Power to the Perverts!: Cultural Marxism, Jonathan Yaniv and the Lunacies of Transgenderism

In the cult of minority worship, the British feminist Linda Bellos (born 1950) is the highest of high priestesses, an intersectional ipsissima who stands at the top of the victimhood hierarchy. She’s a Black-Jewish lesbian who has spent many years celebrating diversity, immigration and multiculturalism, opposing racism, sexism and homophobia, battling to overthrow patriarchy, capitalism and Eurocentrism. Surely she leaves all White men on the planet choking in her dust as her intersectional chariot sweeps past them towards the golden progressive future.

Bounding above Bellos

But in fact, no: she isn’t superior to all stale pale males. Some of them are armed with a superpower that allows them to bound above Bellos in the victimhood hierarchy. Astonishingly, they’ve managed to brand Bellos as a hater from whom they need protection. Just let that sink in: some stale pale males have successfully claimed to be the victims of an elderly Black-Jewish lesbian. In 2017 they got Bellos banned from making a speech to a feminist society at Cambridge University, one of England’s biggest cult-centres of minority worship. Even more impressively, they set the police on her the following year: she was “interviewed under caution” after being accused of committing a hate-crime against them.

High Priestess of Hate: Linda Bellos, OBE, TERF

What on earth is going on? Well, I can explain it in a single short acronym: TERF. That stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist” and for many modern progressives it’s a very bad thing to be. Linda Bellos is a TERF (or terf, now a word in its own right). Like many other old-school feminists, she doesn’t accept the lunatic claims and megalomaniac demands of the highly aggressive and self-righteous “transgender community.” Quite rightly, she denies that men can become real women and that lesbians can have penises. But she doesn’t accept something else: her own role in the lunacy and megalomania of the trannies. Bellos has been a cultural Marxist since the 1970s. She has fed the beast for decades and now the beast has turned on her.

Lunacies of her own

After all, as a radical feminist and anti-racist, Bellos believes in lunacies of her own. For example, she denies the existence of race and blames the failure of non-Whites on White racism, not on non-White genetics. Similarly, she thinks that men’s and women’s brains are effectively the same. It is sexism, not biology, that explains why women don’t match men’s achievements in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

For a cultural Marxist like Bellos, inequality arises from corrupt ideology, not from any differences of biology and evolution. And corrupt ideology, of course, arises from corrupt will. Therefore the White male malevolence that causes inequality can be countered by the non-White and female benevolence of anti-racist feminists like Linda Bellos. Nietzsche proclaimed the will to power; Marx proclaimed the will to progress.

Forcing one’s will upon the majority

But once an ideology accepts “progress” as a goal and “will” as the means to that goal, one very big question immediately arises. As Lenin put it: Кто кого? Kto kogo? ― “Who whom?” Whose will is to prevail? Who is to crush whom? Lenin had no time for democratic consensus or objective standards, as you can see in this passage quoted by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski from Lenin’s Collected Works: “in time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the ‘will of the majority’ — you must prove to be stronger at the decisive moment and at the decisive place; you must win. … We have seen innumerable examples of the better-organized, more politically conscious and better-armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it.” Which is exactly what made the Bolshevik Revolution successful, thereby paving the way for many millions of murders.

Minority worship requires minority warriors, that is, minorities that have the will, aggression and self-belief to fight for progress, which means, of course, power over the majority. Lenin achieved that power: his small Bolshevik party, staffed with disproportionate numbers of racial minorities like Jews, Latvians and Georgians, eventually won control of the vast Russian empire. Lenin himself had German, Mongol and Jewish ancestry, and his most important lieutenant was the Jew Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshtein). Together Lenin and Trotsky seized power, fought and won a vicious civil war, and created a giant communist state. It was a triumph of the totalitarian will that has blazed as a beacon for megalomaniacs right to the present day.

Victims and oppressors

Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many others proved that Marxism is not an objective science bound by logic and the limits of physical reality, but an instruction manual for megalomaniacs and egomaniacs. They are told to win power by identifying a victim-class and an oppressor-class, then inciting the former against the latter. In classic Marxism, victims and oppressors are defined economically; in cultural Marxism, as the name suggests, they are defined culturally. Linda Bellos was part of an earlier wave of cultural Marxism that defined women, non-Whites and homosexuals as victims of men, Whites and heterosexuals. A new wave of cultural Marxism has found a new victim-class, the transgendered, and a new oppressor-class, the TERFs, trans-exclusionary radical feminists like Bellos.

But the subjectivity and power-hunger of cultural Marxism have not changed in the slightest: they have simply been adopted by a new set of egomaniacs. The lunacies of transgenderism are therefore the logical culmination of Linda Bellos’s own ideology. Indeed, the Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926-95) prophesied those lunacies way back in 1973:

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 wasn’t writing about transgenderism, but his analysis describes it perfectly. Physical differences in sex are oppressive constructs, proclaim the transgendered, and we can transform and re-define them as we please. Nevertheless, Rothbard was, in his way, a valuable ally of the egalitarian left whose follies he so acutely diagnosed. Libertarianism in all its various forms has been an excellent way of encouraging individualism in White males who are under collectivist attack, especially if they show any signs of being collectivist themselves. The race-denying libertarianism espoused by the Jewish Ayn Rand (1905-82), whom Rothbard accurately identified as a wannabe tyrant, has been a significant influence on the Republican party and on cuckservatives like Paul Ryan. Randians and other libertarians proclaim their passionate support both for free speech and for open borders, which would allow the West to be flooded by the most illiberal and censorious groups on earth. Libertarianism is a suicide-cult even when it is sincere. In some cases, one can doubt that it is sincere.

Civil war on the left

Rothbard seems to have been a genuine libertarian, but he was an acute analyst of left-wing pathology in part because he had seen so much of it among other Jews. He would not have been surprised by the lunacies of transgenderism or by the civil war that is breaking out on the egalitarian left. Some egalitarians, like Linda Bellos, have rebelled against the vanguard of their own ideology. Transgenderism is a step too far, they cry, and they are promptly labelled haters and “de-platformed” by their own side.

Stale pale males who were at the very bottom of the victimhood hierarchy have leapt to the very top of it in a single bound, thanks to the superpower of transgenderism. And so, astonishingly, the stale pale males of a group called Action for Trans Health can refer to feminists like Bellos in the following way: “Punching terfs is the same as punching Nazis. Fascism must be smashed with the greatest violence to ensure our collective liberation from it. … Violence against terfs is always self defence … I want to fuck some TERFs up, they are no better than fash [fascists].”

And of course the same thing has happened in the U.S., where Julia Beck, a lesbian and self-described “most hated woman in Baltimore,” was bounced off a local LGBTQ commission when she had the temerity to express her concern for men declaring themselves women and using that to enter their bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. Beck might have mentioned that trans men are also starting to dominate women’s sports, much to the chagrin of another lesbian, tennis legend Martina Navratilova. Navratilova was promptly labeled a “Nazi” and removed from Athlete Ally, an LGBTQ athlete advocacy group.

Rules against hateful conduct

This is an example of the left-wing auto-cannibalism that I examined in “Comrades and Cannibals.” Trannies have also targeted the veteran feminists Germaine Greer (born 1939) and Jenni Murray (born 1950), the half-Jewish matriarch of Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4. Like Bellos, Greer and Murray are from an older phase of cultural Marxism and don’t like where their own ideology has led. In general, younger feminists are more supportive of transgenderism, or more intimidated by it. But the young Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy is an honourable exception. In November 2018, she was “permanently suspended” from Twitter for “violating rules against hateful conduct,” in that she had used the pronoun “him” of a “trans-identified” man who sometimes claims to be a woman.

Yan with a Plan: Jonathan Yaniv in some of his various guises

The man in question, a resident of British Columbia (BC) in Canada, is called Jonathan Yaniv. He may be the highest, or lowest, point yet reached in the lunacies of transgenderism. Although he is “trans-identified” and sometimes calls himself “Jessica Yaniv,” he hasn’t had sex-change surgery and still bears a full set of male genitalia. Consequently, when he contacted a female cosmetician in British Columbia and requested that she perform a “Brazilian wax” on him, she politely declined on the ground that she didn’t work with men. Yaniv was not deterred and repeated the request so often that the cosmetician’s boyfriend told him that he would be reported to the police if the harassment didn’t stop. Yaniv thereupon filed a complaint against the cosmetician with the “BC Human Rights Tribunal.”

Polymorphous perversity

This seems to have been Yan’s plan all along, because the cosmetician wasn’t his only target. As a Canadian website reported: “Jonathan Yaniv files 16 Human Rights complaints against women who don’t want to wax his balls.” The self-employed women faced crippling fines if they were found guilty of violating Yaniv’s rights as a “trans-woman,” though it’s unclear whether he was simply after money or playing a twisted sexual game. It could be both, of course, and Yaniv is certainly a sexual pervert. His polymorphous perversity is too great to be captured by a single label, but “pedophile” covers part of it. Here, for example, is a transcript of a conversation he had on social media. Remember that he is an adult male who does not and cannot menstruate:

Jonathan Yaniv: I’m so nervous for Wednesday.

Another user: Why?!

Jonathan Yaniv: I think my period is going to start on Wednesday when I’m travelling to Victoria and going on the ferry and usually my first day is very heavy so I’m going to have to change my pad very often. Every single time I take that ferry to the Island, there’s field trips with 10-12 year old girls on it, each and every time. If I’m in the bathroom and a girl asks me for a pad or tampon and potentially help on how to use it, if it’s her first period… what do I do? (The Absolute State of Progress in Canada: Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv, Conservative Nuke, 29th December 2018)

Yan with a cam: Jonathan Yaniv takes a selfie in a women’s toilet

Yaniv has taken at least one photograph of himself in a women’s toilet, surrounded by apparently unsuspecting women and girls. He has asked searching questions about what can be seen in supposedly female-only spaces: “Do girls openly insert / change their tampons when freely changing? … have you ever seen a tampon string hanging out of another girl’s thing? … So at the gym, do girls bare all? … Do you see tits and pussy ever?”

Banning women and deleting entire blogs

And he does not react well to criticism of his activities. Thanks to his superpower of transgenderism, he’s been able to transform himself from predatory pervert to victim of oppression. Internet companies have therefore hastened to do his censorious bidding:

On December 10 [2018], Yaniv told Langley Township Council he was personally responsible for the suspension of prominent Canadian feminist blogger Meghan Murphy from Twitter, as well as being responsible for new policy changes on Twitter and WordPress, which have banned women and deleted entire blogs on the basis of punitive action for “misgendering” (correctly identifying sex). (The Absolute State of Progress in Canada: Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv, Conservative Nuke, 29th December 2018)

Yaniv has asked a lot of questions about women, so I’d like to ask a question about him. Is he Jewish? He looks like a Jew, and has a Jewish first name and a surname that means “he will prosper” in Hebrew. He also behaves like a Jew, with a mixture of brazen perversity, unblushing shamelessness, and self-righteous aggression. After all, the concept of “polymorphous perversity” was created by Freud and championed by the Jewish philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), who saw it as a good thing. And Jonathan Yaniv’s behaviour seems to embody the Yiddish term chutzpah, meaning brazen cheek or audacity. As I described above, he filed “human rights complaints” against women who declined to wax his genitals. I think that’s true chutzpah.

The true aim of cultural Marxism

And if you want another example of his chutzpah, here is Yaniv simultaneously speaking the truth and projecting furiously on social media:

How do I explain this without getting banned on this group and sounding like a racist uhm…

We have a lot of immigrants here who gawk and judge and aren’t the cleanest people. They’re also verbally and physically abusive, that’s one main reason why I joined a girls’ gym, ’cause I DON’T want issues with these people, nor do I want anything to do with them in any way, shape or form. They lie about shit, they’ll do anything to support their own kind and make things miserable for everyone else.

Those immigrant women don’t join these clubs ’cause they have to be in gym clothes, so because they’re not there and never will be, it’s a “Safe Place” for me. (The Absolute State of Progress in Canada: Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv, Conservative Nuke, 29th December 2018)

Yaniv is right about the behaviour of immigrants in Canada, but he might have been describing the “transgender community” in these words: “they’ll do anything to support their own kind and make things miserable for everyone else.” Of course, the same ideologues who support the transgendered also support mass immigration by highly “transphobic” groups like Muslims. The apparent contradiction is resolved when you understand that the true aim of cultural Marxism is to promote anything that undermines traditional White culture and the heterosexual White family. As Leszek Kołakowski put it in his magisterial Main Currents of Marxism (1978):

Lenin laid the foundation for the tactics which were soon to become binding on Communist parties: the right course was to support any movement tending to overthrow the system at any point, for any reasons and in the interests of any class: liberation in colonial countries, national or peasant movements, bourgeois national uprisings against the big imperialists. This was a generalization of the tactics he had been preaching in Russia for years: to support all claims and all movements against the Tsarist autocracy, so as to exploit their sources of energy and seize power at the critical moment. The victory of the Marxist party was the final aim … (Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. II, pp. 471–2)

Cultural Marxists support mutually incompatible groups like Muslims and the transgendered because their “final aim” is not to benefit Muslims or the transgendered, but to win power for themselves. They’re not utilitarians, who believe in the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number. Instead, cultural Marxists believe in the greatest possible victimhood of the smallest possible number. That’s why they’ve largely switched allegiance from radical feminists like Linda Bellos to stale pale trannies like Jonathan Yaniv. Trannies are fewer in number and even more ferocious in their will to power.

Equality vs reality

But as we can see, Bellos and other TERFs are not surrendering and allowing themselves to be crushed by the transgender juggernaut. Nor have Muslim women like Omar Ilhan surrendered to the Jewish juggernaut on the topic of Israel’s power in American politics. Civil war is breaking out on the “egalitarian left,” exposing its illogic and lunacy to more and more ordinary Whites.

At the same time, science is rapidly confirming what sane observers have known all along: that genetics, not prejudice, explains why different groups succeed and fail in different ways. There are big storms ahead in the Western world and it’s the realitarians who are equipped to survive them, not the egalitarians.

13 replies
  1. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Thank you, Mr. Langdon for this article which I find courageous, insightful, encouraging, and well written!

    But more importantly, I had my breakfast before seeing the pictures in this essay.

    ROBERT J BLOCK says:

    “intersectional ipssisima” is a brilliancy. The quality of the writing on this site trails the quality of the analysis from time to time but this piece is lapidary.

  3. rerevisionist
    rerevisionist says:

    Tobias Langdon’s impressively indignant articles don’t deal with the most important point here, which is that Jews control money. While it’s rather a ghastly experience to read about Bellos, an alleged woman, the fact seems to be he or she has been supported financially for life. (There are of course plenty of people who rant on matters they don’t understand. But unless they are Jews, or regarded as helpful to Jews, they don’t get lifetime money.) Langdon talks of Lenin as though he was an ideas man, but his importance lies in the fact that Jews worldwide, mostly in secret, funneled money through him in their great task of killing Russians. While Bellos attracts Langdon’s attention, Britain is being ruined, and Europe, and the USA. Surely most of the readers here are at least partly familiar with Jews’ activities? What does one caution at Cambridge signify (and Langdon doesn’t say who it was; perhaps an unimportant ‘feminist’ group)? Maybe some ‘conspirator’ types are right in thinking this site is just a PsyOp. I watched Paul Fromm a day or two ago, online, saying that journalists now are much inferior to those of (say) 40 years ago. But of course the grip of Jews was as bad then as now.

  4. Alfred
    Alfred says:

    TOO has SO many talented writers Andrew Joyce, Sam Dickson, and on and on including the man who RE-AWAKENED me, Kevin MacDonald.
    This fellow, Tobias Langdon, is just amazing.
    And as should be also noted the comments section are also most profitable reading.

    What happened to the Tsar and his family to all of the White Russians should be REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

    White people have NO IDEA what happened and WHO DONE IT.

    The ADL still has an almost superstitious animosity towards Christ.
    From Abe Foxman saying the New Testament,especially Christ in the Gospels is vile anti-antisemitism. Well yes it is but STILL

    To the more recent changing of the words Andrew Anglin used, from “Christ” the ADL changed it to “a god” even he was surprised by that.

  5. JRM
    JRM says:

    Brilliant article! The “chutzpah” is very high indeed with this transgender contingent; somewhat like (real) feminists, they are very exhibitionistic. The encounter with any social disapproval seems to actually excite them, no doubt in large part because they have reduced their opponents to making lengthy statements based on their (the trans) own genitals!

    Are exhibitionists going to be discouraged, or rather, excited by luring the public into an intense examination of their sexuality and physical equipage? They will thrive on the attention. In a related area, notice how often (real) female “protests” involve stripping off their clothing in public. Topless and even nude protests are a common tactic. The more women tell us they don’t want to be seen as objects of sexual desire, the more they disrobe in order to get our undivided attention.

    Transgender “men” are now having a field day too, placing their genitals in the public forum to function as a political manifesto, while simultaneously virtue signaling Leftist purity.

  6. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    You know you are getting old when you have difficulty following all the double thinking but my crime stop is kicking in now so I’ll say no more.

  7. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    “Jonathan Yaniv files 16 Human Rights complaints against women who don’t want to wax his balls.”

    The fact that this is even a news headline…. Ye gods, what nightmarish redux of Wiemar Germany is upon us.

    Anyhow, social Marxism was built to fail, because first and foremost, it was designed to break and destroy any society where it was planning to eventually take root. What we’re seeing is not Marxism, per se. It’s the precursor to Marxism where a society is tenderized and pounded like so much raw meat until it is ready for broiling. The entire point of Marx’s war on the nuclear family and war on the folkish was that, through a process of 1000 cuts, both would become exhausted and powerless, thus easy fodder for a communist system to then be established. What we’re seeing with today’s left is all just par for the course. They were never meant to build a successful society. They were always to be used by their handlers as little more than millions of tiny hammers with which to thrash and dismantle their own society, and in the process, destroy themselves and each other.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      The fact that this is even a news headline …

      Thank you, Fenria; this was also my own reaction. Anyone whom the headline fails to make at least somewhat ill at ease ought to consider a self-administered course of psychological and moral housecleaning. His or her sensibilities have been compromised by the 24/7 propaganda and brainwashing thrust upon us all.

      The above should in no way be taken, however, as depreciating Mr. Langdon’s observation, research, analysis, or expression, all of which are impressive. I drew back slightly only at the very end of his article—at the point, that is, where he seemed to take cheer from Ilhan Omar and what seems to me the deliberate distraction of her “anti-Semitic” fussing—but even there it’s possible that I have misread his intent. Apropos which, I got a chuckle out of reading the “We Stand with Ilhan” statement (jewswithilhan.org), wherein elements of the second-string of Jewish bloggers, scolds, and self-regarding nobodies feigned criticism of their sacred tribe and its storefront state at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

      Few if any readers here at TOO, I think, will take this statement with anything more than a grain of salt. The object of the letter is plainly to keep what Steve Sailer aptly calls the Coalition of the Fringes together in support of International Jewry’s primary goal: the eradication of the few remaining traces of unadulterated White influence in the USA and the rest of the former Christian West. Tossing the occasional consequence-free rhetorical bone to the witless ragheads (and witless others) to keep them marching between the lines is a negligible cost of doing business—and who knows the ins and outs of running a business better than our dear Jewish brethren?

  8. C.T.
    C.T. says:

    Congratulations to the author of this piece. It’s so much that I want to say that I better say it on my blogsite (specifically: here).

  9. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “For a cultural Marxist like Bellos, inequality arises from corrupt ideology, not from any differences of biology and evolution. And corrupt ideology, of course, arises from corrupt will. Therefore the White male malevolence that causes inequality can be countered by the non-White and female benevolence of anti-racist feminists like Linda Bellos. Nietzsche proclaimed the will to power; Marx proclaimed the will to progress.”

    Below is a list taken from the above paragraph (in the order in which they appear) of words that, along with many other such words, Grievance Inc. and The Identity Politics Industrial Complex are entirely dependent on. I realize that Mr. Langdon provided us with the paragraph, but no one doubts that Bellos uses these words.

    corrupt ideology
    corrupt will
    White male malevolence
    non-White and female benevolence

    I’ve never heard anyone who uses these words define them as the high-level abstractions that they are. These words are never properly defined, analyzed or criticized. It’s just assumed that they are true or that we know what the words mean or how they are being used. The result is that their arguments are badly premised and poorly argued. Hence the non-stop moralizing, mindless propaganda and aggressive censorship.

    Constant expsoure to these words and the people who use them make learning impossible.

    So, even if they were successful in silencing everyone they’d still be dependent on a long list of abstractions that at no point have any contact with reality.

    My position is that Jewish Supremacy will fail because it’s entire Explanatory System from top to bottom consists of these single variables, vague abstractions, glittering generalities, and absurd absolutes.

    At no point do any of these make contact with the reality their Explanatory System is designed to control. So that control is dependent on force in its various stages of denigration, intimidation, threat and the application of economic deprivation, imprisonment, torture and death (the last two may be figurative or literal, direct or indirect). It’s worth pointing out that only in the geographical areas of Western Europe and North America and only during the last few centuries has there ever been an attempt to invert those four sanctions, from economic deprivation to economic ease; from imprisonment to freedeom; from torture to respect; from death to life. No wonder they hate us.

    In any event, the point is, the constant use of force is fundamentally destablizing. There has never been a civilization sustained by the constant use of force. In fact, civilization itself is the circumnavigation of the use of force. It’s why it was created. Because societies based on force only lead to the uncontrolled exercise of naked power.

    In short, naked power is self-defeating. It’s an oxymoron. It renders itself powerfless because it’s too destablizing. And this destablizing is intolerable because of its impact on economic activity, the kind that help us acquire the basics of food, clothing and shelter.

    This is obviously the direction we are heading in as more and more of us are placed under the iron paw of Jewish Supremacy. As a very successful Jew high up in the misty realms of academia once told me, “Jews are the smartest and dumbest people at the same time.” Here, I think, is the reason.

    Their lust for power has blinded them to the situational awareness they need to exercise that power, much as the hunter focused on killing a charging lion can’t feel the tickle of the poisonous spider crawling up his leg.

    The success of Jewish Supremacy could mean the failure of humanity. It very well may be.

  10. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    ‘Forcing one’s will upon the majority’: sickeningly true; the tail wags the dog. I was first aware of ‘sex-re-assignment surgery’ when I was a teenager in the mid-1970’s when the name April Ashley was mentioned.
    Now I find the notion of this disturbing for society as a whole.
    So the Lesbian and Gays rights marches over 30 years ago was the thin-end of a large wedge, no pun intended, with the net result that a mother of young children spent 7 hours in a police cell in South West England because of an online arguement with a ‘trans’ activist- a victimology Olympiad.
    It’s no co-incidence the acronym Terf is synonymous with sod, excrement.
    A reader letter to the Times goes like this, ” You report that Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents are to be infuriated by the introduction of lessons in same-sex relationships. Well tough. It has been legal in this country for more than half a century, and children need to be brought up knowing that is does not matter if you’re lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or straight”. One of the reason Margaret Thatcher brought in ‘section 28’, to thwart and punish the aggressive promotion of twisted sexual ideologies in classrooms.

Comments are closed.