The Tyranny of Translunacy: How Higher Status in Leftism Decides Who Can Invade Whose Territory

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.

18 replies
  1. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    “Translunacy” is very apt, as what we’re dealing with here is not mere ignorance but INSANITY. There’s been no Age so dark that it couldn’t see that men aren’t women and that the difference is independent of how people self-identify. Even today, when insanity is shockingly and impudently peddled as fact, everyone except for a minority composed of pathological liars, sinister charlatans and victims of delusion knows that the notion of “transgenderism” is lunacy; and if there’s a remote future, our descendants will look aghast at the 21st Century when people believed things less intellectually respectable than speculation as to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

    Apropos of that, I have these criticisms to register: one, that you use the phrase “transgender people”; and two, that you use the phrase “biologically male.”

    There are NO transgender people. If “transgender” denotes the transition from male to female or vice-versa, it relates to fact less than does “unicorn.” There is NO sex change; such a transition NEVER occurs in humans. The misnomer “sex-reassignment” signifies only a transition to NEUTER, to ex-men and ex-women deprived of their reproductive systems. Nor is “self-identification” any more efficacious. Identifying and even believing one is a member of the opposite sex doesn’t make one so, any more than Emperor Norton’s believing he was Emperor of California made him so.

    I prefer the term “transvestite” to denote pre-op delusionals, sufferers of gender dysphoria; and “neuters” to denote post-ops.

    “Biologically male” is redundant and implies there’s another kind of male. There are no other kinds. Maleness and femaleness (NOT identical to masculinity and femininity) relate to reproduction, which is biological. When I discuss, say, the invasion of males into women’s sports, I never use the customary “biological males” but simply “males.”

    My point is that we should avoid using the language of the peddlers and consumers of lunacy, because doing so seems to imply endorsement thereof.

    As for the idea of Pakis and Somalis and other non-NON-British being Brits because they’re physically in Britain, it’s of course a lie of the anti-Whites. Hell, how many times have I had Spaghetti al Pomodoro in London restaurants? Does that mean spaghetti are an English dish?

    • Birhan Dargey
      Birhan Dargey says:

      The Jews claimed to be the chosen people of God…some kind of priestly order to iluminate humanity (goyim)…BUT whya re they the leaders pushing pornography, pedophilia, gay marriage, abortions, eugencis, euthanasia, wars, famine, sex trafficking etc. and their Rabbis encourage such EVIL ungodly behavior…WHY????…How can they be/do so UNgodly deeds and say they are gods chosen.???..I have read about Christian catholics and protestants Missionaries living, working, dying for the poor in Africa, Asia, Latin America…BUT I have never heard of ONE Rabbi tending to the poor, sick, ill, illiterate…not ONE ever…

  2. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    TOO, could you in this otherwise erudite article, like other news outlets please post a precursory caveat to the effect that ‘WARNING! THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS IMAGES THAT MAY BE GRAPHIC OR DISTURBING! DO NOT SHARE WITH CHILDREN!

    My wife cooked me a wonderful breakfast and it sits cold hours after showing images of RGB, the Black Blimp, and a few others.

    Thank you.

  3. Rick
    Rick says:

    The best way to fight back against the “trans-women” debauchery is to describe it exactly as it is.

    Less than 2 percent of any given population are born biologically compromised. This 2% will have admixtures of both male and female body parts, such as malformed ovaries in conjunction undeveloped testes. Surgeons can make whatever they like out of these. I’m not concerned with this lot of unfortunate people.

    The 98 percent+ in the modern “trans-woman community” push their debauchery and give cover to their pervertedness by using this 2 percent bandwagon to promote their “needs”. This 98 percent need to be defined for what they are.

    The vast majority of the modern “trans-woman community” are Transvestic Fetishists or, more precisely, suffer from the psychiatric condition of autogynephilia.

    Related psychiatric conditions are exhibitionism (flashing private parts), frotteurism (sexual arousal from rubbing against people in public), voyeurism (sexual arousal from spying on others – peeping tom), regular fetishism (sexual arousal from leather, women’s underwear).

    As you can see, if you judge modern “trans-women” by the company they keep, you’ll realise they are very disgusting and dangerous (especially to children and the vulnerable) people.

    The modern “trans-woman” or male autogynephilac gets immense sexual pleasure from the feel of women’s clothes against his body. He also gets a sexual kick out of imaging himself as a woman.

    Thus, the male dressed in women’s attire you meet along the street, or elsewhere else, is always in a state of semi-arousal – a lot of them actually wear special thongs to keep their erections from showing. The male autogynephilac will usually swing a number of ways in regards sexual orientation: male, female, or child of either sex.

    In normal times autogynephilacs had the moral codes of lobotomised alley cats. Highly dangerous deviants. Now that their paraphilia has been normalised, the autogynephilacs are sexually-debauched timebombs waiting to go off. And many have already gone off.

    All parents with young school-going daughters should be very concerned. All young girls sharing toilet facilities with autogynephilacs are in great danger of being sexually assaulted or raped.

    A typical autogynephilac in a lady’s toilet, dressed in women’s clothes, quickly becomes highly sexually aroused. In his mentally disturbed mind, he’s in heaven. Everything around him is a giant aphrodisiac, and society in general have led him to believe that this is all normal.

    It doesn’t take much for the mentally disturbed autogynephilacs to push the boundaries of this “normality”. They’ll do this in their disturbed minds by believing that the young female student who smiled at them in the toilet was really flirting and asking for sex.

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      Yes, there are anomalous persons, or freaks, with, as you say, “admixtures of both male and female body parts, such as malformed ovaries in conjunction [with] undeveloped testes.” There are such things as hermaphrodites, though I doubt that such persons as you describe can be characterized as such, IF a real hermaphrodite has complete male AND female reproductive systems, together.

      But in any case an hermaphrodite is neither a man nor a woman, but an hermaphrodite. It’s no good for the gender dysphoric or their patronizers to argue that the rare existence of hermaphrodites shows that a man’s changing into a woman or vice-versa is possible.

      If actual sex change were possible, a reproductively healthy male could be transformed into a reproductively healthy female and so be able to reproduce in another fashion. But this never happens. It cannot happen. The victim of “sex-reassignment” surgery doesn’t acquire the reproductive system of the opposite sex: he or she (or, after the mutilation, properly “it”) only loses the system with which it was born.

      Similarly, the victims of puberty-blockers merely have their sexual maturity suppressed: they don’t become a member of the opposite sex! None of the boys ever becomes a female; they merely fail to become mature or developed males. Both this and the mutilating surgery are merely cosmetic, of course, especially the latter, which enables a delusional homosexual male to look in a mirror and see not a penis, etc., but what looks like a mons veneris.

      Only if science were able to INSTALL or graft living, functional organs of the opposite sex where the patient’s original organs were, could real sex-reassignment be possible–though even then I don’t see how XY chromosomes could be changed to XX or vice-versa.

      I’m convinced that our enemies push this insanity not only to expedite decay of our society but to add another way in which they can prevent our reproducing ourselves. Among the things common to all modes of physically promoting the transgender myth is that ALL the victims are rendered incapable of reproduction–irreversibly.

  4. Guest
    Guest says:

    Jews seem to have no problem with Whites playing characters that are jews or based on jews when the jew is an unsympathetic character. The movies “The Big Short” and “Margin Call” are examples which have been discussed in TOO.

  5. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” 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.”

    Westernworld Whites are predominantly at least nominal Christians and thus are predominantly sheeple ( subserviently meekish people ) whom are not inclined to defend territory even less inclined to reclaim territory .

    Suppose the majority of White sheeple miraculously became interested in reclaiming their lost territory and culture ; neither The RCC Vatican , which is fully capable but not interested , nor the Protestants , which are not fully capable and are mostly not interested , would provide those Whites with the necessary leadership and moral/materiel support for a reclaimation movement .

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      The ‘nominal Christians’ are more dangerous than mere sheeple. Due to their misguided faith in an erroneously translated ‘infallible’ book; i.e. – the Bible they unwittingly give who they believe to be ‘God’s Chosen People’ carte blanche in no matter what evil designs they might have.

      I think Benjamin Netanyahu put it best: “My opinion of Christian Zionists? They’re scum. But don’t tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now”.

      Readers, don’t get me wrong – I am not knocking Christianity. I simply am trying to show what happens when people worship an idol made of wood (the Bible) instead of worshipping a Person.

        HUGO FUERST says:

        The “race, gender, class” anti-biology revolution of Marcuse & Co has achieved most of the first element of the unholy trinity, and the second is being worked to its ultimate absurdity, and the third is on its way.
        And as for the largely fundamentalist Christian Zionists, what do they think (if they think at all) about the Zionist/Lubavich claim that their New Testament is ultimately responsible for The Holocaust?

  6. Rae West
    Rae West says:

    Some readers here might like the new Miles Mathis article on Rome and its history. mathis proves to have more expertise even than Boris Johnson. (This is supposed to be a sarcastic reference to the lightweight Latinism of ‘British’ politicians). However, you must find it for yourself.

  7. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    As always, thanks Tobias for your awesomeness. I was not going to reply to this piece since the insanity of transwhateverism is so insane that it’s painful. I also agree with much of the first reply of Lucius Vanini.

    I live in NYC. One would think, because of the optics of the media, that a person would see transgenders in NYC all over the place; those horribly oppressed, poor, beaten down, struggling against the world transgenders. But no, I never, ever see a transgender, ever. The homeless, tons of them and it’s getting worse. People who clearly need to be in mental institutions roaming free and at times taunting and even worse hurting the not so crazy rest of us. Throwing people onto subway tracks is their new favorite pastime.

    The heartbreak of seeing a homeless child with their homeless family. The decay of a corrupt subway system much of which is the same after a hundred years and barely holding on to being operational any longer. A government openly set on destroying what was once a very great city. The problems of our American cities seem endless. The problems of our country, are now quickly becoming a gigantic iceberg looming over us and we were all thrown overboard from our beautiful Ocean Liner and are now overcrowded in a life raft, floating aimlessly and will be crushed. Trillions in debt, our horrific education system, corrupt to the core government, degenerate media, runaway inflation, and on and on it goes. Yet, one of our most pressing problems is the oppression of transgender people whoever, or whatever they are, a people that no one ever sees except for Bruce Jenner occasionally but he is very wealthy.

    You’re dancing with the devil here Tobias. If one so much as questions the welfare of the transgenders, or why we pay so much attention to them compared to all of the problems the country and other groups face, well, then you’re a ‘racist,’ you’re an ‘evil nazis,’ a ‘homophone,’ ‘white supremacist,’ and on and on and you are then cancelled, socially, financially, and in memory.

    “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?”

    What happened when the Jewish Bolsheviks took over Russian in 1917? We know what will happen!

    I’m trying and do what I can to bring our message to the masses and I hope (and know) that others here are too as difficult as it can be sometimes.

    How did we all let this happen and how are we going to get (((them))) to stop?! The Jews make up 2.5, 3% of the population…!

    We better get busy!!

    • Bobjeanjesus
      Bobjeanjesus says:

      Someone had to win WW2 🙂 the Japanese culture is to never surrender. I’m surprised they did . So… perhaps it was better that WE won that one. It will follow like English Empire maybe ? That assumes we survive the next big war . I’m really proud of whatever English heritage I have. The French ancestry too. Big enslavers. 🙂 almost ruled the world at one time between the two. I’m cautious for my Vietnam vacation… having so much french ancestry. ☺️ I suppose I’ll just beat them if they get out of line…it seemed to work last time.

  8. Bobjeanjesus
    Bobjeanjesus says:

    It really seems like the fall of Rome. They had the pederasty thing going on . The decadent lifestyles. Surgery technology development from “world wars” to create gender change. Collapse from a expansive empire spanning the globe. Of course…I guess the best they had was drinking horse urine to feminize young boys 🙂 none of us being archeologist…I guess we will never know. Transgender does appear in third world scenerios like two spirit. I’m not sure how many gays wish to settle down and create a family… assuming the vast numbers don’t have some kind of autogynephilia type of fetish 🙂 but why do ANY cosmetic surgery if not to look more attractive ? Assuming one does in fact end up more attractive in the end 🙂

  9. Brooklyn Dave
    Brooklyn Dave says:

    I say let’s push the envelope all the way and have Gabourney Sidibe play ole Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. It’s so disconnected from reality that if actually done, I am sure it would get a few chuckles from those with an odd sense of humor like myself.

Comments are closed.