Monday, July 9, 2018

Lives of the Saints

Here's a funny story:
Way back in 1913 Emmett O'Davids, born to a Catholic Irish family in Kilburn within London, died a tragic death as he championed the cause of Irish Nationalism. O'Davids had previously come to the authorities' attention on several occasions, having been described as "one of the most daring and reckless of the London Irish militants" of his time. He was jailed for two months for throwing stones at the window of a cabinet ministers' meeting, which he "meant as a warning to the general public of the personal risk they run in future if they go to Cabinet Ministers' meetings anywhere" and once hid in the heating system of the Palace of Westminster overnight in an effort to speak directly to the Prime Minister. He was not charged with any crimes for this and other such acts of infiltration, but only when he escalated to setting fire to the postbox outside Parliament. Determined to continue, he was further arrested while trying to throw a stone at a car he mistakenly believed to be carrying Lord Asquith and for attacking a protestant vicar's wife with a bullwhip, having again mistaken her for Lady Margot Asquith.

On the morning of 4 June 1913, O'Davids obtained two flags bearing Irish colours from his favourite pub in Kilburn and traveled by train to Epson, Surrey to attend the Derby. As the horses were passing his position, he ducked under the guard-rail flags in hand, rushed onto the track and made a grab for the reigns of Amner (King George V's horse) as it rushed past at ~55 km/h. He was (predictably enough) knocked to the ground and rushed unconscious to the hospital, but died two days later of his injuries.


How much sympathy do you have for this ludicrous character? Not much? Just another thrill-seeking violent extremist who seemed more interested in making a spectacle of himself than making a rational case and ended up dying a classic, stupidly reckless Darwin Awards death.

What if I were to remind you that I'm actually citing the exploits and death of the feminist Emily Davison, with genders flipped and Irish Nationalism substituted for women's votes? Now how much sympathy do you have for her rather than him? A lot more, I'm guessing.

Regardless of what you think of Irish separatism (I'm no particular fan of it myself; it was just a handy reference) the marginalization and demonization of the Irish and their poor living conditions both within and without their little rocky sham of a homeland compose an exceedingly well-documented slice of history. In fact, in the same year as Davison's death, 1913, this was going on in Dublin: union strikes, lockouts, destitution and hunger. I specifically omitted the often lamented suffragette penance of getting force-fed in prison when they went on hunger strikes. Compare to: "The "Kiddies' Scheme", for the starving children of Irish strikers to be temporarily looked after by British trade unionists, was blocked by the Roman Catholic Church and especially the Ancient Order of Hibernians, who claimed that Catholic children would be subject to Protestant or atheist influences when in Britain." Yes, within a year of Davison being denied her self-imposed martyrdom, Irish children were dying of actual starvation and the ultimate complaint against feeding starving kids was that it might interfere with their superstitious indoctrination.

The least believable element of my gender-bent narrative above would have to be that some random Irishman caught Westminstering after dark would get away with a warning in 1913, unless that warning came in the form of several cracked ribs and a standard "assaulting a pig" prison sentence. Especially as a repeat offender. In fact, screw the Irish. Compare feminists' glamorized "suffering until suffrage" to any political conflict from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, be it class, ethnic or religious, even within the relatively humanist Europe. The phrase "with kid gloves" doesn't even begin to describe these girls' treatment. Most kids would've been deemed unfit for suffragette-quality gloves!

There's a good reason why feminists have advertised themselves as "intersectional" these past couple of decades. They desperately need to leech some legitimacy from other social movements, or else their entire propaganda machine will at long last collapse under its own hypocrisy and irrelevance. So whenever you hear one of those sappy documentary/infomercials about women's suffering at the hands of men (the hagiography of our modern age) go ahead and read up on those women's actual quality of life and treatment compared to other social norms within that time and place. Compare the constant concessions feminists have extracted for themselves compared to other activists, the tactics they employed and the much less frequent or severe repercussions they suffered. Look at the real issues, not the overemotional, fanatical glorification of women to which we're born and into which we're further indoctrinated all our lives.

Try to imagine a male atheist ambushing an Anglican nun in a London street in 1913 and whipping her to make some sort of deranged quasi-point about the need for secular schooling. Arrested? He'd have been lucky to make it out alive as half a dozen nearby men rushed to tear him to pieces.

You are instinctively pre-programmed to favor women. Your subconscious instincts are being used against you.
Wake up.

edit 2018/07/13:
Shortened title because it was the bothering the me.

No comments:

Post a Comment