Jane Clare Jones blog on Tommy Robinson

[CassieMaddox]

Just a really great read
https://janeclarejones.com/2024/07/28/tommy-robinson-far-right-populism-and-gender-criticism/

These are my favourite bits:

The greatest danger to women and girls has always been, and remains, the men inside their own houses. This is the nature, and the devastation, of endemic male sexual violence. It usually happens in the place, and with the people, who are supposed to be most safe. It would perhaps be comforting to imagine that we could easily identify the men who are dangerous – the Muslims, the brown ones, the ones in dresses – and then we could keep ourselves safe by keeping them out. But the argument materialist feminists made throughout the early years of the gender wars applies equally here: men are a statistical danger to women as a class and there is prima facie no way of working out which ones are dangerous and which ones are not.

The argument is no longer ‘guilt by association’ or ‘purity politics,’ it is now a) What even is the far right anyway?, b) The far right doesn’t mean anything because I was called far right for knowing men aren’t women, c) You people think anyone who disagrees with you is far right, and d) He is not far right anyway. That is, it has moved from claiming that association with the far right is either not happening or if it is happening has no impact on the substance of GC discourse, to people openly associating with the far right and recycling far right talking points while denying that the far right is the far right.

But what feminist women have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to get across, is that these kinds of men are not on ‘your side,’ if ‘your side’ is genuinely defending women’s rights. These men are on their side, and their side wants a largely white patriarchal nation, in which ‘their’ women know their place and are ‘protected’ only insofar as ‘protection’ means keeping them guarded from ‘other’ men.

The pictures at the end of the article are very illuminating too.

Brava JCJ 👏

No, she has fallen for a fallacy.

Yes, but what I'm unsure of is who she thinks is going to be "radicalised".

Does she think that: (a) people who know nothing about either the far right or the gender critical viewpoint will think they're the same thing, or (b) people like the women posting on FWR will start to become advocates for the far right?

In my first reading I thought she meant (a), which I agree is a problem, but reading it again I think she might mean (b). This is so unlikely I don't understand why anyone would think that.

She doesn't seem to have the first idea about what is being discussed by women on here. She says there were "arguments made in the election run-up that we should vote for Reform because they ‘know what a woman is.’"

This wasn't what I saw on here. What I saw was a lot of women saying they were going to spoil their ballots because they couldn't even bring themselves to vote Tory, let alone Reform. But maybe she wasn't referring to FWR, but people who are not feminists and have always been right wing, or at least, not left wing. In which case, those people haven't been radicalised at all.

And women posting on FWR have already had to swim against the genderist tide to come to their own conclusions about the dangers of genderism. Most of us are not easily swayed by simplistic arguments and have done our own research already, so there's no reason to think we won't continue to do so.

What we did was try to draw attention to what some of these people believed, explain why it was bad for women, and suggest that we shouldn’t just sit on their platforms agreeing with them, attend their events, take any money from them, or make any kind of political common cause with them. And one of the many reasons we suggested that is because it quickly leads to people being marinated in a media and political ecosystem that is feeding them a steady drip of populist talking points, which they are primed to be more open to because these people ‘know what a woman is’ and are apparently taking ‘your side’ rather than calling you a nazi and trying to get you fired.

Thank you for posting this, OldCrone. I'm really glad to see JCJ has written that because it confirms what I have suspected for a while about far left-leaning activists... And maybe left-leaning people in general.

It seems to me that the leftist view of the world sees people as empty headed vessels. One dimensional creatures that will believe anything they are told and will do anything they are asked. This is a genuine belief. I think they really think people are like this. So whoever controls what is fed to people, controls the people.

Now I agree that propaganda and ideological manipulation of information etc are not a good thing, especially if transparency is not included. However, in the leftist worldview, this is NOT a bad thing. It's only bad if the OTHER side does it. If the Left does it, that's fine. It's good. Desirable even. And if people don't agree, lock them up.

That's why left-wing media outlets lie, obfuscate or completely avoid certain news or events. And incessantly promote specific viewpoints over and over again. Only the approved flags are draped everywhere. Only approved taking points are published and given funding.
The right does this too, but like I said, to the leftist activist - when right does it, that's bad. When left does it, that's good.

To borrow JCJ's words... we are marinated in a media and political ecosystem that is feeding them a steady drip of populist far-left talking points
And why are we marinated in these ideological narratives?
So that they are primed to be more open to the leftist worldview. If people are empty headed vessels, it is important to push and pump far left ideology into their heads by any means possible, no matter how underhanded it might be.

For example, normal people might be deeply worried about the government relying on unelected and obscure 'disinformation experts' deciding what 'facts' should be allowed in our digital and print media. To the leftist ideologue this is completely fine because the 'truth' is being filtered by benevolent leftist people. They will only protest and criticise if it turns out to be a 'nefarious right-wing group'.

Wicked people are always on the far right (never the far left) and if you sit next to them, you will pick up by osmosis their bad views. For some reason, they don't think men can pick up good views from women, only women can pick up bad views from men - but that's a separate post on how deep down they think men are superior to women because men can resist ideas, but women cannot.

It also never occurs to them that people are not empty headed vessels and can have a variety of views and may or may not agree with everything they are told (whether by left or right). They don't seem to think that people can notice patterns and hypocrisy in the way left wing ideas are presented (good, pure) and the way right wing ideas are presented (evil, impure). That people can start to question things. Think about things. And come to an uneasy conclusion that maybe not everything they were told by the leftist side is accurate.

Do you live in the UK?
If you aren't British and you don't live here, with all respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

Tommy Robinson absolutely is far right. He founded the English Defence League ffs.

B) is exactly what's happening. I've seen it in real life friends, I've seen it in posters on here. A whole heap of far right talking points have got tangled up with GC politics and people are so in the depths of it they can't see it's happened to them.

Thinking Tommy Robinson has any kind of "good point" is a sign someone's starting to be radicalised IMO.

Unfortunately "done their own research" is exactly how people start off on conspiracy theories. "Had enough of experts" and "can't trust the elite" are necessary precursors to radicalisation as it takes people to extreme viewpoints.

Edited: plenty of posters were saying vote Reform/Conservative because they know what a woman is. Go and look on the GE board if you need reminding.

Exactly.

And from that you have a kind of snobbishness or class thinking that separates the populace into 'the right kind of person/one of us/someone like me/' who is granted intelligence and the power of critical thinking, and to voice their experiences and thoughts, and 'the plebs' which is the empty vessels, everyone else. Who have no thoughts of value and must be lectured and controlled for their own good.

Edited to add, having read a post above more clearly: And who vote WRONG and naughtily, because their voices are so irrelevant that those busy telling them off have not even taken the time to understand their posts, never mind try to understand their points and their reasons.

I wish these passionate left political people would pause to consider for a moment, is this successful communication that is getting their points over? Or is it making people increasingly annoyed and turned off from whatever they have to say?

think it's easy for people to forget that many feminists like JCJ are from the same pool as the TRAs. The language used, the ideological viewpoints are exactly the same as any other academic and activist immersed in far-left 'critical theory'. They all think and speak the same way because they all follow the same school of thought.

TRAs are their closest pals. Hence why all these women are very happy to call blokes she/her if the bloke is someone nice and their friend. It's standard in these circles.

They are 99.9% indistinguishable from TRAs in terms of political and ideological viewpoints and the kind of policies they support.
The only tiny difference between them and their TRA pals is that they don't think any man can identify as a woman - nice men and their mates are ok, just not 'bad' men like rapists.

@TheColourOutOfSpace I was about to say something similar but you have said all I wanted to say and more, thank you!

Jane Clare Jones is very clever - but because she's found her groove and is very comfortable and au fait with it, she's loathe to step outside of it. She thinks other people/students need clever people like her to explain things to them - which will save them the job of developing critical thinking for themselves.

If schools and universities could teach one thing, especially to older pupils and students, that would be to learn to think critically. So many people now just absorb opinions and views from social media and the links they find there; they swallow them whole as articles of ideological faith or dogma. Universities, especially, should be places of critical enquiry where all thoughts and possibilities are examined.

Thinking Tommy Robinson has any kind of "good point" is a sign someone's starting to be radicalised IMO.

Nonsense. Even the worst dictators in history were able to make ‘good points’, it is the mingling of good points with their corrupt ideology/thirst for power that enabled them to succeed in taking control. Just like Stonewall once made some ‘good points’ about gay rights.

heavens that's long

You've won the inaugural "Distil Jane Clare Jones into 3 words" competition, @BernardBlacksMolluscs!

Case in point.
"The Left" are a brain washing hive mind, "The Left" are also incharge of everything (despite the fact the UK is a centre right majority, as shown by our ability to constantly elect Tories). The media is Left (despite the fact its demonstrably in the UK dominated by right wing sources). You can only learn "the truth" by visiting far right outlets.

I think this kind of rhetoric is exactly what people involved in radicalisation would say. Be wary of anyone telling you "the other side" is evil, imo. Life is rarely that black and white.

Most people here speak from personal experience of the Left, having inhabited it for a long time. You know what they say about those that know you best become your worst critics. There is no requirment for people to have to "tell you" things.

It isn't the fact that Tommy Robinson occasionally says things people agree with that I'm pointing out.
Thinking "ohh he talks sense" is a sign one is at risk of being radicalised. Because one is becoming sympathetic to his message.

When I hear TR saying "only men have penises" I think "duh! Tell me something I didn't know and get off the GC bandwagon, you twat"

Apologies the italics to quote you were undone by formatting your name @TheColourOutOfSpace

That's not really 'thinking' though, is it? It just sounds like personal abuse generated by over emotion.

I wish these passionate left political people would pause to consider for a moment, is this successful communication that is getting their points over? Or is it making people increasingly annoyed and turned off from whatever they have to say?

I think you misunderstand my purpose. My sole purpose is to put another opinion into the debate. I don't particularly care if it persuades you. And if you find someone posting a different view "annoying" that says more about you than me.

Oh dear. Poor Tommy Robinson. I bet he's really upset that a feminist called him a twat. What did he call us? "Dried up old spinster" was it?

Thing is even though feminists like JCJ and the TRAs are essentially the same, both these groups do raise some good points. I find interesting views from TRA / leftwing feminist circles along with batshit ideas. In the same way, I find interesting views from rightwing circles, and their own flavour of batshit ideas.
I'm happy to discuss, debate and criticise ideas from anyone. I may or may not change my mind on a number of things.

Thing is even though feminists like JCJ and the TRAs are essentially the same, both these groups do raise some good points. I find interesting views from TRA / leftwing feminist circles along with batshit ideas. In the same way, I find interesting views from rightwing circles, and their own flavour of batshit ideas.
I'm happy to discuss, debate and criticise ideas from anyone. I may or may not change my mind on a number of things.

Yes. For me, this is the best way.

Being male is the risk factor, not being brown/ trans/ muslim etc etc.

Being male is a risk factor - men are 99 times more likely to commit sex offences than women.

Being a male who identifies as trans is another risk factor - men who identify as trans are several times more likely to commit sex offences than men who don’t identify as trans (*ONS Census)

Being a male who is very young is a protective factor - a one year old toddler would not commit sex offences.

Being a male from a very misogynistic culture will increase risk compared to men from a culture than considers women of equal worth.

Being a male with a history of animal abuse hugely increases risk compared to men without that history.

…

Why is radicalisation only a far-right thing?
What about far-left radicalisation?

If people are easily brainwashed by right wing talking points, how can they be sure they haven't been brainwashed by left wing talking points?

Absolutely this. If you live with a violent man, you are more likely to experience violence, is hardly a surprise.

That people try to read anything more into this is nonsensical.

.

A somewhat hyperbolic rant.
Just because women are able to identify (and horrors, speak freely about) different views / positions / nuance doesn't mean anyone's been radicalised. If you fail to understand someone else's point of view then you can't counter it or debate it. You're just left with scolding and shaming.
It's a very reductive view of people. Granted, it does require empathy and insight to appreciate that people will have views we may not agree with. It also requires assertiveness to speak out and challenge them appropriately.
I'm not sure why the JCJ's of the world are so determined to insist that women outside their privileged little bubble are "right wing, pearl clutching bigots". Let alone OP why you spend so much time on here trying to insist the same. As @TheColourOutOfspace commented in her excellent post at 8.08 this morning:

"They are 99.9% indistinguishable from TRAs in terms of political and ideological viewpoints and the kind of policies they support".

With contempt for women who fail to comply with their narrow viewpoint running through their views like a stick of rock.

It is not relevent what Tommy Tobinson thinks about a particular emotive outburst, but how you conduct yourself; how you examine issues, how you respond with reasoned thought. Name calling and personal abuse does not glorify anyone, and it doesn't even begin to touch the sides of underlying issues.

You dismantle or defeat ideas through reason and analysis, not through invective.

One thing I've learned since trans activism ejected me from my tribal leftie mindset is that people can be obnoxious and still right about critical things. Tommy Robinson is undoubtedly a right-wing thug, but that doesn't stop him being right about how pandering to one sector of society led to young girls being abandoned to rape and sexual assault on a daily basis, while the police and local authorities did nothing to intervene. The problem is that left wing feminists like JCJ who ignore the obvious issues with religious groups and the impact on women and girls leave a vacuum where thugs like Tommy can rush in. Our institutional failure to listen to the views of many people about their discomfort with mass immigration is pouring fuel on the far right fire.