This Wacko Wants My Money

Calling Spring Peepers - Pseudacris crucifer

There is no wholesome and decent way to illustrate this post according to its content. Here’s a spring peeper instead.

We got an email yesterday from Bruce Jenner, former Olympics star, who now calls himself “Caitlyn” and pretends to be a woman. He asked for money to launch his campaign for governor of California.

Even California doesn’t deserve that.

Maybe he thinks I’ll give him money because he says he’s a Republican. I don’t care if he says he’s a boiled potato. We don’t generally hand out money to men who say they’re women.

As it is, our nation’s so-called “leaders” are already turning America into a planetary laughing stock. Do you honestly, truly, really believe world leaders take Biden the Scarecrow seriously? They must be laughing themselves silly when the camera’s off. Soon they won’t bother to turn it off at all.

So Gender Jenner will fit right in. Who needs a freak show anymore? We have 21st-century politics!

16 comments on “This Wacko Wants My Money

  1. Hey, if he says he’s a boiled potato, you have to believe he’s a boiled potato. It’s his species identity. 🙂

  2. I was there to witness Bruce Jenner’s gold medal in Montreal. Now that he has transgendered all the way, it has become an unspoken law every gov’t organization has to have a transgender near the top of power and he seems glad to fulfill the bill.

  3. It occurs to me that we should stop using the left’s term “transgender,” even though it’s easier to say than “man presenting himself as a woman” or some other term that describes a reality rather than a made-up category. Bruce Jenner and “Rachel” Levine and their ilk haven’t really transformed their gender or gone beyond their gender. They’ve merely transformed their appearance, sometimes by means of mutilation. Their chromosomes have remained the same and their interior plumbing has remained the same. But by accepting the “trans” (going beyond or turning around) term, we’re being forced to agree to their assertions that something HAS changed.

    This is one of the tools in the left’s tool kit, after all: changing the language in order to change people’s ways of thinking about things.

    1. Of course, any new term we might make up will be called “hate” etc. I think it’s righteous to hate evil schiff like this. So what would you call them instead?

    2. Phoebe makes a great point. Control the definition of words and you can have unlimited control of the dialogue. Cults do this on a regular basis by having a nuanced use of language which employs unique terminology or redefinition of certain words.

      When we adopt the terminology of such people, we are playing into their hands.

    3. I’m open to suggestion–what should we call mentally ill wackos who insist they belong to the opposite sex?

  4. I really have no idea what to say. I just know that there seem to be a lot of nouns being created to divide people into various categories and when we use these nouns, we are giving facet approval to those divisions. Having come of age when I did, I recall that there used to be much more a sense of individuality and people seemed less inclined to identify themselves with a certain group as a means of self-validation. By adopting a practice of external validation, then there seems to be a tendency to gravitate towards adopting a group identity and then attempting to live up to the requirements to belong to that group.

    Essentially, this world strikes me as having a runaway case of group think and this, IMHO, has led to a very different way of looking at things. I miss the era when people were more inclined to individualism and didn’t really care whether or not they fit into the definition of some external group. I suspect that many people would make better decisions if they were deciding what was best for them, as opposed to thinking in terms of group affiliation.

    1. This probably deserves its own blog post, after I’ve had 2 or 3 days to think it over. There’s meat to your comment, kimosabe! And it needs to be chewed.

    2. Unfortunately, some anonymous programmer decided that when I typed tacit, I really meant facet, and auto correct silently robbed me of my intended wording. Irritating, to say the least, but also a perfect example of how developments in our modern era have quietly undermined our free will.

      The tyranny of our current era is subtle, but it’s still tyranny. It is very much a way of policing thoughts and stifling the expression of free will. By dictating that only certain terminology be used, the effect is to limit freedom of speech.

    3. P.S.–They want to force us to believe in “transgender” as a real thing, when we know it isn’t; and by making us say things we know are garbage, they undermine our self-respect… and our powers of resistance.

  5. Lee, I don’t know what else to call them, other than a long phrase (such as the one I used above) that no one would bother with and the left would — as you’ve said — call “hate.” But if they’re going to call anything we say “hate” anyway, why have at it? I’d suggest “would-be woman” or “would-be man” (or -girl or -boy). But then we could put up a shield against the “hate” accusation by using the Southern all-purpose softening additive: “Bless his/her heart.” 🙂

    1. That should have read, “why NOT have at it?” This is what we get for typing too fast and not proofreading. 🙁

Leave a Reply