Author: tortminder

Intolerance

You were either born with a penis or a vagina. You were either born as a man or a woman, there is no choice to make.

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” -Rick Warren

Why is being straight considered the norm?

It is not considered the norm.

It is the norm.

If something is the norm or not says nothing about if it is better, worse, preferable, horrible, or anything else like that.

It is just something that is so statistically probable that it is the expected in a situation where one does not know the details beforehand.

The norm is to have ten fingers, but of course there are those with more or fewer. The norm is to worry about finances sometime, even though it would be nice to never have to. The norm is to try to cut your hair once in a while, but you do not have to. And so on. Norms can be great, and some norms can be downright silly. Some things are norms by expectation and hope, and some are norms by biology/physics. The term is kinda wide.

For why being straight is norm is a complex question, and I assume that it has lots of little parts, from procreation statistics to social points. If many individuals have straight sex then many new individuals are created and all biological life seems to really want the show to to on. *shrug*

I do some very normative things and some things that are very non-normative. Usually it is best not to focus on norms too much, and just be what you are and do whatever you do to be happy while helping others be as happy.

Some norms can be rather useful for you even if you do not fit them.

The problem is really NOT about your sexual orientation as it applies to you. The problem is expecting others who do not share that orientation to conform to your expectation of how they should think and act.

This is currently being played out in the “choose your gender” silliness currently being manifested in our society.

In an ironic way this has manifested itself as a problem for the “gay press”.

The gay press may have had a purpose in the 1970s and ‘80s. It even had a self-described purpose in the 1990s, (gay marriage).

But in our current society what remains of it is a pointless, shriveled and sad appendage. A demonstration of that unerring law about charities: which is that if a charity is set up to deal with a disease it will continue to operate even if that disease is cured.

Because people’s jobs and pension packages are at stake. Many of those involved will have no other competency, and nothing else to do.

In the same way the gay press has staggered on, mainly online, long after it should have shut up shop. It ekes out an existence, with hardly any readers, paying its contributors nothing or almost nothing, trying to whip up the gays over niche issues of trans rights, and maintaining a skeleton staff paid in pitiful stipends and free items sent to them for review.

Naturally they have become organs of the identity-politics movements: ridiculous, ill-thinking, ‘inter-sectional’ publications which, because the gay rights battle, (in the mind of the “mainline” gay community), is basically won, try to whip their readers up into a rage about political issues that have nothing to do with gays.”

You were either born with a penis or a vagina. You were either born as a man or a woman, there is no choice to make.

If you want to pretend you’re something you’re not that’s up to you. Self deception has become the norm. Just get used to lying to yourself and other’s your whole life. Just please stop trying to tell us that your fantasy is mainstream. Stop urinating on our leg and trying to convince us that it is raining.

Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist.

Jesus routinely refused any kind of forced redistribution of wealth under the guise of charity.
For instance, when Judas lobbied to take Mary’s gift and
redistribute it to the poor, Jesus rebuked him: “Let her alone, so
that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:5-8 NASB).

Throughout the Bible physical realities are used to teach spiritual lessons and vice versa. In fact, Jesus Himself often reveals the way the heavenly world works through analogies to earthly things. Believers can therefore draw practical and political guidance from the lessons of Christ’s ministry but must always recall that these things are correctly interpreted only if they bring truth that sets people free (John 8:32), which was Jesus’ ultimate objective.

Sadly, some today are trying to improperly politicize Christ’s life to justify their own political talking points through blatantly false misrepresentations. For example, at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting, Reverend William Barber claimed the Bible advocates socialism:

“When we embrace moral language, we must ask, Does our policy care for ‘the least of these’?—Does it lift up those who are most marginalized and dejected in our society? —Does it establish justice? That is the moral question…If someone calls it socialism, then we must compel them to acknowledge that the Bible must then promote socialism, because Jesus offered free health care to everyone, and he never charged a leper a co-pay.”

First of all, we would endlessly rejoice if God miraculously healed anyone—or everyone—who might be hurt, sick, or dying. However, it seems ridiculously naïve for a pastor to suggest that we legislatively demand “Jesus-care” in accordance with a human sense of justice. It also reveals a stunning ignorance of both history and Scripture to compare a failed economic system responsible for the death of millions throughout history to the loving acts of restoration performed by our Savior.

Jesus didn’t come to institute a free healthcare policy for the Roman empire but rather to use His miracles to reveal the more important purpose of healing the spiritual man. As He affirmed:

“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home’” (Mark 2:9-11 NASB).

There were even times when, in order to demonstrate a higher purpose, Jesus refused to heal someone. Just ask Lazarus. He wasn’t healed from his sickness; He died from it—only to be raised from the dead specifically to reveal “the glory of God” (John 11:40).

There were also times when, even though there were people in need of physical help, Christ placed the emphasis of His ministry on other things, saying:

“Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38 NASB, emphasis added).

Jesus’s “socialistic” heath care plan didn’t even carry coverage for His own physical crucifixion—nor was the apostle Paul spared from his thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7-19). Jesus clearly did not come to provide free healthcare without a co-pay for all.

Expanding further, Jesus routinely refused any kind of forced redistribution of wealth under the guise of charity. For instance, when Judas lobbied to take Mary’s gift and redistribute it to the poor, Jesus rebuked him:

“Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:5-8 NASB).

Jesus wasn’t a socialist. (See especially His teachings in Matthew 25 on the talents, and in Luke 19 about the minas.) And we must never forget that the spiritual healing He provided for us was not free: He paid for it with His own life, and then made it available to us through our own individual repentance, not through equal redistribution.

As believers, we are certainly called to help the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40). But that’s not socialism. That’s Christian ministry by individuals.

Gender reality is not an option

There isn’t the slightest evidence that illiterate third-worlders or a tattoo-defaced generation of the sexually confused are inclined to be either tolerant or productive citizens.

Recently, my local morning news channel aired a story about a body discovered in a city park. Sadly, that’s not especially unusual. I was still a little bleary from having just gotten out of bed, so I don’t recall many details. I think they said the body was aged thirty or so, but I remember very clearly that they said it was the body of a man. I remember this because, being of a cynical turn of mind whenever I am conscious at all, I thought to myself — “How do they know it was a man?”

So, I put it to you: In a world in which gender is a characteristic entirely at the whim of the individual – how does one determine the gender of a corpse?

Does a corpse have the gender it thought it did when it was alive, or does it cease to have a gender when it ceases to have the power to choose one for itself? To echo the old philosophical wheeze about the anonymous tree falling in the anonymous forest, if a person dies in a park and no one is there to recognize and celebrate (its) gender identity – does it even have one?

Progressives have choked the Western world nearly to death with just this sort ontological bullshit.

Let us suppose we see a statistic that claims that women make less money than men for the same work. Since the state of being male or female is purely at the discretion of the individual, then it would appear to the logical mind that discrimination by gender must also be, in a way, at the pleasure of the victim.

After all, if you’re a woman you are entirely a woman by choice – your mere physiology having nothing to do with it. To avoid discrimination, why can’t one just self-identify as a man during working hours, and be a woman, or whatever fantastic gender one prefers, in one’s spare time?

If the left has its way, and all the white people in America are made to pay reparations for the chattel slavery of bygone days, will Rachael Dolezal, who pretends to be black, pay her share – or will she reap the benefits of her self-defined identity? Can one “feel like” a black person for tax purposes alone? Can one self-identify as handicapped for the convenient parking spaces? It is fortunate that one’s self-identification as either competent or incompetent has not yet achieved the much-coveted protected status. I dread the day when I will be treated by a physician who simply “feels like” a doctor.

All sarcasm aside, I have little doubt that the current fad of ignoring brute realities in the name of fairness and “social justice” is nearing the end of its road. Realities are strong creatures with a way of reasserting themselves — often rather brutally.

The beginning of our present course certainly looked innocent enough. It began with a naïve, hopeful, desperate assumption that all of us are absolutely equal. Or, to reach only a little further back, it began with a tragedy.

It began when the advancing Allied armies exposed the Nazi death camps at the end World War II, and everyone across the West rightfully recoiled in horror. People concluded that we had better not let a thing like that happen again — which was a laudable sentiment. Liberals (and yes, I do mean liberals — not today’s degenerate progressives) decided that, to avert the possibility of future genocide, we had to throw out any evidence that any person might have a genetic edge over any other.

This was no minor adjustment. Before the war, almost everyone understood that different peoples, races, and cultures were just that — different.

They understood that genders were binary — and different. People were allowed to see what they actually saw.

The people of the rest of the world, from South America to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East — still understand perfectly well that all people are neither the same nor compatible with one another. It is only we in the West who have had this counterintuitive and utterly false idea pounded into our heads.

No one should think our ancestors all so narrow-minded that they didn’t realize individuals from other groups might break the mold from time to time. England had a prime minister of Jewish descent in the 19th century. Even in the antebellum South there were black slaveholders among the millions of black slaves. There were successful women long before the women’s liberation movement came along. The belief, at its strongest in America, that the individual should be judged on his or her own merits is the rational remedy for blind group hatred. Making everybody equal every which way by mere wishful thinking isn’t.

As soon as people started to believe that everybody isn’t merely equal before the law, but that all groups of people must be equal every which way, we made enemies with an ocean of inconvenient facts.

Instead of the slow, methodical practice of ferreting reality from nature (we used to call this science) people began to tie their beliefs to what they thought would be nice.

It would, of course, be nice if homosexual men didn’t engage in pedophilia at an alarming rate compared to heterosexual men — but they do. It would also be quite nice if blacks had, on average, about the same IQ scores as whites or Asians — but they don’t. It would certainly warm our hearts if Islam really were the religion of peace — but fifteen hundred years of history and the uncounted dead of virtually every culture that has ever come in contact with Islam say otherwise.

When people detach themselves from hard, unpleasant realities they get very good at creating and maintaining flexible narratives. When facts are banished, reality just is what you want believe. Or what you’ve been told to believe.

Today’s white male who doesn’t want to be harassed for “whiteness” or “toxic masculinity” can become some miserable facsimile of a female because it is now a widespread taboo to say he can’t.

The bitter irony produced by all this this fanciful cognitive gibberish is that, in a world in which people are in a constant state of competition for official pity, all that was good at the beginning of the liberal project has been wrecked or overturned. What is “equality before the law” when some people are entitled to extra protections under hate crime laws? What is “basic human decency” when, to be a victim, one must identify a group of people as oppressors and revile them publicly as a class?

Slavery, the Holocaust, and all the other tragedies of the human past were never a just reason to plunge ourselves into this suicidal faux-egalitarian nightmare.

There isn’t the slightest evidence that illiterate third-worlders or a tattoo-defaced generation of the sexually confused are inclined to be either tolerant or productive citizens.

There is plenty of evidence that many of these disorderly creatures have good old-fashioned tribal axes to grind. If we are really going to save the West, we need not resort to simple-minded bigotry — but we had better relearn the principle of simple realism.

Down a slippery slope

I posit that if a person is considered to be of sound mind when deciding to commit suicide then they should have their decision honored. HOWEVER; once of the precepts of the medical profession is; “First, do no harm”. Expecting a physician or other medical professional to become an accessory to murder is, in the least, placing an untenable burden on the doctor/patient relationship.

A Dutch court acquitted a doctor on Wednesday, September 11, 2019 of all charges for the euthanasia of an elderly woman who suffered from dementia but may not have wanted to end her life when her life was taken.

The landmark case received widespread media attention because prosecutors claim the doctor, who remains unnamed, did not properly consult her patient before injecting her with a lethal dose of drugs. The unnamed 74-year-old patient was given a sedative in her coffee and had to be restrained by her husband and daughter as the doctor injected her with the deadly drugs.

“We conclude that all requirements of the euthanasia legislation had been met. Therefore the suspect is acquitted of all charges,” Judge Mariette Renckens said at the court in The Hague.

The case tested the interpretation and scope of the Netherlands’ euthanasia laws after the country became the first nation to legalize medical euthanasia in 2002.

This is the first case of a doctor being accused of wrongfully causing her patient’s death, but Wednesday’s ruling determined that the doctor correctly followed her patient’s instruction to end her life despite her having to be restrained at the time of her death in 2016.

One inherent consequence that so-called “Death with Dignity” advocates seem to ignore is the possibility that doctors and family members will pressure people into euthanasia or assisted suicide for convenience. This case in the Netherlands takes that one step further, as an elderly woman was euthanized against her will.

A thought occurs to me regarding a person’s “right to death with dignity” and a medical professional facilitating the termination of life.

I posit that if a person is considered to be of sound mind when deciding to commit suicide then they should have their decision honored. HOWEVER; once of the precepts of the medical profession is; “First, do no harm”. Expecting a physician or other medical professional to become an accessory to murder is, in the least, placing an untenable burden on the doctor/patient relationship.

If you want to “off” yourself then have the guts to do it yourself without placing the burden of responsibility on another person.

The telltale crapper

Is this really what America wants: a toilet that listens to you while you sit on the throne?

There is a newish commercial currently running for a smart Delta faucet that will respond to voice commands from an Alexa device. It is one of the latest wrinkles in “smart home” technology.

Delta Faucet’s “Voice IQ” takes advantage of where lots of people like to congregate and turns it into an Alexa eavesdropping center.

“Designed with the understanding that 20 percent of all WiFi-enabled homes are equipped with a connected home device, VoiceIQ Technology pairs with existing devices to dispense the exact amount of water needed, all with a simple voice command.”

Delta lets Alexa decide how much water everyone gets.

“VoiceIQ Technology allows users to easily warm water and turn it on and off with voice activation, lending a hand in an active kitchen space. Consumers can command the faucet to dispense a metered amount of water in various quantities for precise measurement. Additionally, consumers can customize commands to make everyday tasks easier, like filling a coffee pot, a child’s sippy cup, or a dog bowl.”
What they are really saying is Amazon will now monitor your home and individual water usage.

How is that for Orwellian?

What’s next is a voice-activated toilet!

Earlier this year, Kohler unveiled their voice-activated toilet, called the “Numi 2.0” intelligent toilet.

“Numi 2.0 will come equipped with embedded Amazon Alexa for easy voice control to active toilet features as well as Alexa commands such as checking weather, traffic, accessing news, etc.”

https://www.us.kohler.com/us/Numi-2….T134400007.htm

According to the Numi Intelligent video, Alexa monitors how often you go the bathroom and how much water you use.

Kohler is so sure that homeowners will want Alexa to listen to their most intimate moments that they created an app for the whole family.

“Use the Kohler Konnect app to program personalized presets for different users, and you can use voice to access the preset/profile. There is probably a difference between you, your spouse, and your children when it comes to your interaction with Numi 2.0; this lets you easily personalize your experience.”

Alexa knows the difference between you and your children’s voices. How is that for creepy?

In what messed up world do we live in? Where it is OK, to let a private company monitor when you go to the bathroom?

Is this really what America wants: a toilet that listens to you while you sit on the throne?

It’s coming, (but then again, so is Christmas)

If the problems are not resolved, which at this point appears to be impossible, it will fall apart and nothing can be done to stop it (for the Deep State on both sides do not wish for the problems to be fixed) and it will not be like anything you can imagine….

IT IS COMING….

This is a dying mantra from the right….

Been hearing it since the Presidential Election of 2016….

The 2020 Presidential Election is a year and just over a month away….

Where are the perp walks????

No one of any importance has been walked into jail, much less prison except Epstein who was murdered in jail…. Just how in hell did that happen????

Reminds me of the fairy tales of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” and Chicken Little’s “The Sky Is Falling”….

There is no there there until the big guys and gals are arrested, jailed and in prison…. Otherwise it is all conjecture….

The economy has improved, but it can fail overnight…. 2019 deficit is over one trillion dollars…. The debt is over 22.5 trillion dollars…. Feel better…

Red flag laws and universal background checks are coming….

Some border fence has been replaced and some new border fence is installed, but tens of thousands of illegals still cross into America and sanctuary cities protect the criminal illegals….

So what has really happened to preserve our nation and freedoms???? Absolutely nothing of importance…. Nothing….

Prove me wrong….

Do not use “he said she said” for it carries absolutely no weight until visible action is taken….

The military has improved, but has it from the reports of problems with readiness, maintenance, etc….

High visibility prisoners in Gitmo???? Show me….

People threaten President Trump and NOTHING IS DONE…. Nothing….

We are being lead down the primrose path with very little to show for it….

Americans are tired of all of the talk and both sides, the left and the right, want the problems fixed….

If the problems are not resolved, which at this point appears to be impossible, it will fall apart and nothing can be done to stop it (for the Deep State on both sides do not wish for the problems to be fixed) and it will not be like anything you can imagine…. One spark is all that it will take…. One spark….

Do you live in a city???? Are you really safe????

We’ve lost our marbles!

We are going through a great mass derangement. In public and in private, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational, feverish, herd-like and unpleasant

We are going through a great mass derangement. In public and in private, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational, feverish, herd-like and unpleasant. The news is filled with the consequences. Yet while we see the symptoms everywhere, we don’t see the causes.

Various explanations have been given, usually involving Donald Trump, Brexit, or both. But these explanations don’t get to the root cause of what is happening. For beneath all the day-to-day madnesses – over race, sex, sexuality, gender and the rest – are much greater movements and much bigger events. Even the origin of this mass derangement is rarely acknowledged. This is the simple fact that we have been living through a period of more than a quarter of a century in which all our grand narratives about our existence have collapsed.

Religion went first, falling away from the 19th Century onwards. Then, over the past century, the secular hopes held out by all political ideologies followed. In the latter part of the 20th Century, we entered the post-modern era, defined by its suspicion towards grand narratives.

However, nature abhors a vacuum. People in today’s wealthy Western democracies could not simply remain the first people in recorded history to have no explanation for what we are doing here and no story to give life purpose.

The question of what exactly we are meant to do now – other than get rich and have fun – was going to have to be answered by something. The answer that has presented itself in recent years has been to live in a permanent state of outrage. To find meaning by waging constant war against anybody who seems to be on the wrong side of a question to which the answer has only just been altered.

The bewildering speed of this process has been principally caused by the Silicon Valley giants (notably Google, Twitter and Facebook). They have the power not just to direct what most people in the world know, think and say, but have a business model which has accurately been described as relying on finding ‘customers ready to pay to modify someone else’s behaviour’.

But today’s wars of ideas are not random – they are consistently being fought in a new and particular direction. And that direction has a purpose that is vast. The purpose – unwitting in some people, deliberate in others – is nothing less than to embed a new religion into our societies.

though the foundations had been laid over several decades, it is only since the financial crash of 2008 that there has been a march into the mainstream of ideas that were previously known solely on the obscurest fringes of academia.

The interpretation of the world through the lens of ‘social justice’ and ‘identity group politics’ is probably the most audacious and comprehensive effort since the end of the Cold War at creating a new ideology.

To date, ‘social justice’ has run the furthest because it sounds – and in some versions is – attractive. Even the term is set up to be impossible to argue with. ‘You’re opposed to social justice? What do you want, social injustice?’

The attractions are obvious. After all, why should a generation which can’t accumulate capital have any great love of capitalism? And it isn’t hard to work out why a generation who believe they may never own a home could be attracted to an ideological world view which promises to sort out every inequality. The place where social justice finds its warriors is identity politics. This atomises society into different interest groups according to sex (or gender), race, sexual preference and more. It presumes that such characteristics are the main, or only, relevant attributes of their holders and that they bring an added bonus. As the American writer Coleman Hughes has put it, it assumes there is ‘a heightened moral knowledge’ that comes with being black or female or gay. It’s why people start statements with ‘Speaking as a …’. And this new religion is something that people both living and dead must be on the right side of.

That’s why there are calls to pull down statues of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and it is why the past needs to be rewritten to suit any interest group you wish to champion.

Identity politics is where minority groups are encouraged to simultaneously atomise, organise and go on the attack. Tied into this is something social justice warriors call ‘intersectionality’ – the notion that there is a hierarchy of oppressed minorities and society should organise itself around correcting this.

Today, intersectionality has broken out from the social science departments of the universities from which it originated into the mainstream. It’s now taken seriously by millennials and has become embedded via employment law (through a ‘commitment to diversity’) in all major corporations and governments.

The speed at which the ‘social justice’ causes have taken over everyday life is staggering. Once-obscure phrases such as ‘LGBTQ’, ‘white privilege’, ‘the patriarchy’ and ‘transphobia’ are suddenly heard everywhere – even though in the words of mathematician Eric Weinstein, they were ‘all made up about 20 minutes ago’. The policing of these issues is an even more recent phenomenon. Researchers found that phrases like ‘triggered’ and ‘feeling unsafe’ only spiked in usage from 2013 onwards.

It is as though, having worked out what it wanted, the new religion took a further half-decade to work out how to impose its credo on non-believers. But it has done so with frightening success.

The maddening results can be seen on a daily basis. It’s why a British academic study which found muscular, wealthy men are more attractive could be headlined by Newsweek magazine as: ‘Men with muscles and money are more attractive to straight women and gay men – showing gender roles aren’t progressing.’

It’s why a previously completely unknown programmer at Google could be sacked for writing a memo suggesting some tech jobs appeal more to men than women. It is why The New York Times ran a piece by a black author with the title: ‘Can my children be friends with white people?’ And it’s why a piece about cycling deaths in London written by a woman was framed through the headline: ‘Roads designed by men are killing women.’

Such rhetoric exacerbates existing divisions and creates new ones. For what purpose? Rather than showing how we can all get along better, the lessons of the last decade appear to be exacerbating a sense that in fact we aren’t very good at living with each other.

For most people, awareness of this new religion has become clear not so much by trial as by public error. Because one thing that everybody has begun to sense in recent years is that a set of tripwires have been laid across the culture. Among the first tripwires was anything to do with homosexuality. In the latter half of the 20th Century, there was a fight for gay equality which rightly succeeded in reversing a terrible historic injustice. Then, the war having been won, it didn’t stop. Indeed it began morphing. GLB (Gay, Lesbian, Bi) became LGB so as not to diminish lesbians. Then a T for ‘trans’ and a Q for ‘queer’ or ‘questioning’ got added. Then the movement behaved – in victory – as its opponents once did, as oppressors.

When the boot was on the other foot, something ugly happened.

A decade ago, almost nobody was supportive of gay marriage. Even gay rights group Stonewall wasn’t in favour. Now it’s a central tenet of modern liberalism. To fail the gay marriage test – only years after almost everybody failed it – is to put yourself beyond the pale.

People may agree with or disagree with gay marriage. But to shift mores so fast needs to be done with sensitivity and deep thought. Yet we engage in neither.

Other issues followed a similar pattern. Women’s rights had also been steadily accumulated throughout the 20th Century. They too appeared to be arriving at some sort of settlement. Then, just as the train appeared to be reaching its desired destination, it filled with steam again and went roaring off into the distance. What had been barely disputed until yesterday became a cause to destroy someone’s life today. Whole careers were scattered and strewn as the train careered along its path.

Careers like that of the 72-year-old Nobel Prize-winning UCL Professor Tim Hunt were destroyed after one lame joke, at a conference in South Korea, about men and women falling in love in the lab. What was the virtue of making relations between the sexes so fraught? Why, when women had broken through more glass ceilings than at any other time, did talk of ‘the patriarchy’ seep out of feminist fringes and into popular culture?

In a similar fashion, the civil rights movement in America, which started to right the most appalling of all historic wrongs, looked like it was moving towards some hoped-for resolution. Again, near the point of victory everything soured.

Just as things appeared better than ever before, the rhetoric started suggesting things had never been worse.

The most recent tripwire addition, and most toxic of all of them, is the trans issue. It affects the fewest number of people, but is nevertheless fought over with an almost unequalled ferocity and rage. Women who have got on the wrong side of the issue, including notable feminists like Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore, have been hounded by people who used to be men.

Meanwhile, mothers and fathers who voice concerns that ten years ago would have been considered common sense have their fitness to be parents questioned. People who will not concede that men can be women (and vice versa) can amazingly now expect a knock on the door from police.

Last September, a billboard that comprised the dictionary definition ‘woman: noun, adult human female’ was taken down after someone complained it was a ‘symbol that makes transgender people feel unsafe’.

Everyone knows what they will be called if their foot nicks against society’s new tripwires. Bigot, homophobe, sexist, misogynist, racist and transphobe are for starters. To avoid these accusations, citizens must prove their commitment to fashionable causes.

How might somebody demonstrate virtue in this new world? By being ‘anti-racist’, clearly. By being an ‘ally’ to LGBT people, obviously. By stressing how ardent your desire is to bring down the patriarchy.

And this creates a situation where public avowals of loyalty to the system must be made regardless of whether it’s needed. It’s an extension of a problem in liberalism identified by the late political philosopher Kenneth Minogue as ‘St George in retirement’ syndrome. After slaying the dragon, the warrior finds himself stalking the land looking for more glorious fights. Eventually, after tiring himself out in pursuit of ever-smaller dragons, he may eventually be found swinging his sword at thin air, imagining dragons.

Today our public life is dense with people desperate to slay imagined dragons. On all the big issues, an increasing number of people, with the law on their side, now pretend that all questions have been resolved, all answers agreed upon – and that no good person can have any doubts. The case is very much otherwise.

Each of these issues is infinitely more complex and unstable than our societies admit. Yet while the endless contradictions, fabrications and fantasies within each are visible, identifying them is not just discouraged but policed.

And so we are asked to agree to things which we cannot believe, and told not to object to things to which most people object, such as giving children drugs to stop them going through puberty or allowing men who self-identify as female to use female toilets. The pain that comes from being expected to remain silent on important matters and perform impossible leaps on others is tremendous, not least because the problems are so evident.

As anyone who has lived under totalitarianism can attest, there is something demeaning and eventually soul-destroying about being expected to go along with claims you do not believe to be true.

If the belief is that all people should be regarded as having equal value and be accorded equal dignity, then that may be all well and good. But if you’re asked to believe there are no differences between men and women, racism and anti-racism, homosexuality and heterosexuality, then this will drive you to distraction. That distraction is something we’re in the middle of and something we must try to find our way out from. If we fail, the direction of travel is clear.

We face not just a future of ever-greater atomisation, rage and violence, but a future in which the possibility of a backlash against all rights advances – including the good ones – grows more likely.

A future in which racism is responded to with racism, denigration based on gender is responded to with denigration based on gender. At some stage of humiliation there is simply no reason for majority groups not to retaliate with the exact same weapons that have worked so well on themselves.

The Impossible Burger

1 Timothy 4:1-3

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Who pays the bill?

So when it came time to rebuild Europe, Japan, and places as far-flung as Burma, who picked up the tab?
Mom and Pop back home in Des Moines.

It is a strange fact that those who win wars wind up paying for all the destruction they cause. That is by international agreement and so, guess who got the bill for World War II? We did.

We were the only ones who could rebuild the world.

Obviously, the Germans were not in any position to pay anyone back for anything. They were too busy clearing their own streets of rubble.

The Brits were in similar condition, hanging on by threads.

So when it came time to rebuild Europe, Japan, and places as far-flung as Burma, who picked up the tab?

Mom and Pop back home in Des Moines.

This was accomplished by the Marshall Plan, yet another stroke of genius drummed up by our military, which should be permanently barred from having anything to do with accounting or finance.

Any organization that can lose trillions of dollars off their books, and turn around and find even more trillions of dollars of credit on their books that they can’t account for, needs to be relieved of accounting duty.

The recovering nations were allowed to place debilitating tariffs against American goods and services, and to profit their own governments on those tariffs. The resulting income was more than sufficient to pay for rebuilding all the war-time damage to Europe, a process that was complete by 1970.

These same nations were protected by the American Armed Forces at little (we are talking 1- 4% percent) or no cost to them, so virtually all the burden of their national defense was footed by the Americans, too.


All of that should have come to a conclusion around 1970-75, at most. The tariffs against American goods and services should have been quietly removed by all the various recipient governments and our own manufacturing and productive sectors of our economy should have been set free to thrive.

Read that — The Rust Belt should not exist. Detroit should be thriving. Millions upon millions of American manufacturing and service jobs should have been cranking out a good future for millions of American families for the past fifty years.

Should have been.

But we have been letting the rulers of the world manipulate our government processes and promote their corporate elections while suppressing our lawful government and unlawfully usurping upon us in Gross Breach of Trust.

They happily sold us and our best interests down the river and continued to glut themselves for an additional fifty years— and all in breach of International Treaties, in Breach of Trust, in violation of their commercial contracts.

Fifty years. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Wm. Jefferson Clinton, Barack Obama…. traitors all.

It’s only now that the facts about The Marshal Plan and its gross mis-administration are coming to the attention of the American People and they are beginning to understand just how terribly they and their country have been mistreated.

Donald Trump is the first American President in all these years to have sense and guts enough to call a halt to it.

Of course, those who have been sucking us dry are disappointed.


It’s important for all the other World Leaders who have been acting as leeches to understand that Donald Trump isn’t the only American who has had enough.

There are, in fact, millions of us. Not everyone knows the details yet, but all our backs are up, simply because of the level of suffering and injustice we’ve endured without relief for fifty additional years of enslavement and taxation and tariffs under “wartime” mobilization.

We are not willing to be killed off in yet another mercenary war, just so they can avoid paying their debts back to us, either.