A anonymous recent posting

I once was a normal person... I used to think I was pretty much just a regular person, but I was born white, into a two-parent household which now, whether I like it or not, makes me privileged, a racist, and responsible for slavery.

I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today's standards, makes me a fascist because I plan, budget, and support myself.

I went to school for many years and have always held a job. But I now find out that I am not here because I earned it, but because I was "advantaged".

I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobic.

I am not a Muslim, which now labels me as an infidel.

I am older than 60, making me a useless dinosaur who doesn't understand Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Snapchat.

I think, and I reason, and I doubt most of what the ‘mainstream’ media tells me, which makes me a Right-wing conspiracy nut.

I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive culture, making me a xenophobe.

I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair reward according to each individual's merits, which today makes me an anti-socialist.

I believe our system guarantees freedom of effort not freedom of outcome or subsidies which must make me a borderline sociopath.

I believe in the defense and protection of my nation for and by all citizens, now making me a militant.

I am proud of our flag, what it stands for, and the many who died to let it fly, so I stand during our National Anthem - so I must be a radical.

Funny - it all took place over the last decade! If all this nonsense wasn't enough to deal with, now I don't even know which toilet to use!

GOD BLESS ALL OF US NORMAL PEOPLE!!!

*******************************************

Oxfam is a toxic charity that has shifted so far from its original aims as to be almost unrecognisable... Its new video is a vile, misogynistic attack against JK Rowling

I'm no stranger to the bile spewed at feminists like me by trans-activists online, but the Oxfam video I watched yesterday left me deeply disturbed.

It is a vile, misogynistic attack against JK Rowling, simply because she has so bravely championed the rights of biological women.

And it speaks volumes about Oxfam, a charity which still trumpets its primary purpose as a desire to 'help end poverty' but which today is captured to such an extent by extreme political ideology and trans-lunacy that it is no longer fit for purpose.

It's a deeply sad demise for the charity, founded in 1942 with the noblest of aims to send food supplies to starving mothers and children in Nazi-occupied Greece.

From these simple beginnings it expanded to provide international aid around the world, helping to combat poverty and hunger, as its fuller name, the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, makes clear.

For decades, all manner of people have been pouring their hard-earned cash into this worthy project, in the belief that they were helping those in real need.

But priorities at the charity have changed. Should you click on Oxfam's website today, the first thing you will see – against a backdrop of rainbow flags and banners – is the slogan 'diversity makes us'.

What on Earth, you may think, has this got to do with those starving in Somalia, currently in the grip of a catastrophic famine; or Ethiopia, where millions are tormented by drought and conflict?

Or for that matter Afghanistan, where an entire population has been pushed into poverty?

Nothing, of course. Instead, it is a cloak of worthiness which conceals some ugly truths.

Under the leadership of its highly-paid executives, Oxfam has succumbed to an offensive agenda that is damaging to its reputation – as well as to those of its staff who dare to publicly disagree with its stance on trans issues and diversity.

Let us not forget that behind those friendly rainbow motifs lies a charity that in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti launched an investigation into reports that its own employees, including senior figures, sexually abused local women, hiring prostituted women and girls for orgies.

Seven members of the Oxfam team in Haiti, including the head of the operation, Roland van Hauwermeiren, resigned or were sacked for sexual misconduct in 2011.

And yet disgracefully, Oxfam declared such behaviour was not a case of exchanging 'sex for aid' because the prostitutes weren't actually beneficiaries of aid. What is more, it failed to publish its 2011 report of the investigation, whose contents only became known in 2018.

A whitewash then, and one which concealed an undeniable truth: that those employed by Oxfam exploited the desperate and damaged people they are meant to protect. The furore that followed should alone have been a wake-up call and a push for major grassroots change.

Instead, even as the Charity Commission imposed a 19-month supervision order on Oxfam to investigate what it called 'safeguarding failings', and the charity introduced cuts and laid off staff, its LGBT+ network miraculously found the money to produce a training manual called 'Learning About Trans Rights and Inclusion'.

Among the 2021 manual's claims was that 'mainstream feminism is supporting the root causes of sexual violence' because it 'centres privileged white women and demands that 'bad men' be fired or imprisoned'

In other words, rather than accepting that sexual violence is a problem that Oxfam ought to combat, it seemed to be saying that women who complained about it were the issue. It was another deeply concerning insight into the nonsensical world view of Oxfam's senior executives, who have latterly travelled so far through the looking glass that they are no longer remotely in touch with the real world.

How else can you view it when a female employee I know called Maria (not her real name) was effectively hounded out of her job for coming to the defence of JK Rowling? A member of staff had asked on an internal forum whether, given her 'transphobic views', it was right to sell Rowling's books in Oxfam's charity shops.

Responding, Maria pointed out that Oxfam's shops stocked books by people with all kinds of different outlooks, and asked for evidence of this supposed transphobia. It was – is – a legitimate response in a nation which purportedly protects free speech.

Yet in a now wearyingly familiar modern version of the Salem witch trials, Maria was instead subjected to a gruelling internal investigation which, ultimately, led her to have a nervous breakdown. While Oxfam eventually offered a grovelling apology – there's a pattern here – for what it called 'procedural mistakes', she felt she had no choice but to leave a job she loved.

Despite this apology, I am under any no illusion that any lessons have been learned. In fact, I know of many more female employees in the charitable sector who live in terror of expressing their belief that sex-based rights matter, knowing that even an accusation of transphobia can lead to them being blacklisted from employment.

Oxfam's obsessive focus seems no longer to be its founding mission of alleviating poverty and helping the most vulnerable but instead a culture war. Earlier this year, it published an 'Inclusive Language Guide' during which, over the course of 92 self-flagellating pages, it apologises for the English language, describing it as 'the language of a colonising nation', and offering a lengthy list of words that should be avoided.

Among them are 'mother' and 'father' which they claim ascribe 'gendered roles' which could upset transgender people.

Again you might ask what any of this has to do with the dispossessed women in developing countries? Striving to survive in places with no access to contraception and abortion, and where rape and male brutality is a daily reality, they have no choice but to face the punishing reality of their biology.

These are the women for whom Oxfam are meant to advocate and create meaningful change. Instead, they are pouring resources donated by a well-meaning public into nonsensical pamphlets and nasty, virtue-signalling videos that only serve to highlight that this toxic organisation has shifted so far from its original aims as to be almost unrecognisable.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12166859/JULIE-BINDEL-Oxfam-toxic-charity-shifted-far-original-aims.html

********************************************

Washington Post article accuses 'bigoted' right-wing 'extremists' of inciting 'anti-democracy' Target boycott

Being opposed to Target is being opposed to democracy???

The Washington Post is receiving pushback for publishing an article painting conservatives who support the Target boycott as "extremists" and opponents of democracy.

The article about supposed right-wing extremism stemming from a retail boycott begins with the account of a female customer allegedly upset because Target was "carrying Pride month merchandise." The woman reportedly using her own scissors to cut her Target credit card in front of the guest services at a Target location in South Florida, and informed employees, "I am never shopping here again."

The manager of the store told the outlet that there were "several tense encounters that workers have reported over LGBTQ+ items." Ticked-off customers allegedly accused Target of "shoving your woke agenda down our throats," and employees were reportedly called "child groomers."

The article touched upon bomb threats that targeted several Target stores in multiple states. However, local news reports said the bomb threats were made by an individual who claimed to be angry that Target was cowardly for turning their back on the LGBTQ community and "decided to cater to the homophobic right-wing redneck bigots who protested and vandalized their store."

The article written by a retail reporter and a business reporter noted that Target decided to pull some items because of the backlash. Queer and transgender designers blamed "domestic terrorists" for Target taking their controversial products off the shelves.

The article painted the Target boycott with a broad brush that conservatives were upset that the national retail chain was selling LGBTQ merchandise. However, the article did not mention that the boycotts really took off after it was revealed that the big-box chain was selling "tuck-friendly" bathing suits, LGBTQ onesies for babies, and products from a transgender designer promoting Satanism, violence, and drug use.

"Though Pride month and other inclusivity initiatives have been around for years, they’ve increasingly become litmus tests for consumers, forcing companies to fully commit on social issues or yield to critics," the article read. "Target, one of the largest American general-merchandise retailers, said it has offered products celebrating Pride month for more than a decade."

The article cited "experts on extremism" to point the finger at right-wing influencers for inciting an "anti-democracy movements."

Lindsay Schubiner, who studies violent movements for the anti-extremism watchdog Western States Center, told the Washington Post, "It's not like any of this is all that unpredictable. We don’t always know exactly where these sort of anti-democracy actors are going to point to next, but the increase in threats and harassment from anti-democracy movements in the U.S. has become so frequent that this is something that absolutely just needs to be planned for."

Schubiner claimed that "bigoted and anti-democracy groups" will attempt various boycott tactics to "see what will stick."

Sarah Kate Ellis, president and chief executive of LGBTQ media advocacy group GLAAD, said, "As soon as you cede ground to extremists, you give them more permission."

Ellis claimed that Republican lawmakers such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) "demonize" the LGBTQ community.

The WaPo article stated, "According to experts on extremism, the boycotts — and the threats and harassment that have extended from them — are part of a diffused but focused campaign that’s inflamed by influential conservatives exploiting TikTok and right-wing media."

The article named conservative commentator Matt Walsh as an "anti-LGBTQ" rabble-rouser who stirs up boycotts against woke companies.

A sizeable number of Twitter reactions to the Washington Post article laughed off the accusations that the Target boycott was based on extremism of any kind.

A person explained, "Today in the Narrative: if you stop shopping at places that endorse child sex changes, you’re an extremist."

One Twitter user said, "Parents not wanting their children being exposed to a satanic sex cult while they’re shopping at Target is not an example of extremism. Real extremism is offering LGBTQ-themed onesies for babies."

Another user stated, "You're calling a normal and fairly muted response to a corporate-sponsored upheaval in our social norms extremism."

Target has lost billions in market value since the boycott began, and the retailer's stock is recently down 14%.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/washington-post-target-boycott-right-wing-extremists

*********************************************************

The malign influence of "Mermaids" is becoming increasingly clear

While I was writing about the latest scandalous revelation involving the children’s charity Mermaids and the Tavistock Gender identity development service (GIDS) it occurred to me that readers of these pages will already be familiar with the key planks of this terrible tale. You will doubtless have seen countless articles critiquing gender ideology and the medical treatments on vulnerable children over the years that have become normalised, and will be aware that gender ideology has seeped into pretty much every key institution in the land.

The consequences of gender ideology for women as well as children have been grave, as it has led to the push for men to legally be able to self-identify as women and invade single sex spaces such as refuges and Rape Crisis centres, prison wings, and changing rooms. It has also led to gender clinics handing out toxic hormones to children as though they were Haribos.

There should be real consequences for those that have allowed so many children to be pushed through this medical conveyor belt

Now it has been officially revealed what many of us have known for some time: the Tavistock has been taking instructions from the charity Mermaids. But bearing in mind the Tavistock has been treating many patients for what many now regard as an imaginary condition, it makes sense that it deferred to the maniacs who created it.

Hannah Barnes, the BBC journalist and author of Time to Think, says she had known since 2019 of emails between Susie Green and GIDS director Polly Carmichael because they were part of Mermaids’ data breach in 2019. This made it somewhat surprising when the Tavistock claimed to have no such emails when requested by way of a Freedom of Information request.

If only those that have become increasingly convinced that distressed and disturbed children have undergone unnecessary surgeries and irreversible hormone treatment had listened to those who had been warning of what was to come.

Twenty years ago, having become increasingly concerned about the notion that children could be trapped in the wrong body, I contacted the Tavistock to ask to speak to its then clinical director. I explained to the communications officer that I had assumed the diagnosis of ‘transsexuality’ would have been discredited by now, as many feminists and other people with common sense had recognised that it was based on a toxic form of sexism that dictates femininity for girls and masculinity for boys.

I was never granted an interview with the Tavistock. Nevertheless, my investigation was published in the Telegraph magazine and I recall several people that have since banged the drum for ‘trans rights’ and now consider me to be a raging Terf saying they thought it terrible that surgery and hormones were being used to correct what is clearly a mental health condition.

The following year, I published a piece in the Guardian Weekend magazine in which I reported on a trans-identified man that was demanding access to a female rape crisis centre in Canada. At the time of publication, the trans rights movement in the UK was gathering pace, and they were emboldened by a grovelling apology by the Reader’s Editor for publishing it in the first place. The consequences for me have been horrendous and continue to this day.

In the meantime, the feminist (and lesbian and gay) resistance to gender ideology and medical experiments on children has grown in strength and conviction. But this has come at a huge cost to those of us that have spoken out.

Women have been hounded out of their jobs, had their reputations trashed, become unemployable, lost friends, and colleagues, been silenced, publicly cancelled and shamed, made to feel like pariahs and bigots when all we were doing was trying to expose the biggest medical scandal in the past century.

Mermaids is but one player in this horror story. Unfortunately, there are many other ideologues, facilitated by the likes of Stonewall. Individual misogynistic men that claim to be on the left have promoted this ideology and in turn attempted to ruin the lives and reputations of the feminists that spoke out about the harm to women and girls.

While this has been going ahead, female prisoners – some of the most vulnerable women in society – have been raped and sexually assaulted by trans identified males, girls have been frightened in changing rooms when seeing male genitalia in what was supposed to be a safe space, and let’s not forget that countless children have undergone irreversible harm.

During evidence at a tribunal brought by Mermaids, it was stated that they were not medical experts and therefore did not advise anyone on healthcare. These emails show though the way in which Mermaids helped draft a service specification used by the NHS to treat children.

Those that push this dangerous ideology have been lauded by many liberals as the greatest social justice warriors. As this war comes to an end, and the trans extremists prepare to be defeated, let’s not forget the sacrifice of all of us that have fought to expose this monstrous situation. There should be real consequences for those that have allowed so many children to be pushed through this medical conveyor belt.

I won’t hold my breath, but I think it would be fair and proper for those that have supported and defended the practices of Mermaids and GIDS and have thrown insult such as ‘bigot’ at those of us that have attempted to expose the truth to offer their abject apologies. But those children harmed as a result of this pernicious set of beliefs are owed the biggest apology of all.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-malign-influence-of-mermaids-is-becoming-increasingly-clear/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************