Little Miss Left vs Mr Mean Right

A slight shift in tone today. A few days ago a tweet popped up from the child transition charity Mermaids. They'd knocked up some images based on the Mr Men series of books to promote/celebrate trans ideology. Obviously they got a degree of backlash and ridicule online for these images.

(One of the images)

(For the tweet see here: https://twitter.com/Mermaids_Gender )

They caught my attention because back in 2018 I'd made similar images for a blog post about another Mr Men themed furore. That time inspired by the politician Emily Thornberry calling the Little Miss book series sexist.

(This was one of my

attempts at the time)

It's so easy to predict these trends. You can mock them before they even happen. It's also slightly funny as at the time Emily Thornberry and others took issue with the name "Little Miss" itself - as it implied that women were less than men. Whereas Mermaids clearly don't take issue with that, and use the term themselves. Though I'm sure if someone from the left pointed out how "problematic" this was they'd happily change it.

The images are quite cute and fun though, so you do feel a little mean mocking them.

..a nice narrative

This once again though has just reminded me that there's a natural dichotomy in all these left/right debates.

On one side we have the "nice" narrative - the "Yes, you can!"

On the other the "strict" narrative of "No, you can't!"

So the right-leaning people often come across as nasty (sometimes they actually are, and revel in their nastiness), whereas left-leaning people get to be the nice guys, who never say "No", but also never take responsibility.

It's like two parents. One parent says "No, you can't have a candy bar, it's tea time soon", so the child naturally feels resentful and views that parent as "bad". Then the other more lenient parent comes along and says "Go on then, have some chocolate, just don't tell mam" and the kids think that parent is great.

It's not really fair, especially as the first parent is trying to be responsible and do the right thing. Though as ever with these things sometimes the strict parent can be too strict so it works both ways.

I found myself on the strict-parent side of the argument about a week or so ago, when I was arguing that gay men shouldn't be raising children. I felt bad being so mean. I understand that people naturally want to have a family, and I appreciate how bad it must be for people who can't do this for whatever reason. Be it issues of fertility or just the simple fact that someone hasn't found the right partner to settle down with.

Being gay is one of these unfortunate circumstances. Two gay men can't make a baby. This is just a simple fact of life that people have to live with. It'd be nice if I could be the "nice" parent and say "Yes, of course you can have a baby", but nice though that would be it's just too irresponsible. So sorry, I have to say "No". It's not that I want to, but someone has to.

A child needs a mother.

We all grew up having the benefit of a mother, and those few unfortunate people that didn't know only too well what they missed out on. So who amongst us can truly say - hand on heart - "I have a mother, and that relationship is the cornerstone of my life on Earth, but you little child, you can do without."

And of course, as two gay men cannot make a child, the only way they can get one is by removing a child from its mother.

People may say "..but ah, no, the mother is giving the child to these men." Or that the mother carrying the child is simply the child's surrogate, but all these things are just plain wrong in my opinion. A woman should never want to give away a child she's carried for nine months. Normally women only do such a thing when they're in truly desperate circumstances and see no other option.

Again, the reply may come:

"No, you misunderstand. This is a great act of kindness. This woman wants to help these men have a family."

But again, my reply would be that it's wrong for a woman to care more about the happiness of two grown men than the happiness of the child she's just given birth to. What sort of woman says "I care so much about the happiness of these two men that I'll happily never see this little child again." If your mother isn't going to love you above all others who in this world will.

I'm being a little harsh on these surrogates here of course. I understand only too well that they've been conditioned by modern society to believe they're doing something wonderful. Likewise it plays on a women's natural hormonal desire to have children. In fact, if the situation was flipped and there were two lesbian women wanting a child and I was given the opportunity to have sex and be the father, from a purely biological point of view I'd be very tempted, as most men would. Even though obviously, from a wider moral point of view it would be fundamentally wrong to father a child you had no intention of taking responsibility for.

Ultimately it just all shows that people are putting adults before children in our modern world. Again, it's understandable, and I completely have sympathy. People want to believe that they can have all the things they want in life, including their own image of their perfect family - and too few people are prepared to look mean and say "No, you can't always get everything you want from life. You can't just get a child like you get a pet dog."

I've wandered quite far from original topic, but we're now in a world where children have the right to switch gender when they please, but have no right to a mother. We need to say "No" to the adults that are cultivating this. I know I sound mean, but hopefully I've articulated myself well enough that anyone reading will understand that I'm not just being mean. Whether they disagree with the points I'm making or not.

Union City Blues

I'm back to not having anything to write.

The main thing I've been thinking about is strikes. Where I work the union has recently been negotiating the latest price rise for workers. I won't go into detail but the increase offered is less than inflation so people aren't too happy. The union is recommending that the offer be rejected by union members.

I'm a union member (mainly because I was offered the option to join when I started and I didn't want to be the only person in the room not to). So I have a little decision to make.

On a personal level I'm not massively fussed about it all. I'm lucky though as I don't have bills piling up or a family to look after. I think any sort of strike action is fairly unlikely. If the offer is rejected I think it just goes to arbitration and further wrangling. Still, the implication that there could be some kind of walkout lurks visible on the far off horizon.

My initial instinct was to just accept the offer, or - given how unhappy everyone else is - just abstain. However, after hearing other people talk about bills and price rises I just don't have the heart to do that. So eventually I was like "Okay, I'll vote against it too if that's what everyone else is doing."

You never know, perhaps we'll all post our "nay" ballot and it'll result in a slightly better offer.

The Countrywide Politics

I also had to force myself to supress my wider political opinions too. In my opinion the offer is bad primarily because of inflation - but inflation wasn't caused by the company we work for. It was caused by us locking down the country for two years and printing endless streams of cash.

Pretty much everyone in the country supported this. In fact, many of the unions were not only supportive of it, but actively demanding it. So it's a little frustrating to see people complaining about the consequences of the very actions they begged for.

However, again, like at work, I really need to remind myself:

All the regular people up and down the country - like all the good regular folk I work with - were terrified into demanding the Covid response; and no one ever explained what the costs would be in a calm and rational way. So regular people really aren't to blame, they've been put through the wringer these last few years.

This brings me back to the spectre of strikes though, and also to the Don't Pay UK campaign mentioned previously. Are we going to have more engineered chaos this winter that makes the country even poorer? Is this another example of people being led into supporting action that isn't in their interests?

Are there similar murmurs of discontent in other workplaces around the country? Edging employees towards industrial action. Am I being irresponsible in going along with this, albeit in my small little way?

To bring things back down to Earth though, the truth is a strike where I work is very, very unlikely, and I think the muttered mentions of one are just idle hyperbole. Nothing more. So maybe I'm guilty of worrying too much about the big 'political' things, when I should be more concerned with the immediate problems facing the people around me, who have energy bills to pay and children to support.

Late Night Energy

So last night after I posted that last post I watched some more of the 'cost of living crisis' content. Namely some of the stuff from the Fuel Poverty Action YouTube channel and the Martin Lewis interview on the Tony Blair Institute channel.

The Fuel Poverty Action people did indeed seem sincere, if a little woolly. In fact, there was a youngish girl/woman called Alexa from the organisation who seemed really lovely. Her comments on standing charges swayed me a little.

The Martin Lewis interview was a little less endearing. He was complaining about the UK political system - stating that we can't get anything achieved because of the confrontational nature of British politics. He lamented the seating arrangement in the House of Commons, where the governing and opposition parties are facing each other down.

We've heard this attack before on the mainstream media. I think they'd prefer some type of communist assembly where everyone just politely sits and listens to the headmaster.

A particularly telling moment came when Emily Maitlis asked:

"So, should green policy be embedded without anyone asking? Should it be like fluoride in your toothpaste - you just don't get the choice because as a wider society we just acknowledge it is fundamental."

Lewis replied that people should be "pushed" and "rewarded" into choosing green options. Though it was hard to tell if he genuine believed this or if he was just responding affirmatively to the henpecking.

That section clipped for Twitter.

The full interview can be found here:

The Cost of Living Crisis - Martin Lewis in conversation with Emily Maitlis

Don't Pay ..Attention

I haven't abandoned my daily posting, though that was a tempting prospect. I've spent a lot of time in work over the last week or so, plus when I was off I came down with a mild case of the flu - ironically given my last post was titled 'eradicating flu' - but no, I'm continuing.

Anyway, I've came back just at the right time as I finally have something to write about. I've been seeing a lot of this "Don't Pay UK" stuff on Twitter and in the media. It's basically a campaign aimed at getting people to not pay their energy bills - a protest in response to the super high energy prices we're seeing at present.

Naturally I'm somewhat suspicious. Who are these people? What are their wider political values?

Yes, we're all worried and unhappy with the rising cost of energy, but is this the right way to go about things? And perhaps more importantly, is there a wider agenda at play?

As far as I can tell the entire social media campaign only began in June. So it's went from nowhere to national in an incredibly short space of time. They're also quite fixated on invoking the spirit of the "Poll Tax" protests. In fact, their very first Instagram post specifically states they're "building the UK's biggest non-payment campaign since the Poll Tax."

This "Poll Tax" line has since been repeated by numerous others, including the TV savings guru Martin Lewis, who's been doing the rounds on the media warning that winter is coming. (I also notice he was speaking on the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change YouTube channel - on the same theme, though I haven't watched it. Connecting another dot.)

When I scrolled back through the Don't Pay Twitter feed I also noticed that they'd retweeted tweets from an organisation called "Fuel Poverty Action". I jumped the gun a little on this one on Twitter as I thought it was the first thing Don't Pay had retweeted - my phone wouldn't let me scroll back further annoyingly, so I assumed it was their first tweet, and hence a window into their origins. However, once on my laptop in preparation for this post here I soon realised that the tweets went back further. So not quite the lead I thought it was.

Still, that organisation is campaigning for a band of "free" energy for all households to cover basic needs. Paid for by people who are using "more than they need".

This begs the obvious question of how these things are determined. Who decides what we need? How is this implemented? It doesn't sound a million miles away from things like carbon credits and UBI.

However, for balance I should state that on inspection the online presence of Fuel Poverty Action seems much more genuine and well-established than I'd originally assumed. They have a YouTube channel with just thirty-five subscribers that has videos going back ten years. So I have no reason to suspect they're not sincere campaigners who are passionate about the things they advocate.

I'm all for people openly pushing their solutions, and sceptical though I am I'm happy to hear these ones out and give them consideration. After all, poverty is a real issue, so it's not like everything's tickety-boo.

Returning to Don't Pay their planned mass non-payment begins on October 1st, which is right on cue for the new Prime Minister. The leadership result is announced on September 5th, and the new PM should replace Boris the next day. Meaning they'll be walking into the next "Poll Tax" crisis if Don't Pay UK get their way.

Though I don't quite see Extinction Rebellion faring too well in all out riots.

Eradicating Flu

I must admit, I'm not enjoying this daily posting thing, I have very little to say. I'll persevere for the time being though. The summer heatwave seems to have died down, so that's one excuse I can't use anymore.

Earlier today I was getting on my Twitter soapbox a little in regard the coronavirus issue, so I'll talk about that. The quest to eradicate the virus seems unabated. What triggered me in particular was seeing Dominic Cummings retweet a thread from a corona-busting scientist who was discussing nasal vaccines to stop the spread of the virus.

From the very start it was always my feeling that a standard seasonal virus had been taken and hyped up into something more scary. However, it was only partly through the crisis that I realised that the people running the corona show were ideologically bent on eradicating cold and flu viruses completely.

At one point Bill Gates even spoke on TV stating that one of the long term aims was to "eradicate" flu.

It seems that many of these people at the top - that really believe in science - believe that at some point it will cure all disease. This all overlaps quite heavily with the concept of the singularity, which is basically the point at which technology becomes so advanced it becomes self-perpetuating, and beyond the control of man. Some of those invested in this idea believe if they can live long enough to witness this moment in history they will go on to live forever. Or at least a very, very long time. As the technology will conquer the problems of aging and death.

All this will no doubt sound farfetched to the average person, but a quick Google search for the term will illustrate how serious many take the idea.

The concept of the singularity also overlaps somewhat with the idea of the coming Messianic Age. When the Mashiach arrives he will bring a great age of peace where all illness and want is eradicated, and a man one hundred years old will be viewed as a child. I don't think many religious believers see the Messianic Age through such a materialistic lens, but for those of a slightly more atheistic bent the parallels are quite appealing. With technology ushering in everything that only God could once promise.

As you can no doubt gather from my own tone I'm somewhat sceptical. I fear scientism has become the religion of our ruling elite, and they worship it beyond all else. Convinced it will bring them what money cannot buy.

To return to the flu though, which is now a key battleground in this ideological crusade, my views are somewhat different.

Firstly I very much doubt that common cold and flu viruses can be completely eradicated. Even if they are however I fear they'll just be replaced with something else. Nature won't allow an ecological vacuum to exist. Humans can't be sterile environments, there'll always be viruses and bacteria hanging around. So why eradicate the 'mild' ones when something less mild may replace it. Haven't we learnt this lesson with antibiotic resistance?

Then secondly I also wonder if flus and colds are beneficial in someway. They're a common, seasonal experience for humans. They're a normal part of life, so perhaps it's for a reason. Maybe they help the body repair or do other necessary things. After all, we have good bacteria as well as bad, so why not viruses too. Just because colds aren't nice as an experience doesn't mean they're necessarily bad full stop. Perhaps the human body needs to have this functionality. Is it a good idea to stop people going through these snotty processes? I wonder.

Badenoch Gone, My Instincts All Wrong

Okay, so Badenoch is out now. Dashing my instinctive fear from yesterday that it would be a Sunak v Badenoch final. This is a bit of good news for me, though many will be disappointed. We get to avoid the prospect of a complete unknown quantity taking charge of the country, and it isn't all bad for her followers. She's very young, and there's plenty of time ahead of her, and plenty of time for the public to learn more about her.

Also, and crossing the blog streams for a moment, I noticed a huge uptick in the Polymetal share price earlier. Apparently there are plans afoot to off-load their Russian assets. Meaning shareholders (of which I'm one) will end up owning shares in a wholly Kazakhstani operation. I was intermittently posting blog updates about my wanderings in share-land. I'm not sure it's too useful blending share commentary with political commentary in the one blog post, but I really have so little focus regarding what I want to say on here at the moment (I'll blame the heat 🌞🌞) so I might as well just roll with it.

I'm actually using shares a vehicle, or lens, to watch the Ukraine conflict through, so in a way things all intersect. As well as the Russian stocks I own I also have some Ferrexpo - which is an iron ore producer that operates in Ukraine. So it's interesting to watch what happens (if anything) as the war continues and the Russians make gains. The Ferrexpo operations are all fairly safe and comfortable in the Ukraine controlled part of the map (I think), so I don't think there's much chance that they'll end up lost behind the "sanctions curtain" like some of my Russian shares.

Obviously, the great hope is peace, but with Polymetal fracturing along this financial dividing line between the West and Russia that doesn't look likely. It seems, or least feels, like the divide is here to stay and everyone's just learning to accept and adapt to it. My instincts about Badenoch yesterday were wrong though, so hopefully my instincts here are wrong too.

Anyhow, it's very, very hot here in the UK, so I'll leave it there. Hopefully when it cools down a bit I'll be able to think a bit clearer.

Too Hot for Tugendhat

It's too hot. Far too hot. I know I should post something, but the climate forbids it. I read up on Lord Liverpool yesterday - what a fascinating period of British history. I really need to indulge it further.

As for today Tom Tugendhat is now out (unsurprisingly), meaning now just four remain.

I have a feeling the final two will be Rishi and Badenoch for some reason. It might just be the heat though. I can't think straight.

Hopefully I'll have something more substantial to say tomorrow.