OPINION: Sir Philip Green, #MeToo, and the cultural divisiveness of unreality

 When it comes to gender politics, it is not a good idea to set up infamous cases, and then use them to tell the Good Lie of Szechuan. One Philip Green does not typify the human male – any more than Marilyn Monroe or Doris Day were archetypes of the female actress. Tabloids need to learn that Trial by Media has no place in the Rule of Law. 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

I cannot think of anyone who personifies the arrogant greed and ethical sociopathy of neoliberal financialised capitalism more that “Sir” Phillizboots Green. Pension-raider, tasteless medallion big-yacht trougher, asset-stripper, putter of companies into wife’s name, wife herself with the permanent startled impression of the nip-and-tuck victim…..yup, Green and his family are a wet dream for every anti-Semitic bonehead on the planet.

Like most authoritarian humans who cheat and bully their way to the top, it surely doesn’t surprise anyone that Green was last night unmasked as the top businessman accused of sex abuse on a grand scale. Nor are we surprised that he spent £500,000 on a super-injunction to stop the Daily Telegraph from running the story.

By now, some of you will have spotted the ‘but’ coming. It is the kind of but that only a total butthead would ignore or dismiss.

Philip Green is innocent of these charges until proven guilty. Like so many causes risibly termed ‘liberal’, the #MeToo movement seems unable to grasp the difference between an accusation – and zero doubt based on duly presented evidence.

Under a First World legal system, Mme la Justice is blind to moronic outbursts like “it stands to reason” and “how can you even suggest he didn’t do it?”. In a State where the civil police are doing their job (as opposed to arselicking their way through every form of virtue signalling) people who send social media threats and vicious emails to the accused’s wife get banged up on harassment charges.

But the citizens of the United States and the United Kingdom do not live under the Rule of Law any more. Their politicians pander to the needs of first, the élites who bankroll their Parties; and second, the trendy vote-magnet groups. Their only answerability is to the various Alt States, both internal and globalist (95% of the time) and the ballot box (every five years). The Constitution? Don’t make me laugh.

Ideology is divisive, and dishonest ideology divides absolutely.

In the US over recent weeks, we have seen how the Democratic and media Establishments put a corrupt Alt Stater onto the Supreme Court for life by actually managing to create a climate of sympathy for Judge Kavanaugh on the grounds of their sex-abuse witch hunt. Thanks to the rabid pc-biased hate-storm, a ruthless agent of the surveillance State is now around to help block any Congressional attempt to restore power to the American People. And as a further delightful by-product, an allegedly murderous former Presidential family is now unlikely to ever again face investigation.

This is what happens when the World goes mad: when hatred, division and reckless policies driven by ideology put systemics and quasi-religious beliefs before civil rights and individual freedom. And this is what is now happening to Green.

Ten years ago, Harriet Harman MP (prime #MeToo target audience) put forward a proposal in Parliament to send RBS boss Fred Goodwin to jail by passing a new law that would allow back-dated conviction of Goodwin “because it should’ve been law anyway”. Hattie the Harpie is far from being alone in her vandalising stupidity. And ignorance rarely leads to bliss.

There are times when I tire of seeming to defend the indefensible. I have no desire to defend Green against anything other than his right to a fair trial – rather than trial by fire, water and media to “see” if he’s a witch. We should, for example, bear in mind perhaps why he spent half a million quid on an injunction….could it be because he knew this was the treatment he would get?

——————————————————————

The #MeToo movement was formed initially by Alyssa Jayne Milano – an American actress, liberal activist, producer, and former singer in 2017.

There is no evidence online I can find that Milano has ever herself been the subject of sexual abuse. In her fan biog, it says merely that ” a friend suggested she post a message on her Twitter account encouraging survivors of sexual harassment and assault to post #metoo as a status update”. The hashtag went viral, and has certainly done her long-flagging, midbrow career no harm. When I say midbrow, I mean that, as long ago as the 1990s, her B-Movie credits included appearing nude in several erotic films targeted at adults, such as Embrace of the Vampire, Deadly Sins, Poison Ivy II: Lily and Confessions of a Sorority Girl.

It’s a tad weird to have a movement called #MeToo started by a person who might well say “Not Me” if asked the all-important question, but there you go: the world is mad in 2018, and the self-assigned descriptor ‘liberal activist’ increasingly means we must embrace their Pandora tendencies – however agendered and air-headed they might be.

If you go to Wikipedia (admittedly itself a source manipulated by image managers) for the lowdown on #MeToo, you will find it was formed “to give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem” of sex abuse and harassment. 

Looking at the most high-profile applications of the MeToo phenomenon, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that almost all of them involve situations at a senior level in corporate life, show business and politics. That’s a rarified club of which well over 85% of us are not members. I don’t think it is even remotely typical of the sort of gender prejudice encountered by women on a regular basis. I think, to be blunt, it offers no guide at all to the magnitude of anything except our obsession with material success and celebrity.

The final question must surely be, “Is any of this restatement of dumb bloke, casting couch and sleazy politician antics going to result in long-term change?” I think it might, but I very much doubt it. There will always be enough inadequate men and ambitious women to ensure a steady stream of willing accomplices. Sex and achievement have always been likely bedfellows, and they always will be.

The traffic works both ways. Alpha male success in an office acts as an aphrodisiac for those women on the lookout for the best womb material on offer. It’s called survival of the species via natural selection.

What’s required here is for enough women to have the principles to turn down inadequate men with no principles….and for those men to be replaced by males who want the best person to be cast for every role in a company, a movie or a Cabinet. Try too hard to engineer that situation artificially, and you will pass the torch to extremists.

You will, in fact, wind up with Theresa May, Diane Abbott, and a jury too scared to find Philip Green Not Guilty.