By Michael Krieger: The following would be funny, if it weren’t so incredibly sad. The United Nations’ spiral into clownish insignificance continues unabated.
GENEVA — In a U-turn at the United Nations Human Rights Council, Western governments dropped plans Wednesday for an international inquiry into human rights violations by all parties in the war in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians in the last six months.
The change of direction came as the Netherlands withdrew the draft of a resolution it had prepared with support from a group of mainly Western countries that instructed the United Nations high commissioner for human rights to send experts to Yemen to investigate the conduct of the war.
That proposal was a follow-up to recommendations by the commissioner, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, who detailed in a report this month the heavy civilian loss of life inflicted not only by the relentless airstrikes of the military coalition led by Saudi Arabia but also by the indiscriminate shelling carried out by Houthi rebels.
By Gilad Atzmon: Jews tend to complain that Hitler looked into their blood, dug into their family’s history, tracing Jewish genes sometimes even two or three generations back. I guess the Jewish Chronicle is no different, but it is far more thorough. The uniquely horrid British Jewish outlet decided to look into Jeremy Corbyn's genetic ‘kosher credentials’. The headline:“Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Corbyn, but there's just no trace of your Jewish roots” Recently, in an attempt to appease British Jewry, the new Labour Party leader said he believed he had some Jewish element in the family, probably from Germany. The Jewish Chronicle refutes Corbyn’s claim: “Jeremy Corbyn has had his claims of Jewish ancestry rejected by a leading genealogist.” Doreen Berger, one of the founders of the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain, said she had conducted extensive research into Mr Corbyn's ancestors and found no evidence to back up his claim. While the Nazis went just a few generations back, Ms Berger, the local merchant of Jewish racial purity,“went back as far as 1837 in the civil records.” She confirms: “I couldn't find anything at all.”
Philip Booth, Editorial and Programme Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, has responded to the article by Nicky Morgan, Minister for Women and Equalities, published by ConservativeHome. Booth concludes that the Minister is in a dreadful muddle with her materialistic and feminist insistence that women should spend even longer in the workplace. She takes no account of the fact that the main virtue of a market economy is that it maximises people’s opportunities to pursue their lives as they see fit. Men and women make choices about where they work, how many hours and how they balance the competing demands of domestic and professional life. Women must be free to make the choices that suit their individual tastes and circumstance.
Nicky Morgan wrote an article on ConHome recently which revealed the true colours of modern feminism. The article is based on a great deal of economic ignorance and a hyper-materialistic moral outlook. Random political attacks The article began, “Today, Labour is holding its very own ‘women’s conference’. This comes on top of having the party having its own pink bus, their own women’s manifesto…Our approach is different. As Conservatives, we don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘women’s issues’.” I have no particular view on how political parties should organise these things. However, Morgan’s statement is completely incorrect. The Conservative Women’s Organisation is part of the Conservative Party’s structure and has as one of its objectives: “Campaigning on issues of particular concern to women”.
By August Løvenskiolds: A recent review in Forbes characterized as “feminist” ABC’s new Sunday Night show Quantico, about a new class of FBI recruits. The article, by Emily Canal is entitled “Why ‘Quantico’ Might Be One Of The Most Feminist Shows On-Air This Fall.” “Begging the question” means “circular reasoning of the sort that A implies B, and B implies A.” However, feminists and others unfamiliar with logic usually misuse the phrase to mean “teases us into asking the obvious question.” So, in their own errant lingo women’s way of talking, the title of the new show Begs the Question: is it, in fact, a feminist show, in that it depicts feminism in a way that is good for feminism? In other words:
Does the show expose the horrors of rape culture?
Does the show demonize Christian religions while supporting Islam?
Does the show treat men and families with utter contempt?
Does the show cater to the Male Gaze, or engage in fat shaming?
Does the show explicitly portray feminism in a positive light?
Does the show promote gender equality or discuss dress codes?
Does the show reflect intersectionality?
Does the show expose the horrors of the patriarchy or male entitlement?
This is just hilarious on so many levels. Of course they are talking about penalties next, but as I explain they are going to have to implement some HEAVY penalties if they want to force these companies to change their behavior. Raging Golden Eagle
Professor Fiamengo discusses the unacknowledged consequence of repeating feminist propaganda: the loss of integrity and self-respect that erodes the self, your soul. As Theodore Dalrymple noted: the purpose of propaganda is not to persuade, but to humiliate, and an emasculated man is easy to control.
By David King: Just a quick couple of comments about an article on Every Woman Weekly which, if you take it at face value†, demonstrates that feminism is in serious, serious trouble. Ostensibly, it’s an Agony Aunt-style piece in which “Ariana” despairs that her three year old son seems to be growing into a healthy, cis, presumptively hetero male kid, and what she can do about it. That’s right, she wants to force her three year boy into being a girl, because fuck Patriarchy and cis, het shitlords and, well, because reason. (Hint: the word is “bigotry”.) Of course such people exist, but what is disturbing — again, if you take this at face value — is that the respondent supported and encouraged her in her objective to mess with her son’s gender identity. ‘strewth. It’s as if nobody ever learned from history. If this were real, then the future path of this poor kid is pretty much mapped out by the tragic case of David Reimer who, along with his twin brother, was circumcised in 1966 aged eight months by cauterisation on account of phimosis (an abnormality of the foreskin which can, in some cases, interfere with urination and other normal biological functions). Aside from the unusual method (for which there presumably was a good reason — infant foreskin can’t usually be retracted), this case is one of those rare procedures done for legitimate medical reasons, as opposed to ritual or cultural ones. What happened next, though, was far from legitimate (or routine).
By Michael Krieger: The following would be funny, if it weren’t so incredibly sad. The United Nations’ spiral into clownish insignificance continues unabated.
