The type of consent you give to websites wanting your cookies is the type of ‘consent’ you give at the end of a relationship when you let the guy you’re with just stick it in so you can go to sleep without an argument. Henceforth known as the cookie consent. The type of yes you give when it’s too much effort to say no.

When websites ask you to consent to having your data harvested they provide you with two options
You either consent, which is one click
or, faff for five minutes to opt out.

Till recently the guardians cookie consent button used to say;

‘I’m fine with that.’

Which is what middle-class people say when they are too polite to say no.

‘I’m fine with that’ is the sort of inauthentic passive aggressive response that is either followed by a swift subject change or a blazing row. The outcome is dependent on how many times it takes a person to say ’I’m fine with that’ before they aren’t fine with anything anymore and the full force of their ID uncensored by politeness and social convention is unleashed on whatever or whoever they’re not fine with anymore.

Pushing that ‘I’m fine button really pushed my buttons as I hate saying I’m fine with things when I’m not. Maybe it pushed someone else’s as the Guardian consent button no longer says
‘I’m fine with that’. Now it says ’I’m happy with that’ Which is worse.
I’m happy with that sounds like ‘I’m fine with that’s’ socially dysfunctional cousin.

‘I’m happy with that’. Sounds like a dystopian instruction to ‘smile’, while your data is extracted. Wrenched out of its socket like the gold tooth of a vagabond who has just been knocked unconscious in a tramp fight.

The ’I’m happy with that’ consent button is when happens when the Facebook angry emoji necks two Valium before finding a new day job.
And what happened to the ‘I’m fine with that’ button? Maybe it stopped being fine and eventually took that overdose.

As a definition of consent that’s like something you’d hear put forward in a rape case. ‘The cookie consent’ She gave the cookie consent your honour…
The sort of dubious consent someone gives when they say yes but what they really meant was no.

Given this daily disrespect of personal sovereignty and dignity is it any wonder people have gone mental over being told to wear masks.

The government needs to stop lying to people. Websites need to to stop raping our data and people need to be able to say they’re not fine about all of this otherwise they’ll suddenly stop being fine.

There was a meme that said

‘My signature move is to bottle things up over time and then combust over some irrelevant issue and get accused of being a psycho’.


IMO that’s what’s happened with this anti-mask movement If anyone should be made to cover their mouths apart from the anti maskers it should be the government until they learn to stop saying things that aren’t true. They might have their mouths covered for quite some time. And I’d be totally fine with that.

Confessions of a gender bore.

When I was seven I was convinced I was a boy. It really annoyed my mum which was part of the fun. This ‘phase never really went away and it’s always been part of me. As a result I’ve paid a lot of attention to gender trends and thought a lot about it.

This is my assessment of a random mums most recent addition to the gender debate.

‘I can’t protect my transgender son from hostile media coverage any more’… A random mum writes

Really? Hostile media coverage?

Where?

Here?

Even the Daily Mail, is even running a good news story that a trans woman is competing in miss New Zealand  2021. 

As is standard for the mail its just an excuse for providing their readership with the type of smut thy long for without it ending up in their search history. 

Pictures of the curvy 26 year old Arielle Keil in a bikini are run beside the investigative expose about history being made by the first trans contestant entering the miss New Zealand competition. 

Really its just an excuse to print pictures of someone in a bikini. Essentially saving the old folk the embarrassment of someone finding transgender porn on their search history. 

But seriously How can media coverage be hostile if the usually regressive mail are giving transgender people positive press.

However even the Daily Mail questions whether it was progressive for anyone to be entering a beauty pageant 

‘But while the concept of beauty pageants may seem a little outdated in 2020,’ They write ‘Arielle says they’re ‘actually badass’.  

Which is the kind of vacuous statement you’d stereotypically expect from a miss world competitor, uttered with nothing but a coquettish grin to cover ones modesty. 

But in terms of progressive politics this isn’t a satisfactory defence. 

Entering a beauty pageant maybe badass if you were born a man as it is the ultimate test of whether you ‘pass.’

But theres nothing badass about entering a beauty pageant if you are born a woman. 

Turning up to protest a beauty pageant with a sheep in a miss world sash as occurred in 1968, now that’s badass.  

 if the daily mail are questioning how progressive your politics even if they are promoting them then that is a serious signal you should be doing the same.

This hostile media coverage, Molly, where is it? If its not in the Mail. Its clearly not in the Independent either because yours is the second pro trans article published this week. 

So thats the title of the article dealt debunked.  

Lets have a look at what Molly wants us to hear about her brilliant relationship with her trans kid.

‘In the same way that any parent can have a shy child, a left-handed child, or a child who grows up to be gay, any parent can have a child who is transgender -like my son.’

Firstly using an assumptive tone and grammar does not make something true even if it makes it seem that way. You can tell this woman is a lawyer. She lies for a living.

Secondly, shyness in children is not like being gay or left handed because shyness is the result of authoritarian or overprotective parenting.

 This is what causes kids to be shy. Overbearing parenting. It’s nothing like being left handed. Historically thats to do with being in league with the devil. 

As a left handed, shy, trans identifying kid, in my experience shyness is like being transgender because it is the result of (unintentionally) bad parenting. 

I say that because it is important to understand this if we actually want to help kids that identity as trans rather than causing them more stress. 

Its not to blame the parents.  No one means to fuck their kid up, parenting is hard but lets work towards reading this trend of trying to unfuck your kid by fucking them up more 

Identity can be very complicated for some people. I was one of those people. However luckily for me I did alot of growing up before the internet and in a time when people still lived in the real world. 

 As a point of interest and it should be of interest to people who identify as trans or want to be allies or whatever much of this discovery happened whilst living outside mainstream society in, lets call it an anarchist communal utopia because it was. We set it up ourselves, we didn’t ask permission. No ones parents were involved. 

It was a squat in East London on a road called Sutton St and it earnt itself the affectionate nickname of “Suttongrad” because it had huge gates and was full of left wing political types. It was the best place I ever lived and probably will ever live again.

Anarchist Eutopia. The ADM in Amsterdam. No pictures of our squat in London. It and everything that went on it existed thankfully 2003-2009 BC. Befor camera phones.

During my time there I read a lot and it was a safe space to explore who I was in relation to all the new ideas I found. Feminism, jungian psychoanalysis, anarchism and queer politics. This was a period of ten years where I had the luxury of stripping off all the ideas I’d been given about who I was and figuring out what was actually underneath all that. 

That why I’m not trans any more because I really explored what that constructed identity meant. In theory and in practice and looking at it and myself through multiple ideological filters.  

Now I’m not suggesting everyone should move to a derelict bin yard in Shadwell to find themselves. Its not practical but the carbon foot print is way less than flying to India and its cheaper. However finding yourself whether you do it in India or an abandoned bin yard in East London (and for me it happened in both) or wherever… when you are an adult or legally an adult and figuring out what the fuck that means, you really need to do that away from your parents.

However Molly writes…

‘I support my child to live as himself. I, and many other parents of trans children, know that to squash our children into a mould that does not fit, to force them into an exhausting, endless, performance of “normal” 

“Normal.” 

What does normal mean and what is this “new normal” you’re trying to fit your kid into like its last years school uniform. Transgenderism seems to have become just another acceptable “alternative” but state sanctioned identity to shoe horn your weird kid into so they stop looking so weird.  

Molly even says the parents have a support group 

What kid of burgeoning human rights group has a support group for parents. Historically none. Did gay rights and womens rights and black rights get mollycoddled by the state when they were in their infancy? No. And thats what gave them character. Their rebelliousness and their independent spirit. Thats what made them winners. Not victims. 

In the same way as human rights movememets need to find their feet away from the mainstream culture 

 a child needs to find their authentic self away from well meaning parents.

From reading Molly’s article it seems parents are presenting their kids with ‘transgender identity’  like its something they ordered from a catalogue shop. ‘I’ve got you this… its transgender identity. Try it on. Oh it looks good on you and its so on trend right now… Just wait till you go to school and show all the other children how special you are. They’ll all be wanting one of these special identities for themselves.’  

I know old people always say this but trans kids today they don’t know they’re born. 

When I was a kid there was nothing like that. No support groups for parents, support groups in schools, charities and helplines. Its almost like someone has an agenda to make kids trans. 

I’m vey glad when I was a trans identifying kid there was nothing like that. Thank fuck. I just had to get on with being a weirdo. I’m still a weirdo but thankfully no well meaning people decided I was actually a boy trapped in a girls body. 

And if I’d dared to ask my mother for a sex change!  I would have been told we couldn’t afford it.

 ‘You’ll have to make do with the body you’ve got’. My mother would have said. 

 The same thing that parents in the old, old days used to say to kids complaining about their dinner. ‘Thats the only dinner there is… theres children in Africa that don’t have any dinner at all….’

 My mum never said this but she would have done if she’d thought of it. 

‘You don’t like your body? Theres children starving to death in Africa that would give anything to be born in that body. Now go to your room and stay there until you’ve learnt to appreciate the body you’ve got. ‘ 

A sex change is still on the list of things that Santa never brought me along with a BMX and Nike Trainers.  I’m still waiting. Although I’ve grown out of wanting the sex change but the trainers and the bike would still still be much appreciated. 

Me. thinking. About myself and my gender. 🥱

Why our shitty opinions will kill us all…

number 427… unmasking the Anti maskers-‘protest group’ StandUpX

Truthing the ‘Truthers’

Once upon a time, a long time ago, I used to like conspiracy theories. Mainly as entertainment because even the mostly shoddily produced youtube conspiracy video is entertaining compared to most of what is on Netflix.

I used to like conspiracy theories before a lot of people started using their unverified, illogical world view they peddle as their primary analysis of what is happening in the world. Rather than something to discuss instead of what happened in Eastenders.

A case in point. These guys… StandupX

Not sure if the grammar is intended to make it look like the protesters were ‘doing some shouting’ on megaphones but ‘some shouting’ is what they were essentially doing. Thankfully the megaphone in front of the mouth might have limited the spread of any virus coming out of it even if amplified the equally infectious, toxic noises.

Proving the adage ‘Those that know the least know ‘StandUpX’. The know the least and they know it the loudest as they have megaphones.

No idea what the X is for but it’s possibly the cross that people scrawl when they are illiterate and can’t even write their own name.

Anti maskers are the people who need to cover their mouths the most or have their mouths covered for them so they don’t infect everyone else with their toxic stupidity and dangerous, ill informed ideas.

StandUpX.. Their mission to add random capitalisation to sentences. For No Reason.

StandUpX…

Like all anti maskers, StandUpX have many fundamental misunderstandings about a lot of things. One of the many misunderstandings they have are about masks. They argue there is no evidence that masks keep you safe. Which is true. Masks don’t keep you safe. Masks keep other people safe. This misunderstanding reveals a truth about the type of politics that underpins this movement. It is a politics of selfishness. It is a nasty, insidious virus as real and toxic as the Corona virus. It is a virus of selfishness and it is currently creating another pandemic. A pandemic of arseholes.

Also masks are not the only item you are told to wear.

Clothes for example. We are told to wear clothes but StandupX aren’t marching starkers through Peckham Morrison’s demanding their human right to be naked because they haven’t noticed that we are told to wear clothes. Because it happened a very long time ago. it didn’t happen suddenly. Like masks.

If Boris Johnson made an announcement that this season everyone has to wear wide belled sleeves then there would probably be insurrection. But when a women’s magazine tells people to do that everyone willingly complies. They don’t march through shopping centres protesting that the this fashion impedes their human rights to wear whatever they like without incurring an arbitrary social judgement.

Because people are overtly told by the government to wear masks they think it’s a human rights violation but if masks were a new fashion then wouldn’t be marching in Morrison’s to protest them.

They’d be marching down to Primark to pick up a six pack. They’d be masking up before you could say ‘Wake up sheeple ‘ through a megaphone at the frightened pensioners of Peckham.

Unfortunately many of the people who are ‘anti mask’ don’t understand that. That is because they don’t understand a lot. They don’t have an analysis of capitalism, they don’t understand how advertising is a form of capitalist propaganda as is fashion.

They just know the government is lying and they don’t understand what the fuck is going and unfortunately conspiracy theories give them an answer. No matter how crazy that answer is.

Only Fools and Hearses.

Interesting acronym FOFFORFOF. Sounds like the burbling of someone that is drowning in their own lungfluid. I’m sure that’s not intentional 😷

A survey carried out for Euro News and shown below confirms what most people know already. Anti maskers are more prone to believing conspiracy theories. For instance, 90% of people polled believe that the French Minister for Health is in league with pharmaceutical industries and intends to hide the toxicity of any vaccine discovered from the population. That is compared to 43% for the overall population. Who believe that to be the case. Which is still a very high proportion.

Also “anti-maskers” favour the Internet as a means to be informed (78%) while almost half of the overall population choose television (47%).

This clearly shows that although slagging off ‘Anti maskers is a fun and righteous pastime it is the government who is really to blame and it is the government who should be ultimately held accountable. The anti maskers should just be told to cover their mouths and shut up.

The government has caused this ‘anti mask’ mess. It has occurred because people don’t trust the government. Which is deeply problematic for many reasons and one of those is that the response to the pandemic is predicted on trust.

People are being asked to trust a government they don’t trust to make massive changes to their lifestyle. On the basis of a threat from an invisible global enemy.

Governments need to start telling the truth because otherwise why should people trust them. If this situation is to be anything beyond a total shitshow it needs to be a wake up call to governments. If they don’t change their ways then people will change those ways for them.

Which I have no issue with so long as that is a positive and well intentioned shift towards a fair and well balanced society full of people who act benevolently towards each other other.

Which it won’t be. At this rate and current velocity we are hurtling towards a fascist intervention.

I don’t think this current policy in Corona virus is making people feel Covid secure or any type of secure. But this guy….

It also needs to be a wake up call to everyone else that they need to get more involved in politics. To engage with and change the narrative

It is time to speak out now. Challenge the fascists, the anti maskers and the government and be the change you want to see.

Otherwise other less well meaning people will be that change for you.

Wake up Sheeples

Cynthia Nixon’s criticism of JK Rowling. A takedown.

Why our shitty opinions will kill us all. Number 426. Cynthia Nixon from Sex in the city does ‘feminism’

Awful politics is so on trend right now.

If Cosmo did a whats ‘hot and what’s not’ of shitty political trends ‘bad feminism’ would be one of those trends and Cynthia Nixon would be this weeks poster girl.

Actresses like popstars are known for two things. Looking great but having terrible opinions. These opinions are usually well intentioned but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and Cynthia Nixon is one of those people out laying the tarmac.

The headline of her recent contribution to ‘feminist criticism’ in the independent

‘I know JK Rowling feels she’s standing up for feminism, but I don’t get it’

The link to the article is here.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/cynthia-nixon-interview-ratched-netflix-sex-and-city-jk-rowling-harry-potter-mayor-b419651.html%3famp

So let’s deconstruct this. Cynthia the reason you don’t get this is because… you’re not really a feminist.

You appeared sex and the city. A show about women for whom feminism meant buying their own shoes rather than getting a man to do it. But that’s not really feminism. Objectifying yourself is not feminism even though we’re told it is.

You’re the sort of people who says they’re a feminist over brunch and then in the next breath discuss prada handbags and how your ex husbands is appealing against how much alimony he is paying you. You’re not a feminist.

If you don’t understand why jk rolling is standing up for women with her current stance on what it is to be a woman then you’re not a proper feminist.

I know you’re an actress and pretending to be things is your job but stop pretending to be a feminist. Get out of the debate so proper feminists can have a voice and listen to them you might learn something.

Another reason Cynthia doesn’t want to ‘’get this’ is because she is invested in not ‘getting it’

Cynthia has a kid that identifies as transgender.

Cynthia spends the article criticising JK Rowling and saying she’s stolen her 23 year old son Samuels childhood because so much of it was tied up in Harry Potter and they were a Harry Potter family.

They were a ‘Harry Potter family’

There are so many reasons this woman isn’t going to get what JK Rowling is saying when she says men can’t be women and she isn’t going to tell us honestly why this is and the journalist from the ‘Independent’ isn’t going to make any effort to find out.

In my experience as a trans kid narc parents cause dysphoria. That’s all I’m saying.

This awful opinion piece that self identifies as journalism witters on citing Nixon’s alleged credentials for being a feminist ‘expert’

In February, reports that Nixon fronted a ‘feminist’ viral video for a US ‘feminist’ magazine – Girls. Girls. Girls…

Firstly just fuck right off. And secondly this magazine is called ‘Girls. Girls. Girls.’ Unless it’s actually for girls; prepubescent female children, then this isn’t an ok line feminist magazine. It’s an online magazine that self identifies as feminist.

The use of the term girls to describe women is is pejorative and disempowering. It’s not something actual feminists do.

infantilising yourself to appeal to men is not feminist. Even if you choose to do it. It’s ticking the patriarchies balls and if you you want to do that tickle away. But don’t call it feminism.

The article continues as Cynthia flails about struggling to validate her bad politics by discussing her role as the over bearing nurse ratchet in

one flew over the cuckoos nest.

In Cynthias words.

“ The underlying story in One Flew is that here’s a woman who has power over all of these men who are in trouble, and rather than treating them with empathy, she destroys them. It’s hard to remove people’s genders in that plot,”

What the fuck is she talking about here?

Is she trying to draw a clumsy parallel between nurse ratchet and jk Rowling.

It’s clear that Cynthia Nixon is an actress and just used to saying other people’s because she’s clearly not a writer. This parallel is appalling . Jk is the nurse and the teens kids are the patients.

Also given that her son that is trans identified is she saying he is like a patient in a mental hospital. If that’s the case, then he needs help and in my experience as a kid who identified as trans getting away from your over bearing narc parent is probably one of the first things to do.

Further to this she gets tripped up by not understanding what gender is. She’s not not saying anything with the statement

‘it’s impossible to remove people’s genders in that plot’

What does she mean? Why would you remove people’s genders from the plot and why has the Independent published this barely coherent drivel self identifying as quality journalism.

No wonder the paper had no paywall. Who would pay to read this rubbish?

What does she mean by ‘it’s is impossible to remove people’s genders from he plot’ Is she saying that being abusive towards men is integral to being a woman. Or is she talking about herself and her relationship to her son?

Who knows . She clearly doesn’t but maybe what we learn from this paragraph is that you cannot remove gender from the plot of one flew over the cuckoos nest. Which is a totally meaningless statement.

Especially as you could. You could invert the sexes of the characters so the patients were women and the nurse was a man. And you’d have a model of patriarchy.

It’s interesting that Nixon can’t vision that. but that’s why she’s an actress and not a screen writer and should stick to what she knows best. Which is saying other people’s lines. And not trying to come up with any of her own. Harsh but true. Just like the assessment that she’s not actually a feminist.

Why our shitty opinions about gender are actually killing people

We all know from our personal interactions and the current spike in covid conspiracy crap how stubborn people can be, especially when it comes to being wrong.

So, It shouldn’t surprise anyone that just like an alarming number of people have got the whole Covid 19 thing wrong

They have done exactly the same thing with gender !

Gender!

Trending like a hashtag that’s been allowed to trend on twitter yet no one seems to even know what it is.

Firstly my credentials for being a gender ‘expert.’

I used to identify as trans as a kid. Or Tomboy as it was called, then like the kid in Enid Blyton; George The Tomboy. George the girl with short hair who liked ginger beer and adventures was my chosen private role model until a well meaning family friend who was worried about me not having any positive role models showed me the rocky horror picture show. When I was nine years old. Which was very interesting to me as a small child especially as it’s was rated 15 and something I shouldn’t be watching.

As far as role models were concerned I think I preferred Eddie as he was a proper boy and not Dr Frankenfurter because he worse dresses.

I don’t know how useful it was in making me feel accepted by the world but it did give me a life long appreciation for the film and an appreciation of men in stiletto heels and fishnet tights.

People have always been a bit confused by gender non conforming children. Although possibly not as confused as the children themselves who find themselves constantly at war with a world that doesn’t just accept them as they are.

I have lived with this my whole life.

I still deal with it. At the hairdressers recently I had to explain why I have no interest in my beautiful hair. I’m a little old to still identify as a tomboy and also I’ve learnt not to give a fuck so I explained I was a Tomman. The grown up version of a Tomman. It’s the hairdresser. They don’t need a radical feminist analysis of the construct of being women and how it has nothing to do with an interest in hair and make up.

This disconnect between the expectation of what your gender means to you and your biological sex. I think it’s called Dysphoria.

When societies opinion of what you should be conflicts with who you.

I think the dictionary definition differs from mine but that’s my understanding of it and I’m sticking to it. It keeps me safe from all the looneys who want me to conform to what they think a woman should be and will even crowdfund for a surgical procedure to get me to fit into it.

Well meaning people inflict their misunderstanding of gender on you you before you leave the womb.

There are gender reveal parties Where a cake is cut with pink or blue smarties inside revealing the gender of the child.

Really it should be called sex reveal party but if you called it that the only people attending would be social services.

The word presents incorrectly. The revelation of gender expresses some arbitrary assumption regarding how the child will be explained to the world.

Why objectifiy children like this?

The dynamic is wrong

It is not for children to be explained to the the world maybe it is the world that needs to explain itself to the child

Why do people need a babies ‘gender’ revealed anyway, aside from that being an excuse for a party.

If you want an excuse for a party, what about just celebrating the baby and it’s unknown potential?

Although if the urge to limit the foetuses potential is really ingrained, why not have a party where you divine what job the child will have when they grow up. reveal that. That’s just as meaningful as revealing their ‘gender’ and also gives offers all the same possibilities for the child to disappoint.

Speaking as one of these children. One who constantly disappointed by cutting my pretty ringlets off with scissors, refusing to wear the pretty dresses my grandmother had lovingly sewn and looking terminally unimpressed if anyone said I was pretty, people should leave children and gender non conforming children to just do their thing.

It is the assumption that they have ‘a problem that needs to be solved’ that is the problem.

In my experience, as well meaning as these assumptions it is these assumptions themselves that cause the dysphoria. ThT cause the suicides.

When I was a gender non conforming child. I used to play with he man and star wars figures rather than barbies.

Deluded ‘charities’ like Mermaids and the entire destructive regressive ideology that they promote would say this is a sign I was a boy trapped in a girls body.

In my understanding and hindsight as an adult it was nothing to to do with that

It was to do with my alpha tendencies. Battling, playing dominance games was always a more interesting game than playing house with barbie in her multiple outfits

Also I had a crush on skelator.

That still reflects in my dating

Alpha male sociopaths. I love them and like skelator. I want to change them… into one of barbies little dresses.

I’m often accused of emasculating men. Maybe I’m just dumping the unwanted femininity on them. They love it so much because it reinforces their frankly fragile masculinity. They can have it.

Also, their reaction when you suggest it is priceless.

Fragile masculinity is a result of crappy gender norms too.

Did you know Raul Moat used to put on a dress to do the washing up. He’s a classic example of a man that really bottled up his feelings until they exploded in a destructive way. This gendering of emotion. The disconnect of men from their emotions . It’s why male suicide rates are high. It’s why women are often expected to do all the emotional work in a relationship. It kills women. Mainly it’s the men that kill the women because they can’t deal with their emotions. It’s Gender codependency. Having no true understanding of gender. It causes suicides. it makes everyone unhappy. It represses our authentic selves.

It means gender non conforming kids end up killing themselves because they just want to be accepted.

Stop being part of the problem. Let’s move beyond gender.

Why our shitty opinions will kill us, if we let them!

 

IMG_1141

Woah the matrix, man… Seriously guys If you want to understand reality don’t do while on pills. You’ll get the wrong idea.

 

Free speech is a great idea, like many great ideas, in theory. In praxis it is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.  You know the one and if you don’t, it’s available here….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

If you can’t be bothered to check the link I’ll recap… The blind men. They each have hold of a different part of an elephant and then they argue with each other. Each convinced their equally distorted view of what an elephant is, is correct. Rather than listen to each other and come to a reasoned, sane collective conclusion. They just want to be right.

And that is what is missing from the concept of free speech. Free listening.

Free speech or screech does not have value in itself. It needs free listening in order to give it any value. Otherwise it’s just screeching.

Free screech without free active listening and the freedom to then respond is just promoting your right to voice your opinion no matter how deluded it is. The right to screech freely without the active listening part is just loving the sound of your own voice and thinking everyone else should love it too.

Without the Free listening aspect the right to screech freely is just that. Your right to screech and force everyone to listen to you. Screeching.

Or… and this is a metaphorical hand break turn again. Be ready.

Free speech without Free listening is just you forcing your priapic, swollen opinion down someone’s throat until they gag on it, without their consent.

If someone wants you to throat fuck them with your opinion that’s up to them and if that’s your fetish then fine but these games work better with nice safe boundaries and most importantly with consent.

Otherwise free speeching, without gaining proper intellectual consent from the people listening. It’s little bit… ideologically rapey.

So, to metaphorically hand-break turn again…

Back to ‘The parable of the elephant 2020 redux’

After the initial arguments are over one of the blind men is enjoying the sound of his own voice so much he becomes evangelical about converting everyone in the world to his (mis)understanding of what an elephant is.

He sets up a youtube channel, hosts webinars and ruthlessly moderates forums based on converting others to his truth about what an elephant is. Some people, who have actually seen an elephant offer to pay for corrective eye surgery the man can see for himself but the man is so invested and intoxicated by the power of his position he commands his acolytes to destroy the disbelievers. And all the elephants in the world. And have their images erased from history. And then he kills them too. And everyone else. So no one will challenge him about it ever again.

That is an appropriate metaphor for the paradox of the ‘free speech movement’ which really needs the tagline

Free speech

‘The freedom to say what you like as long as you agree with me ‘

Another criticism of the free screech movement is that those people who espouse the virtues of screeching freely seldom seem to have opinions worth screeching about, notwithstanding misunderstanding what an elephant is. That’s quite interesting compared to most of the topics they screech about.

Like not wearing wearing masks during a global pandemic. For some poorly reasoned reason. WTF is that about.

Ironically, it is these people, who promote free speech and then use it to talk bollocks are the people who really need to cover their mouths and stop infecting everyone with their virus. The virus of toxic stupidity, Chronic Arseholitus or, to give it its proper Latin name, Fascism!

Fascism! The other real virus. History tells us we need to quarantine it and limit the spread or suffer a pandemic far worse than Corona.

Fascism was the reason the ‘no platform’ policy was invented after world war two and it’s interesting that those people arguing for free speech thing seem to be of a similar political persuasion to those that the original no platform policy set out to stifle.

The alternative right or alt right are just one of a new generation of fascists.

The 2020 upgrade. fascism rebranded and rejackbooted. From the 1920s to the 2020. From the third reich to the Alt reich.

Gone are the Aryan Opera Singers and swastika flags. Gone are the flotilla of gold gondolas and grandiosity. Gone are all the things that casually announced  Joseph Goebbels’, (Hitler’s chief propagandists) arrival at the Venice film festival in 1936

These things a gone. The garish pomposity and ceremonies are gone but replaced. Instead of mass rallies, modern fascists convene in Internet forums. The grandiose styling and stars of the first wave have been replaced by Pepe memes and right wing you tubers promoting conspiracy theories.

Same shit different deities.

mememagic

Don’t know the theory of how Donald Trump was meme magic’d into the whitehouse? Um. suggest you google it…

Fascism. has always been a triumph of style over content. For all the fanfares and pomposity it is ultimately a very drab idea. Like most overtly showy things it is ultimately very insubstantial.

It is a peculiarly jealousy ideology predicated on hating things and proving how great it is by destroying everything else. It is an insecure ideology that needs a hug but while you’re doing that it will steal your wallet and push you in front of a bus. That aspect and others mean fascism and fascists cannot be debated. They do not use logic and reason and reasoned debate needs reason. So there can be no debate.

As Buenaventura Durruti, an actual anti-fascist who led an army against Fascists because their petty ideology got out of hand stated, from first hand experience. ‘Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be smashed.’ Best hurt someone’s feelings now by telling them what you think of their shitty ideas now then they murder you and your entire family later.

Iar1lDe

fascism. not to be debated.

Yale philosopher and fascist observer Jason Stanley noted that Fascist politics get people to disassociate from reality. In a recent interview with Vox magazine he stated ‘you get people to sign on to this fantasy version of reality, usually a nationalist narrative about the decline of the country and the need for a strong leader to return it to greatness. These narratives often have a supernatural aspect and once people have brought into that from then on their anchor isn’t the world around them — it’s the cult.

And Trump is that cult.

Trump is a cult. A personality cult. The fact that his voter base still reverse him as infallible and even heroic despite all the evidence to the contrary is testimony to to that. Trump is a cult. An alt right cult. A classic fascist cult with esoteric conspiracy theories, meme magic and phallocentric idolisation. Trump is a dangerous cult. That has the fascist pathology Stanley describes in his book.

The internet is full of cults unfortunately and these cults exist on the left and right of the political spectrum.

Hannah Arendt,  in her definitive work  ‘The origins of totalitarianism’ explores the genus of these. Arendt wrote this book in 1951 and it was based on her direct experience of unchecked authoritarianism in both Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.

Arendt was a political scientist and Jewish refugee who fled Nazi persecution and wrote a book on the subject using her skill set and experiences.

They’re back!

In her book Arendt discusses the use of front organizations and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world. A final section added to the second edition of the book in 1958 suggests that individual isolation and loneliness are preconditions for totalitarian domination.

Worryingly people were lonely before lockdown. This precondition might be one of the explanation why these ideas are gaining traction in the competent climate.

However these authoritarian traits have been around for a while and abound on both sides of the ‘pop political divide’

In the blue corner or red corner, depending on what side of the pond you’re standing on are the alt right who are in the main probably unaware of the irony of fascists demanding free speech. (It is ‘Murica after all, they’ve never really got irony) Although because ‘the Internet’ those ideas are over here now.

….And in the red corner the woke stasi or the side that currently self identifies as left.

Neither are a particularly attractive proposition. Stalinism or fascism. Pick your flavour of authoritarianism…. It’s like the Second World War and the Cold War never happened.

One of the problems with these ‘sides’ apart from from the fascism is that neither of these totalitarian titans currently battling for ideological dominance in the culture war are remotely interested truth. They are just blind men fighting over what they think an elephant is and they will prove that they are right even if it takes using lethal force and they will kill us all if necessary.

I know. I don’t use lethal force for arguments either. I use rationalism and logic. I find that, in the right hands those are pretty damn lethal weapons. Maybe why these authoritarian types respond to them with passive aggressive or literal violence.

Truth is required to act freely. Freedom requires knowledge, and in order to act freely in the world, you need to exist in the world not some randomly constructed world created by some weird ideas you picked up somewhere. freedom requires truth.

These authoritarian ideologies push a false reality on you because they are promising a false freedom.

Both of these ideological sides allegedly touting freedom are really just leading you into a psychological bear trap.

Or rabbit hole filled with with intellectual punji spikes and psychic trip wires.

And once you willingly enter this space your confirmation bias keeps you there until the cognitive dissonance kicks in and then bars go up , your trapped by the workings of your own mind. By the psychic punji sticks and trapped , by an ideology, ironically that you thought was offering you freedom but was actually the complete opposite.

So you end up snared by your belief system, BS or bullshit As counter cultural analyst Robert Anton Wilson called it. Or rabbit hole. Beware the Alt right rabbit…

curiouserlarge.jpg

 

As Arendt noted in her book on totalitarianism it’s not just the right that are prone to these tendencies. The left is at it as well.

Bleugh. Let’s avoid all that and come sit by me in my this nice lefty libertarian whilst its still and sanguine still, basecamp.

Let’s toast marshmallows over the smouldering embers of whats left of western civilisation and observe and quietly the two sides in the culture war and the political landscape that is their territory.  As they scrap pointlessly for cultural dominance like two blind people arguing about an elephant.

Let’s inspect the territory. To one side. The terrain of the liberal left. The imposing mole hill of moral high ground. The left will make it into something more though. They always do. And there in the distance is the presently snowflake less cap of peak idiot. The current basecamp of the alt right although the left are currently eying it up as they persist in their ultimately pointless territorial ambition. Colonialism, to the left is something that is bad if it is a actioned by an imperialist nation in the dim distant past. The left, or those that currently identify as left are mainly oblivious to those colonial trends within their own discourse. They seek to dominate it.

It is in part this cultural dominance that the alt right is railing against with the free screeching. It is in part a response to lefts passive aggressive linguistic and cultural colonialism.

 The left. What happened?

whathappened

Above the miners strike and below a ‘blm demo’ -the minors strike. Cops are clearly present in both images

 

George Orwell. The original rich kid who slummed it with the proles on his gap yah so he could write a book about it was observed by an affectionate but cynical acquaintance. “Dearest George” she noted wryly “Couldn’t sneeze without sermonising on the working conditions in a handkerchief  factory.

 

George Orwell is known as astute impassioned observer of the political left although very often his observations have led him to be ostracised by members of his own team. His crime. Telling the truth. This classic self-defeating leftist tendency  is unfortunately very much alive and well today.  It was Homage to Catalonia, Orwell’s eye witness account of the Spanish Civil War that made Orwell a pariah on the left. No one wanted to hear his criticisms of the Soviet Union which history has proven to be well founded. According to Quillete.com and multiple other reputable sources.

 

“Over May and June 1937, the POUM  (The workers party of Marxist Unification, who Orwell had fought with against Franco’s fascists) were brutally suppressed by the Soviet-backed Communists. Orwell saw his friends and comrades arrested, and in some cases shot. Upon his return to Britain, he found the British Communist Party resolute in its line that the POUM was a fascist party. Admitting that there could be a difference of opinion among left-wing groups with respect to the Soviet Union, was unacceptable. And when Orwell published his own account of the events in Spain, Homage to Catalonia few were interested in reading it.”

There has been an appalling tendency in the liberal left to lean towards intellectualism divorced from reality.

Again, to quote Orwell
“It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than stealing from a poor box”

This gentrification of the left, is at fault here. Its transformation from engine for radical change to  intellectual playground of the middle classes who prefer ideological purity to getting their hands dirty with the grubby business of improving material conditions for the working class.

This tendency might explain why the left has managed to become so embroiled with identity politics. An ideology that is so full of red flags that it understandable it may have been confused with an issue that should be so totally centred in left wing thought. Identity politics. Postmodernism individualism, pissing off feminists. So many red flags but not the sort usually associated with authentic leftwing politics. How come left wing politics has centred something that focuses on individualism as a route to happiness anyway. What happened to the happiness of the proletariat and the material conditions of that class.

politicalcompass

Role models for men. Current political alignment.

The postmodern and queer theory that underpin identity politics is the antithesis to Marxist materialist truth but somehow postmodernism is now self-identifying as authentic left wing thought and everyone is agreeing because why? They don’t want to hurt its feelings? Fuck sake somebody tell it and it can accept itself and go about its business.

Why are the left obsessed with arguing that men can become women and what does that have to do with class politics; the real concern of left-wing politics. Can the proletariat now self-identify as the bourgeoise ? Although the self-identification of many traditional working-class labour voters as Tories may attest that this is now a possibility.

And also, whats happened to all the working class people. They seem to be abandoning the left in droves. Which is a trendy new car manufactured in the Ford plant in China.

Have they fucked off to join the Tories because they’re fed up of listening to the students talking about gender?

Maybe the left didn’t want to hear Orwell when he pointed out that the Soviet Union had betrayed the revolution because they gave zero fucks about the revolution because actual revolution was a distraction from what they really wanted to do. Which is chatter about it.

To clarify. It is not identity politics that is truly the issue. It is the cancel culture, the war on women, the inability to engage in meaningful dialogue and the urge to destroy anyone who disagrees with you. These are the issues and these are the very same issues that Orwell warned about in his observations of soviet style authoritarianism. Left wing fascism.

I was a ‘pioneer’ of queer praxis in the early 2000’s but back in my day it was about asking questions and not being totally certain you had the answer. Asking questions is the fun part. Once you know, then the game is over. Also if you’re too certain especially in your twenties that you know who you are then you’re probably wrong. In my experience as someone that’s identified as more genders and sexualities than some of these kids have had hot dinners. The pronouns don’t matter. No ones ever going to understand who you are and that ok even if they pronounce your pronouns correctly. Understanding who you are is your job and if someone tells you a boob job is going to help with this process is probably wrong and has another agenda beyond promoting your self actualisation and acceptance.

As Arendt states; fascists are never content to merely lie; they must transform their lie into a new reality, and persuade people to believe in the unreality they’ve created.

And once you do that Arendt observes ‘You can convince them to do anything.”

To return briefly to parable of the blind men and the elephant. Everyone is convinced they know what they’re talking about and convincing everyone else of this fact and they’re blind so they haven’t noticed the other elephant in the room. A really nasty shift towards Totalitarianism.

 

giphy-1

Heres hoping… for a zombie apocalypse to save us from ourselves. Unfortunately zombies like brains and there aren’t many of those about… currently so build up your brain matter. If not for the good of humanity then do it for the zombies. They’ll need something to munch during the 2020 season finale; ‘Covid zombie holocaust’.

 

Rights of the living dead

A vampire who have been known for decades as ‘the living dead’ will be recognised as ‘living’ in new government guidelines set out today.

We spoke to Count Orlek Nosferatu, a former vampire who has been involved, for several centuries in the campaign for ‘Rights of the living dead’

Dead rights activist Orlek explained.

‘Although I have been certified as dead for several centuries I do not feel dead, so I am definitely alive.

I identify as a living person trapped in the body of someone who been certified as dead.’

A vocal opponent of ‘living only’ spaces, the count argued that public perception of him as ‘undead’ shouldn’t restrict him accessing virgins bedrooms.

He argues rules barring him from crossing thresholds without permission should be abolished, as they are Transylvanian exclusionary.

‘Even though I have been certified as clinically dead I assure you I am very much alive. People say ‘how can I say I’m alive when I don’t have a heartbeat?’ But that’s insensitive. Why should having a heart beat be a defining factor in being alive.

Concerns have been raised by human rights groups that Orlek may have sinister motives for ‘pretending to be alive’

We spoke with Alice Van Helsing who says her experience of vampire hunting has led to her radical views on who can identify alive. She stated

‘Providing The Count with easy access to spaces frequented by the living will just make it easier for him to feed on us.

The law is there to protect vunerable people against predators like Noseferatu and it should remain.

People think crosses and rosary beads will protect them but why take the additional risk?

You don’t let your kids play out in the street but you think a vampire should have acesss to virgins bedrooms. Get a grip’

The Count dismissed these concerns as ‘Pure prejudice and paranoia’.

He explained. ‘People say we can be cured by a priest and that we are unatural…

Those same arguments about the dead being allowed to identify as living was made about homosexuality being acceptable in the 60’s. It’s the same regressive prejudice!

Like I’m pretending to be alive just I so can get access to spaces where living people are so I can feed on them!

What a ridiculous idea!

If I wanted to, I could turn into a bat and fly into your bedroom and sink my fangs into your delicious soft neck.

Which course I would never do because I’m definitely not a vampire and if you think I would you’re being phobic, against people from Transylvania’

If you want to donate to help The Count’s cause, there is a crowdfunder available @ crowdfunder.com/rightsofthelivingdead

Communique from the campaign for responsible thinking

What if Orwell didn’t write a novel.

What if it was a manual?

What if sinister and totalitarian governments took Orwell’s research into totalitarian regimes and thought…

This looks like a great blueprint for running a society.

Would it be possible for the Orwell estate to sue for infringement of copyright?

Unlike animal farm which is about the flaws inherent in communism, 1984 was intended as a warning about tendencies within regimes that self-identify as liberal and democratic.

The novel as a whole has managed to maintain a trajectory of increasing and terrifying relevance to this day although its fundamental premise was outmoded soon after first publication. Orwell hypothesised that the world would divide into three totalitarian rigidly hierarchical superstrates. It didn’t. It split into two with fascism in ‘communist’ and capitalist.

This binary arrangement has been constantly refracted throughout the microcosm and macrocosm of the political spectrum. In party politics we have reduced to a two-party system and on social media the only agreement seems to be that there are only two sides to an argument. The one you’re on and the one that is wrong.

Everywhere we exist in a world of false binaries, except the world of gender politics where gender is embraced as the mercurial and capricious spectrum that it is. But that is as far as the debate goes. No binaries exist beyond that of gender. In the valid and nuanced discussions around gender, sexuality and their intersections. You either agree or you are wrong. No space for mercurial and capricious spectrums when it comes to right or wrong. Submit or face the fearsome wrath of the twitterati.

As an adult woman who has lived experience and experimentation with identification as trans, being bisexual, and experimenting with queer politics for many years. (I was a pansexual, polyamorous stripper way before it was cool ) I have been horrified to watch how something that should in my experience be a gateway to personal liberation, exploration and self-actualisation has become the opposite. A bigoted authoritarian cult.

How has this happened. What happened to the ideals of love and tolerance that were hallmarks of the movement I knew in the early 2000s. They seem to have been erased and replaced with bigotry and intolerance. How has this happened?

To intentionally misquote Orwell

“War is Peace, Slavery is Liberty, Men are women”

For a movement promoting love and liberation it seems to have a quality which is the opposite. Which strikes me, as a genuine libertarian revolutionary as Orwellian. Why are people demanding that everyone adopts their pronouns? Why does it matter? I know fashions change and older people don’t get younger people. But it wasn’t like that when I was a non-binary trans identifying person of colour. If people couldn’t figure out my gender I found it funny. I wouldn’t have taken them to court over it. Maybe I’m old and I just don’t get it but, when I was a kid it wasn’t an issue. People getting confused about what sex I identified as was funny

Once a guy asked me if I was a boy or a girl. His mate told him I was a girl and then the guy said. ‘Oh.. Have you got a boyfriend’ I always wondered at what point he started fancying me? Was it before it was socially acceptable for him to say so?

For me, the humour generated by the trickster element of having a different gender presentation to the one people associate with your biological sex was an important part of the whole ‘queering reality’ experience. What happened to that aspect?

What happened to the sexual liberation movement while I was off adulting? What happened to the warmth and the humour and the just thick enough skin to deal with people not getting you?

Did Orwell call it or did he unintentionally write a fucking manual on population control?

Did all those spy cops that have been documented as infiltrating the anarchy punk, protest scene in the 2000’s pass on information to some shady government body. They must have been doing something there aside from attending parties and having relationships and in some cases kids with the people they were spying on. Did they pass on information about the queer scene that was a big part of that movement so it could be neutralised as a radical threat?

When I was a 20 plus year old kid that identified as a genderqueer anarcho punk fresh out of university I had a boyfriend, who was my favourite type of intellectual. The working-class variety. The additional qualification from ‘the school of life’ always gives their intellectualism a wholesome and hearty grounding that is usually missing from the Oxbridge variety.

I wanted to have a discussion about post modernism and he cut me off with ‘ it’s just monkeys walking in mirrors’

I’ve never topped that pithy demolition of post-modern theory. The best I’ve come up with is a take on the infinite monkey theorem.

‘If a monkey hit keys on a typewriter for an infinite it will have typed out the Cambridge companion to postmodernism within a fortnight.’

‘Or post truth is just pound shop postmodernism’

Which is all you really need to know about postmodernism.

Apart from this… Which I found from a cursory google search of post modernism and the CIA. From an article in the Independent. So, it must be true.

The ex boyfriend getting into trouble for not doing what he was told

“The CIA . . . according to a recently declassified research paper . . . read French postmodern theory, concluding that its questioning of the objective basis of reality could be used to undermine the Marxist doctrine of historical and teleological inevitability. Millions of dollars were pumped into front organisations such as magazines, publishing houses and favoured academics, in order to push postmodern ideas and to create a centre left, thus demarcating the outer boundary of respectable ideas – anything beyond which could be denounced as dangerous and radical lunacy. “

Postmodernism. It is the academic equivalent of The Bay of Pigs, the CIA funded invasion planned to overthrow authentic radicalism and dissent.

Postmodernism. Didn’t you always think it was a load of bollocks but we’re afraid to say so. Not only is it bollocks but allegedly CIA funded bollocks and not only that. It is textbook example of Orwellian doublespeak.

Doublespeak. A language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. There are four types of doublespeak; Euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, and inflated language.

Postmodernism encompasses all four.

As does the bastard non binary genderqueer child of postmodernism.

Queer theory.

So, the underlying theory for the current trend in gender and sexual politics has a somewhat unwholesome lineage and the praxis and implications of the theory itself are even more dubious.

This current trend in this politics of alleged radical thought which has evolved from a modality of thinking funded and hot housed

CIA demands of us that we agree Men are women… Are they really?

Or is that another textbook example of doublespeak. Or to be more precise a blackwhitism.

“It is the duty of the good citizen of Oceania to that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”

The glaringly Orwellian current of this ideology continues. once you have accepted this premise then you are told you have to accept that Girls can have penis’ and as a lesbian or a heterosexual man, if you refuse to accept that you are attracted to this so-called girl dick. Then you are at fault. You have committed the ultimate hate crime.

Prejudice.

Really? Is this prejudice? Or are you just being authentic?

You don’t have to force yourself to find things attractive. Sexual liberation is meant to be just that. The liberation to pursue things you find sexy if they exist within a consensual and sane framework… Overriding your own boundaries and forcing yourself to consent to finding things attractive that you don’t find attractive isn’t in my opinion anything to do with a definition of sexual liberation I want to engage with. In my opinion it is the definition of a bit creepy and rapey. The opposite of liberation.

But remember citizen oppression is freedom, hate is love, men are women and in Oceania any deviation from this narrative is a thoughtcrime and you don’t want to be thoughtcrimeful or you will be unpersoned.

Or banned from social media which, these days is pretty much the same thing.

Coresion of sexual desire has been practiced by the state for years to control the individual.

The church, ‘the opium of the people’ according to Karl Marx demonised sexuality in order to sell its superfluous services as absolver of these natural drives.

Infact it has been speculated this division of the psyche into good and bad, was a medieval form of mind control. The original form of divided and conquer.

The state itself has always legislated against sexual freedom to maintain compliance and conformity in its subjects and enslavement of human sexuality has been an aim of advertising since people began to understand the psychology of selling stuff.

Have we now reached a point where we are using the Oceania model where the act of sex is to be stripped of pleasure

The goal of the Party is to wipe out the individual; “There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.”

In 1984 Orwell warns about the future of man who is doomed to lose his humanity without love and loyalty. Sex, and love are the anchors that hold the essence of our shared and common our humanity “Ownlife.”

Much of the current sexual and gender politics seems to be promoting this individualisation and alienation. Polyamory for example. I’ve done that. My assessment is its romantically sloppy or lacking in commitment. Who, in todays busy world can hold down one committed, meaningful relationship, let alone several? Does it promote alienation as connection.

That would be the assessment of myself and several of my polyamorous playmates from my twenties

And sex work. Why is the current trend in gender and sexual politics so desperate to normalise sex work? I’ve been a stripper and a dominatrix. I’m not passing judgement on anyone that does these jobs but my understanding of this type of work is that it is a substitute for authentic connection. These roles increase alienation. Why is the commercialisation of sexuality being centred in a movement that proports to be about liberation?

These ideas claim to be promoting connection but they are promoting the opposite. Rape is consent. Woman have penises. Alienation is Connection.

As I said at the top of this article. Did Orwell write a prophetic novel or did he unintentionally write a manual for totalitarian control? Who knows? Maybe that could be the sequel to 1984,where the author of a book that predicted the Oceania regime sues big brother for copyright infringement and everyone is freed as a result from the corrupt machinations of the totalitarian regime that enslaves them and their desires.

Be part of the resistance whilst there’s still a word for that sort of think! Be thoughtcrimeful while you still can!! Viva!!!

Orwell that ends well. Gender politics and the end of civilisation.

Communique from the campaign for responsible thinking

 

 

What if Orwell didn’t write a novel.

What if it was a manual?

What if sinister and totalitarian governments  took Orwell’s research into totalitarian regimes and thought…

This looks like a great blueprint for running a society.

 

Would it be possible for the Orwell estate to sue for infringement of copyright?

 

         Unlike animal farm which is about the flaws inherent in communism, 1984 was intended as a warning about tendencies within regimes that self-identify as liberal and democratic.

 

The novel as a whole has managed to maintain a trajectory of increasing and terrifying relevance to this day although its fundamental premise was outmoded soon after first publication. Orwell hypothesised that the world would divide into three totalitarian rigidly hierarchical superstrates. It didn’t. It split into two with fascism in  ‘communist’ and capitalist. 

 

This binary arrangement has been constantly refracted throughout the microcosm and macrocosm of the political spectrum. In party politics we have reduced to a two-party system and on social media the only agreement seems to be that there are only two sides to an  argument. The one you’re on and the one that is wrong.  

 

         Everywhere we exist in a world of false binaries, except the world of gender politics where gender is embraced as the mercurial and capricious spectrum that it is. But that is as far as the debate goes. No binaries exist beyond that of gender. In the valid and nuanced discussions around gender, sexuality and their intersections. You either agree or you are wrong. No space for mercurial and capricious spectrums when it comes to right or wrong.  Submit or face the fearsome wrath of the twitterati.  

 

         As an adult woman who has lived experience and experimentation with identification as trans, being bisexual, and experimenting with queer politics for many years. (I was a pansexual, polyamorous stripper way before it was cool ) I have been horrified to watch how something that should in my experience be a gateway to personal liberation, exploration and self-actualisation has become the opposite. A bigoted authoritarian cult.

 

         How has this happened. What happened to the ideals of love and tolerance that were hallmarks of the movement I knew in the early 2000s. They seem to have been erased and replaced with bigotry and intolerance. How has this happened?  

 

To intentionally misquote Orwell

 

“War is Peace, Slavery is Liberty, Men are women”

 

 

 

         For a movement promoting love and liberation it seems to have a quality which is the opposite. Which strikes me, as a genuine libertarian revolutionary as Orwellian. Why are people demanding that everyone adopts their pronouns? Why does it matter? I know fashions change and older people don’t get younger people. But it wasn’t like that when I was a non-binary trans identifying person of colour. If people couldn’t figure out my gender I found it funny. I wouldn’t have taken them to court over it. Maybe I’m old and I just don’t get it but, when I was a kid it wasn’t an issue. People getting confused about what sex I presented as was funny.

Once a guy asked me if I was a boy or a girl. His mate told him I was a girl and then the guy said. ‘Oh.. Have you got a boyfriend’ I always wondered at what point he started fancying me? Was it before it was socially acceptable for him to say so?

 

 

 

What happened to the sexual liberation movement while I was off adulting? What happened to the warmth and the humour and the just thick enough skin to deal with other people not getting it?  

Did Orwell call it or did he unintentionally write a fucking manual on population control? 

Did all those spy cops that have been documented as infiltrating the anarchist punk, protest scene in the 2000’s pass on information to some shady government body.  They must have been doing something there aside from attending parties and having relationships and in some cases kids with the people they were spying on. Did they pass on information about the queer scene that was a big part of that movement so it could be neutralised as a radical threat?

 

 

Non binary older sibling is watching.

 

 

 

When I was a 20 plus year old kid that identified as a genderqueer anarcho punk fresh out of university I had a boyfriend, who was my favourite type of intellectual. The working-class variety. The additional qualification from ‘the school of life’ always gives their intellectualism a wholesome and hearty grounding that is usually missing from the Oxbridge variety.

I wanted to have a discussion about post modernism and he cut me off with ‘ it’s just monkeys walking in mirrors’

I’ve never topped that pithy demolition of post-modern theory. The best I’ve come up with is a take on the infinite monkey theorem.

‘If a monkey hit keys on a typewriter for an infinite it will have typed out the Cambridge companion to postmodernism within a fortnight.’

‘Or post truth is just pound shop postmodernism’

 

Which is all you really need to know about postmodernism.

 

Apart from this… Which I found from a cursory  google search of post modernism and the CIA. From an article in the Independent. So, it must be true.

 

         “The CIA . . . according to a recently declassified research paper . . . read French postmodern theory, concluding that its questioning of the objective basis of reality could be used to undermine the Marxist doctrine of historical and teleological inevitability. Millions of dollars were pumped into front organisations such as magazines, publishing houses and favoured academics, in order to push postmodern ideas and to create a centre left, thus demarcating the outer boundary of respectable ideas – anything beyond which could be denounced as dangerous and radical lunacy. “

 

         Postmodernism. It is the academic equivalent of The Bay of Pigs, the CIA funded invasion planned to overthrow authentic radicalism and dissent. 

Postmodernism. Didn’t you always think it was a load of bollocks but we’re afraid to say so. Not only is it bollocks but allegedly CIA funded bollocks and not only that. It is textbook example of Orwellian doublespeak.

 

Doublespeak. A language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. There are four types of doublespeak; Euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, and inflated language. 

Postmodernism encompasses all four.

As does the bastard non binary genderqueer child of postmodernism.

Queer theory.

 

So, the underlying theory for the current trend in gender and sexual politics has a somewhat unwholesome lineage and the praxis and implications of the theory itself are even more dubious.

 

This current trend in this politics of alleged radical thought which has evolved from a modality of thinking funded and hot housed

 CIA demands of us that we agree Men are women… Are they really?

Or is that another textbook example of doublespeak. Or to be more precise a blackwhitism.

 

“It is the duty of the good citizen of Oceania to that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”

 

         The glaringly Orwellian current of this ideology continues. once you have accepted this premise then you are told you have to accept that Girls can have penis’ and as a lesbian or a heterosexual man, if you refuse to accept that you are attracted to this so-called girl dick. Then you are at fault. You have committed the ultimate hate crime.

Prejudice.

 

Really? Is this prejudice?  Or are you just being authentic?  

You don’t have to force yourself to find things attractive. Sexual liberation is meant to be just that. The liberation to pursue things you find sexy if they exist within a consensual and sane framework… Overriding your own boundaries and forcing  yourself to consent to finding things attractive that you don’t find attractive isn’t  in my opinion anything to do with a definition of sexual liberation I want to engage with. In my opinion it is the definition of a bit creepy and rapey. The opposite of liberation.

 

But remember citizen oppression is freedom, hate is love, men are women and in Oceania any deviation from this narrative is a thoughtcrime and you don’t want to be thoughtcrimeful or you will be unpersoned.

Or banned from social media which, these days is pretty much the same thing.   

 

Coresion of sexual desire has been practiced by the state for years to control the individual.

The church, ‘the opium of the people’ according to Karl Marx demonised sexuality in order to sell its superfluous services as absolver of these natural drives.

Infact it has been speculated this division of the psyche into good and bad, was a medieval form of mind control. The original form of divided and conquer.

The state itself has always legislated against sexual freedom to maintain compliance and conformity in its subjects  and enslavement of human sexuality has been an aim of advertising since people began to understand the psychology of selling stuff. 

 

Have we now reached a point where we are using the Oceania model where the act of sex is to be stripped of pleasure

The goal of the Party is to wipe out the individual; “There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.”

In 1984 Orwell warns about the future of man who is doomed to lose his humanity without love and loyalty. Sex, and love are the anchors that hold the essence of our shared and common our humanity “Ownlife.”

 

Much of the current sexual and gender politics seems to be promoting this individualisation and alienation. Polyamory for example. I’ve done that. My assessment is its romantically sloppy or lacking in commitment. Who, in todays busy world can hold down one committed, meaningful relationship, let alone several? Does it promote alienation as connection.

That would be the assessment of myself and several of my polyamorous playmates from my twenties

And sex work. Why is the current trend in gender and sexual politics so desperate to normalise sex work? I’ve been a stripper and a dominatrix. I’m not passing judgement on anyone that does these jobs but my understanding of this type of work is that it is a substitute for authentic connection. These roles increase alienation. Why is the commercialisation of sexuality being centred in a movement that proports to be about liberation?

These ideas claim to be promoting connection but they are promoting the opposite.  Rape is consent. Woman have penises. Alienation is Connection.

 

 

 

As I said  at the top of this article. Did Orwell write a prophetic novel or did he unintentionally write a manual for

Communique from the campaign for responsible thinking

 

 

What if Orwell didn’t write a novel.

What if it was a manual?

What if sinister and totalitarian governments  took Orwell’s research into totalitarian regimes and thought…

This looks like a great blueprint for running a society.

 

Would it be possible for the Orwell estate to sue for infringement of copyright?

 

         Unlike animal farm which is about the flaws inherent in communism, 1984 was intended as a warning about tendencies within regimes that self-identify as liberal and democratic.

 

The novel as a whole has managed to maintain a trajectory of increasing and terrifying relevance to this day although its fundamental premise was outmoded soon after first publication. Orwell hypothesised that the world would divide into three totalitarian rigidly hierarchical superstrates. It didn’t. It split into two with fascism in  ‘communist’ and capitalist. 

 

This binary arrangement has been constantly refracted throughout the microcosm and macrocosm of the political spectrum. In party politics we have reduced to a two-party system and on social media the only agreement seems to be that there are only two sides to an  argument. The one you’re on and the one that is wrong.  

 

         Everywhere we exist in a world of false binaries, except the world of gender politics where gender is embraced as the mercurial and capricious spectrum that it is. But that is as far as the debate goes. No binaries exist beyond that of gender. In the valid and nuanced discussions around gender, sexuality and their intersections. You either agree or you are wrong. No space for mercurial and capricious spectrums when it comes to right or wrong.  Submit or face the fearsome wrath of the twitterati.  

 

         As an adult woman who has lived experience and experimentation with identification as trans, being bisexual, and experimenting with queer politics for many years. (I was a pansexual, polyamorous stripper way before it was cool ) I have been horrified to watch how something that should in my experience be a gateway to personal liberation, exploration and self-actualisation has become the opposite. A bigoted authoritarian cult.

 

         How has this happened. What happened to the ideals of love and tolerance that were hallmarks of the movement I knew in the early 2000s. They seem to have been erased and replaced with bigotry and intolerance. How has this happened?  

 

To intentionally misquote Orwell

 

“War is Peace, Slavery is Liberty, Men are women”

 

 

 

         For a movement promoting love and liberation it seems to have a quality which is the opposite. Which strikes me, as a genuine libertarian revolutionary as Orwellian. Why are people demanding that everyone adopts their pronouns? Why does it matter? I know fashions change and older people don’t get younger people. But it wasn’t like that when I was a non-binary trans identifying person of colour. If people couldn’t figure out my gender I found it funny. I wouldn’t have taken them to court over it. Maybe I’m old and I just don’t get it but, when I was a kid it wasn’t an issue. People getting confused about what sex I was caused all sorts of hilarity.

Once a guy asked me if I was a boy or a girl. His mate told him I was a girl and then the guy said. ‘Oh.. Have you got a boyfriend’ I always wondered at what point he started fancying me? Was it before it was socially acceptable for him to say so?

 

 

 

What the hell happened to sexual liberation movement while I was off adulting? What happened to the warmth and the humour and the just thick enough skin?  

Did Orwell call it or did he unintentionally write a fucking manual on population control? 

Did all those spy cops that have been documented as infiltrating the anarchy punk, protest scene in the 2000’s pass on information to some shady government body.  They must have been doing something there aside from attending parties and having relationships and in some cases kids with the people they were spying on. Did they pass on information about the queer scene that was a big part of that movement so it could be neutralised as a radical threat?

 

 

Non binary older sibling is watching.

 

 

 

When I was a 20 plus year old kid that identified as a genderqueer anarcho punk fresh out of university I had a boyfriend, who was my favourite type of intellectual. The working-class variety. The additional qualification from ‘the school of life’ always gives their intellectualism a wholesome and hearty grounding that is usually missing from the Oxbridge variety.

I wanted to have a discussion about post modernism and he cut me off with ‘ it’s just monkeys walking in mirrors’

I’ve never topped that pithy demolition of post-modern theory. The best I’ve come up with is a take on the infinite monkey theorem.

‘If a monkey hit keys on a typewriter for an infinite it will have typed out the Cambridge companion to postmodernism within a fortnight.’

‘Or post truth is just pound shop postmodernism’

 

Which is all you really need to know about postmodernism.

 

Apart from this… Which I found from a cursory  google search of post modernism and the CIA. From an article in the Independent. So, it must be true.

 

         “The CIA . . . according to a recently declassified research paper . . . read French postmodern theory, concluding that its questioning of the objective basis of reality could be used to undermine the Marxist doctrine of historical and teleological inevitability. Millions of dollars were pumped into front organisations such as magazines, publishing houses and favoured academics, in order to push postmodern ideas and to create a centre left, thus demarcating the outer boundary of respectable ideas – anything beyond which could be denounced as dangerous and radical lunacy. “

 

         Postmodernism. It is the academic equivalent of The Bay of Pigs, the CIA funded invasion planned to overthrow authentic radicalism and dissent. 

Postmodernism. Didn’t you always think it was a load of bollocks but we’re afraid to say so. Not only is it bollocks but allegedly CIA funded bollocks and not only that. It is textbook example of Orwellian doublespeak.

 

Doublespeak. A language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. There are four types of doublespeak; Euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, and inflated language. 

Postmodernism encompasses all four.

As does the bastard non binary genderqueer child of postmodernism.

Queer theory.

 

So, the underlying theory for the current trend in gender and sexual politics has a somewhat unwholesome lineage and the praxis and implications of the theory itself are even more dubious.

 

This current trend in this politics of alleged radical thought which has evolved from a modality of thinking funded and hot housed

 CIA demands of us that we agree Men are women… Are they really?

Or is that another textbook example of doublespeak. Or to be more precise a blackwhitism.

 

“It is the duty of the good citizen of Oceania to that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”

 

         The glaringly Orwellian current of this ideology continues. once you have accepted this premise then you are told you have to accept that Girls can have penis’ and as a lesbian or a heterosexual man, if you refuse to accept that you are attracted to this so-called girl dick. Then you are at fault. You have committed the ultimate hate crime.

Prejudice.

 

Really? Is this prejudice?  Or are you just being authentic?  

You don’t have to force yourself to find things attractive. Sexual liberation is meant to be just that. The liberation to pursue things you find sexy if they exist within a consensual and sane framework… Overriding your own boundaries and forcing  yourself to consent to finding things attractive that you don’t find attractive isn’t  in my opinion anything to do with a definition of sexual liberation I want to engage with. In my opinion it is the definition of a bit creepy and rapey. The opposite of liberation.

 

But remember citizen oppression is freedom, hate is love, men are women and in Oceania any deviation from this narrative is a thoughtcrime and you don’t want to be thoughtcrimeful or you will be unpersoned.

Or banned from social media which, these days is pretty much the same thing.   

 

Coresion of sexual desire has been practiced by the state for years to control the individual.

The church, ‘the opium of the people’ according to Karl Marx demonised sexuality in order to sell its superfluous services as absolver of these natural drives.

Infact it has been speculated this division of the psyche into good and bad, was a medieval form of mind control. The original form of divided and conquer.

The state itself has always legislated against sexual freedom to maintain compliance and conformity in its subjects  and enslavement of human sexuality has been an aim of advertising since people began to understand the psychology of selling stuff. 

 

Have we now reached a point where we are using the Oceania model where the act of sex is to be stripped of pleasure

The goal of the Party is to wipe out the individual; “There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.”

In 1984 Orwell warns about the future of man who is doomed to lose his humanity without love and loyalty. Sex, and love are the anchors that hold the essence of our shared and common our humanity “Ownlife.”

 

Much of the current sexual and gender politics seems to be promoting this individualisation and alienation. Polyamory for example. I’ve done that. My assessment is its romantically sloppy or lacking in commitment. Who, in todays busy world can hold down one committed, meaningful relationship, let alone several? Does it promote alienation as connection.

That would be the assessment of myself and several of my polyamorous playmates from my twenties

And sex work. Why is the current trend in gender and sexual politics so desperate to normalise sex work? I’ve been a stripper and a dominatrix. I’m not passing judgement on anyone that does these jobs but my understanding of this type of work is that it is a substitute for authentic connection. These roles increase alienation. Why is the commercialisation of sexuality being centred in a movement that proports to be about liberation?

 

 

What if Orwell didn’t write a novel.

What if it was a manual?

What if sinister and totalitarian governments  took Orwell’s research into totalitarian regimes and thought…

This looks like a great blueprint for running a society.

 

Would it be possible for the Orwell estate to sue for infringement of copyright?

 

         Unlike animal farm which is about the flaws inherent in communism, 1984 was intended as a warning about tendencies within regimes that self-identify as liberal and democratic.

 

The novel as a whole has managed to maintain a trajectory of increasing and terrifying relevance to this day although its fundamental premise was outmoded soon after first publication. Orwell hypothesised that the world would divide into three totalitarian rigidly hierarchical superstrates. It didn’t. It split into two with fascism in  ‘communist’ and capitalist. 

 

Rape is consent. Woman have penises. Alienation is Connection.

 

 

 

As I said  at the top of this article. Did Orwell write a prophetic novel or did he unintentionally write a manual for totalitarian control? Who knows? Maybe that could be the sequel to 1984,where the author of a book that predicted the Oceania regime sues big brother for copyright infringement and everyone is freed as a result from the corrupt machinations of the totalitarian regime that enslaves them and their desires.

I live in hope. It’s a short bus ride from despair.

So how to fix it