International Men’s Day

In the late 80s/ early 90s I started some men’s groups. Nowadays, especially in the White liberal middle-class tertiary-educated post-industrial cultural groups that love to congratulate each other for their progressive values on social media, the received wisdom is that membership of a men’s group is evil on a par with joining the Ku Klux Klan. And at least the Klan are honest about it. And, apparently, had a female wing: the WKKK. (By now, they’re probably co-ed and insisting on everyone using inclusive pronouns.)

Despite the prejudice of the gender-obsessed youth born this century and the paranoia of many (not all) middle-aged White feminists, men’s groups in those days were not primarily about women. This may come as a shock. However, yes, on occasion, we men do like to talk to each other about subjects other than our relations with the opposite sex.

Although many men’s groups were self-consciously inspired by their feminist counterparts (more on that later) consciousness-raising was a widespread late 60s/ early 70s strategy of emancipation that by the late 80s was so standard in feminism that its more general application, and revolutionary origin, was often ignored.

Feminism was then (and is even more now) not so much a broad church as shifting and contested female sacred space seething with accusations of ideological heresy, strategic alliance, excommunication and schism – as well as a place of healing, of community and of miraculous resilience and solidarity. So, while my take on male-female relations was based on Dorothy Dinnerstein’s The Mermaid and the Minotaur and Jean Baker Miller’s Toward a new psychology of women, in said groups the topics of conversation tended to centre men’s self-understanding and relations with other men.

Rather pretentiously (it was that kind of Uni) I subtitled the group, “an experiment in self-conscious brotherhood” and, although there was some flirting, some macho bravado, some backstabbing and a lot of gossiping, that appeared to be the general experience.

We talked about gender stereotypes, about relations among and between gay and heterosexual men, about the possibility and difficulty of bisexuality, about our relations with our fathers, about loneliness and friendship, and a bit about group dynamics. We went for walks and road trips and sat round a fire in somebody’s cottage in the country. We shared meals (some shared beds) and some of those friendships have lasted decades.

Another inspiration was a book by Robert Bly named Iron John, which personally I found rather macho and extremely American (I’m Scottish) but also valuable if read in context: as a corrective to a certain feminist view, now almost universal, of masculinity as incurable toxic. It is precisely because Bly was speaking, rather bluntly, in that context that his work was used to demonise an entire movement.

A few years later, early in the new Millennium I think, a man trying to start a men’s group in Edinburgh, and announcing it on Facebook, was shouted down by feminists insisting on an approved woman chairing each event and policing the topics of conversation. This was at a time when the exclusion of men from female groups was non-controversial. The reason, plainly stated, was that men couldn’t be trusted to gather on our own as our only possible motivation would be to plot against women.

Several things had changed:

  • The Courage to Heal and other sacred texts of the Recovered Memory Movement had convinced a generation of (mostly) young White middle-class women that either they had been abused in early childhood by an older man or had suppressed the memory due to trauma.
  • Madonna’s postfeminist flaunting of feminine allure had won over Dworkin’s aversion of the male gaze.
  • A new generation of girls were being raised to see themselves, primarily, as victims and, automatically, as more worthy of praise for any achievement (due to having to overcome their victimhood) than boys.
  • The adjective “male” replaced the nouns “man” and “boy” whereas the noun “women” replaced the adjective “female”.
  • To address previous and continuing gender imbalance, countermeasures were applied – some of which confused affirmative action with positive discrimination.

So, for example, in university departments (including those overwhelmingly staffed by women) strategies of diversity & inclusion that were set up to balance gender by choosing a less represented demographic candidate over one equally qualified and experienced were popularly understood as a license to employ and promote good women candidates, still bleeding from deep wounds of the gender wars, over the ever-abusive male candidates who had caused them, simply by being born with a Y-chromosome. So basically White middle-class women replaced White middle/ upper-class men.

Meanwhile more and more boys were receiving primary care in exclusively female-led households and primary education from almost exclusively female teachers. In this process they got the message that men are inherently either mad, bad or sad whereas women as wise, good and in touch with their emotions.

So, is it any surprise that so many young men are attempting to “identify” out of being male? Here’s some homework (I’m a teacher, sorry) for you to verify the outrageous claim that there is prejudice against masculinity: look up the hashtag #InternationalMensDay on social media. Read the posts and comments. What percentage of them are positive about masculinity?

If we want young men to stop invading female space and attempting to appropriate female identity, we need to start valuing masculine men.

US Navy Poster of two fit young men wearing white navy caps riveting girders.

Thanks to Dawn Hudson who has released her image Vintage Navy Poster into the Public Domain.

Advertisement

Vive le Roi?

Amid all the speculation over an event that is inevitable, as “no-one can slow the passage of time”, perhaps a more fruitful (and respectful) enquiry might be into the role and qualities of the Head of State of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Firstly, a comment on the speculation. Any household that has suffered a bereavement knows that divulging the news and dealing with the reaction of others is an exhausting task. People do not limit themselves to expressing sympathy but demand that you mourn with them, right here, right now. When perhaps you’ve already spent hours doing that and have just managed to pull yourself together sufficiently to phone, it’s simply selfish of them to try to pull you apart.

When the head of the household dies, there are also all the extra legalities. Now scale up that experience from a household to a state, remembering the public hysteria over Princess Diana, considering the past two years of restrictions on public assembly and the general mental health of the populations subject to this monarchy and you can begin to have some idea of the problem.

So let me state clearly, that if the public actions of the royals and dissemination of news about them seems scripted, I don’t blame them. Every family deserves privacy and there are reasons of state for news about this one to be carefully controlled.

Respectfully, therefore, let us as a second consideration acknowledge that the heir presumptive to these 4 thrones (which are not, technically, one, in the way that applies to the UK, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories) is the present Prince of Wales and ask: if Charles is to be king, what kind of king will he be?

Let’s get all the slurs out the way, otherwise they’ll hamper us. In order of barking madness (starting from guano and moving up to bovine manure) they are that Charles & co. are:

  • shape-shifting reptile aliens
  • baby blood-drinking vampires
  • Satanists
  • paedophiles
  • murderous eugenicists

I’m not going to waste energy on the first three, I don’t believe in guilt by association, I do believe in the rule of law and, as for the last, yes, Charles could certainly keep better company.

Why doesn’t he?

I could be wrong (I’ve never met or spoken to him) but Charles, in his own archaic, elitist and paternal way, appears to believe he’s doing the right thing. I don’t think that can be said for Klaus Schwab or any of the trillionaires funding Big Pharma or Big Data—including those under cover of Big Philanthropy.

What I do know about Charles, and this is from people who have witnessed his support and participation in local projects, is that he comes across as genuinely interested in the kind of thing that is generally nowadays named (by secularist mistranslation of Aristotle) as “human flourishing”.

So why is he supporting those who want to kill us off like weeds? I have 4 hypotheses:

  • 1. I’m wrong about that list.
  • 2. He’s being blackmailed because of his brother.
  • 3. He’s stupidly naive.
  • 4. He thinks he can harness rapacious commercial interests for the good of the planet while controlling their worst excesses.

At the moment, I’m prepared to believe a combination of the last two, because the evidence of just how much misinformation, wishful thinking, misguided policy and downright evil people can continue to deny is all around us.

Charles is a great believer in Public Private Partnership projects of cultural and environmental regeneration. From Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the Gaelic college on the Isle of Skye, (£??M) to the Eden Project, the eco-centre in Cornwall, (£134M) he has been specifically supportive of, or directly involved in, combining corporate and public money for creative projects. That do benefit the local community and do do what they set out to do.

So what’s the catch? Well, PPP is problematic because public spending is so wasteful and disorganised whereas corporate funding is so self-interested and predatory. Managed extremely well, it can work but the required skill set is basically that of an ambitious Renaissance magician conjuring demons and trying to control them.

Heard of Faust?

Many who are awake have highlighted in alarm the militarism and clear call for unelected global governance in a section of Charles’ speech at the opening of COP26 when he called for:

a war-like footing … a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at its disposal—far beyond global G.D.P. and, with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders—it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.

This is to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. (Presumably he meant global warming which, presumably, is actually happening.) However, there is a later COP26 speech of his, to the chief negotiators, that I believe contains the key to Charles’ patrician mentality:

I remember going to the Amazon in 1992 and managing to create a gathering on the old Royal Britannia in the Amazon, with the then President of Brazil, just before the Rio summit, the first one.

“Managing” and “gathering” tell us all we need to know. This is someone with the power to persuade the president of a country of 127 million people (then) to come to an unofficial meeting organised by royal fiat, with no oversight or accountability, on a superyacht, in the middle of the Amazon.

Charles may genuinely wish to save this sick world but he doesn’t live in it, and his Boy Scout attitude to big business may mean that, under the unelected global military dictatorship he’s (perhaps) naively seeking to install, the disease is a hell of a lot less deadly than the cure.

Hand drawn woodcut style illustration of a royal crown.

Thanks to Dawn Hudson who has released her image Crown into the Public Domain.

The List

In one of the final scenes from The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda, the cold and brilliant editor of a top fashion magazine confesses being touched by the efforts of her PA, Andy, to warn her of a plot to oust her but says that no-one can do what she does, “especially because of the List” … of those key players in the business loyal to her.

In Act IV Scene 1 of Julius Caesar, the triumvirate of conspirators also refer to a list but, conversely, of the disloyal (to the Senate and the People of Rome, by supporting the despotic Emperor) and Octavius, having gained the assent of Lepidus to include his own brother, tells Antony to “prick him down”.

Whether utilised to record bosom friends or backstabbers in industry, politics or any other sphere of human activity, lists are useful mnemonic aids as they can detail people and events now to be referred to later.

A growing number of us are awake to the long-planned global attempt at tyranny and, thankfully, this number tends to be undiminished by the deadly effects of the means of this technocratic takeover. Indeed those who either survive or witness such adverse reactions, while the social pariah “plague-spreaders” continue in good health, can only conclude that they’ve been lied to—and that someone should be held accountable.

Prick them down. Start The List. Each of us should carry a little notebook (it needn’t be black) with a little pencil to go with it. The pencil, as Dr Robert M. Pirsig puts it (Lila, Ch.17), is mightier than the pen precisely because it’s provisional: its mark can be erased.

The provision (of not being added to The List) is simple, it’s a negative answer to the key question:

Do you take responsibility for what you have just said? If so, I’ll need your full name.

These words, accompanied by the action of pencil poised over notebook may have a magical effect on whoever next attempts to bar you from accessing any goods, services or space which you are legally entitled to buy, sell, maintain, administer or enter.

Having the simultaneous power of record and erasure provides you with the possibility of negotiation.

Said human obstacles to the legal exercise of your will need not be threatened (with Nuremberg 2 or the wrath of the mob) but simply reminded that, if they will not take responsibility for such impediment, then their name will be not be recorded as doing so.

Therefore, as impediments for which no-one takes specific responsibility cannot be imposed, you are free to go about your business undeterred.

Try it—and tell me all about it on Twitter or Telegram @gumptionology.

Pencil and lined notebook

Thanks to Marina Shemesh who has released her image Pencil and Notebook into the Public Domain.

White Mischief

There’s a lot of research being done on Ugandan fisherfolk and their “emerging understandings of Covid-19” right now. As well as copper, cobalt and gold, Uganda has a fairly high birth rate and one of the youngest populations of Africa and, as Neville Hodgkinson tirelessly points out, whenever the media want to portray Africans as clueless about a new deadly disease, they head off there or to Tanzania its southern neighbour (which also has uranium). Right now the medical media is leading the way, as we have Frontiers in Public Health declaring confidently that:

Africa is vulnerable to being overwhelmed by COVID-19. The World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, stated that the greatest concern was COVID-19 transmission in countries with weaker health systems than in developed nations.

As The Nation reports, WHO is now largely funded, and led, by the Gates Foundation:

…multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization have ceded leadership to a group of public-private partnerships where Gates provides key funding.

This medical media confidence is apparently based on 2 sources: firstly, an article purporting to be research that predicts a future for Africa that’s extremely lucrative for miraculously prescient investors in PPE, test kits and vaccines (Gates, Jan 2019!!!) by celebrating that the “long anticipated and inevitable and detection of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into Africa was announced on 14 February 2020” (a Valentine’s greeting for Gates?) and which uses as evidence a total of 7 “cases” in all Africa (pop. c. 1,341,000,000, then).

Coincidentally, all the researchers, while declaring no Conflict of Interest, are funded by Big Pharma:

Secondly, it’s based on an Al-Jazeera article (based on the perennially incorrect modelling from Imperial College, London). So the current obsession of White Europeans (and descendants and allies) to record and correct the “misconceptions” of Black Africans, that interfere with the profits of their funders, is not a coincidence. The UN is especially fond of this. Here’s a typical telling-off.

The Ugandan “research” isn’t focussing on Lake Victoria, as you might expect, but on Lake Albert and Lake Edward. Those, of course, aren’t their names in any of the many African languages spoken on their shores. Not that there isn’t anything going on in Lake Victoria, where fish are dying. Mysteriously. They’re blaming the rain “mixing the water”. (Maybe that’s why all those crustaceans are dying off the N.E. of England.) The same article does casually mention another explanation:

Industries, farms and settlements near Lake Victoria have also been blamed for polluting its waters.

Hmmm…the Lake Edward article explains why that might happen in lakeshore settlements:

The heavy rains and a very low water table means that several latrines in the community have since collapsed. In addition, the households cannot dig new latrines so they requested support in the form of eco-san latrines to help in the meantime. The health assistant based at the health centre concurs with this request.

Low water table means the soil can’t absorb the rain, causing flooding. The Lake Albert article details the impact of lack of clean water:

…the landing sites are known to have a high prevalence of water-related diseases, including bilharzia, cholera, malaria and diarrheal diseases.

Lakes Kivu and Tanganyika are also being targeted. Oh, and Lake Mwueru (showing exactly how the same panic narrative is recycled). They’re in Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania and Zambia. So what have these 5 lakes under study got in common? The shores of the Democratic Republic of Congo. With its vast mineral wealth and, unsurprisingly, decades of conflict. Especially on the east. Which is where all these lakes are.

Part of that mineral wealth is lithium and another is coltan. “The Great Reset” (which everyone in the fake Green Who’s Who is currently promoting in Glasgow) can’t take place without vast amounts of these key minerals. Known as “conflict minerals”, their extraction is linked to child labour and recruitment into mercenary militias paid (through a spiderweb of shell companies) by multinationals in the Global North.

Two descriptions always come up when White people report on Black African problems: people on the move and population growth. African birth rates are not only a political football, skilfully played by Big Pharma, but also widely misreported. The constant displacement of people and crisis disruption of normal structures of community decision-making mean that it’s fairly easy for multinational companies to move in, grease some palms (“partnership deals overcoming the resistance of vested interests”) strategically, and clean up.

Big Pharma is throwing money at research that justifies their continued extremely lucrative marketing in Africa. Presenting their policy as humanitarian and data-led, when in fact it is exploitative and profitable narrative-led, they use the conclusions of their paid researchers to convince conniving officials to disrupt local economies and deprive already-struggling communities of basic hygiene and healthcare. No-one is throwing money at the three continual pleas of local communities:

  • Clean water
  • Hygienic latrines
  • To be left in peace to exercise their human rights to freedom of movement and dignified labour.

White mischief has not left Africa. If Black lives really matter to my fellow White people, why are we supporting useless research that does nothing but further the careers of the White researchers and destroy the lives of the Black communities it preys upon?

Rosy dawn reflected in lake with hilly shore in shadow.

Thanks to Lynn Greyling for releasing her image Rosy Dawn Over Lake Kivu into the Public Domain.