The Twin Forms of Admiration

I've noticed something about music. As ever, it's a generalisation. Plus, it's a little anecdotal. However, it seems to be a thing. Basically I've noticed that all my friends tend to prefer music that's sung by men. These are male friends. (I don't speak to women enough to have a solid data sample.) Anyway, if I recommend my friends music it's always a much harder sell if the singer is female. This is in contrast to how I am. I have a bias towards females. All things being equal I prefer the added bonus of having a beautiful women fill my airwaves. In fact, they don't even have to be especially beautiful. When you have a data sample as small as mine any feminine figure will do.

I would say I'm surprised by this difference. However, in truth, I'm not, as I noticed the very same thing in myself a long time ago. When I was a teenager. Back then I too largely only listened to music sang by males. I picked myself up on this and questioned why. The answer was obvious: I was looking for role models. I was looking for something that I could be. That I could imitate. That I could aspire to.

It was the exact same reason why I had posters of male footballers on my bedroom wall. It wasn't just admiration, it was also aspiration. That player is good at football. I want to be good at football like that player. It was about what I wanted to do and who I wanted to be. So naturally when I started learning to play guitar as a fifteen year old it was similar. I wasn't listening to music just to passively consume it. I was looking for a path. A gang to join. Something I could copy and learn from.

So the female artist. The Madonna, or the even the Sheryl Crow or Tori Amos, wasn't useful to me. I didn't want to be a woman doing dance moves on a stage. Or any female figure at all. I wanted to be a Damon Albarn or Noel Gallagher. It wasn't just a question of the music being good or bad. It had to be good and helpful to my pursuit of success. Be it actual musical success or just general social success - i.e. having a good self-image and presenting that to other people.

Again, similar to football, where men will adopt football as part of their self-image long after any hope of making it as a professional player has gone. Just to be one of the lads, or to look manly or whatever. Sure, there may be a genuine love of the game, but it's also a social modus. See, for example, the politician tweeting about the latest England match to look relatable. We all do it to some degree, and it's largely subconscious. Most people tend not to do it as cynically as the politician does it.

Returning to my own realisation, I remember having a sense of internal conflict at the time.

"Hang on, why am I not judging Sheryl Crow in as high esteem as I judge Noel Gallagher?"

Objectively her songs are classics too, yet subjectively I won't quite admit it.

When I confronted this bias I began to understand my own personal framing. I'm male, I have a male bias. After that it really widened up my appreciation of music.

Of course, it helps if you're a bit of an effeminate male anyway, which I was. So it wasn't a huge leap, and once I realised I was free to copy off the girls as well as the boys the flood gates really opened - as far as musical influences went. Then I did begin to internalise and take to heart Sheryl Crow and Tori Amos and Fiona Apple and all the other female artists that appealed to me. The same way that I'd taken Blur and Oasis to heart.

Nevertheless, I wasn't that androgynous. I didn't go full David Bowie. I still copied the males more. I still wanted to be outwardly male and successful, I was just much more aware that I was doing it, and I didn't let that impulse skew my tastes.

[I've touched upon this theme before: Beauty, Self-Image and Gender

See also the Strawberry Jam series.]

Many Years Later

Now, many years later, I've completely given up any dreams of 'making it' as a musician. So now my enjoyment of music is purely as a consumer, and thanks to my self-awareness my bias has shifted in the opposite direction. Making it easier for the girls to get my attention.

[Music has moved to right hand side of the chart for me. See below.]

Whenever I see my male friends react to female sung music it seems obvious that they're still in the teenage mode though. Where music is wholly tied up with their self-image. This might be a little patronising on my part. Though I think I've earnt it, as there aren't too many straight males that openly walked into HMV at the age of nineteen and bought the Immaculate Collection, because they valued the genius of the music above looking like a blazing homosexual.

There's a social cost to being this honest.

The Twin Forms of Admiration

Above: the two types of admiration.

The role model, or 'man crush,' on the one side.

On the other, the people of the opposite sex that we're attracted to - our actual crush.

In very straight, normie-type people these things tend to be very clearly separated. Music, football, other pursuits are in one category. Supermodels, strippers and sweethearts are in the other. For less orthodox people these two sides can get confused though. (Or synthesised if you develop a self-awareness of it.)

So, in fairness to my friends that don't like 'girly' music, it's largely because they're very straight and normal. It's not a failing per se, though it does limit the parameters of what they allow themselves to like and enjoy.

It's just the way of the world to some extent, and I should know it's foolish to expect them to objectively judge a K-pop song.

A simpler example would be wearing a pink t-shirt. It's not a question of liking it or not liking it. In fact, a man might like the pink t-shirt if it's being worn by Winona Ryder (I've re-watched the movie Heathers recently). It's more that the very notion of wearing a pink t-shirt is off limits to the male mind, as the male self-image precludes it. What with pink being de facto the girl colour.

This all works the same way for women too, of course. Only flipped backwards. They aspire to be like other women and admire men as objects of attraction, not as something to imitate. In a general sense.

It's obvious stuff, but if you point it out to people - especially in relation to their own tastes - they'll shriek and protest that all their judgements are strictly impartial.

It's a very interesting thing to consider in relation to art and music.

USA OUT!

The USA crashed out to Belgium in the World Cup last night. It was a strange game.

Firstly, I've been supporting the USA (as my second team - the real magic happened the night before). I even had a little £20 bet on them before the tournament. After the first few games that was looking like a not-so-bad outside punt. The USA had a real sparkle. After last night it looks like the actions of a dribbling idiot. When I go back into work on Thursday there'll certainly be a few "I told you so" remarks.

Part of my rationale for the bet was, "With Trump in the White House anything can happen."

I think that's backfired on me a bit though, as politics certainly did intrude, and it seemed to have a psychological impact.

On paper having your main striker available is a net positive, but things aren't so simple off paper.

Let's Explain The Situation..

So what happened?

In the previous game striker Folarin Balogun got sent off. In footballing terms this was a dreadful decision (in my opinion). He stood on a guy's foot, but it was totally unintentional. It was just one of these accidental comings-together, and naturally it looked much worse in slow motion. At the time I made the observation that judging a player's intent from a two second slowed-down clip is like judging the intention of a driver in a car accident using a two second clip of two bumpers impacting each other. It completely removes the wider context. It also misrepresents the sheer speed at which these things are happening and how limited human reaction times are.

We've seen countless examples in recent years of players being unfairly sent off simply because the mangled bumper footage looks gruesome in slow motion.

[I've posted on a similar theme over on Substack - yes, like everybody else, I'm on Substack now.

The Handball of the British Empire

I'm posting about football more these days as I feel the technocratic rule changes are a very good illustration of how technocracy is impacting wider society in general.]

Back to the USA

Anyhow, Balogun got unfairly sent off, and that meant he would miss the next game. In fact, it could've been even worse for the USA, as they were only 1-0 up at the time and going down to ten men could've cost them the tie. So it was a very unfair decision, but they overcame it to win 2-0.

Understandably they weren't happy about their star striker missing the next game.

Then Trump got on the phone..

Here's where it gets political. The red card was overturned (technically it wasn't overturned, the suspension was just delayed for a year, but that's the gist). Officially it was an independent decision, however, in reality the general view is that the intervention from Trump played a part.

Normally this doesn't happen in world cups. Normally red cards aren't overturned after the fact. No matter how unfair they may be. As it opens a can of worms. Though, to be fair, generally in football suspensions are appealed and sometimes overturned.

Either way, it doesn't make things any more fair overall, as you then run into the question of who decides what should and shouldn't be reviewed? Where does it end?

Is every game going to be re-refereed post hoc by a committee? Is it fair that teams that show sportsmanship and don't contest decisions suffer the disadvantage?

At the end of the day you should accept that the game finishes at the final whistle and that sometimes things happen within the game that are unfair.

The Terrible Performance

So before last night's game against Belgium there was a sense that the USA team had been given a helping hand by Trump. The USA went from being besieged underdogs fighting against the odds to the team that were getting special treatment. In contrast Belgium were now the fired-up underdogs with a sense of grievance.

This seemed to translate onto the pitch. The USA players all looked like they had stage fright. There wasn't a clear purpose to anything they did. They looked like imposters. Belgium, without being brilliant, simply dominated the game.

Now, expectedly, the whole affair is being used to bash Trump and America. This is unfair in my opinion. As firstly, it's been a great tournament. America (along with Canada and Mexico) have been great hosts and every stadium has looked fantastic. Then secondly, this politicisation of football is common now, so the USA have just done what everyone else is doing. Every club and country runs to the ombudsman these days. The Belgian counter-appeals have hardly been a model of sportsmanship either.

(It's kind of funny and fitting that once again it's Brussels versus the US 😅)

Recently we had the Southampton spy-gate saga - for which I had a front row seat.

I Travelled To Wembley Hoping My Team Would Lose

We also had the Senegal AFCON controversy. Everywhere we look we see lawyers, politicians, committees and fiddling bureaucrats.

No one ever says, "It's just a game, things went against us today. Let's just get on with it." Like how men are supposed to behave. And how we'd teach children to behave.

In The End

To conclude, the result was probably the right result for the game of football. Had the USA went through there would've been an asterisk next to it, and we'd have never heard the last of it. Hopefully everyone will learn a lesson from this, but I doubt they will.

Now it's all on England. Though apparently we're now considering an appeal against the Quansah red card. Smh.

William, It Was Really Nothing

First point of interest: I saw the unthinkable mentioned yesterday.

The potential for a Conservative-Labour coalition of some description.

Now a largish account has mentioned this it means it's fully discharged into the aether. It moves from unthinkable to thinkable - as a lot of people will now have thought about it having seen this tweet. It's no longer a liminal thought, thought rarely enough to be extinguished, or left to simply skit around some lonely corner of the ocean (i.e. rarely visited places like this blog).

Manchesterism

The big thing to mention is Andy Burnham's Manchesterism. A political philosophy. (That's kind of funny isn't it, when you say it out loud. He has his own political philosophy. Like Chairman Mao, or Plato.)

Clearly this laughter is a form of snobbery on my part - that they've dared to put themselves in such a lofty bracket. However, when I get beyond that reaction, my real view is that all these philosophies are a joke. All brought into the world by people who are too big for their boots. All essentially intellectual window-dressing for, "Here's how I would manage the human football team."

So what is Manchesterism? On first appearance it just looks like globalism in a Reni hat. I should try not to be so cynical though. I always think it's good to try to look on the bright side when things don't go your own way. Nevertheless, it's hard not to see this as Labour spinning a narrative to check yet more things off their wish list. The devolution in particular is predictable. It's literally the last thing on the list I quickly knocked up before the general election. (If we exclude the added proportional representation - though I guess that's more plausible now too.)

People could look at this list and nitpick. Technically we're not back in the EU, but we've had countless efforts to 'realign', so the direction of travel on all these issues has been clear. Likewise, 'illegal to homeschool' might sound a bit hyperbolic, but they've introduced legislation that's brought in a mandatory register for children that are home-schooled (or out of school in general) - that gives local authorities the right to demand attendance of children deemed "at risk." Whatever that means - which ultimately will be whatever they want it to mean.

Refugees As Economic Units Confirmed

This last story is another amusing one. That refugees will have to pay back £10,000 of their accommodation costs once they start earning.

Firstly, it's just funny that they've made it like student loans. Like becoming a refugee in the UK is no different to going to university.

Then also it's funny because it shows that the word refugee has become utterly meaningless. A refugee is supposed to be a desperate victim fleeing certain danger. It's not very nice to put a £10,000 debt burden on such a poor soul, is it?

(I don't think they're actually putting interest on the amount owed, lol. Though that would be even funnier.)

If a party on the right did this there'd be people chaining themselves to railings over it, and they'd be using the word refugee very much in its original meaning.

Perhaps it'll act as a deterrent to some degree, I don't know. It's just crazy how the narrative makes zero sense at all. Even Labour just use the term refugee to mean migrant. Or rather, to be more accurate, it kind of means, 'illegal migrant that we're making legal.'

Oh, Manchester..

And one final little note.

With Burnham on the scene we keep getting these references to Manchester bands. In a recent video Burnham himself made a lyrical reference to the Smiths song Is It Really So Strange?

Of course, the natural riposte is, "Oh Manchester, so much to answer for.."

However, journalists and pundits will have to resist the temptation to use that one, as the song's about the Moors Murders. So potentially the response will come, "How can you use the murder of children to make a cheap political joke?!!"

Cancellation incoming.

So it'll be interesting to see if anyone is brave enough to reach for that one.

[As anyone online knows, the correct response in such a situation is to double down, refuse to apologise, and say Manchesterism is worse than the Moors Murders. That would be incredibly brave and reckless though. Maybe one for a Restore candidate.]

The Swan-Goddess and the Underwater World

I think it's probably time I went back to using my actual name and image on Twitter. I'm getting far too cynical on there, and I feel hiding behind an avatar and silly name only adds to that. This coronation of Andy Burnham has hit me hard - I can't play along with the storyline when it's this blatant. It's a coronation, not a revolution. A simple rebranding. The pictures alone tell the tale. All the right people are far too happy.

All this talk of Keir Starmer clinging on. That he would fight Burnham in a leadership contest. Yet then, once the by-election's over, he just hands over the keys. We're told there's infighting. Some real bitter feuding going on. But does it look like that?

Perhaps on some personal level Keir Starmer is devasted and reluctant to step down, but everyone else, from the Labour politicians to the media figures who normally support Starmer, are beaming. Even Rachel Reeves can be found in these Burnham selfies - though admittedly her smile looks a little more forced.

Anyhow, back to me, the real King in the North. The one thing I don't like about using my own name and image is that it makes it easier for people who know me in real life to find me online. And it's not even embarrassment or fear of getting exposed or anything like that (I make an embarrassment of myself enough anyway - I'm not really the King in the North. More Prince Awkward of Wherever I Happen To Be). It's more that I don't like overwhelming people and making them feel weird. It's like they think they know you. They have this neat, boring box for you in their social schemata. Then you pull the rug on them and suddenly there's all this weird other stuff they have to process. People don't like that. I'm probably being a bit oversensitive, but I think it's true.

I remember overhearing someone say.. In fact, that's a lie. I'm saying 'someone' like it was no one in particular. It was actually the little swan-goddess from work. It was an, "Oh, we have that in common" moment. She was saying that she didn't like seeing the undersea world; that all the fish and other creatures made her feel disturbed and uncomfortable.

I've always felt like this. When I first went to the Sea Life Centre as a child I found it very disturbing. It really freaked me out. When I think about why I think it's the overwhelming nature of it. You have a worldview. You have the world mapped out. You're content within those parameters. Then all of a sudden you're confronted with a different world. The teeming life. All these strange living things. All the eyes. All the feelings and emotions - if they have those, you're not even sure. Now you have to process this vast flood of new information. There's all this other stuff to worry about. And, of course, if you're intelligent enough to have a degree of self-awareness, the revelation instantly makes you freak out more, "If I didn't know about this what more is there in this world that I'm not aware of'?"

The swan-goddess is a bright-eyed goddess, so I sensed that similar terror of thought in her. Though that may be wishful thinking. (In my last post I was reminding myself not to appeal to the female ballot box. There are plenty of fish in the sea - perhaps they don't share my feelings and emotions after all?!)

Anyway, that's the vibe I think finding someone's alternative life can inspire. Though obviously not quite to that same degree. I don't want people finding out I'm some strange octopus-type creature. I don't like icking people out. Then again, perhaps it's all part of the metamorphosis.

When Scandals Become Narratives: Part III

I'm back. It's now my thirty cents. I know, you've barely had enough time to read Part II.

Questions as to whether the problems are cultural or innate remind me of another anecdote. (Yes, I'm really spilling the tea at the moment.)

When I was about thirty I went on a short laddish holiday. Me and the other lads I was with were on a night out there. We walked past a strip club and the bouncers and scantily clad girls on the door started beckoning us in. My friends didn't need much of an invitation, but, as you can tell from my previous posts, that sort of thing isn't really my scene. So they went in and I went off on my own for a few hours, to observe the grim nightlife of the seaside town we were visiting.

Now it would be unfair to put strippers in the exact same category as prostitutes. After all, it is just nudity. If it was some type of arty nudity and people weren't throwing money at the women I'd probably be all for it. I'm not a total puritan. Still, strip clubs - even if that's strictly all that's going on - are a bar too low for me. And it's not so much a sense that the women are being exploited. I honestly couldn't care less about some twenty-five year old stripper - and I'm not just saying this to give a sense of edgy disregard ..well, I am, a bit, but I genuinely don't care so much. It certainly doesn't concern me the way the other things we've mentioned do. In fact, it's funny, I can actually remember earlier that same day seeing a stripper leave a different strip club in the area, and cross the street to enter a chip shop, when I was getting chips, lol. It was like getting an unglamorous glimpse behind the magician's curtain. I remember the hardened look on her face. Like she'd been working on an oil rig. She certainly didn't look like a victim ..and I got the sense she'd have aggressively told me to "F@ck Off" if I'd have even dared to condescend to her by suggesting that.

So it wasn't so much pious concern for the women, more my own personal pride. Having to pay to see a pair of tits in some grubby club. Pathetically handing some woman a £20 note as you sit there like a stupid dog that's been allowed to have a dog treat. I can't do that. It's beneath me. I'm sorry if you don't like that - that it makes me better than you - but it's true, that's just the way it is. You'd literally have to put a gun to my head. The burly bouncer couldn't get me through the door at the time.

Anyway, my mates went in, I didn't, and I finally met up with them at the hotel hours later. They'd wasted a lot of money. And one of them came back convinced the particular stripper he was giving money to genuinely "liked him." Nevertheless, it was all just standard, clichéd, lads on a night out type behaviour. Nothing more than that. What was more interesting to me was the response I got at work the next week..

The Girls

When I went back to work the women I worked with asked me about the excursion. I mentioned my friends losing a fortune at the strip club, thinking it was pitiful, but funny.

The girls were very disappointed in me.

They all thought it was terrible that I didn't go in myself. One even said she'd "feel ashamed" if her husband refused to enter a strip club on a lads' night out.

Now yes, don't get me wrong, I get it. On some primal level I'm the weak (and somewhat miserable one) for not bounding towards the naked women, full of testosterone. I was thirty odd year old at this point, so I understood only too well the common reality that women prefer, "fun, dangerous bad boys," and that they don't like delicate simps (though I wouldn't have used that particular word back then). So the response wasn't completely unexpected.

It was, however, worse than I expected. I didn't realise things were quite that bad. I didn't think I'd get no respect at all for having the sense and willpower to walk past a den of iniquity. The sheer bluntness. Normally women at least feign some dislike for such things. Though, to be fair, these were very honest, forthright women, and I knew them well enough to get a straight opinion.

Anyhow, I contested their viewpoint. I basically said something along the lines of, "I don't care if I look 'gay,' I'm not going to a strip club." Like a delicate little moral puritan.

When I look back now, alas, I realise this was a big mistake. Sure, I stood my ground - I don't regret that - but I accepted the weak framing of the situation. I should've been more forthright in my own opinion.

I made the mistake of trying to appeal to the female ballot box.

I now understand, after much thought, that this modern world, that I was born into, forced me into a false dichotomy. Where there can only be two types of men.

Conscientious, but weak men

And strong, but bad (or mindless) men

So if you're an intelligent, well-raised man in this world you're taught to be tolerant, and to completely suppress your male characteristics. Being a good man means never taking the lead, and always following the consensus. Tolerance is everything. You must always ask, you must never declare. If a bully hits you, you should tell the teacher, you must never hit back. If a crime is committed, you must tell the government. They will deal with it ..and you must never look back in anger. The minute you express a single word in anger, however heinous the crime, you cease to be good and tolerant.

The net effect of all this social conditioning is that it means the bad, criminal, or simply unthinking man, gets to personify and embody the male characteristics in society. Strength, virility, passion, natural leadership - they now all belong to the "bad boy." Even the good, conscientious women can't help but instinctively notice and feel this. There are no good, strong men, so who else are they going to be attracted to?

In previous eras good men were and could be strong. The knight in shining armour. The hero slaying the dragon. Even just the simple head of the household or village, who called the shots and set the tone. Whereas today men are taught it's wrong to be a knight. With fathers - the heads of households - portrayed in every TV show and advert as idiotic, but loving dotes. Passively accepting their teenager daughter's latest trend, as the real decisions are deferred to the switched-on, multi-tasking mother.

The message is clear: a good man must never impose himself on the world.

So the mindless man can indulge his masculine energy to bound into a strip club and waste his money. But my anger and disgust that a strip club is there in the first place must be suppressed. And if I want to raise any objection or concern I must make a gentle, simpering appeal to the nearest woman or local politician. As I did back then.

(I realise I'm self-declaring myself as the 'good man' here, lol, but you know what I mean. Allow me yet more arrogance.)

It's taken three articles to get here, but I feel we've finally hit the crux.

This is why when a man suggests using force (even just state force) to deal with a violent rapist it's viewed as crime of the century. A much bigger crime than the rape itself. As it represents the end of tolerance and the complete upending of the current social order. It's a revolutionary act.

The reason so many people in positions of authority failed to protect the victims of grooming gangs was not that they were all evil or actively complicit. It was because they were weak. Their natural instincts had been dulled by a world that said goodness meant tolerance. In every instance where they should've felt anger and showed some leadership they suppressed that urge and accepted the situation. Instead they offered help, guidance and contraception. Gently, tiptoeing around, trying to be 'good'. As bad men took the lead.

Some people on the right remain within the current false framing. The Andrew Tate types will just say, "You should go to the strip club." It's biological reality. You can either be a winner or a loser. So be the apex predator. Be the T-Rex.

I think once this framing breaks though, which it seems to be doing, the dragon slayer may come back. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

When Scandals Become Narratives: Part II

That last post about "grooming gangs" needs a PART II, as there were some points worth nothing that I couldn't squeeze in.

[Original Post: When Scandals Become Narratives - Part I ]

Firstly, this idea that the wives and family members of Muslim groomers were complicit in the crimes. As per the first post, I would again compare it to western men that visit Thai prostitutes. You could well ask, "How could the wife not know he was flying to Thailand?!" and so forth. However, common sense tells you that the wife is usually a victim of the man's behaviour too. As, obviously, the man is hardly likely to just openly tell his wife what he's up to.

People also point out that some Muslim women have thrown labels like "whore" at the girls. Again, this isn't unique to Muslim women, as it's always common for women to make this complaint when a man strays. Blame is assigned to both the man and the other woman/women, and naturally there's a spectrum. With some women assigning more blame to the man and others being more forgiving of their weak, "tempted" husband.

Of course, we're not just talking about straying men here. We're talking about the grooming and sometimes outright rape of underage girls. So in the extreme cases taking the man's side would be unforgivable, even for a loyal wife. Still, there's a spectrum, and once more the Thailand example serves as a good comparison. In both cases there are young, vulnerable girls and women. Some may be of legal age, others not. The guilty men ranging from the occasional user of a prostitute to extreme abusers in the mould of, let's say, Gary Glitter.

Now I can imagine members of the online right clutching their pearls in horror as I make this seemingly prosaic comparison. Nevertheless, it's a more accurate appraisal of the situation than the emotional hysterics they're offering. Plus, trust me, in spite my plain language I find the whole thing just as sickening. In fact, I reach for the Thailand comparison as I find that equally harrowing.

I mentioned in the last post the extreme things that sometimes happen on white council estates. Perhaps a bigger eye-opener for me was when I reached adulthood and started interacting with more middle class people. Where the core problem likewise exists, though in a form more fitting to that particular cultural strata. How comfortable and blasé they often were about prostitution both shocked and depressed me.

I remember once finding out that a guy I played 5-a-side football with went to the far east with his brother once a year specifically for that purpose. The calculated, exploitative nature of the behaviour, from a seemingly normal person in my social circle, filled me with a sense of grim dread back then. What was perhaps even more disturbing to me was the cold indifference of the other men when it was mentioned. At best a shrug of, "So what?", more often the question, "What's wrong with it? They're getting paid."

And that one example isn't an isolated incident. I know friends of friends that are teachers and lawyers, that have travelled abroad to behave like this.

Consequently, I've had countless arguments. Always being greeted with that classic line that it's no different to any other paying job.

"Women don't enjoy working in McDonald's, but you're happy to pay them to serve you fries. What's the difference?" they'll ask.

My response is always the same,

"Okay, give me your mother's phone number. I'll offer her a job at McDonald's, then I'll offer her a job.. dot, dot, dot. Then tell me it's the same."

It's a little harder to keep up the false charade when it's your own mother or sister getting the employment opportunity. I always put it in deliberately crude language too - that I'm bleeping out for the sake of taste here - to drill home that effect. In contrast to how they dress the act up under 'sex work' and other such labels to obscure the raw meaning.

Either way, I always look at these people and think, "Wow, if my daughter/sister/mother was destitute you really would just happily exploit her for sex if you thought you could get away with it. You're not like me, are you? Though you appear the same on the outside."

And this is the thread that runs through all these things. From the Muslim grooming gangs to the western sex tourist. That cold snake-like mindset (I used "crocodile-like" in the last piece - either way, reptile vibes), where there's simply no thought or care for the people being offered up. Particularly if they're foreign or unrelated. No sense of honour. Just a greedy, and sometimes deeply perverse, desire to indulge.

I don't know how we deal with this mindset. Perhaps it's the way we've raised these people? Perhaps it's innate? I don't know. Maybe the answer is indeed hanging, but if it is we're going to need a lot of rope. As it's not just Muslim necks.

That's a bit of a grim note to make. I didn't mean it to get so dark. Personally I'd like to believe the answer is nurture. As much as I have disdain for the men that behave this way I certainly wouldn't hold a single trip to a Thai brothel against someone if they showed sincere remorse. We all make mistakes. We all have weaknesses. We can all be cold and thoughtless at times.

This brings me to another addendum I wanted to note (hopefully a tad lighter). In the anecdote I shared last time I forgot to mention how left wing I was back then. As a student in my early twenties I obviously had quite a different political outlook. Still, in spite of that, I instinctively felt an almost tribal sense of, "They're taking one of our women." It's an interesting thing to witness in yourself, and it gave me a bit of cognitive dissonance at the time. My worldview should've precluded such a feeling, yet still I felt it.

I don't necessarily think it's good or bad to have such 'tribal' feelings. It's just natural. It's probably best to acknowledge it though, rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

Also, another addendum on a slightly different topic (before this gets too long). That lack of acknowledgement of just how bad the north of England was in the 1980s and 90s doesn't just lead to a misunderstanding of this issue. It also warps perceptions when it comes to crime statistics in general. People will complain about the degradation they see with their own eyes, but then someone like Fraser Nelson will come along, point at a graph, and say, "Ah, but actually, violent crime has reduced."

Yet this is sort of comparing apples and oranges. We used to have things like football hooliganism, 'twoked' cars, and white council estate violence. Now we have roadman stabbings and phone theft. People are complaining, quite justifiably, about the latter, but they're told it doesn't exist (or at least, that it doesn't exist to the extent they think it does), because football hooliganism and other essentially unrelated crimes have decreased.

The online right play into this sense as they portray Britain before mass immigration as some type of white Eden. Essentially forgetting or eradicating the Britain I grew up in just thirty odd years ago. So much so that I now have to write it down in recollections like this.

Anyway, that was quite meandering, but it's my two cents. Twenty cents when taken with the original post.

[Next: When Scandals Become Narratives - Part III ]

Makerfield: The Results

The by-election is now by the by. My main takeaway is that the Restore vote share was significant enough to confirm that Restore were genuinely trying to take votes from Reform. It's hard to know what's happening on the ground when you're looking at things remotely through social media, so though it seemed that was the case it could've just been a social media mirage. It wasn't.

For a party to win three thousand votes you need to put some serious effort in.

Effectively Restore were giving Labour a safety net. It wasn't needed in the end - Burnham won quite emphatically (likewise confirming the popular appeal of Burnham). It was a safety net though, and had the margin been tighter it would've made a significant impact.

I'll list the votes for future context:

Labour: 24,927

Reform: 15,696

Restore: 3,111

Conservatives: 997

Greens: 308
Lib Dems: 163

I won't include Count Binface and whatnot.

We'll now have the long drawn out affair of the Labour succession.