“Preach equality, practice hierarchy.” That’s the hidden core commandment of leftism. It’s mendacious and malevolent, but so what? Like a clown offering to shake with one hand while concealing a cream-pie behind his back in the other, the left have defeated the right with it again and again, decade after decade. “We believe in equality!” say the left. “So do we!” say the right, extending their hands with bipartisan goodwill. And whack! The cream-pie of leftist hierarchy goes straight in the face of the right and the left roar with laughter, knowing that the right have fallen for the same stupid trick today as they did yesterday and will tomorrow.

WHAMs with Wings

Take the lie of racial and sexual equality. Leftists preach it and get the right to take it seriously, but they don’t practice it, because leftist governments privilege Blacks over Whites, women over men, and gays over straights. Leftists claim to believe, for example, that Whites and Blacks are equal in all ways: “There’s only one race — the human race.” But if Blacks are capable of the same high achievements as Whites, it automatically follows that Blacks are capable of the same low misdeeds attributed to Whites by the left. But leftists don’t accept that Blacks are imperfect like that. Instead, they believe that, because all races are the same under the skin, the innate evil and envy of Whites must be crushing the innate saintliness and cerebrality of Blacks. Otherwise Blacks would be perfecting cold fusion and proving the Riemann hypothesis. This leftist reasoning doesn’t make sense, of course, but so what? Logic is racist and all that matters to the leftist elite is power, which means, inter alia, the power to privilege the virtuous and punish the villainous. Preaching the lie of equality has been an excellent way for the left to win power and practice hierarchy.

Luscious Lesbians with female phalluses: some bearded and balding male perverts invade female territory on a lesbian dating-site

White heterosexual able-bodied men (WHAMs) are right at the bottom of that leftist hierarchy. Or most of them are, anyway. So perhaps it’s typical White male ingenuity that has enabled some WHAMs to hack the hierarchy and soar from the bottom of it to the top. These WHAMs with wings claim to be members of a persecuted and misunderstood minority whose welfare and concerns must be the first priority of leftism. They might look like men, but they’re not: they’re transgender women or transwomen, male on the outside, female on the inside. And transwomen, in orthodox leftism, must be accepted and treated as full and authentic women, even if they’ve retained their apparently male genitalia. That’s why the 21st century enjoys the hugely comic sight of ugly straight men with beards and male-pattern baldness on lesbian dating-sites. These White male perverts would normally be right at the bottom of the leftist hierarchy, but the magic of transgenderism has allowed them to soar to the top. They use female names, demand to be referenced with female pronouns, and are ready to denounce as “transphobic” any genuine lesbian who objects to their fully functioning female phalluses and refuses to have sex with them.

Bow before the female penis

But would these translesbians be happy to have sex with one another and use their female phalluses in tandem? Of course not. They’re straight men with the fetish of autogynephilia, that is, they’re aroused by the thought of themselves as women. That’s why they and their supporters promote such risible concepts as the “female penis.” I’ve argued elsewhere that this is a blasphemous parody of the Christian concept of transubstantiation, wherein bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at Eucharist whilst remaining indistinguishable from bread and wine by all sensory and scientific tests. Similarly, the penis on a transwoman is female according to leftists, although it remains indistinguishable from a male penis by all sensory and scientific tests. And so, when a tranny threatens to rape a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) with her “girl-dick,” this isn’t misogyny or an intimidating invocation of male violence. Not at all. It’s a light-hearted satirical rebuke of a bigoted woman who refuses to embrace transwomen as her oppressed and suffering sisters.

Pedo-promoting Professor Gayle Rubin, a Jewish giant in the cult of transgenderism

That’s the magic of transgenderism. But is its parody of transubstantiation accidental or deliberate? It may be the latter, because in fact we don’t owe the lunacies and lies of transgenderism to the ingenuity of WHAMs, but to the malevolent subversion of Christophobic Jews like Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler. These Jewish charlatans argue that the binary sexual categories of male and female are a social construct, erected (as it were) to buttress and benefit the cruel and uncaring institutions of patriarchy and male supremacism. If you’re a kind and caring leftist, however, you must believe in compassionate gender-affirming care like cutting the breasts off teenage girls and sautéing the bodies of children in powerful puberty-blocking drugs that may render them sterile or psychologically handicapped for life.

“Borders are bad for you, goyim!” — the ethnocentric Jews Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill

After all, what kind of monster could object to such procedures and such drugs? As the smiling Jewish plastic surgeon Katherine Gast has said: “It’s a happy day for everybody” when she performs a double mastectomy on a teenage shiksa. Well, I think the monsters are those who support the mastectomies, not those who oppose them. I also think it’s no coincidence that Jews have been behind transgenderism just as they’ve been behind what I call trans-Westernism. Transgenderism is the lying claim that female identity is fully open to men; trans-Westernism is the lying claim that Western identity is fully open to non-Whites. When Laura Rosen Cohen, Mark Steyn’s “resident Jewish mother,” mocked “the schmaltzy poem on the statue [of Liberty]” for facilitating Muslim migration — “give us your poor, your expert headchoppers, etc.” — she failed to mention who wrote the poem and whose ethnic agenda it is intended to serve. Her failure was perfectly understandable, because the schmaltzy poem on the Statue of Liberty was written by the ethnocentric Jewish poetess Emma Lazarus (1849–87). Lazarus joined the ethnocentric Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill (1864–1926) in the highly successful Jewish campaign to falsely portray America as a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors.

Noble non-Whites vanquish villainy: Black actors invade White territory and seize White roles

Like transgenderism, trans-Westernism seems to promote equality but actually enacts hierarchy. In leftist eyes, groups that are lower in the leftist hierarchy have no right to maintain borders against groups that are higher. Ordinary women are lower in the hierarchy than transwomen, therefore it is bigoted and hateful of those ordinary women to protest when a transwoman with a penis triumphs over them in sport or enters “female-only spaces” like toilets and dressing-rooms. Similarly, since Whites are lower in the hierarchy than non-Whites, therefore it is bigoted and hateful of Whites to protest when non-Whites enter Western nations and enjoy the unearned benefits of full citizenship. But the same hierarchy dictates that Whites cannot enter non-White territory. White actors are now forbidden to play non-White roles, while non-White actors can take on any White role they please. And so, just as the 21st century witnesses the ludicrous sight of bearded and balding transgender “lesbians,” so it witnesses the ludicrous sight of non-Whites playing White characters from literature and history. From Achilles to David Copperfield, from Guinevere to Anne Boleyn — the prestige and greatness of White characters is being seized by non-Whites.

“An entirely unbidden wave of pride”

This is part of the Judeo-leftist war on the West. Whites have to submit to cultural as well as physical colonization, because they’re villains who are lower in the leftist hierarchy than virtuous non-Whites. So-called conservatives, who conserve nothing and concede everything, often welcome this kind of “color-blind casting.” Even when they object to it as inauthentic and anti-historical, they fail to understand that it is part of a wider phenomenon. It is indeed ludicrous when a Black actress plays the White role of Anne Boleyn, but no more ludicrous than when a Black like Barack Obama plays the White role of American president or an Indian like Rishi Sunak plays the White role of British prime minister. I’ve sometimes praised the half-Jewish writer Peter Hitchens for repenting his youthful Trotskyism and refusing to follow his gasbag brother Christopher into neo-conservatism. But Peter Hitchens isn’t a true conservative and doesn’t truly understand the malignancy of the left. If he did understand it, he would never have written this self-indulgent (and self-pleasuring) celebration of the latest shabbos-goy to rise to the top of British politics:

I have no time for Rishi Sunak’s politics and I think he wrecked the economy while he was Chancellor. But even so I felt an entirely unbidden wave of pride when I saw him performing at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday. It is quite marvellous, and a disproof of all the lies the Left tell us about this country, that a British man of Indian heritage should be Prime Minister of this country. (Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday, 13th November 2022)

In pornography, White cuckolds experience perverted pleasure when they see Black men possessing their White wives; in politics, White cuckservatives experience perverted pleasure when they see non-Whites ruling Western institutions. Hitchens is clearly a cuckservative. It is not “marvellous” that Rishi Sunak has become prime minister: it is disastrous. If Sunak claimed to be female, Hitchens would quite rightly reject the claim as leftist nonsense. But because Sunak claims to be British rather than female, Hitchens stupidly and self-indulgently accepts it, failing to see that the two claims are equally baseless, equally leftist, and equally corrosive of sanity and morality. Rishi Sunak is no more British than balding men on lesbian-dating sites are female. Instead, Sunak is trans-British, with no roots in or loyalty to the four White nations that constitute Britain. He’s proved his rootlessness and disloyalty to Britain by possessing American citizenship at the same time. That is, Sunak is also trans-American and may well one day take up permanent residence in California with his trans-Western wife and trans-Western children.

The dam of lies is leaking and weakening

Peter Hitchens used a smarmy leftist phrase when he said Sunak is “of Indian heritage.” But Hitchens was right all the same. Sunak has a “heritage” of racially distinct genes selected in the distinct environment of India, not of Britain. If leftism and race-blind cuckservatism were correct, it wouldn’t have mattered in the slightest if all White babies after 1900 had been miraculously replaced by brown Indian babies or Black Somali babies. But leftism and race-blind cuckservatism are wrong and it would have mattered hugely. Although the non-White babies would have been raised by White parents, nurture would not have trumped nature. If the Western world had become racially Indian or Somali at such speed, it would have collapsed very quickly. Today the Western world is collapsing less quickly, but only because the racial replacement of Whites isn’t happening all at once and everywhere.

Britain’s first trans-Western prime minister: the ugly and ethnocentric Jew Benjamin Disraeli

But now racial replacement is quickening and so is collapse. Trans-Western Barack Obama as American president was one potent portent of doom; trans-Western Rishi Sunak as British prime minister is another. But Sunak hasn’t been the first trans-British prime minister. That honor went to someone in the nineteenth century: a Jew called Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), who served as prime minister twice from 1868. He had British citizenship and dominated British politics, but he wasn’t British. Instead, as Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, he was an ethnocentric Jew steeped in Jewish supremacism and in self-serving Jewish claims about millennia of unjustified gentile malice towards innocent Jews. Disraeli’s rise to the top of British politics had been predicted by a far-sighted anti-Semite decades before:

Sir Robert Harry Inglis was an English Conservative politician, noted for his staunch High church views. He was strongly opposed to measures that, in his view, weakened the Anglican Church. When Robert Grant, MP for Inverness, petitioned for Jewish relief in 1830, Inglis, who believed that British Jews had funded the philosemitic Napoleon during his war with Britain, was violently opposed. He alleged that the Jews were an alien people, with no allegiance to England, and that to admit Jews to parliament would “separate Christianity itself from the State. … Not content with admission to the profession of the law, to corporate offices, &c., the Jews appeared, by their Petition, to demand admission to the highest executive situations in the State. It was not enough to say their number was small; it was well known that a small number of men, acting in concert, might exercise considerable influence, beneficial or otherwise, over the State.” He also alleged that if they were admitted to parliament “within seven years … Parliamentary Reform would be carried”. Inglis was joined in his public opposition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Henry Goulburn, and the Solicitor General and future Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Sugden. Although the Jews were not emancipated fully until 1858, Parliamentary Reform occurred in 1832, only two years later. (Adapted from Infogalactic and quoting Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXII, February 22nd, 1830)

Sir Robert Inglis was perfectly correct: a small number of Jews, acting in concert across national borders, have indeed exercised considerable influence over the West. And that influence had been “otherwise”: not beneficial but harmful. By admitting Jews to full citizenship, the White West welcomed in its worst and most vicious enemies. And just as Jews have been behind transgenderism, the false and pernicious claim that men can become full and authentic women, so Jews have been behind trans-Westernism, the false and pernicious claim that non-Whites can become full and authentic Westerners. The difference between the two trans-ideologies is that transgenderism is far less harmful: there are too few male perverts to swamp female territory and wipe out female identity.

But there are enough non-Whites to swamp Western territory many times over and wipe out Western identity forever. Even today, however, millions of Whites who reject the lunacies and lies of transgenderism are failing to reject the lunacies and lies of trans-Westernism. They fail to even see the parallels between perverted men claiming to be women and hostile non-Whites claiming to be Western. But this blindness will lift. When transgenderism is discredited and defeated, trans-Westernism will soon be discredited and defeated too. After the so-called Enlightenment, the left built a dam of lies to hold back reality. Today the dam is leaking and weakening. The weaker it gets, the more it leaks. Collapse isn’t far off. Leftism and its lies will not survive the catastrophic but cleansing flood that follows.