The Existential Crisis of Europe

The Existential Crisis of Europe

I’ve been trying to get started on this blog for some while now, but it’s been hard to know exactly how to get a purchase on it.  The main problem is that the mindset of most British people has been so corrupted that if you so much as mention the word ‘immigration’ you will instantly be branded ‘xenophobic’.  Or if you suggest that picking up Africans floating a few miles off Libya and ferrying them to the European mainland where they will be housed and fed might not be the most sensible thing to do, you are clearly a racist who wants to see them all dead.

Well I’ve got to the point now where I’m beginning not to care about what the opinion shepherds want us to believe or what other people think about such things, because their name calling has ceased to have any meaning, rather like the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’ and then got ignored.

The seed crystals of news which have caused the condensation of these thoughts in my mind have come over recently from the Grauniad and the Telegraph.  I used to be a Grauniad leftie from before the beginning of time until some vaguely unspecified date about a year or three ago when I began to realise that I didn’t actually agree with them any more.  In fact I began to realise that they were often found to be spouting dangerously biased and irrational nonsense.

Take the recent Danish election, in which the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party made significant gains and now holds the balance of power.

Beyond the facts of the election result itself, I would draw people's attention to the way the Grauniad has covered these results. To save you time I have lifted a series of quotes from their coverage and copied them below. They are clearly trying to control the narrative for their own ends rather than report in an unbiased manner. 

Words such as 'populist' 'seductive' and 'divisive' pepper the text, and you don't need a qualification in Neuro-Linguistic programming for it to be obvious that the Grauniad is doing its best to diss the Danish People's Party. I love the way they attack the vote as relying heavily on over 60s.  What should we make of the fact that 57% of their voters were under 60? Now that I am over 60 it is obvious to me that there is a repository of wisdom and stability in our older population which should be drawn on. Until the Cult of Youth took over, the wisdom of age was respected. Now it is sneered at because it could be the last bulwark against the multi-culti insanity which the elites are trying to impose on us.

Democracy is great isn't it? Except when the people make the 'wrong decision' of course, and need to be corrected. **** off Grauniad and respect a sovereign nation and its people's choices.

http://www.theguardian.com/…/denmark-kristian-thulesen-dahl…
Here are the quotes ~

'Soft-spoken and plausible' 'populist tide' ' Whatever people may say about the clean-cut, politically savvy Thulesen Dahl and his *divisive* anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Brussels stance, he is no Nigel Farage.' [WTF is that supposed to mean?] 'Others suspect a more destructive agenda.' ' it seems clear the DPP surge fed off fears about the “enemy within” symbolised by February’s deadly attacks in Copenhagen by a *lone* Islamist extremist.' [Emphasis mine]  (When it's a muslim, it's a 'lone gunman', but when, as in Charleston, SC, it was a 'lone' white man, we see a massive psychological attack on blaming all white people and their culture.  Yeah, I noticed the inconsistency.)  'Coincidentally or not, 43% of DPP voters were older than 60.' 'It was a seductive campaign narrative that pulled rival parties, including Thorning-Schmidt’s Social Democrats, to the right while denying them a clearly separate ideological identity.' So now the DPP is controlling other people's ideological identity? I thought that's what the EU had been trying to do for several decades!  This is trash propaganda of the slimiest sort.

Firstly this is undisguised opinion in what should be a disinterested and objective news report.  Obviously the major issues and future ramifications need to be mentioned, but this is heavily slanted, fear mongering propaganda.

The Grauniad is known for its pro-immigration position, and this is what it is all about.  Those nasty racist Danish people want to put a stop to it, and the Grauniad wants it to continue.  Very much.  Very, very, very much indeed.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that many on the Left genuinely believed that full scale multi-culturalism would be a good idea and work.  They had of course never tried such a mass experiment under controlled conditions, but they thought it would be a good idea.  For some reason or other that is now lost in the memory hole of time.

When it became clear a number of years ago that this whole thing wasn’t working (and Cameron, Merkel and others said this), not only was nothing done to reverse the trajectory, but in recent times the directives from the EU have if anything pressed to increase the numbers of immigrants.  As long ago as 2001 the UN predicted that the EU would need over 100,000,000 immigrants to replace population.  State policies and tax breaks for families could easily improve the indigenous European birth rate so one has to ask why is there this confluence with the continued political pressure for immigration?

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

I have seen a link which mentioned a figure of 159,000,000 immigrants being needed by 2025, but can’t seem to find that precise one at the moment.

There is much discussion of aging demographics and the need to maintain tax revenues etc., but almost no mention of how to stimulate the birth rate of indigenous Europeans, which is surely the best long term solution, a simple reversal of the cause of our demographic decline. 

Clearly the cheap labour is a significant part of it.  We have a couple of million floating unemployed in Britain, and yet open door economic migration continues as normal business.  The EU Schengen Zone obviously has led to this to a great extent, and so we have to mention the Kalergi plan.   

I’ll have to refer to a link here, or you can just google for Kalergi. https://www.big-lies.org/coudenhove-kalergi/

Quote from Kalergi “The Eurasian-Negroid race tomorrow, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptian, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of personalities.”

Or http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2013-044-couden/

A quote from Kalergi’s ‘Practical Idealism’

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]”

I didn’t write any of that, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi did.

This has become well known about in truther circles over the last few years.  The mainstream is very reluctant to discuss Kalergi, and won’t talk about his plan.  I actually have a friend who is a life long Labour Party member who threatened to walk out on me if I tried to discuss it.  Really!  Why?  She wouldn't say.   

Frankly, I wouldn’t take it seriously but for one rather glaring connection that is too big to ignore.  Both Chancellor Merkel and EU President Van Rompuy have both been awarded the ‘Charlemagne Prize’ for services to the pan European ideal, of which Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was the first recipient in 1950.

And what Kalergi suggested seems to now be taking place.  Join the dots my friends.

I would offer in supportive evidence the complete abdication of any right to rule by the current crop of EU leaders (with one or two exceptions) in the face of the current invasion of Europe currently taking place.  The first duty of our government is to defend the realm.  This is clearly not being done.  The dominant leadership from Brussels is continuing to try to force this down the throats of what is left of an indigenous European population with economic arguments on the one hand and moral on the other. 

Let’s put the cheap labour behind us and get onto the ‘universal ethics’ which require Europe to sacrifice itself on the altar of African need, shall we. 

Allowing ingress of hostiles is treason.      

‘Social Justice Warriors’ don’t reason or even argue with you, all they do is sling abuse.  It’s predictable, ‘Racist’ ‘Bigot’, 'Xenophobe', for simply wanting your own people to remain the main group in their own country.  Apparently the multi-culti Cultural Marxist agenda is now so advanced that they think they can silence anyone with a few well chosen weaponised words of abuse.  But it has reached the point where we don’t care as I suggested above.

The woman who wrote the following piece for the Telegraph is a bit more savvy about all this than the Grauniad, but she hasn’t quite got there yet. Fix their countries for them?  That would be racist colonialism, wouldn’t it?  This piece written before the Tunisian massacre of European tourists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/familyholidays/11686010/Judith-Woods-Why-we-wont-be-holidaying-in-the-Med-this-year.html

One of the main problems with all this is that most Europeans haven’t any experience of sub-Saharan Africa, and many of those who do have only seen it through the eyes of tourism, protected in western standard hotels and shepherded around in tour buses and safari groups.  I spent a substantial part of my childhood in West Africa and saw this all through different eyes.  I have little doubt that while the cities in Africa may have some of the trappings of modern civilisation these days, the average peasant will still be living in the manner that they did in the fifties or sixties, whether that be the 1950s or the 1850s, or earlier.

But I hear you say that if the conditions are so primitive, then shouldn’t we be doing all we can to ameliorate them?  Let’s be clear about this.  There are over a billion native population in Africa, nearly twice that of Europe, and their continent is much larger, with immense natural resources, not to mention a climate more conducive to plant growth in much of its area.  Oh, and the almost limitless sunshine which could be used for electrical generation and thereby economic growth.  Firstly we should consider the simple matter of space, housing, employment and so forth.  Clearly the continuous arrival of unlimited numbers of people of foreign origin must have some impact on these.

But it is the actual people that we should consider.  I hear people from the likes of the Green Party saying ‘Give them time and they will become just like us’.  Really?  Does the growth of Islam in Europe support this supposition?  It seems rather the opposite to me.

We have to accept that the average sub-Saharan African has lived a life of what we would consider unremitting hardship, but that is from a European perspective.  Until recent times most of the European peoples toiled and sweated to survive in a similar manner, with added winters unknown in Africa, to boot.  Our advanced technical civilisation has removed us from that basic level of survival and, frankly, made us soft.

When Europeans see pictures of Africans in mud huts their altruistic hearts go out to them and want to help them.  But how should this be done?  Countless billions of pounds, euros and dollars have disappeared into black holes of corruption over the decades, fuelling on the one hand Presidential palaces, and on the other endless wars.  European guilt at the colonial era is a large part of this, but how long must we go on paying?  We hear more about colonial exploitation now than we have ever done.  I am not unaware of the massive debts with which the World Bank and their likes have entrapped the nations of the continent, but this should not be laid at the door of the common European peoples.

The so-called ‘moral’ argument for allowing endless streams of Africans into our historical homelands relies largely on the colonial past, which ended in the aftermath of the Second World War, and on altruistic feelings of wanting to help them.  Firstly I would suggest that the aid budgets and loans have done little to benefit the common African, and secondly that simply allowing them to come to Europe and find a future here is not a viable option, either for them or us, despite the assertions of bankers and eurocrats that we actually need this feral population.

Pictures of the migrant boat people I have seen do not actually look like African peasants in fact, but more like semi-westernised city dwellers.  I see leather jackets, jeans and sunglasses.  But they doubtless still have the tenacity of their peasant ancestors.

It is fairly obvious to me that word has got round amongst the urban poor of Africa that Europe has gone soft and is letting them in.  And not just in Africa, but pretty much throughout the Third World. 

The likes of Angela Merkel only encourage this.  I have just seen news coming in that Hungary, one of the few European nations to offer resistance to the no borders and unlimited migration policy, has been whipped into line by the EU commissars.  But the Hungarian people are not happy with this.

This is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the African migrants.  They are put to us by the media as poor suffering refugees, fleeing a continent riven by war and strife.  Well, I won’t argue with the riven with war and strife, but these are wars of their own making.  You don’t see women and children on the boats coming across the Med, it’s all young men.  They are clearly economic migrants.  (A junior Tory minister dared suggest this a few days ago, and was roundly attacked ~ by immigrants.)

It brings to mind a story I read about four or five years ago when I was going through a motivational and personal development phase.  I was reading a lot of stuff about how getting ahead in life required effort and vision, and the implications of one story rather disturbed me.  It was about how a certain African man had not had the opportunities in his native Kenya that he sought for his economic advancement, so he walked, hitch hiked and smuggled himself north until he found his way to Europe and then with hard work and diligence made a life for himself and was successful.  All very well when it is one person alone, but I fear that many millions of Africans have heard such stories and are planning to do the same.  In fact, one of the main points of the story was put over that you have to go where the opportunities are, you won’t make a million in the desert.  True ~ but do these people have the right to impose themselves on us?  I would suggest that the answer is no, or at least that we have an equal right to defend our ancestral lands from invaders.  The lack of obvious firearms does not prevent them from being invaders.

The price of Globalisation is that hot spots of economic activity attract people to them.  But the downsides are many.  The indigenous populations of the hot spots, such as Europe and the United States, become marginalised in their own lands.  (And before you complain about Americans of Australians not being indigenous, ask yourself how the Native Americans or Australian Original people will do if their countries are taken over by Islam and Sharia law, or is swamped out by African or mestizo populations?  Less well than at present I would suggest.)

The incoming populations do not become like the indigenous.  At first they may have been compliant with the local culture, but as time has gone on and they have become stronger in numbers, they have become more assertive.  The demographic time bomb of what is now potentially millions of feral Africans settling in Europe, in addition to the already burgeoning Middle Eastern Islamic population, is something that the likes of Angela Merkel seem not to understand, other than to want to promote it.  Remember Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi?  This is exactly what he described, and claimed was necessary.

The incoming African boat people will not become like us.  They see this as an opportunity.  Europe, which always in the past was an unattainable Elysium, has become soft and faces an existential crisis as to its identity and future.

From an evolutionary survival adaptation perspective the African behaviour is perfectly understandable.  Organisms seek environments in which they can prosper.  This happens all the way from the amoeba to human beings.  But all organisms need to defend their territories, and the leaders of Europe have abdicated that responsibility for this.

The Social Justice Warrior crowd have now built a collective zeitgeist in which the ideas of ‘One People’ and ‘No Borders’ have become dominant memes.  But they do this with no recourse to anything other than claimed morality.  Why should you have all the benefits of European civilisation just because you were born there?  Why should the poor of the Third World not be entitled to all those benefits as well?  Your borders are artificial constructs etc etc etc

Not long ago a friend stated on social media that (he believed) it was ‘immoral’ to maintain European borders against migrants who wished to come here.  He asserted this as if it were a proven fact that brooked no disagreement.  This chap lives in a rural part of southern England where he probably doesn’t see a non-European face from one week to the next.  He, like so many of the liberal classes of the west, is not yet impacted by the social and demographic impacts of many millions of people arriving here to take perceived opportunities.  Unlike those of us in large cities.

And yet it is admitted from time to time that the Third World migrants harbour in their midst murderers, drug traffickers, rapists and all manner of undesirables.  Their identities and criminal records are uncheckable by European border authorities.  A recent incident involved some twenty five boat people being murdered by their fellow travellers because they were Christians.  Not that I imagine they were wonderful people, but if that is how a boat load of immigrants treat others of their people simply for being Christians, then how might we expect them to treat white European people?  It was recently admitted that 100% of rapes in Oslo are committed by people of non-Norwegian ancestry ~ immigrants.  Obviously some immigrants are more responsible than others, but the kind of unrestricted migration we are seeing at present across the Med from Africa is unlikely to be dominated by the kind of responsible, educated immigrant that the Labour party went to so much effort to present to us before the election.  I would venture that there are few brain surgeons or information technology experts amongst the African boat people.

The leadership of the West has abdicated responsibility.  Either they have lost the plot entirely or have been co-opted by interests who seek to destroy the West in the manner proposed by Count Kalergi.

Every nation and people have the right to control their borders and maintain dominance in their own ancestral lands.  This is a fundamental fact which has been ceaselessly attacked, undermined, argued against and sneered at increasingly over the last few decades.  And yet all other ethnic groups, all other countries and nations are permitted to maintain their borders, control the movements of immigrants into their territories and define themselves by their ethnicity.  Except those peoples of white European ancestry.

One of my favourite episodes from ancient literature is from the Bhagavad Gita.  On the night before the great Battle of Kuruksetra, Arjuna asks Krishna why it is necessary to face his relative the Kauravas in battle, and if there is any alternative.  In essence, Krishna replies ‘You would rather let them kill you and your entire family then?’

Christian morality is fine when you live in an homogeneous culture where all share the high trust values.  But allowing in millions of people from different cultures that don’t believe in these values is suicide.  They see our high trust societies as a soft touch to be exploited, taken over and turned to their values.  If you think that muslims and Africans will become like us rather than adhere to their own ancestral values, then I wish you luck with that when you are stoned to death for having views on women’s rights or freedom of speech.  I have heard recently that in mosques muslims often talk about ‘When the time comes’. 

And what time might that be I wonder?  Anyone who imagines that an aggressive belief system which has conquered some fifty or so countries by the sword and which makes no secret of the fact that it seeks to ‘convert’ (coerce) the rest of the world to its ‘peaceful’ ways is living in a fantasy land.  The body count of the jihad over the centuries stands at some 300 million or so I understand.  Lovely practices such as 'striking off the fingertips', or simple beheading, of unbelievers are recommended in the koran as methods whereby they can achieve mastery.

The leadership and peoples of the West face a severe existential challenge.  Do we continue with a universalist ethics which insists we give away all that our ancestors achieved because someone has found a vulnerable point in our ethics that they can exploit like a Trojan horse virus, or do we face up to the fact that we have to protect ourselves from being swamped out by barbarians?  It happened to Byzantium and all the remains of the Roman Empire.  Charles Martel prevented it in 732 at Poitiers.  The good people of Austria saw it face to face in 1683 when the muslim hordes besieged the gates of Vienna.

Do we let our identity and culture fold because we have had a manipulative mind game played against us to make us feel guilty of our historical success, or do we follow the suggestion of Krishna, and seek to secure a future for ourselves, our European peoples and children?

You decide.

Gender Studies at Leeds University

Gender Studies Seminar, Leeds University

4 June 2015

Okay, a bit of a long one here folks, so make yourself comfortable, I hope I will be able to keep your attention or that you will come back and finish reading this later. It deals with some, but by no means all, of my issues with Gender Studies.

One of the good things about being a graduate of Leeds University, and living not far from it, is that I occasionally get to go to free seminars there, such as the one offered yesterday by the Interdisciplinary Department of Gender Studies.

Before you flee at the mention of the pseudo-science that calls itself Gender Studies, please let me reassure you that these days it is high on my BS-ometer, but that is the reason why I feel the need to take opportunities like this to give myself something to get my teeth into as I begin my task of destroying its feeble basis and excuses for existence.

Not that I hold with the idea that sex and gender differences should not be scientifically examined.  No problem with the idea, it is just that the current dominant theoretical ground on which GS stands is as firm as quicksand.  In other words, it has no firm footing in scientific evidence.

Let me fill a little background.  I had a good start with this subject when as an undergraduate in the seventies I was tutored by Dr John Blundell, already an established figure in the field of physiological and biological Psychology, and later to become Professor of the entire School of Psychology at Leeds University.  I attended his lectures on these subjects and found out much about brain mechanisms such as the hypothalamus and its complex control of hunger and thirst homeostatic drives and so on.

By the mid seventies much had also been learnt about sex drives and how prenatal hormones had predeterminitive effects on both these and gender identity.  Whatever people may think of rat studies there is an immense amount of hard data that has accrued from them over many decades and it would be foolish to ignore things that have been learnt from them.

So when we come to gender studies, one might imagine that what has been learnt about sex differences might be thought of as valuable information which could deeply inform our studies of gender.

Sadly, you might be wrong.  Gender Studies may promote itself as ‘Inter-Disciplinary’, but there is no significant input from the academic discipline of Psychology, certainly not from neuro-psychology or related fields.  It is taken as axiomatic that there are no significant psychological or behavioural differences between the sexes.

Had they arrived at this conclusion after studying the evidence of generations of experimental psychologists, not only in neurophysiology but in long term behavioural observation and come to this conclusion, one might disagree, but at least hope that they could provide a rationale for their conclusions with reference to the overview of the evidence they had sifted through.

No such luck I’m afraid.  As I have said, it is axiomatic to academics in Gender Studies that there are no innate differences in psychology (thought or behaviour) between men and women.  So the biological developmental evidence doesn’t need to be looked at.  They aren’t interested and it actually becomes something they resent.  My assessment of this is that it is considered politically incorrect to suggest such differences since the current political agenda seeks to equalise everyone.

But what is wrong with Equality I hear you say!  Are you suggesting that we are or should not all be Equal?  Well, as a Philosopher, a Psychologist and an Art Therapist, I will have to insist on quibbling about this, well, quite a lot.

The hordes of the Cultural Marxist Comintern are probably lining me up for re-education by now, but really, if this concept is so important then it needs to be clear what it means, so please bear with me.

I recall my first conversation about this with someone who is probably still as much of a Feminist today as she was forty years ago when we had this conversation.  We were discussing sex differences and women’s equality, rights and feminism.  I said ‘But there are differences between the sexes which go beyond physical differences, surely there is psychological evidence for this?’  ‘Yes’ she replied, ‘but we can’t acknowledge that, or it will be used against us.’  This lady was a wonderful person and I count her as a friend to this day, but that is not an intellectually honest and defensible position.  Truth cannot be hidden or reversed when it has an important bearing on a subject.

Which brings me tangentially to a point which came up yesterday.  The final speaker of the afternoon was Jon Mermelstein, an American exchange student in his twenties who spoke about ‘Lad culture in American Universities’.  I thought he was actually the best speaker of the day, and I learnt a lot about frat houses on US campuses which I would not otherwise have ever come across, and it is certainly the case that some of the behaviour he detailed is bang out of order as some say here in Blighty.  However he gave one example that I had to pick up on, the case of ‘Mattress Girl’ Emma Sulkowitz, the young lady who dragged her mattress around with her for an extended period after she claimed that a young man had raped her on it.  The point about this being that it had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of her college that the young man was not guilty of rape.  They had had an on-off relationship for a while but had parted and it was only some time later that she started sending him lewd texts and eventually made her allegations against him.  In a case such as this one is forced to choose between the evidence and the claims of the plaintiff.  I am not convinced that entirely unsupported claims of rape should be entertained without some external corroboration.  I know this is an unpopular view amongst feminists, but how far should one stretch the requirements of legal proof in such an instance?

Anyway, the fact is that she never substantiated the allegations to the college, and she has won no case against him or in a court of law.

I respect Mr Mermelstein immensely for the fact that when I put it to him that this was a bogus case he immediately conceded and said that he had not been aware of it, and that he should have looked for a better example.

There was dissent against me in the audience, and I’m really disappointed to say that a young lady with whom I have been acquainted since the Occupy Leeds event in City Square in 2011 and who now is involved as a post graduate in the Department of Gender Studies spoke up against me.  I am happy that she did not contest my assertion (based on facts I had researched) that this was a fraudulent case, but seemed to argue that it didn’t matter, and rather that it was justified because of other cases that were real.  Or at least that was my understanding at the time, several others were speaking against me so I may not have it entirely correct, but that seemed to be the gist.

In a way this summarises my whole problem with the supposed academic discipline of Gender Studies.  As I have said, they ignore or reject the objective evidence on their subject, and in this precise case, where even the person presenting the evidence deferred, others, zealots to the cause press forward.

The implications of such intellectual dishonesty are quite extensive.  Firstly, the subject matter of the day was ‘Lad Culture’.  As I have said, some of this behaviour, especially on college campuses is quite awful, if what is claimed to happen does indeed happen.  I wouldn’t contest that. 

But you have to get your evidence straight.  Making false allegations of rape against an innocent young man who had understood that their relationship was entirely consensual is bad enough, but then others wanting to use this false claim as evidence in the feminist campaigns which tar men as sexual predators is completely unacceptable.  Yes, there are sexual predators out there, but you have not correctly identified them, and you have instead identified an individual and by implication young men similar to him, falsely.

A question I did not get round to asking because there were too many other points to pick up, and I could tell I was already making myself unpopular with some of the more high profile members of the day’s presentation team for asking the kind of questions that they didn’t approve of, was about the MGTOW movement in the States.  (Our American guest might have had something to say about that.)  MGTOW to British and European readers is ‘Men Going Their Own Way’, and is apparently a phenomenon which has recently arisen in the States amongst young men who feel that Feminism has attacked men and left them with nothing. 

I don’t really agree with the reaction of these young men, it sounds defeatist to me, and going into a monk like reclusion from engagement with women can only lead to none of them producing children for the next generation, so it is kind of crazy, but I can see the psychological mechanics behind this, defeatist as it may be.

False rape accusations are extremely serious.  Claiming that a high profile lie should be perpetuated because it promotes a larger truth is even more dangerous.  The promotion of this lie actually plays into a bigger picture which I believe is a part of the MGTOW rationale, that of false rape accusation.  To even suggest that one rape allegation has ever been false is something that would probably enrage many feminists. But I have heard the possibility raised that there might be a vein of false accusations, perhaps arising from regrets about ended relationships going on.  That there could be a covert, or even unconscious revenge behaviour being here enacted?  We are so hobbled by Political Correctness that any examination of a ‘victim’ is seen as ‘insensitive’.  This is a license for falsehood.  Would a perceived ‘victim’ ever exploit their position and make false allegations?

False accusations, characterised by say, well, Mattress Girl?  When a culture exists which refuses to question and analyse because it is ‘insensitive’ then the door is wide open for abuse of what one might call a privilege ~ the privilege of being above question.  We hear a lot about ‘privilege’ these days, but being protected from questions or investigation and having every word you say believed fits the very meaning of ‘privilege’ ~ ‘Private Law’.  They are above the law that applies to the men that they accuse, in a legal realm of their own.

So with this kind of culture of lies and superior privilege, I can’t really blame the MGTOW boys if they have had enough and back away from engagement with that kind of reality, even if it is non survival adaptive for our species.

As a Psychologist my view has to be one of evolutionary adaptation.  If a behaviour or characteristic is not evolutionarily adaptive, then it will not carry on to the future.  The MGTOWs may be non-survival adaptive, but so are the Feminists who seemingly make it so hard for men to have relationships with them that they give up.

We may be a little more complex than the sticklebacks that I heard Niko Tinbergen describe to a packed Rupert Beckett lecture theatre in 1976, but the biological drives which motivate us are deeply rooted in as many billions of years of cellular evolution as theirs.  Everything in us is biology.  Thought is biology. 

Feminism is deeply ingrained with abstract idealistic ideology which refuses to take this into account, or criticises it as ‘reactionary’ and ‘bourgeois’.  The Fabian Society stained glass window shows Sydney Webb about to smash the world, held in place by GB Shaw, waiting for the hammer blow.  It is true that occasional catastrophes have caused the world to be remade and new layers of evolution have emerged, but these are seismic, geological, meteorological or cosmic events which we cannot avoid.  To actively seek, or even create catastrophe, as Sydney Webb is seen about to do, is reckless, a dangerous act of egoism which he seems about to inflict on all humanity.  I shall have to return to the theme of how Marxism has claimed the right to invade everyone’s life and change it to the will of another at a later time as this is too large a subject to allow myself any further digression, but it is a big part of all this.  In one sentence, Marxism has turned Feminism into a weapon that is being used against the human race, especially the west who have been most influenced by it.

I used to call myself a Feminist, and in the days when one was still seeking empowerment this might have meant something, but in the last decade or two it has gone somewhere else.  Like the academics of Gender Studies, Feminists are often not too keen on recognising factual reality.  In this case, the factual reality of survival adaptation is that women need to bear enough children to replace our people.  Not every woman, but enough to balance out the loss from old age.  Kind of basic statement of fact one might think, but the implications are enormous.  The social trends that have occurred in the last forty years or more have led to women having children at much later ages, and therefore having fewer.  This is partly due to economic pressures put on the population by the international power elites, but would not be possible if the social values around this had not changed.  In other words, not only providing income to make ends meet, but rather pursuing a career, which thus takes the place of a family.  In her late thirties the career woman might think about when and if she will have children, but even if she does, she will probably only take a short time off for the childbearing and then be back to work with the child in day care.

So the birth rate falls.  When I mentioned this to the young lady in an adjacent seat before the seminar began, she said, ‘Yes, but in an overpopulated world that is okay’.  My reply was that in a world where all nations have a falling birth rate, that would be fine, but when one group such as Europeans has a falling birth rate, and the rest of the world does not, then eventually Europeans will become an insignificant minority.  We are only 8% of world population, when a century ago we were 15%.  The medical advances our scientists have made allow other races to breed at a faster rate, while our own people, thinking they are being responsible, decline and dwindle in number.  She said she hadn’t thought about it like that.  I hope she will now.

So the social change which Feminism allows also reduces the place in the world of those who practise it.  Feminism is less survival adaptive than Islam.  Wow.  Think about it.  Islam is an ideology which produces more babies than Feminism, therefore it is more survival adaptive.  Pretty scary thought that?  I don’t want to end up overwhelmed by Muslims, so I think we need to find a more survival adaptive ideology than the one which is a big part of the decline of Europeans world wide.  In case you haven’t heard, if something doesn’t change big time, native English people can expect to be a minority in England about forty years from now.  I’ll probably be dead in 2055, but I don’t want to live my declining years in a Sharia Caliphate, so we’d better start thinking about how we can prevent it.

One of the most astounding things about Feminists and Gender Studies academics is that they seem to be in favour of supporting Islam in general, or at least are so engaged with ‘diversity’ that they are entirely blind to the fact that if Islam gains an hegemony in Britain then we can say goodbye to equal rights for women, gay people and so forth.  But that would only be the beginning.  Britain is not a tiny banana republic.  If Britain fell to Islam there would be major triumphalism and repression of the native British.  To those who say this is paranoia, I would suggest they look at the history of Islam and how all fifty or so countries which follow it were converted through the sword, Jihad.  This is the real terrifying outcome option which too many people refuse to acknowledge.  I’m still hearing people say that it is xenophobic to not want millions of foreigners to swarm into our stable countries because we have to look after them, they are such poor victims.  Feminism fails to understand the dangers in this to themselves.  Well these are subjects I will have to hold over for later, as I still have a lot to say about Gender Studies.

While I’m around this area I’ll just briefly mention what was to me an egregious example of this kind of thing in action.  In the first part of the event Dr Alison Phipps, Head of the Dept of Gender Studies a the University of Sussex and Dr Vanita Sundaram, University of York spoke about their work on ‘lad behaviour’.  In the Q and A session after this the finding that Black and Minority Ethnic groups had a higher incidence of male sexual molestation of women came up.  In a very nice demonstration of experimental confirmation bias I heard Dr Phipps excuse this away as being the result of different cultural values and the men not understanding the non-verbal signals the women were giving.  It was never suggested that some of these cultures might have values which are inimical to ours or that of Feminists.  Personally, I should say from my own knowledge of young men in the 19/20 age group, that many of them have very little idea about the signals women are giving off and misinterpret them for whatever reason.  The bias was clearly to let BME perpetrators off the hook, but pin the blame squarely on the native British lads.

So these middle class academics cloak their results with the attitudes they wish to promote.

At the core of this is the abdication of agency and responsibility that we see.  This arises from a sense of guilt which has been covertly sown amongst us and with which too many have been infected.  It was truly cringeworthy to hear Michael Conroy of ‘A Call to Men, UK’ talk about how ‘men are the problem’ and how they need to be trained from birth to act respectfully.  I could almost see the iron collar about his neck and the chain leading to his handler.

I would suggest that neither men nor women are the problem, but that we need to negotiate and evolve our relationships on the basis of our individual differences.  So women need to respect how men are, and men need to do that to women.

An aside again to my old Occupation comrade.  I spoke to her shortly before the show began, and she talked about doing her PhD on the sexualisation of men.  I asked her about the influence of testosterone on this and how she would cover it.  Her reply was to ask why she would need to, since some women have polycystic ovaries which produce testosterone.  Well, a very small number do, and the amount of testosterone they produce varies.  Some women have so much that they suffer hirsutism and severe acne.  Others have only minor or no consequences due to lower levels.  She then asked me what is ‘normal’ anyway with regard to hormone levels, and my simple reply was ‘What is the case with the vast majority of women’.  Fortunately we didn’t have time to go into the eternal regress which Gender Studies academics are prone to, deconstructing every concept which doesn’t fit their world view, until we are in a world where everything is merely a construct and could be entirely different if we chose it to be.  To them we don’t live in a world of biological bodies in time with hormones and developmental processes, but in a world of ideals, where these things are politically incorrect impositions to be resented.  Reproduction as the gift of women for the perpetuation of our people is turned into a burden to be shunned as if it is the fault of men punishing women.

Neither reason nor empirical evidence is of any use to the Gender Studies academic who pursues only the correct ideology which seeks always to elevate the victim and control any threat.  This is an ideology which treats people as caged animals to be controlled, but surely we all know that an animal which is caged can become dangerous when it is not allowed to express its instinctual drives. Men have strong drives which are mostly absent in women, who have other feelings and motivations.  Sure, there is an overlap, survival adaptation likes that.  I have to say these things because we have been propagandised that there is no difference for so long that the Gender Studies people have been successful to some degree in convincing the general population.  Only where the propaganda has been run mind you, but that is ubiquitous in European civilisations. 

The internal contradictions of so much of this should be obvious after a little thought.  There are no psychological differences between the sexes, but men are the problem.  Women can seek to dominate men with lies because men are so bad.  But this is all the fault of patriarchal society apparently.  The fact that all the hardest jobs in our world are done by men and that they die on average five years earlier than women of comparable class, having often supported us financially, is of no account.

I do not deny that there is an element in society, and in education, which engages in ‘lad’ behaviour for want of a better term, and some is out of order.  But simple blame and contain will not do for anyone of any intellectual rigour.  Men need to have constructive outlets for their energies in ways that allow them to take risks and build character and confidence.  This is how our ancestors grew for millennia.  It needs to be adapted to our present world, but a way must be found to express these instinctive drives, as it does with women. 

As a society we need to train ourselves to be the best we can be, not just anything that we could be.

In relation to this vision of what we should be, Dr Phipps presentation was a litany of negativity.  I will single out the absence of a positive and active contribution to building strength in women to deal with men on an equal level of respect.  When I asked a question about how social skills and personal empowerment were important for women in how not to get into dodgy situations, or how such things could help them prevent things going bad if they have got into one of those situations, the knee jerk response which I knew would come back at me was that we didn’t want to be making it the victim’s fault if she got raped.  I knew this was the reply so I had my answer ready.  That on an interactional behavioural basis, every detail and nuance of a person’s behaviour contributes to the gestalt assessment of the other and so is continuously modifying the choice tree that they dyad is going down.  To refuse to take a path that you could, to abdicate or deny responsibility is as much a choice as it would be to take make some proactive choice which could prevent further slippage in the situation.  Isn’t this obvious?

I first began to become aware that there were problems with this model of intimate interactions as one in which women were not expected to take responsibility a few years ago when the ‘Slutwalks’ began.  This is way beyond ‘Reclaim the Night’.  This is provocative dressing presented as a right.  ‘Whatever we wear, wherever we go, Yes means Yes, and No means No’.  Okay, well, in principle, that sounds fine.  But I’m reminded of Pussy Riot and their behaviour in a place which is sacred to a large portion of the Russian people.  There are times and there are places in which some things are done, and others when they are not.  They demand the right to provoke anytime, anywhere.

What we have here is a society where constant confrontation and coercion to certain group norms are in themselves a norm.  This continually pushes the boundaries of the ‘Overton Window’ and the norms move further to the left.  There was one point when I was listening to Michael Conroy when I had a distinct feeling that I was witnessing some kind of proselytising or propaganda briefing.  His group ‘A Call to Men UK’ runs four day workshops which cost a cool £2,500.  As I recall these are basically training exercises in how to be a good ‘agent for change’ I think is the euphemism.  In other words, a mole to gnaw at the roots of everyone’s conventional and traditional beliefs so that they become good Cultural Marxists who will police and enforce the ‘Correct’ views on themselves and everyone they encounter.

There was some debate raised by my question to Dr Phipps so I said I would catch her in the break.  When that came around I motioned to her across the room but she didn’t respond.  Shortly, after finding the tea and snacks, I stood next to where she and another were talking.  When their conversation flagged, I positioned myself in relation to them so that it was quite clear I was initiating a discourse.  She barely made eye contact and was reluctant to engage with me.  I raised the subject of social skills again and mentioned the work of Dr Paul Ekman (made famous by the series Lie To Me a few years ago).  She had not heard of him.  He is a world famous researcher in physical anthropology who has established conclusively that there are such things as universal facial expressions which correlate with mood or affect.  I was introduced to this subject by Dr Blundell when it was new material back in the seventies.  It has since been massively consolidated and Dr Ekman has gone on to do work with the Dalai Lama on the quality of human interaction and related subjects.

He also runs advanced training courses for crisis negotiators, psychotherapists, police interrogators and so forth on recognition of micro expressions and their understanding as ‘tells’ about whether people are lying, telling the truth or their emotional state.  Dr Ekman is at the cutting edge of a well established science of behavioural interaction arising out of ethological and physical anthropological studies over many decades.  The intellectual foundation is in biology and evolutionary adaptation of behaviour and communication.

What has this to do with ‘Lad Culture’ and the response of Feminists to that culture?  It is an entry point to behavioural management of intimate personal interactions.  If you better understand the person you are with then you not only have a better chance of predicting their behaviour, but you have a better chance also of responding adaptively in real time.

All that Dr Phipps had to offer was ‘Consent Training’.  How to know when to give consent to intimate behaviour or not.  I would suggest that this is far too particular, and far too far into the interpersonal interaction for it to be able to maximise benefit.  My own experience as it probably is with millions of others, is that when things get to a certain point in intimate situations, then consent is something that is implicit.  It is much easier to not slip down a slippery slope if you have not stepped onto it in the first place.  The whole feminist ideology around this sees it as an experience to control, rather than manage, which I think is a big difference.  If you properly manage your situation, then it won’t get out of control.  And I not blaming the victim.  I am simply discussing how to avoid disaster.  If you can see the train coming, get off the tracks because it’s not going to take any notice or you.

The funniest thing about my interaction with Dr Phipps was her so clear and obvious avoidance behaviour which continued through our short conversation.  She was continually looking around and didn’t pay me full attention.  When I pointed out that she had made little of her ‘Consent Training’ during the speech and that I felt it needed to be part of a larger concept of personal skills and empowerment she simply said ‘Well I’m telling you now.’  The reason it was so funny was because thinking about Paul Ekman I couldn’t help be amused at how her facial expressions   indicated suppressed anger through her frown, narrowed eyes and down turned mouth.

It is really such a disappointment that the supposedly multi or interdisciplinary subject of Gender Studies should have abandoned the scientific aspects of its purview and launched itself off into space with an agenda of political goals to be enforced by interpersonal challenge and policing.

One last example. Michael Conroy treated us to a short clip of Harry Enfield, Paul Whitehouse and another chap whose name I don’t know.  It is the Fishing/Beethoven sketch.  It was well observed, as are many of Enfield and Whitehouse’s sketches.  Basically two of the fishermen wanted to talk about a Beethoven concert but the third would sneer at that and then the first two would be cowed and make jokes about tits and bums to get back in favour.

This was presented as an example of ‘Lad Culture’ which penetrates even to older blokes, and which must be challenged.

I despair.

Mr Conroy said he was I think 46 or maybe 47 so he should be old enough to have some memory of Desmond Morris, he of ‘The Naked Ape’ fame, and ‘The Human Zoo’.  Paradigm shifting works, which may be a little dated now, but are fundamentally sound in their conception.  Dr Morris would simply point out the ethological basis of the three males’ behaviour. 

Harry Enfield is the Alpha, for whatever reasons, but at least partly because he doesn’t care what the others think about him.  They, on the other hand are afraid of what Enfield will judge on them, so they are kept in line.  To step out would risk engaging in open conflict or be put down.  When you see this with two male wild animals it can be messy or over in seconds when the Beta male realises he cannot win.  The Paul Whitehouse character and the other Beta shrink before Enfield when he returns to the group and are afraid to carry on talking about Beethoven.  This is nothing about ‘Laddism’ or ‘sexism’, it is all about keeping their places in the dominance hierarchy.  It is a largely unconscious process and they don’t really understand why they do it.  Should they understand, they would have to choose between carrying on, challenging the Alpha, or leaving the group.  The first is the status quo, the second very risky, and the third is probably the mark of an emerging new Alpha seeking his own path.  This is all ethological behaviour with clear analogues in the animal kingdom but the Gender Studies do not care if there is a deeper explanation than their political one.  All they would like to do is smash the power of the Alpha.  But we need the Alpha.  In times of danger the Alpha acts assertively and can save the tribe.  The evolutionary psychology of which Ekman and Morris represent some of the best, is almost entirely unknown to Gender Studies.  Evolutionary Psychology angers them because it is incompatible with their idealistic view of how the world should be, and what they want to change it into.  The realities of evolutionary adaptation are to be rejected as politically incorrect.  ‘Lad Culture’ must be ruthlessly suppressed and controlled.  The idea of empowered men who have found meaning and purpose in their lives through positive role models and rites of passage would be threatening to the Feminist drones who would not be able to control them.  Both women and men have intuitive status hierarchies established by subtle non verbal cues.  But for either to seek to be approved of by the hierarchy of the other side and rise up that hierarchy, as some in the politically approved ‘Men’s Movement’ do is to abdicate power.  Both men and women have their own power, however it is important not only to recognise it in yourself, but in the other also.  To deny or suppress it to mere social conformity is destructive to our spirit.  We are wild creatures and need to reclaim that in our souls.  Perhaps then we will find a respect and balance between the polarities.

Well that’s it for my critical analysis of yesterday’s seminar at Leeds University held by the Department of Gender Studies.  Now that I have my book Waking The Monkey! out at last I shall be endeavouring to do a few more blogs on this PC Deconstruction page or my other blogs, WTM! or Cosmic Claire.

Coming up I have thoughts on:

Why do so many people fear challenging the norms of Political Correctness?

The Asymptote:  2012 and beyond.  How everything we thought we knew is being reversed before our very eyes.

Political Correctness in itself.  Why is it being enforced so ever more fanatically?  Why are there certain topics and objective facts that the collective herd freak out about if they are mentioned?

I don’t know quite what the subject will actually be, but it will be something around these areas.  The last one is a big favourite of mine and I am looking forward to tackling that one.  Also there are topics around the interpretation of history where I would like to examine the attitudes of contemporary people to them rather than the actual event or material evidence for it.  The limited scope of History in education these days is of great concern to me, so that will find its way in somewhere too.

In the meantime, if you haven’t read my introductory post on my book Waking The Monkey! in my other blog

http://wakingthemonkey.blogspot.co.uk/

I hope you’ll drop in over there, and maybe even follow the link to have a look at the book itself on lulu.com

See you soon.