Gender Non-Conforming (GNC) children, young people who have not yet reached puberty but who persistently show cross-sex behaviours, are, today, a hot-button issue. I strongly advocate a neutral ‘wait and see’ approach, in line with Dr Blanchard and WPATH.
Parents should realise that it is quite normal for children to indulge in cross-sex role-play; it’s one way that they find out who they really are. Nearly all will move on to another form of play very quickly. Boys liking pink are not trans, nor are girls liking blue. Not all men are masculine and many women are not very feminine. This does not make them trans. Loads of boy children like playing with dolls and plenty of girls like cars and motorcycles; yes there are distinguishable, statistical trait characteristic differences that allow us to be quite sure that the bases of gender are indeed innate, but these are not absolutes at all and there is huge individual variation.
Autogynephilia (AGP) is ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused at the thought or image of himself as a woman’ (Blanchard) and it is the cause of all non-homosexual gender dysphoria in males. But what actually causes it? The key to this lies in first understanding that there is nothing at all unusual about a male with AGP, other than the AGP itself.
AGP has five recognised forms, transvestic, anatomical, physiological, behavioural and interpersonal, and these may occur in combination. Men with it have three sexual orientations: they may be gynephilic (heterosexual, attracted to women), analloerotic (having no sexual relations at all with others or pseudo-bisexual, (pursuing sex with men but only when in role as a woman). In the last case, where the individual lives full-time as a woman, he may only have relations with men, but these are still pseudo-bisexual. In Blanchard’s testing, the proportions were about 60:20:20, but this may have changed and also appears to be culturally dependent. All forms, however, are principally gynephilic. As Blanchard said, ‘You have to be gynephilic to be Autogynephilic.’
Why is it that matriarchy, which is so successful at the micro-social scale, as we see in traditional communities across the world, is not de facto the governing system at a global level? If the reason were simply that ‘men use violence to impose control’ as feminists would have it, then matriarchy simply would not work on the micro scale, any more than it does on the global one. So what is happening? How is it that gynocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or global level, is not ruling us now?
When I wrote ‘Why Men Made God’ I investigated thoroughly the way that Western culture had evolved. It was clear to me then and now that the impetus first towards sedentary living, then to settlement and ultimately to civilisation (city-based culture) came from women. Women need to protect and provide for their children and this becomes progressively easier as populations become more settled. That this is a highly successful strategy is clear from the population figures: 10,000 years ago, the point at which it is generally taken that widespread settlement began to occur in human populations, there were between 1 and 10 million humans. (A) Today there are over seven billion of us.
Leftist violence led directly to last night’s tragic events in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. While the actual crime that led to the death of one person and the injury of 19 was committed, presumably, by one of their political opponents, the simple fact is that the Left in the USA has been doing its level best to engineer a situation like this since it lost the 2016 Presidential election.
It is never acceptable to use violence in the furtherance of political ends. Our sympathies go out to the victims of this attack and to their families. They also go out to the young man whose life has been ruined by the commission of this crime and to his family.
Let us be quite clear, however: this foolish and cruel act of violence was the result of a fire stoked by the Left; and it was the result most fervently desired by the Left. Now it has its longed-for martyr, whose memory it will abuse to its own ends.
There is no enemy but Islam and until we name it, we will not be safe from it.
This morning, the wires are alive with news of a terrorist bombing in Manchester, UK. Over twenty killed, scores injured. Many were children; they had just attended a concert by American singer Ariana Grande, who is popular in the youth market. But who on earth could have done it? Who can have brought this Calvary to Manchester?
In the week after yet another terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim in the United Kingdom, and the tragic and pointless deaths of innocent bystanders that this savagery caused, it is worth looking again at the late Sir Enoch Powell’s notorious ‘rivers of blood’ speech.
Powell was vilified for decades for his candour and honesty, but who could read that speech today and not, while condemning some of the language, see how he accurately predicted what has happened?
The conflict Powell feared has but just begun. All over Europe, our culture and its values are under attack. The attackers are Muslims and they act in the name of Islam.
We have absolutely no hope whatsoever of preventing the climatic catastrophe that is coming. Even were we to stabilise greenhouse gas production at today’s levels, the disaster would still happen. Were we to take them back to the levels of a hundred years ago – impossible anyway— it would still make no difference.
All that we might gain is a decade or two more time. However, we can decide whether our Enlightened Culture will survive, to help us rebuild, or be destroyed. But we must act quickly, for time is running out and we have given the enemy too much already.
Sweden is proud, today, to say that it has a woman president and a largely female Cabinet. This is lauded by feminists the world over. Yet Sweden is unable to provide the basic level of protection that its own citizens require. And those who suffer most are women, who are the victims of rape jihad at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
The Duty of State
The primary duty of a State is the protection of its people. This is the social contract we make: we consent to be governed in return for protection. If we require to look after our own security, why should we pay a State to do it? Why not buy a pistol or a shotgun and learn how to use it? Why not form militias or vigilante groups and defend ourselves? If it’s defend yourself or be raped or murdered, what right does the State have to demand taxes, or hobedience to its laws? The point of having a State at all is to avoid anarchy; but that is precisely the result, when it cannot protect its citizens. Continue reading “Sweden: How feminist emasculation broke a State”
Well, it’s here at last, Trump Day. The twentieth of January 2017. This is the day we begin to roll back the tide and reclaim both our culture and our homelands.
Trump Day marks the turning of the tide, and that is why millions of screaming, whining pseudo-liberals are so upset. There is nothing they loathe more than a powerful white man. And Donald Trump is just such a man.
A vicious alliance of lesbians, race-supremacist blacks and of course Muslims, who will use any opportunity to bite the hand that feeds them, has lined up in ‘protest’ at the democratic will of the American people. That people elected Trump as an honest broker, a harbinger of change that would put an end to nearly a decade of appalling cavilling to the most destructive and hate-filled forces in Western society.
2016 began, for me, in the Philippines, where I now am. It had a less than auspicious beginning: I remember my shock at hearing about the death of David Bowie. But, while the toll of celebrities continued, this was not the most surprising thing about the year by any means.
That something was afoot became clear early on, in May, when Rodrigo Duterte, a fast talking populist, was elected as president of the Philippines. Most people in the West hardly noticed this, but it was a straw in the wind. It is true that Duterte’s route to power was laid open by the Philippines electoral system, which is single-stage, and the fact that the centrist vote was split between two popular candidates, Mar Roxas and Grace Poe. Duterte exploited this division expertly and won, on around 38% of the vote.