Return to Main Page
I've noticed an uptick of transgender discussion content recently. This elevation of the trans narrative has been deliberate with a lot of money behind it, most of it coming from right-wing groups, since 2015 and the bathrooms controversy. I've been getting into these culture war threads not to win them, but to read the tea leaves and figure out what the culture war is pointing to. I'm going to assume you know the basics of the gender/sex debate and the talking points of both sides, and I don't need to tell you that all of this discussion is insane and very artificial. Transgenderism has been around for some time, and I don't care to litigate what gender and sex are because that's been done a million times over. We know "gender studies" and the whole milieu of sexual politics in the 20th century is a gigantic farce, flying in the face of our native understanding of sexual dimorphism, our knowledge of biology, and all practice of science. It would be important to know what the so-called sexual "revolution" was to know what is really being insinuated in the current gender or homosexuality debate, but that is a broader topic for another time.
I'm going to assume that if you're following this discussion, you're familiar with the tropes of the gender and sex debate, and these are not particular to the trans issue. All of these revolve around sex and orientation as identity, some essence that is always adjudicated by another in practice. People are then taught to self-identify with judgements that were assigned to them, and this always takes the form of social pressure to conform to an acceptable pantheon of beliefs regarding sex. The acceptable beliefs are always the most degrading, and this practice is nothing new. Men are given images of themselves that are wholly degrading, and while at first it would be played for laughs, it stopped being funny when men would be accused of lurid crimes just for looking the wrong way, or more importantly, being the wrong type of man for the present society. What has been done to women is something more foul, the specifics of which are difficult for me to summarize, but in short, women are expected to submit to a whole range of demands from specific men, and taught to specifically reject "toxic men" as eugenically unfit. The ethos, as you can expect coming from me, is one of unrelenting eugenics from start to finish. It is the eugenic interest that dominates all of our discussions around sex, and in all cases, sex is degenerated to its most basic functions - reproduction and the acquisition of victory, the claim of social proof that is always judged by society and jealously scrutinized. To be alone, or to be socially rejected, becomes social death. To behave in any way other than this manner which is suitable for eugenic purposes is a horrific crime. No intimacy can involve trust in a genuine sense, or the formation of a stable social unit that exists outside of the approval of the eugenic interest. The family, which had always been formed on spurious grounds and always required defense against a hostile world, would be transformed into an ideal that never resembled reality. We would be taught a series of lies about what marriage even was, myths about how men and women were to conduct themselves that deliberately violated our sense of what actually happens. Distrust was to be expected, and you were not allowed to defend your honor, unless you were defending the honor of the eugenic interest - and so, violence and legal action would always be directed by the eugenically valid against the invalid, while the reverse was considered a great travesty. This, again, is nothing new - sexual politics has always entailed a defense of the norms of society and behaviors that might be considered eugenic. The new advance of Eugenics proper has been that the decision of who is allowed to be with whom, and the decision regarding all sexual mores and taboos, was to be made by central influencers who were very interested in adjusting prior expectations of what a relationship could be. The central influencers would be trained experts, rather than the interest of the state or the interest of established interests. It became absolutely essential for all sexual behavior to be adjudicated by expert opinion, and for individual people to doubt themselves. The prior arrangements depended on some level of independence for the actors involved, most especially the men in a patriarchal society or a society in which men were expected to be the chief representative of the family to wider society. The new arrangements could not allow for any independence, except for the favored classes that would be given specific sanction and only in specific ways that were approved by the central authorities. That is the core of the struggle over all sexual politics and all of these identities, and it is screamingly obvious from everything the debate has entailed, whether it is about the role of the family, homosexuality, or so-called gender identity.
This engineering of sexual mores is not undertaken for its own sake, or because certain familial forms are elegant. A universal norm of the new "family" is implied, even though we are sold the option of choices in relationships that appear endless. That norm, of course, is that all unions and all sexual acts are in service to the eugenic creed, and the purpose of sex moves away from the simple act of procreation and towards the exercise of sexual politics. The purpose of sexual success is to attain social proof in order to be a valid member of society, and those who fail are judged harshly in a way they couldn't have been in past society. More important than simply following the new mores and pantheon of sexual practices is that all acts are conscious of who is accepted by society, and who must be at all costs rejected from the sexual game. This is why the proliferation of homosexuality and transgenderism happened - it was, very explicitly, a way of disposing of men considered unfit for proper reproduction, and making sure they are marked and sectioned off into their own "gay" corner, with their career choices circumscribed into a narrow spectrum of possibilities. This had always been in force, but the normalization of homosexuality made this not only explicit but something that permeated every institution. Even where gay men - and these practices were almost exclusively concerned with homosexual men rather than lesbians - were permitted the appearance of greater liberty, it would always be on terms handed down by a central arbiter, and always with the implication of conformity to some accepted norm. At first this meant the appearance of domesticity and an assumption based on nothing that homosexual unions were morally equivalent to different-sex pairings, which was not at all what any gay man was even asking for. Where "sexual liberty" was expanded, it would only be to section off the homosexual in a number of alternative roles where he would be allowed to practice. Homosexuality, and much of sexual politics, is certainly bourgeois decadence. Dial a number and a member of the bourgeois can be delivered fetishes and fantasies, all of which feed into a deterioration and all of which are unsatisfying. Pornography accelerated this and would be the vanguard for implementing changes in sexual mores at the base. It has long been understood that the great driver of sexual politics is demand, and encouraging the vices of men, many of them lonely men who have been locked out of meaningful participation with other humans, would be useful for driving up the intensity of eugenic competition, and marking clearly the difference between those who are selected to have a place in the world to come and those who were selected for total failure and absolute depravity. Inherent to eugenic thinking is the belief that only a small group can possess true virtue, while all other people are to be infinitely depraved and not allowed to possess a shred of dignity. Only the acceptance of the central arbiters, the eugenic Guardians of the society, would be allowed. The dignity of a man was to be replaced with half-baked nonsense concepts like "self-esteem", a contradiction in terms as "esteem" implies a judgement from others. Such concepts are very effective at forcing people to internalize the eugenic judgements and blame themselves for things other people did, something necessary for the eugenic society to perpetuate itself.
My reasoning for these claims is something that I would have to make another time, but I think this is something a lot of men and women can understand all too well. We are all familiar with the doubt and uncertainty of participation in this contest, and we can only pretend for so long that anything regarding sex is what it appears to be. So, where did this trans thing come from, and what is the intent?
It must be clear that the latest round of sexual politics is decisively marking the distinction of who is not allowed to be a member of society, and who is permitted to go on. You will notice certain influencers in the transgender world are promoted, and these are typically those selected to survive in some way. They are those who made it, who fill a niche of desirability and conform to expectations. They may be a target of vitriol in the fake "debate", but deep down both sides know who is safe and who the real targets are. Who are the real targets? It is a group that has been assigned all of the shame, that has been told all of their life that they lack virtue. These take the form of the "autistic trans furries" and so on who are afflicted with every psychological malady, who are entrained to defeat themselves long before they are attacked. A living human sacrifice, that is desperately afraid for their lives in the present conditions, that has been reduced to a life of begging at the margins of society, never paid anything near their worth since by eugenic policy their social worth must be considered zero in all respects. Sexual politics is a useful inroad to attacking this group, and it is not limited to the trans issue. Homosexuals, incels, failed men, failed women, and so on are attacked for sexual and behavioral deviance, because it is useful as a psychological tool to offend sensibilities. Discussions about political insanity always arrive at uncomfortable truths that political insanity can apply to anyone who faces the ire of the institutions. Discussions about biomedical insanity are fraught with peril, because to acknowledge the truth about neuropsychology would be to reveal uncomfortable realities about the level of damage the American people have suffered - just focusing on my own country which is an example of the most advanced stage of this social illness.
We can see this on display as "puberty blockers" became a talking point. This talking point, of course, was primarily advanced by the right-wing bloggers and Twitter chamber members who were given their talking point, and it was made for a specific reason. Puberty blockers have been pushed as part of the trans narrative since 2015, but a couple of months ago, they were put forward in the narrative for curious reasons. The blocker in question is usuall Lupron, a drug that was used to cripple children with developmental disorders so they would be easier for caregivers to manage. The damage wrought by this was so severe that doctors would refuse to use the drug, citing clear ethical failures. More important, stunting someone in this day will not render them docile, and there was never any serious need to do this for a tard wrangler to overpower a defective. Far from helping, the crippling of defectives made them far more likely to lash out violently and cause difficulties, because the defective knew he or she was being destroyed physically and left in a wretched state. The entire exercise of using puberty blockers was nothing more than sadism, pushed by "ethics" of people who needed to see the defective as totally non-human and lacking any thought or desire of their own. It was pure ideology which drove the use of crippling drugs, as a prelude to prepare the people to accept extermination of the defectives outright. After 2020 and COVID, the approval of extermination was granted, and this is what happened to those who were in caregiver situations, where it could be done and no one was around to stop it. We remember the hushed conspiracy where patients were taken away from their family or anyone who could stop the killing, and the killing did indeed happen. We know this and can confirm it, but we will never see it admitted in court because so far as the law of the land is concerned, this behavior was ethical, in line with an ideological and political goal that was imposed violently. We know that fascists do not tolerate meaningful dissent when eugenics is on the line.
The use of these drugs was seen for what it was, and so it was for a time difficult to convince anyone that such measures were justified. What would advance the idea of using this method, without giving away the extermination goal? They know their go-to - sexual politics. If you can get the Right to advance the puberty blocker narrative - faking an opposition so they can point to their goal of exterminating the unfit, which had always been the Republican creed regarding the matter - it sets up the expectation that this is normal. The use of puberty blockers in transition is of course wholly unnecessary, and had never been a part of any protocol up until it was seen as a way to cripple defective children in the 21st century. Transitions of young teenagers did not involve stunting puberty, and in any event testosterone or estrogen blockers were well documented, if such a hormonal intervention was even desired. This had always been about using the trans issue as a proxy for what they wanted - the crippling of defectives, specifically of the most hated group of "autistics" that were created en masse in the 1990s.
There is an ominous silence about "autism", because as I write the designated sacrifices are dying in large numbers. The life expectancy of the autistics is 36 and dropping, which is only possible through a program of deliberate extermination. I recall the day the counselor wrote down that word "autism" as if she were incanting a Satanic ritual, and she was certainly the type of person who believed in such a doctrine. It was the worst thing in the world, and I knew it was all a lie. What could I do about it, though? The ritual sacrifice of rejection and shame started when I was three. It was all I had ever known, and it was never going to be any other way. I knew by the age of 7 that the only way out was suicide, but I was too cowardly to do what had to be done, and I stubbornly insisted that it didn't have to be this way. Of course, I know now why it had to be this way, and it has less to do with anything I did or anything I am, and more to do with what was assigned to me and beaten into me from the cycle of rejection and shame. Nothing I did and nothing I was warranted the behavior of others, the demonic laughter and the humiliations which served no purpose and only benefitted a predatory clique seeking their cheap thrill. Certainly the general public didn't want to see any of that humiliation. If you go through the rigamarole as I did, you know the drill - the accusations of homosexuality or being a rapist if you are a male, the accusations of being an unfit woman for any purpose if you are a female. By the eugenic creed, the autistic is a pure monster guilty of anything and everything, and guilt is assumed no matter what the crime. The idea that I would show restraint is anathema to their creed's most basic assumptions about the human race, and any time I would prove them wrong, I would be beaten and my most maladaptive behaviors reinforced. Every vice would be rewarded. Such is the way any slavery enforces itself, and they were consciously modeling their tactics on those used to condition chattel slaves and prison slaves.
This treatment is always known, and anyone denying it is clearly a participant in the joke. They all knew what was done to us in the 1990s. We no longer are allowed to speak of it too plainly, placing "autism" in the same category of Down Syndrome as a thing to be attacked at all costs, in defense of the eugenic creed and its campaign of unlimited violence and terror. To speak too openly about the autistics is to imply that the extermination isn't happening, but since we know the extermination is happening, autism itself is no longer a sufficient proxy. They can only trot out CWC so many times and put him through so much humiliation as a ritual sacrifice. The trans issue is a great proxy because it no longer directly attacks mental invalidity or political insanity, but a sexual more that is effective as a trigger to the Rightoid brain. The conservative slug, being more animal than man, has always been aware on some level that much of what he did to us in his thuggery could just as well be applied to him. After all, the Trumpoid manner of speaking is literally the ruling class telling the rightoid that they are, like Trump's manner of speaking, retarded and subhuman. Even when the rightoid aligns himself with Trumpism, he is aware on some level that he is of the lower class, and his friends and enemies alike are laughing at him. To make it about mental defect would trigger a certain discomfort in the rightoid, who can see how this eugenic campaign would be turned against him, who has been acutely aware of institutions running him over and marking him as a crazy person. Making it about the trans is a way of getting the rightoid base to go along with it, by giving them a target to point to, psychologically priming them to hate the target in every way, without getting that their own conservative political masters see their base as basically depraved degenerates, no better than the transgender defectives. It may even be well known that these failed men, having nothing else going for them, have already gone down the rabbit hole and are hiding vices of their own. I can only speculate so far about how bad that is now, but it is quite clear that sexual politics will remain a vanguard for pushing the eugenic creed, just as the gay craze pushed the boundaries of what was possible for eugenics in the 1990s. Sexual politics has a uniquely degrading effect on the historical left coalition, who bend over backwards to accomodate a bourgeois conceit of sexualism that is alien to the workers; this is fitting because the left parties constitutionally have little to do with the working class, having openly abandoned them long ago.
I can go on about this topic for ages, recounting every lie and betrayal, but I feel I got to the heart of this sexual politics craze, and it can be applied to so many things whenever sex and the family comes up in conversation. Invariably, the debate regarding this is more emotional and points away from any way humans actually conduct themselves in sex or familial relations. There is a whole spiel about the transformation of family life that socialism implied, that has come to pass whether we wanted it or not, and whenever this transformation is discussed, it must be made into something spooky. That discussion is better left for another post. Bye for now...
Return to Main Page