Angles, assumptions and stereotypes

Quick note with an admin’s hat on: I had to think whether the following post was appropriate for here at OoL. It wasn’t intended for here in the writing of and I’m thinking of my co-admin. The more I thought about it though and then reading some of the comments over here, it did seem there was a place for it. So here goes.

………..

A post went up earlier by Amfortas, challenging the assumption, as Erin Pizzey also challenged and many other women have now challenged, that women are not capable of violence and furthermore, with all the attention given to male violence on women and the feminist outcry in stopping it, virtually no one is calling for the violence on men to stop.

You watch the feminist leading ladies come in now saying well maybe but the violence on women is far worse – google domestic violence and there are any number of pics of battered women but almost no battered men.

I wonder if they’ll stop and think why that is – that there are virtually no pics of battered men. Try the word shame for a start.

Zeroing in specifically on this issue, Amfortas is right that the violence on men goes on day after day and as that vid said, it is generally low-level violence, not resulting in serious injury.

When it is serious, then it hits the headlines and the reaction is curious. Men such as myself shrug it off or at least don’t become outraged as much and many women would have a gleam in their eye and a smile on their lips – one back to Wimmin, they’d think.

My lack of reaction is tied up with my upbringing and my angle. Just as Amfortas’s angle in the football post was from the anti-PC point of view, something I agree with, my angle was from the football lover’s point of view, which is coming at it from a different direction.

I’m so used to being slapped or kicked by a woman, usually in a playful way, that I really don’t pay it much heed personally. Occasionally I’ve had to put her in a full nelson to stop her [no, only kidding] but overall, unless a woman takes to the knife or goes for the goolies, it’s something a man just gets over and maybe that’s the wrong attitude in this modern day when women are now ladettes and make-believe men.

We do teach people how to treat us by our own behaviour and for men such as myself glossing over and condoning women’s actions, there’s a case for saying it helps perpetuate those actions. people do what works and what they can get away with.

On this question of different angles:

Coming at something from a different angle does not, by definition, mean that one necessarily disagrees.

If I might further explain, not to patronize the intelligent who know all this anyway but to make crystal clear to those who might not be sure – coming at something from a different angle can give the impression of a counter position, whereas in fact, the position is not necessarily counter – it might be the same on a certain issue but from different perspective.

And I acknowledge that that works both ways.

I often speak of “leftists” and some time back laid out what that meant, using the definitions widely used in the States and in the UK. I’ll lay it out again soon and see if people agree or disagree. Having laid that out, it does not then automatically follow that all leftists will agree with all left positions all of the time, nor do all those labelled centre-right, a label we are happy to be called, necessarily align with all centre-right positions all the time.

For myself, I’m Attila the Hun on protecting children – quite far right. On freedom for adults, I’m more in line with the centre, except on abominations such as gay “marriage” and implacably opposed to gay adoption – this is the question of protecting children again so it’s logical that one needs to be against it.

However, on the wicked Capitalists, a traditional leftist position, I’d agree the crony capitalists [and that’s just another term for Them who are raping our planet and our society, along with the military industrial complex] – they’re the enemy for sure, in an Ephesians 6:12 way.

So why did the centre-right/libertarian not support OWS?

That was simple. Because it was hijacked by Marxists and was Soros funded and led. No one of a centre or right position was going to support that. And if the OWSers had dragged the banksters out into the street and lynched them, who or what would take their place? A Marxist paradigm? A socialist financial model?

No thanks – there is nothing wrong with capitalism per se – we call it free enterprise, with the emphasis on “free”, which I thought leftists claim they’re for – and the society needs to be based on the ability of someone with an idea and money to be able to drum up money and go into business, provided he can convince a Corporations House to let him.

Why a Corporations House? Because if the business is a bad plan and looks like it would fold, better to nip it in the bud than costs be incurred to taxpayers later, if only in dole money. So yes, there are certain narrow interventions govt should make – I would assume that that Corporations House would be staffed by business people who have run businesses, not by parachuted bureaucrats on fatcat, taxpayer funded salaries.

On the surface, it looks like I’m supporting Statism but hey, even supporting the Armed Forces is supporting Statism to a point – I mean, the State does have some functions. So my position is roughly classical liberal centre-right-libertarian [for adults], with very Right Wing positions on children, our heritage and the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The left and right way of looking at life

Having said all that, there really is such a thing as a leftist and rightist way of looking at things.

There are stereotypes and they do fit, they do hold true, to the extent that you can expect that person to take a leftist or rightist position on certain issues.

Someone said to me that women, by virtue of their traditional caring/nurturing on the one hand and on the modern woman’s ugly useless me-me-me on the other, do tend more left than right. That is – they’ll look primarily at the love-everyone, all-inclusive solution first, whereas someone more rightist will look at the effect on society of that policy and on preserving the good things in that society, in a sort of elder-of-the-tribe way.

It’s significant that more rightist thinking people readily accept their label, whereas a classic sign of a leftist is when they fight labelling tooth and nail – that is pure leftism. Factionalism and micro-labelling is another. This one is the People’s Front of Judaea and that one over there is the Judaen People’s Front.

Look, labels work – that’s why everyone uses them – yes, even the left then they deny using them. They say they treat everyone equally then turn around and demand rights for women, a sectional interest in the society. There’s more than an element of hypocrisy in this.

Typecasting

Leftists detest typecasting and stereotyping, even though it is valid.

Many of us maintain that it is very easy to typecast the left and they really do conform to that typecast in a surprisingly correlating way. For example, if you go to a leftist convention, e.g. a union meeting or Labour Party meeting, odds are they’ll come out in support of Palestinians, whereas many on the right would support Israel’s right to exist unmolested and would point out the way they’ve developed their country.

Sure there are rightwing gays but the push for all this recent rubbish needed leftists to combine and force it through – that was shown the other evening in the need for Labour to get the abomination through and still it’s not finally through thank goodness.

Now that’s a left-right correlation and it really does conform to type on the whole. Not always but on the whole. Those vehemently disagreeing with that, if examined, can themselves be found to have taken leftist positions on many issues over the life-journey. I had to smile when a certain a correspondent went overboard telling me she was not left and instead thought for herself, so please don’t label her left.

That was heartening as she’s agreeing, by that, that the left don’t think for themselves – they’re tied to the narrative, which she obviously wasn’t.

One of the things I’ve noticed a lot from the left is that they say I’ve put words in their mouths. Actually, I never have. In normal English, the things they said [or wrote] had to be taken in the way most people would take them.

Therefore, it was a fair assumption that when they wrote X, they actually meant X, which usually follows W and leads to Y and Z, although they come in and say no, I had no right to assume X meant X, it actually meant P and Q.

And it’s one thing disageeing but it’s quite another to come in, guns blazing, accusing me personally of all sorts of dastardly conduct – that’s very left too, the zeroing in on the person emotionally and not sticking to the issue.

Always being correct

And then there is the issue of being correct or wrong and insisting I accept they’re correct.

The people most concerned with me “thinking I’m always correct” are the very people, the exact ones, who refuse to take anything on board I say, yet they insist I take on board the unsupported and unsupportable things they say. And why? well they said them, di’in they, eh? No other reason.

The only reason I am usually correct is because I do my homework and then, if it is shown to be questionable, I go back to the drawing board and if necessary change the stance to a more correct one. So the net result is being correct but not from any innate “correctness” on my part.

Now I’ve seen no evidence whatever in the more vehement “I’m always correct” leftist that they’ve done any self-assessment – the narrative does not allow of self-assessment, only of signing on and adopting the rhetoric and the left-logic.

The fact that I couldn’t care less whom the truth offends – if it is true, then what can one say? – is also a known rightist position. A leftist would say there are all sorts of truths and one man’s truth is another man’s … blah blah blah. That’s rubbish – there are most certainly various immutable truths.

Sure the person not liking them can’t come to terms with them but that doesn’t mean her opinion stacks up as equal and opposite – that’s just quota mentality. And quota mentality is leftist.

Immutable truths

There really are immutable truths. There is a thing called evil. There are ten commandments and no, thou really shall not kill. Thou really shall not screw around with other people and try to maintain that you’re decent in your terms. At least you can assert that but it’s not true.

And it is true that women who dress provocatively and go alone to bars will be more often part of the crime statistics later. Or that men find women with tatts rough and ready for the taking. And it is true that men more often than not have no intention to commit to the woman and just want easy meat and now women are trying to be accepted for doing the same – lowering themselves to that level and even trying to undercut it. The modern woman I’m referring to here, not one brought up with good values and a moral code, as used to be the case.

Gay “marriage” really does not exist, as all those people in Paris demonstrated. Gay adoption is an abomination – keep your mitts off children – go and do what you do behind closed doors please.

And immigration in this country and to a lesser extent, all over the western world, is an unmitigated disaster. And Islam really does exhort or easily enable its followers to be radical and that means killing other people and establishing Sharia, always has been the end goal, always will be. And they really should never comprise more than 2% of the population, even if benign because they’ll start reconstituting your society, not assimilating.

And the Chinese and Japanese really do work much harder than us. And women really do have an interesting logic on the whole and have trouble parking cars. And men really do see things more simplistically on the whole, even thinking men. And we really are led around by our tadgers by and large and we really are looking at the end game in that evening out as a bit of nooky with the lady. Or maybe by the third date and that really does militate against saving it for marriage.

And if she’s a lady, we expect to be told no at least for some time and expect her to ask us to make an honest woman of her but not these days – these days we do not expect the modern woman to do this. And she really is low.

And men do love their football and women love the short shorts on the men and the torsos. And women adore shopping for its own sake, on the whole more than men do, who tend to just go in and buy something. Not always and there are exceptions everywhere but on the whole, it’s so.

Emperor’s and Empress’s new clothes.

Where the left are found

The traditional home of leftism is in the Labour, Lib Dem and Democratic parties. However, there are southern Democrats and there is Old Labour and they really can’t be called leftist. Leftism is this “anything goes morally but bring in the State to ban that which we don’t like” mentality, coupled with this “the words mean what I want them to mean” palaver, rather than that they mean an immutable idea which everyone is agreed on.

And these days, the Republicans and Tories have many people inside who are anything but conservative in outlook and behaviour. So the epithet “left” fits them as well. I know a Labour councillor whose social stance is eminently conservative, whereas Cameron is a snake in the grass. Everything turned on its head.

What’s wrong with leftism?

On its own – nothing. It’s a naive position looking towards a better world – and who doesn’t want that? – and on their own, they are caring, loving people – the ones I know are.

However, the trouble is that that naive leftism is precisely what the State and those behind the State are using against people and it’s all out war going on. the garden variety leftist looks about and asks: “Gee, what’s he getting all angry about?”

Yet half a million took to the streets of Paris on Sunday to show they were very, very angry. Does that not tell the leftist that something is wrong, that something is going against the wishes of the people?

And what’s the reaction of the French left? Oh, we didn’t explain our narrative to them well enough. Still, let’s keep ignoring the people and forcing, coercing, mocking, vilifying and punishing them until they accept abominations. Let’s inure the people to so much violence that they just become blaise about it.

Nowhere in there is the slightest shred of self-doubt about their direction. they’re totally convinced that they know best for society and like nanny, we kiddies have to just take our medicine and shut up about it.

But we’re not shutting up. We are telling these people they are wrong. It doesn’t compute in their brain – no, they couldn’t possibly be wrong. they are the good people after all and we are just a fascist mob of haters. All those on the streets of Paris – mums, dads, kids – all of them are just a bunch of misogynist, homophobic haters.

And that’s what I have against the left. That’s what so many who read here and at OoL, who read at many other blogs – that’s what they have against the left as well. Some of these readers don’t use the word “left” because the left themselves have blurred it. So these readers might say “Statist”.

Now watch carefully because neutrals and those basically centre right, libertarian, rationalist, normal will read this post and the reaction will be – oh dear, James off on one of his rants.

The left reading this will be apoplectic and will see it as the greatest load of biased, prejudiced claptrap they’ve ever read. The world, to them, is wonderful and they’re contributing to a tolerant, friendly society. Woolwich is an example. And domestic violence, and women’s stress levels in society, and all the men out of work, and the rampant teenage pregnancies, and gay lessons for five year olds in school, and the sexualization of children, and women being attacked when they go out, and continued recession, and debt and all the rest of it. Yep, truly wonderful society.

And they’ll ask, “How on earth can you, Higham, say that I contributed to Woolwich?”

You contributed by continuing to vote Labour or Lib Dem or Democrat. Thereby, the rampant immigration of the worst kind came in and those charged with preventing that – UKBA – came to be made up of uneducated products of our dumbed-down schools which you contributed to by voting in Blair and Brown.

The NHS was decimated by leftist policies – speak to a nursing home resident like that old soldier who had his military moustache forcibly shaved off and the staff said if you complain, you’ll not get treatment.

So whom should you have voted for? Someone local of course who cared about the local area. You’d hardly vote Tory, would you? But voting for those two parties caused an exacerbation of things which Wilson, Heath and Major had already made worse. Thatcher was a different thing and there were other issues with her.

But it’s not just the voting. It’s the everyday failure to oppose which is also to blame. When PCists insisted on “positive” discrimination against men in the workplace, where were you? What were you doing? When they banned smoking, no matter what you think of smoking itself, where were you? When wheelie bin crime became rampant madness in Labour’s and now in the Tories’ time – where were you?

When the climate scam was being trotted out, where were you?

When Stonewall wanted to go into schools and “teach” little kids, where were you? When Brown sold off the gold, where were you? When Lisbon was signed, where were you? When all this banning began and CCTV everywhere, where were you? Were you on the street or blogging against it, signing petitions, joining campaigns?

When council jobsworths made you say on the form what religion and sexual orientation you were, where was your protest, loud and vehement?

Burke – when good men do nothing dot, dot, dot.

The messenger is nothing – the message is everything

Now you’ll detest me as a person for saying these things, for alienating people, you might even dismiss all that has been written here but what does it matter who likes or dislikes me? The issue is not the messenger – it’s the message. I can live quite comfortably with your disdain, your cold-shoulder, your vilification … but society can’t live with too much more of these easily attributable ills.

And that’s the bottom line. Recovery is a myth, lies abound, it’s not going well. It’s so easy for most people to see why. That issue is vastly more important than some minor to medium blogger alienating people.

Perhaps this post will cost this blog every reader it ever had, even old friends, perhaps not. That’s no reason though not to have said these things.

Someone had to.

5 comments for “Angles, assumptions and stereotypes

  1. Furor Teutonicus
    May 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    XX women are not capable of violence and furthermore, with all the attention given to male violence on women and the feminist outcry in stopping it, virtually no one is calling for the violence on men to stop. XX

    Sorry James, it is long and I must wait until AFTER work to read it all.

    The quoted phrase DID strike a cord though.

    As part of my recent training for “demenzkrank Begleiter” (a sort of male nurse for dementia patients), I did a “palcement (Praktikum, in German). And one thing I came accross a lot in the biographies, was this “violence from women” (Wives), against the patient.

    Not only WHILST he was a patient, but from well before in their relationships.

    Now it was 50/50 with the Women who had suffered the same. BUT that is a BIG difference to “Women are not violent”.

    Off to work. We may talk later. 😉

    • May 27, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      Furor, I might have made it shorter – got a bit – er – carried away I did.

      • Furor Teutonicus
        May 28, 2013 at 11:41 am

        No problem.

        XX overall, unless a woman takes to the knife or goes for the goolies, it’s something a man just gets over.XX

        My philosphy is “Never hit a woman. UNLESS she comes at you with a knife, then I reserve the option of changing my philosophy.”

        I have only HAD to hit a woman once. She was a BLOODY big, fat, ‘orrible chav. On buckys and white lightning.(In the same glass) Decided it was a good idea to play Motorhead at full volume at 3 on a Sunday morning.

        We tried everything. Did not work (Where are the training Seargeants when you need them?).

        Came at us with a (Cliché warning!) rolling pin (serious!).

        Took the pin off her, could not catch her before she grabbed a bread knife.

        Sorry darling, now “Philosophy” has just gone out of the window!!

        BANG!

        Yet I still feel guilty. I see it as a “fail”.

        May be that is the problem with beaten husbands?

        IIRC there is/was a group that dealt with this. Deffinately on the Wirral and in Liverpool. IF it still exists, I do not know. But…. Maybe worth a try for any one out there…

  2. Nick
    May 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    When you splint the arm of a 6’4 bloke four times in a month, then see him shrink away from his 5’1 wife when she goes to wave, you can see something is wrong.

    Some women are vicious. There’s a difference between play and just being hit. In his case, he stayed for his children. The courts are twisted: they will always favour the mother and in that scenario, with the sheer physical differences the secret courts families are brought under would see those children removed from him.

    On the main point, the left have stopped being ‘nice’ – well, perhaps now they’re nice as an excuse to control, manipulate, coerce, twist and abuse, all using state power to do that. That isn’t nice by any means, it’s just bullying.

    One thing you always note about the Right minded – they generally want to be left alone. The Left always want to interfere, to ‘see something done’. It is the righteousness that fuels their incontinent arrogance.

  3. Viscount Rectum
    May 28, 2013 at 7:49 am

    Nothing like a sound thrashing from a whore.

Comments are closed.