Boy Guides and Girl Scouts

In Panoptica, there is no sex for the common people. In that story I have eradicated the entire concept of gender from the general population. I’m not telling you how I did that yet, but I admit to a chilled feeling when I realised how it could be done.

In the book of course, it’s a done deal. Still you couldn’t just impose it overnight. You’d have to ease the population into it over many years. Gender equality that actually swings from one extreme to another, gay marriage, transgender people, asexuals, all of these are realities now. Like it or not, they’re here.

I have no doubt that there are real transgender people. It would only take a glitch in the massively complex construction of a human being from two cells, and you can get a female brain in a male body or vice versa. Oh the condition is real, but I really doubt it’s as common as we are led to believe.

Being gay is more common (sorry gay folk, you’re not special, you’re just common). It’s also common in the animal kingdom.

Transvestitism isn’t the same as gay. It’s just a liking for dressing in the other gender’s clothing. Women get away with it easily – a woman in trousers is no oddity these days. Guys find it more difficult to brazen out in public although I did once know a world famous professor whose bra showed under his white shirt and who wore lipstick. In Scotland it’s easy – going commando in a tartan skirt is perfectly normal here. I’ve even tried out a kilt myself, and found out the hard way that it’s not easy to use a toilet in a heavy skirt.

All these things used to be largely ignored by the bulk of the population. Sure, some had very strong feelings that it was ‘wrong’ but really, most people had much the same attitude as me. It really doesn’t affect me so it doesn’t matter at all. How other people live their lives is their business. I have enough to do with living mine, and that’s quite complicated enough at times.

Now it’s all very much in your face. Gay people even have a flag! Refusing to accommodate a gay couple in your hotel, or refusing to bake a cake, will get you prosecuted but there are gay-only hotels and that’s not discriminatory.

There was once a small publisher who stated they only wanted male authors and only wanted stories about ‘men subjects’ like cars and power tools and wild stag parties. Naturally, there was uproar from women because they were discriminatory, but a publisher who only wants women-stuff written by women? Oh that’s fine.

You can have groups based on religion, gender or skin colour and exclude those who don’t fit your entry requirements. Anyone can set up such a group, except for one demographic.

The straight white male.

Try to form a ‘straight white male’ group and see how far you get before you get shot down in flames. You’ll probably end up in court for being racist and sexist and anything else they can think of. This does not apply to any other group.

Why? To eradicate the straight white male? No. To subjugate them. The ones who, historically, went to war throughout Europe to fight for their way of life must be cowed and broken and history shows that  taking them head-on only annoys them. Set about them with subtle attacks on all fronts and leave them cowed and broken. Force them to adapt to fit in. Make them ‘modern man’ who is weak and effeminate and accepting of every race and creed while deriding their own.

Then you have them. No fight left in them, except to fight the remaining ones who still cling to the old ways. Oh they still get to fight, they still get to rage, but you’ve changed the target. Their target is themselves. They don’t even realise it.

So now you push the alternative sexualities on them. You tell them that even five-year-olds can be gay or transgender when five-year-olds barely understand the concept of gender and (should) have no idea of sexual activity. If a five-year-old boy gets hold of Mum’s makeup and gives it a go, he’s not necessarily gay or transgender. It’s something called ‘play’. Imagination. A facility sadly lacking in those who want to sexualise toddlers.

You can’t argue with it because you won’t be told it’s happening. Your children are now to be brought up in a world where gender is not as clear cut as it was when you were young. They will have a blurred definition that one day, maybe in a couple more generations, will be no definition at all. Then you’re ready for the world of Panoptica.

The stage we are at now is one where the Girl Guides, that once-noble institution, will accept a ‘transgender’ five-year-old boy who wants to wear dresses and nobody will be any the wiser. It’s discriminatory even to ask if the parents mind.

They are also going to allow a man in a dress to take a bunch of little girls away for a sleepover trip. No questions asked? How can you ask questions when they aren’t telling you there’s anything to question?

Well, questions may be asked after the trip, when your little girl tries to pee standing up like Miss Jones did and starts asking if she’ll grow a peeing tube when she’s older, like the one her Guide teacher has.

How long though, before the predatory child molesters catch on to this? Paedos will always try to get into jobs where they have access to small children and a CRB check will only find the ones who were caught. Now they just claim to be transgender, put on women’s clothing, and hey presto, they have access to a bus load of little girls. Would they find it difficult to convince the NHS to support their case? The internet has all the information they need to get their case together and woe betide anyone who tries to claim they’re just pretending.

Oh it’ll happen and we’ll hear ‘lessons will be learned’ and nothing will change as usual. It’s all part of the plan. The kids will grow up confused about sex in general and it’ll get worse with each generation until total equality is reached – nobody has any gender, race or religion at all. Nobody has any concept of those things.

I really have to finish that book. It’s really not too long now before it becomes a documentary.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Boy Guides and Girl Scouts

  1. “It’s also common in the animal kingdom.”

    Is it? Genuinely? I’d always figured that (with the exception of higher primates) it was more of a dominance thing, or lack of females/males in environments where two are better than one at survival.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think you’re right, Julia. I read that some creatures are simply confused! Maybe that’s a human problem as well?

      The old chestnut of “animals do it, so it’s OK” is still routinely produced in defence of homosexual acts. My reply to these people is: since when did people take their behavioural cues from animals?

      Using the same ‘standard’, do these same people advocate eating their children, refusing to wear clothes and defecating in public? Bit hypocritical if they don’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      • We can discount all the gay cattle, other farm animals, pets, zoo animals, anything kept in unnatural conditions. Sex starved cows may well try a bit of same sex action – because there’s no other option. They could be genuinely gay or they might just be desperate for affection.

        There are reports of gay pairings in the wild though. However… with the parlous and desperately politicised state of most of modern science, I cannot definitely say those reports don’t have some social control message or underlying agenda.

        Tobacco control and its vile offspring have much to answer for in the way they have seriously undermined trust in scientific reports. I can’t help but look for the ‘money shot’ in any kind of science report now…

        Liked by 2 people

        • Science has been used to try to justify all manner of behaviour, like forced sterilisation of women in 1920s USA and other eugenics practices. Myself, I had my tonsils removed, aged five, because in those days scientists considered them to be ‘vestigial’ organs and it was in vogue to have them yanked out when healthy. The vestigial organs and 97% ‘junk DNA’ lies were perpetuated to add credence to evolution theory – political use of science as per usual.

          If the theory of evolution were true then any ‘gay gene’ would surely have been eliminated long ago? Is there a ‘chocolate gene’ which draws me towards that substance?

          Again, the homosexual apologists use genetics as well as animal behaviour to try to justify same-sex acts.

          It is a dangerous and sad basis for ‘gays’ or anyone else to debate ethics. The case of Leopold and Loeb in 1924 springs to mind. Two college students murdered a boy because they believed they were so superior that they were entitled to ignore the normal rules of civilised society. The students’ defense argued that they were just the results of their environment and so not really culpable. The judge disagreed!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Churchill’s “Finset Hour” speech adumbrated today’s state of truth in scientific papers. He referred to a darkness “made more protracted…by the lights of perverted science…”
          We seem to have arrived. If Monty had been allowed to not only not stop before the Elbe, but to crash right on to Berlin and then forwards into the USSR, rolling it up as he went, the Frankfurt-School PC CommuNazis would have had less of a leg to stand on after the war.

          We also had Nuclear Weapons then (well, in a few weeks anyway) and “they” hadn’t yet managed to steal the plans.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. “Oh the condition is real, but I really doubt it’s as common as we are led to believe.”

    Correct, only between 1 in 1000 to 1 in 1500 are born intersexed (it varies by country, with the largest number – 1 in 1000 – in central Europe). Of those, only 20% identify as being intersexed. The remaining 80% simply accept their limitations (i.e. a guy with a vagina) and adopt the gender given by their parents who in turn, for the most part, seek medical advice.

    The numbers are tiny, however they sussed this ages ago, hence their little trick of lumping LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender together.

    Gays are by far the largest number, between 3 and 5% of the male population and about 1 to 1.5% of the female. Again that varies by country and culture. To feel better about themselves many gay males describe themselves as bisexual. I knew many married guys who enjoyed the gay life when his wife was away for family or whatever reason, but would never want this to be known.

    Recent “activism” to recognise their rights is being carried out by a very, very small number of people. Some of whom are neither nor anything, to them it’s just a cause they want to get involved in

    Liked by 3 people

    • It’s the married gay men that make me think it’s inherent, not a choice. Not so long ago, homosexual activity was illegal. It’s not surprising that some deny their feelings and try to ‘conform’.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Or perhaps we are all naturally bisexual but for centuries the norms of society have conditioned us to believe that anything other than heterosexuality is a perversion (or is that what you meant, Leggy?).
        I’m thinking ancient Greece when pederasty was considered perfectly normal and part of education.

        Liked by 1 person

        • God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Yves. Ancient Greece doesn’t seem so far removed from modern British life when you think about it. After cheering on their favourite athletes in the Olympics, people today can worship Gaia as they recycle their potato peelings and pay homage to Dionysus as they get plastered. After a creation/evolution debate in the market place (or Costa Coffee at the Mall), they can finish off the day by indulging in pederasty by turd-burgling a couple of 16 year-old lads now that it’s ‘legal’.

          To cap it all, it looks like the next war we’ll be fighting will be against the Persians. What are the chances of that? (So much for progress…)

          Like


  3. Isn’t pretty much everything “part of nature?” Many parts in “nature”…but I’m thinking about perception and perceptions, internal and external. Whether you wanna call that society or whatever, but I think “societies” might serve us better. We are a mobile species, even in the cases of those who are “born here, live here, die here.” That “narrow scope” gets real fucking wide all of a sudden like when you read and re-read that peculiar particular “born here, live here, die here.”

    Even in the case and cases of a particular region or a particular town for a particular person.
    Because we need add time and times over time.
    Born here = time
    Live here = times
    Die here = time

    This planet is always spinnin, and The Universe is always in motion.
    Time and times change.
    Even in the same place.

    All of the above, I’m thinking with respect to your comments about gender and gender perceptions. I kinda operate under the assumption that if you cannot look at an individual as a person and/or human being…gender is irrelevant. They are a something and not a someone.

    Once you can get to a someone…they can become a something. More likely…many some “things.” A sum of things that makes someone that one sum.

    That’s just my opinion tho.
    🙂


    ^The Judys – Grass is Greener^
    (Listen to the words from this song if you care to. "The Judy's" are an 80's band from nowhere Texas)

    Liked by 1 person

      • Um…lemme give this a whirl…
        -¿-
        I’m a bit different from most because I’m me.
        -¿ó
        You are a bit different because you’re you.
        ó¿-
        We…can take it from there.
        ó¿ó
        That wasn’t such a long walk now was it. 😉

        What I see…and what I have seen…are different, and the same, at the same time…and at different times. But also, there are many things that are different and the same, at different times…all at the same time.

        All that bullshit said…I personally do not rely only on what I see. Seeing is feeling via a different method just like any of our senses. We can and do use what we have from there to encapsulate and analyse/analyze our experience(s) from there.

        The more that we break shit up, without reassembling, the more lost we become as to our original intent, and all the sticky-notes in the world covered with our notes and scribblings won’t save us. That’s our job…not some 3rd party go-between, even if that go-between is something of our own construction and/or design.

        I see both the rigidity and the flexibility in one package and both and/or all can be friend or foe. This is how I arrive at my simple calculation(s) of…
        1 + 1 = 3
        Rigidity = 1
        Flexibility = 1
        Rigidity + Flexibility = 1
        Hence…
        1 + 1 = 3

        This is also how I arrived at my forumla of…
        ∞ = -1 + 0 + 1 = ∞

        The journey does not end at the “=” sign.
        That’s where it begins.
        Think flow and flows of synchronous and asynchronous in any all directions, at any all times…suddenly…choices appear.

        ∞ = 1 + 0 + -1 = ∞ = -1 + 0 + 1 = ∞
        =
        -1
        + 0
        0
        + 0
        1
        =
        ∞ = -1 + 0 + 1 = ∞ = 1 + 0 + -1 = ∞
        …for example.

        Also…
        0 + 0
        + 0 +
        0 + 0
        “X” marks the spot eh? 😉

        You can also turn the “+” sign 45°
        You can also “cross” the “-” sign with “1” and…ta da!!! “X”

        The point I am getting at? You. You are the point. You can be as flexible or as rigid as you care to be. However, when “you” becomes “we”? Suddenly…reality. You can take it from there.

        Sorry this was so long.
        (I wish I could say that to a woman, but alas, I cannot) 😛

        -cade

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Just what I’ve been saying for some time – the problem with people who think they’ve been born into the wrong category is the categorising itself. Get rid of notions of gender and the problem is solved.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Get rid of notions of gender and the problem is solved.

      That’s what the elites are now engineering – to create problems so great that society finally disintegrates totally and for them to assume control out of the ashes of ‘Christendom’.

      Allowing five year-olds to be ‘transgender’ is merely designed to suit a political objective. Many five year-olds want to be astronauts, but I don’t see NASA recruiting any of them. Talk about discrimination…

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Male homosexuality is known from quite a few animals, including sheep where it is the bane of breeders. Sheep breeding is a passably simple sort of process: work out when you want lambs to be born, introduce ram to ewe one gestation period earlier. To improve the diligence of rams in making sure every single ewe is visited, you put two rams into the field (having first made sure they are friends and won’t try to kill each other) which then introduces an element of friendly competition to the process. Strapping a crayon onto each ram, colour-coded for date, helps you tell which ewes have been mated and which haven’t (barren ewes are fast-tracked to market).

    All of this fails if one ram is gay. Then what you get is one ram has all the work to do, and because he realises he hasn’t got competition, he tends to become a bit of a lazy sod and you don’t get lambing over and done with in a frenetic fortnight, but instead it stretches over a month.

    Ewes may also be gay, only as a sign that a female sheep is aroused is to stand very still and wait to be mounted, there is little way of telling which ewes are lesbians.

    What would be interesting would be to compare homosexuality rates in social and non-social animals. In non-social animals, homosexuality is genetic extinction; the animal never sires offspring and doesn’t help its genes in any other way.

    In social animals, a male who doesn’t himself breed but who helps out his close family’s offspring isn’t a genetic dead loss; this isn’t as good as breeding himself but if for some reason he is going to be disadvantaged and unlikely to mate himself, this may be a good policy. There is reason to believe that this may be going on in humans; the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay.

    Anyone know of any such studies?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: I, Sheeple… – Library of Libraries

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s