Category Archives: Politics

Enough Pandering To Actual White Supremacists

In every clash of ideologies there is a large palette of nuances of grey, usually overlooked by both sides when posturing on their key issues. Hence the idea of analysing all possible aspects in a neutral manner.

However, there is at least one exception – when the clash involves any ideology based on racial supremacy, which seeks to reduce humanity to no more than packs of mammals fighting over territory, a phase humanity is said to have transcended a long time ago (but apparently hasn’t completely).

There is no redeeming aspect or nuance in being a race supremacist. It is the absolute lowest denominator in any society. The drive towards tribalism can be understood in certain contexts, but not this one.

After the events in Charlottesville, US, when, at a white nationalist rally where violence erupted between marchers and protesters, a woman was actually killed by a disturbed right wing extremist who purposefully ran into people with his car, the reactions were, paradoxically, mixed.

As praised as the first amendment in the US constitution is, giving the right to free speech to anyone on any matter, one must rationally admit that a march based on racial supremacy is, in and of itself, incitement to violence.

Analyse and dissect it all you want – that it what is boils down to. And when such elements freely congregate and propagandise, nothing good comes of it. Because it simply can’t. It is the most base, irrational, anger-fueled drive a person can have, and should not be alimented by any means. It borders on (and sometimes even is) murderous rage, blended with the sickest type of utilitarianism.

There is no silver lining. As much as “free speech advocates” (whose devotion is questionable when joining ranks with the right) like to throw stones at the radical left, which overall has damaged its image through acts of violence of its own, this is not debatable. No one is blowing this out of proportion. These are actual racists. Not someone making an inadvertently offensive comment or a potentially offensive joke, to be picked on for no reason. Actual torch-wielding racists, looking for concrete results and political backing.

And still, commentators claiming to be moderate wrack their brains to defend Trump’s half-hearted condemnation “of both sides”. Because they support Trump. Normally, outside of these circumstances of belonging to a clique and having to defend it at all cost, I think those same people would be very quick to disavow any such gathering.

In the Trump-supporting-yet-supposedly-not-alt-right alternative media, especially online, things carry on as usual, with issues such as the demands of irrational feminists and “regressive leftists” being treated as a priority, when it is clear that at least in the US the radical right has become a major problem, emboldened by the establishment’s tacit approval.

The idea that Trump’s election would cause such consequences was treated as ridiculous last year, with believable rhetoric – and yet it’s all happening. It seems the “ridiculous” “hysterical” left actually had a point.

 

 

 

The Trump Cult, Radicalising Instead Of Dissipating

Halfway through 2017, one could say the hopes of many who wanted to see the ‘system’ upturned through Trump’s election have been laid to rest in droves, akin to victims of the bubonic plague in the 1300s, so rampant it didn’t allow time for proper burial or mourning.

Arguably, Trump himself seems rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things (a figurehead behind the name of whom the same agenda can unfold, since no swamp was drained and no foreign interventions were stopped or diminished).

It seems that by engaging in numerous raids in foreign countries, his administration is not trying to stop terrorism but breed new waves of people seeking revenge for this untold wave of death and destruction, reported by western media outlets through numbers and statistics, as opposed to real human beings, their homes, their streets and towns. By doing so, these callous terrorist attacks in the west are almost guaranteed to keep happening, and it is not well-protected decision makers in fancy offices who suffer, but innocent people murdered or maimed in these attacks while going about their daily lives.

It is apparent that to the system overall, human beings, regardless of their location, are irrelevant. The engineering of wars and culture clashes in order to grab resources for monetary gains seems to be all that matters.

Meanwhile, people are distracted by media frenzies around what Trump does and the ever-changing structure of his staff. On a bureaucratic note, the ridiculousness of the events unfolding around the White House was depicted recently in the New York Magazine, in the most appropriate terms:

We were entering, it seemed to me, the Caligula phase of the collapse of the American republic. Pretty soon Trump would be announcing that the new FBI director would be a horse.

Remarkably, it is still too early to confine Kek to a side show oddity (perhaps a ragged piece of taxidermy). For some people, all that has happened since January is still not enough for them to see that this  – too – was a farce and that the ‘deep state’ was still very much in control.

For some reason, some keep feeding into this illusion of a revolutionary president with no background in politics, as if if politics itself, as a concept, and not cronyism, were the real problem.

When the image of a widely acclaimed personality or group crumbles and most followers become disenchanted, there is always that bunch of fanatics resembling the tail of a dead animal wriggling in the grass, independently of the carcass, as if it had a life of its own.

It seems the uncanny remarks made by Alex Jones on inauguration night, regarding the new president and a very friendly Holy Ghost, were not out of place in Trump’s America.

As RightWingWatch so often expand upon, voices in the US Christian community, regardless of denomination, expose their ‘flocks’ to rationalisations such as “God is behind Trump’s tweets”,”Donald Trump was sent by God to subdue nations that are threatening God’s purposes” or “God will punish those who oppose Trump.”

As proven by cults time and time again, fanatics will sink with the ship in delirium and consider it a privilege. The higher the water level, the more ecstatic they become, thinking the abnormality of the situation must be mystical. But alas, the UFO never shows up in the end. Neither does Armageddon, or anything of that otherworldly or colossal nature.

It’s far easier to claim the influence of a deity than admit the success of a sleazy marketing campaign on one’s own mind, so bold in its claims it has literally managed to sell polished manure for the price of pure gold.

By no means is the comparison to a fully fledged cult an outlandish one. There have been articles in GQ, The American Interest, The Independent, The Huffington Post, to count but a few, on this subject.

It was worth the wait to see how far people could march on in this charade and what particular demographics would persevere the longest.

The religious right, it appears, is gaining ground at the moment and thus has a vested interest in standing behind Trump, seemingly oblivious to the devastation caused abroad by his policies (the system’s unchanged policies, more accurately) as if to say war weren’t profoundly un-Christian. Private religious schools are gaining more funds, religion-inspired curricula are considered and overall, this long pushed under faction of society is manifesting itself in its full glory, managing to alienate those formerly supporting it as the underdog.

Another die-hard ideological group seems to consist, confirming the left’s warnings (seen as hysterical at the time) of those who support imperialist agendas, with their bigoted and racially supremacist undertones, failing yet again to see how committing mass murder with impunity abroad attracts consequences on ordinary people in the west, through terrorist attacks. Each attack hypes them up more and more, driving them to call for even more death and destruction, the irony being lost on them completely. Those who envisage an imminent, bloody clash between civilisations fail to see how it’s being engineered and how their minds are played on a daily basis.

As unfortunate as some ways of manifesting dissent were for the left, it seems clearer every day that there was no hysteria involved around Trump’s election, but objective observation. It would bring out – and is continuing to do so –  the worst tendencies people experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Most Christians Side With The Right Wing Again, As History Repeats Itself?

In the US at least, right-wing voices are intermingled with that of conservative Christians, all seeming to reach for the same goals, in the grand scheme of things. Of course Christians are greatly diverse, ranging from denominations and their hierarchies to individual believers.

This concern is mostly rooted in the declared support by the current administration of Christian causes, such as promoting religion (and creationism) in schools, stricter abortion laws or a halt in the progressive social engineering (the gender theory etc). While championing for these causes, Christians are being lured into supporting other policies which objectively conflict with their belief system – based on warmongering, xenophobia and corporatism. In terms of warmongering and xenophobia, this phenomenon is oddly reminiscent of the rise of the right in Europe during the 1930s and 40s, in the 20th Century. Though some claim this comparison is a crass exaggeration, there are parallels to be made.

Over the next few years it will be interesting to observe how they will react to the political shift towards isolationism and the ethnic purges envisioned by those favoured to reach power in Europe, as well as those already in power in the US.

Some reactions are positive (in terms of solidarity with the genuine underdog), such as participating in the creation of sanctuaries for immigrants who risk deportation. Indeed, many churches have joined this initiative, together with a number of synagogues and mosques.

The strong message from certain voices is not so encouraging, as many try to get people of faith to engage politically, putting all their support towards the new rise of conservatism, in a manner so uncritical one could compare it to the creation of a cult of personality.

“God will curse Trump’s opponents and their children and grandchildren”

Perhaps no type of rhetoric is more cringey and deserving of a spewing bucket than that of snake-oil-peddling Inforwars&Co, Alex Jones once claiming Trump had been touched by the Holy Ghost, on the night of his inauguration.

Christianity is, nowadays, in the positive sense, associated with humanitarianism, which stands in contrast with most reform ideas conservatives argue for.

Please pardon the minimal research and of-the-cuff nature of this post; the only certainty is that the following years will be very interesting and the true nature of many will be revealed, as individuals and collectives.

 

 

 

Trump: The Grotesque Lie Sold To Apolitical Anti-PC People

This post is directed at whomever might recognise they’ve been, even for a short while, pulled into a pretty grim farce, while having a different perspective in mind to start with.

It was easy for decent people who pay little attention to politics to end up cheering for change, while sick and tired of being labelled as bigots for posting jokes on social media, Islamic extremism being ignored and their culture turning into a nihilistic, degrading mess by feminists and a new generation of Marxists.

In terms of public debate, opponents of “progressiveness” were more rational, more articulate, more humorous, more sensible. They seemed to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to the left’s constant regurgitation of cliches and demands for censorship. But were they right in the end, or were they basing their rhetoric on cherry-picked information, ignoring the elephant in the room?

Being optimistic about the future is a survival issue. I get it. Fighting the left and its thought-crime-based system is also a survival issue. But how long can someone ignore or downplay what is happening, while focusing on social media wars?

Torture and civilian massacres abroad, proposed as “security measures”

When watching well-crafted pro-Trump material on social media, you will notice 95% of it revolves around what is being said about Trump, as opposed to what Trump actually says. The man himself is rarely featured for more than a few seconds at a time, and that makes perfect sense: they have to avoid including “gems” such as those linked to above.

Trump’s views on dealing with suspects of terrorism is so inhuman it horrified even many republicans. “Torture works very well.” “You have to take out their families.”

Arguably, civilians are killed abroad on a regular basis. What lacks is the actual consent of the population, who has been for years told military operations attempt to avoid or reduce “casualties” as much as possible. What lacks is the complete perversion of public sentiment, the surrender to the darkest cynicism, in order to truly dehumanise others in the eyes of an entire nation, said nation dehumanising itself in the process. There is no lower level to stoop to, individually and collectively, than indifference towards (or joy at the thought of) massacres and torture.

Why are these issues never approached by Trump’s so called moderate, apolitical supporters? This is not a partisan issue; it’s a human issue. Is this the way to “make the west great again”? Are torture and massacres western values to “rescue” perhaps? Are they perhaps worth overlooking, while cheering on the rest of the agenda?

Trump, an advocate for free speech…?

A large wave of support for this person came from those who felt the left was encroaching upon their freedom of speech, given the censorship on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Trump was suddenly seen as the underdog, the rational voice the left is trying to stomp on. In this sense it was easy for commentators to rout for him in droves, to collide with him for being censored. It was presumed on a mass scale that anything negative said about him was a lie, motivated by partisanship.

To clarify his approach to the press, you need to look no further than the development of his Aberdeen Golf Course a few years ago. He has used proven lies and bullying in order to cover up his abject treatment of local residents, whose homes he wanted removed as he deemed them unsightly for rich golfers to look at from his posh hotel. These were farmers and fishermen who had lived in the area for generations. Decent, honest working people. Aside from disregarding all those who tried to stop him from destroying a protected area of nature conservation, he made life very difficult for residents, on occasion cutting their access to utilities and refusing to repair the damage. He described them as pigs and urged authorities to remove them from the landscape his guests would want to gaze upon.

When an independent journalist documented this case as it unfolded, in all its ugliness, Trump’s representatives had him arrested for merely speaking to the people he was bullying. “I want real journalists”, he claimed while being handed an honorary degree from an Aberdeen university, despite protests from former faculty.

He uses force and intimidation to suppress any dissenting voice to his plans. He encourages violence at his rallies when dissenters show up, even if they are peaceful.

Anyone thinking he is an advocate for freedom of speech does not have enough information or has not thought this through. But as seen in that documentary, the man is an authoritarian and lies through his teeth; the truth is inconsequential to him. Other people’s rights, as a matter of fact, are inconsequential to him and he is willing to tarnish those who stand in his way.

Scapegoating entire ethnic minorities

As opponents of the radical left, we are probably too desensitised to this issue after years of progressives claiming a default victim status based on race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.

So desensitised we might fail to grasp the implications of a president declaring anyone of a certain ethnic background as a potential threat, regardless of the individual in question. This became apparent when Trump’s immigration ban was enforced and there were reports of children and elderly people being detained at airports; some were put in handcuffs for hours on end.

Is guilty until proven innocent and the label of potential terror threat stuck to the forehead of just anybody from a minority group ever a good way to go?

This is no exaggeration; from one day to the next these people are made to feel unsafe and unwanted, prone to being targeted with false accusations, questioned on their private lives and basically treated like scum. The left is not hysterical on this one.

Why wouldn’t the average racist in the street target them with verbal abuse or even violence, when the president himself is declaring before the entire nation that every one of them should be regarded with suspicion? It’s an endorsement; a free pass to do so, at least when it comes to harassment.

It needs to be pointed out that while rightfully claiming certain regimes are oppressive and promote extremism, one has to accept there are many in those countries fleeing persecution: dissidents, apostates, gays and women who wouldn’t submit to the life imposed upon them. Blocking all immigration from those countries means blocking them as well from escaping to freedom (arguably, the US is not the only place they could go to but has been an option so far). Conflating extremists with the people fleeing from them is not a rational approach.

And I must point out the hypocrisy of those who are campaigning against Islam in general, constantly deploring its victims in the Middle East or in western Muslim communities, and simultaneously arguing those victims should be banned from entering a safe western country. I’m not talking about masses of un-vetted people but individuals targeted for dissenting.

Where would all the apostates who took refuge in the west be if all gates had been closed to them, as Trump supporters argue always should have been the case? Six feet under or having their bodies on display hanging from cranes. Vetting is one thing – indiscriminate banning is another.

Nuclear weapons not ruled out

So much for “Clinton was the only/ the major warmonger”. Trump is just as unhinged.

Tarring all undocumented immigrants with the same brush

It is safe to say that the grey areas on this issue are wearing thinner by the day, conflating hard-working economic migrants with rapists, murderers, paedos and drug dealers, as if they all deserved the same treatment.

Needless to say this experiment of mass deportation of undocumented workers has been tried before. One example is the state of Georgia, where in 2012 massive raids saw farm workers removed from the US, leaving farm produce to rot in the fields as locals were not interested in doing this type of work.

Meanwhile, when faced with this threat to members of their communities, entire cities and numerous places of worship are taking a stand, providing shelter and assistance to those who are simply there for a better life and not for a life of crime. These places are referred to as sanctuaries and are a method of peaceful resistance.

Again, this is not a partisan issue, it is a human issue and anyone should be able to see that.

I must say the way the right-leaning alternative media is scorning these sanctuaries is vomit-inducing. They are not meant to protect dangerous criminals but ordinary workers who risk separation from their families. Different faiths are coming together and opening their doors to those who need immediate protection. What would anyone even expect people of faith to do, if they take themselves seriously? How do Trump-supporting Christians feel about this, I wonder? Is the cognitive dissonance headache-inducing yet?

There is so much more to say and there will be as this has barely started.

The main point is sceptics have been sold a false image, a false promise, and it is coming at great cost to others. The left and right have no claims of superiority over each other.

We have been intoxicated by propaganda pushers with images of hysterical SJWs and pussy hats, to the point of equating them with “Trump’s opposition”. No reasonable opposing arguments, presented in a reasonable way, were analysed. It was black or white, right or left, authoritarianism or freedom.

The reality is anything but.

The Political Football Culture: Scouring For Humanity

Far from claiming any of us, simple absorbers of media (however opinionated), can make an actual difference through how we position ourselves on the political spectrum or outside of it, this post deals with issues of conscience in an increasingly polarised world.

While it’s a known fact neither the left nor the right promote unity, political fury in the west is perhaps stronger now than it has been for many years. Are we, as human beings, in danger of being degraded by the baseness of the political spectacle? At which point does the media’s intoxication affect us intrinsically?

Headlines are being made out of social media posts and small comments, as those in office debate each other in the style of pimps outside a brothel; the left and right have become experts at turning bits of flotsam into the pillars of their positions, scooping up the dregs from each barrel to further inebriate their audiences.

Even the neutral can gradually be pulled in one direction, on a cause-by-cause basis, by the so-called alternative media, slowly climbing onto a bandwagon.

The total abandonment to a wave of energy generated by propaganda now resembles football stadium dynamics. While on a football stadium this temporary abandonment can be cathartic and harmless, in real life it can cause people to truly dehumanise others, in manners formerly deemed left behind in history books.

Counterculture or counterfeit?

Since our teenage years, attempts are made to co-opt us into a solid set of beliefs and principles, often feeling the need to make a choice between conforming to the moment’s education and “rebelling”. The other day I heard from various sources that conservatism would be the new counterculture; right-leaning people see it as an optimistic perspective after being pummeled by the left for so long. The realisation came that this cut and dry left/right duality is portrayed as an unavoidable cycle to maintain in the future, as if no alternative were possible.

How authentic is any culture formed as a diametral response to another, each grabbing hold of society until reaching an extreme; why want to replace it with its polar opposite instead of reaching a unifying compromise? Are leftists and right-wingers really different species expected to keep fighting for domination in perpetuity? Is the right expected to behave any differently than the left does now when climbing its way to power again?

Perhaps this is what we are meant to believe in order to remain at each other’s throats.

Blurring the lines between facts and rhetoric

Media outlets, including alternative ones, have mastered the art of invalidating a point of view just because it is strongly held by the ideological opposition, regardless of whether or not it might make sense at least partially. Nit-picking on marginal issues, diversion and placing an event within a one-sided context can be made to look like factual reporting. Factual reporting presents both sides of an issue. When the versions you hear from opposing outlets portray events in such an antithetic way you’d think they came from different planets, prepare to wonder whether subtle or gross manipulation is involved, potentially on both sides, no matter how much you tend to agree with one.

Today more than ever, one is nudged to censor their critical thinking as an issue of loyalty, when often agreeing with the stances of a peer group. When suddenly disagreeing, mobbing may occur. Proof of this loyalty can be requested at any time since discussions occur between larger groups and more publicly than ever before. The pressure to pick a side can be substantial.

Trusting inflammatory outlets which change their tune for their own agendas

Choosing a trustworthy news source is not easy, as so many are skilled in gripping people’s interest, often done today by claiming to have inside information on issues most of us cannot obtain information on directly.

It wasn’t long ago (a few years, roughly) that InfoWars and the likes were spreading theories regarding false flag terrorist attacks, impending martial law and the use of artificially generated fear in order for states to draconically control the masses. Apparently, terrorism was a manufactured excuse to create “police states”. There was a FEMA camp hysteria and descriptions of vans coming for millions of people in the middle of the night and “disappearing” them, never to be heard from again. Police brutality was constantly deplored, as well as increasing police presence and militarisation.

Fast forward to present day and this tune is being blared in reverse, with the same amount of gravity and confidence. Now, according to the same people, terrorism is actually caused by religious fanatics and no longer a ploy to “take people’s freedoms away”. In fact, they constantly promote a president who wants fewer restrictions on how the police can act, who wants more security forces on the streets supervising and raiding. And what takes the cake, who wants a massive “deportation force” to… snatch millions of people from their homes, day or night, intern them and have them “disappeared”. The system they made people dread for years is taking shape now and they are cheering it on, as it will affect only one part of the population and not the one embracing their rhetoric.

All throughout, they have been claiming to operate based on the same principles. Is there any intellectual honesty in this? Has there ever been? In the mean time, fortunately, nobody in the west has died for lack of a water filter.

How does the outlet with the largest amount of paranoia regarding the political system suddenly read like state-sponsored propaganda, with 8 out of 10 daily articles fiercely supporting anything Donald Trump does or says, down to writing one article per critical tweet? At what point does this become nauseating and transparent?

“Fighting the good fight”

Although discussing politics has always been uneasy to an extent (hence the “no politics or religion at the dinner table” suggestion), there used to be some decency, some restraint in this before social media provided immediate access to verbal matches with “detractors”. Nowadays, comment sections on any subject become septic tanks of bile, some of it undoubtedly a release of personal tension.

One can easily end up berating a stranger, to then berate the stranger’s mother, ancestors and dog, in only one paragraph, the benefits of which elude rational thinking. How much of this is even real; how much of it is social engineering and paid agitation?

People prone to politically motivated savagery need no more than a few slogans barked or sung with the right intonation in order to start chanting along and raise their fists in the air, as if contaminated by a tribal virus. Some then take to the streets, smash up streets and beat up random strangers. For others, it takes more subtlety. It takes refined language, astute humour, intricate rationalisation. Which is fine and dandy until a barrier is crossed and whatever category has angered them, at least at that moment, ceases to be human.

Entertainment is more politically charged by the day

Even this form of escapism, which has always been manipulative yet in an insidious manner, is now blatant in its pushing of social messages, being not artful but artificial.

Besides the standards imposed by progressives (quotas, trigger warnings, forbidden humour etc), we find ourselves being told what to think and how to vote by wealthy singers and actors (which is infantilising), and even shamed in this sense. Art for the sake of it has become rather rare. Somehow it all pulls people back into the mindset of having the obligation to stand and propagandise for one cause or another.

Factions denouncing propaganda while engaging in it

Propaganda, as most people know by now, seeks to attract individuals into groupthink, and one technique used is finding a symbol for a cause (a person or event) to imprint into collective memory as representative of a broader issue. Which is not wrong in and of itself as long as it doesn’t push for the blurring of other aspects related to the same matter.

What I find rather disgusting, when the media approaches an event, let’s say regarding victimisation or wrongdoing, is that it’s usually highlighted by one side and minimised by the other, regardless of what the reality is, as both are in defence of groups, not individuals. The actual story is lost in an endless spin; people caught up in a certain situation become pawns in political debates. When exposure actually damages the person presumably helped and the media perseveres, it’s a case of exploitation; when they milk it dry, the person is left to deal with the consequences (often involving harassment) of being the poster hero or victim of the day .

More queasily, each side accuses the other of jubilation when having a victim to push forward; in other words, one side has every right to feel outrage and sympathy, but the other doesn’t. Ordinary people become lost in narratives, to often face undeserved public scorn, based on the side supporting them, in a dog-eat-dog fashion, as armies of ideologues feel the need to tear them down in order to reinforce their views. The truth could be anywhere and is no longer relevant as long as enough points are bing scored.

 

Regardless of how the media makes it look, there is always the option of remaining moderate and approaching any coverage with cautiousness, refusing to label oneself and be spurred on by propaganda, even when a peer group reinforces it enthusiastically. It’s important to remember that no movement is safe from being corrupted and taken over for an entirely different agenda.

And no matter how trustworthy, charismatic and convincing our sources are, they too are fallible and could be surfing a wave to an unknown destination.

There comes a point, when soaking up biased coverage to reinforce a point of view, one needs to take a step back and think deeper. No matter how much it might seem appropriate to reach generalising conclusions regarding groups of people, their accuracy should always be questioned, as that attitude is likely meant to serve someone else’s purpose.

When It’s Time To Jump Off A Political Bandwagon

There is a classic anecdote intended to halt someone from taking a likely wrong path. The shorter version is “if you knew there was just a tiny bit of dog excrement in your food, would you still eat it?”

This can apply perfectly to embracing an ideology, political doctrine, religion or getting behind anything enjoying massive popular support.

It’s rather difficult, when the stakes are purported to be very high internationally, not to be mentally drawn, to some extent,  into a political struggle from overseas (unless you isolate yourself from any type of media). And realistically, many people who see themselves as apolitical (independent thinkers) have seen the pros of the US administration change in terms of loosening the grip of cultural Marxism, potentially with international ripples.

The left’s arguments and demonstrations have often been inept; incoherent; it was difficult to take them seriously when becoming hysterical about “pussy remarks” and parading as giant vulvae (with their heads as the urethrae I suppose).

As enthusiasm rose, the right-leaning alternative media started producing more and more pro-Trump material, which after the election has become 99,99% uncritical on very popular channels. By now it basically sounds like political propaganda, although most likely it is produced in earnest, as part of an ideological fight against the radical left.

Is uncritical enthusiasm ever a good omen? Probably not.

Among Hollywood’s snobbery, frequent violence from the left and theatrical demonstrations against “sexism”, one issue was overlooked by supportive channels: the reality of what is in store for that country’s roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom have been there for years and have built their lives and families there. Whilst routing for an end to the PC culture, it was easy for any outsider to believe deportation would be focused on violent criminals, such as murderers, rapists or drug dealers – reality proves very different.

The cold fact is that a “deportation force” will be organised to hunt all these people down; I needn’t say what that is reminiscent of, to avoid sounding like a leftist. They will target everyone, in their homes, in the street, at their workplace. They will show up at the door, handcuff people in front of their kids, drive them away and all contact will be cut, just like that. No consideration to that person’s present eligibility to stay will be given.

And spokespersons for said administration refer to this as a fair and humane method, even though the reality of it is brutal and often makes no sense in terms of what the state would gain.

Someone can even prove to have built a business, employed others, supported a large family for years , paid taxes and still be thrown out with nothing but the clothes on their back and no right to any of their possessions, or even a chance to see their family before being flown back to a country they had left decades before, prone to homelessness and despair. That is worse treatment than serial killers get. And when the breadwinner of the family is thrown out, with no consideration for those left behind, that family likely ends up on welfare. What sense does this even make? Who benefits from this?

These people are part of their society, of their communities. And they will just disappear, one by one, overnight. Seriously, what does this sound like?

Nobody seems immune to the snare of a promised political change and as time goes by, polarisation becomes more evident, even if the starting point was a neutral one. This change has generated a massive wave of hope, as a middle-finger shown to the leftist establishment. Yet it will come with needless destruction of lives, on a mass scale.

And while this is happening, the right-leaning alternative media will most likely look the other way and sneer at SJW meltdowns over inconsequential matters. And will most likely keep arguing that the Trump administration is the way to the future, an example to follow.

Eerily enough, mass deportation has seldom been discussed during the campaign and is seldom discussed now. The focus for many alternative channels with a large following seems to be defending Trump’s image at all cost, down to minutiae such as what is tweeted about him. Strengthening the border is often described as blocking new immigration, not throwing out all those who already live there and have for years, decades even. That wouldn’t be too palatable for the average reader or listener, who can instead easily be led to think, through this communal omission, that nothing unreasonable is involved.

If there’s nothing concrete anyone outside the US can do about it, perhaps no longer applauding it would be a good option. Perhaps being honest about it would be a start.

There is some lucidity fortunately and I can only hope it spreads.

 

 

Support For Overnight Deportation: The Ugly Side Of Conservatism

Although the laws affecting undocumented immigrants in the US today were certainly not put in place by Donald Trump, there seems to be a rising tide of calls for anyone with a shoddy immigration status to be thrown out as a matter of principle, conflating them with those who pose a proven security risk. One does not need to be American in order to have an opinion on how this mass exultation sounds; many gleefully envisage an indiscriminate purge, regardless of personal circumstances.

Civilisation quickly degenerates when people are desensitised to needless brutality – whether it is that of Sharia law, ignored by the left, or that of harmless individuals being snatched from their homes and thrown over the fence overnight (leaving them and their families in shock), ignored – and increasingly applauded- by the right.

While admitting it’s at the discretion of an institution to reach a decision, one can simultaneously admit such an act can be downright grotesque.

With the risk of using leftist rhetoric, one cannot say that the public reaction of indifference or delight is not a clear case of dehumanising the other.

By now, contradicting leftists on everything has become so much of a habit even intellectuals can react in Pavlovian fashion to their every stance, even when their approach, for once, can be given credit as humane and rational.

It’s disheartening to see how skeptical or conservative commentators – who are overall more profound nowadays than those on the left – suddenly lose that analytical quality, invoking bureaucracy as a moral absolute, to downplay the impact of cruel actions. Their habit of craftily bringing nuances to light, of analysing every case in-depth, switches to “oh well, it’s the law”, disregarding the human factor altogether.

The fact that some people living in the West in our current year do not have a visceral reaction to this is not a good omen.

Lines are being blurred here; the many shades of grey are being overlooked.

The recently deported Mexican woman who’d been told for years she would most likely be allowed to stay has become a target of ridicule and incrimination as a pawn in a political match. One has to wonder whether a person with a poor grasp of English would understand all the implications of using false information in order to obtain employment. Leaving aside this ill-advised move, she is no murderer, rapist, thug or drug dealer. Her situation is that of many who sought to escape poverty. A person intending to have an actual life of crime would have demonstrated that in two decades. The amount of bile thrown at this woman, who became the target years of frustration were projected on (frustration she did not personally cause) is quite something.

Moreover, crime includes a bureaucratic and a moral component; however the presence of one does not imply that of the other.

Labelling someone a criminal for immigrating out of desperation, without using violence (as it was used for instance in Calais) is a stretch, though the term technically applies.

 

One cannot help but notice how easy it is to refer to the law as immutable when on one end of the political spectrum, while ignoring and breaking other laws put in place by an administration of a different persuasion.

Right-wingers have been unfairly demonised as fascists for years; laws have been put in place to limit their freedom of speech and religion. It’s easy to denounce these laws as unjust, which implies that they are not mandated by some heavenly moral authority and can indeed inflict needless damage. People convicted over Facebook and Twitter posts (victimless “crimes”) are technically criminals as well.

Hence, when discussing other people’s suffering as a result of bureaucratic conundrums, ignoring their general situation, right-wingers are not being objective, as they claim, but subjective. They are choosing which laws to hold as moral absolutes and which laws to disregard altogether.

That is not to say that I believe in borderless utopias – however, some clemency is possible and humane on a case by case basis, instead of petty head-hunting and swift expulsions of people who have already built their lives in a country for decades.

Right-wingers often claim to use their brains as opposed to leftists, who tend to use their feelings in any situation.

Perhaps these should not be mutually exclusive, as the future looks bleak if an uncompromising choice has to be made.

 

Forget politics. We are all human and should try to remain an such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violence: The True Face Of “Social Justice”

To find a multitude of cases which could be listed as relevant examples of this reality, you needn’t look very far. In fact, new examples pop up every day, one more disheartening than the other, as the social justice zeal morphs into a feeling of omnipotence.

Among the most recent made public by the alternative media was the physical attack of a middle-aged homeless woman, who happened to be Black, in the street, in broad daylight, by a group of young thugs, the one attacking her being three times her size, as the rest – including women and quite a few Black people – cheered and mocked her. All this for being a Trump supporter, aka the supporter of a “privileged racist” who “spews hate”. The attacks escalated after Donald Trump was elected president of the US and riots have continued for days – racially motiated violence against whites, school kids assaulting each other and generalised mayhem.

It is my deduction that in these people’s minds, assaulting the homeless woman was a legitimate way of fighting the oppressive system.

Unfortunately, when it comes to this camp, justifying such attacks on strangers is not difficult. These seem to include the following:

  • Physical threats;
  • Death threats;
  • Threats of getting people fired or otherwise ruining their lives; getting people fired by swarming their workplaces with such demands;
  • Getting people arrested or fined, and if possible, jailed;
  • Physical assault;
  • Mobbing;
  • Rioting;
  • Psychotic behaviour (shouting, screaming, having fits) over political opinions;
  • Destruction of property, which ranges from setting cars on fire and smashing windows to destroying posters, signs, fliers and other materials belonging to their political opponents;
  • Doxxing and stalking;
  • Labelling with leftist buzzwords such as privileged, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and recently, growing in popularity, white;
  • Berating one’s mental faculties or sanity over political choices;
  • Publicly described fantasies of their political “enemies” suffering terrible fates such as having deadly accidents or deadly illnesses;
  • Silencing others by disrupting their speeches and meetings;
  • Hijacking other people’s platform for their own purposes;
  • Protesting in ways which affect others signifficantly (such as stopping traffic);
  • Guilt-tripping others into joining their crusades, to the point of causing self-hatred over a presumed privilege.

Some activists go as far as rationalising violence, in ways which boggle the mind. Take this article for instance, and many others like it.

The people trying to get free cannot be perceived in the same light as the people trying to kill them.

Agreed – provided that the situation is correctly assessed and the people reacting to this perceived violence correctly identify those who pose actual danger to them, as opposed to engaging in generalised group disputes and attacking individuals indiscriminately, at any time, even when not in danger.

People who fight back against police are practicing resistance. If this resistance could be called violent, it pales in comparison to a centuries-old practice that systematically targets Indigenous and Black people. It’s like throwing a pebble at a brick wall.

The “wall” formed by police is composed of individuals who are not some homogenous, timeless entity but human beings performing a job. They are not a uniform just like other people are not their skin colour or ethnicity. Targeting them indiscriminately, regardless of any action they might have taken, or lack thereof, is never justified.

Laverne Cox said in 2014 that “when a trans woman is called a man, that is an act of violence.”

You can call it needless dismissal, rudeness or harshness, but violence is a nuance too far. After all it’s not a character attack; it’s not like a man is a vile creature or this categorisation has any moral implications.

Trans women die at the hands of people who believe this, who believe that they aren’t valid or real. That they’re pretenders, dangerous impostors.

Saying that someone is not who they claim to be does not imply that the person should be attacked as a result. If these crimes happened after non-consensual sex acts (by their refusal to disclose they were trans), the rage must have been primarily caused by the acts themselves, rather than the fact that trans women exist. After all, feminists place such an emphasis on consent and the trauma caused by violation through non-consensual acts, that it is hypocritical for them to claim this situation is any different. Which is why honesty in this case is the best way to avoid being in the middle of it.

Myth #3: Protesters Must Remain Non-Violent for Their Cause to Have Credibility

This argument is such utter bullshit that sometimes I just refuse to engage with people who spew this.

So many of the people alive right now just wouldn’t have been born if their ancestors didn’t kill their conquerors.

People from groups with power are allowed to be violent in so many ways while the disempowered are expected to be picture perfect.

Somebody shoot me. Not literally, I hope.

These people are devastating their own cities because it was right for their ancestors to take up arms in order to survive…? If only they could show one grain of proof that their needlessly destructive actions will actually help their own survival in any way.

I get headaches trying to comprehend how a Marxist, a statist by definition, revels in thoughts of anarchy. The loosening of state control is associated with ideologies such as libertarianism, which is the opposite of socialism.

There has been daily evidence of police officers killing people left and right, but people are still clamoring to humanize cops with #BlueLivesMatter and “what about the good ones?”

As much emotion as reading about these killings rightfully stirs, one must accept that in that milieu there are all sorts of people, as in any other, which includes one’s neighbourhood, one’s city, even one’s family at times.

Nobody’s “humanising them” because they are human to begin with. Progressives make a hobby out of accusing others of dehumanising certain categories of people (ethnic minorities, sex workers, illegal immigrants, you name it) – which is of course wrong to do to anybody. This principle is not arbitrary. And when it comes to carrying out physical attacks or murders based on this dehumanisation, it’s difficult to comprehend the cognitive dissonance.

There are ridiculous standards placed on people who are involved in resistance; they’re not given any room to express their rage and grief however they see fit.

Though rage is certainly natural, it is also very destructive and the cause of much suffering – that’s why civilised societies have developed sistems of mediation, discussion, conciliation, so people could meet each other halfway without extreme harm being caused (as opposed to solving their differences using guns or machetes, as they do in other places). Rage is therefore recognised as the most dangerous emotion, of which we are to be cautios, for fear of causing harm or others causing it to us. It’s amazing that someone even has to elaborate on an issue of common sense, which should be clear to everyone.

Adopting the stance that it is normal to express rage however and whenever you see fit is the same as declaring you disregard other people’s rights intentionally.

Rage is something every individual experiences at some point and many express inappropriately on occasion. Like everyone else, I am well acquainted with it. However, there is a difference between reaching your mental limits (whatever the cause), to later regret it, and embracing this way of expressing yourself as a normal part of everyday life. When most people notice they experience rage too often, they make changes in their lives or seek professional help, because they are aware that their behaviour not only affects others but keeps them in perpetual misery – a misery most want to escape by any means.

It is an unproductive emotion which darkens the mind and often leads to violence; the justice system recognises that by dealing with crimes of passion differently than those which are planned in cold blood.

That said, one cannot have a constructive discussion in a darkened, irrational state; it is nonsensical. The only thing they can do in this state is become obstinate, to the point of being impossible to reason with, or/and bully others. A shouting match is not a discussion.

Myth #5: We Have to Choose Between Violence and Non-Violence

There are situations where non-violence may work better than violence and vice versa.

Having to choose resolutely between one or the other is not a choice we have to make.

Organised violence, planned and embraced as normal, is always a choice. It is not a choice in genuine situations of self defence, when one’s life or physical integrity is threatened in real time. In other situations, if you make that choice, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences as well.

Moreover, you cannot demand protection from a system you are trying to demolish. There was a case recently of a BLM demonstration during which activists chanted “pigs in blankets; fry them”, or something like that, while, ironically, being provided security by the very institution they were demonising. In that scenario, the “oppressed” were so oppressed they were able to instigate the death of those providing them a service, right in front of them.

Systems of oppression evolve over time and we need all the tools we can get. Everyone should be free to choose the tactics that they feel most comfortable with.

For someone who has PTSD, violence might be triggering. A lot of marginalized folks have enough instability in their lives; they can choose not to invite more chaos.

A physically disabled person, depending on their disability, might only be able to engage in militant resistance by acting as a home base for communication or by dispersing information, all of which is just as vital as being in the streets.

The way the author puts it, violence is a duty, from which some are exempt on the grounds of inability to carry it out, still remaining morally obligated to participate on some level.

The unnecessary binary of violence and non-violence creates a divide among people who might be on the same side. The divide between the two tactics can make it seem like one will work while the other will fail, when we really we could be using both.

I don’t intend to romanticize revolution and call for the kind of militancy that is photogenic enough to repost on social media. I’m unsure of what revolution could look like myself.

What I’m demanding here is our right to destroy what destroys us.

If they’re at war and the methods are a free for all – and they seem to think they are – they should not expect the other side to be sympathetic or even tolerant.

Let alone demand the right to destroy a society from the very society they’re trying to destroy. It’s a gigantic mindfuck. If everyone else is fair game, in any possible way (including deadly violence), they should expect the same (I’m referring to militants only, not the groups they claim to speak for).

“Tone Policing” is yet another made-up concept seeking to justify the beligerance progressives often display. Hiding behind a purity of intention and emotion, the author dismisses every natural instinct guiding people through their daily interactions, dismissing concepts such as hysteria, conversational aggressiveness, obtuseness etc.

The comic posted there bursts at the seams with uncompromising entitlement.

This is some of the text:

  • Tone policing is just another way to protect privilege.
  • Tone policing is a silencing tactic. That means it’s a part of a set of tools used by people holding privilege to prevent marginalised people or groups from sharing their experiences of oppression.
  • Tone policing works by derailing a discussion by critiquing the emotionality of a message rather than the message itself.
  • A key part of tone policing is that it allows privileged people to define the terms of a conversation about oppression in order for that discussion to continue.
  • Generally, this hinges on the idea that emotion and reason cannot coexist – that reasonable discussions cannot involve emotion.
  • …That the only productive conversation is calm conversation.
  • “Why do you get to decide what constitutes ‘calm’?”
  • But discussions can also be for exploring the extent and limits of a topic or situation, for letting off steam, for finding community, and for feeling less alone.
  • (Tone policing)…allows a person to regain control over a conversation that is going in a way that makes them uncomfortable by framing the speaker as overly emotional, and therefore unreasonable.
  • (Example given) “Your sadness about rape culture makes me sad.” “So you’ll help?” “Could you maybe just not make me sad, instead?”
  • Our emotions are valid. You don’t get to dictate the terms of our activism. You don’t get to dictate the ways we can talk about our experiences. It’s your turn to listen now.

I’m not sure where to start or if an analysis of someone’s demand for you to let them shriek at you in perpetuity as you shut up and listen needs an analysis in the first place. It kind of speaks for itself. But for the sake of argument, let’s start with the basics.

No one is obligated to listen to these people if they always conduct themselves in a beligerant manner. One is free to shut the door in their faces, walk away and not give them another fucking minute.

Heated moments happen; they happen in the home, in the street, at work or anywhere else. But they are just that – unplanned, unproductive moments of tension. If the general tone someone uses when addressing you is an aggressive one (even passive agressive), you can simply give them the finger back. You are (hopefully) not strapped to a chair in front of them.

If they decide to engage others in conversation and these others owe them nothing are are not resposible for their frustration, they should be aware that a dialogue is meant to ensure respect on both sides, as opposed to satisfying one side’s need of being heard. If they want to blow off steam, then by all means, they can do it in private,  in their echo chambers and safe spaces.

You do not gain allies by bullying them into compliance.

A request for civility is not an attempt to gain control over a conversation; that’s projection right there; they’re the only ones who are obsessed with complete control and not allowing nuances into a discussion. Another example of projection is their assumption that these conversations simply “make privileged people sad” or “guilty” or “defensive”. Not everyone is obsessed with remaining in their comfort zone, and not everyone runs to a safe space with bisquits and puppies to hug when presented with a different view.

Anyway. To my knowledge, many of these so-called discussions where shrieking is used are anything but dialogues, which entail both sides to speak. They are monologues – or unhinged rants, more like it; when the opposing view is being presented, they are the ones doing the silencing with their constant booing, chanting, setting off fire alarms and shouting over others. Reciprocity is not what they are interested in.

To conclude, the job they do at justifying their attitude is a very poor one.

And hopefully, with the political changes in the US (which many did not expect to ever see), the PC culture will start losing its hold on the west.

 

International Hysteria Over US Elections

Every few years, the world starts boiling with hypotheses on the direction the US will take after the mascot in the White House is replaced. And unless you live in a remote part of the world, where the mainstream western media is unavailable or ignored, you’re bound to hear all about the presidential campaigns.

It’s basically like watching the X Factor with a bit more vitriol. Everything but the candidates’ underpants becomes of public interest and steals the stage from actual current events.

After the awaited elections, when the spell of the marketing campaign wears off and nothing changes for the better, Americans, just as every other nation, end up in disillusion, placing bets on the newest hope on the horizon. After all this time and a massive (though not sufficient) political awakening across the planet, people still partake, intellectually and emotionally, in this cheap spectacle, though so many know that the reins of power lie somewhere else.

Time and time again, people get drawn into politics, ending up in fits of anger against complete strangers on the other side of the globe. All this energy goes towards corporate mouthpieces who will never give a toss about them, their families, their businesses or their way of life.

They spend their time lauding the candidate of their choice to the point of nausea and demonising the other side; the gratuitous ass-kissing must be incredibly funny for candidates themselves, if they ever spare a minute to inquire about it.

It’s particulalry funny to see people who claim to be politically aware (into the alternative movement, libertarianism etc) praising Donald Trump to the high heavens, as some sort of Jesus figure, their only salvation in the face of religiously motivated terrorism and political correctness. You’d think they were a few feet above all that. The opposition, on the other hand, sees this individual as the incarnation of Satan, who will undoubtedly destroy their country and as a consequence their lives.

There are violent clashes at political manifestations; people being beaten and even killed. Crowds holding signs with two strangers’ photographs on them, cheering and shouting with religious fervour. Pardon my frankness but this is nothing short of a cult of personality, in the so-called heart of civilised democracy.

I’ve seen people agitating against Trump in my country of origin, back in Eastern Europe, where fuck knows why, completely ordinary folks are encouraged by the media to become hysterical about another country’s elections. They are avidly consuming this spectacle they will never be involved in, or very likely, be affected by.

All in all, the spectacle will culminate in the grad day of “long live the new president”, followed by a short while of anxious hope versus unjustified panic. Then calm, then apathy, then disappointment, then back to square one.

Nothing new.

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 for 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.