The Seedling # 6: When Worlds Collide

It looks as though 2018 is the year my online life came crashing into my hometown life, in an ever-increasing wave of inevitability. What was it JBP said about surfing? Fortunately only a 12-footer or so as yet.

First up, two local news stories:

Anonymous complaint stops weekly roast chicken donations

Followed by:

‘Eclectic and cheap’ at New2Yew second hand  (lots of visual clues in this one)

And then today, our own little rag went and did this. (For those who are trying to read this on your smart-phone, I will copy & paste the text of my articles below the images, with some added hyper-links as citations.)

On the outside:


On the inside:

Transcript with citations:

Nazis on My Doorstep

By Jasun Horsley

In June, I heard about a group called Culture Guard (CG) scheduled to speak at the Legion, on the street where I live. It related to concerns about a program called SOGI (Sexual Orientation Gender Identification), being introduced into BC schools. Having researched social engineering in the UK for my next book, Vice of Kings, about similar progressive social programs, I inquired about the event on FB. I was told it had been canceled after the Legion received 900+ email complaints—including threats.

I went to the Culture Guard site, read a bit, and watched one of their videos [online edit: not all of it but most]. They appear to represent concerned parents and regard SOGI as indoctrinating children into values parents don’t necessarily agree with. Curious to learn more about how, in a town of less than 6000 people, the event had drawn an attack of over 900 emails including threats, I went to ask the event coordinator Heather Bergstrom at her place of work. She refused to speak to me. A few days later, I saw a thread at the FB Hope Bulletin Board about the event’s cancellation. It was followed by a steady stream of comments. Comments like:

Thank You!    So pleased you cancelled this event. Thank you.  Awesome job Heather Bergstrom and gang!! Love you lots! Thank you thank you thank you    My family and myself Thank you and have much admiration for your decision.  Good on The Legion for recognizing hate mongers. Strong community leadership. Bravo for doing the right thing   I am really proud to be a part of this community! Thank you, Heather Bergstrom & all those who gave their support   Thank you so much for NOT giving a platform to hateful rhetoric and practices!  A hate group masquerading as concerned citizens. They spout fear and hate mongering and have done no actual research into what sogi is.  a hateful agenda recruitment meeting   these people are insane and that’s the scary part.  This disgusting group doesn’t need a platform in our town to convince the uneducated that SOGI 123 is anything but beneficial. . . .  I take a very dim view of anyone who supports groups like Culture Guard.    Just a small bunch of small minded terrified people. I pity them really.   Hate under the guise of Christianity is a very thin veil.   Hope we’ve run these poisonous haters out of town.  No bible thumping flatlander would dare show their face because hate has a weak foundation.   Go to their page, report as hate speech towards a gender or orientation. If enough people do it the page will be deleted by Facebook. No time for homophobes   Culture Guard equates LGBTQ with pedos, animal f***ers and murderers.

And, the cherry on the cake: The best part of this post is that I can see what homes my children and our family will not be visiting.

I made a comment about CG not seeming especially like a hate group. I was told: “someone who agrees with what they are saying would obviously not think there was anything wrong with it , thats like asking a white supremacist what part of the kkk meeting was the most offensive.”

Translation:  “CG is a hate group and if you don’t agree then you are a hater too, and worse, don’t even know it because you are so hateful.” Okaaay. Someone added: “You just have to read their Facebook page to see the hate they spew.”

There wasn’t a single CG quote or citation on the thread to back up any of these accusations. I checked the CG FB page, found nothing overtly hate-spewing, and asked for an example. I also pointed out that anyone can comment at a FB page or a website but it didn’t necessarily represent CG views. That was met with a laughing smilie. No one provided any examples.

For the record (your honor): I don’t know enough about CG to say if they might ever have espoused hatred in any technical (legal) sense. This piece shouldn’t be confused with an endorsement of them or their views, only of parents who want to find out more about SOGI rather than welcome it with blanket, uncritical approval, just because it claims to be “all about tolerance and inclusivity.” You would think some of these people had never heard of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Is it only me, or does it strike anyone else as odd that parents who are concerned about their children are being denounced by a majority at the HBB, not just as misinformed but as delusional, ignorant haters equivalent to KKK members, Nazis, and (wait for it) Charles Manson (really)? Ironically, the hate spewed at CG involved mostly accusations of hatred and intolerance. Some of these people are so proud of their tolerance, they feel morally obliged not to tolerate anyone who doesn’t agree with them—even for a second.

Questioning SOGI is itself proof of bigotry and of supporting a persecutory drive against innocents? Doesn’t that sound like someone is working very hard to prevent you from questioning?

 (Continued on back page)

(Continued from front page)

I wonder how many people supporting SOGI could even define the difference between sexual orientation and gender identification? Are any of them aware that, not only are they not the same, but in some cases are actively opposed. I am sure these people assume that homosexuals are all pro-transgender, and vice versa, and that all of them come together like hues of a magical rainbow to make up something wonderful called LGBTQ++ that is, of course, fully united behind SOGI and other similar programs. If so, they might be surprised.

One of the strangest things about the discourse around gender identification and sexual orientation is that it is not, as the angry haters of hate on FB assumed, a simple question of progressive vs. regressive, right vs. left. It’s not even about tolerance against intolerance. It may be true that most right-wing and conservative folk, Christian or not, tend to be opposed to sexually progressive policies like SOGI, sometimes in moderate and informed ways, sometimes not. But what’s not true is the reverse, that more liberal, Leftist, or progressive types are unanimously in favor of these programs. A couple of decades ago, that may have been the case; but as anyone who’s been paying attention knows, LGBTQ++ jumped the rainbow shark some years back, and took the Liberal wing along with it. The whole movement is currently devouring itself from the inside, and one of the main reasons is that “gender identification” is a jealous god that recognizes no god beside it.

Every turf attracts a top dog, and the realm of identity politics is no exception.

Think about it a moment. Imagine a five-year-old boy who acts effeminately, a seven-year-old tomboy, or an adolescent boy who likes to put on lipstick and flirt with other boys. Homosexual, or transgender? Sexual orientation or gender identification? It used to be that a boy who was effeminate and attracted to other boys was discovering his sexual orientation (gayness), breaking the “norm” and departing from stereotypical boy behavior. Identifying that same boy as transgender—a girl “trapped inside” a boy’s body—removes sexual orientation from the equation and makes it all about reinforcing the gender stereotype, which is that only girls are attracted to boys. Only now the identity is divorced not only from social convention but from physical reality (biological sex).

Hmm. Progress progresses in funny ways. Ours is not to question why.

Yet homosexuals fought long and hard, over many decades, to break free from the social mold. Now transgender activism wants to put them back in it. If you think I’m exaggerating, you aren’t up to speed. Transgender activists not only claim that sexual reassignment surgery makes them as completely their new sex as someone born that way; they are now claiming the same without even having had the surgery. Why? How? It’s all about identification. You are what you feel yourself to be, and it’s literally a crime for anyone to say otherwise.

You may ask (if you are keeping up with these dangerous curves) what happens when a man who self-identifies as a lesbian wants to have sex with an—ahem—actual lesbian? The lesbian says thanks but no thanks, I don’t sleep with men because I’m a lesbian. Sorry. Wrong answer. Seriously wrong answer. The lesbian is now a transphobe and “vagina fetishist.” Many of my older readers think I am joking now. If only t’were so. One Trans-Activist group, the Degenderettes, is a branch of Trans Dykes: the anti-lesbian Antifa.  They consider themselves male lesbians while targeting (female) lesbians as “oppressors” of men—because they exclude males from their dating pools.(Ref.)

So much for transgender’s gay allies. What about women? The oppressed or formerly oppressed need to stick together, right? Wrong. The Degenderettes also create “art” encouraging patrons to punch feminists, riot shields inscribed with the slogan “Die Cis Scum,” pink baseball bats covered in barbed wire, and pink axes designed to kill feminist women. (Ref.)

And if some women have penises, guess what, men now have as much (or more) right to say what defines a woman as women do (a sentence which becomes literally unsayable under these new definitions), so Bang goes several decades of feminism. If you think I’m speaking hypothetically, you haven’t been paying attention. When once-celebrated proto-feminist Germaine Greer, author of The Female Eunuch in 1970, opined that men who have sex changes don’t actually become women, she was deemed  a “vile bigot” unfit for public life, with “no place in a civilized society.” (Ref.) Violence against women by “Women with Penises” (nope, not a new Canadian band) is now a “legitimate” form of Trans-activism. TERFS is a hate-term coined by Trans-Activists that means Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, like Greer, only it has since expanded to include any women who are worried, say, about permitting women with penises into women’s shelters. TERFS are not only Open Game, it’s considered a social duty to commit violence against them.

Time for you backward thinking progressives to get with the program. Some women now have penises and punch women with vaginas. If you have a problem with it, you’re a hater and a transphobe. I guess you never suspected just how small-minded and conservative you were!

***

Postscript:

A relevant video I saw yesterday about UK policies regarding self-identified trans-“women” receiving IDs that give them access to women’s only spaces.

Posie Parker is currently being threatened with a lawsuit for several tweets. I hope to speak to her for The Liminalist soon.

Repeat to self: I am not an activist, I am not an activist….

Sometimes the battle comes to you.

 

25 thoughts on “The Seedling # 6: When Worlds Collide

  1. I’m sure a reader has mentioned this before, but the name “Horsley” is derived from the Old English words hors + leah, and literally means “clearing or pasture where horses are kept” .. “What horses ?” One may ask.. Well, for me, it’s the horses of Rev19:11-21, and that’s a good thing. I just don’t know if you’re him on the white horse or the angel standing in the sun. 😉

    Thanks for seed(l)ing !

    • in this instance I suppose that you are the one on the horse and Mrs Horsley is the one in the sun. I’m not going to say that JBP is the false prophet of the beast, so don’t hold your breath.. oh..

  2. More clues than I suspected, apparently.

    I used to have a leather jacket with that Joker face on the back, bought in San Fran in the late 80s. If memory serves it was the same day my GF at the time met Jack Sarfatti by chance in a cafe, a few streets from City Lights bookstore. She was reading Gary Zukov’s Dancing Wu-Li masters and he hit on her.

    What about the birds – are they coming to land on my shoulder?

    • I actually just thought it was Canadian law that you had to have a picture of geese somewhere on display in your place of business, like fire exits or something..

      but it took me a second to really notice how close you put “Prisoner” to the clock ! cool place.

  3. It’s only upon getting the sense that something influential and undefinable- some pseudo-progressive mass of ‘weird sex people’ has turned its head in their direction, and forced their hand, that these people act. They aren’t the intellectual vanguard, they aren’t political or representative of anything outside that clock-round task of holding their own against the nearly twenty-year onslaught of challenges involved in raising a child properly. Even(especially) those who choose to procreate for purely selfish reasons or (gasp) on accident are are left saddled with the onus of being, if nothing else legally obligated to render nutritional meals and educate them in some way throughout a period of roughly thirteen years.

    from above: “Imagine a five-year-old boy who acts effeminately, a seven-year-old tomboy, or an adolescent boy who likes to put on lipstick and flirt with other boys.”
    Health and Physical Education Standards for WA state public curriculum now includes indoctrinating the tykes in grade one to: “Identify medically accurate names for body parts, including external reproductive anatomy.” while Explain[-ing] that there are many ways to express gender.” ‘Big Brother’ youth gender police, anyone? Population control- who needs it, am i right?

    Is academia ultimately to blame for the rigid accord with infinitely-producing sub-categorization a la Derrida? Are social media tools? How much can a psychopath be held accountable for the media distribution and popularization of identity markers that sound as though they were lifted from the shrink’s log at Arkham Asylum? Can a sociopath be held accountable? Do we need to(in all seriousness) hashtag accountability over a frank appraisal of clinical sanity? Can that many people react correctly to the overtures of JBP and his select ilk about the state of the ‘West’ or are they driven from the discussion by condemnations of ideology under the mattress? What is the remedy for being branded a ‘conservative’ or ‘against-‘ or ‘anti-‘ or ‘-phobic’ when you merely question motivations and outcome, or wonder aloud if the damn facts are in order? Could there even be a demonstrable heterosexual patriarchy on the ground- coming through people, not statistics about bank loans or suicide. during a period of time wherein any perspective resembling something less than overzeal for body dysmorphic disorder and demolition of boundaries crucial to society’s functioning are smashed wherever the sledgehammers can swing?

    Not really seeing the whole world through an intersectional kaleidoscope of privilege and oppression like I’m s’posed ‘ta and it’s making it really, really hard to empathize with people who’ve liberated themselves from reason itself.

    Plus, too many questions. Help!

  4. Insightful as usual, Jasun. This is absolutely insane and very frightening.

    I live in the USA, and this past election has taught me that there is a certain type of educated, urbane, trendy liberal who are just as provincial, narrow-minded and ignorant as the most backward and bigoted redneck. I guess I always knew this in an abstract way, but seeing it up close in action is a whole new, frightening experience for me. While I am no fan of Trump, I have now come to fear fascism from what passes as the “left” in the USA more than I do from the Trump crowd.

    The insanity exposed in this article brings it to a whole new level of frightening insanity. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

      • I’m not quite sure what you mean by shoe-in in this context, Jasun. Perhaps the term has a different connotation in the UK. In the US it means a “sure thing” as in “The New York Yankees are a shoe-in to win the World Series.” ( I know you’ve traveled extensively here and I’ve never been to the UK, so of you know this I am not trying to be condescending.) But if you mean it the way I think you do, i.e. that there is a coordinated effort, whether conscious or not, to use various forms of insanity whether labeled as pseudo-mainstream trendy “left” or ss “alt-right” to complement each other to achieve the goals of the social engineers who control, or try to control, public perception, to divide and conquer, or to seize more power and wealth for themselves, i would have to agree.

        In this vein, and with all this talk of lobsters made me think of the movie “the Lobster.” To keep things short, it was a battle between two extreme, irrational ideologies. The mainstream society gave single people so many days to find a mate and if they didn’t, had to be surgically turned into an animal of their choosing, while an unferground group, who lived in the woods, maintained an authoritatian celibacy. Even so much as flirting would subject one to cruel, draconian punishments. The first group could buy more time to find a mate by hunting down and killing members of the underground celibate group. I hadn’t given much thought to what common goal(s) these groups may be reinforcing by this social arrangement, but to me the move’s chief flaw, though it raised some interesting issues and analogies to our present culture, was in failing to explain how and why this “civilization” came to be this way.

        I won’t go any further than this because I’m not sure this is what you meant. Please excuse me if I am misreading you.

        • Yes that’s how i meant it; i as going to use shoe-horn but wanted something more precise and then got lazy and settled for shoe-in, d’oh.

          I saw The Lobster – what’s with the prescriptive programming & JBP there (i.e., a film about Darwinian social engineering in which people are surgically reduced to animals, called The Lobster)?

  5. Note to readers (from Faceborg thread)

    Updating my site, I realized that in 2018, now identity politics have completely and irrevocably jumped the shark, the term auticulture might also be a sort of prophetic diagnosis, a culture overrun with autodidacts, autocrats and ideologues, in which every-wo-man is an island unto zhe-self.

    Not the way I meant the word auticulture, but that’s OK, I am a diagnostician who loves paradoxes.

    [cue ensuing shit-storm]

    People who aren’t familiar with my current output may be taking my FB posts out of context, assuming I’ve undergone some sort of ideological “flip-over,” when all that’s changed (besides my personal growth) is the focus. From the ideology of movies, to the ideology of paranoia, to the ideology of UFOs, to the ideology of autism, to the ideology of occultism, to the ideology of organized child abuse, to the ideology of identity politics and, maybe, of ideology itself. This brings it closer to home for some people, hence I think the personal attacks.

    In contrast to [some people’s] assumption/accusation, I am if anything losing readers via this change of focus, and there’s certainly no indication of an increase in traffic, much less a growing “alt-right” demographic in my audience. I don’t offer politically-ideological solutions, only criticism and diagnosis; that’s been my method for a while now. People who believe in political-ideological solutions, and that political ideology itself is a solution if only we get it right, tend to assume I *must* be taking a politically ideological position when I’m not (any more than I was advocating corporate Hollywood by writing about The Matrix). But anyone who follows what I do closely enough will know this.

    The demographic I appeal to most of all is the liminal, outlier types, people seeking the ground of internally-sourced meaning (what I call embodiment) and questioning *every* form of ideology and every last cultural signifier outside of them. These are people drawn to painful self-examination even against their desire, traumatized people who aren’t afraid to follow their pain to the source, rather than be driven by it further and further into dissociative avoidance strategies like drugs, alcohol, and ideology.

    The more ideologically entrenched a person is, the more they are likely to take my criticism of progressive identity politics personally; presumably that’s because they see merit in such ideas, where I do not (I grew up in a progressive liberal home, so I know first-hand how destructive these ideals can be if unchecked). If you identify with a political ideology, I suppose it’s natural to assume that anyone who is critical of your ideology must subscribe to the opposite ideology. Since I am critiquing the Left, I must be catering/sympathetic to the Right, and so on. This ignores the possibility that I am looking to get to the truth by identifying the lies, and that I am merely acknowledging truths where I find them regardless of their ideological associations, and without advocating any kind of social or political recourses.

    However, what I *can* cop to is this: there’ s a danger of reinforcing polarization by unintentionally adopting some of the same rhetoric used by a given ideological faction, thereby triggering people’s alarm bells and defense reactions. When you are out on a social limb as I am (not just online but in the town I live), it’s natural to want to feel like you have some support if you fall, i.e., to seek out some kind of group identification (even if I consciously reject that). With that in mind, I will be more careful in future about using terms like “left” or “thought police” — even when I feel exactly as if I *am* dealing with leftist thought policers….

    • I never saw you as any kind of ideologue. This is why I like your blog so much. I, too, have done my best to renounce any and all ideology and/or confirmation bias. It’s a tall order, because it can sneak up on you. It took me years of being bamboozled by tribalism and binary thinking to get to that point.

      I’m about ten years older than you, Jasun, and I came of age in the early seventies, when hippie fashion remained but “hippie” ideology of peace and love was long gone (if it ever existed in and mass quantity to begin with, which I believe it did, notwithstanding wholly credible McGowanesque evidence of social engineering aside for simplicity’s sake, as well as the fact that “hippies” first came on my radar with the Manson murders, and I thought hippies were drugged-out murderers who wrote in blood).

      The cool kids dressed in the hippie fashion and bullied me mercilessly because I had short hair and conservative clothes. Instead of wanting to be like them and fit in, I doubled down became pure contrarian, writing essays defending the John Birch Society and the Vietnam war.

      At some point, I realized that whitewalls and high water pants and the JBS were anathema to my ever having a girlfriend, so almost overnight I adopted a very superficial leftism. (To be fair to myself, this only slightly preceded my dawning conviction that JBS types were douches and the war was wrong).

      Then for years it was pure tribalism. I would go to any convolutions to defend the “left” position in heated debates with my conservative father and his friends. He was a good man, but in the 90s he fell for Rush Limbaugh and that ilk, who I knew were liars because I knew how to fact-check, so in typical tribalist, binary trapped fashion, I reflexively defended all things Clinton until I discovered Chomsky, which made me realize things were much more nuanced. (It became much more confusing for us both to argue after that, and it was impossible to get my dad past binary mode and make him reallize I hated the Democrats too). He went to his grave thinking Tom Daschle was my hero).

      It wasn’t till after his death the internet got in full gear and I first became aware of pedophile rings, first through the books of Cathy O’Brien and Brice Taylor. Those books were easy to dismiss, bit then I read about Franklin and Dutroux and I had to face the fact that there eas truth there. My confirmation bias did not want me to believe a huge percentage of our leaders and celebrities were vicious child rapists, or that my government was capable of perpetrating 9-11. What really blew my mind was the realization that subconsciously, I wanted my father to be right. I wanted to believe that I lived in a society that was basically good and I was subconsciously content to be a pseudo-leftist poseur and create and listen to cool art and music. I found this absolutely terrifying. From that point on I threw every preconceived belief out the window and examined every issue from all sides. While I think the social engineers are getting better at theit Bernaysian games and that it’s getting more difficult to determine the truth, I find my legal training very helpful in evaluating credibility, bias and motive.

      Before I read your prior series on transgenderism, I honestly didn’t know what to think except that such concepts are totally alien to me and that I couldn’t judge someone till I walked in their shoes. But you made me aware of implications I hadn’t considered, like what if transgenderism is attracting disaffected youth who are not really transgender, but who feel alienated and identify as transgender solely because of the support they get from fellow disaffected youth and then get irreversible surgery? What per cent of gay people were not “born that way” but became gay as a result of being abused as children? I don’t find your beliefs to be hateful at all, I find you to be genuinely concerned and raising some important issues. I hate the way you were raked over the coals at RI over this and I’m glad your gay friend stepped in to defend you. Ditto for pizzagate. I don’t perceive you to have any improper agenda at all. And your critics at RI were relatively reasonable. Try postulating those ideas at a lot of feminist sites and you would be tarred and feathered and run out of there tied to a giant pink baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire! Sad, as Trump would say.

      Sorry to keep going on about my personal history but it’s therapeutic for me because I haven’t written this down before and I hope it may help others clarify their thinking.

  6. I increasingly find I can’t say anything about any of these issues without accusations of being defensive and/or defending the patriarchy because I am a straight, white, southern man.

    Sometimes I wonder how people would respond if I suddenly started identifying as a middle-aged, trans, black woman. Would other people’s willingness to entertain my conviction depend upon the apparent sincerity of my claims or maybe more my attempts to alter my physical appearance? Certainly most people I imagine would quite understandably be offended if I started wearing a whig and dressing like a middle aged black woman (reinforcing those stereotypes in the process) while also waltzing around in black face. But how would they respond if they knew I was pursuing gender reassignment surgery? What if they learned of my numerous suicide attempts or self-harm habits owing to my feeling trapped in the wrong body? What would it take to shift the perspective of woke individuals from outrage to sympathy (or pity for that matter)? Would it be the size of the medical bill? Would it be possible for me to become more sympathetic and compelling than I could ever possibly be adhering to the broad outline of my current persona?

    I’m remembering that line from Performance– “The only performance that makes it, that really makes it, is the one that achieves madness…”

    • “Dr. Tuvel’s cultural-left credentials are impeccable. Her research links race, feminism and justice for the oppressed (including animals). But she concluded that the strong philosophical arguments in favor of accepting transgender identities should also support the possibility of altering socially defined racial classifications to match people’s inner sense of racial identity.” “The Uproar Over ‘Transracialism’” by Rogers Brubaker https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/opinion/the-uproar-over-transracialism.html

    • The aim of these kind of identity movements is to propogate an atmosphere of unreality and dissociation. The ultimate reason for this is to provide cover for military and covert operations domestically and abroad, as an irrational and neurotic public is by definition undiscerning and easily led. Arguing against these movements on their (lack of) merits is therefore a waste of time in my opinion, as one is not actually engaging with the root cause of the problem.

      • Most of my local audience would not have been open to such approaches and many would simply dismiss me as a conspiracy nut, as indeed happened at a Faceborg thread where I was mocked for writing a book about UFOs. “Know thy audience” is key to effective communication. I took the same approach with Peterson. If people are stuck on the surface then let’s look at the way the roots reveal themselves on the surface and gradually draw attention downward/inward towards those subtler levels.

        The overlaps between trans and military are interesting. But are military covert ops the root? I would say that’s only one level “down” and still fairly close to the surface. A psychological analysis (even when addressing psyches that have been re-engineered by covert ops) gets underneath both levels, at least to the extent the abuse/engineers are doing what was done to them, and acting out their own complexes.

        • I wasn’t really commenting on your approach Jasun, as I know you are approaching these matters strategically. I was replying to the issues ‘Wilnessa’ is having in attempting dialogue.

          I don’t consider the concealment of covert operations to be close to the surface in understanding this matter, partly because these operations can be very large. You may ask what is the psychology or spiritual outlook of those pushing this effort, and that that offers a deeper level of comprehension, but equally there may be no answers there.

          It seems to me that evil can emanate very superficially into the world, through the meagerest emotions, but persist through a sense of organisational necessity and an absence of courage, whilst good invariably must come from great depth.

          • I wasn’t sure (which you were respond to) but I guessed it was to Wilnessa. However, couldn’t the same apply to such social interactive approaches, that applying some pressure to the surface (people’s socially conditioned beliefs) is a way to bring things up into consciousness?

            >I don’t consider the concealment of covert operations to be close to the surface in understanding this matter, partly because these operations can be very large.

            Like honey fungus mushroom? http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141114-the-biggest-organism-in-the-world

            Is that statement supported or contradicted by this one? (I am not sure msyelf, tho I agree with the second one.)

            >It seems to me that evil can emanate very superficially into the world, through the meagerest emotions, but persist through a sense of organisational necessity and an absence of courage, whilst good invariably must come from great depth.

            • Yes on an individual basis this can make a difference, but in my experience it has to be accompanied with some deeper background in order for people to find it convincing. Even then this has only been with a very small number of people I respect.

              What I mean by my statements is that the reality of organised malevolence and deception may not have much depth from a spiritual perspective, but really only from an organisational one, and therefore that the meat of the subject is in understanding the organisation, rather than the motivations of the participants.

  7. ‘…….about UK policies regarding self-identified trans-“women” receiving IDs that give them access to women’s only spaces.’

    Perverts and miscreants now – or will very soon – have access to all female, private intimate spaces. Welcome to the reality we will very soon be forced legally to inhabit. It’s just quite simply ghastly in every possible respect. Is anyone even acknowledging the very clear and present dangers to women in their public spaces: toilets, etc.? Any normal person surely must appreciate this is seriously, seriously wrong. The mind boggles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s