Songs to shoot yourself by

Liz Jones

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2093248/LIZ-JONES-Lovely-young-women-men-pink-cheeks-Katie-Price--me.html

reckons women only study at Oxbridge to meet a better class of husband.  This is despite referring to herself as a 'feminist' - without any sense of irony or shame, as I really don't think she possesses either.

Nor much of an intellect, come to that, because she has also recently stated that at the proud and venerable age of 53, there is nothing she would like better than to be swept off her feet by none other than Mr Darcy.

What the HELL is this woman on?

Caitlin Moran's supremely pragmatic test for this elusive condition seems to have totally passed her by.  All you need to do is look down your knickers, then answer the following two questions:

1.)  Do you have a vagina?

2.)  Do you want to be in charge of it?

If you answer yes to both, congratulations, you're a feminist.  You perfectly fit Rebecca West's definition of the term as a woman who expresses views that differentiate her from the average doormat.

She utterly fails to notice the somewhat vital point that women have been studying at Oxbridge and many other venerable institutes of learning since the 19th century in order to get an education.  With one of those to your credit, there's nothing you need less than a happy ending with Mr Darcy and a ridiculous collapsed meringue of a dress.

The reason she hasn't picked up on this fundamental fact about women's lives today is vanity.  If we are to believe the picture of her created by her extensive body of work, basically, she is so obsessed by herself and her pathetic excuse for a 'life' that she considers nothing outside herself and her own petty concerns to be of any importance whatsoever - including history, facts and the opinions of other women.

This self-obsession run riot probably explains why her writing is so poor.  It appears it simply has not occured to her to read her own work back and think a bit about how it might be coming across to other people.

So why haven't the editorial team at the Daily Mail taken her aside and had a quiet word of friendly advice whenever it seems called for?

Maybe they think their readers out there in Middle England really DO believe women are as flaky, sad and all-round bloody useless as depicted in Liz's columns - in which case we need feminism more than ever.  Or they really don't give a monkey's butthole how many people she manages to infuriate +/depress beyond endurance with every new installment of her columns, just so long as it shifts loads of papers and gets plenty of hits on their website.  Or perhaps they actually have tried to say something at some point, possibly more than once, only she just wouldn't damn well listen.

Not that we should let the Guardian off the hook, either.  After all, they are the outfit that published that truly dire column about her total disaster-wedding some years back.  This, if I remember rightly, was during the era when the editorial team were obsessed with features penned by people dying of cancer.  That's right, they decided the wedding of the century made the perfect follow-up to harrowing accounts of terminal illnesses faced with great courage and dignity by highly talented journalists.

Every sodding week, she would go drivelling on and on about how her husband didn't like her, fancy her or respect her.  The feeling was obviously mutual, as she spent much of the rest of the time detailing what a lying, faithless git she reckoned he was.

Every week I would hurl the paper against the wall and yell:  "Then why the **** did you marry him, you stupid *****?"

Things reached such a pass that I was seriously considering writing to the Guardian to complain.  I eventually decided against this course of action because I was worried they would reply: "Why don't you sod off and read the Daily Mail, you raving nutter?".

The horror, the horror

This is something I really would prefer not to write, but sadly world events have made it unavoidable.

Puzzled by media stories over the last day or two claiming that Anders Behring Breivik has apparently admitted that he most definitely did kill all the people that he variously shot and bombed into oblivion, yet he insists he is not guilty of any offence, I started wondering what the likelihood is that he could be insane.

The impression given in some quarters is that it would be a relief to many should this in fact turn out to be the case.  Pretty cold comfort for most in the circumstances, you would have thought, but at least it might be very slightly easier to come to terms with the enormity of what he has done. 

Madness is nice, easy and convenient.  If someone is crackers, you can summarily dismiss them as an unfortunate aberration.  You can lock the looney up in a padded cell for the rest of their natural - and make sure you throw away the key right into the middle of a massive great hole situated in the arse-end of the Crab Nebula at the end of the Cretaceous Period.

And then you can forget about them.  (Unless Dr Who +/the Daleks manage to retrieve the key, but that's the start of a whole different story … )

No point in going back after fifteen years and asking the bugger why they committed whatever ghastly atrocity it was that got them banged away in the slammer in the first place.  They're a nutter, nutters don't make any sense, you won't discover anything helpful or useful from them, don't waste your time and effort, case closed.  Over, done with, finished, as my father is so fond of saying.

Anders Behring Breivik, on the other hand, seems quite determined that this won't be happening to him.

It has been reported that he may well have written a manifesto.  This document, it is claimed, is no less than 1,500 pages long, took him three years to research and write - and he has posted it online so that everyone who wishes can take a damn good look.

I'm afraid that I did.

My only excuse is that I wanted to find out if he was mad or not, in his own words rather than anybody else's.  And whether he was or wasn't, what type of rationale he could possibly use to explain (and even attempt to justify) his appalling actions.

So I spent 10 minutes on Saturday afternoon reading this production of his.  This is where I found it, if you must insist on having a ghoulish rummage around his mind for yourself:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mass-killer-andrew-berwicks-aka-anders-breivik-complete-777724-word-manifesto

Now presumably Norwegian police are currently poring through it in painstaking detail, in an attempt to establish whether or not it is in fact his own work.

Should it turn out that he has truly written the invidious thing and posted it online, then the implication must surely be that he wanted the world to find and read it.  That would strongly suggest that he could have planned his actions well in advance.  So he's going to be pretty well stuffed if he (or, more likely, his lawyer) tries to argue that the attacks weren't premeditated in any sense.

You'll see that one of the people who commented on the Zero Hedge discussion board attempts to dismiss Breivik with the curt observation that he 'drones on' for 1500 pages.  Besides which, what on earth could the man have found to chunter on about for so long?

Er, plenty, it turns out.

According to the table of contents, the first part of the book describes the historical and social background to what he presents as 'the problem'.  He then goes on to put forward various plans of action that can be taken to 'solve' the said 'problem'.  And his suggestions are extremely radical, yet at the same time postulated with a cool, clear 'logic'.

Take his views on women. 

The relevant section in the manifesto declares that men of the far right tend to be far more 'chivalrous' in their attitudes towards women, because women are the mothers, daughters and sisters of the world who bear and bring up the babies required to create the next generation.  Anyone who supports feminism must automatically qualify as a 'Marxist' - particularly if they happen to be of the female persuasion.  The 'rationale' for this conclusion is the old suspect - nature has fitted women to be the 'weaker', 'subservient' sex, so anyone who attempts to argue with it is flying in the face of human evolutionary 'efficiency'.

Breivik admits that this could mean a Justiciar Knight is inclined by nature to treat women with great tenderness and respect.  However, the central mission of the Justiciar Knight requires him to act as judge, jury and executioner combined.  He cannot fulfill this function properly if he lets any 'guilty' person off the hook.  Inevitably, this will include women who hold 'unfortunate' views.

It doesn't matter how 'attractive' they might be - and he readily admits that some women are 'very' attractive.  If they've got to go, they've got to go.  A Justiciar Knight is never less than scrupulously fair-minded and impartial.

Nobody should sign up to become a Justiciar Knight if they lack the requisite toughness of mind and character.  Instead, they should content themselves with writing yet another far right wing blog.

Understandably, flatmate got rather worried when I told him about all this and roundly condemned me for going to the lengths of reading such disturbing material. 

"If it's upsetting you so much to see what this fruitcake keeps raving on about, then don't bloody read it!" he yelled.  "This sick fuckwit is just clamouring for the world's attention.  If you refuse to read what he has to say, then you are doing your bit to deprive him of it."

That statement sent me utterly spare.

"After his actions the other week, I think it is a bit bloody late to ignore him or dismiss him by describing him as 'unimportant'!" I screamed.

Judging by the enormous amount and range of comment that he and his views have already prompted on the Internet in the short time since he carried out his awful attacks, he himself would no doubt feel that he is doing really well in spreading his message across the world/.  I bet the bugger is delighted that so many people from so many countries and faiths have been logging on to read his manifesto.  No doubt he revels in the thought that just a month ago, hardly anyone had ever heard of him.  Now everyone, his dog and a packet of crisps is discussing him and his extremist opinions.

Despite Breivik's claims both in the alleged manifesto and his initial interviews with police that he has been working as part of a cell, experts believe that he could well be a lone fanatic.

If he isn't, then obviously the Norwegian police and other forces across the world will need to catch up with his colleagues and take them out of circulation pronto, before more people are killed or hurt.  They cannot afford to dismiss even the slightest possibility that he might have colleagues and sympathisers.

Even if it does turn out to be true that he acted alone, that is no reason to downplay the immense danger he continues to pose to society.  The fact that he went to all that time and trouble to research and write the manifesto tends to suggest pretty strongly that he would like to inspire others to follow his example.  I presume this would explain why he wrote the damn thing in English.  Unlike Norwegian, English is currently one of the global languages of choice.  Therefore the document will prove of interest to far more people - and it can be disseminated much quicker and easier than a Norwegian version.  (Why did he refer to himself by the Anglicized version of his name, though?  Does he think that potential supporters might not believe he is a proper 'Aryan' if he signs himself with a non-English name?  Or is it to claim kinship with English-speaking 'Aryans'?)

Sadly, there are probably some people out there who would take his virulent 'arguments' extremely seriously.  That's why I can't for the life of me understand why the manifesto hasn't been removed from the Internet yet.  (Unless of course, the world's various governments, law enforcement agencies and Internet providers all reckon that enough interested individuals must have downloaded the damn thing already for it to be circulated on the quiet via e-mail?  Hang on, it appears that shortly before he set off  to wire up the bomb in Oslo, he e-mailed copies of it to over 1,000 people … )

Breivik also points out in his manifesto that he thinks he may need to 'fortify' his 'courage' before setting out to carry out his 'mission'.  He reckons he will do this by securing the services of a prostitute.

If he really did go ahead and book an appointment with a sex worker, the poor bloody woman must be mortified now she knows who her strapping blond client was.  Like the rest of Breivik's family, I bet she'll be keeping her head firmly pressed to the ground for a long while.

Even if the world's media haven't beaten a path to her door yet, who is to say that the Norwegian police and secret services haven't managed to smoke her out?  Can you imagine what that interview must be like?

"So, what did Mr Breivik say to you … ?"

"Er, um, how much do you charge for a topless hand-shandy?"  (Wonder how you say that in Norwegian?)