WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OXFORD
SHOWS OUR DAFT PREDICAMENT
J Sorel’s article is a brilliant analysis of the hideous ‘pedestrianisation’ of perhaps Oxford’s most perfect street - ‘The Broad’, as it used to be known:
I’m not qualified to comment other than aesthetically, on his architectural observation that the purpose of the horrible ‘street architecture’ isn’t to build something, but to obstruct the street for a moral purpose. It’s deliberately annoying and unpleasant: perfect attributes for the Net Zero movement, in how it both projects itself and treats the public. Even the ‘seating’ is uncomfortable. The pathetic contrast with its magnificent Gothic surroundings is explained in his article.
He thinks the nihilistic moral point being bludgeoned is how trivial manmade beauty is, reminding us of the raw power of nature to bring our pretentions and achievements down: ‘Somehow, nature will always have its due – the weeds will always creep in, reclaiming all our achievements and bringing them low.’ It does this about as convincingly as the bits of scrubby grass found alongside the North Circular or in the centre of business park roundabouts. Still, it does considerably worsen a beautiful place.
Surely this should prompt the rebuttal: If you believe in the omnipotent power of nature, why doesn’t that belief extend to accepting its most basic manifestation: the power of reproduction to fix our sex/gender at birth - the two terms being completely interdependent? How can you claim to respect nature, whilst ignoring its most profound effect on every human being? I’m aware of the preposterous fudge, latterly used by ‘gender theorists’ - that gender is some inner biological truth or destiny, with sex arbitrarily assigned at birth. But that’s mystical mumbo-jumbo, about as scientifically valid as phlogiston theory or Piltdown Man. Indeed it’s not a scientific theory at all, merely an ideological position. Not a single tenet of ‘gender theory’ is capable of scientific falsification, or even empirical investigation.
But every Oxford building and every street (even zebra crossing) proudly proclaims this new ‘rainbow’ religion, which denies the basics of nature and scientific reality. The City Council are fanatics for this nonsense. It’s a striking inconsistency and an obvious one.
I’m sure my observation is unoriginal, but it’s in exactly these blindingly-clear contradictions that the ‘woke’ movement has to be constantly attacked: It doesn’t even make sense, on its own terms.
I wish that "Global Warming" wotsits would hurry up and get here. It's just too darn cold to really enjoy a "café culture" in this country. You can have fun walking through a freezing cold Westgate in the months with an R in them observing the oiks sat outside playing on their laptops whilst pretending to be in Barcelona. And aint it funny that all the those in favour of the new religion Eco/Be Nice/LGBTPGTips etc all use the same words and phrases. Talk about running with the pack. There, rant over, just going to have a rub down with a copy of The Sporting Life now.
I started out very skeptical about man made climate change back in the very early 90s, mainly because it seemed to be a pan-govt pushed agenda (even then). My position has hardened considerably since then. We may have a very marginal impact on climate (I doubt it) but man is out competed by the various natural drivers. I truly believe many in the Green movement know this and NZ is being used as a mechanism to completely change society to one driven by collectivism. Any and every opportunity is grabbed to upend our cultural heritage, political and market economy (what's left of it). Street furniture is yet another cancerous example. I nipped into Nottingham town centre yesterday morning and went to John Lewis. Rainbows every-bloody-where. Why? What are they trying to do? I'm utterly fed up with this constant lecturing in the public space. I turned on a bit of mainstream TV yesterday to watch the TdF - first time in a long while I've watched mainstream. The adverts are off the scale now. I reckon I was one of the first to notice this about 5 or so yrs ago in my group but now it's like - 'we know this doesn't represent society but you are getting it both barrels'. Just leave us alone.