Political Paradox & What Lies Beneath

I’ve long held, somewhat in keeping with the Eastern idea of yin and yang, that extremes on opposite ends of the political spectrum will eventually become indiscernible. They do, after all, share an inherently extremist nature, and the personalities drawn to extremism are usually slight variations upon one another, whether their wide-eyed, tight-fisted credo be religious or atheist, fascist or communist.

This, coupled with my general sense that the politics of the developed world have become almost entirely faux (more on that in a moment), has caused me to anticipate the day when Rightwingers would espouse liberal ideas, and Leftwingers would espouse illiberal ideas, without the slightest hint of irony. (Self-awareness, after all, tends to put a damper on extremism). Based on myriad recent articles, this wait may be over.

Let me briefly summarize what I mean by faux-politics. I believe the developed world has become jaded and trite to the extent that no significant political change is possible in the absence of mortal danger. To those who live with universal access to indoor plumbing, grocery stores, and libraries, much less the internet, no amount of self-righteous political indignation is going to inspire them to take action in a meaningful (and thus difficult or risky) fashion. Workers of the World Unite, right after I finish this Netflix series! Or, to put it another way, the Orange Man may be bad, but not so bad that it’s worth risking my precious life over.

The only genuine exceptions to this rule are, unfortunately, the lone mass-murderers of the past two decades, who conduct their ‘revolution’ against the entire species. I suspect there is some terrible truth undergirding these madmen–perhaps a mere sense that we have transcended race, class, and all other metrics by which to accurately apportion political blame, since we have all contributed whatever dollars we had to turning God’s creation into one big theme park. One cannot help but notice that they seem to have more-or-less replaced the serial killers are of the ’70s and ’80s. The attitude, the stance, of the contemporary killer is fundamentally different. Theirs is not crime to be gotten away with, but a gospel to be shouted from the rooftops.

I turn, for my examples of this political paradox (illiberal liberals and liberal conservatives) to two articles in particular. The first is by a feminist group attempting to goad governments into banning sex robots before they become as commonplace as Iphones. And while the article is quite old in internet time, their cause is just now gaining traction. Herein we witness persons ideologically liberal calling on the government to ban a sex toy, condemning pornography entire, and opining that there is a

crisis brewing in human attachment. Attachment is the ability for humans to form stable, long lasting, meaningful interpersonal relationships that support mutual co-existence throughout life.

Let us scan the horizon for flying pigs upon the realization that leftists are now worrying about ‘family values!’ One has to wonder how many snide comments were made by these very campaigners against Christian conservatives for the identical hand-wringing and pearl-clutching that they are now frantically engaged in decades later? It appears they who made the promiscuous beds have realized they must now lie in them. One can almost picture their heads spinning ala The Exorcist as they unsuccessfully attempt to figure out how to undo male sexual liberation without curtailing female sexual liberation. Consider these passages:

Hierarchical male loss of power that is organised through traditional power structures have been diminishing over the last 100 years, the 1960s which marked the rise of feminism aimed to improve equality between the sexes, yet a commercial prostitution and porn trade grew up in parallel, that was open and legal…In the 1960s and 1970s, women had less representation in political life to stop the legalisation of pornography and an expanding commercial sex trade. Women are not on the margins any longer, and we can face head on this attack on female humanity by male dominated robotics, AI and sex industries.

To recap:

  • sexual liberation occurred “in parallel,” but had nothing to do with, “commercial prostitution and porn”
  • the empathetic, ethical half of the population would have stopped these things if they could, but couldn’t, because reasons
  • But now they can! And it will be a full-on Luddite crusade! Deus Vult?

The second, far more logical article is called The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake. For clickbait purposes, the title is far less compelling, and even does a disservice, to its own excellent article. And while the author is clearly no ideological extremist, I believe his piece can be taken as another sign of political paradox simply because The Atlantic so proudly published it. Herein we are advised to return to the clans of yore–extended, multi-generational families–rather than the mom, dad, two kids, and a dog model caused by the urbanization of the Industrial Revolution. I would have thought that, clickbait title or no, such a wholesome suggestion would be taboo among journalism’s usual individualism-at-any-cost crowd. But apparently even they have stared into the abyss of San Francisco and recoiled at what they saw there. Put down the fentanyl and get thee to a nunnery–or at least the suburbs, for Chrissakes!

Meanwhile on the right, we find the “alt-right” and the “Intellectual Dark Web” irreverently championing free speech while the far-left embraces censorship in the name of anti-fascism and combating “hate speech.” Thus a Canadian professor of psychology became American conservatism’s figurehead. I am reminded of the scene from The Simpsons Movie, wherein, at the apparent End of the World, everyone in the bar runs over to the church, and everyone in the church runs over to the bar (11 seconds in).

If I could boil this phenomenon down to a single word, I think it would have to be decentralization. Yeah, “everything’s coming apart,” but not in quite the apocalyptic way. It may feel like there are more extremists than ever before, or that they are getting louder–but this is not a sign of their strength. It’s a sign that even they are having a hard time taking themselves seriously anymore. The ego of the developed world is in its deaththrows. This process can be halted by catastrophe. But in the absence of any real problems, we are jousting at windmills. The Right is worried about free speech when there’s never been more of it; the Left is worried about violence when there’s never been less of it. We’re continuing to take turns in a game that no longer exists. I think it’ll end when we really and truly realize that we don’t need each other anymore. Necessity has been removed as a factor. We’re about to find out who we really are, and we’re going to do it alone.

‘Transgender’ Children: A Little Clarity Amidst the Chaos

Rather than focus upon any particular case of ‘trans’ children–both because I have yet to exhaustively research any specific case & because I believe we will be seeing many more such cases in the future–I’d like to explore the topic in general. I’ll save those who cannot bear differing opinions some time and disclose that my politics are moderate, trending right. However, as with my more formal writings, I hope to offer nuance that may be lacking in the mainstream discourse, some of which may offend conservatives as well as liberals.

The broaching of this topic within the mainstream has cleared up a mystifying matter for me. For years I have asked anyone who would listen why it is that LGBTQ(XYZ?) proponents have insisted upon parroting the “born this way” cliche. In other words, why is it so crucial that every instance of non-heterosexuality be a case of nature rather than nurture? Or, to put the ball more squarely in the progressive court: Who are you to say that one cannot choose (for example) gay sodomy over straight intercourse? And by saying one cannot choose, aren’t you also subtly suggesting that–if it were possible to choose–it would be wrong to do so?

I have never received an honest answer. I don’t believe most of those I have asked know why they cannot or should not answer–but now I may. It is likely over this. You cannot defend pumping children full of hormones–and possibly taking the knife to them–if there is even the slightest possibility that one or both of their parents has pressured them into choosing to transition. You can only defend the practice if we live in a world where non-heterosexuality is 100% a matter of nature, to the utter exclusion of nurture.

This, of course, is bullshit. One need only consult prison sexuality, to pick one example–where many otherwise heterosexual males engage in homosexual activity as the only present alternative to celibacy–to see that persons who were not born gay can choose to be (or at least to act) gay. There are also numerous non-prison instances, such as the infamous Carl Panzram, who, by virtue of being a blockhead, concluded that though heĀ  preferred girls, he might stand less chance of getting STDs from boys (hopefully I need not expound).

I am of course not saying that everyone is bi- or pan-sexual, for even in cultures like Ancient Greece where bisexuality was the norm, the existence of persons like Pericles (a staunch heterosexual) was acknowledged and accepted, however eccentric he may have seemed. I am merely illustrating that it is ideology, not fact, which motivates the LGBT[ad nauseam] fundamentalism of insisting that sexuality is always and only inborn.

If a society accepts the premise that anyone who is presented to them as ‘trans’ (i.e., is effectively trapped in a wrongly gendered body and yearns to be freed) was born so rather than potentially being made so by any confluence of factors (and let’s be honest, most all of the potential factors are starkly negative), then, per neighborly empathy they have nothing to do but clear the way to the stainless-steel table.

But if one recalls the gender dysphoria of yore (yore being a couple years ago) as a mental illness which could be present either at birth or brought about through a host of childhood traumas, then things are not so clear-cut. Suddenly one wants to look at transgender suicide rates as well. Suddenly one wants to look at how many ‘transgenders’ de-transition and spend the rest of their lives as good ole fashioned gay people. Heaven forbid one might even look up the name “John Money” and learn what sort of person popularized the idea of transgenderism.

In other words: if even a single provable instance emerges where a deranged parent brainwashed their child into “wanting to transition,” then the entire ideological house of cards is at stake. For there is much to lose beyond whatever perverse pleasure one takes in sexualizing children (more on that in a second); once the inborn premise is called into question it will quickly spill over into the already-broiling subjects of whether or not males-transitioning-to-‘female’ ought to continue being allowed to break female athletic records (or maim born-female athletes in combat sports). And I dare not even attempt to summarize the “TERF” Civil War that is currently raging among feminists; you have Twitter for that…

So, whether or not the ‘trans’-child agenda (truly, I know not what else to call it, for a sudden explosion, as if out of a void or vacuum, of a phenomenon hitherto almost unheard-of, is either 1. a miracle or 2. a mania, and per Occam’s Razor, I’ll take #2) succeeds is once again not a matter of how well the far-Left argues its point, but how conciliatory and spineless the center-Right continues to be. Deep down, I believe the vast majority of the certifiably sane still know that children, beyond what toys they prefer to play with and who they might play-pretend is their future spouse, DO NOT obsess about their own appearance, gender, genitals, orientation, sexuality, etc, and that any child who makes these a recurring theme of conversation, much less the focal point of their young existence, HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH (mentally, if not physically). Psychologists of yore (again, yore meaning a few years ago) knew this to be a warning sign of abuse.

I must confess to you now, dear readers, that I doubt whether we have the cojones necessary to do the right thing here. I doubt it because of what we have already let our ‘family’ courts and ‘parenthood’ centers become. I doubt it because our pastors either say nothing or continue conceding in order to keep the offering plates full. We have been so dead-set on being open-minded as of late that our brains have fallen out. Perhaps it’s time to give Sharia law a chance.

I’ll leave you with this for now: is “the slippery slope” still a fallacy? Or was it ever?

P.S. Have or haven’t progressive circles decided that circumcision is child genital mutilation? Because, unless I am very much mistaken, the surgical coup-de-grace of “transitioning” is somewhat more invasive than circumcision. (I am aware that the idea, at least for now, is merely to outpace puberty by administering hormones, with surgery as a decision for the future 18-year-old to make. Nonetheless, I believe the point stands). This may prove a very sticky wicket indeed–to only be offended by genital mutilation when God has something to do with it. Lord knows what mental proclivities that indicates.