguish usual, innocuous behaviour from forced prostitution. Yet this is the very conflation that the hegemonic extreme-feminist PC-fascist attitude serves actively to promote.
'Grooming' young girls is across, not 'within' community: ethnic in-group is the major factor. It's not just Pakistanis, and demonising IS a danger.
An in-group/out-group boundary is the salient but un-stated major factor in the sexual 'grooming' of young girls to then hand round others for sex. Ethnicity cannot but be the profound factor given that ethnicity is the most important in-group marker.
As Martin Narey (the Barnardos chief executive) points out, in the North of England such 'grooming' is "overwhelmingly" by those of certain ethnicities: some African as well as Indian sub-continentals. So it seriously understates the severity of the skew towards ethnic-minority perpetration to focus only on Pakistanis. Not that a focus on Pakistanis does not reveal an extraordinary skew. And note how the BBC suddenly becomes innumerate in failing to factor in that a mere one per cent of the UK population is Pakistani. This renders Pakistani perpetration wildly disproportionate.
The major crime to the PC mindset is to be male, followed by being 'white' – the full complement of attributes of the typical 'worker' in PC conceptualisation. So to be of an ethnic-minority provides a degree of immunity to PC-fascist attack. Hence the efforts made by commentators to portray sexual 'grooming' as not to do with ethnicity, and to pretend it's 'within' rather than across community.
The danger is that the PC hegemonic mindset is in line with biologically-based (evolved) extreme prejudice towards the male, so we can now expect yet further ratcheting up of anti-male hysteria re 'grooming'; this being facilitated by absurd age-of-consent laws (18, when the average age of menarche is 11), and entirely ignoring the specific circumstances, including any perspective of the girls involved of genuine relationship, where this is the reality, or part of it.
It should be kept in mind that men in many ethnic-minority enclaves are heavily restricted in their sexual behaviour, so necessarily they are obliged to seek outlet outside their enclave; and that here the great majority of females are 'white'.
It is all too easy to demonise Muslim men generically regarding cross-community sexuality, and therefore it is important to distinguish usual, innocuous behaviour from forced prostitution. Yet this is the very conflation that the hegemonic extreme-feminist PC-fascist attitude serves actively to promote.
'Grooming' young girls is across, not 'within' community: ethnic in-group is the major factor. It's not just Pakistanis, and demonising IS a danger.
An in-group/out-group boundary is the salient but un-stated major factor in the sexual 'grooming' of young girls to then hand round others for sex. Ethnicity cannot but be the profound factor given that ethnicity is the most important in-group marker.
As Martin Narey (the Barnardos chief executive) points out, in the North of England such 'grooming' is "overwhelmingly" by those of certain ethnicities: some African as well as Indian sub-continentals. So it seriously understates the severity of the skew towards ethnic-minority perpetration to focus only on Pakistanis. Not that a focus on Pakistanis does not reveal an extraordinary skew. And note how the BBC suddenly becomes innumerate in failing to factor in that a mere one per cent of the UK population is Pakistani. This renders Pakistani perpetration wildly disproportionate.
The major crime to the PC mindset is to be male, followed by being 'white' – the full complement of attributes of the typical 'worker' in PC conceptualisation. So to be of an ethnic-minority provides a degree of immunity to PC-fascist attack. Hence the efforts made by commentators to portray sexual 'grooming' as supposedly universal, and to be 'within' rather than across community.
The danger is that the PC hegemonic mindset is in line with biologically-based (evolved) extreme prejudice towards the male, so we can now expect yet further ratcheting up of anti-male hysteria re 'grooming'; this being facilitated by absurd age-of-consent laws (18, when the average age of menarche is 11), and entirely ignoring the specific circumstances, including any perspective of the girls involved of genuine relationship, where this is the reality, or part of it.
It should be kept in mind that men in many ethnic-minority enclaves are heavily restricted in their sexual behaviour, so necessarily they are obliged to seek outlet outside their enclave; and that here the great majority of females are 'white'.
It is all too easy to demonise Muslim men generically regarding cross-community sexuality, and therefore it is important to distinguish usual, innocuous behaviour from forced prostitution. Yet this is the very thing that the hegemonic extreme-feminist PC-fascist attitude serves to actively avoid.
Friday, May 04, 2012
PC nonsense from the Sheffield Star's pinhead political editor, Richard Marsden
You don't expect much from a poor local paper like the Sheffield Star, but their bigoted PC-fascist political editor, Richard Marsden, isn't fit to be employed as any sort of journalist; and I'm sending a complaint to the (admittedly useless) Press Complaints Commission.
Marsden wrote a malicious piece about my UKIP suspension without even mentioning that I had strongly condemned Anders Breivik's appalling actions; adding a complete lie that I had commented on "Muslim groups"; and stating that I was "unavailable for comment" when I was all day and every day by two phones and two email addresses on a computer permanently online. That he well knew that my landline number is there with my full name and address in the phone book, he demonstrated by printing my address in his piece – just by way of inciting and facilitating personal aggression against me, it would seem.
A more blatant attempt by a journalist to abuse his position and try to alter the vote in an election it would be hard to find.
I went in to the Star and they refused me access to the editor and claimed Marsden wasn't in. They sent down a reporter who said the paper agreed a retraction was in order. This then did not appear. Instead there was a puny little snippet in Thursday's paper, which minimally mentioned only Marsden's lie about "Muslim groups" and his failure to point out that I strongly condemned Breivik's actions.
So I went in again. The editor still hid in his office, and Marsden refused to come down and meet me face to face; cowering behind his phone. He had no defence for his bigoted misrepresentation.
We got on to Breivik. "Why did you write on such a sensitive issue?" he asked.
'Because PC-fascists like you always close down any debate about the origin, development and nature of PC', I replied.
Breivik was being used to still further close down debate at the very time that the need for debate could not be clearer. [And this was last summer, by the way. Marsden disingenuously insisted that I must have known it would cause problems in standing for election, when in fact I've never desired to be an election candidate. I agreed only a few weeks ago to be merely a 'paper' candidate because UKIP was stretched in finding enough suitable people to cover the city.]
For a numptie like Marsden you have to spell it out.
The very reason – the 'justification' for – why Breivik behaved in the appalling way in which he did was because of the completely closed-down debate about PC. That is abundantly clear from his 'manifesto'. To head off the possibility of more Breiviks, this has to change.
The 'guilt by association' usual ruse was in full swing to close down debate yet further.
The standard line on Breivik is that he is 'beyond the pale', and therefore any analysis of PC is also 'beyond the pale'.
It most certainly is not.
That someone who acknowledges the researched historical analysis of the origin of PC is a mass murderer in no way makes the research into the origin of PC a doctrine itself of mass murder. It is never the case that if A is in some way coincidental with B, and B is 'beyond the pale'; that, therefore, A is likewise 'beyond the pale'. That would be the most elementary non-logic.
Malicious nonsense of 'guilt by association' as it is applied to analysis of PC requires combating. If there is no free speech even on the topic of the most deep-seated, entrenched and widespread fascism ever to afflict societies -- which PC indeed is -- then there is no free speech at all.
Concerns about 'sensitivity' are just smokescreens to cover a PC-fascist stance. Evidently, even the deepest irony is opaque to the PC-fascist.
'You're not fit to be a journalist, let alone a political editor', I admonished the hapless Marsden. "I don't think you're fit to be a candidate", he retorted.
But that is my point! A PC-fascist does not accept that anyone who challenges the PC hegemony can be moral; and that therefore such a challenger is ineligible to stand in any election.
That PC is itself the height of immorality -- seeking to label the disadvantaged as 'oppressors' and the privileged as the 'oppressed' – completely escapes PC-fascists. They feel obliged to stick rigidly to this self-delusion rather than to admit the failure of their whole ideology. But this vehement denial inevitably cannot long survive being comprehensively found out.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
On happily being suspended as a UKIP candidate
This is just to state that I am quite happy with the decision to suspend my candidature; this being because of the usual numptie misrepresentation of position by media that UKIP Party Chairman Steve Crowther understandably thought might ensue and thereby represent a threat to UKIP chances in Thursday's elections in London.
This follows usual Party-politically-motivated bigoted wild misrepresentation and ignorance by a minority on local discussion boards re a blog post here (below) way back in August last year, which I had written on the topic of the wild nonsense written about Anders Breivik.
In that post -- and in all posts I have made on the subject of Breivik, to such as Psychology Today -- I stressed that Breivik's actions were clearly appalling and insupportable, but that the scholarship on the origin and development of 'political correctness' fascism (and that is an accurate application of that term) is fully in line with what Breivik wrote in his 'manifesto'.
I am myself published in a science journal on the origin and development of 'PC', and of how this has created serious misrepresentation of data and analysis in the topic of intimate-partner violence.
The statement put out by the UKIP Sheffield and National Organiser, Jonathan Arnott, is, however, not as Jonathan read to and agreed with me.
Jonathan stated to me that the issues were "outside the orbit" of the party's politics.
That is very different to "remarks ... at odds with UKIP policy".
UKIP has no disagreement with me on anything, so far as I'm aware; and certainly no disagreement on any topic has been put to me.
UKIP has no disagreement with me on anything, so far as I'm aware; and certainly no disagreement on any topic has been put to me.
The Party hardly could have such a disagreement unless it wants to disagree with the weight of published scholarship, and clearly it is hardly likely to engage in such illogical foolishness; and the Party is determinedly anti-PC in any case.
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
