The tower of babel…an new incarnation?

Rod Liddle’s brilliant summing up (Spectator) of the latest tea-cup turbulence in the Northern Isles begins with the spoon which started it all:

‘Women … are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape — that of a Brazilian transsexual.’
— Suzanne Moore

He then continues suggesting that “One of these days, not too far away, the entire bourgeois bien-pensant left will self-immolate entirely leaving behind nothing but a thin skein of smoke smelling slightly of goji berries.”

Sulphur might be more like what we will smell. How these people hate each other?

“Please let that day come quickly,” Liddle continues. “In the meantime let us simply enjoy ourselves watching them tear each other to pieces, mired in their competing victimhoods, seething with acquired sensitivity, with inchoate rage and fury, inventing more and more hate crimes with which they might punish people who are not themselves.”

I don’t really think this is very enjoyable. It is in fact, one of the saddest sights on earth because it is a horrific reminder of how our civilization is being dragged into an abyss of fear, hatred and utter contradiction of everything beautiful and reasonable.

Suzanne Moore’s quote comes from a piece she wrote in the New Statesman. For Liddle the row it caused simply gives an insight into the metro left’s bizarre psychosis. “That anodyne sentence above, which is presumably meant to express the pressure women feel to conform to a particular body-type, was taken amiss by Britain’s vibrant community of transsexuals. They eviscerated Moore for doing what I just did and referring to them as transsexuals rather than transsexual people, but also stuck the boot in by suggesting that the writer was mocking their gender, was perhaps bullying them. Undoubtedly, they asserted online and later in print, this was evidence of deviance — not sexual deviance, but deviation from political correct orthodoxy; Moore was revealing an inner hatred of transsexual people. And she was cissexist. Now there’s a term. Have you heard it before? I hadn’t. It is a wonderful day when we can stumble across a new hate crime of which we might all one day be accused: cissexism is the suspicion that transsexual people’s ‘identified gender’ is somehow less genuine than that of people born to the gender in which they remain. Are you guilty of cissexism? You bastard.”

All that was bad enough while it was raging in the egg-cup of the New Statesman’s followers. But then the storm spread futher afield when Moore’s friend Julie Burchill jumped to the defence of her ideological soulmate in The Observer newspaper. Liddle quotes one very witty commentator’s online description of the effects of this intervention: ‘Julie Burchill poured oil on troubled waters. Then she put some seabirds in the oil. Then she set fire to the oil.’ Burchill described the transsexuals as ‘screaming mimis’ and ‘bedwetters in bad wigs’.

But this is also where the whole thing gets sad and worrying because a government minister intervenes, none other than one of those behind David Cameron’s push to destroy marriage. See how it all fits?

Lynne Featherstone tweeted in defence of all transsexuals and describes Burchill’s article as ‘bigoted vomit’ and suggested that both she and the editor of the Observer, John Mulholland, should be sacked. Is it any wonder that the press is worried about the implications of the Leveson Report for a free press – threatening to put control of media in the hands of such as Featherstone? She is the minister for International Development. What is going on?

If this case is anything to go by the press is already knuckling under to the PC-gay-transexual mafia which seems to control Westminster. “How did Mr Mulholland respond?” Liddle asks, and gives the worrying answer: “Did this titan of the press, this staunch and stoic defender of freedom of speech stand by his columnist? Um, not exactly. He instead apologized for having run Julie Burchill’s article and within the hour the piece had been expunged from the joint Guardian-Observer website, no trace of it remaining. But in making his apology Mulholland did say that the Observer supported freedom of speech and did so terribly bravely sometimes. Just, er, not this time.”