Transing Away The Gay

There's a point in the confusion between sex and gender when you realise that it is all on purpose. We are a sexually dimorphic species and all of us are either male or female and it shows in every cell of our body. We are mammals. There is no trans. Woman is simply the adult human female, the same as we give different words to the male and female of all animals we closely interact with (horse-mare, ram-sheep, drake-duck, cockerel-hen, dog-bitch, lion-lioness, stag-doe...). What 'woman' is NOT is a gender identity in one's head, as the trans lobby would have you believe.

Deconstructing sex in order to substitute one's subjective fantasies (and they are ALL about sex, or the lack of it, in the trans group) for reality is much more than a rights question for a vulnerable minority. It IS a tiny minority, but they have the same rights as everyone else, plus some fundamental extra ones now. They demand the right to force everyone else to accept their fantasies as reality, to gaslight us all till we no longer remember what is true; and, in this post-truth world, where memory extends to no more than a day ago, where logic no longer reigns and where group-think is everything, they demand to have their delusions taken as fact.

Everyone born was born to a woman, their biological mother, and until very recently everyone knew this. In our civilisation's death throws, we have been gaslighted and threatened with hate crime sanctions if we do not learn random people's absurd and often contradictory pronouns.

There is, without a doubt, a young generation containing many confused and unhappy people. It could not be otherwise in a constant climate of fear and paranoia, mad terrorists, constant propaganda, the war on 'terror', the war on a 'virus', the incapacity to talk about death and the incapacity not to talk about sex. TV and Tik Tok videos are full of fetish. The Trans Lobby is busy transing away the gay, telling young gay, bi or not- interested younsters that they were born in the wrong body, as though the body were a container and one rattled around inside it and could, and should, change it on a whim. The timing was perfect, as a generation brought up on excessive eating and lack of exercise looked at their bodies in dismay.

Many men, in particular, have lost their role in our society, which has no biological use for their larger size or musculature, their deeper voices, their testosterone. So, deeper voices are being used to shout women down, and deny women their own spaces. Having no new territory to move on to, a small and unpleasantly vociferous group of men are trying to take over women's reproductive capacity, and inundating our culture with unhealthy fetishes, normalising them and preying on young people. It has also allowed men within the trans-identified movement, to behave towards women with breathtaking misogyny, under the guise of 'trans rights'. 

It is all very Big Business with the added attraction of allowing Big Pharma to medicate youngsters for the rest of their (predictably shortened) lives with hormones and Frankensteinian surgeries AND with the bonus of leaving many of them sterile, which fits in nicely with the UN's 2030 Population Agenda being rolled out in all of the Western World.

Additionally, since adopting identity politics and wokeness, the Left is now a sorry shadow of its former self, defanged, stuck in subjectivity and only focused on defending groups of competing special interests, the smaller the better. It no longer poses a threat to rampant capitalism, which thrives on opposing one individual preference against another very well.

Our Godless, Gordon-Gekko 'Greed is good', late-stage capitalistic culture is so very bereft of ethics, so monetised, so lacking in meaning that to live life proclaiming your identity has become normalised. We no longer just are but can, we are told, assume an identity, as though the very serious business of life were merely a performance. The trans lobby will have you believe you can live life with one identity one day, another the next, transitioning from one to another seamlessly if you want. This make-believe is just that, and it is a lie when taken seriously, and gaslighting when imposed on others. Facts and logic matter.

Laws made in all our Western countries to reify the lie and ban reality are just another sign that our civilisation is in free fall. 

There is one good thing that comes out of this. It has given women (not the absurd and insulting 'cis' women epithet, but real women, the only kind) the opportunity to step up, organise and fight for the health of our society (half of which is us), as we have done so many times in the past.

The Great Reset and the Not-So-New Normal

Beware of 3-word slogans:

• The Great Reset
• Build Back Better
• Green New Deal
• Trust The Science

We already had (among others):

• Stay at home
• Flatten the curve
• Save the NHS
• Keep them safe
• Lock them up
• Covid-19 rising here
• Hands, face and space
• Track & trace

For those who still have a memory, there was:

• War is peace
• Freedom is slavery
• Ignorance is strength

With all the conflicting, illogical and farsical information and advice being given about the current coronavirus and its recent variants, you might wonder if the Great Reset was the trigger for the 2020 coronavirus and not the other way round. 

You might wonder if the situation that pushed the Federal Reserve into magically creating out of nothing hundreds of billions overnight, with very little press comment or publicity, towards the end of 2019, didn't make the horrible lab experiments at Wuhan and the probable leak of a nasty, enhanced virus more than propitious. Because in late summer 2019 the Western economies crashed again, for the third time this century, and the central banks did what they like doing best, which is printing money (or, as they like to say in this digital age, 'injecting' money) and giving it straight to large, zombie corporations. Which is why during the pandemic so many of the stinkingly rich have become much richer and why inflation is knocking on our doors, after three decades of printing money, pardon, 'quantitative easing'.

In the buses where I live, out of the speakers comes a repetitive and extremely loud exhortation to not speak to anyone, in order to stop the spread, preceded by a 3-note chime. Pavlov would have loved it.

The Great Reset rose to prominence at the 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in June 2020 and refers to a plan to rebuild the world’s infrastructure ‘in a sustainable way’ (the Green New Deal). The funny thing about The Great Reset is how much it strongly resembles business-as-usual, only with EXTRA globalism. Most of the plan’s outlines include a further weakening of national boundaries and individual national autonomy, in favour of a more ‘universal governance.’ As usual, it is the rapidly vanishing Western middle class which must shoulder this burden, as their freedoms are further curtailed to meet the quotas of corporate-media-fuelled activism.

Much stress is put on the fact of global warming and, yet, none of our elite at the October 2021 COP26 summit saw a problem with the hundreds of private jets they used to get there, nor with the lavish dinners; although we, the little people, are told to eat less meat and dairy in order to save the planet. And, remember, private jets currently cause 50% of aeroplane emissions, not to mention the huge processions of limousines flown in specially, nor the electric cars and the generators to charge them. 

No mention was made of the fact that the military is the largest single source of global warming, especially the US military. No mention was made of the fact that capitalism, with its absolute need for exponential growth and technological advancement, will always end up trashing the planet and making more and more of us obsolete. It is an economic system that ultimately makes the generation of waste the primary engine of the economy.

Nothing was said of how the 99% - or 99.9% - of the world's population, including you and me, are not consulted over any of this, not permitted to be masters of our own lives, not even of our own bodies. COP26, however, did not have any restrictions concerning vaccination status.

Their solutions to specific environmental or scientific problems become entwined with LGBTQ+ rights, workplace equity, open borders initiatives and other unrelated social justice causes, as the New Left forgets about class struggle and embraces identity politics in a big neoliberal lovefest, thereby neutralising itself and subdividing the left. Therefore, a united response to a global pandemic mysteriously also equals trans rights activism, the most neoliberal cause ever conjured up.

Very absent from all this are the following:

• Removing big corporations' subsides and tax breaks, which would stop Big Oil in its tracks and remove most of the environmental problems that come with it, plus the corruption and cronyism endemic to big corporations and their revolving doors with government.
• Raising corporation tax on profits.
• Making fiscal paradises impossible by not allowing multinationals to move funds between one fiscal regime and another and by obliging them to pay tax on profit in the same country as sales are made.
• Penalising all air travel beyond a minimum number of flights or air miles per year.

So beware modern-day euphemisms: current state healthcare is NOT care of your health. The Green New Deal is not new and it's not green. Comfort is a poor substitute for freedom. The mRNA jabs are not vaccines. Our democracy is in fact oligarchy. The Opposition is NOT opposing the status quo. And the elites are getting richer and will stay in power.

And, above all, beware 3-word slogans.

Jaque al Rey

Tras el desastre para Podemos de las elecciones de la Comunidad de Madrid del 4 de mayo de 2021 conviene analizar cómo hemos llegado hasta aquí, y además partiéndose de unos comienzos tan prometedores.

UP aumentó sus escaños de 7 a 10, lo cual es positivo. En 2011, cuando Más Madrid y Podemos no existían, IU consiguió un 9,6% de los votos. En 2015 UP consiguió el 18,67%, y en 2019 el 20,29%. En estas elecciones de 2021, UP ha sacado un 24,18%; Más Madrid y UP han logrado un 8% más votos que el PSOE, cuyos votantes han abandonado el partido, unos en apoyo del PP, otros a la Izquierda real. De hecho Más Madrid ha subido en votos un 29% en los dos últimos años, y UP un 44%, nada menos. 

El debacle real ha sido de Ciudadanos (ese falso Centro) y del PSOE (esa falsa Izquierda), lo cual hace pensar que parte de la población se cansa de lo "políticamente correcto", lo de las palabras finas sin sustancia detrás, lo del auto-denominado "Centro" que luego se ubica en la Extrema Derecha. 

Y la gran victoria es de Vox -no de Ayuso-, que con solo un escaño más tendrá todo el poder sobre el PP de la Comunidad de Madrid.

Pero Podemos ha perdido su líder, carismático como nadie, capacitado y mediático como nadie. Dio un salto valiente desde la vicepresidencia -nada menos- al incógnito, y todo apuntaba a que iba a ser un acierto a pesar del casi total bloqueo de los medios de comunicación de masas, a pesar de los constantes bulos y mentiras de la oposición y su prensa y televisión, a pesar de la inutilidad absoluta del que habría tenido que ser un aliado desde el comienzo, Gabilondo, a pesar de la negativa de Más Madrid de apoyar un esfuerzo en común desde el comienzo. Más Madrid que prefiere de nuevo perder que juntarse con la única Izquierda que tenemos.

En el análisis de nivel de estudios, edad, sexo, etc. del votante, los más ricos y los que tienen más estudios votan a la Derecha. El inmigrante prefiere votar ligeramente a la Izquierda que a la Derecha. Pero -y es importante recordarlo- los inmigrantes son pocos en realidad, y la gran mayoría no vota. Y la abstención sigue siendo cosa de la Izquierda.

Ahora previsiblemente tendremos elecciones anticipadas en Andalucía, con una Izquierda no preparada para ello, sin liderazgo y sin proyección de proyecto.

Ya entre los derrotados se oyen voces proclamando que ha ganado el fascismo. Casi pero no del todo. Ayuso y Vox son la extrema derecha pero todavía no son el fascismo. Lo que ha ganado no es únicamente la Extrema Derecha, sino también la falta de una voz fuerte de Izquierdas, una voz que hable del elefante en la habitación: el sistema económico. 

La filosofía política de izquierdas, esa política "woke" -de la identidad-, esa que busca sin parar los votos de los colectivos, esa que es "políticamente correcta", ha demostrado una y otra vez que no vale. No porque los inmigrantes, los trans-identificados, los desempleados, los sintecho, las mujeres, etc. no deban tener derechos. Deberían tener una totalidad de derechos, claro que sí. Pero todos deberíamos tener derechos, y deberes, así que no hace falta señalar constantemente a minorías, ni perseguirlas buscando el voto. Además, muchas de esas minorías no votan.

Ha sido un error garrafal alienar a las feministas, clave en cualquier lucha contra el neoliberalismo, que es patriarcado aplastante en todas sus iteraciones. Y ha sido un error de principiantes tratar a las mujeres como un colectivo más, premiando al movimiento trans por encima de los derechos de las mujeres y niños. Ha sido un error hablar de "feminismos", en plural, como si cualquier postura contra la cultura dominante fuera feminista. Ha sido un error sustituir sexo por género, como concepto (lo cual anula decenas de leyes anteriores de protección de la mujer), como si la discriminación fuera hacia las emociones o sentimientos de uno, como si ser mujer fuera como un envase, a elegir, como si no se tratara de un espacio más de mujeres colonizado por hombres. Ha sido un error amenazar a los padres con quitarles la tutela de sus hijos menores con disforia, o incluso con hormonar o mutilar a sus hijos.

Ha sido un error hablar de subir los impuestos un poquito a los superricos, porque "deberían contribuir un poco más". Es que tener un Rey del Sol, o un Amancio Ortega, si lo prefieres -o varios- es incompatible con la democracia. Es que llegar a ser un billonario significa haber eludido impuestos, explotado a mucha gente, robado recursos de los demás y de generaciones futuras, comprado el poder, y muchas más cosas. A los superricos hay que hacerlos tributar sobre su patrimonio y sobre sus ingresos para que nadie tenga más de unos pocos millones. Ha sido un error tratarlos como si hubieran ganado "su" dinero, en lugar de lo que realmente ocurrió: se apropiaron del trabajo de otros. O lo hicieron sus padres. 

Ha sido un error no acabar con las diferencias fiscales entre regiones, las cuales suponen una "carrera hacia abajo" pero que benefician a Madrid a costa de las demás, aun siendo un juego de suma negativa. Ha sido un error no poner sobre el tapete una ley estatal de sucesiones, para que la riqueza no se concentre en pocas manos de una generación a otra.

Ha sido un error hablar de proteger a los pobres sin poner sobre la mesa viviendas, eléctricas, suministro de agua, banca... públicos, y para todos que los necesiten. Y un error poner en marcha ertes sin exigir a las empresas socorridas ratios máximas entre los salarios más altos y los más bajos, acordes con una sociedad civilizada (de 9:1, como mucho).

Ha sido un error no haber exigido a la banca rescatada hace 9 años ratios similares entre salarios, además de reconocer y asumir su deuda con la sociedad.

Ha sido un error no separar la sanidad pública de la narrativa de la pandemia, porque el consenso sobre la pandemia (su existencia, sus causas, su solución) que existe en el Gobierno Estatal no existe entre científicos y por tanto Ayuso ha podido aprovechar esta laguna para contraponer unas medidas incoherentes pero populares.

Ha sido un error sacrificar al Rey en lugar de la Reina, esa Ministra Cuir que tenemos, que promueve políticas anti-feministas y muy neoliberales en el Ministerio de Igualdad, con leyes redactadas con un copia-y-pega por el Movimiento Trans, con Gran Farma detrás. Habría sido una candidata buena para la Comunidad de Madrid, pudiendo competir con las otras candidatas como igual; y no habría sido necesario que dimitiera después. Madrid, después de todo, no es España. Y la Comunidad de Madrid representa únicamente a sí misma.

La Derecha dice que está celebrando dos buenas noticias: haber ganado las elecciones y la dimisión de Pablo Iglesias. Piénsalo al revés. ¿Te alegraste de la sustitución de Rajoy, por Casado? ¿Aguirre por González o Cifuentes? No, ¿verdad? Porque daba lo mismo, su política iba a seguir igual, una de la extrema derecha, de saqueo de las arcas públicas en beneficio de los amiguitos, insolidaria, mentirosa, injusta con las personas fuera de la élite, cruel con los animales... Pero ellos están de verdad festejando que hayan podido acabar con Iglesias, mediante bulos, insultos, sobornos, y 16 balas en una semana. Porque han decapitado a Podemos.

No hay asalto al cielo con una subida de impuestos de un par de puntos porcentuales a los superricos. No se hace con procedimiento tras procedimiento en los círculos, acta tras acta, cisma tras cisma. No se hace inventando palabras ridículas (todos, todas y todes) ni haciendo malabarismos lingüísticos para evitar usar sustantivos o pronombres masculinos. No se hace redefiniendo hombre como mujer, en contra de toda ciencia, meramente porque algunos hombres hayan decidido vestirse con ropa de mujer. 

El asalto al cielo solo es posible con un discurso revolucionario, una resistencia social y una desobediencia cívica en situaciones de injusticia. Los medios masivos no hablarán bien de ti una vez que te perciban como amenaza para sus intereses, así que seamos de verdad una amenaza para el neoliberalismo. Es hora de adoptar un discurso radical, manifestarse una tras otra vez ante los CIEs, parar cualquier desahucio, organizar quedadas con contenido interesante para jóvenes, y ofrecer ayuda práctica frente a la Administración Pública pero también censar a los que no están registrados para votar. Es hora de menos procedimientos y más pisar la calle.

El asalto al cielo no se hace buscando el voto de "minorías", sino moviéndose hacia la izquierda y manteniéndose fiel a una ideología radical, de raíz.

¿Qué está pasando en el Ministerio de Igualdad?

El 6 de marzo de 2021 se hizo público en prensa una recogida de firmas de, últimamente, más de 1.600 militantes e inscritos de Podemos, algun@s con altos cargos. En ella se hizo manifiesta una gran preocupación por el borrador de la Ley Montero (en realidad dos leyes presentadas casi al unísono, ambas con un fin parecido), la "Ley Trans". Dicha preocupación surgió tanto por la misoginia y sexismo de la ley, como por la amenaza real que podía suponer para la salud y bienestar de muchos jóvenes o incluso niños, menores de edad. 

Hay ya mucha información disponible sobre el porqué de esta preocupación, que se basa en la pérdida de derechos de la mujer (el derecho a espacios propios sin hombres, a ciertos cuidados sanitarios o pruebas médicas sin la presencia de hombres, de cárceles y otros espacios segregados), derechos ganados a lo largo de décadas de lucha y basados en el hecho de que el sexo es binario y relevante. La ley abría la puerta a que una parte minoritaria, pero con un perfil público muy conflictivo y agresivo, de los hombres accediera a estos espacios sin barrera ni recurso por parte de las mujeres.

Por otra parte, inducir a algunos jóvenes en una edad muy vulnerable a confundir el descontento que tengan con el mundo con una supuesta necesidad de cambiar su propia identidad o cuerpo es un error y de un tipo de ingeniería social experimental. Es, además, de un enfoque que encaja perfectamente en el neoliberalismo: si estás disgustado con tu vida, el problema no es de la sociedad, ¡cámbiate a ti mismo!

Hay numerosos casos de personas que han cambiado de parecer tras la mal nombrada "transición" (como si la vida ella misma fuera un videojuego) -y digo 'mal nombrada', porque no se puede cambiar de sexo y el problema siempre ha residido no en la persona sino en la sociedad, en los roles de género exigidos en la sociedad. La tasa de intento de suicidio no varía antes de o después de la cirugía, porque en realidad no soluciona nada, solo añade otra capa de problemas, de tipo físico. Los niveles de disforia tampoco se modifican significativamente.

La de-transición es típicamente parcial porque la hormonación contemplada en la ley para jóvenes pre-pubertad o, peor aún, la cirugía, hacen que la transición es a menudo irreversible. Y aunque hay ya cientos de jóvenes hablando de su de-transición, poca repercusión tiene en la prensa. Hay una lista de efectos secundarios serios de la hormonación de niños y jóvenes (para las mujeres: exceso de células rojas, hipertensión, diabetes, enfermedad cardiovascular, aumento de peso, acné, calvicie, apnea del sueño, problemas del hígado, dislipidemia, empeoramiento de los problemas psicológicos, esterilidad...). Y es que, aunque se repite como mantra que han "nacido en el cuerpo equivocado", el cuerpo de cada uno es perfecto y cumple con su función; en cambio las intervenciones con hormonas y extirpaciones sin serias razones médicas no son compatibles con una buena salud.

En otros países...

Ya existe una experiencia previa de leyes muy parecidas en otros muchos países y no es buena para las mujeres, ni para los jóvenes. Este último grupo se ve privado del sentido común, la perspectiva a largo plazo y el entendimiento de que los jóvenes muy a menudo se sienten confusos o descontentos durante unos pocos años, y esto es normal. En lugar de brindarles apoyo o ayuda psicológica, o incluso reivindicar que la sociedad que imponga roles rígidos de género tiene la culpabilidad, la Ley intenta empujarlos hacia la creencia que el problema son ellos mismos, así como hacia tratamientos agresivos y en muchos casos irreversibles. 

La Ley asimismo introduce unos contenidos totalmente ideológicos en la educación, y además en contra de los hechos puramente científicos. Borra el hecho biológico de que el sexo es binario tanto en el ser humano como en otros mamíferos, y el que es el género que es fluido, con muchas manifestaciones.

Más sorprendente aun, la Leyes Trans no definen ni sexo ni género, y además mezcla los términos sin piedad. 

¿Pero el Movimiento Trans representa a los transexuales por lo menos?

El término "Movimiento Trans" esconde la realidad de que no representa ni a los transexuales (que, hay que recordar, son menos del 1% de la población), ni a sus intereses. Además, el mismo término 'transexual' NO significa que uno es de ambos sexos; uno es en todo caso de un sexo determinado, con característicos secundarios ambiguos. A la vez el término 'trans' engloba un sinfín de condiciones y parafilias, muchas de las cuales no son aptas para que los enarbole el Estado.

Los grandes inversores internacionales reconocen que estos tratamientos suponen un área de enorme crecimiento actual con unas previsiones tremendas, además de no ser en absoluto una amenaza para el capitalismo (mientras que el feminismo, sí que lo es). George Soros, el gran inversor, apoya estos tratamientos por su aspecto financiero y, según el Washington Post, es en gran medida responsable del empuje del Movimiento. Este Movimiento encaja dentro del movimiento transhumano promocionado ampliamente por todos los multimillonarios del "tech", así como los grandes inversores, incluyendo -¿cómo no?- Bill Gates. Es una visión de la humanidad aterradora y muy reñida con los valores del feminismo, incluyendo el ecologismo.

El Movimiento Trans está recibiendo de los inversores y de la Gran Farma cantidades ingentes de dinero y, además, está acaparando las subvenciones que se destinaban hace poco a otros colectivos, por ejemplo de lesbianas, gais... En EE.UU. varios albergues para mujeres vulnerables y maltratadas han tenido que admitir a violadores trans-identificados para no perder su subvención, y precisamente varios de esos hombres se han portado como los predadores que son. Hay mujeres-trans violadoras que están en la cárcel de mujeres y que han cometido en la cárcel más violaciones. Es posible que estos casos sean anecdóticos, pero no menos serios por ello. Una propuesta de ley donde se sabe ya de los problemas inherentes y muy graves no debería seguir en pie.

Se sospecha que los partidos políticos también a través de lobbies están recibiendo fondos para promocionar la ideología trans.

No ha habido debate real por parte del Ministerio de Igualdad, lo cual citó una encuesta por email no ampliamente difundida ni cuyos resultados han sido publicados en detalle, para justificar que la Ley tenía apoyos. En cualquier caso, puesto que el Proyecto de Ley no había sido publicado con anterioridad, la encuesta no fue basada en el Proyecto Ley en sí (porque no habían visto el texto), sino en la cuestión de si los transexuales deberían tener protección por ley, lo cual es ampliamente aceptado por la población y ya es un hecho dentro de la ley desde hace décadas. 

Lo que está demostrado es que el día 6 se hizo público en prensa una recogida de firmas de militantes de Podemos, algunos fundadores del Partido; y 2 días más tarde, el día 8, Día Internacional de la Mujer, el Ministerio dio una demostración del mansplaining cuando organizó para que una mujer-trans, o sea, un hombre vestido de mujer, nos explicase cómo las mujeres hacemos mal las cosas en apoyarnos en el trabajo doméstico de otras mujeres para poder trabajar fuera de casa. 

El discurso podría haberse centrado mejor en que las mujeres no tienen la culpa, que es verdad que ellas, no los hombres, acaban siendo el último escalón del trabajo, que ellas hacen un doble trabajo, dentro y fuera de la casa, y que hace falta mucho más apoyo institucional para las mujeres, que en muchos casos tienen grandes dificultades para poder trabajar fuera de la casa. El Ministerio hizo un "gaslighting" de las mujeres, y dio protagonismo a un hombre en el día de la Mujer. Más inexplicable dentro del feminismo, se procedió a filtrar en prensa y redes que eran personas de la "Extrema Derecha" que se estaban manifestando contra la Ley.

No se puede equiparar la situación de la mujer (mayoría absoluta de la población) a la de minorías. Las mujeres, como clase social, sufren una opresión que perdura en el tiempo por su sexo. Bien entendible es que el neoliberalismo prefiere la política de identidades, con la población fragmentada. Considerar a la cuestión de la mujer como una identidad más, y no como el resultado de nacer y crecer con el sexo femenino, es luego hacer malabares para ver quién recibe qué recurso; y la experiencia en el Extranjero ha demostrado que el Movimiento Trans intenta apoderarse de los recursos destinados a colectivos de mujeres. 

Es un Movimiento que no se pronuncia sobre los hombres que están parasitando las organizaciones ideadas para mujeres, como se ha visto en la irrupción de hombres acosadores en grupos de lesbianas, el ingreso de hombres en refugios para mujeres, en los intentos de "cancelar" a muchas feministas, y en la agresividad con la que se meten con feministas en las redes o en otros ámbitos.

Curiosamente Podemos incluye en sus textos institucionales dos elementos peculiares, al margen de los malabares lingüísticos que hay que hacer para evitar los pronombres sexistas. Los pronombres femeninos permiten que se pueda referir a las hembras de nuestra especie y, sin embargo, están siendo borrados. Además, estos textos dan a entender:

1. Que es mejor hablar de las mujeres, en lugar de la mujer. No obstante, no somos sólo un grupo de individuos, sino una clase con el derecho de una consideración específica por tener el sexo de mujer, la razón de una opresión histórico y, de paso, la misma base de nuestra explotación desde nuestro nacimiento dentro del capitalismo, que necesita la labor no remunerada o infra-remunerada de la mujer -tanto nuestra producción como nuestra reproducción-, además de la de futuras generaciones (mediante el endeudamiento y el desgaste medioambiental).
2. Que hay que aceptar gustosamente dentro del Partido las mujeres no especialmente guapas. En su Protocolo de Comunicación Feminista aparece esta sensata exhortación de "huir de la sexualización de la que las mujeres aparecen siempre jóvenes, delgadas, primorosamente arregladas." Lo cual choca con el exceso de "feminidad" que ostentan las mujeres-trans, con sus pelucas lustrosas, su maquillaje excesivo, sus ropa específicamente femenina. O, incluso con los tacones altos de la propia Ministra en la tele.

El uso del lenguaje es, por supuesto, importante; y eliminar el sexismo de nuestro discurso es clave para cambiar los prejuicios. Pero la eliminación de los pronombres y sustantivos ya asignados a un sexo determinado pone en riesgo poder hablar y pensar con sensatez. En el Reino Unido el Servicio Nacional de Salud ahora se refiere a las mujeres como "personas con útero" para alguna prueba médica. No en el caso de la prueba del próstata, que sí que va dirigida a los hombres. 

Este titular, sobre un hombre que ha dado a luz tras recibido esperma de una mujer, parece casi increíble, hasta que nos demos cuenta de que lo que ha pasado en que un hombre (llamado "mujer") ha tenido un bebé con una mujer (llamada "hombre") y que lo único destacable de la noticia es la confusión creada en la sociedad y entre las personas; además del término equivocado 'female', que es un término biológico que no  puede nunca referirse a un donante de esperma:

Más grotesco es la cantidad de mujeres-trans identificándose como lesbianas, acosando a lesbianas con su "pene-de-chica" en espacios para lesbianas, y acusando a las mujeres de transfobia por su rechazo natural hacia ellos.

El Movimiento Trans se presenta como un colectivo de personas débiles, infra-representadas, como tradicionalmente ha sido el colectivo de lesbianas. Pero no es cierto. No paran de recordarnos que hay mucha violencia perpetrada contra ell@s. Nada en comparación con la que se perpetúa contra las mujeres, pero han conseguido eclipsar a las mujeres en este debate. No deberíamos olvidar que hay más asesinatos cometidos por l@s trans que contra l@s trans. Es posible que estos datos dentro de muy poco no sean analizables, en cuanto una mujer-trans asuma la identidad de "mujer", sin más. 

Es un hecho que admitir a hombres en deportes competitivos de mujeres obra en gran detrimento de las mujeres, permitiendo a algunos hombres mediocres en su propia categoría, ganarles a las mujeres con facilidad. Sólo hay que comparar los récords mundiales de las categorías masculinas y femeninas. Admitir a los hombres condenados por crímenes violentos a cárceles de mujeres es asimismo claramente un error.

Estos dos ejemplos, además, demuestran que las medidas contempladas en la Ley no son simétricas. Las mujeres trans-identificadas no suponen un batacazo para los hombres en el deporte, y los hombres-trans difícilmente van a querer ingresar en la cárcel para hombres. 

La criminalidad de las mujeres-trans es similar a la de los hombres (¡porque SON hombres!)

Las mujeres-trans son algo menos propensos de cometer un crimen (tienen el 0,8 de probabilidad) que los hombres. Pero tienen 18 veces más probabilidades de cometerlo que las mujeres. (No obstante los hombres-trans son mucho más violentos que las mujeres, lo cual puede entenderse como un efecto de tomar testosterona.)

Es un hecho que la actividad delictiva, en particular los delitos violentos, es mucho más común entre los hombres que entre las mujeres en la población general. Un estudio sueco de todas las solicitudes de reasignación de sexo en Suecia hasta 1992 encontró que el 9,7% de los solicitantes de hombre a mujer y el 6,1% de mujer a hombre habían sido procesados ​​por un delito. Sin embargo, el crimen después de la reasignación de sexo no se había estudiado previamente. Los individuos de hombre a mujer tenían un mayor riesgo de condenas penales en comparación con los controles femeninos, pero no en comparación con los controles masculinos. Esto sugiere que el procedimiento de reasignación de sexo hombre-a-mujer no aumentó ni disminuyó el riesgo de delitos penales entre hombres y mujeres. 

Por el contrario, los hombres-trans tenían un mayor riesgo de condenas penales en comparación con los controles femeninos y no diferían de los controles masculinos, lo que sugiere una mayor propensión a la delincuencia en las personas mujer-a-hombre después de su transición.

Hoy en día, más del 87% de los hombres trans-identificados NO se hace la cirugía de "abajo". Son físicamente hombres, con todo la problemática que eso puede acarrear para la mujer en determinados ámbitos. En cuanto a las mujeres trans-identificados, un 48-54% se hace la cirugía, y la cirugía es tremendamente invasiva e irreversible, extirpando pechos, útero, vagina... 

Estas cirugías son un campo de rápida expansión. De todos los procedimientos registrados por la Sociedad Estadounidense de Cirujanos Plásticos, fue una de las que más se incrementó entre 2016 y 2017, aumentando en un 155% de 2016 a 2017, con un crecimiento del 289% para los hombres-trans; con un aumento del 41% para las mujeres-trans (en esta última categoría se incluye los implantes de pechos, una cirugía en gran medida, reversible y superficial). De nuevo las mujeres son las grandes perjudicadas y muchas de ellas muy jóvenes, ya que se permite que los menores accedan a cirugías y hormonación, ambas experimentales y con unos efectos a largo plazo desconocidos o incluso previsiblemente muy perjudiciales. 

Es importante no olvidarse de que las cirugías NO resultan en órganos reales, con funcionalidad, sino en un simulacro. Las cirugías de "abajo" tienen resultados grotescos, no funcionales, y con una posibilidad real de repeticiones quirúrgicas constantes (una parte significativa de los hombres-trans operados se someten a cirugías nada menos que 16 veces).

La militancia del Movimiento Trans es un grupo organizado y muy agresivo de los mismos hombres ricos y blancos de siempre, con el privilegio de siempre, algunos transexuales (en gran medida los que se llamaban en otros tiempos travestis) y otros muchos ni siquiera. Son hombres disfrazados de personas vulnerables, con una obsesión de meter mano a los realmente vulnerables de la sociedad (los niños y las mujeres), hasta el punto de hacer palpable la amenaza de quitar la patria potestad a los padres y madres de sus hijos, anulando su posibilidad de proteger a éstos del abuso de cirugías y medicamentos dañinos a unas edades en las que es imposible que entiendan las repercusiones a largo plazo de dichas mutilaciones. Encaja en el pensamiento neoliberal a la perfección: con la tendencia de bajar los salarios, en este caso de los profesionales que podrían ayudar a las personas con dismorfia y otros problemas psicológicos; y con la de incrementar la lista de patologías, drogodependencia, medicalización y cirugías de por vida...

Los lobbies de los grandes intereses farmacéuticos sobornan con unos ingresos enormes a los partidos políticos de EE.UU. El Portal de Transparencia de Podemos sólo incluye información sobre los ingresos hasta el 2018, así que es imposible saber si Podemos ha recibido dinero de algunos grupos de presión. No es fácil saber cuánto dinero pagan los lobbies al gobierno o cuáles son los términos reales de nuestro gran endeudamiento actual y si tiene vinculación con la Ley Trans.

Un movimiento social de Izquierdas que no acepte que el Feminismo es para proteger a las mujeres, en parte de los hombres y sus sistemas de poder, así como para luchar por la igualdad de las mujeres frente al privilegio de los hombres, no es de Izquierdas, y desde luego no puede ser feminista. Igual que la medida que anunció Podemos el mismo 8 de marzo sobre ayudas para la conciliación que se destinarían en un 80% a las mujeres, ¿qué significado puede tener tal medida si algunos hombres podrán beneficiarse de ella, identificándose como mujeres. Y lo harán, porque el problema sistémico de las mujeres es que los hombres que deseen invadir sus espacios, o apoderarse de lo de ellas, suelen ser más agresivos, más ruidosos y una amenaza real.

Hay una palabra para la situación en la que las mujeres que hablen sobre cuerpos femeninos se considera inaceptablemente antisocial, donde se impida sistemáticamente describir las consecuencias del sexismo para las mujeres, donde los recursos para las mujeres se redistribuyan a los usuarios masculinos mientras que los recursos para los hombres se dejen en manos masculinas, y donde “hombre” y “mujer” se asocien rígidamente con la masculinidad y feminidad. Esa palabra no es “progresista”, “liberal”, “feminista” o cualquiera de los otros términos que generalmente se asocian con el activismo trans. La palabra es misoginia.

La lucha feminista no se resuelve con aplausos un día al año, o con globos morados. Tampoco con dibujitos tiernos o centrándose exclusivamente en las mujeres asistentas, limpiadoras y víctimas. La lucha es de todas y, además, se busca un mundo mejor para todos los seres, de todos, hombres y mujeres de todas las consideraciones. 

Esta lucha requiere que Podemos se sitúe de nuevo al lado de sus principios iniciales, como partido anticapitalista y -sobra añadirlo- feminista. Las mujeres somos sujetos en pleno derecho, no en competencia con intereses diversos, sino porque una política de izquierdas tiene que colocar la ideología precisamente del feminismo en el centro.

11.10.22: este artículo ha sido ligeramente modificado. Creo que 'hombre-trans' y 'mujer-trans' son términos diseñados para engañar, confundir e imponer pronombres erróneos; por tanto, he reemplazado estos términos por 'hombre trans-identificado' y 'mujer trans-identificado' en varios sitios.

More Thoughts on the Trans Law (II)

What's not to like about trans rights, right?

However, the problem is not trans rights as such, but rather that the Trans laws being approved all over the Western world are a huge step backwards for women, children and homosexuals.

And one of the most galling aspects is the de facto nonchalance about violence against women that arises if, as a woman, one questions the Trans laws. The general reaction is not conducive to debate, but rather real women are being shouted down by trans women, that is, men. Many of whom are behaving like typical narcissists, hating those who don't cooperate with their unhinged worldview. Women are being cancelled and literally threatened with real violence, and yet those same women are being accused of hate speech by their aggressors. 

The small print in the Trans laws being approved is horrific: men in women's spaces, the assumption that surgical enhancement actually makes you the other sex, irreversible treatment and surgery for children and the removal of their parents' rights to have a decisive say in their welfare in this matter, the psychological warfare being used to make perfect people feel unhappy about their bodies - these are just some of the actual terms of these laws. All of this is being cloaked as trans rights, when in fact deep psychological disorder is being left untreated and actively encouraged. 

Current trans laws push many vulnerable, unhappy people who are not very good at relationships into thinking that the problem is not our society, nor a phase they are going through, but their bodies. And those of us who want a proper debate before these laws are rubber stamped are being called ignorant, hateful, extreme and transphobic. And these terms are being specifically hurled by very unhinged, and often violent, men, frequently following their takeover of feminist forums, as men impersonating women, often in the most grotesque and sexist way possible. 

Which makes me, as a woman, feel that all of this reinforces what I've been saying all along: that we definitely need female safe spaces where men (whatever sex they say they are) are simply not allowed. And we definitely need to be able to ban violent men at women's rights events. And just because you say you are something that does not mean that you are. Can I be a 22-year-old, black hen, please? I didn't think so. Not matter how many feathers I dress in.

In this current horribly binary and simplistic worldview, if you are a man, say, and want to wear pink floaty dresses and loads of make-up, trip around in ballet shoes and carry a handbag, it must be because you are in the wrong body. How stereotypically sexist is that? So from this point of view, wearing loads of make-up and high heels is something innately female. 

Very many of these trans women (ie men), whether surgically enhanced or not, then prey upon that most vulnerable of collectives, homosexual women, ie lesbians. Who might like to end up dating a woman, but may unwittingly end up being preyed upon by an autogynephile instead. An autogynephile who pretends to be a lesbian, but is a man. Similarly, women who want to wear typically male clothes (ie comfortable clothes) and eschew make-up and feminine wiles (ie sensible women) are now being told that they are really men. So that real lesbians are being told they are in fact men in women's bodies, and should accept a sexual partner who is in fact a man pretending to be a woman. And the man who is chasing after these women, thinks he is a woman, so he must naturally be a lesbian. (You really couldn't make this up.) And all this, if it weren't already enough, is also a really horrid, misogynist trope: that lesbians just haven't met the right man yet or, in this case, the right penis-toting woman!

All of which is definitely backed up by Big Pharma because what could be better that someone taking hormones and other medication for the rest of their life for no good reason whatsoever? Not to mention the synthetic estrogen-related strokes and heart attacks.

And, as Orwell would have appreciated, a society is in dire straights when saying something is true means it literally becomes true. 

Repeat after me: women are NOT "validation stations" for those who have beliefs not based on material reality.

Feminism and Trans Rights (I)

Many feminists of a certain age have grave reservations about the new trans rights laws. Traditionally, we have understood that women collectively form a class, specifically an under-class, although we make up 50% of the population. And, as such, we have class interests.

In the past feminism was generally understood to be aligned with the Left, although socialist parties only paid, at best, lip-service to women's interests. The glass ceiling and the unacceptable fact that the jobs predominantly carried out by women pay less and that women also earn less in the same job were never at the top of the left-wing agenda. 

Right-wing politics and Capitalism itself favour a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest that places brute strength (economic or otherwise) above all other considerations. Our times have shown in crude terms how money purchases power (Citizens United, in the US, bought elections in general, bought judges...) and how late-stage Capitalism brings out shocking levels of inequality.

Jeff Bezos is, as I write, worth a whopping $200 billion. There is no doubt that his work, as such - paid however you like -, cannot be worth this sum. He is interesting in that he is responsible for producing almost nothing tangible. The possible exception, the Alexa and Kindle devices, are a very mixed blessing; their downside being control over what you see or read - your understanding of the world, if you like. They also bring us mass-surveillance and military AI that, together with climate change and nuclear arms, are THE threat to humankind, imminent, so immense and so hidden from us behind the noise of unimportant trivia that fills up our screens that we are individually and collectively incapable of even thinking about it.

The Left used to fight for collective, rather than individual, solutions, solidarity and compassion towards others. Now, the Left has disassociated itself from seeing women's rights as a class issue. In these neo-liberal and individualistic times, women are merely viewed as individuals with a uterus, with no need for specific consideration. In fact the very words 'man' and 'woman' are about to become meaningless. Yet, as so many studies and experiences have shown, words are important and, in a male-dominated world, excluding the word 'woman' excludes many real women from real consideration.

The trans movement is totally in line with our times, tremendously individualistic and a sort of I'm-worth-it badge for a culture that that failed to understand the difference between sex and gender, and has misunderstood form for content. We had decades of misguided women (and a few men) who paid good money to have silicon (and other poisons) pumped into their body, in some instances paid for by the NHS, which had confused true wellbeing with a sort of phycological aspiration created by propaganda and social programming. (Not talking here about beneficial cosmetic procedures due to accident and illness). A man who wears high heels is still a man.

We have a society that re-enforces mind-numbing conformity and only permits those differences that are extremely superficial. Whether Democrat or Republican, they are both pathological lying, warmongering factions of the Corporate Class. Try to explain that ETA in Spain never killed anything like as many people as the illegal invasion(s) of Iraq, in 2003 backed by the right-wing Spanish PP party, and you'll be met by hysterical shrieks of being a terrorist. A culture that confuses the symptom with the disease.

Our binary vision is essentially a reflection of our masculine, patriarchal world. The threat to the neo-liberal, ever-expanding, Capitalistic state is feminist and collective.

The trans movement is a reaction to this hyper-masculine culture, seeking a spectrum of personal experiences and modes of being - but it is the wrong one! Of course, gender should be viewed as a spectrum, and it is high-time that women ditched foot-deforming high heels, time-wasting make-up and feminine wiles. Why any man would want to go down this path is beyond me. 

It is a reflection of how artificial our culture is that in our Western society it is the female that decks itself out in fine colours in order to attract a mate, and not the other way round.

And, of course, we need safe places for all, which really means safe places for women and gender non-conforming people, from those men that are predatory or violent.

And, now we are talking about this, we need less children, because there ARE an awful lot of us, so an increase in the percent of gay people might be a good thing too for the planet.

But from there to the idea that it is a good idea to medicate people, to artificially delay puberty, to operate on them in order to give them artificial body parts or take others out, to give them hormones for their entire life, simply because those people seem to demand it, is bad thinking, superficial and harmful. People are extremely malleable, which is why the advertising industry is worth $560 billion in the US alone. If you normalise something and propagandise it, it will be wanted. Think of back-deforming, body-poisoning breast implants, trout pouts, botox, or indeed smartphones (changed every 2 years, or every year in some countries). Anyone who has had holiday time in a rural area without phone coverage finds that in a couple of days you do not miss it at all.

The incursion of males into female competitive sports is unpleasant and unfair, but probably we would be a lot better off if all remunerative, competitive sports were to go. Just think of how every major male sport (football, cycling, even tennis for God's sake!) has been plagued by doping and corruption scandals over the last decades. The cases of violent men who have been allowed into female-only hospital wards or prisons is also indicative of the fact that most violence, and virtually all rape, is carried out by men. But, once again, the problem is deeper down: prisons are not fit for purpose and hospitals are so underfunded that privacy and security cannot be guaranteed. 

The problem of the disappearance of safe places for women points to a wider problem: ALL places should be vigorously made safe for all.

However, these non-representative instances of abuses, tiny in number, show a real aspect of the trans movement - the invasiveness of men in female areas of life. I say men because the focus of current trans laws benefits men, both trans and non-trans, not women. In this sense the trans movement is behaving exactly how men collectively have typically behaved in our society.

But to go back to the Trans Laws. The fact is that everyone should be able to be as they want to be (without harming others) and call themselves any name they want. But you cannot choose the sex with which you are conceived, and should not confuse the way you want to dress and act with your body's sex. Women and men ARE generally different, they have different hormones, and different biological responses to many situations. Ask a man to close the car window a bit and he'll close it entirely - men are far more binary, which is a good thing in many situations and a bad thing in others. In general women are biologically more careful of life than men and the vast majority of vegetarians and vegans are women for a reason. If a woman wants a female midwife, for example, there are good reasons for this. Perhaps we need a third and fourth gender for trans people, but a man in a skirt with heels, operated on or not, is still a man and should not be legally designated a woman. Desire should not be confused with fact. I may wish to be a millionaire but that does not, and should not, make me one.

The Trans movement is not addressing the underlying sickness in our society (Patriarchy), limiting itself to treating the symptom (pretending to be a woman, instead of being able to be a man and dress and be as you want - and vice versa). With its demand that children be allowed to take puberty-blocking hormones, or undergo surgery, is is serving trans-identified people very badly and children, many autistic, disgracefully. There will be a huge wave of depression from those people who regret their decisions, irreparable later on, and their bad health.

The Trans movement is additionally acting in an intolerant way, implementing what is called the cancel culture, under the guise of not allowing 'intolerance'. This is reminiscent of the political correctness that so enthralled the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. It was not what you did, but how you spoke about it, that was the problem. Women who voice doubts about trans laws and about the wisdom of society sanctioning harmful surgical interventions or "chest-feeding" for babies are simply shouted down or cancelled, in a way that is identical to how traditionally women's voices have been silenced by louder male ones.

Trans-identified people are not the problem - this should not need saying -, but our patriarchal system, by hiding the full spectrum of gender and reducing our lives to binary options within a tiny spectrum of possible life experiences, has misled people into thinking that aggressive surgery and drugs are the solution to a problem that is in fact psychological. The problem of society rejecting one's non-pathological personality is not solved by changing one's body, but by changing society. 

Feminism, instead of demanding parity of economic entitlement, parity of salaries and jobs in medium to large companies, parity in public employment and government, stays distracted with the question of equal maternity and paternity leave. Of course fathers should get paternity leave, and the opportunity to spend time with their babies and children. But much more urgent is ensuring that all women who give birth can stay with their babies until the latter are at least a year and a half; without this breastfeeding, the baby's most basic right, is almost impossible for working mothers. Feminism remains distracted with identity politics, distracted with anything but taking on the root of all these problems - the economic system.

Patriarchy, the enemy of all but the elite, and especially the enemy of women as a class and trans-identified people, has defanged the Feminist movement, and the Left is once again divided, actually excluding many women (even expelling many feminists), and offering us, yet again, individualism rather than collectivism.

Transhumanism

Transhumanism: What Is It?

"A philosophical movement that advocates for the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology."

Those of us who are paying attention cannot fail to be horrified by some prominent people excited by the possibility of transhumanism, those thinking that they are shortly to become a superrace (with prior testing of methodology on lesser mortals), positioned above the people who have remained simply human. 

There is prima facie a lot inherently wrong with the idea of transhumanism. It is likely to make those tampering with their genes and body cells very ill. It is likely to be irreversible and have huge repercussions on other life on our planet. It is likely to affect future generations, whether by limiting fertility or by passing on disastrously faulty genes - both are possible. The RNA-DNA-altering Covid-19 vaccine on the horizon has necessitated a terrifying plandemic in order for enough people to consider the future DNA-altering vaccine a viable measure. Even so, and despite the fact that most people do believe that CV-19 is extremely dangerous for everyone, approximately a third of people surveyed said they would not initially accept the vaccine. Vaccination is at the best of times the injecting of animal cells, mercury, aluminium and other horrible components into humans, including small babies. There are worries that decades of vaccination and bottle-feeding with cows' milk mixed with microplastics has already changed the composition of what it is to be human.

Those we see on video who are fired up by the possibility of becoming transhuman are - only generalising slightly - unempathetic, physically unattractive, nerdy men (mostly) of little moral vision, who in other times would have lived out their small lives without having access to the money and power that our current economic system gives to the least ideal members of our society. They bring to mind the creators of all the great superheroes following WWII, the talented Jewish men who, following the Holocaust, channeled their trauma into stories of unassuming, mistreated men who could suddenly assume supernatural powers and literally right the world's wrongs. But this vision brought in its own new paranoia: the nemesis, the unstoppable villain. 

The added problem is that huge money brings great power over others, especially political power, and power exacerbates sociopathic tendencies. It is hard to look at Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, for example, and see them as the sort of people you would want in your life. And no amount of money can stop Melinda Gates looking like a reject from The Stepford Wives set.

Binary

But there is another angle on all this. A culture of computer and other devices use has left us very influenced by how algorithms work. Computers are, of course, binary; and randomness is in fact impossible to exactly replicate in a computer, which is why the IT term is 'pseudo-random'. Any programmer knows that you have to think like a machine to programme effectively. The rest of people, the users of the machines, their reactions to content on the screen, whether it be social media, information (or disinformation) sites, etc, is to either click or not click. This is in fact a very masculine way of seeing the world: window open or closed, feeling fine or not feeling fine, take the dog out (for hours) or not take the dog out...

Most will agree that our societies have become polarised and that, worse still, there is a horrible simplicity to everything. You are either with us or against us. If you were against the Iraq War you were for Saddam Hussein. If you thought the Twin Towers was a set-up, you were for Osama bin Laden. You either love everything about Trump or you hate it all. If you do not like Trump, you must like Biden. You either believe in climate breakdown or you do not. And if you do believe it is happening, then you must agree with everything Extinction Rebellion says. If you do not want to be locked-down and do not think it is necessary, then you must be a Trump supporter. If you say that Obama laid the foundations for someone like Trump (while dancing and singing beautifully), you are a Trump-loving racist and misogynist. If you are worried about where neoliberalism is taking us, you must be a raving communist.

Schools constantly test their pupils with on-line yes-or-no quizzes. You either repeat everything you have been told, or you fail. On-line learning is inherently one-directional, allowing for very little debate or behind-the-scenes critiquing of the class content by the pupils.

The tendency is that there are always only two ways of looking at everything.

There is no nuance, no analysis, no holistic understanding about how the planetary ecosystem works; or indeed how politics and the economic system really works, how the financial and electoral political bases, which are very often incompatible, determine what will actually be done and why it will be at such variance with the rhetoric. There is no time nor interest to study information on paper and take detailed notes. The flickering screen beckons with other content notifications and its likes and dislikes. 

The badly-named Right Wing of the political spectrum (those who gain by rampant capitalism) are currently using the Shock Doctrine to ramp up the confusion and lies, making sure that there is literally no time nor inclination to check on facts, so that 'facts' have become a type of triggered opinion. The Left Wing can counter with facts or outrage, but this is not how the game is currently being played; and taking time to take apart one huge lie is useless if the adversary is now onto the next one. In times of aggression, fear and fury, nuanced argument about how capitalism cannot end well, how this is a logical impossibility. finds no receptive audience among those who specifically need a bit of theory in order to understand the world.

We have already become machine-like and, worse still, others are doing the programming.

Are We In A World War?

Is it possible that we are in a modern-style World War without realising it?

Prior to WW1

Pre-WWI there were new technologies, globalising, free-trade, a rules-based world economic system underpinned by the leading power of the day (and to its advantage), and a period of general peace among major countries. And the rise of a financial class, with great wealth and power. And huge inequality.

J D Rockefeller is a good example of how extremely wealthy individuals use that wealth to protect their income and power. Rockefeller's wealth soared as kerosene and gasoline grew in importance. 

Amazingly the electric carriage was invented in 1828. In 1888 the first real electric car was invented.  Electric battery-powered taxis became available at the end of the 19th century. Electric vehicles had a number of advantages over their early-1900s competitors. They did not have the vibration, smell, and noise associated with gasoline cars. They also did not require gear changes. The cars were also preferred because they did not require a manual effort to start; no need for a hand crank to start the engine. By the early 20th century electric cars had a potential range of some 100 km and were especially popular among well-heeled customers who used them as city cars, where their limited range proved to be even less of a disadvantage. Electric cars were often marketed as suitable vehicles for women drivers due to their ease of operation. 

So what happened? How is it that they are only now becoming a thing again?

In 1900 in the United States, 40 percent of automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity (helped by homes having electricity), and 22 percent by gasoline, but the electric car soon went into decline, due mainly to relentless promotion of the gasoline car, where the real money was to be made, from powerful people like Rockefeller. 

Rockefeller was the richest person in the US, controlling 90% of all oil in the United States at his peak. Furthermore, Rockefeller gained enormous influence over the railroad industry which transported his oil around the country. Standard Oil was the first great business trust in the United States. 

The Supreme Court ruled in 1911 that Standard Oil must be dismantled for violation of federal antitrust laws. It was broken up into 34 separate entities, which included companies that became ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, and others—some of which still have the highest level of revenue in the world. Individual pieces of the company were worth more than the whole, as shares of these doubled and tripled in value in their early years; consequently, Rockefeller became the country's first billionaire, with a fortune worth nearly 2% of the national economy. Rockefeller was also the founder of the University of Chicago, whose 'Chicago boys' later on brought us neoliberalism.

Rockefeller spent much of the last 40 years of his life in retirement, defining the structure of modern philanthropy. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy through the creation of foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research. Like our modern-day Bill Gates, philanthropy fed back into Rockefeller's personal fortune, supporting business and medical philosophies that increased inequalities and his own personal power. And like Bill Gates (or at least his father) Rockefeller was an avid supporter of eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding or eliminating people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior. The WHO, whose largest donor is now set to be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was found to have used the tetanus vaccine in Kenya to impose population growth control.

In WW1, the total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million.

There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes

9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians. Spanish flu in 1918 killed around 50 million. H1N1 (Spanish flu) was a coronavirus that had jumped from chickens to people, as is very often the case with coronaviruses. US military personnel were widely vaccinated (against typhus, smallpox and against a range of other ailments) and the vaccines contained chicken egg cells, and almost certainly chicken viruses. Spanish flu's first documented case was at a US military base in Kansas.

In fact influenza and pneumonia killed more American soldiers and sailors during the war than did enemy weapons, sickening at least 26% of the army, probably more like 40%. The war fostered disease by creating conditions in the trenches of France that enabled the influenza virus to evolve into a killer of global proportions, and soldiers moving around created new foci of contagion among a wider population that was at the time physically deteriorated. Chickens were also kept in horrible industrial-type conditions in order to feed the soldiers, a second relevant point given that coronaviruses typically come from other species, and as a result our immune system is not prepared for them. There was also an inability to separately identify the viral flu sufferers from bacterial pneumonia.

And now?

Modern globalisation has been spurred by some of the same forces that powered the pre-WWI epoch: new technologies, an open, free-trade, rules-based world economic system underpinned by the leading power of the day (with rules to its own advantage), and a period of general peace among major countries. And the rise of a financial class, with great wealth and power. And huge inequality which has returned to pre-World War I levels.

As before World War I, the great wave of globalisation has led to a surge in immigration, both as poor people flee their trashed countries and as large corporations actively encourage the influx of illegal immigrants, at the same time as they warn against it in the media. Large corporations love illegal immigrants, who are cheap and compliant workers, and simultaneously need to stigmatise the immigrant in order to keep them illegal and cheap, while making sure that the general population sees the immigrant as the source of their own personal stagnation or downright poverty and deprivation, rather than the economic order.

In addition to globalisation, technology, social changes and government policies have all been instrumental in determining who benefits and who loses out from global economic integration in past decades.

But globalisation has also hurt some less-skilled workers by exposing them to competition from places with lower wages and taxes, and less meaningful health, safety and environmental laws. In addition, globalisation allows for an easier political scapegoat: it’s easier for politicians to blame foreign countries or individuals for their troubles than technology or their own policies. Technology tends to make even previously skilled workers non-skilled, as witnessed by artificial intelligence, which is at this very moment making a large portion of the things we do susceptible to automation, and to hierarchical control from above, from a very few, extremely powerful number of individuals.

Prior to WW2

Everyone has heard of the 1929 Crash that brought in the Great Depression. Most people think that the hyper-inflation of the Wiemar Republic caused the resentment that in turn caused the rise of the Nazi Party and, ultimately, the Second World War. In fact it was the terms of the Versailles Treaty that imposed firstly a huge debt on Germany and then austerity towards the end of the 1930s in order for the 'creditors' to be paid that caused the German people to turn towards the populist message of Hitler. Which scapegoated immigrants, Jews, gypsies... the other.

85 million people died in the war, excluding those that died afterwards from related illnesses, homelessness, poverty...

And right now?

The CV-19 pandemic (or plandemic - as you wish) has left millions unemployed adding to those jobless or under-employed after the 2008 crash. The horrible Recession of 2008 and onwards, the one we were told we'd recovered from, although our jobs - if we had one - were precarious and depressing, never really went away and was showing signs of resurgence before the CV-19 crisis. 

During these strange and humiliating times full of rules on where you can go, whom you can see, face and hands coverings, biocidal unguents you must slather yourself with, strangers pointing infrared devices at you or sticking contaminated swabs deep into you, biocide drenched mats to walk over, ozone-poisoned offices and shared spaces, biometric tattoos and passports, digital money, isolation, queuing or walking where the arrows dictate, unrequested CV-19 messages on our phones/social networks/computers/TVs... we have belatedly seen that our governments have really huge power over everything we do and that the obscenely rich have great power over them. 

Many of those who are not happy about all of this are cannon fodder for new populist, unpleasant strongmen, who keep the shocks coming fast and furious, who turn our susceptible gaze towards the immigrants, again fleeing from the extreme poverty or war that our economic system imposes on their countries. Meanwhile our leaders elect are quickly looting the bank vault before they too, like their predecessor, have to skulk off in ignominy, unable or unwilling to deal with their hidden paymasters.

CV-19 (the pandemic or the response to an imagined pandemic - as you wish) has caused a wartime mentality, the "we're-all-in-it-together" feeling, the violent and illogical response of a significant portion of the public to those who are not wearing masks or not walking in the direction the arrows dictate. The same people who in other times would have willingly turned in all the Jews they could to the Gestapo. Along with the immigrant we have this even deadlier enemy, one that is invisible, has no measurable effect on you, that you don't know is inside you, and which makes you and everyone else a deadly threat to everyone else, without you knowing it.

664,000 have died from it, possibly at least, as it seems that less people are dying from other causes, suggesting that CV-19 is being used to group deaths from other causes. In any case, a number similar to a bad flu season (250,000-600,000, WHO). Many will die from having their elective surgery or other medical treatments postponed during these months. Some will do better, having not seen the doctor. Small children whose vaccination has been postponed will probably do much better. But depression caused by the lockdown and other measures will cause a significant reduction in life expectancy for many, with potentially soaring suicides and drug-related deaths, especially when the dire job situation becomes apparent. 

During all this the obscenely rich have become much, much richer. Jeff Bezos broke all records when he increased his fortune by $13 billion in one day. If that isn't the rentier economy that Adam Smith warned us against, I don't know what is! Bezos, like the old aristocracy that used to dine on peacocks' tongues, lives a life far distanced from normal mortals and will eat just about anything so long as its disgusting enough.

In any case, if this is a covert war it is working well as concerns making the rich richer, keeping us all looking the other way, and restructuring the world. But what about population reduction?

Whatever you think about CV-19 itself, you have to admit that no one is really dying from it at the moment. If you believe the official figures, which seem to include an awful lot of people who die having had a positive test result in the past at some point but not necessarily from CV-19, 4,000 people a day in a world of nearly 8 billion is not very many. As a practical consideration, were we all to live to a hundred, around 0.0027% of us would die every day. Currently 0.00007% are officially dying from coronavirus, so approximately 2% of deaths are due to this coronavirus, the rest are coronary artery disease, stroke, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema, bronchitis), lung disease and cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and dementia, diarrhoea, TB, road injury (in order)... In fact even this is not true: ALL the CV deaths had another underlying cause.

Note that road injury - a most preventable cause - kills twice as many per year as CV-19 has ever and, yet, no one is fretting about that. We stopped our economies for CV but never contemplated such a thing for road injury, which in 6 months kills as many as CV ever has.

Forget the asymptomatic CV-carriers. If they are carrying an illness which they can transmit and which is still not going to kill others, are they at all relevant? At its most virulent, CV has killed as many people as are murdered in a year in the world. Do we wish to lock up everyone because they may be a homicidal maniac?

You have to have a really blind faith in our deep state not to smell a rat of some sort, either grave conspiracy or plain old incompetence. Quickly forgotten are all the solemn speeches about China's lack of personal freedoms and democracy, as it becomes our model for how people should be ordered about.

China for 35 years, till 2015, had a 'one-child policy'. Those that were powerful or had money to bribe officials had more children, but those that depended on the state for welfare (as the unemployed, underemployed, furloughed, underpaid are) abandoned baby girls in huge numbers and bred pampered, lonely male children. Even in 2007 36% of the population was subjected to the policy, the rest having a series of exemptions. China now faces a serious demographic problems with the excess of lonely males who cannot marry, and old people facing a lonely old age.

It does seem that we are very shortly to be given the choice of never being able to go out, let alone travel, or accepting a vaccine that is largely untested, potentially lethal, probably useless against coronaviruses and unnecessary, as CV-19 is of late a non-story. Our collective immune system ALWAYS adapts to new viruses in time. 

Is the vaccine, as many suspect, a Trojan horse to further reduce our fertility? Our elites almost certainly do not vaccinate themselves or their children: witness Tony Blair's refusal to answer this question in parliament, Bill Gates' doctor's comments, Zuckerberg's rather too public filming of his children at the clinic, Australia's NSW premier pretending to be vaccinated while the cap was on the syringe - there are too many instances to enumerate. 

Hysteria was ramped up at the beginning with photos of coffins and the like. We never saw them in our own streets, although we did get to see nurses just about everywhere going through dance routines. Hysteria is now kept going - despite the dearth of even potential death suspects - with the contradictory narratives of asymptomatic illness (think about it); and - if you prefer - so few cases as to confer no herd immunity at the same time as hundreds of thousands of positive test results.

Will the new, largely untested vaccine get the second result of a WW done: population control? Vaccine trials are already being pushed in parts of Africa and Indian slums, although we are told that people there are NOT ill. After all, as The Guardian's headline shouts, "over half the people living in the slums of Mumbai have had the coronavirus", but way down we hear that "the survey results suggested asymptomatic infections were “likely to be a high proportion of all infections” and also indicated the virus death rate was likely to be “very low”."  (One also wonders why The Guardian puts "very low" in inverted commas.) Will the vaccine sterilise us, as previous others have provably done? Will it make us weaker and iller, when this coronavirus - and no doubt future ones - weeds out the old and infirm?

Is this our new war, one we're sleepwalking into again? Are millions about to be willingly culled or sterilised, and will these same millions oblige the rest to be unwillingly culled or sterilised? Is the world order being intentionally reconfigured so that a handful of billionaires can get still richer while the obsolete masses are quarantined or exterminated?

Vaccines and the Road to Hell

This is not intended to be a thorough review of vaccination. There are entire books on the subject, for example the excellent Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, by Suzanne Humphries, MD.

It is just some thoughts on the matter as we dash to sign up to Bill Gates' hurried attempt at vaccinating the entire world in less than 18 months, against Covid-19, a disease that is plausibly not nearly as dangerous as the press would have us believe, and one that - like other coronaviruses (eg the common cold) - will have mutated before long into something that this new vaccine would not in any case guard against.

Unless...

The fact that development of the seasonal flu vaccine manages to anticipate the strain of seasonal flu makes you wonder if all is as it should be. A vaccine purportedly takes a minimum of 18 months to produce (often 15 years or never), assuming that it is not carefully tested beforehand. The common cold has no vaccine against it; the seasonal flu vaccine supposedly protects less than 30% of its recipients. The real figure is probably far lower, as a bad cold is often indistinguishable from the flu, people do not like to admit to having had the vaccine for no good reason, and it is difficult to measure its effectiveness against anything else.

Does receiving the vaccine make the flu, if you get it, worse? It does make you more susceptible to coronavirus in general and human metapneumovirus.

Given that Bill Gates has now received multi-million pledges from almost all major world governments ($8 billion in total) in order to develop a vaccine for Covid-19 in record time - his de facto guarantee that he will have a vaccine in place in just 18 months should make you shudder -, one that is to be applied to the entire world almost simultaneously.

The MSM constantly propagandises for this vaccine, and no one steps outside of the script of when, what type, how much money, etc, to ask whether a vaccine is necessary or desirable. Nor does the MSM ask Gates the pertinent question of how his insistence on vaccination, to the exclusion of proven, long-lasting improvements to health provided by clean water and sufficient food, fits in with his stated aim of reducing the world population by 30%.

The MSM has worked hard to tell us that CV-19 is dangerous for everybody. This is not true. The Guardian headline on 10 May 2020 was "New York warns of children's illness linked to Covid-19 after three deaths". The interesting part is that in the article you can find out that the children did not have any Covid-19 symptoms, nor respiratory problems. They did test positive for Covid-19 antibodies, but just because you have measles antibodies this does not mean that your headache is caused by measles! For the beady eyed, the article establishes no link with CV-19, but does say that the children fell "severely ill with toxic shock-like reaction that has symptoms similar to Kawasaki disease", a disease that is itself related to vaccinating young children.

Given that, excluding the very old and the very infirm, there are in fact no people you know that have died from Covid-19, and that all that means is that when you are old and sick you may die, is rushing to get an untested vaccine that incorporates the new concept of altering your DNA a good idea?

Vaccines are not innocuous

Bill Gates has publicly said over the last few weeks that he wants immunity from liability for vaccine caused damage.

Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated.

In 1966, a vaccine was tested in the United States against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — which infects almost all children before they turn two. The tests had dire consequences: Children weren't protected; many infants still caught RSV, suffered worse symptoms than usual, and needed to be hospitalised, and two toddlers died as a result of enhanced disease symptoms.

The official explanation was that the catastrophic vaccine failure could have been averted if adjuvants — chemicals that prime the immune system — had been added to the vaccine. The problem is that adjuvants are typically mercury or aluminium, both highly toxic - do you really want to inject them into your baby? Vaccines also contain fetal tissue from humans and other animals.

In 2019 the CDC (US Govt Centre for Disease Control) admitted in Federal court that it has no studies to support that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism, despite many parents of autistic children believing that it does indeed cause autism.

The UK government advises those who have immune deficiency to avoid live attenuated vaccines "because the vaccine strain could replicate too much and cause an extensive, serious infection." What this also means is that a recently vaccinated person can spread the virus to others.

Until vaccination programmes were implanted, children got all the childhood diseases and, it was widely accepted, benefited from them. Decades of hysteria make it hard for people to understand how routine these diseases were and how - in my case at least - mothers would rush their children over to a friend's house where they had measles, mumps, rubella, etc, so that their own children could get the diseases at an age at which they posed no practical risk. No hospital scares, no doctors, just how to keep your children amused for a few days.

Small babies were not at risk because their naturally immunised mothers provided them with antibodies for the first year or so of life. Now with successive generations of vaccinated people no effective immunity is passed on to the babies.

Infectious diseases declined in western countries at the time when deep poverty was almost eliminated; and clean water, decent food and good air were available to all. These diseases, which were generally benign - and they were officially called so -, were dangerous to those who were malnourished or very ill. They still are, and this is why vaccination programmes in very poor areas of the world do not improve health because the risk to health is from lack of decent food and water.

Small pox, generally lauded as eradicated worldwide in 1980, is kept in two laboratories in the US and Russia. "Experts agreed on keeping the virus in case the disease reappears," which means that a virus is never really eradicated but that they come and go in waves. The vaccine was anything but inoffensive (and has not changed): a 1969 study found that, out of every one million people vaccinated, 74 would suffer serious complications, and at least one would die.

Scarlet fever has not, in any case, been eradicated. And yet... you do not get the disease and you are not vaccinated against it!!!

The problem with the idea that those who are immune deficient should make everyone else get vaccinated, with the associated real risks that this imposes on others, instead of concentrating on improving their own health and backing measures that improve the community's health in general - like good water, good food, clean air, animal welfare -, is that it is badly thought out. Even if you were to impose the burden of vaccination on  entire population, vaccinated people still get diseases and spread them to others, many diseases have no vaccines, viruses mutate, and you have no control over people from abroad, animals, wildlife...

It is probable that vaccines are keeping some diseases going, like polio in India, where children have been left permanently disabled after receiving the vaccine; or measles, a disease that has a different denomination in vaccinated people because it is far more lethal for those people. Measles in vaccinated people in Spain has been catalogued from 2003 to 2014.

Herd immunity, a naturally occurring immunity when some 50% or less of a group has had the disease and the virus cannot find another host easily, does not work in vaccinated people because they do not gain life-time immunity, and the vaccine contains live virus and is propagated over time. When mass vaccination started, it was said that with this 50% cover, herd immunity would be reached. This was later changed to 80%, 90%, 95%... because vaccines do not function the same way as natural immunity does, the latter being generally for life.

Vaccines carry a risk and can result in death or serious lesions. The CDC typifies vaccine injuries,  and the US government has a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, within a "no-fault" premise, that has to date (and with great impediment to claimants) paid out some $4 billion.

Back in 2009 the historically ALWAYS wrong Neil Ferguson from Imperial College (the same Imperial College that has received $185 million from the Gates Foundation, and $400 million from the Wellcome Trust by the end of 2018)  claimed that swine flu, H1N1 would take the lives of 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, 457 people died from the virus.

In response to the threat of swine flu, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) developed the Pandemrix vaccine. Sixty patients suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine and were allocated £60 million in compensation by the UK Government. Most of the victims were children. GSK had been granted indemnity by the Gordon Brown Government.

But - almost all roads lead to Gates - our western, over-vaccinated societies are coincidentally those where assisted reproduction facilities have appeared like mushrooms over the last decades, as young, healthy people find themselves increasingly infertile. In poor countries, people very often try to avoid the WHO and Gates Foundation's forced vaccination programmes, believing that they do little for their well-being and will actually make them infertile.

The papilloma virus vaccination programme in the UK resulted in several young women dying or being seriously injured; and the WHO itself reports that "since 2012, individual case reports have linked vaccination against HPV with primary ovarian insufficiency (POI), defined as dysfunction or depletion of ovarian follicles, menopausal symptoms and reduced fertility before the age of 40," but finds no link between the vaccine and the symptoms, despite a "temporal association" being found!

Equally sinister, is the fact that in developing countries, the tetanus vaccine may be laced with an anti-fertility drug, in a UN vaccination programme.

The WHO has admitted culpability for at least one "serious breach of international ethical standards", vaccinating people without their consent and causing grievous harm and death.

Bill Gates' capture of the WHO (he is the largest individual donor, and his participation is greater than that of the UK) should not be viewed as benign. He has become extremely rich and powerful through his "philanthropy" and there is no reason to assume that this unempathetic computer geek has anything useful to say about anyone's health.

The right to bodily integrity (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 3) is routinely flouted when parents are not given informed consent for the vaccination of their children. In Sweden, the incidence of diphtheria, polio and tetanus was quantified as less than one in a million. Even in the unlikely event that these diseases were to stage a comeback, they would in any case enjoy far better healthcare nowadays than was once the case. The incidence of the disease combined with the risk of the disease becoming serious in case of infection is absurdly low.

However, in a confidential internal report, the makers of the vaccine GSK, quantifies the incidence of secondary effects between 0.6 and 1 in a hundred, with many secondary effects being life-long extremely serious conditions including death.

It could be argued that any of our material possessions could be used for the common good (that's a discussion for another day); but our bodies are inalienable and should not be damaged in order to line the pockets of very rich people. The reasons put forward for damaging our health, no matter how small the purported risks, are feeble and not shown to be true.