The Kinder Gentler Politics

Two wrongs don’t make a right. This used to be a truth around which we could find some consensus- it is now the tired battle-cry of the conservative movement. Why? If you state this truism now in a political discussion it is assumed that you can’t possibly understand the hurt people have experienced. You are lacking in empathy. If you don’t want to turn the screws on the oppressors then you really don’t understand. First of all I understand perfectly well and I refuse to list all the ways in which I know as justification for my argument. My argument needs no justification beyond the confines of the argument. My personal experiences are really quite irrelevant. I could be naive and young. I would still be stating a truism.

Also I understand well enough what resentment can do to a human heart. If you’re in that bad hurting place then you assume that others who aren’t in that place are sociopaths. Look at the world- why aren’t they in tears? Why aren’t they angry? Why aren’t they *pick your poison*? At a certain point I grew to really understand how angry resentment was a poison. You spout some line where you list a number of inherent characteristics as villainous groups- “you cis het white man” as though you aren’t doing to them precisely what their forebears did to your forebears. At a certain point you might stop yourself and see the person, not the long list of descriptions- and you might realise in no uncertain terms what you turned in to. How your hate, your anger, your resentment was bending you and twisting you.

So I began to ask dangerous questions- forget history for a moment. How am I doing? What can I actually list that other people actually did to me? The list is short- once the paranoia of mental illness fades you can see it for it was. The list of actual wrong-doings is slim. Then you might ask the question- what were their motives? Were they nasty awful people who intended me harm? The list becomes even smaller. Then you might ask the most dangerous question of all- what did I do wrong? Dangerous because it assumes that I am not “perfect just the way I am”. Contrary to much of the current underpinnings of the counselling movement- the fault does not lay entirely with my environment. When I asked “what the hell is wrong with me?” it was the first honest question I’d asked for quite some time. “Nothing is wrong with you” doesn’t ring true and for a very good reason. When you account for the ways you wronged others the list becomes even smaller still.

Then you might do something truly crazy- you might take Jesus literally. Whoever is left on that list you might reasonably describe as an enemy. You might spend months praying for your enemies every day. I did. One each day. Just to see what it would change. My empathy then became the strongest it has ever been. In my experience you’re not lacking in empathy because you don’t want to strike down the “oppressor”- you’re the most empathetic you’ve been for a while.

Since praying for my enemies really seemed to work I’ve started taking things literally on occasion to see what would happen. The final rule in Jordan Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life” is “Pet a Cat when you encounter one on the street”. His rules are often symbolic and this one is probably the most symbolic of them all. Today I took it literally and made two new friends. My neighbours cat, and my neighbour who I had never talked to before. Experimenting with this was definitely a net-win. Sure I was slightly cold, wondering if I might have to adopt this cat since it wouldn’t leave me alone now, and worrying about the time I was potentially wasting. I needn’t have worried about any of those things. I got warm as soon as I went back inside. The Cat was thinking (for want of a better word) “I like you a lot but Mummy has food- mummy will always be my owner.” This most definitely was not wasted time- I made two new friends.

I’ve thought a fair bit about what in particular has driven certain former friends away- and what has meant that others stayed. I don’t quite have the answer yet. I have noticed a correlation of sorts though. For some of my left-wing friends my faith was always a problem for them- “we really need to get you towards a more materialistic view of the world” (something someone actually said, not something I’m making up). He is no longer a friend. Another friend who was present for this conversation is still a friend- she said after the fact “I was actually really uncomfortable- I don’t understand why we need to convert you”. Some friends were okay with me being economically conservative but “you’re still socially liberal”. I now find the stance of being economically conservative but socially liberal to be entirely nonsensical. If you want to strip away all safety networks: the welfare state and social security/benefits on the one hand and the nuclear family, Church, and community on the other- then you may as well have done with it and be an anarchist.

I still find it interesting that my one former friend correctly analysed the dangers of my faith- they are thus: Christianity is antithetical to a machiavellian driven resentment. “Justice at any cost” is not justice at all for a Christian. This seems to be the motivating drive of a lot of left-wing politics. You might like to call them far-left politics but I don’t think you can call mainstream left-wing politicians far-left. This attitude is indicative of the drives of the Corbynistas who seem to think accosting the children of Conservative politicians makes you a hero. It doesn’t by the way. It is indicative of the attitude of mainstream politicians like Maxime Waters who encouraged the American public to harass government officials they disagree with. This is the nasty politics now.

I knew a not unsizeable amount of Corbyn fans weren’t thrilled by his catch-phrase “kinder, gentler politics”. I think this is mostly because they had no intentions of being kind or gentle. You can be nasty and know it but you can’t be a Christian. You can be Christian, nasty and not know it but you won’t remain either a Christian or nasty for very long. Something has to give. The politics of resentment is distinctly unChristian. In the end I remained a Christian. The people who took issue with my faith are the people who are no longer my friends- the people who understood the depth of my faith remain my friends. They understood it might lead me to a different place than the place they were headed- and thus they were, in my view, partially prepared for my political conversion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What about men?

I am walking home listening to Lady Gaga’s Scheibe on full blast and wondering why aren’t there any songs like these for men. It’s a great song about being a strong woman- but why the need to constantly specify that the gender you want to be strong is women? To the point that Lady Gaga sings “When I’m on a mission, I rebuke my condition, if you’re a strong female you don’t need permission.” Strong female. I have no issue with songs about strong women- I have an issue that all the songs of the past 5 years (at least) that are about being a strong person refer solely to women.

Scheibe – Lady Gaga

Then I come home to my latest copy of the Spectator with the front cover eviscerating the most recent attempt by men to find a way to actually be men.

The article itself is innocuous enough- I think the author Lara Prendergast is a conservative type who thinks “oh for heaven’s sake, why can’t men just be men?” My initial reaction to the above cover picture, however, was “great so even when men are trying at self-improvement they are attacked, men can not win”. The article made me wonder about narcissism and vanity- having a body-builder body is useless without someone else to admire it. Is vanity the same as narcissism? Would a narcissist care about externally imposed standards of beauty? These involve paying attention to other people and what they think. All the male narcissists I know don’t toil away at the gym- instead they fart and expect others to enjoy the smell. They go around topless with beer bellies and expect women to swoon at them.

Self-improvement seems to be a very anti-narcissistic thing to aim at. It strikes me that the self-improvement movement amongst men is not actually about narcissism- it is not “me me me”. It is instead “you you you”, what do “you” think of me? Men are desperately searching for the thing that would make them acceptable to society as men. Make men acceptable again.

If this is due to anything it is the near constant assault on men in our culture. People are permitted to say all manner of vile things about men without any recourse- the sorts of things that if a man even dared joke in such a way about a woman he would become a parriah. Feminism really is about hating men these days. Feminism is simultaneously “just about gender equality” and “a movement for women”. When men attempt to set up similar movements for their problems they are called “vicious nasty MRAs”. (For more on this watch Cassie Jaye’s superb movie “The Red Pill”). This is based on the absurd notion that all of the gender issues are womens issues which is garnered by the neo-religious belief in an invisible patriarchy. To suggest you don’t believe the patriarchy exists in modern-day Britain is to commit a foul heresy for which you will be summarily hanged, albeit metaphorically.

This leaves men with no space to discuss the issues that specifically pertain to them- work-place deaths and accidents are overwhelmingly experienced by men, in the UK in 2016/17 97% of all work-place deaths were male, 84% of those who die at sea are men, homelessness overwhelmingly affects men, injust incarceration (mostly men), prostate cancer, male suicide.

The rate of suicide has been on a steady decrease for women whilst the rate of suicide for men did not deline at the same rate. Whilst in 1981 male suicides accounted for 62% of all suicides, ever since the 1990s male suicides have accounted for 75% of all suicides. It appears to me that this stastistic myth-busts the commonly cited “different methods” explanation. This explanation states that men prefer methods of suicide which are more likely to result in completed suicides than women. The disparity between male and female suicide rates has steadily increased, because the female suicide rate decreased at a faster rate than did the male suicide rate. The same methods are availabe to be used now as were used 37 years ago in 1981.

A number of months ago I was in Manchester Victoria station looking at an advertisement about male suicides. I said out loud “oh God bless you for trying but no one cares”. Earlier that week I had found out that in the aftermath of my friends suicide, a mutual friend had been told that the now dead friend was “just a privileged white man”. Perhaps I was having an off week- that same week on a bus going into Manchester I heard Jordan Peterson speak in a Radio 5 interview. He was crying about the state of young men in the western world- he was crying about “privileged young white men”. I cried right along with him, publicly on the bus- because I could not help it. I realised it was the first time I had heard anyone truly care about the state of men. The first time I had heard their problems taken seriously instead of dismissive and frankly inept counter-explanations (like the “different methods” explanation).

Another inept counter-explanation: Sexual abuse against men is a male issue- it is not a feminist issue because toxic masculinity makes it hard for men to open up. I have heard this explanation offered by feminists and I think it requires a substantial amount of narcissism to make someone elses problem really your problem. If I offer a kinder alternative to narcissism it might be ideological possession. Men are not allowed to have problems not because of “toxic masculinity”. Men are not allowed to have problems because of the set of presuppositions that modern-day feminists extort as unchallengable dogma. So feminists do intellectual gymnastics to make mens issues really feminist issues.

So I listened to Jordan Peterson cry and I publicly wept. Yes- “male tears” and please drink them feminists. The more male tears you gleefully boast at having drunk the more that genuinely compassionate people will see the darker side to you. They will avoid you like the plague if they have any sense. A bit like this recent bit of “research” released on the masculine hegemony of the male population experiencing homelessness- yes really. Please carry on because it opens peoples eyes to your truly nasty side. Only someone ideologically possessed would be unable to see it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The World According to Rhys

I have not posted on my little blog now for quite some time. Much has happened in between now and my last post. I’ve realised though that in reality my posts are nothing more than a little whinge about what annoys me and some attempts at a larger analysis thrown in. I have not got the mental energy for the analysis. I am at peak irritation with the world though, and lest I have a potentially fatal argument with a friend or family member- I post this here for those that actually want to read it. My list of current annoyances:

1) Islam is just a race now. No forget that ginger-haired jihadi convert. Forget those Lebanese Christians. Arabs are Muslims are Arabs are Muslims. This is the world we live in according to the left. Apparently to state that “Islam is incompatible with western society” is “Islamophobic” and I ought be locked up for some hideous hate crime. Never mind the gays being thrown off buildings. Never mind the terrible survival rate of a trans person in the middle east (the American South that the left loves to whinge about looks positively trans-friendly by comparison if you want to know). Never mind that a woman must walk around wearing a plastic bin bag or be disowned by her entire family. Never mind that if you are raped in certain places in the Middle East then you daren’t report it to the police because they will stone a woman for having “extra-marital sex”. To mention any of this and find it abhorrent is racist because Islam is now a race.

2) I am meant to be more afraid of Catholicism than I am of Islam. I came out to my lovely Catholic Priest who said “oh I thought you were a 16 year old boy to be honest” followed by “what else is new? You’re in the Church choir for heavens sake- if we kicked you all out we’d have no choir” followed by “all you need to do is keep coming to Church and keep taking communion” and then when I said I would be physically transitioning he said “well some things are rather beyond my kin”. Terrifying. Apparently I am told that this a fluke- except that my last RC Church was the same, and in fact every other Church I’ve been in whatever denomination. I also didn’t choose the Holy Name Church in Manchester (see also: A Vicar in a Tutu) so as to find a friendly RC Church on purpose- I chose the RC Church nearest to me by walking distance as I prefer not to ride the bus on Sunday thus encouraging a need for Sunday trading. The second week of my being at my current Church, and not knowing that I was trans- the Priest gave a homily part of which was that we ought to accept people struggling with their gender identity. If it is a weird fluke it is so weird that I’m not altogether certain it doesn’t qualify as divine intervention. It baffles me that the atheists who describe this as a “fluke” don’t convert on the spot. I think it is far more likely that the nastiness of the RC Church towards its LGBT Church members is either a thing of the past or a complete work of fiction- or both as the case may be. A thing of the past and thus as regards the current Church, a work of fiction.

Which really basically amounts to having to pretend that nice people are nasty and that nasty people are nice. The world is harsh enough without playing these weird mind games. I am not going to be fooled by pretty looking piranhas but I am especially going to avoid the ones that are so obviously cannabilistic. Where I find kindness in any form I relish in it because it is so rare.

3) Human beings are rather nasty but we are meant to pretend that under the right conditions a Utopia could form even though every single attempt at Utopia has led to the mass-murder of millions. If Communism were a scientific experiment I’d like to know how many failed attempts you’d need before you abandoned the whole experiment or at least concluded it a failure? Answers on a postcard please- only anoraks and people over 30 years old know how to send a post-card and I suspect they might have more of a clue about these things.

4) The worship of youth. It all started with The Beatles. The further away from my youth I get the more I think “youth is stupidity, it’s a weird growing pain that you get over”. Someone who is 50 has twice my life experience and possibly more than that when you consider I spent the first two years going “goo-goo gaga” and the ten years after that were spent trying and failing to climb trees, watching Cartoon Network and reading Rupert the Bear. Children and their mindset should not be taken seriously. Children ought to think naively about the world. They ought to think it should be all sunshine and rainbows. Adults should have grown out of this mindset by the time they are middle-aged. They should not be putting this mind-set on a pedastal. “If a man is not a liberal when he is young he has no heart. If he is not conservative when he is older he has no brain.” Taken to its extreme this youth-worship means votes for 16 year olds and no votes for pensioners. Pensioners have thrice, and sometimes quadruple my life experience. I can not know everything but I can be knowledgeable about the extent of my own ignorance. Personally I believe very much in reverse ageism where no one ever takes anyone seriously who is under the age of 21. What “da yoof” are currently engaging in by claiming the elderly should not vote is reverse ageism and in some instances taxation without representation- people are working into their 70s and 80s, and living to be centenials more often than they ever have. These are people with so much life experience it makes my idiotically youthful head hurt. All I can say is “Logan’s Run” ought to be mandatory viewing. I’m sure Jenny Aggutter was under some strange illusion that she was starring in a sci-fi film and not a guidebook for future generations of “da yoof”. More fool her.

5) The baking of cakes is simultaneously so incredibly important and also not at all important. It is important enough for the gays to take it to the Supreme Court instead of simply finding a different sodding baker- but so insignificant that the baker should have just baked the cake. It either matters a lot or it doesn’t matter at all but fellas- you need to pick a thing. If it was so insignificant then it takes no time at all to find and use a baker that actually wants to bake you a wedding cake. As far as I can see at the moment 🎶”It’s beginning to look a lot like fascism, everywhere you go”.🎶 If it matters enough that you feel like you could destroy a family business over it and not lose any sleep then clearly it matters. Sleeping on bed sheets most likely sown in slave labour factories in the Phillipines- you’ll excuse me if I don’t mistake your selfish childlike need for everyone to agree with you as some sort of noble political activism.

6) We are running out of Jeremy Clarkson’s- not the reformed Chris Tarrant impressionist. The old Top Gear Jezza. They used to be dime a dozen- so much so that when people said he was “a breathe of fresh air” I had to wonder what they were talking about. Provocateurs were ten-a-penny. Not so now- everyone, especially comedians, choose their words carefully. I am world weary, do not suffer fools, and have no reputation to be ruined. Unfortunately you may only get these sorts of ramblings now from youngish bloggers who have no reputation to ruin and pensioner bloggers who have had quite enough of this nonsense. When it all goes to hell in a handbasket- don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Conservative Victimhood Complex

The instinct for conservatives to rail against the victimhood complex is a good instinct. Victimhood complexes distort reality. There is no data that can be used to disprove them. Feelings and anecdotal evidence reign supreme. People are perpertual victims even when they are multi-millionaire celebrities. This is often perceived to be the case on the basis of immutable characteristics. White working class Americans were so fed up of being told that black multi-millionaires were the real victims (TM) that in 2016 they voted for Donald Trump- a man who understands this phenomenon and will be brutally honest about how farcical it is.

When black NFL players compared playing in the NFL to being on a slave plantation I began to realise just how distorting this victimhood narrative is. These comments were largely either ignored by left-leaning journos or in some rare instances celebrated. I read recently that in order to believe that we will live in a post-truth era you have to believe that large portions of the populations are no longer interested in truth or reality. My reply is that I do believe that. When white working class men have to placate the concerns of black multimillionaire celebrity athletes- these identity politics are not based in anything close to reality. If we can be optimistic about anything it is that SJWs are no longer trying to hide their hatred of the white working class anymore as evidenced by the following tweet (which has now been taken down).

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the more brutally honest the SJWs are- the more people begin to see their vile hatred. Zinnia and those like her are not poor misguided souls, but hateful bigots. I was asked recently to remember that the real problem is the true bigots. I replied that many SJWs are the true bigots.

What surprises me is that this madness didn’t self-destruct in the aftermath of the OJ Simpson trial in the 90s. If ever there were a moment to reassess the victim narrative around race it should have been then. A multimillionaire athlete murders his wife- but manages to get half the country on his side simply by playing the race card. OJ Simpson was not a poor oppressed black man. He was a violent abusive multimillionaire celebrity. On the basis of his skin colour he was portrayed as a victim- and he got away with murder. It should have been clear then just how distorting the victimhood complex is.

Unfortunately what I now see is that instead of fighting against this victimhood complex- conservatives are adopting their own victimhood complex. They are assuming the mantel of an institutionally oppressed minority. No amount of surveys or statistical data will disprove it- anecdotal evidence and feelings reign supreme.

Let me just say that there is a factual basis to the notion that conservatives are being persecuted, but that is also true of the black population. The trouble with victimhood complexes are that they are usually based on a kernel of truth- the reaction is to deny it all including the portions of this, for want of a better word, oppression that may be true. I don’t intend to do that to conservatives. This is based on a kernel of truth- and that deserves to be talked about. So-called Antifa do riot when conservatives come to speak on college campuses. Conservative students do have a hard time being honest about their political views with their peers. Many conservatives do lose friends when they are honest about their views.

As Douglas Murray says though “the water is not that bad”. I suspect that the fear may be stronger than the potential reactions. Conservatives need to stop hiding. They need to be honest. Most of all they need to stop persecuting themselves. If you’re afraid to speak and you never do and you assume all the reactions will be terrible- then you have no claim to a victimhood complex. If you were to come out and speak- you would find that a lot of lefties, even some SJWs, want to hear alternative viewpoints. They don’t want to live in an echo chamber. They may disagree with you. You will learn to defend your views and to change them if they are indefensible. That is a good thing. I’m also learning that the people you lose along the way are not worth the time. I have lost about 30-odd people I used to call friends over politics. I don’t grieve over any of them anymore.

I know that the kernel of truth is real because I have experienced it first hand, but I also know that there are lefties who won’t immediately shun you because you have a different point of view. These people challenge you. It makes you a better person to have to defend your views. You might even learn something from them- even if it is as simple as understanding why they think what they do even if you vehemently disagree. The water is not that bad. So my plea to conservatives is this- please don’t take that kernel of truth and turn it into a victimhood complex. Victimhood complexes distort reality, and we can do better than that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dear conservative Twitter, yes I am trans.

Recently I’ve started taking Jesus literally when he said “pray for those who persecute you”. It is changing everything. If you haven’t seen the film “Mary Magdalene” with Rooney Mara then I highly recommend it.

The film is a (truly) Feminist masterpiece. By the end of it I was Mary Magdalene. In this film Jesus was encouraging women to ignore the shackles men had placed on them and to live out their faith. Living out their faith meant being authentic. Being authentic meant telling the truth about their hopes and desires. In many ways in the 21st century I am exactly like those women. I am transgender and conservative. I am plagued with the task of being in a not very well accepted group with in the Christian Church but feeling the call so loudly to “come follow me”. I am parsed with the task of having to defend myself from various sides- to defend myself to certain conservative Christians, but also to defend myself from the trans activists too. The louder the trans activists become, the more nonsensical and vicious their arguments are- the harder it is to defend myself to the conservative Christians.

Helen Pluckrose recently lost a number of followers for stating that she was for trans identity and that she was against a lot of trans activism. I replied- I am trans and very conservative. I appreciate your views even when I disagree. Screw those people you are better off without them.

I am trans and very conservative and I’ve been wondering what that means recently. I’ve been trying to put together a comprehensive view on gender- bit by bit. I can not ignore my own experiences. When I say I feel like a man trapped in a woman’s body- I might be wrong, but I’m not lying. The experience of gender dysphoria has been life long, it has been painful and it has been obvious to the more perceptive individuals around me. I have come to the following conclusion:

1) Gender dysphoria is real. Most people wouldn’t lie with such disastrous consequences for their families.

2) Transwomen are not biologically female.

3) The only medically approved way to treat gender dysphoria is to transition.

Most people don’t transition without taking serious consideration as to what this would do to their family- consequently they make an excruciating choice. Lie, hide and deny, or cause their family a lot of pain. You have to come to the conclusion that there is no other way. I came to that conclusion in the depths of despair- in the realisation that if I didn’t- the lying and pretending would kill me, perhaps not literally but certainly metaphorically. It would crush my metaphysical soul to deny this internal metaphysical experience.

I understand and have always understood the need for marginalised groups of people to tell their stories, explain their experiences and to be heard. It’s why I was originally on the left.

I have also always understood that using those experiences to bring forth unquestionable dictats is very dangerous for society. It’s why after several brash encounters I am now conservative.

The traditions that exist do so for many reasons and contrary to popular opinion this is not so a group of rich white men can defecate all over minority groups.

The consequences of gender self-identification have been severely damaging. This has allowed significantly stronger biological males to compete against females in wrestling to the point that a woman was rushed to hospital with a cracked skull. It has led us to the point where a victim of violence is forced to lie in court and use pronouns for her attacker that she thinks are untrue. Anyone to raise concerns has been labelled “transphobic”. That is not about listening to a marginalised group. It is about silencing the voice of genuine victims and it should disturb us all.

But when the experiences of gender dysphoria are ignored and dismissed the result is the complete silencing of trans people. It is the erasure of our existence at all. I accept the problems self-identification of gender causes but I refuse to lie about how I have experienced gender dysphoria for as long as I can remember. The ignorance of the responses I have received since being honest about what I think about gender is astonishing- it has come from all sides and I expect after this I will recieve even more of it.

It never ceases to amaze me that non-materialists are so quick to deny an obviously painful internal experience. They accept that gender is more than skin deep- there are differences between men and women, but they refuse to accept that in an astonishingly small amount of cases the internal and external experiences of gender might not properly align.

I understand the level of hatred for the trans-madness because I share that hatred. I do not understand the level of hatred for ordinary people who are trying their level best to get through their existence.

This sort of dehumanisation often occurs when people have never met anyone who is trans or had someone close to them tell them they were trans. It is the curse of being a minority.

So to my twitter followers- I am trans. I have always felt at odds with the female experience. Having had it described to me on various occassions I know that I have not experienced it. What I have experienced is a life time of being at odds with expectations- expectations that I wear make-up, expectations that I wear a dress, expectations on levels much deeper than the superficial.

It has often been said that trans people are often very spiritual people- that’s been my experience too. It may be that when the aspects of the internal life hit you square in the face at every corner- it is hard to maintain a materialist perspective on life.

I can not lie about that experience and I won’t. Perhaps it sounds like nonsense, religious metaphysics often sound nonsensical to atheists. But I know that my experiences on this earth are far more than just my biological functions. I am more than the total sum of my morning ablutions. Part of that experience for me has been this disconnect, and I won’t lie about that. In fact I believe Jesus is calling me to be authentic and to tell the truth about it.

If this creates further enemies then I suppose all I can do is pray for those enemies.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Political Realignment – Of Mine & My Countrys.

I don’t tend to swear in my blog posts but there is a first for everything. Some things are best expressed using profanity.

Politically where the fuck even am I? I mean that genuinely and I say it because- there are people with whom I agree on a lot, and politically they don’t align with me as far as labels go. But we agree on almost everything.

  • Tim Pool – Centre-Left Libertarian
  • Dave Rubin – Classical Liberal
  • Sargon of Akkad – English Liberal
  • Andrew Klavan – Conservative Libertarian
  • Tommy Robinson – as confused as I am and currently not donning a political label, frequently smeared as “far-right”
  • Bret Weinstein – in his own words “very progressive”

It is easier in some sense to explain where I align metaphysically in that the two metaphysical groups are labelled as “materialist” and “not materialist” and I am not a materialist. It fundamentally should not be easier to explain your relationship to metaphysics than it is to explain your relationship to politics. In fact I currently have one left-wing friend who says she is not worried about my having been red-pilled because she knows that I will come back to the left as it is where I belong.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. My issue with leftism is very much like my issue with feminism- at a certain point if you express so many views against the orthodoxy, and if you are told “you are not a leftist, you are not a feminist”- you take people at their word. I’m not sure if these tactics are used to make people change their views to fit the orthodoxy but that ain’t happening. I know what I know. I know it is wrong to force someone to bake a cake for your wedding. It’s not about equal rights, it’s about tyranny and oppression. My language might be harsher now. My view on this actually hasn’t changed in 7 years despite being seriously challenged several times. At the time I was an SJW I posted on social media that I didn’t think it was right to force priests and ministers to marry gay people- I was told not to run for LGBT Society council at my university again. I was asked months later if my view had changed. It hadn’t. I went to the 2015 United Reformed Church General Assembly and was one of 7 people to vote against same-sex marriage being passed on the basis that it would be enforced Church-wide and would have become Church dogma. I’m against coercion. You do not get to turn around and do what they did to you. That is certainly at the very least not what being a Christian is. I was left-wing when this all happened, and I was told over and over how reactionary and conservative it was. Eventually I took the left at their word. I guess this all makes me a right-wing reactionary then.

I didn’t truly believe that but at a certain point during my evolution I stopped caring about labels and decided that principles were actually more important. The principle of non-coercion was important whatever the view and whoever the person. I applied my principles equally. I have now learned that the principle of non-coercion is a fundamentally libertarian and thus right-wing principle. I rejoice in that. I can remember the moment I stopped caring about labels. Prior to that I spent much of my time angsting about how my principles were actually truly liberal principles. The moment I stopped caring about labels was the following:

I was told it was socially conservative to view the elderly with the deference I felt they deserved. On this specific point it seems lived experience is only important up until the point where you say “well, if someone has three or sometimes four times more life experience than me I’d better listen”, at that point it is bullshit to the left. At the point that I was called socially conservative as though this was an epithet that should make me think twice about my views I said “so what if that view is socially conservative? I guess I’m a social conservative, good for me”.

My view on left-wingers who were exiled from their own movement who continued to insist they were still left-wing was “cute, but literally no one else is buying it. Conservatives are waiting for you to be red-pilled & leftists are screeching about how you aren’t really left-wing.” Now I just wonder if they maybe had more staying power than I did. I don’t particularly want to give the radical left the monopoly on progressivism, so I appreciate those that fight this corner.

It’s made me wonder if Roger Scruton and I would actually agree about the fundamentals. If I sat down and read the conservative philosophers (Burke) and the liberal philosophers (Mill)- who would I agree with? In some sense that argument doesn’t matter to the extent that British citizens do not run around defining the argument as Whig vs Tory. What replaced it (Tory vs Liberal) was more important. Whatever replaces the current paradigm will be more important.

In terms of current political arguments I go so far with Libertarianism and it starts to sound like true live and let live liberalism but on steroids. I go so far with Conservatism and it starts to sound like social engineering. I arrive at some combination of the two where they keep each other in check.

I am deeply worried about where I will line up once the political argument realigns in the UK in regards to the “conversation” about Islam. As far as I can see the following people all say more or less exactly the same thing about Islam:

  • Richard Dawkins
  • Tommy Robinson
  • Douglas Murray

There are stark contrasts between how all three are treated and labelled despite the fact that fundamentally they all say the same thing about Islam. Will I be a far-right loon whose opinions have me in and out of prison cells? A neo-conservative who is begrudgingly invited on to Sky News in order for Sky News to appear vaguely balanced? Or will I be a fairly respected centre-left academic with some cooky contrarian views? In case the UK police are reading this 5 years down the line- I’m asking for a friend. When I say “will I be” I mean “will they be” and they remain nameless.

Seriously though, Lauren Southern- among whose work I have found very little to object with- has just been banned from the UK for exposing homophobia within the Islamic religion. Britanny Pettibone, Martin Sellner, Robert Spencer & Pamela Gellar are all also banned from the UK. Their UK counterpart in Britain Tommy Robinson is in and out of prison on trumped up charges. There is not much said friend would disagree with those people on- some minor squabbles perhaps.

When this realigns will I be far-right? Will Douglas Murray & Richard Dawkins start facing prison sentences too? I feel like I live in Alice’s Wonderland- except just as in wonderland, far from being wonderful everything is so topsy turvey that clasically liberal views as were once held by John Stuart Mill may soon warrant a prison sentence in my country.

All this has me aligned with conservatives- and in some ways I am more philosophically and historically conservative than classically liberal- for instance I don’t think either the enlightenment or the reformation were infallible. The movements that came before them held invaluable traditions that have sinced been unfairly maligned. The emptiness of what Western Civilisation has been left with post-reformation and post-enlightenment suggests to me that the academic orthodoxy as far as metaphysics goes needs exploring, and that Catholic teachings might reinvigorate an empty purposeless atheistic nihilistic British youth. That makes me fundamentally more conservative than many self-affirmed conservatives I know.

They think conservatism is classical liberalism. So when the shift comes will I be ultra-conservative?

Again, asking for a friend. Views expressed are obviously his not mine- when the UK police reads through this for my impending court case for being “far-right” and “ultra-conservative” I want them to know this is all entirely hypothetical.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On Speaking for Yourself

I was at my weekly book club. We do not read a book a week. Every other week is board games and every six months we have a short story competition. I put my short story in and won 3rd place. I was not expecting to win anything and I was elated. It is possible, it turns out, to write about deeply emotive and potentially political things without alienating your political opponents. No one in the room had guessed at my political beliefs. Someone else in the room as if to test my belief in freedom of speech had written a deeply anti-religious story with a throw-away line at the futility of all the human attempts at “gender swapping”. As if by divine retribution it bombed. Had it not bombed that would have been fine too I suppose but the reception it got rejuvinated my faith in the process of free speech and public discourse. Plus I resist the urge to be authoritarian although I suspect there is an authoritarian streak in all of us- what is striking about my generation is the complete lack of awareness or discipline to squelch our inner authoritarians. Stalin is not only a scary left-wing dictator. Stalin is you and me. He’s what we would be if we let ourselves be or as Solshenitsyn put it:

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

But I digress- The question about the short story I objected to was really whether or not it was very good. It was incredibly self-indulgent, the politics of it were painstakingly obvious, and there was no room for interpretation. Very much like something I would have written at 15 years old- and in fact did. At 15 my own self-indulgent story bombed badly too because it was so obvious what I meant. It was a story about an alien coming to planet earth and it ended in the alien lecturing humans about things which I now no longer believe anyway- I was 15 after all. A lot changes in 10 years. I took that experience on the chin and am now very careful about not sounding self-indulgent. It has perhaps left me with a bit of a complex about not sounding self-indulgent though because I thought even this current story was self-indulgent. I thought people would recognise that but I thought I’d let them give it a chance… or more to the point I’d give it a chance. By submitting it I’d give it the opportunity to shine and it did. I won a £5 book token for Waterstone’s. I also openly admitted at the group that I thought it was self-indulgent. I gather they found my tortured self-deprecating artist get-up quite amusing- perhaps because they could see it was not a get up but actually quite genuine. Authenticity means a lot.

Someone else wrote a story about clowns. I am legitimately terrified of clowns. If there is a clown in the room I have to leave. I can not interact with them. I was asked if this applies solely to clowns or if it applies to other people who dress up- I replied that actually I feel the same way about drag queens… and so the subject of India Willoughby arises.

India Willoughby was a contestant on this years celebrity big brother- which ordinarily I wouldn’t watch but this year did for three reasons:

1) India Willoughby

2) Ann Widdecombe

3) Rachel Johnson

Three women whom I greatly admire and respsect. Watching it also introduced me to the joys of John Barnes, fairly reasonable guy- a centrist Dad if ever there was one, and the joys of Amanda Barry & sidekick Wayne Sleep. It also introduced me to the horrors of the insufferable Shane/Courtney Jay and Andrew Brady.

I don’t regret indulging in reality television and I won’t pretend to. It is in my own way a study of those human people that often feel so bizarre to me. Even your attempts to be reasonable with them are treated like provocations which brings me to the next part of this night:

I said that what I found fascinating about India Willoughby was that she pissed off both the left and right- I genuinely think if you’ve managed to piss off both left and right it means a couple of things:

1) You have principles and are not parroting the stated views of one group

2) You’re probably doing something right.

This, by the way, does not uncover a deep centrist Dad lurking within me. I’ve openly admitted several times that at this point I am to the right of Atilla the Hun and there is no point denying that fact because it makes itself very obviously known whenever I speak to genuine centrist Dads, or whenever I speak to anyone about politics really. Lefties, “reasonable” conservatives, and the like. They all disagree with me on something be it Trump or Brexit or the importance of geopolitics. (Sidebar: I never met anyone in a village that didn’t think geopolitics was important. The only people I’ve met who are arrogant enough to think geopolitics unimportant have been townies. Perhaps we should call that obliviousness “townie privilege” if it would help the lefties understand it.)

I genuinely think that when I say “if you piss off left AND right then you’re doing something right” that I’m conceding something- namely the right can be wrong sometimes.

All lefties hear is “the left can be wrong sometimes” and thus they get their hackles up and contest my point. They also rather arrogantly assume that I am as left-wing as they are. It is at this point that I have to swiftly dispell that notion.

Which is precisely what happened- a leftie contested the point. She then asked me what it was that irritated the left that I disagreed with. I answered “the thing is I am probably the wrong person to ask, I’m to the right of Atilla the Hun”.

“Well, so what do you mean by that? What policies would you agree with?”

“Well, hmmm, well I don’t know. What do you mean by that?”

I knew full well what she meant by that- now for my subtext- “oh shit, where do I start and how do I start in a way that doesn’t start a raging bar fight?”.

“Well, I don’t know but I just find that when you get to specific policies people are-

I interrupt. This is not a terribly great characteristic of mine but I’ve heard the speech before. “Oh you’re young, your family is conservative and when you seriously look at issues you might find you are more left wing than you think” or as I like to call it the “I don’t know you or your family, let me demonstrate that to you in ten seconds flat” speech.

So I begin to list all the ways in which I am indeed to the right of Atilla the Hun and to demonstrate that I have indeed thought about the issues. When you make assumptions about people that are so drastically wrong as to be absurd it is not hard to smash them to smithereens with very little effort. She was reasonable, I was reasonable and now my rather lefty book club knows my politics a bit better. Disaster has not ensued.

Aforementioned person and I are never going to get on like a house on fire- people who approach others like they have something to teach them rarely do- people who approach others like they have something to learn from them are full of a sort of wisdom that truly intelligent people want to drown in.

Yet something really bothered me about the whole interaction and I really couldn’t figure out what it was but I think it is this- people make ten impossible assumptions about me before I’ve even spoken a word. Thus is what is so truly damaging about idpol and PC culture. The lefties assume I’m as left as they are- I’m this gender ambiguous looking reasonable sort most of the time until you break me out of my shell and then I bite. Reasonable and nice people must agree with them. Anyone who doesn’t is some hideously uninformed lout. I wish I was overexagerating on this score- but let me put this another way:

It’s really odd to assume the politics of the person you are talking to when you don’t know them. It is supremely odd. You don’t also presume their religious beliefs or lack thereof. The number of lefties that I have genuinely shocked by the mere pronunciation of a different point of view is astonishing. I’ve lost count. Some teacher from my “alma matter” the International School of Kuala Lumpur presumes I voted Remain. I disabuse them of that notion and they are aghast. A family friend assumes I voted Labour in the General Election. A woman at a coffee shop whom I do not know from Eve goes into a full scale rant about how the Tories are systematically trying to destroy the NHS. That last one was supremely odd.

Why make the assumption that I’d agree with you? I don’t go to someone I don’t know and go into a full on rant about how job centres are nothing of the sort and do literally everything but help get people into work. If you want help from a job centre you must apply for benefits even if you don’t need to and don’t want to. The system is designed to keep people out of employment not put them in employment and our country is so looney left that our feckless Tory government have forgotten what it means to actually be conservative by fixing the broken economy. I would not assume a random lady I had just “met” at a coffee shop would agree with my rant.

I tend to find that lefties makes those assumptions because they are convinced that they are the nice compassionate people and that when they meet someone else they think is compassionate without even thinking about it they assume that said nice people are left-wing too. This is how polarised people are and why whatever your politics are if you don’t think geopolitics matters then you really are deluding yourself. If you stay in the centre of Manchester you can go years without ever meeting a conservative. You can demonise them. You can build them up in your head and you can assume that you don’t know any conservatives. This is presumably what led the people of “Salford” to think it was perfectly okay to hang a sign that said “Hang the Tories”. I say the people of Salford because in fact most were students from all over the show, and because Salford is an area rather than a city. The people from that surrounding area are not looney lefty but fairly right-wing.

“Hang the Tories”. We are no longer human. We are sub-human. I am not particularly a Tory on the best of days but I am not filled with a warm reassurance that people to the right of the Conservative Party will not be in the firing line. Far from it. This is what makes it scary to disagree with people. Everyone assumes you all think the same because you are all reasonably nice and on the flip side “those” people are not nice. They are no one you know. They are abominations. They are sub-human.

That’s what irked me about the whole experience. It’s the arrogance but also where it ultimately leads.

I think she assumed I wasn’t as right-wing as I thought I was and if she could talk to me about policy then she’d get me to see that.

So where do I start-

Would privatise the NHS in a heartbeat – check.

Would legalise guns – check.

Would dismantle the welfare state – check.

Would abolish the minimum wage – check.

If I listed these off with no explanation then I would have caused a bar fight.

I took a gentler approach and tackled one issue- Ann Coulter’s brilliant twitter feed reminding Trump to build the wall. I love Ann Coulter and Trump and the wall. I don’t timidly say “well actually I don’t mind Trump” I say “I actually quite like Trump”. What is more right-wing than Donald Trump? Ann Coulter’s brilliant Twitter feed.

Okay- when I express my love for Ann Coulter’s twitter feed it is conceded that I am indeed to the right of Atilla the Hun. The presumptions are dead and the person who made them simply says she disagrees and makes an exit. No one is hurt. I suspect Scott Adams’ persuasion laden periscopes may be rubbing off on me.

I get a flash of Jordan Peterson- “STOP SAYING THINGS THAT MAKE YOU WEAK”.

I will and I think in the process I will disabuse the people of Manchester that they don’t know any conservative people and that it’s okay to want to bring back hanging in order to lynch them. Bringing back the death penalty- decidedly too right-wing even for me but I guess it’s an acceptable far-left opinion these days. We live in strange times.

The more conservatives stop saying things that make them weak around other lefties then the more connected we are with others, the less polarised and perhaps some of the madness can stop.

If you don’t know what I mean or what Jordan Peterson means when he says “stop saying things that make you weak” then start paying attention to what you say and how it makes you feel. You’ll notice that certain things you say make you feel decidedly weaker when you say them. Pretending to agree with someone when you don’t for instance. When you feel weaker you are weaker. Stop saying those things and start saying the things that make you feel strong. You’ll challenge a lot of lefties this way.

“Conservatives are quietly confident people”.

Optimistic conservatives may find that they feel no need to speak out but if there is a more pessimistic person than myself I’ve yet to meet them- Ben Shapiro comes close. If conservatives don’t speak “our truth” I think we will live to regret it. If the left protest then remind them that according to their own dictats “there is nothing good but only thinking makes it so” (let’s forget briefly that Hamlet was pretending to be insane when he said that) and that it is important that we all “speak our truth” and not be silenced by others. It is extraordinarily easy to use their own views against them. They will either have to agree or concede a long fought for premise.

(Roger) Scruton-esque optimism is all very well and good but at the end of the day Scruton is not a quiet conservative. If you’re a conservative reading this- neither should you be.

Here’s my truth: my experience of left-wing politics was that they would “help” you in a rather toxic pitying way. I was not their equal expected to compete on an equal playing field but a poor unfortunate soul that needed “help”. In return for this “help” I had to surrender my voice as they spoke on my behalf. I was silenced when I disagreed with what they said on my behalf and belittled when my views parted ways with the party line. That was the conflict- I was not aware I had surrendered my voice. I didn’t remember signing a contract. Eventually I realised that actually I thought I was left-wing because that’s what I thought compassionate people were but pity is not compassion- especially not when you surrender your voice in exchange for it.

I’ll keep saying that until my voice goes hoarse because I actually haven’t surrendered my voice and I don’t intend to any time soon.

So on that note I dedicate this song to the left: Poor Unfortunate Souls

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Transgenderism & Traditionalism

I enjoy taking down the left. They are nonsensical beyond words which is why it is fun to use words to try to describe them. Recently I have been feeling quite depressed about gender- mine seems to matter so much to everyone else except me. I’m bored of talking about my gender. Conservatives rightly point out that liberals think gender is so unimportant that talking about gender differences is taboo. There are no such differences between men and women. Men and women are the same. Yet at the same time it is necessary for a man to transition into a woman or vice versa- it is a right even. What a mess. If there is no difference between men and women then there is no need for anyone to transition.

I am not out as FtM trans on my Twitter profile- it merely says “Catholic. Conservative Libertarian. Pro-Brexit. Sick to death of identity politics. Passionate reader and writer” or some variation thereof. It does not read “Trans FtM”- perhaps I am concerned about the reactions from fellow Catholics and conservatives. Enough is enough.

It is not that important to me but it is deeply important to everyone else. I don’t state it because it isn’t important to me- but others have found out and unfollow me on several occasions. Some conservatives even seem to think that by not telling I am lying- ironically it’s an opinion they share with many liberals.

Ultimately I am fed up. Conservatives claim that they don’t care and for some individual conservatives that is absolutely true- but let’s not kid ourselves. The larger movement absolutely cares- to the point that it is frothing at the mouth when the subject arises.

The liberal position is nonsensical but so is the conservative position. Sex simultaneously doesn’t matter and does matter. Psychological differences between the genders seem to exist but when it comes to the trans movement according to the traditionalists your psychology is determined by your possession of a penis or not. That seems to me an inherent contradiction. You can screech that trans people need to learn to accept themselves for who they truly are all day long until you are blue in the face- self-acceptance is *precisely* the journey they are on. They’ve given up suppressing their psychological being, their inner being, on the basis that they are or are not in the possession of a penis.

It’s not as if there is any room in the traditionalist movement to not transition but to be yourself as much as you could. No- women must be feminine, and men must be masculine. So, in essence a trans person in a traditionalist setting would probably play a character for the sake of psychologically being able to cope. I used to do this as a teen- I would pick a woman I liked and try to pretend I was her. I wasn’t that good at acting. When friends years later realised I spent a good chunk of my day just acting out my day as someone else they were shocked but when I was me- ie. masculine, that was not very palatable or expected. When I was myself it was assumed I was putting on a butch character so that I didn’t crack beneath the social pressure of school. I couldn’t win. I pretended quite badly to be someone else and no one noticed or understood why I was quite so messed up in the head. I was myself and people thought it was an act. That was astonishingly frustrating if you must know.

If you want to say I am not a man- I’m comfortable with that. If you want to say I’m not masculine, you’re lying. That is my essence. If in your world view essence is deeply tied to sexual characteristics- then your world view has failed. Masculinity is either tied to manhood and transition is the thing to do- or they aren’t tied together and transition isn’t the thing to do. You can deny my masculine essence, I can even try to deny it but it will always catch up to me. We can both deny until blue in the face, I’ll still be me.

Even when it comes to something as simple as a formal occassoon or semi-formal occassion there are certain strictures. I had this bizarre experience recently when I went to a semi-formal occassion. I have socially transitioned now. I was asked to wear either a dress or a skirt. I just presumed they weren’t talking to me, when I figured out that they were I played dumb. I turned up to the event in formal enough gear but was actually pressed about it. She said “really though? Not even for one night?” I said “not even for one second”. I have not owned a dress since I was 18 and I have not worn one since then. If it was required to wear a dress I would stay home instead. For me to wear a dress would be a lie about my character. This is not about formal dress standards because I pointed out that I was well within the standards of the dress-code. Regardless of gender it would be a lie- my stomach drops when I think of all the women who don’t wear dresses and how much social pressure they must endure. I once got a quite nasty comment about my Dinner Jacket at a formal event from a rather butch lesbian- I came to the conclusion that the trouble was she was jealous.

It is unacceptable as far as the traditionalists are concerned for me to be a masculine woman- women are feminine. Except that if gender is based on genitalia then many women are very much not feminine at all- and you will have to find space for these women, and for feminine men. Instead feminine men are soy boys and masculine women butch feminist weirdos. You can see why such marginalization would lead many to the left. The left-wing culture red-pills but the right-wing culture blue-pills as well.

As I’ve tried to make sense of where I would fit in the traditionalist movement I’ve realised I wouldn’t. I suppose what I’m trying to say is the far-left position on gender stinks, but frankly so does the far-right position.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Advice for the Left- Never Talk in Terms of Absolutes

This blog post is an extract from a book I am writing. I wanted to test this book first online in the form of a blog-post. This is not the entirely of the book. Before you attempt to plagiarise it please note that this blog is copyrighted under a Creative Commons License. If you like the extract let me know. If not feel free to throw virtual tomatoes at me. Do anything you like, but if I see it plagiarised anywhere it will not end well for you.

How NOT to Red-Pill your Comrades:

Advice for the Left (from a former socialist)

Never Talk in Terms of Absolutes

I know- the title of this chapter is itself an absolute. It is reminiscent perhaps of that famous line “only a Sith deals in absolutes”. There’s also the fact that if you know anything about the Star Wars cannon, beyond merely the films, you’ll know that Jedis dealt in absolutes all the bloody time. It was part of their downfall. That is for a blog post though. Talking in terms of absolutes is a strategic mistake.

Ex. Only the Leave side of the Brexit argument attracted racists.

By inference you have just said that there are no racist Remainers. This strikes me from a tactical point of view as the sort of argument you’d want to avoid. Racists are everywhere. They exist in many forms, are from all walks of life, and they hold various different political positions. All you need to do is a quick google search for racist things Remainers have said.

eg. German EU Commissioner Guenther Oettinger referring to Chinese business men as “slitty eyed”. This speaks for itself (I hope).

eg. Lord Sugar stating that Gisela Stuart a German immigrant ought not to have an opinion on Brexit because she is an immigrant. (She emigrated to the UK in 1974 by the way, if we were American after over 40 years of living in our country she would just be British by now with German heritage if she chose to identify as such).

eg. Alistair Campbell telling Gisela Stuart to “stop fucking up my country” to which Gisela Stuart replied “it’s my country too”. It is astounding that she would have to point this out, and that Alistair Campbell would think about those who have emigrated in such abhorrent terms.

These are just some examples, found after a quick google search. If you want to have a boring irrelevant argument over whether there is a difference between racism and xenophobia, you are in the wrong place. Go read a different book. For arguments sake let’s say I buy into the premise that racism is solely directed by white people at black people and Asians- the EU privileges immigration from 27 predominantly white countries. How is that not racist? The entire press went mental because it concluded that Trump might do exactly that. (Google “shithole countries” if you don’t know what I’m talking about). It is either racist or it isn’t- but the EU does not have a magical force-field around it that makes racist things not racist. It is not racist when you think Trump might do it, but totally innocent when the EU do it.

As soon as you make an absolutist statement you destroy your own argument. Absolutist statements are rarely true and so easily debunked. The persuasive element of an opponent destroying an absolutist statement is that in the mind of the observer this destroys the entire argument. Even if that logically may not be true- the rest of the argument might be perfectly valid- the effect is that no one will listen to anything else you have to say.

Ex. On the TV show “This Morning” Katie Hopkins says you should never name your child after a geographical location. Holly Willoughby points out that Katie Hopkins’ child is called India. Whether or not Katie had a point about names or not (I think she did) is irrelevant. All you see is the destruction of her absolute statement so that you can’t take any of her argument seriously.

(For what it is worth, Katie never managed to get this across on the TV segment but having recently read Katie Hopkins autobiography I can tell you that India wasn’t named after the country- but after India Hicks. Katie Hopkins also concedes the point. “People call me out on the fact that I said I hate it when kids are named after places, when, quite clearly, India is a place. They have a point. And I will let them score it all day. It’s a fair cop in a literal sense”. It’s a strategic mistake made by both those on the left and the right. When you make an absolutist statement, you make a statement that is easily verifiably untrue).

Let’s imagine for a second that the statement about the Leave side is true- that there are no racist Remainers. The inverse right-wing argument to make in a similar vein would be

Ex. Only the Labour side of the political argument attracts Communists.

No one that I know of is making that argument. That’s easily debunked too. My knowledge of British communists is that they tend to favour the Green Party rather than any other political party, they favour Corbyn’s Labour over Miliband’s Labour but that they have huge issues with any mainstream “reformist” political party. The statement also doesn’t mean anything. It says nothing about whether or not Labour policy would be good for the country. Absolutes are easily spotted by those of any political persuasion that isn’t your own. They are spotted by conservatives, by left-wing people who don’t toe the party line, and by vaguely political people who are just starting to get involved. In my earlier days of getting involved in left-wing politics I noticed at lot of these statements, and they were all quite hard to swallow. I was then under the assumption that I could carry on, disagree with those statements and that would be okay. I was wrong. A lot of these statements were also contradictory, and this created in me a sense, whether true or not, that the ideology behind it was predatory and manipulative.

Ex. I don’t understand why everyone isn’t a Feminist. A Feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for women.

You can’t be a Feminist if you don’t believe in sex workers rights, pro-choice activism, smashing the patriarchy, trans-women, BLM (Black Lives Matter), smashing the kyriarchy, etc.

One of those statements is true. Pick one. To believe in smashing the patriarchy, you’d have to agree that the patriarchy as it is described exists and applies to whatever western country you most likely live in if you are reading this. Many people don’t agree with that unproven theory. This leads me to believe that the purpose of the first statement is persuasive pacing to get large numbers of people agreeing with you. The purpose of the second statement is leading, whereby you insert a number of controversial topics you feel strongly about and pressure or manipulate people into agreeing. The assumption here is that if you don’t agree with BLM you aren’t a feminist and by inference you don’t believe in equal rights for women. Let’s suppose someone doesn’t agree with BLM because they find shouting at cops “pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” or “what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now” abhorrent. Thus you don’t agree with BLM, thus you are not a feminist, thus you do not agree with equal rights for women. So we get to the point of not agreeing with homicidal chanting being tantamount to being a misogynist.

Once people realise this they feel incredibly manipulated. That’s where the hatred for feminism comes in. If you don’t understand it- understand this, the strongest anti-feminists I know are former Feminists. That is not a mistake or a coincidence. A very small minority are in the unlikely position of agreeing with all of the so-called feminist positions on these issues. For most people this contradiction ends with them concluding that of the two statements about feminism the second statement is utter tosh. They disagree that you have to agree with “ALL OF THE THINGS” to be a feminist. These are the feminists that I consider worth listening to whoever you are and whatever you believe. They are people like Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, Bari Weiss, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Elisabeth Badinter and Camille Paglia. They loathe the perceived consensus of the party line, the vicious infighting that underpins the perceived consensus, and the fact that it would seem grown women can no longer have sensible discussions about their disagreements. That perceived consensus is only possible because they are also, all of them, denounced by the feminist movement as being “not really feminists”- all of them and without fail. Sometimes the feminist movement has the gall to mischaracterise them as “anti-feminist”. I took their view for a long time as well- but this changed after 100 or so arguments with my feminist comrades over why I thought disagreement with the party line didn’t exclude you from the movement. I no longer identify as a feminist and when asked why I will explain. The reason is exactly this- I could not exist in the feminist movement and hold positions contradictory to the party line without a hell of a lot of push-back. If my experience of the feminist movement tells me anything it is that the second statement is true and not the first. I take feminists at their word- if you don’t agree with BLM you are not a feminist. Okay, then I’m not a feminist but I’m not a misogynist either and I will push back very strongly when accused of this. As much as they would like to feminists do not have a monopoly on egalitarianism.

The first statement is verifiably untrue, by the way, precisely because it is an absolutist statement. The inverse of “everyone should be a feminist because feminism just means equal rights for women” is “everyone who isn’t a feminist doesn’t agree with equal rights for women”. That is patently untrue as well as being asinine. According to a survey done for The Fawcett Society (a feminist society) published in January 2016 only 7% of the British public identified as feminists- if the first statement is true then 93% of the British public don’t believe in equal rights for women. Except that this same study asked that exact question and found that 83% of the British public support equality of opportunity for women. One presumes that a good portion of the remaining 17% didn’t understand the question, or have been so bruised by feminism they now hate women. Said people have made a terrible mistake. I do not hate women. I do loathe feminism though.

I remember the gaping mouth of the person in front of me when I first this view of feminism out loud- it was like she’d never even heard the idea expressed before possibly because she hadn’t. This is what happens when you parrot political opinions without thinking about them and surround yourself only with people who agree with you- you may even come to think that your opinions aren’t even really political, and that actually they aren’t even opinions, but just facts. Once that happens when you come into contact with someone who disagrees your facial expression will be the same as someone who has just literally (yes literally) had their brain fried. It is on the one hand quite amusing to me, but on the other hand utterly horrifying. It happens to me with terrifying frequency and this leads me to believe most people aren’t really thinking about what they believe in. They are parroting the beliefs and opinions of those they perceive to be their moral betters- I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for how this is any different from religious fundamentalism.

Absolutist statements are also often incredibly dehumanising- by which I mean they turn your political opponents from fully-rounded human beings into monsters you can attack with whatever ammunition is available to you. This is right out of the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals play book- piece of advice for lefties: throw that bloody book in the bin, poor petrol over it, set it alight, shoot it out of a cannon into space, and spend the next year “unlearning” everything you read in it. This deserves its own chapter.

Ex. Everyone that voted for Donald Trump is a racist.

If you can not recognise that this is obviously untrue, I can not help you. You most likely wouldn’t pick up this book anyway, because you’d assume it is right-wing reactionary garbage. I’m going to try anyway- according to NBC Exit Polls 19% of Latino voters would be “optimistic” if Trump won. Presumably they were all secretly neo-nazi or KKK despite the fact that neither the KKK or neo-nazis would accept a Latino in their organisation. The other unlikely scenario is that 19% of Latinos are self-hating. I think not- they saw something good in Trump you find it impossible to see. Fair enough but the problem with making absolutist statements like the above is that they make it physically dangerous to openly admit you are a Trump supporter. In 2017 we seemed to accept that it was okay to punch neo-nazis. We did not, by the way, have an argument about whether it was okay to punch Nazis- a separate discussion considering that Nazis were a genuine present threat to society. Nazis were attempting a take-over of Europe, eventually the world. If neo-nazis manage to take over the local town hall that’s all their Christmasses come early. In 2017, there were no Nazis to speak off only neo-nazis. The justification given for physical violence was that they’re wildly racist and that makes it okay. By extension physical violence against those who you perceived to be racist was also given a get out of jail free card. The absolutist statement above combined with the new consensus that we get to punch racists now means you have a free pass to physically assault nearly half the population of the USA. Congratulations- you are now a degenerate hell-raising punk. I’ve no truck with the far-left who totally accept that they are degenerate. If you’re holding all these positions alongside the idea that you are a decent moderate sort then you’re deluding yourself. This applies not only to calling Trump supporters racist but to a lot of other groups. The term racist seems to apply to a very wide range of statements, thoughts and actions.

Ex. Anyone who disagrees with BLM is a racist.

You see how this works. You can punch anyone racist. Anyone who disagrees with you is racist. You can punch anyone you disagree with. This leads nowhere good folks. Please for all our sakes cut it out. Absolutist statements in and off themselves are bloody awful but the particular array of absolutist statements the left has collected is dangerous and potentially disastrous.

Which leads me to another rather irritating statement I saw at the turn of the new year-

“I hope in 2018 we can all agree that it is okay to punch a Nazi”

No, we can’t because the language is misleading. There are no Nazis in 2018- only neo-nazis. Who do you classify as a neo-nazi? If alt-right and neo-nazi are interchangeable, and I’d mostly agree that they are, then why do you apply the term alt-right to large swathes of the right and even some lefties? Make a decision now. Either it is okay to punch the alt-right, and those in the alt-right are people who are actually in the alt-right or you can call anyone you disagree with alt-right. It can not be both without seriously disastrous and violent consequences. Also stop making ridiculously controversial statements as though they are moderate common sense positions upon which we can all agree. This has the effect of making the reader feel incredibly manipulated, but also alienated, isolated and depressed. Alienated and isolated because they don’t agree, thus they must be a small minority. Manipulated because you started with “we can all agree” and ended with something ridiculous, and depressed at the direction in which our society is headed. Perhaps you are so insulated in your bubble that you aren’t even aware you are doing it. Here are some clues- If you can imagine that someone would disagree with you, or if you are picturing the angry faces of those who disagree as you type- stop yourself, it is quite obviously not a moderate position upon which we can all agree.

As for me I will do my part to crush the notion that we can all agree with ridiculous and controversial statements. I do this not because I hate the people making these statements, not because I want to argue with these people, but because I want to smash to shreds the feelings of isolation, alienation and depression in the people reading with these statements and vehemently disagreeing. I agree with one absolutist position and that is that you should never talk in terms of absolutes. You’ll automatically be wrong, and it will be easy to prove you wrong if a person wants to do so. It is incumbent upon you to follow this advice- if you don’t want to do it for the sake of the cohesion of our society- then do this because these arguments don’t work. They only work if you buy hook, line and sinker the left-wing consensus. As soon as you disagree the illusion begins to fall apart. This is one aspect of how you and your comrades are red-pilling people faster than I can say “Ayn Rand”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Despite my Brash Boldness I am Argument Weary

It will surprise whole swathes of people that I really am argument weary these days. I wish I was Boris Johnson, I wish I was Jacob Rees-Mogg, it might even be okay to be Nigel Farage. I think old Nige is argument weary too- but Nige and I have such an amazing lack of self-control, that we are always dragged back into the debate. I certainly could never be Katie Hopkins, or Milo Yiannopolous- they enjoy the controversy. I hate it, but I also hate compromising my beliefs and self-censuring what I say. It is notable that at my most depressed stage in life I was involved in left-wing politics, constantly either getting into painful arguments, but mostly biting my tongue. Whatever characteristic that is- I can not bite my tongue for very long- not least because if I were to bite my tongue as often as I’d have to, I’d have no tongue left.

I hasten to add I’m also not nearly as important or as famous as any of the above mentioned, but heaven help me this is the area of life I want to pursue. I know I have something to add- I know because I look across the chasm of political journalists and I despair because no one is nearly as libertarian as me, no one is really trying to understand the traditionalist argument, no one is trying to both take up battle in the culture war, and present grounded conservative ideology. There is no cross between Roger Scruton and Katie Hopkins- there are some that come close. Steven Crowder, Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes and James Delingpole come to mind- but they are routinely hated for not being serious enough thinkers, and on the flip side for being “cuckservative”, ie. not taking the culture war seriously enough. Add on to this that there are no truly conservative trans people, Blaire White comes close but not close enough and I’m dead certain I have a lot to add to this conversation.

All of which will be a massive uphill battle- the major reason I asked my parents to buy me Katie Hopkins autobiography for Christmas last year. I adore Katie Hopkins but I don’t want to be her- I keep seeing the complete alienation of certain conservative voices and despairing. It can not be me once I get to where I want to be. Another figure to watch is perhaps Tommy Robinson- he was at once cast into the wilderness, and is gaining support again. He’s working for Rebel Media. He was at one time happily brought on by Question Time, then suddenly cast out, and with the release of his book he began to make a come-back. The loss of his twitter blue tick has gained him more followers, not less.

I hesitate to say that conservatives are split between aspiring Jews and anti-semites but it might be accurate to say that the right is split between aspiring Jews and anti-semites. Of course to be an aspiring Jew is to be ridiculous- it is nigh-on impossible to convert to Judaism, it is not a converting religion, and even a convert is not a proper Jew. A proper Jew is someone whose mother was Jewish- my mother is also an aspiring Jew- we are in the midst of planning a Jerusalem trip for 2018. Benjamin Netenyahu promised to be a personal guide to anyone who wanted to come in his Christmas message- I do not think he was serious about giving personal tours to every tourist, but that in lieu of being able to do that, he gave a virtual tour. Nonetheless, mother is convinced he will give us a tour. The reason so many conservatives are aspiring Jews is that centuries of oppression seems to have primed them for the worst sort of public haranguing, and they deal with this with a sort of finesse unseen amongst the adherents of any other religion. For what it is worth, Katie Hopkins says in her autobiography that she is an aspiring Jew. Hopefully, now you can make the connection as to why that might be. The conservative ones also manage to put forth their arguments in an extremely logical manner, without being hyperbolic, but without compromising their viewpoint. Case in point- Ben Shapiro. The press tried to do a hit job on him last year, and he was roundly defended by both left and right- the hit pieces were condemned as hyperbolic. It is water off a duck’s back.

The main reason I am argument weary currently though is because the arguments seem pointless- they are pointless. I know what the person I’m arguing with (usually online) thinks already. I know what I think. I know that by the end of this argument none of that will have changed. I do it for the one or two people that might read the twitter thread and have their minds changed. I also find that with a lot of arguments these days unfortunately you are dealing with someone who has made 10 unfortunate assumptions about you before breakfast. In the past year on twitter people have assumed that

  • I’m a fundamentalist Christian
  • I’m a progressive Christian
  • I’m a multi-millionaire
  • I live on a council estate
  • I’m a neo-nazi
  • I think anyone that disagrees with my on any issue is left-wing
  • I have a low IQ
  • I have a high IQ and consequently can not interact with the human people
  • I live in a conservative political bubble (that particular assumption is hilarious untrue)
  • I don’t care about the Irish
  • I’m a white nationalist

And the most grating of all the assumptions:

  • I haven’t really thought about my opinions that much

That last one is particularly hilarious because anyone that knows me knows it’s not that I think deeply, it’s that I overthink and my brain is constantly in overdrive. I find a snag in one of my opinions, I think it through on my own, I listen to other people on this particular topic, I work through it until my opinion either changes or I find the snag in the snag.

I’m not really sure why I should have arguments on the internet with people who not only already have made a thousand and one assumptions about me, but also are about to assume a lot more. I try to start my arguments with some very simple rules- don’t assume that people who disagree with you are stupid, don’t assume they haven’t thought about their opinion, don’t assume their personal backgrounds, don’t assume they’ll automatically be nasty- the fun thing about that last one is that if they are nasty, it is often very disarming to them when their opponents aren’t. Until someone can come up with a logical reason as to why I should argue with such people- I refuse to. Except for the major problem I have, that I mentioned at the start of this post. I am like Nigel Farage- I can not walk away from an argument even when I’ve said that I will. So this usually starts by my saying so- and them goading me into an argument. I also document everything because I’ve noticed that such people will lie about what they’ve said prior- which is an idiotic thing to do on the internet. When people are reading the internet, they are doing so on a device that can take a photograph of what they’re reading in an instant. Please everyone reading this- all of you- don’t lie on the internet about what you previously said. It’s so easy, and boring to prove that wrong- and where it used to be fun to do that, it no longer is.

I think come this September I might join a debating club to hone my skills- I enjoy the debates, but I hate the arguments. It’s so worth it when you get into a proper debate with someone, and I’d hate to miss that. On twitter however, we are talking about people whose rules for engagement are Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals- and those discussions are never going to be fruitful. Long term, we need a serious playbook to counteract those tactics, but short-term and personally I’m argument weary, and I see no reason for engaging with people whose aim in life is to smear people, and have assumed six impossible things about me before breakfast.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment