Events of recent months contributed to a discussion between myself, Rod Fleming, and Karis Burkowski. Karis carried out the role of editor and eventually co-author of our book ‘Why Men Made God’. In reviewing the book for a second edition, we encountered several points of discussion that highlight the difference between enlightened culture and regressive-left Snowflake Culture. I thought our discussion was worth sharing.
Karis Burkowski (KB): The climate catastrophe is inevitable, but can still be somewhat ameliorated. How our cultures rebuild themselves in a post-catastrophe world is a valuable discussion…Self-serving cults, particularly those with medieval attitudes, must not be allowed to gain ascendancy. We must change as a species, like we did post-Toba, and do better next time.
You mentioned that the friends of atheists are Christians. That may be so in Europe, but it is far from true over here. Atheists are still ‘closeted’ in many parts of the US and for good reason…The antithesis of Islam is not Christianity, it is secularism. Both groups would destroy atheists if they could. Continue reading Enlightened Culture versus Snowflake Culture→
Western feminists, for over half a century, have argued that gender itself has been the fundamental agent of women’s oppression. But very few have considered the consequences of matriarchy. I suggest that matriarchy in the Philippines offers an alternative.
In‘Why Men Made God’ we pointed out that powerful, high-status women in the patriarchy were those who became a part of the patriarchy itself. Some become consorts of patriarchal men. Others, however, become better at being men than men are.
Where the patriarchy was based on forms of meritocracy — often on the power to make financial profit — artificial barriers that might exist in less fluid societies could be broken down by women excelling at being men, and so they could rise in the patriarchal hierarchy.
This was a consequence of patriarchy. In order to compete and succeed, women had to accept rules designed by men. They had to become adept at playing a game that men had devised specifically to favour themselves. When we look at Hilary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May, we must ask, how much ‘woman’ is left? At least in terms of their public personas, none. Continue reading Matriarchy in the Philippines→
In an oral culture — one that is not written down — mythology evolves as it is passed from storyteller to storyteller. The Jesus myth was created in exactly this way, pasted together from earlier sources. This process is called ‘syncretisation.’
There is no fixed record of an oral tradition, by definition. In an oral culture or tradition, myths grow and develop to reflect the lived experiences and cultures of the people telling them. It was only when writing was invented that these traditions could be codified and by that time, they had been evolving for thousands of years. This means that there are many versions of the same myth, as different peoples carried it forward.
Unlimited sex after death: the foundation of Islam.
The basis of the patriarchy is nowhere better seen today than in Islam. This is not because this cult is intrinsically worse than the other Abrahamic ones, but largely because while the most rabid excesses of the others have become marginalised, in Islam the most obnoxious form is mainstream today.
This is a very dangerous situation because the aim of this form, Salafism, sometimes called ‘Wahabbism’, is the destruction of all civilisation other than the Islamic and the return of the world to the conditions that obtained in the Caliphate a thousand years ago. To this end Islamic forces are rampaging across the globe killing, raping and razing to the ground everything that they find.
Almost all credible authorities, according to GIRES in the UK, now agree that the baseline minimum for gender non-conformity as ‘at least 1%’ and this has been borne out, again according to GIRES, by recent studies in New Zealand, The Netherlands and Belgium.
Now ‘gender non-conformity’ is a broad church and by no means all of these would identify as transgender. However, research carried out by Professor Lynn Conway and also by the Williams Institute for Law, part of the UCLA, suggests about half of these are, for a prevalence of around 1:200. This is supported by census results from Malaysia, which put the incidence there — a country that is officially very hostile towards transgender — at 1:170 of male-born individuals.
This should tell us two things: transgender is innate and appears in all populations at roughly the same rate; and that as such it is a part of normal human variation.
Of these transgender populations, the vast majority are what is called by science ‘Blanchard HSTS’, ‘Early Onset Androphile’ or ‘transkids.’ These are almost always, uniquely, attracted to men. They appear as transgender very young and frequently begin dressing as girls, wearing their hair long and, in recent decades, taking feminising hormones, in their early teens. They should not be confused with another, much less frequent type of MtF transgender, known as ‘autogynephiles’. These latter are fetishistic transvestite men, for whom dressing and pretending to be a woman is a sexual thrill: think Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. (We will deal with these elsewhere; they are almost entirely restricted to white, middle-class Western men and globally are a tiny population.)
But why are MtF transgenders so obvious, and so open, outside the West?