‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’ So begins the book of John in the New Testament.
‘All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Whether you ascribe to the Christian worldview or not, you must admit these words to be profound. More so since we discovered in the 1960’s that there was indeed a beginning and latterly, since we mapped the language of DNA: all three and a half billion, four-letter sequences of the human G-nome that codes for a human being.
Words allow us to express ourselves and to understand our world. It is language that elevates us above the other animals.
Words, though they are not physical, code for something that is tangible and real, that is, they convey meaning.
They allow us to communicate with one another and pass on learned knowledge to the next generation, just as we pass on our genetic code to our children and our children’s children.
Of course, words may change their meaning over time, but the essence of humanity, who we are, remains the same, however we choose to describe ourselves.
And though our ideas about ourselves may change, there are certain truths about humanity that remain unchanged. We might say that they are, ‘in our DNA’.
There is currently a concerted effort to erase the very foundations of our societies and to start all over again. I see it day in, day out across social and mainstream media and academia and it touches every aspect of our lives.
It has awoken in me a desire to reassert reality and the things I know to be true; things we all know to be true if we bother to think about them.
For if nothing is true or real, if we have no foundation, then nothing is worth reading or talking about and we descend into chaos. It is merely a make-believe story-world of our own creation that we cannot hope to share harmoniously with others.
A couple of weeks ago I decided to torture myself with a little game my brother and I invented called BBC bingo.
The rules are simply that you flick on BBC Radio 4, at any time of day or night, just for a minute or so, and if the subject matter is the usual impoverished serving of abject propagandist tripe, you simply shout, “BINGO!” and probably a good many other things besides.
It’s an unhealthy game to play, I know, but it does at least continue prove our theory.
On this occasion, I had just enjoyed a pleasant walk in the woods with my dogs and with my mental fortitude sufficiently boosted, I decided to give the game a go on my car radio. Why not? I said to myself and the dogs, who thought I was offering a tasty treat and wagged their tails excitedly.
On tuning from the “pathos and cathartic passion” of Barber’s, Adagio for Strings, to that now broken record of BBC radio four, I was greeted with an awful interview by two “individuals with cervixes”, otherwise known as women.
The interviewee was putting forward her case for a ‘Gender Equal Snow-Plough Plan’ for the city of Vienna. I suppose ‘Vienna’ was the red-herring that gave the whole idea an air of artistic and intellectual sophistication.
By clearing snow only from main routes, she argued, this was clearly a grievous disadvantage imposed on women by the male patriarchy and must be rectified forthwith.
“BLOODY HELL!” I shouted, immediately forgetting the rules of my own game. The tranquil birdsong and the soothing waters of the river Bovey evaporated in an instant and I was irritated beyond reason.
“Gender equal snow plough plan,” I repeated to me and my bemused border terriers; “I’ve heard it all now.”
They completely understood that I was no longer offering a treat.
I have since decided not to play any more, as this masochistic game always brings the same results.
Last week, I read the following headline from the mainstream American news network, CNN:
‘Individuals with a cervix are to start screening at 25…’
Apart from being a vulgar and long-winded way of avoiding saying the word, ‘women’, It is a rather crass attempt to diminish the immutable identity of womanhood.
It is a debate in which the author, JK Rowling has already got on the wrong side of the transgender Thought Police.
Can’t we even agree that there are men and women and where babies come from? I thought.
If we can’t there’s no point in having a conversation. I certainly get a good deal more sense out of my border terriers:
Raise a playful eyebrow and they immediately understand a game of chase is afoot; point at something of interest in the hedge and they look and sniff; tap my thigh and they make themselves comfortable in my lap. We understand one another perfectly, except when I start talking gibberish, regurgitated from the BBC.
The CNN headline also makes a mockery of the first discussion: Because women and men cease to exist as a separate sexes, so gender inequalities are rendered irrelevant; even imagined or invented ones.
And the first is so absurd as to be positively indecent when real people have real problems to deal with. I suppose these are the thoughts of someone who has little else of meaning or consequence to think about.
I suspect that the real women of Vienna, or anywhere else, haven’t given the snow plough plan a second thought for all of life’s struggles.
As I am, in fact, a man, and have prostate- a dodgy one at that -does it follow that I should be referred to as an ‘individual with a prostate,’ lest anyone should be offended? Do my XY chromosomes reduce Jim to mere anatomical features, rather than a man with a personality and a family?
Who, precisely, is offended by my maleness or your femininity and why should it matter if they were? That’s their problem.
I had the misfortune to develop high-grade metastatic prostate cancer in my late forties, discovered near to my 50th birthday. It is now the most common of all cancers.
But should we start referring to men and women as ‘people with prostates and cervixes’ to accommodate a tiny minority with gender disphoria or those who are confused about their gender, sex or sexuality?
Of course not.
And if you don’t have a prostate you should be grateful, at least, that it’s one cancer you won’t get. It’s an exclusive, male-only club and you can’t join whatever you call yourself.
And believe me, prostate cancer makes one feel less of a man already without all that other nonsense to listen to. Injections and tablets are required to remove the male hormone, testosterone, so I would like, if possible, to keep the least remnants of my dignity as a ‘man.‘
That is not even to mention the spectre of enlarged breasts, a common side effect of treatment that I am anxious to avoid.
Thanks to two wonderful people with a cervix- my wife and my oncologist- I’m still here, still reasonably fit and well and able to do most of the things I could do before.
I’m not asking for sympathy, just common sense. Whether you believe that the Word of God created us male and female and we evolved to be the complex beings we are today, or you believe that the world came into existence from nothing and we evolved to be the complex male and female beings that we are today (from a puddle or something), it matters not; Male and Female we are; Man and Woman.
In a way, how I feel or what I believe about these things is irrelevant: sex is immutable. We are born, except in rare cases, Male or Female.
Why then should our mainstream media try endlessly to convince us that these hitherto unquestionable facts are not so?
I am only an amateur when it comes to philosophy and psychology, though I have a keen interest in these things. When it comes to knowing myself, (he/him/a man), I am the world’s leading expert, just as you will know more about yourself than anyone else alive. We are complex creatures as individuals and as described in the unique language of our DNA. We may be labelled by certain characteristics or archetypes, but within each of us is a spirit, a character, a mind and experience that is wholly unique and individual to us.
We’re all, in that sense, one of a kind; a one-off! I should hate that we are all being reduced to a lump of meat and wonder about the intentions of this agenda.
And I should point out that there is a technical term for the kind of meddling with the truth we have seen demonstrated in the two examples above; that is, deconstruction.
I have recently seen it’s purpose and methods described thus:
‘The purpose of deconstruction is to undercut the ideas, beliefs, words, ideologies, art and discourses of our civilisation by attacking their meaning.
Deconstruction operates by attacking at the level of meaning. What gets deconstructed are words, ideas, ideologies, concepts, discourses, art, texts, symbols, etc. Whatever can be used to MEAN something or communicate gets deconstructed.
If a set of ideas and a way of understanding of the world provide the blueprint for a society, then you can tear down that society by destroying its blueprint. You do that by destroying the IDEAS and understanding of the world used to create that societies blueprint.’
I believe that this is precisely what we are seeing, when we observe this constant barrage of maddening, nonsensical, anti-scientific and dehumanising propaganda in our mainstream media.
If you want to know more about deconstruction, I would point you to a fella named Jacques Derrida, the Algerian-French philosopher who presented these ideas.
I wish to give cause for offence to no one, but that doesn’t mean if we are offended by truth itself, we should try to change it. The problem does not lie in the truth- it is immutable- the problem lies in us and our mixed-up thinking.
If my own world is falling apart, what do I gain by bringing the rest of the world down with me?
If I come from a broken home or had a bad or absent father, why should I try to deny the existence of whole families and loving fathers? If I am confused about my gender identity, why should I try to force all young children to be confused about theirs?
If I am unhappy and have nothing to lose, why should I think that destroying the happiness of others will help?
No, it won’t do! This enemy comes only to steal and kill and destroy.
But I am given much comfort in the knowledge that there is truth, hope and and love out there in he real world, awaiting our discovery. I am grateful to have discovered some of it for myself. It is a world of beauty and meaning and wholeness and peace.
Just as I am aware that there is also a world of lies and darkness and chaos waiting for those who would give in to its burgeoning entropy, and even try to usher it in.
It is my firmly held belief that the people who wish to deconstruct society and meaning and the very words we use to describe these things, are not the sort of people to whom we should listen or lend our trust. These are the foot soldiers of the woke movement where there is no forgiveness, no redemption and apparently, no such thing as truth or morality.
That this constant barrage of white noise comes, not only from fringe academics or groups, but from mainstream academia and media like CNN, the New York Times and the BBC, is something to be concerned about, if you really want to keep words and ideas like justice and truth.
I have found that the only way to defeat a lie is to keep telling the truth. And the only way to bring about justice is to live in the truth; to seek it and cherish and nurture it.
If you don’t believe in truth or justice or morality, and think that they are simply words to be altered at will, then you have no business in lecturing others.