Wednesday, 31 May 2017

CS Lewis, Islam and The Last Battle

CS Lewis, Islam 
and 
The Last Battle

I have been a reader of CS Lewis since I was introduced to them by my headmistress who read them to us at my boarding school on Sunday evenings before bedtime.  It is one of my fondest memories.
Of course at the time of I didn’t understand the allegorical significance of Aslan or the deeper meanings intended, but came back to the stories time and again, always finding new levels of meaning in them as I grew older.
Lewis was a convinced Christian, a conversion he reached in the years around 1930, partly influenced by JRR Tolkien, himself a devout Roman Catholic all his life since a child.  This was to come out a great deal more obviously in his works than in those of Tolkien, although both took it as a foundation of meaning in their sub-created worlds.
As I have grown older, and especially in more recent times when I have read and studied their writings in more depth, I have come to understand the historic archetypal forces which they describe in terms of the real world.
Tolkien said that he wanted to compose a mythology for the English, since so much had been lost after the Norman invasion.
This mythology would have to have some parallels or symbolic relations with the real world or else it wouldn’t stick.
His Middle Earth is quite clearly a representation of European peoples defending against barbarian invasion by hordes from the East.  This is a dynamic which Europe has experienced time and again with Attila, the Mongols, the Ottomans, even the USSR, although that had not spread its Iron Curtain across the continent at the time when Tolkien was conceiving Lord of the Rings.
We all know the literary forebears of Middle Earth ~ Beowulf, the Icelandic sagas, Finnish and Celtic influences, but scholars will shy away from the more difficult threads.  Who are the Orcs?
It seems to me to be dishonest to suggest that the geographical location of Mordor and the Orcs do not in some way correlate with Turkey, or the Middle East, or its inhabitants.
The Shire is the safety of northwestern Europe, Gondor is some version of Rome or Constantinople which stands as a bulwark against the barbarian hordes of the East.  Do we really need to argue this?  Are people so politically correct in their pretence that they cannot see the obvious correlations with the geopolitical world of, not only the past, but the present as well?  I recently found that the term 'orc' means 'foreigner, monster or demon'.  Perhaps our forebears made no great distinction between these things.
[May I briefly interject here that it is my opinion, having recently read John Buchan’s superb Greenmantle that there is a literary root of the LOTR in that novel.  The journey across country to reach the great river Danube, going down it in a line of boats and reaching the great city of Constantinople (Minas Tirith in Gondor surely).  But the real bullseye was the nine riders who appear at one point, and there are others.  But I digress.]
It is my conviction that both Lewis and Tolkien knew that there were great threats to our civilisation, and that a decline of faith into agnosticism would lead to a vacuum which could be taken advantage of.
CS Lewis had a much more unconventional theological evolution than Tolkien and in the twenties had dabbled in theosophical and other ideas.  One of his closest friends, Charles Williams, is reputed to have been a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn. 
There is much written amongst certain groups about how Tolkien and Lewis were occultists who sought to infiltrate the Church with their heresies.  On the other hand, Marxists claim that they were racist nationalists and xenophobes.
I’m inclined to go with a middle way and accept that Lewis was probably the most influential and widely read Christian writer in English of the twentieth century, and Tolkien was probably the greatest scholar and writer in English of the century.  Whilst the modern cultural left approach them warily, recognising that they form a part of a serious backbone of English literary, religious and cultural national identity which persists to this day, they still take sidelong swipes at them whenever they can find, or invent, an opportunity.
Philip Pullman’s claim that Lewis exercises racist attitudes in The Last Battle for instance has been roundly dispelled, so I shan’t bother to detail that here, but it is that work, the final one in the Narnian Chronicles which I wish to address here.
It occurred to me this Good Friday just gone that there were certain parallels with the actual situation in which we find ourselves at this very time, so I embarked on a quick read of said book (at 165 pages it can be polished off in three or four hours) and found much to feed my curiosity.
The principal idea which had sparked this train of thought was that Tash, the god of the Calormenes had a head like a vulture.  The meaning of this suggests that the god only eats dead flesh.  Thus the followers of Tash are in themselves spiritually dead. 
Whilst Aslan is a lion.  Lion only seek living prey.  The meaning of this then is that the followers of Aslan are spiritually alive, they are vital and thus have the Holy Spirit.
Tash is the principle god of the Calormenes.  They do have some others, Azaroth and Zardeenah, but these seem like minor household deities while the ruling class of the Tisroc and his Tarkaans all claim descent from Tash.
It seems unavoidable to see some conflation between Islam and the worship of Tash, illustrated here by Pauline Baynes from The Last Battle.


On the superficial level, the Calormenes appear similar to Turkish Ottomans or nearby Middle Eastern people.  In itself only a casual association, but there is much more to flesh this out.
        The descent from Tash is reminiscent of the descent from Mahomet which the leaders of the two main branches of Islam claim.  And their society based on the worship of this creature which only seeks the spiritually dead is one which seems to be built on top down domination by the sword, not the high trust co-operation of the Narnians.
But we also find that there have been numerous wars between the Calormenes and Narnia and Archenland, its southern neighbour.  Which we cannot ignore is what has happened to Europe at the hands of the Turks numerous times over the centuries, as well as other incursions into Iberia and the Italian peninsula.  It is hard to be certain, as Lewis is frequently almost deliberately vague about dates and how often, but it seems clear that there have been numerous wars with Calormen, mostly instigated by the Calormene desire to take these free northern countries under its rule.  Also reminiscent of the constant pressure of the East on Gondor, if I may say ˡ.
The image of Tashbaan in Pauline Baynes’ charming illustrations in The Horse and His Boy clearly shows minarets in the Islamic style around what must be the Temple of Tash at the top and centre of the city, and to me is highly evocative of Istanbul, Constantinople as it was known for about 1600 years, while the very name of their lordly class Tarkaans sounds like a conflation of Turk and khan, a common name or ending in Islamic lands deriving from the Indo-European root word meaning king.


The language of the Calormenes is rich with the kind of sayings we associate with Islam and middle eastern potentates ~ May he live forever is reminiscent of the saying Peace be upon him.
We get into more detail with The Last Battle in which Calormenes have been infiltrating Narnia in twos and threes pretending to be merchants and diplomats.  Meanwhile they are assembling a military force at the very heart of Narnia while at the same time dominating the local Narnians.
And here we come to the crunch.  The Narnians are all saying that this is what Aslan has been instructing.  Indeed as the story progresses Tash and Aslan are quickly conflated into a ‘We Are All One’ scenario and the noble Talking Beasts of Narnia are to be caged up while the Speaking Trees are to be cut down and a more productive state of affairs is to be imposed.  (I love Lewis’s dig at communism!)
To my eyes, what we are seeing here is an almost literal account of what is actually happening today.  We hear that the God of Jesus and that of Mahomet are one and the same, although their commandments and their practices are entirely different.  We are told to invite them into our lands, and yet meanwhile they build up covert forces in enclaves which have already struck against us.  Mollenbeek is an obvious example.
What has been described by Dr Kevin McDonald as ‘pathological altruism’ leaves the Narnians vulnerable to foreign incursion because they trust the Calormenes at face value.  This is the vulnerable downside of the living spirit which the enemies exploit.  Many of the Talking Beasts are too timid to fight on the side of right and their own people, slinking off into the woods, or are cowed by the threat of Calormene punishment.  Is this not what we see in the face of Islamic rape gangs?  People too afraid to speak up?
Did Lewis realise what he was writing, or was he just using a convenient stereotype to get over a story?
The images in the works of CS Lewis were spontaneous creations of his imagination which tended to jump fully formed into consciousness, but he did not string them all together until he had understood them.
He was a literary historian.  He knew the story of the Crusades and the endless attrition of the Moors and the Ottomans on Christendom.  It is no coincidence that the God of the Calormenes is shaped like a vulture and has robes like an Aztec priest.  He knew that Islam was the ancient enemy which lurked on the borders of our entire historic awareness like a bogey man in a fairy story and so he represented it as such.  The more important story is of the children and the King and how they behaved with honour and loyalty, while we see that the Ape (whom I imagine as Tony Blair, the chief traitor of our nation) who has contrived this but also been the puppet of larger forces is gobbled up by the demon god.
What is it to be spiritually dead?  It is to wish to build your own life force on the domination of others, of taking their life energy from them, to have no conception of spiritual creativity yourself.
Islam promotes the idea to men that women are mere chattel, whilst Christianity (and some other faiths and creeds as well) believes in the concept of Romantic love, something Lewis himself wrote on extensively in several books.  It is a higher level of spiritual development engaged with a sense of humility before the divine, but also of generosity and forgiveness absent in the Religion of the Sword.
Some of the more politically correct of Lewis’s readers just dismiss The Last Battle as if it were some aberration.  Lewis getting senile, run out of ideas, returning to a second childhood, turning into some right wing bigot, racist, xenophobe. 
One thing I tremendously admire about Jack was his almost reckless disregard for social convention when it came to facing the truth.  And consequently I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic references in his final Narnian story are entirely intended.
While I am at it, may I briefly add that the speculation that some make that Lewis was running out of ideas and wanted to kill the Narnia series have entirely got it wrong.  Michael Ward in his excellent Planet Narnia demonstrates, to my full and complete satisfaction, that there was an underlying pattern behind the books of which he never explicitly spoke but which is clear nonetheless to those with eyes to see.  And I think many would agree that if Lewis had run out of ideas he was a sensible enough chap not to try and squeeze toothpaste out of a tube which had run dry.  It’s also my understanding that the books were not written like some penny dreadful serial with the publisher asking for the next best seller by a certain date, but that he had an organised, overarching plan which he evolved as a whole.  The very fact that there are seven in the Chronicles, the Holy Number, is surely no accident.
Yes, CS Lewis was very much more into the mystical side, at least in some of his works, than was his friend Tolkien.  And it’s my belief that he saw this as a genuine possibility which he felt would be better signalled and preserved in a work of fiction than in some prosaic political commentary that would be forgotten.
And lastly, I should say that it is my firm conviction that both Tolkien and Lewis saw the potential re-emergence of Islam as a danger which lurked always on the horizon.  These are two of the finest minds of twentieth century Christendom and to dismiss that they may have seen this afar off is for lesser minds to scoff at elders they fail to recognise.
It can be no coincidence that both of them produced major, mature works which seem to be themed around the invasion of Europe.  Tolkien at a more mythological level invoking the barbarian hordes of the East, yet nonetheless with certain Islamic resonances (see my blog Tolkien and Islam), and Lewis far more explicitly with The Last Battle.
Coming as they did in the 1950s, in the last wave of traditional Western culture before the Marxists got their teeth into it, the Narnian Chronicles and the Lord of the Rings can be seen as great signposts and warnings that have been left to tell us of the dangers we face, built before the leftist propaganda destroyed the rest of our culture.
Had they come later they might not have achieved the stature that they did.  Were they to be written today, they would be ridiculed, attacked as racist, imperialist, xenophobic.  We see how The Hobbit films were infected with political correctness that went entirely against what would have been true to the story and to Middle Earth.
The works of CS Lewis and Tolkien are edifices which we would do well to value and learn from.  They are voices from the past crying for us to remember who we are, to stand firm against chaos and barbarism, the cruel tyranny of Islam and attrition against the truth of our own spiritual nature and destiny.


ˡ  Gondor: in my recent researches and deliberation about Middle Earth, I came across a Cultural Marxist ‘analysis’ of Gondor.  It claimed that Gondor was an invading power which sought to dominate Middle Earth.  The writer of this piece (I have lost the link) has clearly not properly read the history of Numenor as it was the case that only Elendil, his sons and a few boats filled with survivors of the wreck of Numenor arrived on the western coast of Middle Earth.  This was hardly an invading force.  It was only by their intelligence and mighty works that they established themselves in the lands in which they arrived.  Where else should they go?  There were already Elves in the West of Middle Earth who were friendly to them, and that is where they set up, West of the River, and East of the Sea.  They had no other options.
By today’s standards they would undoubtedly qualify as refugees, but the Men of the West did not try to sponge off the local inhabitants, who were accustomed to a much lower standard of living than the Numenoreans.  Instead they set about building a new civilisation in as close an image to the one they had lost as possible.
So the builders of Gondor and Arnor were far more like entrepreneurs, explorers and inventors in that they brought trade and artisan skills to the West of Middle Earth, as well as building alliances of strength with their neighbours such as Rohan which maintained peace for long periods in the face of chaotic incursions from the tribes of the East.



 You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my shamanic rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp 'Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming The Hundredth Monkey' (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) below




Tuesday, 4 April 2017

An Open Letter to Henrik of Red Ice

Open letter to the Henrik Palmgren 

and the Alt Right on Transsexualism


      I’m writing this because it is about an issue that is coming up more and more in the online networks I inhabit and I see a lot of misunderstanding or just plain ignorance about the subject.

     I’ve done a couple of interviews on YouTube recently on the subject, to which I have received mostly reasonable responses, but there have been a couple of ignorant comments which demonstrated that their authors had not actually listened to the content, and one of them actually admitted that this was the case.
I also feel the need to respond to the rant which Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice TV made on last Saturday night’s live stream about transsexuals. (Weekend Warrior #32 members’ content http://www.redicemembers.com/.)
Firstly, may I preface this by saying that I have been a listener to Red Ice Radio for something like eight years, and not only have I greatly enjoyed an immense amount of the content which Henrik has presented over the years, but also tremendously respect the open minded attitude he has taken in his research and inquiry on subjects which many others fear to approach.
I was greatly honoured when I was invited to appear on Red Ice’s sister channel Radio 3Fourteen by the estimable Lana Lokteff about eighteen months ago and given the opportunity not only to discuss the ideas behind my book Waking The Monkey Claire Rae Randall ~ Hundredth Monkey: Cultural Marxism and the New Age (R314)but also, in the second interview to explain my views on the world of transsexualism and transgender. Cultural Marxist Model of Sexuality and Biology of Gender Dysphoria
For those of you who missed that I will briefly summarise that it is my scientific conclusion based on experimental and other material evidence that while there may be socialised forms of transgenderism as the proponents of Gender Studies claim, classic transsexualism develops out of neurological developmental abnormalities which remain as permanent structural defects within the brain.
News stories such as the mother/child ‘transition’ which was featured on Weekend Warrior are troubling.  Any psychologist or psychotherapist worth their salt must surely consider the possibility of some kind of collusion or folie-a-deux taking place.  Having experienced severe gender dysphoria myself from the earliest age I have deep reluctance to accept what is called ‘late onset’ transsexualism.  The mother of this child seems to have been claiming this.  My own view is that if one has not had this sense of being/wanting to be the opposite sex from the earliest age, and it has not been immovable, then claims of sudden epiphanies later in life must be regarded with suspicion.  Especially if it appears to have been triggered by the child’s announcement that they want to be the opposite sex.  Who knows what kind of unconscious mechanisms have been at play here?
So far, I’m probably on the same page as Henrik, or at least close.
Here, our paths will diverge I suspect.
This mother/child story is, I agree, deeply troubling, and probably quite messed up.
But there are tens of thousands of fully transitioned transsexuals out there invisibly carrying on their lives without most people knowing about this.
I recently came across this piece of research by Lynn Conway which suggests that at least in terms of strong feelings of gender dysphoria the population of people for whom this is an issue, in the USA at least, could be as high as 1 in 500 or even more. 
That is a figure of 0.2% of the population, and similar to other neurological disorders such as Multiple Sclerosis.
The population who have had such strong feelings of gender dysphoria seems to have existed for possibly several millennia, at least as far as evidence can be found, and could well have existed long into prehistory.  Communities such as the hijra in India, and the kratoey of South East Asia are well established social niches that have been evolving for a long time.
The individual instances which we may find questionable, such as the mother/child one featured, should not be used as a straw man to attempt to eradicate the actual phenomenon itself.
I hear Henrik, and others on the Right expressing sentiments to the effect of ‘Why do they do this? Why can’t they just be normal?’.
Sadly, we can’t, and your saying so won’t make it happen. 
There are two ways we can approach this.  I can go into the developmental neurology but it is probably more important to understand that what is probably triggering Henrik and others on the Right about this is the way it has been exploited by the left.
I have explained here, and on the R314 show how I believe that these conditions arise in neurological development.  This is a testable hypothesis, and there is already evidence such as that I have cited, Gooren and Zhou’s work in the early 2000s, and my own favourite, Professor VS Ramachandran’s work on the likelihood that there is some brain mapping mismatch, which closely corresponds to my own experience.
So, having established that the phenomenon of severe gender dysphoria does exist, and has existed for thousands of years with many tens of thousands of people who have gone to extreme lengths to reduce this dysphoria, and having proposed probable brain structure mechanisms as to the aetiology of this phenomenon, which I fully acknowledge is not survival adaptive in the greater scheme of things, I have presented the material evidence demonstrating our existence and the likely reasons for it.
Where I believe that Henrik, and others in the New and Alt Right are missing the point and attacking the wrong target is that this genuine phenomenon, which has existed for thousands of years and found at least some small niche in some societies has been hijacked and exploited by the LGBT and SJW crowd to their own ends.
There are acknowledged to be several prominent homosexuals in the Alt Right, which has attracted criticism from some quarters, but doesn’t seem to be a problem for most.  Similarly, I don’t think you will find any of these homosexual Alt Righters promoting LGBT and SJW agendas or multiple made up genders with accompanying pronouns.  As is the case with myself.  Richard Spencer himself recently tweeted that homosexuality is a fact of existence and shouldn’t be a stumbling block.
Richard Spencer 'Homosexuality isn't going away'
I saw a comment on the Red Ice YouTube channel below my interview with Lana accusing me of trying to take over the Alt Right with my trans agenda. 
Puh-leeze.  I have no intention or desire to subvert the Alt Right, and am quite happy to let it evolve in its own way.  The only thing I seek to influence is awareness of this issue so that its energies are not misdirected in the way we sometimes see.
As I have pointed out, there is a large population of unnoticed transsexuals out there.  My own experience of this is that most of these have no wish to ‘deconstruct’ the gender binary, and feel that it would only make the situation more confusing if it was.
However, the LGBT left want to promote transgenderism rather than simply acknowledge transsexual gender dysphoria as a problem which a very small percentage of the population experience and find themselves having to deal with.
       What this amounts to is suggesting and promoting the idea that transgenderism is something that almost anyone can engage in, that it is perfectly normal.  Associated with this is the notion that ‘gender roles’ as such are an oppressive cultural construct and that it is good to ‘queer them up’ as the activists say, by doing this kind of thing.
      The sudden emergence of the 38 invented pronouns or whatever it is and the demonisation of all who refuse to use them (like Dr Jordan Peterson) alongside all this is clearly a viral cultural psychosis, and I would liken it to the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution in China in the late sixties.  Eventually it burnt itself out but after having done terrible damage to the country, its people and its heritage.
I rather see the current War on Gender, as I call it, in these terms.  It is one theatre of conflict in the great cultural war which is being waged against Western Civilisation and its people at present.
This is the target that Henrik and the new right should be focussing on.  Yes, point out the ludicrous nature of ‘late onset transsexuals’, cast doubt on dodgy relationships where weird dynamics are at work and stick up for the normalisation of the gender binary as the principal basis not only for our society, but for our entire phylogenetic class of mammals.
But the enemy is the libertine left who want to parasitise themselves upon a class of people who, by our nature, seek social invisibility.  It is very self contradictory for me to have to engage with this subject, because I do not gain anything by outing myself as transsexual.  I may hope to spread some understanding on this subject more widely than already exists, but at the same time I find myself subject to abuse from people who don’t even bother to listen to the material in my podcasts.
The only substantial thing I can hope to get from this is a redirection of hostilities away from the 0.2% of the population of whom I am a member, and hope that it will be aimed at the proponents of Queer Theory and Gender Non-Binary who are as much, more even, my enemy than that of the person in the street, because it turns them against us, when it is the Gender Theorists who are the enemy who are responsible for all the confusion.
As I will describe in my forthcoming book The War on Gender, when, some years ago, I was considering applying to take a Masters in Gender Studies at Leeds University (something of a Ground Zero epicentre for the world of Gender Studies, I discovered) I realised that to do so would involve having to listen to theories of gender which entirely resisted acknowledging all that I already knew, and which imposed an interpretation on me with which I did not agree myself.
It seemed probable to me that I would have been considered something of a catch, possibly a poster child for the promotion of their fake reality had I pursued that path.
This is the world to which we must direct our critical attentions, not the medical concept of transsexualism itself.
Gender Studies rejects the application of taxonomy to atypical gender conditions.  ‘Late onset’ transsexualism in someone who is middle aged and a parent is considered just as valid as someone who has had strong feelings since childhood and transitions successfully in their twenties.  All gender is fluid and choice, and any firmly fixed position is oppressive in their world.
The simple problem is that to the non specialist all this conflates to a point where the baby is thrown out with the bath water.  All we are left with is political demands from people whose only interest is to deconstruct society, which is entirely the opposite to what I and many like me want.
So, I address this directly to Henrik Palmgren.  All I ask is that you understand that this is a more complex and nuanced subject than previously it might have seemed.  I’m not Calling you out or trying to raise some big internet flame war. 
I love your material, and I’m really proud to have been on your network, but one of the things about the Right is that we accept what is and don’t try to impose solutions because we think that’s how the morality of the world should make it.  If the SJW left hadn’t been exploiting this lately you probably wouldn’t even be aware of it as an issue, because people like me like to blend in and not be noticed, certainly not wave a flag and say 'Look at me!'.  Which is why it is a pain that I have to do this, because I am sick and tired of the Gender Studies morons spreading lies about people like me and trying to destroy society through viral contagion and imitation by weak minded people.
But I have to do it because someone has to, and I am in a position where I can laugh at the critics from the left who might otherwise accuse me of transphobia.  I’m sure I will still get that from gender fluid queers but they are an even smaller minority than my own group, and I don’t care about them.  I had expected to have to deal with them but of course SJWs tend to ignore things they don’t like.  It grieves me to have to address this to the Right, but if we can clarify this amongst ourselves, then we will be stronger against the left.



Friday, 25 November 2016

Brexit Letter To My MP


Brexit Must Mean Brexit!

The current furore created by the globalist shills trying to usurp the mandated will of the people of the UK has caused me to get in touch with my MP, Rachel Reeves, concerning this matter.

She is ostensibly one of those Labour MPs willing to respect our mandate but with so many traitors within their ranks needs to have her feet held to the fire.

I would urge you to also write and speak to your MP about this matter, make them realise the constitutional and moral gravity of what the theft of the will of the majority would mean for the future of our great nation.  A future based on dictatorship and tyranny.

Please by all means copy sections or as much as you find helpful in lobbying your MP to do the right thing and accept that we must leave the EU, as mandated.

Here's the email I just wrote.


Dear Ms Reeves.

I am writing as a constituent to request to see you at one of your surgeries when that might be available.

I read some of your comments after the Labour Party conference which gave me confidence that you were prepared and willing to support the decision of the people on the Referendum result.

However, recently, with the legal case which is threatening the implementation of the will of the British people, I have become very concerned that certain interests are seeking to block the largest mandate of the British people ever made.

I wish to explain to you my view that for these interests to manipulate the law to overrule the will of the people, or for Parliament itself to do so would endanger our entire national being and constitutional legitimacy.  For such interests to seek to do so is to stand on the brink of the abyss of tyranny, and should they succeed in thwarting Leviathan, the conflict which would be released, both parties knowing that the rightful path had been usurped would lead to a constitutional crisis of a like not known since the 1640s.

King Charles abrogated the power of the Commons and precipitated the Civil War upon England.  If, in this present circumstance Parliament were to abrogate the decision of a direct Referendum of the People, then such a crisis would again be upon us.

We, those who voted to Leave the EU and whose number, some 17.4 million exceeded the Remain vote by a million and a quarter or so, would not accept the constitutional legitimacy of an outcome that contradicted this.  The rancour and resentment this would raise would inevitably lead to chaotic and unpredictable events arising in the future, and who can say that we would not experience a second Civil War in our nation?

I cannot emphasise strongly enough the moral peril into which these misleaders seek to take us.  It would be enough, but now I see that Tony Blair, architect of the Iraq War himself, is pressing forward of overturning the Will of our People.  And I read some politicians saying that this is 'too important a decision to allow the people to make' or that we are in a post democratic age.  This is not acceptable.  We must be clear that this is dictatorship and tyranny, in their clearest literal meanings.

I look forward to speaking with you in person and I urge you in the strongest terms possible to seek to convince your party to accept the nation's verdict.  It is utterly unacceptable and hypocritical for a party that claims to represent the common person to seek to overturn a firm majority mandate of this nature.

Thankyou.

Kind regards,

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Brexit: The Tyranny of the Minority

Brexit: 
The Tyranny of the Minority.


In the aftermath of the unexpected UK Referendum result, which as all will now know came out to Leave the EU, we have seen some incredible attempts to overturn this, which I believe is the largest single mandate received at a national poll in our history.  Slightly more people voted in the 1992 General Election, but the vote was split between three main and several smaller parties.  The winning party then, the Conservatives, received less than 40% of the total vote, while Leave took 52%, at over 17 million votes, and a million and a quarter lead over Remain.  No-one asked for any recounts, so the vote is uncontested, and stands.

Thus by any normal standards of electoral representation this is a firm and resounding vote in favour of the proposition to leave the EU.

And yet, despite it being stated clearly by the Prime Minister when this was arranged that there would be no second vote, and affirming on the morning after the Referendum that the will of the British people must be respected, that it is an instruction which must be delivered, and that the decision cannot be doubted, the Remainer camp, principally on the Left so far as I can determine have made an infinity of attempts already to get the result overturned, reversed, ignored, re-voted upon and the rest.

The Labour party has gone into meltdown as it does about once every generation, tearing itself apart in public; and regrettably Jeremy Corbyn has resorted to accusations of racism abounding in our country.  His message to me seems confused.  If he is seeking to maintain his position as leader of his party, then whether there is or is not racism abroad is fairly irrelevant, I would imagine since I’m sure they all consider themselves good ‘anti-racists’.  Although I dare say there is always some mileage to be had from a bit of gratuitous virtue signalling.  On the other hand there have been a rash of what sound to me like ‘false flag’ victims claiming to have been subject to racist attacks following the Brexit vote.  I think these must always be looked at cautiously since we have seen so many fake attacks or daubing of slogans on mosques claimed by muslims who have been subsequently demonstrated to have created these themselves.

I’m relieved that the EU elite seem to be taking our decision more seriously than some of our own people.  But what I would like to examine here is how it is that a minority of a minority can claim to have a right to overturn the largest mandate in our history?

If they were to actually succeed in preventing us leaving the EU then they would have in effect implemented a coup against the British people.  Now I want to look at the claims that since certain regions voted to Remain then they should be allowed to do so.

Frankly, this is in contravention to the way our laws and democracy work.  I have lost count of the number of times that lefties have said to me ‘Well, that’s representative democracy for you, you vote people in and they make decisions.  If you don’t like it, tough, it’s the will of the majority’ even when these ‘democratically elected’ politicians take decisions which they have never mentioned to the electorate previously.  (Like the Leeds Trolleybus scheme that was nearly foisted on the people of Leeds, but was rejected after an exhaustive Public Inquiry.)

And there can be no question that had the Remain camp won we would now be having to endure the most spiteful harangues against us in perpetuum, having ‘You Lost!’ rammed down our throats as they press their boot down on the back of our collective neck.

To claim that regions should have the right to secede from the United Kingdom on the basis of these results is the deny the nature of that Union and the representative democracy we have so often had used against us.  We voted as a the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Not a bunch of separate and independent principalities.  The nation state, which is still the fundamental unit of political and international identity in the world.  As has already been emerging, apparently the EU grandees are not interested in Scotland as a member if it left the UK, or at least there would be a very long application stage.  So Ms Sturgeon might realise that one's family is more dependable than one's new best friend; despite our long chafing at each other, we can be relied upon.

And Sadgit Khan’s suggestion that London itself should secede is so utterly ridiculous that I shall leave it at that and say no more on the matter.

So these, predominantly lefty, Remainers who won’t accept the standards applied to them which they have exploited for decades, are also griping because they don’t have the opportunity to sneer and lord it over us.  I’m sure the Conservatives are having their own little er.. discussions behind the scenes, but at least they manage a bit more decorum than the whinging whines of the leftie Remain losers and do it mostly in private.

And so we come to it. 

There are those in the Remain camp, not all, but many, especially the young, who entertain the delusion that they can overturn this democratically determined mandate if they shout loudly enough.

This is in a way the culmination of the Cultural Marxist technique, and they are betting all on this one last throw of the dice.

Since the Second World War and the creation of the UN, then the EU, we have seen the endless promotion of ‘minorities’ to the degree now where they have more rights than the majorities in our countries.  If you don’t believe this, look at any number of videos online where white males are vilified simply for being white males.  In Europe immigrants are committing terrible crimes ~ Rotherham and the rest ~ and get privileged treatment because those who should be rooting it out are afraid of being called ‘racist’.  Muslims who married child brides abroad are allowed to bring them into the UK, and can even claim benefits for multiple wives, while an English man who even had more than one wife would be prosecuted for bigamy.

In England we have had to put up with denigration of our people and our culture by the left for generations, even though we are in a majority, as was demonstrated by the voting pattern at the Referendum.  The tweets and social media vilification of the Leave camp has been extreme with verbal abuse and even death threats to Nigel Farage which have not lead to suspension of accounts.


This has been the style of the endless series of ‘colour’ and street revolutions we have seen over the last few years whether in Arab nations or the Ukraine.  ‘Popular uprisings’ somehow manage to overthrow established and in most cases legitimate or at least stable governments because the media and the likes of George Soros get behind them.

We have seen the chaos visited on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria when powerful external forces seek to replace their governments.  Would we fare any better if the will of the people were to be overturned in such a manner?

The ‘minorities’ have got so used to being protected and getting their own way all the time against the majority who have been perpetually backed against the wall in their own territories that they take it for granted that they can overturn even this mandate.  

The likes of Chukka Umunna and David Lammy say ‘Well 48% of the electorate didn’t vote for this, so we should respect that.’  Yes, I respect them.  I won’t berate them for having made a different choice to me.  I shan’t beat up on them because we disagree.  I will not sneer or lord it over them as they would have done to us.  

But they must accept that they have lost and we have won.  This is the way it is.  We have had too much of ‘everyone has to be a winner’ and ‘we can’t have anyone losing’.  So if that is the case, then you force losing on those who have actually won.  By giving consolation prizes to losers, and withholding the prize from the winners, you turn everything upside down, back to front and inside out as the Cultural Marxists always do.

The rabble mob of youth are claiming that they have had their future stolen from them by ‘oldies’ who have only a few years yet to live.  Well, I’m in my sixties, but hope to live for up to another thirty years, so I have a future too in this.  And my parents generation, some still voting, who fought in the war.  Whatever one might think about the rights and wrongs of that, they believed in what they fought for, and have a right to be respected.  The generation who defended and built the nation which the youth wish to give away for trinkets and baubles.

And my own generation, who grew up in the shadow of the war.  I know some who complain about the baby boomers who let all this happen.  There is some responsibility, but mostly we were misled and deceived; however, now we have stood up, before it is too late.  Yes, we remember what it was like before the EU plunged us into the depths, and we want it back.  Those who never knew it are ignorant, and have illusions to which they were indoctrinated.  They do not have the right to give away what our ancestors fought for, and built over long years of struggle.  It is the duty of the elders to preserve what was handed down to us.  Children don’t understand this.  I didn’t when I was young, and I don’t expect they do now.  But they will.

There was a time once, and it wasn’t so long ago, when the wisdom and experience of age was consulted before any major decision was made.  Those who had given their lives for a cause were respected, as Nigel Farage should be.

Those who seek to overturn the will of the people are a mob.  I hope it will burn itself out through being ignored, but it should be understood that this is a profoundly authoritarian movement, totalitarian in its desire.  We have seen it from the EU dictatorship who are already rolling out their plans for a super-state; which had been denied when the Daily Express broke the story.  And here it is.

We are hearing that the decision to stay or leave is too important to be left to the people.

Almost all revolutions begin with minority groups who pursue principally their own agendas.  The mob are co-opted, but then their impetus is diverted to those agendas, and then they themselves are put down if they get wise and try to stop it.

This is Chaos.  Anarchy.  Those who know the I Ching of the ancient Chinese will understand that the Yang must not be subordinate to the Yin.  The Great must be above the Small.  The Majority must rule the Minority, or there is Chaos.  Yes, the Majority should respect the Minority and not oppress them, but if they go beyond this, and give in to that Minority, then they have abdicated the right to rule.

If the Minority accepts that it has lost, it can be respected and accommodated to some degree.  If it tries to assert dominance over the Majority, it will bring downfall upon itself.  This is the way it has always been, and it is the way that it is.  The death knell of the EU has been sounded.  The 23rd July 2016 will go down in history as a momentous event, even more important than 9/11.  The ‘contagion’ of free thought and independence has broken through the autocratic mind control which assumed it would remain in power.

They have lost, and there is nothing they can do but scream and have tantrums.  They can slow it down, and they can cause us problems along the way.  They can manipulate and pervert.  But the EU is now doomed because the hope of freedom has arisen in the hearts of European nations across the continent.  They can accept it and let it happen smoothly, or they can fight and be eviscerated by their own chaos.

My video blog rant on this subject.



My Book 'Waking The Monkey!
~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey (A Book for Spiritual Warriors)
Paperback


Kindle

My other blogs
Relating to my book, metaphysics and consciousness.

Leeds Trolleybus Inquiry and miscellaneous material






Monday, 25 April 2016

‘Non-Binary’ and the LGBT Agenda

‘Non-Binary’ and the LGBT Agenda 
The War on Gender which is currently being waged by the LGBT lobby puppets of the Cultural Marxist propagandists has recently stepped up a gear, or possibly two.
           If you haven't heard my interview with the estimable Lana Lokteff on her Radio 3Fourteen show, then I would recommend you do so before you read this so as to get as much background to the subject as possible first.
Following the insanity of liberals allowing anyone access to either sex toilets according to how they ‘identify’ (whatever that means exactly), and the inevitable and predictable reaction by conservatives to prevent this, we see O’Bummer himself in a doubtless vetted set piece with a person of female appearance and Pakistani ancestry who claims a ‘non-binary’ identity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/student-comes-out-as-non-binary-to-barack-obama/
The mainstream media don’t seem to be questioning what this means, but rather jumping to ‘support’ ‘them’, while the on-the-ground level reaction I have picked up so far is that real people are saying “WTF is ‘non-binary’?”
So what indeed is a ‘non-binary’ identity, and why has it been sicced on an unsuspecting public at this particular time?
Although this young person has been associated with the ‘Transgender Movement’, we should distinguish between several closely related but distinct terms that have arisen in this culture.
‘Transgender’ is a word now widely used as an umbrella term for all gender non-conforming people, but this is a comparatively recent usage.  It was coined in about 1980 by a person calling themself Virginia Prince as a more acceptable term than that used at the time for cross dressers, ‘Transvestite’, which was commonly associated with sexual fetishism. 
‘Transgender’ on the other hand was designed to emphasise the gender aspect with which TGs were supposedly identified, since they would seek to pass in public in their desired gender without actually having had medical treatment like transsexuals..
‘Transsexual’ is a term which had been in use since at least the 1950s that was specifically applied to people who had medical hormonal and surgical treatment to modify their physical appearance and morphology to be like that of their desired sex.
All of these at various times have been put forward as mental illnesses, from the early ‘Psychopathia transsexualis’ to the more recent ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ but there has been evidence for some time that the closely defined Transsexual group have an actual neurological birth condition in which they really do have parts of the brain which had developed as that appropriate to their opposite physical sex.  Thus, it really is the case that the reported sense of being a ‘woman in a man’s body’ and vice versa is an accurate description.
So the term ‘Transgender’ has gone from meaning someone who is a Cross Dresser, to include both CDs and Transsexuals who have a more primary sense of their bodily identity.  Thus the distinction is blurred.
It is my understanding that this is a matter of some disagreement in the Trans world, my own preferred blanket term.  Many transsexuals do not like being associated with people they see as being entirely unlike them, while TGs often will argue that such distinctions are irrelevant, or divisive politically and attack TSs as ‘post-op elitists’.
And this is where ‘Non-Binary’ comes into the debate.
A large proportion of the general public will accept transsexuals who successfully pass in their desired sex/gender and who have had reassignment surgeries.  They may not exactly understand it, but it doesn’t challenge the very nature of sex and gender if the person involved seeks to fit into an existing pattern and is morphologically congruent.
TG is a grey area which has more recently been thrust on an unsuspecting world.  After the term was picked up by Judith Butler in her books from the late eighties and early nineties it somehow managed to get to be used as a conflation of several variants, including possibly the best known, transsexualism.  Her observation that there is a ‘performative element’ in gender has been widely abused and misrepresented to claim that sex is in itself only performative, and thus anyone can be either sex merely depending on their behaviour.  The finer points of distinction between sex and gender tend to get air brushed out of the picture when the LGBT promoters get their hands on it and we arrive at the stage we have got to at the present in which anyone claiming to ‘identify’ with one or the other ‘gender’ can use the toilets of the opposite sex.
The point at which ‘Non-Binary’ can now enter has been achieved because sex having been reduced to only gender is now only a concept, and so bodies have become irrelevant.  When we had sex, we knew that there were two forms, or at least two poles, male and female.  There might be intersex, hermaphrodites and transsexuals who are a mixture of male and female bodies, but there was this principle dynamic of the polarity, which has been designed into biological reproduction by nature over a billion years or so.
Enter ‘Non-Binary’.  If sex is no more than gender, then we are no longer anchored in nature, no longer rooted in the forms which are its means of expression, but we are seeking to repudiate its classical archetypes.
‘Non-Binary’ is far more than merely TG, TS, Cross Dresser, confused and all the rest.  ‘Non-Binary’ is not merely saying ‘I don’t know what I am, I’m all mixed up, I might be a bit of both, bisexual, asexual or whatever.’  No, all that is kindergarten stuff which we should be able to recognise and understand as the result of feminising chemicals on embryologic development, early maturation and the destructive influence of Cultural Marxist programming through the mainstream media.  What ‘Non-Binary’ does is to put a position that is a quantum leap beyond.
Having got the world all nice and confused with the imposition of ‘Transgender’ as the blanket term, superseding transsexualism, it then goes on the attack the existence of gender itself.
So someone who claims to be ‘Non-Binary’ ‘identified’ is someone who is not just some kind of androgynous, hermaphroditic, intersex like creature who is seeking to either find some slot into which they can fit, or something that is some balance of the sexes that they can become, or that even accepts that they are a confused mix of these two polarities, but is someone who rejects those polarities.  By claiming to be ‘Non-Binary’, they are not only saying that they don’t fit in, but that the ‘Binary’ on which our entire culture is based is no more than a construct, a fiction designed by someone for some arbitrary reason which bears no relation to the functions of nature.
The boundaries, the natural tabu between men and women are to be broken down entirely.  This coming so hot on the heels of the affirmation of transgenders’ rights to use toilet facilities of their preference regardless of appearance or bodily anatomical status is clearly no coincidence.
In the wake of the controversy we are to be reminded, guilt tripped into something most don’t really understand.
First, gender has been detached and deconstructed away from attachment to an actual body.
Secondly, the rights of any who claim an abstract ‘identification’ with that deconstructed construction are to be recognised regardless of demonstrative evidence such as physical appearance and behaviour, or medically reassigned status.
Thirdly, since ‘Sex’ is now only an incidental physical characteristic and not in any way associated with ‘Gender’, people who claim ‘identification’ with a particular ‘Gender’ can thus enter the space previously exclusive to the sex associated with that ‘Gender’.
However, since that space is no longer exclusively inhabited by those of that sex to which it was exclusive, the gendered terms ‘man’ ‘woman’ ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not merely enlarged, or modified as in the case of adapting to the existence of intersexes and transsexuals, but entirely transformed so that they lose critical parts of their meaning.
Policing of dissent from traditionalists is maintained by use of choice words of abuse, such as ‘bigot’ and ‘sexist’.
It is perhaps as much as a decade since I got into an exchange on an anti-Transphobia forum discussing the problematic nature of this discourse when claiming ‘female’ identity for TGs who have had no medical reassignment treatment, and got back the response ‘I’m perfectly happy with my female penis.’  Okay, this is a complete redefinition of language at which Winston Smith would stand back in admiration, as black became white.
When the Gender Recognition Act (2004) was passed I predicted that the failure to require certain medical procedures to be carried before a Recognition Certificate and revised Birth Certificate could be issued would lead to exactly the state we have at present.  Which some believe is a precursor to the elimination of legal sex or gender completely, on the basis of human rights or somesuch.  The fewer objective referents which are attached to the association between sex and gender, then the less meaningful the latter becomes.  As it becomes more amorphous it becomes easier to push the ‘Non-Binary’, and those who are tempted by this notion become thereby more malleable.  If you have no template to aspire to, no gender role model, then you are fair game for the Cultural Marxist to mould to their own ends.
What this ‘Non-Binary’ agenda seeks to do is to break down all that is based on nature and on the basis of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ to make us all grey and featureless drones without gender, race or any unique characteristics of our own.  And in the process it seeks to crush the mind which recognises the cognitive dissonance generated by ideas which conflict with our natural instincts.
Without going into details, we need to find some way to adapt to the presence of trans people in our societies. 
This is probably the point at which I should mention that I myself underwent what was then known as ‘Gender Reassignment’ in the 1980s.  I don’t discuss this online with any great enthusiasm as it has been a private matter all my life and I wish it could remain so, but it is important for me to speak out against the current LGBTQ movement which seeks to represent me, but which has goals entirely at odds with my own beliefs.
Our existence is a fact which will not simply go away by wishing it, or by condemning it as some on the Right would have it.  But trans people are a minute proportion of the population, even if the revised levels of prevalence calculated by Lynn Conway are correct,
 and for the general population to have to change their attitudes and behaviour for one person in a thousand or even in five hundred who is to be given a status above the law on the basis of no evidence other than a personal claim is not acceptable. 
There has to be a line somewhere.  We can negotiate where that line might be, but there has to be a line.
I’ve seen several comments on social media recently from people who have said things like ‘They’ve just messed it up now opening up rest rooms to anyone who ‘identifies’ as a ‘woman’.  There were probably thousands of successfully transitioned trans women who passed successfully in stealth and were never questioned when they used women’s rest rooms, but now any woman with so much as a trace of facial hair are going to be grilled, or else total pervs will be using the ladies facilities and no-one will be able to stop them.’
 It’s time we have the discussion.  Where do we draw the line?
The two sides are faced off against each other.  The liberals demand that anyone should be able to use any public toilet on the basis of simple ‘identification’, which is little more than a mere statement of wish, and the conservatives will only accept assignment at birth.  I have to reject the former as without basis in evidence, merely taking someone’s word for something without demonstrative evidence is stupidity in the extreme; and the latter, while I respect the impulse from which it arises, is rather living in the stone age with regard to recognition of intersexual type birth conditions, both morphological and neurological.
So we have to have the discussion.  The Alt or New Right is getting to grips with recognition of the fact that homosexuality exists and that it is an instinctual inclination in some people.  So long as we maintain a balance whereby we don’t punish people for inclinations which are natural to them, so long as they do no harm by them, but at the same time recognise that traditional heteronormative relations are the best basis for a stable and culturally fruitful society then we will be in balance.
We need to take the next step and get to grips with the fact that the trans world exists and that it cannot be stamped out.  But Transgender activists should not presume by this that they can establish and exploit a hegemonic victim position in order to attack heteronormative structures through virtue signalling.
We are a small minority and most of us seek only to pass unnoticed in society.  Those who stand on the soap boxes and promote ‘Non-Binary’ models of gender, and endlessly push their victimhood agendas are representative only of themselves, a minority faction within the minority.
I have my own position on where exactly I think we should draw the line, but I’ll leave that for now.  However, we must have a line, and preferably one which accommodates scientific knowledge on brain sex, but also on morphology, appearance and behaviour.  A man or a woman are recognised through their gestalt, although there are sine qua nons.  There must be a line drawn between male and female.  It is an ancient tabu, both sacred and profane.  Some may cross it due to exceptional circumstances, but those circumstances will be recognised and understood, there will be rites of passage, and formal recognition.  People who claim ‘identification’ will need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
I am even prepared to allow for an ‘Intergender’ category.  I mentioned this term to Dr Sally Hines of the Leeds University Dept of Gender Studies in 2009 when I had several conversations with her.  This would accommodate those who permanently inhabited a zone of mixed status.  I understand there is a term ‘Neutrois’ which has been adopted by some, but I don’t find this nearly as troublesome as ‘Non-Binary’.
This latter term is a purposeful attack on the very division of higher life forms into male and female.  People who use this term routinely attack what they call ‘The Gender Binary’, as if masculine and feminine were an affront to human dignity, rather than what gives it its depth of character.
So we must have a line, and we need to have the discussion about exactly where it is, especially when it comes to the use of pubic facilities, or we will fall into the abyss where anyone is anything they say they are, and where the very binary polarity of life itself is denied.
                  *                            *                            *
There is a whole other discussion I could get into about how this is parallel to the current attempt at destroying national identities and borders in a very similar way.  No Borders is not far from Non-Binary.  No boundaries is what these people want, and it is no surprise to me that one of the principle tools of fear that has recently been used against us is the threat of Ebola, the disease which ruptures cell walls, like open borders and Non-Binary abolition of gender.  This seems to be the template for the world which the EU, Soros and their social engineers have lined up for us.
But I will leave the discussion there for now, and thank Annie Dieu-le-Veut for drawing this topic to my attention, as well as for the use of her analogy about Ebola rupturing cell walls.


                     *                         *                       *

You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at
Buy 'Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey: A Book for Spiritual Warriors
Amazon Kindle
My Other Blogs
Exerpts from my book and articles around cutting edge ideas related to consciousness and the human struggle for survival.
My original blog with full 2014 Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry online audio recording links and reportage from most days at the Enquiry and other material.