The distraction of young people realising the power of being offended is useful to the powerful. As my friend Dave E, who has read the great works Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty Four (as I also have), puts his take on it “the road to fascism is clear”. Putting sanitary item disposal objects into what are defined as male toilets to accommodate the genetic women that now think, believe, they are a male, yet still menstruate so as to need these objects in reality, is simply a stupidity. One that indicates, as many other objects we now witness do, the paradoxical nature of the postulate that stands no scrutiny, so instead of the postulate being withdrawn, the scrutiny is prevented.

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.“ – Bertrand Russell

I am sorry to have to return to that subject, I feel I have tackled it so many times already, and in some complex posts too, but it is the lunacy that defines our interregnum, it is what future generations studying history will think of us. I find that quite embarrassing really, I hope they find my blog and maybe think I was one of the few sane people on a landscape of insanity.

I called this piece Manipulated Snow because I again wish to tackle head on the problem of the manipulated snowflake and the problem the manipulated snowflake creates. I had done a google search recently concerning some less than wholesome practices the church used to get up to, just to reassure myself that my limited research and verification of what I intended to say was not too far in error, or imagined. The way I was treated by google (other search engines are available) was ridiculous, it was as if I had some sort of dangerous interest in matters best not discussed. In doing this they, google, are deciding what is best for me, and how I should behave, what questions I cannot ask it.

I am sure they are aware that the censorial instinct is most often expressed in its necessity by those that wish to protect a falsehood that cannot protect itself, so all knowledge should be open to the world if it is in fact factual. Facts need no protections, there can be no danger from truths. Yes they can cause uncomfortable feelings, but facts are just that, they are indifferent to how you feel about them. If a thing happened then it is a historically recoverable artifact of human life, and to protect it from people knowing about it is to manipulate the truth for the purpose of a narrative that serves the narrator.

Who wants this manipulation? People with something to protect, those with an iron in the fire, vested interests and people who need returns for their investments of course. These are the narrators.

Snowflakes, this is not a derogatory term, it indicates no more than a delicate nature, and that is not a bad thing for many reasons. We could call someone who was emotionally soft enough to care a snowflake and not mean it as an insult. In many ways I am a snowflake, in other ways I am a boulder. Snow because snowflakes in large numbers form snow collectively. Manipulated Snow simply because I don’t believe that the focus of those people who care about things in an emotional sense, those who have a sort of internal dread concerning external things, has been aimed by their own desires or rationale, I think it has been aimed for them by a media that wishes to distract. What I mean by that is that there are many better things to be concerned about, subjects that matter much more than some dude’s supposed rights to change his name and wear a frock, which he is already not prevented from doing. What about the environment and the impact that has to the lives of persons? If the focus is on one thing it misses the other.

I am not questioning the person who wants to make the gender claim, to my mind I am not somebody who understands their internal turmoil well enough to say how they could solve the dissonance problem they face. I personally feel that they are experiencing a mental illness in not accepting what they demonstrably are, this is only when they say they ARE a woman (if they are Biologically a man) not when they say they want to live as a woman, I have no problem with that at all, nor do I have any issue with their sexuality. We have to remember that the terms we use in modernity are not historic, it would have been ridiculous to a Roman or an ancient Athenian to hear the term heterosexual as if it indicated a defining barrier to what may be desired and experienced. The trans wants the right to be what they are not physically, as if that could MAKE them what they are not physically, and that’s just silly.

I am talking about the supporter of nonsense, the observer that thinks this is a social issue, the defender of a position or perspective they themselves don’t live. Moral hazard is the term for making decisions for other people that you do not have to live with the consequences of, I do not know the term for making decisions for people while not considering the implications of them, is it stupidity, naivety, unimaginativeness?

We’ve seen this before with religions, especially in the workplace where the HR bods create what they think is a fairness. Often, I think, by limiting the practices of non believers so that believers are over considered. Say you work with somebody that is mandated to pray for 15 minutes per day and 3 of these mandated prayers happen within the working day, then you miss out on 45 minutes of breaks that they become entitled to because of a skewed idea of fairness. That’s 45 minutes per day, 225 minutes per week, 172.5 hours per year, so 4 weeks of less work than you may be required to do each year, every year. How fair is that if you are laying blocks or lifting rocks? What I don’t get is the casual supporter, the person who knows not a single thing about the religion they defend against criticism, and only the Sunday school or RE lesson Disney version of their own religion (you know the type).

These guys have me baffled, the idea that there must be ground conceded, on no rational basis, to people who believe something that they are not in any way required to defend or justify, and that the very fact that they have this faith means that others, people who do not have said faith, will very strongly argue that it should be allowed to inhibit my freedoms, is simply ridiculous to me. I don’t care what you believe, until it has an impact on me, then I want to talk about the merits of it. But that might offend you to have to defend it against my criticisms, and by modern standards that would grant you some rights out of nowhere. How come I don’t have those freedoms?

Paul S Wilson