the TERF wars continue

The war between the trans mob and the TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) continues to provide amusement. Martina Navratilova, having been savaged already by a Twitter SJW mob for daring to suggest that women’s sports should be for, you know, actual women, has decided to double down. She has now suggested that having “women” who were born male competing in women’s sports is cheating.

It’s actually very amusing to see Navratilova, who has been for years an ardent SJW and a zealous persecutor of those like former tennis star Margaret Court who have refused to bend the knee to SJWs, suddenly realising that the latest manifestation of the LGBT agenda is going to destroy women’s sports such as tennis. This means that lesbians will suffer!

Personally I’m looking forward to seeing women’s professional sports destroyed. Women have enthusiastically supported the LGBT agenda. It would be very useful if they were brought face to face with the reality of the hostility of the trans crowd to actual women.

I can’t wait for the day when every single major women’s tennis tournament is won by men masquerading as women. I can’t wait to see every single major women’s golf tournament won by blokes in dresses. Best of all will be seeing every single Olympic gold medal for women’s events won by men in skirts. I have no doubt that all these things will come to pass within a decade at the most.

Feminists have been overjoyed by the prospect of infiltrating and destroying male leisure activities. Now they’re going to get a taste of the same medicine. Perhaps women will start to realise that feminism and LGBT activism are anti-women.

SJWs and globalists – who actually pulls the strings?

The culture war is a war that was launched by powerful vested interests but they are not the ones who actually fought the war. The bankers and billionaires and senior deep state functionaries (the globalists who could be described as the Inner Party) left the conduct of the war largely to journalists, academics, politicians and so-called activists. These were the Social Justice foot soldiers. They could be described as the Outer Party.

It was an arrangement that worked very well. The globalists wanted to ensure that populations were demoralised and easily controlled, with no loyalties and no stable beliefs. They wanted willing consumers, and compliant cheap labour. They therefore wanted traditional institutions such as the family and the churches destroyed. Their SJW foot soldiers were eager to oblige.

So far so good. The one minor problem is the quality of the human material from which the SJW foot soldiers are drawn. Feminists, homosexuals, transgenders, environmentalists – these people are fundamentally unstable. Many are in fact mentally ill. This phenomenon is one that Spandrell has addressed in his recent extremely stimulating posts on bio-leninism here and here and here.

The mental instability of these people makes them useful in many ways since it predisposes them towards fanaticism but it also makes them difficult to control. When you’re using feminists as a weapon for example then you have to be aware that you’re dealing with an unguided missile. The globalists are happy to use feminists to attack Christians and white men (preferably working-class white men) but the recent #metoo fiascos where feminists have targeted black men and even elite Jews are a good illustration of the dangers. In fact the dangers in this case are even greater since you’re not just dealing with feminists but also with actresses who are even more unstable and narcissistic than everyday feminists. Your chances of trying to reason with Hollywood feminists are very very poor. These Hollywood feminists can smell blood in the water and they are in no mood to pick and choose their victims carefully.

This is likely to be more and more of a problem. The globalists have given seriously crazy people a great deal of power to destroy and they’re hoping they can direct that destruction against their enemies, but those crazy people get crazier as they get more power and as they get the taste for blood. They’re likely to be increasingly difficult to control. The results will be interesting to watch.

the battle for our children

An important recent post at The Knight and Drummer raises an issue that I’ve been concerned about for some time now. It is now obvious what the ultimate objective of the homosexual lobby is. It is unrestricted access to children for male homosexuals. This has always been the final objective, the only difference now is that they’re no longer making any secret of it.

In fact they have been pursuing this objective for decades. The sexualisation of children has been aggressively pushed in schools over a period of many years. Children have been exposed to sexual concepts at wildly inappropriate ages. And the sexual concepts to which they have been exposed have become steadily more sinister.

Over the past few years the gender identity nonsense has been used as a way to further advance this process. Extremely young children who have absolutely zero understanding of sex have been persuaded that they can change their gender. In many cases the parents have been pressured to go along with this. Most worrying is that many parents have been happy to do so – in our modern world a transgender child is a major status symbol.

A sexual interest in young boys has been a key part of the male homosexual sub-culture for at least two thousand years. We should not be surprised that they now intend to find ways to satisfy this interest without the inconvenience of being sent to prison. The homosexual lobby has taken an extraordinary interest in the education system and it’s no coincidence that they have done so.

Sceptics might object that they could not possibly get away with this. In fact they are getting away with it. And they have strategies which will help them to do so. The most successful is likely to be based on the idea that current age of consent laws are oppressive to children and repress childhood sexuality. It’s an evil strategy but that’s not going to stop them. We can also expect to hear sob stories (all of them phony) in the media about thousands of homosexual children committing suicide because their sexuality has been repressed.

It will be interesting to see which way women jump on this issue. Lesbians don’t share the obsessive sexual interest in children that male homosexuals display but they are always keen to make converts, and the best way to do so is to get them young. I imagine lesbians will mostly support male homosexuals on this issue.

But what about heterosexual feminists? Surely they won’t go along with any of this?

Much depends on whether heterosexual feminists are prepared to confront the homosexual lobby on this subject. These days very few people have the courage to stand against the homosexuals so I’m not hopeful. I do expect some major splits among feminists though, with many older feminists being appalled by the idea of children being turned into objects for the gratification of sexual lusts. Younger feminists will fully support the homosexuals. They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in homosexual and gender identity propaganda.

Christians as usual will wring their hands and start mumbling about fairness and equality and love and will do nothing of any consequence.

So far every single battle in the culture wars has been lost by Christians and social conservatives. We had better hope they don’t lose this one.

children, marriage and society

A couple of days ago I wrote a post on our looming aged care crisis and I made the point that a society that values nothing but hedonism, autonomy and freedom is not going to be capable of (or willing) to deal with the problem of caring for the elderly. It should also be noted that such a society is not going to be well equipped for the task of raising children. A society that cannot adequately rear children is hardly worth describing as a society at all.
A society that thinks that sex is purely a recreational activity is also not going to be child-friendly. A society that sees marriage as a vehicle to satisfy the selfish desires of two people rather than a basis for a family is not going to do too well raising kids. A society that thinks that homosexual marriage is normal and healthy is a very poor environment for children. 
It’s terrifying to think that we are actually allowing homosexuals to raise children. This is not going to end well.
It’s not just homosexual marriage that is a problem. Heterosexual marriage is not a satisfactory arrangement for child-rearing unless it is accepted that marriage is permanent.   If people think it’s fine to get a divorce because they’re bored, or they’ve met someone younger and hotter, or they’ve decided that marriage no longer satisfies their need for freedom and autonomy then children are going to suffer. Half a century ago people understood this. Why don’t people today understand it?
Single mothers cannot raise children successfully. It’s not just that they can’t raise sons, they can’t raise daughters either. Both girls and boys need fathers. Of course it goes without saying that single fathers cannot raise kids properly either – both girls and boys need mothers. Homosexual couples certainly cannot raise children, for this very reason.
A society awash with pornography is also a terrible environment for children.
De facto relationships cannot form a successful basis for raising children. They are by their very nature temporary arrangements. if you can’t handle the idea of making the commitment involved in marriage you have no business even contemplating children.

It should also be obvious that children need to grow up in a society that understands, accepts and celebrates the differences between men and women. And accepts that biological sex is not something that can be altered by surgery. It’s not like getting a nose job. Children need to learn to accept their biological sex and to be happy with it. If they don’t they’re just going to add to the numbers of unhappy and confused adults.
Children are a massive commitment. We have to accept that. But children are the only reason for having a society in the first place. We have accept that as well.

am I a conservative? part two

In my previous post I talked about some of my issues with mainstream conservatism. Now I’m going to address my biggest concern of all – the issue of social conservatism.

I do very much consider myself to be a social conservative. And this is where I really come to a parting of the ways with mainstream conservatism as it exists today. Not only have mainstream conservatives surrendered on every single issue that concerns social conservatives – they actually seem to regard actual social conservatives with a mixture of embarrassment and contempt. While mainstream conservatives are prepared to go to the barricades over the issues that matter to them – tax cuts for the rich, free trade and open borders – it is obvious that they would prefer to avoid taking a stand on every single issue that matters to social conservatives.
For me social issues trump economic issues. Economic prosperity is a fine thing but if society collapses into despair, nihilism and chaos it’s not much consolation to be told that at least we have economic growth.
And our society is collapsing into despair, nihilism and chaos. 
We have reached the stage where the most precious of freedom of all is, apparently, the freedom to slaughter our unborn children. We are slaughtering them by the millions. Quite apart from the obvious moral dimension there is a social cost to this as well. To believe it’s OK to kill an unborn baby because that child might be a nuisance to its parents’ busy social life or might disrupt a woman’s career has terrifying implications that should surely be obvious to all. But mainstream conservatives have no intention of making any kind of stand on this issue.
Mainstream conservatives not only do not want to contest the issue of homosexual marriage – more often than not they actively support it. This issue has nothing to do with tolerance. Homosexuals achieved that decades ago. They don’t want their tragically unhealthy lifestyle to be tolerated – they want it to be celebrated and embraced. They want to be free to promote that lifestyle to children. Homosexual marriage is part of that agenda. But mainstream conservatives have no problem with it.
Feminism has been not only the most pernicious and dangerously deluded ideology ever dreamt up, it has also been a spectacular failure. Women have never been more unhappy, lonely and embittered than they are today. But try to find one mainstream conservative who will point out the folly and evil of feminism.
Pornography has been flooding our society for decades now. Try to find one mainstream conservative who will confront that issue.
Promiscuity is now considered to be the new normal. Long experience has demonstrated the corrosive effects of promiscuity on both the individual and society. But no mainstream conservative wants to be accused of slut-shaming. So that issue gets ignored as well.
So cowardly and treacherous are mainstream conservatives on social issues that even though I am most definitely a social conservative the very word conservative has become so devalued in my eyes that I’d prefer to be called something else. I’d rather call myself a social reactionary.

down the slippery slope we go

I went to the website of one of my favourite book dealers the other day and what did I find? They were having a celebration of LGBT “young adult” books. Think about this for a moment. The Young Adult Library Services Association of the American Library Association defines a young adult as someone aged between 12 and 18. This is homosexual propaganda aimed directly at people who are, legally, children.

It seems that whenever social conservatives have invoked the “slippery slope” argument against social engineering it almost invariably turns out to be absolutely correct. And when children are being targeting for homosexual propaganda we are a long way down that particular slippery slope. The depressing thing is, we may end up sliding even further down that slope. Make no mistake – there are absolutely no limits to the demands of the LGBT lobby. 
This is very much about the sexualisation of children, an agenda that is driven almost entirely by the LGBT lobby. It is also part of the increasingly proselytising nature of that lobby – they are actively seeking out converts. And the best source of converts is children.
Gandhi was reportedly once asked, “What do you think of western civilisation?” To which he replied, “I think it would be a good idea.” I’m starting to think he may have had a point. 
If what we have now is western civilisation – is it even worth trying to defend it?

mocking the cultural left

If you’re in need of a laugh then I urge you to check out Godfrey Elfwick’s Twitter feed. Godfrey Elfwick is a self-proclaimed demisexual genderqueer Muslim atheist and claims to be a black man trapped in a white body. He’s responsible for the explosion of the #WrongSkin meme on Twitter.
What makes this funny is that thousands of enraged Twitter Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) haven’t managed to figure out that he’s trolling them. He’s practising satire on them and they can’t spot it.
My feeling is that this is one of the few effective means by which we can successfully push back against the liberal madness of our age. The Left has been very successful over a period of many years in portraying conservatives as rigid, humourless, bigoted and stupid. Mockery is a formidably effective weapon. And now Godfrey Elfwick has exposed leftists as the ones who really are rigid, humourless, bigoted and stupid.
The timing is perfect as well, given that black civil rights activist Rachel Dolezal has just been outed for not being black at all – she’s totally white! It also coincides nicely with the whole Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner lunacy. 

What makes Godfrey Elfwick particularly dangerous to the SJWs is that he is genuinely smart and genuinely funny. And he doesn’t lose his cool. He just keeps raising the satire to ever more absurd levels. The SJWs who have figured out that he’s trolling them are foaming at the mouth. The ones who haven’t realised it are foaming at the mouth. It’s a win-win situation!

Big Business and the myth of the bottom line

One of the most important recent news items, the full significance of which is likely to be missed by most people, concerns Starbucks’ support for homosexual marriage. The key ingredient of this story is the statement by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz that, “it is not an economic decision to me.” Schultz doesn’t care if the decision COSTS Starbucks money.
There is one core belief that has historically united both the Left and the Right and that is the belief that Big Business cares about nothing but the bottom line. To the Old Left it was the proof that capitalism is wicked and evil. To neocons on the other hand that is the great virtue of capitalism – it’s what makes capitalism so efficient. To most conservatives it’s just an unquestioned assumption.
The problem is that it simply isn’t true, and never was. The bottom line is certainly a considerable motivation but there are other motivations as well. Most notably, power and fear. Money is attractive but once you’ve made your first billion money ceases to be a motivation in and of itself. Money becomes a means of gaining power. You don’t want to increase your fortune from one billion to ten billion because you want the money – you want the money because it will buy power. You are quite happy to sacrifice a few billion to increase your power and influence.
If you doubt this just take a look at Hollywood. Does anyone believe that movies like Selma get made because they will be guaranteed money-spinners? Hardly. In fact Hollywood has always been motivated as much by the desire for the approval of the elites as by profit. In the 40s the studios churned out “prestige pictures” which made little money (or even lost money). They did so as a way of gaining respectability. Hollywood today is obsessed by political correctness. The movie-makers believe in such nonsense. The studio chiefs do not. What they believe is that it’s in their interests to placate powerful lobby groups (homosexuals, greens, etc) and to curry favour with other members of the elite. The media in general is more about power than money. You don’t run a newspaper to make money. You know it will lose money. You run a newspaper to gain power.
Fear is a major factor. When corporations give millions of dollars to leftist political parties, extremist green groups or campaigns for homosexual “marriage” that does not imply that those corporations support those interests. What it does imply that is that those corporations are afraid of those groups. In many cases it’s a desperate (one might even say pathetic) attempt to ingratiate themselves with people they fear.
And then of course there are cultural marxist CEOs like Howard Schultz whose motivations are overtly  
ideological, in which cases advancing the ideology becomes much more important than making money. Even if he eventually drives the company to ruin it’s not as if he’s going to end up living on the streets. He’s made his pile. If the company goes down the toilet the employees will suffer but you can be sure that Howard Schultz won’t do any suffering.
Conservatives, and especially social conservatives and traditional conservatives, need to understand that Big Business is not their friend. Big Business is much more likely to be a bitter enemy.

cracks in the Leftist wall?

One of the significant factors in the success of the Left in western countries over the past half century has been that their offensive has been decentralised. In the 50s it was easy to oppose the Left because it was monolithic – the Left’s objective was socialism and its objective was obvious.

By the 1960s the monolithic Left was fragmenting. This proved to be a huge advantage for them. Instead of having a single focus their agenda was increasingly advanced by an array of single-issue pressure groups which did not openly espouse socialism. The main pressure groups centred around multi-culturalism, LGBT-xyz issues, feminism and environmentalism although there were other smaller groups as well. These groups were able to disguise their real political agendas. Rather than talking about revolution and the overthrow of capitalism they were able to persuade people that all they wanted was “fairness” or “equality” or to save trees and cute furry animals. And how could any reasonable person oppose such high-minded intentions?
The name of the game now was socialism by stealth. Instead of saying they wanted  Soviet-style centralised state control they manufactured environmental crises which apparently could only be dealt with by increased government intervention. They pretended that these measures were necessary as emergency measures to “save the planet.” Instead of openly admitting that they wanted to take control of education they justified increasing government encroachments on the grounds that all they wanted was to stop “bullying” or “oppression.” They undermined the family, not openly but by using the argument that women’s “rights” had to be protected.
This decentralised approach has been enormously successful, so successful in fact that most ordinary people still have no idea that their freedoms have been eroded and that the apparatus of a police state has been quietly and surreptitiously assembled.
The reason that conservatives have lost every single battle in the culture wars is that there has been no clear-cut enemy to fight. The culture wars have been conducted by the left by the methods of guerilla war, or 4th-generation warfare if you like. Conservatives might well have won if there had ever been an open fight but they had no answer to the Left’s methods of incremental struggle in which their ultimate objectives well always well hidden.
While this decentralisation has been the key to the Left’s success it may also provide a means by which conservatives can fight back. The fact is that the various pressure groups which comprise the modern Left are not as united as they seem to be. In many cases they are actually pursuing incompatible aims.
The most obvious case is multi-culturalism. Leftist politicians like Tony Blair thought they had pulled off a political master-stroke by importing a whole new electorate that would keep them in power forever. In fact they’ve imported a whole new electorate that is utterly hostile to many of their cherished schemes. Muslim immigrants in Britain and Hispanics in the US do not give a damn about homosexual marriage or climate change, and they are not exactly enthused about LGBT “rights” or feminism. 
Sooner or later leftist parties like the Democrats in the US or the Labor Party in Britain will realise that hanging on to the votes of the immigrants in the long term will not be as easy as they thought. What if the immigrants start voting for their own political parties, parties focused much more explicitly on their own interests and actively hostile to much of the cultural marxist agenda? The only way to prevent this might be by quietly dropping support for LGBT rights and feminism and crazy green policies. If Hispanic voters or British Muslim voters outnumber the guilt-ridden gay-friendly environmentally conscious white liberals then those parties might decide to ditch their support for policies that immigrant voters don’t like.
When that happens the LGBT and feminist and green lobbies might suddenly find their enthusiasm for multi-culturalism evaporating.

One thing that has united all leftist groups is their absolute opposition to freedom of speech. The Charlie Hebdo shootings have been an unpleasant intrusion of reality into the leftist narrative.
The agendas of other leftist pressure groups are not necessarily compatible either. There have been some amusingly vicious cat-fights between trans “women” and feminists in recent years. 
So there are a few cracks starting to appear in the leftist alliance.
At the moment multi-culturalism seems to be the issue most likely to cause these cracks to widen. Conservatives need to take advantage of this opportunity to split their opponents and to expose the hypocrisy and short-sightedness of the Left.

choose your enemies carefully – Islam vs liberalism

It is clear that western civilisation faces two great threats. On the one hand there is Islam, on the other there is the liberal-feminist-homosexual-green death cult. The question is, which is the more dangerous enemy?
Many conservatives seem to view Islam as the more immediate threat. They may well be quite wrong. The fact is that there would be no Islamic threat in the first place had the liberal-feminist-homosexual-green death cult not destroyed the west’s will to live. The root cause of all the west’s problems is the triumph of cultural marxism. It is the despair, the self-loathing, the nihilism, the atheism and the degeneracy promoted by cultural marxism that has brought us to the brink of civilisational collapse. If western civilisation is to survive we need to get our priorities right. The destruction of cultural marxism must be the first objective.
In achieving this objective our most powerful ally may well be Islam. The only force in the modern world that seems at all likely to oppose the cultural marxist agenda is Islam.
Perhaps we should be hoping to see Islamic republics established as quickly as possible in countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain and France. That might serve to concentrate the minds of Americans, Canadians, Australians and eastern Europeans. Eastern Europe is still predominantly Christian. The establishment of a caliphate in western Europe might persuade the eastern Europeans that perhaps it’s not a good idea to abandon Christianity, patriotism and self-respect.
It is not at all clear to me why social conservatives and conservative Christians should shed any tears over the imposition of sharia law in liberal cesspits like Sweden or the Netherlands. If it’s a choice between living under sharia law or living under the heel of the feminists I’m inclined to think that sharia law might well be preferable. Of course it might mean that women would lose their most precious right, the right to murder their unborn babies. Homosexuals might lose their most precious right, the right to spread their poison in the school system. 
The imposition of Islamic republics in western Europe might also hasten the demise of the European Union. That can only be a good thing.
The western Europeans have after all chosen their fate. Enoch Powell warned the British nearly half a century ago of the consequences of unrestricted immigration. They ignored him. The British, the French, the Swedes and the Dutch do still have a choice. They can vote against the political establishments. They do have alternative parties for which they can vote. If the French choose to reject the FN in the next presidential election then they have chosen their fate. If the Swedes choose to reject the Sweden Democrats they too will have chosen their fate. If the British choose a clown like Ed Milliband or David Cameron in their next general election they too will have voluntarily chosen self-destruction. In those circumstances they richly deserve the fate in store for them. The good news is that Islamification might be the prelude to the destruction of the liberal-feminist-homosexual-green death cult. If that is the only means by which that death cult can be destroyed then it might not be such a bad thing.
There is certainly no reason for genuine conservatives to lift a finger to save liberal atheism from Islam, or to save feminism from sharia law. 
I am no apologist for Islam. I would prefer western civilisation to survive, but it cannot survive so long as it nourishes within it the cancers of feminism, the radical homosexual agenda, atheism, nihilism, despair and degeneracy.