“One lesson I would be quick to draw from [the 2024 election]: Americans are not interested in seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics… If that sounds like ‘Transphobia’ to you, you are the problem.” — Sam Harris
Sam says a lot of sensible things. He's extraordinarily clear eyed on woke excesses and many center left excesses, and was unafraid to call them out in Trump first term and during the Summer of George.
I don't agree with his extreme hostility to Trump but I take him more seriously because I think he is the rare cat (Ann Coulter being another) who's unafraid to say things his audience won't want to hear and doesn't try to conform his varied opinions to remain in good standing on one side or the other.
He's like Scott Alexander in a lot of ways--old-school liberals whose intellectual honesty and respect for science leads them to take some conservative positions. While most progressives will ditch science (or more broadly, empiricism, since organized science has been corrupted) if it conflicts with their principles, a few will stick with it and leave the progressive fold.
Oh please he is a (((neo-con war monger.))) And he said that it wouldn't matter if Biden had dead children in his basement that people should vote for him even in that hypothetical circumstance. Like that wasn't playing to a shitlib audience in a craven and sickening way?
This issue is not as popular with the Dem base as you think. On a recent recent NYT article (heavily Dem readers) the top comment, with over 1500 likes is:
>” A lot of people, and especially parents, had a "moment" when they saw Lia Thomas. Here was a woman, who has a height and build that a biological woman would never achieve - and also competed on the men's team two years prior - shattering Ivy League records. People's daughters were finishing 2nd or 3rd behind a woman who has only been a woman for two years.
“People who were even just a tad uncomfortable with this were called bigots and transphobes and all sorts of names.
“If you do this, may people will be quiet to protect their social standing. But they will wait until their voices can be heard - at the ballot box.”
Joe Scarborough said the same after the election, and said he'd been saying it for years. The clip I watched cut off before the rest could answer, but I wonder exactly what they could answer.
on this one issue the terfs and the trans rights activists agree: it's all in or all out. Many people new to the issue want to make unworkable rules about "well only the really nice ones who are gay anyway can go in the ladies' loos but the dodgy chancers should stay out". Either all the men who want to be treated as women are women, or none of them are.
All Mr. S wrote, on that historic day, was "No Comment" attached to an image of a "Slate" headline, which read: "Should Chelsea Manning get her sentence reduced? If she wants sexual reassignment, the Army could let her seek clemency out of 'a need for specialized treatment'," by Fred Kaplan.
For those don't remember, "Chelsea Maning" was a male who, as I vaguely remember it, wanted to get out of legal trouble by claiming to be a woman. In the 1990s and the 2000s, his claim would not have been taken seriously beyond "Trash TV" and "The National Enquirer"; he'd have been seen as mentally ill, and/or maybe a charlatan of some kind. There's a famous video out there of "even" left-wing Jon Stewart mocking (what are now called) Transgenders in the mid-2000s.
The first Sailer use of the "World War T" phrase was followed by many other uses. Sailer is right to boast of himself as among the first to identify that a politicized Transgenderist movement was "the next thing."
He was "leaking army stuff," i.e. revealing proof of the crimes committed by your wonderful criminal mercenaries. Cheering as they killed civilians from a distance. Bradley Manning followed the instructions he was given, and revealed blatant crimes. Just like Edward Snowden followed the rules and revealed criminal activity. And of course they got punished for it.
Bradley Manning told his psychiatrist long before that that he wanted to be a woman. Many veterans turn into transvestites to escape their role in the crimes committed when destroying Israel's targets, the few Muslim nations with pro-Palestinian governments. Well, it's either that or becoming an alcoholic or junkie, I guess. Or overdosing on pills. Then beating up their wives and children. Wonderful war machine.
"Bradley Manning followed the instructions he was given, and revealed blatant crimes."
Wikipedia: "She[sic] is a former United States Army soldier who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly 750,000 classified, or unclassified but sensitive, military and diplomatic documents.[7] "
I'd like to see this "leak a ton of stuff to Wikileaks" instruction.
"...mercenaries. Cheering as they killed civilians from a distance. "
Got a link for your favorite incident of that? Just so we can see for ourselves what actually happened rather than rely on your characterization of it.
I'm sympathetic with a lot of what what Wikileaks did, but I'm pretty sure that you are lying.
LOL The friendly Jew jumping in with his usual Wikipedia copy-pasting bullshit as "argument." And as usual you latch on to one thing that you can harp on about, like the left always does, in this case that I said the U.S. soldiers were cheering. On and on you go with the same old trick.
"B-b-but he sent the information to Wikileaks!" Ah, so if it's WIKILEAKS he sends the information to, THEN it's bad! LOL Your beloved criminals that control the military wouldn't take action against the crimes they condoned, so he went to the media, as he should.
Just like Edward Snowden was right in exposing the crimes committed by his institution. How ODD that you don't mention Snowden. You figure that the readers here aren't a crowd who'd be receptive to your complaining about that.
And then you do the usual trick of asking for constantly more info and links. Umm, nope, I'm not required to send you links, sorry. One of your beloved criminals said "that was awesome!" about firing on Iraqis on a motorcycle, go look it up my dear Jew with an oh-so-White first name and last name.
But you don't want people to know that. All for Israel!
> Just so we can see for ourselves what actually happened rather than rely on your characterization of it.
Who are "we"? It's just you, little guy. Talking about yourself in plural? Oh dear, worse than I thought.
"that you are lying" - As if I would care about a Jew claiming that I'm lying. Funny!
1) Wikipedia is convenient. Be more specific about what you are denying.
2) "...On and on you go..." Pretty good trick for one challenge to turn into endless "harping". I repeat: "Got a link for your favorite incident of that?"
Of course you don't, you pathetic fraud.
3) "Ah, so if it's WIKILEAKS he sends the information to, THEN it's bad!"
Typical projection and reading failure on your part. Quote me saying anything bad about WikiLeaks. I didn't even criticize Manning. I criticized
YOU for claiming his leaks were in accord with "instructions.
4) "How ODD that you don't mention Snowden."
How ODD that you think so. You didn't mention him, so why would I mention him when criticizing your idiotic claims about Manning?
5) "And then you do the usual trick of asking for constantly more info and links."
I would never ask you for "info" since the only thing you do is lie.
That you're never able to back up wha you say just proves it. Every time.
But this fisking of you is past tedious, just the 49ers running over a Pop Warner team, if only the Pop Warner team were somehow as disgusting as you are.
And, no, I'm not "friendly" to you. You stink up the joint.
Antisemitic retards love Snowden and Manning because they hate America, and love that each man exposed hundreds of thousands of documents they themselves personally never read a word of, without once going through their chains of command prior nor giving any defensible reasons for their leak of data which ~99% had nothing to do with the exposure of any crimes and everything to do with emboldening Putin, Xi, and their comrades against freedom:
Manning should've been executed in less than three years, tops. His commutation was a disgusting capstone every bit as shameful as any of DJT's war-criminal pardons.
I think he's a gay twink not an X-Man, but he may have aged out of it. It's never been clear whether he got any surgeries. Open to being proved wrong. Actually, no I'm not.
It occurs to me trannies get some built-in traction from the instinctive human repulsion. Nobody really wants to look at your junk or your lady-parts as part of the job of fight referee, and God knows not your surgically mutilated junk. So there's kind of a practical aura around trannies like don't ask don't tell because the less time required to examine your Uncanny Valley ass is the less chance we have to douse our eyes with bleach, and doubled over with nausea and existential despair at the state of humanity.
It's quite clear that Manning got surgeries since he was interviewed in the hospital afterwards.
And the position of the woman-basher's promoter was that being a tranny was no problem as long as the woman beater was licensed so why would any referee have to check his junk?
Bradley Manning put on a wig and wanted to be a transvestite in calls with his psychiatrist back in the States even before being arrested for revealing U.S. war crimes. (Bradley Manning was imprisoned, the criminals were not.)
As someone said, "I never saw so many transvestites before I started working in the V.A. office."
Those veterans turn into transvestites to pretend to be someone else, someone who didn't take part in the crimes committed when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Those veterans turn into transvestites to pretend to be someone else, someone who didn't take part in the crimes committed when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan."
No one thinks this except you. And YOU are a loon.
LOL The Jew with the oh-so-White name clearly has a full of hate inside it.
"No one thinks this except you!" Um, I was quoting a VETERAN'S story, but of course you'll lie about that. That they turn into transvestites to escape responsibility for the war is something Glenn Greenwald said about Bradley Manning back then. So "no one thinks this except you"? Sorry, you're wrong again. But this is your usual trick, that "no one else thinks that!" You're always using debate tricks to defend wars for Israel and the other things you use care so much about.
Hint: If you have nothing to actually contribute, maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself.
Don’t know why you’re getting hate for this, it’s a plausible theory. When men get arrested for child rape they have been very likely to claim “trans” to escape it
How to explain how/why the politicized Transgenderist Movement occurred and gained so much apparent success?
We need more time, I think, to understand it. Along with the meaning of many of the bad trends that seemingly emerged in the 2010s, or that at least "came to a head" in that decade.
The obvious explanation is that the Gay Marriage movement, of ca. 2003-2015 (?), was felt to be winding down by mid-2013, and no longer served the kind of useful purpose it had over years of then-recent memory. Something new was needed to carry forward the energy. Then, once an elite agenda-setting element embraced it, political Transgenderism became part of ideological-coalitional politics. (There were no "adults in the room" to say "stop this nonsense right now.")
But something feels missing in whatever single explanation I hear or can imagine.
The theory has been proposed, by Mr. Sailer indirectly at least, that Barack Obama may be responsible for the Transgenderism movement. Indirectly. By whipping up something called "identity politics" in his 2012 re-election campaign.
Obama's campaign was targeted at the Eternal Villain, the White-Christian Heterosexual Male and that Eternal Villain's water-carriers and dupes. The theory, as I interpret it, continues as follows: The anti-White Male energies spilled over and, as a "social contagion" mutated into a free-floating anti-heterosexualism. This ended up becoming a serious force (as seen by the sharp drops in girls being socialized into quasi-adult consciousness in the 2000s and 2010s identifying as full-heterosexual).
The whole thing was a little bit of a dilemma, given that a huge majority of people -- even agenda-setting elites -- are full-heterosexual "cisgenders." But mid-2010s Transgenderism adapted itself successfully, cycling through the culture over the coming 5-10 years.
The whole thing finally met "steel" sometime in the early 2020s, of course symbolically with the Trump-2024 win. Kamala, the worst presidential candidate in U.S. history an "empty vessel extraordinaire," had the bad luck of jumping on the Transgenderist Train in 2019, near its peak.
The above is a hypothesis for how a politicized Transgenderism -- implausibly, laughably -- became a plank of "the Left" by the end of the 2010s, starting in or by late 2013. Maybe nobody jumping on the early bandwagon in 2013-2015 could foresee where it would go, but the whole thing followed its own logic within our system.
Anyway, the "Obama-2012 reelection strategy" hypothesis doesn't feel like it has the explanatory power to get over the finish-line. Effect, not cause?
I suspect that Obama got some kickback from the Pritzkers, because in the waning hours of his tenure, suddenly the university where I work imposed 'all gender' restrooms, pronoun swag, transgender "workshops" and forced celebrations and referrals on our syllabi. I've read that something to do with transgender medicalization is attached to the ACA.
I don't think Barry O took much, if any, convincing. Genderism fits entirely within his intellectual upbringing and personal values. He would've needed a majorly transformative personal life event for him to've not ended up here. And given our tendency to increase of intellectual rigidity with age, I'm not sure it's possible for him to make that turn anymore. It'd be like expecting Ali Khamenei to come out and say that Zoroastrianism is actually the one true faith.
There was a conspiracy theory after Occupy Wall Street in 2011 the billionaire-controlled foundations started splitting the left with identity politics--more money for 'Latinx' and 'BIPOC' means you have fighting between the various favored groups, not to mention a lot of ethnic minorities are significantly more anti-gay and anti-trans than whites. Paying a few percent in ESG fees and having to have less efficient underlings is better than losing 20-40% in European-level taxes.
I'm not sure if there's any proof, but the timeline tracks at least. And wealthy white progressives seem to be the most into the cultural stuff.
While I wouldn't be surprised if this really was the reason certain billionaires went all in on woke capital, I think it makes more sense that identity politics is just better at hooking people than class politics, which are inherently more abstract and transitory than race or sex. So those who resort to such means are more likely to win the attention and devotion of the nation's activist contingent, regardless of their motivations for doing so.
There's a reason Hitler came to power with an election and Lenin with a coup. As well reason Stalin attained his greatest personal popularity with his embrace of Russian chauvinism, which worked even though he himself wasn't even Russian; complete with the renaming the aggressive war they started in tandem with Germany into "the Great Patriotic War", even though the Soviet Union was founded for the goal of abolishing the nation state.
Many people find this too shameful to accept as true, and stubbornly cling to the idea that a more thorough embrace of class politics will be better. This belief is strong enough to survive even years after the explicit, personal defeat of their ordonicism at the hands of identitarians. A behavior which to my mind recalls nothing short of Lieutenant Onoda witnessing Private Kozuka, his only human companion of almost twenty years, meeting a shootout-related death at the hands of Filipino cops, and yet deciding he must continue prosecuting the war for Hirohito all the same:
The cause is lost. Working-class voters care more about migrants and trans than they do about rich people having too much money. Or even about their own finances, because everything's gonna get a lot more expensive if Trump actually manages to get anything close to what he wants on tarrifs.
Also, working class people are low I.Q. and chuddish by disposition. Dems hope to just educate people out of this, and this always fails because low-I.Q. chuds were born that way. It should not be a shock that they prefer the more pro-low-I.Q. chud candidate, and that this is always going to be a far more pressing concern for the chuddenvolk than any bullshit about class politics.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think they even realize tariffs will raise prices. Could be more than one thing, of course, and often is.
Identity politics also lets you reach further up the social food chain than class politics; once you get into the upper middle class everyone has too much to lose. Convincing upper-middle-class women they were oppressed was one of the left's better moves, I think.
I don't know if it's lost, though. If Trump makes enough goofs (as you say, the tariffs are likely to cause significant inflation, and at the time the pandemic cost him among the old), I could easily see the Democrats downplaying gender issues enough to get back into power in 2028. Then some Bernie successor could raise taxes on the rich, etc.
In general the American people lean right of center socially and left of center economically; the elites are the reverse (though 'socially liberal' in the sense of what's cool rather than a principled commitment to free speech). Each party has a tension between what its donors want and what its base wants--the donors usually win. Trump, being his own man, was able to say stuff like he would protect Medicare and Social Security that was anathema to the donors, but governed like an old-school Republican with more tariffs and less immigration.
They (the left) are after the normative. The weapon of choice is denormalization. Relentlessly attack society's most fundamental and deeply held standards (norms) and, if successful, your group of social pioneers can then dictate the terms of tomorrow's brave new world.
There is one word that describes "male and female" a.K.a "man and woman." The word is "natural." Words like s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d and n-o-r-m-a-l beg the questions, "According to who? According to what? Whose standard? Whose normality?"
Biological life in the natural world is perpetuated via male + female. Period. Full stop. Anything outside that natural pairing is deviancy.
There are a few billionaire transgenders who have become activists, Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker. They have funded medical orgs, hospitals and nonprofits like the ACLU. LBG orgs were also left with funding, staff but no mission after gay marriage was legalized.
It also snowballed because trans ppl were hired and headed up these orgs, and often were the doctors doing the kids “sex changes” and/or trans research. A trans person’s view of the world is warped and they can seem competent and sane but deep down is a strong resentment that they’ll never be the opposite sex. They basically want to destroy biological sex because it makes them mad. They should not be in positions of power related to this topic, esp when it comes to the health of kids.
Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker, both Jews, what a coincidence! One of the most leftist groups, along with Blacks.
Speaking of trans research, I read a blog post by a psychotherapist talking about how they aren't allowed to treat transvestitism. "In the past year especially, it’s become increasingly clear to me that I cannot uphold the primary value of my profession, to do no harm, without also seriously jeopardizing my standing in the professional community."
I read an article about a female psychologist who said in a meeting with colleagues, that the children in a school turning into transvestites weren't a natural thing. "Can we agree that this is a trend?" Many of her colleagues agreed but wouldn't say anything. And the guy heading their institution just ignored it, clearly playing politics. This way the research is distorted.
And then 40% of male transvetites, or "transgender women," get HIV. Totally normal!
It's not that complicated. There was pent-up demand for this among doctrinaire leftists / sexual-deviance-normalization-advocates since the 70s, and it was just a matter of time, so the only question was timing, and Lawrence v Texas set the stage.
One clue is the history of how, when, and w the 'T' got added to 'LGBT', and the four-letter version started to get into circulation way back in the 80s.
The most ironic thing about these movements that like to try and make the public stop believing in reality-based stereotypes is that by their own operation they end up proving the truth of the stereotypes. For example, a real stereotype is that the people who end up at at the top of movements and institutions in flux and for which there is fierce competition for influence (i.e., that haven't yet matured into rigid hierarchies and bureaucracies) tend to be the most masculine types, because the masculine mentality is more competitive, risk-tolerant, independent, aggressive, confrontational, driven, demanding, dominating, argumentative, assertive, bold, pushy, confident, and likely to be monomaniacally obsessed with succeeding at a particular mission.
So, as Steve has observed, the feminist movement ends up dominated by a bunch of masculine lesbians, and what was once a movement mostly for ""gays" has a few ultra-masculine MtF autogynophiliacs push their way into the tent and do what is in their nature and what they do best - start taking over and giving orders and talking over everyone and fighting tooth and nail until the bitter end to get their ultra-minority deviancy conceptualized in the same 'oppressed' category as the other groups in the agenda of liberation from traditional norms and absolutist egalitarianism.
Everyone who was familiar with what the intellectuals and activists in these movements thought and wanted to accomplish over 40 years ago was thus aware of that T was on the menu, and the only question was when cultural inertia and resistance would be sufficiently eroded to get it across the finish line.
An analogy could be to Operation Market Garden as portrayed in the epic movie "A Bridge Too Far". How many bridges did the allies want and intend to take eventually? ALL of them, obviously. But how many was it possible to take in the limited time of the Battle of Arhern and without huge losses? A few less than their overconfidence led them to try for.
And, with WWT, what happened with the timing was that after their crushing victory in World War G, the left's morale and optimism and jihadist fervor became untethered from realism, prudence, and expediency, and did what they have historically often done and pushed one bridge too far, too fast. This is why Stalin in 1930 had to reign folks in when he wrote in Pravda, "Dizzy* with Success: Concerning Questions of the Collective-Farm Movement" in which, per La Wik, "... Stalin claimed that agricultural collectivization had been carried out with excessive zeal, leading to "excesses" that had to be corrected."
*I don't know any Russian, but I've also seen this translated as "Drunk". The word literally translated into dizziness but I think the implication is that it is the kind of pleasurably intoxicated dizziness that drunks experience,
I like thinking about the alternate reality where furries became the cause du jour. Furries, as in the people who dress up as animals and have sex. In the 2000s, furries and transgenders were on a similar reputational ground. Like transgenders, furries tend to work in high power jobs like tech. Also in the 2000s, furries were more "online" than transgenders. They had a strong, core, devoted culture that worked together to achieve goals. And yet furries never broke out of their little ghetto. I think transgenders' combination of sex fetish and gender fetish is what let them win. The identity combo is too irresistible for wokism to ignore. But things could have easily gone another way, and today we'd be forced to assert on threat of firing that our coworker is "really" a wolf or "really" an owl.
Your comments suggest you believe "Wokism" predates the politicized Transgender movement.; and that this preexisting Wokism selected the upstart Transgenderist sub-ideology, seeking to incorporate it into the main body of the Wokeness Behemoth that has been so influential in the 2010s and early 2020s.
But what is Wokism/Wokeness? And by what process does it select additions?
The first salvos in the Transgenderist movement (mid 2010s) predate, fwiw, the rise of the word "Wokeness" in discourse (late 2010s).
This is a standard explanation but doesn't explain why similar conditions prevail 60 years after that "rebellious mindset" emerged.
Permanent rebellion? By who? Against whom? How? Where? Why?
A lot of basic questions, I think, need answering and it is not really in our power to do it. Better answers may be had by thoughtful historians not yet born.
I'm convinced no-one needs to be prodded to have socialist inclinations. Early humans were communitarian hunter-gatherers. If a man got too big for his loincloth, you killed him, regardless of how much letting him do his thing would've be beneficial to everyone in the long run. We were all like this for 99% of our history.
I have a conjecture as to why such particularly correlates with intellectuals I intend to expand upon in a piece later. But socialists are at least right about this: it's a wonder we ever had a world that allowed such inegality. The difference is, inequality of reward is a good thing, and fighting against inequality for its own sake is bad, and should be stopped and suppressed. The fact that the majority of our public- and private-school teachers, as well as acedeme, propagate the opposite, is tantamount to a mass dumping of gunpowder onto an electrical fire.
Wrong: since you suppose too much and read too little, you suppose I was speaking about "Woke Loon calculation". But, since my IQ has 3 digit, I know that "wokism" @dorkwad was talking about refers to the heads and not to the loons. And, ofc, I was speaking about the heads, not the loons, too.
This Andrew Phillips here is a guy who has to constantly pick on everything, I guess he was born that way. "How did you word that? That wording is wrong!!!" He gets especially angry when you criticize Jewish leftists. Wonder why, when he has such a White-sounding name! Which totally isn't a front.
I would expect a Woke loon not knowing how to benefit monetarily, after all they are a loon. They are much more interesting in benefiting ideologically and emotionally.
The operation itslef costs a lot, like a neurosurgery. Then you have a lifetime subscription to fakevagina/fakepenis maintenance and hormone therapy, both costs a lot too.
I think a big reason is you can convince a lot of people they might be a little 'trans' or 'gay' since at least some sexual fluidity exists, whereas people don't work with animals much anymore.
This is probably less common among conservatives, but a lot of people don't perfectly fit their gender archetype. There are lots of guys who don't like sports and girls who do, guys who like to dress up and girls who don't, and so on; you can easily convince a few confused teenagers that they're 'really' the opposite sex in some fashion. There's also apparently the really nasty porn that's going around and makes girls look for an exit by being boys, and a lot of low-status nerdy guys want to escape the evil status of 'white cishet male' by being trans--you might even get that tomboyish lesbian who likes video games to pay attention to you!
I'm also convinced, looking at stuff like ancient Greece and Rome, there's a much higher baseline level of bisexuality than people want to admit. It wasn't some free-love utopia and in practice meant taking advantage of slaves (since taking the receptive role was dishonorable), but apparently it did happen. Heck, even the right-wing Sulla had to ditch his gladiator butt-boy Metrobius for his political career. Similarly, you have jokes about 'rum, sodomy and the lash' and sailors, and I wouldn't be too surprised if lots of ladies decided to fool around with their BFFs over the centuries. People want to f***, and if someone of the opposite sex isn't around, well...they'll make do.
It's a little harder with furries since most people don't work with or around animals anymore. But you definitely had shamans thinking their spirits turned into animals, 'spirit animals' that looked over you or you had some affinity with, and legends of werewolves and selkies and so on on in prior eras, so having an 'animal essence' in some form might have been an easier sell to a more rural society. Of course, country people quickly run into reality. But as the Collinses said in the Pragmatists' Guide to Sexuality, quite a few societies had rituals where people would wear animal masks and do weird stuff. Maybe furry is a recrudescence of that.
Furries are mainly homosexuals too. Looking for a new toy and a new way to be in-your-face.
There was a documentary glorifying furries, with a fat man who used plastic surgery to imitate a cat. He also inserted fake whiskers in his cheeks and had fake teeth, contact lenses, and a mechanical tail that he put on for special occasions. IIRC they didn't mention that he was a homosexual. Well, he committed suicide eventually. But that won't be in a documentary.
I read recently about a school where the parents were angry because the teacher told the children to pick an animal to be, and then they had new animal names and behaviors for themselves. Gee, I wonder if the teacher is a homosexual.
In Haiti they REALLY believe that people can turn into animals. Just like in Congo, where they thought that the dictator (for a time) could turn into a panther and was immune to bullets.
In Nigeria a goat was arrested for armed robbery. Vigilantes held on to the goat until the police arrived, saying it was an armed robber who had used black magic to turn himself into a goat, after trying to steal a Mazda 323.
A spokesman for the police in the eastern state of Kwara said, "The goat is in our custody. Vigilantes saw some hoodlums attempting to rob a car. One escaped while the other turned into a goat."
Maybe furries should move to Haiti and Africa! See how long they survive.
I swear, when I heard about the widespread belief of witchcraft in Africa, I imagined a humorous scenario where people thought that a criminal transformed into some kind of animal. Little did I know it was an ACTUAL CASE.
What explains the failure (so far) of the long-running Sailer prediction to the effect that after the Transgenderist movement there'd emerge a Regime-supported "Legalized-and-celebrated Polygamy for Africans and Muslims" movement, which would made a bid to become incorporated into the wider Wokeness movement?
Feminists hate the thought of polygamy. It would be rare to see a woman with two men, it would be more likely to be a man with several women. That is very un-feminist. As it would show that women are drawn to the alpha males and the men with money, willing to be simply sex partners instead of equal partners.
Too many men also oppose it, as they'd be deprived of women. Monogamy is a compromise for all parties.
There ARE stories about "polygamous relationships" even now of course, but you see how it never takes off. In the few cases where it's a woman with two men, the men are always pathetic creatures, accepting a subservient role to get the occasional sex with a fat woman.
See, e.g., "How Will the Polygamy Camel Get Its Nose in the Tent?" Steve Sailer, Feb. 13, 2015.
Mr. S wrote, in part:
.
"There has been discussion for years of how polygamy might follow gay marriage, although that seems like an overly literal interpretation of what’s been going on: gay marriage isn’t really about marriage, so World War G has given less momentum to plural marriage than it’s given to World War T."
.
Sailer predicted that polygamy could be legalized in the USA -- as long as no orange-haired presidents were elected -- through some implicit coalition of pressure-groups including:
1- Fundamentalist Mormons,
2- Black-African immigrants allied with stalwart native anti-racists,
3- Arab-Muslims allied with anti-Islamophobia native activists,
4- "Quirk" cases of extreme diversity-in-action in which, for example, three men who are hardcore Tibetan Buddhists are married to one Tibetan-Buddhist woman, and a left-wing Supreme Court full of Hillary Clinton appointees mandates those marriages be legally sanctioned.
5 - Those who are bisexual being allowed the right to marry one of each of the "two" genders, because #LOVEISLOVE, "case closed."
> There ARE stories about "polygamous relationships" even now of course, but you see how it never takes off
I don't know if it's an example of the airplane/bullet-hole meme, but I have never seen a throuple or any other polyamorous situation where the participants were attractive. I made fun of Devon Eriksen on Twitter yesterday because he posted the meme; I told him that he was an example of someone who wanted to marry a 7 and instead he married a 4 and a 3.
Eh, it seems to have worked out for him; at least one wife is doing a pretty good job promoting his book. The other one got sick, but maybe she does household stuff.
If he's to be criticized for anything, it's taking two geek women off the market. ;)
Right but the idea that a man gets to be a woman and beat up a lady in the boxing ring is as anti feminist as it gets but they somehow are good with it. So they can easily be convinced polyamory is cool
Republicans could ask Democrats in debate, "would you legalize polygamous marriages?" and see how they ask.
They could also ask, "do you think sibling marriages should be allowed?"
By conservative morality that is bad, since it hurts society. But by leftist morality you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else.
So they'd have to say yes. Going a step too far for society to accept. So of course they'd escape into the issue of "the children could get health problems." Which is true but doesn't address the issue itself, just a side consequence. "If they don't have children, let's say if they agree to being sterilized, then should it be legal?"
In Oakland they passed a law to protect “polyamorous families” this year. If the liberals had won this election, it’s possible it would be the next cause
I believe Polyamory was being promoted for a time due to tech-oriented circles around Sam Bankman-Fried., CEO of "FTX," a mega-fraud cryptocurrency organization. Praised, or set up for something good anyway. Normalized, is a better word. The quasi-ideological polyamorous lifestyle many of them were said to lead was being insinuated to be vital to their genius levels of tech-financial wizardry.
Then the November 2022 collapse of FTX happened. A few months later "SBF" was arrested and is now in prison.
After the FTX collapse, the polyamory-pushers retreated and weren't heard from again for a while. In 2024 they are again on the offensive, but it may not get traction. I don't get the feeling that 2024-26 is to a politicized Polyamorist movement what 2013-16 was to the politicized Transgender movement.
Lissa says the Polyamory movement would've wormed its way into the mainstream in a serious way had Kamala won. I ask: How vital was the presence of Obama and D-team appointees in the U.S. government to the breakthrough of the Trans movement in 2013-16? I don't know.
It's the "never give an inch" mentality. Just as the progressives started the trend of never apologizing for anything or ever admitting they're wrong, they feel that giving any ground on cultural issues means imminent defeat.
In a sense they're correct; trans mania has been a sort of cultural blitzkrieg that replied on rapid, bold advances to confuse and demoralize the enemy (normal people).
As they see it, if they give any ground on trans, the entire project is in jeopardy. Why, the hated cishet white males might regroup and drive them back to the Vistula. After that, it won't be long before Christian nationalists are shoving gays back in the closet and making women have babies.
Is there any case of LGBTQIAX-related ideologies (including the 'T,' Transgender Movement) being imposed by force on a conquered enemy? Or is it always a "social movement," including those that travel along established influence networks.
The U.S. State Department under Biden and Obama (at least Term-2), for example, has not been shy about saying one of their primary foreign-policy goals is promoting LGBTQIAX+ rights and empowerment, everywhere. This continues today. Employees of U.S. embassies across the world either help promote these goals or have to resign.
Some of those programs may fold up on January 20, 2025, but maybe not as much as some think. The pro-Trump LGBTQ activist Ric Grenell, for example, was a close contender for Sec of State. (The Trump Rorschach Test carries on.)
I mean, it doesn't really exist before the second half of the 20th century, so there are no other cases to look at. The British, French, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, or Roman empires didn't do it as part of official policy as far as I know, and the various Chinese dynasties or their Mongol or Manchu conquerors don't seem to have done such a thing.
It's worth pointing out (as I think you may have been trying to imply) the US is the closest we have to an imperial hegemon these days, and in fact rival powers like Russia have been trying to gain support (with some success) by trumpeting that the USA will turn you gay.
I don't think the left has been able to fully decide if Latinos are POC or not. It seems to vary depending on what's convenient for them. They will sometimes assure people concerned about demographic change that "latinos are white", suddenly bringing up the conquistadors and genetics while at other times describing them as oppressed POCs, such as when it comes to affirmative action.
It's like libertarians having to defend their idea taken to the logical conclusion, that you're allowed to take drugs. Even to give your children drugs. And that driving under the influence of heroin is "a non-crime" (Lew Rockwell).
In their case however, they don't have the same media support to make a stream of normies join them, so only loons remain in the movement. As someone wrote, "You think you're a libertarian until you've been to a Libertarian Party meeting."
I remember in 2016, the one time the media pushed the LP more than ever (as research showed), in order to sabotage Trump. The LP presidential candidate had never read Murray Rothbard. The vice-presidential candidate had never HEARD of Rothbard. That's kind of like joining a church without having heard of Jesus. Rothbard was the intellectual founding father of the party back in the day. How far they've fallen.
Now I guess if you mention Rothbard at a Libertarian Party meeting, the one thing they'll say is that "he wanted an alliance with David Duke!" Following the leftist media tactic of always bringing up the one thing that is the easiest to attack, over and over, any time a person is mentioned.
I read a New Yorker article, which I thought would be a reliable source of anti-Rothbard slurs, but I think all it said was that Rothbard said a rightward appeal ought to be populist ~"like Duke had been in LA". (The tilde indicates an approximation.) This is not the same as "he wanted an alliance with David Duke!" Did he? Link? (I have heard of Rothbard, and have certain Libertarian leanings myself, though Cato doesn't embody them, but I've never heard that.)
> trans mania has been a sort of cultural blitzkrieg that replied on rapid, bold advances to confuse and demoralize the enemy (normal people)
The problem is that the left won the LBG part of the battle so decisively that they got a bit full of themselves and decided to press their bets on World War T. Transpeople (especially MtF) cause a visceral disgust in people that is tough to shake. The fact that the left is trying to indoctrinate children into the normalization of the fetish is particularly appalling; I promise we don't need drag queens doing Story Time at schools and children's libraries.
Remember that when Obama and Hillary ran against each other in 2008, the official stated position for each was that marriage is between one man and one woman. To say that in 2024 would be considered heresy; even Republicans have given up that particular fight.
The fight isn’t over. Trans has pushed people against gay marriage and gay “rights” like collegial surrogacy. Nothing is truly over. The winds of change blow and who knows what the future brings.
The sad reality is that due to lacking a religious foundation, they have no meaning in life and feel an urge to keep pushing for change no matter what. That's why nothing will ever be enough. No acknowledgment that, "Ok, we've achieved all our goals. Let's consolidate and take a rest".
They're called social justice *warriors* for a reason.
”Women's liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let's get on with it.”
--Germaine Greer, Marxist, lecturer at the University of Sydney, lecturer at the University of Cambridge, columnist at The Sunday Times
>>On Christmas, he'd play with his girl cousins' and their new toys, explaining, not unreasonably, "I only play with girl toys, that's just the way I am."
Steve, I wonder if he played family with the dolls. I read that homosexual boys play fashion with the dolls - dressing them up, as you say - but they don't play family, which is central for girls as they prepare for motherhood. The homosexuals who imitate women like colorful clothes and hair and nail polish, not motherhood. In other words for them it's about things that will attract men. It's always about sex. A psychologist noted that even an old homosexual man had dildos lined up on a shelf.
Pushing for transvestites in sports: There are always leftists in the sociology departments and media who want to be seen, so they try to come up with constantly new things and defend the most extreme things. So you get "DEI" even though "equality" and AA already exist, you get "math is racist," and you get transvestites. Even though not too long ago only about one percent of homosexuals had clothes of the other sex at home.
Homosexuals must also always be in-your-face, because homosexuality is their baby and it is only "real" that way.
Also, the homosexual activists want a political cause to rally around. Because of their hatred of normal society, and because it gives them money.
The media push the transvestite cause to turn children against their parents and accept non-White immigrants as their allies against normal White society. Mass immigration is the goal. Burying White voters. So that the Left gets permanent election victories, with all the money from congressional and parliament seats. And so that the Tribe sits safe, with no majority able to form a movement against them.
I watched a Survivor season where an old fire chief, a family father, was the natural leader of his team, and everyone loved him. He led them to constant victories in the competitions so all the eliminations were from the other team. The only one who disliked him, who HATED him, was the homosexual on the team. In the end, when there were only two finalists, everyone voted for the fire chief to win except the homosexual - robbing the fire chief of the chance to be the only one thus far to get all the votes. Having watched many Survivor seasons I notice this, the homosexuals (who have to be in every season, even up to three at a time) want to ally with the women and with the Blacks. Right away they hate the White men who are, or remind you of, capable White family fathers.
Ironically, when there are enough Africans and Arabs in society, they will turn to their own instincts, no longer needing an alliance with cultural Marxism. The feminists, homosexuals and the Tribe will have the toughest time then. Look at, oh, say, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The trooncult is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon. HSTSs have been a minority of the T for some time, and have very different motivations than AGPs. But AGPs are on average smarter and more driven, so their concerns end up being what matters, especially with the gay rights movement having already accomplished all their prior goals.
We should always call them transvestites, it makes them angry. And homosexual, not "gay," a word for happy that homosexual leaders have admitted they appropriated with the help of the media.
Transvestite means cross-dresser, which is what they are, not "transgender." And it has the bonus of not being declared a hate word, so you can't get banned for it. The Jewish homosexual Magnus Hirschfeld invented the word transvestite in Germany in 1910 to replace cross-dresser. But as usual with leftist groups, they dirty the word after some time and need new words. (Like "African-American" or "LGBTQ," as convoluted as possible so they can't be thought of as real words and attain emotional connotations from the group's behavior.)
Transvestite selling dildos in Berlin: "Hi, I'm Anjay. My pronouns are they/them. I'm trans, brown, neuro-spicy." The title of the YouTube video is "Rip all the categories away."
Anyone watch that and say "they're just born that way."
The insertion of mental illness, or "neuro-spicy" in this case, is a trend the media ignore. Homosexuals do this constantly in social media. That's also crucial for White girls who need to find a way to be victims instead of White oppressors. Also cutting their arms to get scars; if you are offended by that, then you are bashing them for mental illness, which they got from being victims. (U.S. leftist culture has brought the world so many wonderful things!)
To answer the titular question, transgenderism has become a religious tenet, like immigration and Die-versity. We are now familiar with the spectacle of white parents stepping up to microphones to bless the ritual sacrifice of their children by the sainted Die-versity.
Religious belief can withstand any level of cognitive disconnect. When reality punches you in the mouth, DOUBLE DOWN!, like Republicans on abortion and free trade.
-- How: followed on from the important, energizing Gay Marriage Movement of the mid-2000s to mid-2010s.
-- When: mid-2010s, emerges; by late-2010s, locked in.
-- Why: To undermine the White Heterosexual-Family Norm in the USA and generally of the West (considerably less of a political-Transgenderist movement being pushed on Azerbaianis or Angolans or Andean Indians.
.
-- Unanswered: (1.) Who (would have) wanted to do undermine the White Heterosexual-Family Norm in the West? (2.) Who was "willing" and "able" to push the matter in the mid-2010s, when the thing began? (3.) How important was the presence in office of the USA's first orange-haired president to the bitter digging-in of the political Transgenderist movement?
I think at base liberalism is one of the innumerable ways to scratch the human religious itch. But liberalism is particularly problematic because it's insatiable.
Why do you bother to comment on Bruce Charlton's blog if you have such a low opinion of religion (and are pro-abortion)? I'm glad he cuts you off. Should just ban you.
The reason they need to die on this hill is a simple matter of logic, really. If you accept their premise that "transwomen" are women, then it follows a priori that they deserve the same rights as any other woman to crack another woman's skull. There is no way to avoid this conclusion without denying the premise. But what are the logical implications of denying the premise? If "transwomen" are *not* women, then how much of what Democrats urge in the name of trans rights is still sustainable? Is *any* of it still sustainable? So it is a choice between one premise or another, and their respective unavoidable logical conclusions.
It is of course the same problem as race and IQ. Democrats, being natural believers in the theory of evolution, ought to have no problem understanding that evolution also applies to the human mind and did not stop working tens of thousands of years ago. But accepting that premise would lead to unacceptable conclusions, so the premise must be denied, even at the cost of leading to absurd conclusions.
If you think Dems support things like men in women’s sports, read the comments here. Unfortunately you need a subscription. Archived copies don’t include the comments.
Democrats have lost many women *forever* over this. Men in women’s sports, rapists in women’s prisons, taking the ability to have children or even ever experience orgasm from boys and girls who would often otherwise grow up to be happy gay men and lesbian women.
The party won't come back from this, because the tidal wave of horrible revelations isn't yet widely known. You have to watch footage of flooding or storm surge where at first it looks sort of like oh there is going to be a bit of a mess, golly it's really quite something, oh that looks maybe alarming, oh there go some cars oh there go the first floor windows, please tell me are we safe on this roof really....?
Back in 2016, I was appalled when NCAA Women's officials complained about North Carolina's Bathroom Bill, designed to keep males out of female locker rooms. WTF? I wish they could be personally sued for failing their duty of care.
If today's liberals actually had the nerve to expose themselves to arguments contrary to their orthodoxies, they might learn about autogynephilia and thus be a bit more suspect of all things men-in-women's-sports.
But earnest and reasonable statements like those in the last paragraph strike me as merely preaching to the choir. We here obviously get it, but those who don't get it at this point...well, is there any hope for them? I'd assume not.
So as for the Democrat party at large I suspect there's a good chance they will be too taken-over by the crazies that they'll shed more and more reasonable members to other teams: Libertarians, GOP, Greens, etc. With any luck, they'll evaporate and we can get a more serious party in their stead.
Somewhere in America, a washed-up MMA guy with an IQ of 85 debates whether his next career move will be declaring himself transgender or running for office as a Republican.
“One lesson I would be quick to draw from [the 2024 election]: Americans are not interested in seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics… If that sounds like ‘Transphobia’ to you, you are the problem.” — Sam Harris
God Sam Harris said something sensible, faints.
Sam says a lot of sensible things. He's extraordinarily clear eyed on woke excesses and many center left excesses, and was unafraid to call them out in Trump first term and during the Summer of George.
I don't agree with his extreme hostility to Trump but I take him more seriously because I think he is the rare cat (Ann Coulter being another) who's unafraid to say things his audience won't want to hear and doesn't try to conform his varied opinions to remain in good standing on one side or the other.
He's like Scott Alexander in a lot of ways--old-school liberals whose intellectual honesty and respect for science leads them to take some conservative positions. While most progressives will ditch science (or more broadly, empiricism, since organized science has been corrupted) if it conflicts with their principles, a few will stick with it and leave the progressive fold.
Sam’s style and tone are grating but he’s a very rare pundit (Steve included) who doesn’t triangulate around the views of his buddies.
I think Quillette got in trouble for continuing to support vaccines, so you could put Claire Lehman in there.
Claire Lehman has just transitioned to your basic liberal centrist.
Oh please he is a (((neo-con war monger.))) And he said that it wouldn't matter if Biden had dead children in his basement that people should vote for him even in that hypothetical circumstance. Like that wasn't playing to a shitlib audience in a craven and sickening way?
Like many Jews he is a death cultist.
This issue is not as popular with the Dem base as you think. On a recent recent NYT article (heavily Dem readers) the top comment, with over 1500 likes is:
>” A lot of people, and especially parents, had a "moment" when they saw Lia Thomas. Here was a woman, who has a height and build that a biological woman would never achieve - and also competed on the men's team two years prior - shattering Ivy League records. People's daughters were finishing 2nd or 3rd behind a woman who has only been a woman for two years.
“People who were even just a tad uncomfortable with this were called bigots and transphobes and all sorts of names.
“If you do this, may people will be quiet to protect their social standing. But they will wait until their voices can be heard - at the ballot box.”
Joe Scarborough said the same after the election, and said he'd been saying it for years. The clip I watched cut off before the rest could answer, but I wonder exactly what they could answer.
I am, somehow, reminded of the famous quip by Mike Tyson:
"Every man has a plan, until he gets punched the face."
They want to be women. If they are women, but they’re banned from women’s sports, then they’re not really women and the whole thing falls apart.
Yes. If you have about twenty times the testosterone that a woman has, you are a man.
Right, my point is they can’t let this go because even giving up one bit of their “rights” means they can’t claim to be women
on this one issue the terfs and the trans rights activists agree: it's all in or all out. Many people new to the issue want to make unworkable rules about "well only the really nice ones who are gay anyway can go in the ladies' loos but the dodgy chancers should stay out". Either all the men who want to be treated as women are women, or none of them are.
The three homosexual men that I know all despise trannies.
-- Historical note --
.
August 22, 2013:
.
That is the day Steve Sailer first used the phrase "World War T."
The historical record remains preserved on this, in a now-seldom-visited corner of the Internet:
.
https://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-war-t.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130826031942/https://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-war-t.html
.
All Mr. S wrote, on that historic day, was "No Comment" attached to an image of a "Slate" headline, which read: "Should Chelsea Manning get her sentence reduced? If she wants sexual reassignment, the Army could let her seek clemency out of 'a need for specialized treatment'," by Fred Kaplan.
For those don't remember, "Chelsea Maning" was a male who, as I vaguely remember it, wanted to get out of legal trouble by claiming to be a woman. In the 1990s and the 2000s, his claim would not have been taken seriously beyond "Trash TV" and "The National Enquirer"; he'd have been seen as mentally ill, and/or maybe a charlatan of some kind. There's a famous video out there of "even" left-wing Jon Stewart mocking (what are now called) Transgenders in the mid-2000s.
The first Sailer use of the "World War T" phrase was followed by many other uses. Sailer is right to boast of himself as among the first to identify that a politicized Transgenderist movement was "the next thing."
.
See also: "World War T funding becoming available," Steve Sailer, iSteve blog, Aug. 25, 2013. (https://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-war-t-funding-becoming-available.html) (two days after the first use of the term).
..."Chelsea Man[n]ing" was a male who, as I vaguely remember it, wanted to get out of legal trouble by claiming to be a woman."
No. He was already in jail for leaking Army stuff to WikiLeaks when the taxpayers paid for his surgeries.
He was "leaking army stuff," i.e. revealing proof of the crimes committed by your wonderful criminal mercenaries. Cheering as they killed civilians from a distance. Bradley Manning followed the instructions he was given, and revealed blatant crimes. Just like Edward Snowden followed the rules and revealed criminal activity. And of course they got punished for it.
Bradley Manning told his psychiatrist long before that that he wanted to be a woman. Many veterans turn into transvestites to escape their role in the crimes committed when destroying Israel's targets, the few Muslim nations with pro-Palestinian governments. Well, it's either that or becoming an alcoholic or junkie, I guess. Or overdosing on pills. Then beating up their wives and children. Wonderful war machine.
There was a political compass meme that goes (top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right):
BRADLEY MANNING IS A HERO-BRADLEY MANNING IS A TRAITOR-CHELSEA MANNING IS A HERO-CHELSEA MANNING IS A TRAITOR
This was before the isolationist turn on the right, the ordering may be different now.
"Bradley Manning followed the instructions he was given, and revealed blatant crimes."
Wikipedia: "She[sic] is a former United States Army soldier who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly 750,000 classified, or unclassified but sensitive, military and diplomatic documents.[7] "
I'd like to see this "leak a ton of stuff to Wikileaks" instruction.
"...mercenaries. Cheering as they killed civilians from a distance. "
Got a link for your favorite incident of that? Just so we can see for ourselves what actually happened rather than rely on your characterization of it.
I'm sympathetic with a lot of what what Wikileaks did, but I'm pretty sure that you are lying.
LOL The friendly Jew jumping in with his usual Wikipedia copy-pasting bullshit as "argument." And as usual you latch on to one thing that you can harp on about, like the left always does, in this case that I said the U.S. soldiers were cheering. On and on you go with the same old trick.
"B-b-but he sent the information to Wikileaks!" Ah, so if it's WIKILEAKS he sends the information to, THEN it's bad! LOL Your beloved criminals that control the military wouldn't take action against the crimes they condoned, so he went to the media, as he should.
Just like Edward Snowden was right in exposing the crimes committed by his institution. How ODD that you don't mention Snowden. You figure that the readers here aren't a crowd who'd be receptive to your complaining about that.
And then you do the usual trick of asking for constantly more info and links. Umm, nope, I'm not required to send you links, sorry. One of your beloved criminals said "that was awesome!" about firing on Iraqis on a motorcycle, go look it up my dear Jew with an oh-so-White first name and last name.
But you don't want people to know that. All for Israel!
> Just so we can see for ourselves what actually happened rather than rely on your characterization of it.
Who are "we"? It's just you, little guy. Talking about yourself in plural? Oh dear, worse than I thought.
"that you are lying" - As if I would care about a Jew claiming that I'm lying. Funny!
You are so pathetic when you try to argue.
1) Wikipedia is convenient. Be more specific about what you are denying.
2) "...On and on you go..." Pretty good trick for one challenge to turn into endless "harping". I repeat: "Got a link for your favorite incident of that?"
Of course you don't, you pathetic fraud.
3) "Ah, so if it's WIKILEAKS he sends the information to, THEN it's bad!"
Typical projection and reading failure on your part. Quote me saying anything bad about WikiLeaks. I didn't even criticize Manning. I criticized
YOU for claiming his leaks were in accord with "instructions.
4) "How ODD that you don't mention Snowden."
How ODD that you think so. You didn't mention him, so why would I mention him when criticizing your idiotic claims about Manning?
5) "And then you do the usual trick of asking for constantly more info and links."
I would never ask you for "info" since the only thing you do is lie.
That you're never able to back up wha you say just proves it. Every time.
But this fisking of you is past tedious, just the 49ers running over a Pop Warner team, if only the Pop Warner team were somehow as disgusting as you are.
And, no, I'm not "friendly" to you. You stink up the joint.
Antisemitic retards love Snowden and Manning because they hate America, and love that each man exposed hundreds of thousands of documents they themselves personally never read a word of, without once going through their chains of command prior nor giving any defensible reasons for their leak of data which ~99% had nothing to do with the exposure of any crimes and everything to do with emboldening Putin, Xi, and their comrades against freedom:
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chelsea-manning-betrayed-us-endangered-innocent-lives-she-no-hero-1601778
Manning should've been executed in less than three years, tops. His commutation was a disgusting capstone every bit as shameful as any of DJT's war-criminal pardons.
I think he's a gay twink not an X-Man, but he may have aged out of it. It's never been clear whether he got any surgeries. Open to being proved wrong. Actually, no I'm not.
It occurs to me trannies get some built-in traction from the instinctive human repulsion. Nobody really wants to look at your junk or your lady-parts as part of the job of fight referee, and God knows not your surgically mutilated junk. So there's kind of a practical aura around trannies like don't ask don't tell because the less time required to examine your Uncanny Valley ass is the less chance we have to douse our eyes with bleach, and doubled over with nausea and existential despair at the state of humanity.
It's quite clear that Manning got surgeries since he was interviewed in the hospital afterwards.
And the position of the woman-basher's promoter was that being a tranny was no problem as long as the woman beater was licensed so why would any referee have to check his junk?
Definitely not aged out of it. Still going by the name Chelsea.
Taking the guise of the opposite sex is a proven, reliable way for men to be more attractive to other men:
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/rachel-humphreys-transgender-lou-reed/
As well for women to be more attractive to other women:
https://www.tofugu.com/japan/takarazuka/
Bradley Manning put on a wig and wanted to be a transvestite in calls with his psychiatrist back in the States even before being arrested for revealing U.S. war crimes. (Bradley Manning was imprisoned, the criminals were not.)
As someone said, "I never saw so many transvestites before I started working in the V.A. office."
Those veterans turn into transvestites to pretend to be someone else, someone who didn't take part in the crimes committed when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Those veterans turn into transvestites to pretend to be someone else, someone who didn't take part in the crimes committed when occupying Iraq and Afghanistan."
No one thinks this except you. And YOU are a loon.
LOL The Jew with the oh-so-White name clearly has a full of hate inside it.
"No one thinks this except you!" Um, I was quoting a VETERAN'S story, but of course you'll lie about that. That they turn into transvestites to escape responsibility for the war is something Glenn Greenwald said about Bradley Manning back then. So "no one thinks this except you"? Sorry, you're wrong again. But this is your usual trick, that "no one else thinks that!" You're always using debate tricks to defend wars for Israel and the other things you use care so much about.
Hint: If you have nothing to actually contribute, maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself.
Get lost back to Unz.
Don’t know why you’re getting hate for this, it’s a plausible theory. When men get arrested for child rape they have been very likely to claim “trans” to escape it
How to explain how/why the politicized Transgenderist Movement occurred and gained so much apparent success?
We need more time, I think, to understand it. Along with the meaning of many of the bad trends that seemingly emerged in the 2010s, or that at least "came to a head" in that decade.
The obvious explanation is that the Gay Marriage movement, of ca. 2003-2015 (?), was felt to be winding down by mid-2013, and no longer served the kind of useful purpose it had over years of then-recent memory. Something new was needed to carry forward the energy. Then, once an elite agenda-setting element embraced it, political Transgenderism became part of ideological-coalitional politics. (There were no "adults in the room" to say "stop this nonsense right now.")
But something feels missing in whatever single explanation I hear or can imagine.
The theory has been proposed, by Mr. Sailer indirectly at least, that Barack Obama may be responsible for the Transgenderism movement. Indirectly. By whipping up something called "identity politics" in his 2012 re-election campaign.
Obama's campaign was targeted at the Eternal Villain, the White-Christian Heterosexual Male and that Eternal Villain's water-carriers and dupes. The theory, as I interpret it, continues as follows: The anti-White Male energies spilled over and, as a "social contagion" mutated into a free-floating anti-heterosexualism. This ended up becoming a serious force (as seen by the sharp drops in girls being socialized into quasi-adult consciousness in the 2000s and 2010s identifying as full-heterosexual).
The whole thing was a little bit of a dilemma, given that a huge majority of people -- even agenda-setting elites -- are full-heterosexual "cisgenders." But mid-2010s Transgenderism adapted itself successfully, cycling through the culture over the coming 5-10 years.
The whole thing finally met "steel" sometime in the early 2020s, of course symbolically with the Trump-2024 win. Kamala, the worst presidential candidate in U.S. history an "empty vessel extraordinaire," had the bad luck of jumping on the Transgenderist Train in 2019, near its peak.
The above is a hypothesis for how a politicized Transgenderism -- implausibly, laughably -- became a plank of "the Left" by the end of the 2010s, starting in or by late 2013. Maybe nobody jumping on the early bandwagon in 2013-2015 could foresee where it would go, but the whole thing followed its own logic within our system.
Anyway, the "Obama-2012 reelection strategy" hypothesis doesn't feel like it has the explanatory power to get over the finish-line. Effect, not cause?
Derisible things don't need understanding, and anyway time won't help.
I suspect that Obama got some kickback from the Pritzkers, because in the waning hours of his tenure, suddenly the university where I work imposed 'all gender' restrooms, pronoun swag, transgender "workshops" and forced celebrations and referrals on our syllabi. I've read that something to do with transgender medicalization is attached to the ACA.
"My mind is androgynous to a great extent and I hope to make it more so until I can think in terms of people, not women as opposed to men."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12401225/Barack-Obamas-gay-sex-fantasy-confession.html
I don't think Barry O took much, if any, convincing. Genderism fits entirely within his intellectual upbringing and personal values. He would've needed a majorly transformative personal life event for him to've not ended up here. And given our tendency to increase of intellectual rigidity with age, I'm not sure it's possible for him to make that turn anymore. It'd be like expecting Ali Khamenei to come out and say that Zoroastrianism is actually the one true faith.
There was a conspiracy theory after Occupy Wall Street in 2011 the billionaire-controlled foundations started splitting the left with identity politics--more money for 'Latinx' and 'BIPOC' means you have fighting between the various favored groups, not to mention a lot of ethnic minorities are significantly more anti-gay and anti-trans than whites. Paying a few percent in ESG fees and having to have less efficient underlings is better than losing 20-40% in European-level taxes.
I'm not sure if there's any proof, but the timeline tracks at least. And wealthy white progressives seem to be the most into the cultural stuff.
While I wouldn't be surprised if this really was the reason certain billionaires went all in on woke capital, I think it makes more sense that identity politics is just better at hooking people than class politics, which are inherently more abstract and transitory than race or sex. So those who resort to such means are more likely to win the attention and devotion of the nation's activist contingent, regardless of their motivations for doing so.
There's a reason Hitler came to power with an election and Lenin with a coup. As well reason Stalin attained his greatest personal popularity with his embrace of Russian chauvinism, which worked even though he himself wasn't even Russian; complete with the renaming the aggressive war they started in tandem with Germany into "the Great Patriotic War", even though the Soviet Union was founded for the goal of abolishing the nation state.
Many people find this too shameful to accept as true, and stubbornly cling to the idea that a more thorough embrace of class politics will be better. This belief is strong enough to survive even years after the explicit, personal defeat of their ordonicism at the hands of identitarians. A behavior which to my mind recalls nothing short of Lieutenant Onoda witnessing Private Kozuka, his only human companion of almost twenty years, meeting a shootout-related death at the hands of Filipino cops, and yet deciding he must continue prosecuting the war for Hirohito all the same:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4992835-sanders-democrats-working-class-issues/
The cause is lost. Working-class voters care more about migrants and trans than they do about rich people having too much money. Or even about their own finances, because everything's gonna get a lot more expensive if Trump actually manages to get anything close to what he wants on tarrifs.
Also, working class people are low I.Q. and chuddish by disposition. Dems hope to just educate people out of this, and this always fails because low-I.Q. chuds were born that way. It should not be a shock that they prefer the more pro-low-I.Q. chud candidate, and that this is always going to be a far more pressing concern for the chuddenvolk than any bullshit about class politics.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think they even realize tariffs will raise prices. Could be more than one thing, of course, and often is.
Identity politics also lets you reach further up the social food chain than class politics; once you get into the upper middle class everyone has too much to lose. Convincing upper-middle-class women they were oppressed was one of the left's better moves, I think.
I don't know if it's lost, though. If Trump makes enough goofs (as you say, the tariffs are likely to cause significant inflation, and at the time the pandemic cost him among the old), I could easily see the Democrats downplaying gender issues enough to get back into power in 2028. Then some Bernie successor could raise taxes on the rich, etc.
In general the American people lean right of center socially and left of center economically; the elites are the reverse (though 'socially liberal' in the sense of what's cool rather than a principled commitment to free speech). Each party has a tension between what its donors want and what its base wants--the donors usually win. Trump, being his own man, was able to say stuff like he would protect Medicare and Social Security that was anathema to the donors, but governed like an old-school Republican with more tariffs and less immigration.
They (the left) are after the normative. The weapon of choice is denormalization. Relentlessly attack society's most fundamental and deeply held standards (norms) and, if successful, your group of social pioneers can then dictate the terms of tomorrow's brave new world.
There is one word that describes "male and female" a.K.a "man and woman." The word is "natural." Words like s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d and n-o-r-m-a-l beg the questions, "According to who? According to what? Whose standard? Whose normality?"
Biological life in the natural world is perpetuated via male + female. Period. Full stop. Anything outside that natural pairing is deviancy.
It's a good point. You see terms like 'heteronormativity' that make this pretty clear--preexisting norms are to be attacked.
It's just about money. Read Jennifer Bilek's work. The Pritzkers funded Obama.
There are a few billionaire transgenders who have become activists, Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker. They have funded medical orgs, hospitals and nonprofits like the ACLU. LBG orgs were also left with funding, staff but no mission after gay marriage was legalized.
It also snowballed because trans ppl were hired and headed up these orgs, and often were the doctors doing the kids “sex changes” and/or trans research. A trans person’s view of the world is warped and they can seem competent and sane but deep down is a strong resentment that they’ll never be the opposite sex. They basically want to destroy biological sex because it makes them mad. They should not be in positions of power related to this topic, esp when it comes to the health of kids.
Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker, both Jews, what a coincidence! One of the most leftist groups, along with Blacks.
Speaking of trans research, I read a blog post by a psychotherapist talking about how they aren't allowed to treat transvestitism. "In the past year especially, it’s become increasingly clear to me that I cannot uphold the primary value of my profession, to do no harm, without also seriously jeopardizing my standing in the professional community."
I read an article about a female psychologist who said in a meeting with colleagues, that the children in a school turning into transvestites weren't a natural thing. "Can we agree that this is a trend?" Many of her colleagues agreed but wouldn't say anything. And the guy heading their institution just ignored it, clearly playing politics. This way the research is distorted.
And then 40% of male transvetites, or "transgender women," get HIV. Totally normal!
https://www.foxnews.com/health/hiv-incidence-cdc-estimates
Take your Jew obsessions back to Unz.
You could bring up Abigail Shrier, or Chaya Raichik...
It's not that complicated. There was pent-up demand for this among doctrinaire leftists / sexual-deviance-normalization-advocates since the 70s, and it was just a matter of time, so the only question was timing, and Lawrence v Texas set the stage.
One clue is the history of how, when, and w the 'T' got added to 'LGBT', and the four-letter version started to get into circulation way back in the 80s.
The most ironic thing about these movements that like to try and make the public stop believing in reality-based stereotypes is that by their own operation they end up proving the truth of the stereotypes. For example, a real stereotype is that the people who end up at at the top of movements and institutions in flux and for which there is fierce competition for influence (i.e., that haven't yet matured into rigid hierarchies and bureaucracies) tend to be the most masculine types, because the masculine mentality is more competitive, risk-tolerant, independent, aggressive, confrontational, driven, demanding, dominating, argumentative, assertive, bold, pushy, confident, and likely to be monomaniacally obsessed with succeeding at a particular mission.
So, as Steve has observed, the feminist movement ends up dominated by a bunch of masculine lesbians, and what was once a movement mostly for ""gays" has a few ultra-masculine MtF autogynophiliacs push their way into the tent and do what is in their nature and what they do best - start taking over and giving orders and talking over everyone and fighting tooth and nail until the bitter end to get their ultra-minority deviancy conceptualized in the same 'oppressed' category as the other groups in the agenda of liberation from traditional norms and absolutist egalitarianism.
Everyone who was familiar with what the intellectuals and activists in these movements thought and wanted to accomplish over 40 years ago was thus aware of that T was on the menu, and the only question was when cultural inertia and resistance would be sufficiently eroded to get it across the finish line.
An analogy could be to Operation Market Garden as portrayed in the epic movie "A Bridge Too Far". How many bridges did the allies want and intend to take eventually? ALL of them, obviously. But how many was it possible to take in the limited time of the Battle of Arhern and without huge losses? A few less than their overconfidence led them to try for.
And, with WWT, what happened with the timing was that after their crushing victory in World War G, the left's morale and optimism and jihadist fervor became untethered from realism, prudence, and expediency, and did what they have historically often done and pushed one bridge too far, too fast. This is why Stalin in 1930 had to reign folks in when he wrote in Pravda, "Dizzy* with Success: Concerning Questions of the Collective-Farm Movement" in which, per La Wik, "... Stalin claimed that agricultural collectivization had been carried out with excessive zeal, leading to "excesses" that had to be corrected."
*I don't know any Russian, but I've also seen this translated as "Drunk". The word literally translated into dizziness but I think the implication is that it is the kind of pleasurably intoxicated dizziness that drunks experience,
I like thinking about the alternate reality where furries became the cause du jour. Furries, as in the people who dress up as animals and have sex. In the 2000s, furries and transgenders were on a similar reputational ground. Like transgenders, furries tend to work in high power jobs like tech. Also in the 2000s, furries were more "online" than transgenders. They had a strong, core, devoted culture that worked together to achieve goals. And yet furries never broke out of their little ghetto. I think transgenders' combination of sex fetish and gender fetish is what let them win. The identity combo is too irresistible for wokism to ignore. But things could have easily gone another way, and today we'd be forced to assert on threat of firing that our coworker is "really" a wolf or "really" an owl.
Your comments suggest you believe "Wokism" predates the politicized Transgender movement.; and that this preexisting Wokism selected the upstart Transgenderist sub-ideology, seeking to incorporate it into the main body of the Wokeness Behemoth that has been so influential in the 2010s and early 2020s.
But what is Wokism/Wokeness? And by what process does it select additions?
The first salvos in the Transgenderist movement (mid 2010s) predate, fwiw, the rise of the word "Wokeness" in discourse (late 2010s).
It doesn't predate the mindset.
The rebellious mindset dates back to the 1960s. If you’re old enough you’ll remember it well.
The ‘60s radicals began working their way into academia and government.
This is a standard explanation but doesn't explain why similar conditions prevail 60 years after that "rebellious mindset" emerged.
Permanent rebellion? By who? Against whom? How? Where? Why?
A lot of basic questions, I think, need answering and it is not really in our power to do it. Better answers may be had by thoughtful historians not yet born.
I'm convinced no-one needs to be prodded to have socialist inclinations. Early humans were communitarian hunter-gatherers. If a man got too big for his loincloth, you killed him, regardless of how much letting him do his thing would've be beneficial to everyone in the long run. We were all like this for 99% of our history.
I have a conjecture as to why such particularly correlates with intellectuals I intend to expand upon in a piece later. But socialists are at least right about this: it's a wonder we ever had a world that allowed such inegality. The difference is, inequality of reward is a good thing, and fighting against inequality for its own sake is bad, and should be stopped and suppressed. The fact that the majority of our public- and private-school teachers, as well as acedeme, propagate the opposite, is tantamount to a mass dumping of gunpowder onto an electrical fire.
If you look up how much a tranny costs, both in fixed and variable costs, you immediately get why it was so rapidly adopted.
No. The random Woke loon doesn't benefit monetarily.
"The random Woke loon" is a body without a mind.
Your second comment doesn't align with or support your first, which claimed Woke Loon calculation.
Wrong: since you suppose too much and read too little, you suppose I was speaking about "Woke Loon calculation". But, since my IQ has 3 digit, I know that "wokism" @dorkwad was talking about refers to the heads and not to the loons. And, ofc, I was speaking about the heads, not the loons, too.
I don't believe IQ-flex is allowed on this Substack.
This Andrew Phillips here is a guy who has to constantly pick on everything, I guess he was born that way. "How did you word that? That wording is wrong!!!" He gets especially angry when you criticize Jewish leftists. Wonder why, when he has such a White-sounding name! Which totally isn't a front.
I would expect a Woke loon not knowing how to benefit monetarily, after all they are a loon. They are much more interesting in benefiting ideologically and emotionally.
Costs? In what ways?
The operation itslef costs a lot, like a neurosurgery. Then you have a lifetime subscription to fakevagina/fakepenis maintenance and hormone therapy, both costs a lot too.
I think a big reason is you can convince a lot of people they might be a little 'trans' or 'gay' since at least some sexual fluidity exists, whereas people don't work with animals much anymore.
This is probably less common among conservatives, but a lot of people don't perfectly fit their gender archetype. There are lots of guys who don't like sports and girls who do, guys who like to dress up and girls who don't, and so on; you can easily convince a few confused teenagers that they're 'really' the opposite sex in some fashion. There's also apparently the really nasty porn that's going around and makes girls look for an exit by being boys, and a lot of low-status nerdy guys want to escape the evil status of 'white cishet male' by being trans--you might even get that tomboyish lesbian who likes video games to pay attention to you!
I'm also convinced, looking at stuff like ancient Greece and Rome, there's a much higher baseline level of bisexuality than people want to admit. It wasn't some free-love utopia and in practice meant taking advantage of slaves (since taking the receptive role was dishonorable), but apparently it did happen. Heck, even the right-wing Sulla had to ditch his gladiator butt-boy Metrobius for his political career. Similarly, you have jokes about 'rum, sodomy and the lash' and sailors, and I wouldn't be too surprised if lots of ladies decided to fool around with their BFFs over the centuries. People want to f***, and if someone of the opposite sex isn't around, well...they'll make do.
It's a little harder with furries since most people don't work with or around animals anymore. But you definitely had shamans thinking their spirits turned into animals, 'spirit animals' that looked over you or you had some affinity with, and legends of werewolves and selkies and so on on in prior eras, so having an 'animal essence' in some form might have been an easier sell to a more rural society. Of course, country people quickly run into reality. But as the Collinses said in the Pragmatists' Guide to Sexuality, quite a few societies had rituals where people would wear animal masks and do weird stuff. Maybe furry is a recrudescence of that.
Furries are mainly homosexuals too. Looking for a new toy and a new way to be in-your-face.
There was a documentary glorifying furries, with a fat man who used plastic surgery to imitate a cat. He also inserted fake whiskers in his cheeks and had fake teeth, contact lenses, and a mechanical tail that he put on for special occasions. IIRC they didn't mention that he was a homosexual. Well, he committed suicide eventually. But that won't be in a documentary.
I read recently about a school where the parents were angry because the teacher told the children to pick an animal to be, and then they had new animal names and behaviors for themselves. Gee, I wonder if the teacher is a homosexual.
In Haiti they REALLY believe that people can turn into animals. Just like in Congo, where they thought that the dictator (for a time) could turn into a panther and was immune to bullets.
In Nigeria a goat was arrested for armed robbery. Vigilantes held on to the goat until the police arrived, saying it was an armed robber who had used black magic to turn himself into a goat, after trying to steal a Mazda 323.
A spokesman for the police in the eastern state of Kwara said, "The goat is in our custody. Vigilantes saw some hoodlums attempting to rob a car. One escaped while the other turned into a goat."
Maybe furries should move to Haiti and Africa! See how long they survive.
I swear, when I heard about the widespread belief of witchcraft in Africa, I imagined a humorous scenario where people thought that a criminal transformed into some kind of animal. Little did I know it was an ACTUAL CASE.
What explains the failure (so far) of the long-running Sailer prediction to the effect that after the Transgenderist movement there'd emerge a Regime-supported "Legalized-and-celebrated Polygamy for Africans and Muslims" movement, which would made a bid to become incorporated into the wider Wokeness movement?
I avoid putting dates on predictions, but the general fading of the Great Awokening began c. 2022.
My best guess is the opposition of feminists.
I read the polyamory subreddit (so you don't have to!) and they have incredible double standards against men, especially if straight.
I agree.
Don't give them any ideas!
Feminists hate the thought of polygamy. It would be rare to see a woman with two men, it would be more likely to be a man with several women. That is very un-feminist. As it would show that women are drawn to the alpha males and the men with money, willing to be simply sex partners instead of equal partners.
Too many men also oppose it, as they'd be deprived of women. Monogamy is a compromise for all parties.
There ARE stories about "polygamous relationships" even now of course, but you see how it never takes off. In the few cases where it's a woman with two men, the men are always pathetic creatures, accepting a subservient role to get the occasional sex with a fat woman.
See, e.g., "How Will the Polygamy Camel Get Its Nose in the Tent?" Steve Sailer, Feb. 13, 2015.
Mr. S wrote, in part:
.
"There has been discussion for years of how polygamy might follow gay marriage, although that seems like an overly literal interpretation of what’s been going on: gay marriage isn’t really about marriage, so World War G has given less momentum to plural marriage than it’s given to World War T."
.
Sailer predicted that polygamy could be legalized in the USA -- as long as no orange-haired presidents were elected -- through some implicit coalition of pressure-groups including:
1- Fundamentalist Mormons,
2- Black-African immigrants allied with stalwart native anti-racists,
3- Arab-Muslims allied with anti-Islamophobia native activists,
4- "Quirk" cases of extreme diversity-in-action in which, for example, three men who are hardcore Tibetan Buddhists are married to one Tibetan-Buddhist woman, and a left-wing Supreme Court full of Hillary Clinton appointees mandates those marriages be legally sanctioned.
5 - Those who are bisexual being allowed the right to marry one of each of the "two" genders, because #LOVEISLOVE, "case closed."
> There ARE stories about "polygamous relationships" even now of course, but you see how it never takes off
I don't know if it's an example of the airplane/bullet-hole meme, but I have never seen a throuple or any other polyamorous situation where the participants were attractive. I made fun of Devon Eriksen on Twitter yesterday because he posted the meme; I told him that he was an example of someone who wanted to marry a 7 and instead he married a 4 and a 3.
Eh, it seems to have worked out for him; at least one wife is doing a pretty good job promoting his book. The other one got sick, but maybe she does household stuff.
If he's to be criticized for anything, it's taking two geek women off the market. ;)
Right but the idea that a man gets to be a woman and beat up a lady in the boxing ring is as anti feminist as it gets but they somehow are good with it. So they can easily be convinced polyamory is cool
Republicans could ask Democrats in debate, "would you legalize polygamous marriages?" and see how they ask.
They could also ask, "do you think sibling marriages should be allowed?"
By conservative morality that is bad, since it hurts society. But by leftist morality you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else.
So they'd have to say yes. Going a step too far for society to accept. So of course they'd escape into the issue of "the children could get health problems." Which is true but doesn't address the issue itself, just a side consequence. "If they don't have children, let's say if they agree to being sterilized, then should it be legal?"
In Oakland they passed a law to protect “polyamorous families” this year. If the liberals had won this election, it’s possible it would be the next cause
Right, "polyamory" is or at least recently was on an upswing.
I believe Polyamory was being promoted for a time due to tech-oriented circles around Sam Bankman-Fried., CEO of "FTX," a mega-fraud cryptocurrency organization. Praised, or set up for something good anyway. Normalized, is a better word. The quasi-ideological polyamorous lifestyle many of them were said to lead was being insinuated to be vital to their genius levels of tech-financial wizardry.
Then the November 2022 collapse of FTX happened. A few months later "SBF" was arrested and is now in prison.
After the FTX collapse, the polyamory-pushers retreated and weren't heard from again for a while. In 2024 they are again on the offensive, but it may not get traction. I don't get the feeling that 2024-26 is to a politicized Polyamorist movement what 2013-16 was to the politicized Transgender movement.
Lissa says the Polyamory movement would've wormed its way into the mainstream in a serious way had Kamala won. I ask: How vital was the presence of Obama and D-team appointees in the U.S. government to the breakthrough of the Trans movement in 2013-16? I don't know.
Well, I know of a few polyamorists who are even trying to worm their way into the Republican party, most notably Geoffrey Miller.
It's the "never give an inch" mentality. Just as the progressives started the trend of never apologizing for anything or ever admitting they're wrong, they feel that giving any ground on cultural issues means imminent defeat.
In a sense they're correct; trans mania has been a sort of cultural blitzkrieg that replied on rapid, bold advances to confuse and demoralize the enemy (normal people).
As they see it, if they give any ground on trans, the entire project is in jeopardy. Why, the hated cishet white males might regroup and drive them back to the Vistula. After that, it won't be long before Christian nationalists are shoving gays back in the closet and making women have babies.
Maybe they're right.
"back to the Vistula" doesn't ring any bells for me. What?
1944 Soviet summer offensive.
Your analogy makes me wonder:
Is there any case of LGBTQIAX-related ideologies (including the 'T,' Transgender Movement) being imposed by force on a conquered enemy? Or is it always a "social movement," including those that travel along established influence networks.
The U.S. State Department under Biden and Obama (at least Term-2), for example, has not been shy about saying one of their primary foreign-policy goals is promoting LGBTQIAX+ rights and empowerment, everywhere. This continues today. Employees of U.S. embassies across the world either help promote these goals or have to resign.
Some of those programs may fold up on January 20, 2025, but maybe not as much as some think. The pro-Trump LGBTQ activist Ric Grenell, for example, was a close contender for Sec of State. (The Trump Rorschach Test carries on.)
I mean, it doesn't really exist before the second half of the 20th century, so there are no other cases to look at. The British, French, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, or Roman empires didn't do it as part of official policy as far as I know, and the various Chinese dynasties or their Mongol or Manchu conquerors don't seem to have done such a thing.
It's worth pointing out (as I think you may have been trying to imply) the US is the closest we have to an imperial hegemon these days, and in fact rival powers like Russia have been trying to gain support (with some success) by trumpeting that the USA will turn you gay.
"Is there any case of LGBTQIAX-related ideologies (including the 'T,' Transgender Movement) being imposed by force on a conquered enemy?"
Wasn't that what we were doing in Afghanistan and Iraq (beginning under Bush?)?
I don’t about that but in Iran, you can actually get a sex change. It’s because they’re virulently opposed to gays.
Actually THAT may be a calculated move to cash in on surgical tourism.
Lots of people here probably missed that analogy because they were rooting for the other side. ;)
But the Germans weren't driven back to the Vistula, they were driven back to Berlin.
The Vistula-Oder offensive didn't involve much of a pause at the Vistula.
Precisely
I mean, I agree, but from their point of view they can't 'abandon a vulnerable group'.
Sure they can, when it's convenient. Latinix are all "vulnerable".... unless they're Cuban-American (etc.) and vote wrong.
Heh. "Latinix" gets a red squiggle. Unexpected non-wokeness in my spell check. Maybe it's too old.
I don't think the left has been able to fully decide if Latinos are POC or not. It seems to vary depending on what's convenient for them. They will sometimes assure people concerned about demographic change that "latinos are white", suddenly bringing up the conquistadors and genetics while at other times describing them as oppressed POCs, such as when it comes to affirmative action.
It's like libertarians having to defend their idea taken to the logical conclusion, that you're allowed to take drugs. Even to give your children drugs. And that driving under the influence of heroin is "a non-crime" (Lew Rockwell).
In their case however, they don't have the same media support to make a stream of normies join them, so only loons remain in the movement. As someone wrote, "You think you're a libertarian until you've been to a Libertarian Party meeting."
I remember in 2016, the one time the media pushed the LP more than ever (as research showed), in order to sabotage Trump. The LP presidential candidate had never read Murray Rothbard. The vice-presidential candidate had never HEARD of Rothbard. That's kind of like joining a church without having heard of Jesus. Rothbard was the intellectual founding father of the party back in the day. How far they've fallen.
Now I guess if you mention Rothbard at a Libertarian Party meeting, the one thing they'll say is that "he wanted an alliance with David Duke!" Following the leftist media tactic of always bringing up the one thing that is the easiest to attack, over and over, any time a person is mentioned.
But I digress.
By the same token, most of MAGA has never heard of Sam Francis.
With the notable exception of frogtwitter, most of the right isn't too literate, as Hanania will tell you.
The folks at the Rod Dreher site are quite literate. Cost six dollars a month.
I used to read Dreher. I'll believe that.
OK, frogtwitter and some tradcaths and Orthosphere people. But not most voters.
I read a New Yorker article, which I thought would be a reliable source of anti-Rothbard slurs, but I think all it said was that Rothbard said a rightward appeal ought to be populist ~"like Duke had been in LA". (The tilde indicates an approximation.) This is not the same as "he wanted an alliance with David Duke!" Did he? Link? (I have heard of Rothbard, and have certain Libertarian leanings myself, though Cato doesn't embody them, but I've never heard that.)
> trans mania has been a sort of cultural blitzkrieg that replied on rapid, bold advances to confuse and demoralize the enemy (normal people)
The problem is that the left won the LBG part of the battle so decisively that they got a bit full of themselves and decided to press their bets on World War T. Transpeople (especially MtF) cause a visceral disgust in people that is tough to shake. The fact that the left is trying to indoctrinate children into the normalization of the fetish is particularly appalling; I promise we don't need drag queens doing Story Time at schools and children's libraries.
Remember that when Obama and Hillary ran against each other in 2008, the official stated position for each was that marriage is between one man and one woman. To say that in 2024 would be considered heresy; even Republicans have given up that particular fight.
The fight isn’t over. Trans has pushed people against gay marriage and gay “rights” like collegial surrogacy. Nothing is truly over. The winds of change blow and who knows what the future brings.
The sad reality is that due to lacking a religious foundation, they have no meaning in life and feel an urge to keep pushing for change no matter what. That's why nothing will ever be enough. No acknowledgment that, "Ok, we've achieved all our goals. Let's consolidate and take a rest".
They're called social justice *warriors* for a reason.
”Women's liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let's get on with it.”
--Germaine Greer, Marxist, lecturer at the University of Sydney, lecturer at the University of Cambridge, columnist at The Sunday Times
>>On Christmas, he'd play with his girl cousins' and their new toys, explaining, not unreasonably, "I only play with girl toys, that's just the way I am."
Steve, I wonder if he played family with the dolls. I read that homosexual boys play fashion with the dolls - dressing them up, as you say - but they don't play family, which is central for girls as they prepare for motherhood. The homosexuals who imitate women like colorful clothes and hair and nail polish, not motherhood. In other words for them it's about things that will attract men. It's always about sex. A psychologist noted that even an old homosexual man had dildos lined up on a shelf.
Pushing for transvestites in sports: There are always leftists in the sociology departments and media who want to be seen, so they try to come up with constantly new things and defend the most extreme things. So you get "DEI" even though "equality" and AA already exist, you get "math is racist," and you get transvestites. Even though not too long ago only about one percent of homosexuals had clothes of the other sex at home.
Homosexuals must also always be in-your-face, because homosexuality is their baby and it is only "real" that way.
Also, the homosexual activists want a political cause to rally around. Because of their hatred of normal society, and because it gives them money.
The media push the transvestite cause to turn children against their parents and accept non-White immigrants as their allies against normal White society. Mass immigration is the goal. Burying White voters. So that the Left gets permanent election victories, with all the money from congressional and parliament seats. And so that the Tribe sits safe, with no majority able to form a movement against them.
I watched a Survivor season where an old fire chief, a family father, was the natural leader of his team, and everyone loved him. He led them to constant victories in the competitions so all the eliminations were from the other team. The only one who disliked him, who HATED him, was the homosexual on the team. In the end, when there were only two finalists, everyone voted for the fire chief to win except the homosexual - robbing the fire chief of the chance to be the only one thus far to get all the votes. Having watched many Survivor seasons I notice this, the homosexuals (who have to be in every season, even up to three at a time) want to ally with the women and with the Blacks. Right away they hate the White men who are, or remind you of, capable White family fathers.
Ironically, when there are enough Africans and Arabs in society, they will turn to their own instincts, no longer needing an alliance with cultural Marxism. The feminists, homosexuals and the Tribe will have the toughest time then. Look at, oh, say, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The trooncult is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon. HSTSs have been a minority of the T for some time, and have very different motivations than AGPs. But AGPs are on average smarter and more driven, so their concerns end up being what matters, especially with the gay rights movement having already accomplished all their prior goals.
Grievance culture addiction is hard to beat. The virtue signaling dopamine I’m a good person high.
A "drag communion" featuring a "Drag Queer last supper," which will "bury the empire".
https://www.instagram.com/p/DCLU7Ibx_Da/
United Methodist pastor declares herself transvestite, with a t-shirt of Jesus as a transvestite:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9kyojgxM6Z/
United Methodist Drag Queen Pastor Ms Penny Cost rides on a dildo while playing "Ride On King Jesus":
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8NxXEYxup7/
Black transvestite bishop:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9Y73IMxv4d/
We should always call them transvestites, it makes them angry. And homosexual, not "gay," a word for happy that homosexual leaders have admitted they appropriated with the help of the media.
Transvestite means cross-dresser, which is what they are, not "transgender." And it has the bonus of not being declared a hate word, so you can't get banned for it. The Jewish homosexual Magnus Hirschfeld invented the word transvestite in Germany in 1910 to replace cross-dresser. But as usual with leftist groups, they dirty the word after some time and need new words. (Like "African-American" or "LGBTQ," as convoluted as possible so they can't be thought of as real words and attain emotional connotations from the group's behavior.)
Transvestite selling dildos in Berlin: "Hi, I'm Anjay. My pronouns are they/them. I'm trans, brown, neuro-spicy." The title of the YouTube video is "Rip all the categories away."
Anyone watch that and say "they're just born that way."
The insertion of mental illness, or "neuro-spicy" in this case, is a trend the media ignore. Homosexuals do this constantly in social media. That's also crucial for White girls who need to find a way to be victims instead of White oppressors. Also cutting their arms to get scars; if you are offended by that, then you are bashing them for mental illness, which they got from being victims. (U.S. leftist culture has brought the world so many wonderful things!)
To answer the titular question, transgenderism has become a religious tenet, like immigration and Die-versity. We are now familiar with the spectacle of white parents stepping up to microphones to bless the ritual sacrifice of their children by the sainted Die-versity.
Religious belief can withstand any level of cognitive disconnect. When reality punches you in the mouth, DOUBLE DOWN!, like Republicans on abortion and free trade.
That answers the "What," I think.
How about the "How," the "When," and the "Why"?
.
Proposed answers:
-- How: followed on from the important, energizing Gay Marriage Movement of the mid-2000s to mid-2010s.
-- When: mid-2010s, emerges; by late-2010s, locked in.
-- Why: To undermine the White Heterosexual-Family Norm in the USA and generally of the West (considerably less of a political-Transgenderist movement being pushed on Azerbaianis or Angolans or Andean Indians.
.
-- Unanswered: (1.) Who (would have) wanted to do undermine the White Heterosexual-Family Norm in the West? (2.) Who was "willing" and "able" to push the matter in the mid-2010s, when the thing began? (3.) How important was the presence in office of the USA's first orange-haired president to the bitter digging-in of the political Transgenderist movement?
I think at base liberalism is one of the innumerable ways to scratch the human religious itch. But liberalism is particularly problematic because it's insatiable.
Why do you bother to comment on Bruce Charlton's blog if you have such a low opinion of religion (and are pro-abortion)? I'm glad he cuts you off. Should just ban you.
Why are you an elderly homosexual with zero activity on this site? Does your priest know what a sick faggot you are?
The reason they need to die on this hill is a simple matter of logic, really. If you accept their premise that "transwomen" are women, then it follows a priori that they deserve the same rights as any other woman to crack another woman's skull. There is no way to avoid this conclusion without denying the premise. But what are the logical implications of denying the premise? If "transwomen" are *not* women, then how much of what Democrats urge in the name of trans rights is still sustainable? Is *any* of it still sustainable? So it is a choice between one premise or another, and their respective unavoidable logical conclusions.
It is of course the same problem as race and IQ. Democrats, being natural believers in the theory of evolution, ought to have no problem understanding that evolution also applies to the human mind and did not stop working tens of thousands of years ago. But accepting that premise would lead to unacceptable conclusions, so the premise must be denied, even at the cost of leading to absurd conclusions.
If you think Dems support things like men in women’s sports, read the comments here. Unfortunately you need a subscription. Archived copies don’t include the comments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/opinion/trump-democrats-transgender.html
Yes they think they’ve swindled us so many times, what’s one more rejection of biological reality?
Democrats have lost many women *forever* over this. Men in women’s sports, rapists in women’s prisons, taking the ability to have children or even ever experience orgasm from boys and girls who would often otherwise grow up to be happy gay men and lesbian women.
The party won't come back from this, because the tidal wave of horrible revelations isn't yet widely known. You have to watch footage of flooding or storm surge where at first it looks sort of like oh there is going to be a bit of a mess, golly it's really quite something, oh that looks maybe alarming, oh there go some cars oh there go the first floor windows, please tell me are we safe on this roof really....?
I hope so, but at the moment it seems like far, far more men are upset about the trans issue than women are.
Back in 2016, I was appalled when NCAA Women's officials complained about North Carolina's Bathroom Bill, designed to keep males out of female locker rooms. WTF? I wish they could be personally sued for failing their duty of care.
Yes they lost me forever. Will never vote for them again.
If today's liberals actually had the nerve to expose themselves to arguments contrary to their orthodoxies, they might learn about autogynephilia and thus be a bit more suspect of all things men-in-women's-sports.
But earnest and reasonable statements like those in the last paragraph strike me as merely preaching to the choir. We here obviously get it, but those who don't get it at this point...well, is there any hope for them? I'd assume not.
So as for the Democrat party at large I suspect there's a good chance they will be too taken-over by the crazies that they'll shed more and more reasonable members to other teams: Libertarians, GOP, Greens, etc. With any luck, they'll evaporate and we can get a more serious party in their stead.
Somewhere in America, a washed-up MMA guy with an IQ of 85 debates whether his next career move will be declaring himself transgender or running for office as a Republican.