Trans-America: World Police
“I have called you by name; you are mine.”-Isaiah 43:1
Outlets such as CBS News and the New York Times have become expressly worried that following precedent in Russia and Hungary toward “normalizing”…well, normality, that the Trump Administration here in the United States will make the “drastic move” toward “narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth.” The New York Times piece from October 21st by Erica L. Green, Katie Benner, and Robert Pear elaborates:
The [Department of Health and Human Services] argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.
Eminently reasonable…it would seem. This being “current year,” however, that is not the case. The Times piece in question is entitled: “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.” The authors quote Catherine E. Lhamon, the Obama-era head of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, stating in quintessential Orwellian boilerplate, “This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees.” I am reminded here of Rudyard Kipling’s quote about “liberal” ideologues: “If they desire a thing, they declare it is true. If they desire it not, though that were death itself, they cry aloud, ‘It has never been!’” The authors continue:
“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.” After this article was published online, transgender people took to social media to post photographs of themselves with the hashtag #WontBeErased.
This hysteria around erasure is classic Leftist projection and displacement. You see, while the Trump Administration proposes to “define transgender out of existence,” something that isn’t real in the first place, well, what are they trying to do with whiteness? If, as Catherine E. Lhamon states that the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people,” to negate “whiteness,” to say that whites have no culture, have never truly existed, but yet are the source of all evil in the world, what, pray tell, is that? Once again, following on the heels of the reactions to that the NPC meme are “dehumanizing,” the Left cries out in pain as they strike you. Their rhetoric is the exact inversion of truth and reality, and they cry foul while literally trying to erase whiteness through genocidal policies including: mass non-white immigration; white reproductive suppression through propaganda and onerous taxes; demoralization of whites and pressure to self-medicate with harmful substances; incessant anti-white propaganda; and the normalization of weird sexual proclivities, gender fluidity, and “trans.” One study from Cornell University recommended dating app algorithms be altered so as to essentially force whites to date outside their own race. No such proposal exists for other groups to the best of my knowledge. According to the Guardian, using a dating app to meet members of your own race is “racist.” In academia, to quote Dr. Andrew Joyce:
As a general rule, you can be fairly certain that any academic discipline that contains the word ‘studies’ within its title can be immediately dismissed on an intellectual level as involving very little studying and a great deal of leftist indoctrination. The relatively new discipline of ‘Whiteness Studies,’ however, is vastly more toxic than the average contemporary effusions of the bloated academic corpus. Indeed, its productions should be seen as nothing less than incitement to the genocide of our people.
“De-constructing whiteness” by non-whites has become common practice and, indeed, the works of Jewish anti-white and anti-Western “intellectuals” such as Noel Ignatiev, Laura S. Abrams, Ruth Frankenberg, Ricky Marcuse, Terry Berman, Say Burgin, Barbara Applebaum, Michelle Fine, George Lipsitz, Dara Silverman, Diane Eshelman, Tim Wise, Debbie Zucker, Jon Greenberg, Robin Nussbaum, Michael Drucker, Steve Cohen, Susan Sontag, Judith Butler, Bryan Caplan, Christine Fair, Lois Weis, Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Amy Eshleman, Paula Rothenberg, Naomi Wolf, David Theo Goldberg, Maurice Berger, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Franz Boas, Max Horkheimer, Lawrence Grossberg, Walter Benjamin, Judy Finkel, Frank Furedi, Judith Katz, Melissa Steyn, Jennifer Roth-Gordon, and Cynthia Levine-Rasky are used as “justification” for the existential erasure of our people.
One of George Orwell’s great insights in 1984 was that he who controls the language, who has the power to define terms and restrict or expand meaning, has the power to shape reality itself, for language is the only means we have to cogently express complex ideas. Control language, control thought, have total control. And from the “intellectuals” in academia to the media-entertainment complex to the Leviathan that is Google, the Left has a stranglehold on information and its dissemination, and the tools we use to convey our ideas, including the words themselves. If logic itself is “problematized” as a Western imperialistic construct, then it becomes impossible to logically de-construct their inherently ludicrous and contradictory positions. I’ll give you just one example here:
If you accept that sex and gender are independent of each other, then it is axiomatic that a transgendered individual may believe themselves to be “born into the wrong body” despite not having the corresponding chromosomes, whereby they may endeavor to undergo hormone treatments, surgical modifications, and a wardrobe change. The concept of transgenderism relies on the fundamental premise that biology and expressed “gender identity” need not correspond. Therefore the intellectually honest person must also conclude that trans-racialism is a legitimate phenomenon, as racial phenotypes such as “skin color” are not phenotypical at all for they must be divorced from genotypic considerations. Thus skin color is not a reflection of genetics but an arbitrary marker of “race” in the same way genitalia are arbitrary markers of “sex.” You cannot hold one belief and not the other and claim to stand on principles or to have a logically coherent worldview. The discussion then shifts to articles of faith, which is squarely in the realm of the theological—again a great irony for a largely atheistic and materialistic ideology based on “science” and “progress.” To quote Revilo P. Oliver:
“Liberals” babble about “One World,” which is to be a “universal democracy” and is “inevitable” and they thus describe it in the very terms in which the notion was formulated, two thousand years ago, by Philo Judaeus, when he cleverly gave a Stoic coloring to the old Jewish dream of a globe in which all the lower races would obey the masters whom Yahweh, by covenant, appointed to rule over them. And the “Liberal” cults, having rejected the Christian doctrines of “original sin”… reverted to the most pernicious aspect of Christianity…and they openly exhibit the morbid Christian fascination with whatever is lowly, proletarian, inferior, irrational, debased, deformed, and degenerate. This maudlin preoccupation with biological refuse, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as underprivileged [!], would make sense, if it had been decreed by a god who perversely chose to become incarnate among the most pestiferous of human races and to select his disciples from among the illiterate dregs of even that peuplade, but since the “Liberals” claim to have rejected belief in such a divinity, their superstition is exposed as having no basis other than their own resentment of their betters and their professional interest in exploiting the gullibility of their compatriots.
The Left is sheer will-to-power. There is nothing “compassionate” or “tolerant” about their ideology. It is only the vehicle through which they have chosen to manipulate well-meaning people into accepting servitude and, for whites, a (self-) genocide that is paradoxically—as so much is when speaking of the Left-wing—guilt-ridden and anguished and yet soft as a micro foam pillow.