Dykes Are Dull! Why Lesbians Lose to Translunacy

I’m interested in parlance, I’m interested in poofs, pansies and pillow-biters. How could I not be interested in Polari? According to Paul Baker’s book Fabulosa! (2019), Polari was “Britain’s Secret Gay Language” and used by thousands of “camp gay men” until the late 1960s. Baker describes its history, heyday, decline and revival. But the book implicitly provides two big insights that Baker never intended: first, into why lesbians are losing the war with male transsexuals who want to invade their sexual territory; second, into the psychology of academics and its role in the rise of wokeness.

The front cover of Paul Baker’s Fabulosa! (2019)

Flamboyant and highly entertaining

First things first, however. Was Polari really a language? Well, the front cover of Baker’s book says so, but that’s hype. In the book itself, Baker is more accurate about the linguistic status of Polari. It wasn’t a full language but a slang or code, using words whose forms or new meanings were opaque to outsiders. And so the gay men who used Polari could gossip, discuss strangers and talk about sex while the aunt nels (ears) of naffs (heterosexuals) caught nishta (nothing) of what was going on.

A male fantasy of lesbianism: Gustave Courbet’s Le Sommeil (Sleep) of 1866

The most famous phrase of Polari is “How bona to vada your dolly old eke!” That means “How good to see your attractive old face!” and was one of the catchphrases used by the gay characters Julian and Sandy on the 1960s radio-comedy Round the Horne (which was overseen by the avuncular Kenneth Horne). In his book, Baker devotes the whole of Chapter 5 to Julian and Sandy, who were played by the genuinely gay actors Hugh Paddick and Kenneth Williams. He describes how, by introducing Polari to millions of straight listeners, they helped destroy its popularity in the “gay community.” But the Polari-propelled popularity of “Jules and Sand” is part of that implicit insight I mentioned above. The two characters were camp, flamboyant, and highly entertaining. And characters like that could never have been played by lesbians. Nor could the camp, flamboyant and highly entertaining language of Polari ever have been invented by lesbians. Lesbians don’t behave or talk like that. As Steve Sailer pointed out in “Why Lesbians Aren’t Gay,” his insightful article on the acute differences between male and female homosexuals, lesbians dislike perfume and fashion, don’t like working with men, and “resent male fascination with beauty.” And while gays are notoriously promiscuous, promoting not only new perversions but also fascinating diseases like AIDS, dykes are often more interested in cats than in sex. Gays die for sex; dykes suffer “lesbian bed-death,” where lesbian partners have less sex and may stop having sex altogether.

The reality of lesbianism: lesbian writer Marguerite Radclyffe Hall (right) with her lover Una Troubridge

In short: dykes are dull! And I think the dullness of dykes is one big reason that they’re losing their cultural war with male transsexuals who claim to be lesbian. After all, dullness is one thing that transsexuals are never guilty of. I’ve argued previously, in articles like “The Tyranny of Translunacy” and “Borders for Us, Not for You,” that leftists decide who can invade whose territory by using the relative status of different groups in the leftist hierarchy of victimhood. For example, Blacks or women are higher in that hierarchy than Whites or men, therefore Blacks or women can take on all White or male roles in acting. But Whites or men are forbidden to take on Black or female roles and a White like Rachel Dolezal, who claims to be Black, is condemned by leftists rather than celebrated.

She-penises and polymorphous perverts

Let’s apply this theory of status to transsexualism. By aligning themselves with homosexuals, male transsexuals have gained higher status than women in the leftist hierarchy. Therefore they can invade female territory and, for leftists, become full and authentic women simply by asserting that they are so. And when these men claim to be lesbians, that too must be accepted, even if — or especially if — they are still equipped with a penis. Many genuine lesbians have rightly objected to the idea that they must have sex with such men or accept a penis as a “female” sex-organ. But because lesbians are lower in the leftist hierarchy than male-to-female trannies, their objections are condemned as bigoted and “transphobic.” Now I want to suggest an additional reason for the lower status of lesbians within leftism. To repeat: dykes are dull! And trannies are entertaining!

And so there may be a paradox at work. Anti-woke satirists like Titania McGrath may be helping translunacy even as they mock its excesses and such ludicrous concepts as the “female penis.” After all, McGrath and company are emphasizing how interesting and entertaining trannies are. For example, McGrath has tweeted mockingly about stories like this, in which a polymorphously perverted man is described as a woman:

A Glasgow-born sex offender has admitted exposing her penis, using a sex toy and masturbating in public. Chloe Thompson committed the “grossly offensive” acts in daylight and in front of shocked members of the public, a court was told.

At one point, three children saw the former soldier exposing herself and thrusting her hips in the window of her home, TeesideLive reports. Her latest offences were committed on August 13 last year in Cromer Street and Wellesley Road, Middlesbrough. A couple saw her performing a sex act on herself in a back alleyway of Wellesley Road at about 3.45pm that day.

Liz McGowan, prosecuting, said “the defendant was moving forwards and backwards against a wheelie bin” before being seen using a sex toy on herself. At the time she was wearing “an ill-fitting black wig, a ra-ra skirt and a midriff-length top”, the court heard. (Scot flashed penis and used sex toy in public leaving onlookers shocked, The Daily Record, 18th February 2022)

The story is utterly ludicrous — “her penis,” “sex toy,” “ill-fitting black wig,” “ra-ra skirt” — but that’s precisely why it’s entertaining. So the paradox may be that the bad behavior of some transsexuals helps the translunatic cause. Perverts like “Chloe Thompson” are providing entertainment and excitement in a way that dull dykes don’t. Look at one recent example in the UK of a lesbian losing to translunacy. The lesbian professor of philosophy Kathleen Stock resigned from her post at the University of Sussex after a hostile campaign against her by trans-rights activists and what she called “ostracism” by her academic colleagues and trade-union. What had she done? She’d questioned transgender dogma about men being able to become authentic women. Like other TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, Stock thinks that biological sex matters and trumps self-identification. I agree with them. However, I don’t think TERFs like Stock are motivated by their love of truth. Rather, I think they’re motivated by their hatred and envy of men. Stock doesn’t want biological males to call themselves lesbians and make accusations of “transphobia” to coerce genuine lesbians like herself into sex.

Dull dyke Kathleen Stock

And she’s right. But she’s something else: a dull dyke. Just look at her photos for proof of that. She has short grey hair. She wears denim shirts with button-down pockets and (you can be sure) very sensible shoes. And she was a Professor of Philosophy who wrote an article called “Sexual objectification, objectifying images and mind-insensitive ‘seeing-as’” for a book called Evaluative Perception (2018).

Let’s face it: she’s a dull and dowdy dyke! And I think that dykey dullness is one big reason that lesbians like Stock are losing the cultural war with translunatics. Although Stock herself is not transphobic, her opponents can accurately be called lesbophobic. They don’t like dykey dullness, preferring the flamboyance, drama and exhibitionism of male-to-female transsexuals. And I think that a book called The Neophiliacs, written by Christopher Booker and published way back in 1969, offers an important insight into the psychology of pro-tranny leftists. The book describes how leftists are characterized by their neophilia, or “love of the new.” Thanks in part to their immaturity and the emptiness of their lives, leftists enjoy change and destruction for the interest and excitement these things provide. And so leftists have rejected what the vast majority of human beings have always believed: that a biological male cannot become a woman by wearing a dress or by having his male genitals removed and replaced with an unhealthy and unhygienic simulacrum of a vagina.

Hostility is helpful

Not that many trans-women and self-proclaimed “lesbians” bother with genital surgery these days. The Jewish-Israeli Jonathan Yaniv, who has described himself as “one proud lesbian” on his Twitter page, prompted more ludicrous — and highly entertaining — news-reports when he sued female beauticians in Canada for declining to wax his “female” testicles. And I myself may have inadvertently helped the translunatic cause by writing about Yaniv and his antics in articles like “Power to the Perverts!” By doing that, I’ve helped to emphasize the entertainment value of translunacy. Yes, I’m hostile to translunacy, but translunatics are exhibitionists and likely narcissists. They enjoy even negative attention.

And the hostility of an out-group can strengthen the solidarity of an in-group and increase its will-to-power. Some Jews have commented that anti-Semitism is useful to Jews as a group, because it strengthens Jewish identity and serves to justify Jewish goyophobia. Accordingly, Jews may seek to provoke anti-Semitism in order to reap those benefits. The hostility of outsiders to translunacy may help translunatics in a similar way, increasing their sense of solidarity and confirming their self-image as persecuted victims. It may seem harmful to the translunatic cause when a transsexual in “an ill-fitting black wig [and] ra-ra skirt” uses a sex-toy on “herself” in public and flashes “her” penis whilst hip-thrusting at passers-by. But perhaps it isn’t harmful at all. Perhaps it’s helpful. Again, you can’t imagine a lesbian adding to the gaiety of nations by doing such things. Dykes are dull! But that’s why lesbians may do well in academia, particularly in subjects where hard work and seriousness can compensate for lack of intellectual rigor and good ideas.

“The most influential gender theorist of all”

After all, one of the super-stars of the modern humanities is the lesbian philosopher and cultural analyst Judith Butler, who once won first prize in a Bad Writing Contest for this very dull prose:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. (Bad Writing Contest for 1998)

Dull dykes Judith Butler and Kathleen Stock

Interestingly, Judith Butler looks a lot like Kathleen Stock. For example, they wear their hair in a similar short style with a side-parting. But one very big difference between Butler and Stock is that Stock is trans-exclusionary while Butler is very much trans-inclusionary. A feminist critic of translunacy has described Butler as “the most influential gender theorist of all.” She has done more than anyone else to promote the idea “that sex and gender are not distinct things, and that sex/gender is socially constructed.”

Harming gentile societies

Why do the lesbian academics Butler and Stock differ so strongly on the translunatic invasion of lesbian territory? I think the explanation is simple. TERFs like Stock oppose translunacy because they hate men. Butler and her similarly trans-friendly lesbian colleague Gayle Rubin support translunacy because they hate goyim and Christianity. Butler and Rubin are both Jewish and they want to subvert and harm gentile societies. I would call both of them charlatans, not genuine scholars, and would say that they owe their huge success in academia to their dykey dullness and their ethnicity. That is, they work hard and take advantage of the Jewish ethnic nepotism I examined in my article “A Singularly Semitic Scandal” (which is about yet another Jewish lesbian charlatan called Avital Ronell).

The introverted but resentful and subversive psychology of academics has played a very important role in the rise of translunacy and other parts of the wokism currently infesting the West. This is the second of the implicit insights provided by Paul Baker’s book Fabulosa!, the history of Polari I described above. Baker is constantly referring to his own introversion, describing himself in the introduction as “a shy boy … with phobias of public speaking and strangers, and no social skills” (p. 11). It’s plain that he’s studied Polari in part because he admires and envies the camp self-confidence and sharp tongues of the extrovert and exhibitionist homosexuals who created and used it. Baker is a Professor of English Language at Lancaster University in the north of England, but I don’t think he would hold that post if there were a lot of competition for it or if his subject required a great deal of intelligence and insight.

Leftists are bored with lesbians

Academics in the humanities are generally there because academia suits them, not because they suit academia. In a physics or mathematics department, you will find people with genuine intelligence and insight into their subjects (although this is changing for the worse as standards are lowered to admit more Blacks and women). In a humanities department, you will find people without genuine intelligence and insight. But they want to pretend otherwise, of course, which is why academics like Judith Butler use the ugly and boring jargon I quoted above: “a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation.”

That’s the sort of language that dull dykes are adept at. It could never entertain an audience of millions in the way that Polari did on the lips of Julian and Sandy during the 1960s. As Steve Sailer says: Lesbians aren’t gay. Dykes are dull and dowdy; fairies are flash and flamboyant. And male-to-female transsexuals have continued that tradition of flash and flamboyance. They’re entertaining and interesting even when — or especially when — they’re behaving badly. I think that’s why translunatics are successfully invading lesbian territory. Dykes are dull and dowdy. Leftists are bored with lesbians, whether they’ll admit it or not. And that’s a big part of why lesbians are losing to translunacy.

37 replies
  1. SS
    SS says:

    Interesting? Entertaining? I don’t think so. Polari is stupid and so are all the weirdos you wrote about.

    • Dennis Dale
      Dennis Dale says:

      I agree. The rise of trans-drag-culture is interesting–the culture itself and its individuals? Not so much.
      In fact it gets boring fast–because despite it all being lurid and crazy, that lurid and crazy is very predictable and repetitive. The trans man demanding his balls be shaved is outrageous and comic–but by no means fascinating–and it’s already a cliche.

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      That’s a very good observation considering they were/are actually allowing pre-schoolers to be read to by drag queens. Another issue I thought of reading this was all of the very overweight, extremely plain looking lefties you see who all seem to dye their hair blue or purple. It’s very difficult to jazz up such creatures who are as horrid on the inside as they are on the outside.

  2. Flo
    Flo says:

    Interesting about Polari being a gay lingo. There’s a Smiths / Morrissey song that mentions “Picadilly palare.” I figured “palare” (pronounced puh-la-ray) meant slang, but now I’d bet they’re singing about “Polati.” And Morrissey certainly is gay, if that means anything. Live and learn, as my cisfemale mom used to say.

    • T.Gilligan
      T.Gilligan says:

      ‘as my cisfemale mom used to say’. Ugh and er?! “cisfemale”. Am I missing the ironic use of the trans-insane-cultural Marxist lexicon here?

  3. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    @Tobias: While stalking around in our new Western cultural accomplishments in this essay, up to our knees in untreated sewage, I would like to enquire whether that famous VAGINA CAFE on Brighton Beach [GB] still offers its muffins in the shapes of a multitude of variously decorated, anatomically correct vaginas. With a reasonable surcharge for the inclusion of an especially decorated and flavored clitoris.

    And, if said Cafe is still in business, which sub-species of purportedly human beings, mentioned in your essay, would frequent it ?

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I think it’s because TOO isn’t so much about the West, as it’s about the Jewish role in the decline of the West. And leftism is an off-shoot of Judaism.
      So the article describes weird leftist nonsense and how such things are indulged & promoted by the Jewish-controlled culture, to the mutual benefit of leftists & Jews and the all round detriment of everyone else, or normal people.
      – On another note, I know it’s sort of redundant to point out leftist lies, but the next time some homosexual or woman whines that gays were persecuted in the evil past, ask them how they explain the career of Kenneth Williams or Quentin Crisp.
      Williams was as beloved as any British actor and Crisp was specifically against the normalisation of homosexuality in the culture. But of course these were English homosexuals.
      It’s almost like anyone can be anything and still tell the truth, or live a normal life, yet when you inject Judaism into the mix it has to become a war to subvert and destroy the host society.

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        “Leftism is an offshoot of Judaism,” as Christianity is. And Christianity is very philosophically harmonious with traditional Leftism’s bias toward have-nots, the socially underprivileged–AND not so contrary to sexual perversion as you might think.

        These embody the same bias toward the lowly that Leftism has had: “Blessed are the meek,” “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” Ditto the bias against the rich–“You cannot serve God and Mammon” and “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.” Marx’s de facto prophecy of the ruling, moneyed stratum’s fall and of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is “The first shall be last and the last first” in secular garb.

        Hence when the pope says that Europeans are bad Christians if they don’t welcome African migrants, all of them needy, he’s telling the truth.

        And it is JUDAISM that’s unequivocally prohibitive of homosexuality: LEVITICUS 18:22. ( Even there there’s nothing about women!) Show me something in the NT that’s an explicit commandment against.

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          Mr Vanius
          You accused me of coming here to “stump for Saul”.
          But it is you that take every possible chance to retrofit in your (manic) obsession with Christianity.
          Don’t you think you should at least have some respect for others here who really aren’t interested in this bitch-fight?
          Did you read the replies I sent you, it was on the ‘fingers in pies’, I think, the Soros book thread?
          And if you did, why haven’t you countered any points I made, I wrecked you in those replies.
          But here we are back again at square one with all this infantile Chriatian bigotry.
          Perhaps for the benefit of the mod you can suggest a more proper place to hash these things out, if you are willing to listen to reason, not mis-quote every damn thing I say, and at least try and open your mind a little. I’ll go anywhere, your blog, wherever.
          The other commenters must be heartily sick of this repetitive anti-God bile.
          I know I often drift away from the subject at hand, but I at least try to keep a tennious connection to the subject under discussion.

          And saying Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism, well, sorry, it’s just a dumb thing to say.
          Christianity is a continuation of the Abrahamic faith, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we understand today as Judaism. More, it was specifically set up as the absolute opposite of the Pharisees cult that had degenerated, basically, into open Mammon-worship & Satanism.

          Look, I answered every question you asked, can i ask you some? What is your relationship like with your mother? Have you forgiven her?
          If not, I think you should. All this anger you direct at Christianity is a stand in for anger towards your father. The father represents authority, and you resent your father because he didn’t protect you from your mother. This is where your anger comes from. I’d put money on it.
          Come back to your father. Why do you think when kids are asked what God looks like they always say an old man with a beard? Because that is the father archetype.
          There’s nothing in the bible that states God looks like this, the Bible is plain, God is the word. And the word was God. In other words, God IS truth.
          That’s why everything Christians produce is good, true & beautiful.
          And before you start flapping about refugees and homosexual Pope’s, the church has been as thoroughly penetrator and ruined in the last century as every other white institution. You know this, but you don’t accept it because it torpedoes your case that Christianity is the root of all evil.

          “Hence when the pope says that Europeans are bad Christians if they don’t welcome African migrants, all of them needy, he’s telling the truth.”
          No, he’s a lying pedarist. You can tell this just by looking at him, and I distrust anyone who would claim different. But anyway, again, again, again, again, again, you mistake Chritianity for some sort of sado-masochistic suicide cult.
          If the Anal Pope is correct, then why is it only now he’s simping for Jewish mass immigration? Why didn’t it happen as soon as Christianity took hold? Or later, when fully established? Or in any time in the near 2000 years of church history? Again, I don’t expect an answer, so don’t even bother. You’d be better at least trying to keep what little dignity you’ve got left.
          “And it is JUDAISM that’s unequivocally prohibitive of homosexuality: LEVITICUS 18:22”
          No deary, that’s Christianity. If you imagine Jews give a toss about the Old Testament you’re even less clued-up about Jews than you are Christians.
          Why ain’t there a similar commandment in the NT? Why should there be? You can’t expect the NT to just repeat everything the OT states. That wouldn’t make a very interesting read, eh?
          The NT is the New Convent, but Jesus specifically said he came to endorse and continue the Old Covent.
          In other words, your great point falls on it’s arse, just like every other point you make.
          But keep at it, with the law of probabilities your bound to get something right, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            Lol, you sound more and more like an hysterical New Yawk Jewish lesbian. People who dish out criticism ought to be able to take it too.

            For your info, I tried to add THREE replies to those I already made to you in that thread under “A Finger in Every Pie.” Though none of them featured the abusive names you directed at me there (“dip-shit,” “dummy”), all three were disallowed, censored. Yes. The referee blocked counterpunches for thee lol.

            I’d appreciate his confirmation, though for insurance against total loss I copied them and can re-post them.

            Also, I’ve answered several times already your question of how for some time the Europeans thrived despite the psychological bomb your favorite Jews brought to Europe. I can’t help it if you’re not mentally competent enough to comprehend.

            Speaking o’ that, thou non-Christian Jesuit lol, what are these words “tennius” and “pedarist”? Can it be that an Eye-talian knows your language better than you, an Englishman?! O fie!

            OF COURSE, let us debate wherever you please! I suggested that before, remember? That doesn’t mean I’ll stop correcting Judeo-Christian bilge here, but I’ll controvert elsewhere too the most damaging Jewish assault on Europe ever, one reaping ever more major posthumous dividends for its proponents and early purveyors.

            You can either click on my name and thereby reach my site, or present a link here. Perhaps, and I hope, we can talk as unreservedly as we would if I stood eye to eye with you and waited to see just how free you’d be with your colorful language.

            P.S. Your “That’s why everything that Christians produce is good, true & beautiful” is a sample of your intellectual competence. Wow. Also, it begs the question, still not satisfactorily answered, why you can’t bring yourself to join the holy club….

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        . . .leftists are an offshoot of jews. . .

        . . .the cause is a race not an ISM. . .

        yet when you inject jews into the mix

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      Jett, read it as an appendage to Florida’s PARENTAL RIGHTS BILL. Despite DISNEY, profiting off children.

      If I would have a child in any school, visited-upon, by this destructive trash, there would have been no complaining telephone calls, letters or petitions.

      Only an ambulance in the drive, followed by a paddy wagon.

    • ExposingCryptos
      ExposingCryptos says:

      Maybe I can help you by pointing out the obvious:

      The Occidental Observer: White Identity, Interests, and Culture

      Since you can’t figure out the obvious, this article is about culture and interests. A cursory glance reveals it’s about hostile, corrosive, degenerate subcultures that have moral dominance in Jewish controlled media and Leftist academia (and therefore Leftist ideology).

      “…leftists decide who can invade whose territory by using the relative status of different groups in the leftist hierarchy of victimhood.”

      Ergo, White spaces are invaded by non-Whites as Leftists open the gates and let them flood in, or use government to force them upon us. The same goes for trannies. Leftists use government to force trannies into restrooms and locker rooms. Push back and the Judenpresse will smear you endlessly while the Leftists in government will sue you into bankruptcy. It’s a consistent, observable, repeatable pattern.

      “Why do the lesbian academics Butler and Stock differ so strongly on the translunatic invasion of lesbian territory? I think the explanation is simple. TERFs like Stock oppose translunacy because they hate men. Butler and her similarly trans-friendly lesbian colleague Gayle Rubin support translunacy because they hate goyim and Christianity. Butler and Rubin are both Jewish and they want to subvert and harm gentile societies.”

      These hostile groups live among us with protected status working as professionals for government institutions. You’d be a moron to not understand how this is not in White Interests to discuss who they are and what they’re doing.

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      My first reaction was like yours, Then I remembered that promoting homosexuality and the transgender myth is a torpedo launched against European Civilization, among the many sent by anti-White neo-Marxists, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. The design of these implacable enemies is to weaken our societies, to soften them up for the kill and/or enslavement.

      Among the specific desiderata actuating those criminals is preventing Whites from reproducing–and clearly homosexuality and “translunacy” antagonize reproduction and families: indeed the translunacy, serving as rationale for neutering surgery and for puberty blockers whereby children are made forever sterile, renders procreation impossible.

      I think that my initial uneasiness, and perhaps yours too, derives from the author’s avid tone. I’ve written a lot about and against the transgender myth, but hardly with relish. And if I were to devote a whole article to homosexuals, I couldn’t say “I’m interested in poofs, pansies and pillow-biters [whatever the latter may be],”—critters I don’t find “flamboyant and highly entertaining.”

      Surgeons remove colonic tumors, and it’s good that they do. But they usually do it only because colonic tumors are so dreadful, and someone must do rather dirty work for the sake of the sufferer. We’d raise our eyebrows at any surgeon who found tumors entertaining and fascinating–i.e., attractive–and operated so he might bring them to light and contemplate them! Langdon made his article look too much like a celebration of decadence; and I rather think that he hasn’t increased TOO readers’ admiration of him.

      But I’m grateful for any opportunity to fire upon the transgender myth, a most impudent and sinister tomfoolery and the reddest of the red herrings. For one thing, I find that most opponents of it are not very good at exposing it. That’s understandable in a way: it’s so absurd they think they don’t have to controvert it. Yet the Leftist liars (redundancy) have a set of arguments for, which are specious enough to require thoughtful answers so that third parties might not be misled. Mind you, Langdon himself doesn’t seem well-versed: witness his use of the charlatans’ own tendentious nomenclature–“transsexuals,” “male to female trannies,” “biological males.”

      So articles regarding these things give me scope for recommending more thoughtful opposition.

  4. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    Want to know why females are being born with male anatomy?
    Easy Mark 10:8 two shall become one!!!
    There is a spiritual connection that occurs upon joining which is reflected in the physical. Accordingly when two females are in copulation with each other using male prosethics and then go home to be impregnated by a husband or male the fruit of sin is made manifest. Those who then argue or complain well God made me this way are deceived and being deceived! I can’t begin to emphasize how serious a matter this is!!! This also deserves more attention and writing for there is a religious/ biblical precedent here that has to be understood!!!

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      Believing that females are being “born with male anatomy” is possible only to an ideological heir of Tertullian, whose fine Christian anti-logic is expressed in his infamous CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM EST.

      That’s yet another blight which that Hebrew-conceived and Hebrew-peddled superstition inflicted on European Civilization: intellectual anarchy, a pathological lack of intellectual integrity, contempt of reason.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Here you go Mr Vannity . . er . . Vanini, I mean.
        I replied point by point to your reply in the comments, something you’ve never once had the cahones to do to any of my posts.
        Because you can’t? Because you don’t really understand how to argue? I’m not really sure what’s more embarrassing.
        You won’t reply to my points in these ones either, except this time it cannot be because you don’t understand this is how to argue, because I’ve given you a robust crash course in it by now, so I’ll presume it’s because you can’t.
        I knew this already or course, proved by your anti-Christian bigotry which is just so childish and basic.
        Like, it’s the questions an enquiring 14 year old would ask, except you present them as insults which you appear to find absolutely hilarious, as shown by the way you can’t stop laughing at what you imagine is your own wit.
        So I’ll give you two options. We can carry on this pointless Christian/pagan argument elsewhere, so as to not annoy everyone else. Anywhere you like.
        Or you can stop annoying people who post anything Christian in these threads, and just withdraw gracefully. Surely even you know when you are beaten.
        I believe I’ve been more than generous with my time in attempting to educate you out of your embarrassing childish bigotry towards Christians. All I got for my pains was just more abuse, which really shows you’ve much work to do on your character.
        Though how you are going to improve on this without a logical moral basis I’ve no idea. Your white nationalist racial religion won’t be much use in this respect.
        I did it because I presumed you are young, and basically to show you just how utterly simple it is to demolish your nonsense.
        Ignore the options I’ve offered you, and I’m just going to start ignoring you if you carry on with your immature Christian hate.
        Keep it up and I’ll just keep directing people back here: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/03/06/a-finger-in-every-pie-scott-howards-open-society-playbook/
        Where your ideas and jokes are shown to be the rubbish they are.
        Even though I’m offering to school you on the basics of Christianity to stop you looking foolish, I don’t expect a thank you, or even any generosity on your part. That’s just not you, is it?
        But it’s the Christian thing to do, so I will do it. Though if Christian logic, law, philosophy, art, music, literature, poetry, architecture or civilisation doesn’t make a dent in that thick head of yours, what hope is there for the Christian example?
        But we believe there is always hope while we’re still above ground.
        So take it as you wish.

  5. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    “Transsexuals”? “Male-to-female trannies”?

    What the hell are they? I only know of delusional men and women who suffer from dysphoria, or who say they are of the opposite sex (with as much evidence as I say I’m Julius Caesar). In any case, NO ONE ever goes from one sex to the other. EVER. The farthest these ill people get is NEUTER.

    “Biological male?” Is there another kind of male? Oh yeah, the females who say they are males–“identify” as them. Falsely, of course.

    Why use the language of the very charlatans and delusionals whom one controverts? It helps their narrative along, as it seems to endorse the fallacies as realities. “Control the mind by controlling the language.”

    • Douglas
      Douglas says:

      I hate when I write two pages in a reply… Copy Paste to Notes for me to read later. Anyway I simply wanted to say i apreciating your thinking and like your comment and am curious if you have any other links, telegram channels or books that you could share with me for my family education thank you

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        Are you addressing me, sir?

        If you are, I’ll say that all I have at this time is that blog/website “The European Family,” to which those three links afford access. The three pieces corresponding to the links are all I’ve written re the transgender myth. But there’s a lot in them. As far as I know, I’m the only guy who’s bothered to controvert all of the charlatans’ premises, assertions, arguments and rebuttals.

  6. Mark Green
    Mark Green says:

    Brilliant and entertaining. Langdon bangs out another home run. Very funny. And deliciously insulting. Aren’t you tired of mean dykes appropriating White male fashion, persona, and manners? Of course you are. Yuk! Dick-less male impersonators are every bit as as revolting as bearded trannies. And they’re intent on contaminating our children with queer-prop. No way. That’s crossing a red line. This is war.

    Here is an key insight: “[L]leftists decide who can invade whose territory by using the relative status of different groups in the leftist hierarchy of victimhood.” This is painfully accurate. This explains why White males have become powerless.
    New rule: Whites may not-not never-never exclude. Heavens NO. It’s discriminatory! It’s racist. Or homophobic. Or anti-Semitic. We Whites (alone) must always be ‘inclusive’ and cheerfully celebrate diversity (fewer Whites.)

    Meanwhile, it’s Black History Month. Check out the Gay Freedom Parade! Celebrate women! Support Israel (or else.) And we must also never ‘Never Forget’ (about you know what.)

    I’ve witnessed the general status of Whites drop through the floor over the last 50 years. We are being watched, counted, marginalized, and downgraded. It’s nice to see (and identify) our true adversaries. And it’s not Putin’s army.

    PS- And don’t miss Langdon’s sharp and piercing essay (link above): ‘A Singularly Semitic Scandal’. Exceptional!

  7. Tim Stotts
    Tim Stotts says:

    Excellent and entertaining article which explains a lot about leftist victim hierarchies and the competition and take over of “lesbian” territory by transvestites who are always more entertaining and freaky. If the mentally ill world of gender dysphoria and homosexuality hadn’t been hijacked and politicized by the left in it’s goal to destroy the West then this information wouldn’t be so important. Insert the Jew angle into the mix and it takes another predictable turn. “TERFs like Stock oppose translunacy because they hate men. Butler and her similarly trans-friendly lesbian colleague Gayle Rubin support translunacy because they hate goyim and Christianity. Butler and Rubin are both Jewish and they want to subvert and harm gentile societies.” A very important distinction. Thanks for a wonderfully insightful article, Mr. Langdon.

  8. Anne C
    Anne C says:

    “I realized that the Jew uses language for the purpose of dissimulating his thoughts or at least veiling them, so that his real aim cannot be discovered in his words, but rather by reading between the lines.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, page 72, Stalag Edition.

    Apply this to Judith Butler’s award-winning claptrap: “The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

    Reading between the lines, as per AH’s advice, we get: “I am going to f*ck over your culture and civilization, and you will pay me big bucks to do it.”

  9. Christopher Caudill
    Christopher Caudill says:

    Modernity means, among other things, the breaking down of all the barriers to demonic activity in the material world, that once existed in traditional societies. What once functioned to hold back the destructive energies of what are really death-cults is no longer there, or present only in vestigial form. Many modern people are hopelessly lost and are wide open to demonic infestations in their own consciousness, leading to atrocious and “disintegrative” behavior. The sometimes obsessive desire to have sex with beautiful young (or not so young!) women, which may take very disordered and even occasionally violent forms, is normal and healthy in a way that the cavalcade of deviant sexualities can never be. Whether one is “religious” or not in any formal sense, the demonic nature of the attack on the feminine ideal and on children must be recognized if we are to align ourselves with the fundamental loving life force energy of the world, and avoid the fate that the death cults of our world have in store for us all. A simpler way of saying it: “LGBT etc. get right back in the closet where you belong!” Bravo to Tobias Langdon for bringing his sharp wit and humor to this unpleasant, yet critically important, subject.

  10. JM
    JM says:

    All part of the neurosis/psychosis arising from the long term Tribal overlordship of the very vulnerable Anglosphere. How dare they. Though the conscious resistance exists, it’s swamped by morons who think it’s normal or, worse, to be worshiped.

    If they go to war – directly – with Russia – the radically disconnected societies – in the wake of the defeats – may well turn in on themselves.

  11. TJ
    TJ says:

    The background war is masculine vs. feminine, with jewish “males” having a female orientation.

    The whole war is – making distinctions [discrimination] vs denial of distinction [egalitarianism]. . .RIGHT versus LEFT.

    One side says making distinction is good, the other side says making distinction is evil. Anti-discrimination pseudo-law, designed to outlaw goodness [godness]. One thing, one race, and so on, IS JUST AS GOOD AS ANOTHER. Always offered up without any proof or evidence! That part is the basic LYING of the left [or some mental process that surely LOOKS like lying].

    Is discrimination desirable or undesirable [forgetting that OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION IS BASED ON MAKING DISTINCTIONS]

    I suggest the whole problem is from the male. . .why? Due to the failure of the men to put the brakes on the female/jew. . .

    Show me an example of evil and I will show you egalitarianism. . .lady’s liberation, all races equal, homosexuality equals heterosexuality, all ways of thinking are equally valid, PAPER FAKE MONEY IS AS GOOD AS GOLD, all philosophies are equally valid, any art is as good as anything else, State Coercion “equals” voluntary contract, the left just a valid as the right, those avoiding facts have a perfect right to do so, FANTASY EQUALS REASON, emotion as good as evidence or proof, and so on.

    On the right is masculine discrimination [God, or Good], on the left is female anti-discrimination [anti-God, or anti-Good]. . .this latter has ruined a once great country.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Heard on the radio many moons ago: Sayeth the preacher man: “Let’s not beat around the bush about original sin. Any country or people that is under female domination is in original sin.”

      Female visuospatial skill- slim to zero

  12. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    I would not kick Kathleen Stock out of my bed: all she needs to do is Woman Up! Please stop trying to look like someone out of Bronski Beat or some fusty academic.
    As a ‘HMMAWM -Plus’ (Heterosexual Male Middle Aged White Male- Plus), I am partially amused and disgusted by the adoption in the popular consciousness of this attack on maleness and femininity from the front cover of the Saturday Times magazine ‘What Happened when my banker husband became a woman’ – 12.03.22; also the the Financial Times magazine supplement ‘How to Spend It’ featuring men in dresses.
    Mr.Langdon draws very acerbic analogies, juxtaposing leftish politics and the gender revolutionaries drawing together the mind-boggling preposturousness of ‘trans’ or the ‘Emporer’s New Wardrobe’.

  13. Brooklyn Dave
    Brooklyn Dave says:

    I’d rather a very boring lesbian than a hystrionic tranny who is so out of touch with reality that everyone else is to blame for their f*cked up emotional state.

Comments are closed.