www.blogs.spectator.co.uk

Zuzanna Mroz #fundie blogs.spectator.co.uk

I am a conservative. I believe everyone in society does best when government takes a light touch. I believe in low taxes, less regulation, the rule of law, national sovereignty, strong borders, individual liberty, personal responsibility, meritocracy, tolerance to people’s differences, and traditional family values.
I am also a transsexual woman. But those on the left regard me as a Judas. And they do so because I don’t fit conveniently into their insatiable and pathological need to stereotype everyone. To them, the very notion that a trans woman – because we are “different” and a “minority group” – could be anything other than a Mao-quoting, Che-Guevara-T-shirt-wearing, red-flag-waving socialist is sacrilegious. They call me a traitor. A house tranny. Or, more crudely, a fascist.

And so, coming out as a conservative was an entirely more tumultuous affair for me than coming out as trans. If only there were a chapter in Dale Carnegie’s seminal “How to Win Friends and Influence People” that offered helpful advice on such matters. Two factors, more than any others, that chiseled and honed my conservative worldview were growing up in a post-communist country and taking personal responsibility for making the best of being born in the wrong body.

My childhood was awash with my family’s forlorn recollections about the hardships they endured under communism in Poland: the chronic scarcity of food, medicine and other basic necessities; outright hostility to basic liberties. And if we didn’t like it, too bad: they killed anyone who tried to leave. But throughout Poland’s 44-year communist ordeal, my family stood firm: my great-grandfather was imprisoned twice for distributing pro-capitalism pamphlets and for listening to Radio Free Europe. This instilled in me a powerful respect for the twin virtues of free people and free enterprise.

Even in the earliest years of my childhood, I knew that I was different. Unlike the boys in the neighbourhood who enjoyed roughhousing and kicking around footballs, I spent my time dreaming of one day having a child of my own to nurture and rear. My family thought it was a phase. But it wasn’t. I had what we now know as gender dysphoria: I was a girl born in the wrong body. And I could no more choose to not be a boy than a gay person could choose to be straight. I desperately wished to be normal. But to me, becoming “normal” meant becoming physically female.

My mum and I moved to Denmark when I was nine. By the time I was an adult, the Danish healthcare system provided gender reassignment surgery funded by the taxpayer. But as with all socialised healthcare systems, they rationed access to treatment with interminably long waiting times. I would have had no choice over the surgeon eventually assigned to me or the surgical techniques they would use. Because of my sense of personal responsibility and non-reliance on the state that my family had instilled in me, I felt uncomfortable with the idea that strangers should be forced to pay for my surgery.

So I took matters into my own hands. I found a part-time job while in high school and worked at weekends to earn as much as I could to pay for private surgery. I set myself a savings goal. It required financial sacrifices on my and my mum’s part. But by the time I was 18, I had scrimped and saved enough; after exhaustive research, I chose the surgeon I wanted.

And, then, the day of my surgery arrived. I went into hospital a girl trapped in a male body. I emerged a woman, liberated. I felt resounding joy at finally being made whole. But I also felt immense pride that I had accomplished it by myself. Not just a woman. A self-made woman.

So, whenever I hear self-entitled, Labour-voting millennials shouting “we deserve this”, “you owe us”, “tax the rich”, I can’t help but raise an eyebrow. Because no one deserves anything simply by virtue of being alive. If I could accomplish what I did without reliance on the state, then everybody else is perfectly capable of funding and achieving their life goals too.

One thing that particularly whips up the frothy and indignant ire of some of those on the left is my view that members of the LGBT community are not well-served by any form of special treatment or protection, such as quotas or anti-discrimination and hate-speech legislation. Frankly, such measures are patronising and insulting. No thanks. None of that for me.

I want to succeed – and take pride in my success – because I work hard and exercise good judgment. Not because of a law that requires organisations to hire and promote a certain number of LGBT people, irrespective of merit. If an organisation doesn’t want to associate with me because I’m a transgender woman, well that’s their loss and not mine. I’d much rather focus my energy on working with companies and groups who value me for what I can do and not for who I am. But forcing them by law to associate with me is only going to make them resent trans people, not embrace us. Government can lead by example. But it can’t legislate intolerance away.

Similarly, hate speech laws have the pernicious effect of making others constantly walk on eggshells around trans people, lest they inadvertently say something that could be construed as “offensive”. This makes me – and other trans people in the workplace – a potentially hazardous lawsuit waiting to happen. And that discourages the employment of trans people even further. If someone wants to say ugly things to me because of who I am, then I have every opportunity to try to disabuse them of their narrow-minded views or simply walk away. No harm, no foul. A law that criminalises what they say because of who I am just makes me out to be a helpless victim. And I am nobody’s helpless victim. All I ask for is the same treatment under the law as everyone else. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The irony, of course, is that whereas the Labour party – and its groovy, self-righteous, champagne socialist acolytes – like to tout themselves as tolerant, inclusive and champions of minority rights, it is actually the Conservative party that has pioneered time and time again in terms of providing equality of opportunity and rewarding merit for all. Universal suffrage, full decriminalisation of homosexual acts over the age of consent, and same-sex marriage were all ushered into law under Conservative governments. The Conservative party has had two female prime ministers, one Jewish-born prime minister, two ethnic minority holders of a great office of state, and two female leaders of the Scottish Conservatives. The Labour party has had none. Ever.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party seems intent on reminding us again and again through its appalling record on anti-Semitism that it is “For the Many, Not the Jew”. Labour MPs even attend gender-segregated party rallies and meetings. And while the number of black and ethnic minority members of the government and shadow cabinet should be more proportionate to society at large, one cannot help but wonder – given her litany of car crash interviews and her apparent struggle with basic arithmetic – whether the shadow home secretary is in her role because she is fit for purpose or because of her appearance.

Very clearly, when it comes to matters of equality and inclusion, the Conservative party walks the walk, while the Labour party just talks and talks and talks. And so, if I were a betting woman, my money would be firmly on the Conservative party to have the first ever transsexual MP. Or – who knows – perhaps, one day, the UK’s first ever transsexual prime minister.

verbaltim #racist blogs.spectator.co.uk

Securing the existence of our people does indeed mean the ending of foreign colonisation of our land, and that means mass repatriation. The mechanics of race-replacement are in train, and they are structural in kind. Or to put it another way, just to hold the present ratio of native to foreign requires deep, on-going cuts in the numbers of the latter. Fail there ... continue as we are today, even without the ultra-high immigration of the Blair/Brown/Cameron years ... and our children and grand-children will see minority status in an Africanised, Indianised, Slavified England.

You might not think that matters. But I think it is a gene-killing, and our life is the higher cause.

Maurice Bannerjee Palmer #fundie blogs.spectator.co.uk

A student at the London School of Economics has submitted a motion to ban the university’s free-speech society. While the LSESU Free Speech Society was set up in protest of the Student Union ‘banning individual opinions’, they have now come under fire for not ‘liking a perceived focus on women and minorities’. Writing for the student paper, a student by the name of Maurice Banerjee Palmer says he filed the motion because he thinks the members unfairly play the victim.

Rod Liddle #racist blogs.spectator.co.uk

Stopping people trying to come here is, for me, the better solution (and is basically the one advanced by the Evil Nazi Hellhound, Katie Hopkins). Make it clear there will be no rescues at all and that anyone who succeeds in reaching Europe will be sent straight back to where they came from. These traffickers set out expecting that there is a good chance they will be rescued, so remove that possibility from the equation. Use armed boats to drive back the traffickers. Make it even more clear that refugees who apply for asylum legally will always take precedent over those who come here in a cast-iron bath tub captained by some predatory Tunisian scumbag. Those who come illegally by boat will never get asylum. This stuff all works, and we have the Australian example for evidence.

Eddie #racist blogs.spectator.co.uk

Oh indeed: it is perfectly acceptable to be racist against white persons, sexist against men, and rabidly anti-British (esp anti-English). Take a look at any Bollywood movie to see that racism against white Brits in action (our equivalent would be having little brown buffoons running around in loin cloths cacking evrything up, raping their 4 wives, stinking of curry and saying 'bud bud').

A phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear:

it is not irrational to be fearful and wary of a vast country with over a billion people who are insanely loyal and nationalistic, who see themselves as racially and culturally superior to non-Chinese persons, who want to take over the world in an amoral fashion with NO thought or consideration for the damage caused to the environment, endangered species or humanity.

It is rational to hate China and fear that untra-nationalistic brutal amoral state; it does not mean one hates every Chinese person!
Would this commentator even be asking the question if the Chinese looked just like us?

All the Chinese care about is money and power for them - a world run by the Chinese would be hellish, a new dark ages ruled by fascistic militaristic amoral robots. Really, are the Chinese any better than the Nazis?

Islamophobic is a nonsense word too: it is perfectly rational to be against fascistic religious extremists who want to impose the facism of literalist Islam on the world and kill all infidels (Christians, atheists, Muslims who are not extreme).