Category: participatory hallucinations

Auto Added by WPeMatico

Are There No Witches?


“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” A well-known quote from the critical observer of political folly – Orwell. We are in such a situation now.

Even though Mother Nature invented sex billions of years ago and made it the basis for reproduction of life, now, at this brief fleeting nanosecond of history, we have legions of pseudo-academics, politicians, media hacks, teachers, and all the other unproductive pustules on the body politic trying to tell us that Mather Nature was wrong. Reality is not in biology, genetics, cellular structure, determining men and women, or even indeed in the history of millennia of cultures and civilizations, from the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, through to the Romans, Aztecs and all the Western and modern world, but in the delusional rantings of men who think they can become women or perhaps “identify” as cats or toads.

This would be fine if they stayed in their mothers’ basements and ate their food off the floor, but their real objective, aided and abetted by the degenerate political class, is to spread their delusions and depravities to our children—not only that, but to demand that the rest of society that is still sane to bow down to their evil idols.

The trans-mania is not a point of view, or a political opinion, but a worldview, a weltangschauung, a creed, and is thus not open to compromise or debate. This is a fundamental property. A certain political personality (whose name escapes me) noted that:

…the philosophy is intolerant; it cannot content itself with the role of one ‘party beside others,’ but imperiously demands, not only its own exclusive and unlimited recognition, but the complete transformation of all public life in accordance with its views. It can, therefore, not tolerate the simultaneous continuance of a body representing the former condition.

When the force of faith is behind it, reality matters little.

The trans-mania, and the entire glorification of sin that adorns its ugly idols, is such a worldview. And it has to be totalitarian. In his essay, The Prevention of Literature, which is mainly about the effects of totalitarianism on writing, Orwell says,

…Totalitarianism demands, in fact, a continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth.

We have reached that point that Orwell so feared. The most basic biological and scientific truths about the nature of, not only human beings, but almost all the animals on Earth, is being denied by a diabolical priesthood of deceit, babbling on endlessly that the evidence of our own eyes and ears is not to be trusted.

Our history is being distorted and even language itself is being tortured to be devoid of meaning so that the mindless political drones, aided by their journalist and media succubi, can shepherd their brainwashed masses towards their sexless, conformist future.

It is not clear how far this will go, but the organized lying, propaganda, and persecution of dissidents in Canada, the US, and the West in general, does not bode well. One would expect, as in former more sane times, that the intellectual strata of society would at least be standing up for the freedom of conscience. But, no! Again, as Orwell lamented, …

…The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves.

Just look at the state of universities in the West today—factories of ignorance, rather than centers of learning. How can you believe that men can turn into women? Doublethink—Holding two contradictory views at one and the same time. Doublethink is an essential part of the totalitarian mind-set. When doctrine has to be changed overnight to accommodate today’s fanaticism, how better to grease its progress than to deny the actual existence of objective reality?

This is not a question of differing political views, but a question of will it be even possible to hold political views (or scientific opinions) when your life and rights can be whisked away by arbitrary powers? This was done to the truckers in the Freedom Convoy, and it’s being done to people who expose the COVID lie machine. These are all real questions that are not being addressed by any of the Uniparty groups (Liberals, Tories, Democrats, Republicans etc.)—they only reflect varying facets of the globalist blob that controls almost all discourse in the West.

None of this can be changed by being ‘nice’ to them. They must be told directly that they are liars, degenerates, and destroyers of civilization. It’s going to be tough, but it must be done. In the words of the old Revivalist hymn:

Dare to be a Daniel,
Dare to stand alone;
Dare to have a purpose firm,
Dare to make it known.

Rebel Yell

What if there were no witches?

Well of course there are no witches, you say! No one in their right minds believes that witches exist. No one believes that people are conversing with the devil to get power over others. No one believes that people will sell their soul to the devil for worldly gain. So obviously there is no point in extracting confessions through torture because witches do not exist, right? Nor for that matter does the devil. (Despite what some might like to think about political leaders).

I use this thought experiment to draw attention to the European witch craze of the early modern period 1600-1700 because it relates to a comparable problem of modern society. Though the penalties may differ, the modern equivalent of the witchcraft craze is all around us.

Transgenderism is the latest mania of collective delusion sweeping society.

A very few people of mature age believe they have been born into the wrong sex (as if that were a possible or meaningful statement). They engage in sexual reassignment surgery.

The idea spreads and takes new forms. (Which requires a history of its own).

Some body decides that, in their sovereign and autonomous will, people have a right to declare themselves male or female and further, and, because this assertion is in tune with the spirit of the times, laws are passed that oblige all others in the universe to recognize the right to change “gender”, despite the bearers of this new bundle of rights displaying the inevitable marks of sexual development as a former male or female, as the case may be.  Ideology or self will trumps not merely biology, but all previous social conventions. Obvious genetic males invade women’s sports and, thanks to having passed their earlier years as a genetic male, break previous women’s sports records. Thus their performances prove the genetic consequences of testosterone  while simultaneously society insists they are female, so denying the reality of genetic consequences.

Moreover, parents apparently have the right to determine that their children, before the ages of puberty or consent, are “transgendered”, and have the right or even obligation to have their sons castrated and dosed with female hormones and surgically altered to mimic the sexual apparatus of a female, however inadequately. These children have never reached the age of consent. They are not allowed to vote or drive a car. Yet they have been compelled to undergo radical alteration of their biological natures for the sake of  gender ideology, or as some may prefer,  the right of a person to affirm their identity under any and all conditions.

At the same time laws are passed, custody judgments are rendered, and regulatory agencies rule in such fashion as to make it impossible or illegal to draw attention to the obvious facts of sex that might prevail over the self identification referred to as “gender”. Conformity is imposed upon society. Speech is controlled. To permit  biologically based arguments against transgenderism otherwise is an impermissible affront to the evolution of our understanding of human rights. Being, in blunt terms, the right to castrate or spay your children and seek to change their sex by invasive surgery and continuous lifelong dependence on drugs to maintain the illusion that people can change their genetic nature to conform to gender ideology.

I know I have presented this in the crudest possible terms because future generations  of man (if they are to exist at all) will look back on this age with the same distaste and inability to understand as we look back on the European witch crazes if the 16th and 17th centuries.

The analogy does not hold in all respects, I grant you. Instead of murdering witches we surgically and chemically castrate them. Instead of condemning them, we celebrate their autonomy of will to become who they truly are. Instead of believing in supernatural entities like the devil we believe that people have rights (other forms of metaphysical entity) to affirm their identities at almost any cost imposed on the rest of society.  We are forced to abrogate immemorial customs that have governed the relations between the sexes, and  people are compelled to violate the plain evidence of their senses.

Yet the essence of the matter is the same: society has become deluded on a massive scale. There are no witches, and never were. Likewise there are no “transgendered” people, and never shall be. No one is born into the wrong sex. The term “gender” as applied to sex is a neo -Marxist null category, an empty set, pure cant.  Gender is what you apply to nouns in French and similarly gendered languages (le ou la; der, die,oder das). Gender is a construct of the mind, sex is a construct of billions of years of evolution. One is an epiphenomenon of contemporary craziness, the other the basis of life.

The transgender cult believes that society is on the cusp of recognizing new rights of self affirmation and seeing them recognized by social convention and law. To the contrary, society in contemporary North America is going mad. And a lot of apparently sane people are among them. But there are no witches, just as there are no transgendered people.

Many people are deluded into believing they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ or other culturally specific figures. I imagine the looney bins of China are occupied by many who think they are Mao Tse-Tung ot Chinghiz Khan. We put them on drugs and confine them if necessary. But if I declare myself a female, when I am a male, I am celebrated for my bold self affirmation. We should look on such people with the  compassion we have for the mad. Yet contemporary society is rife with enablers affirming that the transgendered delusion is not merely a fact but the newest form of civil right.

It is the enablers of this pernicious nonsense who owe themselves a long talk in the mirror. Madness is not confined to the actually insane, it appears. Otherwise rational people actually find it convenient to believe in transgenderism, the latest phase of progressive moral posturing.  Nevertheless, they are factually and morally wrong, and they will do a great deal of harm before they recover their senses.

 

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

From Jonathan Kay in Quillette

“Genderwang is something completely different. It’s a quasi-religious ideological movement that demands public acceptance of the claim that all humans are infused with a soul-like ether known as gender identity—a spirit whose nature trumps the objective reality of biological sex when it comes to policymaking and even interpersonal relationships. Genderwang channels the magical thinking of Christian transubstantiation by demanding that acts of verbal attestation and other sanctified rites serve to literally transform men into women and vice versa. It also casts small children, even toddlers in diapers, as savants whose unfalsifiable pronouncements in regard to their “true” gender identity must be affirmed by doctors as holy writ.”

 

“One of the most constant characteristics of beliefs is their intolerance. The stronger the belief, the greater its intolerance. Men dominated by a certitude cannot tolerate those who do not accept it.” ~ Gustave Le Bon

further reading:

The European Witch Craze of the 16th and 17th centuries, by Hugh Trevor-Roper

 

Davos: Such a special group of people

I love these little clips from Davos where our governors gathers to suck each others cocks, metaphorically speaking. Their true beliefs and attitudes are revealed.

 

 

Club of Rome at 50 years old

I used to believe the following tenets of the Club of Rome. I did so for about four years (from the age of 22 to 26) until I woke up from ecodoomism. It is apparent that millions have been sucked into this cult and have never found a way out. Yet. Indeed, ecodoomism is the world’s leading cause of depression, suicide, sexual ambiguity,  non-replacement and cultural anomie. It is immediately the cause of policies designed to immiserate the population (viz. Dutch government putting farms out of business to control world atmospheric nitrogen levels).

Here are the doctrines of the Club of Rome, circa 1972. Look familiar?

 

• “The Limits to Growth” contains six main messages:
ƒ Firstly, that the environmental impact of human society
had become heavier between 1900 and 1972 due to
both an increase in the number of humans and the
amount of resources consumed and pollution generated
per person per year.
ƒ That our planet is physically limited, and that humanity
cannot continue to use more physical resources and
generate more emissions than nature is capable of
supplying in a sustainable manner. In addition, it will
not be possible to rely on technology alone to solve the
problem as this would only delay reaching the carrying
capacity of the planet by a few years.
ƒ Third, the authors cautioned that it is possible, and even
likely, that the human ecological footprint will overshoot
the carrying capacity of the planet, further explaining that
this would likely occur due to significant delays in global
decision making while growth continued, bringing the
human footprint into unsustainable territory.

ƒ Once humanity has entered this unsustainable territory,
we will have to move back into sustainable territory,
either through “managed decline” of activity, or we will
be forced to move back through “collapse” caused by the
brutal inherent processes of nature or the market.
ƒ The fifth message is one of hope. The authors state
that: “The challenge of overshoot from decision delay
is real, but easily solvable if human society decided to
act”, meaning that forward looking policy could prevent
humanity from overshooting the aforementioned
planetary limits.
ƒ Lastly, the authors advocated for an early start – in 1972
that was 1975 – to achieve a smooth transition to a
sustainable world without needing to pass through the
overshoot and contraction phases.

 

The World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab have followed as night follows day. They key assumptions are that the current population/ resource consumption mix is unsustainable, and the second is that a process of managed decline can smooth the transition to sustainability. I am about to say something at once paradoxical and true. Humans have more to fear from the managers of population reduction than we do of civilizational collapse. Because the population reduction is being planned by people who think they are doing good  and the old adage of C. S. Lewis applies: that the robber barons might have their greed satiated, and stop, but the person who tortures for you own good does so with a clean conscience and will not stop. Hence Stalin. Hence Klaus Schwab, and his minions and acolytes.

Collapses are random and bring their own correctives. They are chaotic. If the Roman Empire has to fall, it is better that it occur without central planning, administered by mad tyrants. I realize this is offensive to those who believe that civilizational change can be planned, but it cannot.

The  assumption that needs to be challenged the most is that collapse is somehow inevitable because we have gone beyond limits set by Gaia, that this unsustainability is somehow new, and that we can plan our way out of it.

We went beyond the limits set by Gaia since we domesticated animals, invented agriculture and mined metals. I would not wish to say there are no limits, but I would say that the collective intelligence of mankind has continually found solutions to the problems we have ourselves created. We went into the realm of the “unsustainable” tens of thousands of years ago. We are still in “unsustainablity”. There is no stable state. The Club of Rome published its manifesto in 1972. It had a tremendous negative effect over time. It resuscitated the idea of a centrally planned economy when the central conceit of Marxism had collapsed: that a planned economy could prevail over the chaotic forces of the market, or of nature.

The close relationship between the idea of sustainability and the tyranny of all-wise central planners needs to be made clear.

________________________-

Regarding solutions that appear without planning, population growth is collapsing through the very process of unsustainable wealth generation that has come from burning fossil fuels. Women reach a level of prosperity where their kids will survive until adulthood, and – bingo! – they produce at most two children. It is enough to make the most hardened ecodoomist pause and reconsider.

See

Or more brutal yet, try David Goldman (known as Spengler)

 

 

At last! Something interesting to report

Dear Charles:

Your last words to me before you died were “Call the instant anything exciting should happen!”. Unfortunately for the world, your friends and me, you departed to Valhalla before anything of sufficient merit occurred. Now I am pleased to report that something of interest has occurred, twenty years after your departure.

A 12-foot tall steel monolith has been spotted in the desert of southern Utah by a passing helicopter that had been intent of counting bighorn sheep. Investigation has not revealed whether it is an art project or an alien artifact. Naturally we should not call it a monolith because it is not made of stone, but let us not quibble, dear Charles, for this is actually interesting.

The report is here.

Charles Fisher (1914-2006) was always a poet and at various points in his life a soldier (Welsh Guards), spy (MI6) and stenographer in the Canadian House of Commons. Friend of many, mentor to the selected few. He died at 91 in Bangkok on vacation. I would like to think he was bedding a young lady at the time. He was famous for having people over for dinner and disappearing. “Where’s Charles?” someone would ask. Through the kitchen pass-through someone called back from the liviing room: “he’s gone to Cambodia”. “What do you mean he’s gone to Cambodia?” “He has gone to Cambodia” was the reply. He left the guests and acolytes to clean up.

I feel I have fulfilled my obligation, Charles, to report anything exciting, even if fourteen years late. You will have ways of getting the message. Of this I am sure.

His obituary in the Guardian is here.

His funeral was the only one I have ever attended where the mourners left the church walking an inch of the ground, so elated were they by the many recollections of this extraordinary force of life.

Now would someone please tell us what the monolith is?

confessions of a student marxist

Tobias Fibbs, a Cambridge graduate, dissects expertly the emotional and moral atmosphere of the modern university. 

 

Social theorist Mark Fisher described from first-hand experience the manipulation of this scene as a Vampire Castle which “feeds on the energy and anxieties and vulnerabilities of young students, but most of all it lives by converting the suffering of particular groups — the more marginal, the better — into academic capital. The most lauded figures in the Vampire Castle are those who have spotted a new market in suffering — those who can find a group more oppressed and subjugated than any previously exploited will find themselves promoted through the ranks very quickly.” The Vampire Castle recruits on the promise of community and self-healing. The reality is an ouroboros of emotional manipulation, stripped of the political and of all that makes life interesting and worthwhile…..

We would have laughed at the idea we formed an elite and we certainly didn’t act like one. But we were the vanguard for a movement that has swept the English-speaking world in the subsequent decade. We still professed to be fighting the old powers — patriarchy, white supremacism, the nuclear family, colonialism, the university itself. But in truth we represented what Christopher Lasch called psychological man, “the final product of bourgeois individualism,” and were being trained in elite formation for the therapeutic age just as surely as our forerunners had been for the previous, paternal age….

The material genesis of the radical cultural politics that has shown its strength in the last few months lies in the overexpansion of higher education, which produced a new middle class that is materially discontented and uncomfortable in its own skin. The globalisation of American pathologies has given this new urban class, present across the Western world, a politics that is carving through our institutions….

 

The good and bad ideas of Diane Francis

I am pretty sure Diane Francis and I could have an amiable disagreement, because we do not disagree so greatly as to make conversation impossible.

Today’s article in the Financial Post contains some important ideas. “The crushing of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott is proof Canada is run by a Liberal cabal”.

Duh! We all are aware that Canada is run by a Liberal cabal. Perhaps more neutrally I can call it a productive relationship between various parts of the permanent governing party, the PGP, which consists of the civil service, coupled with the judiciary, which has its own styles of reasoning and sources of authority, and the Liberal Party itself, which I consider to be the sales arm of the civil service and the judiciary, and the latter’s acolyte, the Court party (read provincial law societies).

Diane Francis proposes several ideas.

  • A long period of cooling off before government employees can join the private sector after quitting government, which she suggests should be five or ten years long.
  • renegotiate equalization payments among provinces
  • abolishing the bilingualism requirement in the civil service.

Let me rate these ideas

Cooling off periods lengthened – F

Very bad idea, because you need a flow of people to and from the civil service, which tends to become too isolated, physically and mentally, from the rest of society. Cooling off periods after leaving the civil service are just drapery anyway, and not useful. Too long a cooling off period means that people joining the civil service might never leave, which would further exacerbate the isolation of the civil service from the rest of society. Keeping people from joining the private sector from the government means that the civil service becomes more of a caste than a career choice. It is already separated enough from the rest of society: do not increase the separation by limiting the outflow and the inflow.

Renegotiating equalization payments – A

Absolute agreement, and it requires only provinces to act, especially the paying provinces.

abolishing bilingualism requirements in the civil service – A+

Nothing tilts the civil service away from a more equal national participation than bilingualism requirements. It means that the recruiting zone for the civil service, or the vast preponderance of its routine levels, is the Ottawa valley, segments of the Quebec population that learn English and what remains of English Quebec. Thus the civil service becomes a job preserve – in clerical and functional levels – of bilingual French Canadians and an English Quebecer here and there. And that, my friends, is just how the Liberals want it.

Whether Canada would survive the relative reduction of the presence and importance of bilingual French Canadians in the civil service is a reasonable question. My guess is that it could and would, but it would have to be handled skillfully. It would take a Royal Commission on ethnic, regional and xyz representivity in the civil service. It could probably be sold on the basis that the proportion of “new Canadians” in the civil service was too low. It would take some tact and skill, but it could be done. The period when we had to believe that French Canada was somehow important is over, and looking back, I wonder whether separatism was not the last gasp of French Canada’s political importance.

The impetus behind the growth of the civil service in the 1970s was the baby boom. The civil service expanded as a deliberate method of absorbing the mass of boomers into employment. Other countries, I am told, did not adopt the tactic of expanding the civil service as a job-creation strategy, but Canada under Trudeau the Elder did.

As we head into the baby-bust era, there is little reason to keep civil service as large as it is. I can envisage it shrinking, relatively to other employment and perhaps even absolutely. A bold and wrong prediction, many would argue. When I consider how irrelevant government seems to be these days, I can scarcely recall the breathless importance ascribed to this or that French Canadian civil servant in the 70s and 80s who was supposed to “save” Canada. A participatory hallucination of the time.

However, the baneful effects of selecting your civil service on the basis of a capacity to speak French are pervasive. It works against Hindu mathematicians and Muslim economists, Albertans and Saskatchewanians, and every one else who does not belong to the French-speaking Tribe.

But that is how it was designed to be, n’est-ce pas?