Is “feminist intellect” an oxymoron? Is Vagynocracy — the vagina-worshipping, gynaecocratic cult of feminism — an intellectual and ethical void? Countless feminists certainly seem determined to prove so. I’m not a fan of the American judge Brett Kavanaugh and I’m suspending judgment about whether his appointment to the Supreme Court will be a Good Thing. But I’m already sure that those who oppose his appointment are hysterical hypocrites. Watching their antics, I was reminded of a passage in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). The ideologue and torturer O’Brien tells the thought-criminal Winston Smith about a fundamental principle of IngSoc:
“I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.” (Op. cit., Part 3, ch. 2)
The requirements of feminism
It’s easy to adapt that passage from Orwell to the requirements of modern feminism and the Vagynocracy:
We tell you, evil white males, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the female mind, and nowhere else. Not in the white male mind, which is evil, and in all cases must be demonized: only in the minds of women, who are rendered infallible by their victimhood. Whatever women hold to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of women.
Thus speaks the Vagynocracy on behalf of those who oppose the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh. Of course, there are obvious problems with that kind of feminist epistemology. Women don’t all think alike and some women are dishonest, delusional or psychopathic. And the epistemology doesn’t take account of non-White males, who are higher on the left’s victim-hierarchy than White women. But those are only problems if you believe in an objective external reality and in logical consistency. Feminists are part of the left and they don’t believe in objective reality or logical consistency.
The origins of identity politics
Instead, they believe in feelings and the will-to-power. The left don’t want to win political battles by gathering evidence and constructing good arguments, but by encouraging and exploiting grievance, self-pity and factitious outrage. The origins of their ideology were described by the then Chief Rabbi of Britain back in 2007:
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book. … “Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
Mixing metaphors with Molly McKew
This ideology of egomania and self-pity is why the left prefer to argue by emotion. They say that their opponents’ ideas are “toxic,” “disgusting,” and “dangerous,” rooted in “hate,” “bigotry” and “prejudice,” replete with “sexism,” “racism,” and “homophobia.” One feminist, the “narrative architect” Molly K. McKew, has written of “Brett Kavanaugh and the Information Terrorists Trying to Reshape America.” If you’re a fan of mixed metaphors, you really ought to sample Molly’s tap-dancing stew of ideopolemic acrobatics. She writes about “riding the coattails of the conspiracy bandwagon” and “the ideological landscape that has been so swiftly leveraged in the defense of Brett Kavanaugh.” Then she dazzles her readers with this: “The leading lights in [Roger] Stone’s orbit take scalps and champion memes, only to shed their skins and awake in a new persona, turning their flamethrowers from one topic or group to the next.”
After meeting “leading lights” that can take scalps, shed skins, and wield flamethrowers from orbit, Molly’s readers will not be surprised to learn that “[Christine] Blasey Ford has learned how devastating this runaway narrative architecture can be.” George Orwell condemned fatuous writing like this in his essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946). He pointed out that when “images clash — as in The fascist octopus has sung its swan song, The jackboot is thrown into the melting pot — it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking.”
Molly K. McKew is certainly not thinking: she’s feeling. And one of her strongest feelings is that she’s entitled to censor those she disagrees with. She wants to take the flame-throwers and scalping-knives away from skin-shedding leading lights like Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, before they can drag America down a “dark, seductive rabbit hole” where “trench warfare” and “internal psychological terror” lie in wait:
Cognitive warfare is a dark, seductive rabbit hole. It is powerful and unregulated, and right now, thanks to social media in particular, the information domain is as lawless as the wild west, as demoralizing as the terror of World War I trench warfare, and as adaptive as the guerrilla tactics in the Philippines in World War II. There are state actors, nonstate actors, private sector and other independents — armies, mercenaries, and terrorists, all looking to master these techniques. Even small groups, like the cadre I described here, can achieve significant outcomes when the network effects kick in.
Trained and untrained operators alike are beta-testing tools and tactics on human minds, deliberately or intuitively. Information weapons are intangible. But people aim them, and people are the target. It’s time we take them seriously. The immediate costs are already visible in America. The long-term costs will be devastating. One need only look to Stalin’s campaigns of internal psychological terror waged in captive nations to understand the price can be inconceivably high. (“Brett Kavanaugh and the Information Terrorists Trying to Reshape America”, Wired, 3rd October 2018)
Ms McKew is one of the feminists who seem hell-bent on proving that “feminist intellect” is an oxymoron. But if she wants some “information terrorists” who have imposed “devastating” costs on America, I suggest that she take a closer look at Black Lives Matter (BLM), who appear in her risible article as an example of the good guys. The anti-police posturing of BLM has caused many thousands of unnecessary deaths in the Black community whom BLM profess to champion. As Steve Sailer has pointed out: “the current high rate of homicides [in Baltimore] can be dated to April 27, 2015, the day of the BLM riot over Freddie Gray’s death. This may be the single most clear-cut case in the history of social science.”
Leftists pursue power, not truth
The “information terrorism” of BLM has been killing Blacks in many other American cities, from St Louis to Chicago. It has also killed police officers, like the five shot dead by a Black sniper in Dallas in 2016. But that is merely reality. It doesn’t matter to leftists like Molly McKew, who are pursuing power, not truth. Another section of her article will disappoint fans of mixed metaphors, but it offers another important insight into leftist psychology:
Rape and pedophilia are potent triggers that elicit an intense emotional response from an audience. Rape has been used to fling charges of hypocrisy — almost always involving accusations against Bill Clinton or other Democrats. … It has been used to normalize racism — referring to blacks and Muslims as serial rapists and to migrants as rapists and killers.” (“Brett Kavanaugh and the Information Terrorists Trying to Reshape America”, Wired, 3rd October 2018)
Molly McKew is condemning the right for dishonestly exploiting rape as a weapon against their enemies. But there is abundant evidence that Blacks and Muslims are much likelier to be rapists and misogynists than White men are. The Muslim rape-gangs of Rotherham and the Black gang-rapists of London are two examples from one enriched nation. The migrant rape-festival in Cologne is another example from another enriched nation. But that is rape-reality, of course, and it doesn’t matter to the left. The feminist campaign against Brett Kavanaugh has been based on a likely confabulation (i.e., a process in which the gaps left by a disorder of the memory are replaced with imaginary remembered experiences consistently believed to be true) — in this case, a confabulation of rape-hysteria directed against White men. As in the Duke Lacrosse Rape-Hoax and the University of Virginia Rape-Hoax, the left have tried to portray Kavanaugh and other White men as psychopathic misogynists who pose an ominous, ever-present sexual threat to American women.
Open borders for rapists
The same rape-hysterical feminists believe in open borders for non-White groups where psychopathy and misogyny occur at much higher rates. And the left know the truth about these groups and their deeply embedded rape-culture. After all, the Nobel Prize for Peace has just been awarded to “Denis Mukwege, a doctor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC], and Nadia Murad, a 25-year-old Yazidi activist … for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict”. The Guardian describes the two Nobel laureates like this:
Murad has used her own story of enslavement and rape by Islamic State to publicise human rights abuses. … Mukwege, a gynaecologist, founded and maintains the Panzi hospital in Bukavu, in the east of the DRC, where he has cared for tens of thousands of women who suffered sexual assault in the country’s recurrent civil conflict. … Murad was abducted with other Yazidi women in August 2014 when their home village of Kocho in Sinjar, northern Iraq, was attacked by Isis. Captured alongside her sisters, she lost six brothers and her mother as the extremists killed the village’s men and any women considered too old to be sexually exploited. (Nobel peace prize goes to campaigners against sexual violence, The Guardian, 5th October 2018)
Feminists claim to be deeply concerned about this kind of sexual violence, which is why Eve Ensler, the Jewish feminist who gave us The Vagina Monologues, championed Mukwege’s work in the Guardian back in 2013. But Ensler and other feminists would react with horror and indignation to anyone who pointed out an obvious fact: that Western nations should not accept migration from Iraq and the “Democratic Republic of the Congo,” where rape-culture obviously flourishes on a horrifying scale. Feminists like Ensler unconditionally support immigration from the DRC and other bastions of rape-culture.
Moses and Morality
This isn’t rational — once again, feminists are working to prove that “feminist intellect” is an oxymoron. Feminists welcome Black and Muslim immigrants who are certain to increase sexual violence in Western nations. But there’s good evidence that Islam adopted an ancient tradition of rape and sex-slavery, rather than creating a new one of its own. Recall that the Nobel laureate Nadia Murad was abducted by “extremists” who “killed the village’s men and any women considered too old to be sexually exploited.” That reminded me of an interesting passage in the Old Testament:
Numbers 31:7 And [the children of Israel] warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. … 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (The Book of Numbers, King James version)
“Rape-culture” and male supremacism are part of Judaism and Islam in a way they have never been part of Christianity. Simply compare that passage from the Old Testament with this famous story from the Gospel of John:
8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (The Gospel of John, King James version)
Jesus opposed the misogyny and male supremacism of the Pharisees, whom the Jewish scholar Rabbi Louis Finkelstein hailed as the progenitors of his faith: “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism.” Now let’s return to Brett Kavanaugh. He is a Christian who rejects “Pharisaism” and regards Jesus as the embodiment of perfect morality. Kavanaugh’s religious beliefs are another reason for leftists to hate him. They want to destroy Christianity, which is why they are so enthusiastic about Muslim immigration. But is it good for women to flood the West with dedicated followers of the Prophet Muhammad, who kept sex-slaves and consummated marriage with a nine-year-old?
Branded, beaten and repeatedly gang-raped
Of course it isn’t. But the welfare of women obviously doesn’t matter to leftists. And I can prove that in more ways than one. The left don’t just support open borders for non-White rapists: they also support impunity for non-White rapists once they’ve crossed the borders. In its celebration of her Nobel Prize, the Guardian has published extracts from Nadia Murad’s memoirs of what she suffered at the hands of Islamic State:
The slave market opened at night. We could hear the commotion downstairs where militants were registering and organising, and when the first man entered the room, all the girls started screaming. It was like the scene of an explosion. We moaned as though wounded, doubling over and vomiting on the floor, but none of it stopped the militants. They paced around the room, staring at us, while we screamed and begged. They gravitated toward the most beautiful girls first, asking, “How old are you?” and examining their hair and mouths. “They are virgins, right?” they asked a guard, who nodded and said, “Of course!” like a shopkeeper taking pride in his product. Now the militants touched us anywhere they wanted, running their hands over our breasts and our legs, as if we were animals. (“I was an Isis sex slave. I tell my story because it is the best weapon I have,” The Guardian, 5th October 2018)
You can be sure that feminists will be appalled by Murad’s story and that their response to her Nobel Prize will be as extensive as it is enthusiastic. But you can also be sure that no mainstream feminist in Britain will draw an obvious parallel between Nadia Murad’s experiences in Iraq and what thousands of other women and girls have suffered much closer at hand. These horrors did not happen in the Middle East:
The youngest victim, Girl D, was subjected to some of the most extreme violence. … She met Mohammed Karrar when she was a small child of 11. Put simply, she said she was “sold” to him by another man, who is still at large. Karrar, whom she knew as Mo, had complete control over her, she said. “If he wanted me to do something I would do it. [He said] if he wanted me to eat shit, I would eat shit.” When she was 12 he branded her “so people knew I was his”. Karrar and his brother Bassam repeatedly beat and raped her. The brothers arranged for her to be repeatedly gang-raped by groups of men. When she fell pregnant Karrar arranged a backstreet abortion … When she was 12-and-a-half he struck her on the head with a baseball bat and raped her with it while she was unconscious. On another occasion he injected her with heroin. (See “The Blessings of Diversity,” The Occidental Observer, 22nd May 2013)
Where did that sex-slavery take place? Amidst the “dreaming spires” of the English town of Oxford, where numerous members of Britain’s liberal elite attended university and further deepened their staunch feminist principles.
Some sex-slaves don’t matter
Strangely enough, however, the liberal elite have often been ready to suspend those staunch principles. Around 2002 the Labour MP Ann Cryer learned that Muslim rape-gangs were at work far to the north of Oxford in her heavily enriched constituency in Yorkshire. Appalled by what was happening, she tried to help the victims and end the sexual violence. And who better to enlist as an ally than the Guardian, which is Britain’s foremost progressive and feminist newspaper? Well, this is how the Guardian rallied to the aid of sex-slaves on its own doorstep:
[Ann Cryer writes:] Once I had overcome my initial disbelief that large-scale paedophile abuse was the norm for a section of the community — in some parts of Britain, it went back to the Eighties [or the Sixties], when it was first reported to police — and that it was an open secret, I took my concerns to West Yorkshire police and social services. I expected they would have a hard time believing the claims — but I didn’t think I’d be flatly ignored by everyone. It was as if this crime was so toxic, no one could acknowledge its existence. … I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness. When I wasn’t being openly accused of racism and religious hate — my name was on the website Islamophobia Watch — I was painted as someone who didn’t understand Asian culture. (How I was branded a racist — for trying to save girls from their vile abusers, The Daily Mail, 11th August 2017)
The Guardian also ignored the horrors being perpetrated in Rotherham, which was (and is) controlled by a Labour council staffed top-to-bottom by Guardian-reading feminists. The Labour MP for Rotherham was the anti-fascist bon viveur Denis MacShane, who worked so hard for Britain’s tiny Jewish community that he failed to notice the rape-gangs and child-prostitution networks flourishing right under his nose. However, MacShane lost his seat when he was jailed for fraud and he was replaced by Sarah Champion, who broke the tradition of myopia established by MacShane. That is, she actually stood up for abused White women and girls in Rotherham against their non-White male oppressors.
Labour are not interested in reality
Did her feminist activism please the staunch feminist Jeremy Corbyn and his Marxist allies in the Labour party? Not in the slightest: Corbyn threw Champion out of his Shadow Cabinet for publicizing some hate-facts. She had written a newspaper article saying that there was “a problem with British Pakistani men” committing sexual violence against White women and girls. She was right, but the Labour party is not interested in reality.
Nor is another institution that, like the Labour council in Rotherham, is staffed top-to-bottom by Guardian-reading feminists. I’m talking about the BBC, which, like the Guardian, entirely failed to help the rape-victims of Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale, Telford, and many other British towns and cities. This is particularly puzzling when you consider that Radio 4, the BBC’s most prestigious and politically important station, hosts a feminist show called Woman’s Hour, which is given an hour of air-time six days a week to promote the welfare of girls and women.
A half-Jewish matriarch
Why did Woman’s Hour never devote any of its abundant air-time and resources to exposing the misogynistic horrors being perpetrated up and down the country, decade after decade? To answer that question, let’s turn to the acclaimed matriarch of Woman’s Hour, the half-Jewish broadcaster and journalist Jenni Murray. This veteran feminist has just published a book called A History of the World in 21 Women (2018), which she describes as “a personal selection” of “truly great women,” all the way from the Egyptian Pharaohess Hatshepsut in “1500 B.C.E.” to the Australian athlete Cathy Freeman in the 21st century.
Another of the “truly great women” selected by Dame Jenni for her book is the German Chancellor Angela Merkel: “For thirteen years I have watched in amazement as she has bestridden Europe like a mini-Colossus, wearing what makes her comfortable, leaving her husband firmly in the background and making no concessions to the pressures to look and be ‘feminine’ that have so dogged other women who’ve made it to the top.” But Dame Jenni’s amazement may now be tinged with foreboding, because she notes that the mini-Colossus isn’t bestriding Europe as comfortably as she once did:
In the  election, [Merkel’s] party lost numerous seats and the radical right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) entered parliament as the third largest party. Merkel began her fourth term as Chancellor only after four months of negotiation with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), with which she managed to form a coalition. The support for the AfD and Merkel’s loss of popularity was clearly influenced by the German people’s concerns about immigration; Mrs Merkel had welcomed to Germany large numbers of refugees … fleeing the crisis in Syria. But she holds to the conviction that she made the right decision as the refugees, generally young people, will work hard for the German economy. (A History of the World in 21 Women, Jenni Murray, OneWorld, 2018, p. 253)
Yes, the German people do have “concerns about immigration.” And you might expect some of them to be shared by a feminist like Jenni Murray. For example, there was that rape-festival held in Cologne to celebrate New Year at the beginning of 2016. Does Dame Jenni mention the rape-festival in the ten pages she devotes to the amazing Mutti Merkel? No, she doesn’t. Does she mention any of the many other rapes and rape-murders committed in Germany since Mutti “welcomed … large numbers of refugees” there? Again, no, she doesn’t. And why does she use the vague term “young people” to describe the “refugees,” who include very few women and girls? Feminists are usually very anxious to note the over-representation of men and the under-representation of women.
But it doesn’t suit Jenni Murray and other feminists to admit that the “refugees” are overwhelmingly fit young men from highly misogynistic and male-supremacist cultures. Nor does it suit them to admit that the “refugees,” with low average IQs and poor standards of education, will always be a massive burden on the German economy, not an asset to it.
Reality vs mendacity
If feminists admitted all that, they would be doing something that the left never want to do. In other words, they would be facing up to reality. Given a choice between reality and mendacity, leftists never hesitate. It’s mendacity every time. The consequences of leftist lies have been horrific for women. Feminists rail constantly against the Patriarchy, but it wasn’t the Patriarchy that presided over decades of gang-rape and child-prostitution in Rotherham and Oxford.
Instead, it was the Vagynocracy, the ethically bankrupt and intellectually vacuous movement that loves The Vagina Monologues and believes in open borders. If you think there’s a huge and irreconcilable contradiction between supporting both The Vagina Monologues and mass immigration from the Third World, you’re obviously not a feminist or any other kind of leftist. That’s because you believe in reality and reason rather than emotion and egomania. “Feminist intellect” is indeed an oxymoron.