KjK "insane rant" thread 2

[AdamRyan]

First thread filled up just as it was getting interesting

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5036512-kjks-insane-rant

So let's keep it going. My characterisation if the two basic positions are:

1)KJK is a stone cold legend, haters gonna hate but many women will give her cash to bathe in champagne

2. KJK is taking right wing positions for clicks and cash, most recently criticising a doctors conference to stay relevant.

Happy to discuss further. There are some particular posts I want to respond to which I will c&p below

Sorry, I don't know how to put them in the right order

If you click on the left arrow you'll get them

That’s brilliant thanks very much

So strange. I would love to meet you in the flesh, Adam, and see whether we could connect face to face. Writing clearly isn’t cutting the mustard 😅😂.

I suspect we have different starting, foundational principles (I’m sure there’s a psychological word for that which escapes me) which makes mutual understanding tricky. My son works with someone whose language only has one word for rain. British weather is a mystery to him. All those ways for water to come from above!

My preconceptions are around people doing the best they can. Though TRAs certainly confound that. I can’t grasp a world view where their behaviour can be seen as ‘good’.

@MishyJDI

Interesting comments on Twitter/X on the CPAC funding of some of KJK's tours and suggesting beyond? Very interesting people. Although I am sure she has acknowledged this and said she will take anyone's support on the overall cause.

Still - sits uneasy.

https://twitter.com/FireyRoxy/status/17638516827466427944*

I think it says a great deal about it, particularly as she's since denied CPAC funding on Twitter:

"Not sure who needs to hear this but noone has ever paid for my flights, accommodation, security, venue hire or any other associated travel expenses for LWS tours or trips." (5/04/2024)
x.com/theposieparker/status/1775925854456922592?s=61&t=3wYru9P_J0h74BXKFXAfmw

So why is CPAC on the posters?

Well yeah, which is it?

Either no-one ever paid for her flights etc (per her tweet on 4 April), or CPAC paid for pretty much everything (per her YouTube video from last year, the LWS posters, and CPAC's own publications).

I’m happy to wait for clarity. It doesn’t bother me if CPAC contributed to the expenses of that trip. I can work on a single issue. I can stand and protest against some of their policies while accepting their support around other policies.
Obviously, at some point KJK should clarify what she meant by each statement- presumably one refers to one trip, and the other to a different one.

I do not understand tribalism. I see it a lot among politically minded folk, and it makes no sense to me.

I do not understand tribalism. I see it a lot among politically minded folk, and it makes no sense to me.

I don't understand this either.

There are people on this thread complaining that someone they don't like was possibly funded by a group they don't like to put on events that they disapprove of. Why do they even care?

@AdamRyan all your posts seem fixated on what KJK wrote about Muslim grooming gangs. I am beginning to think this is one of the prime reasons you dislike her so much.

She made a point and it was true; there were, and probably still are, grooming gangs who regard themselves at Muslim. The convicted gangs in Roachdale, Telford, Rotherham, Huddersfield and Oxford targeted underage white girls for sexual exploitation. Yes, most convicted pedophiles are white but that does not negate what these pedophiles did; the rape and trafficking of children.

There is evidence of these gangs and i wonder why you are so strident in defending them? Accusations of ‘the far right’ ‘Tommy Robinson’ ‘Islamphoic’ ‘’racist’ are flung far and wide in your dogged defence. Your arguments and accusations were used by the police and by others terrified by wrong-think which is why it took so long for these poor girls to get any justice.

These arguments you use are ten years out of date and they can no longer silence all those who saw what was going but did nothing out of fear. Silence is lost its power.

KJK is not going anywhere, and neither are strong mouthy women.

I care about certain ultra-right groups seeping into our the socio-political landscape by sponsoring lobbyists like this. Then people like you think it isn't problematic. You know who they are, right? If you do, and you're a feminist, I honestly cannot believe you would be so indifferent.

Who are the ultra-right groups?
Who are the lobbyists?

You know who they are, right?

Not really. Can you be clearer about who you're referring to?

Maybe you should read the previous thread.
I'm not saying any more about that. You clearly have read my views. It's a bit weird to accuse me of being "fixated" and then try to restart the debate. I have nothing more to say about it.

So as a thought experiment, if Stonewall agreed to pay all KJKs expenses on a trip, that wouldn't bother you at all?

I mean they obviously aren't going to do that, but I'm raising it to test the logic.

What I observe on this board is a lot of hostility towards charities like stonewall and how they do things to "capture" organisations. But a different sentiment about other more right wing orgs (CPAC, policy exchange) which is more "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" and encouraging people not to consider the agenda those organisations might have.

It seems like a double standard to me and so I'm curious how people square that in their own mind.

🙄
This is what I was referring to crone. You ask that question all the time. Posters have answered it before (including me). Does the information not stay in your head? Or do you disagree with the whole idea there are ultra right groups and lobbyists for them?

Maybe you could also answer the question I asked pickled then. Would you be interested if it were Stonewall funding her? If so, what's the difference?

Ok. So the Labour Party are ‘ok’ on abortion and all the other things CPAC stand against. However they are against women’s rights and protecting single sex spaces, in hospitals, prisons, sports… they have hounded out women who try to resist that push. Their leader struggles to articulate his understanding that women are different from transwomen and must be treated differently in a range of different situations.

I can’t believe you can be so indifferent to that? I think we ought to check who they support, make sure we get rid of all those pesky councillors, councils, MPs, and all the members of that party. They need to be cancelled and we should snub by one who allows themselves to associate with them.

@OldCrone

Not really. Can you be clearer about who you're referring to?

All right. In this case, I'm speaking particularly of Kellie-Jay Keen and CPAC.

If stonewall will pay for Posie’s next trip to promote women’s rights, then that’s great.

That truly doesn’t bother me at all. To be honest, when stonewall were promoting gay rights they were great. Less so when they started promoting medicating and castrating children and very young adults, and trampling over women’s rights.

I imagine some of the organisations I support also support surrogacy, which I absolutely do not.
I’m absolutely sure no political party has ever aligned with my politics, and so on and so forth.

It’s really very weird expecting so much group think.

@pickledandpuzzled

I can’t believe you can be so indifferent to that? I think we ought to check who they support, make sure we get rid of all those pesky councillors, councils, MPs, and all the members of that party. They need to be cancelled and we should snub by one who allows themselves to associate with them.

Have I ever said I was indifferent to that? I was responding to OldCrone's remark about "not caring" about where funding came from for events - that is indifference. I have never made any kind of remark on the Labour Party re:women, so it isn't possible for you to extrapolate my thoughts on them.

I'm assuming one of the groups is CPAC, who I know nothing about except I think the C stands for conservative. Are they an 'ultra right group' or 'lobbyists'? Who are the others?

I don't think I've asked that question before on this thread (or anywhere else), unless it was a year ago when KJK was in Australia. And yes, I might have forgotten info about an unfamiliar group which was briefly mentioned on here a year ago.

It was the distinction between 'far right groups' and 'lobbyists' and who exactly that poster was describing with those terms that I was asking for clarification about.

CPAC are an American Conservative group who say they want to "bring back the best of Howard, Thatcher and Reagan". They support Trump in the US. They have a big annual US conference about conservative issues; the one this year was where Liz Truss made her speech where she said she was prevented from implementing her agenda by "the deep state" and a civil service overrun by transactivists. She also did a debate with Steve Bannon, during which Bannon said Tommy Robinson was a hero and Truss nodded and smiled.

Steve Bannon was influential in vote leave and Trumps first election. He certainly knows how to use lobbying and raise money.

We covered this on the last thread and I think earlier on this one.

So as a thought experiment, if Stonewall agreed to pay all KJKs expenses on a trip, that wouldn't bother you at all?

I would be ecstatic that that meant somewhere in the upper echelons of the organisation reality had returned. And as LWS speak events are very clear about what they are about Stonewall sponsering them would be a very clear signal to the TRAs that things are changing.

I would probably throw a party to celebrate!

OK thank you.
Do you think if Stonewall did do that, other women on this board would be equally relaxed? Or do you think some of them would assume ill intent from Stonewall based on their previous experience and knowledge?

Because the latter is how I feel about the American Conservative Right. They are very bad for women. I don't trust their motives at all for funding KJK and in turn, that makes me question her judgment.

So CPAC Australia is the 'far right group' and KJK the lobbyist?

I can't find out much about CPAC Australia. Their website doesn't really say much, but they seem more like mainstream conservative than 'far right'.

I assume their motives are happening to agree on the definition of woman.

I imagine they aren’t too thrilled that some of the women who speak are gay, that they are not at all interested in any other part of the CPAS’s agenda. But that’s their problem. They are happy to support this single issue campaign which aligns with an element of their campaign. They don’t appear to have attempted to control what kind of woman speaks. They haven’t attempted to dictate the dress code. They have accepted they align on this one issue.

That’s about CPAS by the way.

Other women on here, and stonewall? I imagine some will agree with me. Some will agree with Beetle that it’s a sign of total reform ( I’d be less optimistic). Some might be suspicious. That’s fine.

Whichever organisation sponsored an event, I wouldn’t fundraise for them unless I agreed with their other aims. So CPAS or stonewall passing a bucket at a LWS event- I’d pass it on.

I’m Christian, as it happens, so I share some beliefs with a conservative Christian organisation. I certainly don’t share them all- there’s a British version of CPAS, I think, that’s been supporting families of terminally ill children to challenge medical care. It’s appalling. I don’t support them. I share some beliefs with them.