There are two distinct types of ‘trans woman’ — transsexuals and autogynephilic transvestites. These are people born male who present as women. Other than that, the two types have no similarity to each other. However, this has been deliberately confused by individuals in one of these types, to advantage themselves at the expense of the other, and also to harm women. This has caused widespread misunderstanding. We need a field guide.
Well, it’s here at last, Trump Day. The twentieth of January 2017. This is the day we begin to roll back the tide and reclaim both our culture and our homelands.
Trump Day marks the turning of the tide, and that is why millions of screaming, whining pseudo-liberals are so upset. There is nothing they loathe more than a powerful white man. And Donald Trump is just such a man.
A vicious alliance of lesbians, race-supremacist blacks and of course Muslims, who will use any opportunity to bite the hand that feeds them, has lined up in ‘protest’ at the democratic will of the American people. That people elected Trump as an honest broker, a harbinger of change that would put an end to nearly a decade of appalling cavilling to the most destructive and hate-filled forces in Western society.
Over the last few decades, particularly in schools and academia, strong masculine role models have been suppressed in favour of emasculated ones. This, today, has led to a situation where the majority of teachers, outside the hard sciences, engineering and maths, are either women or emasculated, effeminate men.
When I returned to university in 2010 to complete my Master’s I was shocked to see the extent to which this corrosion had progressed — and that was in Scotland. Not only were a majority of teachers either women or emasculated males, the few remaining masculine males were marginalised. There were, literally, no straight male role models. (I became one.)
In other parts of the world, this is a hundred times worse. It is obvious that academia in the US and, increasingly, elsewhere, has been infected by an anti-male social cancer which insists that everything male is bad and everything female is not just better, but so much better that maleness itself must be destroyed.
Last week I visited Bataan, here in the Philippines, for the first time. I was amazed by the scenery, which is remarkable; beautiful mountains, beaches and sea views, amongst everything else. What a richness this country has! Anyway, the highlight of the tour was when an old friend suggested going to Las Casas de Acuzar at Bagac.
Bagac is south of Olongapo on Subic Bay and is accessible by bus. Once again, the scenery en route is spectacular.
I was expecting a beach and maybe a nice old village — my friend and guide, Belgie, said ‘There are old houses’. I wasn’t even slightly prepared for what I saw.
2016 began, for me, in the Philippines, where I now am. It had a less than auspicious beginning: I remember my shock at hearing about the death of David Bowie. But, while the toll of celebrities continued, this was not the most surprising thing about the year by any means.
That something was afoot became clear early on, in May, when Rodrigo Duterte, a fast talking populist, was elected as president of the Philippines. Most people in the West hardly noticed this, but it was a straw in the wind. It is true that Duterte’s route to power was laid open by the Philippines electoral system, which is single-stage, and the fact that the centrist vote was split between two popular candidates, Mar Roxas and Grace Poe. Duterte exploited this division expertly and won, on around 38% of the vote.
The UK’s official Opposition is the Labour Party, though on present showing you might not guess that. On one hand it has at once been utterly and indefensibly useless at challenging the Government over the EU referendum. On the other, internecine fighting and political blood-letting over its own leadership has gone out of control. These pose serious questions about Labour’s moral authority and its fitness to govern.
First the party’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee, decided to prevent members who had joined within the last six months from voting. This was because the NEC is currently filled with Blairites. They want the elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn, out and think that all the new members are Corbyn supporters. That should speak volumes about how they regard democracy.
The Brexit mirror cracked from side to side under the weight of simple, sheer reality this week.
The fissure in the Brexit mirror began to appear when Norway’s Foreign Minister told the world that no, the UK could not re-enter the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) just because it fancied the idea. The UK was a founder member of EFTA but left as a condition of joining the then EEC in 1973. Re-entry, however, would require unanimous approval from the remaining members and Norway is agin the idea. It’s not the only one to show reluctance.
The first signs of widespread panic amongst the UK’s hard-right, swivelly-eyed Brexiteers have begun to appear. In our last Friday Politics we pointed out that Brexit, as promised by the triumvirate of swivelly-eyed-ness, Johnson, Gove and Farage, is dead. It can’t happen. Now that realisation has got through to those whose eyes are usually so swivelly they can’t read a Daily Mail headline.
The reality that Brexit could not be delivered became apparent even in the hours after the result. Why did David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, resign? He didn’t have to. He had fought a solid campaign and had been honourably beaten. He had said that he would not resign whatever the result.
Cameron probably realised that he could not deliver the result that had been asked for. His departure was the first indication that Brexit was already on life support. Continue reading “Brexit is dead.”