Sebastian Milbank has written an excellent piece in the Critic charting the descent of the University of Edinburgh into woke madness and how that spilled over in antisemitic bile under the guise of ‘decolonisation’ in the past week. Here’s an excerpt.
Dr. Kate Davison, a “Queer historian of sexuality, psy-sciences & Cold War”, a lecturer at the Edinburgh history faculty and a vocal advocate of trans rights (who recently approvingly tweeted about calls to suppress a gender critical book launch), took the events of the past few days as an opportunity to express her solidarity with Palestine, retweeting a UCU tweet doing just that, and tweeted that “Palestine and trans human rights are the litmus test and most of you are failing half of it”. She also retweeted a post arguing that Palestinian violence must be understood in the context of Israeli occupation and that “Eventually people will snap”. Most shocking of all was her her support for a statement by academics of Berzeit University (a Palestinian institution in the West Bank) which unequivocally celebrated the Hamas attacks, speaking of the “blood of our martyrs”, arguing that Israel has “no right to self-defence”, denouncing the global reach of the “Zionist media coverage” and defending attacks on civilians as “guerilla war tactics” undertaken by “resistance fighters”.
Nor was she alone, another Edinburgh academic, Dr. İdil Akıncı-Pérez, a lecturer in social policy, also liked the Berzeit statement, as well as a post celebrating the toppling of the border wall and another quoting a statement that “calls Hamas’s attack a ‘legitimate right’ of the Palestinian people resisting settler occupation and says ‘we pray for victory, oh heroes of the resistance’”. One PhD student, whom I have chosen not to name, on the assumption that graduate students are below the age of reason, simply has a ‘Free Palestine’ poster as his or her departmental bio photo.
Julie Gibbings, a history lecturer at Edinburgh and the director of EDI in the faculty, appeared to denounce the violence, retweeting a piece by Naomi Klein in the Guardian attacking those who celebrated the massacres by Hamas. Granted Klein speaks out of both sides of her mouth, saying that “we can recognise that when Israeli Jews are killed in their homes and it is celebrated by people who claim to be anti-racists and anti-fascists, that is experienced as antisemitism by a great many Jews”. It’s mealy mouthed stuff (experienced as antisemitism!), but at least it does denounce murder as murder, even if it absurdly pretends that Jew hatred is a matter of appearance rather than fact. But dig into what has Dr. Gibbings pounding the like button, and you discover that days before she was playing at being even-handed, she was liking tweets by Dr. Fúnez-Flores, specifically ones in which he writes (on the day of Hamas’s massacres of Israeli civilians): “Academia loves to decolonise everything besides occupied land. Its silence on Palestine is enough to know how decolonisation has become a metaphor signifying everything besides material change and collective resistance.” And another in which he disputes the civilian status of Israeli settlers, writing: “Decolonisation isn’t ‘social justice’. That’s why Tuck and Yang wrote that, ‘The absorption of decolonisation by settler social justice frameworks is one way the settler, disturbed by her own settler status, tries to escape or contain the unbearable searchlight of complicity’.”
Another Edinburgh academic, Dr. Sarah Liu, a Senior Lecturer in Gender and Politics at Edinburgh, and the Chair of the Staff BAME Network, chose the occasion of Hamas’s mass murder to retweet (only one day after Hamas’s bloody border crossing) the quote: “The oppressor makes his violence part of the functioning society. But the violence of the oppressed becomes disruptive… because it is disruptive it’s easy to recognise, and therefore it becomes the target of all those who in fact do not want to change the society.” And she retweeted a post (written on the day of the attacks) that read: “Academics, largely, as a class, aren’t in favour of revolutionary action, but many revolutionaries are also scholars so they offer academics an opportunity to associate themselves with revolutionaries under the guise of study, with no real intention of extending it into practice.” She also liked a tweet (likewise posted on the day that Hamas stormed across the border to murder civilians) which reads: “Did some people just think Palestine had to like file paperwork or something to be freed. this is what oppressed fighting the oppressor looks like.”
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Lloyds Bank’s Human Resources Director has written to the bank’s 30,000 employees offering them counselling if they were traumatised by the ‘hate’ on display at the Conservative Party Conference. The Mail has more.
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.
In the 1840s Marx and Engels developed the concept of “trash peoples”. These are the peoples and groups who are “reactionary” (i.e. who are not prepared to put the Marxists into power), on the “wrong side of history”, and who therefore will be exterminated. This is the historical background to the contemporary marxo-fascists (the wokusts) designating the Irish as a “trash people” who are scheduled to “disappear” from their homeland. And this is the reason that poisonous racialist tracks like this odious little schoolbook are being produced.
I don’t believe in book burning but in this case I would make an exception
Seconded
.
This isn’t a book. It is a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the One World Government Party.
Do you sometimes have trouble with your waterfire not burning properly because it’s too dry for that and thus not failing to cool your flat down as intended? If so, you should consult the expert who invented the term marxo-fascist as he’ll know how to deal with oxymoronic issues.
The Marxist core concept is that people are universally divided into different classes based on the nature of their economic activity and this the only meaningful difference between people who are otherwise completely equal to each other. There’s always a class controlling the means of production which uses this control to force the other, oppressed class of people to work for it. Further, there’s a historic progression of the dominant means of production from slaveholder society to feudal society centered around ownership of land and finally, to capitalist society with capital, ie, the ability to fund construction of factories and buy raw materials for production being the dominant means of production. This is the penultimate state of human development and the ultimate one is the uprising of the oppressed class of factory workers to free themselves of the capitalist yokel and create the communist society, the one which is free of oppression because it has abolished the concept of private property and the machinery of the state use to maintain this notion by force in favour of a loose association of communities based on shared ownership of the means of production and rational allocation of everything so that everyone does what he can and gets what he needs in return (Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen).
Fascism, especially, as is usually meant, the German variant, national socialism, is antagonistic to that on every level. That real-world Marxists or rather, Marxists-Lenininsts never really got around to transcending the state and fascists never ever wanted that doesn’t mean they have otherwise much in common.
Capitalist is the ultimate state of human development. Communism is a regression back to the penultimate state of human development because it is feudalism by another name.
Typo. I meant capitalist democracy.
Feudalism, which is a Marxist term, BTW, refers to a state where the primary means of production is land ownership, just with this land no more being worked on by slaves but by somewhat more free serfs. These are still tied to the land, either explicitly or implicitly by them having no other choice, but they’re not property of the land owner anymore. Capitalism is what came next, starting with merchant families becoming so rich that they could turn into money lenders and ultimatively leading to the 19th century situation of a society split into a capitalist class, ie, the people who control the capital necessary to become bankers, large-scale merchants and factory owners, and the so-called proletariat, the people whose only option to make a living is to rent out their own time to the capitalists.
In the real world, society wasn’t that neatly divided as there were still noble landowners, craftsmen of various trades and the so-called bourgoises encompassing small businessmen and people working in all kinds of administrative jobs which made them natural allies of the capitalists controlling access to these but Marxism predicted that these would eventually vanish and become absorbed into the proletariat. This would then lead to communist (world) revolution which would abolish economic oppression in favour of a “rational” society based on shared ownership or rather, stewardship of the means of production for the equal benefit of all.
Nothing of this ever really happened save a Bolshevist coup in post-tsarist Russia, leading to the theoretically absurd situation of a ‘communist state’ surrounded by (much more developed) capitalist enemies which dominated the 20th century.
The ultimate state of human development is post-capitalism, wherein we transcend capitalism, as the late Buckminster Fuller envisioned.
The Marxist core concept is that people are universally divided into different classes based on the nature of their economic activity
Yours is a very simplified and primitive idea of Marxism. For example, in Engels’ article The Magyar Struggle, published in Marx’s newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung in January 1849, he writes: “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” In the same article Engels gives his reasons for the coming extermination: “There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation … [are] … residual fragments of peoples [who] always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation …” So you see Marx and Engels held to the idea that some nations are the “main vehicle of historical development”. Therefore, a proper Marxist analysis has to include the ideas of nations and races, not just class.
The fragments of this article you’re quoting out of context aren’t even complete enough to understand what they were supposed to mean. They have no relation whatsoever to my text and hence, also don’t contradict anything in it and my best guess is that they’re a description of the state of Europe in the middle of the 19th century: There are a couple of big nations like France, Germany, Italy, England or Spain but the corresponding states or areas (there was no German state at that time) aren’t really ethnically homogenous as splinter groups of conquered smaller peoples exist within them, eg the Welsh, the Basques or the Sorbs. The conclusion you claim to have drawn from that is a non-sequitur.
The fragments of this article you’re quoting out of context aren’t even complete enough to understand what they were supposed to mean.
Now you’re babbling. I wasn’t trying to contradict you so much as to show how shallow and inadequate your understanding of Marxism is.
You’ve quoted some random fragments from an article which is presumably about the conflict which turned the absolutist Austrian empire into the constitutional dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary which stated that ethnic minorities of conquered people exist encapsulated in the territories occupied by all larger European peoples (peoples and nations are interchangeable in the German of that period). From this, you claim to have drawn the freestyle conclusion that the existence of dominant nations isn’t just a historical fact Engel’s was writing about also, an important concept in Marxist theory.
What this non-sequitur is supposed to demonstrate is anybody’s guess but since your statements are as high on abuse as they’re low on content, probably nothing. It just serves as coat hanger for the expletives.
Fascism, especially, as is usually meant, the German variant, national socialism, is antagonistic to that on every level.
Fascism was developed by a group of Italian Marxists, led by Benito Mussolini, who were attempting to adapt Marxism to the to actual situation in Italy at the early 20th century. Fascism is not contrary to Marxism – it is more like a heresy of Marxism. The same could be said for Leninism and Stalinism.
I do believe Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts were based on Mussolini’s fascism.
Thanks for the chuckle over ‘water fire’, but I’m really not sure the analysis holds up. Leaving aside all the ‘narcissism of small differences’ stuff, aren’t Marxism and Fascism just two ‘workings out’ of the same basic idea: group identity is everything, individual identity is nothing, and war between groups is universal, inescapable and eternal ? As far as I can see, the only difference between the two is where they arbitrarily draw the ‘group identity’ boundaries…
There’s another element that unites the Marxists and the fascists, and this is their idea of the role of the state. Mussolini’s description of his regime as “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” is an exact description of the Marxist tyrannies established in the 20th century.
According to Marx, the state is just the vehicle the economically dominant class uses to oppress the other classes and supposed to die off on its own after the communist world revolution. This never happened in practice because world revolution never happened, leading to the Stalinist notion of building socialism in one country first which would then naturally conquer to world and fullfil the Marxist prophecy due to being the only country on the right side of history. The socialist state was theoretically always an institutionalized band aid and never the ultimate goal itself.
According to Marx, the state is just the vehicle the economically dominant class uses to oppress the other classes
This is just another of your primitive simplifications. In fact Marx believed that the state could be used to effect the transition to socialism by, for example, the state becoming the only banker.
The Bolshevists who took over control of Russia were trying to spread the revolution to Austria-Hungary and Germany via propaganda and partially succeeded in Germany, were, for a while, a Russian-style soviet republic existed in parallell with the official institutions until it was crushed by volunteer troops the SPD had raised from former members of the dissolved German army. Russian state socialism only came to be after it had become clear that world revolution was not going to happen immediately, ie, that masses of revolutionary workers wouldn’t topple all governments of the world in quick succession.
Russian state socialism only came to be after it had become clear that world revolution was not going to happen immediately
This is another of your bits of nonsense based on Marxist lies and excuses. The fact is that Lenin’s socialism was from the beginning the state socialism of the bourgeoisie designed to exclude the working class from decision-making. It was anti-democratic in principle, and anti-democratic in practice. For example, Nicolas Werth, in A State against Its People (part of Stéphane Courtois’ The Black Book of Communism), points out that in 1918 Lenin’s government responded to the workers’ strike at the Motovilikha factory at Perm by enforcing a lockout and firing the striking workers. They followed this by arresting the strike leaders, and executing a hundred of them – without trial.
This is not “another bit of nonsense” but what the Bolshevist ruling class which had exactly zero connections to the Russian bourgoise due to being led by formely exiled professional revolutionaries from the (self-appointed) communist intellgensia did in winter 1917/18: They were exploiting the Brest-Litowsk peace talks for communist propaganda specfically targetting the armies of Germany and Austria-Hungary and trying to exploit their political connection with the German USPD to start a revolution in both countries while stalling the actual negotiations, cf
The effect the negotiating positions of the central powers had so far had on [Bolshevist] Russia became clear when the Russian supreme commander sent the following message to his soldiers: “Comrades, a great victory is ours! The greedy robber barons of the German bourgeoise have bowed to the to will of the Russian revolution! They don’t dare to try to submit us to deprivation and slavery because they’re afraid of their own people!” Likewise, people’s commissar Trotzki had sent another invitation to the Entente powers [to partake in the peace talks] on December 29th. The hostile governments had “predominantly because of the pressure of the working masses, been driven to accept the democratic cause”. Negotiation would continue in a neutral country on Jan 8th.
[Der Weltkrieg 1914 – 1918, vol 14, p 349, translation by me]
The military leaders of the central powers, especially, of Germany, eventually ran out of patience with this and forced the Russian communists to surrender unconditionally by recommencing military operations against Russia. The country then sank into civil war between the Reds and the Whites which was eventually won by Trotzki’s Red Army. Stalin than emerged as new strong man of pro-forma communist Russia, forced Trotzki into a Mexican exile and came up the doctrine of “building socialism in one country first”.
Insofar they could, the Bolshevists did indeed handle uprisings against their rule by summarily execution via firing squad but that’s an unrelated and irrelevant detail.
BTW, state socialism of the Bourgoise is another freewheeling terminology monster which makes exactly as much sense as “Spearheaded by Trump, the USA strode towards becoming a green climate change superpower and a safe haven for refugees from all over the globe. ‘Let those who are miserable all comes to us!’, he stated on numerous occasions, ‘Our inbred white guilts demands that we make America humble again, and humble it shall become!’ Sometimes, he ordered the star-spangled banner of shame to be publically burnt after such an event.”
It’s always possible to abstract differences away until whatever is being treated in this way seems identical. So, why not generalize this one step further? The basic idea behind all human political activities is people talking to other people and hence, everything people do is fundamentally the same, be it the Jonestown massacre, Franklin D. Roosevelts new deal, the election of Donald Trump or the Bolshevist coup in Russia 1917. Ergo: Trump is ‘principally’ a Marxist as he’s employing Marxist methods and not principally different from Jim Jones. Caveat elector!
This makes no sense because this generalization ignores too much and that’s also the problem of the collectivism generalization, which is, apart from that, at least insofar you present it, also wrong. Hitler calls for empowerment of the individual to the maxium of whatever ability it might have because that’s the way to serve the whole best: Make use of the talents of all its members to the utmost. It’s also wrong for Marxism because it’s an eschatological theory: Class struggle is not eternal but will ultimatively lead to the classless communist society which will be an earthly paradise.
As an afterthough to that: As opposed what Rand asserts, the notion that the individual is a relatively insignificant part of a larger nation or state isn’t fascist in nature at all but dates back to antiquity. It’s already evident in the political speeches in Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War or in the classically Roman Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori¹, which was a huge inspiration to late 18th and 19th century nationalism, as mirrored, for instance, in the opening lines of the Marseillaise Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire et arrives!²
¹ It’s sweet and honourable to die for the fatherland.
² To the arms, children of the fatherland, for the day of glory has come!
To be honest it’s nearly 30 years since I read Ayn Rand deeply, so I had to look it up – but contrary to what you have asserted here, Rand does not assert that collectivism is fascist in origin at all, but sees it as an ancient superstition that pre-dates all of modern politics, as this quote from Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal (as quoted at the PBS website below) shows:
Collectivism is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously#:~:text=In%20%E2%80%9CCapitalism%3A%20The%20Unknown%20Ideal,sacrifice%20them%20whenever%20it%20pleases.
For the record, I agree with her that collectivism is as old as human beings – I’ve just got a bit more respect for primitive superstitions than she had…
You are right but it is not just superstitions.
In 1975 an unusual abundance was found in Iraq of pollen in a ritual Neanderthal burial chamber. The chamber was for a child, two females and a male.
It dated approximately 60,000 years ago.
The association with flowers in burial suggested Neanderthals were closer in spirit to humans than had been thought previously.
The flowers were then still found in Iraq.
Seven of the eight types were listed in an Iraqi government published reference work as having known medicinal qualities: Solecki, R. (1975) Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal flower burial in northern Iraq. Science 190, 880-881
A statement like this should really be continued with “Thank God, I’m not one of those primitive … animals which care for their young!”
There’s really nothing more to say to that.
Completely take your point on the danger of sliding down the slippery slope of reductionist sophistry through abstracting differences away, but are you therefore arguing that all abstractions are by definition false ? To me it’s a pragmatic question – if a healthy, cautiously applied amount of abstract reductionism helps me to understand something that actually happens in the real world, then even though it may not be 100% ‘true’ in the absolute sense, it’s at least useful. And for me personally, ‘abstracting away’ the surface differences between Marxism and Fascism has at least proven useful in helping me understand why my own reaction to encountering either type of person in real life is so full of visceral dislike.
Also I’m not sure the eschatological element of my generalization of collectivism is wrong for Marxism – I’m firmly convinced that Dr Jordan Peterson and others are completely correct in their depiction of Marxism as a fully (if ersatz) religious enterprise, masquerading as a hard-headed scientific theory in a ‘methinks the lady doth protest too much’ sort of way.
Indeed, as per Horseshoe Theory, Nazis and commies have always been kissing cousins, despite both loudly claiming to hate each other. Methinks they doth protest too much.
All Marxist dogma requires children to turn on their families, to spy and inform
and as displayed in Cambodia even kill their own parents if directed too.
We need to recognise that this is an indoctrination process, and they are targeting the young, to brainwash them, youth will not challenge, they will just absorb the message of hate that Governments across the west are feeding them, dressed up in the garb of virtue
Honestly, if it’s not indoctrinating kids regarding gender ideology it’s brainwashing them with this critical race theory bollocks. Great comment and spot on;
”This is indoctrination of Irish youth to hate themselves and everything that makes them proud of being Irish under the banner of ‘diversity’. Excerpt from the SPHE curriculum textbook for first year pupils. This is critical race theory in practice. The inculcating of young minds with self-loathing. The denigration of being Irish. Instilling in the psyche of our young that they should be suspect of their own family if they are proud of our food, culture, music, sport, traditions and heritage. This is a tactic that was used during the Communist era in East Germany, and other places, to create a culture whereby children would be suspicious of their parents to such an extent that they would report them to the authorities for ‘wrong think’.”
https://x.com/LFJIreland/status/1829798905707446383
https://x.com/FatEmperor/status/1830032109488005578
Other cultures can be new and exciting until the point where they show themselves keen on stabbings, murder, rape and paedophilia.
No, no no! These are cultural enrichments of the most splendid kind.
I thought the lady in this clip was Muslim at first but maybe she’s Roma, in which case her son is getting arrested most likely for shop-lifting. As if that isn’t humiliating enough she then goes on to throw a massive wobbler and attack the police, making an even bigger spectacle of herself, before they arrest her too. Yeah I’m not sure ”new and exciting” would apply to people like this;
”How long/What does it take to arrest an aggressive foreigner, The woman assaults Garda, throws her slippers at Garda and is interfering with the arrest of a foreign male.
#LawlessForeignersIreland get preferential treatment and must step over numerous lines before arrest.”
https://x.com/ericengy/status/1828013715385458972
I assume that all the signs in both Gaelic and English will be replaced by jolly woke icons to ensure that those who can’t read in any language won’t feel discriminated against.
You have to realize that social, personal and health education is exactly what parents are supposed to teach their own children as it’s everyday stuff not requiring any specialist knowledge. The very reason this even exists in the curriculum is thus people who really think they ought to be allowed to teach, that is, indoctrinate, other people’s children how they believe their everyday lifes ought to look like, ie, Are your parents married and heterosexual and your mom doesn’t even take testosterone to grow a beard? That’s culturally soo backward, they must be Irish! Our Colourful Modern World© is so much more gayer!
This is nothing but a UN-driven (that’s where this drivel usually comes from) intrusion into what should really be people’s private life and affairs in order to exploit the fact that children must go to school and may not leave on their own will to turn them into adults more to the liking of ‘experts’ in their opinions re: What constitutes proper people. Obviously, a topic like this will see use textbooks appropriate for its intended purpose.
OK, the wokeraty consider me bigoted.
So be it.
I will stick to my conservative values.
I suspect that subconsciously they envy people with traditional families and try to overcompensate for their feelings of inferiority.
All families are diverse
Perhaps we should start resisting the delivery corruption of the word “diverse” to mean non-white.
Suddenly the Left Hate the Irish
It’s not sudden I promise you!
Why don’t they just brand the indigenous Irish “Untermensch” and make it really clear what they would like to do?
I’m confused. At first I thought Family A was the “diverse” one, because none of them look Irish to me. Not a blond or redhead, nor a rosy cheek, nor a twinkling blue/green eye among them. In fact they look more like Romanians in Irish clothing.
Then I saw Family B, which is just a bad joke. Notice there are no blond males in any family. The only blondes the Globalists allow are female.
Irish parents should heed the advice of Senator Pauline Hanson,
one of Australia’s National Treasures:
“They’re your kids— not child soldiers press-ganged as cannon fodder in a racist culture war.”
Why this sudden denigration of Irish families? Surely only recently it would have been regarded as racist to do so? Or is it a response to the Irish reaction to mass immigration into the emerald isle?
This schoolbook depiction of the Irish is not much different to the Victorian cartoons that appeared in Punch and other publications at the time of large Irish immigration into Britain during the famine, illustrations where the Irish are depicted as primitives.
And strangely for a ‘reactionary’ family, daughter Saoirse doesn’t aspire to enter a Catholic convent to pray for the eternal damnation of all heathens. And in the diverse family, she hasn’t had four abortions by the age of nineteen.
This schoolbook is an instructive example of the spiteful distain that progressives of a certain sort have for the refuseniks. And of course, there are no adults in the new diverse ‘family’. There’s just the parental state. Perhaps the schoolchildren are high-fiving outside the Coliseum after witnessing the last of the Christians being thrown to the lions. “Yay! That’s the last we see of our parents!”
Recently? You mean as recent as right now?
This describes a book which is out and out racism and the book should be reported as a hate crime:
We have seen this inTV adverts for years, You will hardly ever see a TV ad with 5 white people in it. But this is probably even more blatantly outrageous to target children in this way. What kind of squirming Globalist parasites do this? ——The kind that will fill our countries up with people from all corners of the globe because National Identity is dangerous to their desire to have us all as just as good little global citizens.
Yes, as a former BNP candidate once said, “Britain is not just an empty space on the map, to be filled in by people from all over the world.”
But Globalists think that we ARE just an empty space on the map, such as Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, who once said she was proud to part of “The Project That Is Great Britain”.
Why would anyone waste a brain cell trying to intellectualize this propaganda with recent history? First of all though, who is responsible for it and have they been called to account for their insulting racism?
When will people wake up to the New Roman Empire and its occult practices? What do people imagine the obelisks outside the Vatican, in Washington DC and various other places actually signify? They are notoriously representations of the phallus of Osiris for those who want to worship the cult of Isis, who replaced Mary who is not a God and must not be treated as one. The obelisks are celebrated as a direct link to Rome and Isis. All the symbols around the WEF, the US Capitol, the UN, and so on, including Daphne’s laurels are Roman. And we can only wonder what is worshipped in the Meditation Room of the UN. The objective is digital, medical, and technocratic slavery – Rome was founded on slavery. The new Emperor will no longer have to serve the people – which will come as a great relief to those who pretend to do so. Most of those employed to bring this about will themselves be buried by the system. Transgenderism is central to all occult practices, which is why it is so very important to the movement. Net Zero will destroy our civilization and still people think it is silly to talk about conspiracy theories…..