Heaven's Above

Apparently, the Church of England, where the vicars could definitely do with a bit more T, has just announced it’s going to promote ‘anti-racism’.

Oh, great.

Haven’t we moved on from all this “everweething is wacist” shit by now?

They basically Budlit themselves over the trans issue anyway and so have become the monumental irrelevance they, presumably (and misguidedly), went all rainbow to avoid.

They’ve been pushing the idea that they ‘need’ to make reparations for their involvement with slavery - to the tune of £100 million - for a few years now, but they’re also going to provide funds so that the Epistle of St Kendi can be heard from the pulpit. Although if it works like most sermons, the congregation, who are mostly one step away from applying for the government’s euthanasia program, will be generally comatose during that awful time of a service when the vic goes off-script and just makes shit up.

When they pass round the begging bowl round for mumble, mumble, church tower, mumble, mumble, new heating, this is what they actually spend your money on

It’s great to be in a church, a place of sanctuary, reverence, and contemplation, and feel like you’re in some urban underpass and just about to be mugged.

And another bunch of morons who still haven’t got the memo that, on race, we just don’t care anymore¹, DEFRA the UK body for farmy rural stuff has decided that our countryside² is just . . . wait for it, wait for it . . . too white.

The Shire, apparently, just doesn’t have enough orcs in it.

What they gonna do? Stick a mosque on top of Scafell, plaster graffiti everywhere, and include a few lootable shops? Everyone from an inner city will feel right at home - let’s turn the one place we have left to escape from the urban hellholes of misery and despair into, erm, places of misery and despair.

Apparently, one of their targets is dogs. Dogs, you see, tend to upset a certain section of our population. Can’t remember which one - it’s probably the same section who never, under any circumstances, not in a million years, ever have a monumental hissy fit about anything they find ‘offensive’ whilst simultaneously being about the most offensive twats themselves³. They overlap with the ‘woke’, not because they are woke, but they have exactly the same total lack of self-awareness of just how miserable and offensive they are.

They cause a lot of us anxiety - but not the arrestable sort of anxiety - that only happens when you cause anxiety towards one of the precious, special, tender little gender flowers and the like. Certain people get to cause as much fucking anxiety as they damn well please - whilst the rest of us have to be careful not to say the wrong fucking word on 𝕏.

It takes a special kind of privilege (not to mention narcissism) to move to another country and demand that the entire fucking country re-shape itself around your likes and foibles. It could only happen in those places whose governance has been polluted by ‘woke’ idiocy - which is pretty much the entirety of ‘the West’.

Go on, I dare you, move to South Korea, or Nigeria, or India, or Saudi Arabia, and demand that they change their entire culture just to suit you. Outside of the woke nations there is no place on earth that thinks this is (a) a good idea (b) the right thing to do or (c) doesn’t identify you as a total bell-end.

Cultures change over time, of course they do, if they’re allowed⁴ to, that is. But that change needs to be organic, from within the culture itself, and not imposed. Many of those changes might be for the better, many might not be - each change should be judged on its own merits. A culture change which celebrates grown-ass men poncing about semi-naked in the streets with stuff shoved up their arses in front of children, for a whole month, is an example of a change that most would agree is definitely not for the better.

It is said that a picture paints a thousand words, but some pictures just scream ‘woodchipper’ at you. One must ponder the kind of sick mind that thinks this is OK.

Any ‘culture’ has the right to determine, for itself, what it can and cannot tolerate. It has the right to say “this is not for us”. That works both ways - Muslim cultures, for example, have that right too. No culture, however, should be beyond criticism. We should be able to say, here in the UK, that “Muslim culture is not for us” if that’s what we want to say, just as in Muslim countries they can say “Western culture is not for us”. Do they get accused of ‘racism’ when they make such statements?

If you do a rough side-by-side comparison between ‘Europe’ and ‘Islam’, historically, then both groups were brutal, often bloodthirsty, imperialistic, colonising, and practiced a great deal of slavery. Whoopee - lots of stuff in history was more than a bit shit. What a surprise!

But only one of these groups is routinely made to feel guilt for their past deeds which do not measure up to modern day morality. Why does any ‘culture’ get some kind of free pass on such things? Some of the the things done in the name of Islam were sickening - as were some of the things done in the name of Christianity. You can do a kind of dick-measuring contest here if you like - but you can’t really escape the conclusion that people (and not just in Europe or the Islamic world) have done some pretty awful things throughout history.

What is wrong is to apply some kind of skewed standard that applies only to one certain group, and not all the others. OK - slavery is a dreadful blight on the human species - there isn’t a single good moral justification⁵ for it, and yet Islamic slavery, which dwarfed that of ‘the west’, never generates quite the same degree of passion or condemnation from the ‘woke’ eejits.

It’s the whole ‘two-tier’ thing all over again - which is another of those very characteristic features of ‘woke’. It’s the inability, and lack of empathy, to be able to apply standards consistently and fairly. Certain cultures get a free pass, other cultures (which are usually lumped into a kind of mono-culture called ‘the west’) most decidedly do not. There is no rationale here (and, honestly, why would we expect one from the ‘woke’?) - it’s an entirely politically and ideologically driven distaste for one specific culture. It’s WDS (West Derangement Syndrome).

You may remember Bilton School in the UK who had a cultural appreciation day and one young lass turned up to celebrate her own culture - that of the UK - by wearing a Union Jack dress. She was treated, by the school staff, like some kind of deviant and humiliated in front of her peers.

Say it loud and say it proud - there’s no such thing as ‘two-tier’ in the UK. Never happens. Total fiction made up by nasty right-wing provocateurs.

I’m proud of the UK and of the things we have achieved. For a tiny nation we once, for a time, punched way, way above our weight - and not just in terms of military power, but in other areas like science and engineering, for example. I’m also not going to pretend that we didn’t do some awful stuff with that punching, too. So what? Even some of our ‘darkest’ sins (as judged by today) - eg. colonialism - were not without some benefits to the colonised when looked at fairly. Still doesn’t make it right - but neither did we apply ‘colonialism’ in quite the same brutal way that other empires and in other times did.

Why does Islam get some kind of free pass for its colonisation, but we don’t?

When I moved to a non-UK country for a decade and lived and worked there, I accepted the rules, regulations, and mores of my host country - that was part of the deal that I freely accepted.

I’m all in favour of immigration (within practical limits) on that basis.

Immigration, without that mindset, is not welcome - and shouldn’t be welcome anywhere. Don’t care where you are, who you are, what you look like, what you like to do in the bedroom, if you move to another place you accept the rules and strictures and culture of that place - otherwise you should just bugger off back.

A large part of the ‘woke’ spiel consists of the following; pretend to be some outrageously Oppressed™ (and Vulnerable™) minority and then cry foul when you just don’t fit in to the ‘norm’ and everyone treats you as if you are, in fact, a minority. It’s a cry for society to be built around a minority rather than, as it should be, built around a majority⁶.

Weirdy McWeirdface bemoans the fact that people cross the street to avoid it. It just can’t figure out why it’s not accepted. Society just isn’t inclusive enough. WeirdFreak™ rights are human rights you know

There are limits to ‘inclusion’ though. I’ve seen some posts, presumably made in good faith and not parody, from people who claim that some ‘executive function’ impairment means that they can’t (oh, they just can’t - cue an entire chorus of dancing drama queens) do stuff that other people take for granted - like being on time, or eating the same food for more than one day at a time. The demand for ‘inclusion’ definitely has practical limits.

One of the more pernicious aspects of this whole drive for ‘inclusion’ thing is implicit in the DEFRA and CofE woke dribblement. I’ll quote Hugo Timms writing in Spiked about the DEFRA nonsense

The diversity push is not only insulting to dwellers of the English countryside. It assumes that people of, say, Bangladeshi heritage, will have no interest in rural England and its culture. That they are so closed-minded they can’t stand to be in a pub or see a dog tearing through a moor. It basically presumes that minority groups are as thin-skinned as they are incurious. That while a white English person should be encouraged to learn and appreciate the customs of other cultures, this mindset could not possibly be reciprocated. This deeply prejudiced, patronising view of ethnic minorities is the working assumption behind all the talk of the countryside being racist.

It’s the same patronising mindset we’ve seen in (some) education initiatives which notice that some minority groups (but curiously not all) struggle to pass basic standard educational tests. The ‘solution’ is not to seek to raise standards in the affected minorities, but to do away with the testing procedures altogether.

The solution for the British countryside is not to help minorities see the wonder and beauty (not to mention mental health) that can be found in nature, but to adapt the countryside to their (apparent) needs. Why do the ‘woke’ always come up with such shit ‘solutions’?

We saw the same kind of thing quite a while back now where some dipshit academic (who else?) argued that parents who read to their kids were unfairly privileging their kids. It’s ‘horseshoe’ theory applied to the intellect - these people try so hard to be ‘intellectual’ they end up appearing spectacularly dumb. They come full circle from academic rigour and rationality and end up in taking a stroll down Imbecile Avenue.

Somewhere, up there, God is rolling His divine eyes at all this buffoonery.

Unfortunately, He’s just been cancelled because eye-rolling is a gesture rooted in white supremacy.

1. A whole decade of being told that eye-rolling, dairy foods, gardening, and God knows what other trivialities are ‘racist’, and that we’re nowhere near guilty enough for having being born white, has resulted in most of us just not giving a single fuck about it anymore. Here’s the field whereupon thou wouldst normally gaze at all the fucks I usually grow. Behold - it is barren (and covered over with fucking solar panels)

2. Although if Ed Millibrain, our environmental catastrophe, gets his way there won't be a Shire to return home to Mr Frodo - it’ll be glassed over with acres of solar panels and have ruddy great big windmills to ‘enhance’ the view

3. I was once speaking to a Muslim who went to a UK university and was included (you know that inclusivity stuff) in a group who decided they should go to a pub. He was, naturally, very offended that they proceeded to drink alcohol in front of him, a Muslim. How very dare they!! I think he was looking for some sort of horror from me at the ‘injustice’ of it all

4. One of my big problems with a hard-line interpretation of the Qur’an is the way it ‘fixes’ in a certain kind of culture. It was an ideology baked in the 7th century, adapted to life in the desert and the communities there, and it may have made some sense in that time and in that context. The claim, however, is that this ideology is ‘perfect’ and ‘for all time’ and ‘for all people everywhere’ and cannot be changed or adapted - it is the way God has decided is best for everyone to live. Perhaps we should ask the women in Afghanistan whether it’s the ‘best’ way to live?

5. And yet, explicitly, in the Qur’an slavery is permissible in certain contexts - and those contexts included granting sexual rights over their female slaves/captives. Many modern Islamic scholars argue that those conditions are rare and now apply only to the past, but there is not a universal principle within Islam that all slavery is unacceptable. That single fact alone, and there are others, tells me that the Qur’an cannot be ‘perfect’, or the word of God (or at least not any kind of God we could respect)

6. Which does NOT mean (do I really have to say it?) that minorities should be treated badly or have fewer rights etc. It just means that society, as a practical necessity, needs to be built more around the needs of the many rather than the few. All practical accommodations should be made to include people if at all possible (wheelchair access, for example)