Category: sex

Auto Added by WPeMatico

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

 

Feminine styles of argument and censorship

Richard Hanania writes about the “gendered nature of wokeness”. A fresh heresy for your delectation this morning, gents.

“To simplify, you have the left, which leans towards the blank slate and opposes gender stereotypes but demands women in public life be treated as too delicate for criticism, and conservatives, who believe in sex differences but say to treat people as individuals. But if men and women are the same, or are only different because of socialization that we should overcome, there’s no good reason to treat them differently. And if they are different and everyone should accept that, then we are justified in having different rules and norms for men and women in practically all areas of life, including political debate. How exactly this should be done is something worth thinking about. Finally, I argue that much of the opposition to wokeness is distorted and ineffective because it avoids the gendered nature of the problem, which also makes fighting it difficult.”

snip

“When public discourse operates according to male rules, women become more likely to select out of it. They focus more on career, children, hobbies, and family. This is why leftists have a point when they say that concepts like objectivity and free speech work to favor male voices. But while these concepts provide a male advantage if applied to areas like journalism and academia, we’re all better off when society cares more about truth and less about the emotional well-being of a small and hysterical minority. In other words, a world that valued truth and objectivity over feelings would have fewer female executives, senators, and journalists, but be better for everyone because it would have more economic and technological growth, while not encouraging women’s worst instincts (more female representation in high status careers does not appear to have done much good for women’s mental health). It might have more war too, but, as mentioned already, society has been pretty good at recognizing the harms that come from the excesses of masculinity. We haven’t even begun to think carefully about equivalent pathologies stemming from traits of the other sex.”

Hugs, handshakes across the aisle mark passage of bill banning conversion therapy

Blair Atholl comments:

“A bill that prevents people from voluntarily seeking counseling – even from priests. Meanwhile, say once at nine years old that you wish you were a girl and the state will happily cut your dick off. Fuck the CPC and their morally degenerate leaders.”

-from a life long conservative

And this is Dalwhinnie talking: the guy who increasingly seems to be talking a language I agree with is Mad Max Bernier. Kind of like the slow growth of mindshare held by Ronnie Reagan before his Presidency. Though Max will never be Prime Minister of Canada absent a cultural revolution.

 

 

The virtues of masculinity, or a reactionary feminist speaks her mind

“It’s not obvious to me that humanity is morally improved from over 2000 years ago.” – Mary Harrington

Like many doomists, she is personally cheerful. In my limited experience, sample size 3,  the depressives are hopeful about the future and cheerful about what is going on, while the doomists are personally happy but inclined to see everything going to shit, which it is.

 

Apparently today it is sufficient to be a reactionary that one believes the following:

  1. There is no progress. There are only trade-offs.
  2. People cannot change sex.
  3. Men and women do not have perfectly aligned interests and our negotiations are eternal and never completely resolved.

Mary Harrington appears as a columnist in  UnHerd. 

For what it is worth, she was gay. “Every woman I dated in the nineties is now a man”, She is now married to a biological man.  She has borne at least one child. She relates as a fact that the child’s DNA lingers in the body of their mothers, and that mothers are  permanently affected by having borne children.

She writes: on “The Virtues of Masculinity”:

Gender studies courses should only be open to people who either have children, or have spent time working with farmyard animals. What else am I to conclude after learning that academics in this field (especially childless ones) think all sex-based traits are down to “nurture” rather than “nature”, even when it comes to the difference between hens and roosters?..

 

“..the underbelly of the internet is full of men violently hostile to the norms of a “feminist” mainstream that deplores the things they value, and who daydream increasingly vividly about the search for glory. Perhaps they will confine this to the realm of fantasy forever. But perhaps they won’t….

“None of this is to offer an unqualified endorsement of these traits, which have many downsides. But wouldn’t we be better-advised to seek constructive roles for the men who possess them, rather than trying to “educate” (in other words shame) “toxic masculinity” out of existence. Especially if the alternative is a growing subculture of men who have gone beyond daydreaming online about “Vikings”, to actively seeking to recreate their violent, restless and hypermasculine world in the 21st century.”

 

I am increasingly of the view that a great reaction – masculinist, inegalitarian, heroic – is coming, and that it MUST come if we are not to be reduced into a life equivalent to the collectivism of slime mold.

Back to the interview and Mary Harrington, to conclude: she says some really interesting things at minute 52:00

“Central to my reactionary feminist thesis is that we have come to the end of the gains we can make by centering freedom….we need a root and branch reexamination of the material conditions we are in now…If you are stuck in the industrial paradigm and you think  more liberation is self evidently better…I can see why you think you are a feminist… we are all of us, men and women alike, liberated enough, and what we need is more and better obligations…”

An interesting thinker. I shall pay more attention to her. You should think about subscribing to UnHerd.

 

stereotypes

Stereotypes would not be useful if they were mostly untrue. The reason they are useful is that they create a certain predictability in intercultural exchanges, at least for the first few hours before the person’s unique traits start to show thtough the cultural carapace – which is the stereotype. Now here is a useful political stereotype for your amsuement,

Image

Five warning shots to the back of the head

I am not a conspiricist by nature. Most of what happens can be explained by laziness, greed, stupidity or the tidal forces of opinion. But when the husband and the only son of a judge assigned to the Epstein case are shot by a man posing as a courier – ding dong! Don’t answer that door!- and the assassin is found the next day shot dead with self inflicted wounds, one has to ask: coincidence? I think not.

A few of Geoffrey Epstein’s former friends and associates want to make sure that nothing is investigated and are ready to murder to ensure their security. That much is obvious. If I were Ghislaine Maxwell I would be feeling quite insecure right now. That they were ready to murder the son and husband of the judge who is dealing with a case relating to Deutsche Bank’s transactions with Epstein shows how ruthless they are prepared to be.

Ding dong! Don’t answer that door! I am reminded of a scene from American Werewolf in London, which you must see. I don’t wish to make light of murderous behaviour but it should serve as a warning not to answer your door, without a loaded shotgun at the ready. Especially if you are a trial judge.

Sexual selection, hypergamy and the patriarchy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start with the Jordan Peterson lecture of 3:16 duration. Chimpanzees and humans differ in that human females select their males, while chimpanzees do not (at minute 1:00 of Peterson). From this fact huge consequences have ensued.

This means that in humans there have been selective effects on males. About 40% of males will get to breed, over the course of millennia.  Thus, consequent to the tendency of females to select some males and not others to breed with, something we now call the patriarchy is developed. Peterson calls them ‘dominance hierarchies’. If females did not select, there would be little point in a patriarchy. The capacity to be useful, to be productive and to share is what we males are selected for.

Which selection has led to the evolution of the human species, including ‘cortical expansion’, a euphemism for the expansion of the brain, which is the basis of human domination of the planet.

So when women talk about the patriarchy as something bad, it is a contradiction to the results of their actual behaviours.

A Marine boot camp approach to the same issues is expressed in Rollo Tomassi’s lecture to young men. It is important for young men to be made aware of these facts of life. I spent many years not understanding them, and my life improved greatly when I got clear on them. In essence, the interests of human males and females diverge, and human males who do not understand this divergence are in for a world of pain.

 

 

 

Totalitarianism from below.

Totalitarianism from below. In the West we are too inclined to see Communism as something imposed from outside, from on top, by Bolsheviks and their goons, by foreign conquest. But Communism is also imposed from below, by people empowered by envy, spite and malice, who hate distinction, independence, and anything that does not smell of themselves. But it can also occur from efforts to be nice, to respect newly invented rights not to be offended. Enforced speech is everywhere.

Chris Taylor writes in “2010s = 1984: the Decade we finally understood Orwell” that

“The Party doesn’t get its power from spying on its citizens, or turning them into snitches, or punishing sex crimes. All were presented as mere tools of the state. How did it come to wield that control in the first place? 

“Orwell, aka Eric Blair, a socialist freedom fighter and a repentant former colonial officer who had a lifelong fascination with language and politics, knew that no control could be total until you colonized people’s heads too. A state like his could only exist with loud, constant, and obvious lies.”

” To be a totalitarian, he knew from his contemporary totalitarians, you had to seize control of truth itself. You had to redefine truth as “whatever we say it is.” You had to falsify memories and photos and rewrite documents. Your people could be aware that all this was going on, so long as they kept that awareness to themselves and carried on (which is what doublethink is all about).”

A tax accountant, Maya Forstater, a woman, in England was fired for saying that people cannot change their sex. The Court ruled that such views were not acceptable and “unprotected”. This from the Guardian:

“A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test case because her opinions were deemed to be “absolutist”.

“In a keenly anticipated judgment that will stir up fresh debate over transgender issues, Judge James Tayler, an employment judge, ruled that Maya Forstater’s views did “not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief”. (skip)

“But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”Advertisement

“In response to the ruling, Forstater said: “I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.

“My belief … is that sex is a biological fact, and is immutable. There are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are male. Women and girls are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life by almost everyone.”

This is the aspect that is so disturbing, as Douglas Murray has observed, that truths which everyone held since conscious thought began are declared by some pompous ass dressed in robes as “unprotected”, and worse, that one can be mobbed, harassed, fired with impunity, and subject to disgrace on social media for insisting the obvious fact that a person born with XY chromosomes is a genetic male, no matter what surgeries he undergoes and costumes he dons.

While it may be polite to address a person by their desired gender, this does not abolish biology.

The core of the case for the judgment was that

“A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.”

Transwomen are men. There, I said it. I have now committed thoughtcrime. And notice how this totalitarian lie is achieved: by excessive niceness. It has become a firing offence to insist that a transwoman is still a man. My feelings are hurt. The tyranny of hurt feelings is the origin of the social compulsion being enforced by courts. Many of my beliefs necessarily involve violating the dignity of others, and so do yours. But if I have made my dignity depend on your addressing me as a woman, or as a Duke, or anything I can imagine – and the rules change every day – am I obliged to treat you as you claim, or as a preposterous mountebank?

Maya Forstater insisted upon the right to call a transwoman not a woman, but a male. Heresy!

Clitorises are useful, it appears

Scientist says: stimulation of the clitoris serves the purpose reproduction. We all thought they were just for fun. Apparently nt was thought to be the only human organ designed purely for pleasure. 

The Daily Mail reports:

“It was thought to be the only human organ designed purely for pleasure.  But the clitoris may actually play an important role in reproducing, according to a leading scientist. 

Stimulating the sexual organ triggers changes which makes conditions inside the body optimal for conceiving, it has been claimed. 

These are said to include increased vaginal blood flow and lubrication, which make sex more enjoyable and help sperm travel towards the egg. “

More of this reproductive fitness ideology. Why can’t aspects of human sexuality just be for fun?

Illustrative photographs were available but not included. This is a family publication.