"Let Them Eat Puberty Blockers"

This week, I received in my email inbox two pieces of content that people thought I may be interested in. The first was the new video by Contrapoints, and the second was an article by N.D. Wallace-Swan with the title “Infrastructure Deficits”. Contrapoints is of course a flagship leftist YouTuber, transsexual and cultural commentator, albeit an unproductive one — this being his first video for a whole year. N.D. Wallace-Swan was a guy I got talking to on Twitter who has a substantial understanding of engineering and general statistical number-crunching. In August 2021 I made a video essay refutation of a Contrapoints video which was, for me, a big hit. Essentially, I was being asked to make another video take-down of this latest Contrapoints spectacle, which weighed in at an incredibly bloated 1 hour and 55 minutes.

I shall save you, my dear readers, from spending two hours of your life wading your way through an ocean of transsexual, postmodern piffle and sum up the actual content of the video thus: marginalized groups are justified in radicalism and even violence if the system won’t listen, and also JK Rowling is a handmaiden of powerful white men.

This is the “discourse”. It is talking about how Terfs talk about Transsexuals and how conservatives talk about Terfs, and transsexuals. How did we talk about feminists 40 years ago? Is the teleology of feminism to inevitably drift into Terfdom? Are we talking about transsexuals in the same way we talked about feminists in the past? If so, then the logic of modern Terfdom would negate its own feminist roots, so the joke’s on you, birthing people!

To witness a rapidly deteriorating man in drag delivering a two-hour lecture on transgender rights, and whether it’s in contrast to or foundationally aligned with feminism, is to witness someone sitting on the absolute tip of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pyramid. Or to refer to another essay of my own, it is to sit atop the elephant on stilts. Contrapoints, and the Shitlib left in general, however, do not seem to see it that way because their entire Weltanschauung is grounded on an a priori assumption of progress having been made in the manner of a ratchet clicking in one direction.

A few years ago, I reread Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, and I was astounded at how postmodern it seemed in its broadsides against man’s supposed reason and rationality. We are invited to sneer and giggle at attempts by Swift’s characters to extract the sunlight from cucumbers or the fact that Lilliput’s political discourse is divided along the lines of how to crack open a boiled egg. We, as passive observers looking down upon these comical miniature people, can laugh because we’re removed from it. For the actual Lilliputians, it certainly wasn’t a joke.

It is the theatre of the absurd and parodical. One must tread cautiously in drawing such analogies. Removing the breasts of teenage girls or castrating boys is the theatre of the grotesque and macabre, not farce. Dressing up in drag, preaching to an audience of millions while the most powerful institutions on Earth run cover for you, is a farce, a dumb charade only possible because more genuine and real material concerns are no longer a threat.

With that in mind, how are the foundations of this pyramid doing these days? And that brings us to N.D. Wallace-Swan and back down to the ground with something of a loud thud. Swan’s thesis is that the current rate of immigration into Western nations (using Canada as an example) is going to place a burden on basic infrastructure which is unsustainable and likely to lead to degrees of collapse:

Given the deficit rate of 143.32%, and comparing that to the infrastructure level of 116.05%, we can see that the deficit is HIGHER than the supply itself. It is difficult to quantify this so I must use an analogy of some sort to lay it out.

I will use water as an example. Imagine in time cycle zero that you need 2 litres of water per day in order to survive (commonly known to be the case). By end of cycle 1, you would need 2 L but only have 1.83 L available on average. How will people get their needs met? No idea. As for end of cycle 2, you will still need 2 L of water but only 1.64 L will be available on average. If you continue the math, by the time you get to cycle 8, there is no water available. You are in negative water supply. By cycle 10, you need 2 L of water per day but you actually have none and also now owe 0.87 L of water per day. Essentially there is no water for you, unless you pay a massive price for it.

Put simply, even if we disregard all concerns over race and culture, the strain being placed on infrastructure means that eventually the lights will go out and people will be living crammed into cheap favelas if they’re lucky. The rate at which people are entering Western nations is outstripping by orders of magnitude the ability of basic infrastructure to carry the increasing load. Indeed, as in Britain, there hardly even seems to be any interest in expanding the infrastructure. On the contrary, the net-zero Climate Change targets are set to dramatically decrease the energy supply in particular and consumption generally.

It is highly illuminating to contrast the two forms of content here. One can’t help but be reminded of cultural tropes of an aloof decadence unconstrained and, at least superficially, unmoored from consequences. A society that prioritizes “Woke” over the ability to provide clean water or a functioning sewage system is a society that, sooner or later, is going to feel the consequences.

In the West the hierarchy of needs pyramid has been turned upside down. It stands on the peak now, not the base. Our first priority is ensuring “marginalized groups” are sufficiently pandered to, that children can “transition” and that the discourse remains severed from the concerns of actual civilizational maintenance. I suppose the progressive mind would simply point out, we’re lucky enough to have supercomputers to handle the complexities of running society. But the AI is politically correct too. Many a jaw dropped recently when the AI system ChatGPT replied that it was more ethical to allow a nuclear war to take place than to use racial slurs in order to prevent it. This is an extreme scenario, of course, but what’s downstream from it is black women flying jumbo jets, transsexual admirals commanding submarines, and white men who should be engineers in power plants being relegated to office cubicles or Zoom calls copy and pasting data for GloboCorp.

In Gulliver’s Travels, Swift, true to form, explains the Lilliputian political process for electing new officials:

When a great office is vacant, either by death or disgrace (which often happens,) five or six of those candidates petition the emperor to entertain his majesty and the court with a dance on the rope; and whoever jumps the highest, without falling, succeeds in the office.

Say what you want about the utility of rope dancing as a means by which to grant political power to individuals, but at least it’s a meritocracy.

When I reread Gulliver’s Travels a few years ago, it left something of a bad taste. It was, in my opinion, yet more acerbic deconstruction of the human condition — and haven’t we had enough of that yet? Simultaneously, though, there’s catharsis in analyzing the theatre of the absurd as an outsider. This week, the contrast between Swan’s sobering analysis and the theatre of the absurd as represented by Contrapoints brought into perspective the absurdity of what the left and the “discourse” in general has become.

As Swift himself writes:

And he gave it for his opinion, “that whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.

The inverted and perverse incentive structure of the West today will probably respond to collapsing supply chains and material conditions with something akin to:

“Let them eat puberty blockers.”