Monthly Archives: April 2016

Advocating Deception And False Consent

Far from trying to sound flustered about matters which don’t concern me, Daily Mail style, I positively cannot believe some of the stuff I’ve read on this subject lately; it’s beyond cringe-worthy in terms of entitlement. It’s actually disregarding the human rights of everyone who is not transgender (the vast majority of the global population). Note: when using umbrella terms such as “they”, I’m referring to the activists promoting these ideas, not to every single trans person, as that would not make sense.

It’s no secret that the leftist propaganda machine has long drifted off into la la land (never to return, probably). However, one would think they’d take things a bit slower when trying to defy the core principles which still keep this world functioning, for better or worse. Below are some ideas I’ve come across online; some are direct quotes from blogs, forums etc, which could not be rephrased in a more compelling way.

“…if I was incorrectly assigned male at birth…” (source)

Whereas psychiatry, which by no means has the whole understanding of human nature, cannot agree on what causes this (though gender dysphoria IS still in the DSM), it is a matter of wishes and feelings versus biological reality. It’s fair enough to respect someone’s feelings regarding their own body; it’s fair enough trying to be sympathetic.

But let’s not, FFS,  go so far as to “credit”  doctors with having made a mistake by assigning the wrong gender at birth, according to a baby’s physical traits. It’s not like they do it arbitrarily. That is such a deluded way to refer to this. Some of these people actually want a gender-less society, which would presumably include not assigning a gender a birth for fear of being wrong.

If you want to read some mind-bending rationales, here’s a good example. This article claims that sex – not even gender – is now a social construct.  That male and female are two notions based on loose statistics. Just because boobs or body hair are more prevalent in one segment of the population rather than the other (more prevalent, yes), that is not reason enough to put the human race into two boxes. That if the distinction is based on fertility (eggs or sperm), then children are not male or female, as they don’t produce any. That a woman who has had a hysterectomy  is comparable to a trans woman who lacks a uterus by design.  And so on.

It makes sense for this ideology to attack the concept of a biological sex altogether. Gender has already been embellished with about twenty variations. The goal is to have the scientific perspective obliterated. The author of the piece lists four reasons why society still uses (and thinks in terms of) male and female. Two of them have to do with oppressing trans people. I’m not sure that was in the mind of those who first documented this differentiation in the first place. Or anyone since.

All the pseudo-science, through which exceptions are meant to invalidate universal biological facts, is nauseating. Why is it that as soon as a fringe phenomenon passes into the mainstream, it seeks to spread until it becomes the norm? Don’t get me wrong; I don’t believe in almost any criteria for respectability (they change constantly), but I can’t help but see how the oppressed become oppressors in their own right, or at least seek to dominate, to have the world reorganised according to their vision, at the first whiff of power.

“If a partner has issues, it is THEIR responsibility to ask questions, not mine to disclose.” (source)

Seriously? You expect people to go around asking others whether they’re trans? At what point during a night out does this question fit in? And what would the excuse be? Can you imagine the partner’s reaction after being prompted to think he/she might look like the opposite sex? This is simply ridiculous. Just like it’s ridiculous to say that regarding other details someone could not simply imagine. Here are some examples:

  • Actually, I have Chlamydia.
  • When I told you I was eighteen, I lied. I’m actually fifteen.
  • The truth is I’m the cousin you never met. But I find you very attractive.
  • The reason I chose to stay indoors was that I’m running from  the police; I’m on a wanted list.
  • Well, I’m in the middle of a divorce, so if you get any strange phone calls, just hang up; my ex is a bit of a stalker.

The point is very clear; there are things one is morally obligated to tell a prospective partner, as there is a very high chance of them withdrawing consent for sexual intimacy. A “detail” such as age, marital status or legal conundrum, which might drag that person into a mess, might just make them think twice. So would knowing that they were engaging in an unwanted sex act.

“Why are trans people subjected to this? Should blacks be subjected to this? Forced to disclose even if they look white? Should Jews be forced to tell a sex partner they are Jewish? Do these questions sound absurd yet?” (same source)

They certainly do sound absurd, for the aberration of mixing in aspects which are likely to have no bearing over someone’s decision, not in terms of physical intimacy anyway.

There is a lot of talk about consent nowadays, with feminists trying their best (which isn’t much) to make it the norm for so many questionable situations to be considered rape. Yet how can someone give informed consent in this situation? Though if you ask me, the physical difference would be obvious, but who knows.

Consent is all about trust and safety. Apparently, the lack of willingness to inform a partner about being trans is also about that, or the lack thereof. Which begs the question – what are you doing in bed with someone you don’t trust not to beat you up or murder you?

“I know I’m a little late to this but there is a profound difference between “I’m just not attracted to her” and “While I otherwise would be attracted to her, I have such problems with her being trans all those feelings I felt about her have magically disappeared”. The first is not prejudice at all, the second which is all to real is undeniably a sociopolitical issue. Because if there is a light switch that suddenly turns off in your head after being attracted or smitten with a person all because of a little bit of information, it is undeniably a hang up”. (source)

This was in response to someone identifying as a lesbian and stating the obvious – that sexual orientation is not a choice and a sociopolitical issue. By asking people to disregard one’s past as the opposite sex, they are demanding that they go against their own orientation. Deciding not to have sex with someone should never be questioned by others.

To date, trans people, in their LGBT activism, have upheld this point of view. Yet they would now gladly argue that people should be deceived into having sex when they would not normally choose to do so. At the moment, there seems to be a slight rupture in the community.  What they’re asking for is that  those who are”cis” fix a “hang up” which is “all in the mind.”

This was a predictable push towards the advancement of their status, as trans people put themselves in one of the most disadvantaged positions in terms of finding a partner. Outside the circle of those who prefer relationships with them specifically, I suspect that others are, overwhelmingly, not that way inclined, be they straight or gay.

While it’s no surprise that they should come after heterosexuals with all sorts of accusations and demands, it’s still strange  for them to target gays and lesbians, after demonstrating jointly for decades for individual affirmation. There is no moral obligation to go against one’s natural inclinations in this context.It is now a “prejudice of staggering magnitude” for a person to expect honesty.

“Try it; you might like it; it could be the best you’ve ever had” (source)

Imagine if someone told a gay person that maybe heterosexual sex would be the best experience ever, so why not consider it and try it, in spite of the squeamishness? Would that suggestion be socially acceptable nowadays? I think not.

But this is the advice given to someone (and I bet more people in the same dilemma) who had sexual experiences with a partner to later find out the partner was trans, at which point the attraction dissipated. The advice is to go all the way and see if they like it after all, as if they didn’t already know.

The comments are very ironic as the author gets to experience a return of his own attitude towards those with a different opinion – immediate, vitriolic, absolute hatred from some trans people, down to the (by now common) kill yourself. All for saying a trans man should have disclosed before actual physical intimacy, which can doubtlessly leave their partner feeling violated for a long time.

“Unless you have had a trans lover or are trans yourself I don’t think you have any right to offer an opinion as an individual of experience which is the point of your blog yes ? In my experience an ally is some one who will promote the belief of others with “quotes” not to translate them with there own words.” (same source)

There you have it; you cannot express an opinion regarding those who lie and obtain consent on a false premise, committing something that in some countries is considered rape, unless you have direct experience yourself (unless you are biased).

Are false identities acceptable?

One might understand why a person would just say they’ve taken a long trip to Australia after spending a few years in jail for theft. But that refers to a limited period of time and a mistake made at one point in time. Rewriting one’s story as the opposite sex basically means constructing a false identity. Whenever a prospective partner comes into view, lies will unavoidably be told. People are more than their genitals; they have an entire history behind them. It’s fair and normal for that history to matter.

“…I’m with Kinsey and JRW here, we don’t need trans disclosure we need bigot disclosure.”

This is a very common one, actually. We need bigot disclosure. People should disclose their bigotry instead of others disclosing their trans status. Do I need to comment on this? Do I really?

Its no different than “religion, political affiliation, ethnic heritage, survivor status, occupation and work history, past abortions, hobbies, and food allergies.” (source)

No comment needed!

Bottom line – there is no compromise when it comes to respecting people’s autonomy when it comes to sexual preferences. No one should be tricked into sex acts they will later regret and find degrading. One cannot discuss the inviolability of their body, person and choices, without taking into account the same for their partner.


Multiples, Transabled And Otherkin: Welcome To The 21st Century


Img1 copy

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone was constantly on LSD. Right now, a substantial part of the SJW generation seems to have had its drinks spiked (while on a binge).

Sensible people have long considered it a dismal idea to encourage everyone to think they actually are whatever they want to be identified as, eliminating limitations imposed by reality. There are still questions regarding the day those who think they are Jesus or Napoleon will be vindicated by general validation. In this post, I joked that gender fluid people sounded like they had multiple personality disorder.

Little did I know.

There actually is a community of folks referring to themselves as “plural” or “multiples”, who consider something resembling schizophrenia as their perfectly natural state. The way they describe it, one cannot tell it apart from  a pathologically fragmented identity, possibly hearing voices as well.

The other… entities populating their minds are referred to as “headmates” and the whole thing is seen as merely a different way of existing. There are, of course, dozens of problems with that. As this analysis details, they seem to be trivialising, if not glamourising, what may indeed be a serious condition (unless they are making it up in order to be different, but honestly, who would do that and risk being hospitalised).

There is a jargon associated with this condition personality type as well; for instance, when one of the “headmates” is “fronting”, it means they are coming forward for a discussion or taking over (I’m not sure which).


Some people still think the slippery slope of identity politics is an exaggeration – in spite of our planet boasting a growing community of Otherkin, who believe to be a mixture of human and non-human beings, the non-human ranging from animals (a dog or a wolf is common) to made-up entities such as unicorns, angels, dragons and elves. I understand those who identify as animals call themselves “Therians”.

Surprisingly, no one has claimed yet – to my knowledge anyway – to be the missing link in the chain of human evolution.


Some also argue it’s preposterous to claim leftist education is by itself responsible for these fables – however, most who display this aberrant thinking, on the internet anyway, are young and impressionable (usually teenagers) acting out on social media.

It seems the “wild side” of this generation has left Marilyn Manson behind, the black nail polish, the upside-down crosses and wrist-slashing music. Now they just think they’re dogs. So much better.

There was a story somewhere by a young lady who was confident enough to tell her boss that she was partially a wolf and while at work she was behaving oddly because she was “shifting”. The result of that was very predictable (she shifted from employed to unemployed, and of course she felt discriminated against). What ever goes through someone’s mind when they expect that to be taken seriously by people in the real world? I’m not trying to be insensitive; they are obviously troubled and look for a fantasy to take refuge in.

When seeing people with extreme body modifications in order to resemble animals (who are by now famous), one is obviously puzzled but still respects them as a fringe phenomenon, an oddity – yet don’t fancy their sons and daughters undergoing socially impairing, irreversible mutilations on a whim.

There are voices claiming the connection to an animal is spiritual and those who imagine that these people want to lick their balls  are just ignorant. Yet as much as I try, I cannot understand how identifying with an inferior species is somehow special; it’s like downgrading your brain by hundreds of thousands of years. There was a time when being called an animal was an insult.

The jokes must be cracking though. Hey darling, did you hear about the Otherkin? Half-human, half-animal. Like harpies. That would explain your mother.

On a serious note, some people (kids in particular) are enamoured with this concept of coming out of the closet; there are so many tutorials on the internet on how to tell your family that you’re “different”, which most times (I’m sure) is a disappointing experience, bound to confirm that your family couldn’t care less about you since they’re not supporting you in your transition to a Canadian beaver. It has clearly become a fad.

In terms of legal reforms, here’s a tight opening to squeeze into for fans of bestiality, no pun intended. If you want to fuck a goat, just pretend that at heart you are a goat as well. You’re trans-species (the term actually exists). If that becomes common enough, why should society keep you from consummating your natural love?

Unlike those special snowflakes who attach artificial tails to the back of their trousers (for whom it’s Halloween every single day), some people wish they could lose their perfectly functioning limbs or physical abilities. Referred to as “transabled”, they are yet another “trans” category wishing (and hoping) to transition to disabled. Yes, that’s right, this happens whilst others struggle with their disabilities and are striving to overcome the difficulties of life, which is the ultimate insult. There was a lady who got a psychologist to pour bleach in her eyes so she could become blind. For most people who are able to see, being blind is an absolutely terrifying prospect.

Others want their arms or legs amputated – fair enough, hands can be arranged if they just go to Yemen and steal a bike, but supposedly it wouldn’t be very pleasant. Though some of the methods they use (crushing their limbs with concrete blocks, cutting them off with chainsaws etc) are not very pleasant themselves.

The most extraordinary thing is that unlike other types of mentally distressed individuals, they are starting to be taken seriously, even by some doctors, as I understand. Which says it all regarding the hold leftist propaganda has manage to attain.

Turning against conventions and the rigid, hypocritical society has a point when it evolves organically; these people claim to do so while unaware that their “revolution” is a product of social engineering, on a mass scale.

A revolutionary act today is declaring yourself simply male or female, with no other proclivities or curiosities, starting a family before you’re 35, getting married without a prenup and trying to save your marriage instead of running to a tabloid with your duck-face poses and sappy story of emotional neglect. A revolutionary act is turning the TV off for good, instead of watching so much fiction you end up believing you’re a vampire or an extraterrestrial warlord.

In any case, if you have any questions on human nature, you can always turn to Tumblr, where you can be exhaustively educated by thirteen-year-olds. Just don’t tell them to bite you. They might.



Quotas In Art – The New Insanity

Recently, uproar was caused by the fact that a TV series killed off a lesbian character , followed by another sudden fictitious demise, as the article mentions. Apparently, enough people can find the time and energy to consider the importance of a TV character dying to make this international news, at least on the internet.

Words fail me. For a few good reasons.

  1. When art is governed by the politics of the day, in any way, shape or form, it becomes political propaganda.

There was a time when the distinction between art and propaganda was very clear, at least to nations which had suffered the plague of socialism, of nauseating state-lauding works, including common entertainment, all peppered with the day’s indoctrination. Part of the youth now, especially in countries where art has been free of boundaries for decades or centuries, seems unable to see the direction the west is taking. There are sky-scraping road signs reading “do.not.go.this.way”.


This means creativity is completely strangled by PC standards: certain social categories have to be cast as heroes and other categories as villains; a certain narrative must be adhered to; certain feelings have to be stirred up in readers.

It all started with minority quotas in education and employment, going to ridiculous lengths and ensuring the highest level of awkwardness, as well as decreased efficiency, as selection should be based on aptitudes or merits and not on irrelevant criteria such as race or sex.

But trying to enforce actual quotas and politically correct narratives  in the fictional sphere, so the world of pink unicorns is complete with a fantasy land, beats the imagination of any reasonable person.

Art is the last bastion of freedom a community has; it’s inseparable from the concept of expressing ideas without any constraint. Trying to stifle and subjugate creative minds, to direct their pathos into the “desired direction” ends up dehumanising the whole of society, when the last of what was meant to be pure and genuine, transcendental, is suddenly controlled.Who in the world is comfortable with the idea of controlling art in a supposedly free country? This is what the Nazis did. This is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes; as soon as they seize power they start burning anything they deem subversive or unpleasant.

Obviously, this is only a television series and anyone who is aware of the nature of television knows it is not meant to get people thinking, or is not innocent entertainment  in the slightest. However, I suspect this is only the beginning. How long will it be before writers are challenged by fuming crowds regarding the characters they choose and the fate those characters have?

2. Isn’t art supposed to/ at least allowed to mimic real life?

In real life, anyone can die, and minority status does not grant immortality. One vocal protester I believe said  “the LGBT community deserves better”. Again, as if there were some obligation of moral restitution everyone outside the LGBT community shared, some burden of conscience, making anything connected to that community – even fictional characters – untouchable.


3. Maybe, just maybe, we’re spending so much time in front of screens that we’re starting to take fiction too seriously.

Breaking away from reality has become a pastime in itself; it shows how bleak reality has become at times, I guess.The whole saga surrounding “gamers” shows just how deep into public life this escapism has reached; gaming is the new football, basically. It surprises me to a great degree.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against video games or any other entertaining activity of this type; after all, reading and writing fiction (especially writing) are forms of stepping into a different world. Any writer can tell you that they’re not making characters up; they’re simply introducing them to other people. 🙂 But I’m surely not expecting another person to take my characters as seriously as I take them and have the same level of emotional attachment. Of course, when it comes to video games the escape is extremely limited in terms of possibilities; it’s robotic and totally artificial, eliminating imagination from the process.

Getting emotional to the point of protest when a character is killed in a TV series (for practical reasons) seems like too much, especially considering the calculations behind television productions in general.

4. Art is not a bespoke product (unless there is an agreement with the artist beforehand). I know money is involved in the equation… But still.

Of course, I seem to be contradicting myself, as I see TV productions as motivated by anything else but the love of creation. Yet, as mentioned above, I fear for the day that this will be applied to books as well.

Back in the day, there used to be quiet fan fiction to alter the unpleasant ending of a book, for one’s eyes only. There was no chance of actually being able to communicate to whoever had written it (produced a show/ fill in the blank) that you were unhappy with the turn of events and wanted them changed. That was unheard of. In a very good way, I dare think.

Now, it seems the public is treating whatever it views with an acute sense of entitlement, as they would treat a pack of bubblegum or a can of soda.

Does this make me happy? Does this offend me? Does this trigger me? Is this the perfect product I expected? No? Then by all means, I will complain!

It’s fair enough applying that to consumables, but please, leave anything that involves originality and creativity out of it. Especially when you tyrannically decree that the choice someone makes regarding a character is immoral. It is no longer a matter of “I didn’t like it”, it’s a matter of “you screwed up; we deserve better”.

I’ll tell you what you deserve. You deserve nothing. Someone who has such a mutilated understanding of the creative act that they think they can bully others into submission is incredibly arrogant. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it/ read it.

Rant over!


SJW Rhetoric -Noises From The Bush

Not necessarily human noises. We wouldn’t want to  risk discriminating against any terriers, seals or turkeys, just in case the audience is more diverse.

On a more serious note than feminist theatre, demonstrating can involve a series of elements; however, during SJW manifestations, impromptu or well organised, one often comes across the following:

  • Shrieking;
  • Booing;
  • Other loud inarticulate noises designed to prevent a speaker from actually speaking;
  • Shouting threats or swearing loudly to disrupt an event;
  • Asking other speakers to shut up, repeatedly;
  • Throwing things at people;
  • Taking things from people, especially placards, and smashing them to pieces;
  • Threatening to remove people from their midst by force;
  • Assaulting people;
  • Chanting mindlessly, to cover up someone else’s voice;
  • Smearing themselves with paint;
  • Stripping and being obscene.

A few common facial expressions and attitudes you can find in a crowd of hyped-up social justice warriors:


SJW facial expressions-page-0


The best description of these individuals and their sad political fate was given by Yuri Bezmenov in the 80’s, this being just one amazingly accurate fragment. Basically, they are used as amplifiers for the current forms of misanthropy, swapping one type of bigotry for another, in order to destabilise a country. Once  they have served their purpose, that inebriating power/ attention will be pulled from under their feet. The hegemony of their mindlessness will be short lived, even though now it seems they can mould the world with impunity.

The expression “regressive left”, I suppose, Is based on the fact that once dialogue is suppressed in a society, no innovation can occur, thus no progress, causing a phase of stagnation, inevitably followed by regression. This can be noticed as the ultimate fate of any communist country – the initial enthusiasm of “egalitarianism”  is replaced by a bleak existence in lead-coloured cities, in deprivation, frustration and constant fear.

However, one can also (quite often) notice the lack of an eloquent discourse on their part. Unless screeching and booing to the point of inducing migraines is a good way to get a point across.

Take this famous video for instance, of Milo Yiannopoulos  patiently attempting to give a talk at Rutgers University, being interrupted dozens of times, with a large segment of the allocated time spent listening to the ear-piercing noises made by some participants (instead of, let’s say, engaging him in a dialogue, as intended). At some point, a couple of women stood up and coloured their faces with red paint, a feminist gesture, the paint symbolising menstrual blood (which defines women to the extent that any bodily fluid defines men). The whole scene was evocative of a tribal quarrel in some remote part of Papua New Guinea. It seems some leftists aren’t content with mediaeval blasphemy-type laws and witch hunts – they want to drag us right back into the bush.

For a demonstration of how actual conversations with them tend to go, here is an example  and a second one; YouTube is full of these recordings. Of course, it can be argued that these are small samples from a very wide community of like-minded idealists and are not representative; however, those who have interacted with them on multiple occasions know the score. It makes sense for them to not be able to provide logical arguments for illogical points of view; mocking and bullying is all they have left.

The surprising aspect – besides the lack of productivity of said methods – is that these people can actually read and write. One would think that any ideas put forward by their opponents can be combated very efficiently through a compelling analysis.



Silver Spoon Nastiness

Pointless nastiness towards strangers is otherworldly for most people whose heads are properly screwed on. Whilst within relationships of some sort one might engage in it to settle scores, with no ax to grind it’s quite bizarre.

To give an example (which sounds like  a caricature but is real), years ago, when I was part of the cleaning team servicing the headquarters of an oil company, I had a very odd – almost amusing – experience with a social ladder climber; one of their executives. This woman, from her cosy position, high salary and what not, would take the time to complain almost daily, seeking to get us (minimum wage workers) into as much shit as possible. She would take note of every imperfection and even set traps for us to make mistakes. In one of their boardrooms, she drew attention to the fact that from a different angle, with the sunlight hitting the table differently, she could (barely) notice a stain on it. Another time – it amazes me she never damaged her spine – she contorted her back to look under the urn, which was attached to the wall, to notice a few minuscule coffee stains. This nasty piece of work didn’t even feel ridiculous being the only one in the building to constantly moan. This went on for months. She probably still does it now, if she still works there.

It didn’t matter to her that she could get someone fired over her petty grievances. Some financially secure people have that particularity of not understanding the effects of their actions on the lives of others. It’s me, me, me, all the way.


A simple look at the monotonous landscape of today’s most famous social justice warriors shows they generally have an economically privileged background. Not privileged in every sense, obviously – the best privilege in the world is having someone explain to you, as you grow up, how the world really works, so you don’t end up thinking you’re saving it by cross-dressing.  In fact, I’ve noticed a few other similarities:

  • They are mostly women;
  • They are mostly young;
  • They are attendants or former attendants of posh schools and universities, preferably with degrees in gender studies;
  • They suffer from some mutation of Marxism.

The typical modus operandi  of these packs groups  is going after someone’s reputation for a controversial statement, as inconsequential as it may be, preferably by descending en masse on their workplace – preferably online, as they don’t have to leave their comfort zone and everything remains impersonal enough; they can feel like victorious knights without ever leaving their armchairs. A lot of them  don’t even use their own words, but only “like” or “support” such actions. I click, therefore I am.

Listing the cases of them damaging careers (without remorse) would amount to an archive as thick as an old phone book. They target anyone, from students  with a different view to people who have taken unprecedented steps in science. Their callousness, accurately described on this blog with plenty despicable details, can hardly be associated with modern day principles and implicitly with human rights. It’s a tribunal held inside an asylum; it’s anti-bullying activists bullying people until they crack. The fact that they don’t realise the paradox means their intelligence is below sea level.

The luxury of mainly operating with abstractions in one’s everyday life means said everyday life is not too challenging in its basic aspects; one can become disconnected with reality in the raw form others experience it – particularly with online activism, which allows people to harm others from a distance, based on ideological disputes. If they were to consider the practical implications of their actions (people going on welfare, not finding new jobs, not making their mortgages and having to give up their homes, their families’ level of comfort decreasing overnight, their mental health declining etc) they might be more empathetic – or some might, anyway.

Yet being mind slaves to abstract concepts and labels, they seem all too detached, or at least confused. Here you can read an article about how acceptable it is to reveal people’s identities online as a bullying tactic, written for a feminist readership, presumably. It excuses doxxing… as an equitable answer to the horrible act of being doxxed. Or threatened (even when the threat is hardly plausible, as previous examples demonstrate). A few comments are somewhat out of this world in terms of not grasping the concept of a person’s life being severely affected by another’s ego and “principles”.

Compared to their ways, even Satanism is superior in terms of morality. No, seriously.

“11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.”

Unlike satanists, who at least employ some prudence, these people go straight for the jugular; they move to the ”destroy” phase straight away. Even blatant, shameless lying is employed as a tactic to stand up for morality, for instance by falsely claiming copyright violations to get completely original videos taken down by YouTube because of political views.

When even the church of Satan shows more kindness to other human beings than social justice warriors, you know something is seriously wrong.