As I exit 2022 tomorrow I thought I leave on a high note. As part of my Xmas gaming, I bought Not For Broadcast in the Steam sales, which describes itself as a full motion propaganda simulator. You play a TV controller and it starts on election night, when Advance — a far-left political party — gives a victory speech after an unexpected win. As the story progresses, Advance become much more sinister and introduce a number of radical acts, becoming more authoritarian with each broadcast.
It’s very dark and well written, satirising some of today’s slogans and mocking the totalitarian left (a bit like season 3 of The Boys, BLM BLT anyone?). So from 2023, I’ll switch from moaning about rising totalitarianism in the West in the real world to just playing a totalitarian propaganda sim instead!
Today (22/12/22) shared reality has ended as it will become law in Scotland that women can include both males (example in video) and females. So if a woman gets raped by a male she could have to end up addressing him as ‘her’ when facing him in court, and the rape crime would be recorded as a crime by a woman. That is not a reality I identify with.
This bill has no majority support in Scotland but Nicola Sturgeon has said it doesn’t matter as her ambition is to make the world a better place. She wants to create a socially just world by giving a tiny minority rights over and domination of half of the population. I guess she’s never been raped or abused by a man otherwise she wouldn’t have done this.
Everyone can be an adult human female now, literally become a woman, no questions asked, after 3 months, so you’ll be able to listen to people like Robyn telling you about her womanhood and her female lived experience. We are all sisters now.
Now that I’m coming to the end of my year of investigating totalitarianism, the result is pretty much that YES, there is some weird illiberal neo-puritanism going on, which must be the result of Covid, which seems to have led to a mass psychosis and delusion in the West, resulting in the loss of reality. Society certainly seems to be disintegrating quite rapidly and becoming more tribal. This law here is the nail in the coffin for shared reality and democracy, as it is ideology-led and not based on majority opinion. I can accept the law, but it’s not progress (quite the opposite), and not my general direction of travel. I don’t identify with it, it’s not my kind of thing. I’m opting out.
So I reckon the Metaverse, ChatGPT, and other tools are arriving just in time, and next year (2023) I think I’ll turn my attention to opting in or, creating my own reality (as the shared institution-based democratic one is gone now).
Christianity is now a minority religion in England and we are heading back to the dark ages, or more accurately: the post-truth age. In Scotland sex no longer exists as a distinct category defined in law and women no longer have sex-based rights. This based on postmodern theory that considers sex an artificial construct, where bodies don’t matter as they only exist in language.
While reality is denied and objectivity is replaced by subjectivity of lived experience of different activist groups amplified by social media, society is becoming both more atomised and tribalised. Public spaces are becoming less safe. People are getting ruder. With a Nietzschean type of hyper-individualism where feelings and identity rules supreme on the one hand, and intolerant groupthink on the other, there is less overlap and dialogue both between individuals and different interest groups. We live in a highly polarised world. People identify into tribes with people who are like them and don’t mix with or talk to anyone else.
Add to that late stage capitalism where activist passions are exploited and social justice is big business (trans industry, DEI industry) helping millions of lonely, desperate humans feel good about themselves in an apocalyptic world. This is what the post-Christian era looks like – women with Turkey Teeth, girls with top surgery, transwomen, incels, demisexuals, and blackpillers.
What will replace Christianity? Either hyper-nationalism, or woke progressivism. Both these movements are feelings based and tap emotions, much like Christianity. Woke progressivism (sometimes called illiberal progressivism, or new puritanism) is quite strong in its belief in its own purity, so much so that it makes it more dangerous, fervent and totalitarian. It’s like choosing between Nazi Germany (right-wing totalitarianism) or East Germany under the Stasi (left-wing totalitarianism). The Devil or Satan.
Back to the Dark Ages!
New Model Army – Purity
(I was at this concert in 1996)
The rains move in eastwards, in waves of succession Drawing lines of grey across the sky With history just as close as a hand on the shoulder In hunger and impatience we cry The battle against corruption rages in each corner There must be something better, something pure And the call it is answered from the caves to the cities Come the dealers of Salvation on Earth We’ve seen the restless children at the head of the columns Come to purify the future with the arrogance of youth Nothing is as cruel as the righteousness of innocents With automatic weapons and a gospel of the truth
Ch: Revolution for ever, succession of the seasons Within the blood of Nature, all raised to rot and die This purity is a lie Now immaculate conception in sterilised laboratories How the vanity goes on Or in the message of the preacher with his morals and obsessions The wars that we wage upon ourselves Purity is a virtue, purity is an angel Purity is for madmen to make fools of us all So forgive yourself my friend, all this will soon be over What happened here tonight is nothing at all
Ch: Revolution for ever . . . I will always see Brendan at that broken down piano His fingers thick and red, shaking on the keys Battered by the years of alcohol and working Still playing with the faith that never leaves So sit us down, buy us a drink, tell us a good story Sing us a song we know to be true I don’t give a damn that I never will be worthy Fear is the only enemy that I still know
If you live in Scotland, you will soon be able to change your gender after 3 months of living in the opposite gender to your biological sex. So, a man can become a legal woman and easily change his birth certificate to the opposite sex. His crimes will be reported as a woman’s crimes, and so on. He can access women’s toilets. A woman who’s been raped when asking for a female police officer can’t be sure to get a biologically female one. A 17-year old girl getting a shower after her gym workout steps out of the shower and sees someone like Eddie Izzard, naked. Generally girls and women will be more in the presence of naked male genitalia, often against their will.
These are some of the unsolved issues from the ‘no debate’ doctrine adopted by the Scottish Government on their controversial incoming law. The real practical implications of what’s a nice idea in theory (in the realm of ideas, feelings and kindness) have been ignored. This recently was eloquently explained by someone else:
Shona Craven makes several very important points in her column today which relate to the content of this article and to which I responded as follows.
Misrepresentation by pro-reform activists of the arguments offered those expressing concerns about the proposed GRA reforms is largely responsible for the toxicity of the debate. This toxicity has been quite purposefully contrived because it helps the pro-reform side dodge the kind of questions Shona refers to. Questions relating to the actual effect of the revised legislation in real-life situations.
Questions about the real-life effect of the reforms are smothered with worthy-sounding rhetoric about the intent. People with questions are discouraged from asking them by the fact that merely seeking clarification is enough to have them branded a hateful, uncaring bigot. The GRA reform debate has been beset by some truly despicable politicking almost entirely emanating from the woke clique which forms the imperial guard helping Nicola Sturgeon maintain her near-total control of the SNP.
Typically, we are assured that the reforms are about gender and not sex. But when we look at the effect of the reforms in real life, we see that this simply isnt the case. Possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) allows the individual to alter records essential for the purposes of identification – such as their birth certificate and passport. Even National Records of Scotland (NRS) goes along with the deception. Its explanation of how a GRC can be used to alter a birth certificate refers only to gender. Sex is not mentioned at all. This despite the fact that there is no entry on a birth certificate for gender. Only for sex. It is the record of the persons sex which is being altered. Not the record of their gender. Because there is no record of their gender on their birth certificate.
There could not be a record of the individuals gender on a birth certificate not only because there is no such entry but because the neonate has no gender. Gender is, as we are constantly being told as if we didnt already know, very largely socially determined. Babies have not had the opportunity to acquire a gender identity or to have a gender identity imposed on them. They have yet to be socialised.
The claim that its about gender not sex is clearly a lie. The law as proposed will allow official records to be altered in order to confirm a lie about the sex of an individual. One cannot help but be reminded of Winston Smiths job in Orwells 1984. The reforms proposed by the Scottish Government are explicitly intended to make it easier for almost anyone to alter official records. To believe that this facility will not be abused is to deny human nature. Which, I suppose, is easy once youve reached the stage of denying the binary and immutable nature of sex.
Another distortion of the debate is the way in which concerns about those who might abuse this facility to obtain official documents falsely testifying to their sex are minimised or dismissed. Shona mentions the revoltingly glib line about not having to show your birth certificate to gain entry to the ladies loo. Then theres the one about it being men who attack women in toilets and not trans people. Ignoring the fact that the sex distinction has ceased to have any real meaning on account of the reforms. We are presented with statistical evidence that purports to show that the problem of men invading women-only spaces is infinitesimal. Mention that the problem the reforms purport to address is even more infinitesimal, however, and you are again labelled a heartless beast blah! blah! blah!
This minimisation and dismissal of the impact of the reforms on sex-based rights and safe spaces ignores yet another real-life effect of the legislation. In real life, it is not being attacked that blights lives but the fear of being attacked. Even if you could produce statistics which showed that only one woman in a million would be the victim of an attack perpetrated by a man who had falsified his sex with the assistance of the government, this doesnt alter the reality of the fear felt by the other 999,999 women. It is fear which blights lives. It is fear which will effectively deny access to women-only spaces for thousands of women. It is not somebody standing at the door checking birth certificates which will prevent them entering the ladies toilets. What stops them is the knowledge that this is no longer a safe space. It is no longer a space reserved for women. It is a space which can easily be accessed by men.
This fear too is dismissed by proponents of the reform. They typically respond to concerns about men going into women-only spaces with by tritely pointing out that men can already go into these spaces. Ignoring the fact that what they propose will mean that those men will in future have access to those spaces legitimised by easily obtained official documents stating that they are female. Ignoring the fact that while they boast about making it easier for people to obtain these falsified documents and increasing the numbers who do so, they blithely disregard the fact that the real-life effect of this must inevitably be to increase the fear felt by women.
Its not what the law says that matters. Its what the law does. Proponents of the GRA reforms as proposed choose to turn a blind eye to what effect the reforms imply for women in real-life situations holding this to be of no consequence when set against the magnificent progressive purity of their intent.
I studied Judith Butler in the 90s – I had a copy of Bodies that Matter and also read Gender Trouble. Though I hadn’t read her work since then and didn’t realise she was now a ‘they / them’. I could get used to those pronouns, just like I can get used to Mx. What I get confused over, is whether someone like Eddie Izzard is now a woman, and the practicalities of what spaces they have access to. It’s almost like we need gender-neutral toilets and changing facilities ALONGSIDE those for male and female. Then Eddie Izzard could go there.
I might have mentioned this before but in German job ads, I have sometimes seen m/f/d, where ‘d’ is for ‘divers’ (I think anyway). So the non-binary and trans could go into the third category to all intents and purposes, including legal. Because if social gender supersedes sex then non-binary eventually should also be legally recognised.
Alternatively, you could go back to biological categories for pragmatic reasons (m/f toilets etc.), while society becomes more permissive towards transvestism (socially presenting as a different gender but each having distinct sex-based rights).