The rise of the Keffiyeh Karen

When Black Lives Matter created the figure of the Karen, it was a sign of that movement’s darker, bullying qualities. What exactly was wrong with a white middle-aged woman who asked to speak to the manager when things were unsatisfactory? The answer seemed to be in the white part and the woman part, and perhaps also in the middle-aged part. In short, the Karen was a racist, sexist, ageist construct, and as a middle-aged white woman myself, who makes her dissatisfaction known from time to time, I felt extra defensive.

But if that original Karen caricatured the wrong person, then there are some modern female types that deserve closer scrutiny. There is the person I like to call the Keffiyeh Karen — the female student with a bare midriff and her head wrapped in the black or red and white patterning of Palestinian liberation, yelling anti-Zionist slogans with manic passion on elite college campus quadrangles and lawns.

The Keffiyeh Karen is related to a broader epidemic of the Gen Z Mean Girl

In her ready and confident fury, her rudeness, her iron-fisted appetite for confrontation over infractions of what she deems political and moral gospel, the Keffiyeh Karen is related to a broader epidemic of the Gen Z Mean Girl. These Mean Girls have graduated from running the schoolyard to terrorizing the workplace. If there is one type to be afraid of in modern offices, it isn’t the lech or the shouty, hungover male middle manager. It’s the twenty-three-year-old gluten-free vegan graduate, wet behind the ears. We know what these misanthropic misses are capable of — we’ve seen the Phoebes and Annas of Just Stop Oil chuck soup on Van Gogh.

Several good friends of mine who work in corporate settings have told me tales to chill the blood — women in their early twenties conducting bullying campaigns, being proudly insubordinate to their bosses. They never face consequences.

I’ve noticed their boldly aggressive style myself in the astonishingly disrespectful tones in which they harangue those they disagree with on social media. At recent talks I’ve given, the only rude, confrontational questions I’ve fielded have come from a nose-ringed, tattooed, bespectacled Mean Girl.

This uptick in righteous aggression appears to have two main causes. One is #MeToo, which did sterling work in illuminating the sheer scale of predatory sexual behavior facing women. But in setting up a “guilty because I say so” system, turning Twitter into an open-air arena in which slander and accusation took on rapid real-life consequences and gave the accuser instant power and fame, #MeToo armed young women with new and magnificent powers to accuse and destroy.

The other cause is the massive shift leftwards of young women. Forty percent of women aged eighteen to twenty-nine identify as “liberal” (which often means anything but) — opening a sizable gap with men of the same age, according to Gallup data. That gap is five times larger than it was in 2000. It’s not that right-wing ladies can’t be aggressive — see Ann Coulter, Katie Hopkins, Georgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen. But there is something particularly humorless and stern about the self-styled progressive Lefty Lass — nothing is ever proper enough for her, or miserable enough, or righteous enough. Even when racism and transphobia have been stamped out in her sight, and microaggressions and misgendering slips of the tongue properly punished, she’ll mock you for forgetting for even a moment that the world is ending because of your climate profligacy. The revolution must come. Net zero needs to be achieved yesterday.

If the majority of these youthful political vigilantes are young women, is it any wonder that they not only act like they run the show, but actually run it? After all, the terror of being caught committing a microaggression, an act of trans hate, racism, fatphobia or god forbid sexual indiscretion makes plenty of decent people, higher up the professional pecking order or not, quake and submit.

Which is how these Miserable Misses took over, spreading their Mean Girl power, and making life unpleasant for workers or students trying to go about their business. It takes an old-school Karen to spot them at work, and an old-school Karen to stand up to them.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/the-rise-of-the-keffiyeh-karen/

*****************************************************

Is Thierry Breton’s resignation a win for Elon Musk?

Described as ‘France’s powerful European Commissioner’, the EU bureaucrat who lectured Elon Musk about online censorship has resigned suddenly.

Thierry Breton ironically posted the notice on X.

‘…in light of these latest developments – further testimony to questionable governance – I have to conclude that I can no longer exercise my duties in the College.’

They are not memorable words likely to creep into a Hollywood script.

According to reports, his departure relates to a disagreement with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

Despite serving as the EU internal market chief, Breton has been critical of the new President.

Breton’s name was put forward by French President Macron for the new EU team, but it seems Ursula von der Leyen wasn’t keen on the idea and asked for France to rethink their submission.

‘…you asked France to withdraw my name…’ Breton wrote in his letter.

Breton served between 2019-24 during which time he oversaw the single market, ‘led the green and digital transition’, ensured ‘climate neutrality by 2050’, enhanced Europe’s ‘digital sovereignty’, led the ‘Digital Services Act’, strengthened EU tools to ‘counter disinformation and fake information online while preserving freedom of expression, freedom of press, and media pluralism’, and implemented the ‘European Defence Fund’ and ‘Action Plan on Military Mobility’ – among other things.

Keep in mind that he has been one of the most influential people in Brussels and a household name in the debate over free speech on digital platforms such as Facebook and X.

Time even put him on their top 100 people working in the field of AI.

His loss is likely to be social media’s gain, with many wondering if this is a sign that attitudes toward digital platforms like X might be changing.

In July, this publication covered the online antagonism between Elon Musk and Thierry Breton.

Musk made headlines when he accused the European Commission of offering X a ‘secret deal’ regarding censorship (denied by the Commission). He then referred to the EU’s Digital Services Act as ‘misinformation’.

This disagreement has been brewing for a long time and before either man entered the scene.

The EU, among other bureaucracies and government entities, has been rapidly losing control of political communication with the rise of citizen journalism and unbound speech on a range of social media platforms. This has replaced the more tightly controlled mainstream media outlets in radio, television, and print.

Not only has social media elevated billions of voices, empowering them to speak directly to their elected officials, it has seen the largest and fastest rise of citizen journalism in history. These are skilled individuals working outside of the ideological umbrella provided by news organisations meaning that governments cannot coerce or silence these individuals by doing deals with their editors. They do not have editors. For those entities that value order and control, this is an unmitigated nightmare.

Silicon Valley was, for a time, softly controlled by the personal left-leanings of its various owners until Elon Musk bought Twitter and broke ideological ranks. At this point, the veil of subtle control shifted to rapid legislative controls which are ongoing to this day.

In the case of Thierry Breton, there was a very public disagreement about X’s use of ‘blue checkmarks’.

In response, Musk wrote: ‘We look forward to the very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth.’

Breton replied, ‘Be our guest, Elon Musk.’

It is more likely that the European Commissioner will be remembered for the (above) letter sent to Elon Musk regarding the live broadcast of Donald Trump’s interview.

His letter is worth remembering as it effectively documented the EU having an opinion about the free and live transmission of US politics. The world now waits to see what the next governance of the EU will look like and which way it decides to lean

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/is-thierry-bretons-resignation-a-win-for-elon-musk/

**************************************************

Pope Francis and the ‘lesser evil’: abortion over borders?

At least the cat-eating memes made sense. Over the weekend, American politics has taken a bizarre turn with Pope Francis weighing in on his flight back to Rome, implying that Kamala Harris is the ‘lesser evil’ of the presidential race – apparently snubbing the ‘man saved by God’.

Clarifying that both candidates are ‘anti-life’, the Pope hinted that America’s 72 million Catholics might want to vote for the lesser evil between a baby killer and an anti-migrant sinner without naming either party.

Yes, this is how the choice is being phrased and yes, the Pope has indicated a preference for abortion over borders.

The Pope has previously described those who build walls to stop illegal migration as ‘not Christian’ and committing a ‘grave sin’. These remarks surfaced while the Pope was discussing Trump’s famous (and celebrated) attempt to secure the southern border.

‘Both are against life, be it the one who kicks out migrants, or be it the one who kills babies,’ said Pope Francis.

‘Not voting is ugly. It is not good. You must vote. You must choose the lesser evil. Who is the lesser evil? That lady, or that gentleman? I don’t know. Everyone, in conscience, think and do this.’

Catholics online have flocked to social media, calling the Pope’s comments a ‘gross false equivalence’ that compares ending the life of a child to enforcing a nation’s borders.

At roughly 21 per cent of the population, American Catholics should be a powerful voting bloc. If they followed the letter of the Faith, the majority would fall into the Republican camp and make them difficult to beat. Except, Catholics remain a difficult cohort to court.

Described as the ‘most maddening electoral group in American politics’ by Notre Dame political scientist David Leege – American Catholics are about as politically predictable as a herd of cats.

Ideologically, they are undisciplined and motivated more strongly by cultural and economic forces than by what their Faith has to say about policy. Detailed studies show Catholics change their vote as they move up the economic ladder and enter new social circles – shifting from conservative to progressive. Race also serves as a larger indicator for voting preference, with Black and Hispanic Catholics leaning left and White Catholics preferring Republican candidates. However, all Catholics have demonstrated a willingness to shift their vote on matters of the economy and broader cultural prosperity.

While plenty of American Catholics are planning to vote for the Democrats, it is difficult to find anything within the Kamala Harris platform that appeals to the stated values of the Catholic church.

Celebration of radical abortion policies, extreme LGBTQ+ agendas, and communist-style social programs may explain why the Pope has instead focused on the re-worked ‘saviour’ complex of green politics and migration. Here the Catholic church can pretend it is using its power and influence to ‘rescue the world’s poor’ from the evils of modernity. In this, it provides a spiritual sanctuary for the university lectures of capitalist sin and race guilt preached in every corner of the nation.

Green politics gives Catholic leaders a clear divide between the Republican and Democrat policy platforms without outright contradicting crucial pieces of the Faith.

Still, it is interesting to note that when polls in America are conducted on Catholics, they found respondents stubbornly split. On abortion, for instance, a 2013 combined poll showed that around 52 per cent of white Catholics believed it should be ‘legal in most cases’ compared to 43 per cent of Hispanics. It is a similar story on birth control which is opposed by Rome but supported by three-quarters of American Catholics.

The Catholic faith is growing, as are other religions, as uncertainty and fear increases. The globe is getting more religious, not less, and there is a particular interest from the youth in ultra-conservative and orthodox versions of faith.

Western politics has recently become the plaything of religious influence, with Islam making significant gains in the recent UK elections – fielding candidates in majority Labour areas and winning them on foreign interests rather than domestic concerns.

Even so, some of the more cynical among us may wonder if the Pope’s comments are more about aligning the Church with a new base of Democrat followers rather than providing spiritual guidance for the most powerful nation on Earth. The Pope has very little influence over the presidential race, but he does have an opportunity to use the election to grow the flock. On that, we can only speculate.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/pope-francis-and-the-lesser-evil-abortion-over-borders/

**************************************************

Australia: Indigenous jury plan an insult to justice

If you’re waiting for sensible analysis from law societies and bar associations about recent suggestions that Indigenous defendants should be heard by a jury that includes some – and possibly half – Indigenous members, take a seat in a very crowded waiting room.

Or read on, and we’ll do it. In a speech late last month former Queensland Supreme Court judge Roslyn Atkinson echoed findings of a 2023 report by the Australasian ­Institute of Judicial Administration to overhaul who sits on juries.

It’s sensible to encourage more Indigenous people to sit on juries. In fact, we ought to find better ways to encourage all Australians to do so, because currently it’s easier to find someone who has escaped jury duty than someone who has taken on that onerous civic responsibility, often at great cost to themselves.

What’s not sensible is Atkinson’s implied endorsement of AIJA’s suggestion that jury selection be altered to “affirmatively include First Nations jurors”. AIJA researchers focus on a model called “juries de meditate linguae” – where a minority defendant is granted the right to be tried by a jury comprising half of people from that same minority. The report notes that this model originally entitled Jews in medieval England to special mixed juries, made up of half Jews and half Gentiles.

While justice in the United Kingdom has progressed from this Middle Ages model of special rights for certain minorities, these legal researchers under the auspices of senior Australian judges want to go backwards.

They draw comparisons with how women were once excluded from juries, so why not advance the jury system some more by including Indigenous people? Hold on a second while I find my trucker’s licence to drive through the hole in this argument.

It was, of course, wrong to deny women – and Indigenous people – the right to be jurors. But we don’t currently exclude Indigenous people from sitting on juries. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, encouraging universal participation on juries and, on the other hand, mandating quotas for one group, in this case Indigenous people.

The suggestion that justice won’t be done, or be seen to be done, for an Indigenous defendant unless a jury includes some (unspecified) number of Indigenous jurors is impractical and offensive.

Impractical because it may be hard or even impossible to ensure the right number of people with the right racial characteristics are available for every single trial at every single venue, or even most of them.

Offensive because it suggests that a jury without the correct racial makeup won’t make the right decision. In other words, the real gripe with the current model is with the decisions by current juries.

If AIJA has the imprimatur of the nation’s judges, we should be very concerned. The output from this body reads like a Greens manifesto. Last year AIJA proposed juryless trials for sex offences – presumably to increase convictions. Its suggestion that we mandate Indigenous jury members for Indigenous defendants appears to come from a place of wanting fewer convictions.

If so, where are the empirical studies linking correctness of jury decisions with the racial makeup of jury members? That would be important news. Without rigorous evidence in support, AIJA’s attack on the current jury system is misguided, or worse.

There is a significant risk that even proposing these changes will encourage Indigenous defendants, who include violent men who maim and kill Indigenous women, to regard themselves, without any evidence, as victims of an oppressive justice system because the makeup of the jury didn’t match their race.

Uncovering other flaws is child’s play. Does this new jury structure imply some test of racial purity? If so, what percentage of Indigenous blood is enough to be fair to an Indigenous defendant?

At a wider level, the proposal to mandate racially composed juries is an example of the now ubiquitous – and completely bogus – notion that people of one background won’t sufficiently understand or treat fairly people from different backgrounds. This proposal is little more than a form of special pleading for your favourite minority.

Given that nobody can sensibly suggest a jury can reflect all groups in line with their percentage in society, some selection is required. How is that to be done? And for whom? If we ensure that groups A and B are included to reflect their numbers in society, or something close to it, but not groups C, D, E through to Z, is that an admission that only groups A and B will be fairly treated?

Should a jury be stacked to represent racial groups, women, and the indigent – but not the disabled, the sick or the neurologically diverse? Who chooses? Should some groups not be represented, and if so, why?

Indeed, the one attribute ignored by the legal activists behind the “representation theory” is good old-fashioned merit. Otherwise known as good judgment and sound intellect. Perhaps fans of representation theory think people in this group have been so historically overrepresented they need to be culled from juries.

Representation theory is a variant of two modern fads – critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion. Both emanate from the US and while openly contested in that country, we in Australia have been woefully slow to ask even basic questions.

Critical race theory holds that every aspect of society can only be understood through the lens of race, and more particularly racial oppression. Ergo we must reshape society from top to bottom to eliminate that oppression in ways demanded by the victims because who are the oppressors to judge their demands. This theory pollutes modern discourse to the point where so called “colour-blindness” – the notion we treat people according to their inherent merits rather than their race – is regarded as itself oppressive.

CRT wilts under the most cursory analysis because victim and oppressor labels don’t fit neatly to blacks or whites, respectively. Human nature is more nuanced than that, and laws and policies that ignore this glorious complexity do a disservice to all people, regardless of skin colour.

Diversity, equity and inclusion is also in retreat across America – on university campuses and within corporations. The US Supreme Court delivered the official rebuke in a 2023 judgment, informing the DEI-rich university sector that affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina breached the US constitution. The asserted rationales for discrimination by these universities – “training future leaders in the public and private sectors” and “producing new knowledge stemming from diverse outlooks” – sounded lovely. But the court found they were not “sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny”.

In other words, bah humbug to a DEI policy that is divisive and easily debunked by common sense. Mandating certain numbers of Indigenous people on a jury falls into the same category.

While most Australians said no at last year’s voice referendum to special legal rights for some groups, some legal elites just won’t give up.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/indigenous-jury-plan-an-insult-to-justice/news-story/d398b5dcc6370cf945834267ba4efb70

*****************************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************