Since when were the lunatics in charge of the asylum? Since when were the extremists given so much airtime? Since when were those with a conservative world-view the radical moderates? Since now, or at least since the last few days.

I understand the mainstream media’s thirst for controversy – I get that. But when does this relentless quest for controversy become transformed into fanning the flames of extremism and further dividing society?

That is what giving platforms to those who want to tear down Nelson’s Column is – an irresponsible promotion of extremism. This is what you do when you give a platform to those who declare all white people are racist, even to challenge them. And it is left for the new ‘radical moderates’ like us to say, ‘Shut up – you do not even deserve a response, but here is one while I have you’.

In one day alone on Good Morning Britain, at least two of the guests within the space of an hour were men pretending to be women. One was a transgender model, Munroe Bergdorf, who was fired by L’Oreal after calling all white people racists. The other was Caitlyn Jenner, formerly the Olympic champion athlete Bruce Jenner.

What they said is really secondary to the reality that men pretending to be women are given so much space and time on prime-time breakfast TV.
It seems we are to ignore the misogyny behind the idea that a man can just wake up one day and say, ‘Actually, I am a woman’. Then, to heap insult upon insult, some magazine will give this man a Best Woman award. They have scoured the Earth and not one single bog-standard, born-female, female will do. No, instead the men are so good at everything they are even better than women at being women. Now that really is misogyny.

I have been female all my life but I still don’t cut the mustard with the man who has been a woman for five minutes. (Note: to my mind the best-known transgender people are men pretending to be women, including Caitlyn Jenner, , Munroe Bergdorf and Laverne Cox, not women pretending to be men. A real example of male privilege for once.)
This is not reform: this is revolution. Pretending that men can be women and vice versa is akin to burning the whole place down.

It does not stop there, for the iconoclasts are coming thick and fast. When the Guardian floated the idea that Nelson’s Column should be torn down, the broadcasters all rubbed their hands with glee: Channel 4 (who invited me to rebut), Sky (also to rebut), ITV (invite I could not take up) and BBC.

My point is that we know this will never happen and that there would be riots in the streets, yet the proposal to wreck a part of the British historical landscape is given a ‘fair’ hearing. How many people in Britain are on board with this extremist view? Just 17 per cent, according to Good Morning Britain. The rest of us are the ordinary, reasonable, dare I say it moderates, who see this for the vandalism that it is. You don’t have to be a conservative to oppose it, but it sure does help.

And on and on it goes, the media feeding these extremists who come armed with the wrecking ball. How much does this contribute to actual progress, not the Leftie destructive kind? How much do we think this kind of discussion really teases through the issues behind a reform? There is no sophistication to these ideas – it is just barbarism through and through.

I’m open to reform. I’m not always the one standing in the middle of the road yelling ‘Stop!’ to the onslaught of ‘progress’, but I will stand there and fight the Leftist extremists and their poisonous, divisive, race-baiting ideology.

Britain faces huge challenges: billions in unfunded pensions, an unsustainable NHS, unprecedented family breakdown and a welfare system unable to cope with it, globalisation, automation, not to mention Brexit.

Yet here we are watching these muppets, these toddlers with zero ideas on how to move forward. The easiest thing in the world is to say, ‘Let’s tear the whole place down’. Occasionally my kids tried to do this and I put them in their playpen. That’s where the media should put these toddlers: in their playpen with their doddies and comfort blankets.

The truth is, it is much harder to build something up and conserve it than smash things down. Conserving is the new radical; we are the new moderates.

It is incredibly challenging actually to research the welfare system and propose a reform as James Bartholomew has done.

It takes time and deep thinking to look at the NHS and make suggestions for improvement like Kristian Niemietz.

That’s just two. But you’ll be waiting a long time before you see either on the box. Perhaps they are not sexy enough; maybe they are not controversial enough; who knows? But I do know we are not going to get very far like this.


  1. ‘Do men make better women than women?’ – a great idea for a PhD thesis!

    I agree, one reaches total exasperation with this Cultural Marxist stuff.

  2. As many as 17% support pulling down Nelson’s Column? I’m horrified that iconoclasm has penetrated so far into the general population – if it’s true. Conservatism is about honouring the past, preserving continuity with the ancestors so that we know who we are and where we come from. As leftism has salami-sliced its way through our culture, we’re now approaching a Year Zero mentality which will leave our children deracinated, alienated individualists – a globalist dream of the future.

  3. Reminds me of a few years back, when a woman came forward with the proposal that all women – but only women – should be allowed to carry loaded guns in public. Presumably to deal out instant “justice” to all those hordes of male rapists and abusers that are leaping on females left right and centre. I would emphasise that this was in the UK.

    Does anyone remember her?

    As if her argument wasn’t lunatic enough, you only had to look at her face and her manner of expressing herself, to realise that she was as nutty as a fruitcake. At least, you would have thought that a few seconds of listening to her delusions would have been enough for any thinking person to put a reassuring arm around her shoulder and usher her gently into whatever form of therapy was most suitable for her condition. But instead, she was given the publicity normally accorded to someone with a serious and credible suggestion, and was afforded airtime on TV to express her views, virtually without challenge. Nobody asked relevant questions like under what circumstances should women be allowed to use their weapons, or were they to enjoy a total free-for-all; at what age should females be accorded this frightening privilege; what about women with known (or unknown) mental issues; and wouldn’t encouraging the deadly armament of half the population result in a mass of “mistakes” filling every morgue in the country. Not to mention the outright and blatant sexism of giving every female literally the power of life and death over every male.

    But no, she was given a free run to put her ideas into the public domain. Very much a case of being handed the keys to the asylum, indeed.

    • Yes. Evidently when you want to discuss it self identify as a woman, discuss it, then you can identify as a man again. After all you don’t have to keep identifying as the opposite sex as you can claim gender fluidity. The sad thing is that’s not a mockery of what’s being espoused (apart from the application), it’s actually what’s being argued!

      • I wonder what it would do to their heads to turn it back on them like this.

        Was going to say brains, but they are already fried.

  4. > No, instead the men are so good at everything they are even better than women at being women. Now that really is misogyny.

    The whole idea of feminism is built on the premise that for the last 6000 years of human history or so, the daily women experience was sub par to that of a man. That “femininity” is a swear word, a form of ritualised submission created by men to keep women away from the only way of life that worth living: that of a man. If that is not the most radical form of misogyny, then what is?

    Feminism devalues historical and biological female choices (because you see, they were not choices) of housekeeper and nurturing mother. Counter-intuitively, it puts male way of life – concentrated on creating material values, exploring and competing for dominance in the public domain – on the pedestal as an ideal for all women.

    Of course, with such a viewpoint the MtF transgenders indeed make the best “new women”.

  5. I’ve never understood why feminists do not reject trans men as misogyny, especially as the trans community represent such a minute section of the population. But then again you only have to look at their views on Islam to see that modern feminists are just the shield maidens of the left and have little interest in other women beyond their usefulness to the cause.

    • > I’ve never understood why feminists do not reject trans men as misogyny

      Easy: if a woman can be anyone, then anyone can be a woman.

      • If you are not allowed to define what a man or woman is, those terms cease to be of any use; is that what these fluid people are hoping to achieve? Shall we eventually not be able to talk about anything?

    • Some do, but I’m unsure what their category is called. There are also battles going on between TGs & some lesbian/gay folk who don’t approve of the physical intervention e.g. young-age hormone blocking etc.

  6. Don’t complain about the trans-gender activists. The world will always have its fill of nutters.

    Rather, complain about the journalists who are giving them air-time…

    • The activists are the end product and the journalists are the conduit. It is a mistake, however, to think of political correctness as being ‘silly’. It is a planned agenda which has the backing of very powerful people in the worlds of politics and business. An historical example is that the Rockefeller Foundation played a key role in publicising the women’s lib movement.

      • The activists are still nutters, however. We should waste no time on them. Attack the Deep State by all means, but stop the journalists giving the air time…

  7. The current infantalised generations that are falling for and pushing this guff are just the end product of the post-modernist, cultural marxist experiment that has been going on in the west since WWII. They are effectively the 5th wave sent to finally put us out of our misery.

  8. Laura, the whole point of this frenzied identity / oppressor /oppressed politics is to create social breakdown and anarchy. Onyy then can the Left make a realistic bid for power. When you understand this, you will understand everything. These people are not lunatics at all, they are seeking totalitarian Leftist power the only way they think is possible. Or as their hero Gyorgy Lukacs put it: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

    • The end goal is to create an amorphous, genderless, coffee-coloured, unthinking, unquestioning mass of homogeneous consumers and taxpayers. Communism with a capitalist face – or capitalism with a communist face, if you prefer.

      • The end will not be that, though. They underestimate the strength of the factions
        While a muslim future doesn’t appeal, it will, at least, see the end of the left.

    • Both Dr. Jordan Peterson & Professor Stephen Hicks are excellent sources on how post modernist philosophy in Universities has seeped out in to mainstream society and is fuelling divisive & illiberal identity politics. Post modernism is specifically anti-western & illiberal & it’s why its advocates ally themselves with Islamists.

    • You are oversimplifying the situation. Yes, there are people ‘seeking totalitarian Leftist power the only way they think possible.’ There are others, who we could perhaps call the ‘corporate right’, who see identity politics as a way of distracting the Left from criticizing the concentration of wealth in smaller and smaller hand and the transfer of power from elected officials and governments to large multinationals. Essentially the corporate right see the likes of Antifa and BLM as a tiger that they can ride. The clearest use of identity politics to support corporate interests has been seen in the US, where Obama’s cabinet appears to have been chosen by Citibank, where Clinton was the candidate for Wall Street and the arms industry and where Antifa and BLM are allowed to riot in order to discredit Trump to such an extent that his impeachment appears justified. On this side of the pond, the Brexiteers are smeared as racists in order to avoid answering criticisms concerning the democratic deficit of the EU.

      I also doubt that Caitlyn Jenner belongs to either group. Many of the highest profile individuals are probably in it just for the money and fame.

    • Precisely Paul.

      The Left’s strategy has always been to create social division by driving as many wedges inbetween as many groups and individuals as possible and to then present themselves as the only answer to the very problems they themselves created.

      For the Soviet Marxists, it was class against class. For contemporary Cultural Marxists, it’s gender against gender and race against race.

  9. Freedom of speech & freedom of conscience were once liberal values that the left defended. It is now Conservatives & classical liberals who wish to conserve these values. Redefining gender, race baiting & importation of Islam are all part of a post modernist agenda that seeks to wreak havoc by undermining the foundations of liberal democracy. Im a Conservative on many issues but as an Atheist it baffles me why the left attack Christians like Jacob Rees Mogg & Tim Farron whilst they have some views I dont agree with do not wish to overthrow liberal democracy & replace it with a theocracy which many Muslims do and despite their religious views on homosexuality neither of them or their religions advocate killing gay people or criminialising homosexuality. In a liberal democracy religious people are entitled to their views as long as they dont want to impose them on others. I will hold my breath to see the day a devout Muslim who believes in Sharia, opposes liberal democracy & thinks gays & apostates should be killed is given the same grilling as a Christian on TV. The media are hypocrites & cowards.

  10. I think the silent majority is just as fed up with all this clamouring for attention but it’s easily explained.
    The media need to generate traffic and the more ridiculous the claim the more they like it. That’s why they don’t rip in to the proposer because these feeds would just dry up.
    Trump used it to win the election in the USA. He realised that rather than trying to have a rational debate he just put out a line “build a wall”, “stop muslims travelling” and the media lapped it up. He managed to dominate the news for most of the election without paying for it

    • Exactly. And unfortunately, the number of gay and transgender people that just want to quietly get on with their lives without fuss find themselves hated because of the attention-seeking misfits that the media loves to lap up to make “good entertaining airtime”

    • It is, but the same people introduced gay marriage (going over and above the reasonable compromise of civil partnerships).

  11. To paraphrase the satirical poet Juvenal : “To keep people happy, all you have to do is give them bread and circuses”

    That is the only explanation you need for : Celebrity Big Brother, Love Island, Z Factor (sic) and the over-representation of certain minorities in the media.

    I don’t personally know any transgender people, but those friends that I have who are gay actually dislike the publicity given to these shrieking misfits and think they do more harm than good, by getting the publics’ backs up un-necessarily when all they want to do is get on with their lives quietly and without fuss

    • Indeed I think the truth is very much that much of this is simply the modern equivalent of “freak shows” . Such as the endless procession of “fattest” etc. So one has a whole load of “PC” freaks to fill up air time. Like you the people I know who are Gay are decidedly less colourful than the stereotypes gleefully paraded by the media, often by people who claim to want to escape stereotypes! as far as one can see the regulation of male sexual behaviour has always been a much higher priority in Christian society so it is no surprise that is the activities of male “trans” folk that is so focussed upon.

    • The gays don’t like the trannies? How far is this identity cr*p going to go?

      I worked with trannie getting on for 20 yrs ago. She/he was ok, and very plausible as a female. I was interested in the effects of the hormones she was taking – she said she was more patient in traffic. I hope she is happy, but ultimately what I came away with was the feeling that an unfortunate person had been turned into a freak by surgeons who fancied having a go at something (that was then) a bit different. She/he was only 26.

      Our gay didn’t mind the trannie, btw.

  12. A brief guid to Cultural Marxism.

    The concept that has become known as ‘Cultural Marxism’ can be traced back to the “Frankfurt School” of the 1920’s.

    The Frankfurt School refers to a number of socialist intellectuals who, after realising that the communist revolution in Russia was unlikely to be repeated in other European countries via force, dedicated themselves to developing more imaginative methods of advancing Socialism in the West.

    The strategy they eventually settled upon is now known as – cultural Marxism.

    A strategy which can be generally defined as: The gradual process of destroying all notions of tradition, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sexuality, the family unit and natural justice, in order to re-assemble society in the future as a socialist utopia.

    A utopia that will have no notion of gender, race, morality, God or individuality, and where all ideas of childhood, fatherhood, motherhood and nationhood are rendered obsolete.

    The method used to achieve this outcome, is to gradually spread the ideology in a stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions, including schools, universities, unions, the movie industry, the media, the church, the police, the judiciary, the military, the civil service, and all major political parties.

    With the ultimate goal of embedding it – largely without being noticed – in the popular mind, in the hope of eventually leading the masses to abandon their own cultural identity and national heritage, by their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection.

    • Cultural Marxism is really a term that’s only been used as a right wing means of criticising much of the work arising from the ‘Frankfurt School’. Probably the most important ideas to arise from the Frankfurt School would be the Critical Theory work of Jurgen Habermas, which bears little relationship to the bollocks which you describe above.

      • How about Herbert Marcuse’s ‘Eros and Civilization’ and its influence on the 1960s counter-culture?

        • I’ve come to Jurgen Habermas, via UK educational research & the work of Lawrence Stenhouse rather than through any political study. I’d not read either of those essay’s before this moring (and only gave ‘Eros & Civilisation’ the barest flick through. Yeah ! – they’re doozies aren’t they ? I don’t think he quite says black is white, but it’s not an unreasonable inference to make (I had my best History Today face on there). If I were to be kind to Marcuse I’d say that the work provides plenty of difficult concepts to think about, without genuinely offering any solutions. Otherwise I’d say it was bollocks. I’m guessing this is just an elaborate piss take to be honest. I missed the bit about cultural Marxism though.

      • How about his Essay ‘Repressive tolerance’ wherein he argued that black is white and urged an agenda of intolerance of non- leftist views which we now see in the systematic politically correct exclusion of conservative / right wing views on university campuses, the media and the public square generally?

  13. “…men are so good at everything they are even better than women at being women.”

    Especially if they’re called Jack Lemon and Tony Curtis. That’s who I think of whenever I see these poor saps on TV.

Comments are closed.