After the (Democrat) Harvey Weinstein scandal and the (Democrat) George Clooney scandal and the (Democrat) Ben Affleck scandal and the (Democrat) Roy Price scandal and the (Democrat) Oliver Stone scandal and the (Labour) Sam Kriss scandal, progressives everywhere have sought high and low for an equivalent conservative villain…
….someone, anyone, who is guilty of vaguely inappropriate sexual behavior, but who isn’t either a registered Democrat or a card-carrying socialist.
Finally, they think they have found one.
His name is Rupert Myers, a self-claimed “conservative”, sacked as Political Editor of British GQ after what the publisher Conde Nast euphemistically calls “some allegations.”
If you’re interested in the grubby details you’ll find them here. (Nothing anywhere near in the Weinstein league. Just general pestering, while drunk, at parties and so on, pursued with perhaps a bit too much fly-like persistence.)
Personally, though, I’m much more interested in defending the conservative movement from the outrageous slur that Rupert Tentacle Hands is, or ever has been, one of us.
As exhibit A, I present a piece that Myers wrote for GQ last year on the subject of Donald Trump.
Not all men are awful. GQ, the men’s magazine with an IQ, knows that most of us have successfully made the evolution to 21st century man. Powerful women don’t intimidate us, equality excites us, and we’re becoming increasingly embarrassed by men who want to inherit the same gender dynamics that our grandparents grew up with. Change is hard, and after an eternity on top we’re being asked to grow, and accept our fair share of the housework, and women’s fair share of executive directorships.
Had enough yet? Well, I’m sorry but there’s more, much more.
One group of men who seem incapable of letting go are male American voters, who cling on to Donald Trump long after he has lost all credibility. Like stranded Japanese soldiers carrying on the war in the Pacific while stuck alone on remote islands, years after peace was agreed, Donald Trump’s final vestiges of support are to be found among angry, isolated men who can’t bear the prospect of 21st century equality, and who are intimidated by the thought of a female commander in chief.
Do you have a problem with breastfeeding in public? Do you think women behave erratically? Do you like to make jokes about menstruation? Do feel less safe at the thought of a woman in charge of the armed forces? You could be a Donald Trump supporter. Nobody can pretend that Hillary is a perfect candidate, or that she hasn’t lied, or that she lacks the sort of charisma which Obama used to beat her in 2008, but if you’re supporting Donald Trump at this point, there’s a good chance it’s because you’re plain awful.
On a personal level, I feel rather sorry for Myers. The social media mob is in full frenzy and determined to destroy what is left of his journalistic career; possibly even his career as a barrister.
Does he really deserve ruination for what – in less vindictive times – would have been dealt with by a few good slaps and chastening rejections, accompanied by a burgeoning reputation as someone “not safe in taxis”?
On a cosmic level, though, I can’t help noticing that there’s some divine justice in operation here.
I’m reminded of a film I saw recently where a gangster keeps a dog in a cage which he torments and beats in order to make it angry and bloodthirsty. Then later he gets eaten by the dog.
Do you see what I’m getting at?
If you don’t, just re-read that GQ article.
Some of it’s just pure, reach-for-the-sickbag, virtue-signalling mangina drivel: “powerful women don’t intimidate us”; “equality excites us”.
Some of it is standard-issue leftist straw man smearing, implying that red-meat conservatives, Trump-voters especially, are just neanderthals: “Do you like to make jokes about menstruation?”
All of it contributes to one of most hateful and destructive political narratives in the world right now: the narrative of women’s grievance and oppression.
It’s hateful because, objectively, it’s just not true. Sure there are places in the world – most of them Muslim – where women are disgracefully treated like second-class citizens. But in the West, which is what Myers is talking about, women won the battle for equality long ago.
Indeed, in further education, in positive discrimination in the work place, in the family courts, they often find themselves at a massive advantage over men. As the parent of both boys and girls, I worry far more about the future facing my male offspring than my equally beloved – but frankly unfairly societally privileged – female offspring.
It’s destructive because it has helped turn the sometimes fraught but mostly benign and playful battle of the sexes into a full-on war. A war in which, furthermore, traitors like Rupert “Benedict Arnold” Myers have surrendered the pass, along with most of the weaponry and ammunition to the other side.
You’d never guess it, sometimes, listening to the way gender equality is discussed nowadays that women are not always paragons of perfection; that male behavior is not always wantonly evil – that it has its strengths and attractive qualities (which real women, as opposed to feminist harpies) actually appreciate.
No, what you get more commonly these days is propaganda like this: (h/t Paul Joseph Watson)
Normal male behavior – sitting with your legs apart to avoid squishing your testicles; speaking with authority about stuff you know because, hey, you’re interested so you did your homework – has been pathologized to the point where we’re supposed to see ads like that (on the London Underground) and laugh our agreement.
Why would an intelligent man like Cambridge-University-educated Myers write articles promoting this poisonous world view which is dishonest, unfair and can only worsen relations between men and women?
Some have suggested that it’s a clever ruse: you say all the feminist shit that girls like to hear and it makes it easier to get into their knickers.
Some, less cynical, would argue that this is simply the liberal mindset in action: self-delusion; cognitive dissonance; groupthink; virtue-signalling.
I don’t know the answer.
What I do know is that if liberals like Myers are going to pull stupid stunts like this – and sell their bros down the river in the process – then it’s only fair that they should be treated according the code established by one of their most dangerous figures.
Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky, as you know, wrote the cultural Marxist handbook Rules for Radicals.
(He dedicated it to Lucifer – because that’s the kind of guy he was).
One of the rules in the book was this:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
I don’t know how many vengeful women there may be right now cackling over Myers’s comeuppance. But I can tell you right now that they are vastly, massively, overwhelmingly outnumbered by jubilant conservative men.
Myers tormented that dog in the cage. Now he has been eaten by it. It’s not pretty. But it is poetic justice.