Can progressives be fundamentalists?


If you define a fundamentalist as someone believing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that the earth has been created 6000 years ago, no.

If, however, you define fundamentalism broadly as a confident adherence to one’s dogma regardless of the evidence at hand, black-and-white thinking, an in-group versus  out-groups attitude and an arrogance that leads you to view all outsiders as either ignorant, stupid or evil…then I think we can answer that question with a resounding “yes”.

A case in point follows.


Recently, what seemed to be a terrorist attack in Canada turned out to be the deed of a murderous autistic man driven by his sexual frustration.


The progressive website posted an article entitled “Toxic Masculinity Is at the Heart of This Darkness“.

In it, you can read an interesting (although biased) analysis:

“Toxic Masculinity Is at the Heart of This Darkness”.


Why did Alek Minassian allegedly climb into a van on Monday and kill ten people in Toronto? It goes without saying that each and every crime like this is determined by a number of factors. The one silver lining in all of this is that since the alleged killer was arrested, we may have the opportunity to understand what led to Monday’s horrific events.

In the interim, all we have so far is reports that it appears Minassian is a high-functioning autistic man who made a Facebook post in the minutes before the killing invoking misogynist murderer Elliot Rodger and announcing the inauguration of the “incel rebellion.”

For those uninitiated into the heart of darkness called Extremely Online, incels or “involuntary celibates” are a group of sad men so upset at their lack of sexual activity that they fantasize about raping, murdering, and otherwise brutalizing all women as a kind of guerrilla anti-feminist warfare. They first came to media prominence in 2014 after Rodger killed six people in California in 2014 and issued a 100+ page “manifesto” where he crudely turned his personal history of social and sexual frustration into a political crusade against all sex-havers.



“Western hedonism is at the heart of this darkness”


This prompted me to post what follows:

Yes, the deed was driven by a hate of women but we need to dig deeper than that. What are the causes of the extreme misogyny of “involuntary celibates” (an awful phrase I just discovered by the way)?
It is certainly complex but I think that one major factor might be VIRGIN-SHAMING and the capitalistic sex-industry that glorifies the idea that the value of a man is determined by the number of women he manages to seduce.
And that, in turn, drives many mentally unstable or otherwise handicapped men to despair and gravely compounds their mental health condition.
So NEO-LIBERAL sex-positive feminists should recognise they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

My own title?
“Western hedonism is at the heart of this darkness”


The post-factualism of triggered progressives

This has led to a flurry of reactions that were neither particularly constructive nor rational.


First of all, J. F. shot from the hip:
“Women being part of the problem that these idiots think sex is owed to them. Wow. Get the fuck out!”

I was puzzled by that. Where on earth did I say that women are part of the problem?

I said that neo-liberal sex-positive feminists (i.e. adherents of that ideology who can be both male and female) contribute to this problem by fostering a climate where the worth of a man is defined by how often he can “get laid” and where unsuccessful males are regularly mocked and ridiculed by their peers.
I might be wrong about that but my position is clearly entirely different from the ignoble thing I’m accused of saying.


Another (somewhat more polite) commentator wrote this:
Hugh Hefner is not the reason these men have a problem. For Fuck’s Sake! Nor is any woman who chooses to make money from sex, or her body.

As a mantra, that sounds great. But progressives are supposed to look beyond that and to carefully consider the available evidence before making such statements.
So, is it really true that the pornofication of our society doesn’t contribute by any means to the objectification of women?

I think there is one hell of a difference between growing up in the belief that romantic love should be pursued and growing up in the belief that having hedonistic pleasure trough sex is all that matters in life.

I would like to see empirical studies showing this has no influence on the way young men see members of the opposite gender.

Could it be that viewing relationships in this way may reduce toxic masculinity?


On another level, I find it disheartening to see self-proclaimed progressives passionately and uncritically defend a man such as Hefner while ignoring his dark sides.


Finally, I’d like to go into the comment of D. J., as it is so typical of the way outraged progressives stifle any reasonable conversation:

It’s quite apparent you’re speaking from your own experience, having the privilege of being a white assumed (cis) male. In a progressive space trying to mansplain what is a feminist to justify toxic masculinity.”

So this man knows very little about me but he believes that my skin colour and gender are sufficient to attribute complex psychological motives to me (and to accuse me of justifying the mass slaughtering of innocent women!). That, folks, is the very essence of racism.


But more fundamentally, this totally misses the point. I can be a terribly flawed human being but that does not in any way, shape or form invalidate my ideas which stand on their own merit. While reacting to opinions they dislike, progressives constantly commit the genetic fallacy and the ad-hominem fallacy instead of challenging them with reasonable arguments.


I did not primarily write this blog post to argue for the truth of my position regarding the link between such hardcore misogyny and neo-liberal hedonism.
I might be wrong about that and I wholly recognise it.
I rather want to illustrate how it is not possible to have a reasonable and mutually respectful conversation with “progressives” on a controversial topic based on facts and a careful reasoning.

Apparently, just holding such an unorthodox position automatically makes you a despicable bigot.

I think it is truly a pity. To people thinking outside the box, progressivism can be as harmful and unwelcoming as conservatism.

This, in turn, contributes to the polarisation of society and the culture war where people talk (or rather shout) past to each other instead of seeking a common ground and having a rational debate where the opponent’s views are fairly represented.

While I have a lot of things in common with progressives (such as the fight against anti-Muslim bigotry, the combat against global warming, standing for gay rights and against the oppression of the poor, an interpretation of religious texts that respects Reason…) I find myself unable to keep discussing with them as I constantly have to stay silent about my sincerely held views in order to avoid on-line bullying.

I did not take any pleasure in writing this post. But I thought this had to be told in the hope that other people will be able to move things forward.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)


Is a call for decent clothing in politics sexist?

In France, a new controversy regarding the so-called “slut shaming” has just broken out.
French MP Aurore Bergé dressed very sexily during a TV show and she now complains about people who focused more on her appearance than on the content of her statements.
Many view this as a blatant example of sexism.

I personally don’t believe this necessarily has to be sexist.

Sexism means that you unfairly treat both genders differently.

But consider now the principle of decency during a political discussion (PMP):

During any political discussion, a person ought not to dress in a sexually arousing way if he or she wants people to entirely focus on his or her ideas“.

This principle makes no mention of gender. It is valid for men, women, heterosexuals, and homosexuals alike.

Its truth seems very plausible to me. Human beings are much more driven by their feelings, urges and instincts than by reason and rationality.

Since a good political discussion or speech should be focused on facts and reasoning, it is certainly unwise to dress in a way that would arouse members of the opposite sex and bisexuals. And if you do so, you shouldn’t complain about people commenting on your physical appearance.

Consider now the American Republican politician Aaron Schock (who is objectively really hot despite his political convictions)

Imagine he dressed like this during a meeting.


I think that very few people would have objections if he wasn’t taken seriously.
So why should sexily dressed female politicians be treated any differently?

To be sure, I wouldn’t have any problem if Aurore Bergé and Aaron Schock were to dress like that for a party!

I am not saying that dogmatically and I am willing to change my mind if you give me valid arguments.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Gender equality and the liberal agenda

While I am oftentimes critical of Conservatism on my blog, I do believe that Liberal lobbies can have quite a harmful effect on society too.

One example is their willful ignorance of the reality of anti-white racism which leads them to systematically explain away crimes and misdeeds against white people committed on the grounds of their skin color, in a way strikingly akin to the strategy used by revisionist historians.

One other example is that they keep confusing fostering true equality between the genders with promoting female supremacy.


The following story should be considered a case study.


“Italian theater director Antonio Calenda sues beautiful young dancer Natasha Diamond-Walker after she dumped him, claiming she hoodwinked him into buying her a luxury condo

Diamond-Walker, an up-and-coming performer with the Martha Graham Dance Company, did not return calls. But court papers paint her as a gold-digger who used her age and beauty to outwit Calenda, the well-known director of Teatro Stabile in Trieste. Natasha Diamond-Walker, in a photo from her Myspace page.
A young Manhattan dancer hoodwinked her 73-year-old lover into buying her a luxury $775,000 Upper West Side condo — and then swiftly gave him the boot, a new lawsuit charges.Natasha Diamond-Walker, a stunning 27-year-old Fordham University grad, is accused in court papers of feigning love for prominent Italian theater director Antonio Calenda, then tricking him into footing the bill for the pre-war apartment.“She manipulated our client and took advantage of him to finance her purchase of a luxury Manhattan apartment,” said Calenda’s lawyer, Marc Fitapelli. “She never had any intentions to repay our client and she abruptly severed their relationship as soon as she got what she wanted.”Diamond-Walker, an up-and-coming performer with the Martha Graham Dance Company, did not return calls. But court papers paint her as a gold-digger who used her age and beauty to outwit Calenda, the well-known director of Teatro Stabile in Trieste. 

Antonio Calenda, center and Natasha Diamond-Walker, right.

Calenda, who directed the 1973 film “One Russian Summer,” starring Claudia Cardinale and Oliver Reed, filed suit Monday in Manhattan Supreme Court in a bid to recoup the cost of the condo — plus $1 million.

Diamond-Walker met Calenda last year in Italy when they worked together on “Cercando Picasso (Looking for Picasso),” colleagues said. She was working as a dance apprentice with the Martha Graham company, which collaborated with Calenda on the show that features dancers interpreting Pablo Picasso’s dreams, inspirations and writings.

They began a 10-month romance, and Calenda showered her with expensive gifts, especially at the start of their May-December affair.

LaRue Allen, executive director of the Martha Graham company, described Diamond-Walker as “outgoing, vivacious, curious” — “a wonderful dancer at the beginning of her career.”

She said the relationship was not a company matter.

“They had a personal relationship … They’re both adults,” Allen said. “Things don’t always have a way of working out.”

Calenda, who lives in Rome and has been separated from his wife for a decade, does not dispute he gave her pricey gifts at the start of their affair.

But he insists the 795-square-foot, one-bedroom unit on West End Avenue wasn’t one of them.

When Diamond-Walker asked Calenda for help purchasing the condo, the director insisted on two things, Fitapelli said: that the money be a loan, and that they have a written agreement.

They signed the agreement last July, and she closed on the condo in September.

“Several months” later she “suddenly severed” the relationship, court papers show.

Diamond-Walker repeatedly told Calenda that she considered the $775,000 a gift and “would never repay” him, according to the lawsuit.

Their written agreement requires no payments until December 2018, when the entire amount is due. As a gift, Calenda charged no interest — a nicety he has since withdrawn.

Calenda is now asking the courts to declare the loan a mortgage, or order Diamond-Walker to repay the entire amount immediately with interest — roughly $800,000.

He’s also seeking $1 million in punitive damages, Fitapelli said.

As a new member of the Martha Graham Dance Company, Diamond-Walker was expected to perform Monday night at the International Dance Festival in Vail, Colo. Her lawyer, Eric Cohen, did not return a call.

As recently as spring, she wrote of the experience she was gaining while working in Italy with Calenda — this time on a musical/dance production of The Bacchae by Euripides, which drew 8,000 people a night.

“I have tasted the most fragrant blood oranges, eaten the freshest fruits of the sea. Yet still, at night I’m painted with cold white mud, naked in front of the theater for work,” the 2007 Fordham grad wrote. “Knowledge and experience is earned in every way.”

Some comments were invaluable.


“A 27yr old chick is even too young for me, and i’m 39! I do not feel sorry for this guy…he is a confirmed fool if he thinks for a second that a 27yr. old ‘stunner’ would be physically attracted to him, and not have ulterior motives. This dingbat allowed himself to be gypped by this plain jane loser, she didn’t put a gun to his empty skull and made him sign anything. Damn, that viagra makes you do some crazya– sheet. Use the head on your shoulders the next time ol’timer. LOL!”

“When will these old farts learn no younger woman wakes up one day and says I want to get with a old wormy geiser because they are so hot. When you see a younger woman with a older man it’s all about the money, at least older women know they are being used, for some strange reason old guys think they are still sexy and these woman really want to be with them NOT. If you are 73 and she is 27 she want’s your money so don’t act surprised with you get duped. Idiot!”


Now don’t get me wrong. I consider it very likely that the old man acted in an immoral way. Yet you have to ask yourself whose actions were the most egregious.

As someone wrote : “What if the genders were reversed, would anyone be willing to believe the money in question was simply a gift as well?”

True equality between men and women that their well-being and suffering are equally important and concerning.

The behavior and typical assertions of Western liberals show that they constantly use a double-standard.


This is well illustrated by the attitude of liberal society towards females dressing sexy for getting ahead or manipulating men more easily. This is largely seen as “empowering” and if such a girl is gently complimented by a guy she dislikes, she is entirely justified in downrightly calling this sexual harassment.

This clearly spurns the Golden Rule. A nice and lovely girl wearing a mini-skirt because she likes being looked at won’t reply harshly to a man she is not interested in who respectfully and kindly asked her out.


And if a hardcore feminist wants to call me a “Christian Taliban” because of this, then I shall willingly and gladly accept that label.


Egalitarianism and complementarism, statistics and exceptions

Egalitarianism and complementarism, statistics and exceptions

Following my post about egalitarianism and complementarism, I receive an email from Mary, a young woman from North Dakota who has been living in Lancashire (not far from the city where I now live) for three years.

I find it extremely interesting and insightful, so I reproduce it here:

“I have some very strong feelings about this topic.
I respect you and your method of communicating, and you also stated that your views were open to evolving if you were given new information, so I feel it would be worthwhile for us to open a little dialogue on this.

Now, it’s difficult for me to get into a dispassionate conversation about this topic, because it has had such blatant and hurtful affects on me.  I can keep my emotions uninvolved when it comes to discussing many, many topics, but this is not one.  So please understand if I liberally insert a bit of my personal feelings and experiences into this, although I will try to present plenty of non-anecdotal evidence for my position as well.

Complimentarianism and Egalitarianism were defined well in the article.  Egalitarians believe that people should be judged on their individual merits alone, without regard to their gender.  Complimentarians believe that judgments should be partly made by gender, because being a certain sex infuses you with certain merits and qualities that the other gender cannot fulfill.  Indeed, complimentarians will generally say that a woman will be most fulfilled if she embraces feminine roles, and a man will be most fulfilled if he embraces masculine roles because that is what their bodies and souls were designed for.  Their gender defines them, at least in part.

First of all, I want to emphasize that there is NOTHING wrong with fulfilling a traditional gender role.  If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mom and a man wants to be a breadwinner, I will not judge them… so long as that decision was made by them, and not by their culture.  However, I can tell you without reservation that complimentarianism hurts people.  Enormously, horrendously, gruesomely, it hurts people.  In a slightly more distant sense, it harms people like gays and lesbians and transgender people who seem to transcend conservative ideas of what “man” and “woman” can be.  These people face violence and discrimination as a direct result of defying these little generalizations.  However, it has a much more direct affect too.  I’ve seen many young lives boxed up and stored on separate shelves, labeled “man” and “woman” and, to me, that is a tragedy.  I’ve seen young women quietly discouraged from going to college, or held back a  grade in high school so that their younger brother can attend school with them to protect them from society’s influences.  I’ve seen women who never left home because their family expected them to stay under their father’s authority until marriage… after all, a woman is most fulfilled as a wife and mother, not in a career.  I’ve seen young men ostracized by their friends because of a soft voice and a penchant for wearing jewelry.  I’ve seen women taught to fear their bodies and men taught to fear their sexual urges.  All of this was done in the name of protecting and preparing children for their pre-designed roles… roles that were assigned from birth, before the parent even had a chance to get to know their son or daughter for who they are.

   And herein lies the insidious poison of Complimentarianism: it is disguised as stability and support, when in truth it undermines the individual and tries to replace it with a mold that might not fit.  Plenty of men and women will step forward and explain how they are happy in their roles, and how perfect it is for them.  But for every man and woman that fits that role, there will be others that do not, and still more that will spend untold years in pain, trying to force themselves into those neat boxes in order to please their family and culture.

   For my own experience, I hated being a girl.  From the age of six, I told my mother that I should have been born a boy.  Perhaps part of the problem was my own gender identity, but that was not all; I simply had a deep desire to be respected as strong, fierce, courageous, heroic, smart, and capable.  Even from that young age, I’d absorbed that these were MALE traits.  Females were to be respected for grace, compassion, gentleness, meekness, and modesty.  So great was this distinction, that I believed my own body was the reason that I didn’t fit the box, not the box itself.  And this dissonance dominated huge parts of my young life.

   I strove with all of my might to distinguish myself as a boy.  I started by loudly proclaiming my disdain towards anything that might be seen as girly (birds, bunnies, pink, purple, flowers, bows, and more).  I was filled with shame when I found myself liking Lisa Frank merchandise (I don’t know if you remember those rainbow-colored relics of the 90’s) and I would literally only walk into that aisle of the toy store if no one else was around to see, and I would hide if someone else showed up.  I fiercely argued with my sister when she tried to explain to me that I couldn’t grow up to be a fireman, and I’d be a firewoman instead.  I didn’t want to be a firewoman.  A firewoman would be lesser because she would be meek and gentle instead of strong and brave.  I created alternate identities for myself, all male, and I adored the uncle that I’d never met simply because he referred to me sometimes by the nickname “Al”.  I tried very hard to get other friends to call me by that nickname, but it never stuck.

   Most importantly, my parents never even worked hard to force me into this gender role.  Yes, the implications were there, but I can’t recall many times that I was told to repress my personality or to stop being a tomboy.  My parents encouraged me to pursue my interest in Physics, even if it was a stereotypically male field.  They let me play sports and act tough.  They encouraged me to be independent.  And yet, at 6 years old, I had already recognized that being a woman was less than being a man or at least a woman could not be ME… and that belief never changed until long after I had left home.

   I can think of a few things that my parents did to encourage the gender divide.  My mother did urge me to prepare for motherhood and care of a household, long before I had made any indications that I would ever wish to do these things (I didn’t).  I was thoroughly versed in modesty teachings, and taught to be ashamed and afraid of my developing body because it was an instrument of sin.  I was instructed in “purity” teachings that worked to highlight the difference between the two sexes, and set them up for a lifetime of separation together.  None of these things helped with my gender dissatisfaction.

   But, in large part, it was the culture of Complimentarianism in the Fundamentalist world that taught me to be unhappy with myself as a young woman.  It wasn’t forced and it wasn’t beaten into me; it was so much more insidious than that.  Just because my compliance with gender roles wasn’t outright demanded doesn’t mean that the pressure wasn’t very real.  And very confusing and damaging to a developing young mind that just didn’t fit.

   So when supporters of Complimentarianism try to tell me “I would never force my kids to fit those roles; it would just be strongly encouraged as the best way to achieve happiness,” I have to shake my head.  They clearly have never felt the cognitive dissonance of existing in a world that strongly encourages them to be something they’re not.  That strong encouragement can warp a child’s expectations of themselves, alter their dreams, drive them to self-loathing, or provoke an outright rebellion and fracture of the family.  Why would anyone risk all of that in the name of an outdated presumption of what men and women can or cannot do?  Is a child’s body parts truly more important than their individual identity?

    Indeed, many complimentarians object to many of the stories I tell.  “I would never hold my daughter back from college” or “a man can like jewelry” might be the quick responses.  But Complimentarianism CANNOT be separated from these sorts of tragedies, because, at it’s core, it is erasure of the individual in favor of a stereotype.  It is telling a child when it is born “I don’t even know you yet, I don’t know your personality or your talents or desires or fears… but I DEMAND you to fulfill my stereotype based on that little bit of biology right there between your legs.  I will demand it through my judgments, my encouragements, my suggestions of what you will do and where you will go.  I will demand it through the school activities I will put you in, I will demand it through the pastor’s sermons about how women need to stop talking and men need to “man up”.  I will demand you to fulfill this role and, if you fail, it is because you must be
 damaged, flawed.”

Are there statistical differences between men and women?  Sure.  But, especially in all psychological areas, there is more overlap than difference.  Just look through this article if you are in doubt.  Most men and women are psychologically NO DIFFERENT.  Science has shown this.  And many of the differences can probably be attributed to cultural conditioning… we expect women to be X and men to be Y from a young age, so they develop to fulfill that.  And then Complimentarianists can pat themselves on the back and say “see?  Men and women are different after all” when half of the differences come from this very social construct of Complimentarianism.

I could probably write for another 3 years on the subject, but I guess I’ll stop for now.  Please, I beg of you, consider what I’m saying, ask questions, and just give it all some thought.  People are suffering still under these ideas and it breaks my heart.  People are people, regardless of gender, and we should not be making blanket judgments about them because of their gender.

Thank you very much for reading.  All the best to you!!!”

I am thankful to Mary for having raised so many important issues. If she decides to react to comments, I would be very grateful if everyone were to treat her with the uttermost respect.

Despite having given up her faith, she remains extremely friendly towards Christians and given the circumstances I view this a miracle.

I think that she did an excellent job exposing the huge suffering that Evangelical complementarianism might be causing in quite a few cases.

This was not, however, what I was saying in my last post.

The differences I pointed out are of a statistical nature and there are certainly quite a few exceptions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about women having the temperament of breadwinners and men preferring taking care of the home and they should never be ridiculed owing to this.

Likewise, I believe that a minority of humans have a homosexual nature and that it is healthy for them to marry someone of the same sex since this is not harmful.

A woman applying for a position in the army should be judged by her own skills alone and not by those of the average female.

What I do oppose, however, is this willingness to impose an equal demography between the two sexes in every sector.

I and many secular folks reject this silly endeavor of the European Union to forcefully introduce equal quotas for it ignores the fact that (statistically speaking) men and women are psychologically and biologically different.

(Analyzing the evidence and counter-evidence is beyond the scope of this post).