Atticus Fox

The Left and Islam: A Civil Ceremony Made in Pragmatism

The Left and Islam have formed an informal coalition. The deal is that Muslims will vote ‘Labour’ while the Labour Party has agreed to introduce blasphemy protections for Islam that are not afforded to any other religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/labour-formally-adopts-definition-islamophobia

In some ways this alliance makes perfect sense: the nativity of Leftists fits perfectly with the machiavellianism of Islam: Muslims know that Labour is prepared to provide the UK’s Islamic community with whole-hearted support as Labour unquestioningly supports all minority groups.

William Kilpatrick explained the Left’s attitude to Islam as:

‘It looks upon Muslims as a victim class which has been held back by capitalism, colonialism, racism, and, of course, “Islamophobia.” Left-liberals may even believe that Islam is a religion of peace which has gotten a bad press. A poll of Democrat voters taken a few years ago revealed that they believed Islam to be no more violent than Christianity. Leftists do, however, understand that Islam is no friend of Christianity. So they believe that they can work together with Islamic groups to achieve mutual goals.’

And the muslim’s view of Leftists:

‘For their part, radical Muslims tend to see leftists as useful idiots. They are willing to play the oppressed victim role that leftists have assigned to them if it will further their own interests.’

However, there will always be natural fault lines in any alliance between a group of progressives and a group of fundamental conservatives. Hence, the alliance looks ever more unstable as Labour has lurched to the far Left over the last 10 years. The Uber-progressive policies endorsed by Labour seem increasingly at odds with the doctrines of Islam.

First, let’s look at the areas of similarity:

Totalitarian – The default tendancy of the Left is very authoritarian in nature. The Left likes Big Government because Big Governments tell everyone how to behave. The Left only pays pays lip service to democracy. The Left have shown time and time again that they would accept a Totalitarian regime so long as it was a Leftist regime. This has many parallels with Islam – muslims like Totalitarian regimes, so long as they are Islamic regimes. Religions are totalitarian in nature.

Against womens rights – This seems bizarre when one thinks of all the Leftist Feminists out there. However, for the Left, ideology always trumps principle. Hence, the Left do not care about women’s sport being destroyed by trans-women with their size, strength and hormone advantages. Nor does the Left care about the treatment of Muslim women by muslim men. Leftists certainly don’t care about the treatment of white, under-age girls by Muslims. The only women’s rights Leftists give a damn about are white middle class women: The Left screams blue-murder if a white man touches a women without her explicit consent. Yet they give a free pass to muslims to subjugate all women: muslim women via FGM, and sharia law and western women via gang rape.

Open borders – Muslims know that Labour are in favour of unlimited immigration which gives them more chance to fill the UK with as many Muslims as want to come here. The Left need lots more voters. As such, they are delighted to welcome unlimited numbers of muslims to the UK. Muslims want to come to the UK. Win-win.

Public money – Labour love to spend tax-payer money and so do muslims. Muslims know that Labour will always support greater expansion of the welfare state which guarantees homes for all those new Muslim arrivals and means that in future ever fewer UK Muslims will need to work:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4411913/just-one-in-five-muslims-are-in-work-as-report-finds-they-are-held-back-by-racism/

Overthrow of society – the Left are desperate for total equality right now. They dream of the socialist utopia they will build. Of course, they will have to dismantle all institutions that support inequality. Everything must be rebuilt from scratch to ensure it does not perpetuate white patriarchy. Muslims would love to help The Left with destroying western civilisation. Muslims may have a slightly different view of what replaces it but all that can be ironed out when the time comes…

Hating the UK – Both hate the British. The modern Left spends most its time calling everyone that disagrees with them ‘Racist’. The rest of the time is spent criticising British history and defacing statues. Islam shows its dislike by raping our girls and murdering some of us from time to time.

Anti-Semitism – Leftists are not keen on Jews. They pretend that their animus is solely anti-Zion but the counterfuge is so wafer thin that we can all see through it. It has become so obvious that the Equality and Human Rights Commission had to take a look. It just so happens that Muslims are not terribly keen on Jews either. What are great opportunity for some candid conversations between the two groups!

It can be seen that there are many similarities between the Left and Islam. This is why they have become allies. Also, it suits them both: Islam needs a political force that will provide unquestioning support while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the many negative aspects of their culture – treatment of women, jihadism, Hyper-sensitivity to criticism, Power displays, religious fundamentalism etc and the Left need the increasing numbers of votes that Islam delivers them.

However, there are also many sources of tension: the Left is obsessed with the destruction of the family, with sexual permissiveness, with LGBT agenda, with women’s rights (white, middle class women only), with trans rights and with secularism. These issues could cause tensions between the two groups in the future. We have already seen evidence of this at Anderson Park School in Birmingham:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/protests-over-lgbt-equality-restart-16904018

However, until they can win power, they will continue to overlook these differences. Leftists see Muslims as a permanent ally. I suspect that Muslims’ view of Leftists is based much more on short term expediency. Once Labour has created the islamophobia legislation, Muslims will have much more leeway to express themselves.

Your Labels Are Wrong. Here Are Your New, Ideologically Correct Labels…

Social Justice Warriors, specifically, and The Left, generally, no longer want us to refer to places as terms of reference. You should not describe yourself as an Englishman. This label is not inclusive because only people born in England have the right to use that term. As such, the term is racist because Englishmen are, historically, white. The term is also racist because it is a nationalist term and nationalism is racist. We are also told the term is a white supremacist term because, the act of referring to yourself by your nationality is to suggest that your nationality is superior to other nationalities which, if you’re white, is oppressive to brown people. It’s all very ‘problematic’.

The Left don’t like nationalism. Unless, it’s Scottish nationalism which is ok because the Scots have been oppressed by the English for centuries. Brown people can also be nationalistic because they have almost certainly been oppressed by white people for centuries. Basically, anyone is allowed to be a nationalist except for anyone from a white country that ever won a war.

The Left would prefer us to define ourselves by our gender and race and sexuality and religion. However, only brown people can reference their religion. It can become a bit complicated. Here are some examples that should clarify things:

1. ‘I am a non-binary, Asian woman’ = This is good. This Asian woman is acknowledging that we are all on the spectrum of sexuality

2. ‘I am a differently-abled, muslim Iranian man’ = As an oppressed man from an oppressed country, this man is correct to define himself in this way.

3. ‘I am a transgender, black woman’ = We feel you pain, sister. Have you considered entering the Olympics?

4. ‘I am a heterosexual, white, Christian woman’

The 4th one is clearly not correct – Christianity and whiteness are both oppresive identities. Hearing both of these terms in the same sentence will be very threatening to many different groups. Also, heterosexuality oppresses sexual minority groups. This would have read better as:

‘I am a woman’ = This is good. Even better would be…

‘I am a cis-woman’.

My point is that our cultural overlords are simply replacing the old labels with new labels. The old labels related to places (and sometimes to class). The new labels relate to identity groups. All in the name of inclusivity. However, the new labels are much more divisive then the old labels. Before, we could all state we were English. Now there are hundreds of identity groups, all agitating against other. Where once there was social cohesion, now there is none. Now there are just endless identity groups, each group worrying that other identity groups receive more sympathy or advantages (either financial or social) or publicity than they are. Social trust has been replaced with social tension.

A cynic would suggest that dividing us into identity groups makes us much easier to control because it limits our ability to unite behind a common goal. Divide and conquer, anyone?

Toxic Femininity

Bill Burr said in his ‘Paper Tiger’ stand-up recently…

“The world is fucked up and I think white women started it”

He’s right. However, to be more specific, the problem is Leftist white women. And to be very specific, it’s middle class, Leftist, white women. Whenever I refer to ‘women’ in this piece, please realise I am referring to middle class, Leftist, white women. There are huge numbers of normal women out there who like men and don’t feel the need to jump on the man-hating bandwagon that the Leftists are driving up the pavement. I think many women are feeling split loyalties: they have grown up with the idea of ‘feminism’ as a noble cause but are horrified by what it has become.

Women have been pummelling men over the last few years about ‘toxic masculinity’. Women are making men feel bad about themselves so that they can take advantage of yet more benefits they can add to those numerous benefits over men that they currently enjoy.

It is clear to me that women are at the forefront of everything that is bad in Western societies these days:

1) Climate Alarmism – It’s mostly women. From Greta downwards. Any time a camera crew attends a climate demonstration, all the vox pops are with women. It’s women who are the most zealous that something has to change right now or we will all die. However, it is clear that they know nothing of the subject. They have leveraged scare stories on the news to spin themselves into a vortex of anxiety.

2) 4th wave feminism – Look at them! Observe their objectives. Modern feminism is nothing to be lauded. Sensible thinking people can see that women have all the same rights as men. Feminism won! But winning is not good enough now. 4th wave feminists want to grind men into the dirt. Feminism has descended into petty vindictiveness. Feminism is now a proxy for socialism. Joanna Williams writes:

‘Modern day feminism is a totalitarian ideology, through which its proponents aim to achieve power. It aims to control and regulate behaviour – down to trivial details of what you can say, do, and even think – in pursuit of the eternal goal of ‘equality,’ which will never be reached. It persuades women that they are oppressed’.

3) Free speech blockers – Again, it seems that white, middle class, Leftist woman are the main protagonists of this sort of behaviour. It’s women at universities blocking events and people they don’t agree with. It’s women that want to block debates on contentious issues like transgenderism and Islam. It’s women claiming they feel unsafe and require safe spaces.

4) Anti-vaxxers – Virtually always women. That’s what happens when you confuse ‘social science’ for real science. Most women do not have science background. As such, they allow themselves to be led by their ‘feelings’. Logic does not feature heavily in their thought processes. So they base decisions on what they consider fair or equitable based on their lived experience. This approach is not going to lead to good decisions.

https://www.livescience.com/anti-vaxxers-try-to-change-name.html

5) Identity politics: women are at the forefront of this movement. Women are the ones signing up to protect transgender rights. Same for protections against Islamophobia. Women have a natural tendency to stop bullying so if any group say they are being bullied, women leap to their defence without considering: a) is the accusation of bullying justified? b) what are the impacts elsewhere if we ban all criticism of the behaviours of certain groups?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/12/labour-leadership-row-over-support-for-trans-rights-charter

6) Open borders: Significant numbers of advocates for increased immigration are women.

Christopher DeGroot has written a couple of articles that point out less discussed aspects of female behaviour:

The University of Narcissism, October, 2019

I do not think we can understand the steep decline of academia without considering the rise and role of women, who are very influential in university administrations, especially when it comes to identity politics. It is certainly not difficult to imagine an all-male or male-dominated context being insensitive, harsh, or cruel. Yet it is surely impossible that the tyranny of precious feelings that we now see in academia would occur in any all-male or male-dominated context. In these endless stories about hurt feelings on college campuses, women students, women professors, and women administrators are massively overrepresented, like the neurotic student who, failing to separate her personal “issues” from academic performance, believed that she got a D because she’s a lesbian. (Of course, other groups—blacks, Jews, gays, trans persons—are also overrepresented in such stories, but of all these groups, women are by far the most numerous, and hence the most influential.)

Such a failure, however, is quite in keeping with what we know about the nature of sex differences. On average, women are more sympathetic to others’ feelings than men. They are also higher in neuroticism. So they tend to be more upset by “insensitive speech” than men, and being more egalitarian, more conformist, and less open to ideas than men, more likely to want to censor it, and to punish those who don’t conform to progressive groupthink, whereby anything you don’t like is evidence of your perpetual victimization.

Again, I am speaking in terms of averages, of statistical group differences—and in our huge country, there are, let me stress, many tolerant, open-minded, nonconforming women. Nevertheless, as in journalism and in publishing, the collective influence of women in academia seems to be rather baleful, and I do not see, based on the evidence so far, that a thriving academia is compatible with having a large number of women in it.

Christopher DeGroot, Takimag

Second article: The Return of Patriarchy, November, 2017

https://www.takimag.com/article/the_return_of_patriarchy_christopher_degroot/

Women, moreover, largely lack a sense of justice, where the word denotes conscious, abstract duty; they are mostly feeling and caprice, irrational and maternal. Hence, although they are more sympathetic than men, they are frequently effortless vampires, without scruple or conscience. And so, in the hypocritical Nathaniel Hawthorne fiction that is America, we constantly have women “coming forward,” decades after the fact to opportunistically allege “harassment” about what in most cases were de facto bartering arrangements with powerful men. Such shameless lying is far less common among men. For women, it is just another weapon in the general arsenal of deceit, along with the fake cry, the shit test, “the talk” that doesn’t reveal the actual issue, and so on.

It is often remarked that men are more assertive and straightforward than women. The reason we are is obvious: We are bigger and stronger, and so can afford to be. Hence the old male practice of quickly clearing the air—confronting one another, often with violence—and then moving on. Two men slug it out, and afterwards have a beer. That is real respect, something earned. This is an advantage—and burden—that women, with their smaller and weaker bodies, do not have. Hence their characteristic passive-aggressiveness, pettiness, disingenuousness, dissimulation, resentment, vindictiveness, backstabbing, group shaming, and willingness to ruin people’s lives—especially men’s—in order to exercise the deep spirit of revenge that is so central to them. It is indeed the way of women, when things do not go as they wish, to exploit the public’s instinctive paternalism. In such situations, our natural and noble desire to protect women from bad men passes unperceived into the strongest element of human nature: sheer evil and the desire to make others suffer, which, being conveyed under the guise of righteousness, is of such subtlety that few people can perceive the error and hypocrisy. So it happens that men all across the country have had their lives ruined by female manipulation and paternal herd virtue, a phenomenon that has been well documented by Laura Kipnis, KC Johnson, Stuart Taylor Jr., and others.

Reviewing Joanna Williams’ important new book, Women vs Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating From the Gender Wars, Ed Dutton relates “how feminists abuse statistics” concerning the representation of women in academia and the workforce. Feminists also take care to propagate the myth of the wage gap. For feminism is defined by victimhood, and as such, it will not concede progress or acknowledge real justice. The problem, for feminists, is that equal opportunity leads inexorably to the massive demonstration of women’s inferiority to men. IQ tests continually show that, compared with men, women do not think very well (i.e., with supreme intelligence), and therefore most are incapable of understanding complex contexts and keeping up with the ablest men. Accordingly, even in 2017, men dominate science, technology, Congress, and indeed everything wherein exceptional ability is required. There are still no great women philosophers, scientists, or artists on the level of Aristotle, Newton, and Bach. It is not even close and never will be.

Whether they incoherently demand “equality” or not, women shall remain fundamentally manipulative. Scholars have documented what we all notice as teenagers: that women establish value and so obtain power by shaming men and women alike. Such wicked strategy is inherent in female psychology. Most people, of course, believe women are less aggressive than men. That appearance is deceiving, however, because women’s aggression is usually carefully concealed, a crafty affair. Unfortunately for them, most men do not have the discernment to notice their pretty puppet master’s strings. Women, to be sure, want to be valued no less than men do. Beauty is to women as ambition is to men. The two goals, indeed, are complementary, both aiming indirectly at coupling and the propagation of children. And what women—who, in their own way, are as driven as men are by the will to be valued, whether as regards beauty or their role in the workplace—lack in physical strength and mental ability, they more than compensate for with subterranean guile. Because she is weaker than man, woman obtains her ends as a dissimulator—a fox to his lion. Thus feminists, like so many catty schoolgirls, will continue griping about “gender inequality,” appealing to men’s natural but usually myopic paternalism and to the deep resentment of their own sex as they endeavour to actualize their gender dystopia.
Christopher DeGroot, Takimag

Women Behaving Manly

Every single advance in liberal values since WW2 has been championed by feminists as a vital step in the battle for the emancipation of women:

– The contraceptive pill (allowing women to be in control of their fertility)

– Easier divorces (providing women with more power to leave abusive husbands).

– Reduced stigma of single parenthood (thereby, reducing the fear of ostracism that mothers might face if they were to divorce their husbands. Also, reducing the stigma that never-married mothers might face for any lack of sexual discipline).

– Liberalisation of sexual attitudes (thereby, allowing women to pursue a sexual life with the same vigour as men).

– Easier access to abortion (meaning women are not left holding the evidence of their poor sexual choices).

– Online dating (meaning that women can take control of their dating rather than be passive participants).

Every single one of these victories has enabled men to have ever more sex with greater numbers of women.

People will reply that women are also having a lot more sex. True. But more sex with more partners is an outcome that favours men more than women, because:

– Women carry the risk of pregnancy (and abortion).

– Women are at greater risk of physical and sexual assault from men they don’t know very well.

– Taking into account women’s shorter fertility window, women need men that will commit to relationships. Yet, giving men access to unlimited amounts of casual sex, reduces men’s need to commit.

– Women are less suited, psychologically, to casual sex (because women like to form deeper, more meaningful relationships and so are unprepared when men cast them aside after sex). Women are geared towards feeling that their sexual favours are sacred gifts that can be used to hypnotise men into falling in love. They really don’t know men!

– A woman’s sexual allure no longer has the value it once did. Women could once use their sexual allure to benefit themselves in some way: to entrance a potential mate / husband or to obtain something else they wanted – E.g. jewellery, influence, the head of Holofernes etc. Once upon a time, a man stood very little chance of having sex with a woman that he desired. Women were aware of the value of their chastity and took advantage of that power. This caused men to go to great lengths in the pursuit of sex: men would adopt any behaviour that might give them an advantage in the pursuit of female attention: men would be polite; men would dress to impress; men would work hard to earn money to show that they could ensure a woman’s comfort; men would be prepared to marry early in order to secure the best women. These days, women no longer protect the value of their sexual allure: they offer sex so readily that sex with a woman is commonplace and, consequently, of no value. Therefore, men need not make any effort with those traditional behaviours. Women lose out by no longer being surrounded by men that are prepared to make a huge effort to please them.

More sex has undoubtedly benefitted men more than it has women. Women are working against their own best interests.

Why are women behaving like men?

It seems like women are behaving like men, not so much because they want to, but because they can. Also, there is huge pressure put on women by the media to behave like men. It’s part of the efforts by Leftists to remove any differences between the genders. We’re all the same, they tell us. Any differences are due to social conditioning. The blank slate. Tabula rasa.

Liberal women seem to feel that female emancipation is not about giving women choices. Instead, the message they promote is that women must shun their former roles and try to beat men at their own game.
Many women, especially leftist women just don’t know how they are supposed to behave these days. Feminists tell women that they mustn’t behave like their mothers because their mothers were bad feminists. Their mothers supported the Patriarchy by foregoing their careers to raise their children and by being a housewife and wearing pretty dresses etc. So, instead young women try to behave like men and, why not? They are told that men have all the power and that gender is just a social construct so why not behave like men. Perhaps that is the secret to having all the power? So women try to ape male behaviour, i.e. being aggressive and having casual sex. But it’s a very misguided and confused version of how men behave because they’re just pretending and in reality they’re a bit lost because they are no longer allowed to act like women. And let’s not forget that huge numbers of young women were raised by their mothers without the constant presence of a father in their lives. As such, they only have a vague and distorted idea of what men are like. So they’re pretending to be something they don’t understand. Hence, why large numbers of young woman behave so bizarrely.

Consequently, women are deciding not to have children in record numbers. Or when they tire of the ‘cock-carousel’, they realise that the only men left to choose from are infantilised men that can’t commit because they have grown accustomed to easy sex.

I foresee a future where huge numbers of middle aged women will heavily regret the life choices they made in their youths.

Western Society is Being Balkanised

What we are seeing in Western society is a systematic attempt to balkanise Western culture.

Balkanise: divide (a region or body) into smaller mutually hostile states or groups.

The traditions and cultural mores of any society provide social cohesion and a unity of purpose for the peoples of that society. However, the rules that have governed human interactions for thousands of years are being destroyed by ‘progressives’.

What will remain will be a quivering, pulsating wreck of a culture that has been torn apart by its contradictions and loss of direction.

Balkanisation has already happened in the Art world. We have only have to look at modern art to realise what happens when the rules are thrown out. Subjectivity replaces objectivity.

There used to be a gradual progression to art. New forms and styles came in rarely. Part of the reason for this is that those elites that controlled the dissemination of art pushed back against changes to what was considered ‘art’. A famous example of this relates to the introduction of impressionism:

Impressionism coalesced in the 1860s when a group of painters including Claude Monet, and Renoir and others started pursuing a new form of painting. However, the art produced by these painters was not accepted by the organisation that had overseen the art world standards since 1667, the Academie des Beaux-Arts. This conflict between what these painters wanted to create and what was deemed permissible by the governing body of art led to a famous insurrection. The group held their own exhibition in 1874 that was an alternative to the ‘Salon de Paris’ exhibition held by the Academie. The exhibition they staged comprised works that had been submitted to the Salon but rejected by the Academie. Soon enough the group organised themselves as ‘Impressionists’. This label originated from an insult hurled by the press at one of Monet’s paintings, Impression, Sunrise.

And so a new art movement came of age.

There have been many art movements throughout human history: Prehistoric art; Ancient art; Medieval art; Renaissance art; Baroque art; Neoclassicism; Romanticism; Realism; Impressionism; Art Nouveau; Post Impressionism; Fauvism; Expressionism; Cubism; Surrealism; Abstract Expressionism; Pop Art; Contemporary Art.

Each movement had its own style and its own superstars that founded the movements for which they were the leading ambassadors. (Think Picasso for Cubism; Magritte for Surrealism; Warhol for Pop Art etc). Art started to become all about the artist. Each movement lasted less time than the movements that had preceded it. Art was speeding up. Art was shifting and splintering into new forms of expression all the time. The rules that dictated what was or wasn’t art were worn away. At some point art as something that could be appreciated objectively became something that could only be appreciated subjectively. Art required an explanation. Art could no longer be understood as reflecting universally recognised themes or symbolism or talent. And so we are now in the latest and, possibly, final art movement: Contemporary Art. Contemporary Art is the catch-all label that we use to describe any art that is produced these days. There are no art ‘movements’. There are no ‘movements’ because there are no rules. It is called ‘art’ yet we, the non-artworld punters don’t know why it’s art. We don’t get to decide what is or isn’t art. The liberal elites that curate Contemporary Art galleries decide what is art. Art is subjective, not objective. Liberal elites have assumed the power to help us navigate the subjective pathways that they, and only they, control. We, the punters, must accept what we are told by our cultural overlords. We no longer know the rules. The rules are secret. The Liberal Elites are in Control.

As it was with Art, so it will be with Society.

Society is experiencing the same balkanisation that happened in the art world. For the last two thousand years, we were all bound by the same rules of biblical morality: The 10 Commandments; personal responsibility; the importance of family; care for your fellow man; modesty; putting the needs of others before your own etc. People who transgressed these rules could expect to be ostracised in some way. The opprobrium of your fellow man ensured that everyone attempted to keep within the rules. The rules were objective: they applied to everyone and everyone understood what they were. The Catholic Church was the gatekeeper for morality. As such, the Catholic Church was the equivalent of the Academie des Beaux Arts: the ultimate arbiter of the conventions we should all abide by. However, biblical morality started to lose its power. Human morality started changing. New moralities emerged. The power of stigma weakened. Divorce became an empowering lifestyle choice. Homosexuality was accepted, then celebrated. The Pill freed women to have consequence-free sex. Therefore, a new morality was required to accommodate casual sex. Old morality was about putting others first. New morality became all about putting yourself first. Thus, the family unit reduced in importance. Religion declined. dramatically.
The rules that dictated morality were worn away. People started to create bespoke versions of morality based on their own lived experience. We were told we had the right to live our lives however we wanted. Ego-driven debauchery followed. Immigration introduced new cultures. Our cultural overlords used this as an opportunity to further undermine Western traditions: our traditions offend newcomers so we must suppress our Judeo-Christian heritage. Gradually, we are made to feel that all Western traditions are exclusionary or offensive or racist.

Since 2014, things have sped up. Identity politics has taken hold. This is a significant step towards the balkanisation of society. We are not Englishmen or Americans or Christians. Now we must define ourselves by our gender and our race and our sexuality. Therefore, there are now many groups within each country where, previously, just a single group existed. Each group agitates for its own needs.

Morality, like art, is now subjective. Objective morality, applicable to all, has been superceded.

To defend the traditional morality of society marks you out as a bigot.

We have torn down the rules to such an extent that even science no longer holds dominion over us. Science itself is now subject to lived experience.

As Valerie Torico says:

Some gender justice and racial justice advocates are working to change modern theories of knowledge. They want to elevate lived experience, anecdote, intuition, narrative, and traditional wisdom so that testimony is equal—or even preferable—to aggregated data and research. Science (with its limitations and potential abuses) is seen as a white male way of knowing, whereas lived experience is equally available to all, including those with limited access to education and other means of empowerment. Truth is defined by whether something feels real to those affected.

People have been given the power to decide what gender they are. We can also decide what race we are. There is no aspect of our culture that isn’t up for grabs: academics can advocate that spelling is racist.

And that time is racist.

And liberal politicians decide that theft is no longer a crime.

And that the line between murder and abortion becomes very vague.

Liberal elites have come to power to help us navigate the subjective pathways that they, and only they, control. They decide the subjects authors can write about. They decide which Halloween costumes can be worn. They decide who is racist and who isn’t.

The new gatekeepers of our behavioural mores are the liberal elites in the media and universities and liberal politicians. However, the same rules no longer apply to everyone. Different identity groups have different rules depending on where they exist on the Intersectional hierarchy. The rules are not intuitive. We no longer know the rules. The rules are secret. The Liberal Elites are in control.

For the State. Against the Country

Western Leftists hate their countries. I assume there are no dissenters on that point, yeah? That’s a given. To a Leftist all Western countries are riddled with racism and systemic inequality towards minorities. Not to mention that all Western countries are just a day away from a fascist junta declaring martial law. As a result, Leftists loathe their countries. They are the opposite of patriots. Leftists loathe patriots. A Leftist would never die for his / her / their own country. No way. They might be prepared to die a martyr’s death over climate change but certainly not for their country. They never want to leave their countries, mind you. They hate the bourgeois reactionaries they have to live amongst. But they never leave. They have trouble figuring out a country that will meet all of their demands – economic; ecological; educational; medical; political; linguistic; etc etc. So here they stay. Bitching and moaning all the while.

Yet Leftists always vote for Big Government. They want the biggest government they can possibly have. Leftists have this innate belief that all of the many faults of the country in which they live can be fixed if they just had a Big Enough Government. A government that was prepared to spend huge amounts of money. If enough money was spent, the government would be able to change the nature of the inhabitants. Racism, inequality, bigotry, bourgeois attitudes, the climate and social conservativism could all be ‘fixed’. It all comes back to the blank slate philosophy with Leftists. Nature vs nurture. A Leftist will always adopt the ideology that human behaviours are entirely the result of how they were educated, i.e. nurture. Therefore, they believe that humans can be ‘re-educated’ to embrace different behaviours. And since the government provides education, we need a huge state in order to provide the massive amounts of re-education that are required.True, Hitler didn’t manage to iron out all the problems in Germany but then Hitler didn’t see it through to the end.

Of course, Leftists would still moan. And not just because Leftists love to moan but because there would still be that troubling colonial past to be ashamed of. However, a good Leftist would soon be able to change the history books.So, if I were to summarise, it would be as follows: Leftists love governments but hate countries. It’s just an observation. Do with it what you will.

Unintended Consequences

The Left are desparate to overthrow all aspects of the traditional Western way of life in order to create a new system based on fairness and equality and diversity and socialism.

However, what always strikes me about the objectives of Leftists is that they never consider what negative outcomes might occur as a byproduct of their policies. These negative outcomes are known as unintended consequences.

For example, let’s look at the unintended consequences of socialism. Leftists look at Socialism and are irresistibly drawn to it. Socialism hits so many of Leftist touch points that it seems the perfect ideology: equality; punishing the rich; reduced personal responsibility in favour of increased powers of the state; more social services etc etc. Yet, we have all learned that there are many unintended consequences of Socialism. For a start, humans are not all equal. Some humans are more intelligent and some are lazier than others. Some are more ambitious. Some people would rather run their own businesses than work for the state. Some people may object to paying very high rates of tax to subsidise people that don’t wish to work very much. As a result, humans will try to find ways to work around Socialism. That’s when the nasty side of Socialism shows itself. Socialist governments start finding ways of rooting out transgressors. Secret police forces are set up. People are encouraged to report people that break the rules. Yet everyone breaks the rules so reporting of rule-breaking serves the objective of settling petty grievances. Trust breaks down. Punishments become more draconian. Gulags, anyone? A Socialist Government always ends up using force to keep the population under control. Or is it that we just haven’t done Socialism ‘properly’ yet? 😉

The Left push Transgenderism as a noble cause without considering necessary checks. and balances. The Left argue that anyone should be able to self-identify as the opposite gender without any cost or disadvantage to themselves: no requirement to have undergone hormone treatment or therapy, no requirement to have shown a history of gender dysphoria and certainly no requirement to have undergone any corrective surgery. As such, transgender women, Leftists assert, should be free to use all women’s spaces and facilities: toilets; changing rooms; prisons etc. This places a huge impact on women and girls. It also exposes them to obvious risk: the risk that a ‘bad actor’ could choose to identify as a women for nefarious purposes. At this point, The Left asserts that there are no ‘bad actors’, there are only victims. They assert that minor inconvenience to women is a price worth paying for the colossal historical oppression that transgender people have been subject to.

Transgenderism also undermines gayness. If you are a young man coming to the realisation that you are attracted to men, is that because you are gay? Or is that because you are trapped in the wrong gender? Should you become a transgender woman in order to pursue your attraction to men? How does a person make the decision as to whether they are gay or transgender? The fashion, currently, is for transgenderism. Transgenderism is being pushed as the ‘latest thing’. But no one is talking about how you might just be gay. The emphasis now is that you have been born in the wrong body and transgenderism is the only option. In the case of pre-pubescent children that are showing ambiguity in their sexuality, hormone blockers are prescribed. Youth is a confusing time for most people. Adulthood is quite intimidating. How many young people will embark on the course of transgenderism and live to regret it? The transgender populism we are seeing now will run out of steam in a few years. Yet how many lives will have been ruined because they were netted by over-zealous teachers or social workers or well-meaning parents.

UBI is another fashionable Leftist issue that has unintended consequences. I have discussed UBI before – Men (Not) At Work – so I won’t repeat myself. All I will say, is that people guaranteed an income without having to work for it do not turn their attention to loftier pursuits.

4 day week: The Labour manifesto for the 2019 general election included a pledge to reduce the working week from 43 hours to 32 hours – with no drop in pay – within 10 years. There is no consideration as to how that will be funded. Firms will lose 20% of their manpower but their costs will not be reduced. Take a business like the NHS: Can the existing staff be expected to achieve the same productivity in 4 days that previously took them 5 days? Of course not. Patients need care every day. You can’t look after patients 25% more than normal during Monday to Thursday so that they won’t need looking after on Friday. Instead, the NHS will have to hire staff to cover all those hours that have been lost. Consequence = much higher costs for the NHS. Has the Labour Party considered these consequences? Of course not!

The Left have always championed women going out to work. But who looks after the children if both parents are working? Result = family life suffers. The consequence of this is that Western women are now having less children. The procreation rate has dropped below replacement levels. So now The Left tell us that we must bring in migrants to keep the population levels up. Result = The Great Replacement.

Thank you, Leftists for your commitment to ideology over common sense.

Leftist Control Belies Their Insecurity

I am constantly surprised at the need for the Left to impose their will on the rest of the population. Whatever the latest Social Justice issue of the day is, the Left operate en-masse to tell us how we must accept the new rules of speech and behaviour that accompany this issue.

We all know the tendency towards fascism that the Left exhibits. There is a strong need to control. To force their orthodoxy on everyone else. There is very little ‘live and let live’ with the left. Their constant cries for ‘tolerance’ only apply to others being tolerant of the Leftists. It does not mean the Leftists being tolerant if anyone else.

So far, this is what we know and recognise.

However, it dawns on me that Leftist behaviour is symptomatic of the insecurity of Leftists personally.

This is witnessed by their need to group into factions. They display herd mentality.

Therefire, we must realise it’s not a coincidence that the public sector is so dominated by Leftists.

Antifa, the Left’s paramilitary wing, only operate en-masse.

The left would never be able to do a solo mass shooting. That’s what the Right does.

Climate Emergency Crisis Panic Hysteria Delusion

Here are some details from Climate Realism websites that may be useful to point out to the most hysterical amongst us…

Firstly, CO2 is trace gas (0.04% of atmosphere). Levels of CO2 are not high by historical standards

The forecasters of climate doom assert that CO2 levels have never been as high as today. Well that is only true for the past 800,000 years. They prefer to view the increase of 120 ppm [parts per million] over the past 150 years through the narrow lens of recent geologic time. To properly analyze the current levels, we need to put the data into the proper context. During our current geologic period, called the Quaternary, there has existed the lowest average CO2 levels in the entire history of the Earth. In the lush vegetative days of the dinosaurs, the CO2 levels stood in excess of 1600 ppm. The average CO2 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than six-times our modern era level.

Secondly, there is no link between global temperatures and CO2 levels. Here’s a graph from Tom Nelson’s Blog that charts temps and CO2:

Here’s some more temperature data that shows warmer weather 80 years ago:

Yet, in the GIF below we see that NASA has amended the data to remove the 20th century warm spell in the 1930/40s:

In 1989 the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) stated there was no evidence of increasing temperatures:

In 1999, James Hansen of NASA stated there was no evidence of US warming despite increases in CO2 levels

Note how the graph of US temps (above) shows the 1930s temp spike that has since been ‘adjusted’

Here is an article that highlights the many apocalyptic climate predictions that didn’t come true…

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions