Performing research prior to reviewing a book about transgenderism on another website recently, I came across an obscene photograph which, I think, may just sum up the utterly schizophrenic levels of incoherence of the cherished yet demonstrably incompatible ideas being promoted by our current governing class better than any I have ever before seen.
This image may perhaps require a little explanation, the news story it illustrates now being a few years old. That hairy rainbow individual openly displaying his fake plastic anus to all-comers, alongside his dangling and equally fake plastic chimp-phallus, is what is known as a ‘rainbow dildo butt-monkey’, an obscure and little-known species of queer primate that was only ever able to continue to survive out there in the domestic wild thanks to the generous (if mainly unknown and involuntary) support of the UK taxpayer.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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.
Sodom and Gomorrah. Mental illness, perversion, child abuse, criminality running wild.
Does not take long to eradicate a civilisation.
God made a covenant not to destroy mankind again.
He was wrong.
I agree that things like this increasingly make Britain look like Sodom and Gomorrah.
But God I don’t think God will have to break his promise not to destroy mankind again.
This is a sign of a society already in a vortex of self-destruction. Now arguably you could say that this is also divine justice. But also you could look at it as the drug addict injecting himself with the final overdose: he himself is the executor of the fate he destined himself for.
And I think when this will all be over, when this abomination of desolation finally collapses, I don’t think we’ll miss it. Yes I expect it will be painful but it has to happen.
Still, I must admit these gay street performers have managed to create a perfect demonstration of their very essence: an ugly red monkey’s arse.
It basically has to collapse at this point.
And they want people to sign up to fight for this country?
Really?
Yep that’s pretty much it.
The state first gaslights us into thinking we are all racist, homophobic, destroying the climate, a walking bio-weapon transmitting a lethal virus, incapable of looking after ourselves, etc, etc. And then intervenes in our lives to “solve” the problems, which actually strangely never get solved. It only ever seems to get worse, despite their best efforts.
And like in the Gaslight movie we just get madder and madder.
The state is an abstract concept and as such, incapable of any actions. People wielding the state (abstractly) as instrument do that and my beef is with these people and not with their tools as that’s just the myth that knifes cause crimes transcended onto another plane.
My beef is with the people and rhe institutions they wield against us.
People will always exist. But the institutions don’t have to. They bring out the worst.
The knife analogy isn’t a good one. You’ve stretched it to far.
It would be like me saying that nuclear weapons don’t kill, people do, so I shouldn’t have a problem with nuclear weapons.
The state is very real. Or at least as real as a nation. It’s effect is real. Personally I want as little of it as possible.
Or, as the NRA puts it, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s exactly the case.
Some kind of state institutions have existed for as long as we have historical records (about 7000 years) and there’s no reason to assume that they will ever not exist (minus Marxist historic development theory, that is). Even in absence of them, people will still exercise power over other people, just entirely discretionary. The very point of formalized rules and institutions is to protect people from discretionary use of power. A modern example of that would be Punch a TERF! That’s something the people lusting for that would certainly do if there was no state stopping from it. I don’t think abolishing the state would save us from bad policies being enacted upon is as the people who want that would just continue to exist. They’d just be more violent and power would be exercised in more abitrary ways.
Who said anything about abolishing the state?
That’s a separate debate.
For now we should be able to agree that the state has waaaayyy too much power, too many “instutions”, a bureaucracy that serves itself before anyone else, that is constantly trying to expand its power, that is terribly wasteful and inefficient etc.
We can agree on that, right?
It’s not possible to agree with a statement which has no real content. “There’s too much of it!” is an assertion which can apply to anything, regardless of how large or small it happens to be.
I’d agree with a statement that the state exercises way too much power over certain things, such as when sending young woman to prison for mildly disparaging online remarks about illegal immigrants but OTOH, it exercises way too little power over certain other things, like BLM rioters storming Dowing Street or all the aggressive begging, street robbery, burglary and theft which has become an everyday occurence people just have to live with.
In theory, we have a right to free speech but in practice, people get sent to jail for exercising it. Also in theory, theft is a crime but people who steal just get away with it insofar the state is concerned.
Narratives, narratives, and more narratives – Two countries.
In the rural village, provincial town, suburbs and urban enclave I frequent, I come across little of it. On summer Saturday afternoons, I do see youths and men of different ethnicities playing sport together in the spirit of the game and with no overt antagonism.
For all I know, there might be different sexualities behind the scene, but no pride is flaunting it. According to the captured institution that claims to run the game from the Great Metropolis, the game is a seething mass of narratives, that needs the Raising the Game initiative to show it the errors of its ways.
Someone please pass the Rainbow Laces. Paid officialdom, best ignored by mere amateurs and club volunteers.
Five years today since GOV.UK surpassed Kaiser, Fuhrer and English weather, by suspending the start of the club cricket season. Cricket ball as Vector of Disease. Better not get myself started on that.
“a seething mass of narratives” – nicely articulated and summed up.
A nation that fails to keep its children safe is a failed nation. It’s as true for the gender ideology cult as for the Islamic ‘Death Cult of Supremacy’;
”The same people screaming about tolerance are the first ones to demand laws that control what everyone else is allowed to say, think, and believe.
If an idea can’t survive without censorship, blacklisting, and bans, then it was never worth defending in the first place.
Funny how kids who suddenly claim a trans identity are told to cut off “toxic” parents, but when they’re subjected to medical experimentation, they’re celebrated and love-bombed by the adults who are supposed to keep them safe.”
https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/1903605111869297117
We’re missing a point or the point. Conflicting ideas and ideals are being conflated and confused.
What is being confused is being free to make publicly a political point with imposing publicly explicit sexuality and sexual practices upon a majority who do not share that sexuality nor engage in those sexual practice.
So whenever you see what others do to publicise a campaign, ask yourself whether what they are doing is publicising the campaign or publicising something else?
The political point is everyone should be allowed to live their lives in peace with human dignity, subject to objectively justifiable reasonable lawful limits.
Campaigns and campaigners aiming to achieve that peacefully and publicly are part of political expression in open democratic political systems.
It is also generally acknowledged that what people do in their private lives in the privacy of their own homes which causes no harm in a general sense is also not objectionable.
But what happens when of the ability of others to live their lives in peace with dignity is interfered with?
We can have no objection to people making a political point about the right to live in peace and dignity.
On the other, the majority of men women and children are having their right to live in peace and dignity interfered with by these campaigns and campaigners.
An example:
Whilst the ubiquitous smartphone has eroded this, parents have tended to try to shield their young children from aspects of the more complex adult world which are disturbing and frightening for young children. This is especially so for children whose mental capacities are developing. Violent predatory sexual behaviours all too often now reported in news reports or harrowing scenes of war and tragedy are examples of what a parent might shield their child from.
So why should parents, for example, have to endure campaigners publicising the sexuality and sexual practices those campaigners engage in privately under the disguise of a campaign for dignity and peaceful coexistence for homosexuals?
They should not.
Let me put this another way, how many pride and gay rights campaigners think it is OK to have a mass demonstration of naked homosexuals in public engaging in open explicit sodomy and fellatio?
Clearly, they do not think that is OK but instead use plastic mock-ups and bonkers costumes.
This makes the point that what is being confused is a reasonable unobjectionable political campaign with publicising explicitly sexuality and sexual practices not shared by a majority.
Let me put this another way, should gay and pride campaigners walk the streets displaying openly photographs of acts of explicit hard core homosexuality?
Or even, with the technology now available, use massive screens in public spaces to show live performances of hard core explicit acts of homosexuality, in our streets, parks, town squares and shopping centres?
How many hard core heterosexual pornography magazines are publicised by people walking the streets displaying pictures of adults performing hard core heterosexual pornographic acts?
How many towns and cities in the UK have such public screens showing such images?
I’ll bet the huge muslim communities in many UK towns and cities would not tolerate that.
So let us not allow these campaigners to confuse campaigning for the political point of freedom to live in peaceful co-existence with ramming their sexuality and sexual practices down the throats of those men women and children who do not share such perspectives.
I use the metaphor “ramming down the throats” with intent.
Who might want to do that?
It is after all a power-play – an expression and display of power – by a minority of campaigners who have gained political power over our weak Western politicians and are subjecting the majority to their expression of political power.
Go to a political party conference and watch elected politicians fawning over extravagantly dressed LGBT etc campaigners and queuing up to buy their £5 rainbow lanyards to wear their conference photo ID around their necks in a public display of virtue signalling. [‘virtue signalling’ is an ironic turn of phrase.]
So what do you say about the woman in the picture wearing what looks like a burka in public? She’s displaying a religious belief that men must be protected from their sexual urges. Abhorrent but we are not allowed to say so. Boris Johnson tried to make fun of them saying they looked like letterboxes and got hammered for it.
I disagree that “She’s displaying a religious belief” of her own.
She is a victim of organised religion.
She is forced by social pressures to conform to religious and political opinions of a man, which he made during a period around 1500 years ago which opinions have become dogma as if having the status of uncontestable truths.
She is behaving as she does because if she does not she will be subjected to extreme social pressures by religious dictators.
She is not making a statement that “men must be protected from their sexual urges”. The only statement she is making is that she is forced by men to dress like that because she is the property of a man and that man does not want other men interfering in his property rights.
This is dogmatic belief and behaviours is not limited to Islam. All organised religions have this kind of cult status. Christianity and Judaism have their bizarre rituals, practices and beliefs which believers follow and practice because it is ‘faith’.
Supposedly that is faith in the existence etc of a God but in fact it is the submission unquestioningly to unquestioned demands of dogma laid down by others.
For Christianity, what was propounded as a philosophy of how human life should be conducted was transformed by those with wealth and power into a tool of political control.
That is and has always been the role of religion of any kind.
Subservience and control.
The real villain of the piece is the charlatan branch of medicine known as psychiatry. Having failed to develop a theory of the origin of mental disorders, it has de facto declared that mental disorders do not exist. Every balm-pot whack-job is on the ‘legit’ spectrum.
Britain used to stand for something!
God help us
The Left will eat itself.
Transgenderism vs Islam.
North Sea oil trade unions vs Net Zero.
Peaceniks vs Ukrainiacs.
Arguably the two greatest moral causes of the contemporary Left are gay rights and Islam
More proof that the Left is actually now the madleft.
“top gay website top gay website Pink News News ”
Whose top two guys have been arrested for paedo crimes…
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pink+news+arrested&t=brave&ia=web
In his book, The Tribe, and in other of his online articles, Ben Cobley has a succinct summation of how both these apparently incompatible things are part of the system of governance known as diversity.
Diversity – yes let us embrace it in all its forms alongside equality and inclusion.
We must ensure DEI is implemented to its full extent.
Let us see the campaigners in the streets of London week after week with new signs alongside the ‘migrants welcome here [except not staying in our houses]‘ and their genocide for Jews and Israel “from the river to the sea” signs [all paid for and provided free of charge at assembly points courtesy of the same Far Left sources funded by international anonymous deep pockets intent on destroying social cohesion and structures in the UK and Western nations].
For true diversity welcoming all migrant cultures creeds races and religions social and sexual proclivities and practices, the new signs should be something like “LGBTQi+++++ welcome Pakistani migrant muslim paedophile rape torture and murder gangs‘.
Promoting DEI? “That’s the way to do it“.
Oh, dear. We are not allowed to say “That’s the way to do it”
It is part of the Punch and Judy Show cancel culture where DEI does not extend to the centuries old tradition of Punch and Judy puppet shows for children – which survived centuries since the 1600s but not C21’s DEI.
Why?
It is teaching small children domestic violence is acceptable in the form of the physical power and dominance of men over women.
So our police, social services and Labour politicians welcome migrant muslim predatory Pakistani paedophile rape torture and murder gangs – turning a blind eye in the name of DEI to what they have been doing to thousands of very young white British girls over decades.
But also in the name of DEI, Labour policians [and Welsh Nationalists it seems] ban Mr Punch and Mrs Judy childrens’ puppet shows. These feature a fictitious red-faced, hunch-backed. sausage eating, swazzle-voiced male Punch puppet. Mr Punch spends his time intermittently whacking a fictitious female Judy puppet over the head. He often ends his adventures by beating his wife Judy and, in some versions killing their baby, then escapes the Police and justice, just like a real-life muslim paedophile Pakistani child rapist gang banger.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 21st Century – not even 1984’s author George Orwell saw that one coming. ‘Big Brother is watching you’ Mr Punch but not you Mr Pakistani Paedophile Muslim Child Rapist Gang Banger.
Blimey!!! How is all of this possible? The world is upsides-down.
I found a copy of a book “The Best of John Wyndham” recently and was pleased to see he used the word “queer” in its old sense to indicate something odd. How the world has changed.
I originally learnt it from How to be a Yank (George Mikesh, “When you ask for braces, you get a queer look.”) and pretty much the same word exists in German (quer, usually the opposite of longitudinal, but with a connotation of something outside of the ordinary
in a positive or negative sense). During a holiday in the UK some time in the early 1990s, I was, however, sternly told that I must not ever use queer to mean, well, queer because it would really mean gay except that gay also doesn’t mean gay anymore but My hobby’s having sexual encounters on public Men’s toilets and I absolutely love that and so should you (or else …)!
“There’s nowt so queer as folk.”
These pictures are truly revolting.