Frequently in debate an opponent will raise the issue of capitalism - usually to do with perceived inequity/unfairness/brutality. When I was young I thought in similar ways. It seems obvious that any system which relies on greed to motivate must be morally dubious, whereas a system designed at more equitable distribution of resources must be morally superior.
In the first article, I looked at how the regressive left arose from the remnants of the revolutionary radical left, after most decided that they could no longer openly cling to classical Marxist theory. I explained that having abandoned Marxism, with the promised utopian communist state that it predicted, the regressives no longer had a specific utopian end-point to talk about, but most still remain committed to the overthrow of the state in a Marxist-style revolution, even though they cannot say what, exactly, they would put in its place. Finally, we saw that the modified version of identity politics adopted by the regressives is toxic and actually undoes all the progress made by the liberal left in addressing equality of minorities and reducing both the importance and the awareness of identity differences such as gender, race and sexuality. I finished by explaining that it is for this reason in particular that many people, including me, label this destructive mutation of left-progressive politics the regressive left.
In this article, I want to explain the dangers that I think regressives pose to society, and offer some thoughts on how we might address these dangers.
I have written in the past about my concerns over the concentration of power within the tech sector. Google, for example, has tremendous power with no real accountability. Most people know that the ubiquitous search engine deals with user searches in a 'less than straightforward' manner. It is fairly common knowledge that companies willing to pay can have their listings advanced up the list of search results. This, however, is the tip of the iceberg.
There has been much buzz about a young girl from Sweden who has become the darling of climate activists. Greta admits to having several mental issues and deciding to abandon school to concentrate on climate activism. Supporters have lionised the young girl whilst critics have attacked her as a damaged young girl who knows next to nothing about the issue.
Matthew Goodwin gave an interview on YouTube in which he gives his analysis of the failures of Labour and the left in general. To me he seems to talk with sincerity and sense. His shares many of my own conclusions about the issues - although there are a few points of difference between us. On the main political and socio-economic analysis, however, I think he has it just about spot on.
At last. For someone with an internet name of Bikerman, I've been without a bike for far too long. For personal and work reasons I had to sell my beloved Yamaha several years ago. Now, being finally in a position to get a new bike, I've bought myself another Yamaha.
I am hearing much talk around rape and the necessity to 'do something' about the 'terrible conviction rates'. This article, more than any other, is likely to draw condemnation and abuse from the feminist loonies because it takes an honest and frank look at something which feminists lie about more than anything else - rape1.
Some time ago I promised to post something on this issue - the claimed gap in pay between women and men. So, here is the promised article. The image heading the article is typical of the general claim made. Obviously most of the fuss is coming from the US - hence the currency - but a similar story of woe is articulated by UK feminists. Is it correct?
The amount of misinformation originating from feminist sources that has now become part of 'common knowledge' is scary. A credulous media seems all to willing to print or repeat the most outrageous nonsense as long as it comes from a 'genuine feminist source'.
As I have demonstrated in previous articles, the idea of a credible feminist source is problematic. Modern feminism relies heavily on the Gallic Postmodernist philosophy which essentially holds that feelings are more valid than statistics or other empirical measures. What might be 'evidence' to a feminist is unlikely to be so to anyone who is not indoctrinated into feminist dogma. The aim of this posting is to correct some of the more egregious and persistent of the lies that are routinely trotted out by those either unwilling or incapable of doing even the most elementary fact checking.
If you are contemplating spending a great deal of money on a University course for yourself, or for your child(ren), then I think you should check whether the University of choice is one which supports and encourages free speech. If not it is probably following the trend first seen on US campuses, but now spreading through UK universities - namely, the idea that it is the role of the University to train activists in social justice.
Emma Watson is the latest in a growing line of celebrities who suddenly feel qualified to lecture on the meaning and goals of feminism.
How she suddenly discovered this expertise is left to our imagination but presumably it involved some weird and wonderful arcane mysticism and waving a magic twig around. It certainly didn't involve reading the relevant studies and papers.
Emma has broken her instructions into a handy seven bullet points so that the audience can take the bit-sized message without getting hopelessly lost or confused. I'll take each point individually and respond. This is NOT a rant and I will not be seeking to fire off cutting put-downs or to 'destroy' her. It is a reasoned explanation of why I think she is misguided, misinformed and misdirected.