Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

KJK’s insane rant

1000 replies

Dontblameitonsunshine · 26/03/2024 09:38

Kjk’s decision to attack everyone who is not her lapdog is increasingly destructive. It looks like Can-sg put on a great conference. Those doctors who have spoken up have risked their careers. Kjk has become famous and has started a business from LWS. She has benefited way more than any of these doctors.

Her work could be powerful if she just stopped attacking everyone else. But these days she is a demagogue and causes more harm than good by capitalising on vulnerable and timid women and telling them that they need her to speak for them.

Part 2 - #FirstDoNoHarm although maybe #FirstDoSomeHarm - what will it take for medics to catch up?

This is the original #AdultHumanFemale channel and home of Kellie-Jay Keen aka Posie Parker.If you would like to donate to help support us, click here ⇨ http...

https://youtu.be/H509BAh59ak?si=tyTVneh2Jiz0rY6T

OP posts:
Thread gallery
63
TathingScinsel · 03/04/2024 10:26

Jellycats4life · 03/04/2024 10:18

Have you ever read some of her old MN posts? I have. Her husband was earning £200k back in 2008. That’s going to pay a mortgage off a lot quicker than selling merch.

Or a few 300-500 quid interviews on Talk TV!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/04/2024 10:28

Hope not Hate are not "TRA extremists"

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've had dealings with them before and I don't consider them particularly burdened by ethics or integrity or consideration for the rights of women and girls. One time, we wouldn't have said Amnesty International were batshit TRAs. But they are now.

BackCats · 03/04/2024 10:31

Regarding the mortgage free thing. KJK, as a SAHM, was supported by her husband for many years, who was, presumably, paying off the mortgage all that time. Also, she was clearly not wanting for anything at the time - able to afford quite a clothing and beauty budget. She was aware of this stability giving her certain freedoms - no one could threaten her livelihood, no one could shop her to her boss. I hear they went after her husband though.

Letting people know her mortgage was paid off was likely to be a move to demonstrate how bullet-proof she now is, that she no longer needs to fear losing her home, so that can’t be used against her. I bet that pissed off all the activists going for her husband’s business.

It is extremely unlikely that the T shirt selling was conceived as a way to bring in an additional income to her home. It seems more likely that her vision of getting people to ‘be the billboard’ (remember- she had a billboard with the dictionary definition of woman put up in various places, but transactivists got onto it before they were displayed, so, resourceful as ever - she saw that transactivists can’t stop people wearing T shirts) unexpectedly took off, and she started diversifying her product range to cater to untapped demand accordingly.

Perhaps her husband’s income was hit, and this was a lucky turn of events which helped her to retain that freedom. The only people who would be pissed off about it, would be those activists who want to coercively bring her firmly in line with the groupthink. Why else would anyone care?

OldCrone · 03/04/2024 10:31

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 08:16

"The big lie" was a specific bit that Hitler wrote about the Jews in mein kampf.

The original description of the big lie appeared in Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler applied it to the behavior of Jews rather than as a tactic he advocated.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot?utm_content=cmp-true

Not a clever thing to reference, many people would find that antisemitic. I'm not surprised Hope not Hate referenced it, given the increase in antisemitism at the moment.

Lisa Morgan: The big lie was first described by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.

Then she goes on to describe what the 'big lie' is.

The Jewish Virtual Library: The original description of the big lie appeared in Mein Kampf.

Then they go on to describe what the 'big lie' is.

AdamRyan: "The big lie" was a specific bit that Hitler wrote about the Jews in mein kampf.

Not a clever thing to reference, many people would find that antisemitic.

Who are you talking about here? Lisa Morgan, The Jewish Virtual Library or yourself?

DrLouiseJMoody · 03/04/2024 10:34

Oh. The house criticism is bizarre. JCJ lives in a flat owned by her parents and has never paid rent or had a job at 50. I don't begrudge that but do find it wildly out of touch when she gives it the working class girl went to uni and did good schtick. Many of the WPUK crowd are like this, utterly oblivious to their privilege whilst lying they are working class and understand on the ground concerns.

It's. All. Epic. Projection.

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:46

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 08:39

I know that the big lie was in Mein Kampf. What you seem to be saying, and I am sure you will clarify this just as you normally do, is that if someone recognises the pattern in propaganda they should never discuss it because people will find mentioning it anti-semitic?

It is a recognised pattern of how propaganda works. Does this mean that no one can also then describe how other patterns of propaganda work if they have been associated with vile atrocities? If we cannot evaluate that pattern and discuss it for fear of being labelled as 'anti', how the fuck will society learn from its mistakes. The woman who made the speech was in no way supporting Hitler, she was in no way supporting the far right. Naming a style of propaganda does not make you aligned with that propaganda.

"The big lie" in Mine Campf referred to something Hitler was attributing to Jews e.g. Jews were "the big liars". That was part of the basis of his anti-Jew conspiracy theory and we know where that went.

"The big lie" Lisa referred to is similarly something she is attributing to trans people - they are "the big liars". In my opinion she was similarly implying a conspiracy theory involving trans people.

Now I'm sure she's not stupid and chose her words carefully. If she wanted to talk about "propaganda" and free speech she could have used words that weren't embedded in our cultural understanding in that way. She did not have to use a phrase popularised by Hitler. Why do you think she chose to do that?

SinnerBoy · 03/04/2024 10:47

OldCrone · Today 10:31

The Jewish Virtual Library: The original description of the big lie appeared in Mein Kampf.

That notorious hotbed of anti-Semitism - The Jewish Virtual Library!

BonfireLady · 03/04/2024 10:49

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/04/2024 10:28

Hope not Hate are not "TRA extremists"

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've had dealings with them before and I don't consider them particularly burdened by ethics or integrity or consideration for the rights of women and girls. One time, we wouldn't have said Amnesty International were batshit TRAs. But they are now.

I was thinking exactly this. I've only seen a few examples of Hope Not Hate's work and it gave me the impression that there had been enough infiltration by the gender identity believers (or pretenders of the belief, which presumably describes most/many of those in the influencial positions - because of their personal motivations) to impact the direction that the organisation takes.
The Werewolf game springs to mind here:

https://www.tiktok.com/@triggerpod/video/7322929991375785248?lang=en

Separately, but related, I do have a concern that in the US in particular, "GC" views become intertwined with religious, conservative, traditional views which can't/won't distinguish between LGB and T. However, from what I've seen in the UK there is less risk of this. So if any "extreme right" (religious or other) groups are attempting to force-team themselves with KJK it's pretty easy to call them out as doing exactly that. Where it becomes more difficult is on X, because many posters either genuinely believe or disingenuously comment that being "GC" is one big conservative, religious "movement".

When someone has extreme views they presumably don't tend to see themselves as extreme, whether that's left or right. The fact simply remains that some people do believe that everyone has a gender identity and some people don't, irrespective of their political leaning. Attempting to force anyone to change their belief, in either direction, seems like a waste of energy to me. Energy that is better spent a) calling out the enforced belief, where it has infiltrated education, healthcare, workplaces and governments and governments as if it were a truth, and b) mitigating the impact of this having already happened e.g. the CAN-SG conference.

TikTok - Make Your Day

https://www.tiktok.com/@triggerpod/video/7322929991375785248?lang=en

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:52

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 08:52

Who are the journalists you are referring to? I think that it has been shown very recently that no, journalists aren't doing their research anymore. Did you read the statement by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Sarah Ferguson's team is supposed to be one of the best investigative teams in Australia and the ABC had to publicly state that they don't support her team in this instance. Because they and others rely on wikipedia. And it is a cycle.

How would Kellie Jay Keen have got it removed from Hope not Hate? Did you know how often she and others have attempted to change wikipedia? And yet, wikipedia still allows their team to post spurious claims. Why do you think Hope not Hate would make changes?

Can you at the very least list the 'journalists' that are part of the team of hope not hate? Because you have put faith in a blog post on a website and you have not done any of your own research.

This "go and do your own research" is me telling you that if you want to have any credibility in your claims, that you really should 'go and do your own research'. Because you have not posted original source material that substantiates your claims and you have posted misrepresentations and falsehoods.

I find this page useful when deciding how much to engage.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en

  1. Check the tone and style – Is it balanced and fair or sensationalist and one-dimensional?

Unlikely to be a conspiracy theory

  • The author does not shy away from exploring complexity, including different perspectives
  • The author is prepared to acknowledge limits to their knowledge
  • The tone is objective, factual

Likely to be a conspiracy theory

  • The author presents their information as the only valid truth
  • The author raises questions instead of providing answers
  • The author demonises whoever they assume is behind the alleged secret plot
  • The tone is subjective, emotionally charged
  • Emotional images or anecdotes are used to illustrate the message
European Commission

Identifying conspiracy theories

Learn about the conspiracy theories that flourished during the COVID-19 pandemic, why they can be dangerous and how to identify, debunk and counter them.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:55

BonfireLady · 03/04/2024 10:49

I was thinking exactly this. I've only seen a few examples of Hope Not Hate's work and it gave me the impression that there had been enough infiltration by the gender identity believers (or pretenders of the belief, which presumably describes most/many of those in the influencial positions - because of their personal motivations) to impact the direction that the organisation takes.
The Werewolf game springs to mind here:

https://www.tiktok.com/@triggerpod/video/7322929991375785248?lang=en

Separately, but related, I do have a concern that in the US in particular, "GC" views become intertwined with religious, conservative, traditional views which can't/won't distinguish between LGB and T. However, from what I've seen in the UK there is less risk of this. So if any "extreme right" (religious or other) groups are attempting to force-team themselves with KJK it's pretty easy to call them out as doing exactly that. Where it becomes more difficult is on X, because many posters either genuinely believe or disingenuously comment that being "GC" is one big conservative, religious "movement".

When someone has extreme views they presumably don't tend to see themselves as extreme, whether that's left or right. The fact simply remains that some people do believe that everyone has a gender identity and some people don't, irrespective of their political leaning. Attempting to force anyone to change their belief, in either direction, seems like a waste of energy to me. Energy that is better spent a) calling out the enforced belief, where it has infiltrated education, healthcare, workplaces and governments and governments as if it were a truth, and b) mitigating the impact of this having already happened e.g. the CAN-SG conference.

So has the definition of "TRA extremists" now moved away from the sorts of organisations that used to promote baseball bats with barbed wire on to "beat TERFS", and contain members who punched women and called them "cunt scum", to any organisation that supports "trans rights" or gender identity?

I think "extremists" are very different myself.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/04/2024 10:57

Good to see you here @DrLouiseJMoody!

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:58

DrLouiseJMoody · 03/04/2024 10:34

Oh. The house criticism is bizarre. JCJ lives in a flat owned by her parents and has never paid rent or had a job at 50. I don't begrudge that but do find it wildly out of touch when she gives it the working class girl went to uni and did good schtick. Many of the WPUK crowd are like this, utterly oblivious to their privilege whilst lying they are working class and understand on the ground concerns.

It's. All. Epic. Projection.

Why are you repeatedly bringing up JCJ on a thread about KJK?

I don't care about KJKs mortgage. I am concerned that women think they are donating to an organisation similar to a charity when they aren't. Clearly that's noone on this thread though.

Signalbox · 03/04/2024 10:59

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:52

I find this page useful when deciding how much to engage.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en

  1. Check the tone and style – Is it balanced and fair or sensationalist and one-dimensional?

Unlikely to be a conspiracy theory

  • The author does not shy away from exploring complexity, including different perspectives
  • The author is prepared to acknowledge limits to their knowledge
  • The tone is objective, factual

Likely to be a conspiracy theory

  • The author presents their information as the only valid truth
  • The author raises questions instead of providing answers
  • The author demonises whoever they assume is behind the alleged secret plot
  • The tone is subjective, emotionally charged
  • Emotional images or anecdotes are used to illustrate the message

I've just applied these criteria to the HNH article I linked above and it turns out they are a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 11:00

AdamRyan · 02/04/2024 23:03

March 2024 any better for you?
https://hopenothate.org.uk/case-files-kellie-jay/

Here is a great indication of the level of research that went into that blog post posted in the quoted post.

Apparently, Kellie Jay Keen 'expressed support for Tommy Robinson'. I looked and all I can find is something on wikipedia which came from another poorly evidenced source who claimed it came from the Feminist Current podcast (that I linked upthread). I note that this claim has been replicated now through multiple news sources including pink news who said "Parker has also previously been criticised for praising far-right campaigner Tommy Robinson in a Feminist Current podcast." https://archive.is/Jg3fl

Here is the transcript that I can do for now as I have to get some work done.:

KJK: Some of the stuff about Tommy Robinson. Now I say in the tweet, I think he is probably a racist and a yob. I think that is enough.

MM: who is Tommy Robinson ?

KJK: He is… I think he is an opportunist. And I think there are some really awful things to say about him. However, that is my gut feeling. However, all the things that he is accused of I have yet to see conclusive evidence. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that he probably is a racist yob, that means that I am not willing to commit myself 100% to that.

And I raised a question, I sort of said, you know, according to the mainstream media I am a hateful bigot. So, we have to ask questions of the narratives around people and who they serve. So this isn’t saying that Robinson, he is such a bad thing, because his name is like, it is like … If you utter his name without saying how much you hate him you are basically considered a supporter. So, I just said we are supposed to think this, and this, and this, about Robinson, the people say this about me so I think we need to question who it serves. Why is this insignificant man being given such significance. It doesn’t make any sense. He is just like a mousy yob. I don’t, you know, why is he able to be blamed for loads of stuff going on? And I am not that his supporters aren’t awful, as well. I, it, I was just raising a question. Cos I, the scales have fallen from my eyes about the left.
I am questioning everything. I want to know why we are supposed to think that.

I think that this is quite a wild claim if someone has declared that this is 'support' or 'praise' of Tommy Robinson.

But apparently, journalists should be trusted to do their research and suggestions to look further is just 'diversion tactics'.

Datun · 03/04/2024 11:00

Letting people know her mortgage was paid off was likely to be a move to demonstrate how bullet-proof she now is, that she no longer needs to fear losing her home, so that can’t be used against her. I bet that pissed off all the activists going for her husband’s business.

Absolutely. It's a shield. And I should imagine it's also to let them know that what they're doing isn't working.

Jellycats4life · 03/04/2024 11:01

Why are you repeatedly bringing up JCJ on a thread about KJK?

Because, as you well know, JCJ represents “the other side”; one of the head girls of the KJK hater movement, if you like.

Tongue wedged firmly in cheek, before you kick off…

TathingScinsel · 03/04/2024 11:01

Hate Not Hope seems more applicable nowadays. What a shame, another well meaning org that’s made a shambles of it’s former self (see also: Stonewall).

Datun · 03/04/2024 11:03

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:58

Why are you repeatedly bringing up JCJ on a thread about KJK?

I don't care about KJKs mortgage. I am concerned that women think they are donating to an organisation similar to a charity when they aren't. Clearly that's noone on this thread though.

Not everything is about you. Other posters have mentioned her mortgage.

And I'm interested in the comparisons between why people criticise KJK, but not other women. Because I think it's got nothing to do with what KJK says and everything to do with personal animosity.

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 11:03

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 09:25

I see that you don't see the logic here.

I am using the logic that you are posting on this thread about 'guilt by association' and tenuous links back at you. As in, you have posted a blog that makes a point about KJK supposedly sharing 'views' with far right people and I was pointing out that you share a view with someone who has appeared on a podcast with Hearts of Oak. Thereby using that same logic, you are far right.

Either way, the pertinent points about Hearts of Oak are:

Can you provide evidence that Hearts of Oak are far right?
Do you have evidence that Hearts of Oak were invited to the Brighton event by Kellie Jay Keen?

But you have already now stated that we should never expect you to do your own research because you have absolute trust in journalists to do theirs so that you don't have to.

You are being ridiculously obtuse.
I have made no comment about "guilt by association". I said "Some people choose not to associate with her because of her links to the far right" and linked JH blog as evidence.

My actual point is people have every right to their own personal boundaries on who to associate with.

Hearts of Oak/research blah blah is just you deflecting like crazy. It's not logic. It's irrelevant.

Jellycats4life · 03/04/2024 11:04

I don't care about KJKs mortgage. I am concerned that women think they are donating to an organisation similar to a charity when they aren't. Clearly that's noone on this thread though.

I’d say your concern is misdirected. If no one on this thread thinks that LWS is a charity, why would any donor or buyer of merch outside of this thread think it’s a charity? Bit patronising, no?

Datun · 03/04/2024 11:07

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 11:00

Here is a great indication of the level of research that went into that blog post posted in the quoted post.

Apparently, Kellie Jay Keen 'expressed support for Tommy Robinson'. I looked and all I can find is something on wikipedia which came from another poorly evidenced source who claimed it came from the Feminist Current podcast (that I linked upthread). I note that this claim has been replicated now through multiple news sources including pink news who said "Parker has also previously been criticised for praising far-right campaigner Tommy Robinson in a Feminist Current podcast." https://archive.is/Jg3fl

Here is the transcript that I can do for now as I have to get some work done.:

KJK: Some of the stuff about Tommy Robinson. Now I say in the tweet, I think he is probably a racist and a yob. I think that is enough.

MM: who is Tommy Robinson ?

KJK: He is… I think he is an opportunist. And I think there are some really awful things to say about him. However, that is my gut feeling. However, all the things that he is accused of I have yet to see conclusive evidence. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that he probably is a racist yob, that means that I am not willing to commit myself 100% to that.

And I raised a question, I sort of said, you know, according to the mainstream media I am a hateful bigot. So, we have to ask questions of the narratives around people and who they serve. So this isn’t saying that Robinson, he is such a bad thing, because his name is like, it is like … If you utter his name without saying how much you hate him you are basically considered a supporter. So, I just said we are supposed to think this, and this, and this, about Robinson, the people say this about me so I think we need to question who it serves. Why is this insignificant man being given such significance. It doesn’t make any sense. He is just like a mousy yob. I don’t, you know, why is he able to be blamed for loads of stuff going on? And I am not that his supporters aren’t awful, as well. I, it, I was just raising a question. Cos I, the scales have fallen from my eyes about the left.
I am questioning everything. I want to know why we are supposed to think that.

I think that this is quite a wild claim if someone has declared that this is 'support' or 'praise' of Tommy Robinson.

But apparently, journalists should be trusted to do their research and suggestions to look further is just 'diversion tactics'.

Yep. Everyone knew this was all she had to say about him. 'supporting him' was made up.

She was being smeared by association, and spurious means, and it made her think about other people and why you need to address what they're doing and saying, not what other people say they are doing and saying.

Fairly prescient, I'd say !

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 11:07

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:52

I find this page useful when deciding how much to engage.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en

  1. Check the tone and style – Is it balanced and fair or sensationalist and one-dimensional?

Unlikely to be a conspiracy theory

  • The author does not shy away from exploring complexity, including different perspectives
  • The author is prepared to acknowledge limits to their knowledge
  • The tone is objective, factual

Likely to be a conspiracy theory

  • The author presents their information as the only valid truth
  • The author raises questions instead of providing answers
  • The author demonises whoever they assume is behind the alleged secret plot
  • The tone is subjective, emotionally charged
  • Emotional images or anecdotes are used to illustrate the message

I don't think your deflection is helping you at all.

You have just told us that you don't bother to check the things that you post because you have given your trust to journalists. You stated it very proudly so no need to shy away from the fact that you choose to not look further than a blog post.

Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 11:08

Datun · 03/04/2024 11:07

Yep. Everyone knew this was all she had to say about him. 'supporting him' was made up.

She was being smeared by association, and spurious means, and it made her think about other people and why you need to address what they're doing and saying, not what other people say they are doing and saying.

Fairly prescient, I'd say !

I thought it was very apt, Datun. Considering this thread and all.

Datun · 03/04/2024 11:11

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 10:58

Why are you repeatedly bringing up JCJ on a thread about KJK?

I don't care about KJKs mortgage. I am concerned that women think they are donating to an organisation similar to a charity when they aren't. Clearly that's noone on this thread though.

Oh, I get it now, you're posting all this about KJK, out of concern for us.

Is there no end to your altruism, Adam??

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 11:11

Signalbox · 03/04/2024 10:59

I've just applied these criteria to the HNH article I linked above and it turns out they are a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Just read it. Not sure I agree. There are no questions for example, or emotive images and I would say the language was within the realms of normal objectivity. I don't agree with all the content but there's nothing in there that screams "conspiracy theory".

I hadn't seen the pyramid picture before, that makes a lot of sense of posters repeatedly bringing up "sacred castes" that I've seen on here recently.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.