A RIPOSTE TO JAMES O'MEARA AND OTHERS ON THE TRANNY/HOMO QUESTION

As some readers of this blog will know, my article on the current battle between transsexuals and feminists has been reposted on the Counter Currents website with my consent. I do not approve of all who write on there, but equally, there are also very good articles published. My articles appear on many websites across the net, but this does not necessarily mean that I endorse the website in question. Certainly, some websites have copied my articles without asking for consent first. Onto the point: there was a flurry of comments to the article, some of which were of a very dubious nature for one reason or another. As people have no doubt realised, I moderate comments quite strictly on here. People are more than welcome to debate with me and I will happily concede points in light of better information, but I expect references so that information given can be verified. I do not usually engage in the comments sections underneath my articles on other websites that publish them, but the comments left to the article I have mentioned are so egregious I feel I have to address some of them. This brings me nicely onto the first dubious commenter:

 

 

I can only assume whoever wrote this is out to spread disinformation. "P J Collins" is trying to tell us that the reverse of what I stated about male-to-female transsexuals far outweighing those of female-to-male is true. I did not provide references in my article because the fact is well-known that on average, instances of MTF outweigh FTM by a ratio of between 2.5 and 3 to 1; but here is the reference now: the American Psychiatric Association's bible DSM-5 (2013) states that the prevalence of gender dysphoria is  is 0.005-0.014% for adults born as males, whereas it is 0.002-0.003% for adults born as females. Further to that, in 2015, Arcelus, Bouman, Van den Noortgate, Claes, Witcomb and Fernandez-Aranda found that the overall meta-analytical prevalence for transsexualism was 4.6 in 100,000 individuals; 6.8 for "trans women" (MTF) and 2.6 for "trans men" (FTM).

 

Instead of providing references, "P J Collins" merely asks me to google ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria). There is only one single study that supports the commenter's assertions, which was done by Lisa Littman and whose data was so spurious that her paper has since been retracted by Brown University. Littman is a conservative Zionist Jewess who is national director of the PJ Goes to School Programme, which Federation Bureau of Jewish Education assistant director Lisa Klein described thusly:

 

PJ Goes to School uses, at its foundation, the creativity and spirit of each teacher, weaves Jewish values throughout each school’s existing programs, and supports schools as they inspire Jewish conversations in the classroom and in the home.

 

One notes "P J Collins'" initials just happen to cohencide with those of the programme. The news headlines abounded that her work was retracted because of pressure from tranny activists, but there are legitimate criticisms over selection bias and politicisation, as the PJ Goes to School Project demonstrates. She simply has too much interest in the manipulation of data to be reliable - and this would be a valid criticism for most Jewish studies in the West. The major problem is though that one cannot make a generalisation about MTF or FTM prevalence from such a tiny sample of 250 cases, based simply on a request for parents of cases to contact her. Cuckservatives have taken her work at face value because of her assertions that the increase in transgenderism was due to "social contagion". While I believe her assertion about "social contagion" is correct, the study itself still remains extremely flawed.

 

 

 

Onto James O'Meara, who has personal interest in his disagreement, as his entire raison d'être would seem to be to promote sexual deviation as normative in the Radical Right. Every article or book he has written shows his single-minded obsession. Indeed, the reason I left the Counter Currents Brain Trust Facebook group was because I could no longer stomach every post from O'Meara demonstrating his obsessive hobbyism over "LGBT", including keeping us informed about his books' progress in the LGBT bestsellers list. It is a problem I have mentioned before with homosexuals in that they tend to wish to inculcate everyone into their hobbyism. It has led to some of my friends referring to certain elements of the Right as "the Bath House Right". This is unfortunate for those homosexuals who do not wish to draw attention to their sexuality, and the noisy element drag them down with them.

 

Onto his very dishonest argument here, in which he isolates a quotation and then builds a false argument against something he falsely extrapolates from the sentence he abuses. He poses a question about the sentence and then answers the question he himself has posed. Even in isolation, the sentence ought to be quite clear: the subject is not being used as a generalisation that someone is necessarily mentally ill because he does not wish to alter his mental condition to be "happy", but because he wishes to mutilate his body. If he wishes to mutilate his body, then he is de facto mentally ill and his mental condition needs to be altered whether he wishes it or no. The less said about the sycophantic appeal to the editor of Counter Currents the better I think. It does not make O'Meara's argument any better, nor does the article cited have any relevance.

 

His next paragraph is even worse. He appeals to a religion designated for alien races far away to keep them in order. I repeat this so often: Hindooism might (and I stress might) have been created by a race of people like us, but it was not created for races of people like us. The obsession with Hindooism among certain elements of our alleged intelligentsia demonstrates the cancerous liberal obsession with the romanticised Other is barely below the surface. It was interesting that when the French writer Robert Brasillach was tried for treason after collaborating with the occupying Germans during World War II, the prosecutors pointed to his homosexuality as a reason, in his wanting to be penetrated by the Other. And again O'Meara's hobbyism is shown in the people he references here: Alain Daniélou and Camille Paglia: both LGBT theorists. In fact, in his entire diatribe, he mentions not one single heterosexual thinker; everyone he references is LGBT.

 

But apparantly, according to him, this is all perfectly normal. In fact, even to criticise it is, according to him, somehow Semitic. That is very convenient and without foundation. Anything that is dualist, comes from the Jews, regardless that Nature made human procreation possible through the duality of Man and Woman. But according to O'Meara, this is a Jewish invention. It's funny that, because if one reads the Roman Pagan historian Sallust, in his Coniuratio Catilinae, written in pre-Christian times, he describes the corruption of Rome, and in that description he states: "Men forgot their sex; women threw off all the restraints of modesty." One notes here that Sallust juxtaposes the two to form a binary link, for the two sexes and two forms of sexual corruption are interdependent, just as they are today. So no, it has nothing to do with Foucault's (another militant homosexual) ideas. These issues have been discussed before over two millennia ago. In fact, I had talked about Sallust in my most recent video, so O'Meara was being wilfully ignorant when addressing me, and instead was content to imply that my thinking was Judaic in order to continue with the charade of a reasoned argument. Certainly, I think that dishonest thought and dishonest use of the body are interlinked.

Indeed, one has to ask the question as to why Jews overwhelmingly support the LGBT agenda in the West, if it is such a boon. The campaign for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK was led by Leo Abse and Humphrey Berkeley, the former Jewish and the latter homosexual. In the USA, one could talk about the effect on society and culture that the likes of Harvey Milk, Allan Ginsburg, David Goodstein, Paul Goodman had, not to mention the incredible propaganda power of the Jollywood machine. Jews who seek power in and the destruction of the West have long seen the deconstruction of sexual norms as a means of undermining society. George Soros does not fund the LGBT lobby through his Open Society Foundations for no reason. Back when the LGBT lobby was pushing for same-sex marriage, the Jewish lesbian activist Masha Gessen said very frankly in a radio interview:

It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should be allowed to marry, but I also think equally that the institution of marriage should not exist.... [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.

 

When homosexuality was legalised, it was done with the understanding that people's sexuality was a private matter. Yet homosexuals, transsexuals and so on have made sexual deviance (I use the word in its proper sense) very public. Homosexuals invariably become a problem when they make themselves a problem. Very few people bother them when they go about their lives quietly; even a mere 25 years ago in Britain, they had their own bars on the fringes of the big towns and cities, where homos and trannies could do as they pleased and where heterosexuals knew not to go. It seemed to suit most people. But these days, many "queers" on all sides of the political discourse seem to want to foreground their particular hobby and force everyone into acknowledging it, despite many people's discomfort with it. And then the inevitable reaction comes.  No one wants to have go back to the days of hanging homosexuals, but push tolerant people enough and they will react with extreme intolerance. There is a balance between tolerance and principles, but if you don't even have principles, you don't have a society, let alone a political movement.