Scottish Writer, photographer, artist and musician. Currently living in the Philippines with the lovely Sam. I like photography, art, motorcycling, food (too much) sailing and dogs. I am a published author.
The New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens and many others, purported to offer a sane, secular attempt to roll back religiosity for the betterment of society. Instead, their efforts have begat the mother of all calamities.
How did this come to pass?
Scientific atheism, as promoted by the New Atheists, lacks any unifying central structure or code. Essentially it is based on a negative — not believing in God. So it can’t have a defining structure. Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent New Atheists, tried to answer this with his ‘brights’ — which was an embarrassment. (Since at least 2014, Dawkins has self-identified as a ‘secular Christian’ anyway.)
After the Enlightenment and especially the French Revolution, European secularism based itself around Reason as the core methodology that would replace, in the minds of those who were atheist, religious belief. This reflected a rejection of hierarchical religious authority, which had begun in the Reformation. The works of philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant and Paine promoted the idea of the free-thinking individual whose intellectual scalpel was Reason.
In the West, tomboy behaviour in childhood is mostly just role-play and should be treated as such — with good-humoured tolerance. Girls want to enjoy the fun in the same way as boys do, because prior to puberty, they are not really different at all. Indeed in many cultures, pre-pubertal boys and girls are not differentiated. They play the same games and wear similar clothes.
Tomboy behaviour is not necessarily indicative of Sexual Inversion, whereas persistent feminine behaviour in a boy is more likely to be.
We know this because of the number of adult women who claim to have been ‘very boyish’ as children, but are now heterosexual or cis-lesbian. It would be rare indeed to find a straight man being quite so open about girly behaviour in his childhood; the only males who do that, in my experience, are either ‘gay’ or transsexual — ie they are Sexually Inverted.
An interesting example comes from the children’s author Enid Blyton. The wokos are trying to cancel her right now, so a nod in her direction seems appropriate, given that, being dead, she can’t fight back herself (always the kind of adversary preferred by woko scumbags.)
In Blyton’s Famous Five series (actually four kids and a dog) one of the girls, Georgina, was a classic tomboy. She insisted on being called ‘George’, wore her hair cropped short and boys clothes and if I remember right, enjoyed whittling sticks with a penknife. (Timmy the dog belonged to her.) In fact she was portrayed as more masculine than one of the two boys, Dick. She was also a more vibrant and rounded character than the other girl, Anne, the youngest of the tetrad. She was Suzie Creamcheese personified.
George…imitates traditional masculinity as an attempt to receive equal treatments. She over-compensates…to…hide any traces of being a girl…perhaps George is a transman; a boy trapped in a girl’s body… it is clear that Blyton intended George’s character as someone who breaks away from tradition. Sukanya Balaji
Most of Blyton’s work is observational so I have no doubt at all that she knew a girl like this well at one point; or George might even have been a portrait of herself, for she was a determined, successful career woman. The character is just too alive for it to be entirely fictional and I speak as an author of fiction who spends a lot of effort on characterisation. Blyton did not elaborate on George’s later life, but given that the first in the series was written in 1942, it does make you think!
On Sunday March 12th we went to watch the ‘Mr Lady’ beauty pageant at Robinson’s Place, Malalos, here in the Philippines. These pageants are a regular and important feature of life here.
During the event, an award was presented for Most Supportive Boyfriend. The winner took both his beloved and the crowd by surprise when he proposed to her on bended knee. The crowd went absolutely wild!
These events are very much family affairs and each of the contestants was supported by a strong turnout of highly partisan cousins, siblings and parents. It’s just good fun and everybody has a great time.
Margaret Thatcher, heroine of the Falklands, the scourge of the miners, the ‘most divisive’ Prime Minister in recent British history, maybe any British history, died in 2013. She was 87.
Legions of trendy-lefty commentators danced in the streets, and people far, far too young to have any recollection whatsoever of what Dame Margaret Hilda Thatcher actually did, filled their Facebook drivel, er, pages, with claptrap about how much they hated her and were glad to see her gone.
Well, I remember her reign, and indeed it was not pleasant. But what is forgotten, perhaps wilfully, by those who celebrated her death, is what life was like before Thatcher. They forget too, that without her, a great part of what the ‘British’ now accept as normal, simply would not exist.
There is no alternative to Capitalism in a free society. Removing it would also necessarily remove the foundation of Enlightened Culture. As I wrote here, that foundation is that we all own our own bodies and lives. They are ours to do as we will with, so long as we do not harm others. If we so choose, we may use them to earn and acquire property, which is Capital. Once acquired, it is ours to keep or exchange.
Removing Capitalism dispossesses us of our own lives and bodies, since it prevents us from using them to acquire things. Worse, it assumes that, since our bodies and lives are not our own, they must belong to someone or something else. This has been the Family, the State, the Tribe, the Earth, the Party, the Church, the Crown, the Faith; you name it. Our most precious freedom, to live our own lives with our own bodies, is removed when we attempt to remove Capitalism.
In a long career as a news and PR photographer and journalist, I have seen some sick ideas, some stupid ideas and quite a few cynical ideas. But rarely have I seen anything as dumb, patronising, blatantly offensive and downright cynical as this obviously stunted-up PR picture promoting arch-slimeball Justin Trudeau.
The picture purports to show Trudeau ‘helping a disabled person down an escalator’ at Montreal Metro Station. Oh really? Why didn’t he just use the fucking lift, that was put there so that disabled persons, particularly those in wheelchairs, could freely access the service?
Because that way there would have been no opportunity fora sick, cynical, patronising PR ‘picture opportunity’.
Sweden is proud, today, to say that it has a woman president and a largely female Cabinet. This is lauded by feminists the world over. Yet Sweden is unable to provide the basic level of protection that its own citizens require. And those who suffer most are women, who are the victims of rape jihad at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
The Duty of State
The primary duty of a State is the protection of its people. This is the social contract we make: we consent to be governed in return for protection. If we require to look after our own security, why should we pay a State to do it? Why not buy a pistol or a shotgun and learn how to use it? Why not form militias or vigilante groups and defend ourselves? If it’s defend yourself or be raped or murdered, what right does the State have to demand taxes, or hobedience to its laws? The point of having a State at all is to avoid anarchy; but that is precisely the result, when it cannot protect its citizens.