Borders for Us, Not for You: Higher Status in the Leftist Grievance Hierarchy Means You Can Invade Others’ Borders
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 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.
High and low again
Why did this happen? Because Dolezal, as a White, had lower status than the Blacks whose territory she wanted to enter. When you have higher status, leftists allow you to control your borders. Their cry of “No borders, no nations!” only applies to those of low status. The Black nation is allowed to have borders against non-Black infiltrators, just as Israel is allowed to have borders against non-Jewish infiltrators. There was no way for Dolezal to align herself with a minority with higher status than the Blacks whose territory she wanted to enter. She had to pretend to be truly Black in a way that Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv don’t have to pretend to be truly women. And so Dolezal could be exposed as a fraud in a way that Jenner and Yaniv can’t.
Hey, haters: Karen White is a woman!
For example, a review of a film about Dolezal in the Guardian says that Dolezal “has become a pariah in Spokane, Washington” after she was exposed as having “appropriated blackness and then lied about it.” The film-reviewer, the stereotypically leftist non-White Arwa Mahdawi, says that this deception “seems like peak white privilege.” And that’s exactly what it is, in Mahdawi’s eyes: she thinks that the film “prioritizes a white woman’s feelings over the damage she has caused.” But what “damage” has Dolezal actually caused? None whatsoever by comparison with what transgender men have caused. In 2018 the heterosexual male David Thompson (born Stephen Terence Wood) already had “convictions for indecent assault, indecent exposure and gross indecency involving children, violence and dishonesty.” He was on remand for rape in a male jail, but claimed to be a woman called Karen White and was transferred to a female jail. He then sexually assaulted two real women. But Mahdawi would not say that White had “appropriated femaleness” and would not condemn his behaviour as “peak male privilege.” That would be transphobic!
Similarly, the Guardian has ignored the damage done by Jonathan Yaniv as he tries to destroy the livelihoods of real women by dragging them before a Human Rights Tribunal in British Colombia. And those real women are non-White. Why have Mahdawi and her anti-racist feminist sisters not leapt to their defence against the “male privilege” and “white privilege” of a White male predator? I think I’ve explained this above: it’s because transgender men like Yaniv, by aligning themselves with homosexuals, have won higher status than all ordinary women, even non-White ones. The men can therefore cross the border between male and female, while TERFs who try to defend the border are accused of hate and bigotry.
Parallels with mass immigration
This analysis obviously also applies to mass immigration by non-Whites into Western nations. To leftists, Whites have low status and therefore cannot maintain physical borders against non-Whites, who have high status. Nor can Whites maintain abstract borders of political identity. In leftist eyes, a Somali, Iraqi or Chinese who emigrates to Britain, America or France thereby becomes just as British, American or French as native Whites whose ancestors have lived there for centuries or millennia and who created the institutions, culture and history of those nations. Non-Whites can enter and occupy all White spaces, which is why we now have absurdities like Sir Lancelot, “The Most Gallant Knight,” being played by a Black actor:
A Black Sir Lancelot, courtesy of two Jews
Gallantry is not a Black concept — or a Jewish one. As the image above reveals, the Black Lancelot has been created and imposed on White audiences by the Jews Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz. This behaviour represents the later stages not simply of the culture of critique but also of a campaign of dissolution. Jews want to destroy all the borders and boundaries, physical, cultural and ideological, whereby Whites maintain their distinct identity and defend their own interests. That’s why Jews have long promoted the idea that America is a “nation of immigrants” and a “proposition nation” defined by ideas and ideology, not by the racial identity of its inhabitants.
In a way, characters like the Black Lancelot are a jeer of triumph over Whites, who are being told that they now no longer have the status or the power to maintain the borders of their own identity and culture. All White roles are now open to non-Whites, but non-White roles are closed to Whites. It would now be absolutely “unacceptable,” in leftist parlance, for a Black character like Othello to be played by a White. The Jewish role in this “appropriation” of White culture is obvious and was condemned by the late Larry Auster, himself a Jew, in his remarkably honest and clear-sighted article “Jews — The Archetypal Multiculturalists”:
Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon. … To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity — this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such. (See Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America, The Occidental Observer, 13th March 2013)
Auster also condemns the “all-consuming narcissism” and “unmitigated, brazen arrogance” of Jews like the “attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz.” Such Jews have conducted both the culture of critique and the campaign of dissolution, striving to throw down all borders and barriers with which Whites have defended their own interests and maintained their own identity. And that “all-consuming [Jewish] narcissism” and “arrogance” identified by Auster have never gone away. They have recently been on display in Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Mass Immigration (2019), created by the Jewish economist Bryan Caplan and the Jewish illustrator Zach Weinersmith, who “make a bold case for unrestricted immigration in this fact-filled graphic non-fiction.”
Punims as propaganda: the cover of Open Borders by Jews Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith
You could call the cover of the book “Peculiar Punims as Pro-Migration Propaganda” (punim is Yiddish for “face”). Drawn by Zach Weinersmith, the cover effectively presents migrants of all races as large-nosed Jews overseen by a similarly large-nosed Statue of Liberty. And Lady Liberty is displaying the “glory-hole gape” or “nümale grimace,” that is, the submissive open-mouthed grin identified by hate-thinkers like Chateau Heartiste and Men of the West as characteristic of low-testosterone leftist males (or soy-boys). I find the cover oddly disturbing and unpleasant. The peculiar punims are androgynous and abhuman, like those of robots or people drugged into compliance.
But although the diverse migrants to submissive America are presented as Jewish, that isn’t really how Jews regard non-Jewish migrants. Rabbi Laura Klausner-Janner, “Senior Rabbi” in British Reform Judaism and daughter of the alleged paederast Greville Janner, has claimed that “When Jewish people look at Calais migrants, we see ourselves.” But Rabbi Laura lived in Jerusalem for 15 years and knows perfectly well that Israel does not have open borders for “vulnerable and oppressed” non-Jews. Instead, it has firmly sealed borders equipped with very sturdy fences and very effective surveillance equipment.
It’s a question of high and low status again. As God’s Chosen People, Jews have the highest possible status and are therefore entitled to the best possible borders while being free to invade the spaces of all others. This accounts for phenomena like Jewish anti-White activist Tim Wise titling his book White Like Me and the common Twitter meme in which Jews claiming to be White loudly preach open borders and other liberal pieties that conform to Jewish interests and oppose the interests of Whites.
Likud celebrates the creation of Fortress Israel
And the borders maintained by Jews in Israel aren’t just physical. The poster above is read from right-to-left because it’s in Hebrew, the artificially revived language of the new Jewish nation. As I described in “Words as Weapons,” Hebrew and its script are barriers to entry by non-Jews and to penetration by foreign intelligence services. But Israeli intelligence finds no difficulty recruiting Jewish speakers of any important gentile language. The Jewish message to Whites is very simple: Borders for us, not for you. Leftists have the same message. And that’s why Bruce Jenner can become a woman, but Rachel Dolezal can’t become a Black.
I’m impressed by your effort to explain the Jewish junk attitudes. I guess “the revolt against the ontological structure of reality itself” is loony ‘rabbis’ pretending that their mental efforts outperform reality. No doubt that appeals to their modesty and self-effacing nature. (Joke).
But if (say) Muslims are supposed to be of higher worth in some sense, how come Jews love vicious killing of them in wars, by white soldiers? Shouldn’t underage girls have some bonus points even when raped by Jews? Your comparison with transubstantiation is clever, and I consider some Catholic rules, e.g. that ‘retards’ are saints because they don’t allegedly have evil born with them. But I’m still largely baffled by the ‘border rules’ presumably at work here!
A black Sir Lancelot is one of many historical fiction dramas where the lead actor is either black, or of a Indo-Pak heritage; not enough diversity back in ye olde days? Let the truth be no hurdle that cannot surmounted by a simple re-writing of fiction and history. White iconic heroes like James Bond – he’s now updated to the 2019 version: black and female.
How patronising to blacks (Sir Lancelot — the proxie-warrior embodiment)! No different to Al Jolson blacking-up. Monty Python director, Sir Terry Gilliam had a script rejected by the BBC head of comedy; he joked afterwards that he should change his identity to a black female lesbian called Lenora. A po-faced beeb-pc drone responded that it was not funny.
More news from the BBC: “The BBC has made June Sarpong an executive charged with getting more diverse faces on screen”. The public (private) school stale pale males always opined the BBC was ‘hideously white’ and are finally utilising the talents of national treasure that is Ms.Sarpong.
The world of the leftist really is upside down.
So this is the place to remind everyone I am a pro-feminist, pro-trade union, pro-ACLU, Earth First liberal, too far left to even vote Democrat (so I vote Green). Miles Mathis
The equality article excels and is worth reading.
The Jews have been more cunning than the whites in the domain and submission over the other, have known how to use racial biological warfare in addition to creating artificial minorities, such as anti-white weapons.
If this strategy has been so successful then the question is:
What is the counter-strategy in order to confront our enemies?
What kind of fight is it that we must use before this voracious and relentlessly perverse enemy?
Is it the moment of facing us in a real way, besides the rhetoric?
And mainly how much time do we have left?
The only thing needed is to destroy the monopoly of information, and to let our people know that such a monopoly exists, and that Fox News is part of it.
The money monopoly feeds the information monopoly (See the prophetic 1912 cartoon by Alfred Crozier, “The Octopus – ‘Aldrich Plan'”).
Another brilliant article Mr. Langdon. I can barely keep track of all of these different groups of perverts. You not only do that, but can discern and explain the “intersectional rules” (if that is the correct phrase) by which hierarchy is determined. Although I am not a fan of the Middle Ages (other than the Cathedrals, Art, Literature, Philosophy), wait, maybe I am a fan of the Middle Ages, I would much rather live then, despite the wars over transubstantiation, than now.
Casting white actors in non-white roles is called “whitewashing”, and is considered a huge political sin. Endless articles have been written about it.
Casting black actors in historically white roles however is common practise these days. The agenda of course is to create a false impression that blacks were always a regular part of European society.
The cover picture of the book “Open Borders” does indeed depict individuals of different racial groups with apparently quasi-Jewish features, apart from one – the obviously North European-looking woman directly in the middle wearing a blue top. Tellingly, she is shown as being much smaller than all the others and she somehow appears to be sinking to a state of eventual non-visibility.
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 he’s a Jew, his genitals can’t very well be fully intact.
In Britain, women play Shakespearean male heroes on stage.
As for Blacks playing White heroes, this is a blatant racial casting presented as non-racial casting. The trend towards “replacement” is signalled on British TV now not only by mixed-race dramas (usually BMxWF) but all-Negro (not usually south or east Asian, so much) adverts for banks, beds and buns, &c.
I agree about the “hypocrisy” of borders for Israel but not others. Jews are not monolithic on this issue, however.
May I again be “free to contribute” the fact that I am NOT, as falsely alleged on your blog, Jewish in any respect, and I have never been to Israel.
I just don’t think killing Jews is the “answer” to our problem, and advocating it is shooting oneself in the foot, especially here and now.
WHO on THIS site advocates killing or physically hurting Jews? If that kind of advocacy was typically going on on this site I would not come here and I am an anti semite
With respect, I believe you would be hard-put to identify a single solitary instance anywhere on this website at any time, of any writer or editor ever once raising, suggesting or calling for the “killing of Jews” in any time or place. To suggest so is to do a massive (and dangerous) political disservice to this magnificent website and all it stands for – ie the saving of the White race from genocide by stealth.
In other words, what you have said is false and unacceptable. Sources, please, or retract.
Somewhere along the line the train has gone off the track and turned into a car; albeit a big wide car not meant to be on the roadway. So now we have to put railroad tracks down for some cars. Never mind the cost, noise, pollution and utter absurdness of the laws that govern cars because–we want!
Children shouldn’t play with matches or the idea that their sex organ is somehow mutable from their genetics and hormones. Just let them color outside the lines and tell them that’s lovely darling.
I’m not in the least surprised by the Black Sir Galahad, anymore than I am by the prospect of an eventual black, female James (Jane ?) Bond. But I am looking forward VERY much at the office Christmas party to debating with a colony of drunken under-30 snowflake cretins how precisely it is acceptable for a Black (and his thousands of showbiz LGBTQ luvvie supporters) to engage in outright White cultural appropriation of a medieval English figure, when any such transgression by a White into Black cultural “territory” would be punished immediately and severely by the self-appointed cultural “gatekeepers” of our times ? Even in these parlous times, fully-exposed, seething, indefensible liberal anti-White hypocrisy can still turn heads – and open ears.
One (very rare) criticism here, in an otherwise brilliant dissection – I’m not clear why Mr Langdon always insists on according the peculiar Jonathan Yaniv the respect of being “probably Jewish”. Even if his truly extreme, gross, stomach-turning Semitic fuck-ugliness wasn’t enough to give the game away, ‘Jonathan Yaniv” itself is obviously and undeniably as Jewish a family name as ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’. Beyond that, his extreme and relentless public sexual degeneracy seals the question for anyone with the remotest understanding of the Jewish character. Why the respect, Mr Langdon ? Personally, I don’t make a habit of respecting cockroaches.