FSTDT

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.
The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Any rational and fact-based discussion about gender equality and the right roles for the sexes is impossible in our society.

It is impossible because we cannot even bring ourselves to recognize the reality of biological sex – hence the increasingly-widespread insanity of allowing male-to-female transsexuals participate in, and thereby dominate, women’s sports. In the face of such insanity, all our ancestral wisdom and modern science – not to mention my own scribblings – are quite useless: there’s no helping people who are too dishonest or cowardly to see what is in front of their own nose.

However, for the sake of our young white boys – who are already being scapegoated for the inevitable failures to achieve equality and who need to take up their place in society as proud and confident men – I will provide a brief account of sex differences and what gender relations might look like in a healthy society.

Biological sex differences beyond the mere reproductive apparatus, known as sexual dimorphism, is the norm in much the Animal Kingdom. This reflects the differing evolutionary strategies of males and females. Almost every difference imaginable is possible, according to that particular species’ differing evolutionary strategies for males and females. Typically, while females carry and (where applicable) nurture offspring by default, males are more competitive and have to prove themselves in some way to get the female’s approval; whether this means rams battering their horns against one another or birds preparing elegant nests or showing off their spectacular plumage. (On which see David Attenborough’s innumerable nature documentaries, which typically boil down to animals struggling to get food, not get eaten, and find a mate.)

Sexual dimorphism can be non-existent or extreme. In the case of the deep sea angler fish, the small male bites in the female and gradually fuses with her, until all that remains is a pair of gonads attached to the female’s body. So far, there is no angler fish “masculinist movement” arguing for the interchangeability and equal rights of male and female angler fish.

The differences between men and women are certainly not as severe as among male and female angler fish, but they are not negligible. To be brief: men are competitive and achieve their highest reproductive potential through conquest, while women are consensual and achieve their highest reproductive potential through nurturing. A successful man might have dozens or even hundreds of children, a biological impossibility even for the most successful woman. Men’s evolutionary strategy is high-risk, high-reward. Women’s is low-risk, low-reward.

A successful man would be engaged in collective struggles with other men to seize resources, to build, to discover, while a successful woman would secure resources from her man! And Nature has equipped women with all the psychological traits and emotional skills to do so. A man is attracted to a healthy, beautiful woman. A woman is attracted to a socially successful, prestigious man with money, one who is at once a provider and a bad-boy (she is very torn on this), so as to provide for her and protect her. Hence, the media have breathlessly reported that the economic decline of men is a tragedy . . . for women’s marriage prospects!

In the prehistoric tribe, a successful man would have spent much time physically exerting himself, hunting animals or warring against other men, as part of a coalition of men. Women would have spent much of their adult life incapacitated in the home, pregnant or caring for small children. The psychological traits appropriate for these two modes of life are of course vastly different.

If you ever engage in any kind of physically difficult group endeavor – say you move to a different home with all your furniture – you will typically find that men and women revert to their traditional roles. The men will be literally doing the heavy lifting and building the furniture, while the women will be cleaning, cooking, and providing moral support (the value of which should not be underestimated).

Women also seem to be natural enforcers of social values. While men have historically controlled the priesthoods and the media, it is women who nag their menfolk to live up to the society’s established social norms and be respectable. (No doubt part of the reason why homosexuals have become so prominent in the far-Right since the latter has become heretical.) It is said that Spartan women would murder their own sons if these ever fled battle, and that it was Byzantine women who murdered the soldiers who had been ordered to destroy Christian icons. Across Europe today you will find that old women are virtually the only ones left going to the villages churches.

As we have become comfortable, so our societies and culture have become feminized and infantilized. Today, it seems that women project their mothering instincts upon all the approved “victim groups” of the world: homosexuals, migrants, and minorities all are their symbolic substitute children. Any measures which do not treat these groups as “equals” with heterosexual child-rearing European families – even if salutary for the common good – are then considered mere vicious “bullying.” In the United States, White Democratic women have driven most of the shift towards the demand there be equal racial outcomes, even if discrimination is required.

In my view, following Aristotle and Darwin, human ethics must be founded upon human nature. Humans are social and potentially rational beings, who exist through the creation of successive generations, passing on hereditary characteristics. To the extent that men and women differ biologically, this may imply that, ethically, there should be different social roles for them, in order to foster maximal individual and collective human flourishing.

The most obvious of these is military service. Men being physically much more powerful than women, societies have always discriminated against men by requiring them to serve in the military, while women stayed safe at home. (Hollywood has not yet attempted to show how strong, independent black women were central to the success of the D-Day landings, but there is still time.) The social expectation that women stay at home to take care of children is exactly analogous to this. An optimally-organized species will have sexually specialized roles, to some extent, for the benefit of the species.

The Spartans, the Aztecs, and Mussolini were all in agreement: childbirth – probably the most intense experience a typical postmodern may live today – is to women what war is to men. And so, it probably is not a coincidence that male authority has wholly collapsed at the same as peace has triumphed in our lands.

Even a couple of generations ago, every day our grandfathers had to show daily heroism: working in the fields, in mines, on fishing boats, or in the military, come rain or snow. By this effort, they secured their families’ livelihood and their own paternal authority, not to mention their own native toughness.