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

I should learn not to read Adam's posts, but this position: 'My goal is to get to a position where people can criticise each others views without it being "bad faith"' is based on an incorrect premise. Criticising others' views, in and of itself, was not called 'bad faith'. What was called bad faith was the persistent misrepresentation of posters' points of view, as well as the incorrect assertion as to the context / meaning of written and video links.

You could say it's bad faith to suggest the above, tbh.

Right. This thread has taken enough of my time. The argument is circling once more. Posters are feeling accused and misrepresented. No one is any clearer about other people’s motives.

Adam still thinks we’re gulls of the far right. I think she’s so thoroughly marinated in left wing tribal politics she can’t see nuance in anything else- which will I’m sure annoy her but I’m past tying myself in knots to explain. There’s none so blind as he who will not see, and all that.

And yes, you probably feel the same way about me! Until the day we can meet over coffee and tunnocks I’m going to try hard to stay out of these ever decreasing circular arguments.

Oh god! Sorry that's not what I meant at all!
I meant you said BNP were far right. So it was an "uncontroversial" far right example for me to use. Not that you have BNP politics!!

I'm so sorry

The National Front are not really active today. That article goes up to 1979. Almost 50 years ago.
What would be a more recent "far right" movement?

OK Adam. Thanks for clarifying.

I think the NF became the BNP.

fathers should be made to pay for their children once it's proven the child is theirs
I don't agree with that because it's inherently patriarchal and suggests that women are promiscuous liars.
I'd suggest men should pay child support unless they can prove the child isn't theirs.

Thank you, I do too. Then I think a large chunk of the BNP became UKIP and latterly reform

Nice

The HnH article is from 2022.

Which would require the same test to be done...

True!

Sorry you are going. I definitely don't think you are a "gull of the far right", your posts have been very thought provoking. And I don't think anything bad about what you said.

I am trying hard to be clearer in what I write but obviously (as with oldcrone) I can't always see the other meaning in my words when I type them.

No. It wouldn't. In my example the child would be supported until the "father" proved he wasn't. In yours the child would be unsupported until the mother proved he was.

Lots of men are very good at avoiding paying for their children. The CPAC policy will just further enable that and is not a female friendly policy.

Your opinion is not fact. In my opinion its snark that adds nothing apart from making it clear to everyone I'm not in "your tribe". It's pretty immature tbh.

The US and the UK both have assumed paternity in certain situations, which I assume would apply in relation to CPAC's desire to have fathers pay for their children.

Any law to force a father to pay is better than the toothless system we have here. If you think the UK system is better, you're deluded.

Nobody has said that levelling criticism is bad faith. Take your own advice and go and re-read the thread if you're unsure.

It is not snark for snark's sake, I'm just pissed off with your persistent misrepresentation throughout the entire thread.

Why don't you give me an example?
I think a lot of what you say is "misrepresentation" is in fact differing but equally valid interpretations of the same information.
If you genuinely feel I misrepresented you and you say when I will honestly try to figure out why. Like when old crone posted I could immediately see my mistake.

Have we had any clarification from OP on what she believes is far-right yet? As in, far-right policies and beliefs, not far-right people or groups (who are far-right because they are linked to those people who are far-right, who are far-right because……. etc etc).

To me far right is:
Fascism

• obsessed with the idea of "elites" that rule to the detriment of "the people", only a strong leader can overcome the elites
• strong national identity and culture; outsiders not welcome (links to racial supremacy)
• harks back to a golden age
• prioritizes action for actions sake rather for any particular outcome
• appeals to emotion and undermines rational thought, evidence and logic. This supports the "strong leader" as the population is too confused to know what they think

Umberto Eco really influenced how I see this:
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

Unfortunately I see a lot of fascist tendencies in Western leaders like Farage, Putin, Trump, Orban and Netanyahu. - edited - Possibly Geert Wilders too, and some elements in Johnson.

I also see a lot of rhetorical features around undermining democratic systems, appealing to emotion and "fear of the outsider" and that's where some of KJKs content sits (to me).

In general I don't think most Conservatives are fascist, but I think elements of fascist rhetoric are now present in how they execute themselves.

E.g. Boris lying to parliament was undermining democratic principles.

The rhetoric around small boats and "cultural integration" is fascist rhetoric.

Gove saying "this country has had enough of experts" is an appeal to logic rather than emotion.

The rise of "traditionalist" pro natalism, the nuclear family, the role of mothers and other American Christian Right is "harking back to a golden age".

The increase in fascist rhetoric has been getting worse over the past few years and to be quite honest it scares me. I've never believed there was something that made 1930s Germany particularly vulnerable to the Nazis; I think all humans are vulnerable to fascism and I hate to see it creeping into the West in the way it is.

I accept others may feel differently but this is my opinion as you asked for it.

I'd suggest men should pay child support unless they can prove the child isn't theirs.

Guilty until proven innocent is not an example of justice or human rights. Since proving paternity involves the same test as disproving it, your reasoning doesn't make sense and in any case, establishing paternity doesn't mean you think women are liars.

Do you think being against uncontrolled immigration is far-right?

Did you read what I wrote?
In one case the child is supported by the man until paternity is proven. The putative father loses financially but the child is supported.

In the other, there is no child support until paternity is proven. The putative father doesn't lose financially but the child does.

The only beneficiary of the CPAC position is the man - on the rare occasions a woman has "hoodwinked" him. In the majority of cases where the dad is avoiding taking responsibility, the woman and child will lose until the man can be pinned down for a DNA test. Given the lengths men go to to hide income etc, i think that could potentially be quite a long time and the child will suffer most.

There is no "innocent until proven guilty" about it. This is not a crime.

To be honest men should keep a condom on it (or even better abstain) if they aren't convinced about the honesty of their partner.

No.
I think over emotive language around immigration, focusing on the 80,000 illegal immigrants while supporting 800,000 legal immigrants, making it seem like immigrants are why the NHS/housing/schools are broken is quite far right.

I think posters like NF used in the referendum, showing a queue of brown faces and claiming Remain would let them all in, is far right.

I think language about "invaders" and "groomers" is far right. Language about immigrants "putting white girls in kebabs", or "eating pet cats" (as someone IRL told me recently) is far right.

We can have a sensible conversation about immigration without the emotive language. That is designed to play on fear of the outsider, AKA fascist rhetoric.

It's interesting how you (Adam) pull out snippets of KJK's work (things she's said and things she's done), focus on the parts you see as fascistic, and therefore write her off as a fascist shill.

If all the elements that make up fascism were listed there would be some that are particular and many that are shared with other political movements/ideologies/parties. Many Scottish and Welsh nationalists (who these days present as left-wing) strongly support strong national identity and culture, and can be resistant to outsiders... the identity politics embedded in the Labour Party is emotion- not logic-led. Tony Benn would have been a Brexiteer.

I, and I think many others here, look and see KJK as a pluralist, picking the ideas and influences and strategies and alliances that work for her and that she sees as beneficial to her cause. That's why she garners support from such a wide variety of people, men and women, right and left, young and old, traditional and radical, lesbian, gay and heterosexual. That's a hell of a skill, and would probably be applauded in most single issue campaigners.

KJK is single minded in her cause, and it is based on a rational position. This is not demeaned by her emotion, her emotions don't make her a fascist, they are what makes her human, it's also not demeaned by her willingness to use whatever means necessary to secure rights and protections for women and children. I know I couldn't do it, but I'm bloody glad she does.