Is The Gender Pay Gap Sexist?

Gender Pay Gap? I dunno... 

7 to 9 min read 

The gender pay gap has been a thorn in the side of women across the country. When we discuss the gender pay gap issue, we typically draw from the numbers, such as the various gender percentage comparisons. However, narrowly focusing on this might fail to capture the full extent of the problem. 

For me, it's the politics behind it that can be odourous. Sometimes, I find statistical arguments questionable. Not many of us saturate ourselves with complex numerically processed statistics, which are supposed to explain something about why men get paid more than women do. I simply cannot grasp how numbers might prove, let's say, any of those feminist arguments that blame a patriarchal oppressor for pay inequality—why is it so complicated? 

Okay, Here We Go...

In 2020, The Office for National Statistics, stated that the gender pay gap for full-time workers in the UK was 7.4%. They reckoned that on average, for every £1 earnt by a man, a woman earnt just 92p. However, years later and it's reported that the gap is getting smaller, but on the contrary: women are paid 89p for every £1 a man earns on average, Sky News (2023). They say the numbers represent full-time workers, adding that introducing figures for part-time and self-employed workers would show a bigger gender pay gap, because women work part-time a lot. 

Now, the government recently estimated that between 200 000 - 500 000 transgender people live in the UK. How fairly they are represented in these statistics has little to do with precision data retrieval—no clear guidance exists. If the study was entitled the cisgender pay gap, it would be non-inclusive, and honestly, does the research only want data from people who identify as the sex with which they were born? How would the poor transgender guidelines and data collection of hundreds of thousands affect the findings? 

Is the claim that men are deliberately paid more than women an oversimplification, or does it have substance for a great patriarchy conspiracy? Without a doubt, factors such as social class, education, health, ethnicity, ones amount of experience, racial and cultural prejudices, as well as the type of job, will all impact on cold quantitative figures, leaving little room for conspiracy theory. 

To keep on the side of real life, let's consider the female dominated sex industry. Men make up 20% of sex workers, and women make less money than men do. You see, a few years back, gentlemen escorting in London could earn a solid £1,000 an hour; where as, in comparison, ladies were limited to £150 per hour! (Marshall, 2019). Not to forget that the lowest earners could make as little as £5-£20 for providing a sexual service in a brothel or on the street (Neill & Plankey, 2017). In surveys shared by Streetlight UK (2015), 76% of people in prostitution had experienced some form of PTSD and 90% of women said they would stop if they could. It is likely this is because key male sex workers are less common, rarity almost always commands a premium. 

The Canadian Psychology Professor... 

Professor Jordan Peterson, (2018), argued against feminist accusations by stating the gender pay gap is not solely due to discrimination against women. He put forward a practical explanation that men and women naturally gravitate towards different work, and he played down any patriarchal theories behind the pay gap. Of course, there will be random sexist people dotted across the world of employment. 

It's good to remember, STEM careers are often highly paid and attract males. These are fields that require typically left brained individuals. Peterson insisted women who choose the same career paths as men and match their hours are generally paid the same (BBC, 2018). We can see this in large bodies like the NHS. Agreed, the job market is not just the NHS. 

Critics of Peterson's argument reckon that women in male dominated fields often face discrimination and harassment, which encourages high staff turnover, office for National Statistics (2020). On the other hand, women can be sexist to men in their female dominated fields, I can attest to that. 

Verdict

Can we learn anything from this? Yes, numbers suggest there's a gender pay gap in the UK. Fine, but this issue doesn't seem simple enough for me to grasp. I'm sure any of us can use numbers to validate our own bias, go along with me here, for example:

Farmers These Days!

• Statistically, we found 82.4% British farmers use collies as sheepdogs. 
• Many other animals including ravens, dolphins, and especially pigs, are all proven to be much more intelligent than dogs.
•  67.3% of farms keep pigs which make better candidates for sheepherding than Collies.
• Choosing Collies unfairly maintains pig unemployed. In addition, swine are slaughtered for meat but instead, canine consumption is economically more viable. This means pigs should herd livestock without swinophobia or pigudism. 

We shouldn't use statistics to make questionable arguments. We all get pulled in by these quantitative assertions, but they don't always reflect the state of affairs—pigs are more intelligent than dogs, but they are more lazy and much slower. In 2020, employers with at least 250 staff, without any guidelines, chose whether they should tick the male or female box, representing their staff in the gender pay gap (Penman, 2020). 

  

References:

Marshall, T. (2019). "The shocking male-female sex pay gap." BBC Newsbeat. [Online] Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48602674

Neill, M., & Plankey, M. W. (2017). "Sex work in the United Kingdom: policies and politics." Healthcare. 5(1): 9; doi:10.3390/healthcare5010009

Office for National Statistics. (2020). Gender pay gap in the UK: 2020. [Online] Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/genderpaygapintheuk/2020

Penman, A. (2020) Gender pay gap and trans people [Online] Available from: https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/features/gender-pay-gap-reporting-and-trans-people/

BBC. (2018). Jordan Peterson: 'Women who claim gender pay gap aren't reliable'. [Online] Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552

Sky News (2023). The Pay Gap Is Narrowing, But Women Still Paid Less Than Men, Sky News Analysis Suggests [Online] Available from: https://news.sky.com/story/gender-pay-gap-narrowing-but-women-still-paid-89p-for-every-1-a-man-earns-12846184

Streetlight UK. (2015) Prostitution The Facts [Online] Available from: https://www.streetlight.uk.com/the-facts/

Why Don't They Faith Heal The Pope?

When The Pope Relies on Medical Science and Your Mate Calls him out as a Holy Sh*t.

3 to 5 min read

I mean, fair enough, if you're an atheist and you've immersed yourself in those gritty atheist vs. theist debates on popular social media platforms, your excitement might reach a peak at the thought of the head of the church turning to medical healthcare recently.

To be fair, Catholicism has a history of clashing with scientists, opposing any knowledge that goes against their faith, and now they're embracing it, seemingly abandoning the healing touch they believe Jesus bestowed upon them. Stop, for the love of God! There's already too much aggression in the world, so why can't we all just find common ground and stop labeling each other as heretics or brainwashed? 

Many religious officials claim, out of deep-seated belief, that holy water can drive out demonic forces (which aren't even real). If you were to follow that line of thought, imagine the havoc priest-filled urine pistols could wreak in a demonic invasion! Picture it: resistance fighters armed with these unconventional weapons, clergy lobbing their own holy sh*t grenades at the hellish horde outside a Tesco in a dystopian future devoid of churches.

Anyway, yes, those self-prided 'discussion champions' who pit science against religion often miss the mark. Many scientists and healthcare professionals hold religious beliefs (a fact that has always puzzled me), so why should we be quick to criticize the Pope for seeking medical treatment without considering the complexity of his position?

Science and atheism may differ significantly, but some atheists wield science with the authority of a medieval Templar brandishing his sword — often with a shaky grip on the handle. So what's the deal? Jesus was all about healing the sick. He taught his followers to do the same, passing on the power to heal. However, I've never heard of faith healer separating Siamese twins, to be honest. This raises an important question: Why aren't the Pope's guys using their healing powers on him?

Despite their hands-on approach to healing the sick—or rather, spitting on them for healing purposes (yes, Jesus actually did that, see Mark 8:22-26)—why didn't anyone from the Pope's entourage take this route? Well. . . mysterious ways, maybe? 

There are countless stories of saints performing miraculous healings! I'm not trying to be contrary, but even someone like Oscar Romero reportedly healed a woman from El Salvador in 2015 using what I like to refer to as the 'Jesus touch.' So, let's have an open and honest discussion without resorting to convoluted arguments: why couldn't anyone else in the Catholic Church heal the actual leader of the Church—the Pope?

The point is, they can't have it both ways! Either stick to the belief in the healing powers of Jesus' hands within the Vatican Palace, or acknowledge the need for modern healthcare like everyone else, accepting that perhaps biblical faith healing isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Was William Lane Craig Right?

The Apologist. 

7 to 9 min read

It is important to appreciate how the power of interpretation, existential meaning and subjective experience all influence religiosity. They play a significant role with maintaining faith, even to the point that the most potent of all the evidence-based arguments will often fail to persuade a believer to abandon their worldview. The religious mandate of an apologist might necessitate him/her to rationalise backwards; initiating a conclusion and  implementing theology that fits it. One great defence of theism is to be found in the Christian Apologist William Lane Craig. 

William Lane Craig is a 'Christian Philosopher' though, how this differs to a philosopher who happens to be a Christian is unclear. Tensions once existed between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who still avoids publicly debating him. 

In fact, Craig's reputation among Christians has prospered due to Dawkins lack of participation. However, Craig does have his critics, especially for smearing Sam Harris during a live debate. 

Craig has been observed evading important questions and issues raised by his opponents. He has also been accused of misrepresenting scientific work from Stephen Hawking and Michael Ruse, for instance (Pearce, 2014). This apologist will use equivocation fallacies and reduce complex arguments to oversimplified caricatures without even thinking about it; the simple arguments are easiest to destroy. For example, in one debate, Craig misrepresented philosopher Daniel Dennett's position on consciousness by saying that Dennett believes people don't even have self-awareness. 

Fair enough, an apologist can be skilled at convincing some audiences, overall, but such tactics essentially detract from the quality of respected highbrow discourse. This is where they clash with the analytical atheist. 

Three of Craig's key supporting premises in his structured case for Jesus Christ's resurrection, is the historicity of Jesus Christ's empty tomb:

1. Joseph of Arimathea entombed Jesus.

2. Women from Jesus's circle discovered the tomb empty on the Sunday after the crucifixion.

3. The best explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

It's easy to debunk his arguments, for example:

1. The actual historicity of the empty tomb itself is not certain. Yes, all the gospels mention an empty tomb, but, to be fair, nothing independent of historical significance proves the tomb actually existed. We also have no guarantees of its empty discovery three days after post crucifixion. The jury is still out, there are still debates exploring the topic, which shows that Craig's claim is not a given fact, but presupposition. 

2. Even if we do pretend that the biblical tomb is historical and empty, alternative explanations significantly more plausible than the resurrection of a corpse are readily available. For example, the body might have been moved by an unknown party, or perhaps, the female followers visited someone else's tomb by mistake. A list could be compiled. Craig's hopes the empty tomb is bound to the resurrection of Jesus before he walked away. Wishful thinking. 

3. Again, Craig takes the gospels for granted as sound forms of evidence. Tainted by religio-political bias and pieced together years after the events they describe, they contain numerous discrepancies and editorial interjection. They may be historical, but they are not reliable historical records. 

Overall, Craig's arguments are easily disputed because they are weak. Check out his cosmological argument:

Craig has featured this Kalam cosmological argument in various debates shown on YouTube. This theistic philosophical assault for the existence of God, makes the same mistake. It bases itself on the assumption that 'the universe had a beginning, and therefore, it must have had a cause (which is God)'. The argument goes like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Again, Craig deals his presupposition, assuming God is the prime causality. The apologist assumes the workings of time. Checkout the following counter arguments:

1. The first premise is not necessarily true. Our intuition and everyday experiences may inform our beliefs of causality within this part of the universe in which we live, but, in all its majesty, we cannot speak for the entirety. We don't know if causality applies to the absolute sum of the universe or to something beyond our observational limit. Science has gaps of knowledge about the big bang.

 

2. The cosmic microwave background radiation evidences the universes expansion; these observations do not imply our universe was caused to come into existence. It is not impossible that the universe is a self-contained system and free from causation. Therefore, that claim is redundant. 

3. Craig assumes that time is linear, and absolute, again, this may not be the case. We know certain theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity state that time is not as straightforward as we normally think; it undermines the reliance on Craig's notion of a 'first cause', these arguments greatly appeal to our common intuitions about the world. 

Verdict

The cosmological argument provided by Craig is quite controversial and somewhat deceptive. Neither this or the tomb argument lightens theism's burden of proof. The empty tomb may be the weakest of the two. We do not require undeniable proof of Christ's missing tomb, or the conditions of the universes beginning; persistence only risks non-falsifiable fallacy. 

However, it is interesting, why key evangelicals would perform public debates that will never be resolved.

The obvious plus point for theists is the indirect proselytising and preaching. Ironically, Craig calls his website Reasonable Faith; he has a book by the same name, yet he has admitted it is improper to apply reason to faith. 

He has said on television that he does not base his belief on arguments and evidence; we know they are paths to his predictable conclusions (God). Following his 'ministerial use of reason' (the gospels before thinking), Craig has admitted to serving faith like a hand maiden. This is not reasonable but just faith. 

If the main purpose of debating events were merely to attract numbers for church seats, that would be unfortunate, given the decline in Christianity. 

_____________________________________

Reference

Pearce, J (2014) William Lane Craig Misrepresents and Strawmans Ca On His Podcast, Denying Science. [Online] Available from: www.skepticink.com. Retrieved from:https://skepticink.com/tippling/2014/04/10/william-lane-craig-misrepresents-and-strawmans-ca-on-his-podcast-denying-science/

I used to think they apologised a lot!

Relativism in Religion?

Does the Universe Reflect the Attributes Ancient Cultures Assigned to God?

7 min read

Human beings often marvel at the cosmos, hoping to find meaning, inspiration, or signs of a creator. Yet when we examine the origins of religious concepts, we discover something fascinating: religious figures such as Christ's Heavenly Father or the Gnostic Monad were shaped by non-religious ideas found in ancient Greek philosophical works about nature and the heavens.

The Problem with Modern Religious Belief

In churches today, people are expected to simply believe in creeds and supernatural occurrences described in religious texts—questionable propositions such as walking on water and resurrection. This relativism, believing in that which is usually unacceptable but only when situated in church while retaining one's skepticism in private life, is quite baffling.

If we stripped away all our religious belief systems, the unimaginably supreme cosmos would not change one iota. We might hold conventional ideas of the supreme being, usually depicted as a male figure decorated with adjectives fit for the cosmos itself. But upon reading Old Testament scripture, we find this supposed almighty deity was defeated by an old Moabite army who worshipped a deity called Chemosh (Kings 3:26-27). This somehow equated to Chemosh winning.

If we multiplied that ancient Moabite army a million times over and turned them into planet-sized warriors, they would disappear in the vast eternity that houses hundreds of billions of galaxies.

The Universe as the True Supreme Being

When it comes to adding attributes to deities, we often take inspiration from the universe itself. The Online Etymology Dictionary (2021) notes that "universum" and "universus" mean "all things as one, everything." "Versus" from "vertere" means "to turn back, transform or be changed." For hundreds of years, the universe has meant all things in one—entirety.
It sounds Neoplatonist, but the universe has been seen as God by various traditions in some way or another. The simple answer is this: the universe was here before humanity, religion, or philosophy. Therefore, why isn't the eternal universe more closely bonded with God across all Abrahamic faiths?

The majesty of the universe is self-evident to me—it's awesome! If God is all things, or almighty, then surely this universe is under his control, less powerful than he is, right? How do you prove that? Even smaller ideas of God and his angels, demons, and fairies require proof. Given the attributes we assign to them, you might imagine it would be easy to prove, but it's not! Why?

Nature Predates Our Stories

The mountains were shaped long before anyone proclaimed El Shaddai as their lord. We wrote stories setting ourselves above nature, but it's our biology that emerged from what we call nature. Nature provided us the skills to develop literacy to question it. Nature and the universe are essentially the same—we contain stardust, ingredients from the cosmos. That's kind of like a DNA-positive result, not forgetting the origin of DNA itself.

Defining the Divine

To represent a general definition of God, I examined common words gathered from popular sources including Merriam-Webster, Britannica Dictionary, and The Free Dictionary. Sifting through these sources, I grouped common denominators, leaving a clear picture:

Being, Spirit, Mind, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Worshipped.

The words "Being, Spirit and Mind" encapsulate existence and consciousness perfectly well—essentially the same meaning. You can argue and reduce this to the soul, but the same consciousness and being are central to the human experience. 

It's not unreasonable to agree with materialists who might argue that ancient devotees projected the human mind onto the universe in some act of anthropomorphism. Right or wrong, notions of the almighty in pantheism or panentheism aren't cognitive biases, but alternative perspectives.

If we consider worship, one of the key descriptive words, the act itself indicates a perception of God—as if worship itself contributes to the existence of the deity. Faithful engagement with a perceived deity reflects back on us, creating the relationship between devotee and deity. Belief is powerful and effective, often resulting in humans ascribing attributes to their deities and defining them.

The Universe Meets Divine Criteria

Cosmologists say the universe contains unlimited energy and power, which relates to what religion has been calling omnipotence. Our galaxy alone is 100,000 light-years long. Photons (light particles) move at a constant 670,616,629 miles per hour. A light-year is the distance light travels in one Earth year—typically about 6 trillion miles. NASA says we have hundreds of billions of galaxies in our observable universe. It is all-powerful, given that it is undeniably everything we know, with much more packed away beyond our observation.

The idea of omniscience is openly debated and rejected by certain Eastern religious philosophies of mind, while quantum mechanics continues to make slow progress in understanding consciousness.
We can't scientifically prove or disprove consciousness. 

However, the universe is believed to support basic microscopic life at the very least. Subatomic particles connected light-years apart are connected by quantum entanglement. The universe does not have to meet our criteria to be supreme and almighty. Heraclitus said that no man or god created this eternal cosmos, but this is refutable by global religions, regardless of how such philosophers unintentionally inspired the theologies from which they might argue.

Ancient Philosophical Influences
Consider The Logos, Rhema, Panta Rhei, and Plato's Timaeus. We all know how Aristotle inspired Saint Thomas Aquinas. Christ was held synonymous with The Logos, and Gnostic Christians essentially copied and pasted Plato. If we simply put Hellenic-Jewish cross-cultural pollination under the lens, it would explode with evidence of philosophical borrowing!

The question remains: if the universe itself displays all the attributes we assign to God—unlimited power, eternal existence, omnipresence, and even the capacity to support consciousness—why do we continue to search for divinity in stories that pale in comparison to the cosmic reality surrounding us?







Reference

The Online Etymology Dictionary (2021) Universe [Online] Available from: https://www.etymonline.com/word/universe#etymonline_v_4519

Is Britain Racist?

The Sh*t Show of Racism!

7 to 10 min read

People can feel as if they are racist these days for not integrating much, or by having no friends outside their group comprised of the same ethnicity. 

Update: re-exploring those years when racism was weaponised against the UK

For years, however, science has told us we all have an own-race bias. A bias for recognising the faces of other people who share our own ethnicity, experts say this starts when we are babies. It's natural. Holistic based explanations are straightforward: we bond to what faces we see frequently, recognise familiarities and identify with those who we resemble us—is it fair to call this racism? I don't think it is. 

Maybe this factors in on people's choice to auto segregate, Mandaeism and Islam, for instance, both show that endogamy preserves culture. Though, for all accusations, is Britain really institutionally racist? Historians such as David Olusoga and Kehinde Andrews do refer to Britain as a country for white privileged benefactors of colonial slavery, they are mostly identifying classist people who are incidentally caucasian. Professor Andrews —who narrated the documentary 'The Psychosis of Whiteness'—speaks up against the racism he believes he percieves. His books are clearly defined; the latest called, 'The New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule The World.

If you take a 'what about' stance to challenge the professors points on race, or refer to historical occurrences of when white people were being booted out of their homes, it won't remove the historical racism of Britain. It cannot be undone. 

All of the world has darkness in its history. In the years following George Floyd's murder in the USA, British Policing was exposed to have a terrible vetting system; what came next was a series of high profile murders, many unspeakable crimes and MET corruption including toxic police chauvinism featured on national news, it led to resignations. 

On the other hand, if everyone takes a 'what about' stance and points the finger; we'll see humans from every walk of life fostering some kind of racial animosity towards each other.

The United Kingdom does have it's share of Danny Bakers; the disgraced broadcaster who compared the Sussex's newborn baby to a monkey in a picture he posted on twitter. That was undeniably a moment racism, just like calling Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman a coconut was race based. 

The country also has it's portion of Azeem Rafiq's, who rightly exposed Yorkshire Cricket's racial bullying, only to land himself in trouble for antisemitism.

Sasha Johnson's voice stood against racism via Black Live's Matter. Someone filmed her and posted her baiting violence and verbally abusing a black man in social media. The woman was clearly intimidating him with a racially loaded name denoting a black person who is culturally more like white people—doesn't this imply racism is beyond institution? 


When there is hypocrisy and bias, racial signalling always becomes an insult to injury. Attempts to allocate a specific ancestral, national or cultural origin of racism is also futile. The general idea is to blame white people for historical horrors committed against black people as well as modern institutional racism. Numerous factors come into play in modern hate crimes other than race, such as sexual matters, religious hatred or misogyny, mental health stigma or intimate relationships etcetera. 

The crown prosecution service (2022) said, 'many members of Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities and faith communities do not report what they consider to be racist or religious crime to the police because of low confidence in the criminal justice system. This is not a declaration of institutional racism, it is low confidence in a public service. 

British classism is the greatest cultivator of inequality and it has it's roots in history, reflected in the feudal system and its medieval use of torture. Christian rulers permitted nasty devices such as the iron maiden, the bone crushing wheel, and the Judas cradle, they destroyed suspected heretics, witches, as well as homosexual people, Jews and military prisoners. Countless civilians suffered this madness which served to pacify religious based schemes of powerful people. Racism is another vice of the wicked, found in the layman's dichotomy of Good and Bad; as with crime, phobias, and it's other ism's—our conscience recognises racism as bad. A deficiency. How should it be tackled? 

Moving out of Britain for a moment, consider the racially discriminatory evictions that occurred in African countries under Robert Mugabe. He deliberately changed land ownership rules in Zimbabwe against the interests of the majority of white farmers. This is reminiscent of the Windrush scandal under Teresa May, in Britain; again, this highlights our collective human deficiency of morality. Idi Amin ridded himself of many Indian and Pakistani citizens and famously said Hitler was right.

Google images show Amin demeaning his white subordinates. The communist Vietnamese expelled their French citizens. Societal hierarchy, power is the beast. Today, classist discriminatory thinking only serves to widen the poverty gap in the UK, genuinely, social equality won't thrive when racial games divide people. 

Undeniably, skin colour is widely identified as the sole target of racial abuse, but, is racism always down to this? The term white supremacy or white privilege doesn't work with Anglo-Celtic racism, which, in all fairness, didn't require physical differences to incite hatred. The same goes with Russian and Ukrainian racism. Again, nasty intentions manifest in all towns, countries and empires alike. 

Definitely, any government department or public service might do something we call racist. However, when a big e-commerce company started to promote shops owned by black people, internet users called it racism, because of the exclusivity to one particular skin colour—nothing changed. This pales in comparison to the racist institutions of World War 2 for example.

However, it is good to know that policies for apartheid, edicts of expulsion are unlikely to be drafted when the equality act (2010) and the Race Relations act (2000) exist. The abolition of slavery act (1835) was only recently paid off. Race is a protected characteristic in the U.K.

The country has it's share of multi-cultural tension. Sadly, inequality continues to grow; education figures show that the children of white working class families have been down prioritised beneath those of other racial backgrounds, this is an example of institutional racism. 

Higher death rates for women of colour in maternity units was not sufficiently addressed and was called a racial issue. Health figures show, black women experience more chronic health conditions such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease than women who are not black. 

All of these problems can significantly increase chances of pregnancy complications and maternal mortality. It seems feasible that commonly found conditions like eclampsia or pre-eclampsia are more responsible for mortality figures than a racial issue. I hope this maternity care can be improved. 

It doesn't seem easy to explore all of the benefactors of slavery, it reached far and wide. Even West African Monarchy had dealings in it. The Velekete markets traded African countrymen with Europe—sometimes exchanging their own men for guns! Central and Eastern Europeans were enslaved by the Ottoman empire, Barbary Pirates made Eunuchs of the men and sex slaves of the young females. If legal historical reparations are ever introduced, everyone would be claiming from everyone else. What has long gone can't make modern Britain a racist institution. 

The crown prosecution define racism as: 

'Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race'

or

'Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion.' 

In everyday language do these definitions mean you can phone the police on anyone of a different background if they have been rude to you, or do only serious racial slurs suffice? If British justice is chasing up many perceived racial hostility, when will unfair accusations drain police provision? How would Harry and Meghan look:

Racist art in the Palace. 

Episode three claims racist art is in the Palace, but according to reporters, all of the items shown are situated elsewhere:

York Mansion House, 

Bristol Museum, 

The National Trust,

The Cliveden Estate,

Wentworth Castle in South Yorkshire,

Dyrham Park, Gloucs.

Historian Afua Hirsch says, “If you go into a palace or a stately home or anywhere that represents tradition you are likely to be faced with racist imagery.” She informed millions of viewers that the murals and statues “glorify the institution of slavery”. How is this not liable or racist? Classism and equality seem to have their own rules. 

If false vexatious racial accusations lead to legal action or psychological stress why shouldn't they be considered a crime? Historians seen in Harry and Meghan's docu-series may well have portrayed the Commonwealth as the new colonial-esque empire but, Meghan Markle's wedding veil was decorated with flowers representing the Commonwealth, countries to which she was to become a willing servant. 

With respect to the Sussex's, they once presided over Queen Elizabeth's Commonwealth Trust; equality of gender and support of it's youth was central to the job, but then, their Netflix historians pushed opposing views to the fact finding; both can't be correct—the Sussex's wouldn't have knowingly presided over a regime they knew was racist or colonial. They never stood for empire 2.0. Be that as it is, they did feel vexatious at the monarchy and made their public attacks. 

The focus of the Commonwealth is to maintain peace and to facilitate trade between member countries. It values democracy, promotes cooperation on environmental and economic issues, and finally, when a leader dies they vote for the next one. They all chose to vote for King Charles III. 

Out of all the 56 independent members, 36 are republics. 

It begs the question: why would the Sussex's go to such great lengths with a Netflix PR production to smear the Monarchy, but, at the same time, withhold direct conversation with a senior royal who they perceived as racially hostile? What sort of message does this send to people who stand up against racism? 

Final Thoughts

Recent behaviours in the UK show an evil readily discriminating against white people just as non-white people once faced racism. Ironically this modern racism is often ignored because of old reinforced stereotypes. In reality, if we get real, all people, regardless of their background can commit racial discrimination against anyone. Racist behaviour is not exclusive to any one community the best of us can stoop this low. 

Can I Pretend YDNA Proves I Have Celtic Ancestry?

Beyond the DNA Hype: Unveiling the Complexities of Celtic Ancestry

5 to 7 min read

Years ago, a friendly man with the surname Maxwell noted that we shared similar YDNA on Y-Seq, a genetic testing company. We both held an interest in each others family history. My paper trail reached its limit and strongly points toward involvement in the Welsh Wars: generations of my 'Page' forefathers  seemed to serve the noble families therein.

Through the Norman era Baron Corbet and some of his men showed up in records near the location of Clan Maxwell in Dumfries, Scotland, bordering England. This Norman actually died in Roxburgh near Kelso; the Corbet family occupied both the Scottish and Welsh borders. My ancestral grandfather, William Page, lived along the Welsh borders on Thomas Corbets land in the 1240s-1250s in a place called Aston Rogers. 

Out of the blue, during one of my less common explorations of Family Tree DNA, an alert reminded me again, confirming my genetic match of Z16502 shared between myself and 'The Clan Maxwell,' as the site put it. With numerous Scottish and Irish surnames in my matches, sharing subclades on the Scottish cluster and being of the Western Atlantic Modal type: a picture easily started to form in my head. This is where people begin to invest money into DNA, and to be honest, I did. 

I wanted to know where to understand the original where-abouts of my forefathers, and, as you'd expect, from which tribe or culture they belonged. The cost can be anything from £20 to £500, depending on the service you have. I spent conservatively on my tests and was finally given my answer, which was: BY113677 a subclade of R-L21. 

I heard theories from armchair genealogists and professional genetic wizards alike, but a theory is like an arse; we all have one. I left it at that, returning to check up on progress every year or so, for curiosities sake. This time, I got sucked into it again. You see, L-21 is called 'Celtic' because it dates to the time when these Brythonic and Gaelic languages were spoken by tribes who enjoyed Hallstatt and La Téne cultures in certain lands, especially western Europe, Britain and Ireland. 

So, with this circling in my mind, I digested some history about the Brythonic Selgovae tribe who settled on the land now called Dumfries, where the Clan Maxwell later emerged! This tribe had close ties to the Brigantes, and they were both hostile toward Rome! How spectacular. My dark age obsessed detective brain is fully aware that many of my finer genealogical lists and circles have a sort of Western British/Gaelic flavour, and consequently, I started to get fleeting desires to learn Scottish Gaelic!

Before I knew what's going on, I was consudering a Celtic tattoo, admittedly, the idea of buying a kilt was sobering! It might sound wrong, because it sort of is wrong, isn't it? That FTDNA statistic information was clear; Z16502 exists in Scotland but also Ireland and England, as well as a tad in Germany and also Wales. Living in the West Midlands of England, my inner voice of sensibility says to me: "You're not a Celt, you're a twat!" 

No doubt, I promise, all this pondering leaves the brain somewhat fishy. Every upturned coincidence wants to reinforce that confirmation bias you treasure, which, in all honesty; is just a dopamine hit! Many Brits today identify as Viking, we've seen the cool viking mass-media mania; Thor, The North-man, Vikings, Vinland Saga, The Last Kingdom—it's all easy viewing. Just to be more realist here, if the 1881 census records prove someones London based ancestry, they don't tend to identify as Victorian and grow 'Bob Cratchit' pork chops, do they? 

Likewise, I don't think I've noticed many teenage 'Mods and Rockers' in my time or Tricorn hat wearing shoppers in town. So, I wonder, how does my little strand of so-called, 'Celtic' DNA compares with all those microplastics I've absorbed into my system after eating all that contaminated sea fish—I'm more plastic than Highlander! 

These 'Celtic People' were never a genetically defined nation of 'Celts,' but put simply, they're people first. This haplogroup, L21 is a huge net that only takes Tuna. However, it is Tuna, which some fish and their historians have ascribe bygone diverse tribalism and cultural themes—still Tuna, nonetheless. However, certain historical peoples such as the Yamnaya, for example, were genetically homogeneous.

Throughout the ages, ancient Briton saw genetic and culturally diversity which shows in genealogy. Consider all those cultures: The Dal Raida, Picts, Britons, Bell Beaker People, Neolithic people, The Irish settlers across Wales. It must be said, Rome introduced YDNA from far and wide; this list comes centuries before the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman period!

Genealogy has unfairly been accused of racism by the hard left or the overly Liberal, but it's merely a tool to help family historians confuse themselves. Tuna.

Arguments Against Christianity

My go to

Secular Claims That Challenge Jesus... 

5 min read

1. Later Generations of Christians Re-Branded Jesus. Later generations re-branded Jesus, embellishing his story, but sometimes it's contradicts the Christian message. For instance, in Matthew 15:21-28, Jesus's comparison of a gentile woman to a dog and his initial refusal to help her shows this. 

    2. A Trouble Maker. The bible shows Jesus as a troublemaker as he challenged Israel's rulers by publicly declaring himself as a great figure with the use of apocalyptic symbolism. Instigating disturbances in the Jerusalem Temple heightened tensions, especially as some of his followers carried weapons! 

    3. The Gospels Resemble Historical Fiction! Some scholars think the gospels are like what Bernard Cornwell has done with his works about Uhtred of Bebbanburg! Jesus Christ did not teach our Christianity, his followers did— scripture writers had the final word! 

    4. The Failed Messiah Approach. Jesus was seen as a failed messiah because he did not meet everyones expectations of the role.

    5. The Biased Writing Angle. E.P. Sanders, a credible biblical scholar, believed that Jesus's arrest and execution was unexpected. He argued that Easter traditions were created retroactively by followers to explain Jesus's fate and rebuild their movement.

    6. Bad news for the Jews. Many Jewish people did not benefit from the introduction of Christianity, despite being considered God's 'chosen' people. Centuries of christian-based anti-semitism in Europe caused hardships. It seems the gospel story brought them no benefit, this is not fitting the message of loving your neighbour. 

    7. It is an Unrealistic Story. The miraculous stories, raising the dead and healing by touch are far fetched. None of us sane minded individuals would believe to similar events today from friends, we quickly dismiss it nonsense. We never see legitimate news reports about real miracle workers, angels or demons, dragons or nephilim.

    8. So Much Contradiction! There are numerous scriptural sources about Jesus: The New Testament, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures and The Apocrypha, for starters. Across the internet various sources claim that tens of thousands of denominations exist, which are all like interpretations or expressions (for want of a better description) such as Methodists, Calvinists, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. They can't all be right, but many can be wrong!

    9. It's a Dodgy Deal! If Jesus rose again and walked, the divine trinity went back on its deal of the son dying for the sins of humanity, because, let's face it, death is a permanent arrangement, it is not being alive ever again! There's no consensus on the nature of the risen Jesus either, so we can't explain whether he was a ghost or a spirit, which we commonly associate with death or a physical ressurection which is the deal breaker.

    10. Contraception and Sexual Ethics: In 1968, the Catholic Church released a document called 'Humanae Vitae' to continued the ban of artificial birth control such as condoms and the pill. This religious decision led to significant health problems for adherents of the faith, especially in communities afflicted with HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases: we all know such protection greatly helps reduce the spread of illness and death.

These ten points are meant to stimulate that detective mindset. If you want to add to the list or have any thoughts, please share them in the comments section! 

 

Disrespecting The Departed Queen

Why Was it so Ugly to See?

5 min read

Not long after the Queen died, I saw a couple of posts accusing her of being a parasite. As well as this, there were quite a few art posts on Instagram portraying her in a very negative light, as well as regular memes done in bad taste—not forgetting that booing up in Scotland. It is sad this behaviour is churning out before her funeral! I'm not even a Royalist. In fact, I don't even read about them. 

It's The Principle

I think one particular moral value of mine is that decent folk shouldn't spit on graves, the flavour of disdain is not palatable for me. That and usually, before we start smashing the jokes out, we wait a month or so.

What's with the Parasite thing? 

Years ago, the level headed pop culturalist David Ike earnt a crust smearing the monarchy in his conspuracy books. He once said, The Queen and her bloodline were a reptilian alien. I could only think of 'V' that 80s show I used to watch imagining a young Ile blown away by the shows writer. I haven't a scooby how common it is for schizotypal conspiracy illuminates to enjoy charity fundraising. I bet the reptilian overlords family did a lot more over the last seventy years.

What Sort of Person? 

If the anti-monarchy agenda label our recently departed matriarch a parasite, what will they say about the rest of us? Are recipients of benefits also parasites? If not, are they called something else like bottom feeders, maybe? Circumstance has forced sections of the public to rely on food banks, generally, opinionated narcissists like to throw their intracranial excrement at the life situations of other people just to their own validate self image—perhaps this factors into it? 

The expenses scandal of the 90s revealed a 'parasitic nature' in politics which continues today. Comparably, working class families are richer than the countless starving children in those television adverts asking for donations; if £5 feeds someone and you have £5000, at what point do you choose to be a saint or an scrooge with your money? We are all shit. 

Bad Politics Bad Conduct? 

The age of retirement in this country is 67 for some and like my father, many are given a cheap watch, and a half-soaked speech before you clock out for the last time. Pensions and the life of retirement is fantastic for some but not all. My point being; anyone can call anyone a parasite, it's just low nonetheless. The Queen was working only two days before she died, nearly a sodding one hundred years old! Born into a life where public service was the norm, she was expected to learn the pomp and tradition, she did what was expected of her. Of course, we can't choose our family, heritage or the nationality to which we are born. We can choose how to behave. 

Become a Republic? 

Bringing up colonialism, as well as stealing the Jewels and treasures for her Royal adornments was another recurring dig. Let's just imagine she decided to abdicate and dissolve her monarchy and reset everything pre-monarchy just before her passing? We would see some international disinterest for a start, fiscal disadvantage and fewer international visitors. 

Anti-Elizabethan sentiment is passed around the playground by left-wingers. However, dissolution of monarchy would be a large democratic motion facilitated by The Palace, White Hall and Westminster, but it isn't going to happen. It serves a purpose. 

The Generation Blame

Also, with regard to historical blaming, in no form of logic can people be rightfully held accountable for the actions of relatives born years before they were: should we slam Prince Andrews daughters on trial for his antics with Guiffre and Epstein? In fact, I could be charged by the descendants of the murdered French soldiers my forefather arrowed down in the skirmishes under Edmund Mortimer in 1415. 

My Conclusion

You don't have to rush in and be a troll at someone else's expense. Give it at least a month. 

The Queen - Elizabeth II - Royal Death - The Queens Funeral - Show Respect 

Was Jesus Christ Seen as a Cult Leader?

Have We Ignored The Key Things in Common?

5 to 7 min read

What is a Cult?

A cult is a sect perceived as different from everyday life because it is considered radical or simply wrong. In contrast, religion is integrated into society. Cult members don't lead normal lives compared to free civilians; their group identity centers around their communal lifestyle often based on theological arguments. Often, a charismatic autocratic leader may facilitate undesirable outcomes, such as dictating financial measures or imposing sexual and/or work-related demands. In extreme cases, there have been instances of mass suicide. Unsettling indeed! 

There have been cult-like comparisons made with Jesus before. These seem reasonable. Why not? For instance, Jesus's followers voluntarily devoted their lives to him and willingly faced death for their beliefs. Manson's family surrendered their lives, but they committed murder for Manson. Osho's 'Red People' took up arms for Osho, and then there's the messianic aura surrounding David Koresh and the Waco disaster. Clearly, none of these cults evolved into a global religion; media scrutiny tends to reveal unhealthy sects. Hence, figures like David Koresh, Charles Manson, or Warren Jeffs are unlikely to achieve the historical renown of The Buddha or Moses in the modern era.

Some Vital Points that made Christianity grow:

1. The promise of being saved, the chance to go heaven in exchange for 'belief' which equated to service, loyalty and following the the sect leader. This was alluring for ancient superstitious communities.

2. The ease of communication across language barriers, with merchants along trade routes, converting influential individuals. 

3. The written accounts of Jesus Christ came from devotees who revered him, and who wanted others to revere him.

4. Christian writings defended Christianity against opposing theological views and were disseminated globally.

5. Christian evangelism infiltrated numerous other religions and traditions by cultural appropriation: turning celtic gods into saints, attempts at christianising Roman Saturnalia, Jesus as a germanic warrior Christ. 

6. The execution of Jesus was transformed into a holy symbol, a divine super martyrdom offering hope to potential converts: Preaching that God sacrificed his only son to save us all, meant that deals based on salvation continued during missionary work!

Culty Types These Days! 

The cult leader Warren Jeffs (featured in the Netflix show: Keep Sweet, Pray and Obey) and the historical figure Eoshu Msheekha (known today as Jesus Christ) are separated by over two millennia. Despite the differences in myth, culture, and geographical distance, it is intriguing to see how theological modes of operation can seemingly transcend boundaries.

Charges against Jesus according to the bible:

• Blasphemy: He claimed to be the Messiah and the son of God. Crucifixion was an incorrect punishment for blasphemy within the context of Jewish law. E.P. Sanders noted that two specific actions led to Jesus's arrest: his symbolic entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, fulfilling a messianic prophecy, and his expulsion of traders from the temple. The chief priests (usually the Sanhedrin) were responsible for reporting troublemakers to the Roman governor. Under Octavian's rule, Rome maintained justice and order in its territories, not leaving such matters to the locals.

• Sedition against Rome (Likely): This was a crime in Roman territories and could have been the rationale for Jesus's crucifixion. However, religious crimes often fell under the remit of local religious authorities. Jesus, aware of his cousin John the Baptist's fate, would have understood the potential consequences of his actions. The Gospel of Mark portrays Pharisees as malevolently seeking Jesus's death for their own reasons. Professor Sanders suggests that the Gospels do not fully represent their historical and cultural context. In other words, they are not as villianous as portrayed and Roman Governor Pontius Pilate ordered the execution quickly.

Non-biblical sources:

Talmud, Sanhedrin, Tosefta:

These texts are considered late and not strictly historical, but none of it really is strictly historical given the theological spin! Nevertheless, they present alternative candidates as Jesus and Mary, his mother. The identification of Yeshua Ben Pantera as Jesus Christ is not widely accepted in biblical circles and mainstream theology. It wouldn't though, given the defamation within them. Admittedly, the new testament writings do not mention Pantera, which, yet again, if it would true make sense wouldn't it? The Pantera tradition is argued to be a polemical reaction to Christianity by Jewish authors. However, I would doubt it, if the earliest mentioning of this Yeshua ben Pantera tradition came from the 2nd-century Greek philosopher Celsus who was actively writing between 170–180 CE. This shows Celsus was propogating an existing Jewish narrative that is evidently much older that Talmudic text, the age of this these stories are unknown but it could have been a first century oral tradition.

 

Top scholars Professor Sanders and Professor Crossan say that the Romans crucified Jesus much quicker than the gospels portray. High Priest Caiaphas is seen by Sanders as being pro-active in his duty by having Jesus taken-up to justice. In doing so, he ended a potential uprising which would have saved many Jewish lives from Roman swords. Instead, it was one life for all the Jews which, fair dues, was the person who caused the trouble. Rome permitted it's provinces religious freedom and so, first century Pharisees punished their religious criminals by stoning them, not the Roman cross. Sanhedrin 43a claims that Yeshua and his five disciples were stoned to death and then hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover, Schäfer (2009). 

Professor Tabor (2016) has shared his ideas about Pantera being a family name. In his YouTube videos, he has referenced early church leaders and fathers, Epiphanius and Origen who have used this Pantera name in connection with Jesus. Epiphanias said Mary was the daughter of Joachim Bar Panther, the son of Levi, likely surnamed Pantera! Eas the names cursed or shamed? Tabor simply highlights the plausibilty of a Pantera family existing in the first century. He has pointed to a discovery of a first century Israeli ossuary bone box, inscribed with Joseph son of Pantera. He doesn't think it is the father of Jesus. 

Old non-biblical sources, such as Tacitus, note Emperor Nero's persecution of Christians—some of these accounts are quite blunt. The Talmud and Midrash do not support Jesus being oppressive to his followers, engaging in sexual misconduct, or being involved in terrorism. These later sources emphasize that both Jewish and Roman authorities collaborated in Jesus's execution as a joint punishment, aligning with the accounts of stoning and crucifixion—methods used by Rome to set an example for others. 

Jesus's disciples were Jewish individuals familiar with the Torah but receptive to his eschatological teachings. It is commonly accepted Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah, descended from King David, who urged his followers to abandon everything to join him, promising a hundredfold reward in the kingdom. This talk sounds very reminiscent of a cult leader.

Verdict:

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ was anything other than a leader of his own movement or sect influenced by Judaic traditions and other philosophical ideas. Cults typically do not stem from established religions, unlike cases such as Warren Jeffs and the FLDS or the Waco cult. Scriptures depict Jesus challenging the religious authorities of the established Jewish faith, preaching to them about imminent divine judgment, posturing himself as a figure of key importance, attracting thrir followers, claiming salvation came only through him! This resonates strongly. In contrast to sects, cults often demand total devotion from members. A charismatic leader, such as Jesus expected his followers to bear their burdens alongside him, forsaking their families to join his cause. He sent them into perilous situations as "lambs among wolves," a practice more akin to a cult than a sect:

"If anyone comes to me but loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters more than me, he cannot be my follower. Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to him when he follows me cannot be my follower." - Luke 14:25-27

"Peter began to speak to Jesus: Look, we have left everything and followed you. Jesus replied: Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life." - Mark 10:28-30

References:

Crossan, J. D. (1996). Who Killed Jesus? HarperCollins, pp. 31–38.

Sanders, E. P. (1996). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Putnam, pp. 215-238.

Schäfer, Peter. (2009). Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton University Press.

Tabor, James. (2016). TABORBLOG: The "Jesus Son of Pantera" Traditions. [Online] Available at: https://jamestabor.com/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/