Thursday, June 04, 2015

Bruce Jenner is not a woman

He's a chemically and surgically castrated female impersonator

By Michael Hoffman

The media are ablaze with enthusiasm and laurels for Bruce Jenner, now known as "Caitlyn Jenner.” On June 3 the New York Times published an editorial, "The Price of Caitlyn Jenner’s Heroism.  The Times opines: "She advances our acceptance of transgendered individuals by celebrating the strictures of womanhood. Vanity Fair introduced her" to the world in a photo feature and most of the rest of the Establishment media have gone crazy over “her” too. 

How is Bruce Jenner a woman? He can’t have children and can’t menstruate —  he never has and he never will. His DNA is that of a man. The fact is, Mr. Jenner is not a woman. He's a chemically and surgically castrated female impersonator.

But we’re not supposed to state that truth, which would be “hurtful” and may constitute hate speech. Reality is outlawed. Illusion rules our supposedly science-based, post-modernist world.

Bruce Jenner is a symbol of the increasingly wrenching disconnect between fact and fiction on countless issues such as immigration, foreign affairs, religion and history. We dare not cross the fixed boundaries established to determine who is compassionate and on the side of the angels, and who is not. To do so is to invite the merciless wrath of the fallen angels.

Clown-like burlesque of femininity

The only thing female about Mr. Jenner is that like many mentally disturbed men whose illness is encouraged by our decayed culture, he has chosen to burlesque a caricature of a woman. This burlesque, aided by surgeons' scalpels and pharmaceutical drugs, somehow makes his psychosis both “heroic” and a “celebration…of womanhood.” 

The caricature impersonated is usually of the buxom Marilyn Monroe type, and one wonders how it is that feminists don’t term it “sexist.” Perhaps female impersonation is so politically correct that imitating the last century's parody of a woman is suddenly laudable. It’s a contradiction in terms —  the mental equivalent of the physical hieroglyph of confusion that is Bruce Jenner, and thousands of unfortunates like him.

DNA vs. chemically-induced illusion

Nature tells us that it is impossible for someone whose DNA is male to be a female, but we are expected to believe the impossible, otherwise the revolutionaries who lord it over us will stigmatize us as bigots and haters. 

The miracles of the Bible are scoffed at as impossible, while the “miracles" wrought by the merchants of surgery and drugs are accepted, indeed “celebrated" as genuine. 

No wonder the Bible has been rendered an object of derision. In Rev. 18:23 and 22:15 the Greek New Testament warns of a form of Satanic deception, pharmakos” (φάρμακοςοὁ) which employs drugs to sustain illusion.

Copyright©2015. All Rights Reserved.

Michael Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History newsletter. 

His online columns are funded by donations from readers.



aferrismoon said...

" The monthly injection suspends the onset of adulthood so that young people confused about their gender can be sure of any decision before they take on too many masculine or feminine features.

Supporters say that the "window" prevents a great deal of mental and physical anguish caused by the maturing of sex organs, facial hair growth and changes in the voice. "

The physical anguish of having to deal with the natural process of growing up!
Perhaps a message here [among others] is the trend for people to remain in a permanent child-like state.


Eric Robinson said...

This politically correct behavior, referring to these confused individuals as "he" or "she" depending on what gender they are masquerading as at the moment, is being forced upon us in the work place. It's one thing to offend a random person on the street when pointing out the obvious truth, but the threat of losing your livelihood over it (the truth) is a fairly effective way to force us into compliance.

Apparently in this society you can't choose your sexual preference, but you can choose your gender.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

Imagine that: A 65-year-old "woman" with prostate issues(?????)
(It's not nice to fool Mother Nature now!)