I
Further to the essay I wrote on TRANSLOGIC some time ago, I now want to consider not the logic but the causes of the current disarray in our marital law, identity politics and sexual behaviour.
The short argument, here, is that our current disarray is the long consequence of a SEXUAL FEEDBACK LOOP. For at least a century we have sought to achieve sexual freedom. Against the old marital morality, we have tried to do whatever we want with whomever is agreeable as long as this is qualified by consent. This experiment has been premissed on the idea that it is about freedom of activity. But the experiment has not been controlled and limited to activity. By an elaborate feedback loop our tendency to greater sexual experimentation has come back in a great arc to undermine our sense of our own original sexual nature.
In the article on TRANSLOGIC I suggested that there are three logics, which accompany three stages of sexual history.
The first logic is that I am a man, you are a woman, we commit ourselves to each other ‘until death us do part’, and we have children, where we can.
The second is that I am a man (say, or a woman), and I am free to engage in what we call sexual activity (redefined so it is not simply sexual commerce in the old sense but any activity between any of us which involves our sexual organs) with anyone (man or woman, men or women), as long as they are sexually mature, consenting to this activity, and that no harm (also redefined so it is no longer intrinsic harm but consequential harm) comes to any of the consenting adults.
The third is that I am whatever I want to be, be it a man or a woman, or even what is now called ‘two-spirit’ (with both a male and female soul), and am free to ‘identify’ myself in my chosen manner, but also insist that I should be ‘identified’ by others in this way: any sexual activity is secondary to this.
Now, what I want to observe about this is that there is very likely a causal relation between the second and third stages.
We broke the old imperatives: about living in harmony and commitment, about fulfilling our sexual natures in committed sexual relations, about taking responsibility for the consequences of those sexual relations, and about building our institutions around the virtues of the relations as sanctified by care of children.
The second stage, I now think, depended on the assumption that every one of us is whatever we were supposed to be in the first stage: a man or a woman. But then it is assumed that we could do whatever we wanted. The particular claim I want to make here is I think that it is very likely that this freedom to do whatever ‘I’ want dissolved my certainty about who the ‘I’ was who possessed this freedom. Our free sexual activity was not simply free activity: the freedom was a corrosive agent which acted upon our nature – or what we formerly supposed, but now were inclined to doubt, was our nature. In a word, sexual possibility (concerning what we could do) fed back into sexual identity (concerning what we are).
This is the sexual feedback loop.
The result has been chaos: the chaos of LGBT, and now of Trudeau’s 2SLGBTQ+. There is, as critical commentators frequently suggest, no limit to the conveyor belt of initial letters of this contemporary set of movements. But, in terms of my argument, what I want to say is that L and G and B were originally meant to be terms about what we do. They then became terms for what we are, accompanied by T and the rest: where ‘what we are’ is our nature, that is, our chosen nature, that is, our artificial self-representation.
II
The root cause of this was uncovered 150 years ago. In the second half of the 19th Century, the historian J.R. Seeley wrote an astonishing piece called ‘The English Revolution of the Nineteenth Century’. In it he claimed that the fundamental principle of all new politics was the abolition of monopolies. One of the significant monopolies which was in the process of being abolished was what Seeley in 1870 called the ‘male monopoly’ (and what is now called ‘patriarchy’). The monopoly was broken by an unbuttoning of culture associated particularly with the recognition of homosexuality and the rise of feminism, but also, importantly, with the liberation from nature made possible by technology, and of course the opportunities these offered to both men and women. What were the consequences of this abolition of the male monopoly?
First we achieved freedom of activity. Then we achieved freedom of identity.
By the first step we lost the asymmetries which used to steer everyone into marriage: and so we saw the relaxation of marital law, up to and including the passing of the laws which recognised ‘civil unions’ and then ‘same-sex marriages’ as equally acceptable to traditional marriage. This state sanctioning of sexual freedom – through contraception, divorce and abortion to same-sex marriage – was originally premissed on the view that we know who we are and know what we want.
But, now, as a consequence of the second step we increasingly do not know who we are or what we want. The breakdown of traditional marriage has been accompanied by the breakdown of male responsibility and the breakdown of female instinct, both of which have gone into chaos: as men are torn between the old inclination to take a woman and bear the consequences and the new inclination to enjoy whatever they can without consequence (as well as the new cultural encouragement to show empathy, be a ‘feminist’, ‘raise the kids’, etc.), and as women are torn between the old inclination to take a man and bear the consequences and the new inclination to see enjoyment without consequence as legitimate (as well as the new cultural encouragement to be ambitious and adventurous, ‘kick ass’, etc.). Women are discovering the Old Adam, and men are trying to compensate by trying to adopt a bit of the Old Eve. (There’s quite a worm in that apple.) Plus there are now a lot of belligerent, censorious and sententious New Evams and Adeves.
This confusion (which I see Genevieve Gluck in Spiked claims has been magnified by pornography) has arguably led us into marital affray, mental disorder, substance addiction, perpetual depression, social irresponsibility, and medical tortures, all now sanctified by the ideologies of the diversity movements which declare that one should be proud of being confused and that individual confusion is in fact not confusion but membership of a proud community. By the second step we have seen the concretisation of this confusion – through inversion – from something negative into something positive: a movement which is now come to convert everyone to its exotic and unnatural and inclusive totalitarian creed.
III
At the moment in the West there are three ‘communities’.
- The first community supports the entire LGBT+ canon. They advocate the new ‘liberal’ [sic] position: the Woke position, the New Enlightened Position, the Nice Totalitarian position.
- The second community declares, “Thus far, and no further.” Figures like Douglas Murray, Brendan O’Neill and probably Piers Morgan defend freedom, including sexual freedom, but excoriate the consequences of the recent ‘Trans’ movement. This was the standard (old) liberal position: dominant between 1968 and 2008. It should be a bore, but it has suddenly become interesting because of the advent of the first community. It is still just about legitimate to argue from this position in our mainstream culture.
- The third community is composed of Christians, and pagans whose instincts are, if not Christian, then traditional in the sense of concerned with faithful or old-fashioned marriage. This is the conservative position, now, though it was anything but a conservative position for, let’s say, a thousand years at least. It is now becoming almost impossible to articulate this position in public: especially if it comes armed with condemnations of or cautions about all irregular sexual activity and now irregular sexual identity.
The whole debate has an air of unreality about it, since it is a game of tennis played between the first and second communities, with the third community silent. The debate has gone so far to the left that the third community, ironically, has to depend on homosexuals, lesbians and their liberal ‘allies’ to defend whatever vestiges of respectability and good order still remain in our society.
The point of the argument here is to make people like Douglas Murray and Brendan O’Neill think again. For the root of the problem is not what they think it is. It is not ‘Trans’. It is, in a word, ‘Gay’. The root of the problem is the abolition of the male monopoly associated with homosexuality, and, of course, feminism. Now, I am not condemning or blaming homosexuality as a set of dispositions, proclivities, indulgences, activities or interests. These have always existed in some form, along with other forms of libidinism and libertinism. Feminism is, in part, unobjectionable. But obviously ‘Homosexuality’ as an institutionalised ideology is a different matter. So is ‘Feminism’ as an institutionalised ideology. The cause of our malaise is not any particular behaviour. It is the public sanction of this behaviour, and the institutional establishment of it. If I am right – and I may not be (one makes an argument but, as a sceptic, one also shrugs one’s shoulders at it) – then this has caused the confusion that has recently thrown up the strangely corporation-ready ideology of paradoxically diversitarian sexual totalitarianism.
We have added ‘experiments in being’ to John Stuart Mill’s ‘experiments in living’. There has been too much experimenting in the last century.
Some liberals are caught in a bind because at the moment they want to approve of ‘Feminism’ and ‘Homosexuality’ but disapprove of ‘Trans’. This may seem to be a coherent position, and certainly for the moment it is a politically acceptable one, because the liberals are saying that although they are on board with equality, freedom, consent etc., they are not on board with novel sorts of harm. But I would say that this position is ultimately incoherent. It is a transitional position. The liberals will eventually find out – if it is not yet obvious to them – that the very freedom they think they want has generated the consequences they now want to deny.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It beggars belief that these idiots seem to be in denial or in wilful ignorance of research like this :-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
and a follow up:-
https://osf.io/bcsa6/
Clear biomolecular/genetic research showing the clear dangers the jabs have.
Are they actually wanting to kill/ruin lives?
Oh, and fao “John”, yes I am fully aware of the levels of expertise of the various authors/researchers.
“G-quadruplex structures can be computationally predicted from DNA or RNA sequence motifs,but their actual structures can be quite varied within and between the motifs, which can number over 100,000 per genome. Their activities in basic genetic processes are an active area of research in telomere, gene regulation, and functional genomics research.”
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-quadruplex)
My concern is that the G-quadruplex structures have been been predicted by software from the RNA sequences, which in itself is not an issue, but there appears to be an assumption that they will all be oncogenetic in everyone, rather than there’s a chance that they may be in someone or they may not. There’s no indication of the likelihood of that occurring. This is why I question the reasons for having a computer scientist as lead author with the cancer specialist only involved in the editing process.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909458/
Thank you for your informative responses which have given me a better understanding of your criticisms of the papers to which I referred.
I would though value your opinion on the following, (I have only had a chance to consider it briefly but it seems to me to be less based upon computational prediction?)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
At this stage there are only really two possibilities. Either these doctors are so captured by the “Vaccines are all Good” mindset that they cannot use any critical reasoning and do not look at the research, or they are just plain evil. Neither possibility is encouraging.
Or they are just money whores, option 3.
Or very challenged??
example of the cognitively narrow intelligent. Like those who can play a piano concerto but don’t have essential basic skills but are in charge of the arts council. Which may make them more able to take the silver/money or just be incomplete in their cognition. ?
I was on a coastal golf course, sunny, windy, nobody around except three others, not a virus particle anywhere!! Just the odd golfer ha. The two golfers my husband was playing were from Geneva, very fit, sunny healthy, seemed intelligent and career high flyers.
On one of the greens next to the sea was a stone hut, with one toilet and a high widow open. Lots of fresh air swirling around in there. These supposed intelligent people put on their masks in the outdoors to go into an outdoor one toilet. Are these the types who would jab children and are quick to draconian rules for a moment of false safety.
My husband and I watched this strange spectacle with amazement it was like a a pilgrimage for the masked.
We waited until the 18th to tell them we were not jabbed
Well I counted that under the ‘evil’ heading. Putting money in front of children’s health is about the definition of it I think.
Yes It’s so difficult to believe that evil like this exists but it looks like it does.
The book “Dissolving Illusions” gives a pretty extensive account of the history of the small pox vaccine and how for most of the second half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, was pushed very hard and in many instances mandated. The punishment for some people who refused was terrible. The side effects were often terrible. And the effectiveness was never proven, always assumed.
You read it and the parallels with the current COVID craziness are uncanny.
When the medical profession and the state get together to impose something on us, it’s pretty terrifying.
Or ‘just following orders’….
The only possible explanation at this point for those wishing to jab the young, is one that that starts with “follow the money”. Corona never was and still is not a risk for the young (well, not really for anyone who does not already have one foot in the grave).
I was unhappy to see NL decide to start jabbing the 5-11 group end of Jan/beginning of Feb. However, the week that the jabs for that group opened up the health ministry said that as omick-take was less serious for children (i.e. *even* less serious), it was not clear that they really needed the jab, so parents should think about whether their child needed to be vaxxed.
Very, very Dutch method of dealing with prickly issues. If they had said outright it will do more harm than good, we won’t do it, they know people would have started questioning, they would have started asking whether the age group 12-18 had needed it, etc. So don’t nix it outright, just slowly, silently, stealthily extract yourself.
I bet they did the same with murderna. Once all the Scandinavian countries, France and Germany said they would no longer use it on the under-30s, I expected NL to follow suit, but as I far as know they have not officially done so. But I have no doubt that if there are still any under-30s foolish enough to get stabbed again, they ain’t getting murderna.
I would not want to be one of the kiddie drug pushers when people realise just how toxic this garbage is and how long they knew that it was toxic. Even if people didn’t get their kids jabbed, they will be furious that it was ever suggested or allowed.
So weird, I keep getting these images of Sri Lanka and that beautiful, overrun presidential compound. But with a few pitchforks added for good measure.
This is why poisoning the well of scepticism with the term ‘anti-vaxxer’ in advance of the roll-out of the injections was so effective, effectively making us all self-censor to avoid being tarred with this brush. However, reality continues to encroach on the lie and a tipping point surely approaches.
I can understand the vaccine gangsters like fauci and billy gate$ pushing for the poisoning of children with their snake oils, but I would normally expect doctors to exercise common sense and discretion. Not any more it seems. it appears that health professionals and “scientists” are as much under the thumb of big pharma as politicians are.
Grifter doctors push hard to get more fees from vaccinating children now they are running out of adult victims.
Better, more accurate headline.
Surely the point is that not only are they unnecessary but especially harmful to children – as explained by Geert Vanden Bosche’s recent voiceforscienceandsolidarity substack video. In essence, these jabs are not “live-attenuated” and will hinder the process by which children’s immune systems learn to cope with viral infections. Another problem is we really don’t know what these “transfection agents” are doing in our bodies. See interesting recent discussion with Kevin McKernan on J J Couey’s website gigaohmbiological. It’s technical but worth the time for reminders of why those who’ve taken this injection have taken a great risk with their health.
All I am asking is that you look at the adverse effects of MMR, smallpox, Hepatitis B and influenza vaccinations, all of which are old style vaccines. Adverse events include myocarditis, transverse myelitis, death, thrombocytopenia and other clotting disorders.
The RNA vaccines do not and cannot change your DNA as they do not and cannot enter the nucleus of normal cells, they replicate in the cytoplasm and do not have access to a transcriptase. The paper reporting on cancerous liver cells is based on an abnormal cell line that produces a transcriptase that healthy cells do not, the concentrations of RNA were orders of magnitude greater than in either the Pfizer or Moderna preparations. They could have used readily available normal cell lines, but chose HuH instead, which is effectively an immortal cell line.
Both Pfizer and Moderna have positive sense single stranded RNA in them, the same as the full SARS-CoV-2 virus. An ss + RNA virus is its own mRNA. They are not and cannot be gene therapy as they do not modify your DNA, they use the same technology that is used in gene therapy, which, by the way is 20 years old.
What people should be concerned about is risk v benefits, if smallpox were as benign as SARS-CoV-2 then the risks of the smallpox vaccine would outweigh its benefits and should not be universally administered.
Should everyone be vaccinated- NO
Should children of any age be vaccinated-NO
If people want to be vaccinated then that is their choice the same as it is their right not to be. What should not be happening is this dichotomy between those who chose to and those who chose not to be vaccinated, both sides appearing to be self righteous.
The last couple of years have destroyed forever the fantasy “kindly altruistic doctor” as portrayed in Dr Finlay’s Casebook and every other UK TV hospital drama produced since.
There may well be a few: but the vast majority are just as open/vulnerable to propaganda, coercion, threats, bribes and group-think as the rest of the population.
And the Government knew it. Which is why they were caught so unprepared to deal with a revolt by Care Workers who refused to be experimented on which, in turn, gave confidence to many NHS employees that tyranny must be resisted.
Any confidence I ever had in the State Health System has been completely destroyed over the past 2 years.
Strongly agree. I am further down this line: I actively distrust any and all doctors (having visited my family doctor and discovering she knew less about the mRNA vaccines than I), the legacy media (but that has been the case since 1980), Big Pharma and their fellow travellers, Big Philanthropy, Big Corporations, the academic faux-expert class, the civil servants, the politicians and MPs, the police, the intelligence services, the NGO’s, the justice system and even traffic wardens.
To add to this article: let’s try to answer the question that is the elephant in the room namely “What could have caused this change of mind, this abandonment of one’s own scientific work?” Although it is speculative, I venture three possible explanations, all of which could be true as they don’t cancel each other out. One: they were let into the secret world by the panicky intelligence services who know exactly where the virus came from and how much it was engineered before being leaked in Wuhan (see the excellent article by Debbie Lerner on the Brownstone Institute’s site). Two: threat of dismissal from their institutions. Three: big bucks from Big Pharma.
Just follow the money.
These doctors should be ashamed of themselves
My 11 year old grandson had his 1st jab last month. His parents, two otherwise intelligent people, think they’re doing the right thing and I’m not in a position to change that – I have tried!
The nurse giving the jab “explained” (ie told a blatant lie) to the 11 year old that the jab was absolutely safe and that he was helping to save others and his family (all of whom have had at least one dose of covid) and protect himself.
Criminal