tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80111443140590013022024-03-13T11:33:29.701+00:00IF POOSH RULED THE WORLDThe musings of PooshPooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-50305993224790903702011-09-17T21:07:00.008+01:002011-09-17T22:09:29.200+01:00DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORON<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">It's a sad time when you realise one of your comedy heroes is actually nothing more than a clueless cretin, but alas!</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">An insane rant about how people who are skeptical about man-made global warming are dumb-dumbs, is what led to my realisation. Peep Show hero David Mitchell always came across as a reasonable sort of fellow traveler, as a guest on many a panel show. However, my spider-senses started to tingle when he actually signed some sort of petition denying the BBC was bias. That's a position only someone incredibly stupid or ignorant would take. Too much time surrounded by entertainment sorts and the BBC, and other worthless individuals, will take its toll on thee, I suppose. Another big clue that Mitchell was actually dumb, or at least has recently become dumb, was the simple fact that he writes for the UK's Guardian newspaper: the newspaper of choice, along with the Independent, for the most profoundly stupid people in Britain. I came across </span><a href="http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/009957.html" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">this post</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> the other day where poor, poor Mitchell is "ranting" about how silly it is to deny man-made climate change, on the Guardian website. Upon viewing it I was horrified to see Mitchell invoke various text-book logical fallacies which are barely worth repeating. It's a sad time to see someone you liked for so long reveal themselves to be an absolute tool, devoid of much ability to engage in rational thinking, but there we go. It wasn't just the standard liberal BS about how evil man is making the climate change, and that you're a crazzzzzzzzy if you dare to oppose this "fact": it was the snarling petulance of it all. At one point, as a cheeky commentator on that post pointed out, Mitchell actually makes a Pascal's Wager type argument: which is an argument saying it is better and rational to believe in God 'just in case' it turns out it's all true, and you're sent to hellfire for not worshiping him. Ignoring the various logical fallacies he makes, as horrific as they are, and ignoring the fact that he's more than likely conflating a belief in climate change, with a belief in anthropomorphic climate change, and ignoring the implication of "getting a grip" would be to slow the advance of third-world countries, what just grinds my gears is the typical liberal arrogance and smugness: you're stupid if you don't believe humans cause climate change, but if you're stupid, let me try to attempt to reason with you, because you can't be <i>that</i> stupid, or are you? He then proceeds to use illogical arguments to convince the "stupid" that they should pay attention to global warming, oops sorry, I meant climate change.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Anyway <a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9764">there are</a> a <a href="http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/30000-scientists-rejecting-anthropomorphic-global-warming-hypothesis/">lot</a> of credible scientists who reject man-made global warming. But it was the following that has made headlines recently, or should I say, has been kept from headlines recently, that really just reduces Mitchell to 'just another liberal turd who can't see past his religious beliefs which he keeps saying are political': a Nobel-prize winning, at one time Obama supporting scientist <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming">resigning over claims that man-made climate change are "irrefutable"</a> who said recently:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"In the (American Physical Society) it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period." </span></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Which seems to be a pretty strong remark. But what does he know eh? Quite a drastic step away from the underlying claim from the liberal sermon Mitchell gave on his Guardian-approved soap-box. I expected, from past experience, Mitchell to be far better educated, less liberal, and more informed on the complexity of issues, to ever agree to utter the words he did in that soap-box video. Sadly I was mistaken. I came across an article (in the Guardian of course) which just cemented the fact that he is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/universities-private-public-david-mitchell">not of a sound mind</a>, in an article warning of the dangers of private-sector styled education:</span></div><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The private sector caused the credit crunch, the financial crisis, the global recession. The public sector bailed out the banks and brought the world back from the brink of ruin.</span></blockquote><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">His basic warning is that a drive for profit does not equal expertise or refinement that one needs when one runs Universities. Of course the drive for profit can, provided there is good <b>competition</b>, do exactly that. Monopolies, by their nature, and once cemented, are anti-capitalistic and have a negative affect on their consumers. That's why Windows Operating Systems are consistently shoddy and Facebook can screw you every other month, and why eBay can punch you in the face with three different types of user fees. And that's also why government monopoly of education is always problematic. That's beside the point though, as <i>his point</i> is a point worth at least talking about, to a point. My main anger is directed at the stupidity of the quote above. The idea that the banks caused the crisis is "single-minded" and a typical falsehood liberals like to spread because it works to their political advantage and it's easy for people to buy into without being critical (we all hate bankers...). The reality is mind-numbingly complex. Government, the public sector, had a MASSIVE hand in the crisis, in <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html">an interlinked, insane web of stupidity</a>. Labour themselves, the very people who constantly blame the banks, <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/what-really-caused-the-uks-budget-deficit/">are soaked in guilt</a>. <b>Everyone's to blame</b>. Even Private Sector borrowing. The circumstances that allowed certain banks in the first place to decide to risk so much was entirely created by government. Government spending - the deficit - plays a massive hand in worsening a recession, and making sure we cannot cope with any hypothetical crisis that might come in the future. We should not forget, that our national debt is so high because we borrow money to pay the PUBLIC SECTOR, which would include Universities, as taxation of the private sector is not enough to pay for the public. Government policy can have a direct affect on the behavior of banks, in fact the close relationship between banks and (democrat) politicians is exactly one of the reasons the global recession happened. Then there is the insane comment that the 'public sector' bailed out the banks and saved the galaxy. No. Politicians decided that a bail out was going to happen and used tax-payer money to pay for it. The people did not have a say. And it's not clear at all that these bail-outs were a smart move in the long run anyhow. I'll be damned if I even begin to get to grips with the complexity of global economics, but at least I am aware that there <i>is</i> complexity.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I suppose none of this is relevant, 'cause, you know, he's in Peep Show and on TV, and he's funny, so he MUST be right.</span></div>Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-5782104577121468332011-09-12T19:39:00.004+01:002011-09-12T20:12:43.463+01:00Bad Bad Atheist Thinking<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I was accidentally going through the entire internet, when I came across a few youtube videos that really ground my gears of war. It buggers me silly when both atheists and unsophisticated Christians use bad thinking to support their beliefs.</span></div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/0pPoRnjFC6E?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">This girl is some sort of atheist which is rather jolly. I don't know about her other claims, but in this video she makes the common, and rather annoying, 'problem of suffering and evil' argument. These sort of arguments are ridiculous, as any religious studies or philosophy student should be able to tell you, in their first year. This atheist argument is worth dismissing out of hand; however, I am quite fond of this counter-argument to the problem of suffering and evil. It simply states that all suffering, whilst horrific for us temporarily, is insignificant in the greater scheme of things. That's why Christians let themselves get eaten by lions by the by. Or by the way. Should it be by the by, or by the way? Anyway, one religious position, which is also a Christian position, is that the natural material world of experience is not actually the real plain of existence, which would be the divine plain of existence. Thus the world of 'human suffering' is essentially a dream. When you feel pain in your dreams, does that invalidate the existence of God? Nope. Likewise, for suffering in the natural world. The world is one big test for us, it's not real, even though we might think that suffering is real. What is real, is the choices we make, when we respond to the suffering we see. That's the kind of stuff a deity might be inclined to judge us on. This is no 'apologetic', but simply logical – if you accept the existence of a Christian-like God. The real 'self' is the soul, not the physical body. At the end of the video she makes a totally crazy claim that her existence, and Richard Dickwad Dawkins' existence, is proof of the atheist position … because if God really existed, s/he would come down and smite her. Which, if God did just that, he would be a God desiring worship through fear etc, which has nothing to do with real free-will and so, insert your standard free-will argument.</span></div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/CmKVLqHuxBA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Now this chap makes another bad argument, this time in advocating the existence of a God. He's correct to a point. Existence does demand a first-cause, a prime mover: which is a 3000 year old observation. Everything that exists, has a cause, but the cause cannot be endless therefore the universe demands a first cause as shit just doesn't appear out of nothing. This is no doubt true, however, this Christian makes the irrational jump from a first-cause to an anthropomorphic deity (I assume that's his argument). I recall Hume dealing with this quite effectively. Just because, as goes a standard cosmological argument, that the universe must have had a first-cause, whose existence is necessary, a priori, and self-sustaining, etc., does not mean that that 'first-cause' is moral entity or a creator. In fact the first-cause could, logically, merely have existed to start things off. The cosmological argument tells you nothing about the nature of a deity, or if it even, presently, exists. If he does even have consciousness outside the 'first thought of creation', he could quite happily be the Blind Idiot God of Lovecraft's literature. These sorts of arguments for the existence of a god are the product of bad thinking.</span></div><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><blockquote><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane - like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him! . . . - <b>Mysterious Stranger, Mark Twain</b></span></span></span></blockquote>Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-88775517421226533192011-07-31T21:29:00.005+01:002011-08-02T18:45:38.953+01:00Media Lie: Norway Shooter was a Christian<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In a display of collective dominance, and testimony to the sheer scope of power the left has, the gears of the machine that holds up liberal hegemony were working perfectly, maximising the political gains to be made out of the recent Norway massacres. One can only imagine the kind of degenerate, sick mind that could utilise such an outrage for political gain but it's standard practice for liberals. The mere fact that conservatives and right-wingers – instead of condemning the acts of a madmad - are being forced to defend themselves from supposed thought-crimes makes me sick to my stomach.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"></span></div><a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">One will recall the Gabrielle Giffords assassination, early this year. The left were able to fix a false narrative designed to damage their political enemies, and disseminate that lie with incredible ease. The key has been to cement in the minds of the populace (as much as you can) a lie that no amount of further evidence or facts can overcome. Most people will only pay attention to the initial observations, and will not make further inquires regarding initial true-value. The lie that Sarah Palin, the tea party, and right-wing “anger and vitriol” was to blame for the shootings was easily spread across the international media without any facts or evidence: simple people and people with poor quality brains easily absorbed this blood-libel. Actual accounts of the shooter Jared Loughner's politics revealed him to be a leftist/liberal, if anything, but this was deliberately kept away from the population with only the likes of Fox News reporting the truth of the event (note the liberal's successful smear of Fox News amongst no-nothings: it is deliberate). Loughner was an atheist, hated Bush, thought 9/11 was an inside job - hardly conservative. Yet conservatives and rightwingers, in the wake of the attack upon the congresswoman, found themselves being forced to defend themselves against completely fabricated charges – especially Sarah Palin. This is actually one of the causes of right-wing anger it should be noted – conservatives do not like it when lies are constantly levelled against them by powers that continuously mutilate the spaces where debate and discourse take place. Loughner was mad and held a grudge against Giffords which pre-dated Sarah Palin's rise or the tea party. As inconvenient truths came to surface, the shooting was no longer deemed of interest to some (it was no longer deemed of use, to the left, as a weapon to attack their right-wing enemies). I should make clear these are general statements, exceptions exist, and there are plenty of real liberals/leftists who are not part of this disease, nor have any intention of allowing it to continue, women and men who genuinely desire a better world for the species, and do not engage in deception or attempts of forced hegemony, Christopher Hitchens and Menzies Campbell for example.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I have not engaged fully, or intend to read in full, the manifesto of Breivik, the Norway Shooter. However I have read parts of his manifesto (skimmed most of it) and as far as I can tell a lot of what he has written is somewhat true, and his conclusions somewhat correct. He correctly singles out the Frankfurt School as the point-of-origin for cultural Marxism (forced hegemony), and this is obvious to someone sensible, who has studied Adorno et al. And he correctly, I suspect, demonstrates the behaviour of the liberal/leftist media, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, PBS BBC, etc. And the orchestrated (unnatural) dominance of leftist thinkers in positions of influence, as suggested as an aim by some Frankfurt philosophers. Most of what Breivik says in regard to Islam is no doubt correct and factual I.e it is denied by the liberal media, and thus (in a sort of circular manner) a great deal of time has been spent within the main stream media trying to emphasize that the Norway Murderer was 'anti-Muslim' in a deliberate attempt to smear all anti-Jihadists and conservative discourse regarding the war on terror, and immigration, as two steps from Breivik. This behaviour, ironically, is probably in part what helped fuel the shooter's anger. I am not sure he was insane but certainly had primitive desires to kill and fight, perhaps egotistical ideas of his name being remembered forever, etc. all of which are not insane but common throughout history; a sort of madness, perhaps, but not pure insanity. We should remember truth can often be used to fuel evil acts – such as in Revenge of the Sith when Palpatine uses a truth (that the Jedi Council are trying to take control of the Republic) to convince Anakin Skywalker that the Jedi are the enemy.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> It is a logical fallacy to claim that because X believed Y, then all who believe in Y are akin to X, but that does not stop the left from propagating their deceit and fixing their nasty narrative. Right-wingers and conservatives, who dedicate their lives to the preservation of life, western liberal democracy, and individuality, are denied time to contemplate the horror of the Norway massacre and, instead, find themselves forced to, once again, defend themselves from a pluralistic yet designed attack upon them. Breivik, in something similar to the climax of Batman Returns, selected political targets – the 'first born' of those he deemed (perhaps correctly) responsible for the degeneration and rape of Europe – or perhaps he simply blamed them for what might be his true grievance: <b>the dilution of white European blood</b>. Breivik's true nature may have less to do with Islam or politics in general, and more to do with his racial beliefs and desire for racial purity. At one point in his manifesto:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">“It should be noted that the US was composed of 50% with blue eyes in 1950 but this number has been reduced significantly and was in 2008 only 16%. By 2020 it is estimated to be less than 8%.” (1159)</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">He claims 'race mixing leads to suicidal children with mental problems' and clearly has some nazi-like ideas about race. It would be accurate to describe this man as an “Aryan supremacist terrorist”. Speaking of Nazis, the disgusting attacks on authors such as <a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/">Pamela Geller</a> and <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/">Robert Spencer</a> are relevant. They are accused of helping to cause the Norway terrorist attack, because the murderer cites them as sources etc. in his manifesto. First off, the manifesto is partly stolen from an eco-terrorist so its actual authenticity and the true worth of it, in Breivik's eyes, in under question. A sane, true 'man of the cause' would ensure his manifesto was perfect, well structured and not lifted in such an obvious manner, from another terrorist. This actually gives weight to Breivik being not as sane as we might believe. Insanity or instability allow one to read whatever one wishes in anything. To return to the Nazis, it is apt to find analogy between Breivik's use of anti-jadist/pro-universal freedom discourse, with the Nazi party's use of Nietzsche's philosophy. In both cases, texts were used and misrepresented to give sustenance to evil schemes. Nietzsche hated anti-semites, and women such as Pamela Geller constantly state that most Muslims are good (an object of her love) and that violence is out of the question and evil.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">It is fascinating to compare right-wing/conservative reactions to terrorism to left-wing/liberal reactions. The reaction of conservatives (until they are forced, by the left, to defend themselves from sickening charges) is outrage at ANY terrorist act: the political motive is irrelevant. No cause gives you the right to murder someone, and an act of terrorism in a western liberal democracy is an existential outrage: it is an affront to the building blocks of our national heritage; it is a great insult to all who have died in the creation of the west, to bypass our democratic values in an act of carnage. Compare that to the reaction by some liberals to every single Islamist act of terrorism (there have been around 17,000 Islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone), they often partly justify the act, 'maybe these Muslims have a perfectly fine grievance, but were wrong to murder people', and so on. 'What did <i>we</i> do, to make them do this?' This has without a doubt been the mindset of hard-leftists and socialists, who are happy for children and innocents to be blown up in cafes etc, if the endgoal was for the terrorists (freedom fighters, in their eyes) to be 'freed from oppression' – see Sartre. Conservatives do not care how oppressed you are, you don't go into a cafe or bar and start blowing up civilians – conservatives, unlike collectivist liberals and leftists, believe in the paramount importance of the single individual as an end in and of itself.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> Imagine if it was a youth-wing of a right-wing party that was targeted by an immigrant who was worried about the right-wingers kicking him out. The left would (one would be mad himself or a liar to deny this quite frankly) be much more sympathetic to the murderer. We can say this because it is evidenced time and time again, especially in regard to innocent Israelis being blown up while drinking coffee. The left would frame the narrative: a horrible crime, yes, but conservatives should change their views on immigration, as this immigrant was driven by desperation and despair, fear of conservative immigration discourse.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">As a conservative and right-winger, most of us would subscribe to the following: <b>I couldn't care less about your desperation or oppression, it takes an EVIL man to hit the detonator on his suicide vest, when surrounded by civilians and/or children; and it takes an EVIL man to fire dum-dum bullets at a group of young adults. </b>If a terrorist blew up some random farms or even random civilians, and declared, “I did this to highlight the bad treatment of animals”, would that invalidate his cause? No, but it's neither here nor there. In a liberal democracy – such as Norway – if the cause is so dear to you, setting yourself on fire in public is sufficient to garner a large amount of media attention and perhaps introspection. It takes a certain form of EVIL (or madness) to murder other humans, to make a point – no matter how important.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">As a side note, your average liberal/leftist in the media happily capitulates to acts and threats of Islamist terrorism, such as with the Muhammed cartoons, Madrid terrorist strike, etc. In the case of “right-wing terrorism” they do not display the appropriate level of fear you would expect, given the leftist rhetoric. It can't be bravery (cartoons) so we could actually infer they are not quite convinced of the threat of right-wing terrorism as they claim to be. Just a musing. As Mark Steyn (also <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272617/islamophobia-and-mass-murder-mark-steyn">smeared</a> as a cause of the Norway shooter) pointed out once, if these leftist idiots actually believed – deep down – the rubbish they accused George Bush of engaging in, they'd try to leave the country out of fear.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Perhaps this is pointless as the leftist lie, their narrative designed to attack conservatives and Christianity (Marxists, or victims of Marxist thought, do what they must to destroy Christianity), is already imprinted upon the minds of many a useless, uncritical dupe, and has taken hold. But, for what it's worth, here is why the Norway shooter was not a Christian in any meaningful way.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">If you are of the rather stupid belief that “any one can be a Christian” merely by declaring he is one, then there is no hope for your enlightenment; I went to a zoo, now I'm a Koala bear. For those who understand theology and how religions actually work, and so forth, it is very easy to see that Breivik was not a Christian. In fact, it's so easy, that this just makes the point of the insidious nature of cultural-Marxism all the more apparent. He (Breivik) refers to himself as a cultural Christian, in that he holds and internalises Christian values and morality – which is true of most western atheists. He holds Christian values as a European creation and thus the means to unite white Europe. This isn't a false premise. Investigate your average “proud to not believe in God” atheist, <b>investigate the genealogy</b>, and what he or she believes to be autonomous morality merely stems from a thousand years of Christian ethics and theology. The Enlightenment project involved justifying these Christian values without an appeal to the supernatural or non-existent. An appeal to 'reason' for example, or a Kantian categorical imperative. Thus Breivik perceives that Christianity can serve its purpose. Consider what he writes in his manifesto:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings a</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">nd environment. In the </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">past, I remember I used to think (religion is a crutch for the weak) … Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f(or) example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well.” (1344-1345)</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">It's not too difficult to work out what his ideas concerning what he calls Christianity is. He refers to himself as 100% Christian (1403) but not in the sense that we might assume. He seems to understand the Christian tendency to be pacifistic. An actual Christian fundamentalist would be a pacifist to suicidal proportions – something I think the Norway shooter acknowledges. He takes great effort to convince god-fearing Christians that violence is acceptable and necessary. Unlike Islamist Jihad preachers, who correctly indicate the Koran demands violence and war, Breivik makes a mess of his Biblical argument, ignoring 99% of what Jesus teaches. Undoubtedly, however, he wishes to bring back to life the Knights Templar spirit, which seems more a calculated attempt to acquire a sort of elite 'defenders of europe' caste, then actually appeal to Christian theology for its own sake - or for God's sake.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">“As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always c</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">ontinue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” (1403)</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The above quote demonstrates pretty well he is not a Christian fundamentalist or extremist, if we are talking about religion here. He isn't even much of a believer. As he explained earlier on, he suspects he will 'pray to god' for strength etc in the same manner one supposedly always prays to God on his deathbed. We are not talking about a man crusading for a place in heaven, so that his sins may be forgiven. Or a religious fanatic killing infidels for virgins. It is, quite obviously, absurd to refer to this man as a Christian, let alone an extreme one. As for 'right-wing', seeing as the term right-wing is deceptively (and deliberately) used these days to describe any one as racist, despite racism being apolitical, then I suppose he is 'right wing' in some sense. He probably does have right-wing views though I cannot bring to mind any; but, what does not ring 'right-wing' to me is his so-called nationalism which seems very pan-European to me, rather than a man devoted to his own country. He seems very much a sophisticated racist, who does not hate-hate other races, but merely wishes them to 'keep to themselves'. His so called support for Zionism stems from the desire for Jews to leave Europe – elsewhere he refers to America having a “Jewish problem” due to the high numbers of Jews who live there (1163). Hardly a pro-Jewish Zionist, as the more vile parts of the left are trying to describe him.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">His own words when wondering what a perfect European society should look like:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">“We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives.” (1386)</span></blockquote><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Does that sound like a right-winger to you? It doesn't sound particularly capitalist to me, and right-wingers, conservatives, hold capitalism as a sacred cow. I relent though. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Of course, in the words of a man who, whilst not insane, is certainly humanly evil and driven with a sort of unchecked bloodlust, perhaps, we should not expect to find his writing consistent or his politics real; but, rather, his manifesto should be read as a chaotic, egotistical, chequered rant that contains a large degree of corrupted truth. He could not even be bothered to write his manifesto himself or finish it, it seems.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I for one know there are primitive sorts who regard white, blue eyed, Aryans as indeed the master race. They believe in a separation of the races and of the superiority of white Europeans. They often correctly identify the liberal's massed and ingrained agenda (cultural marxism) and are fully aware of the left's schemes and expressions of domination. However, the original thought, the nazi belief, spurs them to corrupt the truth and drives them to bad or mad conclusions. They may claim to be Christian but do not abide by even the basic tenets of Christianity (we are all equal in the eyes of God, for example), let alone the more complex ones.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The Norway shooter was probably oppressed and restricted in some fashion, and his fears about certain elements of immigration might well be correct and accurate. But his racist beliefs, his aryan drive (was he impotent? Did he lie in his manifesto about his Sex and the City lifestyle?), forced him to pick and choose from anti-Jihadist discourse and ignore the message of writers such as Robert Spencer. One lecture Robert Spencer gave, was on the crusades, where he described the history of the Crusades accurately, and pointed out the massed distortion that now infects us – having studied the crusades at university (and not being defective in logic) I can vouch for that certainly. Spencer constantly says most Muslims are good, honest people, but he also warned that the Crusaders, though protecting themselves from Islamic Imperialism, committed great atrocities during their Crusades. The mass-slaughter of Jews (against the wishes of the Pope) and the butchery once Jerusalem was retaken, for example. Spencer repeatedly warns that such horrors should never be forgotten <i>or excused</i> – a point seemingly ignored by the aryan-supremacist terrorist, Anders Breivik.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">To return to the way the bastards and scum of the left attacked Sarah Palin, after the Arizona shootings, and the mostly hidden fact that the shooter began his quest for vengeance well before Palin was vice-presidential candidate, one would like to leave you with what the Norway Shooter wrote in his manifesto, when asked what pushed him over the edge, and made him conclude a terrorist act was necessary:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"For me, personally, it was my government’s involvement in the attacks on Serbia </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">(NATO bombings in <b>1999</b>) several years back. It was completely unacceptable how the </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">US and Western European regimes bombed our Serbian brothers. All they wanted was to </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">drive Islam out by deporting the Albanian Muslims back to Albania. When the Albanians </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">refused, they really didn’t have any choice but to use military force." (1379)</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><b>So his insanity predated 9/11.</b> At a time when most conservatives and public anti-Jihadists such as Pamela Geller were of the stupid, incorrect opinion that Islam was 'just another religion, which naturally comes with a few fanatics here and there'.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Or maybe he is completely insane, in which case his manifesto and spoken words are irrelevant.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-31798481952231987652011-07-21T17:23:00.005+01:002011-07-24T19:20:23.160+01:00The Myth of Gender and Heterosexuality<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">HAH, </strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">headline grabber, sorry. 6,000 words bitches so stay cool. Because I believe everything one does should be as a </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">response to Star Wars, the actual title should read, " THE MYTH OF GENDER AND HETEROSEXUALITY - Thoughts on Butler and the Logic of Gender: The Possible Origins of Authentic Masculinity".. </span></span></div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br />
</strong></div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Thoughts on Butler and the Logic of Gender</strong></div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">The Possible Origins of Authentic Masculinity</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">Judith Butler, from what I can gather in</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">Gender Trouble</em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">, has a straightforward argument. Gender is socially constructed, it is reproduced and reconstituted (through discourse, especially) to reaffirm itself. The constructed nature of gender means that masculine and feminine </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">behavior</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;"> is a </span></span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">lived </em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">illusion.</span></span></div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Butler denies a causal link between gender and sex distinction, and from here decides that the sex distinction itself is a social/cultural construct. Her reasoning is that we cannot perceive the distinction between male and female without appealing to gender. Once we grasp that there is no meaningful differential quality between what we claim to be the two sexes, this, and the reality of intersex, somehow renders sex distinction unstable. Using this reasoning, heterosexuality is revealed to be a social/cultural construct as well. Sexual identity for heterosexuals, then, is only real when you internalise the discourse. Gender and sexuality is thus, technically, existentially arbitrary.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> For Butler all notions of masculine and feminine, and the heterosexual, are constructs of discourse which are self-perpetuating, and have no cause other than the power structures of heterosexual domination (heterosexist social orders).</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> The implication of Butler’s thought, at least from my understanding of her, is that genitalia differences are content-free; sex distinction and gender are socially constructed (along with heterosexuality). I feel it is an awfully big coincidence that the same structures of oppression and domination (heterosexist, phallocentric, whatever you like) appear almost globally across time, and seem to create the same discourses. Perhaps Butler has an answer to this, but I feel that the independent formation of heterosexist social orders, across continents and diverse peoples, demands a universal cause.<br />
<br />
</div></div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">I don’t think I misrepresent Butler in saying her conclusions amount to a denial of the sex distinction, and a claim that it exists only as the consequence of discourse. So let us take this notion of heterosexuality, which is likewise a product of discourse. In the United Kingdom, every year, around 30,000 women are raped by men, and in 2003 it was as high as 50,000. Let us imagine in a utopian fashion that the heterosexist social order is undone and discourse is gender-free, as Butler would have it. What would the rape statistics of the following year be? If Butler is right then we should be confronted with a rape statistic showing an equal number of men raping men and an equal number of women raping women; an equal number of women raping men and an equal number of men raping women. Butler’s denial of substantial sex distinction and fixed sexual orientation demands this. We can never know the truth of such a thing, but most of us know that even if a “Butler-Britain” was achieved, the rape statistics would remain at present levels: 30,000 women would be raped by 30,000 men. It is inconceivable, I suggest, for any other configuration. What does this suggest? Firstly, it tells us that there is a fundamental element that makes society predominantly heterosexual, and secondly, that there exists a fundamental element that in some fashion is sex distinction (in some form outside mundane differences in genitalia and reproduction). I’ll flesh out the reasoning here quickly to be clear: if we cannot conceive of the statistics being substantially different, then that implies an “innate” heterosexuality (outside of society and culture), and a disposition for more men than women to engage in rape, implying a distinction between the sexes.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">This thought experiment is perhaps unneeded as science heavily indicates male and female sex distinction (that goes beyond mere reproduction). Male and female brains are wired and constructed differently. For example, the inferior-parietal lobule of the brain is significantly larger in men than in women. Science demonstrates multiple distinctions between male and female, but we were probably aware of the reality of biological sex distinction well before we came across Butler. </div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> What we also find is the question of sexual orientation. Is sexuality fluid and culturally imposed? Or is it innate? Science again, with the rapid advance in biology, is declaring homosexuality in males to be predetermined in the womb. There are, however, various theories regarding the exact cause, with the research being in its early stages. Despite this, biological determinism (in the womb) is the explanation for homosexuality, even if the precise causes are being debated and researched. Homosexuality, for the most part, is not the product of environment or nurture. There are also plenty of biological distinctions between heterosexual men and homosexual men, including brain configuration. Most theories on the cause, suggest a deviancy from the normal process of development in the womb.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> What is lacking, is research into female homosexuality, the only conclusion being that the causes of male homosexuality are <em>not</em> the same for lesbians (generally). Lesbianism stands as almost uncharted territory, the only characteristic being that it can be <em>contrasted </em>to male homosexuality (in most cases), rather than being placed next to it. It seems futile to discuss this until further discoveries are made.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> One might declare science to be heterosexist and part of the very discourse Butler is warning us of. As absurd as that may be, one can grant that, but still find that young children <em>gravitate</em> towards gender and sexual orientation, without manipulation. To speak of my own experience, I was raised in a Catholic environment with heavy emphasis on desexualisation. Yet, during infant school, when at a female friend’s house, I recall asking to see her Barbie dolls and undressing them in an attempt to observe female nudity (as you do), despite having no sexual motivation. Indeed my friend, upon seeing this, then proceeded to display her female genitalia for my benefit; there was nothing sexual about this encounter, at least on the surface. Curiosity may be at play here, and I lack the language or education to express this, but the curiosity is probably an expression of a desire to understand gender role and gender differences, to try to understand a basic building block of <em>being</em> (in defiance of Butler). Why, at a prepubescent age (5-7), when one was completely devoid of what I would understand to be sexuality, was I interested in the female body? I feel curiosity as an explanation is insufficient because there is an underlying sexuality about it, but it is almost counter-intuitive because a child at that age has not had the necessary physical changes (including chemical) to demonstrate sexuality, which will come only during puberty.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Consider the singling out of the Barbie doll over other “less enticing” dolls in the room. There is awareness, in my childhood, of gender but also the <em>division </em>of gender. The division of ‘the other sex’ into “attractive” and “unattractive”, that is: sexually-viable-female and neutral-female. This shows the determined biological sex distinction at work. Despite being non-sexual creatures, with an inability to gain sexual arousal, the prepubescent mind is already engaged in separating out members of the opposite sex. This separation is quite literally a primary driving force behind human evolution (called sexual selection), and because it is present and active in children, at such a young age, the sex distinction and predetermined sexual orientation is explicit. Consider early childhood crushes on teachers as another example of this. I can name the exact two teachers who I felt non-sexual attraction towards, in Primary school. It is no coincidence that in adulthood I am sexually attracted to any woman who has a reasonable resemblance, i.e. is a representation of these two specific teachers. There are other factors here, including some I have not considered, but nonetheless, biological forces inscribe the act of sexual selection upon very young children. This early engagement in sexual selection produces potentially permanent affects on a child, affects that carry on indefinitely into adulthood.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">With sexual orientation and sex distinction established, we are still faced with Butler’s claim that gender is constructed, rather than following causally from the sex distinction. With this, Butler is on stronger ground, but this is hardly an original idea. It is completely true, that most of what we consider to be gender is constructed, and notions of Butler’s gender performativity seems fair. There is no reason why pink is seen as feminine, it could quite easily have been blue or black. Most masculine and feminine actions (performances) are arbitrary. When a man refrains from wearing make-up there is nothing inherently masculine in the absence of make-up. When a woman wears a skirt and high-heels, there is no ‘feminineness’ to be found. Almost everything about gender performance is seemingly arbitrary and interchangeable. The ear ring, not to long ago, was a feminine decoration, but now both sexes wear ear rings.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> The rise of ladette culture demonstrates the sheer absurdity of most “masculine” gender attributes. With ladette culture, there is the danger of thinking that ‘ladettes’ are imitating men, or<em> behaving</em> in a masculine manner. This results from an uncritical observation, as the ladette’s behaviour demonstrates the <em>interchangeability</em> of gender attributes, rather than women consciously displaying male-signifiers (actions and behaviour denoting masculinity). To what end would a woman choose to display male signifiers in such a manner anyway? Outside a conscious feminist agenda, such displays of male signifiers serve no purpose. We, as Butler says, must admit that this behaviour does not stem from any sort of gender essence. To put it another way, there are no Platonian forms matching 'male' and 'female'.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> On this, then, Butler – in a general sense - is right. Is this not obvious though? It certainly is obvious to me. It certainly is obvious to most of my educated friends. If you are taught basic Media Studies at college (or even secondary school) you can reach this conclusion with a minimal application of Reason. We can all sit down, and write a wonderful list of gender attributes and behaviour that, once critically considered, are completely arbitrary. We can agree with Butler that the illusion of gender is spread and maintained through discourse. None of this is rocket science, all of this is obvious.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> This all being said, are <em>all</em> notions of gender really arbitrary? Is there really no substantial causality between gender attributes and the sex distinction? Let me state that how Butler describes culture and society, as constructed, through power structures and discourse (and so on), is reasonable. This does not mean, however, that this structure is invalid, illogical, or immoral. Cultural matrixes are not unjustified merely because they are constructed; the immorality of rape is a social construction.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Humans, if left to their own devices, can become feral. Actually, it is misleading to say we ‘become’ feral. We are denied a feral nature in the first instances of socialisation. ‘Animalistic’ is perhaps a more accurate description, but I won’t concern myself too much with the language. It is clear that human behaviour, in part, is necessarily constructed by others. If this were not the case, we would probably have not come far as a species; we would not have reached the hunter-gatherer phase.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> It is also equally true that some human behaviour is related to, what I will clumsily call, ‘residual genetic information’, which is passed on through our ancestors. I do not mean immediate or necessarily human ancestors here, I mean passed down through the whole drama of human evolution. For example, fear of heights (acrophobia) is hereditary, and is actually an attribute selected over the process of your bloodline’s evolution. This is because it has a positive benefit, i.e. avoidance of situations that lessen your chances of falling to your death.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">With the understanding that at least some element of a social/cultural structure has a positive purpose, and that humans are not just guided by the creation of sex distinction and sexual orientation in the womb, but are also swept along on a wave of genetic, hereditary forces, we can make our way towards a repudiation of Butler.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> In trying to isolate gender attributes that are causally linked to the sex distinction, I am confronted with one single male attribute. There are several ideas I have to outline before arriving at what I suppose I am arguing is<em> the</em> gender distinction.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Firstly, I will quickly describe what I want to call Agenda, which is basically the real reason behind any human action or thought. Agenda is the isolation of cause without subterfuge, it is the attempt to describe and map out the causality of human actions, behaviours, beliefs, thoughts and interactions. It is basically asking, “what’s the real reason?” to every utterance and every silence, but all the while questioning your own Agenda. These descriptions shows Agenda as a mundane notion, but understand it as heavily influenced by the behavioural sciences, with an emphasis on recent advances in areas such as neuroscience and genetics.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Secondly, when we come to trying to establish Agenda, we find what one might call ‘Primary Drives’. I am concerned with the following two Primary Drives: Replication and Ego. Replication is replication-of-self (genetics) and replication-of-species (survival of the species). Replication-of-self amounts to sexuality; it is the Primary Drive that is the most self-evident. The vast majority of humans are wired to engage in the process of self-replication; genetic replication. Sexuality, for the most part, is biological programming disguised as free-will. It is the Drive that has evolved throughout the evolution of the species, with the internal logic of pushing us to reproduce ourselves, and to allow our species to live on. Note this is heterosexual sexuality, completely predicated on the demand for reproduction. When I speak of prepubescent children engaging in the process of “the division of the other sex” (sexually-viable, and sexually-neutral), I am pointing out the biological drive, the Primary Drive of Replication, manifesting itself in a preliminary manner. Children do not know the purpose or logic behind separating out members of the opposite sex; nonetheless, they experience it vividly and engage in it. Not even a child can escape the evolutionary and ancestral forces that flood their biology, and directly penetrate <em>being</em>.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> I have put replication-of-self and replication-of-species under the same Primary Drive. It is intuitive to do so, however, I suspect that they may well be distinct, upon closer inspection. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to make this distinction, or discuss this, at this time. It is sufficient for my purposes here, to combine them.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> The second Primary Drive is Ego. I came across this concept of Ego whilst deconstructing a piece of propaganda presented as a cinematic documentary. To understand the power of certain forms of propaganda, especially some documentaries, I had to develop this idea of Ego, for my own purposes. Once I understood Ego it allowed me to deconstruct certain kinds of texts to a degree of greater accuracy. This notion developed and expanded as I was educated. I found nourishment for this idea in the writings of Nietzsche once I reached University. I will quickly explain it here, as understanding Ego is necessary for us to understand gender attributes that are <em>not</em> causally related to sex distinction.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Ego as a Primary Drive, is basically the human need to feel superior to others. I could write forever on this as my belief of its fundamentality is the filter that I view the world through. Traditional or current descriptions of egotism and narcissism do not sufficiently express what I mean by Ego, though there is a relationship to be seen. Ego is often a subtle, underlying principle which is present everywhere. Ego is a drive within humans to feel superior and above <em>others</em>. It can be expressed purely in one’s own mind (or imagination), or it can express itself openly. Ego is the search and accumulation of its own sustenance (I’ll call it ego-sustenance for now). Ego places man as a creature that is constantly looking for examples of his or her own superiority to <em>the other</em>. It is a force that radiates around the subject. The subject pulls into its ‘egotistical field’ anything that sustains the Ego and creates or implies superiority. Note the field pulls in material items, people <em>and ideas</em>, sometimes irrespective of Reason, that is, the ‘truth-value’ of what is pulled in. The field also repulses that which is deemed to be detrimental to Ego; facts are stripped of their essence when thrown into this confrontation. Ego corresponds to self-worth. Ego also has a relation to the other, in that Ego (generally) is sustained only through a presumed acknowledgement of <em>selected</em> others.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> In some social groups, I would suggest, Ego is the ‘glue’ that holds a social group together. Each member finds ego-sustenance in the other members of the group. By this I mean that each member of the group has been selected because they view all other members of the group, in such a way that acknowledges and <em>affirms</em> the means to which each member gains ego-sustenance, indeed, each member is also a <em>source</em> of ego-sustenance.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Big Brother can serve as an example. In the first week of any Big Brother series, what usually happens is that someone is targeted for what is essentially bullying. A group will form, and will bond, through the act of singling out and delegitimizing this one person. Criticism and bullying will occur, all of which are ego-sustenance. The Ego is sustained through this process in two ways. Firstly, the downgrading of one person (victim) stimulates the Ego of each member of the bullying group, because they are placed on a higher level than the victim. Secondly, the group stimulate and sustain the Ego of one another, at the expense of the unlucky individual - when they single out a ‘character flaw’ of the victim, the implication for all members of the group is that they are devoid of that very flaw. Additionally, the victim will often be targeted for nomination, so there is also a tactical undercurrent in this example.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> When you view the construction of ego-sustenance as a <em>method of manipulation</em>, you can see the implications in areas such as propaganda and media. You can also see the avenue to power and influence, available to those purporting to be carrying out deconstruction or criticism. Ego must, however, not be seen as some simple drive to feel better about yourself, but rather, a potentially all-encompassing state of mind that can cause one to bully someone in the work place, and another to invade another tribe’s land. Military historians have often pointed out the primary motivations of many wars were not wars for material goods and land, but rather pride and prestige: all can be traced to Ego. For example ancient Greek soldiers would march and fight over the most worthless, degenerate pieces of land. They would die, in actual fact, for something <em>seemingly</em> irrational.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Honest introspection can also be an avenue for seeing Ego at play. This is difficult, and demands an honesty that Ego itself will try to repulse. Please understand I am not engaging in some sort of sophistry here. Ego, by my above definition and description, implies it is undone by honest introspection, and that the removal or self-negation of sources of ego-sustenance can have a ‘damaging’ affect on one’s self.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Before I finish this rough and speedy picture of Ego, I would like to make a few more comments for clarity. Whilst Ego is the Agenda behind so many things, it is not by view that Ego is absolute or all-encompassing, in its totality over being. I also point to Replication as a Primary Drive. The level of Ego in each individual, as with everything, varies in the extreme from person to person. Nor is it necessarily innate. I suspect Behavioural Science will uncover the truth of Ego in the future, if it has not started to dissect it now, but I must state I cannot demonstrate the physical location of Ego at this time, or am someone equipped to do so. I say Ego is not necessarily innate, because some religions (specifically Christianity and Buddhism), if practiced authentically according to their theological foundations, are actually ego-destructive. A character reading of Jesus and his purported words would demonstrate the overt antagonism towards Ego; you cannot enter heaven unless one is in a state of child-like innocence.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Love (true-love) is also a Primary Drive I suspect. It is ego-destructive in absolution, and can be seen as problematic for the Primary Drive of Replication. When I was in love, I would have happily killed myself to prevent the object of my love from having even a mild wound. The Ego is plundered and cast aside, when someone is in Love. The human-in-Love would ‘burn the world’ for the object of their love. Sex selection, the division of the sexes, is at the very least forgotten, and perhaps even destroyed. I can see however counter-arguments to this and so shall leave it, but I mention Love as a Primary Drive to emphasise that I am not reducing humans to merely the two Primary Drives I have mentioned above. If Love is a Primary Drive, however, it exists for most of us as a <em>dormant</em> Drive.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> In order to further emphasise the degree of non-reducibility for humans here, I point to Reason (linked to Intelligence) and Empathy as the free-spaces between the two Primary Drives I am concerned with. Both Reason and Empathy are increasingly shown to be hereditary (genetic), found in the configuration of the brain, but in <em>varying degrees </em>from human to human, rather than a fixed quality.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> At the basic level we can see the use of Reason overriding the Primary Drive of Replication. Even though a woman cannot remove her sexual desire, which is unavoidable, as it is a biological drive that has evolved (so that she will be driven to replicate herself through reproduction), she can use her Reason to use contraception, or demand he pull out in time. Or she (or he) can use Reason to choose abstinence. Empathy can serve to tame Ego, or even overrun its defences. I would suggest Reason and Empathy are the foundations of free-will, and the autonomous individual.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">I have quickly touched on Replication and Ego. With these two Drives explained, and the idea of Agenda, we can finally reach what I think is the one authentic ‘male gender role’ that causally follows from the sex distinction itself.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> The author, Robert A. Heinlein, never claimed he was a philosopher despite the philosophy infused within his works. In one speech, <em>The Pragmatics of Patriotism</em>, which he gave to the U.S. Naval Academy in 1973, he demonstrated what he believed were the first principles of morality. Within this speech, we find explicitly the purpose of what is perhaps the only male ‘attribute’ that derives from the sex distinction itself, the purpose of this piece.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Heinlein identifies first principle moral behaviour in the behaviour of baboons. A younger baboon will take to the top of a tree, as the others in the group relax or eat, and will act as a lookout. The baboon will sacrifice its personal needs, and will instead watch for predators. This, Heinlein says, is moral behaviour, at its most basic, instinctual, primitive form. The baboon on some level understands the need to protect his group; he is displaying an awareness of the importance of protecting the ‘species’. Heinlein points out that baboons who fail to exhibit this form of morality, “wind up as meat for the leopards”.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Heinlein then describes an event that happened in the area where he lived. There was a park with a train track running across it. One day a young married couple were walking in the park, when the woman trapped her foot in part of the track. The husband tried to free his wife but could not. Then a male tramp appeared, and along with the husband, they both desperately tried to free the woman. Sure enough a train came along the track - the husband and tramp continued to try to free the woman’s foot. The train hit all three and killed them. Heinlein says the behaviour of the husband is self-explanatory, but the behaviour of the tramp, who gave his life to save a young woman who he had never met before, is something that requires analysis. After all, he could have pulled away at the last second but <em>refused</em> to do so. Heinlein says that there is an understanding, in many males, that females are a priority, in the scheme of things. This tramp, Heinlein suggests, was engaging in a passed on, evolutionary instinct. An instinct that demands the male does everything it can, to keep the females of the species alive, even if it leads to his death. I suggest that authentic masculine behaviour stems from this instinct. Heinlein says that there is a rational calculation for this, but one that evolution long ago calculated: women have more worth (from the prospective of the replication of the species) than men. You could cull two thirds of the male sex and the human species would still carry on, but if you culled two thirds of the female sex the species would suffer massive population decline, and probably die out. This is the Replication Drive, the replication-of-species, playing itself out. This is the Agenda of authentic male gender behaviour. Evolution pushes men to perceive their place as servants to the continuation of the species. “Women and children first,” Heinlein reminds us. This is not sexist jargon, but an expression of a biological instinct that repeats itself, because evolution understands the harsh reality of the natural world, and evolution makes arrangements to respond in kind.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> This is the only behaviour that is gender-specific, and derived from the sex distinction. The rule that men are expendable - women (and children) are not. This notion is likewise enforced and reproduced through discourse and structures, in the manner Butler describes, but there is purpose behind it (moral and evolutionary). Butler is too short-sighted, too academic, to understand this; her fingers are not muddied in the earth that sustains us.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Keep in mind, Heinlein points out, women if called upon, make excellent warriors and protectors, and there is an evolutionary logic to the mother violently protecting her offspring: women will happily engage in violence if called upon, they are not defenceless. Nonetheless, he says, the calculation is ever present: that the species could do without males, but females must be protected <em>so the species can continue.</em> Again, this is not a sexist view, that women cannot protect themselves, or that women are weak. This masculinity is the product of both rationality and evolution. Without the instincts in the male to protect the female, tribes and societies can die out. Male gender attributes are only authentic, that is, they are not arbitrary or interchangeable, when the Agenda is examined and found to stem from the Replication Primary Drive (specifically replication-of-species). Consider elements of chivalry and you will see this Agenda present. Of course a female may well sacrifice herself trying to free that married woman from the train track, but she might be acting in an altruistic manner rather than a species-conscious manner (good luck explaining altruism). <em>If </em>she is acting in a species-conscious manner, then the implication of my argument is that she is acting in a masculine manner; she is taking on a male-role gender (which can be logically necessary under some circumstances).</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> If the Agenda of authentic masculinity lies in the dualism of rationality/evolution directed at/from the replication-of-species Drive, then the following question must be asked: why are so many cultures and societies composed of mostly inauthentic ‘masculine attributes’, and the kind of phallocentric discourse that Butler concerns herself with? Inauthentic male gender attributes appear to serve no purpose if this conception of masculinity is to be believed.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> The answer lies in understanding that you can have two identical actions (or gestures), carried out by two separate agents (humans), and yet the Agenda of the agents can be radically different from each other: one is authentic, the other is performance. Consider two females and a male sitting downstairs in a student house. They hear a loud thud from upstairs, despite the rest of the house being empty. The male springs to his feet and declares his intention to investigate. We understand this as male behaviour, a male attribute (let us be honest here). However, what of Agenda? On one hand the male is merely displaying behaviour that is befitting someone who has “internalised” the replication-of-self Drive, and the logic behind it. He could be experiencing that gut feeling of disgust, some men feel, when the possibility of a female being hurt presents itself. This is an authentic display of masculinity: women and children first, the man is expendable. That is not the only Agenda that can be found in this situation, however. There is another. The male’s behaviour might not stem from replication-of-species, or the codes of honour which codify this notion. His behaviour could in actual fact stem from Ego. The male is choosing this attribute, this performance of masculine behaviour, to assert his masculinity which in his eyes corresponds with superiority. He hopes the women see him in a positive light and thus Ego for him, finds ego-sustenance. We should consider this more carefully.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Butler is rightly horrified with a world that is dominated by males and masculine-discourse. We should go back to Shulamith Firestone’s<em> The</em> <em>Dialectic of Sex</em>, where she claims the first form of oppression is man’s oppression of women. At first they use their physical strength to dominate women, along with the oppression of pregnancy. As civilisation advances, men concoct as many ways as they can to keep women oppressed. Firestone is more perceptive than Butler, even if the rest of Firestone’s arguments fail. She is absolutely right: this is the first “dialectic” in human history. I use dialectic loosely understand, but Firestone’s point still burns bright. What is the cause of this dialectic? Recall the example above where the male performs masculine attributes because it makes him feel superior, it stimulates his Ego. This is the cause of the dialectic of sex that Firestone rightly lamented. The two most obvious biological differences between the two sexes: pregnancy and male superior strength, unfortunately, acted as a ‘perfect storm’ of ego-sustenance for males. This is half the essence of sexism. It allowed men susceptible to Ego to siphon off half his tribe (half the species in fact), under the label of ‘inferior’. Males who are driven by Ego, which is what Firestone points to, will not freely give up this ego-sustenance. Power is a consequence of Ego. Men draw ego-sustenance from the phallocentric (re)classification (the ‘siphoning off’ I mention) of women as the weaker ‘other’, they translate psychical strength into power, and hold that power over females, providing yet more ego-sustenance. I spoke of the difficulty of honest introspection earlier, the difficulty of seeing Agenda in yourself and finding Ego inside you. This is, as Firestone touches on, why men will not let go of the power structures they have built, the structures that keep women oppressed: their Ego is resistant to being starved of its sustenance. With Firestone’s help, I think I have described the Agenda of male sexism, though I believe there is an element of rape in sexism, which should be explored, perhaps academics and others have already started investigating this, it is important.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> This line of reasoning allows us to differentiate between authentic and inauthentic masculine behaviour; authentic and inauthentic male gender roles. We can understand (we must grant Butler this) that the phallocentric power structures have negative foundations which must be broken down. That same power structure does, however, have a few building blocks which have positive purpose behind them. I will say to you that Ego is the underlying causality of many of our relationships, interactions and experience. Ego can, however, have positive consequences. It can drive one to be a doctor and it can push someone through barriers, but the positive is rarely disentangled from the majority negative. The root of female oppression is wrapped up in an almost elusive driving force. A force Nietzsche is very much aware of, but mislabels as Will to Power, where in fact, I think, Will to Power a symptom of Ego.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">There is a phallocentricity about the above, which I cannot escape, for I cannot escape my penis. Perhaps authentic feminine gender attributes/role lies in that six pounds of mother cat, that Heinlein mentions, that becomes so fierce when her offspring are threatened, that she can summon the strength and violence to ‘drive off a police dog’. Or perhaps, the truth is that, there is only the masculine behavioural attributes, dictated by evolution, for the purpose of protecting females in order that the species survive; there is no distinct female gender that derives from <i>her</i> sex.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Males are mutilated, deformed females, remember. A man is occasionally confronted with this when he looks in the mirror at his upper torso and finds himself perplexed by his nipples. In the back of his mind, in a dark place that his Ego tries to conceal, he understands that his body is female, with male parts <em>fixed on</em>.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">As for Judith Butler, she refers to Nietzsche in <em>Gender Trouble</em> but has not received the gaze of Nietzsche. This mighty philosopher speaks of Agenda, when he says to understand Socrates you must understand that he was ugly. Perhaps to understand Butler you must understand that she is a lesbian.<em>Gender Trouble </em>is her attempt, her demand, that sexuality be reduced to a blank slate. That way, there are no majorities; we are all exceptions. Or, to look at it another way, <em>she</em> is the majority, and we would see this if we stripped away the heterosexist power structures that enslave us. She knows she is classified in heterosexist discourse as an ‘other’, and <em>Gender Trouble</em> is an attempt to move the goal posts, so that she finds herself sitting in a universal ocean of intersexuality, and polymorphous perversity.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Butler’s mistake is her failure to accept that male homosexuality, and overt lesbianism, is not normal. Of course it isn’t normal, we intuitively know this. <i>If humans were as Butler insists, then the species would simply not be able to replicate itself</i>. Humans have not always existed in a state where the discourse-creating structures, she describes, exist.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> As soon as we suggest homosexuality is ‘not normal’, the sting can be felt. “If you say homosexuals are not normal, you are saying they are abnormal,” is the angry response. The objection to the term ‘abnormal’ comes from a deep-rooted misconception of <em>being </em>itself. Notice if I refer to homosexuality as ‘exotic’, instead of abnormal, the sting lessens. These are just connotations, but the signified is the same. When the offended individual hands out condemnation for your assertion that homosexuality is abnormal, or a deviancy, they reveal their own prejudice, for the implication of their indignation is this: it is wrong to be abnormal or a deviant.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> When you insist that humanity fall under one single, unified definition with a uniform consciousness, you sow the seeds that will grow into oppression or violence, as those who do exhibit the required consciousness are subject to corrective methods. The consequences are often slaughter.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> I am not suggesting Butler has murderous intentions, but this element of uniform consciousness is the implication, I find, in my reading of her. It is disguised under her misleading pining for a heterosexually free world.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> In regards to homosexuality, the majority of humans are heterosexual, and the vast majority fall under two distinct sexes. This is predetermined. The error is corresponding ‘human’ with the qualities that the majority exhibit. This is a mistake, and I insist I am not playing with semantics here. When we invoke the term ‘human’ it is an absolute term, but, when we speak of ‘the human race’ we must be critical of to what we are referring to. When Butler conceives of humanity, she does it in a uniform manner, even if that uniform has all the colours of the rainbow. She insists that if not for oppressive structures, we would all find ourselves of the same consciousnesses. In a similar manner, to how the working class would unite and overthrow the small bourgeoisie (they themselves dehumanised as minority), if only they achieved a true uniform consciousness. Butler falls into a trap that implies uniform consciousness as the aim.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> When we use notions and words like ‘humanity’ and ‘the human race’, we must reject this trap. We must understand that the human race consists of a heterosexual majority (the norm), a homosexual minority, and other minorities (intersex and so on). We must understand that minorities are not ‘normal’, in the sense that they are not comparative numerically to the majority: <em>and that that is all there is to it</em>, <em>when we accurately present this notion of a minority</em>. We must understand that, to be human, is to be someone who at some point in his coming into existence, had the <em>potentiality </em>to be any of those labels that make up the human-race (empirically). It serves no purpose to claim homosexuality is ‘normal’, as it is intuitively and scientifically not so, and people react negatively when they think they are being deceived; it is counter-productive. If we mean ‘normal’ by virtue of it ‘happening’ every so often, we are saying it is normal in the same way we say it’s ‘normal’ for there to be earthquakes, or it is ‘normal’ for us to become ill. The language is inaccurate, even deceptive, as we know it is not ‘the norm’ for there to be earthquakes, or for us to become ill. To use ‘normal’ in this way belies a sense of highlighted irregularity. We must reject this sort of language and, I suggest, rethink the way we use words like ‘humanity’ and bring them in line with the suggestion above: where, when we speak of humanity as the signified, it is an authentic, empirically accurate definition that we bring to mind. When we understand humanity, in terms of sexual orientation, as what it statistically is, and see the experience of being human as one of normal and abnormal, we peel away the demand for a uniformity of consciousness because our language now understands humanity as a multiplicity of consciousnesses <em>by definition</em>. To put it another way, we must remove the negative connotations of notions of the abnormal, not by pretending the abnormal are somehow normal, but by re-understanding humanity. Then, when we view ‘the other’ who is a stranger, we see them as a potentiality within this definition of humanity.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Consider the subtle consequences, if we do not internalise this way of grasping and defining humanity. We can see in modern Britain, homosexuals and heterosexuals agreeing that they are both ‘normal’, because their sexual behaviour is within the norm of their respective sexualities, and that they both come together under a respective classification of ‘normal’. What do they do, then, when confronted with heterosexuals and homosexuals who engage in sadomasochism? They will label them as abnormal even if they do not judge this activity in negative terms. This way, those who engage in the sexual pleasures of sadomasochism are almost dehumanised, as they are not positioned within the field of humanity but, rather, almost on the periphery. When we define normal as anything outside of the literal, physical, statistical truth, we give space for prejudice, and in discourse, Ego makes itself heard. We give space for prejudice because we allow for a sliding scale of normality which allows us to infer negativity. We could replace ‘abnormal’ with ‘rare,’ but the consequences would be the same. <em>In terms of sexuality</em>, ‘rare’ sexual practices cannot lose their abnormal definitions or connotations, it is inescapable. Only by uniting normal and abnormal as human can we solve sexual alienation without Butler’s subterfuge. We must project humanity (in terms of sexuality) as a large circle or field, and within that field are a majority of pink heterosexual pins; a minority of blue homosexual pins; and smaller minorities of other coloured pins. When we look upon this field of pins, we know that there is a majority, a ‘statistical norm’, but we understand that each pin is within the same circle, and that each pin is no more or less a pin than any other pin next to it. ‘Normalism’ does not imply humanity. Homosexuality is not normal, but it is <em>human</em>, and homosexuality is no more human than heterosexuality or bisexuality.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> Consider the various theories on the causes of male homosexuality. Some might think it probable that twenty years from now we’ll realise there are multiple causes, rather than a single cause, and that the brain configurations differ perhaps significantly according to cause. We then see different hues of blue in the pin-circle I have described above: humanity is a tapestry.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">I hope I have painted a picture of humanity as a complicated, multifaceted, unpredictable subject, hammered from all sides by the logic of its biology, (a product of millions of years of evolution), whilst being assailed by social/cultural structures with their own internal logic, some of which are arbitrary, some of which are necessary for the continuation and maintenance of our species.</div></div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> I realise that I have avoided commenting on how some masculine and feminine behaviourisms, which directly grow out of the sex distinction, are, according to theories of sex-selection in behavioural science, ‘performed’ specifically to attract a mate of the opposite sex. I felt this would add another confusing layer to the discussion, so I bring it up only as an afterthought.</div></div>Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-65841752533820632102011-07-19T01:15:00.001+01:002011-07-19T01:15:49.713+01:00TestLet's seePooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-63949094765593082812011-07-19T01:10:00.004+01:002011-07-21T17:14:15.790+01:00The Public Sector and PornographyAre all public sector workers stupid? No, obviously – only the ones who listen to the deceptions their unions spout. What does baffle me, however, is how certain workers in the public sector are completely clueless as to how they are actually paid. I swear some of them think money grows on trees.<br />
<br />
The state now directly spends 53% of the kingdom's wealth, 53% GDP (this figure was 40% before Tony Blair was elected). That's more than communist china (COMMUNIST CHINA!). The public sector absorbs 53% of the wealth Britain generates, yet generates no wealth in return. It's a parasite, in other words. A teacher or politician may insist that she earns her salary, but she does so not in the same manner as a private sector worker. Their relationships to the economy are entirely different. A teacher, or politician, or doctor, or soldier, is entirely dependant on the private sector for her pay packet. Some might chip in and say, 'I'm paid by government, not the private sector, actually', which is quite hilarious. Government has no money. Any money a government has, it takes by taxation, taxation of the private sector: from bankers to waitresses. The public sector worker may then, bizarrely, protest that she pays her taxes just like everyone else. No she doesn't, girlfriend! Her entire salary is generated by the smaller private sector. Whatever she pays in taxes goes into the government spending pot – and straight back into her salary.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
That's right: you pay your own salary. Look at it this way: a teaching job is created by the state, let's say the salary is £100 a month. That salary is paid for by the government which generates funds through taxation. Money from, let's say, a KFC establishment, is taken and used to pay for this teaching job. The teacher then pays £30s worth of tax from her salary in taxes. Is she paying taxes in the same manner as the KFC establishment? She might state, “by golly, I've paid my dues, I've paid £30 in tax”. But that £30 she has given up to the government, is basically going straight into her next pay-packet. The government is taking her 30% and placing it right back into next month's salary. The difference being, the teacher's salary is generated by the private sector, whilst the KFC establishment's wealth is generated entirely by its own merits. Oh no no no, before you say anything, KFC's profit is not stimulated by public sector workers buying buckets, that's basically KFC PAYING THEM to buy their own products, don't be so vulgar. So we have the public sector being entirely parasitic on the labour of the private sector. Any tax a public sector worker thinks she's paying is recycled and sent back to them. I'm sure they have a nice fuzzy feeling of 'doing their bit via tax', but really, it's just an illusion.<br />
<br />
Now paying for soldiers and having teachers deliver first class education to our children, is a good thing. I like talking to people who can read! So we generally think that it's groovy to spend a bit of dosh on the public sector. I don't see any disagreements there, superficially at least. We all enjoy the benefits of some of the finest soldiers in the world. We enjoy the administration of the country, when it works. We enjoy an educated populace. We enjoy law and order. It's bloody brilliant.<br />
<br />
In theory.<br />
<br />
The unfortunate side-effect stems from games/structures of power. A consequence of living in an affluent democracy, that has completely forgotten that the freedom they enjoy was bought with blood. The paradigm that prevailed during the world wars, the paradigm of blood, sweat and toil, has been replaced with the paradigm of “it's my right!” It's my right to work, it's my right to have a great pension, it's my right to be educated for free! From one extreme to the other. What we have is less democracy and more a case of whichever party offers the more free shit is the government that wins the election. Few humans are going to vote for the party that might remove their job or lower their pension. And so, Labour in particular, played this very nasty game. To accumulate a clientele electorate that could be relied upon to vote Labour consistently, the size of the state was increased. This serves two functions: it ensures that those who are paid 'by the state' will vote Labour, as few will vote for government that will cut their job; and secondly, that those who benefit from some of the services that these jobs are supposed to provide, will likewise continue to vote leftwards. I'll give you a job, or a benefit, you give me your vote. Don't vote for the other guy, she'll cut your job or benefit! Simples. No one is going to condemn someone for spending money on an upgraded school, for example. It's a nice thing! But one who slashes the budget for upgrading a school will ALWAYS be villified.<br />
<br />
That is not to say that there is no need for some of these jobs and public services. We can come up with an almost endless number of governmental services that would improve the quality of life for all. The problem arises when one is asked to pay for this stuff. Rent must be paid for when a governmental building opens, salaries must be paid. Money must be found, if one is to pay a benefit or pay for material items. It goes on and on.<br />
<br />
The bigger a public sector, the more money it costs to fund. Remember, the public sector does not create money, it only absorbs it. It's up to the private sector, the bankers, the pornstars, the delivery boys, the merchants, blacksmiths and apothecaries, to create the wealth that the government will promptly tax in order to pay the salaries of the public workers. At a hypothetical equilibrium things might be ok. If Sean Bean was Hand of the King, things might be ok. However, under the rule of politicians who are either engaging in public spending to 'purchase' loyal voters, or idealist politicians who, despite their hearts being in the right place, think money grows on trees, we find ourselves unable to generate enough wealth to pay for the services that were in place decades ago, not to mention the new ones. So what happens? Even more money than usual is borrowed, often from overseas individuals, in order to pay for the public services. The money generated from KFC is not enough! And the public debt increases and increases. Currently it's like 4.8 trillion or something insane. And the current government is doing almost nothing to reduce that. In fact, if I remember correctly, public spending has somehow gone up the past few years (you'll notice increases in spending with most areas, apart from Defence, which is the only area to receive a real, substantial, cut … and yes, we're bombing Libya with bombs we can't afford). So the government borrows and this borrowed money incurs interest, generous interest in fact, for why would you lend a government money if there was little in it, for you?<br />
<br />
The only way to pay – responsibly – for all these public services is to increase the wealth of the nation. The only ones who INCREASE the pool of money available are those businesses who can produce something that can be sold ABROAD: i.e. we take a bit of money from another country's pool of money, and add it to our own. The government takes its cut, and can spend that money on something new. This is gradual and slow, but responsible. Keep in mind, if you tax companies too much (this is the money THEY have earned and NOT you or the governments money, remember), they will understandably take their business abroad. For example, a hair-dressing salon generates money of its own accord but does not draw money in from abroad. A porn company, for example, might sell it's sexy products to Germany. If this happens, the UK government will take a slice of the pie Germany gave said porn company, via tax, as the company being based in the UK will have to pay a whole bunch of taxes.<br />
<br />
Of course when your labour politician comes up to you and says, “we're gonna build a super massive school! And double-gold plate the teacher's pensions! I'm super-serious about this! I'm great!” everyone thinks that's cool: it's VERY hard to argue against. Many do not think hard about where this money is coming from. Speaking of pensions, who pays teacher's pensions? Not them. They may take a portion of their pay to pay into their pension, sure, but that money was never “theirs' in the first place. You can see where this is going! Who pays a teacher's pension? KFC pay it. The private sector will pay for it: the government does not generate wealth, it only takes it away from one and gives to another. Not to be discourteous towards teachers and their work, but this is about where raw cash and the means of generating it comes from. Yes, public sector workers work like everybody else – but their salary is paid to them via violence applied through tax. There is no free choice or will, in the matter. If you don't like KFC you can take the money you've earned elsewhere – not so with the public sector, you MUST pay them, less you be jailed. This aspect is not necessarily a bad state of affairs, I say it with indifference.<br />
<br />
Britain is currently broken. It really is time people understood the insanity behind the public sector's current size, and it's time certain members of the public service eat a clue and get off their pedestal. I always respected a former boss who admitted he couldn't give a shite about his public-sector provision, but rather was in it for the overly-generous pension (given the limited difficulty and effort his job entailed) and pay, which outstripped anything he could hope to get in the private sector. Previous governments have simply created jobs which they could not afford to sustain, with pensions they simply could never have paid. With a damaged private sector, the public sector's bloated mass has buckled and threatens to crush us all, as with Greece. Previous governments have made promises to create jobs and provide nice care-bear services which predictably allowed them to cement power, and create a reliable base of loyal voters; but, in doing so they plundered the fruits of the private sector, and borrowed and borrowed money that not even our children's children will be able to pay back.<br />
<br />
This rant might be crude (I am aware of various conflations, and oversimplifications) but the conclusion should be reasonably obvious: the bigger the public sector, the more money is required to sustain it. The smaller the private sector, the less money is available to power the public sector. We need to produce more shit to sell abroad. Like porn.Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-13003611111512231582011-07-05T14:42:00.000+01:002011-07-05T14:42:22.199+01:00Seriously?<a href="http://poosh.blogspot.com/">You</a> are a bastard...Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8011144314059001302.post-77432101071329276792010-12-03T15:58:00.002+00:002010-12-03T16:56:11.761+00:00New Tasty Global Government<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Capitalism! Communism! Democracy! All these political systems have failed! Capitalism has resulted in catastrophic financial, global meltdown that has plunged nation after nation into austerity! Communism has resulted in close to a billion innocents murdered! And Democracy has resulted in the creation and massed breeding of chavs! Clearly a new system must be conceived of by a gifted mind! MY MIND IS GIFTED! And so I formulate the solution to all the world’s woes thusly.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">What is the most important thing that the Good Life of any quality human-being revolves around? What is essentially the lifeblood of all good citizens of any worth-while society? The answer is obvious to all who have ears and mouths. Chicken Wings are the single most important natural resource that mankind has dominion over. From buffalo-class units to the multiple conditioned wings of Nandos! Imagine a world without chicken wings? I’d put a bullet in my head! And I know everyone else ever to live thinks the same way, including Moses!</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So I propose a system of government that revolves around this substance. I call it the Global Chicken Wing Exchange Mechanism with Attached Governmental Controls for the Continued Existence of Chicken Consuming Homo-Sapiens - or Chickenwingism for short.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Chickenwingism revolves around the bartering of high-quality chicken wings from Chicken Wing Houses such as the House of Nandos and the House of KFC. These houses are spread throughout the world and oversee the production and cooking of these delicious treats. Everyone works in service to a competing house and these houses compete to deliver the most tasty chicken wings ever. Each Chicken Wing House has a Chicken Wing Overseer elected from the best chefs of said House. Every year worldwide elections are held to elect one Overseer to the position of President of the Global Chicken Order. His remit includes making sure there are enough chicken wings for everyone on the planet and the continuation of the chicken-wing space program (CWSP) which is tasked with exploring space in the hope of finding super-chickens whose wings we must harvest.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So long as everyone is fed well on chicken wings with plenty of gravy and fries one shall have world peace. Each House has its own group of scientists and healthcare corps to deal with cures for cancer and better televisions etc (to watch adverts concerning chicken wings) and each scientist etc shall partake in more chicken wings than the average chickizen (citizen) upon the creation of cures and the healing of peoples. There more cures you come up with or the more advanced cars you design the more chicken wings you get. No single motivating factor on earth can compare to the desire for a good chicken wing.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Now I know what you’re thinking! What if there aren’t enough chickens to eat! Well I doubt that will ever happen with 10 chicken farms in every town but to assuage your fears the No Wings 4 Fat People Act will be enacted in the global Chicken Parliament (The Chickement). Whenever someone gets fat his chicken wing intake upon pain of frying will be decreased until he or she is no longer a fat waste of space. Thus the chicken-equilibrium is allowed to continue as mother-hen intended.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I know Chickenwingism is a controversial form of governance and may have been conceived of on an empty stomach but seriously it’s totally the best way for man to live. It is gravy-tight and man’s last, best hope for peace.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I love chicken wings and these are the sayings of Poosh.</span></span></span></div>Pooshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03306595044429506338noreply@blogger.com0