Here’s an interesting sentence in Latin: Utinam populus romanus unam cervicem haberet! But what does it mean? Since the nineteenth century, fewer and fewer British prime ministers have been able to answer that question. Boris Johnson bucked the trend. He has a degree in classics from Oxford and could tell you instantly that it means: “Would that the Roman people had a single neck!”
Serve the cervix
He could also tell you that those were the headchop-hungry words of the tyrant Caligula (12–41 AD), according to the historian Seneca, and that cervicem is the accusative singular of the feminine Latin noun cervix, meaning “neck.” Johnson could give you all the other forms of that word in Latin, from the dative singular to the genitive plural. But alas, his grasp of the word in modern English has deserted him. It’s now a medical term meaning “the neck of the womb.” But when Johnson was asked at the Conservative Party Conference to affirm that only women have a cervix, he evaded the question: “What I think about this is [that] biology is very important. But we have a system now in our country for many, many years in which people can change gender. We help them to do that and what I absolutely passionately believe, and I fought for this for a long time, is everybody should be treated with dignity and respect.”
By piffling and prevaricating like that, Johnson blew his chance to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and their supposed ideological opponents in the Labour party. In the previous week the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, had been asked whether it was transphobic to think, as one of his female MPs does, that “only women have a cervix.” The swamp-creature Starmer claimed it was indeed transphobic. That simple statement of biological fact was “something that shouldn’t be said,” he told his interviewer. “It is not right.” Why so? According to Starmer, it’s because transgender people are among the “most marginalised and abused communities.” If you don’t follow his logic, that’s unsurprising: there is no logic there. The alleged “marginalization” of transgender people doesn’t give them the right to replace biological reality with translunatic fantasies.
Labour loves translunacy
In fact, this absurd controversy about who has a cervix is proof that transgender people are the opposite of “marginalized.” Their lunatic ideas are accepted by mainstream leftists right across politics, academia and the media. The Labour party bows before transgender lunacy and the supposedly right-wing leader of the Conservative party refuses to repudiate it. But let’s be clear about what is going on in the cervix controversy. When Starmer made his absurd statements, he wasn’t worried about the sensitivities of “trans-men,” or cervix-possessing women who claim to be men. Trans-men are a relatively quiet and unaggressive group.
No, Starmer was worried about “trans-women,” the variously perverted and mentally disturbed men who claim to be women. As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, trans-women are both loud and aggressive. They’ve driven the transgender agenda, which now includes the drugging and mutilation of confused or misguided children. Biologically male translunatics are the ones that Starmer is scared of. If he had spoken the truth and said that only women have a cervix, it would immediately follow that those without a cervix cannot be women. Translunatics and their supporters would promptly have driven him out of the Labour leadership.
Emotion versus intellect
But who is Boris Johnson scared of? In the past, he’s repeatedly defied political correctness and mocked leftist pieties on race and sex. And he didn’t merely buck the political trends in his choice of a classics degree: he also appointed the very intelligent and scientifically minded Dominic Cummings as his Chief of Staff. Cummings and his allies believe that “Government has to be totally transformed. It is full of arts graduates. It should be full of mathematicians.” Johnson wanted Cummings to reform government bureaucracy and reverse its ever-growing leftism. And maybe Cummings could have done it if Johnson hadn’t also wanted to share government with his blonde girlfriend Carrie Symonds, who has a degree in “art history and theatre studies.”
In intellect and grasp of scientific reality, Symonds was no match for Cummings on the question of how best to run government, just as the Jewish pseudo-scientist Stephen Jay Gould was no match for genuine scientists like Charles Murray or Arthur Jensen on the question of how best to explain the differing average IQs of Blacks and Whites. But intellect and grasp-of-reality don’t determine power-struggles in the corrupt modern West. Will-to-power and alignment with Jewish interests are much more important.
Testosteronized Tory: the emotional but formidable Carrie Johnson, proud possessor of a degree in art history and theatre studies
That’s why Carrie Symonds defeated Cummings and Gould defeated Murray et al. Cummings left government and Carrie married Boris Johnson. As his wife, she attended the recent Conservative conference and made a sycophantic speech at an “LGBT+ Conservatives reception,” where she revealed that “her husband was ‘completely committed’ to LGBT+ rights” and that she herself had been “moved to tears” by the story of an LGBT+ victim of hate-crime. Carrie obviously has female emotionality, but she doesn’t have a typically female face. Instead, her face is broad and masculine, suggesting that she has higher-than-average levels of testosterone and lots of will-power and aggression. Perhaps that’s why Boris Johnson so often looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights when he’s photographed with her (see the photo above).
Porn-positive pedo-pushing Jews
I think that a sensible man would have taken one look at Carrie’s man-jaw and decided to keep well clear. Johnson was not sensible and has allowed Carrie far too much influence over both himself and the government. That’s why, I suggest, he failed to support biological reality when asked about who has a cervix. He’s scared of his intellectually vacuous but psychologically formidable wife, who supports translunacy, and so he didn’t clearly state that only women have a cervix. This cowardice would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Translunacy doesn’t simply make politicians lie or equivocate about biological reality: it is also responsible for genuine medical horrors, like the use of “puberty-blocking drugs” on confused and mentally ill children and the surgical mutilation of such children. All this is done because Western elites have refused to confront and contradict the small but aggressive and determined group of “trans-women.”
Porn-positive pedo-pushing Jewish academic Gayle Rubin
And why have Western elites refused to do that? I’d suggest that it’s because the elites are following a Jewish agenda. As Kenneth Vinther described in his excellent article “Oppression by Orgasm” at Counter Currents, not just translunacy but all forms of sexual subversion in the West are heavily Jewish in origin, inspiration and promotion. For example, the most important academics in the translunatic cult are the Jewish lesbians Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. And these Jewish academics have wider ambitions still. As the goy writer Robert McCain has asked: “If her celebration of sadomasochism did not suffice to make Professor Rubin notorious, what about her defense of pedophilia and child pornography in her 1984 essay, ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality’?” But Rubin and Butler aren’t “notorious” among leftists: on the contrary, they’re celebrated as brave pioneers of the struggle for equality. What is that brave struggle truly about? Vox Day suggests that “Pedophilia is the end game of Equality. It always was.” Leftists want to dissolve all barriers: not just those between men and women, but also those between adults and children.
Labour’s betrayal of the working-class
And that’s how we’ve arrived at the absurdity of the Labour leader Keir Starmer stating that “it is not right” to say only women have a cervix. As Labour leader, Starmer supposedly represents the working-class, who overwhelmingly accept biological reality and reject translunacy. It’s clear, then, that Starmer doesn’t represent the working-class. But the Labour party hasn’t done that for decades. Labour’s former deputy leader, Roy Hattersley, has openly boasted in the Guardian that: “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.” Like Hattersley, Keir Starmer has a Jewish wife; and like Hattersley, Starmer believes that Somalis, Pakistanis and Jamaicans can be “just as British” as Whites whose ancestors have lived in Britain for millennia.
An ideal James Bond in leftist eyes: the obese Black actress Gabourney Sidibe
Indeed, it’s a central doctrine of leftism that Western identity should be unconditionally open to non-Whites, who become full and authentic citizens of Western nations simply by migrating there. On the other hand, not all leftists presently accept translunacy. For example, TERFS, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, reject the doctrine that female identity is unconditionally open to males, who become full and authentic women simply by saying that they are women. But trans-critical leftists don’t realize that non-White migration into the West was the model for migration by men into womanhood. By denying the biological basis of Western identity in the 1950s and ’60s, leftists prepared the way for the translunatic cult in the 21st century. For leftists, men can become women just as, on the movie or TV screen, Blacks can occupy White roles or women can occupy male roles. For example, on British television, a Black actress has recently played the completely White Anne Boleyn, one of the queens of Henry VIII, and the White actress Jodie Whittaker has played the formerly male role of Dr Who. Leftists also strongly support the casting of a Black in the iconic White role of James Bond — their ideal James Bond would presumably be an obese Black actress like Gabourney Sidibe.
Blacks have higher status than Whites
But it is now completely unacceptable for White actors to play non-White roles of any kind. All White roles are open to non-Whites, but no non-White role is open to any White. And when the White American woman Rachel Dolezal tried to pass as Black, she was mocked and condemned, not praised for further demonstrating the “non-existence” of race. So why do leftists believe that some borders should be dissolved while other borders should be maintained? Why can Blacks play Whites, but Whites not play Blacks? As I said in “Borders for Us, Not for You,” I think it’s a matter of status and will-to-power. When a group has high status in leftism, it can assume the identity of any group with low status. But a group with low status can’t assume the identity of a group with high status. Biological men have lower status than biological women in leftism, but “transwomen,” although biologically male, have cleverly aligned themselves with homosexuals, who have higher status than biological women.
The Jewish “trans-lesbian” Jonathan Yaniv at work in a female toilet
And that’s why, for example, the Israeli-Jewish pervert Jonathan Yaniv, who is biologically male, can claim to be a “lesbian” and indulge his paedophilia and menstruation-fetishism without any criticism from the mainstream left. Similarly, non-Whites have higher status than Whites in leftism, therefore non-Whites can migrate freely into the West and take any White role in acting. But Whites cannot take Black roles and Whites like Rachel Dolezal cannot be permitted to pass themselves off as a Black. And I find it very interesting that some Jews are trying to add Jews to the list of groups whom it is forbidden for Whites to represent on stage and screen:
Enough, already! Is it time to stop the ‘Jewface’ casting?
It’s the debate that’s growing ever more heated: should non-Jewish actors play Jewish parts? Now outspoken comedian Sarah Silverman has waded in to decry what she has labelled “Jewface”. The American star was speaking after Kathryn Hahn was reported to have been cast as Joan Rivers in The Comeback Girl, an upcoming drama based on the life of the Jewish comedy icon.
Ms Hahn is not Jewish, but did play a rabbi in the comedy drama series Transparent and is married to Jewish actor Ethan Sandler. “One could argue, for instance, that a gentile playing Joan Rivers correctly would be doing what is actually called ‘Jewface,’” Ms Silverman said on her podcast last week.
Though the comedian said she had “zero problems” with Ms Hahn’s involvement in the project and stressed she was a “brilliant” actress, she pointed to an apparent double standard, with Jewish characters often portrayed by non-Jews despite a growing focus on representation in the industry.
“The pattern in film is just undeniable, and the pattern is if the Jewish female character is courageous or deserves love, she is never played by a Jew. Ever!” she said. She pointed to a number of films and TV shows from recent years which have featured non-Jewish actresses in Jewish parts, including the 2018 courtroom drama On The Basis Of Sex starring Felicity Jones as the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ms Silverman also cited The Marvellous Mrs Maisel featuring Rachel Brosnahan as a Jewish comedian and the 2017 film Disobedience with Rachel McAdams as Esti Kuperman, a Charedi woman who renews her same-sex relationship with her childhood best friend, Ronit Krushka, who is played by British Jewish star Rachel Weisz.
The issue of Jewish representation has sparked debate in recent years, with actresses Maureen Lipman and Miriam Margolyes joining a group of artists in 2019 in signing a letter condemning a musical for casting non-Jews to play Jews. (Enough, already! Is it time to stop the ‘Jewface’ casting?, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th October 2021)
“Jewface,” of course, applies only in one direction: it goes without saying that all White roles should remain open to Jewish actors and actresses. But what is going on in the nascent campaign against “Jewface”? Well, I’ve suggested previously that Jews can be described as “Schrödinger’s Tribe.” In quantum physics, Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously alive-and-dead until the universe decides one way or another. In Western politics and culture, Jews are simultaneously a minority and not-a-minority, switching between the two identities according to whether they want to claim victimhood or make a Western organization seem more “White” than it actually is.
I further suggest that, in the past, Jew-dominated Hollywood and other media were happy to cast White actors in Jewish roles because this contributed to Jewish crypsis, or the camouflaging of Jews as Whites. The Jewish writer David Cole has also pointed out, in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that true-to-life casting would sometimes be very hard on the eyes of cinema-goers. The real Ginsburg was remarkably ugly, so Hollywood decided it was better she be portrayed by the attractive shiksa Felicity Jones.
“Jewface” in action: the ugly Ruth Bader Ginsburg is portrayed by the attractive Felicity Jones
But it’s apparent that some Jews are now rejecting these considerations of Jewish crypsis and shiksa beauty. They want to join what Steve Sailer calls the “Flight from White” and to openly assert the higher status of Jews. If Jews have higher status than Whites, then Jewish roles must be closed to Whites, while White roles remain open to Jews. And what do I think about this anti-“Jewface” campaign? I fully support it. I’d like to see it made more and more obvious that Whites are being assigned the lowest possible status in Western nations.
That way, more Whites will wake up to what has already happened and to what is being planned for the future. The tyrannical fantasies of Caligula were never realized. The Roman people didn’t have una cervix, a “single neck” that he could sever at a stroke. But the tyrannical fantasies of the modern left are being realized even as I type. By insisting that non-Whites are valuable citizens of Western nations and denying that only women have a cervix, leftists deny biological reality and prepare the way for even worse assaults on truth, beauty and goodness. If Whites are despised and being dispossessed while they are still the majority, what will happen in those fast-approaching days when they become a minority? More Whites need to ask – and answer – that question. And then they will join the fight to reclaim the West.