Angry Tweets, angry television interviews and angry debates. It seems that the argument over pronoun use is becoming louder and angrier by the day. Now you may be wondering “Why is any of this even important?” A fair question to ask and before I attempt to answer in a step by step presentation of the facts, there are some things about me, that you the reader should understand.
I am really no one of interest, simply a lone voice presenting facts. I am a linguist as well as a social scientist, the last of a rare breed of apolitical (politically neutral) social scientists. To be objective it is necessary in order have no horse in the race so to speak. As part of linguistics I study early childhood language development which encompasses neurolinguistics along with sociolinguistics. Another point that the reader should grasp is that I believe in the greater good of all mankind, regardless of race and regardless of whether you are a male or female. I am also not particularly liked by anyone because I draw attention to faults of various Ideals. When I see untruth I must however speak out.
The last sentences have probably already triggered some individuals.
Do try to hear the arguments before you decide.
ON PRONOUNSA pronoun is defined as :any member of a small class of words found in many languages that are used as replacements or substitutes for nouns and noun phrases, and that have very general reference, as I, you, he, this, who, what. Pronouns are sometimes formally distinguished from nouns, as in English by the existence of special objective forms, as him for he or me for I, and by non-occurrence with an article or adjective.
A simple definition, yet far too simple to comprehend the how pronouns are used. Pronouns interact with surrounding grammatical structures and form complex patterns that validate the semantic expression and clarify its pragmatics within the given context.
The pronoun therefore confirms the state of being in which the individual spoken of exists in regard to the context of the communication taking place.
Consider the sample sentence “She took her dog for a walk.”
It is assumed that you and I are already familiar with the person in question, hence, instead of referring to the individuals name a simple “she” is sufficient to act as in identifier of the person in question.
“Her” denotes either the state of possession of a noun or close relationship in connection with the noun, which in this case is a dog.
Take another example of “be” verbs into consideration.
These verbs are represented in English by “ am, are , is” for present tense and “was, were” for past tense. It must be clearly stated that the rules of “be” verbs are fairly complex in English and that other languages make do with fewer forms and some have more than English.
“Be” verbs interact under strict grammatical rules with pronouns. To illustrate, “She are very happy”. The native speaker of English will very quickly see an inaccuracy as the sentence is grammatically incorrect, but why is it incorrect?
It does not follow the grammatical rules which have formed over the centuries of language usage.
Here lies a conundrum in the use of alternative pronouns, they don’t follow proper grammar.
Another point that bears mentioning, is the whole “they” as a singular personal pronoun. Whoever made this argument or posed this idea in the first place is bereft of the least amount of linguistic knowledge.
Are “they, them, their” used as a singular? Yes. Are these used as singular for when the person we are speaking of is known to us? No.
“If someone comes while I am out, tell them I will be back after lunch”, clearly the person speaking does not know who is coming and therefore uses an gender neutral term.
Basically, “they, them, their” refers to an unknown category and this is the only time when it is proper to use “they, them, their” for an individual. The parameters of “they, them, their” are constant and at no time has it been used to refer to someone in first person. To imply otherwise is an outright fallacy. This recent reinvention of “they, them, their” is a clumsy attempt by non-linguists to push a certain ideology, but more on that later.
THE IDEOLOGY OF COMPELLED SPEECH The ideology of compelled speech is extremely dangerous and often precedes catastrophes in history. Compelled speech is essentially the opposite of free speech.
Note should be taken to understand exactly what the nature of free speech is. It includes the ability to express controversial ideas freely and to debate issues that may be contentious. This gives ample space for a diverse range of opinions.
Most governments have regulations in place to prevent so called “hate speech”. The context of hate speech is designed to to prevent radicals inciting the population to violence or committing other such vile crimes. In the case of Germany, denying the Holocaust is rightly defined as hate speech and brings with it heavy penalties. The necessity of this legislation stemmed from the strong anti Semitic propaganda that had polluted the minds of the population. This propaganda as one should clearly note, was based not on a mere dislike or aversion to Jewish culture but called for the extermination of the entire group. Hate speech should therefore NOT be confused with simple disagreement or difference of opinion.
What is the point of this?
Compelled speech draws no distinction between free speech and hate speech. It classifies anything deemed controversial or potentially offensive under the same umbrella term.
Compelled speech also has a powerful propagandist effect on the population becoming a self policing totalitarian mind-set. Where plurality of opinion does not exist, those not associated with the “hive mind” are quickly identified and ostracised or worse singled out for eradication.
This type of propaganda and legislation quickly produces the atmosphere under which language can be weaponised. This was effectively introduced by Joseph Goebbels the head of propaganda in the National Socialist German Worker’s party (NAZI Party) who was instrumental in silencing all other opinions along with installing the rabid campaign against all undesirables but especially the Jews. Failure to used compelled speech in refusing to say “Heil Hitler” immediately singled one out as a free thinker that is to say, an enemy of the German race. The death toll as most would know, exceeded 8 million.
Humans are very slow in learning from history. This compelled speech was further implemented under the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and its many children. The death toll that resulted from such propaganda campaigns is estimated at well over 40 million.
The key to the implementation of this ideology is the insidious nature by which it is introduced. Hitler did not start out by claiming that he would exterminate the Jews, rather he sought to paint them as the villains and enemies of not only the German people but all mankind which also led to the ideology of the “superior and pure” race that would be the saviour of the world. This perfect race was to be superior not only in mind-set but also in genetics. One form of propaganda led to another and supported by pseudoscience as well as lacking any counter opinion, the flames of demented bloodthirsty fervour spread like a cancer, turning previously peaceful people into murders.
Compelled speech is deadly.
What on earth, does all that have to do with pronouns?
It is ingenuously a battle for the control of your mind, the creation of a mindless spoon fed and unquestioning drone. The substitution of science and fact with pseudoscience and interpretations of self-declared moral outrage. The declaration that what is abnormal is normal.
Pronouns are grammatical constants and have never been used as a term of insult or abuse, to infer therefore that they are “offensive” is the greatest act of insult to those who truly suffer from verbal abuse on a daily basis. Any stable minded person would not equate a refusal to use a certain pronoun with hate speech, death threats or incitement to violence.
Pronouns are merely the start however. Think for a moment how one is viewed who refuses to use a pronoun out of personal belief, conscience or conviction.
Such individuals are portrayed as various types of “phobic”, extremist, small-minded or wholly ignorant simply for having a difference of opinion.
Pronoun usage is therefore a new method of classifying undesirables based on their opinions. Individuals who are adamant about alternative pronouns are often (not always) closed to any thought of debate or respectful conversation on differences in opinion. This lack of openness to dialog and demand about what others must say coincides with the compelled speech movement.
ON LINGUISTICS & GENETICS Linguistics can however be somewhat beastly when it comes to classifications due to retaining a sense or feeling of the original word, even when a new term is coined.
Take the “trans” prefix for example. By its very use it implies that the person is not biologically a man or woman acting as a paradox for claiming that they are “real” men or women. Further pushing the agenda that this mental condition of confusion about ones gender is “natural”. Be aware that this is a play on words. “Natural” to many people equates to “normal “in that it is found in nature. Yet, natural can also be undesirable or cause abnormalities, as is the case of “naturally occurring” viruses, bacteria, parasites and genetic diseases.
“Trans” activists also often equate themselves to those who have chromosomal mutations and that they are therefore “natural” alternative forms of our species. In a television debate on the subject, Robert Tur claimed that Ben Shapiro was uneducated, however then went on to cite Klinefelter Syndrome as a defence as well as threaten violence. The scientific reality is completely different to the statements made.
People who suffer from chromosomal mutations are suffering from a very real physical ailment and are not confused as to whether they are male or female at all. In many cases, individuals only become aware of their mutation by means of tests due to the symptoms of their syndrome such as infertility. The types of chromosomal mutations are listed below.
Female (♀): 45,X (Turner's syndrome) multiple health problems, may need human growth hormone to develop more normally.
Male (♂): 47 XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) or (KS), also known as 47 XXY or XXY. It is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males.
Male (♂): 47 XYY (XYY syndrome): XYY syndrome is a genetic condition in which a male has an extra Y chromosome. Symptoms are usually few.
Female (♀): 47 XXX (XXX syndrome). Triple X syndrome, also known as trisomy X and 47 XXX, is characterized by the presence of an extra X chromosome in each cell of a female.
Male (♂): 48 XXYY (XXYY syndrome). XXYY syndrome is a sex chromosome anomaly in which males have an extra X and Y chromosome.
True intersex is extremely rare and can be life threatening especially when there is interaction between the different hormones produced in the opposing gonadal tissue. There are different types of intersex conditions with mosaic tissue usually being confined to a certain part of the body.
Female (♀) or Male (♂) dependant on disorder type: 46 XX/XY mosaic. Different types of mosaicism exist, such as gonadal mosaicism (restricted to the gametes) or tissue or somatic mosaicism.
It should be noted that the gametes are only male or female and that androgen hormones effect the way in which male and female brains form in the womb. At the time of birth sexual dimorphism is already set in accordance with chromosome sets.
The physiological differences between genders are undeniable biological facts. Attempting to pretend that such differences do not exist is merely childish
Further differences arise in the structure and mass of the brain the average weight being about 1370 g in men and about 1200 g in women (Harrison 2003, 25-34). Size does not however effect intelligence as one can note from how the structures interact and the neural connectivity in different brain regions.
It is impossible to have a female body with a male brain or visa versa.
In one Oxford study, it was shown that several sexually dimorphic characteristics are notable in the human brain.
Females were found to have “relative to cerebrum size, greater cortical grey matter volume, larger volumes of regions associated with language functions (e.g. Broca's area) (...) and white matter involved in interhemispheric connectivity. The number of neurons per unit volume, in the planum temporal, was also greater in women than men”. The same research reported that “compared to women, men have been found to have larger volumes, relative to cerebrum size, or differences in neuronal densities in other limbic and paralimbic regions (i.e. amygdala) (...) and overall white matter volume.” (Goldstein 2001, 490- 497).
An example of difference in male/female brain connectivityHence, the actual predisposition for aptitude in certain skills may be greater within a certain gender based on brain structure, however, this would not define the gender as being restricted to any particular activity set, only potentially having physiological ad- vantages.
Examples of sexual dimorphism can be seen across human anatomy even as far as the mandibular ramus flexure which differs among males and females, sexual dimorphism is an undebatable fact (Loth & Henneberg 1996, 473-485). It cannot, however, be stated that any of the physiological attributes which are common to a particular gender completely define it.
Some girls for example are tomboyish and enjoy playing in mud and running around, climbing and jumping everywhere. Are these then males trapped in female bodies?
Some would argue that they are, and yet, these same people would argue a feminist point that behaviour is completely a social construct. Unfortunately one cannot argue that something is completely biological or completely socially constructed and then continue to conflate the two. Either they are linked or they are not.
Given that the sequence of DNA will continue to scream out ones real gender/sex and that stable languages structures define male or female pronouns, it cannot be considered offensive to refuse the use of a particular pronoun.
The suicide rate for “trans” people taking hormones stands at a disastrous 40% regardless of whether or not they are in an accepting environment or not. Those who have this tenancy and get proper counselling to work through their confusion have considerably lower rates of suicide.
One can liken this to a schizophrenic patient who hears voices. With the help of family and proper medication, the patient can receive the attention they need and correct or control the problem leading to a better quality of life. Telling a patient that you hear the voices too will only have a detrimental effect of mentally destabilising them further. The result on their mental and physical health can only be adverse.
Normalising the abnormal leads to this mental turmoil not being recognised as something that needs to be addressed and means that these individuals do not have support to recover. Using hormones as a first reaction is will only serve to damage already damaged brain chemistry.
The modern trend is to start hormone therapy early without sufficient research even having gone into this problem. Pertinent research is also actively being obstructed by ideologues as is the case with Professor Lisa Littman being blocked from and harassed out of fundamental research at Brown University. Children are not Guinea pigs and yet that is how these ideological groups are treating them.
Regrettably, the physiatrists who disagree with this new ideological craze such as Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad are branded as heretics of the scientific world. This labelling of “undesirables” leads to a greater vacuum of free thinking and academic freedom. In essence, squelching free speech.
ON CHILDREN AND INDOCTRINATION Education plays a pivotal role in how children develop their understanding of the world and in what type of people they will become. Educational policies are therefore paramount to creating a generation that is of benefit to society.
Sadly, children are the main target of many radical ideologues because they have easily malleable minds and can be convinced that morally questionable or even reprehensible behaviour is normal.
The slow process of indoctrination is being introduced into the classroom. “Boy” and “girl” are now micro-aggressions and make students feel “left out”. Now, “gender neutral” terms should be used just in case someone is “gender fluid”. If this were not preposterous enough, children are actively being taught that all matter of things are equally acceptable. Men can be women if they want to and all things are acceptable when people love one another.
This kind of indoctrination is extremely damaging to children, as they do not have the mental faculties to even take in half of the information presented to them. It further degrades their understanding of what is acceptable and puts them in greater danger of exploitation and rape by paedophiles. Even today, there are individuals actively presenting paedophilia as a genuine sexual inclination. The breakdown of social morals leads to a festering of debased ideas such as these.
There is a difference in teaching children not to do harm to others, playing nice, not bullying and indoctrinating them. These are lessons that can be applied to any situation in life. In addition, inclusion of curriculum that teaches that the basic biological family unit is non-binding is a travesty of the greatest proportions.
The overuse of gender neutral pronouns is now finding its way into the teaching of English as a second language. As if learning English was not a challenge in of itself, children now have to take in this ideology along with their language lessons.
Children are the target of ideologues for various reasons. Firstly, they lack reasoning skill as and are much influenced or coerced with greater speed than adults. They are also easier to control (Beber).
Indoctrination programs can be highly effective as is seen in the cases of the Hitler Youth program in Germany and The Youth Cult in USSR.
Hitler inspects the next generation of indoctrinated children, the Hitler Youth
USSR Youth Cult PosterBoth these programs were instrumental in brainwashing the next generation into unquestionably following the desired ideology.
Today is no different.
Indoctrination always has an innocent starting point.
Children are being prepared, the question is for what? Another question that begs answering is whether or not parents will wake up as to what is happening before history begins repeating itself in the vicious circle of previous generations.
Parent, do you know who is teaching your children? Do you know what your children are learning? Get to know your children, spend time with them, be patient with them, let them open their heart to you, do not let the internet or television be their teachers or moral guides.
Any teacher with even a slight degree of skill can be more than inclusive of anyone in their class regardless of race or gender and does not need policy to dictate what pronouns or ideology should be pushed in the classroom, especially with easily impressionable preteens.
ON VIOLENCEAll groups and individuals who are willing to use violence to further their ideals or ideologies are repulsive. All violence is deplorable, repugnant and abominable.
Using violence to counter ideas one opposes is like using Ebola to cure the plague.
Incitement to violence is equally disgusting and encouraging others to hurt fellow humans is beyond vile. Incitement to violence for mere difference in outlook, all the more reprehensible.
CONCLUSIONToday a pronoun, tomorrow a lesson on an infinity of genders and in a fortnight there is no way of knowing what will be acceptable. I speak in hyperbole yet the seriousness of this conversation is by no means less dire. Education systems are slowly being assimilated into an ideology that will produce a terrible effect on society, not just locally but globally. Education lays the groundwork for advancement or great evil when misused. This pervasive ideology is by its own structure self-destructive and merciless. It is an ideology that opposes thought, reason or understanding as espoused through free speech. It is totalitarian and fractures society by polarising it into combatant forces.
The battle for the control of your mind, the creation of a mindless spoon fed and unquestioning drone has begun. The substitution of science and fact with pseudoscience and interpretations of self-declared moral outrage. The declaration that what is abnormal is normal.
Up is down and down is up… will you accept it?
FURTHER READING Harrison, Paul J.; Freemantle, Nick; Geddes, John R. “Meta-Analysis of Brain Weight in Schizophrenia”. Schizophrenia Research, 64 (1): 25–34.
Goldstein, J. M. et. al. “Normal Sexual Dimorphism of the Adult Human Brain Assessed by in Vivo Magnetic Resonance Imaging.” Cerebral Cortex, 11(6), 2001.
Loth, S.R. and Henneberg, M., “Mandibular Ramus Flexure: A New Morphologic Indicator of Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Skeleton.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99 (3), 1996.
Beber, Blattman, Bernd, Christopher (2013). "The Logic of Child Soldiering and Coercion". International Organization. 67 (1): 65 104. doi:10.1017/s0020818312000409.
Colourful clothes, exotic dishes, unique hairstyles and ethnic jewellery. What do all of these have in common? Well, for one thing most of them are beautiful, interesting and give a feeling of satisfaction to many people. However, given the right (or should I say wrong) circumstances, they can also land one in considerable hot water. Yes, you are the vile individual who has “stolen” from another culture by your “cultural appropriation”. Just so you know, you are a terrible person....
Yet, the question begs asking; “What is cultural appropriation?”
The actual term was apparently coined by Kenneth Coutts‐Smith in 1976 and the original use was somewhat more limited than today’s concept. To understand this concept consider several points, the history of cultural interactions, what cultural appropriation is and what cultural appropriation is not.
A Brief History of Cultural Interactions
Cultures have been interacting for as far back as linguists can trace recorded languages. A sterling example of this being the Rosetta Stone which lead to a deep understanding of many cultures in the Near East, Middle East and Mediterranean. Even today, much of the technology you take for granted is likely borrowed from another culture. For those in rural areas, the horse is often an essential part of farming and agriculture, yet the modern design of the saddle along with the stirrup was readily borrowed from the Mongolians and revolutionised the way these animals were utilised.
Go back further to an invention that no modern day race or culture is likely to be able to lay claim to. The humble wheel. Simple, and yet, none of our civilisations could continue to exist without it....
New technologies have been traded and blatantly copied for millennia. Copper became all the rage and was superior to stone or flint, then iron was adopted and spread readily through multiple civilisations, those who weren’t quick to take up its use were speedily subjugated.
Assimilation of the strong points of another culture was not only something that better equipped one's own culture but became a prerequisite for survival. Time and again civilisations that became "culturally stagnant" or in other words, too proud to adopt from "lesser cultures" were overthrow and all but razed by those deemed inferior.
Rome, festering in its own illustrious power, wealth and debauchery did nothing as the outskirts of its territory slowly but surely fell to "barbarians". Instead of learning from and utilising the Gothic tactics, Rome stuck to its "superior" methods as well as resorting to wanton cruelty only to fall to Alaric I on August 24th of 410.
Similarly, the Qing dynasty was slow to adopt modernisation and its people suffered greatly from the then undesirable influences brought by the British Empire and Meiji era Imperial Japan.
Interchange of cultures and ideas mean adaptation and continued survival when those adaptations are made in the correct direction.
What is Cultural Appropriation and what isn't?
In recent times almost any use of emblems, designs, traditional features, music or anything else designated as part of a culture to which one does not belong can be construed as "cultural appropriation".
While the stated intention by vigilantes is to "protect" minorities, the reality is that psychologically the effect of playing "the cultural appropriation card" can be far more damaging than beneficial.
Take into consideration a little girl who wants to have a Hawaiian themed party during the summer holidays. Her mother prepares some very cliché grass skirts and other stereotypically Hawaiian themed items. She may or may not include something educational related to Hawaii and its people.
To call this cultural appropriation would not only be absurd it could be damaging to the child. How so?
Imagine that the party continues, everything goes smoothly, but then this girls enjoyment and immersion in faux Hawaii leads her to become mesmerised by it. She starts to watch more shows and documentaries as well as read books on the subject. She learns the sad truths about its history and the damage to its environment. As she grows she decides to help not only the people there but also develops a way to help reduce coral bleaching. All started by a cliché Hawaiian party that a child could understand at her age.
Now consider another scenario. Another mother loudly complains about how this is cultural appropriation, makes a huge scene and ruins the party. That same young girl's memory of Hawaii becomes anything but positive. She loses interest in the subject all together, does not do anything in the previous scenario and lives an uneventful life working in a dead end job.
Sometimes well intentioned individuals are more of an annoyance to minorities than regular folk who just get on with life. Most of my friends do not enjoy being "defended" from compliments based on ethnic features or clothes nor genuine questions of interest about their cultures even if they are pretty stereotypical sometimes. Stereotypical questions can serve as a lever to explaining more about a culture and correcting inaccurate or downright erroneous ideas. The moral of the story is to treat people as people regardless of their race, ethnicity of culture.
I have literally lost count of times when people ask about my accent and where I am from, when I reply “Africa” the common response is “...but you’re white” which then allows me to explain about my background. Yes, I am a minority too.
Therefore, the cultural appropriation that Social Justice Warriors insist on, does not really exist, it is a fallacy and a polarising force fuelled by virtue signalling rather than an actual sincere concern for the people.
So, if cultural appropriation does not exist then everything is fine and rosy and we can all just get on with our lives, right?
Not really, because something far worse than cultural appropriation exists, cultural exploitation.
Take for example the art created by the Australian Aboriginals. This form of art is usually passed on by one generation to another and the recipes for making different colours from natural materials is often a closely guarded secret . For these reasons, genuine works of Australian Aboriginal art can be worth many thousands of dollars. This art form provides individual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals with an income but also affects the communities that they live in.
Sadly, cheap imitations which hold no cultural value have flooded the marketplace. One could be forgiven for purchasing these, of course, when they are marketed as imitations. When marketed as “Aboriginal Art” though, consumers are often deceived into thinking of the item as something genuine, this acts to damage the marketplace where Aboriginal individuals can actually sell their art works. This is an example of cultural exploitation which is often done by large conglomerates which market low quality souvenirs as "genuine" . Another way in which they can be exploited is by signing art contracts which take advantage of their vulnerable situation and pay them far below what is reasonable or even legal.
(PHOTO: Aboriginal artists Maringka Tunkin, Freda Brady and Yaritji Tingila Young from Tjala Arts in Alice Springs. (ABC News: Nick Hose))
Then we have the example of remote tribes which welcome guests to experience their way of life. No problem there, very educational and potentially good for the tribes people. However, many companies that organise tours to such locations charge exorbitant prices while providing an unfairly small portion of the profits to the communities where they run their operations or to individuals that they hire as guides, etc.
Braiding your hair, wearing an ethnic necklace or sporting a rather stereotypical look does not damage minority communities and are expressions of interest in another's culture, however, paying unfair prices to indigenous peoples or purchasing items marketed as “genuine” when they are not, is a very damaging form of cultural exploitation
Fair trade often helps to create better working environments for indigenous peoples and improves their conditions of living. Therefore, when looking for a “proper” or “authentic” experience, it would be good to consider purchasing free trade items than can guarantee that an ethical price has been paid.
So what should you do?
Enjoy all cultures just as you would enjoy different food which adds a sense of satisfaction to your life. Ask many questions, read books, watch documentaries and why not go the extra mile and learn another language if you really want to immerse yourself.
Try to support companies that really support their indigenous workers by free trade programs. See people as people and treat them accordingly.
I speak multiple languages and have enjoyed what many would call “cultural appropriation” for a long, long time. I have only ever experienced positive reactions from people when they noticed me wearing something from their culture, reading a book in their language or being able to eat strongly flavoured delicacies. Go ahead, immerse yourself!
It seems that every time the subject of racism is addressed that many people, filled with righteous indignation or otherwise just indignation, end up talking over each others heads and don’t take a moment to listen to the other side of the argument. A dangerous trend in society is following the path of pre-World War II sentiments with social tendencies becoming extensively polarised. Rarely do those in debates of this type have anything intelligent to say and even more scarce is the ability of debaters to find a common ground on anything. Hate blinds and stupefies many.
Come on a journey with me, the linguist and the last of the critically endangered apolitical social scientists to consider some very important myths and realities of racism. Each point will be broken down into its own subheading for ease of understanding.
Sociology is Wrong
Sociology defines Racism as the combination of Prejudice and power Power. Therefore, by extension it is impossible for those in the “oppressed” classes, that is to say, those without political or social power, to be racist. This very statement is in fact, in of itself, racist.
In a linguistic sense it seems to suggest a lack of need for accountability on the part of the “oppressed” either because their level of humanity is lesser or greater than the “oppressor”. It removes the freedom of consciousness and degrades the freedom of the person as an individual. Sociology defines people according to their own predefined ideological concepts and structures society into unchangeable castes.Hence, those who are often so outspoken about the evils of social hierarchies are actually responsible for entrapping people in their own form of mental hierarchical prison. Sociological definitions demonize one set group and view any divergence to this rule as a great heresy against the grand school of the Social Justice Warrior.
The redefinition of existing vocabulary is far from a new phenomenon, it has been effectively used by the Nazi regime, the USSR and North Korea. Redefining vocabulary is an important step in propaganda because it enables the propagandist to blind their followers even when the truth is in plain sight. When an indoctrinated person reads words their “mental vision” is blurred and unable to register reality.
In a discussion with a North Korean refugee, she told me that words in South Korea were used so differently that she had severe difficulty understanding the context of certain conversations, she felt like she had to relearn her own language. Simple words like “worker” made her think of revolution and the struggle against the bourgeois. It makes sense that language engineering of this type is a central point to any totalitarian ideology as it ensures that the indoctrinated remain indoctrinated and view every difficulty in life as the result of some universal struggle aimed against them or their group.
Racism is not a Monopoly
Now that we have seen that sociology has created an erroneous definition, we can come to realise the ultimate, terrifyingly depressing and sad reality that racism is not a monopoly. Nay, anyone, from any background and any tone of skin can in fact be racist.
The proper definition of racism is hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Another more detailed explanation would be a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
Racism develops in three steps as it mutates from one form to another. It is comparable to a disease (it is in fact a disease of the mind), which produces symptoms that can be identified depending on its severity.
Symptom One: Prejudice
Prejudice is defined as an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. In reality most people have some degree of prejudice but most people also auto-correct these tendencies and do not allow them to grow. The more an individual digests certain ideologies by means of the company he/she keeps (yes, there are 2 genders) or by means of the types of media he/she consumes the more likely that the individual will build stronger prejudices in line with those ideologies.
Prejudice can be very insidious with entire communities taking on the same hive mind regardless of what facts may be.
Symptom Two: Tribalism
Tribalism is defined as strong loyalty to one's own tribe, party, or group. This loyalty is often irrational and can take on radical or extreme properties. Fully developed tribalism can be considered a disease of its own with the effects being equally as deadly as racism.
Two modern genocides include tribalism genocide patterns. The Rwandan genocide saw civilians and military personnel of the Hutu and Tutsi slaughter each other in unbridled barbarity with no mercy for the weak, elderly, women or children. This is an undeniable example where tribalism lead to indescribable atrocities by which a million people were murdered.
The Cambodian genocide while including racial extermination also eradicated political and social “tribes”deemed counter to the Khmer Rouge ideology. Approximately 1.9 million people were exterminated.
Symptom 3: Racism
Racism is something far more profound than mere prejudice shown in social interactions. It is a deep seated resentment and loathing of a person based on their race, it does not change even when the individual is kind or caring. It is like a mental rabies that does not allow a person to behave with any proper reasoning or cognitive function. This form of racism is found globally in all types of people be they White, Black, Asian or any other phenotype.
The racist believes that the other person is inherently inferior or deficient in some manner and therefore not fit for treatment at the same level as themselves. Many racists do not believe themselves to be racist and may even believe themselves to be anti-racist, this type of projected racism is especially dangerous as the person becomes increasingly convinced of their own righteous infallibility.
The 20th and 21st centuries saw the rise of heavy racist civil movements which fed off historical injustices and in turn off of each other. Interestingly, fitting with the theme of self justification and self conviction of their own superiority and righteousness these groups view themselves as liberation or enlightenment movements rather than what they are, hate groups.
Aryan Nations, Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi, Skinheads, Phineas Priesthood, Rise Above Movement
Nation of Islam, The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Sicarii 1715, Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge (ISUPK), New Black Panthers
Asia and Middle East
The unique nature of the Asia and the Middle East means that most racist movements are highly organised, well funded and legally based political entities. Genocides such as the Armenian Genocide used religion as an excuse for what was in essence ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Assyrians.
While almost all people have some degree of prejudice, there is a great difference between those who have a mild prejudice inclination and those who practice unbridled racism. Fringe groups are an important part of indoctrinating the “prejudice group” (who may simply be sitting on the fence so to speak as bystanders) and getting them to become part of the “tribalism group”.
While these fringe groups may or may not be proponents of hateful rhetoric (often more subtle and insidious) they become fertile recruiting grounds for actual hate groups who prey on the disenfranchised and vulnerable. (It is interesting to note that a majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by brainwashed individuals through the guidance of an extremist “handler” making those in the top ranks difficult to prosecute via lack of explicit evidence).
Patriotic rallies become the recruitment grounds for the Klan and other groups sympathetic to Neo-Nazi ideals. BLM rallies become the recruitment grounds for Nation of Islam and other black supremacy groups. Women’s marches become the recruitment grounds of radical feminists and their kin. This pattern continues and there is little done to prevent it, logistically little can be done due to the large number of people attending such rallies.
Propaganda outlets publish this hate for impressionable youngsters or those suffering from economic or other woes. They blame everything on the invisible enemy. The first step is highly polarised news channels which lean strongly towards a specific argument such as FOX News or the CNN (this happens during the prejudice and tribalism stages) . Once an individual no longer feels the same moral outrage at watching these channels they may move on to consume more hard-line “news” from such sources as Stormfront or The Root (happens during the racist stage).
Why Racist Groups Need Each Other
Racist groups need each other. They are a validating factor in the twisted, hate-filled, pseudoscientific and debased propaganda with which they indoctrinate their followers. The deplorable actions of their enemies helps to validate the “superiority and righteousness” of their own deplorable actions. It strengthens the power of their propagandist rhetoric in recruiting individuals that may previously been “unconvinced” as to the “validity” of their position. This is a vicious circle that feeds off anger, hatred and disproportionate pride in oneself and one’s people.
It is essential that parents start to train their children to understand the concepts presented in the media and that they may hear at school are invalid and that the “oppressed/oppressor” narratives of these groups is entirely self serving. This is all the more important where the individual lives in areas where these sentiments are more prevalent. Children are not born racist, they learn racism and care should be taken by parents that the sentiments that they themselves display are validating to members of all races and that individuals are judged as individuals not on their “tribal” or “racial” background. If you do not teach your children, you can be sure that someone else will and not positively.
All people are in some ways prejudiced but control those thoughts and reject them. As such all people regardless of race have the potential to be racist. We all do well to examine ourselves and look in the mirror to see what we really are. After self reflection are you satisfied with who you really are?
Children of mankind, sons and daughters of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the offspring we call the Snowflake generation, hearken unto the words written before you for they are a promulgation for your own good. Your eyes are open and yet you are blind, your ears hear and yet you are deaf, your tongue speaks and yet you say nothing. The world created from the fantasies of your mind blind you to the realities before you, the monsters you imagine prevent you from seeing the lion stalking you in the long grass. Read, be educated, clear your mind from wilful ignorance.
I will explain each point. Hearken! (For clarity the word "you" is directed towards snowflakes).
Myth 1: The world owes you something.
Reality: You were born a blood and amniotic fluid covered mewling mess. For the first few years of your life you were as defenceless as any creature on this planet could possibly be. You mother or other guardian watched over you to make sure you survived to an age where you could do things for yourself which as a Snowflake takes a long time.
If you were born in the West you likely had more luxuries than most people in history have ever had. You will have had more access to food, health care, education and literature than anyone in previous generations of mankind. Living in the opulence like you do , you may feel that the universe and mankind in general owe you respect and should indulge your every thought. The world does in fact not care about the many non-issues that you find so hard to deal with, issues such the café no longer having a supply of your favourite low fat soy extract pumpkin spice Frappe or that someone said something you disagree with on SNS.
Your life is actually beyond comfortable, you are not oppressed (you actually do not fathom the meaning of oppression as your concept of the idea is completely theoretical). You are not owed anything, on the contrary you owe the world for the upkeep of your existence. You have the right to do good for others, make an effort to improve yourself and work hard to succeed.
Myth 2: Follow your heart and love yourself.
Reality: "Follow your heart" is what people say when they can't think of any intelligent advice. Following your heart is like following a broken GPS. Most people don't even know what they actually want, they think that they do but their actions shows that the opposite is true.
The world is full of people who love themselves, we certainly don't need any more. Narcissistic people have hearts filled with inordinate pride and self esteem to a level that is not only damaging to others but to themselves. Their hearts are so full with love for the "god of self" that they are unable to actually do good for others. Their perception of righteous behaviour is actually self serving and egotistical.
It is better for you to love others and in return receive love from others than to love yourself. Loving others, doing good to others..... this is what truly improves quality of life. Half of the problems we have in society come as a result of people following their heart and loving themselves.
Myth 3: The right not to be offended.
Reality: There is no such thing. People are offended by different things and hence it is impossible to know what one finds offensive and another does not. Even when individuals make ad hominem attacks, it is up to the individual to take offence. Of course, there are individuals who make deplorable even vile comments that should not be made, however, thick skinned individuals do not give such people the satisfaction of seeing that they have offended.
You do not have control over the actions of others, you hardly have control over yourself. It is therefore not you place to demand the use of certain words or titles and then be offended if people refuse to comply to such futile demands.
Myth 4: Using people's preferred pronouns keeps them safe.
Reality: By the same logic every time some says that fairies aren't real, somewhere in the world a fairy drops dead. The pronoun issue is both idiotic and dangerous but not for the reasons that Social Justice Warriors claim.
It is idiotic, nay, devoid of logic to claim that pronouns show respect for an individual when in the English language (I say English because apparently facts need to be blatantly spelled out) they have never served such a function. The use of "they/them" for an individual when that individual is know to the speaker is simply incorrect. Linguistics is a science and it does not care about you ideologies or desire for mental power over others.
The compelled speech hidden behind this pronoun issue is far dangerous and encroaches far more on the freedoms of mankind than not using some fictitious language form. It impels people to use a form of pseudo-language that may not only violate their freedom but also conscience by becoming party to that which is not, a pseudoscientific non-linguistic lie. It is designed to erode the most basic of freedoms for the benefit of a minority apartheid that labels the heterosexual as an oddity which needs to conform.
If one is born a man, one is a man. If one is born a woman, one is a woman. Sex and gender are the same. That is a biological axiom that no amount of mental gymnastics can overcome.
No one should be pressured to used this faux totalitarian language.
Myth 5: Everyone who disagrees with you is a NAZI.
Reality: People have differences of opinions. Some of the things you may find to be acceptable are viewed as abhorrent by others. Right or wrong, their opinions may be different to yours. If they are a neo-NAZI then well...in that case they happen to be a NAZI who disagrees with you.
The National Socialist Workers Party was a regime led by a pathetic, deranged and violent monster which along with his party butchered anyone who dared to exist or get in their way. They were among the most deplorable and debased murders to pollute this planet by their mere presence. Calling everyone you disagree with only serves to desensitise society to the monstrosity that is Nazism.
Calling ever individual that does not agree with you a NAZI when having an argument or debate only serves to undermine your own argument. Personally, I find calling a Jew a NAZI to be especially bad form, along with comparing ones own struggles to that of a Jew in NAZI Germany.
Myth 6: Men And Women are the same.
Reality: If you think that men and women are the same, I strongly encourage you to pick up a physiology text book (assuming you can read, sorry I like giving people the benefit of the doubt).
Men and women both have several biological advantages and disadvantages over each other. This is such a ridiculous notion that even a half lobotomised chimpanzee would be able to understand that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. If you still don't understand pick up the physiology textbook (warning science doesn't particularly care about your feelings).
Myth 7: Everyone should be feminist.
Reality: I already answered this in the article "Feminism: 10 Myths and Realities. Short answer... No, no they shouldn't and if they were smart they wouldn't.
Myth 8: My body, my choice.
Reality: Yes, you have a choice..... You could choose not to copulate and therefore not get pregnant. You could choose to use contraception and not get pregnant. You should not have the choice to take no responsibility for your life like a immature child and then expect to be given the "right" to murder an unborn human being. It is perplexing to see mothers baying for the blood of their unborn children, all to ready to sacrifice them on the altar of licentiousness and the fathers of such children all to ready to oblige such merciless insanity.
Far from being a liberation, abortion condemns women to be seen as objects by certain men devoid of morals, it is physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually damaging to the woman who does it. The results on the mental and physical health of women who have abortions is scientifically documented and yet willingly overlooked because it does not conform to the pro-abortion ideology.
The ability to legally get an abortion also encourages female infanticide. It is estimated that in China and India approximately 70 million female foetuses have been executed for the "crime" of being female. Do not hypocritically claim to support women's rights while condoning or encouraging this genocide against women.
I have nothing positive to say about this murder of foetuses, because I have nothing positive to say about murder.
Myth 9: We are not violent so we don't want to use violence but we will if we have to.
Reality: If you consider using violence as a way to communicate your displeasure then you are violent. A sheep is a sheep and a wolf is a wolf. I've never seen a sheep maul a wolf to death. Saying that one is not violent but willing to use violence is bereft of reason.
Bringing weapons to a "peaceful protest" would mean that you are as violent and totalitarian as whatever has evoked your ire.
Disagreeing with someone is not violent, words are not violent, violence is violent. A simple concept which most learn at a young age.
Myth 10: University safe spaces make students safer.
Reality: Using this same logic one can convincingly argue that children should never be taught to swim because they could drown while learning to swim. (While ignoring the fact that learning to swim is far more likely to save their life).
Universities are centres of higher education. They are not kindergartens that need to coddle the minds of overly sensitive snowflakes which feel oppresses or triggered if so much as the wind changes.
Safe spaces are designed to provide a protective bubble from reality, something completely at polar opposites to real academia. It prevents students from building a backbone, from expanding their mind, from learning to deal with people they may not like, from being a grown adult.
If one is incapable of receiving criticism, listening to opinions contrary to your own or discussing issues that are actually issues, then one should go to the university administration and withdraw from university stating that one "lacks the mental and intellectual dexterity" needed to study with mature people.
Snowflakes, please do the entire planet a favour and stop being oversized infants, just grow up.
The Western world is undergoing an ideological war directed at science and reality itself. Scientific fact is now construed as “offensive” or “insulting”. Interestingly, the so called “progressive” minds which one would assume to be more accepting of scientific realities are in fact in total opposition to this. Normally, I remain silent on these issues and let insane people follow their course of insanity. However, this pseudoscience, this faux reality, this paradox of logic, has spread and is now infiltrating and corrupting the very fabric of society at its root. Its root? Yes. children, those who will continue to live and create, those who will be responsible for building this world or destroying it through their own greed or stupidity.
The Transcult is responsible for the dissemination of the worst forms of pseudoscientific dross, with certain doctors, keen on building a customer base and who are all too willing to defecate on the Hippocratic Oath they have taken, furthering medically unsound and downright harmful quackery.
It just so happens that I am well versed in language (linguistics), behaviour and the working of the brain. Let us then consider the actual science that undermines the religious fervour of this Transcult.
Myth 1: I have a female brain in a male body (or vice versa).
Reality: Sorry, but that is a biologically disproven absurdity. Human bodies are governed by constraints. Each sex develops in the womb with their neurons being woven together based on the hormones present for their sex.
This means that a male body will have neurons that weave together with greater density from front to back (and opposite) within the same hemisphere, the mass of the brain will be greater, with more overall white matter volume and an adult brain mass of approximately 1,370 grams. The female brain will have a total mass of approximately 1,200 grams, (one should not construe mass with IQ) higher overall grey matter volume but significantly higher inter-hemispheric white matter than males.
That men and women behave differently is biologically encoded in the brain, female body = female brain and male body = male brain. No amount of pseudoscientific gymnastics can nullify these basic biological facts. A woman is a woman and a man is a man, physically, neurologically and genetically.
Myth 2: Helping children “transition” earlier helps them have better lives because they know what they are.
Reality: This argument is debased on many levels. Take the later half of the argument. It implies that children ( sometimes as young as three or four) have the cognitive ability to orientate themselves in the world to the mental level of an adult. This is in total opposition to well documented theories of children’s cognitive development such as Vygotsky and Piaget. Both of which argue that children's cognitive development and self realisation happen in stages and that such young children are not fully cognizant as to themselves.
The younger the child the less they are developed, children should not have any predefined “ideas” about gender because their behaviour at this stage is mostly compelled by their genetics. Baby girls are much more interested in people's faces with baby boys being more interested in objects in their surroundings. This can in no way be argued to be anything other than a preprogrammed genetic default. It is impossible for a young child to “self identify” as anything because they lack the mental and cognitive ability (never mind the brain mass for computation) to physically do this.
Using this same arguments by ideologues, a young child should also be able to drive, work, pay tax, get married, become part of government, run for office and the like. If it is considered for such things to be an absurdity for young children, why is the concept of choosing one's gender especially at that age, not equally laughable? Children transitioning earlier only assures damaging the developing body to a greater degree. Imagine a sapling tree which is contorted into an unnatural shape. As it is young and supple it can handle the twisting, however, as the tree ages any attempt to correct its shape or to improve its shape will likely cause the wood to split. The same is true of children, biologically corrupting children can have no long term benefits, on the contrary, long term health problems ranging from mental illness to drastically increased risk of cancer due to DNA damage are inevitable results of this abuse.
Myth 3: “Transitioning” is safe and proven science.
Reality: Changing sex is technically impossible. Even when everything is chopped and inverted and that individual “believes” that they are now the sex they “identify” with, their body cannot accept the lie. Biologically their DNA will continue to scream their true gender so to speak. The body will continue to reject the lie, the body will continue to fight to repair itself, the body will continue to attempt to revert to reality. What does that logically mean? A man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Biologically their DNA will continue to scream their true genderFrom this DNA rejection of changes comes a massive challenge. The body considers the wound caused by surgery as just that, a wound, which needs to be repaired. The body and the entire immune system will then attack and try to correct this immune system breach. Massive doses of hormones will then be needed to stave off this reaction, essentially putting the body in a DNA-Immune stupor. If at any time the hormones are ceased, the body will attempt to aggressively revert.
Hormones also control the stability of the neural tissue. The brain is extremely sensitive, when hormones are used for extensive periods the neurological electro-chemical system is upset and starts to essentially self-lobotomise. This neurological instability leads to mental and emotionally unpredictable and often devastating results. It may increase aggression, depression and decrease the natural will to live. About 40% of males who undergo this procedure commit suicide and another larger percentage self harm. To put that into perspective, the Spanish flu killed about 20% of those who contracted it, the Ebola Virus (depending on the strain) kills about 50% of those who contract it. This means that the pseudo-medical procedure that kills 40% of those who undergo it is equitable to one of the most deadly viruses on the planet. Yet, little is said about this. Usually society is blamed for being “unaccepting” however this rate does not change regardless if the individual is in an accepting environment or not. This would then denote that the mortality rate is NOT affected by the wider society and rather that this is a mental illness.
To present this in another manner, imagine that a drug company created a drug and then put out it out to market knowing that the drug had a 40% chance of giving fatal anaphylactic shock to its consumers. Two questions arise, would they not be held legally responsible for the deaths and secondly, would you be willing to use medication that has a 40% chance of ending your existence? Transcultists argue that this is a chance worth taking.
Far from being safe, this is untested, haphazard and slapdash pseudo-biology that is literally killing people, many times children.
Myth 4: They are real women.
Reality: No, they most certainly are not. The differences extend far beyond the brain and hormones. Males and females are structurally different. To put this in very politically incorrect terms, a female is not only a walking, talking individual just like a male, she is in fact more than that, she is a walking, talking life support system.
This is a significant biological axiom, as the design of the body is heavily impacted by this. Take for example the centre of gravity. Females who have to carry a significant weight while pregnant hence having a lower centre of gravity than men. This puts less pressure on the spine which is caused the additional frontal weight and assists in stability while walking or doing other activities while being pregnant. They also tend to have lower core abdominal muscle mass as the abdominal regions need to expand during pregnancy. Males generally have higher overall muscle mass and a higher centre of gravity, making them less stable from a gravitational standpoint but faster and more powerful especially in the upper body.
Females have a lower set Sacrum, wider Pelvic Brim and wider Subpubic Angle than males, all of which are imperative to be able to give birth. This results in the stereotypical “child bearing hips” of women and the wider positioning of the legs.
The cervix and the ovaries are also immensely complex, as is the amniotic sac that acts as a supplementary immune system for the fetus. A real women is therefore and adult human female, one who possesses XX chromosomes or X / XXX chromosomal mutations.
Myth 5: You can be female by behaving female.
Reality: a large number of behaviour sets between men and women are identical. However, from a biological and physiological standpoint there are differences in certain common behaviours. Consider language and mannerisms. Women tended to use more agreeable language forms and less foul language in their interactions. Interestingly this would support Jordan Peterson’s understanding that women have a better agreeableness rating in their general leaning, a point on which I concur.
Further, “women and men may have different paralinguistic system and move and gesture differently” a point that can be seen with general gestures being understood to be predominantly masculine or feminine.
Men tend to push the status quo considerably more and are often more blunt in their language forms and more likely to ignore social hierarchy or employ dialects in spoken language. Men are more likely to use physical cues to intimidate other men or to elevate their own status.
Interestingly, the men who claim to be women, retain male gestures and speech patterns. Even when they attempt to use feminine forms, masculine forms are triggered by emotion and they cannot but help reverting to their “natural state”. Take for example the debate between Robert Tur (apparently now Zoey Tur) and Ben Shapiro.
men who claim to be women, retain male gestures and speech patternsDuring the debate, Robert continually used body language of intimidation used by males. A hand on the shoulder (a masculine form used to try and signal physical superiority) and strong eye contact as commonly used by males in conflict. He then threatened Ben when he felt offended (by scientific fact) and told him that he would be leaving in an ambulance if he repeated his comments. Females do not react like this, their conflict management tends to work by verbally communicating their offense and not with threats of violence (a pattern which is also based on a physically weaker physiology). Later Mr. Tur threatened to "curb stomp" (a very violent stepping on the back of the skull) Ben Shapiro.
Another example is Bruce Jenner who aggressively stated no one should ever question whether a man, who claims to be a woman, is an actual woman and that they can never judge until they are in that position. He was apparently upset that some would question why a man had won a woman's prize. He was essentially saying that science and discussion should be censored to further his pseudoscientific views. A common tactic of the Trancult is to attack any free thought that may question the validity of their carefully constructed pseudoscientific and baseless safe space.
Myth 6: Acceptance is the kind thing to do.
Reality: Here we have a severe case of conflating the two words acceptance and tolerance. Acceptance means that one condones certain actions and does not find anything wrong with a persons course of behaviour. Tolerance on the other hand, recognises the right of that individual to choose their life course but does not mean that one agrees with nor condones the actions of that individual. Hence, no conflict occurs when the other party does not impose their ideology on someone else.
The Transcult however, is confused about not only acceptance and tolerance but also the meaning of kindness. Kindness is empathy and compassion. One can have a difference of opinion and still be empathetic and compassionate.
Imagine a doctor who has to set a broken bone. The doctor will make a concerted effort to cause as little pain as possible, however there may still be considerable pain involved. The positive result of setting the bone outweighs the pain caused. No one would view a doctor who refuses to set a broken bone as being kind.
In like manner, drawing attention to the pseudoscientific arguments of the Transcult, while seemingly painful to that individual is actually the real kindness. Imagine for a moment a schizophrenic patient. No good comes from indulging the audio-visual disturbances that a schizophrenic experiences as a reality. Schizophrenic persons have a severe mental disorder that than be a danger to not only those around them but also to themselves. They receive help and medication to enable them to live as normal and fulfilling lives as possible.
The same should be true for those who believe a fallacy, that they are born in the wrong body. Research should be done not into how to further mutilate their bodies but how to correct the imbalances that make then delusional in the first place. An argument that angers many proponents of the transcult who are satisfied with their own delusion and encourage viewing as “normal” that which is not.
It should be noted that those who so loudly espouse “tolerance” are the least tolerant of all. Any difference at all in opinion, even highlighting the scientific facts are deemed hate speech or offensive. An example is the so called Dr. Harrop (for some reason I hear the sound of a duck whenever that name is mentioned) who led a campaign against a certain Mrs. Posie Parker (pictured to the right) who dared to put up a sign saying that "women (noun) = adult human female". She was subject to an online campaign of harassment and her children and husband were targeted. I do not personally know her and am opposed to feminism, yet, regardless of what one personally thinks of her, it seems highly unethical for “tolerant” and “accepting” people to target those who were not part of the argument, particularly her children. Even though I am at odds with feminism, the fact remains that her statements are not scientifically inaccurate as the rest of this article has already demonstrated and that she was stating widely held mainstream medical belief. Sadly, rather than the harassers, it was Mrs. Parker who was deplatformed by those very “tolerant” and “large hearted individuals”.
Espousing the lie that gender and sex can be chosen is the opposite of kindness, it is encouraging a mentally unstable individual to self harm and is devoid of all ethics and morals.
I could write on and on about the evidence that shows how harmful the mutilations of sex change surgery are to the body and mind, as to how children are condemned to a lifetime of hormones and depression, as to non-feminine behaviour of these who “transition”, as to the violent criminals, rapists and paedophiles that want to be imprisoned as females such as Stephen Terence Wood (now Karen White), Paul Banfield, David Aryton, Craig Hauxwell and many others. I could write about the campaigns by the Transcult to silence any dialogue and remove free speech as well as label anything they find mildly annoying to be hate speech. I could but I will not, as I do not desire to write an encyclopaedic length book on the subject, merely state a few of the blinding facts.
Normalising the abnormal does not mean that reality will bend and that biology will obey ideology.Normalising the abnormal does not mean that reality will bend and that biology will obey ideology. One can manipulate biology into abnormalities but the results will never be beneficial, it will simply create other problems that add to human misery. Those with mental problems and disabilities should be assisted to live as normally as possible to add quality to their life, not make their disabilities and problems worse. This ideology of faux science continues to spread by brute force, will you accept the lie as truth?
There comes a time in ones life when one feels a curiosity to know about the past and where one has come from. Sometimes we see great people in our history that we can be proud of and sometimes those whose actions bring us dishonour and shame. Of course, we are not defined by what our ancestors did and each of us needs to take responsibility for our own actions, yet, looking back to the past can help us to reflect on where we have come from and in turn where we desire to go.
I am no different. Taking an honest look at history has been a cause for both pride and pain. Part of this goes back to the Apartheid era.
To understand the abomination that Apartheid was, one must understand the background of the country, the races and the peoples of Southern Africa.
The house of Naudé ( originally Nagel / Nadault) hailed from Burgundy in France and spread through the northern part of mainland Europe. The Naudé clan had a scholarly disposition which led some of them to positions of power, examples include Gabriel Naudé the librarian to various clerics and nobles who became the personal physician of Louis XIII.
On May the 19th, 1718, Jacques stepped off the ship "Abbekerk" onto the Cape of Good Hope. He had been fleeing the religious persecution and genocide of French Huguenots under the edict of Louis XIV. He was one of the last few to escape.
The collection of refugees from France, Netherlands, Germany and the odd Scot or Scandinavian (plus Jews who had secretly escaped Europe) started to form a unique culture resulting from Dutch mixed with plenty of French becoming the common language of communication. The trickle of refugees had begun in 1652 and continued until the early 1700's.
South Africa 1700 onward
Imperative to their survival was the kind help given to them by the Khoikhoi people who started to intermix and led to the creation of the Griqua race ( Dutch-Khoikhoi, sometimes Dutch-Tsonga, Dutch-Khoikhoi- Tsonga). In certain places communities were accepting of each other and the Griqua became excellent marksmen. It is important to know that these people were not slaves, but for the most part viewed as equals at the time. Slavery was not however completely absent, as you will see.
The Dutch East Indian Company needed to build their colony for maximum profit and really didn't care either about the refugees or farmers who were trying to survive on this harsh continent. The Khoikhoi were pastoral farmers of cattle and held a vast amount of botanic knowledge in regard to edibles but did not actively farm plants for consumption and were not very chuffed by working on farms for small returns.
This caused trouble for the company because the farmers refused to use slavery on Khoikhoi and the company knew very well that this would likely cause a massive backlash if they were to try and force these farmers into doing this. There was another legal problem for the company too. According to Dutch law, any individual within its colonies who was a slave but who became Christian, was to be released from slavery.
This law was a source of annoyance for the company as they wanted cheap (I.e. Free) labour but dare not risk angering the House of Orange. The solution was decided upon using three steps. Step one, raid slaving vessels of the Spanish, French, British etc. The Dutch ships were often smaller and far more agile than the large cumbersome slaving ships (sadly, most of the time they only took "choice slaves"due to a lack of space on the smaller vessels, this meant that the remaining slaves were condemned to death at sea, a true travesty).
The second step involved buying slaves from other African Kingdoms. At the early stages the Bantu tribes has not yet migrated South so there was no trade with them. The Dutch did not want to risk going into the territories controlled by other colonial empires. Hence, Madagascar became a prime source of slaves. During this time the Malagasy Kings were in a power struggle and all too happy to off load their "spoils of war", that is to say captives from other tribes by selling them to the Dutch.
The final step involved "importing" slaves from Malaysia because from their non-Christian background the company could legally have them as indentured workers. (Later, after the British gain dominance over former Dutch territories they would start the import of indentured Indian workers especially from Punjab to work in the sugarcane plantations of what is now Kwa-Zulu Natal ).
South Africa 1800's
While the Dutch East Indian Company was bent on the use of slaves, the now ethnically shifting (and language shifting) Afrikaners were reluctant to implement this. Even these few ethical and moral standards would not last however.....
Trouble started arising as the Dutch Reform Church started to impose their twisted view of Bible scripture and agitating the Griqua by their racist teachings. Formerly peaceful communities were split by Griqua- Afrikaner tension and also by the tension between Pro-Griqua Afrikaners and Anti-Griqua Afrikaners. Sadly, the Griqua left and separated into their own Afrikaans speaking communities (currently they speak their own dialect which retains many of the older Dutch grammar forms).
The Griqua started to migrate north, many times alongside the Afrikaans Trekkers. Some Afrikaans and Griqua communities held good relationships as the Huguenot descendants had a greater degree of tolerance towards them, in part due to a rejection of the Calvinist teaching of predestination and that the "Curse of Canaan" applied to dark races. The Naudé clan being primarily French Huguenot, had shown resistance to this fundamentalist ideology, something, that in of itself, caused tensions as you will later see. Strongly Dutch Reformed communities started to become more insular.
The Bantu Diaspora and Great Migration
During the Bantu expansion various lands migrated southward and eventually became tribes. One such clan arriving in 1709 was the Zulu who were part of the larger Nguni diaspora (Nguni are the progenitors of the Zulu, Xhosa and Swazi peoples). The collapse of the Gokomere Kingdom (which built Great Zimbabwe and became the progenitors of maShona and the waRozwi tribes in what is now Zimbabwe) allowed the Zulu to populate the area now known as Kwazulu Natal with relative ease.
The Tsonga arrived again in 1800 and had the habit of coming in and out of what is now South Africa over a wide area that stretches as far as Mozambique. The Tsonga people created alliances in the areas under their control, imposed taxes and traded with other groups. This brought them into contact with the expanding Afrikaners who often willingly traded and made other social and economic exchanges sometimes resulting in mixed marriages. The Xhosa settled territories below the Zulu lands and often fought skirmishes with the Zulu... more on that later.
The British arrived in 1820 ushering in a new age of cruelty. The Siswati arrived in 1839 and Tswana in 1852.
The land of the original Khoikhoi and San people was gradually claimed by more and more arrivals. One major problem was the barren nature of the Savannah scrubland which makes farming very difficult. Any part of fertile land then became a prized commodity to fight over. Disputes arose over cattle grazing and what belonged to whom.
In short, South Africa became an all out land brawl. Senseless butchery of one tribe by another killed thousands, with Shaka Zulu uniting the Zulu clans under his rulership and aiming to become a Zulu empire. Smaller clans and tribes fled inland and war broke out between the Zulus and Xhosas.
Fighting between the Zulu and Xhosa displaced the Fengu people (amaFengu) who quickly made British and Dutch alliances becoming invaluable in the fight against the Gcaleka Xhosa. During this time several Fengu families became inseparable allies to the Naudé clan. Interestingly, the Fengu were the first tribe to convert to Christianity, use the plough and grow wheat. (It is interesting to note that the amaFengu are ethnic Zulus who were enslaved and oppressed by Xhosa clans and assimilated to such a degree that they started to speak only the Xhosa language, today they remain a distinct clan).
Two Boer Republics, the British Empire and the Genocide of Afrikaners
The Naudé's became nationally divided as the nation states of the South African Republic (ZAR) and Orange Free State were formed. In the Orange Free State they were shown extraordinary kindness by Chief Moroka II of the Barolong (Tswana- Barolong ba ga Moroka).
The South African Republic (which was far more hardline and openly racialist than the Orange Free State) came into ideological conflict with the Orange Free State and war erupted. During this time the Naudé's of the South African Republic mostly remained on their homesteads. Later, the South African Republic and Orange Free State became allies which drew the attention of the British.
Under the approval of Queen Victoria, Lord Kitchener began an extermination campaign against the Afrikaners targeting their women and children by murdering them in concentration camps which would later inspire Hitler. The Clan of Naudé and the House of M'fengu (amaFengu) being co-owners of the land, were forced into defending their land and families.
The scorched earth campaign of Kitchener destroyed the land, various Bantu and Khoikhoi clans were decimated as they were indiscriminately murdered and confined to separate concentration camps. It is difficult to know how many black individuals were murdered as Kitchener did not even consider them worth counting (estimates put the death rate at at least 20,000).
After the genocide the few remaining Naudé and M'fengu returned home to lands that took a long time to recover.
Life was quiet for a time.
The 1900's and the Apartheid Abomination
Then the White Nationalists started their crusade. The Dutch Reformed Church providing "spiritual" guidance and claiming that the black race was defective and cursed started spreading their non-Biblical extremism. The church and the state sanctioned a faux-Christianity that not so much twisted scriptures as wrenched them into pieces.
Certain Naudé's started to become resentful of the policies that imposed on their social interactions with other races, although most remained silent in the early years, content to ignore the dictates of the government in their rural setting.
Policy became harder and harder to simply ignore. The "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949" meant that many had their marriages annulled by the state without prior notification. The "Immorality Act" of 1950 essentially made sexual relations even of married individuals illegal because of difference in race. This sparked outrage in many places but this was harshly quelled by the Dutch Reformed Church and Government who were all to eager to stamp out this "heresy". Even arguments that the Griqua are technically our people and that the Khoikhoi, Tswana and Tsonga had aided us fell on deaf ears and were declared "invalid arguments".
Sadly, not all Naudé's were shining beacons, with Jozua Naudé founding the Afrikaner Broederbond, a secret society that was crucial to the implementation of Apartheid, something I finding deeply shameful.
Yet, his son, Beyers Naudé following the mindset of rural Naudés, started to deeply question the biblical validity of the Dutch Reform Church's teachings that were the basis of Apartheid. After a deep study of scriptures his conscience moved him to act. He stated, "I made an intensive study of the Bible to prove that those justifications were not valid. I concluded that the passages that were being used by the white DRC to justify apartheid were unfounded. In some cases, there was a deliberate distortion in order to prove the unprovable!"
The Church and state did not take this lying down. The Church told him to choose between government policy and keep his position or oppose and and be expelled as a heretic.
In his last sermon before stepping down, he quoted Acts 5:29 "We must show greater loyalty to God than to man". From that point onward Beyers Naudé became a leper to the Afrikaans people along with the clan of Naudé becoming viewed with great suspicion. However, this persecution and ostracism along with the Biblical argument caused certain members of the house of Botha, Myberg and Visser to become sympathetic toward the house of Naudé, even though they would not show this publicly.
Beyers was called "a true humanitarian and a true son of Africa" by Nelson Mandela.
During this time conscription became a serious problem for some of the Naudés and related Bothas. Several of my uncles from both Naudé and Botha sides were arrested for refusing to bear arms based on their belief in the scriptural injunction " thou shalt not kill". The Naudés became strongly polarised, those who refused to support the Apartheid ideology and those who where brainwashed by its self righteous fervour.
In prison, my uncles were beaten for refusing to wear prison uniforms because they were actually military uniforms. The prison officials left them in their underwear during winter, supposing that the freezing conditions would break their spirit. Eventually, it was the prison officials who broke and they were forced to provide blue overalls instead of the military uniform. After release life was still difficult as they were viewed as traitors in both racial and political sense (even though for religious reasons they were politically neutral).
My grandfather (Christoffel Naudé) in stereotypical Afrikaner manner was a pillar of stubborn defiance. The police came to his farm because of reports that there was "illegal social mixing" of the races (its a farm, people work, eat and live together which was apparently a problem). He let them know that he didn't take kindly to being told what to do on his own land, that a young police officer should mind his tongue when talking to someone much older (Afrikaans requires the use of honourifics), that the police officer was the only "boy" (derogatory term for black men that the officer used when talking about black farm workers) he could see, that accusations require proof and finally that our family and the farm worker family had been together for generations and that he would not intervene if they decided to defend their honour because of the comments the officer had made. Needless to say the officers left with haste and did not return.
Vindication came at the fall of Apartheid by which time part of our family had settled in Amamzim Toti (Sweet Waters), KwaZulu Natal in the heart of Zululand. Finally, we were free to live and mix as we saw fit. Growing up my memories of that beautiful landscape and it's beautiful people remain clear. As a white minority all my friends were Zulu and my nurse was Zulu too. Cynthia was an old friend of the family (and an exceptionally kind and gracious human being) who my mother employed so that she could earn some cash in her old age. I learned some isiZulu from her because my mother encouraged her to speak to me in it and she had the habit of singing me to sleep with traditional songs like "Tula Tula Baba"( still one of my favourite songs) also my friends taught me as we played and ran around in the scrub and forests together catching frogs and all manner of bugs and spiders.
Growing up as I did, surrounded by the Zulu friends whom I still consider family, I had never felt that there was a great difference between us. As I spoke English in public, Afrikaans at home and isiZulu with my friends, having the mindset of a child (Vygotsky discusses this well in his theory of cognitive development) I took it for granted that everyone viewed the world the same way as I did. Shock came later while having a pool party. In KwaZulu Natal swimming is a very popular past time and youngsters often gather together to play pool games and eat watermelon and pineapples or have a barbecue (Braai).
Our neighbour was a professor who was highly discontented with the fall of Apartheid. Looking over the fence he called my father and complained by asking my father if he really wanted "that filth polluting the water in our pool". My father sarcastically asked if blacks turn into coffee when they get wet and asked why a person is looking over the fence at children. There was a colourful exchange were the neighbour was basically told to mind his own business.
That was an eye opener for me. Why would someone hate someone else because of their skin? My parents always taught me that God accepts any righteous person regardless of their race (Acts 10:34,35). I was eight years old and it seemed completely idiotic to me then, that someone could judge skin, the thing someone did not choose but was born with, nothing has changed, it is still nonsensical to me. After immigrating to Australia I experienced my own challenges and became the target of severe racism. It was a good learning experience that made me a stronger person and gave me a good example of what not to be like. Sometimes pain builds compassion.... sometimes.
Today, many Naudés have spread out into academia as in the days of old, and are working to continually treat people as people, by breaking away the prejudice around them through positive behaviour. It is my hope that our clan, wherever they may be in the world, remember the legacy we have in the fight against unrighteousness and the dark side of human nature.
There is a danger in remembering the pain of Apartheid and forgetting those white voices that spoke out. Remember, that almost all media is designed to spread hateful propaganda, because hatred makes easy money. White, Black, Yellow...none of it is important, only being human is important. Today there are institutions, movements and individuals who for their own greed filled motives call for revenge, for violence and for genocide. Their blind hatred and rage means that they do not even care how many of their own people are hurt or even killed by their actions. We must all do our utmost to reject this damaging propaganda.
There are good and bad people in every race. So whoever you may be, always do good, always refuse to bow to evil, always conquer the evil with good.
The 21st Century is likely to be remembered as the century where people were coddled and protected from reality and even from their own emotions. The entire point of higher education, to become educated, has flown out of the proverbial window. While pure sciences are somewhat stable they are slowly being encroached upon by the same anti-intellectual ideologies that have already corrupted and warped the Liberal Arts and Creative Arts as well as many others.
Entire fields have been created which stroke the egos of pseudo-academics who are all too willing to further ideas with no factual basis. Subjects such as Gender Studies and Grievance Studies do not actually study either gender or grievance, rather they classify and enforce their opinion of what these are based on their own heavy biases rather than taking an apolitical and balanced approach to issues or events. Instead of assisting students who have actually had a hard life, they fill the heads of those under their tutelage with the most mindless and harmful ideas, everything is caused by the mythological patriarchy or everything is caused by a certain oppressive race or group.
In the end, they lock their students into a mindset that encourages them to be mentally incarcerated either in the past, or in a feeling of being oppressed or otherwise self flagellation for events that were never under their control. These so called “empowerment academics” are responsible for doing the very opposite, they disempower their students and make it all the more difficult for them to succeed. Safe spaces are a symptom of a self serving ideology that is unable to see the distinction between emotion, facts, feelings and reality. Consider the concepts and myths.
Myth 1: Safe spaces promote a better studying environment.
Reality: On the contrary safe places promote stupidity and are the polar opposite of anything that can be called academic. The entire point of having a university is to equip people with the skills to live in the real world. In the real world there are no safe spaces. In the real world there are some very unsavoury people and it takes some degree of intelligence to avoid these types of individuals, rolling up in a ball as if one is a hedgehog is not an option.
Mental and cognitive strength is gained the the exercise of perceptive powers and gaining an understanding of ideas around oneself, even if one does not agree with the said ideas. Maturity means that one is able to not only articulate one's own opinions and thoughts but consider the viewpoints of others and if these are really incorrect or even reprehensible, then one should have the fortitude to point this out with a reasonable argument and facts not personal feelings. To anyone who requires a trigger warning before anything controversial or different to your expectation is said, here is a message for you : “Grow up or quit university”.
There is nothing worse than an overgrown infant, a person who has the intellectual capability of a toddler due to their desire to revel in their own ignorance. They are of no use to society and merely exist to consume and get attention but unlike infants and toddlers they refuse to grow up.
Myth 2: A lack of safe spaces puts people in danger.
Reality: In danger from what? From being educated? It is indeed a truly depressing thing when grown adults equate words of disagreement (not even threats) with violence. To be sure, there are words that can be said to be “incitement to violence” and no time should that be acceptable but there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in this regard, as many advocates of so called safe spaces condone or call for violence against those who differ in opinion from them. Should safe spaces then be used as insane asylums to protect the rest of the student population from the vile behaviour of a minority?
Violence is something that is physically harmful to the person, debate and words should not be considered violence and downplays the actual abhorrence of using violence. Words should not be redefined for the sake of an ideological and aggressive minority. Wake up, the world is not a Mad Max film.
A young teacher, Lindsay Shepherd was subject to extreme harassment by her so called progressive (in actual fact regressive and medieval) professors who objected to her showing a short clip of Jordan Peterson. They claimed that students had complained about feeling unsafe when in actual fact they merely wanted to bully her into submission. Professor Nathan Rambukkana ruined a young woman’s career and essentially blacklisted her when she had done nothing unethical, ironically he is one of the feminist advocates that claims everything is sexist. The subtle odor of hypocrisy.
Myth 3: Safe spaces are about respect.
Reality: On the contrary. They are disrespectful. Safe spaces assume that a tiny minority of insecure individuals are constantly in danger of being lynched by perfectly normal students. Is it normal for an everyday person to go and assault someone else? Safe spaces disrespect the greater society by assuming anyone would desire to attack a certain minority.
A large problem comes from the way the semantics of “respect” and “respectful” are used. To show someone respect is to elevate them above oneself, to be respectful is merely to show common courtesy and conflating the two is a sign that one ought to go further study the english language. One can be in disagreement and still be “respectful” or “show common courtesy” without actually respecting the person. True respect is therefore earned.
The argument that safe spaces are about respect is therefore a farce designed to make the censorship of knowledge and intellect by ideologies to seem somehow ethical.
Myth 4: Safe spaces help students to grow through support.
Reality: This is like saying that a seed without any soil, moisture or nutrients will grow into a tree. Using a “protective bubble” devoid of intellectual oxygen will be of no benefit, this is merely pure propaganda and brainwashing of the worst kind. Students are spoon fed to turn them into robotic ideologues with no ability to use their cognitive powers to think or reason for themselves.
Ideologue professors believe it is their duty to indoctrinate the next generation rather than to teach them how to reason and think like adults. Everything becomes centered around group identity and students ability to see reality becomes like a gradually growing social cataract that blind them to actual issues. Back to the tree analogy. A sapling planted in good nutritious soil with adequate moisture will grow well, however, occasionally strong winds blow. Would it make sense to remove all soil and moisture to protect the tree? Of course this would kill the roots and the tree. A more sensible approach would be to tie a stake to the tree so that it can be stabilised until it has sufficient roots to support itself. The issue here is that this takes more effort for professors to support students as they have issues. It takes considerable more effort to get to know and understand a student's difficulties on a personal ( although professional) level than to put everyone in the same “safe space” which is basically just a lazy cookie-cutter approach.
Safe spaces are not supportive.
The sad reality is that the solution is very simple. Unfortunately, some professors are either too spineless to oppose popular opinion to do what is right, others hope to get tenure and appease their student masses and yet others are on some type of propagandist power trip where they feel themselves encouraged by their ideologue students to further their own totalitarian beliefs on the general student populace.
The antidote to “safe spaces”is “intellectual spaces”. Intellectual spaces or smart spaces are what every classroom should be. Take as an example my classroom. Approximately 95% of my students are female and all are aware of my disdain for feminism but not for individuals. In a highly conservative country like Korea many individuals are unwilling to express their ideas in front of their superiors. My classes did away with this, students were encouraged to share their thoughts even when I disagreed with them. Students were permitted to disagree with and attack the arguments of others but not to make ad hominem attacks on other students. What was the result?
Students with vastly different opinions not only expressed their own ideas but many had a change of heart. Many male students conceded that the female nurses had more stress than males in terms of employment competition and many female nurses changed their opinion on the view that everything was easy for men, even some of the feminist students. This interchange of ideas fostered better understanding between the two genders. It was a force for unification not a polarising effect as seen in “safe spaces”.
Intellectual spaces dignify each individual student by assuming that they are mentally and cognitively mature enough to behave like adults and show manners and logic in debating or discussing contentious issues.
If you are an academic or especially a professor, I implore you to have the determination not to bow to pressures to appease a vocal minority, to actually care for your students, to really help them to grow and not shield them from reality. Build confidence in your students, knowing that if they are personally attacked for their race or any other reason that they are mature and intellectually capable of rising above any discrimination. Failing to prepare students is like throwing a chick without feathers out of the window and expecting them not only to fly but avoid hawks. If you as an academic or professor use safe spaces to shield your students from reality, you are part of the problem and guilty by proxy for the calamity that befall them due to their own immaturity.